[Subassembly] JRFB (Bearing used on Kinchook Helicopter)

[Jon144]

Well. You guys asked for it! So here it is!

So I am now releasing the rotor bearings used to power my popular "Kinchook" stock Chinook helicopter replica to the public. They're very simple and low part count. A single probe core between two fuselages surrounded by Ibeams can hold rotors soundly in place under even the most stressful conditions. The base bearing subassembly is only 14 parts! But don't forget to add struts on your own holding the Ibeams and structural components in place as this is necessary to keep the bearing functioning stable. As you add power and weight to the rotors or spinning application make sure to add more struts! This is a must! for example when used on the Kinchook have 16 added struts each. This number will vary based on the application and sometimes may require no struts at all. 

I hope you enjoy this subassembly and can make your own awesome helicopters with it. They are less suitable in other applications but that does not make them impossible. The sky is literally the limit though. Unless you can make some crazy space helicopter.

Download is beneath. Make sure to paste the file into the subassembly folder of the corresponding save file you want it in.

Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lb821ilzmcft5fx/JRFB-Mk1.craft?dl=0

Edited August 8, 2016 by Jon144

[Azimech]

I'd like to see how much power it can handle ... really looking forward to test it!

[Azimech]

Seems the bearing isn't too pleased with horizontal operation, the colliders bite each other even at low power levels, resulting in jerky operation and RUD's. I'll stick to wheels :-)

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

Seems the bearing isn't too pleased with horizontal operation, the colliders bite each other even at low power levels, resulting in jerky operation and RUD's. I'll stick to wheels :-)

Try more than four panels for the bearing. When designing my micro hinge I discovered that the perfect number of sides for smooth horizontal operation is eight sides. Give that a go!

Edited August 8, 2016 by Majorjim!

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Majorjim! said:

Try more than four panels for the bearing. When designing my micro hinge I discovered that the perfect number of sides for smooth horizontal operation is eight sides. Give that a go!

The problem is not really the amount of sides, it's the diameter of the central part. I've tried dozens of types this way and I hoped I overlooked something when I saw Jon144's bearing ... Guess I was wrong.

But maybe I've missed something again, I'll download his Chinook and test some more..

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

The problem is not really the amount of sides, it's the diameter of the central part. I've tried dozens of types this way and I hoped I overlooked something when I saw Jon144's bearing ... Guess I was wrong.

But maybe I've missed something again, I'll download his Chinook and test some more..

That doesn't sound right man. And even if that was the case just make the cage bigger.

 I did extensive testing when designing my micro hinge and four sides was jumpy and snagged just as you experienced. Do try with eight sides as I showed in the picture but remember you will need to load it, try it and modify the shape till it is perfect, it wont work on the first go for a horizontal hinge as they are far more susceptible to error.

[Azimech]

5 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

That doesn't sound right man. And even if that was the case just make the cage bigger.

 I did extensive testing when designing my micro hinge and four sides was jumpy and snagged just as you experienced. Do try with eight sides as I showed in the picture but remember you will need to load it, try it and modify the shape till it is perfect, it wont work on the first go for a horizontal hinge as they are far more susceptible to error.

Mounted the Chinook nose down, tail up in launch stabilizers. Conclusion: the concept is fine for slow rotating elements like a helicopter rotor. Unusable for high speed operation like a turboprop. The big problem is how KSP handles colliders ... more specifically, which physic material Squad's chosen in Unity for every part: generic. When I create parts I give them a custom physic material.

You're free to try to build a fast turboprop with it, maybe you can prove me wrong. For now, I will not invest more time in it, I've got too many projects already.

But next time I'll build a turboshaft helicopter I'll surely try it and maybe adopt it as a standard.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

Mounted the Chinook nose down, tail up in launch stabilizers. Conclusion: the concept is fine for slow rotating elements like a helicopter rotor. Unusable for high speed operation like a turboprop. The big problem is how KSP handles colliders ... more specifically, which physic material Squad's chosen in Unity for every part: generic. When I create parts I give them a custom physic material.

You're free to try to build a fast turboprop with it, maybe you can prove me wrong. For now, I will not invest more time in it, I've got too many projects already.

But next time I'll build a turboshaft helicopter I'll surely try it and maybe adopt it as a standard.

I imagine the friction is a major issue.. I never imagined it an alternative for a wheeled bearing, I just wanted to make sure it got the best chance to work.

[Azimech]

Did a little experiment and turbofied the Chinook. Doesn't make it more beautiful is an understatement.

[Jon144]

6 hours ago, Azimech said:

Did a little experiment and turbofied the Chinook. Doesn't make it more beautiful is an understatement.

It still looks better than my turboshaft version that I tried. Also I think it is the placement of the struts you added on the bearing that are snagging on those inner fuel-tanks. As you see on the chinook they are placed along the very outsides of the bearing. I have found they can "snag" and cause some glichiness when that close. But yeah as I said in the OP that they are designed for vertical operation but not necessarily impossible to use in other roles. I think all you really have to do is keep changing the orientations of the parts and you will find some success.

How many parts is that? The default version is only 215. You also used the outdated version of the helicopter to try that on. Try putting those on the "C" version.

