Do you use engine power or propeller pitch for thrust control? I think Pitch might give a quicker response but I'm not sure as I haven't tested it yet.
(I assume you use differential thrust on the front and back engines to control pitch in hover mode)
Not bad for a first build with standard blocks. Yes, landing can be tricky, especially with the massive power of the turboprop. But apart of that, it flies surprisingly well.
@Ninja451 if you need some ideas on how to make a wing brake, a year ago, I uploaded a demonstrator aircraft that uses a dummy wing bureied inside the main wing to 'pull out' air brakes. May be you can take a look.
Nice upgrade from the previous plane. However still no limiter on the engine travel, meaning you can crash it k to your own fuselage if you're not carefully and pull Trim too far down. Also for my taste it relies too much on the gyro with for instance roll and yaw not even possible by areodynamical means (ailerons and rudders are for show only). Still visually a feast to behold
Not bad for 90 pieces. One gripe though: switch the input for the engine mount rotators from 'VTOL' to 'clamp(VTOL,0,1)'. Otherwise, if you slide the VTOL slider backwards, even by mistake, the props will hack into the fuselage and self-destruct.
@MiloAviation here's what I have on my computer: https://ibb.co/JLCQ0Kq a pretty complete picture of all the Fokker F-7 variants found in the Internet. Apparently copied from a Russian magazine.
As you can see, there are two types of wings. The short wing from the one-engined F-7 and the early 3-enfined ones and a long-wing used for many of the record-setting aircraft. The short wing remained a standard for many short/medium ranged passenger transports.
Engines were the seven-cylinder Wright Whirlwind in the earlier versions and the nine-cylinder ones in the later. Variants with five-cylinder Bristol and Gnome-Rhone engines have been known to fly as well.
https://ibb.co/zT8NdR5v The Fokker T-2 was a long-wing nine-cylinder F-7 built for the US Air Force. The 'Friendship' was the first T-2, given to admiral Richard Byrd for a record flight across the Atlantic. Note the 'American-style' forward sloping windshield and the larger elevator. The blue aircraft below is the 'Southern Cross' from Australian aviation pioneer Charles Kingsford-Smith. This was the prototype long-wing Fokker that somehow ended up in storage in California where Smith bought it pretty much at scrap value and extensively upgraded it. Note the non-standard engine mounts and tail plane.
Finally, https://ibb.co/qYhBWzPp are the drawings I made for my wooden toys. I include them here because they show the different fuselages and rudders in detail.
@Ninja451 couple pf quick things:
1) The vertical control surfaces on the twin fins move the wrong way Change the value for 'control.surface-invert' from False to true
2) set the value for auto-center for tht cockpit camera from 'true' to 'false' so you can look around in tht cockpit
3) the joystick in the cockpit has a value 'length' play with it until you can just see the top of the joystick.while looking straight ahead
Also:
+ The writings on the switches in the Cockpit are really hard to read. May be use a different color
+ Landing is really hard. You need to at least quadruple tht since of tht air brakes to have any effect: increase their 'drag' value, use a large dummy wing as air brake or five the plane a braking parachute.
@MiloAviation do you need any detailed plans?.I tried to make a big wooden F.7 toy plane once, so I got some drawings and some insights if that can help you
@THEBATTLEBRO I did some experimenting: increasing the propeller to 130 in. is enough to get the aircraft out of the water without problems. Of course you will have to raise the floats to make the big diameter prop believable. (I didn't. I just wanted to see if it helps) Increasing the number of propeller blades to 6.also.helps, but it destroys the aesthetics of the plane even more.
Not bad for 66 parts, and at least the windows look like the genuine windows from the genuine Fokker. Might want to consider making all your fuselage pieces 'square' to have the plane look even more like the real thing
Looks great. Love the details like the door handles. On another note: plane is underpowered for water takeoff. Like to see a land version with 1930's style trousered landing gear
Challenge accepted!
