Good tutorial, especially the explanation on limiting steering above a certain speed. Almost every airplane has a restriction on using nosewheel steering (NWS) above a certain speed, for exactly the reason Bog states, over controlling, which has actually resulted in aircraft leaving the runway many times in the past. In some aircraft I’ve flown (T-37, T-38), you activate NWS by pressing and holding a switch on the stick and check to make sure it’s released once lined up before takeoff roll. In large Boeing jets, the Captain has a tiller to ensure additional nosewheel steering in tight turns and is not used on the ground at high speeds. On takeoff and landing, directional control is largely controlled by the rudder itself, which in most aircraft becomes effective well before rotation and is effective down to fairly low speeds on landing. Should additional control authority be needed early in the takeoff roll, a quick jab of the brake pedal on the appropriate side helps to maintain control. Bog’s formula is extremely useful, I’ve used variations of it myself, though I’ll typically use higher limits of 33 m/s, or 65 knots, which matches the NWS limitations of several of the jets I’ve flown in the past and reduce the NWS effectiveness down to zero as the rudder generally provides ample control down to fairly low speeds in SP.
@Meuzar tag me on an unlisted post and I’ll take a look if you would like me to.
Certainly an ambitious effort with a ridiculously high part count. Fairly laggy on my iPhone 11, but it’s flyable. Flying characteristics are fairly good, not terribly unrealistic, from what I could do on my iPhone. It’s in the ballpark on weights, though the wing area is about twice that of the RL plane, even considering SP counts the horizontal stab area and RL stats do not. So, the 30 lb/sq ft wing loading imparts a shorter takeoff distance and more sprightly handling than a max gross Superfort probably would have. However, its maneuverability is stately, as it should be, as best I could assess on my lagging iPhone. Some beautiful reproduction work…though I’m disappointed you left the stars and bars off the wings, I absolutely love the nose art. A little overboard on “drop test”, do that test from a quarter that height IRL and you’d break that airplane in half and drive the struts through the cockpit and engine nacelles. Detail work is impressive, build is fun to play with and effort is evident. Here’s something I found that you may find interesting: B-29 gunnery training film.
@Meuzar how can I help you?
This is absolutely gorgeous!
Beautiful build, very realistic flight model, roll rate is spot on the RL plane, level flight acceleration is like the RL plane, not great, but acceptable. But it sure gains speed fast in the dive, just like the RL fighter, which was an advantage of the Warhawk in combat against its adversaries. Nice work, on my favorites list!
@Leota since you don’t list the parameters at which you had problems, I can only assume you’re flying your approaches too slowly. I’d guess below 140 KIAS? That’s on the edge of stalling, so it’s wallowing around. Much easier to fly an approach at 150-160 KIAS.
Also, amazing flight dynamics. Just with a real jet, I can get on the correct 3 degree glide path, set a power to hold an airspeed (about 10% and 160-165 KIAS on final), adjust the trim to maintain the aim point and flare as I come over the threshold. You are one of a very, very few builders who makes a build that behaves properly during approach and landing. You also use the correct symmetric airfoil, the smallish fuel load reflects the RL Lightning’s limitations and it behaves as closely to its RL counterpart as is probably possible in SP. Now in my “favorites” list…bravo!
The Mighty Lightning! This thing exudes British Greatness!
@AeroAeroTheMen missiles look great. How did you build the concave rear fuse section? Must be the new slicing tool; looks really good as well.
@AeroAeroTheMen nice, stock missiles always add a bit extra to a build, can’t wait to see the final result as it looks pretty good so far.
@LieutenantSOT I’d be honored to test it for you. Also “Strategic Air Command”, starring the great Jimmy Stewart, is one of my favorite films!
Ok, agreed. However, on your build, the Sparrows need to be rotated 45 degrees, so that four of the fins are straight up and down. May not make sense at first glance, but the Phantom had recesses for those fins. Here’s what they looked like IRL. You can see how the aft missiles sit flush to the jet’s underside and the recesses for the forward missiles when carried.
