@asteroidbook345 even with those things, it would have been a failure as an air to air fighter. There was literally nothing which could have been done to adapt that jet to the mission the Navy needed it for.
@asteroidbook345 actually, the 111’s gear, though it looks narrow, really isn’t. It’s an enormous jet, so it’s a lot wider than it looks. The 111’s problem with landing on the boat was the view out the front over the nose while on final (not good), the poor engine spool up time and poor acceleration if the pilot had to go around. Plus, the 111 has a wing loading of around 150 lbs/sq ft...there’s absolutely no way it it could turn well enough to fight a close in fight. But, why did they think it would make a good shipboard fighter? Because McNamara was an “out of the box” thinker and, apparently, a genius—he was called, literally, a “whiz kid”, and knew better than all the subject matter experts—pilots—who were telling him otherwise.
@CRJ900Pilot he found a document online from Lockheed which describes the various flight modes—VTOL opens the bays and the doors capture part of the updrafts and helps create a little lifting during VTOL mode.
@FreeRangedLemon also, I’ll need to see the build...at least the fuselage so that I know how big to build it and if it needs to work on a curved surface, etc.
@FreeRangedLemon well most of the Skyblazers’ lettering is standard USAF block letters. All except that script “Skyblazers” lettering, that is. Are you trying to do that script as well?
@GhostHTX well, thanks! Transitioning into a new job is difficult even in the best of circumstances. Glad to see you’re back, can’t wait to see what you build next.
@Rhubarb1263 yeah, Overload is good for most things, but it doesn’t do colors. If you want that reflectivity, I guess you could download a build, like this one, that has that color/reflectivity, and delete the build itself while keeping the cockpit and the color palette should remain for you to use. Of course, when you post it, it’ll come up as a successor post.
This is quite good—the 106 has lots of difficult to replicate shapes, that triangular canopy, those angled intakes and forward fuse. You did a good job with building a clever facsimile but not going overboard with part count. Plus it’s fun. Next time you can lower the braking torque so it doesn’t skid and stop on a dime like it does. Nice work, perhaps we can put together the entire Century series you and I.
@Syabil well, that’s not the tutorial of how to land there...it’s a tutorial for custom wing shapes, which I used on this very build. I’m sure you know that and this is a bit of trolling... or Rick Rolling, I’m not really sure what your intent is. Anyhow, the blending for the intakes into the wings and then the taper to the trailing edge was very complex due to the fact I constructed “wheel wells”, which were black fuse sections which mimicked the wells, as well as actual landing gear door covers which cover the wells. The doors are only .0625 units thick, pretty thin, so the tolerances were small. I think I did pretty good work there. The triangle section leading to the trailing edge taper goes from the back of darker grey section to the control surfaces and the spoilers (the 5 darker patches on the top of the wing) sit on top. You can download the jet and take a look, then critique the build there, once you’ve taken a closer look at what I built...but who am I kidding? You won’t. Also, I’ve landed there before, but thanks anyway.
@Nerfenthusiast yeah, so try this: First, you shouldn’t land with any bombs or tanks and you should be less than 75% fuel remaining. This will make it a lot easier. As you slow, extend the flaps fully, trim all the way nose up (slider down), establish a 200-230 mph approach speed (depends on weight, heavier=faster) and carry about 20-25% power until over the end of the runway and close to landing. It’s also important to fly somewhere close to a 3 degree glide path—which is a normal glide path all aircraft fly, too steep and you’ll have too much sink, bounce and crash when you try and round out for the flare. Aim for the approach end of the runway—as you fly in the approach end should just get bigger in the windscreen and your landing point shouldn’t move. You can actually fly it pretty much hands off it you get it on a reasonable glide path, on speed and trimmed up. As you come over the threshold (end of the runway), you should be close to the runway, then chop the power to idle and just barely pull back on the stick to flare. What’s crucial, as on all high-performance aircraft, is properly configured, on speed, on glide path and with some power on (here about 20%). What will make it much easier is less weight. If you have the patience, burn down to almost empty, then try it. I really ought to make a vid on how to do this...I can do it every time, but I do this for a living.
