tetryds

Official FAR Craft Repository

1045 posts in this topic

Any mod out there has proper intakes usable for hypersonic ? Stock ones are too blunt, and will overheat quickly - even on the shock cone intake, the cone is not tall enough. B9 intakes were properly done, but that mod is either gone or not coming soon. I'm playing with a few designs that can easily fly at mach 5+ (i'll post a few here) but my only problem now is the air intakes ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And anotherone: The Junkers Ju 87, commonly known as "Stuka", although Stuka was just any dive bomber (so stuff like Ju 88, or Hs 123 too).

No idea why I cant use a link properly anymore, so here's the wikipedia article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

And here a screenshot of the design in a 90° dive: http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483039902630/F1774FF2921276041E32BABB7493283DC6782182/

I've tried to model the dive automation, and with some succes I'd say. Still requires some pilot-input to work, and the bomb doesnt get dropped the same moment recovery begins (toggling spoilers with 2 different keys doesnt work properly...), but it gets the job done. Next step: hitting something smaller than the entire KSC with it... ;)

Edited by FourGreenFields
wrong link the 2. time, must have been too late in the evening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nuFAR compatibility doesn't require many changes (if any). Wings are still using the same modules, and everything else is done based on part shape. As for general 1.0.2 compatibility there are some more serious issues like heating and the new thrust curves for airbreathers.

All I want is the SABREs and the 2.5m shockcone intake other than that I really dont want much else from B9. I am still hoping till retrofuture parts gets updated.... That is the important one to me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any mod out there has proper intakes usable for hypersonic ? Stock ones are too blunt, and will overheat quickly - even on the shock cone intake, the cone is not tall enough. B9 intakes were properly done, but that mod is either gone or not coming soon. I'm playing with a few designs that can easily fly at mach 5+ (i'll post a few here) but my only problem now is the air intakes ;)

Try using the structural intakes and Tweakscale to make them bigger. They didn't heat up a lot on my reentry, unlike the fuselage intakes and shock cones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been experimenting with low-tech spaceplanes, trying to get to orbit with just the basic jet engine and some rockets.

ud0NnnF.png

Weighing in at a hefty 36 tonnes, drag reduction was a must. Get it to 10,000m and Mach 1 on the jets, and the rockets will do the rest.

lA3o8ml.png

A laughable 1.2 tonne payload. But with Ants and Oscar-B's, that will get you to the Mun!

Probably more trouble than it's worth, but a fun design challenge. For if you really need to cut down your launch costs in a career game, and you don't have turbojets...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I want is the SABREs and the 2.5m shockcone intake other than that I really dont want much else from B9. I am still hoping till retrofuture parts gets updated.... That is the important one to me now.

In the meantime, why not just rescale stock things. Here is a simple config for a bigger RAPIER. Haven't used it yet but it should be fine.


+PART[RAPIER]:BEFORE[AJE]
{
@name = SuperRapier2x
@title = Super R.A.P.I.E.R. Engine
%rescaleFactor = 2.0

@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],0
{
@maxThrust *= 4
}
@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],1
{
@maxThrust *= 4
}
}

I have some landing gear configs, too. These, i have been using for a long time now. But when i upload stuff if try to make it pure stock.


+PART[SmallGearBay] {
@name = SmallGearBay3

%rescaleFactor = 2.

@entryCost = 4500
@cost = 750
@title = Gear Bay L
@description = High performance gear designed for atmospheric use. Size large.

@mass = 0.2
@breakingForce = 100
@breakingTorque = 100
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another propeller craft I made today.

It's really good, loses very little speed from making some 15g turns:

DX0DSkF.png

Edit: I posted this on the wrong place, derp.

Edited by tetryds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first aircraft with area ruling. The engine is way too powerful for it, but I don't want to bother with redoing it for the Basic Jet.

screenshot8_zpsqtjlkh5p.png

There is room for improvement, but with 0.3 m2 wave drag area already, there isn't much point. I went for a simple design with area ruling just from wing shape & position and no extra parts (except gear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's usually only a big deal if you don't area-rule too well.

I would recommend focusing on area-ruling so that you don't even need to care much about the critical mach number.

Which moves the contest to who can manage the best cross-section/wave-drag ratio... :)

Best I've managed so far: 5.12931m2 cross section, 0.802051m2 wave drag, roughly a 6.4:1 ratio:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2e9iw79kwnaamk/Kerbodyne%20Queequeg.craft?dl=0

Edited by Wanderfound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which moves the contest to who can manage the best cross-section/wave-drag ratio... :)

Best I've managed so far: 5.12931m2 cross section, 0.802051m2 wave drag, roughly a 6.4:1 ratio]

Try 11.4:1 :P

screenshot7_zpsrxbxgl8a.png

screenshot8_zpsmqm71zlp.png

Low speed handling could use some work, and had to use some of the payload's liquid fuel to get into orbit (this would be fixed with a fuel switch module on one of the tanks since I had a lot of extra oxidizer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the landing gear that's killing me. Always throws my ratio off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jrandom, try to place them right after you build the fuselage and place the wings, and balance everything around that, makes your life much easier.

