I don’t get the buzz … this doesn’t spell Tomcat to me. The original build by @suzutuki65 was actually very good for its time. This one adds detail in weird places but omits Tomcat-typical things like the characteristic front window or even a launch bar. The second canopy bow is missing and the cockpit … well, I don’t mind cockpits but if you do a replica … just do a replica. The basic model is very much the same, which is a tribute to the original but also not very creative. I’m not one to judge nilly-willy, but this just doesn’t sit right with me.
To be fair, the announcement for this one said it was gonna be a „remaster“, so there’s that.
@Eugene14 Well that 50‘s French fighter called the Super Mystére just so happens to be the direct predecessor to the Etendard/Super Etendard series. So they’re actually directly connected. That’s what makes your name choice so confusing.
@klm747klm747 There’s a couple of very common mistakes like that. My favorite one is when the position lights are mirrored (red/port on the right and green/starboard on the left) ;-)
Not the case here, of course.
Also, some builders make super-accurate fighter jet replicas and then go on to mix inert/practice ordnance (blue markings) with live weapons (yellow markings). Ah well, pet peeves. ;-)
I, too have been guilty of reversing actuators for control surfaces and only noticing it post-upload, though.
The only Airbus to ever go Mach1! 😉 Seriously though, absolutely beautiful design. But perhaps tone down the engine power just a little bit. It kinda wants to go supersonic in level flight. ;-)
@SyntheticL You can literally take a look at the preview image of the challenge this was made for and know that ‚delta wing‘ is a wiiiide definition. Wikipedia tells you the same. So no, it’s not just Mirages and F-106s.
@Dizwerwirt It’s a 9g airframe in real life. That doesn’t exactly come from nothing, you know? In fact, it is the first production plane in history that was intentionally designed to be aerodynamically unstable - accordingly, it’s also the first fly-by-wire production fighter. This build actually does a very good job at approximating the agility and (lack of) stability of the F-16.
@MAHADI Thanks, I tried that with the update that I just uploaded here (just re-download from this post). It does yield more control at slower speeds, also feels a bit sluggish now. Guess that’s something I can get used to, though.
@M4RBR3D4_BR34KF45T You’re either quite sad to talk smack about a great build or very old to have seen the interior of a 747-100 „irl“. So which one is it?
@MAHADI, hey, care to check out the improvements? ;-) Don’t worry about the high number of drag points, the XML has been updated again since the original upload. The actual number is just above 2,000. I also followed your advice of shifting CoM and CoL, so now it flies reasonably well. It’s still got some handling problems at slow speeds but I’ll keep working on it, so that might improve with the next update.
@MAHADI Hey, thanks for the feedback and advice! I realize it’s got some flaws in the performance area. I have to admit that I rushed the build toward the end - and quality control obviously suffered. ;-) Had to get it out for the sake of „making it“, though, you know? I will post a much improved version at some point.
Absolutely beautiful! Flies well too. Only minor criticisms I have: 1) the tailplane is missing the taileron function, i.e. it only moves with pitch input, but not with roll.
2) the AMRAAMS have blue („inert/practice“) markings while the AIM-9s have the yellow „live warhead“ marking - but that is reall just purely cosmetic nitpicking. ;-)
Holy crap, this is just brilliant! Just how did you get it to fly this smoothly?! Do you give lessons? ;-) Great aesthetics as well. Looks very believable- unlike many other „pro“ builds on here. Awesome work!
@ArkRoyalTheDDhunter Whoah there, now, before you start dishing out wild insults, you should really do some more research. For example, start here: take a look at the Wiki page for the term „heavy fighter“ and look for the P-38. Based on multiple historical sources (provided in the article) this fighter is, by all accounts, classified as a heavy fighter, albeit one of the rare successful ones. It is considerably heavier (and larger) than a Me-109 or similar airframes. Also, I challenge you to find any „official“ classification for fighter types (as in Air Force design requirements or such). And even if you do … JEEEZ, try to be nice to people! Is that so hard?
@Diloph I see, that explains why a lot of high-quality replicas have the same issue. Could’ve thought of that myself ;-) Regardless, this is probably the prettiest and best-handling Viper on here right now. Awesome work!
