Thanks! @WeirdreadedRedbeard Glad you figured out how to adjust thrust & use RCS stabilizers as they were intended. I've done dives, leveled out and returned to steady climbs, but must admit this took some practice.
The blades must blow uo either on the water or on you device, works fine on my ipad tablet, medium resulolution. Probably will not work on all devices (most SP stuff has difficulty on my mobile phone).
Yes for takeoff, start with half throttle, gradually move VTOL up to second bar then go full throttle - FORWARD motion is required for a smoother climb. Start out by just reaching and lifting over the Tiny; going up to 10,000 feet is tricky yet the model has full pitch, yaw, roll and thrust needed to level out around 2,000 feet, beter than some SP things I've downloaded & tried.
Beautiful appearance! We both use similar delta wings for this model (replicas of B58 actual) and mount engines & gear differently. Both methods work, I like how you formed this model.
A saved part, I believe from some beta version. Hard to find, you may copy and re-use mine. I built a slightly faster model of the B58 a month ago , it looked different in details. @JMicah4
Well, I re-built a favorite of mine that you might consider close to the appearance of the F-104C, built circa 1959. This is a new craft, using your cockpit as requested. Posting now, hope others can also evaluate it.
Yes, but my first 5 builds destructed at 1,500 mph, so if you keep this at 2,000 mph or les above 50,000 feet it smooths out - low level sppeds will kill,it... @ahappyape
@dethfromabove Agree with you, I much prefer selective weapons launch sequences, you are correct. (But some platforms on SP self destruct unless the sequence is tested first.) Your observation is appreciated.
I've gotten several comments that the X-32 is ugly, well that's the X-32. If you want "nice looks" there are hundreds of F-35s on SP. However, realize that despite looks both planes had the same required performance during the JSF competition. Both were VTOL, both were supersonic during prototyping. Currently, the F-35 VTOL system is not trusted by buyers, they are ordering the fast-fly version.
Yes @Ctracerx2 this model does not do "tight corners well" - its no FA-18 or stunt plane, it's got no tails to support those moves. Gentle handling will allow a complete view of islands from the cockpit, try it gentler, it's faster than it looks.
@planelover400 @Ctracerx2 @Zing2000 here's a new realistic Q-400 based upon the former model posted. I wanted the propellers to counter rotate & eliminate torque in-flight. Worked!
The prototype X-32A was a Mach 2 aircraft, and a limited SP box front end would kill the models performance, so I made a decision based on performance. This model goes 1,100 MPH+ so test fly it before you criticize, please.@WWIIPlaneBuilder
Note: the X-32 competed with the F-35 for the JSF role. Speed, performance, and stealth were quite similar. A future model of the X-32 should incorporate its Harrier-like VTOL features, at which it excelled in field tests.
Good one!
Thanks! @WeirdreadedRedbeard Glad you figured out how to adjust thrust & use RCS stabilizers as they were intended. I've done dives, leveled out and returned to steady climbs, but must admit this took some practice.
Thank @jacobhardy64 Yes a fast tbalet or desktop is needed, I wouldn't try this on my phone.
Simple cool!
Great job, and unique idea!
@ctracerx2 This was one of my flying ship prototypes, like a WIP but amazed I could fly it on my tablet.
The blades must blow uo either on the water or on you device, works fine on my ipad tablet, medium resulolution. Probably will not work on all devices (most SP stuff has difficulty on my mobile phone).
Yes for takeoff, start with half throttle, gradually move VTOL up to second bar then go full throttle - FORWARD motion is required for a smoother climb. Start out by just reaching and lifting over the Tiny; going up to 10,000 feet is tricky yet the model has full pitch, yaw, roll and thrust needed to level out around 2,000 feet, beter than some SP things I've downloaded & tried.
Thanks @dragoncreations
Thanks @maverickvii I like your model of the B58!
Thanks @jacobhardy64
Beautiful appearance! We both use similar delta wings for this model (replicas of B58 actual) and mount engines & gear differently. Both methods work, I like how you formed this model.
A saved part, I believe from some beta version. Hard to find, you may copy and re-use mine. I built a slightly faster model of the B58 a month ago , it looked different in details. @JMicah4
Well, I re-built a favorite of mine that you might consider close to the appearance of the F-104C, built circa 1959. This is a new craft, using your cockpit as requested. Posting now, hope others can also evaluate it.
Glad you liked it, this one flys the best of any spacecraft I've tried to make. Most folks just download it without a rating. Thanks, @planesnthings
Yes, but my first 5 builds destructed at 1,500 mph, so if you keep this at 2,000 mph or les above 50,000 feet it smooths out - low level sppeds will kill,it... @ahappyape
Thanks @Ctracerx2
Simple, works! You could convert this into a Spruce Goose someday.
Thanks @jacobhardy64
Better control! A beauty!
Fantastic! Delta planforms are hard to get right, you nailed it.
Thx @ahappyape @jacobhardy64
@ctracerx2 guess who built the predecessor. Check.
This was fun to make @Ctracerx2 @jacobhardy64
Thanks @thelatentimage
Here it is @Ctracerx2
True, gotta be gentle with pitch, this has Two Large turbofans in it @Ctracerx2
Well, it's an amazing jet fish, thanks, @Jacobhardy64
A beauty! Nice cruising, also. A lot of work here.
Thx @planesnthings Yes, the F-100 Supersaber since it's front end defies SP structures, yet it's supersonic and was flown by the Thunderbird team.
Neat use of landing gear!
Thanks for testing & reviewing @wormforce @dethfromabove @ jacobhardy64 @dynimerous
Q: thoughts on flight behavior?
@dethfromabove Agree with you, I much prefer selective weapons launch sequences, you are correct. (But some platforms on SP self destruct unless the sequence is tested first.) Your observation is appreciated.
Bomb are subjective to SP users, it seems. Big deal. A great, well constructed plane!
Agree @WWIIPlaneBuilder
Thx @strifezr @planelover400 Glad you like this modern aircraft as I do.
I've gotten several comments that the X-32 is ugly, well that's the X-32. If you want "nice looks" there are hundreds of F-35s on SP. However, realize that despite looks both planes had the same required performance during the JSF competition. Both were VTOL, both were supersonic during prototyping. Currently, the F-35 VTOL system is not trusted by buyers, they are ordering the fast-fly version.
@Ctracerx2 Thanks for testing and rating!
Thanks for the compliment @Ctracerx2
Yes @Ctracerx2 this model does not do "tight corners well" - its no FA-18 or stunt plane, it's got no tails to support those moves. Gentle handling will allow a complete view of islands from the cockpit, try it gentler, it's faster than it looks.
Thanks for testing & rating @jacobhardy64
Got it, thanks I need input that helps all! @WWIIPlaneBuilder
@planelover400 @Ctracerx2 @Zing2000 here's a new realistic Q-400 based upon the former model posted. I wanted the propellers to counter rotate & eliminate torque in-flight. Worked!
The prototype X-32A was a Mach 2 aircraft, and a limited SP box front end would kill the models performance, so I made a decision based on performance. This model goes 1,100 MPH+ so test fly it before you criticize, please.@WWIIPlaneBuilder
Thanks @TheLatentImage
Note: the X-32 competed with the F-35 for the JSF role. Speed, performance, and stealth were quite similar. A future model of the X-32 should incorporate its Harrier-like VTOL features, at which it excelled in field tests.
Thx @Ctracerx2
Thanks, this one turned out a lot more stable than I thought possible, @jacobhardy64
Glad you liked it @jacobhardy64