At first glance:
1) front wing control surfaces (pitch) are too small, back wing control surfaces too large
2) the position of the back landing gear makes the plane park with severe nose down. This pushes the plane down when trying to take off
3) with only one Blasto-15 jet engine, the plane is severe underpowered, especially with all the bombe you added
4) center of gravity too close to center of lift. Even IF you get the plane to fly, it will stall on first maneuver
Conclusion: the plane needs a massive amount of changes. So I am afraid that the one I will actually get flying will barely look like it's predecessor anymore. Prepare for a massively redesigned fuselage and two engines at least
Flies a bit sluggish. Consider increasing the diameter of the propeller (you can move the nose up some to get the ground clearance needed). Also double-check your connections. I had several parts just 'fall off' as soon as I started flying.
Otherwise a very nice flyer and a worthy early build.
I have no problems with taking off. Just pull the flaps, increase throttle slowly and the plane will take off by itself. Landing, like you said is a little trickier. But just keeping the throttle at 10% instead of zero until your wheels hit the tarmac usually will do. For a taildragger braking is remarkably trouble-free. No rolling over when you brake too hard... Most of the time
Three inprovement suggestions:
1) when you put the throttle governor at 0% it always runs the rotor at optimal speed, regardless wether the power is on or off. Set it to 5% so it won't rotate until you push Activate1. (Do this for main and tail rotor)
2) if you use the flight controller instead of the standard cockpit, make sure the controller is installed with the flat past facing down otherwise your 'chase view' will be upside down. Rotate the one you installed from 180° back to 0
3) set the roll range of your gyroscope to something like 20° instead of 0 in order otherwise the gyro directly counteracts all the roll input from the right joystick.
Otherwise a pretty nice heli to fly around in. Especially for only 68 parts
Want to make it fly even better: make tht ailerons a little smaller and the stabilo a little bigger. Right now, it rolls real fast but has trouble pulling out of a dive.
@Erionh that was Kiiikiii 's original design. He also had six VTOL engines along with the engine in the back, so I guess he needed them. I deleted the two that were bureied in the fuselage but later added one again for the automatic descent control.
That being said, you can always modify the fuselage to your own liking with as little or as much intakes as you want.
You can have the amount of fuel in the wings to something like 25.gal's for each of the 4 wing halves. It won't matter much and the plane will take off a lot easier.
Forget the crop duster. You should market this one as an ULM. With a top speed of 100 mph and a stall speed of 50, it comes pretty close to that ULM feeling.
The landing gear wheels are too far back. Move them to the front of your wing or your plane will just dig in as soon as you give throttle on takeoff. Otherwise, pretty solid for only 76 parts.
Plus sides: beautifully historically accurate cockpit, even for only 200 parts. Minus: no flaps, still standard wings. Flying: pretty pleasant, although I would wish for a top speed more like the original's 500 mph.
Worth downloading: yes
Worth flying: yes
Worth upvoting: just did
Naa,happens that the A-50 is a pretty hard plane to find plans for so when I got them, I also got a dozen different paint schemes, one better than the other... And I couldn't decide. But this five are definitely the only ones I will ever make. I got enough ideas for other planes.
As for the Klemm 25, with the A-50, Junkers actually set out to make a competitor for it by using the 7 years of progress that happened since the first Klemm was built. In the SimplePlanes build you can't really see it but the whole plane is built out of corrugated aluminum having ribs stick out all over. The Klemm is built out of plywood and it's fuselage is so square you can mistake models of it for toys.
Ok. I'll repost it later with a screenshot thumbnail and post the original picture in the body. I'll also repost all other Junkers A50 's as I have been using real life photos and contents from a model company's website in their thumbnails.
@DeezDucks I don't know how active you are as a moderator still, but I have a problem. THis aircraft is a successor to my earlier Junkers A50 from Finland but on the page for that plane it doesn't show up as a successor. Did I do something wrong or do I have to specify it there? How does this work when you want to start a challenge and you need a custom successor/entries page?
@HuskyDynamics01 so far it work on one side: the new plane is listed as a successor to the old one but on the old plane's page it doesn't show up that the old plane has a successor now.
