• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Servo

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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...
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Twin engine? Twin tail? Low-sling inlets. Gotta be a F/A-18. Speaking of which, I spent some time recreating the X-53, a F/A-18 modified to have wing warping. She doesn't look like much, but she's got it where it counts. + =
  16. In preparation for XotD, I've begun prototyping for the X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing Demonstrator Basically, NASA modified a F-18 to have flexible wings which would torque back and forth with aileron control. This was the 21st century equivalent of the 20th century wing warping. And, as far as I've seen, this is the first attempt (stock or mod) to have wing warping as a control mechanism in KSP. Ironically, it's the elevators that are controlling the warping, but I see it similar to the turboshafts (using jet engines to power propellers) in a way. Now to make it fly.
  17. Short answer: download it and take a look for yourself Long answer: the bearing is made from a cage of I-beams, surrounding a mk0 tank. It's actuated by a pair of airbrakes. There are docking ports on the wing that allow it to dock in both positions. Another important part is the "wing glove", the part of the fuselage that sandwiches the wing to keep it from moving up and down.
  18. Stock 1:1 F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is one of the most iconic U.S. fighters, ranking along the P-51 Mustang, F-86 Sabre, and the F-4 Phantom in the lists of the greatest fighters of all time. Its wide versatility, immediately recognizable swing-wing, and appearance in Top Gun add to its appeal. In the air, the F-14 was a Mach 2.2, carrier based fighter-bomber designed with experience fighting MiGs in Vietnam. As a capable dogfighter, the F-14 earned 160 kills versus only 10 losses to enemy fire in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. And now, finally to you, so you can take the highway to the danger zone while reliving tales of aerial combat and trial by fire. This is a 1:1 scale replica of the F-14 Tomcat, complete with a pair of air-to-air missiles and swing wings. Controlling the wings is simple. Simple use action group 1 to toggle the wings forward, and action group 2 to toggle them backward. Note that you have to stage to release the wings first. Most of the time, the wings should snap into position by themselves, but sometimes you have to adjust the limit on the airbrakes manually in order to move the docking ports so that it docks. The F-14 can be flown without/halfway docked wings, but landing and time warp are discouraged. Takeoff is really simple. Pitch-up at 40m/s and it's off like a rocket. Landing is much harder. To land safely, come in really hot, at full throttle (non-afterburning), above 120m/s at a low glideslope. As soon as the wheels stick, kill the throttle and brake hard, and it comes to a stop quickly. Guide for Aerial Combat: Due to the magic of Target Hold on SAS, it is very easy to control a large number of craft in the air at the same time. When I was flying my dogfights, I had a single "lead" aircraft that each of the other craft were targeting. This made flying the entire swarm around very easy, once they made it into the air. Getting five planes airborne at the same time was a feat in and of itself. My method is extremely quick, and requires lining up aircraft slightly farther apart than their takeoff roll (this is extremely easy with the F-14s, which take off in under 200m). The intent is so that as soon as you lift off with one craft, you are passing over the next one in line (within 200m), so the entire chain takes off before the lead plane passes the end of the runway. From there, it is merely a matter of maintaining speeds (ideally, they should be equal, but 2-3m/s is excusable) so that one plane doesn't turn into a guided missile. From there, simply have the lead plane make a hard yaw to spread out the chase planes, and begin dogfighting. In order to fire the missiles, decouple them and select the target and the target hold on SAS. After you have done that, you can switch back to the F-14 and continue flying. The missiles are fire-and-forget, so multiple can be targeting a plane at the same time. This can lead to swarms of missiles chasing their target, as for what they lose in accuracy, they make up for in flight time. Often, unless the probe core is destroyed, they will follow their target all the way to the ground. I am also including the F-5 (or MiG-28, if that suits your fancy), as it has a very comparable top speed, and is armed with two unguided rockets. They can make excellent target dummies adversaries in dogfights. Download Links: F-14: F-5: I would like to give a massive thanks to the people upon whose shoulders this was built on, first and foremost @Torquimedes for his own amazing stock F-14, which inspired me to begin building swing-wing aircraft in the first place, and also to @Jon144 for designing the bearing which I ultimately used on the F-14 wings. Enjoy! -Servo
  19. The Jet-of-the-Day Collaboration A collaboration between NorthAmericanAviation and Servo Recently, @NorthAmericanAviation and I have been working on replicating every U.S. military jet, from the first P-59 Airacomet to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. We will be posting one a day, in the order that they entered service, along with photos, information about the plane, and of course, a download link. June 1943 - Bell P-59 Airacomet The Bell P-59 Airacomet was the first U.S. Jet fighter to see production. It was first flown in 1942, and the first production models were delivered in June of the following year. Test pilots, including Chuck Yeager, flew the P-59 and found it to be unsatisfactorily slow, though they noted that it flew very smoothly. Ultimately, the P-59 never saw service due to the multitude of problems the design faced, including slow engine response time (accurately modeled by the Juno engines on the replication) and lateral instability. In order to disguise the P-59 from aerial reconnaissance, a plywood propeller was used to prevent spies from realizing that the P-59 was a jet fighter. Despite these shortcomings, the P-59 was a pioneering jet in many aspects. It was the first jet to integrate the engines and intakes into the fuselage - prior ones such as the Gloster Meteor and the Me 262 carried their engines in nacelles under or on the wing. Additionally, the experience the U.S. gained with turbojet design would be shown in later fighters, such as the F-59's immediate successor, the P-80 Shooting Star, and later, the F-86 Sabre. Replica Stats: Builder: Servo Service Ceiling: 10km Part count: 71 Crew: 1 Mass: 9.5 tons Powerplant: 4x Juno Top Speed: 140m/s Dimensions: 4m x 11.7m x 10.2 m The P-59 flies pretty well, though like the original, it is a bit clunky. Due to the engine position, it is slow to respond to pitch controls. Additionally, the rear landing gear are almost directly above the center of mass, so landings have to be really gentle. Apart from that, the P-59 is really easy to fly, stable without SAS (given a little bit of trim), and at high time warp without too much trouble. Download Link: Tomorrow's craft: Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star Find the spreadsheet with all craft here
  20. Probably my F-14 Tomcat. It's 100% scale, and 100% functional. Swing wings, air-to-air missiles, the whole nine yards. It's so much fun to fly around dogfighting other craft and generally being awesome. I mean, who could say no to this? Besides the people that retired it... R.I.the boneyard.
  21. I guess we should pull the trigger on this now: the poll results are in and X-planes won overwhelmingly. So the next project will be X-plane of the Day. Following on that total surprise of an announcement is a more exciting one: We're looking for collaborators! If you're interested in contributing craft + writeups for the thread, PM both NAA and me with how many craft you're willing to build/contribute for the thread, plus a couple screenshots of stock replica craft (of any type) that you've built. We're working on a craft list, which will be done shortly.
  22. Awesome choices all around! Congrats to all the builders, writers, and doers this time around!
  23. I did a couple of things with planes that were never meant to do them... I broke the speed of sound in a U-2... Went Mach 1 straight up to 20km, turned around and hit Mach 2 above the ground. I then pulled up out of a 70g turn. I also met up with @NorthAmericanAviation IRL to talk about JotD and our future plans (X-Plane of the day seems likely). And in the meantime had my F-14 fight a trio of post-WWII jets, in addition to a number of other shenanigans.
  24. You have to have them farther apart (probably). For future reference, craft where I use the technique are my F-111 and the XB-70. Good luck! That system will be awesome when it works
  25. Grand Zip File with all .craft Files: Here's every craft that was released on this thread, all in one place. You are all welcome to use these craft in videos/cinematics, provided that you credit either @NorthAmericanAviation or myself for any craft that we made (everything except the SR-71 and F-117), and PM us with the final product (we'd like to see what you do with our jets). Some numbers on possible projects: Russian Planes: ~50 planes. It would only include aircraft that received NATO designations and were produced in significant numbers (200+) X-planes: ~60 (the first section, plus some of the second one). Limited again to jets + gliders. I expect that my B-52 will have regular appearances if we choose this one. Manned Space missions: 15 programs. This option would include creating the mission architecture in a single craft (Apollo Program, Soyuz Program, etc), and would likely have a video of a mission using that architecture included. This would most definitely be a weekly project instead of a daily one. Make your voice heard!