Turned out just as beautiful as I had hoped by watching the trailer! One thing came up while pushing this bird to its limits, though: I do have some trouble getting it past 570 kts (~ Mach 0.85) even in full AB at 20,000+ feet. Is this intentional?
What a beauty! No matter what livery and loadout the final build is gonna have, I’ll definitely fly it clean and with this exact paint scheme. Awesome preview!
One more question about the rules: Does a default wing that’s partly covered by a piece of fuselage constitute a custom wing? Meaning: Will this disqualify my build?
@Diloph Very complicated way of saying this, but yes: Your flight computer (basic cockpit part) is turned 90 degrees on the y axis. So the missiles only lock on to targets to the right side of the plane.
Cool build, although it’s not a G model. But that’s been pointed out already. There are a couple more inconsistencies in the livery: The „roundel“ (in this case, the black cross) you used here is the one from the Wehrmacht‘s Luftwaffe (meaning the Nazi-German air force before 1945). Present day German Air Force’s cross is different. Also, the German flag is black, red, gold from top to bottom. ;-)
@Rymanx03 I had no intention of making this a less friendly place. On the contrary, I’d like to keep real life differences outside of the community, including political ones. I apologize for coming on a little too strong. I guess I’ve become too sensitive ever since the war started.
@PlaneFlightX Well, it’s not like he’s done simple „square“ wings by accident here. It’s part of the aesthetic. Very simple, yet still plenty of detail where it’s actually needed. I think it’s a very legit approach to building actual simple planes.
Awesome! Looking forward to yet another great fighter. Hey by the way: I was wondering why you choose to leave out the canopy bows on all your builds? Not that the quality suffers from
that in any way, but I feel like sometimes the canopy sections are part of a plane‘s characteristic look.
@ReinMcDeer Yeah, I heard about the energy issues with both the legacy Hornet and the „Rhino“. Apparently, maneuvering (bfm, acm) loses the Hornet a lot of energy which it has a hard time regaining in comparison with other fighters. Thanks for being open to discussion, though!
Deer Sir, I adore your builds! This is yet another example of a near-perfect simple plane. I’m also a great fan of the numerous alternate loadouts.
One little thing had me wondering while maneuvering: It seems like the main engines might be a wee bit underpowered. I realize that a fully loaded Foxtrott Super Hornet is not gonna go supersonic at sea level with three drop tanks. However, even when the entire combat load (default version) is jettisoned, it takes the plane a significant while to get to, and then above Mach 1 at, say, 20,000 ft. Is this intentional or would you care to revise the thrust in order to give it a little more oomph?
Again: not a major point of criticism, just nitpicking. ;-)
If it’s not designed to fly fast, why does it have variable wing sweep and an afterburner with a 12-foot flame propelling it ever-so-close to Mach 1? Fastest pure-bred UCAV ever, imho!
Then again, this has to be THE most beautiful afterburner exhaust flame I’ve seen in SP so far! ;-)
I don’t get the buzz … this doesn’t spell Tomcat to me. The original build by @suzutuki65 was actually very good for its time. This one adds detail in weird places but omits Tomcat-typical things like the characteristic front window or even a launch bar. The second canopy bow is missing and the cockpit … well, I don’t mind cockpits but if you do a replica … just do a replica. The basic model is very much the same, which is a tribute to the original but also not very creative. I’m not one to judge nilly-willy, but this just doesn’t sit right with me.
To be fair, the announcement for this one said it was gonna be a „remaster“, so there’s that.
+1@Eugene14 Well that 50‘s French fighter called the Super Mystére just so happens to be the direct predecessor to the Etendard/Super Etendard series. So they’re actually directly connected. That’s what makes your name choice so confusing.
@bilibiliQCWL No big deal. I’ll adjust it myself 😉
@klm747klm747 There’s a couple of very common mistakes like that. My favorite one is when the position lights are mirrored (red/port on the right and green/starboard on the left) ;-)
Not the case here, of course.
