True, there. An SP glitch; clipped "new" fuselage sections attach asymmetrically, and are unaffected by mirroring. Got 2 medium engines clipped inside the asymmetric tail cone. That's why it looks funny -- but does not seem to affect sim flight. The wings, rudders and tails seem centered. @Delphinus
Thanks for voting, and yes, the bodywork near the end was very tricky. Using Parts Sections has severe limitations -- guess I could rebuild the aft section using only panels. This is Version 1. @Delphinus
They should all be built that way, per me, but people on SP often prefer "Model Out Of the Box" appearance and really don't care if it flys. I care. Thanks! @ProKillaV12
OK faster is possible, but the weight & control balance of this futuristic model are due to hours of work, so same body. If I ever decide to go faster. Dunno if I need faster. Is there a challenge? @Rohan
@Rohan Thx, it probably won't win but I did hit the micro-jet rules with ease. If I could add fuel, it would have both longer-range and better handling.
@TheLatentImage Thanks it is futuristic. But I was going to test another version with actual VTOL takeoff, this blade serves as a large variable-lift flat wing for a rolling start.
Would certainly not be the case if the 50 gal fuel requirement was ignored. The small engine is a "floating" type that lightens the model when installed. @AgnesDesign
Agree, and it would not happen if I could exceed the 50 gal limit by placing fuel in the wings & tails. I feel 50 gallons is unrealistic for a minute. @Exumer
OK, I guess It's okay to go over the 1,700 lb + 50 gal fuel arbitrary rule? @Rohan --IMHO good jet models need a bit more fuel+thrust. A Prop plane, Piper 140 is not a fighter (I spent many hours flying one) but all it could is return to the airport with only 50 gal fuel. FYI.
Toy replica that flys great!
Thanks @AlphaOneIndustries
Thanks @JacobHardy64
True, there. An SP glitch; clipped "new" fuselage sections attach asymmetrically, and are unaffected by mirroring. Got 2 medium engines clipped inside the asymmetric tail cone. That's why it looks funny -- but does not seem to affect sim flight. The wings, rudders and tails seem centered. @Delphinus
Thanks for voting, and yes, the bodywork near the end was very tricky. Using Parts Sections has severe limitations -- guess I could rebuild the aft section using only panels. This is Version 1. @Delphinus
@Delphinus I studied your F-22 intake panels, they were similar to my last prototype. I built new ones for this, but thanks for the inspiration.
Thank you @Delphinus
Thank you @nickasaurusrex
Thanks you @Dynimerous
Well a species called "Flatties" found in Panama and Peru glide between trees using air-borne steering. Thx @TheLatentImage
FYI Mobile Users: change rudder rotors to "roll" so you can steer it.
Good build! (No comment re: if it really exists.)
Agile like a fighter!
Beautiful Bird, great VTOL! (Confess I had best luck at takeoff with 60% power, then full power when level).
I can launch from the USS Tiny, great lift!
Thanks @nickasaurusrex -- This was a minimum parts entry.
Thx @Planeez
They should all be built that way, per me, but people on SP often prefer "Model Out Of the Box" appearance and really don't care if it flys. I care. Thanks! @ProKillaV12
Thank you @Delphinus I just submitted a very simple plane here,
Thank you, this is an unusual model for me, it took awhile, glad you like the result. @Delphinus
Thx @Delphins Although my Mk-I version goes vertical , this small rotor alows it to fly a tad faster.
Thx @nickasaurusrex
Thank you @Eballaaa
FYI I'm thinking about building the Lockheed Cheyenne Helicopter prototype. It's subsonic, but well-armed. @Rohan
OK faster is possible, but the weight & control balance of this futuristic model are due to hours of work, so same body. If I ever decide to go faster. Dunno if I need faster. Is there a challenge? @Rohan
Thanks @Viper28
OK, clarify -- all vertical (traditional) or futuristically faster? @Rohan
I really don't care about points, but I can provide an interesting entry, good look on the challenge.
Thanks @ramjet -- FYI I believe @Rohan wants a supersonic helicopter challenge. Think this would do, or can I improve it?
Nice!
Thanks @jacobhardy64
@Rohan Thx, it probably won't win but I did hit the micro-jet rules with ease. If I could add fuel, it would have both longer-range and better handling.
Thanks @PlanesAndThings Also, I hope to improve this model.
@TheLatentImage Thanks it is futuristic. But I was going to test another version with actual VTOL takeoff, this blade serves as a large variable-lift flat wing for a rolling start.
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
@blue_eagle Thx
Thanks @nickasaurusrex
Would certainly not be the case if the 50 gal fuel requirement was ignored. The small engine is a "floating" type that lightens the model when installed. @AgnesDesign
Agree, and it would not happen if I could exceed the 50 gal limit by placing fuel in the wings & tails. I feel 50 gallons is unrealistic for a minute. @Exumer
Thank you @AeroEngineering
Thanks @Delphinus
Agree! @WalrusAircraft
OK, I guess It's okay to go over the 1,700 lb + 50 gal fuel arbitrary rule? @Rohan --IMHO good jet models need a bit more fuel+thrust. A Prop plane, Piper 140 is not a fighter (I spent many hours flying one) but all it could is return to the airport with only 50 gal fuel. FYI.
Thank you @Rohan
Thank you @Jacobhardy64