@Imakestupidplanes
You would have, eventually.
The only reason I could figure it it out is because I've had a few planes do the same thing so I know of three or four things to check for when it happens. The more you play, the more you run into certain problems, and their solutions.
BTW, I was expecting one of the wings to be 1/1000th off from the other, not the VTOL thing
The problem appears to be with the right wing . VTOL on the right side should be normal, not inverted. You can test this by using VTOL during flight. I changed that and it stopped rolling.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I don't think I entirly unsteand it either, but as far as I can tell...the rotor applies lift to the gryo (hence why it can fly), and torque (a rotational spin along the rotor's axis). A helicopter counteracts this torque with a tail rotor, but an autogryo doesn't hve a tail rotor, so it must rely on forward movement.
Now usually this torque isn't too bad for an unpowered rotor, but...autogryos tend to be small and light so they don't have a lot if inertia to resit the torque. BTW, you might find that the vehicle climbs a bit better while (slightly) banked.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I think the spiining you are referring to is a side effect of higher torque from using a helirotor on a low mass aircraft. I don;t think there is an easy fir for it. I've got a two rotor gyro that acts similar. In SP, an autogryo needs the thrust from the prop to override the lift and torque of the rotor. Either that or roll into the turn and dive a little to pick up speed.
@Observer404
Well it is a fictional aircraft but...real autogryos cost anywhere from $25,000 to over $150,000 depending upon who makes it and how fancy it is. Something like this with a full HUD would be pricey. But then a real autogryo would have a third wheel to support the weight, and normal instruments along with the HUD so that one fault won't take out the entire instrument panel.
BTW, I've got a few other autogyros I haven't posted publicly if you are interested.
Ooh, this one has a few problems.
Oh, and before you read on don't feel bad, most of us have been here and faced the same problems.
1) First off, as UwUDarkDustiness noted, most of the problems stem from the tiny wings on the tail. Attaching wings to the tail puts a lot of stress on the aircraft at high speeds. This causes the aircraft to fly apart. The solution here is to either move the wings forward from the tail (right before the real landing gear seems about right for this design), OR strength the wing by using one structural wings, connecting them together, and possibly bracing it with a bit of fuselage. Move the wings forward is the better option here because of point #2 below.
2) The center of lift (the blue circle when you hit the space bar in build mode) is too far behind the center of mass (the red ball). This causes the aircraft to flip end over end upon take off. The solution for this is the either move the center of lift or the center of mass so that the red ball is only about one ball length's ahead of the blue one. Taking those wings in the back off on the tail and placing them a bit forward (right before the landing gear would solve this (and point #1).
3) The tiny wiglets also aren't strong enough to take the force of flying at speed, and they tear off at around 300 mph. With your powerful engines and the designs need for speed to fly this is a problem. The solution here is to strength the wing. There are a few ways to do this, such as reinforcing the wing by adding some fuselage to act as a brace, but the best solution is probably to use structural wings, and edit them to add control surfaces.
4) Minor quibble but the elevators are reversed. That is most people expect that the aircraft should climb when you pull back on the stick. But, some people prefer it the other way. The solution (if this is a problem for YOU) is to invert the pitch on the forward wings.
Here is a link to a version of the plane that should fly.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/NkMp31/it-doing-that-anymore-yfwbfbgtis-plane
@Observer404
Thanks. I did like how this one came out.
Technically it can't be an ultralight, as only fixed wing aircraft fall under the ultralight classification.
Nice plane but Lockheed didn't make the F-16C, General Dynamics did. Lockheed only took over the F-16 program later. It's why all the Lockheed versions are Vipers not Falcons.
Up at the top of the page, to the right of the Simpleplanes logo you should see a row that goes : VR BUY AIRPLANES VIDEOS FORUMS STUFF and then your ranking and username.
If you click on FORUMS you should be able to go there.
BTW, the reason why it didn't fly before was because the center of mass (the red ball that show up with you hit the space bar during the build process) was too close to the center of lift (the blue ball), which makes it unstable and want to pitch up nose over tail. This is compounded with the plane being tail heavy which makes it want to pitch up.
