@MobyDick it was easy on my mobile, where you’re having difficulty is that you’re probably over controlling it. Once you get it aligned with the runway, wings level and aimed at your landing point, just set 4% power, which will hold 200 mph on a reasonable glide slope. You don’t even have to change your bank angle once it’s aimed correctly and wings level. The trim should be set most of the way down (nose up) and you don’t have to mess with that either once set. Once over the runway and close to landing, simply chop the power and flare just a little by pulling straight back on the stick. Easy.
I have to ask: why in the world did you feel the need to put a gyro on it for landing? This has to be one of the easiest landing aircraft I’ve flown in SP...slow down to 200 mph, about 4% thrust and flare to land...dead easy.
The ultimate example of this design philosophy is the flying wing, which we haven't even discussed yet, but of which the K7's design reminds me. The B-2's ratio is 2.49:1(!) and it's 1950s predecessor, the YB-49 was even higher (note the wingspans were exactly equal--I can discuss that more in length later, if you're curious) at 3.24:1. Flying wings are considered the most efficient design yet, with a near total elimination of parasite drag and optimization of the lifting surface. In other words: aerodynamic efficiency. And not unique to any Russian designs, but driven purely by aerodynamic and physical realities, of which Russian designers were well aware.
The K7 has a ratio of 1.89:1, the DB2, can't find the dimensions, but I doubt it was more than 2:1...in any event, still a product of aerodynamic efficiency driven by low engine power and airfields that were smaller than modern airfields, often lacking even paved runways. The high ratio is not purely Russian design feature, as illustrated below, Voyager, U-2, C-47, and the B-18 all had this basic design...here's another contemporary design that had all the Russian drawbacks, low engine power, high weight, requirement to operate from the constrained airfields of the time, the Boeing XB-15. The XB-15's wingspan to length ratio is 1.7 to 1, close to even the K7's ratio. But that's the answer: low powered engines coupled with a requirement to lift higher weights from short airfields drive a long wing.
Besides, even if you did show me a DB with a higher than 1.5:1 ratio...even up to a 2:1 ratio, you asked the question, that's the answer: aerodynamic efficiency. It's the most efficient subsonic configuration possible, given that era's engine power. And it's not uncommon or specific to these series aircraft. Even today, some very high ratios exist, such as the Voyager around the world aircraft (3.8:1) or even the U-2 (1.67:1)...all in the name of aerodynamic efficiency.
@AircraftoftheRedStar, while good fuel storage capacity is a byproduct of a long, slender wing, that's not what drives that design. If that were true, early jet transports (707, Comet, etc.) would have had even more enormous wingspans due to enormous fuel consumption of early jets. Piston engines, on the other hand, consume much, much less fuel than jets...but provide much less power, thus driving an aerodynamically efficient wing, also known as a high aspect ratio wing in order to facilitate ops out of constrained airfields and at lower airspeeds. What record do you refer to...is it piston specific? I can guarantee you that record, if it's an all female distance record, has been surpassed many times by modern jet aircraft. 3,600+ miles isn't far...that's only a 7-8 hr leg in a modern airliner and we occasionally operate with all female crews, whether that's in the AF or the airlines. In the AF, that's a hop skip and a jump for a KC-135 or KC-10A and in the airlines, any aircraft larger than a 737 goes further than that hundreds of times a day.
They don't...that wingspan to length ratio is a product of 1930s technology and bomber/transport aircraft of that era generally had the same ratios. The Ilyushin DB 3's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5...the He 111's wingspan to length ratio is 1.38, fairly similar. The C-47's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5 as well. This configuration, a long slender wing, is aerodynamically efficient. Aircraft designed during the 1930s had fairly low (by today's standards) engine power, resulting in aircraft that cruised somewhere around 100 and 200 knots, a fairly low airspeed, but even at that low airspeed, those airplanes needed enough lift to stay airborne. Added to this, the need to takeoff in a reasonable distance with fairly sluggish acceleration drove that wing type. Even today with subsonic jet transport aircraft, it's not uncommon to have a wingspan longer than the fuselage, because a long, slender wing is still an efficient design at subsonic speeds...the 737 has a wingspan to length ratio right around 1:1, depending on type, while an Airbus 380 has a ratio of 1.1:1, where the wing is longer than the fuse. So, no, the DB series did not have ludicrously long wings, by any means.
