@FairFireFight many jets which never operated from carriers have hooks in real life...F-16, F-15E, F-105, F-100, etc., just to name a few. The hooks are there to arrest the barrier cable at the end of a runway should a problem develop (hydraulics, landing gear, brakes, etc.). The cable system is, in the USAF, known as the BAK-12. Here’s an example of it in action, in this case arresting a landing F-16. So while you are correct in asserting, contrary to what @ProcessedPlAnEs says, that wing area doesn’t mean it cannot land on a carrier (look at the A-4), the T-2 never landed on a carrier, nor was it ever meant to do so. The hook is merely there in the event of an emergency landing on a conventional land-based runway.
They’re actually pretty good airplanes, depending on your definition. They’re rugged, tend to turn well at low to medium altitudes, are usually very fast for their time. They tend to be heavily armed and are usually less expensive than their Western counterparts. They do not tend to be as advanced as their Western counterparts (exceptions to this include the MiG-15). Their design philosophy is different: Their engines are designed to last a shorter period time and changed out wholely instead of being carefully maintained over time. The idea is that it would be easier to simply swap the entire engine in combat. Weapons are hit and miss on whether they are more advanced. The AA-2 was a copy of the early Sidewinder (recovered from a Chinese jet shot by a Taiwanese F-86 equipped with AIM-9B), the AA-10C and AA-11 are very advanced, in some ways superior to the AIM-120 and AIM-9. However, the West and US particularly, have embraced the smart bomb revolution so that’s not even a competition there.
A CoM far ahead the CoL makes a plane more stable (longer moment arm), so shorten the distance between the two for better maneuverbility. But don't make it too short or the plane may be unstable and depart controlled flight, especially if the AI is in control (grrrr...! 😡)
Larger wings + lighter weight = lower wing loading and better maneuverability. You can easily check this under the "I" icon in the build menu under "wing loading". Under 50 lbs/sq ft is decent maneuverability, but under 25 is much, much better!
Larger control surfaces, specifically the elevator. Too large, though, and you'll see the nose bounce around a turn...this is SP's simulation of a high speed stall. Either don't pull back so hard or make the elevator smaller (flying faster also helps).
Find your "corner velocity". Most of my builds have their best rate of turn around 600 mph. If you fly too slow, the plane tends to stall or departs controlled flight into a spin (see above), too fast and you're just opening your turn radius.
Something else hardly ever mentioned here: High power to weight ratio. Once you find your best "corner velocity", you want to keep your jet there. The tendency of an aircraft wing is to produce more drag with the more lift it's producing. Thrust overcomes drag. That's why an F-16 can sustain 9 Gs in a turn, great power to weight ratio. A P-51 Mustang can also produce 9 Gs, but cannot sustain them because it doesn't have the same power. More power and a plane can power around a turn more easily.
@RicardoAs1515 yes, the two engines for the AB...same technique that I use. I wouldn’t be concerned that when the AB is activated, you use more fuel than when one engine is operating, which is known as “dry” thrust IRL. ABs dump raw fuel into the burner can (or “combustor”) which is after the the turbine section. Cheap and easy way to get extra power, up to around 50% additional thrust, but very fuel inefficient. And, nearly every AB engine is only operated in AB for limited periods of time, mainly takeoff, landing and combat situations. In fact, the jet I flew that had an AB, the T-38, was limited to 5 mins on the ground and 15 mins airborne. Of course, if you used AB for a full 15 mins, you’d be nearly out of fuel. So, the build technique of using an additional engine simulates both the additional thrust and the horrendously increased fuel consumption from AB use. The MiG-21 usually only flew between 30 and 45 mins and that was with very limited AB use. So, really no need to add extra fuel to a build to make up for a perceived increase in fuel consumption as that’s actually more realistic, IMHO. BTW, this one is on my “favorites” list!
The rotary bomb bay is great and the build looks pretty good. The RL B-1 is actually pretty maneuverable, particularly with the wings swept aft, they’ve been known to aileron roll at fairly low altitudes, which requires a good pitch rate to prevent lawn-darting into the ground. Would love to see a more refined version as you get more and more experience with modeling flight characteristics, which are quite hard with variable sweep aircraft because the CoL moves aft when the wings sweep. I know that from my XB-70.
Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
Well, the shape and look are spot on, the performance isn’t ridiculous, though the RL A-7 could do a bit better than 360 knots at S.L. But the jet was said to be “she sure ain’t fast, but she sure is slow!” Turn is ok, I didn’t put it on the Dev Console to get the vertical G...one thing though, like most attack/bomber aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio and often bigger wings (vice pure air to air fighters), was that the jet scrubbed a LOT of speed in turns so that sustained turn rate isn’t fantastic. This one doesn’t decelerate in turns like the RL jet. What @Mustang51 is referring to is the A-7F, which was a lengthened A-7 with a much better engine, Mach 1.6 performance and greatly improved night/all weather interdiction capabilities. The USAF didn’t buy it, preferring to stick with the F-16 instead. The F version had an afterburner, the normal A-7 did NOT have AB, though the highly efficient non-afterburning turbofan (TF41) was a first for tactical aircraft. Something else I would suggest for next time is perhaps split the trim and flaps; for some reason the SP community thinks those two systems are interrelated and use the same control. A pilot can adjust the trim at any speed, while flaps are only extended below a certain speed, so moving the trim and having the flaps extend at 400 knots would be a disaster IRL!