@Nerfenthusiast looking at your comment about landing this thing, the F-105 and other Century series jets (F-100, 101, 102, 104, 106 and F-105 were notoriously difficult to land due to their high landing speeds and highly loaded wings. Making it worse, fighter pilots were coming off the T-33, F-80/84/86, which had comparatively benign landing characteristics. The F-100, which was the first of that generation, was known to do the “Sabre Dance”, which were the post stall gyrations close to the ground from getting too slow on final and usually resulting in fatal crashes. Incredibly, in spite of this, the first F-100A through C models didn’t even have flaps at all. Anyway, the T-38 was designed to fly and land like the Century series jets and I can tell you that thing landed like a rocket. As a result of better training, accident rates improved significantly. So, yes, the tricky landing behavior and small window for errors was also intentional. Glad you tested it fully.
Your presentation is excellent, you obviously like SP and you’re on Windows, so I highly recommend you get the Designer Suite Mod. That would help with the outlines and details on your builds.
@Nerfenthusiast so, which one, Holloman, Langley, Whiteman, Beale or Randolph, Vance, Laughlin or Columbus? Or Edwards? That’s the vast majority, I think.
@Nerfenthusiast Like the real jet, this one does not have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, so “pulling up 90 degrees”, by which I assume you mean is straight up, and engaging the autopilot will lead to a loss of control and a flat spin, just like in real life. So I’m glad it did what it was supposed to do, I’ve seen that behavior a couple times—and I can recover given enough altitude. The real Thud did that in RL, if it did enter a loss of control event, it was usually recoverable. I spent a lot of time tweaking total drag to produce as realistic performance as possible without increasing engine power so that it would decelerate while climbing steeply. Most builders simply boost power which leads to completely unrealistic acceleration as well as no speed loss in the climb. Additional features besides that realistic acceleration were deceleration due to turning, and deceleration when retarding the throttle, but, unfortunately no one seemed to notice this at all—but nice Job on the recovery and thanks for the comment, glad you had fun with it.
@BandicootNewSnipes please do. It’s a nice build and as you work on it, you can ask questions if you would like. For a wing build technique, please check out m latest build, my F-105, and you’ll see a better technique for realistically shaped wings.
@Aerofy I actually approximated that buffet effect on my latest build, if you’d like to check it out here. When turning and pulling back on the stick, the glare shield will buffet...just like it does on a real jet with a symmetric airfoil.
Well, yes. It doesn’t take that much increase in Gs to make a big difference in AoA and stall speed. To maintain level flight at 60 degrees of bank (normal turns are 30 degrees), it takes 2 Gs and however many AoA units associated with that airfoil. Two Gs increases stall speed by about 40%, so if your plane stalls at 100 knots flying straight and level, it will stall at approximately 140 knots if flying a level 60 degree bank turn. When I flew the T-38, we would practice accelerated stalls—which is what this phenomenon is known as—we would start at around 300 knots and go into a simulated break turn. Then, you’d reef back on the stick while maintaining the level turn...the turn buffet would increase into a stall buffet, the nose would stop tracking around the turn and you are then into the accelerated stall. All that’s required to recover is to relax the pull to less than 2 Gs and the jet instantaneously recovers. But that buffet characteristic is inherent to symmetric airfoils. For most other cambered airfoils, an accelerated, or aggravated stall, as they’re also called, will lead to a snap roll and, eventually a spin. But relaxing the Gs on all airfoils lowers the AoA and lowers the level flight stall speed.
I like your Gee Bee, Mods are a double edged sword, though, they do what you might not otherwise be able to do, but those in iOS cannot download your creation. You can use Overload, Fine Tuner and Designer Suite, because those simple modify the XML files that are still readable on iOS.
