Reason for not using the ailerons at high alpha is that not only will it produce the opposite effect due to drag, but this same asymmetric drag may induce a spin, something you really don't want.
.
Flight model is not perfect but it's certainly better than most phantoms on the site, good job
Excellent flight model (very good airfoil choices, next time try angling the flat bottom wings ~1.4 degrees down to achieve a symmetrical-ish behaviour).
The FBW is a bit rough but it usually gets its job done. I also like the overall aesthetic design a lot, great build!
kind of, it has pitch augmentation which maintains both 1G and 0 pitchrate, not strictly one or the other. It also has a G-limiter and autopilot, aside from auto-throttle or AoA hold for landings. It has full fly-by-wire, basically, all the control surfaces are controlled by the FCS computer.
All the hornets and super hornets have this
1. clamp(Pitch+Roll,-1,1) you will have to use - instead of + on the other side
2.
use structural wings, you can set allowControlSurfaces to true with overload, or change an existing wing's id or whatever it's called to Wing-2
3.
A) You usually don't have to (I've never had to do it)
B) take a look at this graph, flat bottom also creates more drag than semi, which creates more drag than symmetric. For realism I never use symmetric and choose between Flat and Semi depending on the wing shape (delta and swept wings stall at higher angles irl)
Also, wing parts don't interact with each other at all
4.
I never noticed that attribute until now, but my testing indicates it's useless
5.
heli rotors are weird in sp
6.
Funky trees, use something like 1+Roll 1 will be the maximum output (90 degrees if that's the rotator's angle)
@FairFireFlight perhaps you should use some kind of joystick, deflecting the elevator fully isn't a thing you would do in these kind of planes irl either lol
@Biro Well, I owe you an apology, I'm just tired of cocky players which I now realize you aren't, so yeah, sorry for my rather rude approach
However, here you have some tips for realism in future builds:
Use TAS instead of IAS to check top speed (almost every place lists top speeds in TAS or mach). I know you don't because your U-2 achieved more than 850 km/h in a straight climb, meaning it probably exceeds 1500 or even 2000 in a straight line at high altitude.
This one is to prevent that from happening:
The key is drag and accurate thrust. The more drag the more thrust it takes to reach a certain speed, so in case of a replica you should adjust the powerMultiplier of the engine (using a simple operation, real thrust divided by SP engine thrust (which you can find in the parts list by selecting an engine without dragging it out)), and then change the drag via calculateDrag set to false on most non-wing parts and tuning dragScale on the part(s) with drag enabled, until you get the desired top speed at sea level.
For top speed at altitude you'd need to use funky trees, which is a whole different thing so I'll stop here...
@Ruskiwaffle1991
The Lockheed Ventura is a twin-engine medium bomber and patrol bomber of World War II.
The Ventura first entered combat in Europe as a bomber with the RAF in late 1942. Designated PV-1 by the United States Navy (US Navy), it entered combat in 1943 in the Pacific. The bomber was also used by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), which designated it the Lockheed B-34 (Lexington) and B-37 as a trainer. British Commonwealth forces also used it in several guises, including antishipping and antisubmarine search and attack.
The Ventura was developed from the Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar transport, as a replacement for the Lockheed Hudson bombers then in service with the Royal Air Force. Used in daylight attacks against occupied Europe, they proved to have weaknesses and were removed from bomber duty and some used for patrols by Coastal Command.
After USAAF monopolization of land-based bombers was removed, the US Navy ordered a revised design which entered service as the PV-2 Harpoon for anti-submarine work.
@Kangy what I mean is that this plane gets in some sort of a weird high AoA lock from which you can't recover, not a flat spin or any other real stall motion. My F-100 can stall too but it's very easy to recover.
