Right, sorry for pulling V3.1.0.4 (5) Pre Release build from the downloadable aircraft. It's pretty nutty. There's quite a few concerns about certain problems, mostly spin, which result from adding significant mass to the original aircraft, lots of balance problems.
It seems that the aircraft was overweight a bit initially too, causing it's dogfighting performance to be less than optimal. Mostly at high alt. Now it's at all altitudes above 300 meters >.>
Hokay. Until you actually put effort into making this thing fly well I'm not putting in an up vote. It seems rather sad that this looks more like a Bf 109 than your previous build despite the fact that it's a mix between a P-51 and a Bf 109.
@DeezDucks @arcues @TAplanes @luzernsaphir
Commentary please; What problems do you find with it?
Does it fly okay at all times?
How does it handle your most difficult maneuvers?
Does it have acceptable low speed performance?
Does it run (in a line) well? (100% engine power)
How is it relative to previous models?
How does it stack up against other user made Mitsubishi Zero's?
Does it look okay? Relative?
How's it's range?
What do you find most lacking?
Landing flaps, a new canopy (eventually), maybe landing gear, more markings, and other stuff is planned for the future. Also historical armament, tracers, and other gadgets and gizmos. If it becomes overburdened I'll up the turn rate.
That's a myth, it's a much more complicated concept. A high torque engine will produce more power than a high HP engine up to a point, at which it becomes actively inferior in energy output. However high HP engines are also generally more fragile. @Pilotmario
Hey arcues mate, I noticed you like Japanese aircraft, and while I'm aware this is vain self promotion, I was wondering what you thought of my (low detail) models. @arcues
I second every compliment. I'll nit pick a bit though, the flaps are not sized correctly, and that's pretty much it. But I usually maintain the argument that using fuselage panels is better for modelling 3D wings.
@luzernsaphir It runs easily. Not too much calculation or moving parts makes it rather mobile friendly.
The current version I have turns faster, but rolls slightly slower.
I kinda already posted a version like that... You know, with the changes to the wing lift coefficients? Unlisted? Didn't I give you the link?
Right. It's the tail that's causing problems. The mounting of the tail is based on the vertical stabilized causes the horizontal stabilizer to waver and then the entire rear is destabilized. And where did you get so much fuel?
There are several initial problems with this description. Firstly, it's not the "A6M1" Type 0 that was involved in Pearl Harbor. That is the two blade preliminary version with a 780 hp Mitsubishi Zuisei.
Secondly, it was not a "production model" and possessed 2 x 7.7mm machine guns in the engine block, with a 20mm automatic cannon (which was lighter than the 12.7mm Browning) in each wing. If Japan had been less reluctant to use heavier automatic cannons it would have benefited the Zeroes firepower. As it did in the originally proposed aircraft that would become the A6M8 Zero.
The difference in the two statements is the presence of camouflage and the choice of camouflage. In which case I would have to say it is the first thing I changed (to Prototype Grey) when I downloaded the aircraft due to an inability to distinguish features. If you want "night fighting" it is better to paint in varied gloss with different colors instead of a hard black and red scheme. For a daytime scheme it simply stands out too much.
The cockpit you see here is just for side profile. I assure you it will not actually look like this atrocity. I'll also need some XML to help with the positioning of the hinomaru's and some XML modded cannon. Finally... That's it I think. The Zero is of expanded scale with wings a bit short. Fortunately it does have decent maneuverability, as it is lacking in the roll department.
Mate. Is something up? @kukimuki1234
Luzern, I posted the preliminary Zero already, would you like to check it out?
Also, I can't find a single thing offensive with your post. You don't have to apologize. @luzernsaphir
Panels aren't mobile friendly? Since when? Question, have you evaluated the results of such as usage on my aircraft? They can run smoothly on Ipad 2nd Gen and that is usually my benchmark for "it can run just fine" @VladCelTroll
One option is to manually replace the wings with hacked structural wings with control panels. This is probably the least difficult way.