I don’t remember that much about X Dimension’s original build, so forgive me if I’m effusive in my praise...this is really good, flies well and looks good. Original idea adds to the fun. It’s not perfect, but no creation is...8.5/10.
@Hedero on the PC screen I don’t see the default trim controls either, but trim is there...go to the menu under the game menu, then “controls”, then “control settings”. Scroll down the “actions” menu until you see “trim up”, “trim down” and “reset trim”. You’ll see under the keypad controls something like “Keypad 7” and “Keypad 1”. Those are where your trim controls are located on the keyboard. You can also set up a joystick using this menu, as I do when I’m on PC. The only way you get the trim slider on the right side of a PC screen is if you set a rotator control to “trim”. For some reason, the default trim controls for PC do not incorporate the screen slider. Hope this helps.
Well, if you’re going to make that statement, you need to back it up more. I’ve looked into this and it may be fractionally higher, but it’s not multiples higher than in RL. You’ll need to consider that in RL, you would also burn more gas if you blast along in full AB all the time. Also, RL power delivery in jet engines is not linear as it is in SP; in RL half your power comes in the final 10% (I.e., between 90 and 100% power)...so to approximate cruise power in SP, it’s more accurate to measure your consumption at 50% power than at 90% power. I’ve done the cruise test a couple of times and I’ve found fuel consumption to be on the order of 1/2 to twice RL consumption. As a final point to this discussion, who the heck flies more than a few minutes in SP anyway? Simple Plane Landia is much smaller than RL, the day is much shorter and player attention span is limited. I bet only 10% of players even try to successfully land a build. As long as we can get from island to island and back, it’s probably good enough.
@Nerfaddict I appreciate it, I really do, but I really enjoy building...probably more so than flying any particular creation...so if I wanted one, I’d probably build it myself.
Beautiful Fishbed, it looks spot on. Speed is a bit slow, should be close to 700 mph at S.L...Mach 2 above 25,000’...this is easily fixed, though, if you use “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”. As you’re on Windows, you can do this easily through the XML files or by using the Overload mod. Also, it’s a bit mild on the pitch rate and the trim depends on extending the flaps. However, it’s a good job for someone just starting out, if you want someone to test fly your creations, let me know.
Interesting subject and build. I especially like the lettering and details, though not a fan of the trim/flap interconnect, especially given it needs nose up trim (and as a result, extended flaps) up to 200 mph. Why did you put those LG rotators floating below the nacelles?
@Squirrel well, if you look at my comments again, you’ll see I equip my jets with over G capability...but not ludicrously so. I guess, to clarify, if a jet makes a 360 degree turn in 4 seconds, bad. If it does it in 15-18 seconds, though not 100% realistic, that’s acceptable for the reasons you’re thinking. Also, especially for fast jets up to 5th Gen, no the nose doesn’t necessarily track faster at lower speeds, you still need enough energy to get the nose around and overcome the stall buffet present for most symmetric wings. For example, a T-38 at pattern weights, clean, turns just fine at 300 knots indicated, but right after takeoff with 3.8K on the fuel gauge, anything above 3 Gs in the pattern will introduce the stall buffet. That’s why we practiced S.E. heavyweight delay patterns right after takeoff, so that we could recognize that there were limits, even at low speeds, on how effectively the nose tracked. It’s more of an “envelope” bounded by speed, weight and G inside which you operate. As long as you stay in the envelope, the nose tracks fine, outside the envelope, you will either low speed stall, high speed stall or over G.
Speed is life.
But, bottom line, I equip my builds with the capability to turn a bit faster than the published sustained turn rates because almost all jets can and do over G.
@Jim1the1Squid well, I have, but I never had to worry about it at the altitudes the U-2 flew at. Anyway, the Oerlikon is not a 20mm machine gun, it’s a 20mm anti aircraft cannon...it fires explosive rounds, making it a cannon, not a machine gun. Geez, does anyone check their sources before making statements of fact???
@Jim1the1Squid well, that might make sense except there’s no such thing as a 20 mm machine gun...a .50 cal machine gun exists, and they fire solid ammo...but “20 mm” would make it a cannon firing explosive shells.
@OC3LOT1142 oh, yeah...I haven’t tried this method to torpedo that carrier, because that requires holding a heading and releasing a torp before getting blown out of the sky.
@OC3LOT1142 yes it’s a nice feature of the game, though by the end of the war the Germans had radar directed flak/AAA. I’m sure laying the radar took a couple of moments to achieve and I’m pretty sure it was only effective against bombers flying in a predictable stream.
