Jump to content

AeroGav

Members
  • Content Count

    1,837
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,042 Excellent

1 Follower

About AeroGav

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

6,281 profile views
  1. Get friend zoned by Soolin. Then try my luck with Jenna. If Cally looses that 80s poodle perm, maybe I'll even creep around her for a bit. Then teleport over to the next Liberator ship and see how it goes with the clones of the above crew members. Repeat 9999 times.
  2. The tank i used in my screenshot above was in the middle of a stack, it had the shock cone at the front and a cockpit behind it. You could reduce the drag of the tank by mounting the wings at 5 degrees incidence angle and flying the fuselage on prograde, but that's not a fair comparison as you wont fly on prograde hold for much of the airbreathing part of the flight, you'll probably be at some negative fuselage aoa. More wings = less drag during the nerv part of the flight, less wings = less drag & faster acceleration on airbreathers since nervs are so heavy and underpower
  3. ??? 0.44 drag on a big S strake, lift rating of 1 Last time i checked, all wing parts have same lift to drag ratio, so a pair of big S wings (lift rating 10 for the pair ) would be 4.40 kn drag at the speed , altitude and angle of attack in that screenshot. Equivalent to 3.18 mk1 tanks, not 7. Given how heavy NERVs are, I'm inclined to make all my fuel tanks Big S parts to make this part of the ascent easier (get out of the lower atmosphere faster, once you pitch up from the speed run). This does slow down the air breathing part of the climb, when you can't just fly h
  4. Don't trust the red arrows, they are not to scale. Use ALT+f12 > physics > aerodynamics and tick the "show aero data in action menus" checkbox. I did a quick test - Those strakes on the back of the main wing have 0.44 drag, if you used 4 of them to have same capacity as the fuselage tank , you'd get 1.76 drag, which is slightly higher than the mk1 tank. To an extent, you can compensate for this by busting mach 1 at a higher altitude, since the larger wings enable you to fly at low angle of attack in thinner air, but beyond a certain point thinner air makes engin
  5. No, mk2 has about 2 and a half to three times of a mk1 part of the same length. This is terrible for fuel tanks as they contain no more fuel than a mk1 part of the same length. For passengers, they are not so bad as you get twice as many kerbals per module, but the kerbals to drag ratio is still worse, especially given that you'll now need mk2 to mk1 adapters at front and back of stack, which contain oxidizer tanks you are not using.
  6. probably because of the wing incidence angle allows flying on prograde lock, so the engine parts and the empty nodes are now at zero angle of attack, reducing their drag, allowing you to get away with not having them. I'd still keep them personally, it's not like you're going to notice the dry mass reduction with the weight of all those nervs on such a vessel
  7. Intakes don't work properly if facing backwards in fact - as you get faster, they normally bring in more air, but facing the wrong way, they intake less which is bad news as that's just when engine demand starts to go up. I do normally still put cones on the back of all my engines because busting mach 1 is the hardest part, the less jet engines you need for that, the more delta v or payload fraction you can bring as those things are heavy. However, the difference in drag between aerodynamic nose cone vs shock cone are very small compared with the drag the mk3 fuselage parts are
  8. Also, the air mattress has a plastic skin. Plastic is made of carbon and hydrogen, both of which are very rare on the moon.
  9. I've often wondered what a lunar habitat might be like if it started growing itself with in situ harvested resources. Lunar soil and rock appears to consist mostly of metal oxides and silicates. So, probably one of the very first things a colony with aspirations of becoming self supporting can do, is start excavating additional habitable volume for itself, and constructing bricks and furniture items out of carved stone. In 16% gravity, they would not be particularly bothersome to handle. In terms of processed/man made materials, smelting the regolith to separate the metals
  10. OPT parts have horrible drag, worse than mk2. I think the authors of the mod calculated drag based on volume of the fuselage section, so as they have more internal volume than mk2 drag is scaled up accordingly. This seems to be how squad calculated drag on the stock parts - mk2 parts have more volume than mk1, so they gave them more drag. Except that in real life, that wing body blending reduces drag at transonic/supersonic speed (at the cost of higher weight), and in real life, the wing/body blending can be used to store a lot of extra fuel, whereas in game, mk2 parts contain
  11. I'd say its all about lift drag ratio. You want to get the best exchange rate possible, that means maintain the nose 5 degrees above wherever the prograde marker is pointing. When you deviate a couple of degrees off this 5 degree angle of attack your lift to drag ratio goes to hell. Looks like you're able to make this work by getting into a 30 degree zoom climb after reaching 1200m/s at 10km when the Whiplash is still making a lot of power - by the time your upward momentum has run out, you've gained enough horizontal orbital velocity. My designs are intende
  12. This craft of mine was built for the mountain lake landing challenge. https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Puffin Seaplanes are tricky, change one thing and there is no guarantee the craft will lift off the water again. It can comfortably land on Minmus starting from a standing start on Kerbin, and i used the cheat menu to put in orbit of Laythe and verify that after de-orbit burn, it can land on and take off from the ocean with nearly full tanks, and then fly to Laythe orbit with 2500 dV left once in orbit. So if you'd rather not mod this airplane, build something with a
  13. I ended up overshooting and climbing too high on my initial burn, reaching an AP of 65km at 1900 m/s - this thing makes a lot of lift ! So i cut the engines and let it coast down on prograde. Restarted engines at 50km, things start getting hot below 40km, end up pulling several Gs from lift at 37km to level off. Overheat bars are shrinking again so i start pitching down, trying to delay my broaching 50km as long as i could. If going above 70km before the record attempt is against the spirit of the challenge, i feel like i could use some high thrust LFO engine for the final fling
  14. I don't have time tonight to design anything specifically for the challenge, but I wanted to see what a recent airplane of mine would do. I give you the Korten Fledermaus flying wing - https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/korten-fledermaus Still had plenty of fuel left but those Type B nose cones like to melt. They are fairly important, they keep the NERVs attached to the wing. Doesn't accelerate much once these pop.
×
×
  • Create New...