Yes, airspeed gauges do become less sensitive the higher you go. This is due to lower air density at altitude—fewer molecules go down the pitot tube to impact the diaphragm which moves the needle on the airspeed indicator. Depending on your altitude, there can be a huge difference between your indicated airspeed (IAS) and your true airspeed (TAS). Clipping along at 38,000 ft a 737 may be moving at 490 knots through the air, but only indicates 280 knots on the airspeed gauge. Winds at altitude, which can be quite strong, also impact your groundspeed. The wing part of your build acts as the diaphragm of an airspeed indicator (only because an SP wing is programmed to do so, not because there’s actually wind in SP) does—in fact, this build IS an accurate airspeed indicator for SP. The other thing to note is that in SP, that default “airspeed indicator” is not...its actually a groundspeed indicator, that’s why you see the difference. Clever build.
Geez, guys don’t lose your freaking minds. As someone who has a 737 type rating and probably the only person in this site qualified to fly the MAX, that’s not what the article says. I completed the Boeing MAX differences course in January and we have procedures to deal with the system failure in the Lion Air. Whether those pilots knew what the procedures were is unknown, but whenever there is a stab trim runaway in a Boeing, pretty much any Boeing, the procedure is the same. And a stab trim runaway is how the Lion Air accident presented and might have been solved. Consider this as well, there are no pilots refusing to fly the MAX. If there were, you might have reason for concern. Additionally, we have no idea what caused the Ethiopian crash, so your guess is as good as mine and might be one of a thousand things. Last, the 737–all types—is the most numerous airliner in the world. If there’s an aviation accident, chances are good it involved a 737.
@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
You don't even have to keep the original cockpit; as long as you download a post, you can modify as you want and the next time you post it, it will appear as a successor.
However, if you post it, even as an "Unlisted" build, the third post will appear as a successor to that second post and so on, and so on.
The second way to get it to post as a successor is to go into the XML file at the very top of the file, there will be a line which will list the predecessor ID, a sequence of letters and numbers (in fact you can see it in the address bar of your browser, such as: "...simpleplanes.com/a/A1b2C3/Aircraft Post Name...", where "a" signifies aircraft and the ID appears right after). You can copy the predecessor post ID, then copy it into your build's XML file and, presto!, it will appear as a successor to that post when you post it. I found this very helpful when I built a very complex aircraft for a challenge, posted it as "Unlisted" as a test without realizing how the successor system worked and eventually figured out how to fix it through the XML file edit method.
Last, if you have a fairly simple aircraft (without rotators, etc.), you can remove the cockpit, save the rest as a sub-assembly, download the challenge post and use your subassembly in the challenge build, post your new creation and it should appear as a successor.
@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
No, Mach number depends only on temperature, it has nothing to do with air density or air pressure or anything else besides temperature. And lower density altitude is better for performance, not higher. Thicker air means engines that put out more power (more available air) and wings produce more lift. But don’t take my 30+ years of aviation experience flying high performance aircraft, just read the Wikipedia article on “Mach Number”. The graph about 1/3 of the way down shows the Mach (speed of sound) vs. temperature relationship.
@Sparky6004 stick aft during the takeoff roll…rule #1 for a taildragger. That should help keep control until the rudder is effective. Also, you’ll have to anticipate yaw/roll coupling here, though it doesn’t work in SP the way it does IRL. Last, short, sharp inputs on the rudder, don’t overcontrol it. I’ll admit, probably harder to do than IRL, it’s not impossible to takeoff or land. And it’s way, way easier to do in cockpit view than in external view…allows you to pick up the roll excursions earlier, though directional control is difficult with only the corners of the runaway visible until liftoff. But the RL plane was notoriously difficult in the takeoff and landing phase and I absolutely guarantee you’d crack up a RL Bf if you were thrown into the cockpit and told to takeoff, so it’s all part of the experience.
Certainly an ambitious effort with a ridiculously high part count. Fairly laggy on my iPhone 11, but it’s flyable. Flying characteristics are fairly good, not terribly unrealistic, from what I could do on my iPhone. It’s in the ballpark on weights, though the wing area is about twice that of the RL plane, even considering SP counts the horizontal stab area and RL stats do not. So, the 30 lb/sq ft wing loading imparts a shorter takeoff distance and more sprightly handling than a max gross Superfort probably would have. However, its maneuverability is stately, as it should be, as best I could assess on my lagging iPhone. Some beautiful reproduction work…though I’m disappointed you left the stars and bars off the wings, I absolutely love the nose art. A little overboard on “drop test”, do that test from a quarter that height IRL and you’d break that airplane in half and drive the struts through the cockpit and engine nacelles. Detail work is impressive, build is fun to play with and effort is evident. Here’s something I found that you may find interesting: B-29 gunnery training film.
