@Megaplanesinc Gotcha. Check out the re-shapable fuselage blocks, they're great for making planes look sleek, and you can fill them with fuel as needed.
Fun Fact: PBY is navy code for Patrol Bomber- Consolidated Aircraft Corporation. They had a letter for each contractor that submitted designs to the USN and I guess Consolidated came late to the party so they got stuck with the letter Y.
@Potato21 There's a bunch of other tricks. Resizing huge wings to the size of normal ones using mods or XML. Mass scaling the plane to extra low weight. Hiding additional wings with control surfaces inside the fuselage. I just don't know whats available to IOS users.
@Jengstrom is right, your planes will get more attention if you take the time to make them look special and people will enjoy them more if you take the time to make them handle well. By handling, I don't mean speed, I mean not nose/tail heavy at cruising speed, a decently low stall speed, the ability to takeoff and land safely.
It's easy to tack on a modded engine or a bazillion guns, but it's the thoughtful builds that turn heads around here.
OH! To increase the rate your plane pitches... many things. Reduce the weight of the front of your plane or move the main wings forward (DANGER: if you do this too much, your plane will be unstable), increase the size of your elevator control surfaces (the flippers on your tail)
Pitch is an angle. Usually it sets itself automatically. If you dive into engine settings you can make it permanently one angle or have it controlled by the VTOL slider etc.
@Mostly It absolutely boosted the development of many things. I think we're on the same page. Development would continue, but slowly. Maybe not with the RAF, but in Germany or the USA, maybe even France (lol). I'm studying the 20's and 30's right now, tech was moving at an incredible rate even in the Great Depression. They had doubled the air-speed record to over 400mph in only 10 years, mostly due to advances in turbochargers.
@Mostly Absolutely. I can agree with that. But my point is that the technological innovations people attribute to WW2 would have come along just the same without all the carnage. The war effort certainly accelerated development, but many of these devices already existed as prototypes before the war and would have continued development at a slower pace in any event. Wars happen, and we'd be fools not to stay prepared, but it's also foolish to think of war as benevolent, just my opinion. (PS: Cannons actually evolved out of firearms instead of vice-versa. Weird, huh?)
@Mostly The 003 wasn't the first functional jet engine, it wasn't even the first one to fly. The Heinkel 178 first flew a month before the war started, and research would have marched on had the war never happened. The BMW designs were good, but too early to be reliable. Had the war not rushed development, the first engines to see production would have been in the early 50's and probably would have been much better in terms of matallurgy.
@Mostly Turbofans did not see practical application untill the late 1950's in the form of the Rolls Royce Conway engine, but developmental experiments were conducted throughout the 40s.
Turbo-JETS, were constructed by German and English engineers throughout the 1930's. Here is a picture of Hans Ohain standing next to one of his engines in 1935, 4 years before WW2. Please understand that these designs were not pulled out of thin air, they were built around research and experiments that had been carried out for many, many decades. To declare the first practical application as "the invention" of something is to miss the entire point.
I had this problem with my Foxbat. I cannot tell you WHY it happened, but I can tell you when. I would get ultra shiny surfaces when I scaled a part up too much, I think it was something like 5×1×14, maybe longer. All my attempts to 'fix' the part resulted in the shine returning later. In the end I had to throw the part out and substitute multiple smaller pieces. Good luck.
@Mostly As I said, turbojet designs were produced in France and England throughout the first 3 decades of the 20th century. A common problem with history is that people fail to take a long view of things, they don't see the centuries of development and merely recognize a single "eureka" moment.
@Mostly I'm not so sure you read all of what I was saying but basically the TLDR is that 9/10's of the tech we associate with WW2 was under development for many decades before it was rushed into wartime applications. The jet being a primary example. Yes, the first jet planes flew during the war but people had been building rockets and ramjets for centuries, and the first turbojet engines were designed throughout the first half of the 20th. Sure, huge developments were made in the 40's but they were the tip of a very old iceberg. I can discuss this at length if you want, but if you're just here for lulz thats fine too.
@LotusEngineering That is true, but there are some that go to great lengths to get the look and the feel. It's a lot more work, but it's the difference between a plane you upvote and a plane to you keep coming back to.
Thats funny but I gotta say: I wouldn't mind getting my hands on some of those jets they have, especially their Shenyang J-5's. That place is for classic jets what Cuba is for classic cars.
@MrTyTheGreat Not on here, I do try to make my planes handle realistically at certain altitudes, but thats mostly with mass scaling and thrust scaling.
This guy knows what's up.
+3The SCOURGE, hell yeah!
Cool background story, reminds me of the B-36.÷
Supersonic aircraft don't have split tail elevators, instead the whole horizontal tail is attached to a rotator servo.
Happy Dog Year to you too!
@Megaplanesinc Cool. I'll follow you so I can see what you make.
@Megaplanesinc Gotcha. Check out the re-shapable fuselage blocks, they're great for making planes look sleek, and you can fill them with fuel as needed.
@Potato21 XD
+1Fun Fact: PBY is navy code for Patrol Bomber- Consolidated Aircraft Corporation. They had a letter for each contractor that submitted designs to the USN and I guess Consolidated came late to the party so they got stuck with the letter Y.
@Potato21 There's a bunch of other tricks. Resizing huge wings to the size of normal ones using mods or XML. Mass scaling the plane to extra low weight. Hiding additional wings with control surfaces inside the fuselage. I just don't know whats available to IOS users.
Dang, I wish I could build high-detail stuff like this as quickly as you.
