no_intelligence

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

3 Followers

About no_intelligence

  • Rank
    Krazy Krafter

Profile Information

  • Location Falling off the Sky

Recent Profile Visitors

701 profile views
  1. Hey guys! Really some great replicas in here, I need to say. I am especially impressed by all the stock prop planes! I just finished my first Fighter replica and wanted to show it to u guys: My mighty Lockheed F-104G Starfighter. All stock and in terms of looks and how this thing handles really close to the original I think... As I don't wanna spam this page with loads of images and in case u might wanna take a closer look at it, here you go! https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Lockheed-F-104G-Starfighter
  2. no_intelligence

    Stock Space Race Replicas

    Little big update for you guys: got back to playing KSP and constructing more replicas, so I just wanted to share them with you guys I started with taking my already existing Mercury capsule and put it on top of a new Atlas Rocket to make it able archieving a stable orbit. Mercury Afterwards I decided to create a Proton K/M rocket and uploaded it, but then someone reminded me, like, "Jeez, what is a Proton without the 'BLOK-D' as it's fourth stage?!", so i built that one too. Proton K/M and Proton+Blok-D So, having finished Proton, which I think turned out to be quite accurate, I got more and more disappointed by the construction design of my Soyuz, so I gave that one a big update with re-designed boosters and a more correct spacecraft/capsule. Soyuz MS/FG (updated) So, having finished Soyuz, it was time to construct its predecessor, the first system that put man into space and orbit: Vostok! The rocket was quite easy, because the boosters and the stage in the middle are by looks the same as used by Soyuz, but the upper stage needed to be completely new. Also it took some time to construct Vostok itself and get the little capsule to a shape you could call 'round'. Vostok So... that's it for now. But be assured, as long as there are space-race rockets and ships left I will continue making replicas of them. Anyway, I hope this might have brought this thread back to life a bit, because there are not so many really good replicas of the early manned spacecraft out there, but I think they really deserve it...
  3. Test Pilot Review: @AeroGav's Screechcraft Corporation "Fulmar" Turboprop Figures as Tested: Price: 18,401,000 Fuel: 8000 kal Cruising Speed: 150 m/s Altitude: 9000 m Fuel Burn Rate: 0,04 kal/s Range: 3000 km Review Notes: Our test pilots saw this aircraft and did not know, what they could expect from it, so just took a seat at the controls and throttled up, not knowing what was awaiting them. Take off was very easy and fast, we managed to get the Fulmar airbourne at just 35 m/s. Once airbourne, the first thing noticeable are the extremely sensitive controls, especially the pitch. Combined with the large wing area it resulted at first very often in a steep ascent right after take off, but with more training we managed to tame the beast. the Fulmar climbs rather fast the first few thousand metres, but to reach its recommended altitude it takes time, a lot of time. Finally reached it cruises very efficient at just 0,04 kal/s but a merely 150 m/s, which, of course, is fast enough, but not outstanding. At first we thought, the sensitive controls would only be a problem shortly after take off, but oh boy were we wrong. It turns out, that no matter how gently we were, a direction change at above about 2500m and 100 m/s nearly constantly results in an uncontrollable flat or sometimes steep spin, which luckily the Fulmar recovers itself after a few moments, but with a massive altitude and velocity loss. So flying a turn in cruise flight requires loads of training and luck. This requires a lot of training and combined with long climbing time somehow disqualifies it for short routes. Apart from that we quite did not understand some design choices made by Screechcraft, such like the engine not alligned with the fuselage. It only makes the plane look a bit more curious and as it is still mounted directly to the cabin, does nothing to reduce the rambling noise and vibration inside. Also something described as "safety-feature" turned out as a danger source. The deployable fuel tanks are described to only be deployed if the engine fails, to assure a better gliding performance. We can confirm that there is such an improvement, but that comes at high risks. Once jettisoned, it is impossible to restart the engine, as it is lacking fuel. And as KEA got loads of inexperienced pilots, who are desperate at finding out what red buttons do, it happened a lot that the fuel tanks were dropped for no reason at any phase of the flight. But enough about the problems. The Fulmar is apart from that a nice craft, it handles well at low speeds, we managed to approach at just 50 and land at 35 m/s without any problems. Also it does a great performance at emergency water landings too and seems to have very sturdy construction, as we never managed to tear things apart. Most impressive tho was the range. We calculated about 3000 km, which is not only more than advertised, but loads more than required. Also the high wing design and high cruising altitude assures every of the 32 passengers a great view around Kerbin and makes flying above the highest mountains possible aswell. The Verdict: We had long debates and a hard time evaluating the test results of the Fulmar. After all, we can say it is reasonably priced, not especially cheap or expensive, is good to handle at low speeds and altitudes and also easy to maintain as it just got one engine. However, the encountered problems cannot be unregarded. This leads us to being even more confused about this plane. We like its efficiency, range and easy maintenance, but the handling at cruising speed and altitude, ejective fuel tanks and noise and vibration we do not really appreciate. Finally our staff came out ordering 2 Fulmar for low frequented long range routes, for which it is not needed to fly turns and hope that the passengers will mostly be deaf after the first flight, so they board the Fulmar again. If our criticism is heard at Screechcraft and they come up with an improved version, we already place up to 10 options. Otherwise we will stick with our 2 orders. (We also reduced the problem of un-intended fuel tank drops: A green button instead of a red one! So only colour blind Kerbals tend to press it...)
