@SnoWFLakE0s Yes. I happen to still have the original unaltered screenshots still saved on my computer. when I have time, I can upload them to Mega as an archive. I'll provide you with a link to it when I do.
@TheLatentImage Thanks. I downloaded and flew every single one too.
It took a while to dig through all the planes on the site to find them. And even then, there were some that slipped through the cracks. I don't think people realize just how many planes are on this site in total.
I had stopped actively updating it a while ago. Now I only add new ones whenever people ask me to.
@shipster Maybe as far as raw aestheticism is concerned. It is one of the nicer-looking ones. Though, as soon as I'm done nitpicking every aspect of the plane, we'll see where it places compared to the rest.
@Jeffericium Alright. I kind of got tired of doing reviews, so I'll leave it.
I do like it a lot though. I especially like how stable it is hands-off. It does have kind of a nasty stability range though. Easy to put into spins. But it flies pretty smoothly with a subtle hand on the controls. Good stuff.
@MrSilverWolf I built the entire assembly away from the fuselage so it couldn't get stuck to anything, then I calculated the nudge interval to get it in place, and finally I used fine-tuner to nudge each part that exact distance. The steps are just rotated blocks. All the parts have collision disabled.
I used a similar technique on most of the moving parts of this plane.
@Magiccuber33 Thanks!
What is the exact power multiplication you used on the engines?
Also, C-5 empty weight is 380,000 lbs, and fuel capacity is 332,500 lbs.
Also, what did you judge "realistic" flight characteristics by?
@SHCow The drag calculator is just a mess of bad math to begin with. If anything needs a serious overhaul in this game, it's everything drag-related. Calculation, simulation... It's all messed. I'd mention it in the User Voice, but I wasted all my points on superfluous suggestions.
@SHCow The thing with real planes is you can trim the ailerons to smooth everything up. Real wings are actually quite asymmetric. There's tolerances on dimensioning, and no two sheet-metal jobs come out the same. Test pilots would tell you how the plane flies, and mechanics on the ground would calibrate the ailerons accordingly. The simplest form of trim is really quite graceful. It's just a single piece of metal bent to a specific angle. As airflow speeds up, it adds more pressure to the control surface itself, keeping it right where it needs to be for level flight at ALL airspeeds. PIC
But yeah, if SP had a slider across the top of the screen for aileron trim, that would make my day!
@SHCow That particular one.
It's a very old plane. It used to belong to FedEx. When they retired their fleet of 727s, they donated most of them to aviation maintenance schools across the country. The school I go to was one of the recipients.
As a training aid, it's fantastic. The 727 has a multitude of systems not unlike the systems still in use today for transport-category aircraft today. The design philosophy remains pretty much unchanged aside from improvements to safety and efficiency.
@SHCow Yeah, It's the 727-100. You can tell the -100 from the -200 by the length of the fuselage. -100s are shorter. I chose the -100 because I'm actually working on a real one at school. Valuable learning experience, but the airframe is rife with problems. Particularly the hydraulic system. Leaks Skydrol like you wouldn't believe. Nasty stuff.
@FennVectorCWA Sure thing.
@SHCow I've got a new technique for rigging up complex moving assemblies with clipping parts. It's working pretty great so far. But, I'm going to actually do slats this time, so who knows how long the fine-tuning will take.
Anyway, can you guess the exact model of plane I'm building?
Use structural wings. They do not flex. Within the code for the part, there is the line "allowControlSurfaces=". It defaults to "false" on the structural wing, but if you set it to "true", the editor will let you add surfaces.
allowControlSurfaces="True"
Looks like what you'd see if you took all the aluminum skin off of a semi-monocoque hull structure, and took out all the systems and guts. Nothing but stringers, formers, longerons, and bulkheads.
@BaconEggs @JoddyFubuki788 Thanks.
@CjrLdy I wasn't about to attempt a full interior. That would be a huge complicated project. Fiddle around with dead weight if you want to simulate higher gross weight flights. If you want to see a FULLY modeled cargo jet, check out Johndfg's C-17. It's a marvel to behold, but clocks in at 1498 parts.
@AdrianFlyingAce @Mostly @Liquidfox @Stickman @Insertname Thanks!
@cats @ChaMikey @Liquidfox thanks for spotlighting.
And wow! Didn't expect a feature! Thanks everyone for all the support! I honestly didn't expect this to be so popular.
@vonhubert Yes. I was going to include a tailplane trim actuator like the real one has, but I must have forgotten. Feel free to make any improvements to it. I'd like to see it be even better!
@vonhubert Also, the maximum payload of a C-5 is documented as such as there is a safety factor. The C-5 is actually capable of MUCH higher maximum gross. The limitations of the cargo deck's load-bearing permits it. And fuel weight is no concern because the C-5 can just refuel en-route via tanker. The Air Force flies them on the safe side, but I know for a fact C-5s often left warzones much heavier than they were allowed to be. And the C-5M is even stronger!
@SnoWFLakE0s Yes. I happen to still have the original unaltered screenshots still saved on my computer. when I have time, I can upload them to Mega as an archive. I'll provide you with a link to it when I do.
@TheLatentImage Thanks. I downloaded and flew every single one too.
It took a while to dig through all the planes on the site to find them. And even then, there were some that slipped through the cracks. I don't think people realize just how many planes are on this site in total.
I had stopped actively updating it a while ago. Now I only add new ones whenever people ask me to.
@TheGuyYouMightKnow Added.
Overall score 9/10. Very nice plane. Best cockpit I've seen yet in a P-38. Be very proud of that.
@shipster Maybe as far as raw aestheticism is concerned. It is one of the nicer-looking ones. Though, as soon as I'm done nitpicking every aspect of the plane, we'll see where it places compared to the rest.
@TheGuyYouMightKnow It will have to be after I update my game.
I haven't played in a while.
This is a great one!
A wee bit large, but the fantastic cockpit is more than enough to get me to ignore that little fact.
Want me to add it?
@TheGuyYouMightKnow Now THAT'S quality.
@JoddyFubuki788 the shape is pretty far off, but it looks very nice otherwise.
@Flyboy360 Thanks.
@SteadfastContracting I often glance at someone's creations when something of mine gets upvoted. Gotta spread the love.
@Redstreak45 I don't maintain the list anymore.
I only add to it if the creators ask me to.
@Megaplanesinc Thanks. It's quite a nimble little guy.
@Jeffericium Alright. I kind of got tired of doing reviews, so I'll leave it.
I do like it a lot though. I especially like how stable it is hands-off. It does have kind of a nasty stability range though. Easy to put into spins. But it flies pretty smoothly with a subtle hand on the controls. Good stuff.
Ey! Pretty good! I can rate it later if you want.
@Iamsilverdahedgie Thanks.
@MAHADI Thanks.
@Treadmill103 Wow thanks! Honestly, this was a 15-minute build.
@JoddyFubuki788 She's just big-boned.
I'm in! Good luck to all you blind bats!
@Liquidfox Thanks!
@MonexAircraft Thanks!
@MrSilverWolf I built the entire assembly away from the fuselage so it couldn't get stuck to anything, then I calculated the nudge interval to get it in place, and finally I used fine-tuner to nudge each part that exact distance. The steps are just rotated blocks. All the parts have collision disabled.
I used a similar technique on most of the moving parts of this plane.
@Magiccuber33 Thanks!
@Thomasj041 It is. You have to arm it with AG7. It's in the instructions!
@Planefun MVCC
@ForeverPie @Ryn176 @MAHADI @ChiChiWerx Thanks all!
@MrSilverWolf @BrianAircraftsNew Thanks!
@FennVectorCWA
@SHCow
It's done!
What is the exact power multiplication you used on the engines?
Also, C-5 empty weight is 380,000 lbs, and fuel capacity is 332,500 lbs.
Also, what did you judge "realistic" flight characteristics by?
@SHCow The User Voice site runs on a point system.
https://jundroo.uservoice.com/forums/221664-jundroo-games/category/84492-simpleplanes
@SHCow The drag calculator is just a mess of bad math to begin with. If anything needs a serious overhaul in this game, it's everything drag-related. Calculation, simulation... It's all messed. I'd mention it in the User Voice, but I wasted all my points on superfluous suggestions.
