@Falkenwut The Engine was a YJ101 GE100.
YJ101-GE-100
Thrust, dry: 4300kg (9480lbf)
Thrust, A/B: 6800kg (14991lbf)
SFC: 0.78 (dry), 1.88 (A/B)
Pressure ratio: 21
Mass flow: 56kg/s
Weight: 820kg (1808)
Diameter: 829mm
Length: 3.530m
Apparently Northrop worked on a similar concept in the 80s the N353/P900 Mission Adaptive Fighter. Apparently one of the designers Bug Neslon went from Boeing to Northop.
@Falkenwut Glad you like the specs. There are some nice illustrations of the 985-121 "Arrow" (your microfighter) drawn by Alain Ratinaud that you might find helpful, let me know if you can't find them with google. There were actually several variants of the design, Delta, Vitac, Arrow (the one you built), Canard and VSW (Variable Swept Wing), so you could build the whole family of related craft.
Interesting fighter. BTW there is some government documentation on these microfighters with the differernt types and stats at: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
Or just search for the Boeing Model 985 concept microfighter
@DustyT33 Yeah, I took a day off from SP that turned into a couple of weeks and then into a few months.
This plane you have here is very smooth for a flapper. Not quite as fast as what we were doing when I went AWOL, but much more stable and practical.
@AWESOMENESS360 Good Luck. It looks to be a bit tricky. You've got to keep the plane stable, rprovide lift and forward momentum, with just the one prop. I suggest you add a gyro.
It's ovespeeding because the prop blades are in a flat pitch. If you manually change the pitch of blades by as much as 10% they won't overspeed anymore.
You can alter the size and shape of the ends, right down to individual corners (on manual),. You can also use fuselage cones to help too.
I suggest finding a plane that you think looks good, downloading it, and taking it apart to see how they did it. Pick something with a fairly low part count to keep it easy.
I don;t think it's too light or too maneuverable. I think your vertical stabilizer is too small. When I fly the plane it doesn't like to go straight, it like to weave left to right and back again. I think that's part of why the plane "flips sideways." I also think that because you use your entire tail for a horizontal stabilizer, the plane looses stability when pitching up or down.
I'd suggest trying a larger vertical tail, and add a strip of wing in front of each horizontal section that doesn't move when the rest of the tail pitches. I think those two changes would make the plane more stable and help eliminate the jerking motion.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
@Nerfenthusiast Not so much, at least not for a fighter. The problem with high speed is that it kills any sort of maneuverability. So while the YF-12 and later SR-71 could outrun some missiles. there was no way they could outmaneuver another airplane to get a shot themselves. Not without reducing speed and becoming vulnerable.
And it would have been much easier for the Soviets (or anybody else for that matter) to make a faster missile than it would have been to make a fighter jet faster once someone had done so.
Besides, in air to air combat, you really don't need speed beyond about 700 mph. Greater speed is more for interceptors.
@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
@XjayIndustrys If you know how to pilot a jet fighter and operate the weapons, I doubt you'd lose to a expert pilot in a B-17 every single time. If you are at least competent, you should be able to get a missile lock and shoot the B-17 out of the sky at least some of the time without his even knowing that you were there. Radar and dogfighting missiles are game changers.
I agree with the F-15 Eagle as the greatest fighter. It's never been beaten in actual combat, and has been in service for over 40 years. While the F-22 might be a superior fighter, it's yet to be proven in actual combat.
Yes, the human factor is more important than the aircraft, and training goes a long way towards that, too.. That's the major reason why US, Brit and Israeli pilots tend to be superior pilots.
But the aircraft is certainly a factor, especially when training and skill are close. If it wasn't the case, there would be no need to replace older aircraft with newer designs. If it were just the human factor the US could still be flying Century Series aircraft as their main fighters and interceptors.
It's nice like your last one. You might want to try and see if you can put the main vehicle (car) on the bottom and get rid of the landing gear. You could use the car wheels for landing ear. Not only with this reduce weight and drag, but it would probably shorten the take off distance, since the car engine could contribute to the take off speed.
The tilt to the right is caused by the bits of fuselage covering the horizontal stabilizers in the back. They are not lined up exactly the same due to a bug that happens sometimes in SP,You can test that by taking those two pieces off of the plane. To fit it, try redoing those coverings.
The poor take off performance is probably do the the high wing loading. Take off speed is tied to this. If you want to lower this speed then you need to lower the wing loading, either by reducing weight, increasing the wing area, or both. For comparison a tiny wing fighter, the F-104 has a wing loading of around 105lbs/ft2. If you want to keep the same basic wing shape, you can make the wings slightly wider and longer and then nudge the wing into the fuselage a little to hide some of it.
You could also improve take off performance by adding flaps (they can lower take off speed) by making the front gear higher than the rear gear (that pitches the wings at an angle and increases their lift during take off runs), or by changing the airfoil shape of the wings. Flat Bottom wings will give you more lift at the expense of top speed.
