@Wildblueyonder578 are you starting on the ground? If you try and start in the air, say on Yeager final, you'll probably stall it trying to avoid the cliffs due to the slow engine acceleration and wing loading. BTW, like your avatar image, nice B-57.
Flies pretty well--short-coupled, but so was the real thing. Tricky to land safely, but can be done, in fact it's easier to land than vast majority of tail-draggers on this site. Come in about 25% throttle and 150-160 mph and fly it onto the runway, main-gear first, be careful not to balloon in the flare! Ease the stick back to get to the three point attitude. Hopefully, you will be aligned, as the rudder does nothing during roll-out. Fun to fly!
The CoM and CoL are way too close together, makes the handling twitchy. I would recommend making the horizontal stab and the elevator larger, to help smooth things out. Plus the vertical stab should be far larger, the airplane likes to yaw and fly sideways, which isn't controllable. I really like the roll control, though!
@Bagas it's XML modding. If you can access the XML files (thisPC/C:/Users/Your profile name/AppData/LocalLow/Jundroo/SimplePlanes/AircraftDesigns), open the corresponding folder and go to the color list, which is near the bottom of the file. Open the file you want using Notepad. Select the color you want to modify and set m = "1" and s = "1". The color list will be in the same order as in the custom color palette (left to right, top to bottom). You can also Google "hexcolor" to get color codes for any custom color you want to choose and substitute the listed color for the new color. Save the file, then you have to reload the aircraft in the editor to see the new color and gloss settings.
@Wildblueyonder578 what exactly do you mean? If you mean, it won't take off, then try to set 1.5 units nose up trim (slider down 1 1/2 notches). Aircraft should rotate around 170 mph and go airborne around 210 mph. That's all in the flight manual. If you mean, it flies "heavy", well...it should! It's 140,000 lbs and the flight characteristics are pure SP, no XML modding weights, CG or fuel.
@vonhubert yes, noted, some of what I had to do was guesswork as they never actually built a prototype aircraft. I figured there would have been some modifications between design and final product, so I had a bit of carte blanche!
@F104Deathtrap yeah, the "flight manual" is pretty detailed, not sure if I mentioned trim specifically or not...I always use trim in my builds, one way or another, just more realistic, IMHO
Well, it really captures the Hornet's "stance"...great work on the gear, not overly complex, but just enough that it looks right. Nice rendition of a very common build, but better than 99% of the other ones out there.
@Sarpanitu ok, noted. Did not know exactly how to do that, now it's clear. Kind of like it was during WWII when aircraft were fielded still having problems--heck, the P-38s had compressibility issues and the tail would fall off at time to time all the way until the end of the war, things they were struggling to find solutions for in flight test until the end. If I post a "B" or "V2". version, I'll be sure to correct it.
@RogueFalcon376 no, sorry. WWII was a historical fact, not celebrating what the National Socialists did, just presenting an accurate representation of what happened. Best to NOT forget the Nazis and never repeat those crimes.
@oDDDity yes, agree, dihedral causes the aircraft to be longitudinally unstable in SP, but it's not the same constant roll in one direction or the other. I guess people asking this question should be a little more specific in saying what their exact problem is.
@Tigozawr, if you have ruled out a 1. weight asymmetry, or 2. a form asymmetry (big object on one side, small or no object on the other side creating a difference in aerodynamic drag), it has to be the wing build issue. You need to check the clipping to attachment points like this: Place an object, where you want it, on one wing (check coordinates with Fine Tuner). MANUALLY place a copy of that object at the same point on the opposite wing--you should be able to manually clip it in almost exactly the opposite position. THEN, nudge or move both objects exactly to where you want them on the opposite wings--they should be symmetrical, though. If that doesn't fix it, then refer to 1. and 2. above. Oh, yeah, NEVER use mirroring!
Very cool! The past few days haven't been good for original, nice-looking builds, but yours breaks the drought. I can imagine, though, that Heinkel would have had a nightmare of a time trying to incorporate those props into the booms that way...I can see the Allied news headlines: "Nazi torpedo bomber's tail separates in flight...take that Adolf!"
My explanation may be long and involved, but here's why the roll is happening. You're not going to like the answer, which is to take everything off the wing and manually position everything so that the attach points are symmetrical. Often, people will read the explanation and say "But, you just have to make sure the weights are equal on both sides...!" No. There's an interaction with the wings and attach points in SP that makes it so that the same things need to be attached on both sides to the opposing attach points.
Well, your KH-240-2 is 141,000+ lbs, the A380 is over 1M lbs., so it's going to take considerably more fuel (if the difference is in fuel alone, the weight would be equivalent to 132,000 gallons). Plus your build is significantly smaller, 140+ ft wingspan may not seem that much smaller than 262 ft, think about the "cube rule".
In aircraft, changing the direction of thrust to enable vertical takeoffs or landings or to enable extreme maneuvering. Aircraft with thrust vectoring include the AV-8B Harrier and the F-22 Raptor, among others. In SP, there is a VTOL engine and separate nozzles you can use together to impart thrust vectoring to a build.
