@chancey21 And I'm pretty sure you can call it a HondaJet, do you think Honda will come after a young boy for building a replica of their product? That would make for very, very bad PR. You're not making any money off this, either, so that's another reason.
@CptJacobson If you want to improve pitch response, you can:
Make the body of the plane longer, so that the elevators have a longer lever to rotate the plane;
Add canards with elevators, so that the rear elevators and front elevators work together and double (roughly speaking) the pitch moment;
Use scaled wings, so that you can have larger control surfaces without changing the appearance of the plane.
Add modded jet engines (instant spinup time and modded thrust, activated by pitch) pointing down at the tail (or pointing up at the front) to assist with pitch response.
If it's just the takeoffs, the reason it doesn't take off easily is because the rear landing gear is too far back, and moreover, just below the elevators. The way elevators help you take off is by applying downward pressure at the tail when you pitch up. If the rear landing gear is right below the elevators, the airplane can't pivot (rotate) around the rear landing gear because the downward force is just going straight through the landing gear into the ground. If you move the rear LG forward so that they're just behind the center of mass (the red ball when you have the CoM/CoL/CoT display enabled), it takes off just fine.
As a rule, always keep the rear LG just behind the CoM, even if your elevators are in front. It's the lever principle -- if the force applied is far away from the pivot, it takes much less force to rotate the lever.
@Alpha029 Glad you like my work. Unfortunately, to get an acceptable level of aesthetics, you usually need at least around 400 parts. On the bright side, though, you're getting a computer, which is great.
@chancey21 It does have a gyroscope, couldn't function without it. Spaceship-type builds like this one are very susceptible to imbalance. Try getting up close to the fleet and attacking the Beast, the gunfire from the destroyers will push the Zeppelin around.
@Maxwell1 Well, for one thing, I've never been a Star Wars fan, and for another, I have a deep-seated aversion to remaking someone else's work.
As for "so much thought into simple things," everyone puts a great deal of themselves into whatever they create, whether they're aware of it or not. All the best builders on this site have a distinctive style of their own, and that's because your entire being -- the sum of your knowledge, intelligence, and personality -- affects everything you create. And finally, putting thought into things, whether it's operating a nuclear reactor or toasting bread, is always a good thing.
@Maxwell1 Trust me, it's not (and never will be) fan service. As for intakes, it depends on what I'm building -- an futuristic space plane may not need them, a terrestrial aircraft does.
As for colors, I've been using them sporadically for quite a while. I explain why I stick to plain metallic color schemes on my profile.
Maybe you haven't checked the website (or at least my posts) lately?
Re: the last part of your question, my designs have always been evolving.
@Stingray Yes, there is a slight offset, but I left it like that because it doesn't really matter, at least for hitting ships. The only way to correct it would be to have the guns in the same geometric plane as the camera-crosshair combination. Glad you like the looks of it, though.
@breitling For a hypersonic aircraft, a cockpit like that might be a requirement (can't have protruding features, and it might be difficult to have a transparent material that can withstand the heat and other stresses of hypersonic flight).
Wow, this is outstanding. Try adding some screenshots in the description that show off your build in its various modes. You can upload screenshots to an image hosting service, then include them in the description using this syntax:
@mikoyanster Oh, I wasn't talking about myself. I've been making level-flying aircraft for quite a while. It's just that my level flight challenge only got 13 entries total, so having that requirement might severely limit your candidate pool.
@chancey21 Next up: illuminated crosshair.
@Jetpackturtle Really? How did they even become aware of it, did someone contact them?
@chancey21 Hmm? But people post "McDonnell Douglas this" and "Lockheed Martin that" all the time.... Anyway, what Andrew says, goes.
@chancey21 And I'm pretty sure you can call it a HondaJet, do you think Honda will come after a young boy for building a replica of their product? That would make for very, very bad PR. You're not making any money off this, either, so that's another reason.
@chancey21 Relax, it's not a big deal.
Thanks, @TMach5 (for the compliment, and for noticing.)
@CptJacobson If you want to improve pitch response, you can:
Nice fuselage with windows, how did you ever make that? :)
Why, thank you, @doge
@CptJacobson OK, what would you like to improve?
If it's just the takeoffs, the reason it doesn't take off easily is because the rear landing gear is too far back, and moreover, just below the elevators. The way elevators help you take off is by applying downward pressure at the tail when you pitch up. If the rear landing gear is right below the elevators, the airplane can't pivot (rotate) around the rear landing gear because the downward force is just going straight through the landing gear into the ground. If you move the rear LG forward so that they're just behind the center of mass (the red ball when you have the CoM/CoL/CoT display enabled), it takes off just fine.