Also, some builders make super-accurate fighter jet replicas and then go on to mix inert/practice ordnance (blue markings) with live weapons (yellow markings). Ah well, pet peeves. ;-)
I, too have been guilty of reversing actuators for control surfaces and only noticing it post-upload, though.
+1The only Airbus to ever go Mach1! 😉 Seriously though, absolutely beautiful design. But perhaps tone down the engine power just a little bit. It kinda wants to go supersonic in level flight. ;-)
@SyntheticL You can literally take a look at the preview image of the challenge this was made for and know that ‚delta wing‘ is a wiiiide definition. Wikipedia tells you the same. So no, it’s not just Mirages and F-106s.
+1@Dizwerwirt It’s a 9g airframe in real life. That doesn’t exactly come from nothing, you know? In fact, it is the first production plane in history that was intentionally designed to be aerodynamically unstable - accordingly, it’s also the first fly-by-wire production fighter. This build actually does a very good job at approximating the agility and (lack of) stability of the F-16.
This is absolutely top-notch! How on earth did you have the patience for making this cockpit?! It’s practically photorealistic …
Besides I really love the smooth and sleek shape of the airframe. Hat’s off, sir!
+1Again, thanks for all the positive and constructive feedback, people! Very helpful indeed.
@Tang0five Thanks for the compliment and the spotlight … much appreciated!
@MAHADI Thanks, I tried that with the update that I just uploaded here (just re-download from this post). It does yield more control at slower speeds, also feels a bit sluggish now. Guess that’s something I can get used to, though.
@M4RBR3D4_BR34KF45T You’re either quite sad to talk smack about a great build or very old to have seen the interior of a 747-100 „irl“. So which one is it?
+1@MAHADI, hey, care to check out the improvements? ;-) Don’t worry about the high number of drag points, the XML has been updated again since the original upload. The actual number is just above 2,000. I also followed your advice of shifting CoM and CoL, so now it flies reasonably well. It’s still got some handling problems at slow speeds but I’ll keep working on it, so that might improve with the next update.
Thanks everyone for the upvotes! I’ll also be happy to include suggestions and improvements in the next version. So don’t hesitate to comment!
Cheers
@MAHADI Hey, thanks for the feedback and advice! I realize it’s got some flaws in the performance area. I have to admit that I rushed the build toward the end - and quality control obviously suffered. ;-) Had to get it out for the sake of „making it“, though, you know? I will post a much improved version at some point.
T
One tiny detail: This has to be the F/A-18C instead of the ‚A’ model. As far as I’m aware, the ‚A‘ has never been in Service with the Swiss Air Force.
+1Beautiful rendition of a beautiful build! Thanks for the tag.
Thank you! Just updated. @MAHADI
+1Thanks for the instant upvotes/spotlights, you guys! @MAHADI @Shimamurahougetsu
+1Shoot. I just noticed my missile pylons are screwed up. AIM-9s slam into fuselage and kill the plane upon firing. Am I allowed to update/re-upload?
+1@SyntheticL Well, it’s still June 12 here in Germany … sooo … ;-)
+2Absolutely beautiful! Flies well too. Only minor criticisms I have: 1) the tailplane is missing the taileron function, i.e. it only moves with pitch input, but not with roll.
+22) the AMRAAMS have blue („inert/practice“) markings while the AIM-9s have the yellow „live warhead“ marking - but that is reall just purely cosmetic nitpicking. ;-)
Holy crap, this is just brilliant! Just how did you get it to fly this smoothly?! Do you give lessons? ;-) Great aesthetics as well. Looks very believable- unlike many other „pro“ builds on here. Awesome work!
+1@ArkRoyalTheDDhunter Ok
@ArkRoyalTheDDhunter Whoah there, now, before you start dishing out wild insults, you should really do some more research. For example, start here: take a look at the Wiki page for the term „heavy fighter“ and look for the P-38. Based on multiple historical sources (provided in the article) this fighter is, by all accounts, classified as a heavy fighter, albeit one of the rare successful ones. It is considerably heavier (and larger) than a Me-109 or similar airframes. Also, I challenge you to find any „official“ classification for fighter types (as in Air Force design requirements or such). And even if you do … JEEEZ, try to be nice to people! Is that so hard?