  4. Test Pilot Review: @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Factory No.653 Ka-62 Figures as tested: Price: 88,038,000 Fuel: 7046 kal Cruising Speed: 285 m/s Altitude: 6000 m Fuel Burn Rate: 0,72 kal/s Range: 2789 km Review Notes: Somehow, some older koviet members here at KEA just shouted: "When we were young, there already was a plane shaped like this!" at Factory No.653's newest design. We do not know why they did so, which krugs they consumed, because we were just showing them a Ka-62... Anyway, after we assured ourselfs, that the test pilots are in a healthy mental state, we handed it over to them and here is what they have come up with. The Ka-62 is comparibly large for a medium regional jet, but despite that very maneuverable. We were able to get it airbourne at a very slow 55 m/s, despite the plane lacking any kinda flaps. Once in air, we felt the enormous power of the for engines at the back, fastly climbing towards the desired cruising altitude. Once reached we nearly needed full throttle to keep up to the recommended cruising speed, which resulted in an unpleasent noise and vibration throughout the whole aircraft. Also we couldnt trust our eyes, when we looked over to the fuel consumption screen. Those four heavy fans really suck in quite a lot to keep the Ka-62 in air and at speed. Compared to some other planes of the medium range category, more than the double amount! But, to stop talking about modern and economical interesting things like noise and fuel consumption, we should get back to the basics of flying. That is really what the Ka-62 seems to be build for. As our pilots said, it is just a pleasure in the air, according the some old members "just like all koviet aircraft designs". The Ka-62 turns easily, likes even extremely high G-Loads and aerobatics, and is as easy to land like some small Kessna's, which we did not expect of such a large plane at all. We managed to do a slow approach of just 80-100 m/s and touching it down at 60. No matter how unexperienced pilots flew it and how hard it was smashed back down to earth and even at high AoA's, it did not break apart. Also smashing it into the ocean did not cause any fatalities or damage. Once in the water, it also makes a great Ekranoplan! The Ka-62 also can travel way more than we required it to do and despite it having four engines the part count is low, just 47 parts will make maintenance costs low, as we will only need engine mechanics thanks to Ka-62's very sturdy body and wing construction. But all ups also got downs, and in the Ka-62's case it is again its price tag: selling at over 88 million funds, we could also buy two IA-720's and would have enough money to spare for at least one year of maintenance and fuel. The Verdict: Factory No.653's Ka-62 is an overall interesting and really a "pilot's" plane, with great handling abilities, as you can see, a sturdy and safe built structure, but price and fuel efficiency seem to be from a past time. Maybe our oldest are actually right and the Ka-62 does not only look like an old koviet airplane, but actually got built using the same parts... Anyway, KEA will lease, if possible, 1 for a period of at least one year to celebrate anniversary and do some nostalgic special flights around Kerbin with the Ka-62. If tickets sell better than expected, KAE will convert the leasing into a buy, to constantly have a flying museum in it's fleet, because as our old staff here keeps saying: "Everything was better before."
  5. Test Pilot Review @Cabbink's CPS C-1 "Alice" Figures as tested: Price: 65,150,000 Fuel: 4220 (loaded at default) Cruising Speed: 320m/s (Afterburners off), 890m/s (Afterburners on) Altitude: 5000m (AB off), 8000m (AB on) Fuel Burn Rate: 0,44 (AB off), 1,25 (AB on) Range (calculated): 3069km (AB off), 3004 (AB on) Review Notes: The "Alice" looks like their engineers were not sure whether to construct a helicopter, a supersonic jet or a medium sized passenger carrier. This results in a very interesting design. The cockpit section clearly allows a great view for the pilots, the engines mounted far at the back help reducing the cabin noise and assure that CoM and CoT stay leveled and the large delta wings make low landing speeds possible. Anyway, it is as hard to get her in the air as it easy to put her back down. The very far mounted gear results in a take off speed of 80m/s or even more, while fully pitched up. The take off run distance can be greatly reduced by using the afterburners, if only a short runway is available, but that requires everyone on the ground to protect their ears and lungs as the panthers cannot really be called "silent" or "clean" in that mode. Once airbourne, the "Alice" is a joy to handle, only the yaw authority might be improved. Landing is also as smooth as could be, it survived even Chuck's harsh landings on non-solid ground at ease. And even if you don't wanna spend money on training your pilots, the parachutes can be simply deployed and even a fully fueled "Alice" just gently glides back to the ground, back first. That only results in the destruction of the engine section (just like water landings normally do), but everyone abord survives with minor to no injuries. To bring it on point, we really liked many features of the C-1, especially its high safety standards. But this all comes at a price higher than many larger medium regional jets and because of the bunch of panthers a comparatively high fuel consumption. The range clearly overshoots our requirements and it is capable of its maximum range in subsonic flight aswell as in supersonic flight, but its versatility for different purposes might also make it expensive to maintain and service. The Verdict: The CPS C-1 "Alice" is in our mind a very versatile plane, carrying a count of Kerbals somewhere between the small and medium regional and supersonic jet requirements. And this comes at high costs, high take off speeds and an overall design that we think would not quite fit our main use for the plane. Anyway, KEA will be ordering 1 for further testing and research if there might be a need for such an aircraft in our fleet in the future, but right now it cannot really keep up with other designs which have been fitted tightly around our requirements for a pure small regional jet or even a pure supersonic jet.
  6. Sounds good. I will start with the Fulmar, CPS C-1 Alice and the KA-62. Expect Reviews coming up soon, guys!
  7. I would also offer to join the reviewers team. I think with a team of 3 we are able to keep this thread alive and get rid of the large amount of planes to be reviewed in no time. And as I already developed a test flight pattern for my entries, I would also use this for the other planes, which makes entries more comparable. Maybe we should agree on a test flight pattern? For example, my standard pattern for medium to large planes is: Runway takeoff, left turn to 360°, climbing to recommended cruising altitude, left turn to 270°, stable flight at recommended speed and altitude to estimate fuel consumption, left turn to 180°, descent and maneuverability testing, left turn to 090° and landing back at the KSC. For small planes I use this: Runway takeoff, right turn to 180° and climb to recommended cruise altitude and speed to estimate fuel consumption, left turn back to 090°, descending and maneuverability testing, landing at the old airfield. For Seaplanes i have no specified pattern tho, but I think I would follow the one for medium/large planes to estimate all and the land landing abilities and just takeoff the runway and land it straight into the sea for the water landing abilities. Btw... Of course I won't judge my own designs
  8. no_intelligence

