So what is the problem with the bomb bay? I see you haven't added any rotators, hinge rotators or even pistons. So do you want it to rotate in, out, slide forward, slide down? And what is the problem so far other than that you haven't started yet?
First reaction, has nothing to do with the bay doors but... You are using a flight computer. In order for it to work properly, all 4 of its tabs must be facing downwards. If not, it messea up your Chase View. I know,.SimplePlanes doesn't document this properly, but it's basically a flat cockpit. If you mount it against to wall, it's the same as a cockpit pointing upwards
I use blueprints for all my historical builds. They do not shape a fuselage, but they provide an image behind your build that you can use to give your fuselage (and wings) the right shape.
(Ps, I gotten into the habit when I download a plan from the Internet to first actually color it blue so it is easier to distinguish the background from the fuselage pieces you work on)
Also you can use them to project a background image of your planes flying right behind your plane so this will show up in your screenshot of the plane when you publish it.
@Karsond I would prefer that you can see at least part of him. The idea of the challenge is to show him showing off his plane (car, boat, rocket tank.....)
I ran I to that problem a couple of times. You used a hollow fuselage for your top block. Hollow fuselages are very picky to where you attach your pistons or rotators. Basically their front and back attachment points don't work. You have to connect your rotators to the arrow that is sticking out of the side of the hollow fuselage, not to the one at the end. Once I did this, I got it to work.
!here's the picture
Can I request a flying crane version? For a helicopter that looks like something from the 1960's Soviet Union, that's exactly what they would have done with it too.
@Kingsman472 me too, but it's pretty hard to get a helicopter to fly decently without one, even if you don't use he gyroscope for steering and keep it just for stabilization. My helicopters always oversteer without one.
The flight computer has to be rotated. In the placement editor it's rotation needs to say: 0° x-axis, 0° y-axis, 0° z-axis, otherwise the chase view is messed up.
Once this was taken care of, it's a pretty nice plane and a surprisingly nice flyer. Mr Coats approves
Not bad for 46 parts, and it is a pleasure to fly as well. I do have some suggestions for improvements, primarily to make the tail wheel steerable for better taxiing. But I'm not here to criticize. I just enjoy flying the.plane too much
That being said....
1) move the outer two of your five cannons forward until you can see the 'base', that's the bigger back part of the cannon. Apparently That's where SimplePlanes thinks the shells are coming from. If you bury the base completely in the fuselage, the plane will blow itself up
2) replace the back landing gear with a short retractable one. In order for the airplane to rise you have to be able to push the tail down. With four wheels of equal length, you literally have to pivot on your back wheels before you can gain any height.
@Trainz448 I must be getting deja vu experiences. I swear that just last weekend I downloaded a plane with exactly the same wing arrangement and the same engine pods
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
So what is the problem with the bomb bay? I see you haven't added any rotators, hinge rotators or even pistons. So do you want it to rotate in, out, slide forward, slide down? And what is the problem so far other than that you haven't started yet?
First reaction, has nothing to do with the bay doors but... You are using a flight computer. In order for it to work properly, all 4 of its tabs must be facing downwards. If not, it messea up your Chase View. I know,.SimplePlanes doesn't document this properly, but it's basically a flat cockpit. If you mount it against to wall, it's the same as a cockpit pointing upwards
Get her I to SimplePlanes... Mr Coats doesn't want to be the only one in there
I use blueprints for all my historical builds. They do not shape a fuselage, but they provide an image behind your build that you can use to give your fuselage (and wings) the right shape.
(Ps, I gotten into the habit when I download a plan from the Internet to first actually color it blue so it is easier to distinguish the background from the fuselage pieces you work on)
Also you can use them to project a background image of your planes flying right behind your plane so this will show up in your screenshot of the plane when you publish it.
No problem. Just post it anyway. As long as it runs halfway decent on a recent model smart phone it should be good
@Karsond I would prefer that you can see at least part of him. The idea of the challenge is to show him showing off his plane (car, boat, rocket tank.....)
I ran I to that problem a couple of times. You used a hollow fuselage for your top block. Hollow fuselages are very picky to where you attach your pistons or rotators. Basically their front and back attachment points don't work. You have to connect your rotators to the arrow that is sticking out of the side of the hollow fuselage, not to the one at the end. Once I did this, I got it to work.
!here's the picture
Love the way you used Mr. Coats' paint schemes for the whole plane
No problem. Posing is just taking the parts in the 'spanner tool' and moving and rotating it.
Ps, how did you get the label to display Cyrillic letters?
Can I request a flying crane version? For a helicopter that looks like something from the 1960's Soviet Union, that's exactly what they would have done with it too.
So if I get it right, the idea is to rebound the tutorial plane?
@Kingsman472 me too, but it's pretty hard to get a helicopter to fly decently without one, even if you don't use he gyroscope for steering and keep it just for stabilization. My helicopters always oversteer without one.
And you did all that without using a gyroscope?
Hahaha... Didn't think someone would take my suggestion of a parachute and a bottle rocket seriously. Nice job. Mr.Coats will live it
The flight computer has to be rotated. In the placement editor it's rotation needs to say: 0° x-axis, 0° y-axis, 0° z-axis, otherwise the chase view is messed up.
Once this was taken care of, it's a pretty nice plane and a surprisingly nice flyer. Mr Coats approves
Some issues with stability and the landing gear is too far aft for my taste. Still it has potential. Looking forwards to your next versions
@caid0ngming ok. So now you got to take the figure and build an airplane around it, or a kiddie car
Challenge accepted....
Have I ever... A 50 ft. 900 mph Canadian goose....
July 2 nd? Forgive me if I pass. By July 2nd I may be have detailed sketches of what I am about to build.
Not bad for 46 parts, and it is a pleasure to fly as well. I do have some suggestions for improvements, primarily to make the tail wheel steerable for better taxiing. But I'm not here to criticize. I just enjoy flying the.plane too much
That being said....
1) move the outer two of your five cannons forward until you can see the 'base', that's the bigger back part of the cannon. Apparently That's where SimplePlanes thinks the shells are coming from. If you bury the base completely in the fuselage, the plane will blow itself up
2) replace the back landing gear with a short retractable one. In order for the airplane to rise you have to be able to push the tail down. With four wheels of equal length, you literally have to pivot on your back wheels before you can gain any height.
@Trainz448 I must be getting deja vu experiences. I swear that just last weekend I downloaded a plane with exactly the same wing arrangement and the same engine pods
Did you reupload this one? I think I saw something almost exactly like that a week ago
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.
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.
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.
@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
Love the look and feel of this build.
And I just did...
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.
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.
Again, 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.
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.
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.
@crazyplaness This one better?