@CRJ900Pilot it’s also my most realistically flying creation...so you ought to fly it. Be sure to read the instructions and ask any questions you might have.
Wow, great out of the box thinking on using that command, I really like the sequenced doors. This one is on my favorites list, there’s so much good tech.
@Vampface I don’t know if that’s irony, operator error, or a failure to read the instructions, but if you’re having problems, try this: Be sure AG2 (Afterburner) is engaged and hit AG4 (Jettison drop tanks) and AG5 (jettison centerline stores) after takeoff. She does 900 mph at sea level, she’s not slow...as “Ace” says: “Hey, Slick, this is a REALISTIC representation of the Thud...in the ‘Nam, she would carry the stores seen here: dumb bombs, tanks and missiles, as well as ECM pods. These would significantly impact speed and maneuverability...as they do here. When bounced by MiGs, Thud crews would have to jettison their bombs and tanks to fight. North Vietnamese MiG crews would try and attack prior to the Thuds dropping their bombs, forcing them to jettison their stores in order to spoil their attacks, even if they didn’t manage to shoot one down that day.”
@asteroidbook345 even with those things, it would have been a failure as an air to air fighter. There was literally nothing which could have been done to adapt that jet to the mission the Navy needed it for.
@asteroidbook345 actually, the 111’s gear, though it looks narrow, really isn’t. It’s an enormous jet, so it’s a lot wider than it looks. The 111’s problem with landing on the boat was the view out the front over the nose while on final (not good), the poor engine spool up time and poor acceleration if the pilot had to go around. Plus, the 111 has a wing loading of around 150 lbs/sq ft...there’s absolutely no way it it could turn well enough to fight a close in fight. But, why did they think it would make a good shipboard fighter? Because McNamara was an “out of the box” thinker and, apparently, a genius—he was called, literally, a “whiz kid”, and knew better than all the subject matter experts—pilots—who were telling him otherwise.
Nice craftsmanship, I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier.
Nice, I like it.
T...’cause...why not?!!
@CRJ900Pilot he found a document online from Lockheed which describes the various flight modes—VTOL opens the bays and the doors capture part of the updrafts and helps create a little lifting during VTOL mode.
@CapnCrunk also, yes, I also read that story about Deke Slayton...I think that was in the Right Stuff, great story.
Where's the landing gear?
@FreeRangedLemon also, I’ll need to see the build...at least the fuselage so that I know how big to build it and if it needs to work on a curved surface, etc.
@FreeRangedLemon let me take a look at the script, I might be able to do something...hopefully it won’t take too many parts.
@FreeRangedLemon well most of the Skyblazers’ lettering is standard USAF block letters. All except that script “Skyblazers” lettering, that is. Are you trying to do that script as well?
@FreeRangedLemon what help do you need with the lettering?
20.3/205=.099. Huh.
Funny, the stock landing gear on that F-8ish jet is one of the very few times I’ve ever seen that L.G. work on a build.
@KferoxL yay.
1
What’s the role? Maritime patrol bomber?
@NANOMAN thanks! I thought this one had slipped into oblivion forever!
First, and last, turboprop fighter...
@GhostHTX well, thanks! Transitioning into a new job is difficult even in the best of circumstances. Glad to see you’re back, can’t wait to see what you build next.
@Rhubarb1263 yeah, Overload is good for most things, but it doesn’t do colors. If you want that reflectivity, I guess you could download a build, like this one, that has that color/reflectivity, and delete the build itself while keeping the cockpit and the color palette should remain for you to use. Of course, when you post it, it’ll come up as a successor post.
Use a canopy/clear part glue the next time, plastic cement tends to craze clear parts.
This is quite good—the 106 has lots of difficult to replicate shapes, that triangular canopy, those angled intakes and forward fuse. You did a good job with building a clever facsimile but not going overboard with part count. Plus it’s fun. Next time you can lower the braking torque so it doesn’t skid and stop on a dime like it does. Nice work, perhaps we can put together the entire Century series you and I.