Then, to avoid the flak barrage, you need to change heading and altitude to avoid flying on the same trajectory for longer than about 5 seconds. Flak barrage seems to be aimed at an area and redirecting fire takes a few seconds.
Another great source are YouTube vids which show the workings of various components, I’ve discovered a lot of details like door sequence, light positions, LG extension and retraction speeds, the presence of spoilers and speed brakes.
Looks great. The Wikipedia article on the T-2 has the answers to all the questions you seek. I myself do a lot of research on my builds so that I get the details right. A lot of good info is available for free on the internet, and often I will actually buy a book on the subject build and read that.
In the future, if you’re unable to migrate to Windows, the only way to get what you want will be to download a build that has the reflectivity values assigned to one of the color blocks. Then, modify the build or delete everything except the cockpit and just start over while keeping the existing color palette. The drawback is whatever you post will appear as a successor to the original build.
Better graphics won’t really give you what you want, though, in spite of the remark below. I have a Windows Surface Pro and it has fantastic graphics, however I still modify the reflectivity values for my “glass” surfaces.
Yup, you can either use the mod or change the color section of the XML file directly. I think Android mod support is going away soon, which sucks, so you should consider saving up your pennies and buy the Windows version.
This is funny, I was curious whether the Beechcraft Outback was a RL plane...I hadn’t heard of it before, but your description was so convincing, I actually Googled it! Guess what was the first result in Google Images...your build! Nice.
Nice Simple Spit.
@MobyDick it was easy on my mobile, where you’re having difficulty is that you’re probably over controlling it. Once you get it aligned with the runway, wings level and aimed at your landing point, just set 4% power, which will hold 200 mph on a reasonable glide slope. You don’t even have to change your bank angle once it’s aimed correctly and wings level. The trim should be set most of the way down (nose up) and you don’t have to mess with that either once set. Once over the runway and close to landing, simply chop the power and flare just a little by pulling straight back on the stick. Easy.
I have to ask: why in the world did you feel the need to put a gyro on it for landing? This has to be one of the easiest landing aircraft I’ve flown in SP...slow down to 200 mph, about 4% thrust and flare to land...dead easy.
The ultimate example of this design philosophy is the flying wing, which we haven't even discussed yet, but of which the K7's design reminds me. The B-2's ratio is 2.49:1(!) and it's 1950s predecessor, the YB-49 was even higher (note the wingspans were exactly equal--I can discuss that more in length later, if you're curious) at 3.24:1. Flying wings are considered the most efficient design yet, with a near total elimination of parasite drag and optimization of the lifting surface. In other words: aerodynamic efficiency. And not unique to any Russian designs, but driven purely by aerodynamic and physical realities, of which Russian designers were well aware.
The K7 has a ratio of 1.89:1, the DB2, can't find the dimensions, but I doubt it was more than 2:1...in any event, still a product of aerodynamic efficiency driven by low engine power and airfields that were smaller than modern airfields, often lacking even paved runways. The high ratio is not purely Russian design feature, as illustrated below, Voyager, U-2, C-47, and the B-18 all had this basic design...here's another contemporary design that had all the Russian drawbacks, low engine power, high weight, requirement to operate from the constrained airfields of the time, the Boeing XB-15. The XB-15's wingspan to length ratio is 1.7 to 1, close to even the K7's ratio. But that's the answer: low powered engines coupled with a requirement to lift higher weights from short airfields drive a long wing.
Besides, even if you did show me a DB with a higher than 1.5:1 ratio...even up to a 2:1 ratio, you asked the question, that's the answer: aerodynamic efficiency. It's the most efficient subsonic configuration possible, given that era's engine power. And it's not uncommon or specific to these series aircraft. Even today, some very high ratios exist, such as the Voyager around the world aircraft (3.8:1) or even the U-2 (1.67:1)...all in the name of aerodynamic efficiency.
@Nickr show me.
@AircraftoftheRedStar, while good fuel storage capacity is a byproduct of a long, slender wing, that's not what drives that design. If that were true, early jet transports (707, Comet, etc.) would have had even more enormous wingspans due to enormous fuel consumption of early jets. Piston engines, on the other hand, consume much, much less fuel than jets...but provide much less power, thus driving an aerodynamically efficient wing, also known as a high aspect ratio wing in order to facilitate ops out of constrained airfields and at lower airspeeds. What record do you refer to...is it piston specific? I can guarantee you that record, if it's an all female distance record, has been surpassed many times by modern jet aircraft. 3,600+ miles isn't far...that's only a 7-8 hr leg in a modern airliner and we occasionally operate with all female crews, whether that's in the AF or the airlines. In the AF, that's a hop skip and a jump for a KC-135 or KC-10A and in the airlines, any aircraft larger than a 737 goes further than that hundreds of times a day.