I also have to say the JDAMs and pod tracking are excellent. Not sure if that’s totally your creation or if someone has figured this out before, but that one feature makes this worth the price of admission alone.
You’ve been listening to too many people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Capitalism is not America’s government. Capitalism is an economic system, very different. America isn’t a pure democracy, either…can’t think of a singe nation which has a pure democracy. The closest were the Greek city states in the BCs, and even then, only a limited number of citizens (free men) had a vote. America’s system of government is a federation or constitutional republic, it could even be described as a representative democracy. In the U.S., the people are represented by those they elect to office, both at the state and federal (national) level. The states have a certain degree of autonomy, but this can be trumped by the federal government, which reserves specific powers (raise a military, levy taxes, etc.). As for Capitalism, most of the world has this type of economic system, even many European states, which have socialistic systems where certain aspects of the economy are directed by the government (health care, schooling, etc.) are still by and large Capitalistic nations which have free market systems for most every other aspect of the economy. The antithesis of Capitalism would be socialism in which state (centralized) control and direction of all aspects of the economy, regardless of the prevalent market forces which might dictate otherwise. Ultimate communism is, according to Marx, both a political and economic system (I disagree with Karl here, as do all free citizens who have a clue, that you can have political and economic systems which are independent of one another), requires state control (socialism) to transition to communism from its previous form, has never successfully existed because every nation that’s attempted it has gotten stuck in socialism. Hope this helps.
Ok, there’s one big reason why I wouldn’t upvote this, but it’s not the build itself...this thing’s transformation process is MESMERIZING! I must have hit the “Gear” switch twenty times in awe of the transformation process! It sure is unstable when running down the runway in train mode...but, nice work!
Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!
Definitions are important. The Wright Brothers were certainly not the only people who invented the concepts, pieces and parts required for an “airplane”. But they were the ones to first incorporate them and build the first successful heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight. Santos-Dumont certainly was close to doing so in December of 1903, as was Samuel Langley. Santos-Dumont achieved the same feat independently, but not until 1906. It has to be understood, though, that media was not as widely disseminated or pervasive as it is today, so if SD...and the entire nation of Brazil (Brasil!)...doubted the WBs’ achievement, it’s understandable. Samuel Langley was U.S. government sponsored and also close to success in late 1903, but missed when his “Aerodrome” came off its houseboat-mounted launching mechanism/catapult and went straight into the Potomac River, along with its unfortunate pilot, Charles Manley (who was also the chief engineer and survived). Langley’s engine was much more powerful than the WB engine, but the Aerodrome’s control system and structure was lacking. None other than the Smithsonian Institute sponsored Langley’s subsequent effort to rework the Aerodrome and then fly it in 1914 in an attempt to claim that Langley had first invented the successful airplane, but, clearly, the WBs had already done so and aircraft were far more advanced and developed by 1914. Note that the term “heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight” is very specific...we are not talking about lighter than air balloons or dirigibles, gliders or (essentially unmanned, uncontrolled) model aircraft, all of which had flown a long time prior to 17 December, 1903. However, to make the airplane a useful invention, all of these features had to be incorporated together and lead the way for today’s aircraft. That is what is meant by “inventing the airplane”.
Looks good, the AB is impressively done, though similar setups have been used on other builds to similar effect. The presentation is very good, but the big miss IMHO is the post’s title...should have used the full “Grumman F-11A Tiger” instead of the abbreviated “F-11A”, which means...nothing to most people around here, there are probably a hundred fictional posts titled as some variation of “F-11”. But “Grumman” and “Tiger” are evocative of an earlier time when the Grumman “Ironworks” build tough warplanes flown by even tougher men. Anyway, can’t wait to wring this one out and see if the flight model is as good as the aesthetics. Congrats on a 100+ upvote build and a third feature, nice work!
@BornToBeBurned well, have to say, “your wings suck” isn’t as helpful as a better suggestion on how you would have built the wings differently. Besides, as the creator has said, this is a fictional build, so “blueprint” rules do not apply.
Overall, this is pretty good for a large jet. It flies like a large jet, with realistic acceleration, speeds, wing loading and maneuverability. Though not exactly as heavy as a RL E-3, your build is over 200K, which is much, much better than stupid builds which have negative weights. The wing flex is very well done...subtle enough that it's not distracting and it doesn't ruin the handling, but noticeable as it is IRL. And you use the semi-symmetric airfoil, correct and very good, many, many builders use that Cessna (flat-bottomed) profile for some unfathomable reason. The overall level of detail is good without going overboard and the rotating dish actually rotates. I also like the fact you've included the high lift (LE) devices, roll spoilers, inboard and outboard flaps (though, IRL, there's a roll program that only employs the spoilers over a certain yoke deflection and the outboard ailerons only operate below a certain speed). The reverse thrust visual effect is good, with the sliding translating sleeves.
Cockpit View - Really needs one, it's all too easy to get high or low on final, leading to short of overrun landings on Avalanche's runway if you can't see the runway through the build which is blocking your view.
Overall, though, very nice build. Looks like an E-3, flies kinda like an E-3, I agree with the major decisions you made in your build. The details are just that: details. I'd Spotlight you, however, you have many more points than I do!
