Beautiful build with a good flight model. It flies similarly to the fast jets I’ve flown IRL. The fly by wire is interesting, and the weapons are probably the best part, especially the SDBs. You kept the great cockpit view, just like the RL jet...nice work!
Thanks. I was flying your build this morning before the new update, nice changes. I hope the update didn’t break it (it changes “LandingGear” as an input to -1/1). I’m upvoting and Spotlighting again! P.S., few jets exceed Mach at S.L...a few do so with high speed tanks, like yours, but none with this many stores hanging. The published top speed numbers you find are almost always for clean jets. If you start building custom weapons, be sure to add drag to them to replicate the performance losses from carrying all that crap under the wings and don’t let the loss fool you, it happens IRL!
Not bad. It actually takes off, flies, rolls, turns and lands, albeit really, really hard. But it doesn’t blow up, so it lands like a Navy jet, that’s a plus! It should turn better, which could be done by putting those slabs on rotators instead of using the stock control surfaces. Plus, putting a hook on it would add to the fun factor. This his very similar to one of my first builds...an Eagle...when I was first getting addicted to SP, congrats!
@Brields95 did you check the “blueprints” on that blade chord? Looks correct to me, that variant of the Cobra had the Huey’s drivetrain, along with it’s wide chord main rotor blades.
Nice, interesting look...seems like you put a lot of effort into this build...very smooth controls...I was having a lot of fun until I tried to launch the missiles at 900 KIAS at low level, I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the warning. Yup, jet blew into a million pieces, fun done. There are ways of preventing that, because the 300 (knots, mph, kmh...?) restriction when launching a missile is a death sentence for an interdictor bomber like this one.
@BogdanX not a cockpit cam...it's just the standard cockpit view, just like the pilot sees when he cranes his neck over after making a 420 knot strafing pass (and clever placement of the cockpit...).
Nice thought into this one. I’d like to give a little feedback, but it’s just a matter of degrees (it accelerates and turns way too fast and doesn’t lose energy like a delta does, even slow, but it’s fun). But nice build overall.
A truly spectacular build. I love the smoothness, realistic performance, functionality, weaponry. It flies realistically, takes off realistically...I haven't yet tried to land because I was blasted out of the sky before I could make it back to friendly territory, but this is really good, congrats on the Feature!
Nice build of an interesting subject...I’ve always been fascinated by the Hansa W.29...I’m sure it didn’t turn quite so tightly in RL, but it’s certainly fun without being overly ridiculous.
@Subnerdica yeah, that’s about right. And why not have a big ego? He’s Chuck Yeager, WWII ace, first man to break the sound barrier, survived the NF-104, Test Pilot School commander and living legend. Bet you’d have a big ego too if you had done those things. While it might make him arrogant, like him or not, it doesn’t mean he’s “not a great person” and it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t helpful in integrating the AIM-9 into the PAF’s J-6s.
@Subnerdica well, that’s an opinion...as with most pilots and fighter pilots in particular, I know he’s fairly opinionated and direct, which can come off as abrasive (he’s still alive, BTW), so if you’re not ready for it, I can see how someone would call that “not a great person.” If it’s anything besides that, you’ll have to be more specific as to what you’ve been told on how he’s not a great person.
@410461765 no worries, it’s a beautiful build anyway and one of my favorite Soviet types. I’ve often thought of building one myself but have been dissuaded by that nightmarishly complex exhaust area...but you executed that beautifully, I must say.