Something I made for the lolz and ended up better than I expected:

dgTWZTQ.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a classic, but it still works as one of my best SSTO-Fighter craft to date.

The F-119 Akula...

bSFOg79.jpg

And my SP-160 project is coming along nicely.

xxw6yAU.jpg

H1enCcQ.jpg

Still working on somethings but it works pretty well as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fun... And if I actually worked a bit at it, it would actually work.

hbgI40a.jpg

fAHJohn.jpg

I7BiouC.jpg

Good ol' Viper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another ~10:1 Cross Section/Wave Drag Area. Beginning to get the Mon Calamari effect with fuselage bumps...

screenshot9_zpsf083dntg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right to assume you are all using moderate area ruling here?

If so, I present a max cross section to wave drag area ratio of 12.32. Great, not awesome, but it was the 2. design I built after downloading FAR (havent done anything high-speed since).

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483041868756/166BEB8B199A09FDD3E50AE5DFF8EBA3D476E41F/

(PS: Bicycle landing gears ftw!)

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I right to assume you are all using moderate area ruling here?

Default settings, yeah. Given that we have to build things out of predefined parts I don't think anything more is practical for KSP, particularly with stock parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I right to assume you are all using moderate area ruling here?

If so, I present a max cross section to wave drag area ratio of 12.32. Great, not awesome, but it was the 2. design I built after downloading FAR (havent done anything high-speed since).

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483041868756/166BEB8B199A09FDD3E50AE5DFF8EBA3D476E41F/

What do the stability numbers look like? Slick is one thing, slick plus stable/controllable is a bit more of a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Default settings, yeah. Given that we have to build things out of predefined parts I don't think anything more is practical for KSP, particularly with stock parts.

I'll take that as a challenge!

@Wanderfound, stable till above Mach 3 I think. Gonna post a screenshot after I finnished the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to say it's easy to fly, but... it does fly in nuFAR. To orbit and back down without incident, as long as you're firm with the controls :)

ch6cS6Z.jpg

Terribly inefficient; I just wanted to give some cheer to the folks who're grumbling that nuFAR is taking away their design options. It really isn't that bad :)

- - - Updated - - -

Another ~10:1 Cross Section/Wave Drag Area. Beginning to get the Mon Calamari effect with fuselage bumps...

It does however boast impressive curves! ;)

Feeling like I need to have a day of nuFAR this weekend...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, initial design was unflyable. So I found the time to post some screenshots of the P2.

First two screenshots are the graphs for Mach 3 and Mach 3.5. At both speeds it is stable up to a certain AoA.

3. is a whole load of numbers, and I have no idea what they mean, but I think they're about stability too... so I just thought, why not post them?

And last one is a screenshot of the thing at max speed at SL.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483042220222/FD39CEA8555F42E0D6AE4861FCEE2B21500FFCFF/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483042222689/365FC6700F68841DFCF53023D46521C3F141BCA1/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483042225410/F9E88030815895C3518B52C961A7D128668D03F1/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483042243510/65EFCDCBD4488F492998E1D27A54BEE6FF93CA2E/

Seems I didnt quite remember correctly, top speed is above Mach 4... and it is stable at that speed while flying straight.

However, keep your hand off the stick. One heart beat and the plane falls apart (not like it wont in a few seconds anyway. So much overheating o.O). That being said, it was built as a record plane, and it is able to fly safely while not going that fast.

After trying to land with a JS that wasnt centred properly (mostly on twist -> rudder wasnt quite where I wanted it -> dihedral effect strikes hard) I decided to put some droque chutes on it.

That reduced wave drag area, so the ratio is about 13.54 now :D But one of those numbers is now red when calculating for Mach 4... will need to check wether that is bad. But the bug with planes not being affected by aerodynamics struck again, so I'll test that soonâ„¢.

Anyway, the droque chutes sure make landing easier ;)http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/26238483042300303/BE3D0F9F4DAA07DB5554E8361275EFC0C18E64B2/

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, was still flyable at Mach 4. So that one red number doesnt seem to have been that bad (although it did fall apart a bit sooner).

Anyway, another bunch of changes... ratio: 16.04 :D And still room for improvement.

Highest Mach achieved was Mach 4.4 at SL. High records, best records. And nearly 9G acceleration from engine thrust.

Anyway, that's enough high speed for the moment. Back to prop planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now