The rotary bomb bay is great and the build looks pretty good. The RL B-1 is actually pretty maneuverable, particularly with the wings swept aft, they’ve been known to aileron roll at fairly low altitudes, which requires a good pitch rate to prevent lawn-darting into the ground. Would love to see a more refined version as you get more and more experience with modeling flight characteristics, which are quite hard with variable sweep aircraft because the CoL moves aft when the wings sweep. I know that from my XB-70.
Looks good and it flies easily enough. Nice effort. My complaint is that it’s stable...a little too stable, if you ask me. The RL jet wasn’t stable or forgiving, in fact less so than its Western counterpart, which is still a handful. Anyway, besides being extremely easy, I can barely force it to fly an aileron roll, which I’m sure wasn’t a problem for the RL Forger. I think I can disable the gyro and give an assessment because I think it would reflect its RL model more accurately.
Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
Hits: Build quality and details. Camo job. You really captured the often missed details here, AB shape, spoilers, custom landing gear and camo job is especially noteworthy. It seems a lot of research and care went into this build. Next time, you could use the triangle method of wing building, which would allow a thicker root and thinner tip.
Misses: High acceleration, flaps on trim/no dedicated trim, bobbing when pulling back. Solutions to these are 1. Using drag reduction techniques, 2. Learn to incorporate trim into your builds, like almost every RL jet ever built. 3. “DamperMultiplier=10000” on your stab rotators. Nice overall, especially for your experience. Keep up the research and attention to detail, as well as learning SP building tricks and techniques and you’ll be platinum in no time.
Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
Way too fast, the Sikorsky this is based on only does around 300 mph. The reason why is that at high speeds, the retreating rotor blade travels much slower than the advancing rotor blade, producing a lot of asymmetric lift between the two sides of the rotor disc, which can only be compensated for to a certain degree. Exacerbating the problem is that at the speeds you’re talking about (567 mph), most of that advancing blade would be supersonic, causing a shockwave and even more loss of lift, plus a shift in the center of lift for that side of the rotor disc. All this would add up to an uncontrollable roll, breakup of the rotor disc and loss of the aircraft. IMHO, I would say anything over 350 mph is too fast. But I’m sure SP physics doesn’t model that and all of this only matters if you care about realism.
Yes, airspeed gauges do become less sensitive the higher you go. This is due to lower air density at altitude—fewer molecules go down the pitot tube to impact the diaphragm which moves the needle on the airspeed indicator. Depending on your altitude, there can be a huge difference between your indicated airspeed (IAS) and your true airspeed (TAS). Clipping along at 38,000 ft a 737 may be moving at 490 knots through the air, but only indicates 280 knots on the airspeed gauge. Winds at altitude, which can be quite strong, also impact your groundspeed. The wing part of your build acts as the diaphragm of an airspeed indicator (only because an SP wing is programmed to do so, not because there’s actually wind in SP) does—in fact, this build IS an accurate airspeed indicator for SP. The other thing to note is that in SP, that default “airspeed indicator” is not...its actually a groundspeed indicator, that’s why you see the difference. Clever build.
@BlackhattAircraft yes, and that’s my point. This should be posted on Discord, doesn’t have to be posted here. Have you posted this on Discord?
Geez, guys don’t lose your freaking minds. As someone who has a 737 type rating and probably the only person in this site qualified to fly the MAX, that’s not what the article says. I completed the Boeing MAX differences course in January and we have procedures to deal with the system failure in the Lion Air. Whether those pilots knew what the procedures were is unknown, but whenever there is a stab trim runaway in a Boeing, pretty much any Boeing, the procedure is the same. And a stab trim runaway is how the Lion Air accident presented and might have been solved. Consider this as well, there are no pilots refusing to fly the MAX. If there were, you might have reason for concern. Additionally, we have no idea what caused the Ethiopian crash, so your guess is as good as mine and might be one of a thousand things. Last, the 737–all types—is the most numerous airliner in the world. If there’s an aviation accident, chances are good it involved a 737.
Nice, but why did you give it 50,000 hp? It flies over 300 mph, the real thing flew just faster than 120 mph...
@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
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.
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!
@HellFireKoder awesome! Sounds like a great update, looking forward to it.