Some thoughts on your build:
- I would recommend you out all lights on a single AG, with the landing lights having a dual input with landing gear extension; when the AG is activated and the L.G. is extended, landing lights come on and they extinguish with gear retraction. Fairly simple FT input and they would operate as IRL, for the most part. In peacetime, at night, aircraft are/were flown with all lights on for collision avoidance and in combat/exercises, flown “blacked out”. Doing it this way allows your build to be almost completely accurate while keeping lights on a single AG.
- The performance difference between prop only and using the four jets was 230 mph up to a dash speed of 400 mph…170 mph difference, so the jets greatly added to the performance; which recommend you not downplay the difference between prop only performance and prop plus jet performance.
- Just put all 4 jets on a single AG…there’s no scenario IRL where these guys would use only two of the four jets. They were used during takeoff, the bomb run/combat dash and to escape the thermonuclear blast. In any time f those cases, you don’t want to half-a** it.
- Described as “sitting on the porch and flying your house”, the B-36 wasn’t spry…however it WAS functional as an aircraft. If I try and fly this build and am unable to turn and align with the runway for landing, it’s not realistic. So, don’t make it too sluggish.
- I doubt that hydraulics weren’t considered powerful enough for the B-36’s flight controls. I’d like to see a citation and would argue that viewpoint with whomever said it…most aircraft hydraulic systems operate around 3000 PSI, far, far, far more powerful than what a pilot can operate manually. In 737 sim training, I’ve practiced manual reversion landings and I can tell you, it’s a bear to control the jet without the hydraulic system. The positive trade off, though, is the decreased complexity, weight and dependence on the hydraulic system, which is handy in combat as enemy action can easily take out the hydraulics. Yes, the B-36 did use balance bays and control tabs, as does the KC-135 even today, so what was achieved was the best one could expect from a manual system, but the trade off is heavy control forces. So much so that today, they just don’t make large aircraft which primarily depend on manual control surfaces.
- Anyway, looks like an ambitious effort, good luck!
Bog, this is beautiful!
Flies fairly well. Max roll rate is a tad bit slower than IRL, but not far off. Takeoff distance and acceleration are in the ballpark, as is pitch rate. It doesn’t like to slow down and I’d have put more effect on the speed brakes, but it’s controllable. The build’s empty weight is close to the RL spec, but, overall, this thing is pretty lightly loaded, as if for a training sortie “around the flagpole”, instead of maxed out for a combat drop. TRs can deploy airborne, as with the RL jet. I was able to perform a tactical arrival and stop it in 4,000’, first try. With practice, I’m sure I could do it in 3,000’, nice.
@BangRou the autoroll is most noticeable at lower speeds, up to around 300 knots or so, though it’s still present above that speed. If you simply level the wings and let the stick go (zero aileron input), it rolls slowly to the right. You can really see it if you level the wings at slower speeds, then pull straight back…it definitely rolls right when it should pull straight. I don’t know if it’s due to the pod being right of centerline and making your build slightly right side heavy, having uneven drag or having a wonky mirrored connection, it could be any of those things. It’s slight, though and I’m sure it’s not a bother to most, though I definitely tend to notice those things.
I also have to say the JDAMs and pod tracking are excellent. Not sure if that’s totally your creation or if someone has figured this out before, but that one feature makes this worth the price of admission alone.
Way better than I expected. The acceleration on takeoff is a bit high and the energy loss is a bit low, but nothing is ridiculously unrealistic. Roll rate, turn rate and S.L. speeds are in the ballpark, the build itself looks pretty good (would have done the root trailing edges differently, but it looks like a Viper). My biggest comments are that I would also suggest you to use the symmetric airfoil instead of the Cessna wing, which would help your performance numbers greatly. Also, it has a little auto-roll, yuck!; but for all that, this is a very good build, especially given your 560 points.
Your first build, congratulations. Yes, SP is different than SR. I noticed on your build that you tell the user to “spawn on final approach”; you don’t say why, but probably because your build is very difficult to take off normally. This is because the rear landing gear is at the extreme end of the fuselage, making it impossible to rotate the jet when it reaches flying airspeed. To fix this, you can move the rear landing gear forward, where it sits just aft of the CoM, so that your build has a better pivot point around which to rotate and leave the runway. This solution would still leave it with the bicycle style landing gear arrangement, but it’s not impossible to simply keep the wings level while it runs down the runway. Hope this helps and welcome to SP!
Flies beautifully. So many builders think that large/heavy jets turn or pitch so slowly that they’re nearly impossible to fly. However, if you think about it, if a RL jet was engineered to be unmaneuverable, or at least not maneuverable enough to be controllable, they’d be impossible to fly. Your build, though it never was built IRL, flies quite realistically…it flies like a heavy jet, you wouldn’t want to do a Split-S or roll this thing, but the pilot can certainly easily correct his flight path and land the jet in the center of the runway. Another highlight is the fact that your landing gear doesn’t glitch out, in spite of the fact this build is way more than a million pounds gross. I’m going to have to download to my PC and investigate how you’ve managed this.
Build more and build your own stuff (though that Soviet Star does look great!) instead of modifying others’ work, don’t try to host any challenges, you don’t have credibility yet. But mostly, build more! Also, something I noticed is that when I started building replicas, my skills got much better, faster. Try a few replicas (OF AIRCRAFT) and I’m sure you’ll get a lot better as well.
An excellent, well executed build. The build itself captures the Kikka’s shape accurately, to include the outlines of the flying surfaces, which took some work judging by the number of parts used in that area. The flight model is good, about as good as can be expected while relying on the basic game physics and drag reduction. The wing area, fuel quantity, weights, wing loading and thrust are all accurate, so that results in a build that flies close to the RL jet. Acceleration (like all early jets, slow), takeoff roll, roll rate, pitch and turn rates and general performance at low altitude is close to RL, IMHO. The high altitude speed is too fast, I think because you used indicated airspeeds and not TAS to reflect the RL’s published “speeds”. However, the published RL performance figures are almost always for TAS, not IAS, and the difference in TAS and IAS is large at high altitude. At low altitude/S.L., where the difference in TAS and IAS is small, your build has a close to RL max level TAS, which is good. The fast airspeed at high altitude is also a result of the SP atmosphere model, which results in speeds being too slow at S.L. and too fast at high altitude. The only way I know of around this is to use a FT formula on the engines that decreases thrust as you climb, increases thrust with speed (ram air effect) or uses a speed brake that deploys when the jet’s max speed is reached. Everyone has their preferences, though I would suggest also use your speed brakes to simulate landing gear drag, as extended L.G. creates a lot of drag when extended. You use the concealed air brakes here with “Airbrake”, though the RL jet didn’t have any speed brakes and none are modeled on your build, which is really odd! What results is: Pull back on the throttle and the jet slows drastically…perhaps the biggest miss for your build. Last difference in what you did and what I would suggest is: More trim authority! Trim effectiveness (clean) is lost below 210 KIAS and though extending the flaps restores trim authority, that’s not how trim effectiveness works IRL. Trim is almost always effective to well below stall airspeed, whether clean or “dirty”. But, very nice build, my write up is long, but I wanted to give a complete evaluation because, regardless of any suggestions I make, this is an excellent build that feels realistic, flies nicely and is fun to fly. Keep up the good work!
The setup and activation is a little strange, it doesn’t appear to be a selectable weapon and no aiming reticle appears, which I think is throwing off players (see comments), but it does work. Simply select air to ground or air to air, press on the “0x G-30R”, which will highlight and press fire. You need to guess where the first rounds will go without the aiming reticle, which appears only while firing. Very effective, though.
It’s really too bad we can’t use the in-game unguided rockets as air-to-air weapons. I’ve tried, but there’s no way to do so. Though they will fire, fly and hit airborne objects (a not-quite-impossible task), there’s no way to select them for use using the AIR-TO-AIR button, there’s no air-to-air target illumination and there’s no green aiming reticle, making them almost impossible to use effectively, which is too bad as when they hit, they make an impressively enormous explosion. IRL, the F-89, F-86D and F-102 had an aiming computer for these weapons and simply allowing the in game rockets to use the air to air key would be similar to how they were used IRL. Instead, we’re stuck with recreating the Battle of Palmdale.
