Littlerift

Well the Spitfires for the most part had a superior rate of climb to contemporary Bf 109, were only slightly slower in level flight and while they had a lower VNE in a dive they accelerated in those dives faster due to having a higher power/weight - which negated the possibility of Bf 109s escaping. When you look at the later models of both aircraft the Spitfire begins to clearly overtake the Bf 109. The simple problem the Luftwaffe faced with the Bf 109 was that its design had less longevity, and less relevance as time went on. Part of this is due to the fact that the demands of the Luftwaffe were far too eclectic - they were pouring money into modifying the Bf 109, modifying the Fw 190 (which was planned to become the mainstay fighter simply because the initial design was far superior to that of the Bf 109), designing successors to the Bf 109, developing jets, developing ultra-long-range bombers. The late Bf 109s rather got left by the wayside, given marginal engine improvements and equipped with ordnance that was really only fit for taking down B-17s and B-29s. Whereas, the air force, and even navy, of Britain was spending almost all of its money on the Spitfires. The Typhoons and Tempests were very capable and so weren't modified too much, and the same goes for almost all of the bombers used. Britain adopted a "it'll do" attitude with regards to the majority of its air forces except for the Spitfire. Further, money was saved to a great degree by the RAFs initial disapproval of Whittle's jet concept, which led to Whittle developing the jet almost independently without funding from the government until the design was almost completed. Germay, on the other hand, spent vast amounts of government money on developing jet aircraft, and ultimately produced a plane (the Me 262) that frankly wasn't very fit for jet combat. All of these factors meant that the Spitfire saw much more development time and money than the Bf 109, which ultimately meant that the Spitfire ended up eclipsing the Bf 109 in most performance parameters. That's, why people prefer the Spitfire. Not to mention the fact that the Griffon-engined Spitfires with bubble canopies (from the XIV onward) are the most beautiful machines mankind has ever produced.

The Ho-229 had drag-rudders on the top and bottom of the wing (towards the tip) that controlled the yaw. However, the plane never flew, so there was no testing regarding their efficacy. It's likely that they wouldn't have given the plane a lot of control: I can remember reading somewhere that experts suggested that the design of the plane meant it would be unlikely to enter a flat spin in level flight or light manoeuvres, but tight manoeuvres might lead to the plane entering a stall, and in such cases the pilot wouldn't have a lot of ability to recover the aircraft. I'll try and find the source for you.

I really love the mod, it's by far my favourite BD Armoury extension mod so far. The models and beautiful and crisp, and each weapon feels like it has a purpose. However, there are a few errors in the descriptions: - All of the bombs have the incorrect sentence, 'Meant to use with the Structural Bomb Mount'; Meant for use? - The 1000lb bomb states, 'Extemelly efficient against buildings' - The 7mm Ammo box's description reads, 'which uses ammo on this calibre' - The short barrel MG 151 has an incorrect apostrophe: 'when accompanied by it's longer brother.' - The long barrel MG 151's description states, 'but the faster fire rate was proven efficient...'. Has proven efficient? Needless to say, none of this denigrates from any of the fantastic work that went into the mod. Just trying to help out in whatever way I can. -

I like this idea. At the moment the challenge heavily favours aircraft that are built to turn fast and have the minimum altitude set to 150, because if you have a fighter that is designed to BnZ or fight at higher altitudes then you can be sure that your plane will be shot down while climbing by any well designed competitor following the former design philosophy. It would also mean that things like climb rate actually matter, whereas at the moment you can get away with things like high wing-loading because the trade-off of wing area for weight means you're penalised in an instant-action, ultra low altitude dogfight. It would also help the turboprop a little bit, as while my current design uses a turboprop some testing has shown that switching out for the radial engine, which is lighter, has faster acceleration and is more powerful, almost ensures a victory in under a minute against the standard model. Hell, my radial engine variant can engage and win against 3 of the turboprop variants simultaneously, simply due to the fact that it will be in the air and turned around before the other planes have even built up any speed or altitude. On another note, however, I've loving the weapons pack - the models are fantastic: stock-alike but still with a very specific character and very high quality, and they mostly seem balanced against one another (although the cannons could perhaps use a weigh increase: one cannon weighs less than two mgs and ensures a much faster kill).

It seems much better at deflection shots that the previous AI - my new design is forever taking the wing off of my old design in high-angle, close range attacks, but it seems very twitchy even with damping turned way up. And it tends to fly in straight lines to build up some separation, which allows the plane behind it to kill it with ease. My new design is superior in every way to my previous design, but it can only win if the AI doesn't do something ridiculously dumb.

Wow, the new BdAI constantly rams other aircraft, and seems to quite often just fly in straight lines in front enemy aircraft, and it tends to fly into the ground. This is upsetting, I actually prefer the old system.

This is awesome - I need to lock myself away for a little bit and test.

