Easy to fly controls, probably not 100% analogous to a RL chopper, but easy nonetheless. I would tone down the power, as it only takes around 3% to lift off and 2% to fly. I would adjust so that it takes at least 50% to lift off and fly. I realize the adjustment is blade pitch, not power, but I would think about it as a ratio of available pitch which is similar to a power setting. Also, why doesn't it yaw for me, or at least, it doesn't yaw that quickly. Adjust that so that it can yaw easily, as that's a hallmark of a chopper, they can pivot fairly quickly in general. Other controls don't seem out of whack wrt control authority.
Looks good, if you want a suggestion on where to focus your building efforts, I would concentrate on those vertical stabs, making those out of shaped fuselage block sections, with rudders moving via rotators.
So, while the Convair 880 was designed as the fastest airliner and it flew faster than contemporary airliners in level flight, it never exceeded the speed of sound. However, little known fact is that the Douglas DC-8 was actually flown supersonic in a dive during a flight test! Can’t wait to see your completed build, though.
I might actually use this template, I would just use an SP wing for the bottom surface, probably scaled, and replace the upper surface with a fuse block.
@Mostly I’ll agree with you for the most part, but, for it’s time, I would say the MiG-15 might have been the best fighter in the world, until the more advanced Sabres gave it a run for its money.
Soviet (now Russian) design philosophy: Rugged and simple to maintain, inexpensive, GCI dependent (centralized control), high performance aerodynamics
Western design philosophy: Stealth (current day), high tech, electronics and computer heavy, ultra high performance in both aerodynamics and systems capabilities, multi-role whenever possible, cost is not a factor (we talk about keeping cost down, but, in the end, we'll still pay a lot for cutting edge capability)
Hey, I landed it on the Beast! It took half a dozen tries, but I figured it out...trim about 3/4 of the way down to the first notch, flaps down all the way, 3-5% power, 135 mph...which is right above stall at 130 mph when the jet sinks and rolls uncontrollably and crashes into the fantail. Then aim to put the MLG about 1’ (no more!) from the end of the fantail. Go to idle and brake right before hitting the deck, then hope to stop before rolling off the end of the deck, into the grey, forbidding ocean where you’ll either be crushed by the aircraft carrier crashing over you or drown in ice cold water...nice!
@ChromeGamer25 I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
Additionally, same page as the citation below also states that the RAF, upon evaluating the Allison-engined Mustang I determined that “Tests soon showed the Mustang I to be superior to the Kittyhawk [P-40], Airacobra [P-39] and Spitfire [has to be the Merlin engined variety] in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes.” And this wasn’t even the Merlin-engines Mustang, clearly superior to the original Allison engined model in nearly every measure.
Interesting. Just found this note in a recent book, “Dogfight” by Tony Holmes (Chartwell Books, 2012). In Part IV, Dueling for the Reich 1943-45, P-51 Mustang vs. Fw 190, the author relates on p. 216 that after the RAF took delivery of their first Allison-powered Mustang Is, “...It’s first operational sortie [with the RAF] was flown on July 27 and in October Allison-powered Mustangs became the first RAF single-engined single-seat fighters to penetrate German airspace from England.”
@Mostly the summary page says exactly what I’ve been saying all along. So, no LoL. The first paragraph highlights its Home Defence role, while the second emphasizes its P.R. Role and evolution (in Griff Spit guise) as a more multi-role aircraft. The P-51 lands on MULTIPLE “finest fighter of WWII” lists by many historians. The Spit does as well, but not as many in my perusal of the subject, but I could be incorrect here. Tactically, but he Spit could outturn the Mustang (something you don’t even mention for some reason), while the Stang was superior in speed, but certainly no slouch when in cane to dogfighting (reference Eric Brown’s quote). Strategically, the Mustang’s superior range allowed it to attain the strategic effect of taking the fight to the enemy and into Germany. The Spitfire’s strategic impact was to prevent the Allies from losing the war in the first place. Both significant roles, but your characterization is incorrect. The Spit didn’t single-handedly win the war and just allow the Mustang and 8th Air Force to simply waltz into the Fatherland. There was a lot of bloody combat and mayhem from 1943 and beyond. In fact, the bloodiest day for the Mighty 8th was 14 Oct 43 on the Scheeinfurt mission. Ultimately caused the USAAF to abandon the idea of unescorted daylight bombing. If your assertion of the Spit being an escort is correct, where was the Spit on that day? Couldn’t be there, but the Stang was eventually there and allowed the continuation of 8th AF bombing against the German heartland, where the fighting was more desperate by the Luftwaffe.