@Hedero no, fuel is placed wherever it will fit...many times in the wings, but also in fuselage tanks. In an airliner, often the lower level is one or more baggage compartments, but, generally, also one or more fuel tanks. Fuel management to maintain CG can be a product of fuel placement, as it is in the 737, where burning the center tank doesn’t move the CG much at all, or automatic by some sort of computer program, or manually with a fuel panel and a burn schedule. In the case of the KC-135, with so much fuel onboard, the copilot manages the fuel panel...which you can see here is the panel which sits below the dual FMSs and in front of the throttle quadrant. With so much fuel, you can also screw up the fuel burn and put the jet out of the CG envelope, which may result in issues such as a tail tip after landing to the jet potentially going out of control in flight. An interesting aside to this is that the P-51 had a big fuselage tank behind the cockpit that pushed the CG so far aft that the airplane couldn’t maneuver violently for fear of losing control. Pilots used that fuel first to compensate for this issue and return the aircraft to a more manageable CG and have more ability to maneuver and turn as hard as they could in combat. That’s akin to SP, where putting the CG and CoL too close will result in an airplane “departing” controlled flight.
@Hedero, though it generally does move it back a little, just based on the fact that a forward CG bias demands that fuel be placed forwards on a build, it may also have a nearly neutral effect or move the CG forward, depending on where you put it. Most builds, like real aircraft, have an acceptable CG envelope, so a little CG shift during flight is expected and completely acceptable. However, you should always land with some fuel remaining, which normally helps to preserve an acceptable CG. Something else to consider is that a CG just barely forward of the main gear helps with achieving a realistic rotation speed...though that CG may not provide the best flight qualities. As the fuel burns off, the CG may shift aft, bad for the initial takeoff (aircraft may tip back onto the tail) but better for performance. In fact, in RL, several jets (B-737 and KC-135 just two examples I’ve personally flown) have tailstands for exactly this reason. While placement of the lifting surfaces relative the CG is also a way of achieving the desired flight performance, and all these factors are interrelated, the ability to fine tune the CG with fuel placement can be another tool in your arsenal.
@Hedero I usually try to emulate the RL aircraft. I’m fairly sure in this case, the Sea Fury, has both wing tanks and a fuselage tank between the cockpit and engine. An additional benefit of fuel is that you can move it around to fine tune your C.G.
@Hedero you’re building a replica and, in fact, you’ve done a pretty good job, so why not take the next step in realism? Is it because it’s difficult to achieve the correct C.G. or the correct endurance? In my book, as a RL pilot, unlimited fuel is a cheap and easy way out. In aviation, fuel awareness is one of the very first things you learn for many reasons, survival above all. Delete it from your replica and it’s just another unrealistic video game build and that’s beneath your ability, to be frank.
There’s some very good things about this build, you obviously put a lot of work into this and it shows. Flight dynamics are pretty good, features and functionality are excellent...lots of Funky Tree work and it shows. The cockpit is interesting, but it’s a little too big for the Phantom’s proper mold line. You could have colored the bombs the proper O.D. and put the Interceptors on the fuselage stations as the were in RL, but this is a nice build, good work.
Nice build, very pretty. Flies very nicely as well. Turning is great, probably fairly accurate to RL as it flies a full turn at 12-13 seconds and about 230 mph IAS, I have no idea what flight parameters @TeamJacier2 was at when he assessed the turning performance as “terrible”. I hate the fact it has unlimited fuel...yuck! And you should have added the guns! Otherwise, very nice work.
I have over 500 hrs of flight time in the 38, this one is a nice build; also, for me, a big surprise is the fact that the speed performance is actually pretty close to the RL jet. It turns better than the RL jet and the roll is a little slower. The weight is significantly off, the RL jet is 12,700 lbs dual and 12,500 lbs when flown solo and the fuel is way too much, but those things really don’t detract much from the overall impression. Nice work.
Veronica, here is my XB-70 from 3 1/2 years ago. Your XB-70 is better than mine, but it could be even better. I recommend that you allow other players test your aircraft, then they can help you to correct problems. Your XB-70 rolls to the right and there are better markings to use. Also, for your next version of this airplane, it will be an “Air Force” version, not an “army” plane. If you need any help or suggestions, please let me know. Congratulations, very nice work!
@Mustang51 I don’t typically put a lot of suspension on my gear. I select most of my subjects carefully and they’re jets I like—their RL counterparts were also typically operated off of concrete runways with plenty of length. So the travel is minimal and the settings are quite firm. That prevents wallowing around. Though suspension and shock travel are cool features, I’d rather have an aircraft that takes off and lands smoothly, even if I eliminate the suspension completely. Ultimately, I recommend minimal travel and hard settings, because that’s what the RL jets had as they weren’t meant to travel off-road.
