I tested this, it flies much more easily than mine! The one thing I'd suggest is to make sure that you keep the vertical stabiliser further behind the centre of mass. At the moment, it rotates about that stabiliser if you bank without pitching, but moving it back a bit fixes the issue
@JShay @Ctracerx2 @TheLatentImage @Planefun @Hazo @Krathar @Cedy117 @Kevpilot @Allstar @Nightraider @realluochen9999 @bobthetitan123 you're all awesome, thank you for the votes
@WalrusAircraft I think I got to cheat a bit since this has quite a large sort-of-fuselage in which stabilisers could be hidden. Thank you very much, though!
@AeroEngineering there's no reason it couldn't be made to work a bit better anyway, I was just being sorta lazy and adjusting the angle of every control surface at once haha. As a proof of concept you totally nailed it
@Lucasmah ronyseptian17 just means that you spelt my name wrong. No big deal, though, so many people write it the same way you did haha. Thanks again or the mention, and nice work on the posts!
@dsr1aviation yeah I've had trouble with it on one of my planes before, the wings were pretty narrow and I could barely fit the landing gear on to it. I was hoping having the base of them clipped in to a fuselage might solve it, though, but as you said - at least now we know
@Jetspeed1001 @aircroft to make a link, you put the text you want to display in square brackets, and then the link straight afterwards in ordinary brackets. LIke this:
How about the BAe P.125 concept? Images 1, 2, 3. It was supposed to be a supersonic replacement for the Harrier, and had a load of ideas way ahead of its time - a virtual cockpit environment (all screens, no windows) allowing for the pilot to lie flat to resist G-forces better, a low radar signature form, and internal weapons bays, all in the 1980s. It got cancelled, but some of the work eventually went in to the F-35.
@Krathar yeah no bother, it's nice to be able to help and you clearly put effort in to your posts. I'll check out that one you tagged me when I take a break from studying later
@Krathar you're talking about your Volcanic Seabird, I assume? That one is unstable because your centre of lift is in front of the centre of mass - I've got to admit, I'm actually surprised it flies as well as it does. I found it to be alright so long as only extremely gentle inputs were used, which was fine since it turns so quickly anyway. I made a version with a couple of small changes to fix that, just here.
@Krathar a downward dihedral, or anhedral, makes a plane unstable in the roll axis. It's just like having your CoL ahead of your CoM, but for roll instead of pitch. I can explain why if you want but it's not terribly exciting.
Hypnoplanes (and also Delphinus' planes) are really controllable because the have extremely low wing loadings - after all, they are pretty much nothing but wing. Low wing loadings mean that you can use larger/more control surfaces without problems. Normal planes with higher wing loadings have to be a bit unstable to get that level of manoeuverability, because they have to use smaller control surfaces or they just twitch about instead of turning
@DeezDucks is right, layering wings won't help stability. It will give you more lift, but that's about it. Layering your vertical stabilisers might help a bit, though, and an upward dihedral is also a good suggestion
@dsr1aviation @jsaret I think the closest thing to a low-consumption engine would just be making a J15 with as much power as the bigger engines. More powerful version of The J15 and VTOL would probably be the most useful engine options. Negative weight blocks might be worth adding too.
@VikDesigns it's okay, it's not a very well-known design, and if you're not familiar with it then it probably looks a little dull. Also I'm not in the States, and Americans seem to make up the bulk of the site's users, so the times I upload things tend to be a little quieter. It's not a problem though, I built it because I wanted to, not for popularity
@JovianPat it's alright, I meant that it's okay if the real thing never flew or even existed, because it can still work as a concept for Benny to work with
@Allstar @Rohan @Commander thank you all!
@Stampede what makes it hard for you?
You can cover them with fuselage sections like this
@Dstroyer101 you can check by going to https://www.simpleplanes.com/u/@, which would be their user page if they existed
Link to the challenge for anyone interested
Here is my entry to the J50 class
I tested this, it flies much more easily than mine! The one thing I'd suggest is to make sure that you keep the vertical stabiliser further behind the centre of mass. At the moment, it rotates about that stabiliser if you bank without pitching, but moving it back a bit fixes the issue
@bobthetitan123 I got featured a couple of days ago, I don't think they'll do it again so soon. Nice of you to say, though!
@realluochen9999 thank you! AeroEngineering did most of the work though, this is just a tweak
@PattersonAeroplaneCo haha I'm glad you're getting so much use out of it!
Isn't that basically subassemblies?
@AgDynamics if that ever happens, remind me that I need a new hobby
@JShay @Ctracerx2 @TheLatentImage @Planefun @Hazo @Krathar @Cedy117 @Kevpilot @Allstar @Nightraider @realluochen9999 @bobthetitan123 you're all awesome, thank you for the votes
@WalrusAircraft I think I got to cheat a bit since this has quite a large sort-of-fuselage in which stabilisers could be hidden. Thank you very much, though!
