Rath
-
Posts
1,216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Rath
-
-
On 6/21/2017 at 3:22 PM, NotAnAimbot said:
Here we go!
March the 25th 1958: A.V. & Roe Canada CF-105 "Arrow"
As Soviet bombers became more and more performant, Canada's indigenous fighter, the relatively slow straight-wing CF-100 "Canuck", became more and more obsolete and unable to cope with the new generation of enemy aircraft. Thus development was started on an indigenous interceptor which would operate at 50 000 feet altitude and Mach 2 speed, and the fighter was to be able to reach that altitude in less than five minutes. These specifications were basically asking for one of the best aircraft available at that time.
The aiframe and engine were completely developed in Canada, the Arrow's planned powerplant being the Orenda "Iroquois" which would have given it Mach 3 capability. A delta wing was chosen for more fuel room and the advantages of a swept wing, while providing for lower landing speeds. Although low speed maneuverability would have been reduced, the Arrow wasn't built to operate in these conditions, for it was expected to mainly fly in a straight line towards bomber formations. Crew was supposed to be of two pilots, one flying the plane and another operating weapons housed behind the pilot.
Much less of a crowd than the original
However, after the appearance of ICBMs, the Arrow was considered obsolete, a more or less controversial decision. The development program for both airframe and engine was ended and prototypes were destroyed, for reasons which still remain unknown or controversial today. The nose section of one of the prototypes was hidden and is now on display at the Canadian Aviation museum in Ottawa, Ontario, and some rumors speak of a secret complete Arrow hidden somewhere, yet to be found today.
Builder's notes
AG3 toggles the afterburners. Not much else really, except a warning against strong yawing or rolling at high speeds. This causes the fuselage's side wing panels to create lots of lift and destabilize the plane, something which I've partially fixed with SAS modules.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/apgvfoz4vtcfpvp/CF-105 Arrow.craft?dl=0
Oh what could have been...
It seems like every one of my fellow Canadians hates the fact that it was cancelled.
-
The Thread is dead, Long live the thread!
-
The Thread is dead, Long live the thread!
-
8 hours ago, Casualnaut said:
For water exploration? Did anybody forget that jet engines work when they are in water?
Eve exists
-
21 hours ago, selfish_meme said:
I built one a long time ago when the water was first made like it is now, but I abandoned it after I realised that while it could get to orbit it was never going to do anything useful
Looks like you lost a docking port there.
-
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Need disambiguation.
Does "with modern equipment" mean that the used technologies are limited with their current state, but you can build as many Soyuzes as you wish, or that modern tech is a starting point.
Though, as "infinite money" would devaluate in a second, and nobody could build anything, no difference.
Modern equipment means that you start out with eleventy billion soyouzes but can keep building (but you gotta start now, no waiting for that Alcubierre).
Ok, how about all the worlds military budgets going to a single space program?
-
21 hours ago, Skyshrim said:
Has anyone here been able to build one of these with a full size mk3 cargo bay with cargo to orbit capability? I got close, but then realized using the cargo bay as the main boat hull results in the contents being destroyed on landing. The only solution I can think of is to make a double-decker fuselage or have some crazy oversized floats, but both of those options bring more challenges like dealing with a lot of dead weight or figuring out how to load and unload cargo to the second floor.
Any ideas?
I think you are just touching down too fast. I can land mallards full of science jr. and keep them intact. You just need bigger wings I guess.
-
19 minutes ago, DeltaDizzy said:
Title of OP is basiaclly a summary of KSP Sandbox Mode. So, like basically anything that you can do in RSS/RO sandbox.
Venus return I don't think so.
-
I'm talking also about modern hardware, like already existing rockets and stuff. How quickly could we really get some insane stuff done?
-
I'm talking Falcon boosted SLS, or a delta 4 heavy with Energia boosters. What could we make if we worked together?
