Say, you put in air brakes, but then you set their drag scale to 0? How they supposed to work when they don't generate any drag. I actually cheat by giving the air brakes in my builds an artificially higher draft, 3 or 4, sometimes as high as 7, to have them 'brake' far over their size.
@Kenzar go ahead, please. This is the beauty of SimplePlanes that you can build off of each other. So yes, Anti-submarine versions, radar-disk versions, paratrooper-dropping versions with opening release ramp.... Or just copying the wing folding or landing gear mechanism. Feel free to take what you need.
(Ps, and if you just switch the paint palette from 'cusrom' to 'default' you get something like an US American paint scheme to work with)
Interesting concept. You might want to get rid of the tail rotor though. A self-powered rotor would make them redundant. Just a big tail plane with some control nozzles for low speeds would do.
Thinking of nozzles. Ever thought of replacing the jets with one VTOL engine and fixed VTOL nozzles on the rotor? Because if you don't, I'm going to build one.
The left tail plane sticks out more than the right. I t does so by default when you mirror your plane because the flight computer/cockpit is offset 0.0391 clicks and so the program moves through whole plane 0.0391 clicks to the right but mirrors the wings and tail planes in reference to the flight computer.
By the way, check the tail plane 's rotators. I think they are turning that wrong way: tail plane down when you pitch forwards while it should be when you pitch back. Just a simple oversight
Ps, currently I am moving the rotor for-and backwards to find the spot where I can at least take off with the helicopter without it immediately flipping tail up or tail down. It is something in the range of z being between 3.3 and 3.4 once I found a good enough spot, I will turn on the gyro again and see how low I can set the values of gyroscopic speed and stability and still have a smooth flying heli with minimal control input just to keep it flying straight
Still fine-tuning the settings but already some findings after the first 5 minutes:
1) in the editor, you rotated the rotor 70° to the side. Which makes the pitch input work as 1/3 pitch and 2/3 roll and the roll input as 1/3 roll and 2/3 pitch. Just set it to zero and try again. It will make an immediate difference.
2) you seem to have put 1000lbs of dead weight on all the fuselage pieces. Not only makes this your helicopter obesely overweight, it also makes him completely tail heavy. If you click every fuselage block and set the 'dead weight' back to zero, flying, at least taking off will be a lot easier
3) for the gyroscope, gyroscopic speed and stability of 1000% is overkill. The aim of a design should be that even an inherently unstable design like a helicopter should be able to function with minimal gyroscope settings. Pitch Range, roll range and yaw power should ideally be set to zero as they make the gyroscope take over tht pitch, roll and yaw instead of the aerodynamic or rotor controls. They are handy for something like floating airbases or hover bikes, but shouldn't really be used in planes and helicopters. That is my personal opinion. However setting the yaw range and pitch range to 180° basically enabled you to flip your helicopter on its back while parked with engine shut down. If you use roll and pitch range, values of 30-45° are the most common design, even for hoverbikes.
Ps, In case you want a closer look at the code, I have since uploaded the finished plane HERE (the color has been changed from deep blue to sea gray though)
@WinsWings actually I didn't show the hardest part. That was constantly tweaking the gear trust, the rotator range, the gear enclosure fuselage shape and the panel's with to make sure the gear didn't bump into anything while retracting. That was tedious, but in the end just boring
@LettuceRob119 my first thought would be something like a French Sud-Est Vautour, but I decide to stretch the limits and go for something like a British Acro Vulcan as reimagined by German engineers
A bit old got a 1970's aircraft. Looks more like a late 1930's experiment to me, may be something Argentina or Paraguay could have tried to market in the early 1950's
@MA2211CwCABaerospace I have that problem from time to time. My solution is to make lots of connections between the actual wing, the fuselage and the wing segments you build around it. Just one connection won't do. You need at least a connection of the wing base with the fuselage, the fuselage wing structure with the fuselage and wing base and at least one between the wing center and the structure.
