I recommend the following mods: Overload and FineTuner. Designer Suite is absolutely critical for building accurate replicas. With these tools, you can easily mod the XML files, assign attributes without using other mods that iOS can’t use, do things like assign “LandingGear” to any rotator for custom gear, resize any part and build over 3-views (“Blueprints”). Good luck.
This is pretty good, nice detail work, I’m impressed by the cockpit. Too bad you’re on iOS, drag reduction would be really good for this build. Also, you don’t need the unlimited fuel or weight reduction, it throws off the performance unrealistically and, frankly, it would have plenty of gas if you used the RL fuel quantity—7,900 gallons of fuel weighs 53,720 lbs all on its own and I can get nearly an hour of flight on my builds which have RL fuel quantities—you just need to fly like a RL pilot would, NOT at full throttle everywhere you go.
This actually looks really good, especially considering your experience level. I hope the flight model matches—if you want a flight tester, just tag me.
@MDippold1995 yes, recommend you use the “CalculateDrag=False” statement on every part. Then, when you’re done building, add the drag back in until you achieve the correct performance. The mirroring issue happens when you mirror an assembly from one side to the other, often, when it’s mirrored, it will include parts also attached to the mirrored parts which you never intended to mirror. I mirror very carefully, individual part, by individual part to try and avoid the problem, but it still gets me from time to time. As for the 104, good luck, no one here has made one fly correctly, not even close. Either they turn like an F1 car or not at all. They either take off at 350 mph, or float off the ground. It’s a very difficult subject, I haven’t even tried it for the reason that it had a blown wing for takeoff and landing and there’s not a great way to simulate that.
@MDippold1995 both, former USAF, now currently with the airlines. Would you like some hints/tips/tricks and feedback via an unlisted post (not public)?
I like this, someone just starting out and producing something like this is pretty good. Plus, I have around 500 hrs in the T-38, pretty similar to the original F-5, want some actual feedback on your build?
Well, it looks really good, but it should have incorporated trim as it’s slightly nose heavy (most aircraft are) and requires a constant nose up input to maintain level flight.
@BlackhattAircraft ok, so you don’t want to attract the hate over on the Discord server, but that just allows the problem to fester. The only way to fix the problem is for you and others who feel as you do to agree and quit that server. If enough people quit that server, there won’t be anyone left and it may collapse (or not). Either way, you staying there and not saying anything is tacit acceptance of the problem.
You have a good eye for overall shape/dimensions and I like many details here...also, the LG looks like it was a bear to build. Nice. Interesting design choice to use flaps for trim...why did you go that way?
A pretty nice build, clearly much effort went into this one. I would throw down the gauntlet, though, and challenge you to start building built up wings, as that’s the only thing this build lacks.
Very nice, it also flies nicely. I've often thought about building a Peashooter, as it's actually one of my favorite little planes from that era, but it's miniscule size has often dissuaded me from making one. This is a nice example, though its just a bit larger than the real thing and seems a bit heavy, about 3-4 times heavier than it actually was in real life.
@AerialSus those are interesting suggestions, surely, and I appreciate your interest in SP. Having played SP for almost 3 years, I’ve tried all those things, and they don’t work. For you, though, let me attempt to convey something I’ve learned about SP: It’s a simulator that merely uses a series of algorithms to emulate aerodynamic effects...there is no air in SP...not even something that emulates air. An object moving at a certain speed in SP generates a drag value based on its velocity value, size, shape and, in many cases, simply what that object is (in this case, a beacon light). That is why a fuselage piece which is angled into the wind generates zero lift, unlike in RL, where it would (the best examples of this are NASA’s lifting bodies from the 1960s-1970s). Also, “burying” an object in a second object, placing it “out of the airflow” does not effect drag at all. Merely it’s presence in your design will add drag. That’s why a custom landing gear, which looks great, doesn’t reduce overall drag when retracted, it generates a value through its presence in your design. My complaint here was that the relative orientation of that beacon light in a design causes a huge drag increase in SP, which is unrealistic. Also, when building a replica, such as this F-4, you’re quite constrained by your RL design. In this case, I got around the relative orientation problem by turning the nav lights on the design ...it worked and wasn’t really noticeable at all. I should thank you, because after having given you this explanation, I realize I shouldn’t be surprised about this inaccuracy.