Another is to alter the coding of the parts to ignore stress like structural wings, which is far beyond regular levels of redundant and much more difficult.
A final solution is to cut down on the P/W and use structural wings for the inboard wing form whilst using wings for the outboard sections making it better able to resist this problem by reducing the amount of points at which it bends.
These are the solutions that should be available to you. @kukimuki1234
Basically it has to do with the wings bending when you try to pull a turn. It is a problem due to your high P/W which increases the stress on the wings and their great side. I also noticed you "squished" it width-wise.
I remember you said a while back that my older "Zero" was "wickedly maneuverable". I'm not sure if it still counts but uhh. This is something I'd give a good grade for turning, not for roll of course. @Skua
@Luzensaphir here's the prelim. It's basically the flight model I want to stick to. I also want to cut down on roll, increase drag, and up the turn rate. There will not be control stiffening hence, it can pull ridiculous turns. IRL the Zero could pull 12 G's safely. And then Japan set the stiffening for 9 G's maximum. Brilliant.
Actually wait. I'll just post a temporary mod to mess around with wing lift values and the problem should be solved.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/DK2D01/Focke-Wolf-190-A
Yea, it had to do with the set lift numbers you were using.
@luzernsaphir
No worries, I'll do the Zero instead. The Swing wing has been a bit tedious so I've stopped development. Mostly because the new pretty version can't pull 1700+ mph with the second engine active.
Just a small tidbit for you to know, this Zero is based on my A6M8 which is in turn based on my A6M2 (earlier one) which is actually based on my A6M3 (even older) which is a modified version of some plane that I deleted a long while back. A rather long history haha.
I'll post the preliminary version eventually :P @luzernsaphir
New Zero? Actually I've been working on my first swing wing plane based on the Mig 23, but you would prefer me to make a newer Zero, yes?
@luzernsaphir
The balance thing is somewhat arbitrary, it's just how it slowly angles downwards whilst flying
I meant structural panels and not fuselage. I don't use fuselage because of lag and how difficult it is to make it work right.
Don't worry about my nitpicking. If my nitpicking takes less than a page in word at font 11 it should be taken as a compliment unless I explicitly state otherwise. @luzernsaphir
But~ it's balance isn't all that great, the dual wings cause flight problems, and some parts don't look quite as smooth as they can be and that's pretty much it
For an example, if it I were permitted to modify the aircraft and repost it (with complete permissions to you and a request all up votes be redirected towards you) I would use the fuselage to overlap the cockpit. Maybe use some panels to try and replicate the angled canopy. I would also have not used "wings" for the wing thickness, instead I would use a series of panel pieces to give a 3D look to it, which is more mobile friendly and easier to balance.
Which ties into something else, it doesn't fly all that great unfortunately. It has a pretty heavy lean forward and requires you to constantly trim the aircraft to keep the nose level.
But aside from that everything else is great! :D
If you would like to see what I exactly mean in live examples... Well my Zeroes are "somewhat" close... Yeah I need to work on them
Maybe it's because I'm content with an unfinished look while you actually finish them. I'm not trying to say XML is easy, rather, it is a far more realistic assumption I would be content with what you would call a "failure". Hence, if we apply this logic to your "failures" I would not call it a failure and probably end up still liking it despite what you've said.
I don't think I asked anything pertaining to the subject your second post answers aside from wondering why those inlets are even there.
@Hyperloop
To state clearly what I want this to become, I've decided to make a full post on it.
Categories of;
--> Armament
--> Visuals
--> Flight Quality
--> Maneuverability
--> History
Armament;
It's armament should consist of several missiles all mounted on the wing section closest to the fuselage for a total of 6 Type 54A's and 10 Type 53U's. With an outboard/gunpod mounted 37mm cannon (specs; on Project 33-2 Forum post). As a dedicated air superiority fighter unable to match the high altitude performance of the Project 32-2, it was designed for the close combat that the Project 32-2 was never expected to perform even moderately well in.
