@ollielebananiaCFSP I have to try it out on my PC. Unfortunately, on my iPhone, it’s really hard to read the instruments you spent so much time working on.
Interesting, where did you get the Mach formula? Looks completely different than mine (haven’t put it side to side on my PC, just looking at it on mobile).
@FurYuki agreed, I avoid gyros as well. I think you could make all these changes aerodynamically and not resort to using gyros at all on a build like this.
Better than most. There’s way too much pitch change with flap extension, which requires full nose down trim to maintain control, but dynamics are nice, controls are smooth, acceleration is reasonable. You should include the fact that the “reversers” are activated through AG in your description.
Interesting fictional build, fun to fly around. Request you give it a little more trim authority, a tad quicker on the roll and perhaps a little less power. But I like it, nice work!
No, it can have two engines fail at 90 KIAS and there’s enough authority there to rotate and takeoff (barely). Then fly out and come back in and land. Problems include the on screen controls, which makes the rudder tough to lock in, the lack of nose up trim authority and necessity to carry a good amount of speed (no less than 175 KIAS) so as to have enough nose up authority to round out and land.
Flies quite smoothly and lands quite smoothly, which I like. The G limiter also acts quite smoothly, I would have limited it to 10 Gs, with a G meter there to prevent over Gs by the pilot, but it’s not nearly as annoying as some G limiters I’ve come across in SP.
@Rakoval500k all things being equal, extending flaps, leading edge flaps or slats generally causes the nose to pitch down slightly. The reason is that extension of these devices causes an increase of lift. In order for everything to remain the same, the wing should decrease its angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift, which is why the nose will generally pitch down slightly. The pitch down is probably not nearly as much as what occurs in SP, though, because what happens IRL isn’t replicated in game. The difference is that extending flaps IRL generally changes the shape of the wing (makes it more curved) and often increases the lifting area of the wing as well, in the case of most modern flap designs, which makes the same wing produce more lift. As SP doesn’t actually consider camber, or changes in camber, except for which type you use when building you plane initially (cambered, semi-symmetric or symmetric options), what you get when you “extend flaps” in game is a simulation of what might happen if you have two different wing surfaces which are unrelated, and one happens to be turned at a greater angle to the relative wind (increased angle of attack). Yes, the wing at the greater angle will produce more lift (up until it exceed the critical AoA), but there is no simulation that the flaps produce a more cambered airfoil with better lift characteristics.
@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
This plane doesn’t have a pitching up problem at low altitude, that’s what trim is for...but, if you want to make the trim more neutral, you could add a half a degree of leading edge up angle on the horizontal stab.
I really like this. Nice flight model, seems realistic enough to me...looks good overall, I’m sure the camo was tricky as I can see a couple of little compromises you made for it, but it looks like the RL jet.
Nice work here. Yes, using the default sideways traction settings of 90% on the main LG makes it nearly impossible to control on takeoff. However the fix is simple: Just reduce the sideways traction on the main wheels to 50% and it’s much more controllable. You can also experiment with raising the sideways traction on the tailwheel, which may also help, but the fix is simple.
So, I’m on iOS and have a question: How does the radar display work? I have the air to air target locked (flashing red) and dead ahead of me, but nothing on the radar display? Does this require an AG activation?
@asteroidbook345 try doubling up the nose wheel, then nudging them together so that they appear as one. Also, a weight imbalance between the two sides can also cause veering. My advice, of course, tends to assume a neat/symmetrical build technique, though the sideways traction thing fixes swerving all other things being done correctly.
What @asteroidbook345 said. Making sure the nose wheel is centered and the main wheels are precisely opposite each other is important, but it really does come down to lowering the traction on the nose/front wheels. I do that for all my builds and it’s a life saver.
Interesting...unfortunately, the green HUD/gunsight glass is really difficult to deal with. I actually deleted it and it made aiming much easier. Interesting build.
I figured out the rear gunner problem, I think there’s an extra connection on either the gun or rotator. Will try and fix later. Also, recommend the following: Cut the power to 25-40% of what it’s at now. You’re currently using 1000 hp per engine, lower it to 250 - 400 hp. The German Mercedes G.IVa had around 260 hp and the US Liberty produced around 400 hp. When I use 25% power to fly, it accelerates realistically and flies at a period correct 90 knots (around 115 mph). Still a little bit fast, but very close to RL performance for this type of aircraft.
