Also, if you're going to go through all that effort, I'll critique you if you don't have only the gun on one side (the left wing root), as it is on the actual jet!
Congrats on figuring out the intake ramps. I wanted to do the same thing, but couldn't get the intakes to move because when I put them on rotators, it broke the continuity from the intake to the engine and the engines weren't getting air...guess you stacked two intakes on top of each other, one fixed (and actually supplying the air to the engines) and the other moveable?
It's relatively accurate to go with 100 km/hr = 62 km/hr. Besides, in aviation we use "knots" which is about 10-15% faster than mph, so if you're talking about 300 mph, it would be around 260 knots. Also, the little speed indicator you see in SP is your groundspeed...indicated airspeed is actually a measurement of the dynamic pressure resulting as you travel through the air. You may be travelling across the ground at 500 knots/575 mph/930 kph, but you'll only indicate around 295 knots at 35,000'. It's not like driving a car. In aviation, one thing they DO convert between the English and Metric systems though is altitude, of all things. In Europe, pilots report altitude in meters (and use millibars for barometric pressure) and in the U.S., we use feet (and use inches of mercury (Hg) for barometric pressure)!
Nice post...I have to ask, how do you do multiplayer? I have a PC with a high speed internet connection, but have no idea what are the mechanics of "joining" multiplayer.
Once you've figured out how to use fuse pieces to "build up" wing shapes on top of the actual wing surfaces, you'll see that many also "build up" control surfaces, i.e., aileron, elevator, rudder, flaps. The way that's done is to deselect the control surfaces from your wings and stabs in the options menu (just press the red "X") and use entire wings as ailerons, elevators, etc. Cover those with fuse parts as well and attach the parts with rotators.
@TrainDude cool, thanks, totally missed that post...but what does Andrew mean when he says "XML-modding enhancements"...? I XML mod all the time, how does the new version change anything?
Yes, very tough to adjust anything when you have so many parts, perhaps the increased windshield angle will visually shorten the nose a little bit. Overall, it looks great, though!
It looks fantastic. If I may offer a bit of feedback, looks like the center cockpit pillar needs to be, maybe 3 to 5 degrees more raked and the nose needs to be ever so slightly shorter and less pointed.
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
pretty good for one of my earlier efforts, but not nearly as good as @thealban's amazing B-47!
OK, totally shameless self promotion going on here, but oh, well! There are lots of good bombers on this site, perhaps they're rarer, how about this B-52 by @closeairsupport, certainly underappreciated, or this B-17 by @Wahrscheinlichlch?
Oh...and for "U"...let me offer the U-2, ok, I break my own rules outlined below for that one, but it's impossible not to mention the U-2, it's iconic!
You cheated on A by using A-10...heck, that's easy, there's the A-1, A-5, A6, A-7, even an A-9..."Aerostar" is much more difficult to think of! Same with "B" and "C", easy with those, there's B-1/2/12/17/18/19/24/25/26/29/47/52, as well as C-1/2/5/9/17/130/131/133/141...and that's not nearly all of them! Try "Bolo" (Douglas product, aka B-18) or "Caravan" (by Cessna, of course). And for "Q", no need to cheat...let me offer the "Question Mark" (modified Fokker which the Army Air Force used to set the first mid air refueled endurance record in 1929), Just joshing you...nice list!
@Bobplanes322 yeah, I totally agree with you, I like to see unique builds, but I'm not totally against common builds either. However if that build is very common (for example, F-16), there should be some feature on it that makes it stand out. Whether that's artful execution with a small number of parts (I really appreciate those as they are very mobile-friendly) or if it very accurately captures that particular aircraft or it has some feature no one was able to recreate until that time...something needs to stand out to get my attention. Appreciate your thoughts on the topic.
While I commend your selecting a used (rather than new) car, you'll need a lot of know-how, time and especially money to keep that thing on the road. I would recommend a 3 series instead, a little smaller, which means less expensive. Unless, of course, you're an expert mechanic, which you might be...in that case, ignore everything I told you!
So, I've been wondering about this for awhile...is there any way to easily mod a rocket to fire at air-to-air targets? Perhaps an additional line in Overload set to say..."Selection [not sure what the command should be] = Air-to-Air"? I would try it out, but I'm not in front of my PC much these days and keep forgetting to try it out.
Very nice! The plan view is almost perfect! It does need custom gear, you should repost it later when you figure out how to do that...plus this would look fantastic in bright red, in the colors of the old Soviet demonstration team.
Many reasons, one of the chief reasons is that a catastrophic engine fire or failure can cause the wing to separate from the fuselage. This in fact (though findings attribute cause to a fire in the wing area) happened in 2006 to an RAF Nimrod over Afghanistan. Have to remember, jet engines in the 1960s were less reliable and prone to failure, more so than today.
@AstleyIndustries I figured that was the way, but when I looked at the engine in Overload, could not find the CoM as a variable, have only seen that variable for the fuselage piece. Might I add it as a new line in Overload?
Yeah...with heavy jet engines, you need to make sure you put fuel or ballast forward to get the CoM (red line) ahead of the CoL (blue line). In SP, the engines are a small assembly; however, in most aircraft, even fighters, the lighter tailpipe or afterburner section is much longer, so the engine's CoM is further forward than what it is in SP builds, moving the total CoM further to the rear than what it is in real life.
Cool...the Germans should have modded the Me-109 landing gear that way from the get-go, apparently the 109 was difficult to land, the narrow track being one of the main reasons. However, I imagine the 155 would have still been a nightmare to land on a ship, with that long nose and low pilot seating position. Probably would have had to develop an arcing final, a la F4U, but even then initially the Navy didn't want to put the Corsair on carriers for the reason it was difficult to land.
Well, it takes time and you only have 216 points, so I assume you're newer here. First, it takes time to learn all the tricks. A great way to do that is to find some iOS creations (since you're iOS) you really like, take them apart, see how they're built. Try and imitate the build ideas yourself. PC is definitely easier than iOS, but you can make some good creations...there are some creations on my highlight page which are iOS, where I started out myself: My XB-70, C-47, Waco glider and F-15 are all iOS builds.
@FlyingThings when you size a fuselage piece, you can modify the height and width at the front and back of the block, but you cannot make the left side and right side anything but the same as each other. I know you can turn fuse pieces sideways, but adding the ability to modify the size of the third dimension would enable more complex/realistic shapes, plus, you would have nose cones which adhere to the new polygon shapes, not like now, where all nosecones are symmetrical.
It is a little large and it definitely needs a description of what it is (an Me-262 design study from the latter days of WWII), but it's pretty original, nice!
Made on iOS, so I'm impressed. 174 parts, again impressed at your efficiency. Flies well, a little too well, 1000 mph at 20,000 ft. My only critique is that you could have used the smaller turbofans to give it more realism, but overall, I like it!!!
Kewl
Nice work on the canopy and details...for next time, the star in the insignia points forward
You would have learned more if you had posted something truly original🤔
I'm disappointed, not much changed here from my original post save the colors 😟
Also, if you're going to go through all that effort, I'll critique you if you don't have only the gun on one side (the left wing root), as it is on the actual jet!
Congrats on figuring out the intake ramps. I wanted to do the same thing, but couldn't get the intakes to move because when I put them on rotators, it broke the continuity from the intake to the engine and the engines weren't getting air...guess you stacked two intakes on top of each other, one fixed (and actually supplying the air to the engines) and the other moveable?
It's relatively accurate to go with 100 km/hr = 62 km/hr. Besides, in aviation we use "knots" which is about 10-15% faster than mph, so if you're talking about 300 mph, it would be around 260 knots. Also, the little speed indicator you see in SP is your groundspeed...indicated airspeed is actually a measurement of the dynamic pressure resulting as you travel through the air. You may be travelling across the ground at 500 knots/575 mph/930 kph, but you'll only indicate around 295 knots at 35,000'. It's not like driving a car. In aviation, one thing they DO convert between the English and Metric systems though is altitude, of all things. In Europe, pilots report altitude in meters (and use millibars for barometric pressure) and in the U.S., we use feet (and use inches of mercury (Hg) for barometric pressure)!
Nice post...I have to ask, how do you do multiplayer? I have a PC with a high speed internet connection, but have no idea what are the mechanics of "joining" multiplayer.
Once you've figured out how to use fuse pieces to "build up" wing shapes on top of the actual wing surfaces, you'll see that many also "build up" control surfaces, i.e., aileron, elevator, rudder, flaps. The way that's done is to deselect the control surfaces from your wings and stabs in the options menu (just press the red "X") and use entire wings as ailerons, elevators, etc. Cover those with fuse parts as well and attach the parts with rotators.
@TrainDude cool, thanks, totally missed that post...but what does Andrew mean when he says "XML-modding enhancements"...? I XML mod all the time, how does the new version change anything?
@MechWARRIOR57 which new parts?
Yes, very tough to adjust anything when you have so many parts, perhaps the increased windshield angle will visually shorten the nose a little bit. Overall, it looks great, though!
Armature Arms
It looks fantastic. If I may offer a bit of feedback, looks like the center cockpit pillar needs to be, maybe 3 to 5 degrees more raked and the nose needs to be ever so slightly shorter and less pointed.
@christiangaido I think this one might be too big for any mobile, even a Samsung!
Try these:
Junkers EF 132
North American XB-70 Valkyrie
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
pretty good for one of my earlier efforts, but not nearly as good as @thealban's amazing B-47!
OK, totally shameless self promotion going on here, but oh, well! There are lots of good bombers on this site, perhaps they're rarer, how about this B-52 by @closeairsupport, certainly underappreciated, or this B-17 by @Wahrscheinlichlch?
They're out there, keep looking!
Oh...and for "U"...let me offer the U-2, ok, I break my own rules outlined below for that one, but it's impossible not to mention the U-2, it's iconic!
You cheated on A by using A-10...heck, that's easy, there's the A-1, A-5, A6, A-7, even an A-9..."Aerostar" is much more difficult to think of! Same with "B" and "C", easy with those, there's B-1/2/12/17/18/19/24/25/26/29/47/52, as well as C-1/2/5/9/17/130/131/133/141...and that's not nearly all of them! Try "Bolo" (Douglas product, aka B-18) or "Caravan" (by Cessna, of course). And for "Q", no need to cheat...let me offer the "Question Mark" (modified Fokker which the Army Air Force used to set the first mid air refueled endurance record in 1929), Just joshing you...nice list!
Posted two days ago, but only 3 Upvotes for this beauty...? What's going on? Hopefully, my Spotlight will get this one a little more exposure.
A vote for its meta-ness...
@Bobplanes322 yeah, I totally agree with you, I like to see unique builds, but I'm not totally against common builds either. However if that build is very common (for example, F-16), there should be some feature on it that makes it stand out. Whether that's artful execution with a small number of parts (I really appreciate those as they are very mobile-friendly) or if it very accurately captures that particular aircraft or it has some feature no one was able to recreate until that time...something needs to stand out to get my attention. Appreciate your thoughts on the topic.
While I commend your selecting a used (rather than new) car, you'll need a lot of know-how, time and especially money to keep that thing on the road. I would recommend a 3 series instead, a little smaller, which means less expensive. Unless, of course, you're an expert mechanic, which you might be...in that case, ignore everything I told you!
So, I've been wondering about this for awhile...is there any way to easily mod a rocket to fire at air-to-air targets? Perhaps an additional line in Overload set to say..."Selection [not sure what the command should be] = Air-to-Air"? I would try it out, but I'm not in front of my PC much these days and keep forgetting to try it out.
Nice, tag me when you post this!
Beautiful.
Very nice! The plan view is almost perfect! It does need custom gear, you should repost it later when you figure out how to do that...plus this would look fantastic in bright red, in the colors of the old Soviet demonstration team.
No worries, that's how it goes with SP, will look out for it, looks fantastic on my Jetstream, though!
Many reasons, one of the chief reasons is that a catastrophic engine fire or failure can cause the wing to separate from the fuselage. This in fact (though findings attribute cause to a fire in the wing area) happened in 2006 to an RAF Nimrod over Afghanistan. Have to remember, jet engines in the 1960s were less reliable and prone to failure, more so than today.
@AstleyIndustries figured it out, it's on the first page of the Overload menu at the very bottom, x,y,z coords.
@corsair013 aaahhh, makes sense now, nice redo.
This is nice, I see you decided not to include a specific livery, opting instead for the classic bright aluminum finish.
@corsair013 you didn't find this version of the A-4K for your project?
@AstleyIndustries I figured that was the way, but when I looked at the engine in Overload, could not find the CoM as a variable, have only seen that variable for the fuselage piece. Might I add it as a new line in Overload?
Yes, agree PCA would be an eye catching bright red scheme!
Yeah...with heavy jet engines, you need to make sure you put fuel or ballast forward to get the CoM (red line) ahead of the CoL (blue line). In SP, the engines are a small assembly; however, in most aircraft, even fighters, the lighter tailpipe or afterburner section is much longer, so the engine's CoM is further forward than what it is in SP builds, moving the total CoM further to the rear than what it is in real life.
Nice!
@BogdanX hey, cool trick, I see you've gone digital to compare the two 3-views...how did you manage to do it?
Cool...the Germans should have modded the Me-109 landing gear that way from the get-go, apparently the 109 was difficult to land, the narrow track being one of the main reasons. However, I imagine the 155 would have still been a nightmare to land on a ship, with that long nose and low pilot seating position. Probably would have had to develop an arcing final, a la F4U, but even then initially the Navy didn't want to put the Corsair on carriers for the reason it was difficult to land.
Great detail, flies VERY realistically, I, myself, can learn a lot from you, sir!
Very nice.
@jamesPLANESii hah! Yes, I've been dying to build a commode!
Well, it takes time and you only have 216 points, so I assume you're newer here. First, it takes time to learn all the tricks. A great way to do that is to find some iOS creations (since you're iOS) you really like, take them apart, see how they're built. Try and imitate the build ideas yourself. PC is definitely easier than iOS, but you can make some good creations...there are some creations on my highlight page which are iOS, where I started out myself: My XB-70, C-47, Waco glider and F-15 are all iOS builds.
Here you go: DC-3. If you use or mod it, I would appreciate a shout-out when you post it.
@FlyingThings when you size a fuselage piece, you can modify the height and width at the front and back of the block, but you cannot make the left side and right side anything but the same as each other. I know you can turn fuse pieces sideways, but adding the ability to modify the size of the third dimension would enable more complex/realistic shapes, plus, you would have nose cones which adhere to the new polygon shapes, not like now, where all nosecones are symmetrical.
Nice, especially considering it's on iOS.
Nice, very original design and, dare I say, a plausible real-life concept?
It is a little large and it definitely needs a description of what it is (an Me-262 design study from the latter days of WWII), but it's pretty original, nice!
She's a beauty, very nice!
Aaaahhhh....Le Fucilieri! My favorite fictional Italian avion!
Made on iOS, so I'm impressed. 174 parts, again impressed at your efficiency. Flies well, a little too well, 1000 mph at 20,000 ft. My only critique is that you could have used the smaller turbofans to give it more realism, but overall, I like it!!!