@SumDood Well, this is designed for fighter jets, making it easier for pilots to focus during air combat without deliberately keeping an eye on data updates on the HUD. I will publish it tonight
This is a fighter jet that adopts this design, you can give it a try.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/sm57DO/PX-9N-Starlight-fight
@SumDood It should be due to the excessive angle of attack leading to a sharp increase in drag. I don't think this is a problem, rather it's a trade-off for aircraft performance. Increasing the angle of attack is the best choice to increase maneuverability without changing the wing area, but the disadvantage is poor energy storage and rapid energy loss. However, due to the powerful engine of this aircraft, which can quickly replenish the lost energy, I did not consider this issue in my design.
@SumDood I love and hate it, I like its function, but unfortunately, some aircraft with excellent performance are prone to shaking in slow motion, and in stall state, pitch rate may become one of the difficulties. Unless you really need it, don't deliberately use it. Of course, increasing the damping value of the rotor can alleviate this problem, but excessive damping value itself is also a problem.
You can also determine whether to turn it on by activating the group, but I think you will need some more time to learn this.
@SumDood I am not good at this myself. And I have to remind you that the Pitch rate is not omnipotent, and under certain conditions, it may even become a limitation. All designs should revolve around the actual starting point of the aircraft, rather than using whatever comes to mind.
@SumDood Hey bro, guess why I said reference Hellkeska? Because I am not good at coding myself. I just reverse engineer the principles by dismantling other people's works, and then master them myself.
@SumDood I admit that you are good at creating appearances, but during my editing process, I realized that you may indeed seem like a beginner. All of this is recorded in my two long comments, did you take a closer look?
@SumDood In case you find it difficult to understand, this is the sample I made. You can refer to it. Wishing you smooth research and looking forward to your good news
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Jw8r56/Help9-2
@SumDood Do you often feel that fighter jets either lack mobility or are prone to stalling? That's because there are no restrictions. PitchRate is born for this purpose, as it can impose some restrictions on your maneuvers to prevent you from entering a stall state. Therefore, when you are in a dilemma, it's worth starting from here.
So, the next step that needs to be addressed is to improve mobility. Mobility is related to factors such as wing shape, wing load, speed, and drag. Each aircraft can control its optimal maneuvers. You can refer to the size of the angle of attack to determine. Although I don't know why the angle of attack of this aircraft is reversed, it's okay. When the angle of attack exceeds 25 degrees, the aircraft is highly likely to be difficult to operate and even stall. I suggest adjusting the angle of attack of this aircraft to around 20 degrees, using methods such as changing the counterweight, increasing the pitch deflection angle, increasing the tail control surface area, and installing a vector engine.
It should be noted that since you have written a trim formula on the tail wing, the larger the tail wing area, the easier it is for you to change the trim.
Roughly speaking, there are some additional contents that you can refer to:
1.Changing the wing type in XML from "wing-3" to "wing-2" can help prevent your aircraft from becoming a flapping wing.(The wing flexing)
2.When using a full motion tail wing, there is no need to add an additional control surface above the tail wing, which greatly affects control.
3.Don't set the automatic return midpoint for the driver's camera, I won't be able to operate the dashboard anymore.
@SumDood Provide an overview of the issues with this aircraft: severe nose drop and insufficient maneuverability. For fighter jets, the issue of insufficient maneuverability takes priority over nose drop, so we start with maneuverability.
Observe this aircraft and pay attention to any deficiencies in its basic information. It can be keenly observed that its wing load is very high, which generally severely limits maneuverability. Due to the significant impact of the main wing on the overall performance of the aircraft, it should be dealt with first, otherwise it may easily affect other factors and ruin all previous efforts.
After enlarging the main wing, priority should be given to observing the position of the lift center and center of gravity. If it is too close, even if the lift center is in front of the center of gravity, it will directly lead to loss of control, and priority should be given to adjustment. Modifying the nose weight is a good choice, at least that's how I did it.
Generally, there is only room for enhanced maneuverability when the wing load is reduced to a certain value. At this point, we can start dealing with the issue of the nose falling.
