@jamesPLANESii
After learning that in history class last year, everyone in my class came to the same conclusion. WW2 could have been avoided if it weren't for the Treaty of Versailles dumping all the blame on Germany.
If you have no ideas for builds or your not very good at building, yea I can see SP quickly growing boring for that person. I think many people are also waiting on SR2. I more than likely won't be getting SR2 at launch, so I'll be stuck on SP for a while before I get the chance to go to SR2, which isn't a huge deal as I still have many airplane concepts and ideas I want to make in SP. Besides, I heard in SR2 they don't have typical aircraft engines yet, only rocket engines.
@Tessemi
To be honest I was actually kind of disappointed with the weak turnout this challenge got considering it was from high-ranking user such as yourself. I'm still working on my entry and it will probably be submitted a day or two before the due date, so don't cancel the challenge.
Well your in luck, Rainier currently has an export 5th/6th gen fighter currently in development (it's actually for Tessemi's challenge) but I guess I'll submit it to this one as well. :)
Prepare to be blown out of the water fellow competitors. :^)
Some key features on a bushplane:
Tundra Tires (aka Bush Tires)
Vortex Generators
Slats
Tailwheel landing gear (although tricycle landing gear can be used in bush flying as well, but tailwheel is usually preferred)
Slotted flaps/ailerons/flaperons.
Extra windows (= more visibility)
Climb-pitched prop
Constant speed prop
Floats/Pontoons for water ops
Fat wings
Long wingspan
Long range/High fuel capacity
Large amount of room & cargo space
These are just many features found on bushplanes, and no you don't need ALL of them on a bushplane for it to count as one.
LEMMiNO did a pretty good video talking about a couple of interesting and fairly credible & believable UFO reports. The UFO phenomenon is most definitely real IMO, especially considering the US has been secretly running an official "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program", and the Navy has UFO footage from one of their F/A-18's off the coast of SoCal.
The TR-3B "ASTRA" is a rumored experimental craft that uses a gravity-defying engine to hover and fly, although the theoretical engine it uses would be insanely hard to pull off and have it run stable (in other words the technology for this kind of craft is a ahead of our time). This craft is probably the most ambitious and most insane rumored black project but there could be a chance the USAF or DARPA have experimented with a gravity-defying engine. And no, you don't need reversed engineered UFO's to get this tech, it just takes a couple of incredibly smart people to come up with this kind of propulsion.
The SR-91 "Aurora" is another black-project aircraft and one that I think probably exists, due to sightings and sounds heard in SoCal in the 80's and 90's when it was reportedly flying. That, and the technology in the Aurora isn't exotic or anything, using either ramjets or pulsejets which have been around since WW2. What also further proves the Aurora IMO is the fact Lockheed Martin has now publicly unveiled their SR-72 Mach 5 UCAV strike & recon aircraft, and it bears a striking resemblance to the rumored Aurora. The Aurora IMO was most likely an experimental or proof of concept demonstrator for a mach-5 capable aircraft. Once the tech. was proven, LM began work on the SR-72. Considering a lot of the tech in these mach 5 designs aren't so secret anymore, it's not that surprising LM publicly revealed they are indeed working on mach-5 capable aircraft. I'm not saying any of these rumored black aircraft existed, but instead something like them probably did.
Interesting read that could possibly explain black triangles. I think they are some experimental military platform like a "stealth blimp" for some intel. gathering or recon role.
@CptJacobson
Sure I guess. This Nordan company of mine no longer exists as the RP it was part of is dead, and I now run with a new company of mine called "Rainier Aerospace", so all my old designs under Nordan or PAC are pretty much up for grabs for others to improve or barrow the design, just give me credit and don't avoid the autocredit system.
@BoeyingOfficial
No doubt about it the L-1011 is one of Lockheed's finest creations, but... Can it go Mach 3 rendering it nearly invincible and fight communists without any weapons WHILE being made out of soviet Titanium?