@AeroEngineering there's no reason it couldn't be made to work a bit better anyway, I was just being sorta lazy and adjusting the angle of every control surface at once haha. As a proof of concept you totally nailed it
Bloody hell I can't believe that this works at all hahaha. Nice job
It's probably just because he hasn't posted one today
@ronyseptian17 thanks for the tag
@Lucasmah ronyseptian17 just means that you spelt my name wrong. No big deal, though, so many people write it the same way you did haha. Thanks again or the mention, and nice work on the posts!
@Kimo thanks!
I always thought the Titan Airways one is really nice, but it might be pretty tough to do
@Lucasmah well I guess the stereotypes about Brits have some accuracy haha
@Lucasmah very kind of you
@TheFreakyWatermelon don't worry, I'm not allowed to spoil anything anyway haha. But yes, it's a lot of fun!
@LePancake Indonesia has a little more rain than the Phillippines, apparently, but all three of us are pretty much soggy all year
@DeezDucks I'd say you did pass the more important test here haha
[The words you want](The link you want)
So, for example:
Gives you: Shepard tones!
The (not as rainy as Indonesia) rainy kingdom of Scotland
@dsr1aviation yeah I've had trouble with it on one of my planes before, the wings were pretty narrow and I could barely fit the landing gear on to it. I was hoping having the base of them clipped in to a fuselage might solve it, though, but as you said - at least now we know
@dsr1aviation I'm not sure if it'll fold up properly, but it's worth a shot. Let us know how it turns out
Isn't the wing landing gear basically that?
So, uh...
THIS! IS! SIMPLEPLANES!
@Tribaldragon1 I'll try yours out later today. You definitely picked a more appropriate shape haha.
@aircraftarsenal123 seriously? I did not think it would be able to do that
@TheFreakyWatermelon yep
@Jetspeed1001 @aircroft to make a link, you put the text you want to display in square brackets, and then the link straight afterwards in ordinary brackets. LIke this:
Which gives you: Sneak peek
You can use Steam's browser to do it, it works fine
@Nef680 mate it has a thousand parts, making it mobile-friendly would basically mean making a different design
@lxdcyy1 @The1ultimate1builder @AgnesDesign @jimbojet thanks for all your votes!
I like left-right for roll, since it's easier and you use roll much more than yaw. But try both, see what you like best!
How about the BAe P.125 concept? Images 1, 2, 3. It was supposed to be a supersonic replacement for the Harrier, and had a load of ideas way ahead of its time - a virtual cockpit environment (all screens, no windows) allowing for the pilot to lie flat to resist G-forces better, a low radar signature form, and internal weapons bays, all in the 1980s. It got cancelled, but some of the work eventually went in to the F-35.
It seemed perfectly stable to me, what problems were you having with it?
@Krathar yeah no bother, it's nice to be able to help and you clearly put effort in to your posts. I'll check out that one you tagged me when I take a break from studying later
@Krathar you're talking about your Volcanic Seabird, I assume? That one is unstable because your centre of lift is in front of the centre of mass - I've got to admit, I'm actually surprised it flies as well as it does. I found it to be alright so long as only extremely gentle inputs were used, which was fine since it turns so quickly anyway. I made a version with a couple of small changes to fix that, just here.
@Krathar a downward dihedral, or anhedral, makes a plane unstable in the roll axis. It's just like having your CoL ahead of your CoM, but for roll instead of pitch. I can explain why if you want but it's not terribly exciting.
Hypnoplanes (and also Delphinus' planes) are really controllable because the have extremely low wing loadings - after all, they are pretty much nothing but wing. Low wing loadings mean that you can use larger/more control surfaces without problems. Normal planes with higher wing loadings have to be a bit unstable to get that level of manoeuverability, because they have to use smaller control surfaces or they just twitch about instead of turning
@DeezDucks is right, layering wings won't help stability. It will give you more lift, but that's about it. Layering your vertical stabilisers might help a bit, though, and an upward dihedral is also a good suggestion
@dsr1aviation @jsaret I think the closest thing to a low-consumption engine would just be making a J15 with as much power as the bigger engines. More powerful version of The J15 and VTOL would probably be the most useful engine options. Negative weight blocks might be worth adding too.
@VikDesigns it's okay, it's not a very well-known design, and if you're not familiar with it then it probably looks a little dull. Also I'm not in the States, and Americans seem to make up the bulk of the site's users, so the times I upload things tend to be a little quieter. It's not a problem though, I built it because I wanted to, not for popularity
@lucasmah It's just because it's quite small, but I think you've got it cropped about as well as you could now
@JovianPat it's alright, I meant that it's okay if the real thing never flew or even existed, because it can still work as a concept for Benny to work with
@lucasmah what did you change?
Full size so that everyone can see. It is pretty cool