No, not really. The reason why the Devs created the hollow fuse was to allow players to “see through” continuous sections of fuselages, this making it easier to get a nice view of an entire cabin or the compressor face down a long intake. The original fuse didn’t have this capability, but was modeled after RL fuselages, which are hollow and the weight of the legacy fuselage is about the same as a RL hollow fuselage section would be. Lightening the new hollow fuse would make it too light to be realistic. Besides, if you want to lighten any part, you can always just edit it’s mass scale using the Overload feature now incorporated into the basic game.
This is actually pretty good. I’d get into a longer, more detailed evaluation, but don’t have a huge amount of time right now and there’s not a lot to say bad on the build.
@ChiChiWerx it is, wow, you really worked on this one and I'm amazed at your build rate. My builds are a little more than half as many parts and it takes me months, not weeks to put them together!
Simple and nicely done Gee Bee. It kind of flies like a Gee Bee in that it’s very touchy and prone to stall and wing drop from the fact you’re using the symmetric airfoil with really large ailerons. The RL plane was very touchy due to being extremely short coupled with the short fuse and tiny vertical stab and rudder. But longitudinal stability isn’t done the same way in SP as IRL, so I appreciate your approach. Cockpit view is accurate with that long schnoz that’s really hard to see over and it’s fairly tough (but not impossible) to land correctly. I would suggest you reduce the forward traction on the brakes to .125 or lower as default SP brake effectiveness is way, way too high and the RL plane didn’t have the tendency to catapult onto its back if you simply brushed the brake pedals. The LG is a bit more widely spaced than the original, perhaps a concession to SP, or maybe use the Ortho feature next time you build a Gee Bee, which I encourage you to do as you’re just starting out, care about the flight modeling and a really nice, detailed build of this airplane is what we need on the site.
@Aerofy you’re welcome. Reading back over this older post, everything I’ve seen regarding autoroll has been because of asymmetric connections; however, since the advent of the Ortho and Attachment Mods being incorporated into the basic game, I’ve modified my building technique slightly to make extra certain this problem doesn’t occur. Now, when I build, I place the part on one side exactly where it should go. I then nudge the part a few clicks out of the way, disconnect all attachments, mirror the individual part to the opposite side and then reattach both parts symmetrically using the attachment tool. I then nudge both parts back to where they both should be, i.e., just nudge the parts in the opposite direction the same number of clicks as when I removed the first part. A little time consuming, but as you say, the only way to ensure you’ll avoid the autoroll problem.
@Creastroy yes, “G” on a keyboard if you’re on a PC, or on mobile, you can hit the down arrow on you control stack along the bottom of the screen and hit the blue “Gear” button.
@ThatsAHotTopic that's what I thought you meant, but it's not usually called "docking", it's called air to air refueling usually. And those lights are known as "director lights". If you're not in the correct position relative the boom, there will be red and green up and down/side to side arrows to indicate to the receiver to move appropriately.
@ChisP no, not really. The 737 has a flaps 40 setting, the U-2’s flaps extended to 35 degrees, the T-38’s flaps to about 45 degrees, though often we’d use 60% flaps for touch and go landings. Flaps usually extend at least 30 degrees and with little wings like the F-104’s often far more than that.
I have to be honest, you’ve inspired me to build my own 104. Don’t worry, it’ll probably be months before you see me post it. I didn’t think it was possible to build a good Starfighter, but helping you out on the flight model has changed my mind.
Looks good so far, I’d publish approach and landing speeds—no slower than 165 KIAS on final, pull power to idle (<20%) approaching the threshold and flare slightly to land. WARNING: Be careful to not fly slower than 165 KIAS on final (approximately 50-60% RPM fully configured), as well as abrupt maneuvering, which may result in exceeding the critical AoA, wing rock, sinking and stall. Also, mention that flaps add A LOT of drag and a good addition of power when extended. Good luck, looks great.
I fly the 737. As for the speed the 75’s nose comes down on landing, 120 KIAS/140 mph is a pretty good approximation, that’s what I would use as an average.
BTW, if you didn’t know this, you can easily switch between knots and mph..and kph..by opening “Setting”, and changing to “nautical” under “Unit System”. That feature came in...V1.6(?) a little while ago. I generally use “Nautical”, except when applicable to use “Imperial”. A tiny bit tougher than switching between IAS, TAS and GS, but still easy. I’m building a Soviet fighter now and need to figure out if they used the metric system for aviation in the USSR during the 1970s.
@klm747klm747 well, you got me. The triple ring Cessna airspeed indicator marks both. And WWII aircraft generally used MPH. However, of all the aircraft I’ve flown over 30 years—besides the Cessna 152, 172 and the T-41—every other aircraft, the T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ 200 and 737 all use knots. And so does the 757. You can find the applicable speeds, in knots, online. BTW, the speed at which the nose comes down isn’t set, it’s based on weight and landing speed, though 120 knots (or 140 mph for all the “players” out there) is a fair average value to use. Looking forward to seeing your autoland in action.
Well, it doesn’t fly unrealistically, though it accelerates like a snail and it’s not fast enough (to your credit, you already pointed this out). It takes off and lands nicely, it has a lot of wing, probably more than the RL plane, which makes it float on landing. But it does look good, is a very interesting subject and doesn’t skew ridiculously towards any extreme and the insignia are fantastic! Nice work!
@Hedero yes, regarding FT scaling, I usually will save the assembly as a sub and start a new build with only that sub and scale everything by unchecking the “Scale Only Selected Parts” box. That usually works. Then I save the resized assembly as a new sub. As for wrapping, nudge, nudge, nudge. It can get tedious, but the end result is worth it. My F-20 has wrapped insignia on the intakes, took a look at that one to see how I did it. Good luck, we’re all counting on you!
@Hedero, in the event you need insignia for a future project, you could use one of these, they’re all accurate dimensions and many segmented options available for you to wrap around your builds as required.
Ok, you made an absolutely unforgivable mistake, IMHO...you left off the stars and bars! I’m sure you have a good reason for doing so, but if you know anything about me, you’ll know I’d never leave off the very best national insignia! However, the sheer charisma of the Thunderbolt compensates for that decision, so I forgive you. It doesn’t fly quite fast enough, the real thing was a 400 mph airplane, this one isn’t quite so fast, especially down low, but you actually have enough trim authority!!! That alone is worth 5 upvotes! Shape is great, the subject is fantastic and fantastically overlooked in this community and the shape of the cowling is spot on! Two thumbs up from me!
@SwiftFoxe I was not familiar with Cengiz Topel, but now I am, so thank you for that. I’m planning on rebuilding this jet to be more accurate as it was built prior to the latest updates and it isn’t as accurate as I would like it to be. So, it may take awhile to get this done, plus I’m most of the way on another build at this time, which I hope to finish soon. Do you have some pics of that F-100 to look at and see what would be required to accurately portray that jet?
I almost always form and break connections manually using the “Attachments” tool because it allows me to build perfectly symmetrical connections which prevents the dreaded “autoroll” problem. And I never, ever use the mirror tool unless the part I’m mirroring is disconnected from all other parts. I then attach both parts manually. Also, using the connection tool enables you to make multiple attachments at the same point, something which is impossible when using the default attachment by placing two parts together.
For attaching small parts: On Windows, at the top of the screen, there should be an “Attachments” drop down menu. Once selected, click on “Add Connection”. A dialogue box will open instructing you to “Select First Part”. Once you do that, you should see all the blue connection point appear on that part. Select the desired connection point, and the dialogue box will tell you to “Select Second Part”. Once you select the second part, you will see the blue connection points on that part. Select the desired connection point and you should see an “Added Connection” message appear. You can also view all connections for any part by selecting the “Show Connections” box. Connections will appear as a green line between parts. To disconnect a connection (useful for disconnecting multiple connections on a single part, for modifying a part’s shape without affecting another part, disconnecting arch rotator parts and many other functions). Select “Show Connections”, click on the desired part and right click on the part you would like to disconnect.
Nice build, fun to fly. Like you, have always liked the G.91, reminds me of what might have been an F-86D if optimized for the attack mission instead of the AD mission. Don’t know which criteria you’re using, but this old rabbit turns perfectly well, perhaps too well, which a functioning G meter would reveal (either that or using the dev console). You don’t need mods for functional instruments, just check out the G meter on my F-20, it just takes a rotator and an input formula, which you can do easily on any platform now. This one lacks flaps, which are easy enough, and should have much more trim authority (it’s perfectly controllable down to 160 KIAS, but I have to hold constant back stick on final approach at the proper approach speeds). But it’s fun and I like the attempt at a partial cockpit, something to which I’m “partial”, myself! Nice work!
Excellent build, good flight model. My own personal complaint (and many will disagree with me) is the unlimited fuel (boo, hiss!), especially given this is such a large heavy build you might have loaded the RL fuel quantity and the build would have never wanted for endurance. However, I appreciate the realism, or at least the trickiness with the takeoff procedure. The details are great, the build quality is good (though you should try using inlets to model control surfaces) and the overall aesthetic is great. Nice work, wish I could upvote this and I hope this takes you to platinum.
@mikoyanster yes, it would. But I doubt anyone in this community would have the patience to watch the whole thing. Doesn’t mean I shouldn't attempt it. I can record clips and post them on YouTube, as for the editing, what do you use to edit your vids and include the text boxes?
@BogdanX, you are correct in that, generally, most aircraft, especially older aircraft using cables and pulleys instead of hydraulics, do “fly” the control surface into equilibrium to achieve the trim effect. There’s a good discussion here, in the Smithsonian Institute’s Air & Space magazine article on the subject. But...not so fast! There are exceptions to most, if not all, things, and this is no exception, so to speak. There is something known as an “antiservo tab”, which looks a lot like a conventional trim tab, but it’s function and purpose is different than what a trim tab does. An antiservo tab actually prevents a control service from being moved too abruptly, helping to prevent pitch excursions which may result in a loss of control. These will generally move automatically with primary control input, i.e., pull back on the yoke, elevator/stabilator moves up and antiservo tab moves further up, helping to increase control loading and deaden the input to a degree. But that’s the vast exception to trim tabs, and, in fact, isn’t really a trim tab at all, more of an opposite trim tab, or “antiservo” tab and would not have a separate trim control, instead working automatically opposite to any yoke inputs. So, yes, I would agree with your assessment that the trim tab is probably opposite from how it would be arranged IRL and if it was meant to be an antiservo tab, it’s controls probably aren’t how they would be set up IRL. However, I blame myself; I test flew this build prior to release and never pointed it out. Control deflection wasn’t initially as great as it is now (increasing the throws was one of my recommendations to the catbaron), and the surface actually cleverly blends into the checkerboard paint scheme, so I totally missed it. My mistake. That’s what I think about the trim tabs on this build, though it’s a minor mistake, and I do like the rest of the build a good deal.
I have my doubts. I think you took away the idea that trim controls are reversed from my rant on mistakes even advanced builders make. My point was that, while the rule is that trimming down or back results in a nose up movement (and forward or up the opposite), there may be some exception that I am not aware of (e.g. Soviet aircraft with which I am less familiar.—I DO know, however, that many Soviet attitude indicators ARE reversed from Western symbology in that the presentation is better interpreted in a tail chase aspect, and that has screwed up some Western pilots who’ve had to adjust to the reversed symbology). I didn’t mean to say that Soviet aircraft had reversed trimming controls; in fact, I doubt that their controls are reversed from Western aircraft, though I cannot guarantee that is the case because I am not intimately familiar with all Soviet types. That’s all. My advice to you on this one is to find some sort of concrete evidence that the trim is reversed on the Tu-104, otherwise, incorporate it in the traditional, accepted manner. And I did a quick perusal on the Soviet anti torque pedals being reversed from Western types...I found nothing mentioning this in the quick 20 mins I looked around on the Net, though I did find an interesting 1983 paper written by NASA comparing Soviet and Western helicopters. As the U.S. has impressed several Soviet helos into service (most notably the Mi-8 in Afghanistan) and several transport types have been marketed by Russia for sale in the West with albeit less than stellar results (Sukhoi Superjet 100 being the notable example), I doubt something as fundamental as reversed anti torque pedals and trim switches would be an arcane fact that is not well known among the piloting community, much as the reversed attitude indicator presentation is fairly well known among people who’ve had little more than a casual interest in discovering such things. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just issuing a challenge to show me where it says anything to that effect. And you’re right, I’ll probably hate the reversed controls regardless.
An interesting build, a fairly good flight model, precise construction, interesting features, some advanced Funky Tree-ing. It’s fun to fly, which is great. A word of advice...a high part count isn’t something to necessarily brag about. Use as many parts as required, but don’t just build and add parts for count. Anyway, it would be great to see you apply your skills to a replica build. It’s fairly easy to rationalize a short cut or simplification on a fictional build, but a replica forces one to duplicate a feature correctly or to find a good workaround. Nice work.
I hear you, I’ve been working on a repaint and rebuild of an old Benotto road bicycle, so SP has been on and off for awhile. A project car, especially an older Merc sounds a lot more involved than anything I’m working on. But, there are a lot of new improvements besides drag reduction; Funky Trees being the most notable. Plus, it makes sequenced landing gear and doors possible without the crazy free rotators and shock setup you used to use. I must ask, though, why use those mods? Makes it a bit more difficult for the casual user or those who’d prefer to avoid downloading a bunch of mods...
Very nice rendition of a rare subject. You even got the solid axle rear suspension correct. I like the handling, the body rolls, but it doesn’t spin out at the drop of a hat, though it probably handles and accelerates better than the RL car. Nice work.
Nice build but for a single thing: Why is the trim reversed? The trim switch operates exactly like a stick, yoke or control column: push forward (slider up), trees gets bigger, pull back (slider down), trees get smaller.
No, not really. The reason why the Devs created the hollow fuse was to allow players to “see through” continuous sections of fuselages, this making it easier to get a nice view of an entire cabin or the compressor face down a long intake. The original fuse didn’t have this capability, but was modeled after RL fuselages, which are hollow and the weight of the legacy fuselage is about the same as a RL hollow fuselage section would be. Lightening the new hollow fuse would make it too light to be realistic. Besides, if you want to lighten any part, you can always just edit it’s mass scale using the Overload feature now incorporated into the basic game.
This is actually pretty good. I’d get into a longer, more detailed evaluation, but don’t have a huge amount of time right now and there’s not a lot to say bad on the build.
@ChiChiWerx it is, wow, you really worked on this one and I'm amazed at your build rate. My builds are a little more than half as many parts and it takes me months, not weeks to put them together!
Geez, at 1,400 plus parts, I’m afraid to try and fly it.
@moonbat thanks!
Simple and nicely done Gee Bee. It kind of flies like a Gee Bee in that it’s very touchy and prone to stall and wing drop from the fact you’re using the symmetric airfoil with really large ailerons. The RL plane was very touchy due to being extremely short coupled with the short fuse and tiny vertical stab and rudder. But longitudinal stability isn’t done the same way in SP as IRL, so I appreciate your approach. Cockpit view is accurate with that long schnoz that’s really hard to see over and it’s fairly tough (but not impossible) to land correctly. I would suggest you reduce the forward traction on the brakes to .125 or lower as default SP brake effectiveness is way, way too high and the RL plane didn’t have the tendency to catapult onto its back if you simply brushed the brake pedals. The LG is a bit more widely spaced than the original, perhaps a concession to SP, or maybe use the Ortho feature next time you build a Gee Bee, which I encourage you to do as you’re just starting out, care about the flight modeling and a really nice, detailed build of this airplane is what we need on the site.
Kawanishi N1K Shiden “Rex”...very nice.
@Aerofy you’re welcome. Reading back over this older post, everything I’ve seen regarding autoroll has been because of asymmetric connections; however, since the advent of the Ortho and Attachment Mods being incorporated into the basic game, I’ve modified my building technique slightly to make extra certain this problem doesn’t occur. Now, when I build, I place the part on one side exactly where it should go. I then nudge the part a few clicks out of the way, disconnect all attachments, mirror the individual part to the opposite side and then reattach both parts symmetrically using the attachment tool. I then nudge both parts back to where they both should be, i.e., just nudge the parts in the opposite direction the same number of clicks as when I removed the first part. A little time consuming, but as you say, the only way to ensure you’ll avoid the autoroll problem.
@Creastroy yes, “G” on a keyboard if you’re on a PC, or on mobile, you can hit the down arrow on you control stack along the bottom of the screen and hit the blue “Gear” button.