@Mostly no LOL. CLEARLY I know what I’m talking about. It’s escort role was highly limited as RAF Bomber Command flew night missions without escort. Sure it flew sweeps and some escort across the Channel over France but this was likited. Plus it’s range was limited.
BTW, I’ve read all three of these primary accounts...and more. The three books are sitting in my library. You have read them, haven’t you? Or are you arguing your points based on knowledge gained by reading secondary and tertiary accounts on the Net? Besides I’m not saying the Spit did nothing. Read my comments carefully...I just disagree with your assertion marganalizing the Mustang’s role as a mop up. Simply incorrect.
@Mostly also how would you explain the fact that the P-51 has the most kills of any USAAF type in WWII? I thought you said, “hey, the P-51 was just mopping up.” The P-38 was withdrawn in favor of the Pacific theater, where it’s twin engines were a better safety margin over water and is cockpit heater was more adequate, leaving (I believe) a single P-38 group in Europe by 1944. The Bolt was readsigned to fly strike missions, better suited due to the P-47’s ability to absorb damage. The Spit didn’t even fly escort missions, it did photoreconnaissance with the longer ranged recce Marks modified to carry fuel in its leading edges. The Spit’s (and Hurri’s) main role in all this was that saved Britain’s butt during the BoB, without which the whole war would have been over. After that, it flew cross Channel missions where it first met the 190s. But the Spit’s role was “increasingly defensive from 1943 on” (Wikipedia quote), Home Defense. I would characterize the Spit’s role like a homeowner with a .38 shooting a home invader. But it really didn’t carry the fight into Western Germany. That was done by the Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon and Tempest. By the way, another couple of excellent books on this are “Reach for the Sky”, Douglas Bader’s book and “The Big Show” by Pierre Clostermann. The first book by Gp Capt Douglas Bader tells about the earlier phase with the Spit as he was shot down over France in 1941. He lost his legs in a prewar flying accident and flew with articficial legs during the war—incredible story and great read, BTW. Clostermann was a Typhoon/Tempest Pilot during the war and his book tells the story of the latter part of the air war. Those along with the 4th FG’s account should give you a some more historical perspective in your assertions the Mustang did nothing and the Spitfire claimed air superiority over Western Europe.
@Mostly do you’re saying, “hey the air war had already been won, so really the P-51 didn’t really do anything!”??? Really. Please read this book, 1000 Destroyed, it’s the USAAF’s 4th FG’s account of the war Over Europe.
Finally, here’s a quote I pulled straight out of the Wikipedia article on the P-51 by an RAF test pilot who flew both aircraft: Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[57]
But to maintain that the Mustang was not maneuverable because it was a long range escort fighter as compared to the Spitfire’s role as a point defense interceptor, isn’t correct. The Mustang always had great handling. And so did the P-38, for that matter...big wing in spite of the weight of two engines. Perhaps you’re confusing what you hearing about the P-47 with the Mustang.
So consider the Griffin powered Spitfire. The RAF wanted to re-engine the Spit with a much more powerful engine to keep up with the Luftwaffe. The Merlin was always the power plant of the definitive Mustang (having re-engined the original Allison powered A-36 Apache), through 1945 and beyond. It was simply a more advanced design at the time and the equal of the Luftwaffe and Japanese fighters it encountered, even with the Merlin. The Griff Spit, however, was a remarkable machine. An airplane 100 mph faster than the original design, but STILL a light and nimble flyer. The Me-109G and beyond, having undergone the same evolutionary improvements was difficult to handle and did not adapt well to increased power and speed.
@Mostly not true at all. The P-51 attained air superiority over Germany against later model Me-109s and Fw-190s, Ta-152s, etc. The early model Spits attained air superiority, or at least parity against, mainly, the Bf-109E. The later model Spitfire Vb was bested, for the most part, by the Fw-190A, especially at low and medium altitudes. Sure, tactics had something to do with both types’ successes, but to know the history, then say a Mustang was no match for a Spitfire is simply not true.