@ChisP yes, I did. That’s a great build, very nice flight model, he worked hard on it and I pointed out some inaccuracies with his markings on his test versions. That inspired me to do this for the community at large.
@ChisP yes, you can. That’s the intent, anyway; I’m sure you’ll find a variation which is at least close to what you need. From there, you can scale, tweak, adjust and nudge until it’s close to perfect. Good luck with your building.
Hey, need to correct something I said: In the Navy, RED is on speed, GREEN is high AoA/low airspeed and YELLOW is low AoA/high airspeed...I was a USAF pilot and our AoA indicator used the colors I talked about below, who knew? Also, in the F-14 (and probably the other jets as well), the AoA lights were actuated with the TAILHOOK down, which makes sense as they’re used to land on the boat. Here’s a link with the actual verbiage from the NATOPS (-1 flight manual, in Air Force speak). Just want to make sure you have all the details correct!
@Armyguy1534 T-37, T-38 and a couple of other types.
Beautiful build with a good flight model. It flies similarly to the fast jets I’ve flown IRL. The fly by wire is interesting, and the weapons are probably the best part, especially the SDBs. You kept the great cockpit view, just like the RL jet...nice work!
Thanks. I was flying your build this morning before the new update, nice changes. I hope the update didn’t break it (it changes “LandingGear” as an input to -1/1). I’m upvoting and Spotlighting again! P.S., few jets exceed Mach at S.L...a few do so with high speed tanks, like yours, but none with this many stores hanging. The published top speed numbers you find are almost always for clean jets. If you start building custom weapons, be sure to add drag to them to replicate the performance losses from carrying all that crap under the wings and don’t let the loss fool you, it happens IRL!
Not bad. It actually takes off, flies, rolls, turns and lands, albeit really, really hard. But it doesn’t blow up, so it lands like a Navy jet, that’s a plus! It should turn better, which could be done by putting those slabs on rotators instead of using the stock control surfaces. Plus, putting a hook on it would add to the fun factor. This his very similar to one of my first builds...an Eagle...when I was first getting addicted to SP, congrats!
@Brields95 did you check the “blueprints” on that blade chord? Looks correct to me, that variant of the Cobra had the Huey’s drivetrain, along with it’s wide chord main rotor blades.
Nice, interesting look...seems like you put a lot of effort into this build...very smooth controls...I was having a lot of fun until I tried to launch the missiles at 900 KIAS at low level, I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the warning. Yup, jet blew into a million pieces, fun done. There are ways of preventing that, because the 300 (knots, mph, kmh...?) restriction when launching a missile is a death sentence for an interdictor bomber like this one.
@Dinoairplanes hmmm...great question...there’s only a single nozzle that I can see, so I think it’s a Tigershark!
@BogdanX not a cockpit cam...it's just the standard cockpit view, just like the pilot sees when he cranes his neck over after making a 420 knot strafing pass (and clever placement of the cockpit...).
@BogdanX ha, ha...she looked so good in both of them, so why not?
Nice thought into this one. I’d like to give a little feedback, but it’s just a matter of degrees (it accelerates and turns way too fast and doesn’t lose energy like a delta does, even slow, but it’s fun). But nice build overall.
@RamboJutter right, exactly! Nice jet, it should have seen squadron service!
A truly spectacular build. I love the smoothness, realistic performance, functionality, weaponry. It flies realistically, takes off realistically...I haven't yet tried to land because I was blasted out of the sky before I could make it back to friendly territory, but this is really good, congrats on the Feature!
@BogdanX take a look at this one.
Nice build of an interesting subject...I’ve always been fascinated by the Hansa W.29...I’m sure it didn’t turn quite so tightly in RL, but it’s certainly fun without being overly ridiculous.
I like it, fun to fly factor is greater than 1:1!