@MAHADI I made the flight model so I'll answer instead, the starfighter has a very high wing loading, so maneuverability can be expected to be quite low, although I know it should be a little better (we can't make proper slats in sp). How does it fly bad though? It sounds like you are stalling the plane, the higher the wing loading the higher the angle of attack, making the plane easier to stall. The very short wingspan produces a noticeable roll inertia, which takes a bit of time to get used to. Lowering the flaps decreases the critical AoA but increases lift at lower angles, so it's necessary to maintain less than 10 degrees aoa during landing procedure for optimal lift. If you read the description you already know how the BLC works. Something else is that the ailerons and rudder's deflection limits are decreased approximately by half when gear is raised (this is accurate). This plane is meant to fly fast for optimum performance, if you have any other questions just ask me lol
@ChiChiWerx huge thanks for the compliments! I definitely should've thought more about the part count, I've gotten too used to my powerful pc. I was doubting wether I should put a mach indicator or not but I probably should've done it, I'll put the formula to use with dev console in the description for those who might want it. Thanks again!
Sonic boom: Reach into 850 knot and it will be ended when you're in 898 knot
that's miles per hour, not knots. It should start at around mach 0.95, which is aproximately 725 mph at sea level and end at around mach 1.01, which is 770 mph at sea level.
Looks quite good
it's 9.814453 m/s², which is correct
+1there should be this button, called "uninstall"
+1I've heard it makes people very happy
it was a joke, someone took it seriously, etc etc, now it's ending, so feel free to remove this post
+1Reason for not using the ailerons at high alpha is that not only will it produce the opposite effect due to drag, but this same asymmetric drag may induce a spin, something you really don't want.
+1.
Flight model is not perfect but it's certainly better than most phantoms on the site, good job
Excellent flight model (very good airfoil choices, next time try angling the flat bottom wings ~1.4 degrees down to achieve a symmetrical-ish behaviour).
+1The FBW is a bit rough but it usually gets its job done. I also like the overall aesthetic design a lot, great build!
kind of, it has pitch augmentation which maintains both 1G and 0 pitchrate, not strictly one or the other. It also has a G-limiter and autopilot, aside from auto-throttle or AoA hold for landings. It has full fly-by-wire, basically, all the control surfaces are controlled by the FCS computer.
+1All the hornets and super hornets have this
I can barely hear a wisper with the volume maxed out lol
+11.
clamp(Pitch+Roll,-1,1)you will have to use - instead of + on the other side2.
use structural wings, you can set allowControlSurfaces to true with overload, or change an existing wing's id or whatever it's called to Wing-2
3.
A) You usually don't have to (I've never had to do it)
B) take a look at this graph, flat bottom also creates more drag than semi, which creates more drag than symmetric. For realism I never use symmetric and choose between Flat and Semi depending on the wing shape (delta and swept wings stall at higher angles irl)
Also, wing parts don't interact with each other at all
4.
I never noticed that attribute until now, but my testing indicates it's useless
5.
heli rotors are weird in sp
6.
Funky trees, use something like
1+Roll1 will be the maximum output (90 degrees if that's the rotator's angle)7.
SimpleCheats (not up to date)
Funky Trees Guide
8.
+1I guess you can call it a bug, most experienced players are used to reconnecting everything manually
@LieutenantSOT correct
+1where's the variable sweep
+1@FairFireFlight well, that's pretty subjective, I personally enjoy this kind of flight models, as do plenty of other people
+1@FairFireFlight perhaps you should use some kind of joystick, deflecting the elevator fully isn't a thing you would do in these kind of planes irl either lol
+1@Mikey101234 maxRpm
+1so you basically put a cockpit facing the other way around and call that flying backwards lmao
+1@MrTacito34 fixed it, the formatting messed it up
+1@ChrisPy yeah, it's quite hard to replicate the natural stability/smoothness it has in there
+1@SpillySock if you use a single wing on each side yes
+1legacy hornet all the way
+1(not that cringe super hornet you've posted)
shift+wasdqe to nudge parts around
+1@Biro Well, I owe you an apology, I'm just tired of cocky players which I now realize you aren't, so yeah, sorry for my rather rude approach
However, here you have some tips for realism in future builds:
Use TAS instead of IAS to check top speed (almost every place lists top speeds in TAS or mach). I know you don't because your U-2 achieved more than 850 km/h in a straight climb, meaning it probably exceeds 1500 or even 2000 in a straight line at high altitude.
