@Hooded The design was based on blueprints and official maintenance manuals. Having seen the wings up close in real life, as well as having personally operated all their parts really helped as well.
The only real inaccuracy here is the thrust reversers. The engines on the -25C were the JT8D-7B, which used the internal clamshell and cascade vane type reversers, not the older bucket type used here. It was more fun to build the buckets, and they look cooler, so that's why I installed them on this model.
Control surfaces.
Flaps are terminology for a specific type of control surface. Flaps change the area, and/or camber of the wing, augmenting lift.
Your standard control surfaces are ailerons are for roll, elevators are for pitch, and rudders are for yaw.
Of course, you can use the wing-part control surfaces to make flaps, but you're limited to what type you can make with them alone.
I wish there a part for various flap-types. Building slotted fowlers from scratch is pretty tough.
Way to start. Looks very good.
But it could stand to have better handling and engines modded in power instead of throttle range. Engines modded for throttle range take a very long to spool up and are less responsive as a result. Also they're noisy.
Also, adding a way to trim pitch goes a long way in improving ease of use.
Handling-wise, this plane's biggest weakness is low-speed flying. It takes far too long to rotate, and stalls at far too high of a speed. A closer look at balancing, wing loading, and control surface configuration would go a long way.
@Geniuswaffel That's owed to the capabilities of the R-2800 Double Wasp. It was a VERY hardy engine. Most air-cooled radials are. I'd be willing to bet you could knock out half the cylinders, and it would keep firing for as long as the oil lasts.
I've worked on a Wright R-3350 before. It's a similar engine. They're huge, and heavy, and built to survive.
@Geniuswaffel Good choice! The Thunderbolt was an excellent as a fighter-bomber thanks to its 2500lb bomb load, various rockets, and of course, its remarkable durability. It could get low and dirty very confidently.
Its performance in strafing runs was limited, however. It had only .50s to work with, and the harmonization limited its accurate targeting range to a 600 foot window. Though, that wide spread was ideal for peppering a lot of area at once. Deadly against lightly-armored convoys and troops.
The P-38 also excelled as a ground-attack fighter. Its acceleration, low-speed handling, and energy retention, along with its impressive roll rate made it ideal for strafing. The P-38L was even capable of being equipped with 10 HVARs. One of the greatest multirole fighters ever built.
@SpiritusRaptor It's really hard to get stuff like that to sync up. Maybe if we had a static part with propeller physics that could be solidly mounted.
I always did love rotaries. They are so gracefully-simple mechanically.
I'd love to get my tools in one. Here's a nice video.
Interestingly, most early rotary engines didn't have a traditional throttle. They were either on or off. A lot of engines also had a toggle that would control how many cylinders were firing, quickly alternating between full power, and a reduced speed. To land, they had to cut the fuel and/or ignition at the right time, and let the engine windmill. Those old planes were tricky to fly.
@SledDriver Oh, that sort of thing. I think I'd still keep the circle. Keeps the thumbnails consistent on my posts page, and provides a sense of scale since I know the diameter of the circle is around 56 feet or so. But since you suggested it, I might play around with some designer mods just to see if anything catches my eye.
Amazing!
You even modeled the rotation of the Oberursel U.I!
However, your model only has 8 cylinders instead of the 9 the actual engine had.
Regardless, simply amazing work.
@SledDriver I use the same basic angle for every initial shot. All other angles are to either reveal features hidden in the first shot, or highlight a specific feature. I prefer to keep the screenshots simple and practical.
@Brields95 Someone like me would opt to do a full restoration on an existing airframe. It's the kind of thing I have the skills and tools for. And if I was restoring an old aircraft like that, I'd also like to keep the engines true to the original. I would love the chance to get my tools inside a genuine Allison V-1710. I could die happy.
The Falconer V-12 is a nice engine. Well-built, and capable of sustaining some pretty high RPMs. It has a great power-to-weight ratio, and fantastic compression with the turbochargers. It's definitely a hard worker for its size. I'm surprised it isn't more common in aviation. Seems more popular as an automotive engine.
@StandTall I could probably rework the plane as one with a detailed interior. It would probably have a few hundred more parts though. I would need time also. I'm much too busy.
@CRJ900Pilot Well most planes don't like accelerating up a 90 degree incline. Need a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1 to do that. My 727 only has 0.651.