@AWESOMENESS360 Because the winner was chosen by a judge (Trijets), not by which plane got the most upvotes. . Congratulations! Break open the confetti.
@Milo1628xa Thanks! Here is an example of the kind of torture I'm doing to your design: http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/VDR3M5/DroneFuture-wip-2.
It should fly at about a 10 feet/second climb. I moved the gyro, cockpit and other stuff to make them easier to adjust, and experimented a bit with color and windows.
Oh, I've got the Show AoA mod on it so I can check to see the climb rate as I adjust the hinges. I can repost it without the Show AoA mod if you wish.
@HistoricBirds I see. I don't blame you, I thought you already had the pedals are part of a set. In that case, I'd suggest seeing if you can borrow a friends joystick or X Box controller and see if the game can handle both.
@Milo1628xa Intesting. I worked with your design a bit and one of the firsts things I did was get rid of the forward thrust engines in the body. Instead I had the rear engines "fold" up behind the body, when activated, to provide forward thrust. Then I folded the front engines part way, when activated, so they could prove forward thrust and enough lift to keep it flying.
When It's ready. Yes, we all want it now, but we also want it to run well, not crash, and be relatively bug free. Better we get a good game late than a bad one on time.
I think so. Try hooking them both up toy your PC and starting SP. Then go into the Setting-->Controls. Pick Yaw Right and press a button to reset it, but when you try to change it under Controller use the Right Rudder Pedal. Do the same thing with Yaw Left and the Left Rudder Pedal. It might work.
Re: "the turning problem", are you referring to the fact that it can only bank 70 degrees or that it wobbles in flight?
@Falkenwut Much closer in shape, although the 895 was a bit larger and heavier. But, you'll be able to fit a lot more of these in a 747.
+1@Falkenwut The Engine was a YJ101 GE100.
YJ101-GE-100
Thrust, dry: 4300kg (9480lbf)
Thrust, A/B: 6800kg (14991lbf)
SFC: 0.78 (dry), 1.88 (A/B)
Pressure ratio: 21
Mass flow: 56kg/s
Weight: 820kg (1808)
Diameter: 829mm
Length: 3.530m
Apparently Northrop worked on a similar concept in the 80s the N353/P900 Mission Adaptive Fighter. Apparently one of the designers Bug Neslon went from Boeing to Northop.
+1@Falkenwut Glad you like the specs. There are some nice illustrations of the 985-121 "Arrow" (your microfighter) drawn by Alain Ratinaud that you might find helpful, let me know if you can't find them with google. There were actually several variants of the design, Delta, Vitac, Arrow (the one you built), Canard and VSW (Variable Swept Wing), so you could build the whole family of related craft.
+1Not bad. You might want to balance off the weight in the left and right "pods" but it's still a nice plane.
Interesting fighter. BTW there is some government documentation on these microfighters with the differernt types and stats at: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
Or just search for the Boeing Model 985 concept microfighter
+1@DustyT33 Yeah, I took a day off from SP that turned into a couple of weeks and then into a few months.
This plane you have here is very smooth for a flapper. Not quite as fast as what we were doing when I went AWOL, but much more stable and practical.
@AWESOMENESS360 Good Luck. It looks to be a bit tricky. You've got to keep the plane stable, rprovide lift and forward momentum, with just the one prop. I suggest you add a gyro.
not that bad
It's ovespeeding because the prop blades are in a flat pitch. If you manually change the pitch of blades by as much as 10% they won't overspeed anymore.
It's pretty.
Nice
Nice. You've been busy. It makes a good bat boat too.
This one is really something special.
LOL! Thanks. I guess I can stop planning for world domination now.
@Rub3n213 http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ED8DPu/temp
@Rub3n213 https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/VT519L/temp
+1@Rub3n213 http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/AX0H1E/Rub3n213s-prop
+1You can alter the size and shape of the ends, right down to individual corners (on manual),. You can also use fuselage cones to help too.
+2I suggest finding a plane that you think looks good, downloading it, and taking it apart to see how they did it. Pick something with a fairly low part count to keep it easy.
I don;t think it's too light or too maneuverable. I think your vertical stabilizer is too small. When I fly the plane it doesn't like to go straight, it like to weave left to right and back again. I think that's part of why the plane "flips sideways." I also think that because you use your entire tail for a horizontal stabilizer, the plane looses stability when pitching up or down.
I'd suggest trying a larger vertical tail, and add a strip of wing in front of each horizontal section that doesn't move when the rest of the tail pitches. I think those two changes would make the plane more stable and help eliminate the jerking motion.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
@Nerfenthusiast Not so much, at least not for a fighter. The problem with high speed is that it kills any sort of maneuverability. So while the YF-12 and later SR-71 could outrun some missiles. there was no way they could outmaneuver another airplane to get a shot themselves. Not without reducing speed and becoming vulnerable.
And it would have been much easier for the Soviets (or anybody else for that matter) to make a faster missile than it would have been to make a fighter jet faster once someone had done so.
Besides, in air to air combat, you really don't need speed beyond about 700 mph. Greater speed is more for interceptors.