@Oreo2005 why? Plenty of people around here don’t speak English. I’ve seen Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese and Korean. If you don’t speak/read those languages, ignore the post. If you’re really curious, you can use Google Translate, which is pretty amazing.
So, looked at this and it can be fixed, but in so many ways, I would need to know what your design objectives are in order to alter it in a way that is suitable to your objectives. The main problem is that pulling back on the stick doesn’t raise the nose because the CoL is really far back and the CoM is really far forward. The glider has a long nose, but it’s also composed of a bunch of short fuselage sections, instead of a single long section. You can change that and save 300-500 lbs. For a glider, weight is very important, as it won’t glide nicely if the wing loading is too high. The wings are set quite far back, which moves the CoL towards the tail and reduces maneuverability (think “a long distance between CoM and CoL will make for a more stable, but less maneuverable design”). The fix for that is to either move the wings farther forward or to add weight to the tail and move the CoM back towards the CoL. In any event, you can try these fixes: Move the wings forward and reduce the distance from the CoM to the CoL. Increase the size of the horizontal stab and/or elevator surfaces. Add weight at the tail. And I’d actually change those multiple fuse sections to a single section instead of 24 individual parts and save weight.
@DaDerpachu123 hi. Yes, so this was an interesting build; I wanted to make a relatively simple replica, and this is only 222 parts. I used the default wings, instead of building them up with fuselage and intake pieces, then burying scaled wings inside. It kept the part count down, but it’s probably the biggest visual detractor from the whole thing. If I were to do it again, I’d probably do better wings, though the Phantom’s wings aren’t simple with leading edge flaps, spoilers and the kink in them. Probably would add at least 50 or 60 parts for both wings. The thin wing shape forced me to make the main gear skinny, though IRL, the F-4E’s MLG is noticeably beefy. I also used the stock nose gear for part count, as well as the fact that it’s roughly the same as the F-4’s nose gear. Also, this was a pre-Blueprints mod build, so the shape is fairly close but not as accurate as it should be, especially with the forward fuselage “droop”. I’d also reduce the power on the engines through FT because it is overpowered and possibly do some drag reduction...neither of those things would add to the part count and would be absolutely transparent to the casual player. But, I might also succumb to an unfortunate tendency to go overboard and make a 1,000+ part replica, much the same as I’ve done with so many other more recent builds. But, I’m glad you like this!
@NotSoNormalPioneer all USAF pilots are officers and all officers have to attend a commissioning source, either OTS, if you already have a college/university degree, ROTC, if attending a civilian university, or the U.S. Air Academy. This all happens well prior to pilot training, which happens well prior to even applying to the U-2 program.
So, I went there myself and tried entering the US standard color codes. It returned the correct shade, but haven’t figured out how exactly to make it return the hex color codes...any suggestions?
Totally fictional, so I can’t judge it vs a RL example. But, the flight model is fantastic...if this were a RL aircraft, the test report would call it challenging, yet manageable. All too often, VTOL builds in SP, fictional or replicas are way too difficult to fly. RL VTOL aircraft, such as the Harrier, are challenging to fly and take all the pilot’s concentration to do it right...I know this from several former USMC AV-8 pilots I know, but they’re not impossible to fly, otherwise they’d crash more often than they already do. This one seems right, challenging but not impossible to fly. Nice work!
Some very interesting build techniques employed here. Plus, your paneling work is absolutely perfect. In game, I kept looking at the nacelles, trying to convince myself that it was some new shaped piece I wasn’t aware of, but, no, they’re paneled! Nice work!
@KnightOfRen are they and do they? I have yet to see any evidence of them being unfair and doing anything outside the rules. I personally know several of the Mods and do not believe that they willfully disregard the site rules. If you have any proof to the contrary, please let me know.