@WarHawk95 no worries, sorry about the part count, the insignia lettering took up a lot of parts.
@WarHawk95 YES!!! Try out the Thud, it’s my best build.
@Syabil well, that’s not the tutorial of how to land there...it’s a tutorial for custom wing shapes, which I used on this very build. I’m sure you know that and this is a bit of trolling... or Rick Rolling, I’m not really sure what your intent is. Anyhow, the blending for the intakes into the wings and then the taper to the trailing edge was very complex due to the fact I constructed “wheel wells”, which were black fuse sections which mimicked the wells, as well as actual landing gear door covers which cover the wells. The doors are only .0625 units thick, pretty thin, so the tolerances were small. I think I did pretty good work there. The triangle section leading to the trailing edge taper goes from the back of darker grey section to the control surfaces and the spoilers (the 5 darker patches on the top of the wing) sit on top. You can download the jet and take a look, then critique the build there, once you’ve taken a closer look at what I built...but who am I kidding? You won’t. Also, I’ve landed there before, but thanks anyway.
Very interesting build.
@Gestour ha! But you are correct.
@Nerfenthusiast yeah, so try this: First, you shouldn’t land with any bombs or tanks and you should be less than 75% fuel remaining. This will make it a lot easier. As you slow, extend the flaps fully, trim all the way nose up (slider down), establish a 200-230 mph approach speed (depends on weight, heavier=faster) and carry about 20-25% power until over the end of the runway and close to landing. It’s also important to fly somewhere close to a 3 degree glide path—which is a normal glide path all aircraft fly, too steep and you’ll have too much sink, bounce and crash when you try and round out for the flare. Aim for the approach end of the runway—as you fly in the approach end should just get bigger in the windscreen and your landing point shouldn’t move. You can actually fly it pretty much hands off it you get it on a reasonable glide path, on speed and trimmed up. As you come over the threshold (end of the runway), you should be close to the runway, then chop the power to idle and just barely pull back on the stick to flare. What’s crucial, as on all high-performance aircraft, is properly configured, on speed, on glide path and with some power on (here about 20%). What will make it much easier is less weight. If you have the patience, burn down to almost empty, then try it. I really ought to make a vid on how to do this...I can do it every time, but I do this for a living.
@Nerfenthusiast looking at your comment about landing this thing, the F-105 and other Century series jets (F-100, 101, 102, 104, 106 and F-105 were notoriously difficult to land due to their high landing speeds and highly loaded wings. Making it worse, fighter pilots were coming off the T-33, F-80/84/86, which had comparatively benign landing characteristics. The F-100, which was the first of that generation, was known to do the “Sabre Dance”, which were the post stall gyrations close to the ground from getting too slow on final and usually resulting in fatal crashes. Incredibly, in spite of this, the first F-100A through C models didn’t even have flaps at all. Anyway, the T-38 was designed to fly and land like the Century series jets and I can tell you that thing landed like a rocket. As a result of better training, accident rates improved significantly. So, yes, the tricky landing behavior and small window for errors was also intentional. Glad you tested it fully.
@GhostHTX thanks for the Spotlight! Where have you been?
Your presentation is excellent, you obviously like SP and you’re on Windows, so I highly recommend you get the Designer Suite Mod. That would help with the outlines and details on your builds.
@Nerfenthusiast well, did you like it then?
@Nerfenthusiast so, which one, Holloman, Langley, Whiteman, Beale or Randolph, Vance, Laughlin or Columbus? Or Edwards? That’s the vast majority, I think.
@Nerfenthusiast Beale AFB, besides pilot training at Columbus AFB, MS, but that was a pretty long time ago.