Visuals;
It should have a visual similar to... Various 1970's aircraft. It looks like the F-15 a lot though. However it uses the engines as part of the wing for a smooth connection (not present here) between wing and engine, a very futuristic concept during it's time, one to maximize the maneuverability of the aircraft. Of course, it's much slimmer than the F-15 for the cockpit section.
Flight Quality;
It's supposed to complete every single maneuver at full and empty almost perfectly smoothly even up to high altitude. 26,000 ft.
Maneuverability;
The Atlantian League had always associated maneuverability and fighter together so closely, they seemed inseparable. So of course the Atlantians fell back on maneuverability due to a lack of recent fighter experience.
Full loop: ~9 seconds
Roll: ~1.5 seconds
(At full load)
History;
Until the 1970's the Atlantian League completely lacked an indigenous jet fighter. It appeared in the Type 54, which shocked the world (mostly because it wasn't bad) as it surpassed several other aircraft during it's time developed by major powers. Not from official reports. Just from military intelligence. To make up for technological inferiority, the aircraft was designed to be the most maneuverable combatant in the sky. Being designed as an air superiority fighter it was also meant to operate from "less than optimal" air bases on the frontline. Though on the offhand, it would have been a somewhat fragile aircraft to cannon fire. The fruit of the collaboration of several military contractors for the Atlantian League, it would never see the light of day.
It don't think I gave it stealth as a requirement... The internal bay was a bit of a fantasy which was dropped to up the maneuverability.
Unless of course you can have it pull a 10 second turn with a full load out. :D
--> But then. You're Hyperloop. I know you can.
Are you citing this;
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/467278/Project-33-2
List of requirements for XML changes?
You know, I find it rather sad that this "dedicated interceptor" is outclassed in speed by a fighter at the same alt, assuming the interceptor is running after burners. If not, it will do 1251 mph @37700 ft
If so it will manage in excess of 1700 mph @36500 ft
--> Not actual numbers. It's faster in the latter case.
Anything you like;
Personally I just need XML for the Project 33-2's missiles and cannon armament but I'd be absolutely delighted to watch a masterpiece you'd make of the aircraft. The reference for the larger concept is the old Project 33, while the Project 33-1 is under development. Some... Technical problems... But the prototype with 2/3rds of it's missile load out managed to pull Mach 2 with after burners.
--> It's loosely (extremely) based on the Mig 23.
The Project 33-2BU's super fuel hack seems to have some problems. So it would probably be beneficial to fix it up. The problems involve maneuvering. They seem to be part of the problems.
Well if you could cut the power plants weight for example I could duplicate their position, tie their activation on key 7 and call them the afterburners.
Oh yes, and I removed the vast majority of the armament due to various problems in one way or another so it'll be best to re-install them. Of course, their initial positions are pretty bad as they alter the aircrafts balance significantly.
The hack fuel that I nicked from some other plane was a rather desperate attempt to cut turn times down to ~8 seconds standard and... It should be the Project 33-2BU.
@Hyperloop
Right, sorry for pulling V3.1.0.4 (5) Pre Release build from the downloadable aircraft. It's pretty nutty. There's quite a few concerns about certain problems, mostly spin, which result from adding significant mass to the original aircraft, lots of balance problems.
It seems that the aircraft was overweight a bit initially too, causing it's dogfighting performance to be less than optimal. Mostly at high alt. Now it's at all altitudes above 300 meters >.>
Shut it scumbag @AFS23
Heil Miku!
Hokay. Until you actually put effort into making this thing fly well I'm not putting in an up vote. It seems rather sad that this looks more like a Bf 109 than your previous build despite the fact that it's a mix between a P-51 and a Bf 109.
Bump.
Either the controls are really sensitive, or I'm terrible at flying helicopters. Struggle to fly it lol.
@DeezDucks @arcues @TAplanes @luzernsaphir
Commentary please; What problems do you find with it?
