@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS try this build: MiG I-270. It’s rocket powered using the in-game Hellfire missile. I’m on iOS right now, but take a look how he uses the detacher to attach the missile to the build and the FT expression he uses on the rocket. I suggest you figure out how to limit the time and power the rocket puts out. Good luck.
Build more and build your own stuff (though that Soviet Star does look great!) instead of modifying others’ work, don’t try to host any challenges, you don’t have credibility yet. But mostly, build more! Also, something I noticed is that when I started building replicas, my skills got much better, faster. Try a few replicas (OF AIRCRAFT) and I’m sure you’ll get a lot better as well.
The setup and activation is a little strange, it doesn’t appear to be a selectable weapon and no aiming reticle appears, which I think is throwing off players (see comments), but it does work. Simply select air to ground or air to air, press on the “0x G-30R”, which will highlight and press fire. You need to guess where the first rounds will go without the aiming reticle, which appears only while firing. Very effective, though.
Well, was going to heap a lot of praise onto this build, until I realized it has zero cockpit view. That’s too bad, because it’s nearly impossible to land it well without the view from the cockpit.
A tip that speaks to KLM’s point concerning the RL gross weight of the aircraft, SP includes the area of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, so your number in the designer will not reflect the true “wing area”, as understood in real life. The workaround is to look up the RL wing area (Wiki lists the C-5 wing area as 6,200 sq ft), add the wings and size them to 6,200 sq ft. Once that’s sorted, then add the vertical and horizontal stabs; this way your build will more closely reflect the RL lifting capability. As for the jittery landing gear, yes, SP is very annoying, there are workarounds, but tweaking masses and lowering forward reaction does minimize these issues.
@DJRianGamer004 where did you get that idea? We have 56 C-5Ms currently in the inventory, upgraded with new engines (GE F138 / CF6, same as the 747) and avionics.
This is really good, the flight model is excellent. It is certainly underweight and overpowered, but it feels like flying a big jet. The build is complete without being needlessly complex.
So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@edensk yeah, gotcha now. I also looked it up to ensure that I was in the ballpark wrt AoA values; critical AoA values for most airfoils is around 15-20 degrees, so not too far off the quoted 10-13 degrees, but admittedly my value is probably more correct for thinner symmetrical airfoils vice more cambered wings as you already explained.
@Deputydangle there are many reasons why your build might not replicate exactly the F-14’s performance, default drag is unrealistically high and needs to be edited down, jet thrust doesn’t decrease enough with altitude, so speeds tend to be slow at sea level and too high at altitude and there is no such thing as transonic drag. Simply cranking the power up on SP engines also results in ludicrously unenjoyable acceleration. All that being said, there are ways of coping with these problems, Funky Trees can do a lot. But, recommend using symmetrical wings for any jet fighter, especially the Tomcat, which is designed to fly at high speed and has a symmetric wing IRL. The lifting body effect is harder to replicate; the F-14 isn’t really a big, curved wing shape, it’s a broad, flat area of the rear half of the fuse that works at higher angles of attack, much like a symmetric airfoil. Think about it, the F-14’s fuselage was not designed to produce excess induced drag at zero angle of attack, that would prevent it from flying at fast as possible and the F-14 is a Mach 2.3 jet, very, very fast. Where that rear fuse lift comes in is at high angles of attack, the same at any other symmetric airfoil. I’d recommend using symmetric airfoils for all your wings for your build. That way, you keep the drag at low angles of attack (high speeds) and have the increased lift at higher angles of attack, during slow speed flight as during approach and landing and fighting at slower airspeeds (but don’t get slow in an F-14!).
@MAHADI sure thing. There's probably a better one out there because my AB kicks in above 98% (at 99%). I couldn't figure out a way to get it to only kick in at 100%, but I know others have. But, feel free to use.
Nice. Especially given the limited info on the RL jet. It gulps fuel, as the RL jet certainly did, I am sure. A little gyro-intensive, do you think it might have been a little more true to life if it were a little less stable? I do like it though...I was able to fly it off the tiny, into a box pattern and actually landed it back on the Tiny! Can’t do that too often with a high performance jet.
You made it yourself? SP automatically credits the original builder (me), plus tags the post with the message, “Based on...”. Anyway, glad you liked it enough to pass it off as your own.
@EngineerOtaku I saw that when I started tearing it apart! The horizontal stab flutters around a bit, not sure why as I assumed it was some sort of FT input. I was wrong. But how you got the speed is fast down low while not ludicrous up high eludes me.
On my favorites list...for the Funky Trees employed here. Pretty sure you have something on the engines as well as the horizontal stab. The low level speed is appropriate, while the speed at altitude is correct...impressive, takes FT to do that.
