• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Servo

  1. I destroyed the VAB several times over... 6x AIM-120, 2x AIM-7, 2x large drop tank (also known as "kinetic bombs")
  2. Maybe, I guess going 14, 15, 16 is only logical. That said, I'm going to college soon, and have a few other full-scale craft in the hangar (an A-10 most notably. I rebuilt my GAU-8 based on one of @klond's designs, but have yet to put it on an airframe). I also have an oversized AV-8B engine setup that I haven't finished yet, either. And full-scale is tricky for one main reason - kerbals aren't full scale. You have to basically double the size of cockpits, control surfaces, and engines to get a good replica. All that amounts to high part counts (the F-15 is 300 parts unarmed, the armed F-14 was pushing 600) and poor performance (the F-14 tops out at 250m/s in a dive, and the F-15 ACTIVE can touch 300m/s in level flight, with six Panthers going full burner). Basically, it's a headache to build and fly, but the craft look really good when it's done.
  3. My F-15 is almost done - I just need to load it out with air-to-air missiles and other goodies. Also, @MiffedStarfish, this is another possible take on cokcpits, though I feel like your idea has potential. Graviolis match the color really well, too. The F-15 ACTIVE is also included, which was the main reason for the replica. Just like my F-14, this F-15 is at 100% scale. It's bigger than most people think.
  4. The F-15 full-scale is coming along nicely. Despite the fact that we only have a cockpit, air intakes, and some magically floating engines, flight tests are underway. The glass bubble was completed today, as well as the nose, and some more work on the air intakes + wings. Any feedback on the cockpit? The solar panel bubble cockpit was the major gripe about my F-14, so I'd like to learn from that and make this one better. The other option is to have an open cockpit with ejection seats, but that doesn't look as good, IMO.
  5. It's been a while since I posted a proper WIP, so here goes. I realized that we didn't have the F-15 ACTIVE on the X-plane of the day thread, and that it would be due up in two days. So I decided to remedy that. I took my F-15 from JotD and slapped four more of the standard canards on (two on the tail, and two on the front). Then I decided that was too easy. So I started on this. I also realized that nobody had made a full-scale stock F-15 (they're bigger than they look) on KerbalX. And here we are now. The elevons are mocking out the size and shape of the craft, so its obvious that this will take a lot of work. Well, at least if I miss the deadline for XotD, I'll have the first one.
  6. F-16XL Cranked Arrow wing demonstrator aircraft The F-16XL was a unique design, utilizing a Cranked arrow wing design. The bizarrely shaped wing combines the advantages of good lift at high speeds (the swept delta section) with the good maneuverability at lower speeds (the less-swept outer section). Additional benefits included a much greater fuel load, plus a very large assortment of hardpoints. The F-16XL carried twice the ordinance of a normal F-14 across 27 hardpoints, at almost twice the range. The F-16XL was entered in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter contest, pitted against the F-15E Strike Eagle. Unfortunately for the F-16XL, the Strike Eagle won the contest, and the prototypes were shelved. Several years later, they were reactivated and given to NASA for aerodynamic research. Interestingly enough, the NASA F-16XL accidentally supercruised (Mach 1+ without afterburner) while testing a method of decreasing drag on the wings using a laser-perforated wing glove similar to a golf ball. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft: @Munbro Kerman's Northrop F-20 Tigershark
  7. I'm not much of a ship builder, but I specialize in replica aircraft (building from a blueprint, so a similar idea), so I may have a few bits of wisdom. 1.) Find your root: Not in the literal sense, the part you build everything off of, but what the main idea of the build is. For example, in my B-52, I wanted to get the nose and cockpit as close as possible. Or in my F-22, I wanted to get the exhaust ports right. For a ship, it might be the command post, or the bow. Spaceships might be rooted on their engines, or their crew sections. Make it something relatively specific. Basically, what part makes or breaks the build for you? Build that part first, and iterate on it until you're happy. Don't even worry about the rest of the build until you've built your root. This will give you a sense of scale, plus a solid starting point from which to build everything else. 2.) Frame it out: This isn't as necessary for small models, but for big ones I always start by getting my dimensions. I offset some I-beams (holding shift while offsetting allows you to drag it for as far as you like) down, then build out a skeleton shape (credit to @EpicSpaceTroll139 for the idea). For my planes, I set the length, width, and height, plus where the wings are. Then, I build as normal above the I-beams, and once I'm done, I remove them. 3.) Build it in your head: This seems to be what you're doing with your sketches, but take it a step farther. I find shapes that fit nicely to existing parts, and get a mental image of what it will look like before I even start building. For example, on my F-5, I knew that I wanted to use radial air intakes for the intakes, a fairing for the nose, mk0 parts to shape the fuselage, and inverted small air intakes as "engines". 