30Mlbf, eh? Let's crunch the numbers. The most powerful variant of the GE90 produces roughly 116 thousand lbf, and consumes roughly 43 thousand pounds of jet fuel per hour when maintaining that thrust. It is a pretty efficient engine, so we will use its stats to predict what our imaginary 30M engine would need.
43,000 / 116,000 ≈ 0.37
0.37 x 30,000,000 ≈ 11,120,700
So a single 30M engine would guzzle over 11 million pounds of fuel per hour.
If you wanted to keep a plane with such engine airborne using aerial tankers, you would have to fly a fully loaded KC-135 to it every minute.
Furthermore, just the fuel cost of such a plane would be about 50 thousand dollars per minute.
Your weight estimates are however pretty realistic. If your plane had a similar aerodynamic profile to other planes, such as the 747, its cruise speed when fully loaded with 100,000,000lb would be about 795kph, or 493mph.
The scale estimates, not so much.
The mentioned 748F is about as big as your plane (something over 200x200ft), but carries 100x less cargo and fuel.
If you wanted to construct such a plane in a conventional way (aka engines provide thrust, wings provide lift), it would have to be absolutely MASSIVE; with the length and wingspan of around six kilometers, or 3.7 miles.
However, as @randomusername mentioned, if it were to be a VTOL without wings and with the 30M engines providing both thrust and lift, it could be much smaller, but would require at least 4 of those engines, which would be pretty much impossible because they would consume more fuel than anything could provide them with.
EDIT: Also, the fan of the engine would have to have a diameter of about 1 kilometer
In conclusion, the plane that you described in your post is not realistically possible. But it sounds kinda cool and I may make the engine yeah?
@Awsomur I wanted to, but then I overviewed the comments under that plane again and felt bad, as there were many really genuine negative comments, and I do not want to come out of the situation with more enemies
@FastDan I just noticed that. Those "shaker" gliders stop working under slow-motion. Literally all the game needs is sped up physics and AI calculations and boom 1.8 done :D
You don't. You'll need to include a vertical stabilizer and then scale it down so it is virtually invisible, or you can experiment with gyros but that will be pain in the butt
@Cigi this is obviously based on my Dassault Mercure. You haven't changed the wings at all, the nose shape is extremely similar and the only change to the cockpit is that you flipped one window. Many fuselage sizes are exactly same as mine, not to mention that the landing gear is not changed at all.
Don't get me wrong; you did a good job, and making successors is in no way bad. Just make sure next time you use someone elses plane as a base for your creation you give proper credit.
Also, I want believe it's a glitch, but avoiding the default successor system is a very shady way to get peoples attention.
@DPSAircraft eh, what matters is that I had fun building and flying it, and I firmly believe that right now this is the truest representation of the Lun on SP
WatchMojo would make that video in ten minutes, instead of actually listening to the community they gave up. I was really looking forward to it after all they said, but now I'm never getting excited for rewind again, such bs
You are free to download a plane and take it apart so you can see for yourself. There are at least a few ways to tackle this, so instead of me telling you to use a certain one, it will be much better if you experiment and find the one that suits you the most
I actually looked into the matter, and as long as you are not misrepresenting it, it is fine. It also applies to manufacturers, e.g. if you make a 747 and call it a "Boeing 747", it is fine. If you make an A380 and call it a "Boeing 747", it is technically not legal. But again, on a site like SP, it is hard to define the boundary of "misrepresenting", for example, is this misrepresenting the brand?
A drone with a Raspberry Pi Zero and a GSM module so I can control it anywhere via the Internet. A big drone, over a meter wingspan. Note that it performed its last flight about a month ago when it lost reception, the autopilot failed to kick in, and the entire thing got shredded into oblivion by trees
@FastDan you see, it had so many issues that pretty much every day I had to take it out of the case and put it back in. I figured that while I'm working on it, I might as well just let it sit there next to me. It also does not overheat anymore
Wh.. what? Fly with the keyboard then. The "mouse as joystick" feature truly is terrifying. Or are you talking about the designer controls? Because then I can't imagine how touchscreen controls would be more comfortable than a mouse
If 1 was implemented, it would be extremely limited anyways, as currently the only thing that is being uploaded to the site is text data. If SP were to host image files as well, a limitation to the size and frequency of decals would be necessary. And I can already see the surplus of posts complaining about it, effectively creating more issues than would be solved by implementing decals.
2 would be extremely hard to implement, given the current system that handles fuselages. It uses only nine numbers to define the entire fuselage shape. The entire system would have to be overhauled.
SR2 is far from being SP2. It will be more focused on the space aspect of it, there will be no interesting environment to explore by a plane, and parts such as prop engines will be missing
The AI is so bad that as far as we're concerned it's not even implemented.
It needs a serious overhaul.
What may be happening in your case, is that when the carrier touches water, the game thinks it crashlanded, so it automatically deletes it.
Another random guy on this site thinks that before we have TANK tracks in SimplePLANES, we should have better aircraft AI, more diverse world, a built in multiplayer, a Linux build, and more aircraft parts
@TheMutePaper Heh, school level... At our place we're still rocking the heck outta Celerons and we're loving it. The i3 is a good chip, especially when combined with a good GPU.
However, I can tell you mr. Jetpackturtle that you've spent unnecessary amounts of money on a CD-ROM drive and a fancy case. When my PC components arrived, I did not have a case, so I literally just went outside and "reclaimed" an old beige computer case that I found by a local dumpster.
I'm thinking about a trip to Prague Airport once again.
I have a strange feeling that the An-225 might be coming soon, so that'd be cool.
What camera do you use?
30Mlbf, eh? Let's crunch the numbers. The most powerful variant of the GE90 produces roughly 116 thousand lbf, and consumes roughly 43 thousand pounds of jet fuel per hour when maintaining that thrust. It is a pretty efficient engine, so we will use its stats to predict what our imaginary 30M engine would need.
+443,000 / 116,000 ≈ 0.37
0.37 x 30,000,000 ≈ 11,120,700
So a single 30M engine would guzzle over 11 million pounds of fuel per hour.
If you wanted to keep a plane with such engine airborne using aerial tankers, you would have to fly a fully loaded KC-135 to it every minute.
Furthermore, just the fuel cost of such a plane would be about 50 thousand dollars per minute.
Your weight estimates are however pretty realistic. If your plane had a similar aerodynamic profile to other planes, such as the 747, its cruise speed when fully loaded with 100,000,000lb would be about 795kph, or 493mph.
The scale estimates, not so much.
The mentioned 748F is about as big as your plane (something over 200x200ft), but carries 100x less cargo and fuel.
If you wanted to construct such a plane in a conventional way (aka engines provide thrust, wings provide lift), it would have to be absolutely MASSIVE; with the length and wingspan of around six kilometers, or 3.7 miles.
However, as @randomusername mentioned, if it were to be a VTOL without wings and with the 30M engines providing both thrust and lift, it could be much smaller, but would require at least 4 of those engines, which would be pretty much impossible because they would consume more fuel than anything could provide them with.
EDIT: Also, the fan of the engine would have to have a diameter of about 1 kilometer
In conclusion, the plane that you described in your post is not realistically possible.
But it sounds kinda cool and I may make the engine yeah?
Rick Ashley
+4I shall doubt your claim, but welcome back!
+4@Awsomur I wanted to, but then I overviewed the comments under that plane again and felt bad, as there were many really genuine negative comments, and I do not want to come out of the situation with more enemies
+4@FastDan I just noticed that. Those "shaker" gliders stop working under slow-motion. Literally all the game needs is sped up physics and AI calculations and boom 1.8 done :D
+4You don't. You'll need to include a vertical stabilizer and then scale it down so it is virtually invisible, or you can experiment with gyros but that will be pain in the butt
+4@Awsomur he's right you know. So many cockpits have been wasted by uploading subassemblies! Children in africa coud have eaten them
+4@JohnnyBoythePilot sure! Everything is STOL without proper definition of "short"!
+4@Jundroo add this my doods
+4@Cigi this is obviously based on my Dassault Mercure. You haven't changed the wings at all, the nose shape is extremely similar and the only change to the cockpit is that you flipped one window. Many fuselage sizes are exactly same as mine, not to mention that the landing gear is not changed at all.
+4Don't get me wrong; you did a good job, and making successors is in no way bad. Just make sure next time you use someone elses plane as a base for your creation you give proper credit.
Also, I want believe it's a glitch, but avoiding the default successor system is a very shady way to get peoples attention.
It only spreads if you come in really close contact with someone who already has it
+3<electronic warfare>
+3mmmm not saying these are weak memes, but if you ever want to make another one of these, hmu, i can contribute
+3@DPSAircraft eh, what matters is that I had fun building and flying it, and I firmly believe that right now this is the truest representation of the Lun on SP
+3WatchMojo would make that video in ten minutes, instead of actually listening to the community they gave up. I was really looking forward to it after all they said, but now I'm never getting excited for rewind again, such bs
+3STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL
+3You are free to download a plane and take it apart so you can see for yourself. There are at least a few ways to tackle this, so instead of me telling you to use a certain one, it will be much better if you experiment and find the one that suits you the most
+3well just rebrand it from "push for gold" to a "gold special" and you're good to go
+3@JohnnyBoythePilot it would, but what I (and you) propose would be much easier to implement, over all platforms
+3did you just assume my gender?
+3Nine parts less my man...
+3nine parts less...
No seriously, great work
and yeah don't even think about claiming 888888 cuz I already got an army at my disposal to assure my ownership >:C
+3@TCLY @InternationalAircraftCompany @Simpleplaner656 sry bois/grils I forgot about now I'm turning it into a map addon k? k
+3Antarctica, no joke, I am literally writing this on a penguin right now
+3I actually looked into the matter, and as long as you are not misrepresenting it, it is fine. It also applies to manufacturers, e.g. if you make a 747 and call it a "Boeing 747", it is fine. If you make an A380 and call it a "Boeing 747", it is technically not legal. But again, on a site like SP, it is hard to define the boundary of "misrepresenting", for example, is this misrepresenting the brand?
+39/10 nice meme
+3A drone with a Raspberry Pi Zero and a GSM module so I can control it anywhere via the Internet. A big drone, over a meter wingspan. Note that it performed its last flight about a month ago when it lost reception, the autopilot failed to kick in, and the entire thing got shredded into oblivion by trees
+3@FastDan you see, it had so many issues that pretty much every day I had to take it out of the case and put it back in. I figured that while I'm working on it, I might as well just let it sit there next to me. It also does not overheat anymore
+3seems suicidal
+3Wh.. what? Fly with the keyboard then. The "mouse as joystick" feature truly is terrifying. Or are you talking about the designer controls? Because then I can't imagine how touchscreen controls would be more comfortable than a mouse
+3yes
+3That is sad, I like your creations
+3If 1 was implemented, it would be extremely limited anyways, as currently the only thing that is being uploaded to the site is text data. If SP were to host image files as well, a limitation to the size and frequency of decals would be necessary. And I can already see the surplus of posts complaining about it, effectively creating more issues than would be solved by implementing decals.
2 would be extremely hard to implement, given the current system that handles fuselages. It uses only nine numbers to define the entire fuselage shape. The entire system would have to be overhauled.
3'd be fine tho
+3Is it true that in order to become a moderator you first have to transfer you entire family's savings to Jundroo?
+3He is now together with Stephen Hawking and the old man from Pawn Stars.
F
+3kinda kills the purpose of forums, doesn't it?
+3No news stories?
+3No news stories?
I was so hyped that I will see a mention of me becoming platinum
autistic screeching
Everyone is a good friend except @RailfanEthan, he is extremely dangerous and unpredictable
+3just kidding of course, everyone here is cool
SR2 is far from being SP2. It will be more focused on the space aspect of it, there will be no interesting environment to explore by a plane, and parts such as prop engines will be missing
+3The AI is so bad that as far as we're concerned it's not even implemented.
+3It needs a serious overhaul.
What may be happening in your case, is that when the carrier touches water, the game thinks it crashlanded, so it automatically deletes it.
@Jetliner101 shhhhhhhhh
+3You don't. You need a way to catch the missile right after its ignited
+3Another random guy on this site thinks that before we have TANK tracks in SimplePLANES, we should have better aircraft AI, more diverse world, a built in multiplayer, a Linux build, and more aircraft parts
+3@TheMutePaper Heh, school level... At our place we're still rocking the heck outta Celerons and we're loving it. The i3 is a good chip, especially when combined with a good GPU.
+3However, I can tell you mr. Jetpackturtle that you've spent unnecessary amounts of money on a CD-ROM drive and a fancy case. When my PC components arrived, I did not have a case, so I literally just went outside and "reclaimed" an old beige computer case that I found by a local dumpster.
@hotweels @Boatrider @lolcreeper45 this
+3here it got stabbed 14 times
and here it finally died
sadly, my explosive plans could not be fulfilled :(
+3@Spacedoge12345plane I love you
+3well, they could be used to create functional docking with planes like the KC-135, but the again, it would not work in the multiplayer mod
+3I'm thinking about a trip to Prague Airport once again.
+3I have a strange feeling that the An-225 might be coming soon, so that'd be cool.
What camera do you use?
@WNP78 oh for the love of god please tell me you are still working on the 3D clouds!
+3