And of course it will look prettier no matter what when you mod the game to get rid of engine smoke. Which of course makes turboshafts unplayable to new players with stock installs.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Jon144

[Jon144]

Looks like it works just fine in horizontal operation. You just didn't space any of the parts adequately. Need to make sure you also increase the space between the Ibeams the smaller the attachment. With only 8 blowers and not even fully strutted can spin pretty fast and reliably. Sorry there.

 

[Azimech]

29 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

Looks like it works just fine in horizontal operation. You just didn't space any of the parts adequately. Need to make sure you also increase the space between the Ibeams the smaller the attachment. With only 8 blowers and not even fully strutted can spin pretty fast and reliably. Sorry there.

 

No problem :-)

I'd like to test it.

[Jon144]

12 minutes ago, Azimech said:

No problem :-)

I'd like to test it.

I don't imagine being able to squeeze the rotations out of it that you can from your house sized wheel bearings though. Its just so much smaller and that alone will limit how fast they can go. So yeah you're right def. better for helicopter operations but I just wanted to show it's possible for horizontal operations if you get all the spacing perfect. You're better at this type of thing so i'm sure you can come up with something cooler just wanted to make sure to show it's possible. 

And exactly what Jim said. I was able to squeeze part count and use only 8 Ibeams for the bearing and it makes sense to increase this number if you want more high rpm stability. Of course you need to modify the design based on the application. And it should be possible since the base Chinook can spin those super heavy engined rotors super fast.

You should post a download link to the turbo version so I can post it on the main forum page for it.

All I think that you have to do to get that horizontal prop working is to increase the spacing between the ibeams.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by Jon144

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Jon144 said:

Looks like it works just fine in horizontal operation.

Nice work dude! I wonder just how fast that is spinning? Looks really fast. @Azimech what do you use to see the RPM/radians info.

[Jon144]

Anyways since this thread is so popular already i'll have to release my stock wheel axles as a sub-assembly too for people to make their own mega-trucks. But that is after I finally finish the base vehicle. Needs quite a bit of tweaking before I release it. Need to increase it's turning radius and reduce the part count and still build a hydraulic lifter to it. 

[Azimech]

8 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Nice work dude! I wonder just how fast that is spinning? Looks really fast. @Azimech what do you use to see the RPM/radians info.

I use V.O.I.D.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Azimech

[THE NARWHAL]

Thanks, i've been waiting for this. Though, my project is a bit smaller than yours, so i'll be using a minimized version of this bearing. I'll be sure to credit you in the description for the basic idea, of course, considering it's instrumental to the whole aspect of the craft working. Thanks again for releasing this!

[Jon144]

3 hours ago, THE NARWHAL said:

Thanks, i've been waiting for this. Though, my project is a bit smaller than yours, so i'll be using a minimized version of this bearing. I'll be sure to credit you in the description for the basic idea, of course, considering it's instrumental to the whole aspect of the craft working. Thanks again for releasing this!

Yep no problemo! Like I said earlier will always require tweaking and modifications based on the application. Love to see what people will be able to come up with. Usually minimized versions of this bearing do not fair well in my experience. It's suited to medium to large applications.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Jon144

[THE NARWHAL]

14 hours ago, Jon144 said:

Yep no problemo! Like I said earlier will always require tweaking and modifications based on the application. Love to see what people will be able to come up with. Usually minimized versions of this bearing do not fair well in my experience. It's suited to medium to large applications.

Yeah, my main problem is i'm also using a 2-rotor design, which is throwing it off balance, but the rotation of the bearing itself is perfect. It basically uses the lips of the i-beans to hold the fuselage in place, while a few cubic octagonal struts stick up to the probe core where the rotors attach. If i can stabilize the rotors and wobbling, i think i'll be ready to release it.

[Jon144]

6 hours ago, THE NARWHAL said:

Yeah, my main problem is i'm also using a 2-rotor design, which is throwing it off balance, but the rotation of the bearing itself is perfect. It basically uses the lips of the i-beans to hold the fuselage in place, while a few cubic octagonal struts stick up to the probe core where the rotors attach. If i can stabilize the rotors and wobbling, i think i'll be ready to release it.

Can't wait to see it. Won't question it if it works! 

[mrmcp1]

Using a bearing inspired by yours I made a coaxial helicopter

It works reasonably well i.e. doesn't explode on a regular basis 

Edited August 10, 2016 by mrmcp1

[Jon144]

7 hours ago, mrmcp1 said:

Using a bearing inspired by yours I made a coaxial helicopter

It works reasonably well i.e. doesn't explode on a regular basis 

That looks awesome! It looks better than the coaxial I tried making with the same bearing. Which is so hideous I will not even share. Looks really fun to fly and you need to make sure to make it's own forum thread since it well deserves some rep! Would love to get my hands on it. From seeing it already I would suggest increasing the distance between the upper and lower rotors for obvious reasons. 

[Azimech]

On 8/8/2016 at 9:08 PM, Jon144 said:

You should post a download link to the turbo version so I can post it on the main forum page for it.

 

If you're still interested, I'll adapt the "C" for you.

[mrmcp1]

The development of my helicopter continues

I have made a miniature version of the coaxial setup which is much more reliable 

I made the distance between the blades larger which has reduced the number of violent explosions

I think the rotor is finished but the helicopter its self is horrible to fly so I will rebuild it before making a thread

[joseph88]

hey guys. I love this design. I tried to download the helicopter and the rotor but it keeps telling me that it is not for the same version of KSP. is there anything anyone can recommend to help?