@ThatsAHotTopic that's what I thought you meant, but it's not usually called "docking", it's called air to air refueling usually. And those lights are known as "director lights". If you're not in the correct position relative the boom, there will be red and green up and down/side to side arrows to indicate to the receiver to move appropriately.
So, can you explain the light system you added?
@ChisP no, not really. The 737 has a flaps 40 setting, the U-2’s flaps extended to 35 degrees, the T-38’s flaps to about 45 degrees, though often we’d use 60% flaps for touch and go landings. Flaps usually extend at least 30 degrees and with little wings like the F-104’s often far more than that.
@ThePilotDude sure, tag me on an unlisted and I’ll take it for a spin.
@asteroidbook345 @ACEPILOT109
I use either a joystick or a game controller...the keyboard and/or mouse don't provide the control required for builds which fly realistically, JMHO.
One question: how did you post in that black blocky font?
I have to be honest, you’ve inspired me to build my own 104. Don’t worry, it’ll probably be months before you see me post it. I didn’t think it was possible to build a good Starfighter, but helping you out on the flight model has changed my mind.
Looks good so far, I’d publish approach and landing speeds—no slower than 165 KIAS on final, pull power to idle (<20%) approaching the threshold and flare slightly to land. WARNING: Be careful to not fly slower than 165 KIAS on final (approximately 50-60% RPM fully configured), as well as abrupt maneuvering, which may result in exceeding the critical AoA, wing rock, sinking and stall. Also, mention that flaps add A LOT of drag and a good addition of power when extended. Good luck, looks great.
That...and an F-104? How many airplanes are you working on???
I fly the 737. As for the speed the 75’s nose comes down on landing, 120 KIAS/140 mph is a pretty good approximation, that’s what I would use as an average.
BTW, if you didn’t know this, you can easily switch between knots and mph..and kph..by opening “Setting”, and changing to “nautical” under “Unit System”. That feature came in...V1.6(?) a little while ago. I generally use “Nautical”, except when applicable to use “Imperial”. A tiny bit tougher than switching between IAS, TAS and GS, but still easy. I’m building a Soviet fighter now and need to figure out if they used the metric system for aviation in the USSR during the 1970s.
@klm747klm747 well, you got me. The triple ring Cessna airspeed indicator marks both. And WWII aircraft generally used MPH. However, of all the aircraft I’ve flown over 30 years—besides the Cessna 152, 172 and the T-41—every other aircraft, the T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ 200 and 737 all use knots. And so does the 757. You can find the applicable speeds, in knots, online. BTW, the speed at which the nose comes down isn’t set, it’s based on weight and landing speed, though 120 knots (or 140 mph for all the “players” out there) is a fair average value to use. Looking forward to seeing your autoland in action.
Use knots. Knots is what pilots use when they fly.
Interesting. Does it lower the nose after touchdown?
Well, it doesn’t fly unrealistically, though it accelerates like a snail and it’s not fast enough (to your credit, you already pointed this out). It takes off and lands nicely, it has a lot of wing, probably more than the RL plane, which makes it float on landing. But it does look good, is a very interesting subject and doesn’t skew ridiculously towards any extreme and the insignia are fantastic! Nice work!
@brians1209 they’re a bit high, but not as high as what many here contend. Probably twice as thirsty as their RL counterparts.
@Hedero yes, regarding FT scaling, I usually will save the assembly as a sub and start a new build with only that sub and scale everything by unchecking the “Scale Only Selected Parts” box. That usually works. Then I save the resized assembly as a new sub. As for wrapping, nudge, nudge, nudge. It can get tedious, but the end result is worth it. My F-20 has wrapped insignia on the intakes, took a look at that one to see how I did it. Good luck, we’re all counting on you!
@Hedero, in the event you need insignia for a future project, you could use one of these, they’re all accurate dimensions and many segmented options available for you to wrap around your builds as required.
Ok, you made an absolutely unforgivable mistake, IMHO...you left off the stars and bars! I’m sure you have a good reason for doing so, but if you know anything about me, you’ll know I’d never leave off the very best national insignia! However, the sheer charisma of the Thunderbolt compensates for that decision, so I forgive you. It doesn’t fly quite fast enough, the real thing was a 400 mph airplane, this one isn’t quite so fast, especially down low, but you actually have enough trim authority!!! That alone is worth 5 upvotes! Shape is great, the subject is fantastic and fantastically overlooked in this community and the shape of the cowling is spot on! Two thumbs up from me!
