Pitch issues usually come in two flavors. Either the COL and COM are too far apart or you pitch control surfaces are too small.
So, check to see where the red ball and yellow ball are, and reduce the weight of the nose if they look far apart. Or, make bigger elevators (the flappy bits that handle pitch). I would like to point out that there are no fast jets that have elevators IRL, instead the entire tail rotates.
Hey, can you link me when you post this? I need to learn to to build good flaps and I think I can learn a lot from your build. I'm pretty good at making good looking wings, but the hidden "real" wing is often frustrating.
If something gets hit with a torpedo, that thing is going to explode. Torpedoes often carry an explosive charge equivalent to more than half a metric ton of dynamite and explosives are even more powerful underwater than above. Large vessels have been torn in half by a single torpedo hit.
@MarinoYeet The concept is fine, rain small bullets to terrify infantry. The USA eventually perfected it with the AC-47, AC-130, etc. But the Soviets should have brainstormed over their design a bit more before building such a deeply flawed design.
As for planes that could usefully bring many guns to bear, here's a photo of an A-26 Invader firing 14 .50 caliber machine guns at once. The USAF would end up using that plane until the the 1970's because it was so good at ground attack.
I've seen 'Enola Gay' up close and I was surprised how cramped the pilot stations looked. A B-29 is by no means a small plane, but it's kind of shocking how far we've come since this was the most advanced thing in the air.
@brians1209 Put it like a block length ahead of the front glass, paint all the parts really bright orange and make sure all the parts are so skinny that you can't see it unless you're in cockpit view
There were versions of the B-25 and A-26 that sported more than 12 forward firing Brownings, in addition to turret guns but the Russians experimented with THIS MONSTROSITY that featured 88 downward firing submachine guns.
@brians1209 No. I oversimplified. The sight had an auto-rangefinder to assist with aim, and several useful indicators. This video gives a pretty good idea of what it looked like.
The key takeaway here is that most fighters were equipped with radar that could tell you if something was in front of you, and how far. They could tell you if they were higher, lower, or off to one side but only within a narrow cone, like very large flashlight beam sticking out your nose. But it wasn't easy to use. If your target was between you and the ground, he was basically invisible because all the radar screen would show you was the ground. And the screens were terrible.
It wasn't until the F-4 Phantom II that fighter planes were given really advanced radar, most other stuff in the 60's relied on help from ground based radar or AWACS.
Radar itself was pretty advanced in the 1960's, there were even experimental aircraft that had built-in ground avoidance. But the actual radar display was exceedingly primitive, not any where close to what modern people associate with a radar screen. Here's an image of the radar screen from a MIG-21 Fishbed, one of the best fighters of the 1960's. No fancy "heads up" display or anything, just a WWR style holographic gun site and a crummy looking CRT screen down by your knees.
Radar was generally used to locate enemies, but heat seeking missiles usually proved to be more reliable than radar guided ones when it came to the actual fighting.
UK fighters came in 2 flavors:
supersonic interceptors that were extremely fast, extremely short range, and only good at shooting down other planes seeE.E. Lightning
Or
Slower, subsonic multi role jets that had longer range and traded some air to air power for the ability to do a variety of jobs like ground attack seeBlackburn Buccaneer
@GoldenFalcon63 No problem! This stuff will make more sense to you in time. Every last one of us went through this exact thing you're going through, learning by problem solving and asking for help.
@asteroidbook345 Very vulnerable. I'm not saying everyone did it, either. I'm sure there were plenty of guys too scared to, but they probably weren't very good at their job.
@asteroidbook345 Periscope is there to use while taking or expecting to take fire. It doesn't provide the awareness one would need to navigate rough terrain or watch out for danger. As a matter of fact it was common for the crew to park the tank while the commander got out and walked ahead to scout the other side of a hill.
Airplanes are a balancing act. The further apart the yellow ball (lift) is from the red ball (mass) the more force is required to pull the nose up. You can increase that force by building larger elevators on your tail, by flying at a higher speed, or by increasing the size of your wings. Or you could just move your main wings forward or whatever heavy stuff you crammed into the nose a bit further back.
Large attack jets such as this are assigned two syllable B names (for Jet Bomber) like Blackjack, Bison or Backfire. A two syllable F name means "jet fighter."
I like the details here and you really got the feel of early supersonic bombers. This is very nice to see and I look forward to your next plane.
@asteroidbook345 A good WW2 tank commander almost always had their eyes outside the tank. Situational awareness was impossible from within a "buttoned up" vehicle, and it was the commanders duty to his crew to maintain that awareness.
@sailor666 You've done great work here. A very faithful rendition of a very uncommon tank.
@Frenchman @Gestour You might want to go with the StuG III instead. It's very similar, but had a much larger impact on the war. The Germans churned out about 10,000 Stug 3's using the outdated Panzer-3 layout vs only about 1,000 Stug-4's using the more valuable Panzer-4 chassis.