As a rule, always keep the rear LG just behind the CoM, even if your elevators are in front. It's the lever principle -- if the force applied is far away from the pivot, it takes much less force to rotate the lever.
@CptJacobson well, I can give you tips on how to make it better, sure.
Thanks, @Stingray. Is the crosshair the right size on your tablet, or is it too small?
Glad you like it, @Desertstorm88. This one is even easier to use, and it carries 60 bombs instead of 20.
+1@Alpha029 Glad you like my work. Unfortunately, to get an acceptable level of aesthetics, you usually need at least around 400 parts. On the bright side, though, you're getting a computer, which is great.
@Irobert55 Yeah, who knows, it might do well. Go for it.
Thanks, @Awsomur @Cybercool5656 @Cybercool5656
@chancey21 It does have a gyroscope, couldn't function without it. Spaceship-type builds like this one are very susceptible to imbalance. Try getting up close to the fleet and attacking the Beast, the gunfire from the destroyers will push the Zeppelin around.
Thanks, @Mumpsy
@Maxwell1 No, but I have a thing for hammers...
@Maxwell1 Well, for one thing, I've never been a Star Wars fan, and for another, I have a deep-seated aversion to remaking someone else's work.
As for "so much thought into simple things," everyone puts a great deal of themselves into whatever they create, whether they're aware of it or not. All the best builders on this site have a distinctive style of their own, and that's because your entire being -- the sum of your knowledge, intelligence, and personality -- affects everything you create. And finally, putting thought into things, whether it's operating a nuclear reactor or toasting bread, is always a good thing.
@Jetpackturtle Smooth as a robot baby's bottom.
@getorge Yeah, I thought it was time for a super-smooth build.
@Maxwell1 Trust me, it's not (and never will be) fan service. As for intakes, it depends on what I'm building -- an futuristic space plane may not need them, a terrestrial aircraft does.
As for colors, I've been using them sporadically for quite a while. I explain why I stick to plain metallic color schemes on my profile.
Maybe you haven't checked the website (or at least my posts) lately?
Re: the last part of your question, my designs have always been evolving.
You're welcome, @air2498
@phanps If you have reflections turned on, at certain angles the reticle "lights up" against dark backgrounds.
Thanks, @Aarons123. It's all about the end result, easy or difficult to make.
@Irobert55 Yeah, I saw that video. Those guys have a lot of fun.
@JetFly Correct, it's very much inspired by the SR-71. You like it?
@Stingray Yes, there is a slight offset, but I left it like that because it doesn't really matter, at least for hitting ships. The only way to correct it would be to have the guns in the same geometric plane as the camera-crosshair combination. Glad you like the looks of it, though.
@Stingray To get the custom reticle view, just select camera 1.
@Stingray Thanks. What do you think of the custom crosshair?
@breitling For a hypersonic aircraft, a cockpit like that might be a requirement (can't have protruding features, and it might be difficult to have a transparent material that can withstand the heat and other stresses of hypersonic flight).
Thanks, @BaconRoll Isn't she a beauty?
@Irobert55 Those guys have some cool videos. That was a nice trick with the airfoil balloon and the mannequin. You might also like Dude Perfect.
Thanks, @M4A4Firefly
Wow, this is outstanding. Try adding some screenshots in the description that show off your build in its various modes. You can upload screenshots to an image hosting service, then include them in the description using this syntax:
Sweet beans
Yeah, I'm just wondering if lead has the structural strength to hold its shape when it's thin enough for a balloon. @Irobert55
@mikoyanster Oh, I wasn't talking about myself. I've been making level-flying aircraft for quite a while. It's just that my level flight challenge only got 13 entries total, so having that requirement might severely limit your candidate pool.
@Irobert55 So tell me, how can you make a lead balloon fly?
Interesting contest. I think the level flight requirement might be too much for most people, though...
@Tessemi No, that's not the real reason at all.
@Treadmill103 Oh that's good. That's very good.
+1@Irobert55 Interesting. I was wondering -- is your username a play on Asimov's "I, Robot", by any chance?
@Tessemi Yeah, that's practically all I do, make original creations. But somehow, this one took off while most don't.
@Tessemi Thanks. Judging by this build's success, I'm wondering if all I need to do to get more upvotes is to use more fun names for my posts...
Yes, @ACMECo1940 , yes I did.
Heh @F104Deathtrap
@TuckerAeronauticalLabs that was a fun game.
Thanks, @Davisplanez