I hate to contact the moderator for every plane that I make a successor. But for now it is the only option. Do we have a handle for which to ping the moderator with?
I second @DARZAVIATION: it would be nice to choose which parts you do NOT want to mirror I keep having that -well, it's not really a problem, rather an inconvenience- that if I have to redo something on both sides of the plane and I already have a cockpit interior, I can either do both sides by hand or mirror and redo the cockpit ( all instruments and flight controls are mirrored by default. I think just having an offset to define which CENTER Or FUSELAGE parts should not be mirrored would already go a long way.
The same thing with flaps and ailerons, especially when you use funky code to mix ailerons with pitch or flaps. When you mirror your wing, you are almost certain to have to rewrite half of the code. I could live though with just the option: replace parts already mirrored/leave parts already mirrored for leaving the old wing as is even if you replace the tips.
Do you use engine power or propeller pitch for thrust control? I think Pitch might give a quicker response but I'm not sure as I haven't tested it yet.
(I assume you use differential thrust on the front and back engines to control pitch in hover mode)
Not bad for a first build with standard blocks. Yes, landing can be tricky, especially with the massive power of the turboprop. But apart of that, it flies surprisingly well.
@Ninja451 if you need some ideas on how to make a wing brake, a year ago, I uploaded a demonstrator aircraft that uses a dummy wing bureied inside the main wing to 'pull out' air brakes. May be you can take a look.
Cigogne-STOL-testbed
The dummy wing is symmetrical.so it doesn't affect the main wing when flying. It's drag is set to 5 in xml
+1Marvelous visuals, marvelous flying characteristics. I call on @Jundroo to make this the standard demonstrator helicopter in their new game.
One gripe though: 2500 hp.on tht rotor is overkill. The helicopter flies perfectly, even better, with only 250
+2Nice upgrade from the previous plane. However still no limiter on the engine travel, meaning you can crash it k to your own fuselage if you're not carefully and pull Trim too far down. Also for my taste it relies too much on the gyro with for instance roll and yaw not even possible by areodynamical means (ailerons and rudders are for show only). Still visually a feast to behold
Not bad for 90 pieces. One gripe though: switch the input for the engine mount rotators from 'VTOL' to 'clamp(VTOL,0,1)'. Otherwise, if you slide the VTOL slider backwards, even by mistake, the props will hack into the fuselage and self-destruct.
You can shave one piece off if you make one side of the vertical stabilizer a square, pull it to the middle and then delete the other
@MiloAviation here's what I have on my computer:
https://ibb.co/JLCQ0Kq a pretty complete picture of all the Fokker F-7 variants found in the Internet. Apparently copied from a Russian magazine.
As you can see, there are two types of wings. The short wing from the one-engined F-7 and the early 3-enfined ones and a long-wing used for many of the record-setting aircraft. The short wing remained a standard for many short/medium ranged passenger transports.
Engines were the seven-cylinder Wright Whirlwind in the earlier versions and the nine-cylinder ones in the later. Variants with five-cylinder Bristol and Gnome-Rhone engines have been known to fly as well.
https://ibb.co/1JRZHXVJ and https://ibb.co/ymfB3qrK seven-cylinder short-wing passenger planes from the Netherlands and Switzerland respectively.
https://ibb.co/zT8NdR5v The Fokker T-2 was a long-wing nine-cylinder F-7 built for the US Air Force. The 'Friendship' was the first T-2, given to admiral Richard Byrd for a record flight across the Atlantic. Note the 'American-style' forward sloping windshield and the larger elevator. The blue aircraft below is the 'Southern Cross' from Australian aviation pioneer Charles Kingsford-Smith. This was the prototype long-wing Fokker that somehow ended up in storage in California where Smith bought it pretty much at scrap value and extensively upgraded it. Note the non-standard engine mounts and tail plane.
Finally, https://ibb.co/qYhBWzPp are the drawings I made for my wooden toys. I include them here because they show the different fuselages and rudders in detail.
This is hands down the easiest plane to land on an aircraft carrier. Especially if you tweak the air brakes to deploy on (engine) brake as well.