"The numbers are TAS and IAS in knots on the left, and Altitude in feet on the right."...you, sir, are now officially my favorite builder: The only other person I know in all of SP who uses the correct speed (knots) and altitude (feet) units!
Oh, and don’t forget the “logo lights”...these are really for lighting up your company’s big logo painted on the tail...advertising, you know. Lit anytime crew is onboard at night and when airborne (below 18,000’).
Very interesting build, I'm saving as a favorite due to its use of FT, of which there is a lot. It has 7,700 drag points, which is an enormous amount, but it doesn't like to slow down at all. The fly by wire is interesting. Low part count makes it good for MP, like you say. I also like the simplicity of weaponry. Reminds me a lot of my own F-20 build, but with a straighter wing.
The autoroll is very minor on this one. Would suggest you also add trim...a plane without trim is really annoying to fly if one has to constantly hold back stick to make it fly correctly.
@Freerider2142 no, he’s correct, the F-17, which eventually became the F-18, was a direct descendent of the F-5E, but vastly improved and more sophisticated.
Well, it's certainly ambitious, I'll say that for sure. Working cockpit, details, correct weight, paneling...and TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE parts. My iPhone 8 regularly handles 1,500+ part builds no problems, but I thought this one would crash it (thankfully it didn't). Believe me, I use plenty of parts in my builds...but 2,000+ on a fighter? You certainly put a lot of time and effort into this one that's for sure and you have the patience required of a great builder. Now for some critiques: It's not 1:1, it's about 125% scale, not sure why that is, perhaps you started with the cockpit, got just a little bit off there and it led to a bigger than desired build? That's usually the problem with full cockpit builds. The flight model...my advice is: drag reduction. You're on Windows, so open up the Overload portion and use "dragScale=0" on major sections and "calculateDrag=False" on details...which also eases the required computing power to run a high part build such as this. Add the drag back in using dragScale so that you can have the correct performance for your jet. This technique allows both realistic acceleration rates, as well as deceleration while turning, which replicates what happens when a high performance jet pulls a high G turn. As it is now, you need an 11:1 thrust to weight ratio to overcome your 13,000+ drag points, which leads to ridiculously fast acceleration rates, then it feels like your jet hits a brick wall when it gets to its top speed. At the end of the day, so many dedicated builders spend so, so much time on the basic build, that they lose patience with the flight model, or they simply don't let others test fly their builds and point out things that might be improved with the flight model. But, I have to admire your effort here, keep building and don't take my critiques as harsh criticism, but rather honest critiques which you could use to make an even better build next time. Just keep learning, getting better and you're going to be one of the better builders here some day soon.
@CRJ900Pilot Basically, what @edensk said. Inside the cockpit, most fighter type aircraft, Navy or Air Force, have a light indicator, which connected to the AoA system and tells the pilot if they’re on approach speed (correct AoA), slow (AoA too high, near to stall AoA) or too fast (AoA above approach AoA). The pilot adjusts his approach speed and approach angle appropriately...in the T-38 it was referred to as “flying the green donut”, because an on speed/on AoA indication was a green “o” light. Those lights, green, amber (yellow) and red on the nose gear of the F-4, F-14 and F-18, et. al., are simply repeater lights of what the pilot sees in his cockpit. The Landing Signals Officer (LSO), who stands by the optical light system on the boat’s deck and monitors every carrier landing, uses these lights while the jet is on approach and issues commands to the approaching jet to correct, continue or go around from the approach. There are other ways to tell during the day if a jet is too fast or slow, in fact when performing U-2 mobile duties from the chase car, I could absolutely tell if a jet was correctly configured, too fast or too slow (mostly based on relative angle of the tailwheel vs. the main gear), but during the night, these lights really help.
@FairFireFight many jets which never operated from carriers have hooks in real life...F-16, F-15E, F-105, F-100, etc., just to name a few. The hooks are there to arrest the barrier cable at the end of a runway should a problem develop (hydraulics, landing gear, brakes, etc.). The cable system is, in the USAF, known as the BAK-12. Here’s an example of it in action, in this case arresting a landing F-16. So while you are correct in asserting, contrary to what @ProcessedPlAnEs says, that wing area doesn’t mean it cannot land on a carrier (look at the A-4), the T-2 never landed on a carrier, nor was it ever meant to do so. The hook is merely there in the event of an emergency landing on a conventional land-based runway.
+5@randomusername no such thing. Not in RL, anyway. Present me a plane that doesn't need trim and I'll tell you it's not realistic.
+5They’re actually pretty good airplanes, depending on your definition. They’re rugged, tend to turn well at low to medium altitudes, are usually very fast for their time. They tend to be heavily armed and are usually less expensive than their Western counterparts. They do not tend to be as advanced as their Western counterparts (exceptions to this include the MiG-15). Their design philosophy is different: Their engines are designed to last a shorter period time and changed out wholely instead of being carefully maintained over time. The idea is that it would be easier to simply swap the entire engine in combat. Weapons are hit and miss on whether they are more advanced. The AA-2 was a copy of the early Sidewinder (recovered from a Chinese jet shot by a Taiwanese F-86 equipped with AIM-9B), the AA-10C and AA-11 are very advanced, in some ways superior to the AIM-120 and AIM-9. However, the West and US particularly, have embraced the smart bomb revolution so that’s not even a competition there.