@F104Deathtrap I don’t think so. It’s a fair question. It’s not even as far as comparing an Me-110 and a Corsair, both fighters, but with vastly different approaches. Though how they were used was different, their aims were similar, that is to attain and keep air superiority (modern definition).
@randomusername some points are valid, but many simply aren’t true or understandable without building experience. This guy has 119 points, perhaps the basics or more explanation would be more useful. Better yet, how about he links you to his build and you can try and analyze what’s wring with the build. He’ll learn better that way.
@RailfanEthan you know how it happened, right? The Po-2 didn’t shoot it down. The Po-2 was flying a night harassment sortie, as they typically did in Korea. The F-94 slowed down and flew a stern conversion just above stall. When it fired on the Po-2, the Starfire stalled, spun in and crashed due to the recoil from the guns. That’s how it happened, Bro. But, a kill is a kill.
Let me give you some more food for thought on this. When the Fw-190 appeared in WWII, even the Spit Mk V has trouble dealing with it, especially at low altitudes. A real shock to the RAF who never saw that coming. The Mustang was more than a match for the Fw, however.
@ThePilotDude totally disagree. Spit was a much earlier design...upgraded, but still earlier inception. Mustang (from the B version onward) had same engine, but had better range and was for the most part, faster and higher flying due to laminar flow wing and clever radiator design. Each was right for their time, however the US flew Spits briefly, which were replaced by P-47s and, eventually, P-51s. The Americans who had to trade in their Spits for Thunderbolts lamented, but no one lamented getting Mustangs.
Kind of a debatable point..:how so better? More advanced, better armed, faster, higher flying, longer ranged, more enemies destroyed, most produced, longest surviving, more survivable...? Frame the question more tightly and you’ll get more intelligent responses vs fanboy responses from both sides of the Spitfire vs Mustang crowd. But, at least your asking aircraft related questions. Not so long ago some idiot asked “is anyone here a furry?” Moron. Keep asking good questions, we need more of this on the forums.
Well, it’s not a “minigun” anyway. It’s an M61A2 Vulcan 20mm multi barrel cannon. A “minigun” is an M134 7.62 mm gun that’s significantly smaller lighter and less powerful than the Vulcan. Plus, the standard 7.62 mm NATO round doesn’t explode on contact like the 20 mm round which is optimized to destroy other aircraft.
@YuraCat, here's my submission to your tourney. I hope you will accept it. Stock engine, fuel, wings, drag, CG and guns. I used a bit of XML tweaking for appearance sake, but hewed to the spirit of your rules. I used FineTuner to resize the cockpit to fit under the outlines of the RL canopy...I simply wanted players to be able to see through the gunsight if they wanted to fly it around. I used FineTuner to resize the landing gear to fit the build. I used a bit of XML editing to give the canopy a nice sheen, as well as to disable the mesh on the rotators for the horizontal stab, just didn't want huge, unslightly rotator bodies sticking out the bottom of the airplane. I would have decked it out with a lot of awesome decals, as in my original 1:1 F-100, but that would have required XML for weight and drag and I thought maybe that would be taking it too far. By the way, I still HATE the AI!!!
Very majestic, pity it only saw limited service. I especially like the care demonstrated by the well built cockpit section, the Union Jack and the very slightly oval windows. And all this on iOS, well done.
Beautiful build but why’d you use magic fuel when everything else was so detailed and perfect?
+1Easy to fly controls, probably not 100% analogous to a RL chopper, but easy nonetheless. I would tone down the power, as it only takes around 3% to lift off and 2% to fly. I would adjust so that it takes at least 50% to lift off and fly. I realize the adjustment is blade pitch, not power, but I would think about it as a ratio of available pitch which is similar to a power setting. Also, why doesn't it yaw for me, or at least, it doesn't yaw that quickly. Adjust that so that it can yaw easily, as that's a hallmark of a chopper, they can pivot fairly quickly in general. Other controls don't seem out of whack wrt control authority.
+1Looks good, if you want a suggestion on where to focus your building efforts, I would concentrate on those vertical stabs, making those out of shaped fuselage block sections, with rudders moving via rotators.