+1@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
@XjayIndustrys If you know how to pilot a jet fighter and operate the weapons, I doubt you'd lose to a expert pilot in a B-17 every single time. If you are at least competent, you should be able to get a missile lock and shoot the B-17 out of the sky at least some of the time without his even knowing that you were there. Radar and dogfighting missiles are game changers.
I agree with the F-15 Eagle as the greatest fighter. It's never been beaten in actual combat, and has been in service for over 40 years. While the F-22 might be a superior fighter, it's yet to be proven in actual combat.
Yes, the human factor is more important than the aircraft, and training goes a long way towards that, too.. That's the major reason why US, Brit and Israeli pilots tend to be superior pilots.
But the aircraft is certainly a factor, especially when training and skill are close. If it wasn't the case, there would be no need to replace older aircraft with newer designs. If it were just the human factor the US could still be flying Century Series aircraft as their main fighters and interceptors.
@Minecraftpoweer Yeah, simple as in: How much $$ do you got? Send us that.
+1If it were from EA I doubt it's be called Simple Planes, either. probably something more like Yeager 19, with incremental updates/reboots every year.
+1It's nice like your last one. You might want to try and see if you can put the main vehicle (car) on the bottom and get rid of the landing gear. You could use the car wheels for landing ear. Not only with this reduce weight and drag, but it would probably shorten the take off distance, since the car engine could contribute to the take off speed.
Very Impressive
Fantastic looking design.
The tilt to the right is caused by the bits of fuselage covering the horizontal stabilizers in the back. They are not lined up exactly the same due to a bug that happens sometimes in SP,You can test that by taking those two pieces off of the plane. To fit it, try redoing those coverings.
The poor take off performance is probably do the the high wing loading. Take off speed is tied to this. If you want to lower this speed then you need to lower the wing loading, either by reducing weight, increasing the wing area, or both. For comparison a tiny wing fighter, the F-104 has a wing loading of around 105lbs/ft2. If you want to keep the same basic wing shape, you can make the wings slightly wider and longer and then nudge the wing into the fuselage a little to hide some of it.
You could also improve take off performance by adding flaps (they can lower take off speed) by making the front gear higher than the rear gear (that pitches the wings at an angle and increases their lift during take off runs), or by changing the airfoil shape of the wings. Flat Bottom wings will give you more lift at the expense of top speed.
This is a pretty respectable bit of design and engineering, with the way the sections detach safely from the main vehicle.
@AWESOMENESS360 Because the winner was chosen by a judge (Trijets), not by which plane got the most upvotes. . Congratulations! Break open the confetti.
Nice vectored thrust engines, and I love the panther on the sides of the engines.
@HistoricBirds Good Luck. I might be upgrading my controller. If I do I'll try plugging both in at once and see if it works.
Whoa, oh, oh, oh
Silver hammer man
This is looking really good. I start it off going 1400 mph @t 65000 feet and the scramjet kicks in nicely. Eeek! 2.5 million mph!
@Milo1628xa Thanks! Here is an example of the kind of torture I'm doing to your design: http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/VDR3M5/DroneFuture-wip-2.
It should fly at about a 10 feet/second climb. I moved the gyro, cockpit and other stuff to make them easier to adjust, and experimented a bit with color and windows.
Oh, I've got the Show AoA mod on it so I can check to see the climb rate as I adjust the hinges. I can repost it without the Show AoA mod if you wish.
@Milo1628xa How do I post unlisted?
@HistoricBirds Oh. In that case you're probably best of waiting until someone here says they've done it already. If no one does, assume the worst.
@CrazyCatZe :). Let me know when you post your small VTOL vehicle, I'm curious.
@Milo1628xa Thanks. I'll see what I can come up with. It might not be worth posting, though. Not all my ideas pan out.
@HistoricBirds I see. I don't blame you, I thought you already had the pedals are part of a set. In that case, I'd suggest seeing if you can borrow a friends joystick or X Box controller and see if the game can handle both.
@CrazyCatZe Small VTOL, 1500lbf. Will do. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/S386fW/VTOL-for-CraztCatZe
@CrazyCatZe https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/El54GB/Smal-engen-Per-Request
@CrazyCatZe Ooops, sorry, I forgot. I'll do it right now.
@Milo1628xa Intesting. I worked with your design a bit and one of the firsts things I did was get rid of the forward thrust engines in the body. Instead I had the rear engines "fold" up behind the body, when activated, to provide forward thrust. Then I folded the front engines part way, when activated, so they could prove forward thrust and enough lift to keep it flying.
When It's ready. Yes, we all want it now, but we also want it to run well, not crash, and be relatively bug free. Better we get a good game late than a bad one on time.
I think so. Try hooking them both up toy your PC and starting SP. Then go into the Setting-->Controls. Pick Yaw Right and press a button to reset it, but when you try to change it under Controller use the Right Rudder Pedal. Do the same thing with Yaw Left and the Left Rudder Pedal. It might work.
@DustyT33 Impressive rudder/propeller system