You kinda want to look at a airplane as a seesaw. Roughly speaking, you want to balance the plane on the center of lift (blue ball) and put the center of mass (red ball) about one half to one ball length ahead of it. That way the forces of weight and lift mostly balance out. That's not set is stone and there are ways to get around this, but it's a good rule to start off with.
I "fixed" (well partially fixed) this by replace your nosecone with a a couple of pieces of fuselage and which I could add weight to. This shifted the center of mass forward enough that it flies, but it still is a bit tail heavy.
Other ways you can improve on this this would be to somehow reduce the weight in the tail section, moving the wings further back, or angle the horizontal stabilizers of the tail upwards to create a force to push the tail section up.
@PPLLAANNEE I wish someone would do a tutorial on just how to embed the custom images into SP. I've tired a few different ways and nothing seems to work, and I'm stuck with the three standard screenshots.
@that1devil
Do what you like. If you don't like designing and building stuff (and there are times where I hate doing it-"Why's it banking to the left?!!") then don't do it as much and play more. You bought the game to have fun, so do whatever you enjoy.
Whatever you do, don't play the game just for rating points or you'll always be dependent on other players for your enjoyment of the game.
It's not that you are doing anything wrong per say, it's more a case of where you sit on the learning curve vs. what people are looking for.
When most people start off in Simpleplanes they build fairy basic, simple aircraft, as they should. But these basic designs usually do not have much that would interest more experienced builders. So new players don't get much traffic or feedback. Also keep in mind that all new designs sort of compete with each other for attention and advanced designs will coll features tend to attract more attention, downloads and feedback.
Just keep plugging away and as you make more designs and as your designs get progressively better, you should eventually make something that interests people and gets more feedback. It just takes time. I've been playing SP for 5 years and I only have about 1400 more points that you do. Most of those came from things that I didn't expect earn points, while most of the stuff I though would get points didn't.
@IndoMaja When I downloaded it I removed the fuel from the tail and scaled the mass down for the tail section a bit until the CoM moved a bit ahead of the CoL.
The problem is that the Center of Mass (the red line) is too close to the Center of Lift (the blue line).
If you reduce the weight in the back of the airplane and/or increase the weight in the front of the aircraft it will take off properly without flipping.
Definitely built it. Not only will it appeal to train enthusiasts, but it could be used as a launch platform for aircraft and gliders.
In fact if someone were to put a winch on it they would have a perfect winch tow system for a glider. I could see someone like @TheGliderGuy laying out a whole winch track line on Wright Island or Maywar based on your concept.
So this might get more than just the train people excited.
@Korzalerke2147483647
They don't seem to work, If i recall correctly when you have an conditional statement that is false, nothing that follows it gets processed. In the past I've had to multiply and add up several conditions to get around it.
On a positive note MrCOPTY 's https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/8bjkWo/Grumman-F9F-2-Panther-FULL-EXPERIENCE, has a waypoint system that is almost exactly what I was going for. I just have to reverse engineer his variables. The variable do seem to be much better than typing out formula's multiple times.
So at least now I know it can be done, because it has been done.!
@WinsWings
That would depend on the size of the rotors. I think a 4 rotor one with, say 400" rotor blades might just work. Oh, btw, if you increase the virbration damper on the rotors it won't shake.
@WinsWings Since you recognize the aircraft and expressed an intenest here is what my "Little Nellie" looks like: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/B0H05W/Jan-28-23-Little-Nellie-Control-Match
It's not finished and doesn't quite fly and take off the way I want yet, nor are the weapons quite right, so fly at your own risk
@gigachad The first ones were odd, as were every other one. The rest were even! ;)
Seriously though, the early versions of practically everything seems odd because the designers are focused on getting the thing to work, and optimizing the design happens much later. Typically the design sort of stabilizes into what become well known forms, but...the process doesn't really end. Aircraft are still relatively young forms of transport (120 years), and it's quite possible that the designs we think of as normal today will be horrible archaic a century or two from now. Just look at how ships have changed over the last 500 years. Maybe in the future, autogryos will become ring shaped with the rotor in the middle, a cockpit at the front, and engine and tail at the back?
