Center of mass affects pitch rate based on how far forward it is from the center of lift (further forward, the sloweer and more awkward turns are, but the more inhereantly stable the craft will be, useful for high speed). It affects how quickly you can pitch up (and whether your plane tends to level off, pitch up or nose down in normal flight) based on it's vertical location relative to the center of thrust. Chances are, you should keep it ABOVE your center of thrust because people really don't like aircraft that nose down every time you gun the throttle.
It's gonna be hard for you to improve, I don't think IOS allows for nudging and I know it doesn't allow modding or xml editing. I guess the best way to improve is to decide what you'd like to be able to do, what sort of things are you interested in creating, that sort of thing.
Don't build the Maus, or any of the other dopey, ego tripping experimental German designs, most of them were too slow, too heavy, and too unreliable to leave their own factory, much less support their army. The T-34, M-26, A-34 Comet (or even a German Stug-3) are all great designs that served their nations well. Ever seen the Hetzer?
Actually, those three features probably lead to more bugged aircraft than anything else on here. They're usable, but if you're making something complicated, you're better off not using them or at least testing to make sure it worked properly.
@SpyTheGamerX Its safe to say almost all fighters have flaps and slats for takeoff and landing. The F18 has leading edge root extensions, the F-14 features swing-wings, The F-104 featured a boundary layer control system.
If it interests you, I have a post entitled "colored sparklers" that contains modded wing guns. If you put two of these facing backward at the rear of your plane, they leave a trail of bullets that will detonate anything that touches them (including you, so be careful). They use up a LOT of processing, so don't use too many at once or you might crash your phone.
Either access the xml file of the plane in question and modify the parts by hand in Notepad or get the Overloader mod and use it to modify the parts in game. You can also download modded parts from other people and copy them. You are an android user, so Overloader should be available to you.
@Exofalt Agreed, there is an endless armada of hastily thrown together Spits, Mustangs and ME-262's. But if you put enough effort to catch the eye, and enough care to make the creation fun, you can get to the front page with imaginary designs. Even some replicas are pretty darn creative, have you seen the "Eggamato" someone posted the other day?
@Exofalt I think you underestimate how much time some of us put into "getting the design right." Realistic performance is much more difficult to achieve than good performance, specifically landing characteristics, stall speeds, and trim issues. As for aesthetics, I am pretty sure it wouldn't take me weeks to complete a project if I could simply change or omit parts of my plane that were ugly or difficult to recreate. Let me be clear about this. I hold replicas to a more critical standard than original ideas, because it is easier to make a MEDIOCRE replica. But making a GOOD replica, one that really looks and works like the real thing, is very very time consuming. It is more difficult to get attention with an original or imaginary build, but overall that balances out with the difficulties of properly executing a decent replica.
@FltLtFox Real life engineers encountered this problem many times. Huge props allowed for better performance, but made takeoff and landing hazardous. A quick look at the long, spindly landing gear of the ME-109 or the strange, bent wings of the F4U-Corsair gives a clue to the compromises that must be made.
@Exofalt Not true. Each present unique challenges if they are to be done well. I don't think anyone can objectively say one is more difficult than the other.
I think it's much harder to get attention with original ideas, but they often get tremendous acclaim. Sleddriver is a good example of this, so are the wide variety of futuristic spacecraft, mecha, and jets that make it to the front page. But it is easier to get attention with something familiar.
The fixed props are overspending, most likely. The other one is probably colliding with bullets. If you place the guns close enough forward, the bullets used to be able to spawn in front of the prop, thus bypassing the problem, (See my SBD3-DAUNTLESS for an example) but that may not be the case anymore. Good luck.
@LotusEngineering Sure thing. The main wings of this Thunderchief feature those type of wing. Two green, two white sandwiched together. Just pull them off and reshape them. They're angled slightly anhedral, but you should be able to work around it. GOOD LUCK! https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/40G95H/F-105D-Thunderchief
If you make the rig you want, and post it with the cockpit sitting on top, people can nudge the cockpit inside the rig where no one will see it. Much easier than trying to reshape a cockpit.
@SpyTheGamerX Sorry man, options are limited. Each wing is custom designed to work within a specific range of speeds, the only way to change that range is to change the wing or change the air around it. That's why we have flaps, slats, swing-wings, leading edge root extensions, and boundary layer control systems.
