Douglas X-3 Stiletto
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Douglas X-3 Stiletto

  1. #1

    Douglas X-3 Stiletto

    I'm opening up a new thread for this airplane so that the conversation can be carried on without any confusion. . . .it's all yours folks!!!
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    P3dv4 Only | Windows7 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  2. #2
    I had a version of this flying in FS9 or FSX at one point. I think it was Ito? (Edit, yep, Kazunori Ito. And there's an FSX panel. Link.)

    It's a beautiful plane, but from everything I've read about, it's far more fun to look at than fly. it was underpowered (designed for 2,000 mph max speed, was subsonic except in a dive), didn't control well (terrible roll coupling), and really, bringing it to FSX/P3D would just let us recreate a failed experiment and fly a bad plane. A beautiful bad plane, sure, but if you ever went out with someone who was stunning but was dumb and had a bad personality, this is the aviation equivalent of that.

    I can think of a lot of other 40s/50s jets I'd rather get a chance to fly, as purty as the X-3 was.

  3. #3
    Might have to consolidate threads... http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...light=stiletto

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by DennyA View Post
    I had a version of this flying in FS9 or FSX at one point. I think it was Ito? (Edit, yep, Kazunori Ito. And there's an FSX panel. Link.)

    It's a beautiful plane, but from everything I've read about, it's far more fun to look at than fly. it was underpowered (designed for 2,000 mph max speed, was subsonic except in a dive), didn't control well (terrible roll coupling), and really, bringing it to FSX/P3D would just let us recreate a failed experiment and fly a bad plane. A beautiful bad plane, sure, but if you ever went out with someone who was stunning but was dumb and had a bad personality, this is the aviation equivalent of that.

    I can think of a lot of other 40s/50s jets I'd rather get a chance to fly, as purty as the X-3 was.
    I tend to agree. A lot of work to do a good model that you will not fly but a few times. High takeoff and landing speeds, poor handing (imagine the comments this would draw), and then folks would want a realistic parachute. :-) Not worth the effort IMO.
    Milton Shupe
    FS9/FSX Modeler Hack

    Video Tutorials - Gmax for Beginners My Uploads on SOH

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Milton Shupe View Post
    I tend to agree. A lot of work to do a good model that you will not fly but a few times. High takeoff and landing speeds, poor handing (imagine the comments this would draw), and then folks would want a realistic parachute. :-) Not worth the effort IMO.
    100% correct Milton.
    'Novelty' subjects are just that, entertaining for five minutes and the shelved.
    "Illegitimum non carborundum".

    Corsair Obsidian 900D Full Tower. MSI X99A XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM. Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 5960X Haswell-E LGA2011-3 8 Core @ 4.8GHz. Thermaltake Water 3 Riing RGB Cooler Premium Edition 6 x Riing 12 fans. Galax GeForce GTX 1080 HOF 8GB x2 SLI.
    Corsair Dominator Platinum 32G 2800MHz DDR4 Kit. LG BH16NS40 BluRay Reader/Writer. Corsair CMPSU-HX1000i FM 1000Watt x2.
    Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD x 3. Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD x1.
    Western Digital WD Gold 4TB Datacenter HDD.
    Acer Predator X34P 34inch IPS LED Curved Gaming Monitor 3440x1440 120Hz

  6. #6
    Sooo, thats that then.. It was underpowered and hard too fly, so we ditch it in the trash with ysterdays newspaper and forget about it and the history behind it..
    Not happy..

  7. #7
    Members +
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Age
    65
    Posts
    628
    This first fles 66 years ago!!!!

    Warchild, I agree..
    So sad that people are so fickle with 'novelty' or non mainstream stuff.

  8. #8
    I'd love to see this developed for FSX/P3D - the quirkier the better.
    Intel I7-4770 3.4Ghz
    16 Gb RAM
    nVidia GTX770 2Gb
    Windows 8.1 64 bit
    P3D v3.4

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by warchild View Post
    Sooo, thats that then.. It was underpowered and hard to fly, so we ditch it in the trash with yesterdays newspaper and forget about it and the history behind it..
    Not happy..
    I know Milton has a long list of Aircraft to either model or convert to Native FSX. While I sort of understand why people find it interesting, the idea of building a bad airplane. . .with bad flight characteristics. . .does that really sound like a terrific idea? Not to mention, as Milton already has, the posts that would start immediately after release (actually during beta testing) because people couldn't get it to fly correctly? Well duh, it never did fly correctly so have fun "trying" to flying it. In the end what a lot of people would expect is a model that looks like the Stiletto inside and out, but flies like a normal jet. . .otherwise they would do exactly what has been suggested. . .fly it a few times and put it away. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavor despite it's history.
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    P3dv4 Only | Windows7 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  10. #10
    What the world needs now.....TSR-2.

