X-Panes for FS?

[WarHorse47]

With the release of the XF-92A beta and the work underway on the X-3 Stiletto by Milton and team and Warchild's XB-35, I was wondering what other X-Planes might be available.

I'm aware of the Xtreme Prototypes Bell X-1 and NA X-15 series, but are there more?

Be kinda cool to have a collection of X-Plans for FSXA to document the evolution of experimental flight.

[Bjoern]

Craig Richardson's D-558

Piglet's X-24

[Mach3DS]

This is a niche of the market that has largely been ignored completely by developers since FS2002. And the only payware I'm aware of is the Xtreme prototypes X-1A and X-15 series. When Milton said he'd jump in to tackle the XF-92A, I about fell off my chair! There's been basically ZERO interest from developers to produce these aircraft. Which is sad. Because they paved the way for almost ALL modern aero studies.

[warchild]

There just isnt a lot out there. X-1, X-15, Xf-92, X-3, X-31( you really dont want this ) and thats about it.. I would think theres an X-39, but I cant find one, and any of the lifting body planes seem to be missing as well. After the cold war and X-39 crash, Nasa clammed up and no one knows exactly whats being tested. The X-43 is unmanned like the Boeing X's so theres not much point in them, and the "aurora" is so buried in myth, bullhockey, and misinformation as to almost make it a joke.. Convairs Kingfish is a seventy year old mystery as its still classified, and no ones interested in making it anyway, possibly because it looks too much like something out of a hollywood movie.. But yeah, there just isnt much out there and apparently, not a lot of interest from dev's to make them at this time.

[Switchblade408]

Bell X-5, Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk, Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster, General Dynamics F-16XL, Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK, Martin XB-51, Northrop XP-79, Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III from America

Avro 707, BAC TSR-2, Handley Page HP-115, Saunders-Roe SR-53 from the United Kingdom.

Some of these are on my radar for FSX/P3D if I can get around to working the code.

[warchild]

Bell X-5, Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk, Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster, General Dynamics F-16XL, Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK, Martin XB-51, Northrop XP-79, Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III from America

Avro 707, BAC TSR-2, Handley Page HP-115, Saunders-Roe SR-53 from the United Kingdom.

Some of these are on my radar for FSX/P3D if I can get around to working the code.

Theres never a "like" button when you want one Nice lineup..

[WarHorse47]

Nice listing so far. I agree with Pam on Switchblade's projects, especially the X-5.

I came across a freeware first generation Bell X-1 flown by Yeager. The Xtreme Prototype series covers the second generation of X-1.

Also need to list the Virtavia XB-46. And Piglet also did the XP-56 here in the SOH library.

[Mach3DS]

Would like to see any of these...

[Switchblade408]

Wasn't there somebody who re-did an XF-90 a little while back? Maybe a couple of years ago or so?

[WarHorse47]

Wasn't there somebody who re-did an XF-90 a little while back? Maybe a couple of years ago or so?

Yeah. Just found it on Simviation. Posted in August 2016 by David Allen and includes the XF-90 and F-90B.

[Switchblade408]

As it stands, my FSX prototype and X-Plane aircraft list includes:
Dassault Mirage III-V from GMAX Academy
Avro Vigilant 730 from Kazunori Ito
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow from Extreme Prototypes
Beechcraft Grizzly from Milton Shupe
Bell XP-77 from AF Scrub
Boulton-Paul P.111 from Kazunori Ito
Ekranoplan from Alphasim
Consolidated Vultee XB-46 from Virtavia
Convair XF-92 from Milton Shupe
Convair F2Y Sea Dart from Kazunori Ito
Curtiss XP-40Q from Tim "Piglet" Conrad
Douglas F5D Skylancer from Rob Richardson
Douglas A2D Skyshark from Paul Clawson
Douglas X-3 Stiletto from Kazunori Ito
General Dynamics A-12A Avenger II from Tim "Piglet" Conrad
Hughes XF-11 from Craig Richardson (I think)
Martin Marietta X-24 from Tim "Piglet" Conrad
McDonnell XF-85 Goblin from Kazunori Ito
Messerschmitt Me-209 from AF Scrub
North American XB-70 Valkyrie from Virtavia
Northrop XB-35 from (?)
Northrop Grumman F-20 Tigershark from IRIS Simulations
Short Sperrin from Kazunori Ito
Vultee XP-54 from Milton Shupe
Yakovlev Yak-36 from (?)
North American X-15 from Extreme Prototypes

Just giving y'all some examples to run off of.

[hairyspin]

Did someone say Handley Page HP115? Chuckle chuckle!

[Bjoern]

There's been basically ZERO interest from developers to produce these aircraft. Which is sad. Because they paved the way for almost ALL modern aero studies.

One-off models with difficult to reproduce flight characteristics (well documented though), in some cases too difficult to fly for the casual pilot and if there's nothing spectacular about it (i.e. X-15), nobody cared even back when the real thing was flying.
That's no potential for a good return on investment.

[COBS]

More Prototypes or X plane aircraft that are currently available .

1. Rockwell X-31 ( file rokwlx31.zip )

2. The Eurofighter originally released for the simulator (FS2004) was a prototype or X plane .

3. Grumman X-29 ( file fsxx-29.zip )

4. Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Black Widow ( both FSD payware and freeware )

5. North American XB-70 Valkyrie

6. Horten Ho-229 ( file ho-229r2.zip )

7. Northrop YF-17 Cobra ( file http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb.cgi?section=military&file=F17Cobra.zip )

8. McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL ( file f-15_active.zip at AVSIM )

[erican2]

Would the FS9 LLRV from things to come be classed as an x-plane?

