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.
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.
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 made it flat and fat because the original idea was to have a ramp in the back for boarding the space ninjas or their rocket motorcycles. May be a future version.....
Looks Quite cool, flies like a breeze. My only regret is that for a jet liner, even an experimental one, it should have a top speed bigger than 270 mph.
Also, if you get tired of the current livery, just open the paint tool and circle through the color schemes. The plane looks marvelous in every color, even if in 'green slime' it looks a bit like a Matchbox toy.
@MrSternMC9MM I didn't touch the intakes. They were as Dots made them on the original De Havilland Venom As far as I can see he made a hollow fuselage and used 'left fill' and ,'right fill' to get the angles. For more details , you have to ask him.
Interesting plane, but a little hard to land. I would like to make a version of it with the original Seahawk's split flap/air brakes. But I wouldn't want to do anything to your plane without your permission.
Got 10 pieces to spare for labels? The Swiss used this aircraft all into the It's and theit paint scheme is pretty simple: silver all over with some red accent and a white + on a red dot for insignia. Should be able to do this in half an hour.
I really don't see a problem with adding a refueling probe. You find the probe under the 'Gizmos' tag. It's the last item on the list. In theory, you can just put it on the nose of your plane. In reality, the probe is rather short. So you will have to put it on an extension tube made out of a standard fuselage piece. Once you got this covered, you can add a rotator or piston to retract the probe into the fuselage when not in use. That's all.
Just try it for yourself. I bet you're able to put a probe on your plane in less time than I needed to write this post.
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.
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
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?
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?
Hurray, it flies. It even flies pretty good
@xXLouisPlayzXx ok. I'll be watching your progress with interest.
First order of things: add some ailerons
@Rob119 @DeeganWithABazooka : New version with improved handling in hover mode.
I made it flat and fat because the original idea was to have a ramp in the back for boarding the space ninjas or their rocket motorcycles. May be a future version.....
Hey, guess what. I just landed your plane on USS Beast
Looks Quite cool, flies like a breeze. My only regret is that for a jet liner, even an experimental one, it should have a top speed bigger than 270 mph.
Also, if you get tired of the current livery, just open the paint tool and circle through the color schemes. The plane looks marvelous in every color, even if in 'green slime' it looks a bit like a Matchbox toy.
I love the details on the interior. Too bad I never figured out how to open the doors.
@MrSternMC9MM I didn't touch the intakes. They were as Dots made them on the original De Havilland Venom As far as I can see he made a hollow fuselage and used 'left fill' and ,'right fill' to get the angles. For more details , you have to ask him.
Not five hours, but you could make 10 videos about your next build where you cover section by section with lots of room for comments
Swift air? Does it sing?
Neat little plane. I wouldn't have given it infinite fuel though. It's a rubber band plane. It's supposed to run for one minute and then glide home
Interesting plane, but a little hard to land. I would like to make a version of it with the original Seahawk's split flap/air brakes. But I wouldn't want to do anything to your plane without your permission.
Got 10 pieces to spare for labels? The Swiss used this aircraft all into the It's and theit paint scheme is pretty simple: silver all over with some red accent and a white + on a red dot for insignia. Should be able to do this in half an hour.
https://images.app.goo.gl/hisBnVji8spySGNx5
Waauw. A true acrobatic plane
I see you already got a classic Porsche 911, what about a classic Porsche 356? Up to you whether you do the hardtop or cabrio version.
Ok. Now I can't wait for the plane to come out so I can take it for a spin.
Just hope it's mobile-friendly.
I really don't see a problem with adding a refueling probe. You find the probe under the 'Gizmos' tag. It's the last item on the list. In theory, you can just put it on the nose of your plane. In reality, the probe is rather short. So you will have to put it on an extension tube made out of a standard fuselage piece. Once you got this covered, you can add a rotator or piston to retract the probe into the fuselage when not in use. That's all.
Just try it for yourself. I bet you're able to put a probe on your plane in less time than I needed to write this post.