Does it fly okay at all times?
How does it handle your most difficult maneuvers?
Does it have acceptable low speed performance?
Does it run (in a line) well? (100% engine power)
How is it relative to previous models?
How does it stack up against other user made Mitsubishi Zero's?
Does it look okay? Relative?
How's it's range?
What do you find most lacking?
Landing flaps, a new canopy (eventually), maybe landing gear, more markings, and other stuff is planned for the future. Also historical armament, tracers, and other gadgets and gizmos. If it becomes overburdened I'll up the turn rate.
Thanks; any comments on maneuverability, handling, etc? @Mainblocks
Bump?
This is version 3.0.0.0 (First model)
Comments anyone?
That's a myth, it's a much more complicated concept. A high torque engine will produce more power than a high HP engine up to a point, at which it becomes actively inferior in energy output. However high HP engines are also generally more fragile. @Pilotmario
Hey arcues mate, I noticed you like Japanese aircraft, and while I'm aware this is vain self promotion, I was wondering what you thought of my (low detail) models. @arcues
@DeezDucks
Nope. @Bmw1230
I trimmed the horizontal stabilizers lengthwise. Not width wise. I'll work on it's PSM.
You should probably add dihedral.
Wait... There was this competition. And my A6M...
Gdmnit.
I second every compliment. I'll nit pick a bit though, the flaps are not sized correctly, and that's pretty much it. But I usually maintain the argument that using fuselage panels is better for modelling 3D wings.
I forgot to post the link didn't I?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/DK2D01/Focke-Wolf-190-A
@luzernsaphir
That ups the drag a lot, it's actually a problem with the infinite fuel tanks. @luzernsaphir
@luzernsaphir It runs easily. Not too much calculation or moving parts makes it rather mobile friendly.
The current version I have turns faster, but rolls slightly slower.
I kinda already posted a version like that... You know, with the changes to the wing lift coefficients? Unlisted? Didn't I give you the link?
@FrogmasterAereonautics For me it feels oddly short, but again, that is just my problem.
Right. It's the tail that's causing problems. The mounting of the tail is based on the vertical stabilized causes the horizontal stabilizer to waver and then the entire rear is destabilized. And where did you get so much fuel?
I'll work on it. In the meantime, why don't you touch up the rear of the aircraft and post an updated version?
Ki 61? A6M8? N1K2?
The wings are shorter in the A6M5, it has carbon dioxide fuel tank extinguishers, and new exhaust...
There are several initial problems with this description. Firstly, it's not the "A6M1" Type 0 that was involved in Pearl Harbor. That is the two blade preliminary version with a 780 hp Mitsubishi Zuisei.
Secondly, it was not a "production model" and possessed 2 x 7.7mm machine guns in the engine block, with a 20mm automatic cannon (which was lighter than the 12.7mm Browning) in each wing. If Japan had been less reluctant to use heavier automatic cannons it would have benefited the Zeroes firepower. As it did in the originally proposed aircraft that would become the A6M8 Zero.
No offence, but the nose looks strangely short. As it if was cut off and a new one affixed.
The difference in the two statements is the presence of camouflage and the choice of camouflage. In which case I would have to say it is the first thing I changed (to Prototype Grey) when I downloaded the aircraft due to an inability to distinguish features. If you want "night fighting" it is better to paint in varied gloss with different colors instead of a hard black and red scheme. For a daytime scheme it simply stands out too much.
The cockpit you see here is just for side profile. I assure you it will not actually look like this atrocity. I'll also need some XML to help with the positioning of the hinomaru's and some XML modded cannon. Finally... That's it I think. The Zero is of expanded scale with wings a bit short. Fortunately it does have decent maneuverability, as it is lacking in the roll department.
Mate. Is something up? @kukimuki1234
Luzern, I posted the preliminary Zero already, would you like to check it out?