@Moonhead2131 I'm halfway building the fuselage. My main problem is that I translated 'simple' as 96 parts or less so it can be used as AI background traffic
I have to bow out on this one. My 5th Gen High Manoeuverability Technology Demonstrator ran into some problems.... Like .... Not flying and mistaking high Manoeuverability for chronic spinning out of control. May be one day I can get it fixed. Not on this challenge though.
Please explain 'simple': is it a maximum number of parts? Standard blocks only? No interior? No rotators? I'm wondering how detailed I can make. 1940's classic prop and still be within the 'simple' limits.
The elegant solution: increase the range of the two landing gear rotators from 90 to 135° the landing gear will no longer end up one over tht other and competing for space.
It took me 1/2 an hour to rearrange the input and rotor settings to my liking. But then, the helicopter flew like a dream, even without the gyro. Congratulations
@YuYsukablyat that's between about 500 and 650 mph. Good to know. My idea was to make a potent 2-seat trainer and transform it into a 1-seat light ground attack craft with the space for the second seat used for a cannon and bomb bay
Congratulations. Your plane was the best entry in my Mr. Coats wants a ride challenge... Or rather the only flyable out of the 3 entries. By the rules of the game that should give you 10 upvotes. So I upvoted the 10 most interesting planes out of your arsenal. With this you are but one plane away from reaching silver. Congratulations
20 years of continuing improvements. The original F-18a came into service in the early 1980's. The super hornet in the mid-2000's.
Over that time there were lots of components that just got better, chiefly everything with a computer in it.
It also got stronger engines to carry more payload.
And if you see them side by side, due to the new engines, the Super Hornet has square air intakes. The 1980's model nas rounded ones.
1) front wheel works perfectly. Only that it buries itself in the fuselage. Either diminish the rotation range of the rotator or open the two fuselage blocks the wheel touches in the overload Editor and set the :DisableAircraftCollisions value from 'false' to 'true'
2 For the rear wheels, disconnect all and then reconnect, the rotator, the top arrow to the fuselage, the bottom arrow to the gear.
@AviVr yea. That's how SimplePlanes is. I am not saying you did anything wrong with 'taking a right-handed approach'. I know a couple of fellow builders who love it that way and go great lengths to defend their views. If I would wish you did something different, it would be that you would note it in the description. That's all.
And yes, I spend almost as much time testing and tweaking as I spend building. That's SimplePlanes for you....
Ps: left slider is Trim, right slider is VTOL. I know there is some discussion whether this is more intuitive than the regular SimplePlanes lauout. But this plane does it. So either fly around a.littlw until you get used to it or reverse the input for your own custom plane.
Say, you put in air brakes, but then you set their drag scale to 0? How they supposed to work when they don't generate any drag. I actually cheat by giving the air brakes in my builds an artificially higher draft, 3 or 4, sometimes as high as 7, to have them 'brake' far over their size.
@WinsWings I'm taking the thing apart to see how exactly you did this. Thanks
+1Is there a plan to build out the cockpit?
@Kenzar go ahead, please. This is the beauty of SimplePlanes that you can build off of each other. So yes, Anti-submarine versions, radar-disk versions, paratrooper-dropping versions with opening release ramp.... Or just copying the wing folding or landing gear mechanism. Feel free to take what you need.
(Ps, and if you just switch the paint palette from 'cusrom' to 'default' you get something like an US American paint scheme to work with)
+1@C47skytrain just did. Just got too busy writing the text.
+1@canadianavgeek853 you're welcome
+1Interesting concept. You might want to get rid of the tail rotor though. A self-powered rotor would make them redundant. Just a big tail plane with some control nozzles for low speeds would do.
Thinking of nozzles. Ever thought of replacing the jets with one VTOL engine and fixed VTOL nozzles on the rotor? Because if you don't, I'm going to build one.