-
I wanna get this thread doing something again so here we go (you can find a kerbalmaps replacement here)
What could have formed this? Looks like it could be a caldera or something. It's down near the tip of the KSC continent if anybody want's to go check it out in game.
Oooh, I found another dry riverbed, it looks like the whole desert was its drainage basin. That's the desert with the temple, perhaps it was a massive nile-style delta previously.
-
15 minutes ago, Kerbart said:
Ah, so it's Kerbalstuff?
Nope, that died. Spacedock is the thing now.
-
Just now, Kerbart said:
No, it's not now dead... It's been dead for... ages, really. From it's ashes rose Spacedock, though, so you can try that one.
While actually from it's ashes rose kerbalstuff, and from thats ashes rose spacedock.
-
5 hours ago, fourfa said:
Level flight? the 5 degree dive on the navball couldn't be clearer. Nitpicking, but still impressive. Hope to see more...
apparently they checked using the horizontal speed indicator on the f3 menu. I think.
-
On 5/15/2017 at 4:28 AM, Citizen247 said:
So, I've been doing some testing for modular cockpits.
All looks good in overlay mode:
Unfortunately when you go into IVA:
So KSP only renders the IVA you're currently in. So modular cockpits are going to take a custom code plugin, to force KSP to render visible IVAs.
I think the code itself would be fairly straight forward. However since it would be more than just parts, I'm thinking that it might be better to make another mod focused on Modular cockpits alone.
please do make a modular cockpit mod. Also, could you make a mid section cockpit that fits the chines on both the front and the back? Like the Vindicator, but without the back glass part， just right into the razorback part again. There was another british ww2 plane that had it but I forget the name right now. And perhaps a glass back so you can make a vindicator cockpit out of it too?
-
I wonder if by using the same concept as braking the shaft, you could make stock realistic reaction wheels? Spin them up using rover wheels or something, that still works, right?
-
2 hours ago, selfish_meme said:
I made a brake this way once before, I used it for turrets, I guess using something similar to the method above on the main rotor would work too, could make for a very manoeuvrable heli
If it was contra-rotating it could turn in both directions very quickly I guess. A very large heli that turns very fast? yes please. If we could find a way to attach it to a and d keys that would be great.
-
I wonder if it could be possible to make a system for very, very large helicopters with a single rotor to have their left and right rotation be controlled by braking on the main engine shaft to transfer rotation to the airframe? It probably won't compete but it would be a very interesting method of turning in the direction your rotor is turning.
-
2 hours ago, quasarrgames said:
Hello Everyone! Back with an exciting new craft:
The Aeolus
A unique but realistic staged spaceplane with incredible capabilities.
The high-performance j58 (whiplash) engine gets the craft up to about mach 3, then the aerospike upper stage detaches and carries the payload the rest of the way. So it's all present-day technology.
Also, it obeys all the rules. It's 20m long and 1.25m in diameter (excluding its fins and landing gear).
Pictures for publicity:
Features
Payload Capacity: 8 TONS (yup. That's as much as the next two heaviest lifters COMBINED) to equatorial 75km LKO, or 5 tons to equatorial GTO
The jet stage can be landed in the water, or flown to the next continent and landed there (if necessary), in about 8 minutes' time after separation
Has a light so you can display your favourite color on your payload while you launch! (if you don't specify the color you wish on your launch, it shal be kept as fabulous purple)
Tested in simulators for any payload that fits in a 2.5 by 5.5m fairing
Flight instructions:
1-Stay level until you reach 600m/s, then pull up into a 20 degree climb
2-At 20km, once your speed starts to drop, engage RCS and stage
3-Try to keep the pitch at the point where the time to apoapsis is just increasing. Should reach cutoff velocity about 45km up
4-Remove fairing once in space and circularise normally
Since this is vastly superior to my trinity rocket, i wish to replace it with the Aeolus in the upcoming test launch and in the craft manifest
Cost of the lifter:
18,830
Recovery cost:
7,360
Customer cost:
31,000
I'm kinda butting in here, but those wings seem like they could be a bit unrealistic. Attached by a single strut?