Also, I can't find a single thing offensive with your post. You don't have to apologize. @luzernsaphir
Panels aren't mobile friendly? Since when? Question, have you evaluated the results of such as usage on my aircraft? They can run smoothly on Ipad 2nd Gen and that is usually my benchmark for "it can run just fine" @VladCelTroll
My pleasure. For camouflage? For "the" camouflage or for "a" camouflage?@kukimuki1234
One option is to manually replace the wings with hacked structural wings with control panels. This is probably the least difficult way.
Another is to alter the coding of the parts to ignore stress like structural wings, which is far beyond regular levels of redundant and much more difficult.
A final solution is to cut down on the P/W and use structural wings for the inboard wing form whilst using wings for the outboard sections making it better able to resist this problem by reducing the amount of points at which it bends.
These are the solutions that should be available to you. @kukimuki1234
Basically it has to do with the wings bending when you try to pull a turn. It is a problem due to your high P/W which increases the stress on the wings and their great side. I also noticed you "squished" it width-wise.
I remember you said a while back that my older "Zero" was "wickedly maneuverable". I'm not sure if it still counts but uhh. This is something I'd give a good grade for turning, not for roll of course. @Skua
@Luzensaphir here's the prelim. It's basically the flight model I want to stick to. I also want to cut down on roll, increase drag, and up the turn rate. There will not be control stiffening hence, it can pull ridiculous turns. IRL the Zero could pull 12 G's safely. And then Japan set the stiffening for 9 G's maximum. Brilliant.
Actually wait. I'll just post a temporary mod to mess around with wing lift values and the problem should be solved.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/DK2D01/Focke-Wolf-190-A
Yea, it had to do with the set lift numbers you were using.
@luzernsaphir
No worries, I'll do the Zero instead. The Swing wing has been a bit tedious so I've stopped development. Mostly because the new pretty version can't pull 1700+ mph with the second engine active.
Just a small tidbit for you to know, this Zero is based on my A6M8 which is in turn based on my A6M2 (earlier one) which is actually based on my A6M3 (even older) which is a modified version of some plane that I deleted a long while back. A rather long history haha.
I'll post the preliminary version eventually :P @luzernsaphir
New Zero? Actually I've been working on my first swing wing plane based on the Mig 23, but you would prefer me to make a newer Zero, yes?
@luzernsaphir
The balance thing is somewhat arbitrary, it's just how it slowly angles downwards whilst flying
I meant structural panels and not fuselage. I don't use fuselage because of lag and how difficult it is to make it work right.
Don't worry about my nitpicking. If my nitpicking takes less than a page in word at font 11 it should be taken as a compliment unless I explicitly state otherwise. @luzernsaphir
I'll toss in my up vote right after this post :D
But~ it's balance isn't all that great, the dual wings cause flight problems, and some parts don't look quite as smooth as they can be and that's pretty much it
For an example, if it I were permitted to modify the aircraft and repost it (with complete permissions to you and a request all up votes be redirected towards you) I would use the fuselage to overlap the cockpit. Maybe use some panels to try and replicate the angled canopy. I would also have not used "wings" for the wing thickness, instead I would use a series of panel pieces to give a 3D look to it, which is more mobile friendly and easier to balance.
Which ties into something else, it doesn't fly all that great unfortunately. It has a pretty heavy lean forward and requires you to constantly trim the aircraft to keep the nose level.
But aside from that everything else is great! :D
If you would like to see what I exactly mean in live examples... Well my Zeroes are "somewhat" close... Yeah I need to work on them
Yea... I'm tossing this into the bin. I give up. On the other hand, the Project 32-1 (33-1)'s new "beauty remake" is working well.
Maybe it's because I'm content with an unfinished look while you actually finish them. I'm not trying to say XML is easy, rather, it is a far more realistic assumption I would be content with what you would call a "failure". Hence, if we apply this logic to your "failures" I would not call it a failure and probably end up still liking it despite what you've said.
I don't think I asked anything pertaining to the subject your second post answers aside from wondering why those inlets are even there.