+5I'll add to @Delphinus's comments:
A CoM far ahead the CoL makes a plane more stable (longer moment arm), so shorten the distance between the two for better maneuverbility. But don't make it too short or the plane may be unstable and depart controlled flight, especially if the AI is in control (grrrr...! 😡)
Larger wings + lighter weight = lower wing loading and better maneuverability. You can easily check this under the "I" icon in the build menu under "wing loading". Under 50 lbs/sq ft is decent maneuverability, but under 25 is much, much better!
Larger control surfaces, specifically the elevator. Too large, though, and you'll see the nose bounce around a turn...this is SP's simulation of a high speed stall. Either don't pull back so hard or make the elevator smaller (flying faster also helps).
Find your "corner velocity". Most of my builds have their best rate of turn around 600 mph. If you fly too slow, the plane tends to stall or departs controlled flight into a spin (see above), too fast and you're just opening your turn radius.
Something else hardly ever mentioned here: High power to weight ratio. Once you find your best "corner velocity", you want to keep your jet there. The tendency of an aircraft wing is to produce more drag with the more lift it's producing. Thrust overcomes drag. That's why an F-16 can sustain 9 Gs in a turn, great power to weight ratio. A P-51 Mustang can also produce 9 Gs, but cannot sustain them because it doesn't have the same power. More power and a plane can power around a turn more easily.
Hope this helps.
+5An all-around excellent build, nice work!
+4@RicardoAs1515 yes, the two engines for the AB...same technique that I use. I wouldn’t be concerned that when the AB is activated, you use more fuel than when one engine is operating, which is known as “dry” thrust IRL. ABs dump raw fuel into the burner can (or “combustor”) which is after the the turbine section. Cheap and easy way to get extra power, up to around 50% additional thrust, but very fuel inefficient. And, nearly every AB engine is only operated in AB for limited periods of time, mainly takeoff, landing and combat situations. In fact, the jet I flew that had an AB, the T-38, was limited to 5 mins on the ground and 15 mins airborne. Of course, if you used AB for a full 15 mins, you’d be nearly out of fuel. So, the build technique of using an additional engine simulates both the additional thrust and the horrendously increased fuel consumption from AB use. The MiG-21 usually only flew between 30 and 45 mins and that was with very limited AB use. So, really no need to add extra fuel to a build to make up for a perceived increase in fuel consumption as that’s actually more realistic, IMHO. BTW, this one is on my “favorites” list!
+4The rotary bomb bay is great and the build looks pretty good. The RL B-1 is actually pretty maneuverable, particularly with the wings swept aft, they’ve been known to aileron roll at fairly low altitudes, which requires a good pitch rate to prevent lawn-darting into the ground. Would love to see a more refined version as you get more and more experience with modeling flight characteristics, which are quite hard with variable sweep aircraft because the CoL moves aft when the wings sweep. I know that from my XB-70.
+4Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
+4Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
+4Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
+4Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
+4Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
+4Well, the shape and look are spot on, the performance isn’t ridiculous, though the RL A-7 could do a bit better than 360 knots at S.L. But the jet was said to be “she sure ain’t fast, but she sure is slow!” Turn is ok, I didn’t put it on the Dev Console to get the vertical G...one thing though, like most attack/bomber aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio and often bigger wings (vice pure air to air fighters), was that the jet scrubbed a LOT of speed in turns so that sustained turn rate isn’t fantastic. This one doesn’t decelerate in turns like the RL jet. What @Mustang51 is referring to is the A-7F, which was a lengthened A-7 with a much better engine, Mach 1.6 performance and greatly improved night/all weather interdiction capabilities. The USAF didn’t buy it, preferring to stick with the F-16 instead. The F version had an afterburner, the normal A-7 did NOT have AB, though the highly efficient non-afterburning turbofan (TF41) was a first for tactical aircraft. Something else I would suggest for next time is perhaps split the trim and flaps; for some reason the SP community thinks those two systems are interrelated and use the same control. A pilot can adjust the trim at any speed, while flaps are only extended below a certain speed, so moving the trim and having the flaps extend at 400 knots would be a disaster IRL!
+4Yes, airspeed gauges do become less sensitive the higher you go. This is due to lower air density at altitude—fewer molecules go down the pitot tube to impact the diaphragm which moves the needle on the airspeed indicator. Depending on your altitude, there can be a huge difference between your indicated airspeed (IAS) and your true airspeed (TAS). Clipping along at 38,000 ft a 737 may be moving at 490 knots through the air, but only indicates 280 knots on the airspeed gauge. Winds at altitude, which can be quite strong, also impact your groundspeed. The wing part of your build acts as the diaphragm of an airspeed indicator (only because an SP wing is programmed to do so, not because there’s actually wind in SP) does—in fact, this build IS an accurate airspeed indicator for SP. The other thing to note is that in SP, that default “airspeed indicator” is not...its actually a groundspeed indicator, that’s why you see the difference. Clever build.
