The C7 is a tough cookie and is hard to break especially hard landings or even a collision. Strangely, if the C7 gets shot at by a fighter and a piece of the wing gets hit and destroyed, the whole wing completely shatters. It's really strange. Maybe is from all the fuel the wings carry? (both the wings and the wing fuselage panels carry fuel)
@Texasfam04
Sure thing! I'll tag you for the airliner and smuggler variants. After the two variants I'll also be working on a bomber and a gunship variant of the C7.
@EpicPigster1
The C7A Samson was my first design where I went all out with features and high detail, including custom landing gear and a fully detailed cockpit as well as an interior. I'm working on a night fighter that will be my first fighter aircraft with a detailed cockpit.
@BACconcordepilot
Yea. Since all my latest airplane designs have full cockpits with test dummies in them as pilots, you could judge the airplane's scale base on if a human was placed instead of the test dummy. I probably shouldn't be worrying to much about the C7, after all it actually would be slightly longer compared to the C-130 and have a bigger wingspan.
@BACconcordepilot
Thanks (About the blocks) but I already knew about the info tab in the designer. I guess I ignored it and got too caught up in just building it. I have another problem, a new fighter I'm working on, the P8 (night fighter/interceptor) is also at the same scale as the C7 (It's not the C7's size, it's build according to the scaling of the C7). I'm too far in the build on my new fighter to re-build it at a smaller scale. I'll just have to live with 2 of my designs being bigger than normal. For now on I'm building my designs according to the scale of the Test Dummy.
@Irobert55
Hypersonic is a bit overkill. At least Mach 3 for my ideal superfighter. One thing to note, the F-22 and B-2 had stealth coated onto their structure. The F-35 uses composites with the stealth "baked" into the structure panels. Basically, the F-35 doesn't need expensive hangars like the F-22 and B-2. It's stealth coating won't shed at high speeds, and the F-35 can withstand much tougher environmental conditions compared to the F-22 and B-2, thanks to the stealth being baked into the skin/structure.
@BroAeronautics
lol. The drone could easily fair well without the bomb, but part of the requirements for the target drone were to have a huge explosion when shot down. But who can complain? It makes a great glide bomb and cruise missile!
Military aircraft, even transports just have an aggressive but charming tone to them, especially on simpleplanes. Civilian aircraft can be quiet boring here on simpleplanes unless they have an incredible amount of detail.
My ideal weapon is a super-fighter that features incredible avionics and radar, and near-hyper sonic speeds with insane maneuverability, stealth features also in mind. However the fighter would be optional manned, and instead of windows would feature cameras like the ADF-01 FALKEN, minus the COFFIN flight controls feature. When unmanned, it could either be controlled by an AI or a ground based operator that is inside a full-motion representation of the cockpit, so the pilot would get a feel of the fighter, minus the G-forces. That is my ideal super-fighter.
@Rodrigo110
It's a WW2 interceptor/night fighter that I'm adding a turret too, and everything is manual (trying to be realistic). So VTOL controls constant speed props and trim controls both flaps and trim. The control surfaces locking is optional. Ex: AG-1 would activate the turret and AG-2 could activate control lock so the airplane is stable to use the turret. (AG-1 and AG-2 wont be used for those at this moment, this is just an example).
If AI turrets aren't possible, a cool idea would be to have more sliders (aka "VTOL" sliders). You can have up to 4 of them, 2 that run horizontally and 2 that run vertically. All the sliders would be lined up against the borders of the screen similar to the VTOL and Trim slider. These sliders are simple: A gizmo such as hinges or rotators can be assigned to a slider.
@Iamsilverdahedgie
Thanks for the suggestion, but that's already a question on the survey.
I'd like you to take the survey so I can actually see data from the responses.
Never mind, I can see you submitted an answer on the survey, thank you!
Here is the P7A airliner @Texasfam04.
@Sgtk
Thanks Sgtk!
The C7 is a tough cookie and is hard to break especially hard landings or even a collision. Strangely, if the C7 gets shot at by a fighter and a piece of the wing gets hit and destroyed, the whole wing completely shatters. It's really strange. Maybe is from all the fuel the wings carry? (both the wings and the wing fuselage panels carry fuel)
Oh yea I'm uploading the P7 Airliner tomorrow in the morning. keep an eye out for that!
Nice, rugged design! Makes a great competitor against my C7A Samson!
@Stellarlabs
Lol had that happen to me a couple of times.
@destroyerP
Yes those are just as deadly...
@Texasfam04
Sure thing! I'll tag you for the airliner and smuggler variants. After the two variants I'll also be working on a bomber and a gunship variant of the C7.
@Texasfam04
I'm definitely using the C7. I'm busy wrapping up the P7 Airliner but when I complete it I will work on the smuggler variant of the C7.
@ThomasRoderick
Thanks for the suggestions!
Space Nazis Confirmed!
@EpicPigster1
The C7A Samson was my first design where I went all out with features and high detail, including custom landing gear and a fully detailed cockpit as well as an interior. I'm working on a night fighter that will be my first fighter aircraft with a detailed cockpit.
@BACconcordepilot
Yea. Since all my latest airplane designs have full cockpits with test dummies in them as pilots, you could judge the airplane's scale base on if a human was placed instead of the test dummy. I probably shouldn't be worrying to much about the C7, after all it actually would be slightly longer compared to the C-130 and have a bigger wingspan.
@BACconcordepilot
Thanks (About the blocks) but I already knew about the info tab in the designer. I guess I ignored it and got too caught up in just building it. I have another problem, a new fighter I'm working on, the P8 (night fighter/interceptor) is also at the same scale as the C7 (It's not the C7's size, it's build according to the scaling of the C7). I'm too far in the build on my new fighter to re-build it at a smaller scale. I'll just have to live with 2 of my designs being bigger than normal. For now on I'm building my designs according to the scale of the Test Dummy.
@BACconcordepilot
You mean the default blocks?
XD
It's the Banshee Carrier from Yukikaze! Or at least based off of it.
+2Whats this I smell? A new meme coming along?
+4Thanks again @Texasfam04!
Thank you @Texasfam04!
Omg 300 downloads...
@Irobert55
How is it useless? The enemy can't detect you, and your moving at a high rate of speed.
@Irobert55
Hypersonic is a bit overkill. At least Mach 3 for my ideal superfighter. One thing to note, the F-22 and B-2 had stealth coated onto their structure. The F-35 uses composites with the stealth "baked" into the structure panels. Basically, the F-35 doesn't need expensive hangars like the F-22 and B-2. It's stealth coating won't shed at high speeds, and the F-35 can withstand much tougher environmental conditions compared to the F-22 and B-2, thanks to the stealth being baked into the skin/structure.
@BroAeronautics
lol. The drone could easily fair well without the bomb, but part of the requirements for the target drone were to have a huge explosion when shot down. But who can complain? It makes a great glide bomb and cruise missile!
Military aircraft, even transports just have an aggressive but charming tone to them, especially on simpleplanes. Civilian aircraft can be quiet boring here on simpleplanes unless they have an incredible amount of detail.
My ideal weapon is a super-fighter that features incredible avionics and radar, and near-hyper sonic speeds with insane maneuverability, stealth features also in mind. However the fighter would be optional manned, and instead of windows would feature cameras like the ADF-01 FALKEN, minus the COFFIN flight controls feature. When unmanned, it could either be controlled by an AI or a ground based operator that is inside a full-motion representation of the cockpit, so the pilot would get a feel of the fighter, minus the G-forces. That is my ideal super-fighter.
@Fluffiboo
Thanks! I could have made a real target drone, all detailed and all, but I kept it incredibly simple so it has a high chance of spawning.
This one is really cool! I like the shape reversal that makes it sort of see-through.
@Fluffiboo
No problem!
Double Wow. 250!
@Jetpackturtle
Thanks!
@Ephwurd
lol I too prefer VTOL+Trim
Wow. I still can't believe something this simple would get over 100 downloads. ◉_◉ I did not expect this.
@Strikefighter04
XD
@Rodrigo110
Sure you can show me.
@Rodrigo110
It's a WW2 interceptor/night fighter that I'm adding a turret too, and everything is manual (trying to be realistic). So VTOL controls constant speed props and trim controls both flaps and trim. The control surfaces locking is optional. Ex: AG-1 would activate the turret and AG-2 could activate control lock so the airplane is stable to use the turret. (AG-1 and AG-2 wont be used for those at this moment, this is just an example).
Wow within an hour this simple 11 part design already has 36 downloads. :)
@iLikeipads
Exactly!
@Potato21
Oh ok.
@ACMECo1940
Look for a bomber or a ship on simpleplanes. They always have turrets and some have working turrets.
@CoolPeach
Or better yet, AI controlled turrets.
If AI turrets aren't possible, a cool idea would be to have more sliders (aka "VTOL" sliders). You can have up to 4 of them, 2 that run horizontally and 2 that run vertically. All the sliders would be lined up against the borders of the screen similar to the VTOL and Trim slider. These sliders are simple: A gizmo such as hinges or rotators can be assigned to a slider.
@Potato21
What's "flying able"?
Sooo whats the issue?? I don't see any problems, in fact I'd say that was a good landing.
@Iamsilverdahedgie
Thanks for the suggestion, but that's already a question on the survey.
I'd like you to take the survey so I can actually see data from the responses.
Never mind, I can see you submitted an answer on the survey, thank you!
@NathanAviation
Glad you liked it!
Literally perfect except the weak landing gear.
Wow. 73 entries. Look's like you got your hands full!
Thanks @BogdanX!
Also happy new year everyone!
@Texasfam04
Thank you and happy new year!
@Texasfam04
Thanks!