To adjust the weight you generally use the editor, but I'm not sure if that it available in Android yet.
BTW, the problems seem to be than the landing gear is too heavy for the aircraft pulling it down, and the wings are too low. I lightened the wheels and raised the wings a bit and it flies more level (in fact it pitched up a little). It still needs fine tuning but I think you should be able to work with it. I hope it's closer to what you want.
Lightened version at : https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/c2qH4Q/Aerospool-WT9-Dynamic-LSA
@UnguidedCylinder Oh, it makes a great jet too. I replaced the props with a BFE150 engine and it performs well. With trim it can fly around a fairly low speeds (170 mph or so, low for a jet)
@lancelot3340 Well the original "flying pancake" had twice the wing area for about 1/7th the weight, so it could take off with very little wind, and could nearly hover, and it's said that it behaved a bit like a helicopter.But I bet such a design in SP would be a bit more sensitive to control, and not quite as stable
It'a a very nice airplane. Ironically I think the (apparently) less than desired maneuverability might be the result of the designs great stability. I think this design probably flies better than the real aircraft did.
Just what is considered a "modern" aircraft. Anything still flying? Any jet aircraft? 6th generation, 5th generation? I just like to be on the same page here?
You don't have to make replicates to "be famous", nor do you have to make replicas to get upvotes. It's just that the for designs to grab peoples interest, and gain you notice (and maybe upvotes) they have to have something interesting about them.
Now as people get more experienced with SP, and their skills improve, they will probably not find the same sort of designs interesting, and so won't be as impressed by the designs from a beginner or intermediate player. Just putting some wings and an engine on a design and getting it to fly doesn't impress them the say way it does to people who are new to SP.
Now replicas tend to be more detailed designs and just how accurate they are can make them more interesting.
I tried to help by moving the Ailerons closer to he tips of the wings where they will be more effective. Then I added in some flaps that can be adjusted with the trim controls to increase the lift.
I posted it here: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/tHqve8/WW2-Plane-bomb
If it still is troublesome I suggest editing out the drag on the wing coverings since they are really supposed to be part of the wings.
I think it needs some form of vertical stabilization. Either by adding a vertical stabilizer or by adding a bit of angle and/or dihedral to the wings.
After that it depends on what you want this to be. If it is a land based drone, then some sort of landing gear, maybe detachable if this is supposed to be a one use drone (like a flying bomb). Some buoyancy if this is supposed to be a water drone. Maybe a camera pointed down below the drone so you can spy on stuff?
@ShrimpRex Sure, I'll note it as a successor so you can get some points. I've adjusted the engine, reduced the wingspan, reduced the wing area wing area, added leading edge slats, and got rid of the landing gear. I just got see if I can get it to take off with 10000 pounds!
@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
@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.
@Rub3n213 Oh, I forgot to warn you. When you mod a prop's power outside of it's normal range, SP has a tendency to switch it back if you modify it or even move it. So you might have to save a prop as a assembly so you can replace a "faulty" one, or have it remodeled again later.
It's nice design. The reasons why it is a bit slow have to do with it's drag and power to weight ratio. In the desinger you can use the drag button to see whats producing drag and slowing it down. It's a bit thick and blocky. It you taper the design more and make it a little thinner, and lengthen the nose cone a little you can make it lighter and reduce the drag, both of which will make it faster.
Okay, new version uploaded. I did more extensive work on it this time, but I tried to keep it from showing. It now has landing gear. Let me know if you want more help on this.
I did some work on it. I think it's a bit more stable. Let me know if it's good or if it needs more work. My next suggestion would be to hide some stabilizers inside the aircraft, so they won't show.
@BoomarooFlyer Use the "Share Aircraft" button in the game (it's right above Mirror Aircraft), but you should really ask something like that in the forums.
Add a gyroscope, then you should be able to take off and land like a helicopter. You should probably raise the wings to keep the props and jets from touching the ground, too.
I replaced the nosecone with a fuselage inlet and got rid of the the slim inlets. What happens is that even though, on paper, the fuselage inlet produces more drag than a nosecone, it sucks in the air that would be producing drag, and ends up being faster.
BTW, It's a really decent design, since it handles 1600 mph well. It doesn't shake, wobble or become erratic or anything like that, it just flies. Good design job.
To adjust the weight you generally use the editor, but I'm not sure if that it available in Android yet.
BTW, the problems seem to be than the landing gear is too heavy for the aircraft pulling it down, and the wings are too low. I lightened the wheels and raised the wings a bit and it flies more level (in fact it pitched up a little). It still needs fine tuning but I think you should be able to work with it. I hope it's closer to what you want.
Lightened version at : https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/c2qH4Q/Aerospool-WT9-Dynamic-LSA
+1Nice to look at; nice to fly. Oh, and I think it even flies better with the wings folded!
+1Pretty
+1Nice folding wing.
+1@FranzPeterSiegfried
Wacky Races.
It would be a great idea for a challenge too.
+1Fun ground attacker, even if I flew into my own bomb. ;)
+1A good ornithoper that is easy to take off.
+1Nice design. Really good detail on the engine and the cowling. I love the synchronized rudder - it does seem to make it very easy to control.