[COBS]

Would the FS9 LLRV from things to come be classed as an x-plane?

In my opinion , a most definite YES , it flew , it was a test and research vehicle ( aircraft ) , as a research concept it was important not
just for training on lunar landings , but for sorting out vertical ascent and descent control systems and propulsion .

[Sundog]

I think there is some confusion here. True X planes only have an X, not an XF, or XB, etc. X planes are projects that are meant to open up parts of the flight envelope or test a brand new technology that aerospace companies normally wouldn't pursue on their own due to risk.

Anything that is an XF, or XB, is actually just a prototype for a production program, though they may have looked at some new aspect of technology application in their designs.

If we're talking about what we would like, I would like a model of the newest X-Plane under development, the low boom demonstrator from Lockheed-Martin, the QUESST

[warchild]

One-off models with difficult to reproduce flight characteristics (well documented though), in some cases too difficult to fly for the casual pilot and if there's nothing spectacular about it (i.e. X-15), nobody cared even back when the real thing was flying.
That's no potential for a good return on investment.

Let me tell you a little secret.. It's not about you. Nor is it about me or any other dev out there. It's about the community. Return on investment Pffft. No dev in the history of flight sim has ever made a profit doing this. we always work at a loss. So its not about return on investment. If you want return on investment, invest in oil and tobacco and weapons of mass destruction..

You gotta think globally, not selfishly. Theres no part of any aircraft modeled today that isnt held responsible to the truth. We no longer have the make believe panels orf Mike Stone and others that were thrown together to fill a need with little more than " that looks cool". Aircraft are researched and modeled to such exacting tolerances today it isnt funny: hundreds if not thousands of hours of research alone before the first number is typed or the first line drawn.

This isnt about the developer. It's about the community and providing a platform for that community to experience and enjoy flight in ways that are unprecedented and beyond any experience available anywhere but in actual flight.
So why were the Russians so bloody successful, with the SU-47 where we failed miserably with the X-39? Yeahh, you can read what some junior analyst who doesnt know snot from shinola wrote. That'll give you lots of nice sterile assumptions to go on. but you still wont know Jack about it, and you wont have experienced anything that will bring you closer to that knowledge. You just have something written down thats most likely wrong anyway. You wont know till you do it yourself.

X-Planes, challenge the boundaries of science. Prototypes challenge the boundaries of engineering.
THEY WEREN'T MADE FOR THE CASUAL WEEKEND FLYER!
They arent made for the casual sim pilot either: the guy or gal who wants to take up their cessna cardinal and sight see the back roads of the black forest or enjoy an afternoon tootaling around Cabo San Lucas. These are for people with questions who wont accept some wrote equation in a book buried in the archives of some warehouse in the middle of a cornfield somewhere as an answer.

It's not about you and its not about me. It's about the community and the service we are in the unique position to provide to it. It's maybe even about tomorrows engineers But mostly, its about the smiles.

A Great man, a truly great man by the name of Red Skelton, used to finish each of his tv shows with the statement: "And If I've helped just one person smile tonight, then I've succeeded".

Good words to live by..

[magoo]

Well okay.....now I'm smiling.

[Bjoern]

No dev in the history of flight sim has ever made a profit doing this.

There's a surprising lot of payware developers left for such a statement.


As for the rest:
Sorry Pam, I don't buy it. Especially not as a "community service".
For freeware, there has to be a personal interest in the aircraft to invest hundreds of hours into a rendition of it, otherwise it's wasted time. For payware, it has to be a mix of interest and market potential. If that's not the case, there'll be no flight simulator rendition.

And, frankly, I am and probably always will be at a loss why the "community" constantly fails to understand this.

[jymp]

A late 60's early 70's HL-10 mission, drop from under a B-52, power up to altitude then bring it back to Edwards in one piece, be interesting.

[WarHorse47]

There's a surprising lot of payware developers left for such a statement.


As for the rest:
Sorry Pam, I don't buy it. Especially not as a "community service".
For freeware, there has to be a personal interest in the aircraft to invest hundreds of hours into a rendition of it, otherwise it's wasted time. For payware, it has to be a mix of interest and market potential. If that's not the case, there'll be no flight simulator rendition.

And, frankly, I am and probably always will be at a loss why the "community" constantly fails to understand this.

I'd like to keep this discussion focused on what X-Planes are available - payware, freeware or donationware, whatever. I don't see the need to discuss motivation or incentives. Frankly, I don't wish to second guess any developer on what they choose to create.

[COBS]

First jet engined aircraft to fly .

1. Heinkel He 178 jet , world's first jet powered aircraft flight - German . ( file fsx_he_178_updated.zip )

2. Gloster jet - England . ( file fsx_gloster_pioneer.zip )

Additional early jets ,

3. Messerschmitt Me 262 ( both freeware and payware )

4. Heinkel He 280 ( file fsx_he280_updated.zip )

While the Me 262 went into production and operational use it remains relevant to the X-Plane theme due to
the fact it was the first operational jet and as such it experienced mach transitional aerodynamic problems ,
and the early jet engines were plagued by problems associated with fuel delivery/metering .
Additionally the high closing speeds in combat necessitated development of revised tactics for the jet age .

[Mach3DS]

What's interesting about the Me-262, is that it did not use swept wings out of an understanding of high speed aerodynamics, but as a solution to a CG problem when the gear was retracted. They swept the wings to give the gear a further aft position relative to CG when in the retracted position.

[hairyspin]

There is an Me-262 available from Flight Replicas, as payware. I have it and it's worth the money.