You’ve been listening to too many people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Capitalism is not America’s government. Capitalism is an economic system, very different. America isn’t a pure democracy, either…can’t think of a singe nation which has a pure democracy. The closest were the Greek city states in the BCs, and even then, only a limited number of citizens (free men) had a vote. America’s system of government is a federation or constitutional republic, it could even be described as a representative democracy. In the U.S., the people are represented by those they elect to office, both at the state and federal (national) level. The states have a certain degree of autonomy, but this can be trumped by the federal government, which reserves specific powers (raise a military, levy taxes, etc.). As for Capitalism, most of the world has this type of economic system, even many European states, which have socialistic systems where certain aspects of the economy are directed by the government (health care, schooling, etc.) are still by and large Capitalistic nations which have free market systems for most every other aspect of the economy. The antithesis of Capitalism would be socialism in which state (centralized) control and direction of all aspects of the economy, regardless of the prevalent market forces which might dictate otherwise. Ultimate communism is, according to Marx, both a political and economic system (I disagree with Karl here, as do all free citizens who have a clue, that you can have political and economic systems which are independent of one another), requires state control (socialism) to transition to communism from its previous form, has never successfully existed because every nation that’s attempted it has gotten stuck in socialism. Hope this helps.
Fun, in a video-gamey kind of way—ludicrous acceleration, though the smoothness of the controls is impressive and well done. Selecting AG1 extends the hook, opens the speed brakes and, miraculously calms everything down to a much more realistic flight model. It’s actually quite easy to land on the boat, nailed it on the first try. The RL Tomcat was not easy to land in the carrier, that hook was way back and down and by all accounts took a lot of skill to do it right. Looks good too, very good, though I really wish you had just called it an F-14E and given it an alternate history, because it’s so close to being a replica and the moniker is a mishmash of modern gamer/anime/British conventions. The nose drop, which is caused for the same reasons in SP as IRL…change of speed…could have been prevented exactly as it would be IRL—by using trim. Instead, you used the trim slider for the flaps. I suggest that your build could have used the VTOL slider for both sweep and flap extension: Middle (default) position could be unswept/wings full forward, slider fully up could be fully swept/wings fully back and slider fully down could be flaps down/extended. That would reserve the trim for trim and fixed your nose drop problem, though the flaps down does raise the nose…however IRL, extending the flaps at 1000 KIAS tends to rip them off the wings!
@RicardoAs1515 yes, the two engines for the AB...same technique that I use. I wouldn’t be concerned that when the AB is activated, you use more fuel than when one engine is operating, which is known as “dry” thrust IRL. ABs dump raw fuel into the burner can (or “combustor”) which is after the the turbine section. Cheap and easy way to get extra power, up to around 50% additional thrust, but very fuel inefficient. And, nearly every AB engine is only operated in AB for limited periods of time, mainly takeoff, landing and combat situations. In fact, the jet I flew that had an AB, the T-38, was limited to 5 mins on the ground and 15 mins airborne. Of course, if you used AB for a full 15 mins, you’d be nearly out of fuel. So, the build technique of using an additional engine simulates both the additional thrust and the horrendously increased fuel consumption from AB use. The MiG-21 usually only flew between 30 and 45 mins and that was with very limited AB use. So, really no need to add extra fuel to a build to make up for a perceived increase in fuel consumption as that’s actually more realistic, IMHO. BTW, this one is on my “favorites” list!
This is quite well constructed, the highlight being the landing gear, which really looks like a realistic landing gear. Far too often, builders will make the LG quite skinny or too short, often because it’s sometimes difficult to hide the main gear within the wing (that stupid protruding hub). However, yours looks like they generally do IRL, stout and beefy and strong enough to absorb a rough landing by a newbie fighter pilot. The overall effect is to make your build appear much more realistic, which I immediately noticed. Construction-wise the complaints I have include the fact that the stars and bars are on the opposite wing as they were/are IRL, something many builders get wrong and the strange combined trim and flap controls, which are almost always independent IRL. Hey, at least you used M.G.s and not that strictly-for-ground-targets cannon, so I can actually engage air to air targets. I can also do a loop in 1,500 ft at 400 mph, probably a 12 G loop...but at least it doesn’t turn tooooo slowly, as so many builds do.
Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
Finally! Makes my iPhone 12 noticeably heat up, as there’s some amazing detail here.
Interesting? Check. Accurate? Possibly, not really familiar with this jet. Flight model? I think so...God-awful ugly? Absolutely!
@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!
Looks good, the AB is impressively done, though similar setups have been used on other builds to similar effect. The presentation is very good, but the big miss IMHO is the post’s title...should have used the full “Grumman F-11A Tiger” instead of the abbreviated “F-11A”, which means...nothing to most people around here, there are probably a hundred fictional posts titled as some variation of “F-11”. But “Grumman” and “Tiger” are evocative of an earlier time when the Grumman “Ironworks” build tough warplanes flown by even tougher men. Anyway, can’t wait to wring this one out and see if the flight model is as good as the aesthetics. Congrats on a 100+ upvote build and a third feature, nice work!