@WinsWings I have quite a few other designs myself. I started building them a couple of years back for that egg-shapped aircraft contest and took an interest in the Wallis autogryo from You Only Live Twice.
The problem with autogryos, as far as the SP community is concerned is is that they aren't fast and sexy like fighter jets, they do not have have the sort of fanbase that World War 2 and Cold War era aircraft have, they aren't feasible for combat, their role has mostly been eclipsed by improvements in airplane and helicopter designs, and they don't promote any new cutting edge technology that attracts attention.
So they are just a niche thing, much like airships, ground effect vehicles, and parasails, but the autogryo's unique thing, the rotor, isn't all that unique, or even noticed by most people. The average person usually mistakes them for helicopters.
@gigachad Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that this is pretty much how the orginal autogryo's looked. Basically they were an airplane with a rotor blade on top.
@WinsWings Your welcome. Sadly, autogryos are not well known, and most people misidentify them as helicopters. Most people don't even realize that the main rotor is unpowered (well...mostly unpowered). Most people today know more about airships despite the fact that the autogryo is still around and still quite viable.
@Imakestupidplanes
You would have, eventually.
The only reason I could figure it it out is because I've had a few planes do the same thing so I know of three or four things to check for when it happens. The more you play, the more you run into certain problems, and their solutions.
BTW, I was expecting one of the wings to be 1/1000th off from the other, not the VTOL thing
@Imakestupidplanes
Credit yourself, it's your plane. You did the work. I just helped a little.
The problem appears to be with the right wing . VTOL on the right side should be normal, not inverted. You can test this by using VTOL during flight. I changed that and it stopped rolling.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I don't think I entirly unsteand it either, but as far as I can tell...the rotor applies lift to the gryo (hence why it can fly), and torque (a rotational spin along the rotor's axis). A helicopter counteracts this torque with a tail rotor, but an autogryo doesn't hve a tail rotor, so it must rely on forward movement.
Now usually this torque isn't too bad for an unpowered rotor, but...autogryos tend to be small and light so they don't have a lot if inertia to resit the torque. BTW, you might find that the vehicle climbs a bit better while (slightly) banked.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I think the spiining you are referring to is a side effect of higher torque from using a helirotor on a low mass aircraft. I don;t think there is an easy fir for it. I've got a two rotor gyro that acts similar. In SP, an autogryo needs the thrust from the prop to override the lift and torque of the rotor. Either that or roll into the turn and dive a little to pick up speed.
Nice autogryo! It's got all the basics right.
I'm liking this plane a lot more than I thought I would; especially after taking off with wings folded.
+2@Observer404 Aw. I was gonna give you a good deal, too. You could have had it for cost,
@Wasifhero3
+1How about forward swept?
Nice!
@Observer404
Well it is a fictional aircraft but...real autogryos cost anywhere from $25,000 to over $150,000 depending upon who makes it and how fancy it is. Something like this with a full HUD would be pricey. But then a real autogryo would have a third wheel to support the weight, and normal instruments along with the HUD so that one fault won't take out the entire instrument panel.
BTW, I've got a few other autogyros I haven't posted publicly if you are interested.
+1It has a certain elegance at 34 parts. It looks almost ultra streamlined.
Ooh, this one has a few problems.
Oh, and before you read on don't feel bad, most of us have been here and faced the same problems.
1) First off, as UwUDarkDustiness noted, most of the problems stem from the tiny wings on the tail. Attaching wings to the tail puts a lot of stress on the aircraft at high speeds. This causes the aircraft to fly apart. The solution here is to either move the wings forward from the tail (right before the real landing gear seems about right for this design), OR strength the wing by using one structural wings, connecting them together, and possibly bracing it with a bit of fuselage. Move the wings forward is the better option here because of point #2 below.
2) The center of lift (the blue circle when you hit the space bar in build mode) is too far behind the center of mass (the red ball). This causes the aircraft to flip end over end upon take off. The solution for this is the either move the center of lift or the center of mass so that the red ball is only about one ball length's ahead of the blue one. Taking those wings in the back off on the tail and placing them a bit forward (right before the landing gear would solve this (and point #1).