@SwiftFoxe I was not familiar with Cengiz Topel, but now I am, so thank you for that. I’m planning on rebuilding this jet to be more accurate as it was built prior to the latest updates and it isn’t as accurate as I would like it to be. So, it may take awhile to get this done, plus I’m most of the way on another build at this time, which I hope to finish soon. Do you have some pics of that F-100 to look at and see what would be required to accurately portray that jet?
I almost always form and break connections manually using the “Attachments” tool because it allows me to build perfectly symmetrical connections which prevents the dreaded “autoroll” problem. And I never, ever use the mirror tool unless the part I’m mirroring is disconnected from all other parts. I then attach both parts manually. Also, using the connection tool enables you to make multiple attachments at the same point, something which is impossible when using the default attachment by placing two parts together.
For attaching small parts: On Windows, at the top of the screen, there should be an “Attachments” drop down menu. Once selected, click on “Add Connection”. A dialogue box will open instructing you to “Select First Part”. Once you do that, you should see all the blue connection point appear on that part. Select the desired connection point, and the dialogue box will tell you to “Select Second Part”. Once you select the second part, you will see the blue connection points on that part. Select the desired connection point and you should see an “Added Connection” message appear. You can also view all connections for any part by selecting the “Show Connections” box. Connections will appear as a green line between parts. To disconnect a connection (useful for disconnecting multiple connections on a single part, for modifying a part’s shape without affecting another part, disconnecting arch rotator parts and many other functions). Select “Show Connections”, click on the desired part and right click on the part you would like to disconnect.
Nice build, fun to fly. Like you, have always liked the G.91, reminds me of what might have been an F-86D if optimized for the attack mission instead of the AD mission. Don’t know which criteria you’re using, but this old rabbit turns perfectly well, perhaps too well, which a functioning G meter would reveal (either that or using the dev console). You don’t need mods for functional instruments, just check out the G meter on my F-20, it just takes a rotator and an input formula, which you can do easily on any platform now. This one lacks flaps, which are easy enough, and should have much more trim authority (it’s perfectly controllable down to 160 KIAS, but I have to hold constant back stick on final approach at the proper approach speeds). But it’s fun and I like the attempt at a partial cockpit, something to which I’m “partial”, myself! Nice work!
@jelybaca surely, you jest...25K and higher points is the highest rank, known as “the Platinum” rank.
Excellent build, good flight model. My own personal complaint (and many will disagree with me) is the unlimited fuel (boo, hiss!), especially given this is such a large heavy build you might have loaded the RL fuel quantity and the build would have never wanted for endurance. However, I appreciate the realism, or at least the trickiness with the takeoff procedure. The details are great, the build quality is good (though you should try using inlets to model control surfaces) and the overall aesthetic is great. Nice work, wish I could upvote this and I hope this takes you to platinum.
This is really pretty.
@mikoyanster yes, it would. But I doubt anyone in this community would have the patience to watch the whole thing. Doesn’t mean I shouldn't attempt it. I can record clips and post them on YouTube, as for the editing, what do you use to edit your vids and include the text boxes?
Oh, yeah, next time try using screenshots instead of that awful orthographic projection, nice Felix insignia, BTW!
@BogdanX, you are correct in that, generally, most aircraft, especially older aircraft using cables and pulleys instead of hydraulics, do “fly” the control surface into equilibrium to achieve the trim effect. There’s a good discussion here, in the Smithsonian Institute’s Air & Space magazine article on the subject. But...not so fast! There are exceptions to most, if not all, things, and this is no exception, so to speak. There is something known as an “antiservo tab”, which looks a lot like a conventional trim tab, but it’s function and purpose is different than what a trim tab does. An antiservo tab actually prevents a control service from being moved too abruptly, helping to prevent pitch excursions which may result in a loss of control. These will generally move automatically with primary control input, i.e., pull back on the yoke, elevator/stabilator moves up and antiservo tab moves further up, helping to increase control loading and deaden the input to a degree. But that’s the vast exception to trim tabs, and, in fact, isn’t really a trim tab at all, more of an opposite trim tab, or “antiservo” tab and would not have a separate trim control, instead working automatically opposite to any yoke inputs. So, yes, I would agree with your assessment that the trim tab is probably opposite from how it would be arranged IRL and if it was meant to be an antiservo tab, it’s controls probably aren’t how they would be set up IRL. However, I blame myself; I test flew this build prior to release and never pointed it out. Control deflection wasn’t initially as great as it is now (increasing the throws was one of my recommendations to the catbaron), and the surface actually cleverly blends into the checkerboard paint scheme, so I totally missed it. My mistake. That’s what I think about the trim tabs on this build, though it’s a minor mistake, and I do like the rest of the build a good deal.
