Nice article, I’m a fan. As for the NB-36, while it was a test bed and did carry a nuclear reactor, the reactor didn’t actually power the aircraft for flight, all the engines (the six turnin’ and four burnin ‘) were still conventional. They were making steps towards having a nuc powered aircraft until someone figured out that it would be a really bad idea to do so, as you mention. For @CreativeUsername’s edification, the NB-36 started out as a B-36, to which was added the reactor and the appropriate shielding.
Cool, unique and different. Well, I guess “unique” means the same thing as “different”...but, still, I like it, from the nose art to the interesting landing gear to the cockpit, very cool.
@RamboJutter I think he just cut and ran. I saw the post which said, “results decided,” but I never saw who won or anything. This is the second challenge where I’ve seen this happen, I’m going to carefully reconsider future participation in challenges because if the host doesn’t have the experience, resources or patience to actually make videos and post results, then forget it.
@LeonardoEngineering well, the weight reduction, specifically. You don’t need it plus it detracts from the realism. Most jets this size will weigh at least 20,000 lbs—or if you prefer, 9,072 kg. The T-50, which this seems to be modeled on grosses out at 27,300 lbs (12,300 kg). This one weighs less than a P-51. So, you didn’t need to go to a 9 lbs/sq ft wing loading. I do appreciate that you limited the horizontal stab movement to keep the pitch rate realistic, but part of the challenge of a jet like this is landing it and that’s more difficult with a realistic wing loading. If you were having a difficult time with CG, you could also move the engine’s CG forward—that’s where it is on real jets as the tail pipe and AB sections are far longer than in SP. But for that aspect and a bit of XML drag reduction which would help the very brisk acceleration, it’s a gorgeous build.
It works, at least you have both controls separate, not combined like so many builds I see out there. Nice build, really, I rather enjoyed flying it around.
@BaconAircraft funny, hadn’t thought about it that way, you’re right Scott Manley does say that at the end of his videos. I say it because my T-37 pilot training flight commander used to say it at the end of his morning briefings around 25 years ago. I subsequently used it to close my briefings....soooo...I thought if it first!!!!
Also, I suggest this website: The Blueprints. For your next replica, download a drawing (with a scale on it) and make some measurements. This build is close, but the outer mold lines are not right on.
This is a good build, certainly better than 90-95% out there, especially that landing gear, very nice. A couple of things I might have done differently include incorporating trim, not this loopy flap with trim thing non-pilots like to do. I would have also used the standard tire, not the off-road tire, looks out of place.
This is pretty good. May I make a few advanced suggestions that might get you a few more notices? First, the presentation isn’t great. I know, people say the default screenshot display (black and grey background) is boring but it works and I still use it. Here’s why: it’s the same reason Apple still allows you to tap on a photo in your phone and view it with a black background. The eye is drawn to the color contrast and sees the object on display. Here, your build disappears into the tan background. It just does, sorry.
Only one tip for next time...in 25 years of flying, I have never met a flap lever that was pushed up to extend the flaps, they all work the other way 😉
Sorry, I'm just a little wrapped up and wound up about some recent arguments I had on the SP forums regarding the P-51 Mustang's legacy. There's a story out there among quite a few players that: 1. The Mustang wasn't really a good fighter, just a long range escort plane that was useless in a dogfight and 2. The Mustang waltzed into WWII and basically mopped up where other aircraft had already won the war and really wasn't a good fighter or critically needed at the time. Anyway, I was a little wound up with all the stupidly incorrect opinions, I was looking for Mustang builds, saw yours and noticed that ChromeGamer25 had made his moronic comments (below) and figured I'd try and fill you in. I know, I know, I shouldn't get drawn into a fight with a bunch of uninformed kids, I just care about accurate understandings of history.
I have no idea why ChromeGamer25 (and, surprisingly, many other players on these forums) is/are down on the Mustang, but he posted this here, then cut and pasted on your build as well. Anyhow, here was my response to him:
I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
@pavthepilot no...I’m pretty sure we’re empirically correct and his opinion is incorrect. Believe me, I’m pretty much only opinionated about those things I’m certain of.