@Nerfenthusiast Like the real jet, this one does not have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, so “pulling up 90 degrees”, by which I assume you mean is straight up, and engaging the autopilot will lead to a loss of control and a flat spin, just like in real life. So I’m glad it did what it was supposed to do, I’ve seen that behavior a couple times—and I can recover given enough altitude. The real Thud did that in RL, if it did enter a loss of control event, it was usually recoverable. I spent a lot of time tweaking total drag to produce as realistic performance as possible without increasing engine power so that it would decelerate while climbing steeply. Most builders simply boost power which leads to completely unrealistic acceleration as well as no speed loss in the climb. Additional features besides that realistic acceleration were deceleration due to turning, and deceleration when retarding the throttle, but, unfortunately no one seemed to notice this at all—but nice Job on the recovery and thanks for the comment, glad you had fun with it.
I’m going to download both yours and Bog’s and fight them against each other. The battle will be legendary!
By the way, are you using the Designer Suite mod? Your outlines are very good.
@BandicootNewSnipes please do. It’s a nice build and as you work on it, you can ask questions if you would like. For a wing build technique, please check out m latest build, my F-105, and you’ll see a better technique for realistically shaped wings.
@Aerofy I actually approximated that buffet effect on my latest build, if you’d like to check it out here. When turning and pulling back on the stick, the glare shield will buffet...just like it does on a real jet with a symmetric airfoil.
Well, yes. It doesn’t take that much increase in Gs to make a big difference in AoA and stall speed. To maintain level flight at 60 degrees of bank (normal turns are 30 degrees), it takes 2 Gs and however many AoA units associated with that airfoil. Two Gs increases stall speed by about 40%, so if your plane stalls at 100 knots flying straight and level, it will stall at approximately 140 knots if flying a level 60 degree bank turn. When I flew the T-38, we would practice accelerated stalls—which is what this phenomenon is known as—we would start at around 300 knots and go into a simulated break turn. Then, you’d reef back on the stick while maintaining the level turn...the turn buffet would increase into a stall buffet, the nose would stop tracking around the turn and you are then into the accelerated stall. All that’s required to recover is to relax the pull to less than 2 Gs and the jet instantaneously recovers. But that buffet characteristic is inherent to symmetric airfoils. For most other cambered airfoils, an accelerated, or aggravated stall, as they’re also called, will lead to a snap roll and, eventually a spin. But relaxing the Gs on all airfoils lowers the AoA and lowers the level flight stall speed.
I like your Gee Bee, Mods are a double edged sword, though, they do what you might not otherwise be able to do, but those in iOS cannot download your creation. You can use Overload, Fine Tuner and Designer Suite, because those simple modify the XML files that are still readable on iOS.
@Rhubarb1263 you can modify the color and reflectivity values in the aircraft XML files...are you on PC by any chance?
@CRJ900Pilot it’s also my most realistically flying creation...so you ought to fly it. Be sure to read the instructions and ask any questions you might have.
@CRJ900Pilot well, thanks! I was wondering where you were 😏
Very nice.
Wow, great out of the box thinking on using that command, I really like the sequenced doors. This one is on my favorites list, there’s so much good tech.
Nice build, reminds me of a Dehavilland Beaver. I especially like the Big Gulp in the cup holder.
@Vampface I don’t know if that’s irony, operator error, or a failure to read the instructions, but if you’re having problems, try this: Be sure AG2 (Afterburner) is engaged and hit AG4 (Jettison drop tanks) and AG5 (jettison centerline stores) after takeoff. She does 900 mph at sea level, she’s not slow...as “Ace” says: “Hey, Slick, this is a REALISTIC representation of the Thud...in the ‘Nam, she would carry the stores seen here: dumb bombs, tanks and missiles, as well as ECM pods. These would significantly impact speed and maneuverability...as they do here. When bounced by MiGs, Thud crews would have to jettison their bombs and tanks to fight. North Vietnamese MiG crews would try and attack prior to the Thuds dropping their bombs, forcing them to jettison their stores in order to spoil their attacks, even if they didn’t manage to shoot one down that day.”
I like the paint. Perhaps I’m now inspired to try that Gee Bee again!