@MrDoolittle Cluster bombs, camera guided bombs, etc are all available if you search them out. Laser guided isn't, but I could be wrong.
@Jengstrom is right, your planes will get more attention if you take the time to make them look special and people will enjoy them more if you take the time to make them handle well. By handling, I don't mean speed, I mean not nose/tail heavy at cruising speed, a decently low stall speed, the ability to takeoff and land safely.
It's easy to tack on a modded engine or a bazillion guns, but it's the thoughtful builds that turn heads around here.
OH! To increase the rate your plane pitches... many things. Reduce the weight of the front of your plane or move the main wings forward (DANGER: if you do this too much, your plane will be unstable), increase the size of your elevator control surfaces (the flippers on your tail)
@InternationalAircraftCompany Yeah, I know.
Use the search tool, there are tons of them posted.
Pitch is an angle. Usually it sets itself automatically. If you dive into engine settings you can make it permanently one angle or have it controlled by the VTOL slider etc.
Like a Mig-19 and an F-105 had a kid out of wedlock.
@MesserschmittCockatiel I usually make my planes from blueprints. I download the line art and use MS Paint to measure the pixels. It takes forever.
@IGNikolaev You did a very good job, I recognized it immediately.
@MesserschmittCockatiel Heh, I'll probably spend 4 weeks.
Awesome, as always.
Hopefully, I'll be working on one of these pretty soon.
You sure it's not the MC-72? Very nice work! I'm working on the S6 right now.
@Botfinder Gotcha. Sorry if that came off overly aggro. Metric is all base-10, so it's pretty easy math once you figure out whats what.
@Botfinder Make it an OPTION, not mandatory.
+1@Mostly It absolutely boosted the development of many things. I think we're on the same page. Development would continue, but slowly. Maybe not with the RAF, but in Germany or the USA, maybe even France (lol). I'm studying the 20's and 30's right now, tech was moving at an incredible rate even in the Great Depression. They had doubled the air-speed record to over 400mph in only 10 years, mostly due to advances in turbochargers.
@Mostly Absolutely. I can agree with that. But my point is that the technological innovations people attribute to WW2 would have come along just the same without all the carnage. The war effort certainly accelerated development, but many of these devices already existed as prototypes before the war and would have continued development at a slower pace in any event. Wars happen, and we'd be fools not to stay prepared, but it's also foolish to think of war as benevolent, just my opinion. (PS: Cannons actually evolved out of firearms instead of vice-versa. Weird, huh?)
@Mostly The 003 wasn't the first functional jet engine, it wasn't even the first one to fly. The Heinkel 178 first flew a month before the war started, and research would have marched on had the war never happened. The BMW designs were good, but too early to be reliable. Had the war not rushed development, the first engines to see production would have been in the early 50's and probably would have been much better in terms of matallurgy.
Reminds me of some 1930's French and American racer designs. Very cool.
+1@Mostly Turbofans did not see practical application untill the late 1950's in the form of the Rolls Royce Conway engine, but developmental experiments were conducted throughout the 40s.
Turbo-JETS, were constructed by German and English engineers throughout the 1930's. Here is a picture of Hans Ohain standing next to one of his engines in 1935, 4 years before WW2. Please understand that these designs were not pulled out of thin air, they were built around research and experiments that had been carried out for many, many decades. To declare the first practical application as "the invention" of something is to miss the entire point.
VTOL is much simpler now that we have gyros to keep things stable at low speed.
I had this problem with my Foxbat. I cannot tell you WHY it happened, but I can tell you when. I would get ultra shiny surfaces when I scaled a part up too much, I think it was something like 5×1×14, maybe longer. All my attempts to 'fix' the part resulted in the shine returning later. In the end I had to throw the part out and substitute multiple smaller pieces. Good luck.
Don't neglect the Overload mod. Easy access to disable collisions and other xml tweaks that save TONS of time.
@Mostly As I said, turbojet designs were produced in France and England throughout the first 3 decades of the 20th century. A common problem with history is that people fail to take a long view of things, they don't see the centuries of development and merely recognize a single "eureka" moment.
@Mostly I'm not so sure you read all of what I was saying but basically the TLDR is that 9/10's of the tech we associate with WW2 was under development for many decades before it was rushed into wartime applications. The jet being a primary example. Yes, the first jet planes flew during the war but people had been building rockets and ramjets for centuries, and the first turbojet engines were designed throughout the first half of the 20th. Sure, huge developments were made in the 40's but they were the tip of a very old iceberg. I can discuss this at length if you want, but if you're just here for lulz thats fine too.
@Phantom1 Thanks
@LotusEngineering That is true, but there are some that go to great lengths to get the look and the feel. It's a lot more work, but it's the difference between a plane you upvote and a plane to you keep coming back to.
+1I never realized England made whiskey! Also, cool build.
@Aidan301148 No, the autocredit did NOT work and 4 people have already made copies and the dude who actually made this thing isn't getting any credit.
Its nice to see someone on here paying attention to how their plane actually handles.
Awesome work
Sweet ride
@Tovarishch Sure thing, keep up the good work
+2@COENTHETESTPILOT Sure, go right ahead.
Thats funny but I gotta say: I wouldn't mind getting my hands on some of those jets they have, especially their Shenyang J-5's. That place is for classic jets what Cuba is for classic cars.
@Stellarlabs lololol
@Stellarlabs Sorry man, no can talk. Gotta keep it kid friendly. :)
@MrTyTheGreat Not on here, I do try to make my planes handle realistically at certain altitudes, but thats mostly with mass scaling and thrust scaling.
Kinda Romulan looking, in a good way.