My take on F-35:
Cool plane, pioneered lots of bleeding edge ground breaking technologies that can be applied to other fighters, maneuvers pretty well (like a mix between the F-16 & F/A-18), utilizes good stealth techniques that don't require intensive maintenance or care like the F-22 or B-2 (uses "baked-in" stealth coatings), and it's going to be a great fighter. HOWEVER, the F-35 Program as a whole suffered greatly from major cost overruns, incredibly poor management, suffered a few major flaws and required a few redesigns on some systems, and it still has a few issues. It's also gotten to the point where too much money has been spent on the program to cancel it altogether (too big to kill). Also, it's going to keep L.M.'s pockets rich until 2075, which is probably why L.M. is now getting the least amount of contracts from the US Gov. which are mainly giving them to Boeing and N.G.. F-35 is a great plane IMHO, but I think the JSF Program should have NEVER been pursued in the first place. Just build separately designed fighters for each branch's needs.
While flaps can already be achieved in SimplePlanes (although you need overload xml editor to edit some of it's properties) I definitely think they should come in the base game.
@BlackhattAircraft
Nope, the F-35 is replacing the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, and most likely the A-10 as well. The USAF has launched a new fighter jet program "F-X" for an F-22 replacement.
@BlackhattAircraft
Boeing's actually re-manufacturing A-10 wings to extend their useful life time and keep A-10's flying. IMHO, Boeing should also upgrade the A-10's avionics and give it more powerful turbofan engines to make it more modern and up to speed.
@BlackhattAircraft
The A-10 situation is a little bit tricky. I don't think we'll ever see another attacker such as the A-10. The A-10's replacement will either be a stealth strike fighter like the F-35 dropping smart precision bombs or it will be a light-CAS plane such as the A-29 Super Tucano, AT-6C Wolverine, or the Textron Scorpion light attack jet.
@Squirrel
I should have clarified more but yes the X-32 was comparable to the X-35 when it came to maneuverability and performance in normal flight ops but when it came to VTOL/hovering it was lacking compared to the X-35. While I do think the X-32 was a little inferior to the X-35, it does seem like the JSF competition favored Lockheed Martin from day one (not to mention they were caught bribing).
I also noticed a lot of the major US military contracts have been going to Boeing and Northrop Grumman lately. I Guess the USAF/USN is getting tired of LM's baloney.
T-X: Boeing/SAAB
Next-Gen Stealth Bomber: N.G.
MQ-25: Boeing
MH-139: Boeing/Leonardo
KC-X: Boeing
I think 2018 has been one of Boeing's finest years.
@CRJ900Pilot
And that's why I hope the US never attempts a JSF-like fighter ever again after the F-35. Too many headaches during it's development road.
@Squirrel
From a report I've read, the F-35 can turn like an F-16 but it can achieve the high-alpha capabilities of the F/A-18. The F-35 actually incorporates some lifting-body design elements meaning the body itself is a lifting surface, and the F-35 isn't wide or fat because of the lift-fan engine, but because of the two weapon bays.
I think the F-35 is turning out to be an excellent fighter pioneering many new bleeding edge technologies, although the JSF Program was going to be a painful one from the start. Creating a fighter where the base airframe could serve the requirements of 3 different branches is an incredibly difficult task. So the JSF Program was going to be difficult right off the bat whether the X-32 or X-35 were chosen. In my opinion, the X-35 was the better bet of the two JSF birds because the X-35 was more complete and functioning and had better performance than the X-32. I think LM with their X-35 focused on performance and functionality and Boeing with their X-32 focused more on ease of manufacturing and low-costs to build and purchase the original delta X-32 design. I think Boeing shot itself in the foot when they had to do a major redesign of the X-32 and their X-32 prototype looked nothing like the new final design of the F-32, meaning the data and performance the X-32 gained meant nothing (at least that's how I see it). The X-32 was also doomed when they had to strip parts and move the X-32 flight testing to a more denser atmosphere for it to hover efficiently. IMHO the X-32 was a glorified stealth Harrier and would probably have given the US more headaches than the X-35.
