sinebar 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Well I have looked for the X-3 for FSX but it doesn't seem to exist. So I decided that I will model one myself probably in Gmax. But before I do I would like to know if any of the addon companies are planning on doing the X-3. Does anyone know if aerosoft or any others are planning a X-3 for FSX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted March 21, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted March 21, 2007 Well I have looked for the X-3 for FSX but it doesn't seem to exist. So I decided that I will model one myself probably in Gmax. But before I do I would like to know if any of the addon companies are planning on doing the X-3. Does anyone know if aerosoft or any others are planning a X-3 for FSX? Not to my knowledge. Super cool aircraft, but as they never had the engines they needed it remained the fastest looking subsonic aircraft ever build. As far as I know it never went supersonic in level flight although designed for what is now known as supercruise. Of all the Xcraft are you sure this is the one you like to do? I am seriously interested in a Xcraft project, but the X3? That's the looser of the bunch in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinebar 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 Not to my knowledge. Super cool aircraft, but as they never had the engines they needed it remained the fastest looking subsonic aircraft ever build. As far as I know it never went supersonic in level flight although designed for what is now known as supercruise. Of all the Xcraft are you sure this is the one you like to do? I am seriously interested in a Xcraft project, but the X3? That's the looser of the bunch in my opinion. Yeah but it's the coolest looking of them all and I would give it the engines that it was designed for so that it would go supersonic. Any way I am going to give it a try. I ordered a plastic model of it for reference because I want it to be as accurate as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted March 22, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted March 22, 2007 Yeah but it's the coolest looking of them all and I would give it the engines that it was designed for so that it would go supersonic. Any way I am going to give it a try. I ordered a plastic model of it for reference because I want it to be as accurate as possible. I'll fly her! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinebar 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'll fly her! Well here's a preview. I've been working on it for a few weeks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverickNL 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 how bout a X-29?:P very cool looking plane with those swept forward wings more info including 3-D model :http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-29.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 16, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted April 16, 2007 how bout a X-29?:P very cool looking plane with those swept forward wings more info including 3-D model :http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-29.htm Oh god, I hate to think about the flight model for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 It's actually almost exactly the same as a "normal" configured aircraft, Mathijs - the problem came with the stresses in the wings I believe? Certainly a reversed swept wing produces less drag which is why I believe they did that model. The worrying thing is when you realise that there's actually a pre-Vietnam vintage F-5A under that lot! Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ae_timmy 3 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 the problem came with the stresses in the wings I believe? Certainly a reversed swept wing produces less drag which is why I believe they did that model. To my knowledge (aerospace engineering student) the biggest problem was indeed with the torsional moments on the wings. Materials back then weren't as advanced as they are nowadays. But when it comes to flying characteristics it's definitely a pretty cool aircraft and not unlike an F-16. Both are aerodynamically unstable and need computer controlled fly-by-wire systems to keep 'em in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverickNL 0 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 as far as i know there is a FS 2004 version made so it should be possible. i think this is the nicest of all the X crafts:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 17, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted April 17, 2007 To my knowledge (aerospace engineering student) the biggest problem was indeed with the torsional moments on the wings. Materials back then weren't as advanced as they are nowadays. But when it comes to flying characteristics it's definitely a pretty cool aircraft and not unlike an F-16. Both are aerodynamically unstable and need computer controlled fly-by-wire systems to keep 'em in the air. Indeed the forces on the wings made it impossible to stop them flexing. Even with modern material I doubt the wing could be made rigid enough. And as an engineer you know that this is nearly impossible to work with in an aircraft that is not build for comfort but performance. Wasn't there something about the COG moving to a better location at high speeds that made them try it? A few weeks ago I was able to get close to a ultra modern high performance aerobatic aircraft (read Red Bull racing stuff). Those aircrafts are so incredibly stiff that any torsion is ignored. The pilot just expects the whole aircraft to be exactly the same under any G-load. A massive change from the (then considered state of the art) Cap 20 I know well. These are very strong aircraft but at +10 G you needed to move the stick a lot just to compensate for the aircraft flexing. Also controls used to go stiff because the wings would warp under load only to be very loose when the G-load was removed. I never understood how pilots were able to fly them so neat. I tried a few loops but never managed to get back to a stable level flight without a lot of corrections. The moment you came out of the loop and relaxed the stick it would become a lot lighter and I almost always went into a rather steep dive, lol. All the time being sick as dog, not made for aerobatic obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 17, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted April 17, 2007 as far as i know there is a FS 2004 version made so it should be possible. i think this is the nicest of all the X crafts:P I doubt that aircraft models the change in cog correctly when you get to high speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc W. 0 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I doubt that aircraft models the change in cog correctly when you get to high speeds. How many people would notice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog 2 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The main reason the X-3 never went supersonic was it developed too much drag. It was designed before Whitcomb's work on the area rule technique was known and as such, it developed a hell of alot of wave drag as it approached Mach unity. As for the X-29, it was very unstable. I think the F-16 has 5% negative static stability at subsonic speeds, whereas the X-29 had 35% static instability. However, for FS, it could still be modeled like the F-16 has been. Just because the X-29 had 35% instability, I don't know what gains were designed into the Flight Control System (FCS) so it actually could be modeled, just make it as responsive as you would like. Of course, for FS9/X, I don't think it would be a huge seller. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it, though. I've thought of tackling an X-31 myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 18, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted April 18, 2007 Of course, for FS9/X, I don't think it would be a huge seller. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it, though. I've thought of tackling an X-31 myself. Well as I said before, I am certainly in the market for an xplane collection. I think it would sell, even if it would be done with simple instruments (most of those pits WERE rather basic of course as the aircraft only had to fly a bit and no navigate or do IFR work). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverickNL 0 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Well as I said before, I am certainly in the market for an xplane collection. I think it would sell, even if it would be done with simple instruments (most of those pits WERE rather basic of course as the aircraft only had to fly a bit and no navigate or do IFR work). so any chance :roll: of a X 29? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dag Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Oh god, I hate to think about the flight model for that one. .... But 1/4 of exRNoAF F-5A #65-10573 is "in" it !! That should be reason enough :shock: :twisted: Best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron.Eagle 0 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 ... But 1/4 of exRNoAF F-5A #65-10573 is "in" it !!(...) HÄH :?: ...which would be in English: "sorry?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Look at the nose section and follow the fuselage all the way back to just in front of the vertical stabiliser... The basic airframe that makes up the X-29 is the aforementioned F-5A. I may be wrong, but wasn't the powerplant nicked directly from an F-20 as well? It was only really a testbed for the wing configuration, but nevertheless, it still looks pretty cool and futuristic - until you spot the bits of Tiger II maybe. Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dag Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Right Ian! The fwd fuselage was chopped (rather crudely) off old "573" at the RNoAF Technical School at Kjevik/Kristiansand and used by Grumman for the fwd part of one of the X-29 prototypes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog 2 Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Oh, I missed you were talking about an X-Plane series. I request the X-4 and X-5 to go along with the X-3 as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts