AeroGav

Members
  • Content count

    1537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

771 Excellent

3 Followers

About AeroGav

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location UK

Recent Profile Visitors

4656 profile views
  1. Low Tech Space Aviation

    I do have a basic Juno/Terrier on my Kerbal X page but it only just gets to orbit. I have made a version with jettisonable jet engines that has more Delta V, but that's only enough extra for a medium orbit - can't even get a Munar flyby. With Panther, you could probably get similar performance with jettisonable panther instead of thumpers and takeoff horizontally, but i suppose that's just a sideways move.
  2. Low Tech Space Aviation

    Nice design. I usually find pointy cockpits (and the mk1 in particular) very vulnerable to heating, you'll want to swap to an inline cockpit with service bay and nose cone in front as soon as possible. Even the mk3 cockpit isn't as sturdy as a mk1 inline, thanks to it not being right at the front. If you don't have the inline cockpit yet, I suppose you could just put the mk1 command pod on the front instead, it has a bit higher tolerance than the airplane cockpit and having a small nose cone/parachute on the very front does protect a small part of it from the heat
  3. Official FAR Craft Repository

    I'm pretty good at nailing dead stick re-entries so I'll pass on that. I just stay in planetarium view at slightly above best glide AoA (say, 15 degrees) and pitch up more if it looks like i'm overshooting (point at which trajectory intersects ground level moving downrange) and lower pitch nearer to best glide if i'm looking like coming up short. Cost vs capability wise, panther or whiplash versus kickback is a close call, but i find the jet option easier to work with, there's a lot less mass and thrust being suddenly shed and tbh unless the space plane is very light i doubt a Thumper can take it to Mach 2.8/15km on its lonesome.
  4. Official FAR Craft Repository

    I'm hoping this career game produces more realistic looking aircraft than my efforts in stock aero. It is much easier to get past the sound barrier in FAR (stock aero really tries to make this into the main physical obstacle to reaching space) but above mach 2, I think I can actually get better lift/drag ratios in stock aero. Set prograde hold in stock aero, and a huge reduction in drag magically takes place. If you can contrive enough lift while on prograde hold, you're golden. My Panther / Terrier FAR ships end up fighting 30-40kn drag at mach 3 which means I can't get away with such low rocket mode TWR as I can in stock aero or the grav losses kill me. As a result I'm trying for a TSTO vessel first, which punches off the jet engine, intake and empty fuel tanks to get the dry mass down. Unfortunately I need to increase vertical stabilizer area, at very high speeds, best L/D ratio is around an AoA of 9 degrees, but holding 9 degree AoA at mach 4-5 over 30km yaw stability is poor. Also i'd used the basic winglets to fill in bumps in the cross sectional area profile of the airplane, it's the only suitably small part i have unlocked but unfortunately these started melting about now asymmetrically, which didn't help much. Take off speed was over 150 m/s btw, which is ridiculous, even though i normally obsess over low speed performance. Hopefully i'll find the empty ship, sans jet engine, lands at a more Kerbal friendly speed, if i ever get this thing to orbit.
  5. Official FAR Craft Repository

    I started a new career game with Ferram, and built that game's first airplane. I must be getting the hang of Ferram at last - when i'd finally finished tweaking the transonic drag, I rolled it out, and proved completely flyable with no reverts ! On stock aero, that's pretty normal when you get used to its quirks (though minor tweaks are often needed to keep stuff flying straight), but it's the first time i've had such success with the more sophisticated modelling. I gradually added more nose up trim, waiting for it to spin in, but no such thing happened. Think we can thank the leading edge droops for preventing tip stall . They are set to -50% AoA or somesuch. The Rudders have +100% on Yaw and -40% on Roll, so provide automatic yaw damping/co-ordinated turns. At the other end of the speed range, the Wheesley is able to get us through mach 1 easily. It can zoom climb over 18km for the upper atmo science/observation contracts. Sadly the spaceplane version is proving harder. I now have Panther and Terrier unlocked, but it's going to have to go back for a second redesign after a few handling "quirks" were discovered at hypersonic speed
  6. How about making a thread for/turning this into a thread of "simple to fly aircraft" that people can post, and handling problems with such be fed back so that changes can be made. Of course, people will need to make updates to their offereings as successive updates to KSP mess with the aircraft, but you get the idea. Can be peer-reviewed, if you like, to ensure it's a place all starting aviators can go and get something airworthy.
  7. Hi, I am making an SST.

    I did supercruise on this design. https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Screechcraft-Starship-SST It will be much easier if your SST has a mk1 fuselage as they have low drag. Mk2 is the hardest as drag quite bad. Mk3 do-able but part count could get silly - you'll need a lot of wing and engine parts to get it working. 2.5m are actually only slightly more drag than mk1 parts, you could make an SST based on Hitchhiker containers with a "cockpit" of a mk2 capsule and a shock cone on the front, and a mk2.5 tricoupler at the back for mounting engines. However, when you're not in zero g, that cabin layout doesn't look very comfortable. See this post for details on how slick 2.5m parts can be...
  8. Liquid Fuel SSTOs

    That thing is very pretty. But, the mk1 bicoupler is a horribly draggy part, don't use it ! I prefer to attach nervs using type b nosecones or ncs adapters instead. Also, i reckon it only needs one Whiplash. I have a large number of pre-existing designs that are liquid fuel only. Most Kerbals per Mass is probably this thing - https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Lusitania 80 Kerbals for 88.81 Tons Heaviest payload fraction - 50% https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qa991p3trpa2qm/Thanksgiving Partridge.craft?dl=0 ag 1 - nose up trim ag 2 - neutral trim ag 3 - nose down trim ag 4 - strong nose down trim ag 5 - nukes ag 9 afterburners off Good combo of delta v and crew capacity on this thing - https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/MK1-Griffon-Deep-Space-Crew-Shuttle Lowest tech / simplest (by my standards) https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Voodoo-Ray
  9. Heavy Lift SSTO Delta-v

    You can certainly takeoff with even smaller wings than Wanderfound is using, with the correct design. A vast majority of the drag comes from the fuselage - as he says, angling the wings up where they attach to the fuselage, enables you to keep the fuselage closer to prograde and thus reduce its drag. However, more wings still benefits, because you can reduce angle of attack even more (all the way to prograde hold) and at that point, adding more wings allows you to fly higher for any given airspeed, where drag is less. But, beyond a point, this can take you above the altitude where your air breathing engines can make power. Once you switch to rocket power, you're back into a situation where the higher you can be without increasing your Angle of Attack, the better. So more wings = less drag. But, on a chemical powered lifter like Wanderfound's, this is not very important. Each Rapier engine makes 180kn, he has four of them, so whether the plane has 100 of 50kn drag is not going to hurt things. If all your rocket mode thrust is coming from NERVs, it changes. Each nerv weighs 3 tons and only makes 60kn, and you still need jet engines for the air breathing phase. It is easier to add wings to reduce drag , than extra NERVs. For example, four big S wing strakes hold the same fuel as one mk1 liquid fuel fuselage (400 units). The four strakes have a dry mass of 400kg instead of 250kg, so that's 150kg additional mass to use the wing parts. But, you'd have to swap twenty mk1 liquid fuel fuselages over to eighty big S wing strakes before you'd add 3000kg dry mass to your craft - equivalent to the mass of one extra NERV. Taken to the logical conclusion, you end up with monstrosities like this (43.7% payload fraction , later i added one more nerv , even more strakes, and got it to 50%) or this SSTOliner Every godamned square inch of fuselage for revenue passengers. No room for oxidizer, galleys or lavatories (wear nappies or do it out the airlock) on my airline! Again with an oxidizer SSTO, math changes. Wings don't hold rocket fuel, they are just dead weight. Fuselage tanks have lower mass per unit of fuel carried which is what matters when you're guzzling gas at 305 ISP and drag is less than 10% of your thrust on that final blaze of glory. Wing tanks have more mass but lower drag per unit of fuel capacity, and they enable you to fly a more lofted, lower drag profile, which matters when your dry mass is going to suck no matter what thanks to the nerv engines, and a 50% drag reduction is the difference between not accelerating at all and making orbit.
  10. Voodoo Ray, how to use pitch trim

