You, know, it's funny how you used your U-2 for this build. In reality, Clarence Kelly Johnson, the designer of both the F-104 and the U-2 used the F-104 as the starting point for the U-2; he swapped the wings out for the long wings and eventually changed the tail, but in the original drawings the U-2 is merely an F-104 with long wings!
@BogdanX, just trying to be constructive here...it looks really good and 30 seconds on a PC will fix the pitch up issue. As it is, it's barely controllable at full nose down trim and staying below 30-40% power.
It actually looks like a U-2, which is better than most of the U-2s on the site (@BogdanX 's U-2 is also excellent), especially as you're on iOS, which is impressive...however, your workaround to bury the engine is what's causing the pitch-up, not the amount of lift (check your CoM vs. CoT). If you could get someone to nudge the engine higher in the engine bay, I bet this would fly great! As it's currently configured, it's a bear to fly...much more difficult to control than in real life.
How many drag points do you think it will have? The potential drawback being there are so many drag points, you may have to multiply engine power by 10x, resulting in acceleration matching the Millennium Falcon jumping into hyperspace... I'm highly curious to see how you will get around that problem, good luck because she looks beautiful!
My work around for the 105 would be to put a flat black block simulating a port or recess, the the gun barrel sticking out but painted the same color to blend. Not an actual port, but probably close enough to make it work...
You're talking about your F-105 you just pulled down, correct? I just posted my Viggen, very similar stats and I had to Mod my engine for 4.5x power to get the performance required to propel the at least semi-realistic build. But, acceleration is unreasonably swift. I have no idea how to mid engine acceleration, wish I did, but I think it's better than putting up with a 300 mph supersonic fighter bomber. As for the gear, probably have as much weight as you're dealing with. A trick I discovered that instead of using the resizable wheel, use the small double wheel. Of course you only have one wheel per gear, so you would have to do other tricks to make that work. Can't wait to see your 105, I was thinking of building one next...
Synthex4060, this impressive build inspired me to build my own version. You have managed to elegantly capture the Viggen with fewer parts, even after my efforts, I still love this build!
There are a couple of minor similarities--the technique he uses for the blended fuse and the nose shape, but I don't think this one is yours...too many major differences, plus the wing loading and dimensions are way off
@Kevinairlines the custom gear is fixed, I am almost done with this latest build, but I've been busy the past couple of days and haven't had the time to finish it up, but it takes off absolutely straight now, finally!
@Kevinairlines for your camo, use Overload and adjust all the mass for your camo "pieces" to .1, or less--absolutely critical if you want to end up with a flyable aircraft!
You figured something out here...nice. By the way, what's the syntax to use the unguided rockets in air-to-air mode? I've tried to figure it out in Overload and via the XML file, but haven't been able to crack the code...is it even possible?
@WalrusAircraft agreed, communism was a huge influencer. Ever read Yuri Belenko's book, Mig Pilot? Very illuminating as to the condition of the Soviet Union, which has largely carried over to Russia. From an airman's perspective, I think that the poor conditions of Soviet and Russian airfields are more a result of the fact they don't have the money to keep up airfields the way that the U.S. or Europe, or even China does, so they just accept it, design their aircraft accordingly and accept the results (poorer safety record, aircraft designed to swap out whole aircraft during combat rather than components to keep individual jets flying). We in the West are sometimes in awe of what we perceive is a conscious philosophy where we think Boris is intentionally accepting these conditions because it mimics what would happen in combat. If you look at the open source pictures of Syrian combat ops, you'll see that it looks amazingly like deployed USAF combat ops...same tan uniforms, cleared ramps, (some) precision weapons. The Gulf Was was a huge shock to the former Soviet Union and client states and now Russia seems to be emulating the successful model. Of course, the irony is that ops at damaged airfields might be a reality if things don't go well for our side. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China is worshipping the West right now...look at their ships! They look like carbon copies of the current generation of western naval vessels. The Chinese air forces (PLAAF and PLNAF) are flying more because they perceive much of the success is a result of western air forces developing independent, aggressive and well-trained pilots; they seem to be abandoning, to a large extent, the old Soviet model.
@WalrusAircraft wow, that's a broad question. Sure, there are cultural influences, but I would say Soviet vs. American designs were influenced more by the realities of the Cold War than strictly cultural differences. What's an interesting example is the F-86 vs. the MiG-15...both are remarkably similar, though developed independently and with a lot of help from German wartime research. As you ask about European vs American designs, well Europeans have eschewed stealth...too expensive tempered by fact that Europeans hope there will be no more highly contested conflicts. Russia continues to pour efforts into two Cold War holdovers, the Flanker and Fulcrum, though some effort has been spent on the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA. IMHO, though, the T-50 is no match for the F-22, most of its vaunted capes are propaganda. Culturally, what lets me sleep well at night is American inventiveness--other nations are good, but there's just something special about how the US innovates, dreams and imagines. The F-22 (and F-35) have capabilities you couldn't imagine--I best describe them as Black Magic-- not because the fly faster or higher or pull more Gs, but for the other things such as the fact any of the F-22's computers perform multiple functions and can take over for the other computers or the fact the 35's pilot can look through the jet (synthetic vision).