+1@NewWorldAerospace too bad, I'd love to use my knowledge of custom gears and variable propellers to give this babe a completely new engine
+1The left tail plane sticks out more than the right. I t does so by default when you mirror your plane because the flight computer/cockpit is offset 0.0391 clicks and so the program moves through whole plane 0.0391 clicks to the right but mirrors the wings and tail planes in reference to the flight computer.
By the way, check the tail plane 's rotators. I think they are turning that wrong way: tail plane down when you pitch forwards while it should be when you pitch back. Just a simple oversight
+1Before you publish this for good, consider uploading an updated version with cameras in the cockpit.
Ps, currently I am moving the rotor for-and backwards to find the spot where I can at least take off with the helicopter without it immediately flipping tail up or tail down. It is something in the range of z being between 3.3 and 3.4 once I found a good enough spot, I will turn on the gyro again and see how low I can set the values of gyroscopic speed and stability and still have a smooth flying heli with minimal control input just to keep it flying straight
Still fine-tuning the settings but already some findings after the first 5 minutes:
1) in the editor, you rotated the rotor 70° to the side. Which makes the pitch input work as 1/3 pitch and 2/3 roll and the roll input as 1/3 roll and 2/3 pitch. Just set it to zero and try again. It will make an immediate difference.
2) you seem to have put 1000lbs of dead weight on all the fuselage pieces. Not only makes this your helicopter obesely overweight, it also makes him completely tail heavy. If you click every fuselage block and set the 'dead weight' back to zero, flying, at least taking off will be a lot easier
3) for the gyroscope, gyroscopic speed and stability of 1000% is overkill. The aim of a design should be that even an inherently unstable design like a helicopter should be able to function with minimal gyroscope settings. Pitch Range, roll range and yaw power should ideally be set to zero as they make the gyroscope take over tht pitch, roll and yaw instead of the aerodynamic or rotor controls. They are handy for something like floating airbases or hover bikes, but shouldn't really be used in planes and helicopters. That is my personal opinion. However setting the yaw range and pitch range to 180° basically enabled you to flip your helicopter on its back while parked with engine shut down. If you use roll and pitch range, values of 30-45° are the most common design, even for hoverbikes.
You deserve one upvote for the paint job alone.
And congratulations on making 1000 points
Ps, In case you want a closer look at the code, I have since uploaded the finished plane HERE (the color has been changed from deep blue to sea gray though)
+1@WinsWings actually I didn't show the hardest part. That was constantly tweaking the gear trust, the rotator range, the gear enclosure fuselage shape and the panel's with to make sure the gear didn't bump into anything while retracting. That was tedious, but in the end just boring
+1Actually it's just me reaching myself video editing on my phone.
@LettuceRob119 my first thought would be something like a French Sud-Est Vautour, but I decide to stretch the limits and go for something like a British Acro Vulcan as reimagined by German engineers
Aermachi? Looks more like a Mig15 designed by Studio Ghibli!
+1A bit old got a 1970's aircraft. Looks more like a late 1930's experiment to me, may be something Argentina or Paraguay could have tried to market in the early 1950's
+3@MA2211CwCABaerospace I have that problem from time to time. My solution is to make lots of connections between the actual wing, the fuselage and the wing segments you build around it. Just one connection won't do. You need at least a connection of the wing base with the fuselage, the fuselage wing structure with the fuselage and wing base and at least one between the wing center and the structure.
+190% done. Just some windows and I'll post my 1930's flying boat airliner tomorrow
.... Done
+2What's the matter with it?
@NewWorldAerospace aww. Okay. May be I'll take a swing at it with my own copter when I'm done with my other commitments
+1@Moonhead2131 I'm halfway building the fuselage. My main problem is that I translated 'simple' as 96 parts or less so it can be used as AI background traffic
+2@NewWorldAerospace I'll keep an eye out for the finished plane. Curious about that weight shifting ever since I tried making a hang glider
+1How do you steer the craft? Differential rotor speeds? Tilting rotors? Or hidden thrust gyros?