Both. The very first comment below on this post is an assessment of your build. I like your build and for some reason, there’s a current of misconception against the Mustang in SP. Anyhow, you agreed with ChromeGamer25, but he’s incorrect.
@pavthepilot I’m sorry you got an incorrect view of history and the Mustang’s reputation. In my professional opinion, he’s incorrect in his assessment.
Ok, I like it. Simple, sure, but that’s part of the charm here. The colors are fantastic, the pitch rate is realistic—no wobble, another plus. It doesn’t roll quite as fast as it should, but it’s not far off. It also isn’t fast enough, but that’s because the SP engine sucks. We have XML drag reduction now, so that might be something we can all fix. I especially like that it’s an A model (actually this is closer to a B or C model, the first two Merlin variants). I encourage you to build a super realistic P-51, but in any event, this should have gotten more upvotes.
What @F104Deathtrap said, how did you get the idea that the “bulge” on the bottom of the P-51 was a jet engine. That was where the radiator resided on the airframe.
Nice article, I’m a fan. As for the NB-36, while it was a test bed and did carry a nuclear reactor, the reactor didn’t actually power the aircraft for flight, all the engines (the six turnin’ and four burnin ‘) were still conventional. They were making steps towards having a nuc powered aircraft until someone figured out that it would be a really bad idea to do so, as you mention. For @CreativeUsername’s edification, the NB-36 started out as a B-36, to which was added the reactor and the appropriate shielding.
Cool, unique and different. Well, I guess “unique” means the same thing as “different”...but, still, I like it, from the nose art to the interesting landing gear to the cockpit, very cool.
Finally, a truly great M1, the most lethal MBT in history.
@RamboJutter I think he just cut and ran. I saw the post which said, “results decided,” but I never saw who won or anything. This is the second challenge where I’ve seen this happen, I’m going to carefully reconsider future participation in challenges because if the host doesn’t have the experience, resources or patience to actually make videos and post results, then forget it.
@LeonardoEngineering well, the weight reduction, specifically. You don’t need it plus it detracts from the realism. Most jets this size will weigh at least 20,000 lbs—or if you prefer, 9,072 kg. The T-50, which this seems to be modeled on grosses out at 27,300 lbs (12,300 kg). This one weighs less than a P-51. So, you didn’t need to go to a 9 lbs/sq ft wing loading. I do appreciate that you limited the horizontal stab movement to keep the pitch rate realistic, but part of the challenge of a jet like this is landing it and that’s more difficult with a realistic wing loading. If you were having a difficult time with CG, you could also move the engine’s CG forward—that’s where it is on real jets as the tail pipe and AB sections are far longer than in SP. But for that aspect and a bit of XML drag reduction which would help the very brisk acceleration, it’s a gorgeous build.
Genius idea linking the brake with the rotator and the increased friction.
Frankly, I’m surprised this didn’t get more attention, it’s nicely rendered, flies nicely, looks good, interesting subject.
Wow, nice rendition of a gorgeous bird!
😃👍
It works, at least you have both controls separate, not combined like so many builds I see out there. Nice build, really, I rather enjoyed flying it around.
Nice! You fixed it, flies quite well now.
@BaconAircraft funny, hadn’t thought about it that way, you’re right Scott Manley does say that at the end of his videos. I say it because my T-37 pilot training flight commander used to say it at the end of his morning briefings around 25 years ago. I subsequently used it to close my briefings....soooo...I thought if it first!!!!
@Razor3278 yes, agree with both those comments, thought about adding them, but wanted to keep it to three succinct points. But thanks for the input!
Also, I suggest this website: The Blueprints. For your next replica, download a drawing (with a scale on it) and make some measurements. This build is close, but the outer mold lines are not right on.
I’m going to Spotlight this and follow you now. You’re a quality builder, no reason why you shouldn’t be gold by now, just keep working!
This is a good build, certainly better than 90-95% out there, especially that landing gear, very nice. A couple of things I might have done differently include incorporating trim, not this loopy flap with trim thing non-pilots like to do. I would have also used the standard tire, not the off-road tire, looks out of place.