Well, 2 is the easiest, but you might want to pick 1. Or 7., as I already did 2...
@Subnerdica I'm not offended, really, I'm not. Just debating on Yeager's personality, is all. We're cool.
@Subnerdica yeah, that’s about right. And why not have a big ego? He’s Chuck Yeager, WWII ace, first man to break the sound barrier, survived the NF-104, Test Pilot School commander and living legend. Bet you’d have a big ego too if you had done those things. While it might make him arrogant, like him or not, it doesn’t mean he’s “not a great person” and it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t helpful in integrating the AIM-9 into the PAF’s J-6s.
@Subnerdica well, that’s an opinion...as with most pilots and fighter pilots in particular, I know he’s fairly opinionated and direct, which can come off as abrasive (he’s still alive, BTW), so if you’re not ready for it, I can see how someone would call that “not a great person.” If it’s anything besides that, you’ll have to be more specific as to what you’ve been told on how he’s not a great person.
Quite the fun build!
@410461765 no worries, it’s a beautiful build anyway and one of my favorite Soviet types. I’ve often thought of building one myself but have been dissuaded by that nightmarishly complex exhaust area...but you executed that beautifully, I must say.
@Marine yes.
Next build, I would suggest using knots IAS because that’s the language most pilots speak, especially for big beautiful birds like this one.
Gotta upvote anything in United colors! And that’s even before flying it!
Great shape, very accurate! Flies well, nice work!
@Hedero no, fuel is placed wherever it will fit...many times in the wings, but also in fuselage tanks. In an airliner, often the lower level is one or more baggage compartments, but, generally, also one or more fuel tanks. Fuel management to maintain CG can be a product of fuel placement, as it is in the 737, where burning the center tank doesn’t move the CG much at all, or automatic by some sort of computer program, or manually with a fuel panel and a burn schedule. In the case of the KC-135, with so much fuel onboard, the copilot manages the fuel panel...which you can see here is the panel which sits below the dual FMSs and in front of the throttle quadrant. With so much fuel, you can also screw up the fuel burn and put the jet out of the CG envelope, which may result in issues such as a tail tip after landing to the jet potentially going out of control in flight. An interesting aside to this is that the P-51 had a big fuselage tank behind the cockpit that pushed the CG so far aft that the airplane couldn’t maneuver violently for fear of losing control. Pilots used that fuel first to compensate for this issue and return the aircraft to a more manageable CG and have more ability to maneuver and turn as hard as they could in combat. That’s akin to SP, where putting the CG and CoL too close will result in an airplane “departing” controlled flight.
@Hedero, though it generally does move it back a little, just based on the fact that a forward CG bias demands that fuel be placed forwards on a build, it may also have a nearly neutral effect or move the CG forward, depending on where you put it. Most builds, like real aircraft, have an acceptable CG envelope, so a little CG shift during flight is expected and completely acceptable. However, you should always land with some fuel remaining, which normally helps to preserve an acceptable CG. Something else to consider is that a CG just barely forward of the main gear helps with achieving a realistic rotation speed...though that CG may not provide the best flight qualities. As the fuel burns off, the CG may shift aft, bad for the initial takeoff (aircraft may tip back onto the tail) but better for performance. In fact, in RL, several jets (B-737 and KC-135 just two examples I’ve personally flown) have tailstands for exactly this reason. While placement of the lifting surfaces relative the CG is also a way of achieving the desired flight performance, and all these factors are interrelated, the ability to fine tune the CG with fuel placement can be another tool in your arsenal.
@Hedero I usually try to emulate the RL aircraft. I’m fairly sure in this case, the Sea Fury, has both wing tanks and a fuselage tank between the cockpit and engine. An additional benefit of fuel is that you can move it around to fine tune your C.G.
@Hedero you’re building a replica and, in fact, you’ve done a pretty good job, so why not take the next step in realism? Is it because it’s difficult to achieve the correct C.G. or the correct endurance? In my book, as a RL pilot, unlimited fuel is a cheap and easy way out. In aviation, fuel awareness is one of the very first things you learn for many reasons, survival above all. Delete it from your replica and it’s just another unrealistic video game build and that’s beneath your ability, to be frank.