I'm especially miffed by this right now as I saw a post which looked really similar to one of my posts from a year ago...similar techniques, build styles, even similar compromises and work arounds. There were some changes, but clearly and eerily similar. However, no mention of my original post and the plane wasn't posted as a successor. I even called out the poster and all I got was an "LOL"! Not right!
Agreed; also to add to your point, successor posts give points to the original creator, so successors are usually welcomed. It's especially nice if the successor creator mentions the original creator in the description...👍. However, circumventing (and there are ways of doing this) the successor system and passing off a creation as your own is, in any book, plagiarism.
This one is beautiful, as always. Also, I downloaded this one as I was soooo frustrated with some custom gear issues I was having and...literally...one look at something you did with your landing gear gave me a flash of inspiration and now my landing gear woes are solved! Thanks!
Love it! Great build, fun to fly, like riding a rocket! That's hard to do with a '104 in SP.
You, know, it's funny how you used your U-2 for this build. In reality, Clarence Kelly Johnson, the designer of both the F-104 and the U-2 used the F-104 as the starting point for the U-2; he swapped the wings out for the long wings and eventually changed the tail, but in the original drawings the U-2 is merely an F-104 with long wings!
@BogdanX, just trying to be constructive here...it looks really good and 30 seconds on a PC will fix the pitch up issue. As it is, it's barely controllable at full nose down trim and staying below 30-40% power.
It actually looks like a U-2, which is better than most of the U-2s on the site (@BogdanX 's U-2 is also excellent), especially as you're on iOS, which is impressive...however, your workaround to bury the engine is what's causing the pitch-up, not the amount of lift (check your CoM vs. CoT). If you could get someone to nudge the engine higher in the engine bay, I bet this would fly great! As it's currently configured, it's a bear to fly...much more difficult to control than in real life.
Nice...the missile launching system is great!
I like it, very realistic.
Hey, you're the one who's posting a preview, not me. But, just to show there's no hard feelings, here's something you might like, A-4 El Tordillo.
Make something original (not a successor) and well built. Plus, you might want to fill the screen with your screenshot when you post your builds.
Then, I assume (see, I'm assuming again), you plan on modifying the engine's acceleration?
@Sauce...no...but one can never ASSUME anything...this is my why of asking, "gee, Sauce, how are you going to reduce the number of drag points?"
How many drag points do you think it will have? The potential drawback being there are so many drag points, you may have to multiply engine power by 10x, resulting in acceleration matching the Millennium Falcon jumping into hyperspace... I'm highly curious to see how you will get around that problem, good luck because she looks beautiful!
@KCferrari go ahead and Mod as appropriate!
My work around for the 105 would be to put a flat black block simulating a port or recess, the the gun barrel sticking out but painted the same color to blend. Not an actual port, but probably close enough to make it work...
You're talking about your F-105 you just pulled down, correct? I just posted my Viggen, very similar stats and I had to Mod my engine for 4.5x power to get the performance required to propel the at least semi-realistic build. But, acceleration is unreasonably swift. I have no idea how to mid engine acceleration, wish I did, but I think it's better than putting up with a 300 mph supersonic fighter bomber. As for the gear, probably have as much weight as you're dealing with. A trick I discovered that instead of using the resizable wheel, use the small double wheel. Of course you only have one wheel per gear, so you would have to do other tricks to make that work. Can't wait to see your 105, I was thinking of building one next...
iOS no less!
Nice work! Easy to hit targets with.
@Blue0Bull thank you!
If you want a build of the Viggen with fewer parts, check out @Syrhex4060's Viggen here. I like his build so much it inspired me to build my own.
@Marduk it took a lot of tweaking to get it where it is, I'm glad you like it.
@Tang0five thank you, thank you very much! The trick is in selecting the right subject and the Viggen is quite a charismatic jet.
Synthex4060, this impressive build inspired me to build my own version. You have managed to elegantly capture the Viggen with fewer parts, even after my efforts, I still love this build!
@YL my apologies, Google Translate did not adequately interpret your comment. Nice work on this F-16
Thanks @Bladeguy57 and @MadBomber!
Thank you @Ian1231100 @Gestour @RAF1!
There are a couple of minor similarities--the technique he uses for the blended fuse and the nose shape, but I don't think this one is yours...too many major differences, plus the wing loading and dimensions are way off
@Kevinairlines yes, absolutely
@Kevinairlines the custom gear is fixed, I am almost done with this latest build, but I've been busy the past couple of days and haven't had the time to finish it up, but it takes off absolutely straight now, finally!