-
12 hours ago, Sigma88 said:
right now the terrain can only have 1 altitude value for a given coordinate (LON/LAT)
a cave would require 3 (cave ground, cave ceiling, outdoor ground)
the only solution "readily" available would be to design a "building" that looks like a cave and load that on the planet using KK
That's what I was trying to say up above. Make a small planet and cover it in a huge building with built in caves.
-
I wonder if you could make a cave filled planet by making a tiny one and then sticking a bunch of tylo-style caves on top of it? I would love a "honeycomb" asteroid or something even bigger. Imagine landing your rocket way down a huge hole where you need to steer slightly right and left to get out. Sounds like a star wars planet.
EDIT: like this
-
14 hours ago, Overland said:
Ive lost half a fuel tanker wagon down a terrain crack before, a train was parked on a gap in the terrain on save..when it loaded half stayed under
It is a very big drop though most things popped on hitting the water
Can hyperedit be set to minus values?
I admit though im envisioning more of a kas winch pulling something under clipping through the terrain
But maybe im drifting a bit far off topic?
I recall the global ocean was one reason for bad optimisation in the early days
Oooh, a KAS winch pulling a kite style thing underground (it would need to be a kite because otherwise a boat would not always touch the underground ocean if the winch was too short) is very interesting.
-
5 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:
...Now to figure out how to reliably get below the surface for that science... Hmmm
Terrain glitches in certain places could possibly fit through very small boats (or planes!) and then you could go around under the land to all the biomes. All of KSPs continents are connected so you could get all of it. And then return to a hole to exit. We would need to map terrain holes to do this though.
-
12 hours ago, Dcseal said:
Cool challenge idea.
Alright! Here's my go with a plane called the "Koeing". It's got 64 passenger capacity, so it's heavy class.
I got some inspiration from some old passenger planes with engines on the top, and I decided to make it a little more kerbal.
TWO Engines on the top!
Pictures:
Scoring:
- Bonus Points:
- Can't tailstrike +20
- Stalls at 20m/s (That's some serious power) +60
- Needs only 4 of it's 6 engines to fly +5
- Doesn't need SAS to fly stably +20
- Airbrakes +10
- Can ditch in water with no damage +20
- Needs the whole runway -20
- Main Scoring:
- Max Distance: (Not enough to even score it. It runs out almost instantly, but i'm proud of it.)
- Passengers: 64 capacity = 12.8 points? (I think I did the math wrong.)
- Flight Attendants: 2 = 1 point? (I probably just did the math wrong again.)
135 bonus points + 12.8 + 1 = 148.8
(Welp, I think I did the math wrong.) The base scoring needs a little explaining, as it doesn't make much sense to me with some calculations containing *'s and others with other characters.)
the * symbol is how people usually type times. / is divided, + and - are self explanatory I hope.
Lets say 5km range because from the screenshot you got at least that far.
Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points
so: (Whatever the max speed is, I don't see it in your submission)+(5km/10)+((64*5)*1+(2/2))+135
I'm dubious about the 20m/s stall, as those wings are too small. Stall is when you plane starts falling out of the air because it's going too slow, and loses controllability.
By the way, you could make this a far better scoring plane by replacing the tail ramp with the slanted mk3-2.5m adapter emptied of oxidizer and the slanted 2.5m-1.25m adapter and a slanted tail cone for more fuel. And Then take off most of the jets, that size of plane can take off on three wheesleys. Two goliaths is overkill, and you have six. you'd be better off using a few RAPIERs or whiplashes, and then you could rake in a ton of speed points. You could remove all but two of the rear landing gear, but you could have two bogies per side if you aren't as good at landing softly.
It seems like every one of my fellow Canadians hates the fact that it was cancelled.
18,830
Stock duna propeller plane in breaking ground 1.7.3
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted
I feel like a lot more wing would solve most of your problems.