Try a bigger horizontal stab and bigger elevator. Plus, try and put your rear landing gear (with a tricycle gear airplane) closer to the CoM, so the airplane can "rotate" around the CoM and then takeoff. Good news to all this is that you'll learn a lot about what and how an airplane flies.
Yes, agree with all the points you make. But let me ramble and muse: I believe SP "physics" is a result of the Unity(?) engine, which is the platform on which SP operates...it really just emulates how a wing, based on wing area, angle of attack and speed, should react. It does not model the actual airflow, so it's impossible for two surfaces (such as an F-104 t-tail being "masked" by the wing at high AoA) to interact. It's almost as if the builds are flying in a vacuum, just reacting as they should be. It's a simplistic model and it lacks a bit...but, to put it on another platform would probably be really difficult, time-consuming and expensive (for the Devs). Plus, not sure you could carry it around on your iPhone...which is a huge part of SP's original vision. Anyhow, as for stalls, yeah, you can make the wing "stall" by flying slowly, but it's not really based on AoA. The nose of your airplane will "stutter" through the air if you demand too much and I've put aircraft out of control, if not in true spins, plenty of times. Sooo...not sure how much could be gained by the Devs by migrating to another engine.
@Dimkal, yes, most are about 15 years old. But it's a pretty cool platform as a hobby, less messy and easier to put away than building R/C models, which is what I would be doing if I had a bit more time in my life. For aircraft type, check out the avatar, it's a self-portrait.
Angle them down a few degrees using Fine Tuner
First, this is great! Most Tomcats here have really bulbous noses, all out of proportion, but this one is spot-on.
Well, I wish I could Spotlight it, but as you have more points than I, there's no option for me to do so. I wish I could...
Did you post, then delete a recent build? I see it in my Jetstream, but cannot open it.
Kewl...
I like the headlights a great deal, plus it isn't too much heavier than the real thing. It's too bad we can't have better hubcap/wheels.
Well, it's just as boxy as the real thing, that's for sure...
@KingHandspider just look at the SP home page...Featured Build
Flies very nicely as well, very maneuverable, must be the incidence on the wings
@PyrusEnderhunter thank you, thank you very much, sir! I appreciate it!
@Wildblueyonder578 are you starting on the ground? If you try and start in the air, say on Yeager final, you'll probably stall it trying to avoid the cliffs due to the slow engine acceleration and wing loading. BTW, like your avatar image, nice B-57.
Hey! Actually, looks like an F8F, check! Super-glossy canopy glass, check! I like it, check!
Flies pretty well--short-coupled, but so was the real thing. Tricky to land safely, but can be done, in fact it's easier to land than vast majority of tail-draggers on this site. Come in about 25% throttle and 150-160 mph and fly it onto the runway, main-gear first, be careful not to balloon in the flare! Ease the stick back to get to the three point attitude. Hopefully, you will be aligned, as the rudder does nothing during roll-out. Fun to fly!
Nice build and it flies well, too!
Seaplane, sure!
The CoM and CoL are way too close together, makes the handling twitchy. I would recommend making the horizontal stab and the elevator larger, to help smooth things out. Plus the vertical stab should be far larger, the airplane likes to yaw and fly sideways, which isn't controllable. I really like the roll control, though!
@Bagas it's XML modding. If you can access the XML files (thisPC/C:/Users/Your profile name/AppData/LocalLow/Jundroo/SimplePlanes/AircraftDesigns), open the corresponding folder and go to the color list, which is near the bottom of the file. Open the file you want using Notepad. Select the color you want to modify and set m = "1" and s = "1". The color list will be in the same order as in the custom color palette (left to right, top to bottom). You can also Google "hexcolor" to get color codes for any custom color you want to choose and substitute the listed color for the new color. Save the file, then you have to reload the aircraft in the editor to see the new color and gloss settings.
@Wildblueyonder578 what exactly do you mean? If you mean, it won't take off, then try to set 1.5 units nose up trim (slider down 1 1/2 notches). Aircraft should rotate around 170 mph and go airborne around 210 mph. That's all in the flight manual. If you mean, it flies "heavy", well...it should! It's 140,000 lbs and the flight characteristics are pure SP, no XML modding weights, CG or fuel.
@Franticmatty thanks!
@AudioDud3 thank you!
@Sarpanitu I was surprised as well; in a good way, but surprised.
@SwagAircrafts thank you, glad you think so!
@RussianAS благодаря!
@NativeChief1492 thanks!
@vonhubert yes, noted, some of what I had to do was guesswork as they never actually built a prototype aircraft. I figured there would have been some modifications between design and final product, so I had a bit of carte blanche!
@Dimkal thanks!
@F104Deathtrap yeah, the "flight manual" is pretty detailed, not sure if I mentioned trim specifically or not...I always use trim in my builds, one way or another, just more realistic, IMHO
@MAHADI glad you like it!
@Raiyan geez, absolutely not. I had no idea there would be this much baggage with a WWII Luftwaffe build.
@jamesPLANESii the GR.1 IS a Tornado! :)
Definitely some McD in its DNA...
Well, it really captures the Hornet's "stance"...great work on the gear, not overly complex, but just enough that it looks right. Nice rendition of a very common build, but better than 99% of the other ones out there.
Wow, quality work here!
@Sarpanitu ok, noted. Did not know exactly how to do that, now it's clear. Kind of like it was during WWII when aircraft were fielded still having problems--heck, the P-38s had compressibility issues and the tail would fall off at time to time all the way until the end of the war, things they were struggling to find solutions for in flight test until the end. If I post a "B" or "V2". version, I'll be sure to correct it.
@doge 60 (SIXTY) million died
@RogueFalcon376 no, sorry. WWII was a historical fact, not celebrating what the National Socialists did, just presenting an accurate representation of what happened. Best to NOT forget the Nazis and never repeat those crimes.
Cool! Nice work!
@Tigozawr, great! When you post it, tag me and I'll take a look.
@oDDDity yes, agree, dihedral causes the aircraft to be longitudinally unstable in SP, but it's not the same constant roll in one direction or the other. I guess people asking this question should be a little more specific in saying what their exact problem is.
@Tigozawr, if you have ruled out a 1. weight asymmetry, or 2. a form asymmetry (big object on one side, small or no object on the other side creating a difference in aerodynamic drag), it has to be the wing build issue. You need to check the clipping to attachment points like this: Place an object, where you want it, on one wing (check coordinates with Fine Tuner). MANUALLY place a copy of that object at the same point on the opposite wing--you should be able to manually clip it in almost exactly the opposite position. THEN, nudge or move both objects exactly to where you want them on the opposite wings--they should be symmetrical, though. If that doesn't fix it, then refer to 1. and 2. above. Oh, yeah, NEVER use mirroring!
Very cool! The past few days haven't been good for original, nice-looking builds, but yours breaks the drought. I can imagine, though, that Heinkel would have had a nightmare of a time trying to incorporate those props into the booms that way...I can see the Allied news headlines: "Nazi torpedo bomber's tail separates in flight...take that Adolf!"
Here's a more in depth explanation on why this happens...
My explanation may be long and involved, but here's why the roll is happening. You're not going to like the answer, which is to take everything off the wing and manually position everything so that the attach points are symmetrical. Often, people will read the explanation and say "But, you just have to make sure the weights are equal on both sides...!" No. There's an interaction with the wings and attach points in SP that makes it so that the same things need to be attached on both sides to the opposing attach points.
Another way to make an aircraft "long ranged" would be to lower fuel consumption...think the "Voyager", which flew around the world non-stop.
Well, your KH-240-2 is 141,000+ lbs, the A380 is over 1M lbs., so it's going to take considerably more fuel (if the difference is in fuel alone, the weight would be equivalent to 132,000 gallons). Plus your build is significantly smaller, 140+ ft wingspan may not seem that much smaller than 262 ft, think about the "cube rule".
In aircraft, changing the direction of thrust to enable vertical takeoffs or landings or to enable extreme maneuvering. Aircraft with thrust vectoring include the AV-8B Harrier and the F-22 Raptor, among others. In SP, there is a VTOL engine and separate nozzles you can use together to impart thrust vectoring to a build.
There are some nice ideas here, it's an older build, but deserves an upvote, so here you go!
Try a bigger horizontal stab and bigger elevator. Plus, try and put your rear landing gear (with a tricycle gear airplane) closer to the CoM, so the airplane can "rotate" around the CoM and then takeoff. Good news to all this is that you'll learn a lot about what and how an airplane flies.
Yes, agree with all the points you make. But let me ramble and muse: I believe SP "physics" is a result of the Unity(?) engine, which is the platform on which SP operates...it really just emulates how a wing, based on wing area, angle of attack and speed, should react. It does not model the actual airflow, so it's impossible for two surfaces (such as an F-104 t-tail being "masked" by the wing at high AoA) to interact. It's almost as if the builds are flying in a vacuum, just reacting as they should be. It's a simplistic model and it lacks a bit...but, to put it on another platform would probably be really difficult, time-consuming and expensive (for the Devs). Plus, not sure you could carry it around on your iPhone...which is a huge part of SP's original vision. Anyhow, as for stalls, yeah, you can make the wing "stall" by flying slowly, but it's not really based on AoA. The nose of your airplane will "stutter" through the air if you demand too much and I've put aircraft out of control, if not in true spins, plenty of times. Sooo...not sure how much could be gained by the Devs by migrating to another engine.
@Dimkal, yes, most are about 15 years old. But it's a pretty cool platform as a hobby, less messy and easier to put away than building R/C models, which is what I would be doing if I had a bit more time in my life. For aircraft type, check out the avatar, it's a self-portrait.