+4@BlackhattAircraft yes, and that’s my point. This should be posted on Discord, doesn’t have to be posted here. Have you posted this on Discord?
+4Geez, guys don’t lose your freaking minds. As someone who has a 737 type rating and probably the only person in this site qualified to fly the MAX, that’s not what the article says. I completed the Boeing MAX differences course in January and we have procedures to deal with the system failure in the Lion Air. Whether those pilots knew what the procedures were is unknown, but whenever there is a stab trim runaway in a Boeing, pretty much any Boeing, the procedure is the same. And a stab trim runaway is how the Lion Air accident presented and might have been solved. Consider this as well, there are no pilots refusing to fly the MAX. If there were, you might have reason for concern. Additionally, we have no idea what caused the Ethiopian crash, so your guess is as good as mine and might be one of a thousand things. Last, the 737–all types—is the most numerous airliner in the world. If there’s an aviation accident, chances are good it involved a 737.
+4Nice, but why did you give it 50,000 hp? It flies over 300 mph, the real thing flew just faster than 120 mph...
+4@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
+4You don't even have to keep the original cockpit; as long as you download a post, you can modify as you want and the next time you post it, it will appear as a successor.
However, if you post it, even as an "Unlisted" build, the third post will appear as a successor to that second post and so on, and so on.
The second way to get it to post as a successor is to go into the XML file at the very top of the file, there will be a line which will list the predecessor ID, a sequence of letters and numbers (in fact you can see it in the address bar of your browser, such as: "...simpleplanes.com/a/A1b2C3/Aircraft Post Name...", where "a" signifies aircraft and the ID appears right after). You can copy the predecessor post ID, then copy it into your build's XML file and, presto!, it will appear as a successor to that post when you post it. I found this very helpful when I built a very complex aircraft for a challenge, posted it as "Unlisted" as a test without realizing how the successor system worked and eventually figured out how to fix it through the XML file edit method.
Last, if you have a fairly simple aircraft (without rotators, etc.), you can remove the cockpit, save the rest as a sub-assembly, download the challenge post and use your subassembly in the challenge build, post your new creation and it should appear as a successor.
@CODENAMEBOB @t8erh8er @Avro683Lancaster
+4@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
+3@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
+3Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
+3Another thing to note here is the amount of drag created by each airfoil, which isn’t represented directly by a graph here. Usually, an airfoil’s performance is represented by 2 curves, known as the Lift/Drag curves, or L/D. However, you can indirectly infer the amount of drag created by the amount of lift created…the more lift created, the more drag is created, always. This is important as one can demonstrably see that the symmetric airfoil creates far less drag at higher speeds than the other two airfoil shapes.
+3Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
+3No, Mach number depends only on temperature, it has nothing to do with air density or air pressure or anything else besides temperature. And lower density altitude is better for performance, not higher. Thicker air means engines that put out more power (more available air) and wings produce more lift. But don’t take my 30+ years of aviation experience flying high performance aircraft, just read the Wikipedia article on “Mach Number”. The graph about 1/3 of the way down shows the Mach (speed of sound) vs. temperature relationship.
+3Really beautiful work, probably your best. On my favorites list.
+3@Sparky6004 stick aft during the takeoff roll…rule #1 for a taildragger. That should help keep control until the rudder is effective. Also, you’ll have to anticipate yaw/roll coupling here, though it doesn’t work in SP the way it does IRL. Last, short, sharp inputs on the rudder, don’t overcontrol it. I’ll admit, probably harder to do than IRL, it’s not impossible to takeoff or land. And it’s way, way easier to do in cockpit view than in external view…allows you to pick up the roll excursions earlier, though directional control is difficult with only the corners of the runaway visible until liftoff. But the RL plane was notoriously difficult in the takeoff and landing phase and I absolutely guarantee you’d crack up a RL Bf if you were thrown into the cockpit and told to takeoff, so it’s all part of the experience.
+3Certainly an ambitious effort with a ridiculously high part count. Fairly laggy on my iPhone 11, but it’s flyable. Flying characteristics are fairly good, not terribly unrealistic, from what I could do on my iPhone. It’s in the ballpark on weights, though the wing area is about twice that of the RL plane, even considering SP counts the horizontal stab area and RL stats do not. So, the 30 lb/sq ft wing loading imparts a shorter takeoff distance and more sprightly handling than a max gross Superfort probably would have. However, its maneuverability is stately, as it should be, as best I could assess on my lagging iPhone. Some beautiful reproduction work…though I’m disappointed you left the stars and bars off the wings, I absolutely love the nose art. A little overboard on “drop test”, do that test from a quarter that height IRL and you’d break that airplane in half and drive the struts through the cockpit and engine nacelles. Detail work is impressive, build is fun to play with and effort is evident. Here’s something I found that you may find interesting: B-29 gunnery training film.
+3I also have to say the JDAMs and pod tracking are excellent. Not sure if that’s totally your creation or if someone has figured this out before, but that one feature makes this worth the price of admission alone.
+3@HellFireKoder awesome! Sounds like a great update, looking forward to it.