+1So, while the Convair 880 was designed as the fastest airliner and it flew faster than contemporary airliners in level flight, it never exceeded the speed of sound. However, little known fact is that the Douglas DC-8 was actually flown supersonic in a dive during a flight test! Can’t wait to see your completed build, though.
+1Great build, flies just like a light plane should, trim and flaps controls reversed—yeah, yeah, you know, whatever, great build, I like it!
+1A beautiful interpretation of the world’s current winner of “prettiest airliner.” And it flies fantastically well, great job!
+1I might actually use this template, I would just use an SP wing for the bottom surface, probably scaled, and replace the upper surface with a fuse block.
+1@Mostly I’ll agree with you for the most part, but, for it’s time, I would say the MiG-15 might have been the best fighter in the world, until the more advanced Sabres gave it a run for its money.
+1Soviet (now Russian) design philosophy: Rugged and simple to maintain, inexpensive, GCI dependent (centralized control), high performance aerodynamics
+1Western design philosophy: Stealth (current day), high tech, electronics and computer heavy, ultra high performance in both aerodynamics and systems capabilities, multi-role whenever possible, cost is not a factor (we talk about keeping cost down, but, in the end, we'll still pay a lot for cutting edge capability)
@BACconcordepilot again, are we talking about MiG fighters or Tupolev, which built mostly bombers?
+1Sweet build, I wish I could Spotlight it but you have more points, nice!
+1Hey, I landed it on the Beast! It took half a dozen tries, but I figured it out...trim about 3/4 of the way down to the first notch, flaps down all the way, 3-5% power, 135 mph...which is right above stall at 130 mph when the jet sinks and rolls uncontrollably and crashes into the fantail. Then aim to put the MLG about 1’ (no more!) from the end of the fantail. Go to idle and brake right before hitting the deck, then hope to stop before rolling off the end of the deck, into the grey, forbidding ocean where you’ll either be crushed by the aircraft carrier crashing over you or drown in ice cold water...nice!
+1I think I figured it out, AB doesn’t zero on deactivate, I think. Nice build, and featured, no less!
+1Ok, flies well...except...I....can’t...slow...down..?
+1Results...?
+1And...?
+1@ChromeGamer25 I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
+1Additionally, same page as the citation below also states that the RAF, upon evaluating the Allison-engined Mustang I determined that “Tests soon showed the Mustang I to be superior to the Kittyhawk [P-40], Airacobra [P-39] and Spitfire [has to be the Merlin engined variety] in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes.” And this wasn’t even the Merlin-engines Mustang, clearly superior to the original Allison engined model in nearly every measure.
+1Interesting. Just found this note in a recent book, “Dogfight” by Tony Holmes (Chartwell Books, 2012). In Part IV, Dueling for the Reich 1943-45, P-51 Mustang vs. Fw 190, the author relates on p. 216 that after the RAF took delivery of their first Allison-powered Mustang Is, “...It’s first operational sortie [with the RAF] was flown on July 27 and in October Allison-powered Mustangs became the first RAF single-engined single-seat fighters to penetrate German airspace from England.”
+1@Mostly the summary page says exactly what I’ve been saying all along. So, no LoL. The first paragraph highlights its Home Defence role, while the second emphasizes its P.R. Role and evolution (in Griff Spit guise) as a more multi-role aircraft. The P-51 lands on MULTIPLE “finest fighter of WWII” lists by many historians. The Spit does as well, but not as many in my perusal of the subject, but I could be incorrect here. Tactically, but he Spit could outturn the Mustang (something you don’t even mention for some reason), while the Stang was superior in speed, but certainly no slouch when in cane to dogfighting (reference Eric Brown’s quote). Strategically, the Mustang’s superior range allowed it to attain the strategic effect of taking the fight to the enemy and into Germany. The Spitfire’s strategic impact was to prevent the Allies from losing the war in the first place. Both significant roles, but your characterization is incorrect. The Spit didn’t single-handedly win the war and just allow the Mustang and 8th Air Force to simply waltz into the Fatherland. There was a lot of bloody combat and mayhem from 1943 and beyond. In fact, the bloodiest day for the Mighty 8th was 14 Oct 43 on the Scheeinfurt mission. Ultimately caused the USAAF to abandon the idea of unescorted daylight bombing. If your assertion of the Spit being an escort is correct, where was the Spit on that day? Couldn’t be there, but the Stang was eventually there and allowed the continuation of 8th AF bombing against the German heartland, where the fighting was more desperate by the Luftwaffe.