4.) Just keep trying: This is easily the most important one. Don't give up when the first few craft don't work out. I've been playing for years, and building replica craft for most of it. Of the 60+ replicas I've uploaded to KerbalX, I only consider a handful of them to be really good. And even those, I iterate on a lot. Just don't be afraid to try and fail. And when you do fail, look back and find something that you learned in the build. Good luck, and don't be afraid to hit the delete button and try again! -Servo
  8. Grumman F-14 Tomcat - America's Favorite Fighter A few months ago, for the Jet-of-the-Day thread, I made a functional, visually accurate F-14 Tomcat. However, going back to it, I found it much less accurate than I thought, so I decided to return. At the cost of doubling the part count, I finally have a Tomcat that I'm happy with. The Mechanisms In addition to the visual overhaul, I redid the hinge mechanism to work smoother and explode less. The result is a mechanism that works smoothly in level flight, and is actuated by only two action groups (one forward, one back). The mechanism is pretty interesting. The solar panels in the hinge hold two RCS balls each, in two chambers. The docking ports (facing up) are actuated by the airbrakes between docking ports (facing down). The result is a smooth hinge that's timewarp resistant. The Arsenal The F-14 was an extremely versatile big fighter. It was extremely maneuverable when armed with AIM-9 Sidewinders, and could kill from long range with AIM-54 Phoenix. Long-range interceptor roles used a combination of the two, and this replication follows the most common loadout for that role. On the central pylons are four AIM-54 Phoenix. Like its real-life counterpart, this AIM-54 is a long-range air-to-air missile capable of destroying bombers in one shot. Decouple the missile and use target hold to home in. Earlier versions of this missile were capable of killing planes from kilometers away (in KSP, IRL it had much more range). To complement the jet rockets, there are a pair of unguided missile types. The inner wing pylon holds AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, and the outer one holds AIM-9 Sidewinders. To extend the range, there are a pair of drop tanks as well. More Information In addition to the accurate weapons loadout, I spent a lot of time making sure that the craft would look and function the same as an actual F-14. The variable incidence wings are fully functional, and are actuated by action groups. This is mostly non-problematic, and the wings dock back without incident, provided that the transition is done in level flight. The focus for this project was extreme visual accuracy, so the craft is extremely draggy. Because of this, expect top speeds of about 100m/s with afterburner, and about 170 with burners lit. I expect that it will perform much better in FAR, but have not tested it. Fitting to the real Tomcat, this replica is significantly more maneuverable with wings forward, and a bit faster with the wings swept. Action Groups 1 - sweep wings backward2 - sweep wings forward9 - toggle engines0 - toggle afterburnerRCS - body spoilersABORT - tailhookG - gear + gear bays Download Enjoy!
  9. Stratzenblitz has done it again. Every one of your videos is more insane than the next - and not just the craft. Could you give an aspiring non-verbal videomaker a few pointers? But back to the nitty gritty, I've been playing around with @EvenFlow's TU-95 Bear. Working on international relations... I wonder if they know the finger. And when that goes sour, Big plane = big target I modified the craft slightly, replacing the struts with autostruts. That made things slightly more... explosive.
  10. You need burners to take off in any practical time, and even then it's a bit underpowered. I tried to stick with four Panthers, but even that's not quite enough sometimes. Just makes me wish stock aero was a bit more realistic.
  11. We did a F-5 Freedom Fighter as well as the T-38 Talon for JotD. The F-5 is about halfway down, and the T-38 is at the bottom of the same page:
  12. It was an extra-curricular, if that makes it any better. Hair-pulling work, but totally worth it. Good idea, though I don't want to redo all the video that I cut and edited already. I also got the struts on the SRBs wrong, but I'm in too deep. I'll fix them if I ever release the craft, though.