+3You’ve been listening to too many people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Capitalism is not America’s government. Capitalism is an economic system, very different. America isn’t a pure democracy, either…can’t think of a singe nation which has a pure democracy. The closest were the Greek city states in the BCs, and even then, only a limited number of citizens (free men) had a vote. America’s system of government is a federation or constitutional republic, it could even be described as a representative democracy. In the U.S., the people are represented by those they elect to office, both at the state and federal (national) level. The states have a certain degree of autonomy, but this can be trumped by the federal government, which reserves specific powers (raise a military, levy taxes, etc.). As for Capitalism, most of the world has this type of economic system, even many European states, which have socialistic systems where certain aspects of the economy are directed by the government (health care, schooling, etc.) are still by and large Capitalistic nations which have free market systems for most every other aspect of the economy. The antithesis of Capitalism would be socialism in which state (centralized) control and direction of all aspects of the economy, regardless of the prevalent market forces which might dictate otherwise. Ultimate communism is, according to Marx, both a political and economic system (I disagree with Karl here, as do all free citizens who have a clue, that you can have political and economic systems which are independent of one another), requires state control (socialism) to transition to communism from its previous form, has never successfully existed because every nation that’s attempted it has gotten stuck in socialism. Hope this helps.
+3Ok, there’s one big reason why I wouldn’t upvote this, but it’s not the build itself...this thing’s transformation process is MESMERIZING! I must have hit the “Gear” switch twenty times in awe of the transformation process! It sure is unstable when running down the runway in train mode...but, nice work!
+3Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
+3Finally! Makes my iPhone 12 noticeably heat up, as there’s some amazing detail here.
+3Interesting? Check. Accurate? Possibly, not really familiar with this jet. Flight model? I think so...God-awful ugly? Absolutely!
+3@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
+3Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!
+3Definitions are important. The Wright Brothers were certainly not the only people who invented the concepts, pieces and parts required for an “airplane”. But they were the ones to first incorporate them and build the first successful heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight. Santos-Dumont certainly was close to doing so in December of 1903, as was Samuel Langley. Santos-Dumont achieved the same feat independently, but not until 1906. It has to be understood, though, that media was not as widely disseminated or pervasive as it is today, so if SD...and the entire nation of Brazil (Brasil!)...doubted the WBs’ achievement, it’s understandable. Samuel Langley was U.S. government sponsored and also close to success in late 1903, but missed when his “Aerodrome” came off its houseboat-mounted launching mechanism/catapult and went straight into the Potomac River, along with its unfortunate pilot, Charles Manley (who was also the chief engineer and survived). Langley’s engine was much more powerful than the WB engine, but the Aerodrome’s control system and structure was lacking. None other than the Smithsonian Institute sponsored Langley’s subsequent effort to rework the Aerodrome and then fly it in 1914 in an attempt to claim that Langley had first invented the successful airplane, but, clearly, the WBs had already done so and aircraft were far more advanced and developed by 1914. Note that the term “heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight” is very specific...we are not talking about lighter than air balloons or dirigibles, gliders or (essentially unmanned, uncontrolled) model aircraft, all of which had flown a long time prior to 17 December, 1903. However, to make the airplane a useful invention, all of these features had to be incorporated together and lead the way for today’s aircraft. That is what is meant by “inventing the airplane”.
+3Looks good, the AB is impressively done, though similar setups have been used on other builds to similar effect. The presentation is very good, but the big miss IMHO is the post’s title...should have used the full “Grumman F-11A Tiger” instead of the abbreviated “F-11A”, which means...nothing to most people around here, there are probably a hundred fictional posts titled as some variation of “F-11”. But “Grumman” and “Tiger” are evocative of an earlier time when the Grumman “Ironworks” build tough warplanes flown by even tougher men. Anyway, can’t wait to wring this one out and see if the flight model is as good as the aesthetics. Congrats on a 100+ upvote build and a third feature, nice work!
+3@BornToBeBurned well, have to say, “your wings suck” isn’t as helpful as a better suggestion on how you would have built the wings differently. Besides, as the creator has said, this is a fictional build, so “blueprint” rules do not apply.
+3Overall, this is pretty good for a large jet. It flies like a large jet, with realistic acceleration, speeds, wing loading and maneuverability. Though not exactly as heavy as a RL E-3, your build is over 200K, which is much, much better than stupid builds which have negative weights. The wing flex is very well done...subtle enough that it's not distracting and it doesn't ruin the handling, but noticeable as it is IRL. And you use the semi-symmetric airfoil, correct and very good, many, many builders use that Cessna (flat-bottomed) profile for some unfathomable reason. The overall level of detail is good without going overboard and the rotating dish actually rotates. I also like the fact you've included the high lift (LE) devices, roll spoilers, inboard and outboard flaps (though, IRL, there's a roll program that only employs the spoilers over a certain yoke deflection and the outboard ailerons only operate below a certain speed). The reverse thrust visual effect is good, with the sliding translating sleeves.