I can't believe you would just copy my design like that!

Better at evading?! My current aircraft is already almost immune to being shot in close range combat due to the way it tends to spin and turn. I need to try this new BdArmoury.

You need to stop playing so much War Thunder. Lovely replica of an aircraft that has always fascinated me, if only because it's so very strange in every way. Good work!

Just inquiring, tetryds, are you planning on going ahead with the heavy bomber category for the challenge?

The first thing that crossed my mind. They look fantastic man, can't wait to see them in use.

I won't link any as that would be unfair - and it's not my place to decide what is fair and what isn't, but any of the aircraft that have ultra-thin wings, infeasibly strong structures (a single piece connecting two heavy parts), prop planes with flying wings or all-moving tails, etc. I just personally prefer the idea of a proper WW1/WW2/Korean War challenge, rather than stuff that simply couldn't work in real life.

I can't let this thread keep dropping down the page. I've been working on a biplane and although I know, having pitted it against some of the completely unrealistic spaceships-with-two-wings posted in this thread, that it can't compete with anything in the competition, I have to say I've slightly fallen in love with it and I think it'll win the 'Awwwwwwwwwwww' Award easily. I think the biplane category need some more restrictions - some of the aircraft in this thread would clearly not have been remotely viable in reality and, frankly, by going against the spirit of the competition it's incredibly easy to make a biplane that has a ridiculous TwR and supermanoeuvrability, which rather ruins the challenge for the people who wanted to build something a little more feasible.

Heavy fighters, you say? Yes, it does pull slightly to the left... I haven't quite finished balancing it yet. I know, but I feel that strapping a 4cm gun to the front of a jet is a much more realistic and conservative option than a 5cm one. Damn the Germans and their legendary exuberance!

A 40mm cannon, you say... The guns look brilliant man, and if you could get BDArmory AI to use multiple weapons that would be amazing!

Whelp, the new release of FAR seems to make B9 wings weigh less. I can't quite work out how, but all my designs are now a good amount light and it's completely thrown of their balance. Sigh. Back to testing.

After having played War Thunder so much, seeing a B-17 is a little emotionally damaging. However, great work man! She looks great. As for ideas, what about something a bit less conventional: the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21. It has a bit of a different shape compared to most airliners, but a lot of the parts look like they could be well replicated within KSP.

The AI can certainly stall the wings if your elevator deflection is too high, and if it's sky climbing and runs out of speed I've had it flat spin before now.

Which axis is it wobbling in? I've found that having AI freaks out if it has a lot of aileron control, maybe that's the issue.

It's quite easy to make an open cockpit that is lighter than the stock one, and given how a lot of battles are dictated by TWR that's a big deal.

I did a test without tweakscale and with procedural parts and it still makes the AJE J-85 smaller. That is, unless the engine is meant to be <0.625 in diameter anyway. Taking tweakscale off did give me another engine though. How confusing.

The Me 262 is still, in my mind, the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It would be great to see one in this competition. In other news, with an accompanying mixture of sadness and excitement a design which I had been working on for around an hour wipes the floor with my old design (which had taken a few days of tweaking) on its maiden flight... within 2 minutes... Lighter, more nimble, sturdier and more authentic looking for the period... I take back what I said about my earlier design being the one I'll enter. Not to mention the fact that it's 85% more adorable than my last design. Look at her cute little nose! (Yes, I know it's been tweakscaled, when I enter it I'll put a procedural one on, it's just that loading up procedural parts shrinks the engines for some bizarre reason.)

Why did I never click that button?! I assumed it just opened the Flight Data panel. Thank you! I like the jet, by the way. It looks very authentic and very functional. I've found that the AI is fairly easy to set up; the issue was more the control surfaces. However, I have noticed that with jets the AI seems to want to climb to infinity more often that with the props, although it could simply be that the jets tend to actually have a lower TWR than the props do. I mean, one of my prop designs has a higher TWR than the SU-27... Yes, as I said the AI will sometimes just climb pointlessly and then get taken out while it stall-hangs. I've set the control surfaces on my design to quite a bit lower than the pilot could handle, just because if it turns at a high rate for too long it ended up dying due to the EM disadvantage. I think the jet competition takes a little more tactical thinking than at least the monoprop contest - I haven't tried a biplane yet. I like the designs. They remind me of some of the whackier German WW2 concepts - ahead of their time and yet still very 1940s. Here's my current baby, and the one I'll probably be entering, although I do want to try making a less conventional aircraft, possibly asymmetric, just to evoke a little more of that early-jet era optimism in design.

Has anybody actually been building any jets? So far I've found them to be really enjoyable due to the way you have to solve the lack of power issue, but flicking through the thread it doesn't look like anybody has posted any. Edit: Also, tetryds, how did you get the speedometer to display in km/h? I know it used to be possible in FAR to change it, but I can't find the setting.