  13. Those are some beautiful lifting bodies you've got there. Put mine to shame. As congrats, here's by B-52, all set up to drop lifting bodies and (small) X-15s: I've also been starting work on a pair of cinematics/videos. One features this piece of work. Incidentally, I was recently able to meet the test pilot who flew the F-14s in Top Gun (he went on to fly four shuttle missions), Scooter Altman. The other features this replica HIIa, a Japanese medium-lift vehicle, as well as a satellite payload. The payload was designed by myself and 30 other high-school students as part of an engineering design camp through NASA.
  14. Unfortunately, that's true. Ironically, summer has put a damper on my KSP time, rather than freeing more up. Additionally, adding more people caused scheduling to become more difficult. But yes, it has slipped a lot.
  15. Still, this is a solid craft with a nice video. And yes, I've found that any craft made out of elevons doesn't fly particularly fast or well. I maybe hit 50 m/s in a steep glide with my HL-10. There's a reason that NASA used so much data from lifting bodies on the shuttle - they both fly like bricks.
  16. Very well done model and video! Welcome to the forums. As EVA_Reentry mentioned, I've made replicas of almost every lifting body NASA tested (with the exception of the X-24B, made by qzgy) in the X-plane of the day thread (link in my signature). However, they really suffered in performance since they were all either upowered or rocket powered. Yours seems to be a much more functional model to fly around. Great work!
  17. We're a few days behind here at XotD, but never to fear, I have a lovely double-dip of lifting bodies for you fine folks! The Lifting Bodies up to this point. From left to right: M2F1, M2F2, M2F3, HL10, and X-24A. The X-24B will be covered by @qzgy tomorrow. April 1969: Martin Marietta X-24A After the M2Fx program of the 1960s, NASA Dryden continued to research the unique properties of lifting bodies. They were being considered for use as steerable reentry vehicles, as well as for other uses. The research done in the X-24 program impacted every modern reentry vehicle design, including the Space Shuttle, DreamChaser, and especially the X-37 spaceplane. Download Link: June 1970: M2F3 The M2F3 was the third and final ’M-series' of lifting body investigated at NASA Dryden, and closely followed behind in investigating how lifting bodies behavied at trans-and supersonic speed. After the M2F2 crash, the design was rebuilt over the course of three years. The major addition was a third vertical stabilizer which helped mitigate the lateral stability problems faced by the earlier design. The M2Fx program would pave the way for future lifting body research, including the X-24 program, and all later non-capsule reentry vehicles. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft; @qzgy's X-24B
  18. December 1966 - Northrop/NASA HL-10 Lifting Body The HL-10 was the continuation of NASA’s lifting body program of the 1960s, and the first of a new type of lifting body. Rather than the bathtub-shaped aircraft that were emblemized by the M2Fx program. The sleek, rounded design would be used in the Martin Marietta X-24A, as well as in designs for many orbital-class lifting-body proposals. Interestingly enough, the futuristic-looking HL-10 found its way into pop culture alongside another lifting body. The hit TV show ‘the Six Million Dollar Man’, which spawned the phrase We can rebuild him, we have the technology featured shots of both the HL-10 and the M2F2 in the opening credits. Footage of a crash involving the M2F2 is central to the plot, causing main character Steve Austin to be so badly injured that he could only be saved with bionic implants. In real life, the pilot Bruce Peterson walked away from the crash with only minor injuries. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft: @Munbro Kerman's Lockheed YF-12
  19. July 1966 - NASA/Northrop M2F2 Lifting Body After the tests with the M2F1 airframe, NASA Dryden continued investigating lifting bodies with the M2F2 program. Lifting bodies are strange sort of aircraft which don’t rely on wings or tails for aerodynamic lift. Instead, the airfoil is shaped to create a high pressure zone underneath the plane, creating lift. The M2F2 program expanded on the M2F1 program, adding a metal airframe, retractable landing gear, and a rocket engine.The NASA lifting body program continued with the M2F3, HL-10, and the X-24, and would result in the design of the space shuttle program in the 1980s. Download Link: Tomorrow's Craft: My own NASA HL10 Lifting Body
  20. I'm doing this from mobile, so formatting is off + no download yet. August 1963: NASA M2F1 LIFTING BODY The M2F1 is on the left, next to three other NASA lifting bodies. In 1962, NASA Dryden began building a simple lifting body to explore the principles of body lift and wingless flight, a concept that had only been explored in theories. The project would result in a strangely shaped aircraft without wings or a tail. The aircraft was unpowered, so it had to be towed into the air by a tow vehicle. For the first tests, the tow vehicle was one of the more unlikely NASA vehicles ever: A souped-up Pontiac convertible. Later tests were performed with more conventional tow aircraft. The program resulted in unprecedented data on the behaviour of body lift and the boundary layer of air surrounding the aircraft. NASA continues to experiment with lifting bodies today, as the M2F1 spawned a long and successful lineage. Download link: Coming soon Tomorrow's craft: @NorthAmericanAviation's XV-5
  21. I filled my ranks with lifting bodies yesterday, and finally broke on building my X-53. M2F1, M2F2, M2F3, and HL10 all in a row. They represent most of NASA's progression in lifting body designs from 1963 (M2F1) to 1970 (M2F3). The X-53 was a NASA craft that explored the practicality of using wing warping to control craft. I was trying to do actual wing warping (using moving wing segments), but it kept falling apart in the air. So I just used elevons instead.