+1@ThomasRoderik, @TemporaryReplacement : There is a new version of this airplane with an upgraded cockpit and lots of labels to finish the paint job
@GorillaGuerrilla I guess I have to study that then. Chances are whatever I wanted to demonstrate, it's already done twice as good.
+1I have to bow out on this one. My 5th Gen High Manoeuverability Technology Demonstrator ran into some problems.... Like .... Not flying and mistaking high Manoeuverability for chronic spinning out of control. May be one day I can get it fixed. Not on this challenge though.
+2@dbqp no, sorry. Only the ones from the company website. I filled in the blanks with drawings from the 1929 airplane I got through Wikipedia
Please explain 'simple': is it a maximum number of parts? Standard blocks only? No interior? No rotators? I'm wondering how detailed I can make. 1940's classic prop and still be within the 'simple' limits.
+1Love it. Eagerly awaiting the version with instruments on the console
+1Great plane. It says something when my only gripe about it is that it flies so easy that flying it gets boring after a while
+1The elegant solution: increase the range of the two landing gear rotators from 90 to 135° the landing gear will no longer end up one over tht other and competing for space.
It took me 1/2 an hour to rearrange the input and rotor settings to my liking. But then, the helicopter flew like a dream, even without the gyro. Congratulations
+2@YuYsukablyat that's between about 500 and 650 mph. Good to know. My idea was to make a potent 2-seat trainer and transform it into a 1-seat light ground attack craft with the space for the second seat used for a cannon and bomb bay
So what is the top speed you need to go transonic?
Love the details
+1Nice design, love the aesthetic, but honestly, the wing needs to get moved back a whole unit until the thing is even flyable.
+1Love the details.
Congratulations. Your plane was the best entry in my Mr. Coats wants a ride challenge... Or rather the only flyable out of the 3 entries. By the rules of the game that should give you 10 upvotes. So I upvoted the 10 most interesting planes out of your arsenal. With this you are but one plane away from reaching silver. Congratulations
Congratulations @Mineglacier7251yt . Your plane won the first place. Runners-up are @Supersoli8 and @Imakestupidplanes
Keep on it. It took me one year to get to silver. One year later I made Gold.
20 years of continuing improvements. The original F-18a came into service in the early 1980's. The super hornet in the mid-2000's.
Over that time there were lots of components that just got better, chiefly everything with a computer in it.
It also got stronger engines to carry more payload.
And if you see them side by side, due to the new engines, the Super Hornet has square air intakes. The 1980's model nas rounded ones.
@Halcyon215 still allow me to build a simple pioneer aircraft around my detailed pioneer engine. If you don't like it, you can always delete it.
I kept thinking, how do you use 600 pieces in a smooth shape like this, then I saw the cockpit.....
You mean just a dummy engine to be used as a fancy visual in a boat or airplane?
1) front wheel works perfectly. Only that it buries itself in the fuselage. Either diminish the rotation range of the rotator or open the two fuselage blocks the wheel touches in the overload Editor and set the :DisableAircraftCollisions value from 'false' to 'true'
2 For the rear wheels, disconnect all and then reconnect, the rotator, the top arrow to the fuselage, the bottom arrow to the gear.
That's all, honestly
@AviVr yea. That's how SimplePlanes is. I am not saying you did anything wrong with 'taking a right-handed approach'. I know a couple of fellow builders who love it that way and go great lengths to defend their views. If I would wish you did something different, it would be that you would note it in the description. That's all.
And yes, I spend almost as much time testing and tweaking as I spend building. That's SimplePlanes for you....
Ps: left slider is Trim, right slider is VTOL. I know there is some discussion whether this is more intuitive than the regular SimplePlanes lauout. But this plane does it. So either fly around a.littlw until you get used to it or reverse the input for your own custom plane.