The nose drop of this aircraft is mainly composed of the following factors:
1. The tail wing airfoil is incorrect, and the tail lift is too high
2. The center of gravity of the thrust is higher than the center of gravity, making it easier to lean forward when starting the engine
There are also some issues related to the overall structure of the aircraft that have been modified too much, so we will skip them.
In these two points, if you do not want to change the position of the engine, you should use XML to raise the center of gravity of the parts, in order to increase the height of the center of gravity. Of course, some people also reject this approach.
Therefore, if condition two is not changed, only condition one can be changed.
However, due to the excessive thrust of this aircraft, simply doing so does not have much effect. To prevent excessive changes to the structure and performance of the aircraft, we can choose to have a single bearing perform multiple controls, combined with pitch, trim, and even pitch rate, to compensate for the shortcomings of VTOL. This FT formula can refer to Hellkeska. Regarding pitchRate, it is related to maneuverability.
@SumDood Bro, have you noticed that the tail wings of v2 and v3 use different wing airfoils? This will result in different lift, and v3 will tilt forward due to excessive lift at the tail. I think this is also one of the reasons
@SumDood I was debugging your plane, so I didn't reply to you just now. Although it is unclear why V2 did not malfunction, the thrust center of gravity is much higher than the center of gravity, which is likely the main culprit causing forward tilt. I have made some other minor adjustments to your aircraft, including but not limited to changing the center of gravity position of the parts, canceling part resistance, etc., to improve maneuverability to around 500 meters in a somersault diameter. I think it can still be improved, but if you need it, I can release it now
Bro, although your aircraft's nose droops severely, it should not be the main reason for your lack of maneuverability. The wing area of V2 is significantly larger than that of V3, which leads to the former having a much smaller wing load than the latter, resulting in better maneuverability. Perhaps what you should consider more is whether to reduce weight or increase wing area.
@SumDood I have to admit that moving files directly is the fastest way to transfer archives. Alright, bro, I saw your plane with unlimited fuel capacity.
Let me try
@GuardianAerospace Bro, I suddenly discovered a problem. Why do we have to argue? The meaning of what I said is "Although the MiG-29 fighter jet is very poor, comparing it to this plane is insulting MiG-29." Do you understand it as something else?
@GuardianAerospace It seems that the deeper aspect is our different views on war. This involves too much, and may even involve political issues, making further arguments meaningless. That's end. If you want to say anything more, just say it
@GuardianAerospace Although I also support stopping arguments, I must point out one thing: the threat of nuclear weapons cannot change the course of the Korean War.
I admit that you have a lot of knowledge about weapons, which is great, but perhaps you should have some basic military knowledge.
The victory of the Gulf War was mainly due to the revolutionary combat philosophy and military system demonstrated by the US military, which shocked the world and also made China fearful. Then it took China 20 years to catch up.
@GuardianAerospace 20 to 30 years in advance, this statement is very correct during the Gulf War. In 2024, I think you may not have woken up. Where did you see this history class again?
@GuardianAerospace You should get rid of simply comparing weapons and equipment to judge the direction of war. This is not a numerical game, otherwise the US military wouldn't have to withdraw from Afghanistan.
@GuardianAerospace Firstly, I agree to stop arguing. I noticed that you are actually simply comparing weapons and equipment, while I am talking about war. In fact, we cannot reach a consensus. But I have to point out one thing: the M1A1 was destroyed a few days ago, and even if these tanks were really powerful, they wouldn't have much impact on the battlefield. If you think a weapon can have a significant impact on the battlefield, it is recommended to refer to the battleship Yamato
@GuardianAerospace The mission of the MiG-29 during the Cold War was to take off and fight from field airports and occupied airports in Western Europe, so there was no need to worry about a short range. Moreover, due to the relatively small scope of operations, low cost, and high cost-effectiveness, it is difficult to seize air superiority from a group of MiG-29s. The next step was for the Soviet army to advance, with MiG-29 transitioning to the newly occupied Western European airport and repeating it until it completely occupied Western Europe.