@MrADS yes, agree the drag model is imperfect, perhaps if we get an SP2 that will get a fix. The comment on the wing area is about how SP calculates wing area vs RL. IRL, an aircraft’s published wing area almost always only includes the wing area for the main wing(s), it hardly ever includes the tail surface(s). This may be due to the fact that a conventional horizontal stabilizer actually pushes down to keep the nose up on an inherently stable design. The FW was an inherently stable design, as were all successful aircraft prior to the advent of flight control computers. Canard aircraft wing area may be the exception as the canard actually lifts the nose of an aircraft and contributes to total lift, but I am not 100% certain as I haven’t dealt much with canard designs. SP, however, adds the area of ALL the wing surfaces, including the tail, on the build to arrive at the total wing area that you see in the build screen and the published post and all wing surfaces, including the tail, lift up...there’s no way to invert the lift in SP on a curved or SS airfoil (I understand why this was designed this way, but it’s not true to life). This is misleading as when a builder builds to match the RL wing area, builders who do not understand this difference usually will build undersized main wings, as you have here. The FW’s wing area is around 196 sq ft, that’s only for the main wing; however, your published wing area here is only 145 sq ft, and that number includes all the wing surfaces present in your build...main wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer and significantly less wing area than the RL plane. The good news is that the SP model is pretty good at replicating an aircraft’s RL behavior if you ensure the main wing area (minus the tail surfaces) matches the RL wing area and if the airfoil shape is similar to the RL airfoil (here, I’d use the semi-symmetrical wing).
Very nice, especially for being so low on the part count. Roll rate and speed is right on with the historical performance, both of which were hallmarks of the RL plane, so good focus emulating those features. Turn performance is a little sluggish, IMHO, however, I haven’t put it on the Dev console to see the numbers...just my impression flying it on my iPhone. And it doesn’t lose any speed on the turns, probably a result of having the drag centered on a few parts. But SP is weird with how the program reacts when reducing drag. The lack of trim is something I would have done differently and the stall speed is really high, as high as an F-100. Remember that SP adds the wing area of the tail, not just the main wing, as the wing area numbers you’ll find will reflect. But, quite an engaging build of a great subject, nice work and Spotlight!
This is very fun to fly, in a frustrating way. Easy to start flying, it takes a deft hand to hover it well and transition to forward flight is tricky to achieve without losing control. But, it’s fun and challenging enough to hold my attention. Nice build, I like it.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook surely, but I don’t think the Mods would remove for this. But, we’ll move on and I understand your trepidation surrounding this topic. I simply ask you to think it over and consider the issue moving forward, whether or not you agree or disagree. Nice twin boom and if you tag me on an unlisted, I can probably help to resolve your intake blending issues.
@UltraLight what you’re describing is the perception of what the current generation thinks of the older people they call “boomers”, but it’s not the entire meaning of the term. The original term means someone of the “baby boomer” generation, those who were born during the baby boom that followed when returning service members started families after WWII. Bill Clinton is a baby boomer, as is Bill Gates and Madonna. The post is titled “Ok boomer”, as in an exasperated response to an older person, which I referenced by pointing out that the M55 isn’t really an aircraft of the “boomer” generation; the aircraft of that generation are aircraft such as the F-80, F-86, Super Constellation, Hawker Hunter, MiG-15...the M55 came about around 25 years after that generation of aircraft and therefore is not part of the “boomers’” generation of aircraft.
Well, wouldn’t call this a “Boomer” build. It carriers neither bombs nor is it a design that cam immediately after the Second World War. BTW, there are better/smoother techniques for blending those intakes into the fuselage.
@F89Scorpian not quite. It wasn’t the difference in the sizes of the target, the F6F being somewhat smaller than a bomber. It’s nearly impossible to hit either a bomber or fighter sized target with unguided rockets, unless you have some sort of computer assisted aiming. And that F6F wasn’t maneuvering, it was reportedly in a gentle turn during the attempted engagement. And having flown many hours of form, it’s actually easier to close on another aircraft if it’s in a gentle turn. There was a problem with the F-89s’ targeting system and they didn’t even have gunsights, which had been removed due to the targeting upgrade, so the task was impossible. Perhaps if their systems were working as advertised they could have accomplished the task. But even with fully operational systems, guided missiles are more effective, which explains why unguided rockets have fallen out of favor, despite having been used extensively on a number of aircraft, including this one and the ones you mention, in addition to the F-102 and the CF-100.
@ollielebananiaCFSP I have to try it out on my PC. Unfortunately, on my iPhone, it’s really hard to read the instruments you spent so much time working on.
Interesting, where did you get the Mach formula? Looks completely different than mine (haven’t put it side to side on my PC, just looking at it on mobile).
@FurYuki agreed, I avoid gyros as well. I think you could make all these changes aerodynamically and not resort to using gyros at all on a build like this.