    Not necessarily by Milton, God knows hes done enough and has more on his plate (thank you Milton) but talk about the iconic British aircraft! One of my all time favorites.

    Bob

  11. #11
    What the world needs now.....TSR-2.
    Not necessarily by Milton, God knows hes done enough and has more on his plate (thank you Milton) but talk about the iconic British aircraft! One of my all time favorites.
    Bob
    Yes, that would be a great addition!
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    P3dv4 Only | Windows7 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  12. #12
    Exactly. My Gods. Miltons done his part for god and country three times over and he's going better than ever still.. This isnt on Milton..
    Look..
    The Pennsylvania Railroad decided to tunnel under two rivers leading into and out of new york city at the turn of the twentieth century, despite lousy soil, and other hardships including the fact that no one had ever done it nor did anyone believe it could be done. They succeeded, and built the grandest train station ( 83 acres ) in the middle of new york city. It became a part of the people and culture of new york, But when Pennsylvania railroad ran into financiAL difficulties, the station and the land it was on was sold, and the entire station bulldozed to the ground. This lead to the creation of the countries first historical preservation society.. But so many other things have been lost or forgotten. We've all looked back to places we've lived ot loved and scratched our heads wondering why they destroyed this or that building or garden. Old things disappear and are forgotten, every day.
    In 1919 Junkers deigned and built the worlds first all metal monoplane, with an eye on future passenger service. That dream was shattered when the Nazi's took control of the Fokker company and started producing warplanes.. Where is that first plane today?? Is there any example of it at all?? Something besides pictures??
    The P-61 was designed on the back of a napkin, by a Czech imagrant over a sandwich in a new york deli. It was designed as a dedicated nightfighter, but late in the war, it would become a wonderful ground attack aircraft with enough firepower to slice steam locomotives in half, on one pass. it also servd as the nations first weather research aircraft, and several other "firsts" as well. Yeahh, we know of four in real life. None of them are accessible to the majority of people.
    Thanks too the X-3, we not only have its bastard son, the F-104, but fast, safe flight itself. Sure it was a failure at testing engines, but we learned so very much about coupled inertia that they were able to develop new technologies to counter adverse yaw, such as the yaw dampener..
    I watch these documentaries on WWII and Korea and yeah, even vietnam, and so often i find myself crying along with the veterans because I was in that hell too, and i know that particular brand of pain.
    Glenn Edwards died at Murock california in an XB-35 that mysteriously broke up in flight. Edwards Airforce base was named after him, and had beren till then, called Murock.
    Like Glenn Edwards, there have been thousands and thousands of people who have done incredible work, in a time when all ther was was pen and paper. Succeed or fail, their contributions to this world, lead the way for the advancements we enjoy today. We thrive on their sacrifices and hard work. We owe our children and our childrens children, the continuation of their legacy so that no one ever forgets what they did.
    I look at groups like A2A and PMDG which have made aircraft so true to the real aircraft, that they can be flown directly from the manufacturers book. FSX, P3D, X-Plane? These arent games. Theyre simulators. They bring to life for so many, the past and present and future when it arrives, for so very many, and we developers, are the only ones who can bring it too them. Good, bad, or indifferent, we need to do this, if not for ourselves, then our childrens children, before it all becomes bulldozed for another madison square gardens..
    The X-3 like the delta dart, dlta dagger, X1 X-15, all of them, is important to the advancement of flight. It taught us a lot.. It neds to be built. I dont care by whom, but it needs to be built..
    Pam

    (edited for correctness with apologies for inaccuracies )..

  13. #13
    Somewhere, someplace in the archives, there are engineering drawings, cross sections from which this aircraft was built. When those are found, I will build it. Until then, we can fly the one model that does represent all that you say, the model by Kazunori Ito. Until then, a more exacting likeness cannot be built from the meager 3-views already found.
    Milton Shupe
    FS9/FSX Modeler Hack

    Video Tutorials - Gmax for Beginners My Uploads on SOH

  14. #14
    It's OK Milton.. Theyll turn up from somewhere.. I believe in that.. The biggest question I have to answer, is "am I capable of making the flight model?"
    with the various performance issues that are documented, is FSX/P3D, up to duplicating them?? A trans-sonic roll to the left, flipped the nose up twenty degrees, and another time, flipped it down fifteen degrees..
    I'm not an aerodynamics engineer. Everything I know, wouldnt be more than the last drop of coffee in their cups.. It's not an easy question too answer, and to be honest, this plane frightens me a little, because of it.. I feel strongly about history though, and truthfully, for me, thats what its all about..