@BornToBeBurned well, have to say, “your wings suck” isn’t as helpful as a better suggestion on how you would have built the wings differently. Besides, as the creator has said, this is a fictional build, so “blueprint” rules do not apply.
Overall, this is pretty good for a large jet. It flies like a large jet, with realistic acceleration, speeds, wing loading and maneuverability. Though not exactly as heavy as a RL E-3, your build is over 200K, which is much, much better than stupid builds which have negative weights. The wing flex is very well done...subtle enough that it's not distracting and it doesn't ruin the handling, but noticeable as it is IRL. And you use the semi-symmetric airfoil, correct and very good, many, many builders use that Cessna (flat-bottomed) profile for some unfathomable reason. The overall level of detail is good without going overboard and the rotating dish actually rotates. I also like the fact you've included the high lift (LE) devices, roll spoilers, inboard and outboard flaps (though, IRL, there's a roll program that only employs the spoilers over a certain yoke deflection and the outboard ailerons only operate below a certain speed). The reverse thrust visual effect is good, with the sliding translating sleeves.
Construction/details - Looks good and you nicked theAlban's "U.S. AIR FORCE", but where are the stars and bars? Totally missing, you should have included them as every USAF aircraft has them, sometimes subdued, but they're always there, even on AF1. Plus, they would have lent a much needed pop of color to the otherwise drab grey. Sure, they would have added a few more parts, but once you're over 1,000, does it matter that much anyway? If I'm making a big deal about a small-ish detail it's because as a 24 year AF pilot, every USAF build absolutely, positively needs the glorious stars and bars!
Strobes...yeah, she has them. It's better to assume that any large jet flying in the current era has strobes.
Flight Model - Trim is reversed. IRL, the E-3 has a split switch located on the left (aircraft commander) or right (copilot) horn of the yoke, which moves up and down to actuate the trim. The pilot pushes forward on the switch for nose down trim and pulls back for nose up trim. Don't know why, but many SP builders make this mistake, to the extent that I've griped about it before.
Cockpit View - Really needs one, it's all too easy to get high or low on final, leading to short of overrun landings on Avalanche's runway if you can't see the runway through the build which is blocking your view.
Overall, though, very nice build. Looks like an E-3, flies kinda like an E-3, I agree with the major decisions you made in your build. The details are just that: details. I'd Spotlight you, however, you have many more points than I do!
"The numbers are TAS and IAS in knots on the left, and Altitude in feet on the right."...you, sir, are now officially my favorite builder: The only other person I know in all of SP who uses the correct speed (knots) and altitude (feet) units!
Oh, and don’t forget the “logo lights”...these are really for lighting up your company’s big logo painted on the tail...advertising, you know. Lit anytime crew is onboard at night and when airborne (below 18,000’).
Well, the shape and look are spot on, the performance isn’t ridiculous, though the RL A-7 could do a bit better than 360 knots at S.L. But the jet was said to be “she sure ain’t fast, but she sure is slow!” Turn is ok, I didn’t put it on the Dev Console to get the vertical G...one thing though, like most attack/bomber aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio and often bigger wings (vice pure air to air fighters), was that the jet scrubbed a LOT of speed in turns so that sustained turn rate isn’t fantastic. This one doesn’t decelerate in turns like the RL jet. What @Mustang51 is referring to is the A-7F, which was a lengthened A-7 with a much better engine, Mach 1.6 performance and greatly improved night/all weather interdiction capabilities. The USAF didn’t buy it, preferring to stick with the F-16 instead. The F version had an afterburner, the normal A-7 did NOT have AB, though the highly efficient non-afterburning turbofan (TF41) was a first for tactical aircraft. Something else I would suggest for next time is perhaps split the trim and flaps; for some reason the SP community thinks those two systems are interrelated and use the same control. A pilot can adjust the trim at any speed, while flaps are only extended below a certain speed, so moving the trim and having the flaps extend at 400 knots would be a disaster IRL!
Very interesting build, I'm saving as a favorite due to its use of FT, of which there is a lot. It has 7,700 drag points, which is an enormous amount, but it doesn't like to slow down at all. The fly by wire is interesting. Low part count makes it good for MP, like you say. I also like the simplicity of weaponry. Reminds me a lot of my own F-20 build, but with a straighter wing.
@Freerider2142 no, he’s correct, the F-17, which eventually became the F-18, was a direct descendent of the F-5E, but vastly improved and more sophisticated.
This puts the “simple” back in SimplePlanes...and created on iOS, no less! It’s quite fun to fly around, though it really needs more trim authority.
