• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1196 Excellent

About Servo

  • Rank
    Amateur Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location In the SPH
  • Interests KSP, Minecraft, tabletop games, Magic: the Gathering, and more.

Recent Profile Visitors

2147 profile views
  1. Keeping up the pace here. I'll make my contribution for the day as well. I figure that if we can upload two craft in a day, all the better. We've got a lot of craft, so anything we can do to get ahead is for the better. Don't expect it, though. June 1947 - Martin XB-48 The Martin XB-48 was a prototype jet bomber built to compete for a spot as the U.S.’s first operational jet bomber. It followed on the footsteps of the Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster, and was a much larger and more advanced design. It was powered by six General Electric J47 engines, required due to the low thrust output of the early designs. Interestingly, although it appears that the engines are in three separate nacelles, they are actually connected by a series of air ducts incorporating airflow between the engines as well as through the inlets. This was designed to improve cooling, something that the early engines had trouble with. The XB-48 was part of the Class of '45, a trio of jet bombers developed in 1945 in response to Germany’s Amerika Bomber program and a similar program in Japan. Both programs were looking for long-range jet bombers capable of intercontinental sorties. The other planes in the class were the Convair XB-46 and the North American XB-45, the latter of which was produced as the B-45 Tornado. However, all three planes were rapidly outclassed by the Boeing B-47 Stratojet. This is mainly because the three planes borrowed heavily from research on straight-winged piston bombers in WWII. For example, the XB-48 borrows heavily from the Martin B-26 Marauder. Builder's notes: The XB-48 handles pretty well once airborne, but you have to be really careful taking off. Wait until you are going faster than 100m/s before beginning to pitch up, then do so slowly. As soon as the rear wheels leave the ground, pitch up harder to gain altitude. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft: @Munbro Kerman's Northrop XB-49
  2. If you haven't seen my X-15, I used Graviolis and it turned out really nice. For other unorthox cockpits, check out my F-14 (solar panels), my F/A-18 (extending with Graviolis), and NAA's YB-60 (Solar Panels and Cubic Octagonals). May 1946: Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster The XB-43 was a twin-turbojet bomber developed by Douglas Aircraft in 1945 as the first U.S. jet bomber. It was adapted from the early XB-42 Mixmaster, a unique design with a pusher-configuration contra-rotating propeller behind the large tailplane. The XB-42 was a success, achieving speeds of up to 488mph (Mach .6, 785mk/h, 218m/s). The Jetmaster program adapted the Mixmaster design to carry two turbojets, as well as changes to the tail surface. The Army Air Forces ordered two XB-43 prototypes, which were delivered in May of 1946. Despite mechanical problems during testing, the Jetmaster proved to be a fast and versatile bomber aircraft, well poised for entering service. However, the Army instead used the Jetmaster to develop procedures for jet bombers, selecting North American Aviation's B-45 Tornado over the Jetmaster, thanks to improvements in nearly every area. The cancellation of the Jetmaster program in the early 1950s brought an end to both the proposed bomber version and an attack version armed with rockets and a cluster of 16 machine guns in the nose. The XB-43 mimics the prototype closely, matching top speed almost exactly. It's an agile craft once airborne, but it's clumsy on the ground. Like most of these replicas, they have to be landed with a steady hand (<5 degree glideslope is ideal). The Jetmaster's characteristic twin cockpits are replicated here, something which is unique among planes I've seen (with the obvious exception of the twin mustang). Download Link: Tomorrow's craft: @MiffedStarfish's Vought F6U Pirate
  3. Fuel cells, turned around and offset inside the radial intakes. I had never tried doing that before, and I'm not sure how I like the effect. It looks nice far away and on straight edged, but fails inspection close up on curves. I'll probably experiment with other ways of getting the same effect in the future. Thermometers and other science experiments come to mind as other things to try. I don't think two planes a day is sustainable, though it would cut down on the time it would take. As it stands now, XotD will continue into August. It could be doable, especially with all the other builders helping out this time around.
  4. Once again, it'll be awesome to be working with @NorthAmericanAviation on another project. Except this time, there's even more people and more fun My day tomorrow is going to be hectic, so I'm posting my first contribution (which would be tomorrow) to the thread tonight as well. February 1945 - Bell XP-83 The Bell XP-83 was a redesigned P-59 Airacomet which was first flown in 1945. It was the first prototype jet made in America which didn’t see production. This was mainly due to its slow development, allowing it to be outpaced by the Lockheed P-80 and other more advanced designs. It was slow, unresponsive, and generally underpowered, making it an unsatisfactory substitute for piston-engined fighters of the WWII era. The XP-83 had most of the distinctive features of the P-59, but featured different jet engines, as well as improvements to aerodynamics. In fact, the drag was so low that pilots had a hard time getting the XP-83 to slow down, and had to make extremely long landing approaches. My replication of the XP-83 handles pretty well, though you have to be really gentle on takeoff and landing. It can cruise for long durations at an acceptable speed for fighters of its era, and is stable doing so. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft: @NorthAmericanAviation's Northrop XP-79
  5. With the beginning of XotD looming, I returned to my old practice of recreating craft that nobody has ever bothered to make in KSP. The Martin XB-48 was part of the Class of '45, a group of jet bombers first designed in 1945. The other two were the Convair XB-46 and the North American B-45, which ultimately won the production order. Despite this, all three planes were rapidly outclassed by the promising XB-47 Stratojet, which would go on to pave the way for every U.S. Jet bomber since the 1950s (with the possible exception of the B-2). Also, yesterday, I built a F-16XL, a unique derivative of the F-16 featuring a cranked arrow wing.
  6. Generally poor low-speed handling, plus a few aerodynamic considerations. In order to effectively lift the plane, a less efficient (for speed) airfoil has to be used. Also, delta wings have less lift per surface area, necessitating a larger, heavier, more expensive, wing. As for continuing building, of course. NAA and I worked up a backlog of two weeks of craft, plus a number of miscellaneous craft (no more than 50% of them) before we released the thread. We built the other 50% As the thread continued
  7. I've been too busy with KSP to do too much in-game for the past two weeks, but I broke my streak today. I'm continuing preparations for XotD, so I modified my F-16 into a F-16XL, a cranked arrow tailless delta wing design. I'm not quite sure on specifics, but I think that it outperforms the original F-16 at altitude and in speed dashes, though its slightly less maneuverable. The wing shape was a challenge to get right, though I think I did a good job while also incorporating leading-edge slats for the first time on one of my builds.
  8. Good luck! Now, of course, I have to worry about you and @NorthAmericanAviation fighting for the NAA acronym. I've been pretty busy with life, but I took a swing at the F-16XL today. I'll be free to continue working on filling out the early jets soon, in preparation for the launch on Sunday. Cranked arrow wings are something that aren't seen a lot (outside some Saab jets. The Swedes like them, for some reason), and the F-16XL was designed to determine how practical they really were. The cranked wing improved the fuel capacity by 80%, and increased the weapons loadout to an obscene 27 hardpoints.
  9. There are other ways to do the F-5 without relying on Junos. This one uses airbrakes to form a fuselage that tapers, and the Mk0 tanks and intakes form the engines. Also, I started work on the XP-83, which was an early dedicated jet fighter design that, like most designs of its era, were plagued by underpowered, unreliable engines, and generally poor designs, as the straight-wing piston fighters just weren't fitted to jet modifications. Likewise, this replication is slow, clunky, hard to land, and ugly as an unattractive piston fighter with two jet engines bolted under the wings.
  10. Replica craft are my bread and butter in KSP. I've done Apollo, N1, and other space replicas, but for the past several months, I've been building planes for Jet of the Day, and now X-jet of the Day. My precious little KSP time has been dedicated to those projects. That said, I'm gearing up for a Jool 5 mission, hopefully followed by a grand tour.
  11. If you want to build them, go for it. If we get too many craft, we can start lumping craft. M2L1-3, X-24A-B, and the like. Nothing drastic.
  12. I had them on the list originally, but I removed them (along with all concept planes that weren't built) because the list was 100+ planes.
  13. You got your wish! XotD is for everyone Speaking of which, the X-53 is continuing to progress. The final pre-flight model is done, so I'll be trying to control a plane with this tomorrow. Changes: New, angled wing sections (they look smooth from the top), control ailerons are located under the wings as opposed to inside the fuselage, basically redoing everything but the concept, doesn't glitch out and disassemble any more. Here it is in action. All ready to be fitted to a retired F/A-18 and flight tested. Edit: This is going to be more difficult that I thought...
  14. That's a really elegant solution to the problem @Triop Kudos for the idea. Obviously, there will be some logistical problems with that (namely making sure that we know ahead of time if a craft doesn't have any submissions so we can make one ourselves). Also, we'll try to find a way to even it out. Even through the X-29 is really cool, I don't think we need 12 of them. Yep - that's a really cool design. I was going to modify my own F-5 for the job, but I guess that now there's room enough for two of them :). I'm pretty well versed in stock moving parts and turboshafts/electric engines are still completely lost to me. If you stick to it, you'll find a way, and if not, there are 70 other craft on the list that aren't powered by electric props.
  15. It's all stock. There are thermometer hinges underneath the wings which allow the panels to swivel individually. Then, there are ailerons set at 50%, 100%, and 150% sandwiched between thermometers (love 'em) that are attached to the wing sections. I redid the system in a slightly more elegant way today, but I didn't take any screenshots (that's for tomorrow), which moves the ailerons to underneath each wing, making it self-contained. Still wacky as heck, though. It's going to take a lot of elbow grease to make it fly without disintegrating in midair.