@ColonelStriker I have a few planes that can do it. I have a custom starting location in the crater and everything. Never attempted putting the 727 in there though. Would be interesting to try.
@Ihavenorealideawhatiamdoing Yes. Structurally, the 727 is a very hardy airframe. And with 3 separate hydraulic systems, and manual reversion to boot, it's very hard to knock it out of the sky. You can punish the plane quite severely, and it'll still get you home.
@ChiChiWerx True enough. Though the time-to-altitude (something the C-5 is famous for) is really sluggish on this model, the cruising speed at its most efficient altitude IS pretty good. Approximating real-life handling characteristics with SP's odd physics model is quite the challenge.
@SnoWFLakE0s Here is the link.
You'll find the original, unaltered screenshots I took overflying the different islands heading north. Please note that I was very high when I flew over Maywar in order to fit the entire thing in the frame.
@Treadmill103 Thanks! I've been experimenting again lately.
@AWESOMENESS360 Thanks.
Almost everything I post, really.
I don't really care though.
As long as one person has enjoyed my creation, I feel happy inside.
@Hooded Thanks!
@Hooded The design was based on blueprints and official maintenance manuals. Having seen the wings up close in real life, as well as having personally operated all their parts really helped as well.
The only real inaccuracy here is the thrust reversers. The engines on the -25C were the JT8D-7B, which used the internal clamshell and cascade vane type reversers, not the older bucket type used here. It was more fun to build the buckets, and they look cooler, so that's why I installed them on this model.
@AWESOMENESS360 This isn't the newest version.
You can find the most recent version of this build here:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/wu703D
Control surfaces.
Flaps are terminology for a specific type of control surface. Flaps change the area, and/or camber of the wing, augmenting lift.
Your standard control surfaces are ailerons are for roll, elevators are for pitch, and rudders are for yaw.
Of course, you can use the wing-part control surfaces to make flaps, but you're limited to what type you can make with them alone.
I wish there a part for various flap-types. Building slotted fowlers from scratch is pretty tough.
I always love that goofy-looking X-32.
F-35 won the JSF contract just by being better looking (among other more technical reasons).
2k here.
Way to start. Looks very good.
But it could stand to have better handling and engines modded in power instead of throttle range. Engines modded for throttle range take a very long to spool up and are less responsive as a result. Also they're noisy.
Also, adding a way to trim pitch goes a long way in improving ease of use.
Handling-wise, this plane's biggest weakness is low-speed flying. It takes far too long to rotate, and stalls at far too high of a speed. A closer look at balancing, wing loading, and control surface configuration would go a long way.
@Geniuswaffel That's owed to the capabilities of the R-2800 Double Wasp. It was a VERY hardy engine. Most air-cooled radials are. I'd be willing to bet you could knock out half the cylinders, and it would keep firing for as long as the oil lasts.
I've worked on a Wright R-3350 before. It's a similar engine. They're huge, and heavy, and built to survive.
@Geniuswaffel Good choice! The Thunderbolt was an excellent as a fighter-bomber thanks to its 2500lb bomb load, various rockets, and of course, its remarkable durability. It could get low and dirty very confidently.
Its performance in strafing runs was limited, however. It had only .50s to work with, and the harmonization limited its accurate targeting range to a 600 foot window. Though, that wide spread was ideal for peppering a lot of area at once. Deadly against lightly-armored convoys and troops.
The P-38 also excelled as a ground-attack fighter. Its acceleration, low-speed handling, and energy retention, along with its impressive roll rate made it ideal for strafing. The P-38L was even capable of being equipped with 10 HVARs. One of the greatest multirole fighters ever built.
@SpiritusRaptor It's really hard to get stuff like that to sync up. Maybe if we had a static part with propeller physics that could be solidly mounted.
I always did love rotaries. They are so gracefully-simple mechanically.
I'd love to get my tools in one.
Here's a nice video.
Interestingly, most early rotary engines didn't have a traditional throttle. They were either on or off. A lot of engines also had a toggle that would control how many cylinders were firing, quickly alternating between full power, and a reduced speed. To land, they had to cut the fuel and/or ignition at the right time, and let the engine windmill. Those old planes were tricky to fly.