This is pretty good. May I make a few advanced suggestions that might get you a few more notices? First, the presentation isn’t great. I know, people say the default screenshot display (black and grey background) is boring but it works and I still use it. Here’s why: it’s the same reason Apple still allows you to tap on a photo in your phone and view it with a black background. The eye is drawn to the color contrast and sees the object on display. Here, your build disappears into the tan background. It just does, sorry.
@GhostHTX perhaps not...
@Spacedoge12345plane it is.
Only one tip for next time...in 25 years of flying, I have never met a flap lever that was pushed up to extend the flaps, they all work the other way 😉
Nice features and quite whimsical, it convinces me that it might have been real!
Awesome build!
People interested in this discussion might also be interested in this video concerning Soviets testing the F-5 Tiger II.
@CRJ900Pilot I had no idea you were working on this magnum opus, that's all...
Someone’s been keeping a secret...
There are also Sukhoi and Tupolev fighters from the Soviet era.
I’m wondering from your question whether you are using the term “MiG” to refer to any Soviet-era fighter...?
Good idea. Just don’t fly it at more than 10% throttle!
Have you read Saburo Sakai’s biography? Great book.
Wow, nice work, simple and clean, it looks just like the real thing.
@Tang0five yeah, there’s also a “zero on deactivate” setting for engines, but it’s an XML setting, so, sorry to all you iOS builders!
@RamboJutter can you tag me and I can take a look at it.
Make it 1:1 scale, but that would require a rebuild. Add selectable AB (one you can turn on and off). That’s what I would do if I were you...
Sorry, I'm just a little wrapped up and wound up about some recent arguments I had on the SP forums regarding the P-51 Mustang's legacy. There's a story out there among quite a few players that: 1. The Mustang wasn't really a good fighter, just a long range escort plane that was useless in a dogfight and 2. The Mustang waltzed into WWII and basically mopped up where other aircraft had already won the war and really wasn't a good fighter or critically needed at the time. Anyway, I was a little wound up with all the stupidly incorrect opinions, I was looking for Mustang builds, saw yours and noticed that ChromeGamer25 had made his moronic comments (below) and figured I'd try and fill you in. I know, I know, I shouldn't get drawn into a fight with a bunch of uninformed kids, I just care about accurate understandings of history.
@pavthepilot yes, I am on Discord. How would I join your channel?
I have no idea why ChromeGamer25 (and, surprisingly, many other players on these forums) is/are down on the Mustang, but he posted this here, then cut and pasted on your build as well. Anyhow, here was my response to him:
I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
Anyway, I really like your build.
@pavthepilot no...I’m pretty sure we’re empirically correct and his opinion is incorrect. Believe me, I’m pretty much only opinionated about those things I’m certain of.
Both. The very first comment below on this post is an assessment of your build. I like your build and for some reason, there’s a current of misconception against the Mustang in SP. Anyhow, you agreed with ChromeGamer25, but he’s incorrect.
@pavthepilot I’m sorry you got an incorrect view of history and the Mustang’s reputation. In my professional opinion, he’s incorrect in his assessment.
Ok, I like it. Simple, sure, but that’s part of the charm here. The colors are fantastic, the pitch rate is realistic—no wobble, another plus. It doesn’t roll quite as fast as it should, but it’s not far off. It also isn’t fast enough, but that’s because the SP engine sucks. We have XML drag reduction now, so that might be something we can all fix. I especially like that it’s an A model (actually this is closer to a B or C model, the first two Merlin variants). I encourage you to build a super realistic P-51, but in any event, this should have gotten more upvotes.
Great pic upfront on your bio page. I like it and, because of it, you might appreciate this discussion. I’m going to download your P-51 now.
Nice build, good camo job.
Great flight dynamics, very nice.
Nice!
Interesting build, it flies well enough, unlimited fuel, though, that’s a shame.
Nice build. How did you get it to “sit” so abruptly upon spawning and when landing.
What @F104Deathtrap said, how did you get the idea that the “bulge” on the bottom of the P-51 was a jet engine. That was where the radiator resided on the airframe.
Your build is going to be over 2,000 parts if you persist at that level of detail...but it looks really great, I must admit.
Does the nozzle rotate as it pivots down?