    Gerald Kerman wasn't available
  11. Turn on subtitles for annotation. Mid tech crew trainer. Got fully developed rocketry but only just into airplanes ? This panther - nerv SSTO is quite forgiving but capable of more than you think. I kept everything as low tech as possible - nose cones, wing parts, landing gear, electrical stuff are all the lowest tech possible. It's a fairly simple airplane i put together when i discovered RCS build aid. See how i arranged engines in line with CoM so no torque. Engines, cockpit are amidships near CoM, cockpit is well back from hot nose cone, fuel is in a separate stack extending in front of and behind CoM so no CoM shifts as fuel is used. But it's still a simple airplane. Wings don't have incidence, one fuel type, one jet engine. https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Voodoo-Ray
  12. Instruction video for voodoo ray
  13. Official FAR Craft Repository

    I installed FAR again and decided to limit myself to stock engines and not use procedural wings, hoping to keep things simple. That failed. Admittedly it was a simpler design before the addition of high lift system, which i eventually persuaded to work. You can now mash full nose up with full flaps and wallow along at under 80 m/s, it used to depart without warning below 130 m/s. I still had a couple of self disassembly events - it seems running AoA below 3 at supersonic speed causes something to happen so suddenly i am unable to describe the event, suffice to say it disassembled the airplane. If you avoid such pitfalls, it eventually gets to orbit, more or less. Hypersonic lift/drag ratio of less than 2 however i am not happy with. In stock aero i can beat that even with a mk2, some of my mk1 / 2.5m ships have over 4:1 at this point. It does produce somewhat more realistic looking aircraft, though in this case i have to wonder - tandem wing? With high lift devices https://www.dropbox.com/s/3t45vn6oh1sb28q/fa5.craft?dl=0 Without high lift devices https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqutrh4kjvilfob/fa4.craft?dl=0 Fuel fraction needs to be increased, i fell about 50 m/s short of circularising my orbit (could remove a cabin for more fuel i suppose)
  14. Thanks for the craft file. I could never design a rocket lifter that can fly with a monster like that on top of it, your rocket is actually rather graceful. To save time though, i used the cheat menu to put us in orbit then flew a quick re-entry. You really need to fly this plane manually. It's handling qualities are OK, but it is very draggy and glides like a brick. Final approach speed should be about 110 m/s. This gives a nose above prograde angle of about 5 degrees. This means you have a little bit of kinetic energy in the bank for the touchdown. Stall seems to be about 65m/s. When you get to about 300m above ground level, start reducing rate of descent, you'll have about 20 seconds to land before your speed bleeds off and you stall. Manually flying your plane - It's actually perfectly ok with mechjeb and SAS off, it always wants to go straight. Hold down ALT and tap the S key a few times to add a little bit of nose up trim. It should settle into a glide with the nose about 5 degrees above prograde. In the bottom left of the screen are the pitch./roll/yaw indicators, you will see the indicator on the first notch on the nose up control input scale. 400m above ground, do another ALT S to add more nose up trim and it gradually rounds out for a landing flare pretty much by itself. ALT W decreases nose up trim. Alt X resets trim to neutral. NExt time you're 1000m above ground quick save so you can practice manual landings. BTW I made a sucessful water ditching first try with no damage, but I landed short of the shoreline because i wasn't used to an airplane that has such a bad gliding angle. Note, there is one major screwup in the craft that will affect controllability - the ailerons on the trailing edge of the wing are set to control pitch and nothing else. They should only be set to control roll.
  15. Heavy Lift SSTO Delta-v

    Did you see Steven Tylo land on the Island airbase at the end of its mission to Jool (stock aero). I'm guessing it comes in a little hotter on FAR