+1@Diloph I see, that explains why a lot of high-quality replicas have the same issue. Could’ve thought of that myself ;-) Regardless, this is probably the prettiest and best-handling Viper on here right now. Awesome work!
+1Turned out just as beautiful as I had hoped by watching the trailer! One thing came up while pushing this bird to its limits, though: I do have some trouble getting it past 570 kts (~ Mach 0.85) even in full AB at 20,000+ feet. Is this intentional?
@Gx Bern-WHO-li?!?
@ReinMcDeer Now, here is a man of distinct musical taste.
Take me on your mighty wings …
@MAHADI Thanks for clarifying!
+1T!
What a beauty! No matter what livery and loadout the final build is gonna have, I’ll definitely fly it clean and with this exact paint scheme. Awesome preview!
Civilian aircraft with two machine guns? Also: What’s wrong with calling it an Ornithopter? Anyway, nice build, sleek looks!
+2One more question about the rules: Does a default wing that’s partly covered by a piece of fuselage constitute a custom wing? Meaning: Will this disqualify my build?
+2T
+1@ChrisPy Yup, Block 30 is the C model.
+1@Diloph Very complicated way of saying this, but yes: Your flight computer (basic cockpit part) is turned 90 degrees on the y axis. So the missiles only lock on to targets to the right side of the plane.
@PyrrhaNikos fair enough 😉
+1Cool build, although it’s not a G model. But that’s been pointed out already. There are a couple more inconsistencies in the livery: The „roundel“ (in this case, the black cross) you used here is the one from the Wehrmacht‘s Luftwaffe (meaning the Nazi-German air force before 1945). Present day German Air Force’s cross is different. Also, the German flag is black, red, gold from top to bottom. ;-)
@Rymanx03 I had no intention of making this a less friendly place. On the contrary, I’d like to keep real life differences outside of the community, including political ones. I apologize for coming on a little too strong. I guess I’ve become too sensitive ever since the war started.
+3Little bit on the political side here, aren’t we? In light of recent events, I find this to be in rather poor taste.
+1@PlaneFlightX Well, it’s not like he’s done simple „square“ wings by accident here. It’s part of the aesthetic. Very simple, yet still plenty of detail where it’s actually needed. I think it’s a very legit approach to building actual simple planes.
+1Awesome! Looking forward to yet another great fighter. Hey by the way: I was wondering why you choose to leave out the canopy bows on all your builds? Not that the quality suffers from
that in any way, but I feel like sometimes the canopy sections are part of a plane‘s characteristic look.
@ollielebananiaCFSP Ah, ok, I see. Thanks.
Are those sound mods on PC?
This is positively insane and I love it! What a crazy concept!
+1@ReinMcDeer Yeah, I heard about the energy issues with both the legacy Hornet and the „Rhino“. Apparently, maneuvering (bfm, acm) loses the Hornet a lot of energy which it has a hard time regaining in comparison with other fighters. Thanks for being open to discussion, though!
+1Deer Sir, I adore your builds! This is yet another example of a near-perfect simple plane. I’m also a great fan of the numerous alternate loadouts.
One little thing had me wondering while maneuvering: It seems like the main engines might be a wee bit underpowered. I realize that a fully loaded Foxtrott Super Hornet is not gonna go supersonic at sea level with three drop tanks. However, even when the entire combat load (default version) is jettisoned, it takes the plane a significant while to get to, and then above Mach 1 at, say, 20,000 ft. Is this intentional or would you care to revise the thrust in order to give it a little more oomph?
Again: not a major point of criticism, just nitpicking. ;-)
Cheers
+2Damn, that’s one sexy bomb!
+2If it’s not designed to fly fast, why does it have variable wing sweep and an afterburner with a 12-foot flame propelling it ever-so-close to Mach 1? Fastest pure-bred UCAV ever, imho!
Then again, this has to be THE most beautiful afterburner exhaust flame I’ve seen in SP so far! ;-)
Just messing with you a little. I really like it!
+8