They don't...that wingspan to length ratio is a product of 1930s technology and bomber/transport aircraft of that era generally had the same ratios. The Ilyushin DB 3's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5...the He 111's wingspan to length ratio is 1.38, fairly similar. The C-47's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5 as well. This configuration, a long slender wing, is aerodynamically efficient. Aircraft designed during the 1930s had fairly low (by today's standards) engine power, resulting in aircraft that cruised somewhere around 100 and 200 knots, a fairly low airspeed, but even at that low airspeed, those airplanes needed enough lift to stay airborne. Added to this, the need to takeoff in a reasonable distance with fairly sluggish acceleration drove that wing type. Even today with subsonic jet transport aircraft, it's not uncommon to have a wingspan longer than the fuselage, because a long, slender wing is still an efficient design at subsonic speeds...the 737 has a wingspan to length ratio right around 1:1, depending on type, while an Airbus 380 has a ratio of 1.1:1, where the wing is longer than the fuse. So, no, the DB series did not have ludicrously long wings, by any means.
T. I’ve built a Viggen myself, so I’m curious as to why yours isn’t flying correctly.
Pretty cool and all diesel-punky!
I don’t remember that much about X Dimension’s original build, so forgive me if I’m effusive in my praise...this is really good, flies well and looks good. Original idea adds to the fun. It’s not perfect, but no creation is...8.5/10.
@Hedero, I do. Which airline...rather not say on an open forum like this.
@Hedero on the PC screen I don’t see the default trim controls either, but trim is there...go to the menu under the game menu, then “controls”, then “control settings”. Scroll down the “actions” menu until you see “trim up”, “trim down” and “reset trim”. You’ll see under the keypad controls something like “Keypad 7” and “Keypad 1”. Those are where your trim controls are located on the keyboard. You can also set up a joystick using this menu, as I do when I’m on PC. The only way you get the trim slider on the right side of a PC screen is if you set a rotator control to “trim”. For some reason, the default trim controls for PC do not incorporate the screen slider. Hope this helps.
Well, if you’re going to make that statement, you need to back it up more. I’ve looked into this and it may be fractionally higher, but it’s not multiples higher than in RL. You’ll need to consider that in RL, you would also burn more gas if you blast along in full AB all the time. Also, RL power delivery in jet engines is not linear as it is in SP; in RL half your power comes in the final 10% (I.e., between 90 and 100% power)...so to approximate cruise power in SP, it’s more accurate to measure your consumption at 50% power than at 90% power. I’ve done the cruise test a couple of times and I’ve found fuel consumption to be on the order of 1/2 to twice RL consumption. As a final point to this discussion, who the heck flies more than a few minutes in SP anyway? Simple Plane Landia is much smaller than RL, the day is much shorter and player attention span is limited. I bet only 10% of players even try to successfully land a build. As long as we can get from island to island and back, it’s probably good enough.
@Nerfaddict I appreciate it, I really do, but I really enjoy building...probably more so than flying any particular creation...so if I wanted one, I’d probably build it myself.
A build or a RL attack jet?
My 1:1 scale F-105 dwarfs this thing...which initially I thought was a mistake, but it’s not! Just goes to show just how tiny the MiG-21 is.
Beautiful Fishbed, it looks spot on. Speed is a bit slow, should be close to 700 mph at S.L...Mach 2 above 25,000’...this is easily fixed, though, if you use “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”. As you’re on Windows, you can do this easily through the XML files or by using the Overload mod. Also, it’s a bit mild on the pitch rate and the trim depends on extending the flaps. However, it’s a good job for someone just starting out, if you want someone to test fly your creations, let me know.
Interesting subject and build. I especially like the lettering and details, though not a fan of the trim/flap interconnect, especially given it needs nose up trim (and as a result, extended flaps) up to 200 mph. Why did you put those LG rotators floating below the nacelles?
@AdlerSteiner who are you talking about? BogdanX or TAplanes? I need a bit more context to understand your point.
@TAplanes no, it’s not. Does he even have an alternate account?
