@JackWumbertson
then the way you're landing the plane is wrong.
~180kts is about the perfect, if not slightly faster landing speed. Perhaps the problem with your technique is that you didn't pull enough Angle Of Attack to land the aircraft smoothly, resulting in a rapid descent that made the landing gears of the aircraft give up it's structural integrity.
another point is that you might be landing with way too much mass loaded. Since I've noticed I overcompensated the fuel amount on this particular aircraft, it became significantly harder to maneuver the aircraft, thus harder to keep it in a good speed and AoA during landing.
try to land the aircraft with about 40-60% fuel, 6° of AoA, and ~160kts of IAS. If it doesn't help, try pulling up the nose until you see the rate of your descent slowing down.
@PlanerIndustries9
the thing is that same technology has already became obsolete the moment the F-16 went into production.
Swing Wings are primarily built as a way to figure out how to smoothly transition to stability at high speeds, and maneuverability at low speeds. Since no technology at the moment has that effect, the F-14 made use of the swing wing so it can dogfight as a way to defend itself.
but the thing is, swing wings are expensive, maintenance heavy and complicated. Though this very feature was beloved by fans and pilots, it wasn't the maintenance crew's favorite thing to work on.
what did the F-16 do to make swing wings obsolete? simple. Fly-by-Wire.
Fly-By-Wire is by far the safest, most advanced, and most reliable control system in all of aviation. Since all controls the pilot have inputted has to go through a computer first, the aircraft essentially controls itself with the assist of the pilot. This makes unstable aircrafts that are normally impossible for pilots to fly normally like the F-16 and the Typhoon flyable rather smoothly and easily.
and you might be wondering "why make aircrafts unstable in the first place?" well, lack of stability in an aircraft increases it's maneuverability. This isn't always true, but that is the simplest explanation on how why aircrafts such as the Viper is designed to be unstable. wow, I haven't even talked about the tomcat's capabilities compared to the eagle. Modern day fights aren't just being fast and maneuverable, hell this is the exact reason why the F-35 is the most advanced aircraft on the market. But if you weren't bored of listening to my speech about why the swing wing is not the best thing and want me to speak about more "nonsense", let me know your argument.
bold of you to assume the F-14 is an easy to use dogfighter that can kick anyone's asses it's main mission isn't even to dogfight things
anyway for me it's the F-15EX not because for it's name but because of it's ingenuity
@SuperSuperTheSylph
the problem is that that's near the limit of how much I can make it pull without breaking the PEA ruleset and I didn't really wanna bother with getting it right cause I've had too much trouble with it in the first place lmao
tbf though, I might change it, performance kinda sucked compared to other aircrafts and I do have a problem with it
@Ashdenpaw1
it does matter
not by a lot, but it does matter.
as I always say when I describe upvote points, I think of it as a review system.
high upvote count means a build is considered a good one, something people should look out for.
while a high point user is one you should also expect to have good reputation for making good builds.
I...
...purposefully made it that way.
just so you know I made it that way because real aircrafts do that too, I'm just adding that detail in why would anyone mash the gear button anyway?
the site constitutes mobile friendly as being below 300 parts, so honestly it's not essential, given how you can also save part counts with being conservative with your glass fuselage.
imho, you should only really use 1 block canopy parts when you're pushing part efficiency to it's near limit or when you're really lazy.
listen man
great build and all
'preciate it when someone does an obscure plane but be sure to put the splitter plate next time aight? it would look nicer
@Christiant2
ah then, that's because sp missiles are very simplistic in performance
you can make it somewhat close by editing it's mass, maneuverability, and thrust, but other than that, missiles are relatively innacurate.
I love seeing them because it makes me laugh
might as well call them the comedian of simpleplanes.com with how much they "joke" around one specific topic
I definitely am not dodging what are you on about xd
you didn't read the faq didn't you?
Point A: Will SP2 release in mobile too?