3) The tiny wiglets also aren't strong enough to take the force of flying at speed, and they tear off at around 300 mph. With your powerful engines and the designs need for speed to fly this is a problem. The solution here is to strength the wing. There are a few ways to do this, such as reinforcing the wing by adding some fuselage to act as a brace, but the best solution is probably to use structural wings, and edit them to add control surfaces.
4) Minor quibble but the elevators are reversed. That is most people expect that the aircraft should climb when you pull back on the stick. But, some people prefer it the other way. The solution (if this is a problem for YOU) is to invert the pitch on the forward wings.
Here is a link to a version of the plane that should fly.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/NkMp31/it-doing-that-anymore-yfwbfbgtis-plane
@Observer404
+1Thanks. I did like how this one came out.
Technically it can't be an ultralight, as only fixed wing aircraft fall under the ultralight classification.
Nice shark
This deserves some credit. It's an accomplishment to get an airplane working so well at that speed regime.
+1handles nice
+1Nice plane but Lockheed didn't make the F-16C, General Dynamics did. Lockheed only took over the F-16 program later. It's why all the Lockheed versions are Vipers not Falcons.
Just giving credit where it's due.
+2@Player7961
You're welcome. Most of us have been there.
BTW, my first dozen or so aircraft all went "boom" on the runway.
Up at the top of the page, to the right of the Simpleplanes logo you should see a row that goes : VR BUY AIRPLANES VIDEOS FORUMS STUFF and then your ranking and username.
If you click on FORUMS you should be able to go there.
Hi, welcome.
Not to nitpick, but you'll probably get more answers if you post this in the forum as a question, as more people look there for this sort of thing.
As to your question, one way to do it would be to use some sort of rotator (probably a hinge rotator), or piston to deploy the wings.
+1Okay
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/8oAg2E/Player-7961s-aircraft
Hi, welcome to simpleplanes.
BTW, the reason why it didn't fly before was because the center of mass (the red ball that show up with you hit the space bar during the build process) was too close to the center of lift (the blue ball), which makes it unstable and want to pitch up nose over tail. This is compounded with the plane being tail heavy which makes it want to pitch up.
You kinda want to look at a airplane as a seesaw. Roughly speaking, you want to balance the plane on the center of lift (blue ball) and put the center of mass (red ball) about one half to one ball length ahead of it. That way the forces of weight and lift mostly balance out. That's not set is stone and there are ways to get around this, but it's a good rule to start off with.
I "fixed" (well partially fixed) this by replace your nosecone with a a couple of pieces of fuselage and which I could add weight to. This shifted the center of mass forward enough that it flies, but it still is a bit tail heavy.
Other ways you can improve on this this would be to somehow reduce the weight in the tail section, moving the wings further back, or angle the horizontal stabilizers of the tail upwards to create a force to push the tail section up.
Hope that helped.
An actual autogyro. Not bad for an early build.
@LonelySea22
LOL! I'll send you a link to my current build. It's still a work in progress but it flies.
@LonelySea22
Glad you like it. BTW does "Little Nellie" ring a bell?
@KornAerospace
I know. SAAB 29.
@KornAerospace
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the US one in white.
Nice autogyro
@PPLLAANNEE I wish someone would do a tutorial on just how to embed the custom images into SP. I've tired a few different ways and nothing seems to work, and I'm stuck with the three standard screenshots.
@that1devil
Do what you like. If you don't like designing and building stuff (and there are times where I hate doing it-"Why's it banking to the left?!!") then don't do it as much and play more. You bought the game to have fun, so do whatever you enjoy.
Whatever you do, don't play the game just for rating points or you'll always be dependent on other players for your enjoyment of the game.
It's not that you are doing anything wrong per say, it's more a case of where you sit on the learning curve vs. what people are looking for.
When most people start off in Simpleplanes they build fairy basic, simple aircraft, as they should. But these basic designs usually do not have much that would interest more experienced builders. So new players don't get much traffic or feedback. Also keep in mind that all new designs sort of compete with each other for attention and advanced designs will coll features tend to attract more attention, downloads and feedback.