The F-35 Program in general did suffer massive cost overruns and poor management but as time went on the F-35 has really shaped up to be a great fighter.
I think the idea that a single base air-frame with a few corresponding mods could serve the needs of 3 different military branches was a pretty dumb idea from the start. IMHO, the JSF Program was better off not to be pursued and each branch should have gotten their own specialized independently designed fighter.
But either way the F-35 is turning out to be good and lets hope the US doesn't repeat the same mistakes with the F-X and F/A-XX programs.
@Nerfaddict
I went 10,000mph and then I lost control of acceleration and it went like a 1,000,000mph in a heartbeat and my SP crashed. 10/10 would crash my PC again. 👌
@ForeverPie
Been there done that.
@aircraftarsenal123
Same. I prefer the american muscle and performance cars over European exotic super cars.
@CruzerBlade
+3The Aerocar?
I really love Camaros and Corvettes, especially the C7 and upcoming C8. Pontiac Firebirds, Trans Ams and GTO's looks epic as well.
+1@jamesPLANESii
+1After learning that in history class last year, everyone in my class came to the same conclusion. WW2 could have been avoided if it weren't for the Treaty of Versailles dumping all the blame on Germany.
Who knows, maybe the next 1.8 update (which I heard is happening) will stoke the fires of SP one last time before it fades away.
+1If you have no ideas for builds or your not very good at building, yea I can see SP quickly growing boring for that person. I think many people are also waiting on SR2. I more than likely won't be getting SR2 at launch, so I'll be stuck on SP for a while before I get the chance to go to SR2, which isn't a huge deal as I still have many airplane concepts and ideas I want to make in SP. Besides, I heard in SR2 they don't have typical aircraft engines yet, only rocket engines.
+2Looks cool and all but it blows up whenever I start, even in the air. Must be some parts & weapons colliding.
@RenxBlake
Insta? As in Instagram? I don't have Instagram. Although I do have YT.
eeeeeeeeeeels
@Tessemi
To be honest I was actually kind of disappointed with the weak turnout this challenge got considering it was from high-ranking user such as yourself. I'm still working on my entry and it will probably be submitted a day or two before the due date, so don't cancel the challenge.
Well your in luck, Rainier currently has an export 5th/6th gen fighter currently in development (it's actually for Tessemi's challenge) but I guess I'll submit it to this one as well. :)
Prepare to be blown out of the water fellow competitors. :^)
I hope SR2 will come with a similar mod like this.
I love going to my local fly-in every year.
+1F-15 Eagle
@RailfanEthan
+3When I was a kid and I first saw the F-117, it looked like a flying mountain top to me. XD
Thank God that's not our reality...
+1Some key features on a bushplane:
Tundra Tires (aka Bush Tires)
Vortex Generators
Slats
Tailwheel landing gear (although tricycle landing gear can be used in bush flying as well, but tailwheel is usually preferred)
Slotted flaps/ailerons/flaperons.
Extra windows (= more visibility)
Climb-pitched prop
Constant speed prop
Floats/Pontoons for water ops
Fat wings
Long wingspan
Long range/High fuel capacity
Large amount of room & cargo space
These are just many features found on bushplanes, and no you don't need ALL of them on a bushplane for it to count as one.
+2@CptJacobson
Ok
LEMMiNO did a pretty good video talking about a couple of interesting and fairly credible & believable UFO reports. The UFO phenomenon is most definitely real IMO, especially considering the US has been secretly running an official "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program", and the Navy has UFO footage from one of their F/A-18's off the coast of SoCal.
@CptJacobson
Eh, I don't really want Nordan back. You can have the design but use a different name and credit me.
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful!
@Irobert55
Cause black triangles have always been reported as black & usually spotted at night.