Amen to that.
I like building planes, not egos.
@SHCow The thing with real planes is you can trim the ailerons to smooth everything up. Real wings are actually quite asymmetric. There's tolerances on dimensioning, and no two sheet-metal jobs come out the same. Test pilots would tell you how the plane flies, and mechanics on the ground would calibrate the ailerons accordingly. The simplest form of trim is really quite graceful. It's just a single piece of metal bent to a specific angle. As airflow speeds up, it adds more pressure to the control surface itself, keeping it right where it needs to be for level flight at ALL airspeeds. PIC
But yeah, if SP had a slider across the top of the screen for aileron trim, that would make my day!
@SHCow That particular one.
It's a very old plane. It used to belong to FedEx. When they retired their fleet of 727s, they donated most of them to aviation maintenance schools across the country. The school I go to was one of the recipients.
As a training aid, it's fantastic. The 727 has a multitude of systems not unlike the systems still in use today for transport-category aircraft today. The design philosophy remains pretty much unchanged aside from improvements to safety and efficiency.
@SHCow Yeah, It's the 727-100. You can tell the -100 from the -200 by the length of the fuselage. -100s are shorter. I chose the -100 because I'm actually working on a real one at school. Valuable learning experience, but the airframe is rife with problems. Particularly the hydraulic system. Leaks Skydrol like you wouldn't believe. Nasty stuff.
@FennVectorCWA Sure thing.
@SHCow I've got a new technique for rigging up complex moving assemblies with clipping parts. It's working pretty great so far. But, I'm going to actually do slats this time, so who knows how long the fine-tuning will take.
Anyway, can you guess the exact model of plane I'm building?
@AdrianFlyingAce It would certainly make marking out parking positions on the apron easier.
Use structural wings. They do not flex. Within the code for the part, there is the line "allowControlSurfaces=". It defaults to "false" on the structural wing, but if you set it to "true", the editor will let you add surfaces.
allowControlSurfaces="True"
@JetWondy Awesome!
Looks like what you'd see if you took all the aluminum skin off of a semi-monocoque hull structure, and took out all the systems and guts. Nothing but stringers, formers, longerons, and bulkheads.
Lots of wings. It's very stylish. And fast too!
Looks great!
@AnonyMoose @XxGETREKTEDxX Thanks. I always aim for a balance of quality and low part-counts.
I'm so happy about spheres.
I can't even count the number of times I needed a spherical part.
No more sticking fuselage cones together like a loser!
@AdrianFlyingAce hehehe. Same thing with CH-53s.
@BaconEggs @JoddyFubuki788 Thanks.
@CjrLdy I wasn't about to attempt a full interior. That would be a huge complicated project. Fiddle around with dead weight if you want to simulate higher gross weight flights. If you want to see a FULLY modeled cargo jet, check out Johndfg's C-17. It's a marvel to behold, but clocks in at 1498 parts.
@Redstreak45 Hey, thanks! I'm glad you like it.
I'd like to enter my Mitsubishi-F1M-Type-Zero-Observation-Seaplane.
@AdrianFlyingAce @Mostly @Liquidfox @Stickman @Insertname Thanks!
@cats @ChaMikey @Liquidfox thanks for spotlighting.
And wow! Didn't expect a feature! Thanks everyone for all the support! I honestly didn't expect this to be so popular.
Pretty cool.
@Potkuri Nice. I had them all snap off when I attempted it.
@vonhubert Yes. I was going to include a tailplane trim actuator like the real one has, but I must have forgotten. Feel free to make any improvements to it. I'd like to see it be even better!
@vonhubert Also, the maximum payload of a C-5 is documented as such as there is a safety factor. The C-5 is actually capable of MUCH higher maximum gross. The limitations of the cargo deck's load-bearing permits it. And fuel weight is no concern because the C-5 can just refuel en-route via tanker. The Air Force flies them on the safe side, but I know for a fact C-5s often left warzones much heavier than they were allowed to be. And the C-5M is even stronger!