Better than most. There’s way too much pitch change with flap extension, which requires full nose down trim to maintain control, but dynamics are nice, controls are smooth, acceleration is reasonable. You should include the fact that the “reversers” are activated through AG in your description.
Interesting fictional build, fun to fly around. Request you give it a little more trim authority, a tad quicker on the roll and perhaps a little less power. But I like it, nice work!
Post some creations...hopefully, quality creations. Or post your thoughts and have people upvote them.
Nice work, good flight model. Stately without being ponderous.
No, it can have two engines fail at 90 KIAS and there’s enough authority there to rotate and takeoff (barely). Then fly out and come back in and land. Problems include the on screen controls, which makes the rudder tough to lock in, the lack of nose up trim authority and necessity to carry a good amount of speed (no less than 175 KIAS) so as to have enough nose up authority to round out and land.
EFTOCs are challenging and fun.
It’s a Czech Su-7 with Polish insignia on the tail?
@asteroidbook345 of course.
Flies quite smoothly and lands quite smoothly, which I like. The G limiter also acts quite smoothly, I would have limited it to 10 Gs, with a G meter there to prevent over Gs by the pilot, but it’s not nearly as annoying as some G limiters I’ve come across in SP.
@Rakoval500k all things being equal, extending flaps, leading edge flaps or slats generally causes the nose to pitch down slightly. The reason is that extension of these devices causes an increase of lift. In order for everything to remain the same, the wing should decrease its angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift, which is why the nose will generally pitch down slightly. The pitch down is probably not nearly as much as what occurs in SP, though, because what happens IRL isn’t replicated in game. The difference is that extending flaps IRL generally changes the shape of the wing (makes it more curved) and often increases the lifting area of the wing as well, in the case of most modern flap designs, which makes the same wing produce more lift. As SP doesn’t actually consider camber, or changes in camber, except for which type you use when building you plane initially (cambered, semi-symmetric or symmetric options), what you get when you “extend flaps” in game is a simulation of what might happen if you have two different wing surfaces which are unrelated, and one happens to be turned at a greater angle to the relative wind (increased angle of attack). Yes, the wing at the greater angle will produce more lift (up until it exceed the critical AoA), but there is no simulation that the flaps produce a more cambered airfoil with better lift characteristics.
@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
MUST upvote and he Beetle!
This plane doesn’t have a pitching up problem at low altitude, that’s what trim is for...but, if you want to make the trim more neutral, you could add a half a degree of leading edge up angle on the horizontal stab.
I really like this. Nice flight model, seems realistic enough to me...looks good overall, I’m sure the camo was tricky as I can see a couple of little compromises you made for it, but it looks like the RL jet.
@Liew and so it does, I tried it again and it seems to only display for certain parameters which aren’t clear to me, operator error on my part!
Congrats on the PPL!
Anyone know if the radar display works?
Nice work here. Yes, using the default sideways traction settings of 90% on the main LG makes it nearly impossible to control on takeoff. However the fix is simple: Just reduce the sideways traction on the main wheels to 50% and it’s much more controllable. You can also experiment with raising the sideways traction on the tailwheel, which may also help, but the fix is simple.
So, I’m on iOS and have a question: How does the radar display work? I have the air to air target locked (flashing red) and dead ahead of me, but nothing on the radar display? Does this require an AG activation?
@edensk and what speed? 300 KIAS to get 4 Gs? And what did you get at 420 KIAS? Just curious.
@asteroidbook345 try doubling up the nose wheel, then nudging them together so that they appear as one. Also, a weight imbalance between the two sides can also cause veering. My advice, of course, tends to assume a neat/symmetrical build technique, though the sideways traction thing fixes swerving all other things being done correctly.
What @asteroidbook345 said. Making sure the nose wheel is centered and the main wheels are precisely opposite each other is important, but it really does come down to lowering the traction on the nose/front wheels. I do that for all my builds and it’s a life saver.
I’d amend the description to remove the curse words before this gets reported and removed.
Interesting...unfortunately, the green HUD/gunsight glass is really difficult to deal with. I actually deleted it and it made aiming much easier. Interesting build.
I figured out the rear gunner problem, I think there’s an extra connection on either the gun or rotator. Will try and fix later. Also, recommend the following: Cut the power to 25-40% of what it’s at now. You’re currently using 1000 hp per engine, lower it to 250 - 400 hp. The German Mercedes G.IVa had around 260 hp and the US Liberty produced around 400 hp. When I use 25% power to fly, it accelerates realistically and flies at a period correct 90 knots (around 115 mph). Still a little bit fast, but very close to RL performance for this type of aircraft.