I have my doubts. I think you took away the idea that trim controls are reversed from my rant on mistakes even advanced builders make. My point was that, while the rule is that trimming down or back results in a nose up movement (and forward or up the opposite), there may be some exception that I am not aware of (e.g. Soviet aircraft with which I am less familiar.—I DO know, however, that many Soviet attitude indicators ARE reversed from Western symbology in that the presentation is better interpreted in a tail chase aspect, and that has screwed up some Western pilots who’ve had to adjust to the reversed symbology). I didn’t mean to say that Soviet aircraft had reversed trimming controls; in fact, I doubt that their controls are reversed from Western aircraft, though I cannot guarantee that is the case because I am not intimately familiar with all Soviet types. That’s all. My advice to you on this one is to find some sort of concrete evidence that the trim is reversed on the Tu-104, otherwise, incorporate it in the traditional, accepted manner. And I did a quick perusal on the Soviet anti torque pedals being reversed from Western types...I found nothing mentioning this in the quick 20 mins I looked around on the Net, though I did find an interesting 1983 paper written by NASA comparing Soviet and Western helicopters. As the U.S. has impressed several Soviet helos into service (most notably the Mi-8 in Afghanistan) and several transport types have been marketed by Russia for sale in the West with albeit less than stellar results (Sukhoi Superjet 100 being the notable example), I doubt something as fundamental as reversed anti torque pedals and trim switches would be an arcane fact that is not well known among the piloting community, much as the reversed attitude indicator presentation is fairly well known among people who’ve had little more than a casual interest in discovering such things. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just issuing a challenge to show me where it says anything to that effect. And you’re right, I’ll probably hate the reversed controls regardless.
@asteroidbook345 it is? On all Soviet aircraft? And the rudder pedals are reversed on all Soviet helos? Where did you find that tidbit?
You want lore? Here’s a sample of my writing—the story is the description. Let me know if I can help.
I remember seeing this one a long time ago! I’m glad to see it posted finally!
An interesting build, a fairly good flight model, precise construction, interesting features, some advanced Funky Tree-ing. It’s fun to fly, which is great. A word of advice...a high part count isn’t something to necessarily brag about. Use as many parts as required, but don’t just build and add parts for count. Anyway, it would be great to see you apply your skills to a replica build. It’s fairly easy to rationalize a short cut or simplification on a fictional build, but a replica forces one to duplicate a feature correctly or to find a good workaround. Nice work.
Nice!
за Родину!
Isn’t that the hot rod Mercedes? Or was there an AMG version of that car? What motor does is have?
I hear you, I’ve been working on a repaint and rebuild of an old Benotto road bicycle, so SP has been on and off for awhile. A project car, especially an older Merc sounds a lot more involved than anything I’m working on. But, there are a lot of new improvements besides drag reduction; Funky Trees being the most notable. Plus, it makes sequenced landing gear and doors possible without the crazy free rotators and shock setup you used to use. I must ask, though, why use those mods? Makes it a bit more difficult for the casual user or those who’d prefer to avoid downloading a bunch of mods...
Very nice rendition of a rare subject. You even got the solid axle rear suspension correct. I like the handling, the body rolls, but it doesn’t spin out at the drop of a hat, though it probably handles and accelerates better than the RL car. Nice work.
Nice build but for a single thing: Why is the trim reversed? The trim switch operates exactly like a stick, yoke or control column: push forward (slider up), trees gets bigger, pull back (slider down), trees get smaller.