Not incredibly difficult to fly around, takeoff is easy, though one does have to pay attention in transition to the hover and landing. Forget about spot landings, though. I think the RL example was a nightmare to fly, as were all the early VTOL fighters. Nice rendition.
And that’s not a turn and slip from 1944...that’s a modern one, the little “T” tail aircraft in the instrument is a dead giveaway that it’s a turn and slip from a training light plane of recent vintage, take a look at this. That’s why they called them “needle and ball” back in the day. In fact, that entire instrument panel looks straight out of Cessna 152 territory...the little rectangular ammeters and voltmeters are a dead giveaway. Nothing like that during WWII.
@ChrisPy nope. As with most modern aircraft, heck I can show you a schematic of the system on the 737, multiple pitot tubes (probably two on the F-22 and F-35) measure airspeed, that data being fed into several air data computers (there are three on the 737), which takes that data and compares and combines it with other data, which includes IRUs (Inertial Reference Units—gyroscopes), GPS data, static air inputs (which measure static air pressure used to measure altitude and rate of climb). I found this pic of the F-22, see the red streamers? Those are the covers for the pitot tubes and static ports.
@ChrisPy correct, Mach is physics, it has always varies with temp and will always vary with temp. So, yes, you are right, even new aircraft use temperature to calculate Mach. And all aircraft, even the brand new ones use pitot tubes. Airflow over the wing can only be measured in that way.
@Cheems no, I was not planning on building a Ju-288.
Excellent build. Even the use of the semi-symmetric airfoil is a good choice. Plus, it tends to track pretty straight in the air. Quite lifelike.
@Erc90F4RU easily correctible.
Why the hinged canopy? As anyone who's watched "Empire of the Sun" will know, the D-model Mustang had a sliding canopy. But why? Well, rear-hinged ("clamshell") canopies tend to fly off in the slipstream and most aircraft of this era could fly with the canopies open, hence the sliding canopies. Though the earlier pre-"Malcolm Hood" P-51s (As, Bs and C models) had a canopy where the left-hand side dropped down to allow access into the cockpit, as well as sliding panels, they were rapidly replaced by sliding canopies with the "Malcolm Hood" and bubble canopy versions. Even the earlier B-47s had a sliding canopy, which the pilot could open in flight (at lower speeds and altitudes, of course), though it was later replaced by a clamshell-type canopy.
@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS try this build: MiG I-270. It’s rocket powered using the in-game Hellfire missile. I’m on iOS right now, but take a look how he uses the detacher to attach the missile to the build and the FT expression he uses on the rocket. I suggest you figure out how to limit the time and power the rocket puts out. Good luck.
Nice replica.
@Meuzar tag me on an unlisted post and I’ll take a look if you would like me to.
@Meuzar how can I help you?
This is absolutely gorgeous!
Build more and build your own stuff (though that Soviet Star does look great!) instead of modifying others’ work, don’t try to host any challenges, you don’t have credibility yet. But mostly, build more! Also, something I noticed is that when I started building replicas, my skills got much better, faster. Try a few replicas (OF AIRCRAFT) and I’m sure you’ll get a lot better as well.
The setup and activation is a little strange, it doesn’t appear to be a selectable weapon and no aiming reticle appears, which I think is throwing off players (see comments), but it does work. Simply select air to ground or air to air, press on the “0x G-30R”, which will highlight and press fire. You need to guess where the first rounds will go without the aiming reticle, which appears only while firing. Very effective, though.
Well, was going to heap a lot of praise onto this build, until I realized it has zero cockpit view. That’s too bad, because it’s nearly impossible to land it well without the view from the cockpit.
@RC1138Boss seriously, what.
A tip that speaks to KLM’s point concerning the RL gross weight of the aircraft, SP includes the area of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, so your number in the designer will not reflect the true “wing area”, as understood in real life. The workaround is to look up the RL wing area (Wiki lists the C-5 wing area as 6,200 sq ft), add the wings and size them to 6,200 sq ft. Once that’s sorted, then add the vertical and horizontal stabs; this way your build will more closely reflect the RL lifting capability. As for the jittery landing gear, yes, SP is very annoying, there are workarounds, but tweaking masses and lowering forward reaction does minimize these issues.
@DJRianGamer004 where did you get that idea? We have 56 C-5Ms currently in the inventory, upgraded with new engines (GE F138 / CF6, same as the 747) and avionics.
This is really good, the flight model is excellent. It is certainly underweight and overpowered, but it feels like flying a big jet. The build is complete without being needlessly complex.
No splitter plates for the intakes?
So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
4.
Interesting.
It’s entertaining, very simple and reminds me of a Jag. Could use a little more trim, but it’s pretty fun to fly.