@Hyperloop
You are telling me you can fail?
That's bogus, as we all know you're a worshipful platinum @Hyperloop
This is very nice, but I question the lack of smoothness upon the top. And why don't you use bulbous canopies very much?
To state clearly what I want this to become, I've decided to make a full post on it.
Categories of;
--> Armament
--> Visuals
--> Flight Quality
--> Maneuverability
--> History
Armament;
It's armament should consist of several missiles all mounted on the wing section closest to the fuselage for a total of 6 Type 54A's and 10 Type 53U's. With an outboard/gunpod mounted 37mm cannon (specs; on Project 33-2 Forum post). As a dedicated air superiority fighter unable to match the high altitude performance of the Project 32-2, it was designed for the close combat that the Project 32-2 was never expected to perform even moderately well in.
Visuals;
It should have a visual similar to... Various 1970's aircraft. It looks like the F-15 a lot though. However it uses the engines as part of the wing for a smooth connection (not present here) between wing and engine, a very futuristic concept during it's time, one to maximize the maneuverability of the aircraft. Of course, it's much slimmer than the F-15 for the cockpit section.
Flight Quality;
It's supposed to complete every single maneuver at full and empty almost perfectly smoothly even up to high altitude. 26,000 ft.
Maneuverability;
The Atlantian League had always associated maneuverability and fighter together so closely, they seemed inseparable. So of course the Atlantians fell back on maneuverability due to a lack of recent fighter experience.
Full loop: ~9 seconds
Roll: ~1.5 seconds
(At full load)
History;
Until the 1970's the Atlantian League completely lacked an indigenous jet fighter. It appeared in the Type 54, which shocked the world (mostly because it wasn't bad) as it surpassed several other aircraft during it's time developed by major powers. Not from official reports. Just from military intelligence. To make up for technological inferiority, the aircraft was designed to be the most maneuverable combatant in the sky. Being designed as an air superiority fighter it was also meant to operate from "less than optimal" air bases on the frontline. Though on the offhand, it would have been a somewhat fragile aircraft to cannon fire. The fruit of the collaboration of several military contractors for the Atlantian League, it would never see the light of day.
It don't think I gave it stealth as a requirement... The internal bay was a bit of a fantasy which was dropped to up the maneuverability.
Unless of course you can have it pull a 10 second turn with a full load out. :D
--> But then. You're Hyperloop. I know you can.
Are you citing this;
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/467278/Project-33-2
List of requirements for XML changes?
Inspiration;
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/X6XK4U/Project-33
@Hyperloop
You know, I find it rather sad that this "dedicated interceptor" is outclassed in speed by a fighter at the same alt, assuming the interceptor is running after burners. If not, it will do 1251 mph @37700 ft
If so it will manage in excess of 1700 mph @36500 ft
--> Not actual numbers. It's faster in the latter case.
Anything you like;
Personally I just need XML for the Project 33-2's missiles and cannon armament but I'd be absolutely delighted to watch a masterpiece you'd make of the aircraft. The reference for the larger concept is the old Project 33, while the Project 33-1 is under development. Some... Technical problems... But the prototype with 2/3rds of it's missile load out managed to pull Mach 2 with after burners.
--> It's loosely (extremely) based on the Mig 23.
The Project 33-2BU's super fuel hack seems to have some problems. So it would probably be beneficial to fix it up. The problems involve maneuvering. They seem to be part of the problems.
Well if you could cut the power plants weight for example I could duplicate their position, tie their activation on key 7 and call them the afterburners.
Oh yes, and I removed the vast majority of the armament due to various problems in one way or another so it'll be best to re-install them. Of course, their initial positions are pretty bad as they alter the aircrafts balance significantly.
The hack fuel that I nicked from some other plane was a rather desperate attempt to cut turn times down to ~8 seconds standard and... It should be the Project 33-2BU.
@Hyperloop
And in the armor category
Rubber ducky > Type 97