@NaoDorime you’re welcome. Is it also true that you don’t sleep?
@Oreo2005 why? Plenty of people around here don’t speak English. I’ve seen Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese and Korean. If you don’t speak/read those languages, ignore the post. If you’re really curious, you can use Google Translate, which is pretty amazing.
So, looked at this and it can be fixed, but in so many ways, I would need to know what your design objectives are in order to alter it in a way that is suitable to your objectives. The main problem is that pulling back on the stick doesn’t raise the nose because the CoL is really far back and the CoM is really far forward. The glider has a long nose, but it’s also composed of a bunch of short fuselage sections, instead of a single long section. You can change that and save 300-500 lbs. For a glider, weight is very important, as it won’t glide nicely if the wing loading is too high. The wings are set quite far back, which moves the CoL towards the tail and reduces maneuverability (think “a long distance between CoM and CoL will make for a more stable, but less maneuverable design”). The fix for that is to either move the wings farther forward or to add weight to the tail and move the CoM back towards the CoL. In any event, you can try these fixes: Move the wings forward and reduce the distance from the CoM to the CoL. Increase the size of the horizontal stab and/or elevator surfaces. Add weight at the tail. And I’d actually change those multiple fuse sections to a single section instead of 24 individual parts and save weight.
@DaDerpachu123 hi. Yes, so this was an interesting build; I wanted to make a relatively simple replica, and this is only 222 parts. I used the default wings, instead of building them up with fuselage and intake pieces, then burying scaled wings inside. It kept the part count down, but it’s probably the biggest visual detractor from the whole thing. If I were to do it again, I’d probably do better wings, though the Phantom’s wings aren’t simple with leading edge flaps, spoilers and the kink in them. Probably would add at least 50 or 60 parts for both wings. The thin wing shape forced me to make the main gear skinny, though IRL, the F-4E’s MLG is noticeably beefy. I also used the stock nose gear for part count, as well as the fact that it’s roughly the same as the F-4’s nose gear. Also, this was a pre-Blueprints mod build, so the shape is fairly close but not as accurate as it should be, especially with the forward fuselage “droop”. I’d also reduce the power on the engines through FT because it is overpowered and possibly do some drag reduction...neither of those things would add to the part count and would be absolutely transparent to the casual player. But, I might also succumb to an unfortunate tendency to go overboard and make a 1,000+ part replica, much the same as I’ve done with so many other more recent builds. But, I’m glad you like this!
Beautiful rendition of a classic car.
Nice pylon racer.
@NotSoNormalPioneer all USAF pilots are officers and all officers have to attend a commissioning source, either OTS, if you already have a college/university degree, ROTC, if attending a civilian university, or the U.S. Air Academy. This all happens well prior to pilot training, which happens well prior to even applying to the U-2 program.
So, I went there myself and tried entering the US standard color codes. It returned the correct shade, but haven’t figured out how exactly to make it return the hex color codes...any suggestions?
Encycolorpedia?
Totally fictional, so I can’t judge it vs a RL example. But, the flight model is fantastic...if this were a RL aircraft, the test report would call it challenging, yet manageable. All too often, VTOL builds in SP, fictional or replicas are way too difficult to fly. RL VTOL aircraft, such as the Harrier, are challenging to fly and take all the pilot’s concentration to do it right...I know this from several former USMC AV-8 pilots I know, but they’re not impossible to fly, otherwise they’d crash more often than they already do. This one seems right, challenging but not impossible to fly. Nice work!
Some very interesting build techniques employed here. Plus, your paneling work is absolutely perfect. In game, I kept looking at the nacelles, trying to convince myself that it was some new shaped piece I wasn’t aware of, but, no, they’re paneled! Nice work!
@KnightOfRen sent.
@KnightOfRen are they and do they? I have yet to see any evidence of them being unfair and doing anything outside the rules. I personally know several of the Mods and do not believe that they willfully disregard the site rules. If you have any proof to the contrary, please let me know.
@ChrisPy NP. Can write something more extensive later today.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook I will know when I start, perhaps an A-4?