  22. I had a bit of fun loading out my F-14 Tomcat. Full loadout for a long-range intercept mission (the screenshot is missing the drop tanks, as I dropped them by accident), and fully functional. Plus, by B-52 exited its retirement to help me test my M2F2 lifting body design.
  23. I had a long car ride to kill, so I played around a bit more with lifting bodies. I shipped my M2F2 and NB-52008 out to the desert and had a bit of fun droptesting the craft. After spamming in a couple elevons, it flies just dandy. Now on to the M2F1, M2F3, and HL10 Dropping it is still a little hairy. I found a way that works in deploying the elevons down to force the craft away from the B-52 on launch. The desert makes for some really beautiful screenshots, I don't know why I didn't try this sooner. I also did a smoothing pass on my F-14 Tomcat. There are changes to the wing glove, vertical stabilizer, and air intakes. Also, I am developing a weapons loadout for it, in case anyone intrepid wants to dogfight with it (if my computer were any beefier I would). I've got 4 AIM-54 Phoenix, 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders, and 2 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, plus two drop tanks (not pictured) replicated. And yes, they work. The AIM-9 and AIM-7 are unguided, but I'm currently testing designs for the AIM-54 to be a guided fire-and-forget missile, like I had on my original F-14 replication.
  24. June 1959 - December 1968: North American + USAF X-15 Program The X-15 program was one of the longest-lived experimental programs in the U.S. X program line. The three X-15s built flew a total of 199 missions, earning eight of the nine test pilots Air Force astronaut wings. The majority of the X-15 flights followed one of two flight paths: speed or altitude. Each flight began with the pilot being carried aloft by one of the NASA motherships (either Balls 8 (NB-52008) or The High and Mighty One (NB-52003)) to an altitude of about eight miles and 600mph. There, the X-15 was released and the pilot ignited the Reaction Motors XLR-99 engine. In the speed configuration, the pilot would maintain a level flight plan, reaching up to Mach 6.7 (2020m/s, 7,274mph) (the X-15A, piloted by Pete Knight on October 3, 1967). Here, valuable data would be gathered about aerodynamic performance with high dynamic pressures, as well as testing a ramjet design. In altitude runs, Joseph Walker set the record at 354,200 feet on August 22, 1963 (67 miles, or 107 kilometers). For comparison, that's orbital altitude and (almost) orbital speed on Kerbin; Earth orbital speed and altitude is 150km and 10km/s. The X-15 program was a direct predecessor to the space shuttle in many ways. It tested a number of superalloys and ablative coatings capable of withstanding reentry, generated the first space-worthy pressure suit, tested reentry (and atmospheric exit) of spaceplane designs, was the first use of RCS systems, tested the effects of spaceflight on test pilots (and astronauts), and demonstrated cooperation between the government (NASA), the military (The Air Force and Navy), and the private sector (North American). Download Link: X-15 only: X-15 + NB-52: Tomorrow's Craft: @NorthAmericanAviation's North American XF-108 Rapier
  25. I took another pass on my F-14, completely redesigning it for functionality and looks. I think I did a pretty darn good job.