Well, it's certainly ambitious, I'll say that for sure. Working cockpit, details, correct weight, paneling...and TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE parts. My iPhone 8 regularly handles 1,500+ part builds no problems, but I thought this one would crash it (thankfully it didn't). Believe me, I use plenty of parts in my builds...but 2,000+ on a fighter? You certainly put a lot of time and effort into this one that's for sure and you have the patience required of a great builder. Now for some critiques: It's not 1:1, it's about 125% scale, not sure why that is, perhaps you started with the cockpit, got just a little bit off there and it led to a bigger than desired build? That's usually the problem with full cockpit builds. The flight model...my advice is: drag reduction. You're on Windows, so open up the Overload portion and use "dragScale=0" on major sections and "calculateDrag=False" on details...which also eases the required computing power to run a high part build such as this. Add the drag back in using dragScale so that you can have the correct performance for your jet. This technique allows both realistic acceleration rates, as well as deceleration while turning, which replicates what happens when a high performance jet pulls a high G turn. As it is now, you need an 11:1 thrust to weight ratio to overcome your 13,000+ drag points, which leads to ridiculously fast acceleration rates, then it feels like your jet hits a brick wall when it gets to its top speed. At the end of the day, so many dedicated builders spend so, so much time on the basic build, that they lose patience with the flight model, or they simply don't let others test fly their builds and point out things that might be improved with the flight model. But, I have to admire your effort here, keep building and don't take my critiques as harsh criticism, but rather honest critiques which you could use to make an even better build next time. Just keep learning, getting better and you're going to be one of the better builders here some day soon.
@CRJ900Pilot Basically, what @edensk said. Inside the cockpit, most fighter type aircraft, Navy or Air Force, have a light indicator, which connected to the AoA system and tells the pilot if they’re on approach speed (correct AoA), slow (AoA too high, near to stall AoA) or too fast (AoA above approach AoA). The pilot adjusts his approach speed and approach angle appropriately...in the T-38 it was referred to as “flying the green donut”, because an on speed/on AoA indication was a green “o” light. Those lights, green, amber (yellow) and red on the nose gear of the F-4, F-14 and F-18, et. al., are simply repeater lights of what the pilot sees in his cockpit. The Landing Signals Officer (LSO), who stands by the optical light system on the boat’s deck and monitors every carrier landing, uses these lights while the jet is on approach and issues commands to the approaching jet to correct, continue or go around from the approach. There are other ways to tell during the day if a jet is too fast or slow, in fact when performing U-2 mobile duties from the chase car, I could absolutely tell if a jet was correctly configured, too fast or too slow (mostly based on relative angle of the tailwheel vs. the main gear), but during the night, these lights really help.
@Vidal99977 I fly the 737 for a major US airline and an engine failure, as related by Iranian authorities, does not bring down an airliner in flames. I suffered an engine failure (compressor stall), flames shot out the back (as related by the passengers in back). We simply secured the engine and proceeded to landing. Even SWA1380, which suffered an uncontained engine failure, didn’t burn and fall out of the sky. And by the way, the engine manufacturer isn’t even Boeing, it’s CFM, who builds the CFM56 engine which powers the 737NG, so you can’t even blame that on Boeing, even IF true. Gimme a break. The Iranians better have a rock solid explanation plus release the black boxes for independent analysis before I believe their propaganda.
I could write 100 pages on my assessment for this build...bottom line it’s impressive given the builder’s level. The highlights are the smooth flight model, the overall shape of the jet and the cockpit...especially because the builder managed to build a full cockpit without sacrificing the rest of the plane. The paneling is nice and there’s clearly been a lot of work here. Next time I would suggest more drag reduction because it accelerates a bit too swiftly and it’s still too slow down low. And I must say, the JF-17 is attractive for a modern jet, but it’s not the most beautiful airplane out there ;)...that honor would go to the F-80, IMHO. Nice work!
This thing is ridonculous...those two 19 year old M1 crewmen I watched barreling across the tank practice area at Ft Carson at more than 60 mph—they reminded me of the two dudes who took Cameron’s Ferrari for a joyride in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off—would love this thing!
F4 Test Report by Sir Thomas V. Brentprop, IV, DSO, DFC...Certainly a fast ship, acceleration is exelplary, much as a brace of hunting dogs pursuing a hare or fox on a fine hunting day! As stable and solid as one of the many majestic castles dotting the bucolic English countryside. The high speed makes this one a handful on a torp run...one has to remain precisely aware of the hazards accompanying the pursuit, otherwise he will find himself in the drink! Landing on the pitching deck of a flattop is a touchy affair...final is stable and well controlled at a stately 140 mph and approximately 20% power, fully configured, of course... the nose up attitude makes it difficult to spot the deck, old boy, but this is a common difficulty on shipborne prop fighters and one not unfamiliar to this old Seafire ace! In spite of all that, landing was a breeze, well done! Huzzah!