@MrADS yes, agree the drag model is imperfect, perhaps if we get an SP2 that will get a fix. The comment on the wing area is about how SP calculates wing area vs RL. IRL, an aircraft’s published wing area almost always only includes the wing area for the main wing(s), it hardly ever includes the tail surface(s). This may be due to the fact that a conventional horizontal stabilizer actually pushes down to keep the nose up on an inherently stable design. The FW was an inherently stable design, as were all successful aircraft prior to the advent of flight control computers. Canard aircraft wing area may be the exception as the canard actually lifts the nose of an aircraft and contributes to total lift, but I am not 100% certain as I haven’t dealt much with canard designs. SP, however, adds the area of ALL the wing surfaces, including the tail, on the build to arrive at the total wing area that you see in the build screen and the published post and all wing surfaces, including the tail, lift up...there’s no way to invert the lift in SP on a curved or SS airfoil (I understand why this was designed this way, but it’s not true to life). This is misleading as when a builder builds to match the RL wing area, builders who do not understand this difference usually will build undersized main wings, as you have here. The FW’s wing area is around 196 sq ft, that’s only for the main wing; however, your published wing area here is only 145 sq ft, and that number includes all the wing surfaces present in your build...main wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer and significantly less wing area than the RL plane. The good news is that the SP model is pretty good at replicating an aircraft’s RL behavior if you ensure the main wing area (minus the tail surfaces) matches the RL wing area and if the airfoil shape is similar to the RL airfoil (here, I’d use the semi-symmetrical wing).
Very nice, especially for being so low on the part count. Roll rate and speed is right on with the historical performance, both of which were hallmarks of the RL plane, so good focus emulating those features. Turn performance is a little sluggish, IMHO, however, I haven’t put it on the Dev console to see the numbers...just my impression flying it on my iPhone. And it doesn’t lose any speed on the turns, probably a result of having the drag centered on a few parts. But SP is weird with how the program reacts when reducing drag. The lack of trim is something I would have done differently and the stall speed is really high, as high as an F-100. Remember that SP adds the wing area of the tail, not just the main wing, as the wing area numbers you’ll find will reflect. But, quite an engaging build of a great subject, nice work and Spotlight!
This is very fun to fly, in a frustrating way. Easy to start flying, it takes a deft hand to hover it well and transition to forward flight is tricky to achieve without losing control. But, it’s fun and challenging enough to hold my attention. Nice build, I like it.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook surely, but I don’t think the Mods would remove for this. But, we’ll move on and I understand your trepidation surrounding this topic. I simply ask you to think it over and consider the issue moving forward, whether or not you agree or disagree. Nice twin boom and if you tag me on an unlisted, I can probably help to resolve your intake blending issues.
@UltraLight what you’re describing is the perception of what the current generation thinks of the older people they call “boomers”, but it’s not the entire meaning of the term. The original term means someone of the “baby boomer” generation, those who were born during the baby boom that followed when returning service members started families after WWII. Bill Clinton is a baby boomer, as is Bill Gates and Madonna. The post is titled “Ok boomer”, as in an exasperated response to an older person, which I referenced by pointing out that the M55 isn’t really an aircraft of the “boomer” generation; the aircraft of that generation are aircraft such as the F-80, F-86, Super Constellation, Hawker Hunter, MiG-15...the M55 came about around 25 years after that generation of aircraft and therefore is not part of the “boomers’” generation of aircraft.
Well, wouldn’t call this a “Boomer” build. It carriers neither bombs nor is it a design that cam immediately after the Second World War. BTW, there are better/smoother techniques for blending those intakes into the fuselage.
@F89Scorpian not quite. It wasn’t the difference in the sizes of the target, the F6F being somewhat smaller than a bomber. It’s nearly impossible to hit either a bomber or fighter sized target with unguided rockets, unless you have some sort of computer assisted aiming. And that F6F wasn’t maneuvering, it was reportedly in a gentle turn during the attempted engagement. And having flown many hours of form, it’s actually easier to close on another aircraft if it’s in a gentle turn. There was a problem with the F-89s’ targeting system and they didn’t even have gunsights, which had been removed due to the targeting upgrade, so the task was impossible. Perhaps if their systems were working as advertised they could have accomplished the task. But even with fully operational systems, guided missiles are more effective, which explains why unguided rockets have fallen out of favor, despite having been used extensively on a number of aircraft, including this one and the ones you mention, in addition to the F-102 and the CF-100.