+1@UnguidedCylinder Oh, it makes a great jet too. I replaced the props with a BFE150 engine and it performs well. With trim it can fly around a fairly low speeds (170 mph or so, low for a jet)
+1Nice design
+1Nice looking aircraft
+1@lancelot3340 Well the original "flying pancake" had twice the wing area for about 1/7th the weight, so it could take off with very little wind, and could nearly hover, and it's said that it behaved a bit like a helicopter.But I bet such a design in SP would be a bit more sensitive to control, and not quite as stable
+1It'a a very nice airplane. Ironically I think the (apparently) less than desired maneuverability might be the result of the designs great stability. I think this design probably flies better than the real aircraft did.
+1This is a really nice looking replica.
+1This is a fun little Mig
+1Nice, but it needs an air freshener
+1@yellow8041
+1Don't be sorry, I just wanted to know what criteria to use.
Just what is considered a "modern" aircraft. Anything still flying? Any jet aircraft? 6th generation, 5th generation? I just like to be on the same page here?
+1@Sgtk
+1I tried out a few of your planes and liked them.
Really clever use of the catapult
+1Very nice.
+1Nice!
+1You don't have to make replicates to "be famous", nor do you have to make replicas to get upvotes. It's just that the for designs to grab peoples interest, and gain you notice (and maybe upvotes) they have to have something interesting about them.
Now as people get more experienced with SP, and their skills improve, they will probably not find the same sort of designs interesting, and so won't be as impressed by the designs from a beginner or intermediate player. Just putting some wings and an engine on a design and getting it to fly doesn't impress them the say way it does to people who are new to SP.
Now replicas tend to be more detailed designs and just how accurate they are can make them more interesting.
+1I tried to help by moving the Ailerons closer to he tips of the wings where they will be more effective. Then I added in some flaps that can be adjusted with the trim controls to increase the lift.
I posted it here: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/tHqve8/WW2-Plane-bomb
If it still is troublesome I suggest editing out the drag on the wing coverings since they are really supposed to be part of the wings.
+1I liked the look, and that it was a a "push pull" design. But I loved what the landing gear did when I pressed G.
+1I think it needs some form of vertical stabilization. Either by adding a vertical stabilizer or by adding a bit of angle and/or dihedral to the wings.
+1After that it depends on what you want this to be. If it is a land based drone, then some sort of landing gear, maybe detachable if this is supposed to be a one use drone (like a flying bomb). Some buoyancy if this is supposed to be a water drone. Maybe a camera pointed down below the drone so you can spy on stuff?
l love the long, thin fuselage. Nice glider.
+1Nice!
+1@ShrimpRex Sure, I'll note it as a successor so you can get some points. I've adjusted the engine, reduced the wingspan, reduced the wing area wing area, added leading edge slats, and got rid of the landing gear. I just got see if I can get it to take off with 10000 pounds!
+1Handles well. Do you mind if I fine tune this to try and match up with the "offical" specs.
Based on the wing area and weight, I'm wondering if the 985 could actually fly.
+1@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.
+1Interesting 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@Rub3n213 https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/VT519L/temp
+1@Rub3n213 http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/AX0H1E/Rub3n213s-prop
+1@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@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.
+1@Rub3n213 Oh, I forgot to warn you. When you mod a prop's power outside of it's normal range, SP has a tendency to switch it back if you modify it or even move it. So you might have to save a prop as a assembly so you can replace a "faulty" one, or have it remodeled again later.
+1@Rub3n213 Okay done: http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/3kB885/Theee-5000-hp-Props.
+1It's nice design. The reasons why it is a bit slow have to do with it's drag and power to weight ratio. In the desinger you can use the drag button to see whats producing drag and slowing it down. It's a bit thick and blocky. It you taper the design more and make it a little thinner, and lengthen the nose cone a little you can make it lighter and reduce the drag, both of which will make it faster.
+1Okay, new version uploaded. I did more extensive work on it this time, but I tried to keep it from showing. It now has landing gear. Let me know if you want more help on this.
+1I did some work on it. I think it's a bit more stable. Let me know if it's good or if it needs more work. My next suggestion would be to hide some stabilizers inside the aircraft, so they won't show.
+1@aerodummy No problem. I just wanted to make sure that whatever I did was in the direction you intended.
+1@BaconEggs LoL! Considering that SP has nothing to reflect stealth, that's pretty much the truth.
+1@BoomarooFlyer Use the "Share Aircraft" button in the game (it's right above Mirror Aircraft), but you should really ask something like that in the forums.
+1Add a gyroscope, then you should be able to take off and land like a helicopter. You should probably raise the wings to keep the props and jets from touching the ground, too.
+1I replaced the nosecone with a fuselage inlet and got rid of the the slim inlets. What happens is that even though, on paper, the fuselage inlet produces more drag than a nosecone, it sucks in the air that would be producing drag, and ends up being faster.
BTW, It's a really decent design, since it handles 1600 mph well. It doesn't shake, wobble or become erratic or anything like that, it just flies. Good design job.
+1@Hyattorama But SR2 might be a different story.
+1