@GuardianAerospace Firstly, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Soviet Air Force. As the second to last Soviet service, the Soviet Air Force's mission was basically to provide escort for the army, ensuring air superiority at a certain distance under the command of the army's radar. As a war consumable, it was completely qualified. If you treat it as a fighter jet for aerial combat, of course not. The MiG-29, as a specific product, can only play its value under the military system of the Soviet Union, and even Russia cannot play its role. So, aside from the issues of range and avionics, I think if it's a competition for maneuverability, are you sure you want to compete with the MiG 29, which doesn't have weight issues? Moreover, in reality, the MiG 29 departing from a field airport will not be 1vs1 compared to you. The cost performance ratio is what war consumables are all about. So, the Mig-29 was actually more popular in the Soviet Air Force than the Su-27
Nice. I suggest you add "VR" to the tag, otherwise the system won't determine if your plane is really suitable for VR, and VR players won't be able to see this plane.
@wstu @Justanormalindonesianguy2 @TouhouFan11
@LoneSpaceGaming But Su 33 has canard wings
@Justanormalindonesianguy2 Thanks bro
+1。。。I didn't even recognize it as a "flanker", what kind of plane is this?
@Mousewithamachinegun122 Thanks bro
@SumDood
@wstu @Justanormalindonesianguy2 @TouhouFan11
@wstu @Justanormalindonesianguy2 @TouhouFan11 @SumDood
@SumDood Don't worry, I won't blame you for it. I am very pleased
The signature in red font... In China, it more represents death or wanted. But it's okay, I can understand
@SumDood Well, this is designed for fighter jets, making it easier for pilots to focus during air combat without deliberately keeping an eye on data updates on the HUD. I will publish it tonight
This is a fighter jet that adopts this design, you can give it a try.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/sm57DO/PX-9N-Starlight-fight
@SumDood You are welcome. By the way, I have a new "toy" here, why don't you take a look?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/qyB0tl/HMDS-Helmet-Sighting
@SumDood It should be due to the excessive angle of attack leading to a sharp increase in drag. I don't think this is a problem, rather it's a trade-off for aircraft performance. Increasing the angle of attack is the best choice to increase maneuverability without changing the wing area, but the disadvantage is poor energy storage and rapid energy loss. However, due to the powerful engine of this aircraft, which can quickly replenish the lost energy, I did not consider this issue in my design.
@SumDood You're welcome, we are all meant to make progress together. It's getting late, it's time to go to bed, Bye bye
@SumDood I love and hate it, I like its function, but unfortunately, some aircraft with excellent performance are prone to shaking in slow motion, and in stall state, pitch rate may become one of the difficulties. Unless you really need it, don't deliberately use it. Of course, increasing the damping value of the rotor can alleviate this problem, but excessive damping value itself is also a problem.
You can also determine whether to turn it on by activating the group, but I think you will need some more time to learn this.
@SumDood I am not good at this myself. And I have to remind you that the Pitch rate is not omnipotent, and under certain conditions, it may even become a limitation. All designs should revolve around the actual starting point of the aircraft, rather than using whatever comes to mind.
@SumDood Hey bro, guess why I said reference Hellkeska? Because I am not good at coding myself. I just reverse engineer the principles by dismantling other people's works, and then master them myself.
@SumDood Because wing-2 is structural wing,
@SumDood I admit that you are good at creating appearances, but during my editing process, I realized that you may indeed seem like a beginner. All of this is recorded in my two long comments, did you take a closer look?
@SumDood In case you find it difficult to understand, this is the sample I made. You can refer to it. Wishing you smooth research and looking forward to your good news
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Jw8r56/Help9-2
@SumDood Do you often feel that fighter jets either lack mobility or are prone to stalling? That's because there are no restrictions. PitchRate is born for this purpose, as it can impose some restrictions on your maneuvers to prevent you from entering a stall state. Therefore, when you are in a dilemma, it's worth starting from here.