This one is to prevent that from happening:
The key is drag and accurate thrust. The more drag the more thrust it takes to reach a certain speed, so in case of a replica you should adjust the powerMultiplier of the engine (using a simple operation, real thrust divided by SP engine thrust (which you can find in the parts list by selecting an engine without dragging it out)), and then change the drag via
calculateDragset tofalseon most non-wing parts and tuningdragScaleon the part(s) with drag enabled, until you get the desired top speed at sea level.For top speed at altitude you'd need to use funky trees, which is a whole different thing so I'll stop here...
cheers~
+1except for the tiny stabilizers and extremely thin wings I really like the design
+1stock stabilizers...
+1@Stinky already made
+1that's what ships do, and it isn't a gyro problem
+1you can break non-structural wings, but that's about it
+1@DuneBoi interesting
+1@MintLynx thanks! Funky trees can make wonderful things
+1this?
+1You can also hold shift and use W,A,S,D,Q,E to move the selected part without using the menu
+1@Ruskiwaffle1991
+1The Lockheed Ventura is a twin-engine medium bomber and patrol bomber of World War II.
The Ventura first entered combat in Europe as a bomber with the RAF in late 1942. Designated PV-1 by the United States Navy (US Navy), it entered combat in 1943 in the Pacific. The bomber was also used by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), which designated it the Lockheed B-34 (Lexington) and B-37 as a trainer. British Commonwealth forces also used it in several guises, including antishipping and antisubmarine search and attack.
The Ventura was developed from the Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar transport, as a replacement for the Lockheed Hudson bombers then in service with the Royal Air Force. Used in daylight attacks against occupied Europe, they proved to have weaknesses and were removed from bomber duty and some used for patrols by Coastal Command.
After USAAF monopolization of land-based bombers was removed, the US Navy ordered a revised design which entered service as the PV-2 Harpoon for anti-submarine work.
@Kangy similar, except that you can actually recover from that
+1@Kangy what I mean is that this plane gets in some sort of a weird high AoA lock from which you can't recover, not a flat spin or any other real stall motion. My F-100 can stall too but it's very easy to recover.
+1@Kangy identical huh? I was able to get to +800 km/h in RB, not get stuck at 515 because of all the drag this has, I feel like you didn't even fly it
+1@ImAGoodFriend you should be able to edit the keybind in controls
+1say "this is a test"
+1without quotes you can't send more than one word
+1@Defalt1 nowhere in that forum there is anything about upvote = tag. And I never upvote when it means I'm going to be tagged anyways...
+1I didn't request to be tagged...
+1I've seen a MiG-15 with afterburner, my day is ruined and my disappointment is immeasureable
+1this wouldn't be able to fly irl
+1the reflections that method causes make me sick when flying, so I much rather stay with only glass on the exterior
+1what the comment below this one said but 13 degrees
+1where did the control surfaces go?
+1It's missing flaperons, trailing edgeflaps, and leading edge flaps
@MAHADI I made the flight model so I'll answer instead, the starfighter has a very high wing loading, so maneuverability can be expected to be quite low, although I know it should be a little better (we can't make proper slats in sp). How does it fly bad though? It sounds like you are stalling the plane, the higher the wing loading the higher the angle of attack, making the plane easier to stall. The very short wingspan produces a noticeable roll inertia, which takes a bit of time to get used to. Lowering the flaps decreases the critical AoA but increases lift at lower angles, so it's necessary to maintain less than 10 degrees aoa during landing procedure for optimal lift. If you read the description you already know how the BLC works. Something else is that the ailerons and rudder's deflection limits are decreased approximately by half when gear is raised (this is accurate). This plane is meant to fly fast for optimum performance, if you have any other questions just ask me lol
+1I always check it lol
+1@ChiChiWerx huge thanks for the compliments! I definitely should've thought more about the part count, I've gotten too used to my powerful pc. I was doubting wether I should put a mach indicator or not but I probably should've done it, I'll put the formula to use with dev console in the description for those who might want it. Thanks again!
+1that's miles per hour, not knots. It should start at around mach 0.95, which is aproximately 725 mph at sea level and end at around mach 1.01, which is 770 mph at sea level.
+1Looks quite good
@RamboJutter you're welcome, if you would like feedback or FT help for a build feel free to tag me
+1@JaeBeansS Thanks!
+1@DonaldAs2121 nice cockpit
+1