Well, I really like the effort shown on the HUD. It’s a bit faster than it ought to be, you might have dialed back the engine power and this would have also given it more realistic acceleration. It is a fictional build, though, so you have a bit more leeway than with a replica.
@ChisP no, you’re thinking of the F-111B, which was the shipboard version of the F-111, it’s distinguishable in that it had a blunter nose. That airplane was developed at the insistence of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who had run Ford Motor Company prior to his appointment as SecDef. McNamara insisted that the Department of Defense would save a lot of money if they used common airframes between the USAF and the Navy. As the AF was trying to field the 111 as it’s next interdictor bomber, McNamara insisted it be developed into the Navy’s F-4 replacement...for the role of fleet defense—essentially interception and air-to-air combat. The Aardvark is many things...but it’s not, and was never meant to be, a fighter...which the Navy discovered upon evaluation. I think 2 or 3 were built. When told that the 111 was thrust deficient as an air-to-air fighter, McNamara asked “well, how much more thrust does it need???” The Chief Of Naval Operations at the time replied, “There isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make a Navy fighter out of that airplane!” The B model was canceled shortly thereafter and the F-14 was developed as the Navy’s fleet defense fighter. The Air Force version, however, went on to fly a long and distinguished career, as an interdictor bomber, including in Vietnam and Gulf War I.
I agree the Holocaust is no joking matter, but this would be better served in the forum where you read the offending comments. Last I checked, SP forums are fairly well behaved and managed. If I’m wrong, please show me where and I’ll be sure to call out any stupid comments.
Recommend you relax your limitation on four guns...why?: The P-47 had eight guns, the P-51 had six guns (most versions), the P-38 had five guns, the P-40 had six guns (most versions), the Hurricane had eight guns (albeit smaller caliber than the U.S. planes), the Spitfire had up to eight guns, the Me-109 has up to five guns in later versions, the FW-190 had six guns, the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair all had six guns. Of the major combatants, only the Japanese and Italian fighters normally had fewer than six guns, normally to save weight and maximize maneuverability.
So, with 4,000+ flying hours, I feel qualified to comment on your post. When you state some users are overly reliant on trim, I realize you don't really understand what trim is for. In RL, trim is necessary to permit a wide range of flying airspeeds, from takeoff and landing to high speed flight; as well as configuration changes (i.e., flap retraction/extension). Aircraft are not designed to fly at a single airspeed and pilots would rapidly fatigue from even a slight effort holding the nose up or down, even if they were only required to hold up the nose on takeoff through acceleration to high speed flight. To realize how important trim is, note both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents, which were both precipitated by out of trim conditions. That's why my builds are "overly reliant on trim" and will continue to be so. In fact, my current build will require not only significant nose up trim, but significant nose down trim, both nearly full scale. That's why my upcoming build will not only be controllable at 1,400 mph, but fully capable of flying hands off down to 190 mph. I was on SP before trim was available as a stock feature and I actually used rotators to provide trim to some of my early builds. If you want to eschew trim, fine, you're essentially building an airplane that flies like a model plane...one speed. If you're attempting to build a semi-realistic build, especially a replica, capable of flying a wide range of airspeeds, you need not only to understand trim, why it's there and how it works, but incorporate it into your builds.
Well, the shape is pretty good. I like some of the details, certainly and you have a good eye for elements most builders miss (upsloping forward fuse, intake shape, gear details). It’s woefully underpowered...the real thing was supersonic (approx 760 mph at SL). Recommend using the more powerful engines—yes it would be “overpowered” as compared to the real thing...which may be what you were going for by using two smaller engines here. I think the J57 in the D model put out 16,000 lbs of thrust, but SP doesn’t yield the correct performance, so you might as well work around that and just use the bigger engines.
Don’t know why I hadn’t seen this before. Very moving story as well, very nice build.
You realize you have skills. With a bit of input on your flight models, you’d have some of the best creations ever on the site. Do you have anyone fly your creations prior to posting?
It was a bomber...but the AF is in the habit of calling any single pilot fighter-sized jet a fighter. Even, officially, the A-10 is a “fighter” for required crew qualifications and organizational purposes. Every single A-10 unit is a fighter squadron, fighter group or fighter wing...not an attack unit in there at all.