I don't think you realize that mobile users makes up significant amount of playerbase. If Jundroo stopped mobile support entirely, they would lose huge amounts of playerbase.
The answer is yes.
Point B: Will devs please actually update the game?
As if the last 12 updates wasn't an update. SimplePlanes has come a long way ever since it's initially released, and the fact that you're not appreciating what the devs had accomplished over the course of 9 or so years is in itself a moral crime.
Also, 1000 parts is a lot of parts. And though SimplePlanes is simple to learn, it isn't simple for your system (especially lower ends) to simulate nearly every part present on one's builds. You can't really force the devs on that one.
Point C: Screens on cockpits and Multifunctional Display?
Please watch the trailer.
Point D: Please add mobile mod support
Please stop whining about it. We're just sick of it at this point.
sir this is a site for plane game not for politics
Fox 2.
+5@JackWumbertson
then the way you're landing the plane is wrong.
~180kts is about the perfect, if not slightly faster landing speed. Perhaps the problem with your technique is that you didn't pull enough Angle Of Attack to land the aircraft smoothly, resulting in a rapid descent that made the landing gears of the aircraft give up it's structural integrity.
another point is that you might be landing with way too much mass loaded. Since I've noticed I overcompensated the fuel amount on this particular aircraft, it became significantly harder to maneuver the aircraft, thus harder to keep it in a good speed and AoA during landing.
try to land the aircraft with about 40-60% fuel, 6° of AoA, and ~160kts of IAS. If it doesn't help, try pulling up the nose until you see the rate of your descent slowing down.
make za bread frezh
bob za bubbles
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1yeah I found out that a while ago
not to hate or anything, in fact I think it's pretty cool
HOWEVER.
bro looks like he was built in ksp
gonna compare this to my own block 10's control system later
@Graingy
loads fine for me.
might be imgbb doing goofy shit
here comes the LCA hype train
+2@MolotokSP
both are vipers.
"Viper" is a nickname the pilots gave the F-16, while "Fighting Falcon" is the name that General Dynamics gave the F-16.
wah
+1@PlanerIndustries9
the thing is
that same technology has already became obsolete the moment the F-16 went into production.
Swing Wings are primarily built as a way to figure out how to smoothly transition to stability at high speeds, and maneuverability at low speeds. Since no technology at the moment has that effect, the F-14 made use of the swing wing so it can dogfight as a way to defend itself.
but the thing is, swing wings are expensive, maintenance heavy and complicated. Though this very feature was beloved by fans and pilots, it wasn't the maintenance crew's favorite thing to work on.
what did the F-16 do to make swing wings obsolete? simple. Fly-by-Wire.
Fly-By-Wire is by far the safest, most advanced, and most reliable control system in all of aviation. Since all controls the pilot have inputted has to go through a computer first, the aircraft essentially controls itself with the assist of the pilot. This makes unstable aircrafts that are normally impossible for pilots to fly normally like the F-16 and the Typhoon flyable rather smoothly and easily.
and you might be wondering "why make aircrafts unstable in the first place?" well, lack of stability in an aircraft increases it's maneuverability. This isn't always true, but that is the simplest explanation on how why aircrafts such as the Viper is designed to be unstable.
wow, I haven't even talked about the tomcat's capabilities compared to the eagle. Modern day fights aren't just being fast and maneuverable, hell this is the exact reason why the F-35 is the most advanced aircraft on the market. But if you weren't bored of listening to my speech about why the swing wing is not the best thing and want me to speak about more "nonsense", let me know your argument.
bold of you to assume the F-14 is an easy to use dogfighter that can kick anyone's asses
+2it's main mission isn't even to dogfight things
anyway for me it's the F-15EX not because for it's name but because of it's ingenuity
@SuperSuperTheSylph
the problem is that that's near the limit of how much I can make it pull without breaking the PEA ruleset and I didn't really wanna bother with getting it right cause I've had too much trouble with it in the first place lmao
tbf though, I might change it, performance kinda sucked compared to other aircrafts and I do have a problem with it
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1I for my life cannot find any specifications about any of the rockets or the bombs lmao
the blurred text concerns me
+1soooo
+1where's the archiver dude again?