@Squirrel well, if you look at my comments again, you’ll see I equip my jets with over G capability...but not ludicrously so. I guess, to clarify, if a jet makes a 360 degree turn in 4 seconds, bad. If it does it in 15-18 seconds, though not 100% realistic, that’s acceptable for the reasons you’re thinking. Also, especially for fast jets up to 5th Gen, no the nose doesn’t necessarily track faster at lower speeds, you still need enough energy to get the nose around and overcome the stall buffet present for most symmetric wings. For example, a T-38 at pattern weights, clean, turns just fine at 300 knots indicated, but right after takeoff with 3.8K on the fuel gauge, anything above 3 Gs in the pattern will introduce the stall buffet. That’s why we practiced S.E. heavyweight delay patterns right after takeoff, so that we could recognize that there were limits, even at low speeds, on how effectively the nose tracked. It’s more of an “envelope” bounded by speed, weight and G inside which you operate. As long as you stay in the envelope, the nose tracks fine, outside the envelope, you will either low speed stall, high speed stall or over G.
Speed is life.
But, bottom line, I equip my builds with the capability to turn a bit faster than the published sustained turn rates because almost all jets can and do over G.
@Nerfaddict now I fly the 737.
@Minecraftpoweer I think that one falls under the “delicious flying Minecraft pork chop” category!
This is a pretty good replica of a very difficult aircraft to model, keep up the good work!
@Jim1the1Squid well, I have, but I never had to worry about it at the altitudes the U-2 flew at. Anyway, the Oerlikon is not a 20mm machine gun, it’s a 20mm anti aircraft cannon...it fires explosive rounds, making it a cannon, not a machine gun. Geez, does anyone check their sources before making statements of fact???
@Jim1the1Squid well, that might make sense except there’s no such thing as a 20 mm machine gun...a .50 cal machine gun exists, and they fire solid ammo...but “20 mm” would make it a cannon firing explosive shells.
@OC3LOT1142 oh, yeah...I haven’t tried this method to torpedo that carrier, because that requires holding a heading and releasing a torp before getting blown out of the sky.
@OC3LOT1142 yes it’s a nice feature of the game, though by the end of the war the Germans had radar directed flak/AAA. I’m sure laying the radar took a couple of moments to achieve and I’m pretty sure it was only effective against bombers flying in a predictable stream.
Then, to avoid the flak barrage, you need to change heading and altitude to avoid flying on the same trajectory for longer than about 5 seconds. Flak barrage seems to be aimed at an area and redirecting fire takes a few seconds.
Bombs! Of course. 30 to 60 degree dive angle makes bombing much easier. That and the fact they don’t actually shoot at you unless you shoot first!
I took out the Tiny Too with this thing. And I survived the egress and trip home because I discovered a weakness with the flak barrage.
Besides looking great, it flies great as well.
Nice.
Overall, I really like it. Nice, original idea for a build.
Very fun to fly and quite original, I like it.
Another great source are YouTube vids which show the workings of various components, I’ve discovered a lot of details like door sequence, light positions, LG extension and retraction speeds, the presence of spoilers and speed brakes.
Looks great. The Wikipedia article on the T-2 has the answers to all the questions you seek. I myself do a lot of research on my builds so that I get the details right. A lot of good info is available for free on the internet, and often I will actually buy a book on the subject build and read that.
Do you know how to access your XML files?
In the future, if you’re unable to migrate to Windows, the only way to get what you want will be to download a build that has the reflectivity values assigned to one of the color blocks. Then, modify the build or delete everything except the cockpit and just start over while keeping the existing color palette. The drawback is whatever you post will appear as a successor to the original build.
Better graphics won’t really give you what you want, though, in spite of the remark below. I have a Windows Surface Pro and it has fantastic graphics, however I still modify the reflectivity values for my “glass” surfaces.
Yup, you can either use the mod or change the color section of the XML file directly. I think Android mod support is going away soon, which sucks, so you should consider saving up your pennies and buy the Windows version.
Are you on iOS or Windows?
This is funny, I was curious whether the Beechcraft Outback was a RL plane...I hadn’t heard of it before, but your description was so convincing, I actually Googled it! Guess what was the first result in Google Images...your build! Nice.
Fun little plane.
Point defense interceptor. It’s original, plus I’d like to do a zero length launch.
Kewl.
@asteroidbook345 exactly...then end up with one of the best shipboard fighters of all time, plus an awesome movie! Could you imagine Mav in a ‘Vark?!?