Complaints/gripes:
Construction/details - Looks good and you nicked theAlban's "U.S. AIR FORCE", but where are the stars and bars? Totally missing, you should have included them as every USAF aircraft has them, sometimes subdued, but they're always there, even on AF1. Plus, they would have lent a much needed pop of color to the otherwise drab grey. Sure, they would have added a few more parts, but once you're over 1,000, does it matter that much anyway? If I'm making a big deal about a small-ish detail it's because as a 24 year AF pilot, every USAF build absolutely, positively needs the glorious stars and bars!
Strobes...yeah, she has them. It's better to assume that any large jet flying in the current era has strobes.
Flight Model - Trim is reversed. IRL, the E-3 has a split switch located on the left (aircraft commander) or right (copilot) horn of the yoke, which moves up and down to actuate the trim. The pilot pushes forward on the switch for nose down trim and pulls back for nose up trim. Don't know why, but many SP builders make this mistake, to the extent that I've griped about it before.
Cockpit View - Really needs one, it's all too easy to get high or low on final, leading to short of overrun landings on Avalanche's runway if you can't see the runway through the build which is blocking your view.
Overall, though, very nice build. Looks like an E-3, flies kinda like an E-3, I agree with the major decisions you made in your build. The details are just that: details. I'd Spotlight you, however, you have many more points than I do!
+3"The numbers are TAS and IAS in knots on the left, and Altitude in feet on the right."...you, sir, are now officially my favorite builder: The only other person I know in all of SP who uses the correct speed (knots) and altitude (feet) units!
+3Oh, and don’t forget the “logo lights”...these are really for lighting up your company’s big logo painted on the tail...advertising, you know. Lit anytime crew is onboard at night and when airborne (below 18,000’).
+3Very interesting build, I'm saving as a favorite due to its use of FT, of which there is a lot. It has 7,700 drag points, which is an enormous amount, but it doesn't like to slow down at all. The fly by wire is interesting. Low part count makes it good for MP, like you say. I also like the simplicity of weaponry. Reminds me a lot of my own F-20 build, but with a straighter wing.
+3The autoroll is very minor on this one. Would suggest you also add trim...a plane without trim is really annoying to fly if one has to constantly hold back stick to make it fly correctly.
+3@Freerider2142 no, he’s correct, the F-17, which eventually became the F-18, was a direct descendent of the F-5E, but vastly improved and more sophisticated.
+3This puts the “simple” back in SimplePlanes...and created on iOS, no less! It’s quite fun to fly around, though it really needs more trim authority.
+3Well, it's certainly ambitious, I'll say that for sure. Working cockpit, details, correct weight, paneling...and TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE parts. My iPhone 8 regularly handles 1,500+ part builds no problems, but I thought this one would crash it (thankfully it didn't). Believe me, I use plenty of parts in my builds...but 2,000+ on a fighter? You certainly put a lot of time and effort into this one that's for sure and you have the patience required of a great builder. Now for some critiques: It's not 1:1, it's about 125% scale, not sure why that is, perhaps you started with the cockpit, got just a little bit off there and it led to a bigger than desired build? That's usually the problem with full cockpit builds. The flight model...my advice is: drag reduction. You're on Windows, so open up the Overload portion and use "dragScale=0" on major sections and "calculateDrag=False" on details...which also eases the required computing power to run a high part build such as this. Add the drag back in using dragScale so that you can have the correct performance for your jet. This technique allows both realistic acceleration rates, as well as deceleration while turning, which replicates what happens when a high performance jet pulls a high G turn. As it is now, you need an 11:1 thrust to weight ratio to overcome your 13,000+ drag points, which leads to ridiculously fast acceleration rates, then it feels like your jet hits a brick wall when it gets to its top speed. At the end of the day, so many dedicated builders spend so, so much time on the basic build, that they lose patience with the flight model, or they simply don't let others test fly their builds and point out things that might be improved with the flight model. But, I have to admire your effort here, keep building and don't take my critiques as harsh criticism, but rather honest critiques which you could use to make an even better build next time. Just keep learning, getting better and you're going to be one of the better builders here some day soon.
+3"It's not impossible, I used to bullseye womprats back home in my T-16...they're not much bigger than 2 meters!"
+3@CRJ900Pilot Basically, what @edensk said. Inside the cockpit, most fighter type aircraft, Navy or Air Force, have a light indicator, which connected to the AoA system and tells the pilot if they’re on approach speed (correct AoA), slow (AoA too high, near to stall AoA) or too fast (AoA above approach AoA). The pilot adjusts his approach speed and approach angle appropriately...in the T-38 it was referred to as “flying the green donut”, because an on speed/on AoA indication was a green “o” light. Those lights, green, amber (yellow) and red on the nose gear of the F-4, F-14 and F-18, et. al., are simply repeater lights of what the pilot sees in his cockpit. The Landing Signals Officer (LSO), who stands by the optical light system on the boat’s deck and monitors every carrier landing, uses these lights while the jet is on approach and issues commands to the approaching jet to correct, continue or go around from the approach. There are other ways to tell during the day if a jet is too fast or slow, in fact when performing U-2 mobile duties from the chase car, I could absolutely tell if a jet was correctly configured, too fast or too slow (mostly based on relative angle of the tailwheel vs. the main gear), but during the night, these lights really help.
+3