Just keep plugging away and as you make more designs and as your designs get progressively better, you should eventually make something that interests people and gets more feedback. It just takes time. I've been playing SP for 5 years and I only have about 1400 more points that you do. Most of those came from things that I didn't expect earn points, while most of the stuff I though would get points didn't.
+1@IndoMaja When I downloaded it I removed the fuel from the tail and scaled the mass down for the tail section a bit until the CoM moved a bit ahead of the CoL.
The problem is that the Center of Mass (the red line) is too close to the Center of Lift (the blue line).
If you reduce the weight in the back of the airplane and/or increase the weight in the front of the aircraft it will take off properly without flipping.
Definitely built it. Not only will it appeal to train enthusiasts, but it could be used as a launch platform for aircraft and gliders.
In fact if someone were to put a winch on it they would have a perfect winch tow system for a glider. I could see someone like @TheGliderGuy laying out a whole winch track line on Wright Island or Maywar based on your concept.
So this might get more than just the train people excited.
+3This is a very nice engine. I hope you get more credit for your work.
Wow, it flies really well, especially for a plane that flies backwards and upside down :)
Nice seaplane.
@Korzalerke2147483647
They don't seem to work, If i recall correctly when you have an conditional statement that is false, nothing that follows it gets processed. In the past I've had to multiply and add up several conditions to get around it.
On a positive note MrCOPTY 's https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/8bjkWo/Grumman-F9F-2-Panther-FULL-EXPERIENCE, has a waypoint system that is almost exactly what I was going for. I just have to reverse engineer his variables. The variable do seem to be much better than typing out formula's multiple times.
So at least now I know it can be done, because it has been done.!
+1@Sympathetic
Is this any better?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/dES0Y3/lego-fighter
And here are your first points. We all gotta start somewhere
+1He's right; they do.
I'm still trying to figure out how you make these vertically stable.
+1@WinsWings Thanks, but suspect it will be a bit of a disappointment. Others have built much better "flappers".
@WinsWings
+1That would depend on the size of the rotors. I think a 4 rotor one with, say 400" rotor blades might just work. Oh, btw, if you increase the virbration damper on the rotors it won't shake.
@WinsWings Ooh, I like this one. Have you considered giving it four rotors?
@WinsWings Since you recognize the aircraft and expressed an intenest here is what my "Little Nellie" looks like: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/B0H05W/Jan-28-23-Little-Nellie-Control-Match
+1It's not finished and doesn't quite fly and take off the way I want yet, nor are the weapons quite right, so fly at your own risk
@gigachad The first ones were odd, as were every other one. The rest were even! ;)
Seriously though, the early versions of practically everything seems odd because the designers are focused on getting the thing to work, and optimizing the design happens much later. Typically the design sort of stabilizes into what become well known forms, but...the process doesn't really end. Aircraft are still relatively young forms of transport (120 years), and it's quite possible that the designs we think of as normal today will be horrible archaic a century or two from now. Just look at how ships have changed over the last 500 years. Maybe in the future, autogryos will become ring shaped with the rotor in the middle, a cockpit at the front, and engine and tail at the back?
@WinsWings I have quite a few other designs myself. I started building them a couple of years back for that egg-shapped aircraft contest and took an interest in the Wallis autogryo from You Only Live Twice.
The problem with autogryos, as far as the SP community is concerned is is that they aren't fast and sexy like fighter jets, they do not have have the sort of fanbase that World War 2 and Cold War era aircraft have, they aren't feasible for combat, their role has mostly been eclipsed by improvements in airplane and helicopter designs, and they don't promote any new cutting edge technology that attracts attention.
+1So they are just a niche thing, much like airships, ground effect vehicles, and parasails, but the autogryo's unique thing, the rotor, isn't all that unique, or even noticed by most people. The average person usually mistakes them for helicopters.
@gigachad Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that this is pretty much how the orginal autogryo's looked. Basically they were an airplane with a rotor blade on top.
+1@WinsWings Your welcome. Sadly, autogryos are not well known, and most people misidentify them as helicopters. Most people don't even realize that the main rotor is unpowered (well...mostly unpowered). Most people today know more about airships despite the fact that the autogryo is still around and still quite viable.
+1