+1@Ninja451 couple pf quick things:
1) The vertical control surfaces on the twin fins move the wrong way Change the value for 'control.surface-invert' from False to true
2) set the value for auto-center for tht cockpit camera from 'true' to 'false' so you can look around in tht cockpit
3) the joystick in the cockpit has a value 'length' play with it until you can just see the top of the joystick.while looking straight ahead
Also:
+1+ The writings on the switches in the Cockpit are really hard to read. May be use a different color
+ Landing is really hard. You need to at least quadruple tht since of tht air brakes to have any effect: increase their 'drag' value, use a large dummy wing as air brake or five the plane a braking parachute.
@Ninja451 ok, give me a couple of hours to fly around in it and if I find something, I will let you know
+1@MiloAviation do you need any detailed plans?.I tried to make a big wooden F.7 toy plane once, so I got some drawings and some insights if that can help you
@THEBATTLEBRO I did some experimenting: increasing the propeller to 130 in. is enough to get the aircraft out of the water without problems. Of course you will have to raise the floats to make the big diameter prop believable. (I didn't. I just wanted to see if it helps) Increasing the number of propeller blades to 6.also.helps, but it destroys the aesthetics of the plane even more.
Dude what happened to your horizontal stabilizer?
Not bad for 66 parts, and at least the windows look like the genuine windows from the genuine Fokker. Might want to consider making all your fuselage pieces 'square' to have the plane look even more like the real thing
Looks great. Love the details like the door handles. On another note: plane is underpowered for water takeoff. Like to see a land version with 1930's style trousered landing gear
Really, I don't deserve a single upvote on this. It should all go to Dots. He did all of the work other than five minutes of repainting
@Mitterbin I since uploaded a version with custom XML flaps. Check it out HERE
+1Love the look and feel of this build.
You did notice your tailplanes move down when they should move up?
And I just did...
Too much parts for me to fly on my little cell phone, but every builder that spends 300 points on a historically correct engine deserves my upvote
+1Challenge accepted!
At first glance:
1) front wing control surfaces (pitch) are too small, back wing control surfaces too large
2) the position of the back landing gear makes the plane park with severe nose down. This pushes the plane down when trying to take off
3) with only one Blasto-15 jet engine, the plane is severe underpowered, especially with all the bombe you added
4) center of gravity too close to center of lift. Even IF you get the plane to fly, it will stall on first maneuver
Conclusion: the plane needs a massive amount of changes. So I am afraid that the one I will actually get flying will barely look like it's predecessor anymore. Prepare for a massively redesigned fuselage and two engines at least
Flies a bit sluggish. Consider increasing the diameter of the propeller (you can move the nose up some to get the ground clearance needed). Also double-check your connections. I had several parts just 'fall off' as soon as I started flying.
Otherwise a very nice flyer and a worthy early build.
I have no problems with taking off. Just pull the flaps, increase throttle slowly and the plane will take off by itself. Landing, like you said is a little trickier. But just keeping the throttle at 10% instead of zero until your wheels hit the tarmac usually will do. For a taildragger braking is remarkably trouble-free. No rolling over when you brake too hard... Most of the time
Three inprovement suggestions:
1) when you put the throttle governor at 0% it always runs the rotor at optimal speed, regardless wether the power is on or off. Set it to 5% so it won't rotate until you push Activate1. (Do this for main and tail rotor)
2) if you use the flight controller instead of the standard cockpit, make sure the controller is installed with the flat past facing down otherwise your 'chase view' will be upside down. Rotate the one you installed from 180° back to 0
3) set the roll range of your gyroscope to something like 20° instead of 0 in order otherwise the gyro directly counteracts all the roll input from the right joystick.
Otherwise a pretty nice heli to fly around in. Especially for only 68 parts
Want to make it fly even better: make tht ailerons a little smaller and the stabilo a little bigger. Right now, it rolls real fast but has trouble pulling out of a dive.
@Destwoy01 naa, the trimming on the fuselage was the only 'custom' paint parts, the rest were all regular components,.just colored differently.