@AerialSus uh, huh. Thanks 😑. Yeah, I built that thing almost 2 years ago, now I XML to reduce drag in cases such as this. You have any other ingenious suggestions besides?
Aha! Here’s the viewsight bubble under the nose. Between the two pitot booms. This is an R model, most likely. The S version was simply a re-engined R model and the Block 20 is the S model with the new “glass” cockpit...and no viewsight :(
I never learned cel nav as a pilot, so it didn’t matter that the U-2S version didn’t have the sextant. We used INS/GPS for navigation and, should that fail, we used dead reckoning (headings and timed turns), as well as the viewsight (as long as we had it) to crosscheck our position over the ground and get back. The older pilots who had flown the C version hadn’t been taught cel nav in pilot training either, but the navigators assigned to the unit did the pre-computations on the ground prior to takeoff. That way the pilots only had to sight the celestial body and refer to the charts to indicate if they were on or off course and timing.
Your photo is the C model, which also had a sextant for celestial (“cel nav”) navigation (pre INS and GPS days, after all). You can see the sextant pull (and the sextant filter—for sighting the sun during daytime) knobs, which flips a mirror inside the viewsight, and allows you to use the bubble on top of the nose (vs. the bubble underneath) and sight the sun (daytime) or the moon and/or specific aiming stars (nighttime).
Well, it’s not that. It’s called a “viewsight”. It’s a reverse periscope—all optical, no electronics involved—that allows you to look directly down, as well as around the bottom of the jet. The closest under you can see out of the cockpit, under the jet, is around 22 miles, so if you want to see directly downwards, say for missiles or AIs trying to intercept, or to simply navigate over geographic points in case you lose INS and GPS, you can do so. In fact, take a really close look at the viewsight in your photo...you’ll see it has crosshairs and a little aiming box at the center. Also, either the photo was originally doctored to put the “map” in the viewsight with the crosshairs, because it’s definitely a high altitude shot of a port area, or they put a photo under the viewsight for display purposes (though I’m fairly certain it would be out of focus if they had done that).
@ChiyomiAnzai are you describing SP or real life? Because “only if your plane is balanced” does not make sense. SP only emulates real life, so don’t take what happens in SP as an education in aerodynamics or physics. Since I have over 4,000 hours of flying time, I do know that when you lower flaps, the nose of your aircraft pitches down slightly. When you raise your flaps, you have to raise the nose, otherwise you sink due to the reduction in lift. There are many dynamics which occur in flight, singly and combined. Power changes, bank, configuration changes, etc. all combine to affect lift, drag and thrust, and gravity is ever present, though its pull depends on many things and is not always static at 1 G. However, generally, flaps extend and nose pitches slightly down, not up.
@ChiyomiAnzai actually, flaps decrease an aircraft’s pitch attitude and lower the nose, provided the pilot is trying to maintain level flight when he extends the flaps. Why?, you may ask? Flaps increase a wing’s lift, so the angle of attack required to maintain level flight at that airspeed lessens, requiring a slight reduction in nose up pitch to maintain level flight.
@AWESOMENESS360 that makes me sad...I’ve been thinking about uploading a stripped down version. Out of curiosity, how many parts can you run?
Nice.
I recommend the following mods: Overload and FineTuner. Designer Suite is absolutely critical for building accurate replicas. With these tools, you can easily mod the XML files, assign attributes without using other mods that iOS can’t use, do things like assign “LandingGear” to any rotator for custom gear, resize any part and build over 3-views (“Blueprints”). Good luck.
Nice plane. You’re on PC, right?
Did you ever make a tutorial on making interiors?
This thing is ridiculous—but in the best possible way! Here’s a Spotlight!
Such a nice, simple replica build. I have to ask, though, why’d you put the gun on top of the nose?