My SBD3-DAUNTLESS has a link in the description to an educational film the US Navy produced during WW2 about how to divebomb. Obviously planes were much slower then, but the technique pretty much remains the same.
The first thing you should know about speed is air resistance. I'm not talking about drag, either. I'm talking about your wings tearing off and your plane exploding because you went too fast at low altitude. The default wings are only reliable below a certain speed below 20,000 feet, below that, youd better use structural wings.
Weight itself has some small effect on max speed, but mostly just acceleration and turning. The main factors that effect speed are thrust and drag. You can xml mod an engine or download a missed one that can give you any amount of thrust you want. You will ALWAYS be faster above 30,000 or so because air density is lower and you'll get less drag. Good luck.
To construct main wings, I xml structural wings to allow control surfaces, then I create 2 control surfaces on each wing. The outer one I make roll (ailerons) the inner one I Xml mod to be VTOL (flaps). In real life, flaps only extend downwards, increasing lift, but allowing it to go both ways (unrealistically) simplifies trim control, so I usually keep it that way.
Change the airfoil or size of the main wings, rotate the tail surfaces up or down about one degree (if you know how to do that), move the center of mass forward. Trim tabs or flaps are honestly the best solution because they're adjustable to any altitude, angle of attack or speed, other solutions are merely situational.
Gotcha
Center of mass affects pitch rate based on how far forward it is from the center of lift (further forward, the sloweer and more awkward turns are, but the more inhereantly stable the craft will be, useful for high speed). It affects how quickly you can pitch up (and whether your plane tends to level off, pitch up or nose down in normal flight) based on it's vertical location relative to the center of thrust. Chances are, you should keep it ABOVE your center of thrust because people really don't like aircraft that nose down every time you gun the throttle.
It's gonna be hard for you to improve, I don't think IOS allows for nudging and I know it doesn't allow modding or xml editing. I guess the best way to improve is to decide what you'd like to be able to do, what sort of things are you interested in creating, that sort of thing.
I guess you could call that "electronic warfare."
@Blackknife https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/BV5fQY/Gulf-Ford-GT40
That good.
Attach parachutes and landing gear?
I like the nice rounded corners of A.
Don't build the Maus, or any of the other dopey, ego tripping experimental German designs, most of them were too slow, too heavy, and too unreliable to leave their own factory, much less support their army. The T-34, M-26, A-34 Comet (or even a German Stug-3) are all great designs that served their nations well. Ever seen the Hetzer?
Use the search feature
Actually, those three features probably lead to more bugged aircraft than anything else on here. They're usable, but if you're making something complicated, you're better off not using them or at least testing to make sure it worked properly.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is this building and what is its significance to you? You've clearly spent a tremendous amount of time on this.
@Brields95 <--- Truth.
@243687034 Ha, thanks!
@SpyTheGamerX Its safe to say almost all fighters have flaps and slats for takeoff and landing. The F18 has leading edge root extensions, the F-14 features swing-wings, The F-104 featured a boundary layer control system.
+2Impressive
Are you going to do more of these? I'd love to see a Whisky Long-Bin or some of the other bizarre early steps in ballistic subs.
If it interests you, I have a post entitled "colored sparklers" that contains modded wing guns. If you put two of these facing backward at the rear of your plane, they leave a trail of bullets that will detonate anything that touches them (including you, so be careful). They use up a LOT of processing, so don't use too many at once or you might crash your phone.
Either access the xml file of the plane in question and modify the parts by hand in Notepad or get the Overloader mod and use it to modify the parts in game. You can also download modded parts from other people and copy them. You are an android user, so Overloader should be available to you.
@Exofalt Agreed, there is an endless armada of hastily thrown together Spits, Mustangs and ME-262's. But if you put enough effort to catch the eye, and enough care to make the creation fun, you can get to the front page with imaginary designs. Even some replicas are pretty darn creative, have you seen the "Eggamato" someone posted the other day?
You can shoot down incoming missiles with guns, its especially easy to do with turrets.
What thelatentimage said. Just clicking up because of a pretty picture totally ignores the effort that goes into handling and performance.
@SpyTheGamerX All of that stuff has been used on fighters.