So, the next step that needs to be addressed is to improve mobility. Mobility is related to factors such as wing shape, wing load, speed, and drag. Each aircraft can control its optimal maneuvers. You can refer to the size of the angle of attack to determine. Although I don't know why the angle of attack of this aircraft is reversed, it's okay. When the angle of attack exceeds 25 degrees, the aircraft is highly likely to be difficult to operate and even stall. I suggest adjusting the angle of attack of this aircraft to around 20 degrees, using methods such as changing the counterweight, increasing the pitch deflection angle, increasing the tail control surface area, and installing a vector engine.
It should be noted that since you have written a trim formula on the tail wing, the larger the tail wing area, the easier it is for you to change the trim.
Roughly speaking, there are some additional contents that you can refer to:
1.Changing the wing type in XML from "wing-3" to "wing-2" can help prevent your aircraft from becoming a flapping wing.(The wing flexing)
2.When using a full motion tail wing, there is no need to add an additional control surface above the tail wing, which greatly affects control.
3.Don't set the automatic return midpoint for the driver's camera, I won't be able to operate the dashboard anymore.
@SumDood Provide an overview of the issues with this aircraft: severe nose drop and insufficient maneuverability. For fighter jets, the issue of insufficient maneuverability takes priority over nose drop, so we start with maneuverability.
Observe this aircraft and pay attention to any deficiencies in its basic information. It can be keenly observed that its wing load is very high, which generally severely limits maneuverability. Due to the significant impact of the main wing on the overall performance of the aircraft, it should be dealt with first, otherwise it may easily affect other factors and ruin all previous efforts.
After enlarging the main wing, priority should be given to observing the position of the lift center and center of gravity. If it is too close, even if the lift center is in front of the center of gravity, it will directly lead to loss of control, and priority should be given to adjustment. Modifying the nose weight is a good choice, at least that's how I did it.
Generally, there is only room for enhanced maneuverability when the wing load is reduced to a certain value. At this point, we can start dealing with the issue of the nose falling.
The nose drop of this aircraft is mainly composed of the following factors:
1. The tail wing airfoil is incorrect, and the tail lift is too high
2. The center of gravity of the thrust is higher than the center of gravity, making it easier to lean forward when starting the engine
There are also some issues related to the overall structure of the aircraft that have been modified too much, so we will skip them.
In these two points, if you do not want to change the position of the engine, you should use XML to raise the center of gravity of the parts, in order to increase the height of the center of gravity. Of course, some people also reject this approach.
Therefore, if condition two is not changed, only condition one can be changed.
However, due to the excessive thrust of this aircraft, simply doing so does not have much effect. To prevent excessive changes to the structure and performance of the aircraft, we can choose to have a single bearing perform multiple controls, combined with pitch, trim, and even pitch rate, to compensate for the shortcomings of VTOL. This FT formula can refer to Hellkeska. Regarding pitchRate, it is related to maneuverability.
@SumDood That's really troublesome... But I really like this, bro. Just a moment, I need to verify my results. I can't mislead people
@SumDood Bro, have you noticed that the tail wings of v2 and v3 use different wing airfoils? This will result in different lift, and v3 will tilt forward due to excessive lift at the tail. I think this is also one of the reasons
@SumDood I was debugging your plane, so I didn't reply to you just now. Although it is unclear why V2 did not malfunction, the thrust center of gravity is much higher than the center of gravity, which is likely the main culprit causing forward tilt. I have made some other minor adjustments to your aircraft, including but not limited to changing the center of gravity position of the parts, canceling part resistance, etc., to improve maneuverability to around 500 meters in a somersault diameter. I think it can still be improved, but if you need it, I can release it now
Bro, although your aircraft's nose droops severely, it should not be the main reason for your lack of maneuverability. The wing area of V2 is significantly larger than that of V3, which leads to the former having a much smaller wing load than the latter, resulting in better maneuverability. Perhaps what you should consider more is whether to reduce weight or increase wing area.
@SumDood I have to admit that moving files directly is the fastest way to transfer archives. Alright, bro, I saw your plane with unlimited fuel capacity.