This is pretty good, nice detail work, I’m impressed by the cockpit. Too bad you’re on iOS, drag reduction would be really good for this build. Also, you don’t need the unlimited fuel or weight reduction, it throws off the performance unrealistically and, frankly, it would have plenty of gas if you used the RL fuel quantity—7,900 gallons of fuel weighs 53,720 lbs all on its own and I can get nearly an hour of flight on my builds which have RL fuel quantities—you just need to fly like a RL pilot would, NOT at full throttle everywhere you go.
@WarHawk95 @Brayplane101 WILCO.
This is really fun, by the way.
Holy crap, I completely forgot to test this for you...doh!
@BlackhattAircraft Wilco.
@Othawne ok, no prob, wasn’t sure what you meant.
@Othawne pardon? Don’t understand what you mean.
This actually looks really good, especially considering your experience level. I hope the flight model matches—if you want a flight tester, just tag me.
Nice!
Methinks you’re all ducked out...
Nice Spit...why didn’t I see this one before?
Reminds me of the F-94, nice.
@MDippold1995 yes, recommend you use the “CalculateDrag=False” statement on every part. Then, when you’re done building, add the drag back in until you achieve the correct performance. The mirroring issue happens when you mirror an assembly from one side to the other, often, when it’s mirrored, it will include parts also attached to the mirrored parts which you never intended to mirror. I mirror very carefully, individual part, by individual part to try and avoid the problem, but it still gets me from time to time. As for the 104, good luck, no one here has made one fly correctly, not even close. Either they turn like an F1 car or not at all. They either take off at 350 mph, or float off the ground. It’s a very difficult subject, I haven’t even tried it for the reason that it had a blown wing for takeoff and landing and there’s not a great way to simulate that.
Very nice build, great subject, well-executed details!
@MDippold1995 both, former USAF, now currently with the airlines. Would you like some hints/tips/tricks and feedback via an unlisted post (not public)?
I like this, someone just starting out and producing something like this is pretty good. Plus, I have around 500 hrs in the T-38, pretty similar to the original F-5, want some actual feedback on your build?
Freakin’ awesome!
@Topfighter the early versions did, this is a later version.
Well, it looks really good, but it should have incorporated trim as it’s slightly nose heavy (most aircraft are) and requires a constant nose up input to maintain level flight.
@BlackhattAircraft ok, so you don’t want to attract the hate over on the Discord server, but that just allows the problem to fester. The only way to fix the problem is for you and others who feel as you do to agree and quit that server. If enough people quit that server, there won’t be anyone left and it may collapse (or not). Either way, you staying there and not saying anything is tacit acceptance of the problem.
@AnoniMosu yeah, that was a very small detail that you incorporated; most builders would haven’t put it into their build.
What actually caught my attention was the small lip you left at the back of the sliding canopy.
You have a good eye for overall shape/dimensions and I like many details here...also, the LG looks like it was a bear to build. Nice. Interesting design choice to use flaps for trim...why did you go that way?
A pretty nice build, clearly much effort went into this one. I would throw down the gauntlet, though, and challenge you to start building built up wings, as that’s the only thing this build lacks.
Well, it takes off about as well as the real thing.
Very nice, it also flies nicely. I've often thought about building a Peashooter, as it's actually one of my favorite little planes from that era, but it's miniscule size has often dissuaded me from making one. This is a nice example, though its just a bit larger than the real thing and seems a bit heavy, about 3-4 times heavier than it actually was in real life.
Wow, this is absolutely superior, very nice!
@AerialSus those are interesting suggestions, surely, and I appreciate your interest in SP. Having played SP for almost 3 years, I’ve tried all those things, and they don’t work. For you, though, let me attempt to convey something I’ve learned about SP: It’s a simulator that merely uses a series of algorithms to emulate aerodynamic effects...there is no air in SP...not even something that emulates air. An object moving at a certain speed in SP generates a drag value based on its velocity value, size, shape and, in many cases, simply what that object is (in this case, a beacon light). That is why a fuselage piece which is angled into the wind generates zero lift, unlike in RL, where it would (the best examples of this are NASA’s lifting bodies from the 1960s-1970s). Also, “burying” an object in a second object, placing it “out of the airflow” does not effect drag at all. Merely it’s presence in your design will add drag. That’s why a custom landing gear, which looks great, doesn’t reduce overall drag when retracted, it generates a value through its presence in your design. My complaint here was that the relative orientation of that beacon light in a design causes a huge drag increase in SP, which is unrealistic. Also, when building a replica, such as this F-4, you’re quite constrained by your RL design. In this case, I got around the relative orientation problem by turning the nav lights on the design ...it worked and wasn’t really noticeable at all. I should thank you, because after having given you this explanation, I realize I shouldn’t be surprised about this inaccuracy.