@SledDriver Oh, that sort of thing. I think I'd still keep the circle. Keeps the thumbnails consistent on my posts page, and provides a sense of scale since I know the diameter of the circle is around 56 feet or so. But since you suggested it, I might play around with some designer mods just to see if anything catches my eye.
@SpiritusRaptor I get ya.
45 degree rotations are easier and more consistent to work with after all!
Easier to balance and mirror.
Amazing!
You even modeled the rotation of the Oberursel U.I!
However, your model only has 8 cylinders instead of the 9 the actual engine had.
Regardless, simply amazing work.
@SledDriver I use the same basic angle for every initial shot. All other angles are to either reveal features hidden in the first shot, or highlight a specific feature. I prefer to keep the screenshots simple and practical.
@Treadmill103 There isn't enough armor in the world to save you from 7.2kg of bullets per second.
@FarrowAirlines Not completely. Most don't have a good day after being hit with 30x173mm of depleted uranium though.
@Brields95 Someone like me would opt to do a full restoration on an existing airframe. It's the kind of thing I have the skills and tools for. And if I was restoring an old aircraft like that, I'd also like to keep the engines true to the original. I would love the chance to get my tools inside a genuine Allison V-1710. I could die happy.
The Falconer V-12 is a nice engine. Well-built, and capable of sustaining some pretty high RPMs. It has a great power-to-weight ratio, and fantastic compression with the turbochargers. It's definitely a hard worker for its size. I'm surprised it isn't more common in aviation. Seems more popular as an automotive engine.
@FENRIRpapapa No prob, man. I just love the DC-3.
Another absolutely beautiful build from the undisputed god of simplePlanes.
I love it!
@FishMiner Tyrone is a national treasure.
@Jetpackturtle Thanks! #handreveal
@EternalDarkness It totally is. Getting certificated is a tough process.
@Stellarlabs Commitment was the most important thing.
Thanks all!
@Botfinder @jamesPLANESii @Awsomur
Thanks!
@Mymessage Glad I could help.
@Helicopterboy Okay. It'll be up shortly.
I like this.
@StandTall I could probably rework the plane as one with a detailed interior. It would probably have a few hundred more parts though. I would need time also. I'm much too busy.
@StandTall She's built to last.
@CRJ900Pilot Well most planes don't like accelerating up a 90 degree incline. Need a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1 to do that. My 727 only has 0.651.
@ColonelStriker LOL getting in is the easy part. Being able to get back out is a little more complicated.
@ColonelStriker I have a few planes that can do it. I have a custom starting location in the crater and everything. Never attempted putting the 727 in there though. Would be interesting to try.
@Ihavenorealideawhatiamdoing Yes. Structurally, the 727 is a very hardy airframe. And with 3 separate hydraulic systems, and manual reversion to boot, it's very hard to knock it out of the sky. You can punish the plane quite severely, and it'll still get you home.
@Solarisaircraft I love the 727. Definitely the sportiest of the 700 series.
@Jacobdaniel Landing is a bit of an overstatement. It was more of a well-timed stall combined with reverse thrust.
Also location saving.
@destroyerP The collision on the deck of the new destroyer is sloped. Kinda awkward, but it makes for a nice launching pad for an amphibious plane.
@ChiChiWerx True enough. Though the time-to-altitude (something the C-5 is famous for) is really sluggish on this model, the cruising speed at its most efficient altitude IS pretty good. Approximating real-life handling characteristics with SP's odd physics model is quite the challenge.
@ChiChiWerx I probably should have uprated the engines a little though. Performance is a little bit sluggish on this one.
@ChiChiWerx I appreciate a good F-4.
@ChiChiWerx Thanks. This is my most popular post too.
@JoddyFubuki788 Thanks. I never really left. I've just been really inactive. Not enough free time to just sit and make tons of planes anymore.
@TakicraftCorporation Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
@Treadmill103 With this plane, I'd expect no trouble.
@Treadmill103 Of course! Turrets are pretty useless if you can't see where you're shooting. Thanks!
@SnoWFLakE0s No issue on my end. Make sure you have the capability to extract .rar files.
@SnoWFLakE0s
Here is the link.
You'll find the original, unaltered screenshots I took overflying the different islands heading north. Please note that I was very high when I flew over Maywar in order to fit the entire thing in the frame.