@Kevinairlines for your camo, use Overload and adjust all the mass for your camo "pieces" to .1, or less--absolutely critical if you want to end up with a flyable aircraft!
This, by the way, is how the F-22 launches its missiles, now you can make a realistic F-22...I like it!!!
You figured something out here...nice. By the way, what's the syntax to use the unguided rockets in air-to-air mode? I've tried to figure it out in Overload and via the XML file, but haven't been able to crack the code...is it even possible?
@WalrusAircraft agreed, communism was a huge influencer. Ever read Yuri Belenko's book, Mig Pilot? Very illuminating as to the condition of the Soviet Union, which has largely carried over to Russia. From an airman's perspective, I think that the poor conditions of Soviet and Russian airfields are more a result of the fact they don't have the money to keep up airfields the way that the U.S. or Europe, or even China does, so they just accept it, design their aircraft accordingly and accept the results (poorer safety record, aircraft designed to swap out whole aircraft during combat rather than components to keep individual jets flying). We in the West are sometimes in awe of what we perceive is a conscious philosophy where we think Boris is intentionally accepting these conditions because it mimics what would happen in combat. If you look at the open source pictures of Syrian combat ops, you'll see that it looks amazingly like deployed USAF combat ops...same tan uniforms, cleared ramps, (some) precision weapons. The Gulf Was was a huge shock to the former Soviet Union and client states and now Russia seems to be emulating the successful model. Of course, the irony is that ops at damaged airfields might be a reality if things don't go well for our side. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China is worshipping the West right now...look at their ships! They look like carbon copies of the current generation of western naval vessels. The Chinese air forces (PLAAF and PLNAF) are flying more because they perceive much of the success is a result of western air forces developing independent, aggressive and well-trained pilots; they seem to be abandoning, to a large extent, the old Soviet model.
So...no B-47s or B-52s...?
And those aren't blueprints you're using--no one on this site is using BPs--they're using "3-views", I use them as well.
@MasterLobster I really think red stars would work, would you like me to try?
Really very nice!
Needs more sweep on the wing, plus slap some red stars on this baby!!!
@WalrusAircraft wow, that's a broad question. Sure, there are cultural influences, but I would say Soviet vs. American designs were influenced more by the realities of the Cold War than strictly cultural differences. What's an interesting example is the F-86 vs. the MiG-15...both are remarkably similar, though developed independently and with a lot of help from German wartime research. As you ask about European vs American designs, well Europeans have eschewed stealth...too expensive tempered by fact that Europeans hope there will be no more highly contested conflicts. Russia continues to pour efforts into two Cold War holdovers, the Flanker and Fulcrum, though some effort has been spent on the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA. IMHO, though, the T-50 is no match for the F-22, most of its vaunted capes are propaganda. Culturally, what lets me sleep well at night is American inventiveness--other nations are good, but there's just something special about how the US innovates, dreams and imagines. The F-22 (and F-35) have capabilities you couldn't imagine--I best describe them as Black Magic-- not because the fly faster or higher or pull more Gs, but for the other things such as the fact any of the F-22's computers perform multiple functions and can take over for the other computers or the fact the 35's pilot can look through the jet (synthetic vision).
@WalrusAircraft sure, a little. What questions do you have?
@WalrusAircraft no need, all fixed, I'll look out for the Backfire when you post it, thanks.
@WalrusAircraft yes, I am in the Air Force.
Beautiful.
I'm especially miffed by this right now as I saw a post which looked really similar to one of my posts from a year ago...similar techniques, build styles, even similar compromises and work arounds. There were some changes, but clearly and eerily similar. However, no mention of my original post and the plane wasn't posted as a successor. I even called out the poster and all I got was an "LOL"! Not right!
Agreed; also to add to your point, successor posts give points to the original creator, so successors are usually welcomed. It's especially nice if the successor creator mentions the original creator in the description...👍. However, circumventing (and there are ways of doing this) the successor system and passing off a creation as your own is, in any book, plagiarism.
This one is beautiful, as always. Also, I downloaded this one as I was soooo frustrated with some custom gear issues I was having and...literally...one look at something you did with your landing gear gave me a flash of inspiration and now my landing gear woes are solved! Thanks!
Very easy to fly, stable and intriguing! Not sure I would have gone with the unlimited fuel, though.
Nice camo.
@DERPYGRIEFER yeah, not sure how I missed the flap!
@DERPYGRIEFER I already working on an enlarged and armed version of this already, will tag you prior to release to see if you like it.
Nice Gustav, flies well, fights well, I especially like the shape and the guns.
@aguy sure, reupload what you can...but pay attention to your mom this time and don't make her force you to delete your account!