@AerialSus uh, huh. Thanks 😑. Yeah, I built that thing almost 2 years ago, now I XML to reduce drag in cases such as this. You have any other ingenious suggestions besides?
Aha! Here’s the viewsight bubble under the nose. Between the two pitot booms. This is an R model, most likely. The S version was simply a re-engined R model and the Block 20 is the S model with the new “glass” cockpit...and no viewsight :(
I never learned cel nav as a pilot, so it didn’t matter that the U-2S version didn’t have the sextant. We used INS/GPS for navigation and, should that fail, we used dead reckoning (headings and timed turns), as well as the viewsight (as long as we had it) to crosscheck our position over the ground and get back. The older pilots who had flown the C version hadn’t been taught cel nav in pilot training either, but the navigators assigned to the unit did the pre-computations on the ground prior to takeoff. That way the pilots only had to sight the celestial body and refer to the charts to indicate if they were on or off course and timing.
Your photo is the C model, which also had a sextant for celestial (“cel nav”) navigation (pre INS and GPS days, after all). You can see the sextant pull (and the sextant filter—for sighting the sun during daytime) knobs, which flips a mirror inside the viewsight, and allows you to use the bubble on top of the nose (vs. the bubble underneath) and sight the sun (daytime) or the moon and/or specific aiming stars (nighttime).
Oh, yeah, they took the viewsight out of the Block 20 cockpit, now there are three big color Multi Function Displays (MFDs).
Here’s a photo of what it looks like in flight.
Well, it’s not that. It’s called a “viewsight”. It’s a reverse periscope—all optical, no electronics involved—that allows you to look directly down, as well as around the bottom of the jet. The closest under you can see out of the cockpit, under the jet, is around 22 miles, so if you want to see directly downwards, say for missiles or AIs trying to intercept, or to simply navigate over geographic points in case you lose INS and GPS, you can do so. In fact, take a really close look at the viewsight in your photo...you’ll see it has crosshairs and a little aiming box at the center. Also, either the photo was originally doctored to put the “map” in the viewsight with the crosshairs, because it’s definitely a high altitude shot of a port area, or they put a photo under the viewsight for display purposes (though I’m fairly certain it would be out of focus if they had done that).
@Destroyerz117 ha, ha. No. That’s not what it’s for. Would you like to know what it is?
So...what’s the “mirror” for? ;)
It’s just too pretty to NOT upvote!
@ChiyomiAnzai are you describing SP or real life? Because “only if your plane is balanced” does not make sense. SP only emulates real life, so don’t take what happens in SP as an education in aerodynamics or physics. Since I have over 4,000 hours of flying time, I do know that when you lower flaps, the nose of your aircraft pitches down slightly. When you raise your flaps, you have to raise the nose, otherwise you sink due to the reduction in lift. There are many dynamics which occur in flight, singly and combined. Power changes, bank, configuration changes, etc. all combine to affect lift, drag and thrust, and gravity is ever present, though its pull depends on many things and is not always static at 1 G. However, generally, flaps extend and nose pitches slightly down, not up.
@Kakhikotchauri1 flaps generally increase lift, but that’s different from the nose pitching up or down. If you don’t believe me look it up here
@ChiyomiAnzai flap limiting speed on the Boeing 737–which I fly—is 250 knots (flaps 1, 2 and 5), that’s around 465 kph, so, no.
@ChiyomiAnzai actually, flaps decrease an aircraft’s pitch attitude and lower the nose, provided the pilot is trying to maintain level flight when he extends the flaps. Why?, you may ask? Flaps increase a wing’s lift, so the angle of attack required to maintain level flight at that airspeed lessens, requiring a slight reduction in nose up pitch to maintain level flight.
@ACEPILOT109 what can I say? I wasn’t doing anything else at the time!