You failed to mention the most important parts of her history: Along with the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku, one of the IJN carriers in the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941. Sunk at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942.
Well, was going to heap a lot of praise onto this build, until I realized it has zero cockpit view. That’s too bad, because it’s nearly impossible to land it well without the view from the cockpit.
Doesn’t really fly like a Phantom…if I were to describe it, I’d say it flies more like an egg!
@RC1138Boss seriously, what.
A tip that speaks to KLM’s point concerning the RL gross weight of the aircraft, SP includes the area of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, so your number in the designer will not reflect the true “wing area”, as understood in real life. The workaround is to look up the RL wing area (Wiki lists the C-5 wing area as 6,200 sq ft), add the wings and size them to 6,200 sq ft. Once that’s sorted, then add the vertical and horizontal stabs; this way your build will more closely reflect the RL lifting capability. As for the jittery landing gear, yes, SP is very annoying, there are workarounds, but tweaking masses and lowering forward reaction does minimize these issues.
@DJRianGamer004 where did you get that idea? We have 56 C-5Ms currently in the inventory, upgraded with new engines (GE F138 / CF6, same as the 747) and avionics.
This is really good, the flight model is excellent. It is certainly underweight and overpowered, but it feels like flying a big jet. The build is complete without being needlessly complex.
Flies nicely, though a bomb bay and bombs would be a nice addition later. By all accounts the Victor was a maneuverable and fast jet bomber, this reflects that nicely, though I would judge the roll rate a tad faster than what was likely with the RL jet. Using the smaller J90s, rather than the BFE150s would have gotten you build very close to the RL jet, though I think you wisely reduced the thrust on the bigger engines (on my phone right now, so difficult to tell for sure what you did). Also, this is fairly lighter than a RL Victor, being 15,000 lbs lighter empty and half as heavy fully loaded (100,000 vs. 200,000 lbs.). I’d rectify both weights by adding about 15,000 lbs of dead weight to your build, as well as the RL bomb load and a LOT more fuel. But don’t change the CG point as the pitch authority is about right as you have it now. Bombers on what was probably a one way nuc mission took off at max weight for max range strikes. Last, it has way too much pitch up with flap extension…I’d half the effect. If it were me, I’d make your next version of your build that way as well. Nice build.
No splitter plates for the intakes?
@Kangy disagree; many SP builders think a G limiter FT function on the horizontal stab will restrict the G loading on a replica build and result in realistic maneuverability, but that’s not how jets (particular designs from the 1950s) work. Jets almost always have a performance reserve which allows the pilots to over G, if necessary, though pilots are trained to keep their aircraft within G limits by monitoring the G meter during maneuvering flight. F-4 pilots could and frequently accidentally did over G their jets, especially in combat. There are also maintenance inspections that are required following an over G and most jets of this type have strain plates (often in the wing roots) which will crack or deform if the jet is over G’d. Also, most versions of the F-4 had a +8.5 symmetrical G limit at lighter weights, though it certainly couldn’t sustain that loading in level flight and that’s also a gross generalization as version, load out, weight, altitude, whether or not the aileron is displaced (asymmetrical flight) and speed all affected the max allowed G loading.
“Phanciful Phantom”. Plus, the insignia bar colors should be reversed, the center stripes are red and the upper and lower stripes are white. T.
So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
An all-around excellent build, nice work!
I assume this works on intakes as well?
@HellFireKoder awesome! Sounds like a great update, looking forward to it.
@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
It’s entertaining, very simple and reminds me of a Jag. Could use a little more trim, but it’s pretty fun to fly.
Simple Hornet, I like it.
@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
Semi-circles…now, it’s impossible to build good intakes for Mirage/F-104/etc. without paneling.