@Exofalt I think you underestimate how much time some of us put into "getting the design right." Realistic performance is much more difficult to achieve than good performance, specifically landing characteristics, stall speeds, and trim issues. As for aesthetics, I am pretty sure it wouldn't take me weeks to complete a project if I could simply change or omit parts of my plane that were ugly or difficult to recreate. Let me be clear about this. I hold replicas to a more critical standard than original ideas, because it is easier to make a MEDIOCRE replica. But making a GOOD replica, one that really looks and works like the real thing, is very very time consuming. It is more difficult to get attention with an original or imaginary build, but overall that balances out with the difficulties of properly executing a decent replica.
1
Get some HEPA filter cartridges so that it isn't totally useless?
@FltLtFox Real life engineers encountered this problem many times. Huge props allowed for better performance, but made takeoff and landing hazardous. A quick look at the long, spindly landing gear of the ME-109 or the strange, bent wings of the F4U-Corsair gives a clue to the compromises that must be made.
@Exofalt Not true. Each present unique challenges if they are to be done well. I don't think anyone can objectively say one is more difficult than the other.
@FltLtFox You can xml the wheels, props or both to disable collisions, assuming you aren't an IOS user.
I think it's much harder to get attention with original ideas, but they often get tremendous acclaim. Sleddriver is a good example of this, so are the wide variety of futuristic spacecraft, mecha, and jets that make it to the front page. But it is easier to get attention with something familiar.
Keep your plane moving perpendicular (90 degrees) to the path of the missile, the harder it must turn, the more likely it will miss.
The fixed props are overspending, most likely. The other one is probably colliding with bullets. If you place the guns close enough forward, the bullets used to be able to spawn in front of the prop, thus bypassing the problem, (See my SBD3-DAUNTLESS for an example) but that may not be the case anymore. Good luck.
@LotusEngineering Let me know if there's any trouble, and don't bother making it a successor. Glad to be of help.
@LotusEngineering Sure thing. The main wings of this Thunderchief feature those type of wing. Two green, two white sandwiched together. Just pull them off and reshape them. They're angled slightly anhedral, but you should be able to work around it. GOOD LUCK! https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/40G95H/F-105D-Thunderchief
If you make the rig you want, and post it with the cockpit sitting on top, people can nudge the cockpit inside the rig where no one will see it. Much easier than trying to reshape a cockpit.
How on earth did you make this thing on IOS? I think someone needs a few BONUS POINTS for effort!
You and Pope seem to have a bit in common when it comes to design philosophy. I like how chaotic your creations look.
I like your style.
@LowDetail I got the opposite problem, it takes me MONTHS to get anything done.
Don't be hard on yourself, we all start somewhere. Think of the extra time as a chance to test your designs and refine them.
Spend more time building and designing.
@SpyTheGamerX Sorry man, options are limited. Each wing is custom designed to work within a specific range of speeds, the only way to change that range is to change the wing or change the air around it. That's why we have flaps, slats, swing-wings, leading edge root extensions, and boundary layer control systems.
@Wolffman Sure thing, good luck!
@Wolffman Xml mod the engine to be more powerful or download a modded engine.
My SBD3-DAUNTLESS has a link in the description to an educational film the US Navy produced during WW2 about how to divebomb. Obviously planes were much slower then, but the technique pretty much remains the same.
@Wolffman Low mass helps acceleration, but doesn't do much to top speed.
The first thing you should know about speed is air resistance. I'm not talking about drag, either. I'm talking about your wings tearing off and your plane exploding because you went too fast at low altitude. The default wings are only reliable below a certain speed below 20,000 feet, below that, youd better use structural wings.
Weight itself has some small effect on max speed, but mostly just acceleration and turning. The main factors that effect speed are thrust and drag. You can xml mod an engine or download a missed one that can give you any amount of thrust you want. You will ALWAYS be faster above 30,000 or so because air density is lower and you'll get less drag. Good luck.
Slats are another matter altogether, that would probably require rotors and additional wing panels to get them to look and function correctly.
+2To construct main wings, I xml structural wings to allow control surfaces, then I create 2 control surfaces on each wing. The outer one I make roll (ailerons) the inner one I Xml mod to be VTOL (flaps). In real life, flaps only extend downwards, increasing lift, but allowing it to go both ways (unrealistically) simplifies trim control, so I usually keep it that way.
+1You can simply xml edit any part to any weight.
Change the airfoil or size of the main wings, rotate the tail surfaces up or down about one degree (if you know how to do that), move the center of mass forward. Trim tabs or flaps are honestly the best solution because they're adjustable to any altitude, angle of attack or speed, other solutions are merely situational.