@KfcGaming I’m not inactive, just not very active.
@RC1138Boss not sure what you mean by that…
Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
“F-5E Tiger II”, not “F5E-Tiger II”.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
@ACEPILOT109 what do you think of this build?
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
Looks good. How’s the flight model coming along?
@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
Stealth.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@edensk yeah, gotcha now. I also looked it up to ensure that I was in the ballpark wrt AoA values; critical AoA values for most airfoils is around 15-20 degrees, so not too far off the quoted 10-13 degrees, but admittedly my value is probably more correct for thinner symmetrical airfoils vice more cambered wings as you already explained.
Nice job balancing stability with tossability. I’ve never flown a rotorcraft IRL, so can’t really revaluate the flight model, but I like this one.
Is this the one we worked on together a long time ago?
@Deputydangle there are many reasons why your build might not replicate exactly the F-14’s performance, default drag is unrealistically high and needs to be edited down, jet thrust doesn’t decrease enough with altitude, so speeds tend to be slow at sea level and too high at altitude and there is no such thing as transonic drag. Simply cranking the power up on SP engines also results in ludicrously unenjoyable acceleration. All that being said, there are ways of coping with these problems, Funky Trees can do a lot. But, recommend using symmetrical wings for any jet fighter, especially the Tomcat, which is designed to fly at high speed and has a symmetric wing IRL. The lifting body effect is harder to replicate; the F-14 isn’t really a big, curved wing shape, it’s a broad, flat area of the rear half of the fuse that works at higher angles of attack, much like a symmetric airfoil. Think about it, the F-14’s fuselage was not designed to produce excess induced drag at zero angle of attack, that would prevent it from flying at fast as possible and the F-14 is a Mach 2.3 jet, very, very fast. Where that rear fuse lift comes in is at high angles of attack, the same at any other symmetric airfoil. I’d recommend using symmetric airfoils for all your wings for your build. That way, you keep the drag at low angles of attack (high speeds) and have the increased lift at higher angles of attack, during slow speed flight as during approach and landing and fighting at slower airspeeds (but don’t get slow in an F-14!).
@MAHADI sure thing. There's probably a better one out there because my AB kicks in above 98% (at 99%). I couldn't figure out a way to get it to only kick in at 100%, but I know others have. But, feel free to use.
I’ll need to test fly it :)
Nice. Especially given the limited info on the RL jet. It gulps fuel, as the RL jet certainly did, I am sure. A little gyro-intensive, do you think it might have been a little more true to life if it were a little less stable? I do like it though...I was able to fly it off the tiny, into a box pattern and actually landed it back on the Tiny! Can’t do that too often with a high performance jet.
You made it yourself? SP automatically credits the original builder (me), plus tags the post with the message, “Based on...”. Anyway, glad you liked it enough to pass it off as your own.
@EngineerOtaku I saw that when I started tearing it apart! The horizontal stab flutters around a bit, not sure why as I assumed it was some sort of FT input. I was wrong. But how you got the speed is fast down low while not ludicrous up high eludes me.
On my favorites list...for the Funky Trees employed here. Pretty sure you have something on the engines as well as the horizontal stab. The low level speed is appropriate, while the speed at altitude is correct...impressive, takes FT to do that.
Not incredibly difficult to fly around, takeoff is easy, though one does have to pay attention in transition to the hover and landing. Forget about spot landings, though. I think the RL example was a nightmare to fly, as were all the early VTOL fighters. Nice rendition.
And that’s not a turn and slip from 1944...that’s a modern one, the little “T” tail aircraft in the instrument is a dead giveaway that it’s a turn and slip from a training light plane of recent vintage, take a look at this. That’s why they called them “needle and ball” back in the day. In fact, that entire instrument panel looks straight out of Cessna 152 territory...the little rectangular ammeters and voltmeters are a dead giveaway. Nothing like that during WWII.
@GuyFolk I also smell F4U Corsair in the tail feathers...
@ChrisPy nope. As with most modern aircraft, heck I can show you a schematic of the system on the 737, multiple pitot tubes (probably two on the F-22 and F-35) measure airspeed, that data being fed into several air data computers (there are three on the 737), which takes that data and compares and combines it with other data, which includes IRUs (Inertial Reference Units—gyroscopes), GPS data, static air inputs (which measure static air pressure used to measure altitude and rate of climb). I found this pic of the F-22, see the red streamers? Those are the covers for the pitot tubes and static ports.
@ChrisPy correct, Mach is physics, it has always varies with temp and will always vary with temp. So, yes, you are right, even new aircraft use temperature to calculate Mach. And all aircraft, even the brand new ones use pitot tubes. Airflow over the wing can only be measured in that way.