+1Geez, look here. Famous range graphic.
+1@Mostly no LOL. CLEARLY I know what I’m talking about. It’s escort role was highly limited as RAF Bomber Command flew night missions without escort. Sure it flew sweeps and some escort across the Channel over France but this was likited. Plus it’s range was limited.
+1BTW, I’ve read all three of these primary accounts...and more. The three books are sitting in my library. You have read them, haven’t you? Or are you arguing your points based on knowledge gained by reading secondary and tertiary accounts on the Net? Besides I’m not saying the Spit did nothing. Read my comments carefully...I just disagree with your assertion marganalizing the Mustang’s role as a mop up. Simply incorrect.
+1@Mostly also how would you explain the fact that the P-51 has the most kills of any USAAF type in WWII? I thought you said, “hey, the P-51 was just mopping up.” The P-38 was withdrawn in favor of the Pacific theater, where it’s twin engines were a better safety margin over water and is cockpit heater was more adequate, leaving (I believe) a single P-38 group in Europe by 1944. The Bolt was readsigned to fly strike missions, better suited due to the P-47’s ability to absorb damage. The Spit didn’t even fly escort missions, it did photoreconnaissance with the longer ranged recce Marks modified to carry fuel in its leading edges. The Spit’s (and Hurri’s) main role in all this was that saved Britain’s butt during the BoB, without which the whole war would have been over. After that, it flew cross Channel missions where it first met the 190s. But the Spit’s role was “increasingly defensive from 1943 on” (Wikipedia quote), Home Defense. I would characterize the Spit’s role like a homeowner with a .38 shooting a home invader. But it really didn’t carry the fight into Western Germany. That was done by the Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon and Tempest. By the way, another couple of excellent books on this are “Reach for the Sky”, Douglas Bader’s book and “The Big Show” by Pierre Clostermann. The first book by Gp Capt Douglas Bader tells about the earlier phase with the Spit as he was shot down over France in 1941. He lost his legs in a prewar flying accident and flew with articficial legs during the war—incredible story and great read, BTW. Clostermann was a Typhoon/Tempest Pilot during the war and his book tells the story of the latter part of the air war. Those along with the 4th FG’s account should give you a some more historical perspective in your assertions the Mustang did nothing and the Spitfire claimed air superiority over Western Europe.
+1@Mostly do you’re saying, “hey the air war had already been won, so really the P-51 didn’t really do anything!”??? Really. Please read this book, 1000 Destroyed, it’s the USAAF’s 4th FG’s account of the war Over Europe.
+1Finally, here’s a quote I pulled straight out of the Wikipedia article on the P-51 by an RAF test pilot who flew both aircraft: Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[57]
+1But to maintain that the Mustang was not maneuverable because it was a long range escort fighter as compared to the Spitfire’s role as a point defense interceptor, isn’t correct. The Mustang always had great handling. And so did the P-38, for that matter...big wing in spite of the weight of two engines. Perhaps you’re confusing what you hearing about the P-47 with the Mustang.
+1That adaptability was an important characteristic of the Spitfire and one of the keys to its success. And it was a success.
+1So consider the Griffin powered Spitfire. The RAF wanted to re-engine the Spit with a much more powerful engine to keep up with the Luftwaffe. The Merlin was always the power plant of the definitive Mustang (having re-engined the original Allison powered A-36 Apache), through 1945 and beyond. It was simply a more advanced design at the time and the equal of the Luftwaffe and Japanese fighters it encountered, even with the Merlin. The Griff Spit, however, was a remarkable machine. An airplane 100 mph faster than the original design, but STILL a light and nimble flyer. The Me-109G and beyond, having undergone the same evolutionary improvements was difficult to handle and did not adapt well to increased power and speed.
+1@Mostly not true at all. The P-51 attained air superiority over Germany against later model Me-109s and Fw-190s, Ta-152s, etc. The early model Spits attained air superiority, or at least parity against, mainly, the Bf-109E. The later model Spitfire Vb was bested, for the most part, by the Fw-190A, especially at low and medium altitudes. Sure, tactics had something to do with both types’ successes, but to know the history, then say a Mustang was no match for a Spitfire is simply not true.