The TR-3A Black Manta is a rumored fixed wing stealth recon aircraft and there's a high chance it or something like it exists in the world of black projects.
The TR-3B "ASTRA" is a rumored experimental craft that uses a gravity-defying engine to hover and fly, although the theoretical engine it uses would be insanely hard to pull off and have it run stable (in other words the technology for this kind of craft is a ahead of our time). This craft is probably the most ambitious and most insane rumored black project but there could be a chance the USAF or DARPA have experimented with a gravity-defying engine. And no, you don't need reversed engineered UFO's to get this tech, it just takes a couple of incredibly smart people to come up with this kind of propulsion.
+1The SR-91 "Aurora" is another black-project aircraft and one that I think probably exists, due to sightings and sounds heard in SoCal in the 80's and 90's when it was reportedly flying. That, and the technology in the Aurora isn't exotic or anything, using either ramjets or pulsejets which have been around since WW2. What also further proves the Aurora IMO is the fact Lockheed Martin has now publicly unveiled their SR-72 Mach 5 UCAV strike & recon aircraft, and it bears a striking resemblance to the rumored Aurora. The Aurora IMO was most likely an experimental or proof of concept demonstrator for a mach-5 capable aircraft. Once the tech. was proven, LM began work on the SR-72. Considering a lot of the tech in these mach 5 designs aren't so secret anymore, it's not that surprising LM publicly revealed they are indeed working on mach-5 capable aircraft. I'm not saying any of these rumored black aircraft existed, but instead something like them probably did.
Interesting read that could possibly explain black triangles. I think they are some experimental military platform like a "stealth blimp" for some intel. gathering or recon role.
@CptJacobson
Sure I guess. This Nordan company of mine no longer exists as the RP it was part of is dead, and I now run with a new company of mine called "Rainier Aerospace", so all my old designs under Nordan or PAC are pretty much up for grabs for others to improve or barrow the design, just give me credit and don't avoid the autocredit system.
@CptJacobson
Thanks!
@BoeyingOfficial
True
@BoeyingOfficial
No doubt about it the L-1011 is one of Lockheed's finest creations, but...
Can it go Mach 3 rendering it nearly invincible and fight communists without any weapons WHILE being made out of soviet Titanium?
A Mi-26 carrying the a CH-47
+3Also, you'll probably trigger PETA to the point they'll sue Jundroo for adding birds for the sole purpose of hitting them so you can pull a Sully. XD
+1A few words on that: We're going to be in the Hudson...
+1My take on F-35:
Cool plane, pioneered lots of bleeding edge ground breaking technologies that can be applied to other fighters, maneuvers pretty well (like a mix between the F-16 & F/A-18), utilizes good stealth techniques that don't require intensive maintenance or care like the F-22 or B-2 (uses "baked-in" stealth coatings), and it's going to be a great fighter. HOWEVER, the F-35 Program as a whole suffered greatly from major cost overruns, incredibly poor management, suffered a few major flaws and required a few redesigns on some systems, and it still has a few issues. It's also gotten to the point where too much money has been spent on the program to cancel it altogether (too big to kill). Also, it's going to keep L.M.'s pockets rich until 2075, which is probably why L.M. is now getting the least amount of contracts from the US Gov. which are mainly giving them to Boeing and N.G.. F-35 is a great plane IMHO, but I think the JSF Program should have NEVER been pursued in the first place. Just build separately designed fighters for each branch's needs.
@BoeyingOfficial
cough SR-71 cough
While flaps can already be achieved in SimplePlanes (although you need overload xml editor to edit some of it's properties) I definitely think they should come in the base game.
@hopotumon
I have no idea why everyone is so surprised...
@BlackhattAircraft
Nope, the F-35 is replacing the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, and most likely the A-10 as well. The USAF has launched a new fighter jet program "F-X" for an F-22 replacement.