There’s some very good things about this build, you obviously put a lot of work into this and it shows. Flight dynamics are pretty good, features and functionality are excellent...lots of Funky Tree work and it shows. The cockpit is interesting, but it’s a little too big for the Phantom’s proper mold line. You could have colored the bombs the proper O.D. and put the Interceptors on the fuselage stations as the were in RL, but this is a nice build, good work.
Nice build, very pretty. Flies very nicely as well. Turning is great, probably fairly accurate to RL as it flies a full turn at 12-13 seconds and about 230 mph IAS, I have no idea what flight parameters @TeamJacier2 was at when he assessed the turning performance as “terrible”. I hate the fact it has unlimited fuel...yuck! And you should have added the guns! Otherwise, very nice work.
Ridiculous...and ridiculously fun.
I have over 500 hrs of flight time in the 38, this one is a nice build; also, for me, a big surprise is the fact that the speed performance is actually pretty close to the RL jet. It turns better than the RL jet and the roll is a little slower. The weight is significantly off, the RL jet is 12,700 lbs dual and 12,500 lbs when flown solo and the fuel is way too much, but those things really don’t detract much from the overall impression. Nice work.
Veronica, here is my XB-70 from 3 1/2 years ago. Your XB-70 is better than mine, but it could be even better. I recommend that you allow other players test your aircraft, then they can help you to correct problems. Your XB-70 rolls to the right and there are better markings to use. Also, for your next version of this airplane, it will be an “Air Force” version, not an “army” plane. If you need any help or suggestions, please let me know. Congratulations, very nice work!
@MrPorg137 thank you, I'm glad you took the time to read it.
@SimplyPlain ok, yeah, I see it now, not immediately clear from the instructions and a bit complex, but it's there.
Hi...does this thing have trim?
Awesome chopper!
@Mustang51 I don’t typically put a lot of suspension on my gear. I select most of my subjects carefully and they’re jets I like—their RL counterparts were also typically operated off of concrete runways with plenty of length. So the travel is minimal and the settings are quite firm. That prevents wallowing around. Though suspension and shock travel are cool features, I’d rather have an aircraft that takes off and lands smoothly, even if I eliminate the suspension completely. Ultimately, I recommend minimal travel and hard settings, because that’s what the RL jets had as they weren’t meant to travel off-road.
Beautiful, nice work! I’m sure you could build a cockpit less version that you could 3D print.
@TheFantasticTyphoon well, at least I feel edified in that at least one user has read my dissertation on the history of the USAF insignia.
@TheFantasticTyphoon hmmm...I can see that those with a limited knowledge of WWII history might be confused.
@nameisalreadytaken actually I am planning to build a Soviet interceptor, so I may release some Soviet insignia along with that build.
@ChisP yes, I did. That’s a great build, very nice flight model, he worked hard on it and I pointed out some inaccuracies with his markings on his test versions. That inspired me to do this for the community at large.
@ChisP yes, you can. That’s the intent, anyway; I’m sure you’ll find a variation which is at least close to what you need. From there, you can scale, tweak, adjust and nudge until it’s close to perfect. Good luck with your building.
@ChisP nope.
@Mustang51 you’re very welcome, happy building!
It has autoroll, which is highly annoying, but lots of surprising features, very fun.
@Lambojuli someone spotlighted you.
Hey, need to correct something I said: In the Navy, RED is on speed, GREEN is high AoA/low airspeed and YELLOW is low AoA/high airspeed...I was a USAF pilot and our AoA indicator used the colors I talked about below, who knew? Also, in the F-14 (and probably the other jets as well), the AoA lights were actuated with the TAILHOOK down, which makes sense as they’re used to land on the boat. Here’s a link with the actual verbiage from the NATOPS (-1 flight manual, in Air Force speak). Just want to make sure you have all the details correct!