@Kangy disagree; many SP builders think a G limiter FT function on the horizontal stab will restrict the G loading on a replica build and result in realistic maneuverability, but that’s not how jets (particular designs from the 1950s) work. Jets almost always have a performance reserve which allows the pilots to over G, if necessary, though pilots are trained to keep their aircraft within G limits by monitoring the G meter during maneuvering flight. F-4 pilots could and frequently accidentally did over G their jets, especially in combat. There are also maintenance inspections that are required following an over G and most jets of this type have strain plates (often in the wing roots) which will crack or deform if the jet is over G’d. Also, most versions of the F-4 had a +8.5 symmetrical G limit at lighter weights, though it certainly couldn’t sustain that loading in level flight and that’s also a gross generalization as version, load out, weight, altitude, whether or not the aileron is displaced (asymmetrical flight) and speed all affected the max allowed G loading.
So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
@edensk yeah, gotcha now. I also looked it up to ensure that I was in the ballpark wrt AoA values; critical AoA values for most airfoils is around 15-20 degrees, so not too far off the quoted 10-13 degrees, but admittedly my value is probably more correct for thinner symmetrical airfoils vice more cambered wings as you already explained.
The ‘angleOfAttack’ (‘AoA’) attribute is not useless, @edensk, at least it’s very useful IRL and useful in game to command actions which would occur at certain AoAs or AoA ranges. Angle of attack is the angle that the airflow hits the mean chord line of the wing; so, if you’re flying slowly in level flight, with the nose at a high angle, but not losing or gaining altitude, you are at a high AoA. Likewise, if you’re turning hard pulling a lot of Gs. However, if you’re flying relatively “flatly”, such as at high speed in level flight, you have a low, or close to zero, AoA. Why is this even important? Well, a wing stalls when exceeding a certain AoA, both IRL and in game…it doesn’t matter the speed, altitude or attitude you’re at…if you exceed that “critical AoA”, the wing stalls. Granted, stalls often happen at slow speeds, because to produce increased lift at slow speeds the wing has to fly at an increased AoA, which puts it closer to the critical AoA. Additionally, greater AoA also produces more drag, as induced drag increases with increased lift. Though SP does use accurate lift and drag curves for the three airfoils present (you can actually look at the RL attributes for each NACA number that the SP airfoils represent and they are pretty accurate), I usually use AoA to extend SBs to simulate the increased drag present at high AoA using the FT formula: clamp01(-angleOfAttack - X), where “X” is the AoA, in degrees, where you want the action to occur. The negative sign is present as SP reverses the RL measure, so that what would be positive AoA IRL (nose up), is represented by the negative measurement and vice versa. Not confusing in the least. Also, to remember, most airfoils, both IRL and in SP, stall (reach their critical AoA) before 10-12 degrees, so I don’t generally link actions beyond that AoA range.
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.
@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!
No splitter plates for the intakes?
@Kangy disagree; many SP builders think a G limiter FT function on the horizontal stab will restrict the G loading on a replica build and result in realistic maneuverability, but that’s not how jets (particular designs from the 1950s) work. Jets almost always have a performance reserve which allows the pilots to over G, if necessary, though pilots are trained to keep their aircraft within G limits by monitoring the G meter during maneuvering flight. F-4 pilots could and frequently accidentally did over G their jets, especially in combat. There are also maintenance inspections that are required following an over G and most jets of this type have strain plates (often in the wing roots) which will crack or deform if the jet is over G’d. Also, most versions of the F-4 had a +8.5 symmetrical G limit at lighter weights, though it certainly couldn’t sustain that loading in level flight and that’s also a gross generalization as version, load out, weight, altitude, whether or not the aileron is displaced (asymmetrical flight) and speed all affected the max allowed G loading.
+2So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
An all-around excellent build, nice work!
+4I assume this works on intakes as well?
+104.
Interesting.
B-29…or Tu-4…😉
+2@HellFireKoder awesome! Sounds like a great update, looking forward to it.
+3@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
+9It’s entertaining, very simple and reminds me of a Jag. Could use a little more trim, but it’s pretty fun to fly.
F-5?
+2Simple Hornet, I like it.
+1@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
+1Semi-circles…now, it’s impossible to build good intakes for Mirage/F-104/etc. without paneling.
+19Flaps.
+9Standard landing gear parts should increase drag when extended and remove that drag when retracted.
+6Better drag model that increases the induced drag penalty but doesn’t overly penalize for parasite drag.
+6Drag on the standard weapons, which decreases the build’s total drag when those weapons are expended.
+1A way of making holes, doors, openings in the hollow fuselage.
+31Rocket engine.
+11Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
+16Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
+9Supersonic effects
+28@KfcGaming I’m not inactive, just not very active.
Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
+1@RC1138Boss not sure what you mean by that…
I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
+6Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
“F-5E Tiger II”, not “F5E-Tiger II”.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
+1@ACEPILOT109 what do you think of this build?
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
Looks good. How’s the flight model coming along?
I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
+1@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
+1Stealth.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
+1@edensk yeah, gotcha now. I also looked it up to ensure that I was in the ballpark wrt AoA values; critical AoA values for most airfoils is around 15-20 degrees, so not too far off the quoted 10-13 degrees, but admittedly my value is probably more correct for thinner symmetrical airfoils vice more cambered wings as you already explained.
The ‘angleOfAttack’ (‘AoA’) attribute is not useless, @edensk, at least it’s very useful IRL and useful in game to command actions which would occur at certain AoAs or AoA ranges. Angle of attack is the angle that the airflow hits the mean chord line of the wing; so, if you’re flying slowly in level flight, with the nose at a high angle, but not losing or gaining altitude, you are at a high AoA. Likewise, if you’re turning hard pulling a lot of Gs. However, if you’re flying relatively “flatly”, such as at high speed in level flight, you have a low, or close to zero, AoA. Why is this even important? Well, a wing stalls when exceeding a certain AoA, both IRL and in game…it doesn’t matter the speed, altitude or attitude you’re at…if you exceed that “critical AoA”, the wing stalls. Granted, stalls often happen at slow speeds, because to produce increased lift at slow speeds the wing has to fly at an increased AoA, which puts it closer to the critical AoA. Additionally, greater AoA also produces more drag, as induced drag increases with increased lift. Though SP does use accurate lift and drag curves for the three airfoils present (you can actually look at the RL attributes for each NACA number that the SP airfoils represent and they are pretty accurate), I usually use AoA to extend SBs to simulate the increased drag present at high AoA using the FT formula: clamp01(-angleOfAttack - X), where “X” is the AoA, in degrees, where you want the action to occur. The negative sign is present as SP reverses the RL measure, so that what would be positive AoA IRL (nose up), is represented by the negative measurement and vice versa. Not confusing in the least. Also, to remember, most airfoils, both IRL and in SP, stall (reach their critical AoA) before 10-12 degrees, so I don’t generally link actions beyond that AoA range.
+1You’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.
+3Nice job balancing stability with tossability. I’ve never flown a rotorcraft IRL, so can’t really revaluate the flight model, but I like this one.
Is this the one we worked on together a long time ago?
@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!
+4