Let me try
@SumDood Maybe not, I just need to update and delete all the archives. After I save them all on the official website tonight, I will come to help you
@SumDood Yes…
@SumDood I am willing to help you, but I cannot download this plane. Because my game is not the latest and lacks a part of the cockpit
@GuardianAerospace Bro, I suddenly discovered a problem. Why do we have to argue? The meaning of what I said is "Although the MiG-29 fighter jet is very poor, comparing it to this plane is insulting MiG-29." Do you understand it as something else?
+1@Christiant2 Sorry, I didn't notice it was you…
@GuardianAerospace It seems that the deeper aspect is our different views on war. This involves too much, and may even involve political issues, making further arguments meaningless. That's end. If you want to say anything more, just say it
@GuardianAerospace Although I also support stopping arguments, I must point out one thing: the threat of nuclear weapons cannot change the course of the Korean War.
I admit that you have a lot of knowledge about weapons, which is great, but perhaps you should have some basic military knowledge.
The victory of the Gulf War was mainly due to the revolutionary combat philosophy and military system demonstrated by the US military, which shocked the world and also made China fearful. Then it took China 20 years to catch up.
@GuardianAerospace 20 to 30 years in advance, this statement is very correct during the Gulf War. In 2024, I think you may not have woken up. Where did you see this history class again?
+1@GuardianAerospace I don't think so. In 2016, China didn't lose in the South China Sea electronic warfare
+1@GuardianAerospace You should get rid of simply comparing weapons and equipment to judge the direction of war. This is not a numerical game, otherwise the US military wouldn't have to withdraw from Afghanistan.
+1@GuardianAerospace Firstly, I agree to stop arguing. I noticed that you are actually simply comparing weapons and equipment, while I am talking about war. In fact, we cannot reach a consensus. But I have to point out one thing: the M1A1 was destroyed a few days ago, and even if these tanks were really powerful, they wouldn't have much impact on the battlefield. If you think a weapon can have a significant impact on the battlefield, it is recommended to refer to the battleship Yamato
@GuardianAerospace How could Russia possibly have the Soviet military system? You're not joking, are you?
+1@Christiant2 I didn't say that Russia is strong. Bombs and drones have become high-tech in the Russian Ukrainian battlefield
@GuardianAerospace The mission of the MiG-29 during the Cold War was to take off and fight from field airports and occupied airports in Western Europe, so there was no need to worry about a short range. Moreover, due to the relatively small scope of operations, low cost, and high cost-effectiveness, it is difficult to seize air superiority from a group of MiG-29s. The next step was for the Soviet army to advance, with MiG-29 transitioning to the newly occupied Western European airport and repeating it until it completely occupied Western Europe.
@GuardianAerospace Don't judge the Soviet Air Force based on the mindset of the US Air Force, but the Russian Air Force is allowed
@GuardianAerospace Firstly, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Soviet Air Force. As the second to last Soviet service, the Soviet Air Force's mission was basically to provide escort for the army, ensuring air superiority at a certain distance under the command of the army's radar. As a war consumable, it was completely qualified. If you treat it as a fighter jet for aerial combat, of course not. The MiG-29, as a specific product, can only play its value under the military system of the Soviet Union, and even Russia cannot play its role. So, aside from the issues of range and avionics, I think if it's a competition for maneuverability, are you sure you want to compete with the MiG 29, which doesn't have weight issues? Moreover, in reality, the MiG 29 departing from a field airport will not be 1vs1 compared to you. The cost performance ratio is what war consumables are all about. So, the Mig-29 was actually more popular in the Soviet Air Force than the Su-27
@GuardianAerospace …Did you learn about it through playing games? When can war be discussed outside of the military system?
+1改完后飞起来也是一抖一抖的…我给你改一下吧，改完直接发官网
+1哥们，你这J10好怪呀，主翼pitch是不是反了
+1@GuardianAerospace I don't allow you to insult Mig 29 like this, it's just too much
Nice. I suggest you add "VR" to the tag, otherwise the system won't determine if your plane is really suitable for VR, and VR players won't be able to see this plane.
It looks both new and old. Come on, let's go
@EJBoss97 wdym?