@BlackhattAircraft
Boeing's actually re-manufacturing A-10 wings to extend their useful life time and keep A-10's flying. IMHO, Boeing should also upgrade the A-10's avionics and give it more powerful turbofan engines to make it more modern and up to speed.
@BlackhattAircraft
+2The A-10 situation is a little bit tricky. I don't think we'll ever see another attacker such as the A-10. The A-10's replacement will either be a stealth strike fighter like the F-35 dropping smart precision bombs or it will be a light-CAS plane such as the A-29 Super Tucano, AT-6C Wolverine, or the Textron Scorpion light attack jet.
@Squirrel
I should have clarified more but yes the X-32 was comparable to the X-35 when it came to maneuverability and performance in normal flight ops but when it came to VTOL/hovering it was lacking compared to the X-35. While I do think the X-32 was a little inferior to the X-35, it does seem like the JSF competition favored Lockheed Martin from day one (not to mention they were caught bribing).
I also noticed a lot of the major US military contracts have been going to Boeing and Northrop Grumman lately. I Guess the USAF/USN is getting tired of LM's baloney.
T-X: Boeing/SAAB
Next-Gen Stealth Bomber: N.G.
MQ-25: Boeing
MH-139: Boeing/Leonardo
KC-X: Boeing
I think 2018 has been one of Boeing's finest years.
@CRJ900Pilot
+1And that's why I hope the US never attempts a JSF-like fighter ever again after the F-35. Too many headaches during it's development road.
@Nerfaddict
Don't be, go a trillion mph in SP and the game crashes.
@Squirrel
+1From a report I've read, the F-35 can turn like an F-16 but it can achieve the high-alpha capabilities of the F/A-18. The F-35 actually incorporates some lifting-body design elements meaning the body itself is a lifting surface, and the F-35 isn't wide or fat because of the lift-fan engine, but because of the two weapon bays.
I think the F-35 is turning out to be an excellent fighter pioneering many new bleeding edge technologies, although the JSF Program was going to be a painful one from the start. Creating a fighter where the base airframe could serve the requirements of 3 different branches is an incredibly difficult task. So the JSF Program was going to be difficult right off the bat whether the X-32 or X-35 were chosen. In my opinion, the X-35 was the better bet of the two JSF birds because the X-35 was more complete and functioning and had better performance than the X-32. I think LM with their X-35 focused on performance and functionality and Boeing with their X-32 focused more on ease of manufacturing and low-costs to build and purchase the original delta X-32 design. I think Boeing shot itself in the foot when they had to do a major redesign of the X-32 and their X-32 prototype looked nothing like the new final design of the F-32, meaning the data and performance the X-32 gained meant nothing (at least that's how I see it). The X-32 was also doomed when they had to strip parts and move the X-32 flight testing to a more denser atmosphere for it to hover efficiently. IMHO the X-32 was a glorified stealth Harrier and would probably have given the US more headaches than the X-35.
The F-35 Program in general did suffer massive cost overruns and poor management but as time went on the F-35 has really shaped up to be a great fighter.
I think the idea that a single base air-frame with a few corresponding mods could serve the needs of 3 different military branches was a pretty dumb idea from the start. IMHO, the JSF Program was better off not to be pursued and each branch should have gotten their own specialized independently designed fighter.
But either way the F-35 is turning out to be good and lets hope the US doesn't repeat the same mistakes with the F-X and F/A-XX programs.
+2@Nerfaddict
No I was joking on the PC part but it did crash my SP game. lol
Although my PC's fan did kick in pretty hard when the scramjet broke mach 30 XD...
@Nerfaddict
I went 10,000mph and then I lost control of acceleration and it went like a 1,000,000mph in a heartbeat and my SP crashed. 10/10 would crash my PC again. 👌
How to crash your game or nearly kill your PC XD.
@JoddyFubuki788
Yes I'm competing in the 6th gen fighter challenge, although I haven't finished or uploaded my fighter yet.
Very well done. Looks like I got some serious competition. ;)