@Ashdenpaw1
+1here's a question
why are you looking for money in the sp site anyway?
maybe try not to be so money-eyed when you think of upvotes
@Ashdenpaw1
+2it does matter
not by a lot, but it does matter.
as I always say when I describe upvote points, I think of it as a review system.
high upvote count means a build is considered a good one, something people should look out for.
while a high point user is one you should also expect to have good reputation for making good builds.
woe
+6might steal it.I...
...purposefully made it that way.
just so you know I made it that way because real aircrafts do that too, I'm just adding that detail in
why would anyone mash the gear button anyway?
@Vikram123
oh, alright, sad.
guess I was just one moment late.
@PrussianAirlines
@SPAirForce
@calli3
@TheUltimatePlaneLover
@SuperSuperTheSylph
@Vikram123
Sorry I'm a bit late! Hope this could qualify.
Let me know if there's anything else to worry about.
This aircraft is ultimately an Early Access Work In Progress.
It is subject to change, so don't be afraid to comment and help me improve the finalized work.
the site constitutes mobile friendly as being below 300 parts, so honestly it's not essential, given how you can also save part counts with being conservative with your glass fuselage.
+1imho, you should only really use 1 block canopy parts when you're pushing part efficiency to it's near limit or when you're really lazy.
6 hours ago
just here to tell everyone panzer's missing a 5
maybe he's onto something
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1he decided to be alive again
@Monarchii
うん
skrg udah bisa imgbb
imgbb ntah kenapa ngehapus gambar gambar lama, cuma paling ngebug
+1selain itu aku masih pake, aman kok skrg (ya gw telat gw tau)
@Monarchii
yeaaa!!!
I love el grach
listen man
great build and all
'preciate it when someone does an obscure plane
but be sure to put the splitter plate next time aight? it would look nicer
@SuperSuperTheSylph
@TheUltimatePlaneLover
@Graingy
+1lmfao why is this the first thing I see as I scroll down
I appreciate it but Idk if you know
I've also made the ones that has weapons.
grach!!!!!!
fire
@Monarchii
+1don't worry, I get that too with my PEAs sometimes xd
@Christiant2
hm, perhaps.
oh shit chii's here
+1how are ya? great build as always btw
@Christiant2
ah then, that's because sp missiles are very simplistic in performance
you can make it somewhat close by editing it's mass, maneuverability, and thrust, but other than that, missiles are relatively innacurate.
as in?
is it performance or appearance?
I love seeing them because it makes me laugh
might as well call them the comedian of simpleplanes.com with how much they "joke" around one specific topic
I definitely am not dodging what are you on about xd
w-
+2why does that matter? is it just something you're interested in or...?
@PrussianAirlines
+1yes, and no.
Can I? Definitely.
Will I? Not really.
holy fuck I thought that background was fake at first
+2yeah it is somewhat very simple, that is seriously impressive
phrog
+1you didn't read the faq didn't you?
+1Point A: Will SP2 release in mobile too?
I don't think you realize that mobile users makes up significant amount of playerbase. If Jundroo stopped mobile support entirely, they would lose huge amounts of playerbase.
The answer is yes.
Point B: Will devs please actually update the game?
As if the last 12 updates wasn't an update. SimplePlanes has come a long way ever since it's initially released, and the fact that you're not appreciating what the devs had accomplished over the course of 9 or so years is in itself a moral crime.
Also, 1000 parts is a lot of parts. And though SimplePlanes is simple to learn, it isn't simple for your system (especially lower ends) to simulate nearly every part present on one's builds. You can't really force the devs on that one.
Point C: Screens on cockpits and Multifunctional Display?
Please watch the trailer.
Point D: Please add mobile mod support
Please stop whining about it. We're just sick of it at this point.
@PlaneEditorGuy
as long as you credit, sure