    A place, we cant go any more..


  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by falcon409 View Post
    Yes, that would be a great addition!
    I think Rob Richardson (http://www.robertjamesrichardson.co.uk/index.html)was working on one at one point before his Cougar but I don't know if he's still on it....

  16. #16
    Until adequate Douglas X-3 drawings are located, might it not be productive to further develop and refine the X-3 flight model using Kazunori Ito's X-3 as the visual model?

    Built for Fs2002 and Fs2004. it displays well in FSX. Ito's X-3 Aircraft.cfg and X-3 Stiletto.air files could really use some work. This improved flight model subsequently might be transferred to the new X-3 model.

    Perhaps a new cockpit and VC might also be developed in a similar manner.

    In reality, a project to simulate the aircraft would focus on the cockpit and view. The systems modeled would be modular and later translated into the actual mechanical, hydraulic and electrical systems. Perhaps converting Ito's X-3 to native FSX might also be useful, if feasible.

    Just a bit of random musings ...

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by llanning08 View Post
    Until adequate Douglas X-3 drawings are located, might it not be productive to further develop and refine the X-3 flight model using Kazunori Ito's X-3 as the visual model?

    Built for Fs2002 and Fs2004. it displays well in FSX. Ito's X-3 Aircraft.cfg and X-3 Stiletto.air files could really use some work. This improved flight model subsequently might be transferred to the new X-3 model.
    Perhaps a new cockpit and VC might also be developed in a similar manner.

    In reality, a project to simulate the aircraft would focus on the cockpit and view. The systems modeled would be modular and later translated into the actual mechanical, hydraulic and electrical systems. Perhaps converting Ito's X-3 to native FSX might also be useful, if feasible.

    Just a bit of random musings ...
    Above all else Kazunori Ito was an artist. His creations were always well received, easy to paint and fun to fly. He had a list of expectations for his models once release, such as; all repaints should be done just as he did them, standard 256 color so that they would display on anyone's system, no matter what version of Flight Sim they used or how old their system was, they were not to be used in a Combat Sim. . .he was adamant about that, his models were not be reverse engineered in any way. As far as his air file and aircraft config files, basically he had several that he used based on what type of aircraft it was. He admitted to me several times that he knew very little about building a realistic FDE and so he would use what was available and as long as it was close he was ok with that. His VC's got considerably better as he went on but I'm not sure he was doing them, possibly someone else was lending a hand there because most of his early airplanes had no VC at all. As far as converting his X-3 to Native. . .NO. That goes against his wishes and it's my opinion that should be honored.
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    P3dv4 Only | Windows7 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by falcon409 View Post
    Above all else Kazunori Ito was an artist. His creations were always well received, easy to paint and fun to fly. He had a list of expectations for his models once release, such as; all repaints should be done just as he did them, standard 256 color so that they would display on anyone's system, no matter what version of Flight Sim they used or how old their system was, they were not to be used in a Combat Sim. . .he was adamant about that, his models were not be reverse engineered in any way. As far as his air file and aircraft config files, basically he had several that he used based on what type of aircraft it was. He admitted to me several times that he knew very little about building a realistic FDE and so he would use what was available and as long as it was close he was ok with that. His VC's got considerably better as he went on but I'm not sure he was doing them, possibly someone else was lending a hand there because most of his early airplanes had no VC at all. As far as converting his X-3 to Native. . .NO. That goes against his wishes and it's my opinion that should be honored.
    As it should be..
    Besides, the X-3 and the F-104 were both heavily fuselage loaded instead of wing loaded. That means that the fuselage exerted more force over the wings, than the wings exerted over the fuselage as in normal aircraft. You were literally flying a missile There arent any FDE's in FSX or P3D that use that dynamic and starting with someone elses premade FDE isnt only in bad taste, it's incorrect, and this whole FDE will have to be done from scratch just to get it too fly somewhere in the ballpark of reality.
    I dont want to make just another pretty plane. Over the last ten years, every time i have asked if you wanted me to make it real or make it fun, you have consistently said, make it real. So I'm gonna do that here too, and start with a literally blank FDE so i can add in a piece at a time, just like i did with the SU-37.


  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by warchild View Post
    That means that the fuselage exerted more force over the wings, than the wings exerted over the fuselage as in normal aircraft.
    .....It might be the perfect opportunity to experiment with the "coupling" of the three MOI values. Start low....like with 50.0, and work up to say.... 500.0....watch what happens.

    Might be interesting.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by magoo View Post
    .....It might be the perfect opportunity to experiment with the "coupling" of the three MOI values. Start low....like with 50.0, and work up to say.... 500.0....watch what happens.

