@CharlesDeGaulle I see what you mean, although my perspective is limited in this regard, since I’ve never played DCS (or flown a fast jet IRL, for that matter). I also noticed the „bobbing“ when pulling lots of Gs, which probably shouldn’t occur in a fly-by-wire jet like the Mirage 2000. However, I don’t find this to be particularly bad, even on mobile controls. I just pull back less hard on the stick and it turns just fine. Anyway, I do see your point. For me, personally, flight performance is good enough.
This is so cool! The blending of the wing root and the fuselage is masterful. Controls nicely, great cockpit, no obvious detail-overkill just to show off, but just the right amount of realism. Nice job!
Hey there! Just a friendly heads-up as you seem to be new: If you download other people’s creations and re-upload them, it’s always nice to give the original creator some credit, even if you make some changes to the build. They will appreciate it. ;-)
@WinsWings … well, I was joking since it obviously resembles an F-86. But as a replica, it wouldn’t really hold up, I believe (I didn’t use any blueprints, either). So there it is. Something kinda close to an F-86 … but not quite. ;-)
Looks great, waaay too much power. You can scale the engine power back down to factor 1.5 and will still get close to Mach 4 while retaining much better control overall. Currently, acceleration is just ridiculous. Also: „gun removed for stealth performance“? Come on, you were lazy is all! ;-P
Hi there. I just rediscovered this ol gem. Still amazed by the sheer level of detail you managed to put into this without all the bells and whistles from the most recent updates. Speaking of which: I‘d like to take your basic model, as shape and flight model are pretty much perfect and update it with some modern parts (including fuselage splitting where necessary), cockpit parts, glass canopy, maybe a custom engine and a different livery/color scheme, etc.
Is that ok with you? You will, of course receive appropriate credit for your beautiful original build.
Now, THIS is how you do a challenge! Publish an absolute beast of a stealth fighter and then make a challenge about stealthy vehicles and be like „follow this!“ 😉Well done!
Can’t be file size, SP builds rarely crack the 2mb mark. And the XML for this build is only 69kb if I’m not mistaken. Have you tried the workaround method for mobile devices? You can find a helpful guide here. Had the same problem before, now everything works perfectly for me. Link: https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/1572349/XML-Update-tutorial
@TWDDerSharkmarine
@TWDDerSharkmarine Mhh, yes that Mirage 4000 would have been one hell of a fighter! Love the Kfir too, it’s like Mirage 3/5 on Steroids. And Fairey Delta … man, what a concept! :-D
It’s hard to get the A-10 right. The overall shape is pretty damn good. Other flaws have been pointed out (you should have other people test your builds in the future!). But just one more basic thing for the sake of accuracy: The GAU-8 Avenger doesn’t have 8 barrels as you suggest, but 7.
Beautiful and a joy to fly - the effort you put into updating your '29 really paid off!
Just a quick note on the plane's historical background, should you care to update yours: The German MiG-29s were originally built by Mikoyan as A (single-seater) and UB (double-seater) versions for the GDR (German Democratic Republic = East Germany) air force.
When the Soviet Union started dissolving and the wall in Germany came down in 1989, these MiGs were set to be transfered into the Western German Luftwaffe. In 1990/91, MAPS (the newly formed joint venture between Mikoyan and Daimler Aerospace, based in Germany) was contracted to update/refit the planes to meet NATO standards. They underwent flight tests in 1992 and subsequently entered servive with the now unified Luftwaffe in 1993 as MiG-29Gs and MiG-29GTs (G for Germany, T for Trainer).
@OrderlyHippo It could be wonky at slow speeds, but a very specific reason: Sometimes the slats (leading-edge flaps) would deploy asymmetrically, resulting in weird, adverse flight characteristics, like auto-rolling or rolling and bumping in the wrong direction, especially at high angle of attack maneuvers. When the Blue Angels flew the Skyhawk, they locked the slats at the fully retracted position in order to lower the risk of losing control of the airplane.
Or the angle of the engine/prop rotation could be limited so that they produce propulsion just past the wings‘ trailing edge, effectively making it a STOL plane, rather than a VTOL. Or you just completely ignore my bickering. ;-) Anyway, just pointing this out b/c I really like your build on every other respect.
I love the concept and many things about the design. It’s very well-built and extremely pretty.
But there’s one huge flaw that makes it less-than-believable: The props are directly above the wings. That means: when they rotate up for vertical takeoff, they couldn’t never produce any vertical lift in reality, as the prop only pushes against the wing instead of pushing away from the ground. Maybe that’s something that could be addressed by using four (smaller) engines, two in front and two behind the wings?
The hell, am I missing a huge in-joke here?
Also: challenge accepted!
+1Looooots of 99-part builds incoming! ;-)
+1@CharlesDeGaulle I see what you mean, although my perspective is limited in this regard, since I’ve never played DCS (or flown a fast jet IRL, for that matter). I also noticed the „bobbing“ when pulling lots of Gs, which probably shouldn’t occur in a fly-by-wire jet like the Mirage 2000. However, I don’t find this to be particularly bad, even on mobile controls. I just pull back less hard on the stick and it turns just fine. Anyway, I do see your point. For me, personally, flight performance is good enough.
This is so cool! The blending of the wing root and the fuselage is masterful. Controls nicely, great cockpit, no obvious detail-overkill just to show off, but just the right amount of realism. Nice job!
+1@CharlesDeGaulle Am I missing something? Could you elaborate on what you feel makes this „bad flying“?
@ZeroWithSlashedO Agreed. Although not sure if German Typhoons even carry Brimstone. Still … best stone.
+1@jamesPLANESii My thoughts exactly.
@DEADSHOT15 Thanks for trying, mate. Sadly, you can only spotlight users who have less points than yourself. :-/. But I do appreciate your intention!
Hey there! Just a friendly heads-up as you seem to be new: If you download other people’s creations and re-upload them, it’s always nice to give the original creator some credit, even if you make some changes to the build. They will appreciate it. ;-)
Other than that: welcome to the SP community!
This is spot on!
+1Love the concept. Great public service!
@FirstFish83828 Whoop whoop! Thanks, friend!
This absolutely top-notch. Great parts-economy!
+1@Inuyasha8215 Thanks, mate!
@SyntheticL Thanks a bunch!
@WinsWings … well, I was joking since it obviously resembles an F-86. But as a replica, it wouldn’t really hold up, I believe (I didn’t use any blueprints, either). So there it is. Something kinda close to an F-86 … but not quite. ;-)
+2Now, this is how 25 Parts is DONE! Absolutely beautiful.
I guess you could say this challenge is a success, at least in terms of sheer numbers. ;-)
+1@ThomasRoderick Thanks for the spotlight!
+1@WinsWings *Swiss 😉
+1@MrSilverWolf Sorry. Won’t happen again.
+1@ShinyGemsBro Haha! Did the same thing. Man this thing really kills now ... literally.
+1T
@Subdskdhej It's a pretty accurate replica. The Harrier is a subsonic design, so it's not meant to be very agile at high airspeeds.
Looks great, waaay too much power. You can scale the engine power back down to factor 1.5 and will still get close to Mach 4 while retaining much better control overall. Currently, acceleration is just ridiculous. Also: „gun removed for stealth performance“? Come on, you were lazy is all! ;-P
Anyway, cool design with some nice YF-23 vibes.
+2T!
Hi there. I just rediscovered this ol gem. Still amazed by the sheer level of detail you managed to put into this without all the bells and whistles from the most recent updates. Speaking of which: I‘d like to take your basic model, as shape and flight model are pretty much perfect and update it with some modern parts (including fuselage splitting where necessary), cockpit parts, glass canopy, maybe a custom engine and a different livery/color scheme, etc.
Is that ok with you? You will, of course receive appropriate credit for your beautiful original build.
Cheers!
@SsKyCoSs Cool, appreciate that! Yeah I created it for one of those „less than 50 parts“ challenges and wanted to do something unique.
+1Well, looky here. Converging ideas! ☺️Check out my version of this concept: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/K0r659/LAM-Fighter-50-pts-or-less-challenge
+1This style works really well! Great idea in the spirit of building actual simple planes.
+3@WinsWings Whoohooo!!! Thanks for 3rd place!! That’s really cool. Much appreciated!
+2Now, THIS is how you do a challenge! Publish an absolute beast of a stealth fighter and then make a challenge about stealthy vehicles and be like „follow this!“ 😉Well done!
+1T
Can’t be file size, SP builds rarely crack the 2mb mark. And the XML for this build is only 69kb if I’m not mistaken. Have you tried the workaround method for mobile devices? You can find a helpful guide here. Had the same problem before, now everything works perfectly for me. Link: https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/1572349/XML-Update-tutorial
@TWDDerSharkmarine
@TWDDerSharkmarine Wait, how come you can’t update the XML file?
@TWDDerSharkmarine Mhh, yes that Mirage 4000 would have been one hell of a fighter! Love the Kfir too, it’s like Mirage 3/5 on Steroids. And Fairey Delta … man, what a concept! :-D
4/12 entries: Ford Trimotor! LMAO! You invited the trolls with open arms. ;-)
Anyway, I’ll try to get creative with this. No Ford here.
+1@TWDDerSharkmarine 😍 Which one‘s your favorite?
@WinsWings Thank you! Pretty much last minute, but that’s my style ;-)
+1It’s hard to get the A-10 right. The overall shape is pretty damn good. Other flaws have been pointed out (you should have other people test your builds in the future!). But just one more basic thing for the sake of accuracy: The GAU-8 Avenger doesn’t have 8 barrels as you suggest, but 7.
@ChamDel78 Well it will probably run until the 15th is over, internationally. As it should. ;-)
+1Beautiful and a joy to fly - the effort you put into updating your '29 really paid off!
Just a quick note on the plane's historical background, should you care to update yours: The German MiG-29s were originally built by Mikoyan as A (single-seater) and UB (double-seater) versions for the GDR (German Democratic Republic = East Germany) air force.
When the Soviet Union started dissolving and the wall in Germany came down in 1989, these MiGs were set to be transfered into the Western German Luftwaffe. In 1990/91, MAPS (the newly formed joint venture between Mikoyan and Daimler Aerospace, based in Germany) was contracted to update/refit the planes to meet NATO standards. They underwent flight tests in 1992 and subsequently entered servive with the now unified Luftwaffe in 1993 as MiG-29Gs and MiG-29GTs (G for Germany, T for Trainer).
Cheers!
Sooo … how the hell do you fly this?
+2@BaconEggs Thanks for clarifying! And amazing level of simulation you built into this one. Really enjoyable to fly!
@OrderlyHippo It could be wonky at slow speeds, but a very specific reason: Sometimes the slats (leading-edge flaps) would deploy asymmetrically, resulting in weird, adverse flight characteristics, like auto-rolling or rolling and bumping in the wrong direction, especially at high angle of attack maneuvers. When the Blue Angels flew the Skyhawk, they locked the slats at the fully retracted position in order to lower the risk of losing control of the airplane.
+2Ah! There you go. This one’s got four engines in exactly the right places for VTOL! :-D
Or the angle of the engine/prop rotation could be limited so that they produce propulsion just past the wings‘ trailing edge, effectively making it a STOL plane, rather than a VTOL. Or you just completely ignore my bickering. ;-) Anyway, just pointing this out b/c I really like your build on every other respect.
+3I love the concept and many things about the design. It’s very well-built and extremely pretty.
But there’s one huge flaw that makes it less-than-believable: The props are directly above the wings. That means: when they rotate up for vertical takeoff, they couldn’t never produce any vertical lift in reality, as the prop only pushes against the wing instead of pushing away from the ground. Maybe that’s something that could be addressed by using four (smaller) engines, two in front and two behind the wings?
+2T!