+1Again, If you want the chase camera to work, rotate the flight controller behind the front gear 180°. The octagon part should point up.
@Erionh that was Kiiikiii 's original design. He also had six VTOL engines along with the engine in the back, so I guess he needed them. I deleted the two that were bureied in the fuselage but later added one again for the automatic descent control.
That being said, you can always modify the fuselage to your own liking with as little or as much intakes as you want.
Also, the flight controller next to the front wheel is turned upside down. Chase view becomes a lot easier if you rotate it 180°
You can have the amount of fuel in the wings to something like 25.gal's for each of the 4 wing halves. It won't matter much and the plane will take off a lot easier.
It helps when you invert the 'Pitch' input for the center wing panels, or just set the panels to clamp(VTOL,-1,0) instead.
Forget the crop duster. You should market this one as an ULM. With a top speed of 100 mph and a stall speed of 50, it comes pretty close to that ULM feeling.
+1The landing gear wheels are too far back. Move them to the front of your wing or your plane will just dig in as soon as you give throttle on takeoff. Otherwise, pretty solid for only 76 parts.
Still got that leftover engine? I got a leftover plane from the sixties that could use an upgrade.
+1Ailerons too big for my taste. The plane rolls like crazy. Otherwise quite a nice design.
+2Plus sides: beautifully historically accurate cockpit, even for only 200 parts. Minus: no flaps, still standard wings. Flying: pretty pleasant, although I would wish for a top speed more like the original's 500 mph.
+1Worth downloading: yes
Worth flying: yes
Worth upvoting: just did
Takes a little tweaking, but after that it flies remarkably well. Not bad for a first try...
+1Wasn't that the one that crashed because tht autopilot kept pushing its nose down?
+1Congratulations on hitting silver. And congratulations on a plane with more automated features than most of the cars I ever drove.
+1Naa,happens that the A-50 is a pretty hard plane to find plans for so when I got them, I also got a dozen different paint schemes, one better than the other... And I couldn't decide. But this five are definitely the only ones I will ever make. I got enough ideas for other planes.
As for the Klemm 25, with the A-50, Junkers actually set out to make a competitor for it by using the 7 years of progress that happened since the first Klemm was built. In the SimplePlanes build you can't really see it but the whole plane is built out of corrugated aluminum having ribs stick out all over. The Klemm is built out of plywood and it's fuselage is so square you can mistake models of it for toys.
@crazyplaness This one better?
Ok. I'll repost it later with a screenshot thumbnail and post the original picture in the body. I'll also repost all other Junkers A50 's as I have been using real life photos and contents from a model company's website in their thumbnails.
Love the cockpit interior
Congratulations
@DeezDucks I don't know how active you are as a moderator still, but I have a problem. THis aircraft is a successor to my earlier Junkers A50 from Finland but on the page for that plane it doesn't show up as a successor. Did I do something wrong or do I have to specify it there? How does this work when you want to start a challenge and you need a custom successor/entries page?
@HuskyDynamics01 so far it work on one side: the new plane is listed as a successor to the old one but on the old plane's page it doesn't show up that the old plane has a successor now.
I hate to contact the moderator for every plane that I make a successor. But for now it is the only option. Do we have a handle for which to ping the moderator with?
Whaa, Geocities still exists?
I second @DARZAVIATION: it would be nice to choose which parts you do NOT want to mirror I keep having that -well, it's not really a problem, rather an inconvenience- that if I have to redo something on both sides of the plane and I already have a cockpit interior, I can either do both sides by hand or mirror and redo the cockpit ( all instruments and flight controls are mirrored by default. I think just having an offset to define which CENTER Or FUSELAGE parts should not be mirrored would already go a long way.
The same thing with flaps and ailerons, especially when you use funky code to mix ailerons with pitch or flaps. When you mirror your wing, you are almost certain to have to rewrite half of the code. I could live though with just the option: replace parts already mirrored/leave parts already mirrored for leaving the old wing as is even if you replace the tips.