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?
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.
@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. ;-)
+1Now, 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.
+1T!
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!
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.