+1@Mostly P-51 really can’t do much compared to the Spit? That’s simply incorrect.
+1@F104Deathtrap I don’t think so. It’s a fair question. It’s not even as far as comparing an Me-110 and a Corsair, both fighters, but with vastly different approaches. Though how they were used was different, their aims were similar, that is to attain and keep air superiority (modern definition).
+1@randomusername some points are valid, but many simply aren’t true or understandable without building experience. This guy has 119 points, perhaps the basics or more explanation would be more useful. Better yet, how about he links you to his build and you can try and analyze what’s wring with the build. He’ll learn better that way.
+1@RailfanEthan you know how it happened, right? The Po-2 didn’t shoot it down. The Po-2 was flying a night harassment sortie, as they typically did in Korea. The F-94 slowed down and flew a stern conversion just above stall. When it fired on the Po-2, the Starfire stalled, spun in and crashed due to the recoil from the guns. That’s how it happened, Bro. But, a kill is a kill.
+1Let me give you some more food for thought on this. When the Fw-190 appeared in WWII, even the Spit Mk V has trouble dealing with it, especially at low altitudes. A real shock to the RAF who never saw that coming. The Mustang was more than a match for the Fw, however.
+1@ThePilotDude totally disagree. Spit was a much earlier design...upgraded, but still earlier inception. Mustang (from the B version onward) had same engine, but had better range and was for the most part, faster and higher flying due to laminar flow wing and clever radiator design. Each was right for their time, however the US flew Spits briefly, which were replaced by P-47s and, eventually, P-51s. The Americans who had to trade in their Spits for Thunderbolts lamented, but no one lamented getting Mustangs.
+1Kind of a debatable point..:how so better? More advanced, better armed, faster, higher flying, longer ranged, more enemies destroyed, most produced, longest surviving, more survivable...? Frame the question more tightly and you’ll get more intelligent responses vs fanboy responses from both sides of the Spitfire vs Mustang crowd. But, at least your asking aircraft related questions. Not so long ago some idiot asked “is anyone here a furry?” Moron. Keep asking good questions, we need more of this on the forums.
+1@jamesPLANESii really? P-51, longer range, faster for the most common versions (D vs V), more enemy destroyed. How is the Spit “better”?
+1Nice work, especially on the little things such as the flap details—something not many would see. Good performance, looks great, great build.
+1Well, it’s not a “minigun” anyway. It’s an M61A2 Vulcan 20mm multi barrel cannon. A “minigun” is an M134 7.62 mm gun that’s significantly smaller lighter and less powerful than the Vulcan. Plus, the standard 7.62 mm NATO round doesn’t explode on contact like the 20 mm round which is optimized to destroy other aircraft.
+1@mikoyanster link you to this?
+1Have you heard anything from @Yuracat? I submitted my entry 4 days ago and not words at all from him.
+1I was thinking of entering a HAL Ajeet as well, but you beat me to the punch!
+1Amen, Brother!
+1@YuraCat, here's my submission to your tourney. I hope you will accept it. Stock engine, fuel, wings, drag, CG and guns. I used a bit of XML tweaking for appearance sake, but hewed to the spirit of your rules. I used FineTuner to resize the cockpit to fit under the outlines of the RL canopy...I simply wanted players to be able to see through the gunsight if they wanted to fly it around. I used FineTuner to resize the landing gear to fit the build. I used a bit of XML editing to give the canopy a nice sheen, as well as to disable the mesh on the rotators for the horizontal stab, just didn't want huge, unslightly rotator bodies sticking out the bottom of the airplane. I would have decked it out with a lot of awesome decals, as in my original 1:1 F-100, but that would have required XML for weight and drag and I thought maybe that would be taking it too far. By the way, I still HATE the AI!!!
+1Nice maritime patrol bomber!
+1Beautiful engine detailing...how many vanes on those cylinder heads?
+1You should enter this here: Passenger Aircraft Challenge. Going to watch a little football now, cheering for the England side?
+1Very majestic, pity it only saw limited service. I especially like the care demonstrated by the well built cockpit section, the Union Jack and the very slightly oval windows. And all this on iOS, well done.
+1@EternalDarkness ...first! Be sure to read the description and thanks!
+1