    Might be interesting.
    Thats about what the plan is going to be, but rather than experimenting, or assigning some value determined by potentially incorrect formulas, i'm going to learn everything i can about this phenomena so i can more clearly understand what the forces are actually doing.. Because of the lack of aircraft in any of the simulators beyond X-Planes X-15, Inertial coupling is usually and for valid reasons, ignored. It played a part in creating the sopwith camel we did years ago for classic wings, wherein the tail is so heavy on the real aircraft, it would sometimes, wag the dog so to speak.. After WWII science still did not understand this phenomena, and a whole plethora of long bodied narrow aircraft such as the B-36 and the boeing 707 were coming into prominence. The commercial aviation sector had a problem and they needed a solution. The data provided from the X-3 and later, the X-15 paved the way to developing that solution..

  21. #21

  22. #22
    A good and useful article, I hadn't seen that one. Thanks for posting it.

    Perhaps I should clarify my point.

    My observation has been simply that the Microsoft flight sims are a self contained world, and answer to no reality other than their own code, their own graphic event presentaion.

    One can have (perhaps) a NACA profile for a given wing type, repleat with test graphs and all long math , but the scientific data simply will not translate into FS' scalars, switches and tables.

    The simple writing of a pilot's report, or the verbal reflections of a pilot experienced with the aircraft in question may be far more valuable than the long math equation of simple dynamic coupling. An illustration of a flight test telemetry report may look impressive, but any of us will quickly bypass that and dig into the written report to try and figure out just what the aircraft did, and why. (and how, and exactly at what stage of the flight envelope...?!)

    I'm aware of more than one flightsim enthusiast who hold pilot's certificates, some of them very highly accredited, who enjoy the physical side of flight modeling.

    The main challenge has not been to understand how the real plane behaves. They already have the bruises and band aids to show that.

    The challenge lies in squeezing a convincing replication out of Microsoft's coded simulator. How to (get) the simulator to speak Super Cub/Spitfire/X-15......(?)

    That's where the abstractions kick in.

    Please don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing Microsoft's program. The physics engine buried in Flightsim is an astounding body of code.....simply beyond brilliant,

    ......and.....it's a universe within itself, given to it's own values, the numbers generated within designed to drive a beautiful piece of showbiz. A little engineering helps, but surprisingly.....more interpretive detective work and translative ability may be required.

    However....the neat thing about the process and the format featured here, is that anyone can figure out their own way to kick the can down the road. It just takes interest and enthusiasm.

    There seems to be tons of that here, and the X-3 is certainly a good and exciting subject within which to explore the far out abstraction of Flight Sim, and see how convincingly it can be brought home to the end user.

    My blessing, X-3 should prove to be a fun and expansive exercise for you!

  23. #23
    Thanks Magoo.. I dont have any love nor hate for fsx and microsoft. Its a means too an end, which is too experience something resembling flight. You are quite corrct in that, usually, its FSX that provides the limitations and barriers too over come. However, I encourage you to watch tha above video on the su-37. The fde took seven years to create, and at the time, nothing in that video was possible in fsx, but you see, theres always some way to make due. With the SU-37, that way came as a gift from Bob Berendrect ( sp??) in the form of a modified gauge that allowed the thrust to be vectored, and then another year or two of being so deep into the airfile, i had dreams about how all the entries related and interacted with each other.. There are ways to make this fde work exactly like the real aircraft. However, FSX isnt the bottleneck this time.. My blood oxygen level hovers between 87 and 88%. My body and mind, simply do not work like they once did, so I'm the bottleneck this time.. I "believe" I can do this. As to whether i actually can or not, is something which remains to be seen.. As i requested, please watch the video. I should be able to make this behave exactly like the real plane..

  24. #24
    Thanks for posting the video.

    If you came to me twenty five years ago and described the possibility of a flight envelope for an aircraft like the SU-37, I would have dismissed it with a laugh.

    Most of us have seen the flight show videos of the real machine....witness the jaw drop here.

    That you've been able to translate that into FS, yet another jaw dropper.

    One strong element of the Flightsim community that fascinates me beyond all else is the faculty for human creativity.

    I'm in constant amazement of the clever, imaginative, border breaking tag-team projects that are created here...taking realities into the abstract, breaking boundaries and limitations, and delivering these amazing moments that can be experienced as a relative reality.

    For me it becomes a sublime narrative. A story that the individual can climb into, tighten straps, and experience in the first person.

    That takes talent and magic to create.

    I would understand that's your ball park.

    I think it's notable that you've written the project can be fun, or it can be real.

    I hope this time around that the process for you turns out to be real....fun!

    Cheers!

Members who have read this thread: 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •