swjr-swis

Cheated a bit on this one, picking the next-to-easiest option from hangar 3 hangar 4: the Gemini B capsule. Craft file is as shown here. I decided to replicate the museum showpiece, as the Gemini B / MOL program was cancelled before it ever flew. In my defense, I did not simply plop down the capsule, I did try to include all visually identifiable elements and whatever functionality I could find documented. And I went and did a decoupling from the MOL and reentry test, which is more than the original ever did (the 'B' anyway).

Ahem. My Seaplane One coughs mildly.

Psst... the *other* tunnel.

Easiest way is to point east, set SAS ORB (!) PRG, and punch the throttle (my standard rapid iteration test for planes). This will make the plane perform a near-optimum climb envelope, leaving the pilot to concentrate on managing the blade deployment and -later- throttle. It does take a while - 10 min or so to settle at 7000 m at 135 m/s and slowly climbing/accelerating further. Considering the original took 9m30s to get to 3000 m and 100 m/s, the replica does pretty well. Obviously this only works on a due east course, but it'll prove the capability if you wish to see it. Plus, not needing to manage the stick (on top of the props) it offers the possibility to observe climb angles along the path when you want to replicate it with manual trim or autopilot mods on any other heading. The ailerons' rotation axis points right through or even ahead of the CoM. KSP's code doesn't know how to handle that, especially when combining roll and pitch on the same control surface. Standard result of such a situation is exactly what you describe, basically the plane constantly fighting your pitch and/or roll attempts.

This is mainly for @Mars-Bound Hokie, but it applies to everyone else too: I sincerely hate stock props. Ugh, with extra phlegm. That said, since I was advised I *had* to do a plane from hangar 1 as well and there's only props left from that section, here's my attempt at a Douglas C-47D Skytrain, a turpoprop transport plane displayed in the hangar 1 world war II area. Some artistic freedom was taken with proportions and size ratios to allow a build in stock+ (BG) parts. I think it still mirrors the characteristics of the original, if I say so myself ("Did you really?" "Yes, I think I did." "How quaint. Now stop talking to yourself"). It does perform slightly better in KSP than the real life version, and is quite relaxed to fly once in cruise, but I get too aggravated by the constant micro-managing required to get reasonable performance out of the engines/blades through any flight to enjoy it much. For those who like that sort of thing: enjoy.

It's a non-default setting of a game save, enabling G forces on Kerbals - you have to go into the save settings (or game settings when in the save) to enable it. One of the few things that are actually fully implemented in the game and working perfectly as far as I've noticed, and it's disabled by default . All yours, no worries.

Pulling them heart-strings again, why don't you. Mutter. Fine. Here's a replica of the Convair XF-92A as displayed in the R&D section of Hangar 4 of the USAF Museum. Just like the original prototype, this one was built with high constraints on time and budget, so it's a very simple build using pure stock parts only. And like the original, it's quite a tricky plane to fly - but if you take the time to accustom yourself to it, quite fun actually (as opposed to the original). One more marked off the list?

By attaching the Mk1 tanks directly to the pylon, then rotating them 90 degrees. A few ticks of offset will make them look properly attached again. It works even better if you use the nacelle bodies - you do sacrifice some fuel capacity, but their rounder body helps with the attached look (and since you get to use the rest of the plane's fuel, the lesser nacelle capacity isn't an issue). https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hbhraxwn6emged06qbwc/dual-turbojet-engine-nacelle.craft?dl=0&rlkey=phzpkwf3nxwgc3ygbpsdzorkb

You can attach the Mk1 nacelle tanks directly to the pylons, as if you're making a single nacelle assembly, but then rotate them by 90 degrees (one clock-wise, one anti-clockwise). At most, you may need a tick or two of offset to make them look properly attached as a dual-nacelle assembly. The pylons will need to be set to 'enable crossfeed' to allow fuel in the rest of the plane to be used, since that's not the default setting.

Craft was done halfway March, based on a screenshot SpacePixel posted here a few days before. Recording was done and uploaded a day later, IIRC. All I did today was set the video to public. Counts though, right? Sorry for the slow build up - I was trying to find out how much thrust it took for just barely lifting off. And never mind my cargo pilot skills (never entrust me with your stuff ). And naturally, credit for the concept goes entirely to @SpacePixel. It's a lovely little and nimble cargo VTOL, that can muscle around a good bit of freight. @Hotel26 published the craft file here, cause I was too lazy.

Seeing as I previously entered two invalid entries to this challenge, and I just yesterday recorded some footage that would be valid, a better-late-than-never entry: The SWiS MicroJet 1A4, measuring 3.3 m long, 3.2 m wide, 1.8 m tall, flying through the R&D tunnel at 168.3 m/s, landing intact after some more aerobatics. Please disregard anything past the first minute, unless you want to see me land the plane intact, plus some other non-relevant footage. The video wasn't purpose-made for this challenge. Screenshot of speed through the tunnel: Screenshot of dimensions:

Page 2500 compels me to post ... something. So here's something I spent some time on. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-MicroJet-1A4 P.S.: sorry for the lack of sound. Listening to other things while playing, and noticed too late I had forgot to re-enable game sound recording.

A more practical response perhaps. Make it something like this: The angle, deliberately chosen more for ease of controlling and landing the plane at the end than to show it off, kind of conceals it. But those wings lurch quite a bit on the 144.6 G (!) turn. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2 It was built and flown in 1.3.1, but it should perform near-identically in 1.12.5. And of course it doesn't require the gantry for kerbal loading anymore. Feel free to tear it apart for your benefit.

The wings getting sheared off on fast and/or large attitude changes are due to a number of different things, each needing their own mitigations. Lever. Very likely *the* number one cause for structural failure, because it multiplies -rapidly- the effect of the forces that happen in high G maneuvers. Try to be conscious of how large of a lever there is between the wing (piece)'s attachment point and the point where the game calculates dynamic pressure on it. If you succeed in keeping those small, your plane will survive longer. Joint elasticity. Yes, strength is important too, but from my experience it's near impossible to get kerbal joints strong enough on pure strength. Why does elasticity help? Because the angle of the veering wing (section) to the vector of aerodynamic forces can change just enough for it to stay within tolerance. Confucius say: the stalk that bows in the wind does not break. Otherwise stated: (auto)strut too much and it will shatter like porcelain. Lift area. When aiming for structurally sound planes in extreme maneuvers, you need to make a choice. Deliberately under-'lift' your wing to keep lift area (and thus range of possible aerodynamic forces) low and outside ranges that would risk it. Or deliberately over-lift. So much lift area that when you do make a fast and/or large enough attitude change, it will -by design- slow down your plane fast enough before it goes past tolerances. There's a very risky corridor in between where too much speed for too long means gone with the wind. At this point I apologize to Confucius for continually misquoting him. And I apologize to all those of you who have made an actual study and or job out of aerodynamics. I claim no expertise, merely experimentally derived practical knowledge of how the kerbal physics work.

Responderé por mensaje directo, porqué el foro público no se vale para estas cosas, y es bastante probable que borren el intercambio. Cualquier pregunta sobre el juego se pueden hacer aquí.

Bienvenido al foro español. Quedamos algunos todavía por aquí, aunque no se frecuenta mucho. Intentaré echarle un ojo de vez en cuando en caso que hayan preguntas.

They were broken before KX got to them! I mean.... THEY did it! <points in wildly unspecific direction>

Your original message, and the name you gave that scrap, made it sound like you didn't want it there, so I showed you a way to remove it without needing to fly a mission all the way back. To be honest there's just not enough context to know what was really the problem requiring help.

A very quick way to search for craft using a single mod: https://kerbalx.com/mods , which can be found through the About page. Click on any of the mods listed, and you get a full list of all craft in which that one specific mod has been identified. If you want to search on a set of mods (eg. your current mod setup), first create a 'mod pack' (basically a list of mods - you can create multiple and save them for easy reference), then click the mod filter button on the top right, and 'load mod pack'. Voila, a selection of craft that will work with that mod setup. You can also filter whether to show craft using ONLY those mods, or AT LEAST those mods (include). And btw, that information is CKAN-fueled.

The (Phantom) Force is strong in this one...

Two minutes to bed time and you get the voices in my head to start a singalong. Thanks. <mutters into the group> So, were we having a good time?

Any landing you can swim away from is a ... thousand miles from the shore, usually. Your turn to paddle, Doodgar.

I fully expect a video with a South-American accented commentator going "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!" Yes! Do people still understand that this is what it's supposed to be about? Don't do that. Don't put ideas in my head when I still have more than half the work week ahead and already running behind on sleep. Argh...

No KSP2, no sleep... and feeling nostalgic for the apparently soon-to-be-lost SPH. So I spent some time tinkering. A free-form variation on @Hotel26's Conchiglie. Clearly. Bob would not accept any other designation than CSH for this one. Nerd.

Efficiency discussion aside: that one statement put an involuntary smile on my face. The graphs were glorious. Monday all forgotten.