@ACEPILOT109 I think they used the number 28 in reference to the MIG-29 Fulcrum which was the most feared Soviet fighter at the time (we hadn't yet learned to properly fear the unholy terror that is the Su-27). I figured you knew all this stuff but I posted anyway in case anybody here was curious. Nice Tiger by the way, probably one of the most under rated designs to come out of the 1950's.
You can learn about the history of the real life Top Gun program here.
Long story short, in the old days, US pilots weren't trained to dogfight and it was a disaster over Vietnam. So the Navy opened a dogfighting school and used American planes painted as Soviet ones in mock dogfights. The Northrop F-5 was the American stand-in for the Mikoyan-Gurevich MIG-21. When the movie TOP-GUN was made, the film makers used footage of the real-life instructors flying their Soviet painted F-5's and called them "MIG-28's"
My boss was part of the flight crew on an EA-3B (the Navy version of this plane) back in the 80s. He said landing in a plane this large on a carrier deck was terrifying.
@ChiChiWerx If Simple Planes does one thing, it lets everyone be a test pilot. Few other games or simulators allow you to experience bugged flight controls, murderously slim performance envelopes, or the simple joy of half your aircraft mysteriously disintegrating for no apparent reason.
My lizard brain just went "Oh, left is right and right is left whenever I try to do something stupid. Ok." Eventually I was able to translate that into "Stop doing stupid things" but for the first five minutes I was perfectly happy just using reverse inputs while twisting around in ways that would probably have drained all the blood from my head IRL.
@AircraftoftheRedStar Thank you very much
Yay, I love a good hypnoplane!
T Solidarity, comrade!
+1@Thecatbaron I am amazed you squeezed so much detail out of less than 1000 parts. She looks so pretty.
What's the part count on this juggernaut?
Pitch issues usually come in two flavors. Either the COL and COM are too far apart or you pitch control surfaces are too small.
So, check to see where the red ball and yellow ball are, and reduce the weight of the nose if they look far apart. Or, make bigger elevators (the flappy bits that handle pitch). I would like to point out that there are no fast jets that have elevators IRL, instead the entire tail rotates.
Hey, can you link me when you post this? I need to learn to to build good flaps and I think I can learn a lot from your build. I'm pretty good at making good looking wings, but the hidden "real" wing is often frustrating.
+1I want to see thoughtful creations that display just how much the builder cared about what he was building.
If something gets hit with a torpedo, that thing is going to explode. Torpedoes often carry an explosive charge equivalent to more than half a metric ton of dynamite and explosives are even more powerful underwater than above. Large vessels have been torn in half by a single torpedo hit.
+1@IngenerMakogon2007 Suit yourself, bud
If you use XML to scale up the Interceptor missile, it looks pretty similar to the SA-2 Guideline and it does the job pretty well.
Sounds like your mobile is bad.
+1@MarinoYeet I agree.
@MarinoYeet The concept is fine, rain small bullets to terrify infantry. The USA eventually perfected it with the AC-47, AC-130, etc. But the Soviets should have brainstormed over their design a bit more before building such a deeply flawed design.
As for planes that could usefully bring many guns to bear, here's a photo of an A-26 Invader firing 14 .50 caliber machine guns at once. The USAF would end up using that plane until the the 1970's because it was so good at ground attack.
+1@brians1209 Hmmm, that's a good question. Not sure.
+1I've seen 'Enola Gay' up close and I was surprised how cramped the pilot stations looked. A B-29 is by no means a small plane, but it's kind of shocking how far we've come since this was the most advanced thing in the air.
Perhaps they could join forces or something.
ZOOM IN ON PLANE IN SCREENSHOT
Polish Armored Train
@brians1209 Put it like a block length ahead of the front glass, paint all the parts really bright orange and make sure all the parts are so skinny that you can't see it unless you're in cockpit view
+1There were versions of the B-25 and A-26 that sported more than 12 forward firing Brownings, in addition to turret guns but the Russians experimented with THIS MONSTROSITY that featured 88 downward firing submachine guns.
@brians1209 No. I oversimplified. The sight had an auto-rangefinder to assist with aim, and several useful indicators. This video gives a pretty good idea of what it looked like.
The key takeaway here is that most fighters were equipped with radar that could tell you if something was in front of you, and how far. They could tell you if they were higher, lower, or off to one side but only within a narrow cone, like very large flashlight beam sticking out your nose. But it wasn't easy to use. If your target was between you and the ground, he was basically invisible because all the radar screen would show you was the ground. And the screens were terrible.
It wasn't until the F-4 Phantom II that fighter planes were given really advanced radar, most other stuff in the 60's relied on help from ground based radar or AWACS.
+1@randomusername Clamp is so lovely.
+1Radar itself was pretty advanced in the 1960's, there were even experimental aircraft that had built-in ground avoidance. But the actual radar display was exceedingly primitive, not any where close to what modern people associate with a radar screen. Here's an image of the radar screen from a MIG-21 Fishbed, one of the best fighters of the 1960's. No fancy "heads up" display or anything, just a WWR style holographic gun site and a crummy looking CRT screen down by your knees.
Radar was generally used to locate enemies, but heat seeking missiles usually proved to be more reliable than radar guided ones when it came to the actual fighting.
UK fighters came in 2 flavors:
supersonic interceptors that were extremely fast, extremely short range, and only good at shooting down other planes see E.E. Lightning
Or
Slower, subsonic multi role jets that had longer range and traded some air to air power for the ability to do a variety of jobs like ground attack see Blackburn Buccaneer
+1SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB.
This is old and there are now more complicated ways of making good wings, but Q's old method is easy to understand
+2Sure thing, looks great
Could be a few days for me, @work.
+1KAVINSKY
@GoldenFalcon63 No problem! This stuff will make more sense to you in time. Every last one of us went through this exact thing you're going through, learning by problem solving and asking for help.
+2@asteroidbook345 Very vulnerable. I'm not saying everyone did it, either. I'm sure there were plenty of guys too scared to, but they probably weren't very good at their job.
@asteroidbook345 Periscope is there to use while taking or expecting to take fire. It doesn't provide the awareness one would need to navigate rough terrain or watch out for danger. As a matter of fact it was common for the crew to park the tank while the commander got out and walked ahead to scout the other side of a hill.
Airplanes are a balancing act. The further apart the yellow ball (lift) is from the red ball (mass) the more force is required to pull the nose up. You can increase that force by building larger elevators on your tail, by flying at a higher speed, or by increasing the size of your wings. Or you could just move your main wings forward or whatever heavy stuff you crammed into the nose a bit further back.
+1@Shadowed As mentioned above, I have mass set to one thousand for each rotator.
Large attack jets such as this are assigned two syllable B names (for Jet Bomber) like Blackjack, Bison or Backfire. A two syllable F name means "jet fighter."
I like the details here and you really got the feel of early supersonic bombers. This is very nice to see and I look forward to your next plane.
+1I've been working on one of these myself, a very interesting bird and quite ahead of its time.
+1@asteroidbook345 A good WW2 tank commander almost always had their eyes outside the tank. Situational awareness was impossible from within a "buttoned up" vehicle, and it was the commanders duty to his crew to maintain that awareness.
@sailor666 You've done great work here. A very faithful rendition of a very uncommon tank.
This is an impressive level of detail for 700 parts and clearly a labor of love. Congratulations!
@SnoWFLakE0s Ok, will do. Thanks for your time
A very extensive glossary, great work!
@SnoWFLakE0s Thanks! What's the exclamation point mean? Do I use that as the input or AG?
Mikoyan-Gurevich only make fighters, but yeah, looks good.
+1By "fly like it should" do you mean "litter the West German countryside with flaming wreckage?"
@Frenchman @Gestour You might want to go with the StuG III instead. It's very similar, but had a much larger impact on the war. The Germans churned out about 10,000 Stug 3's using the outdated Panzer-3 layout vs only about 1,000 Stug-4's using the more valuable Panzer-4 chassis.
@ACEPILOT109 I think they used the number 28 in reference to the MIG-29 Fulcrum which was the most feared Soviet fighter at the time (we hadn't yet learned to properly fear the unholy terror that is the Su-27). I figured you knew all this stuff but I posted anyway in case anybody here was curious. Nice Tiger by the way, probably one of the most under rated designs to come out of the 1950's.
You can learn about the history of the real life Top Gun program here.
Long story short, in the old days, US pilots weren't trained to dogfight and it was a disaster over Vietnam. So the Navy opened a dogfighting school and used American planes painted as Soviet ones in mock dogfights. The Northrop F-5 was the American stand-in for the Mikoyan-Gurevich MIG-21. When the movie TOP-GUN was made, the film makers used footage of the real-life instructors flying their Soviet painted F-5's and called them "MIG-28's"
+1My boss was part of the flight crew on an EA-3B (the Navy version of this plane) back in the 80s. He said landing in a plane this large on a carrier deck was terrifying.
+2@DEVINBOSS I'm pleased you like it! Back when I made this, I was trying to get people interested in planes from the 1920's and 30's. Anyway, cheers
@Fighterjester I'm pleased you like it
@ChiChiWerx If Simple Planes does one thing, it lets everyone be a test pilot. Few other games or simulators allow you to experience bugged flight controls, murderously slim performance envelopes, or the simple joy of half your aircraft mysteriously disintegrating for no apparent reason.
My lizard brain just went "Oh, left is right and right is left whenever I try to do something stupid. Ok." Eventually I was able to translate that into "Stop doing stupid things" but for the first five minutes I was perfectly happy just using reverse inputs while twisting around in ways that would probably have drained all the blood from my head IRL.
+1