    Stock Space Race Replicas

    Yep. And I think I can say we all would recommend you https://kerbalx.com for sharing your craft files, if you want to. Excited to see more crafts, guys!
  9. no_intelligence

    Stock Space Race Replicas

    And... After I built a V2/Aggregat 4 in between, which does not really suite the topic of this thread, I now made a Mercury Redstone! I am pretty much satisfied with how it looks and works, I think it is much closer to the original than my Soyuz. Reason might be its got not even a third of the part count, but... anyway, it is like the original just capable of ballistic flights and features a fancy custom made LES https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Mercury-Redstone
  10. no_intelligence

    Stock Space Race Replicas

    Nice crafts, guys. So I gave myself a try and made my first stock rocket replica: A Soyuz MS with a Soyuz FG as launch rocket. https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Soyuz-MSFG I think for a first replica try it looks rather good. But there also is some room for improvement for me... I really like the shape of the Soyuz system and carzy idea of stuffing a bunch of small engines together instead of using few large ones
  11. no_intelligence

    SPACE STATIONS! Post your pictures here

    Hello folks, I just wanted to show you my newest build: The KSS-1 (Kerbal Space Station 1) with a docked Apollo-like Orbiter at the upper-left/upper end of the station. All pure stock. The station is equipped with various scientific things and features 5 docking ports: 1 normal, where the orbiter is docked, and at the docking module in the opposite end 2 normal ones and one senior/junior. It was launched in 8 pieces and is orbiting Kerbin in a stable equatorial 200km orbit. Btw... there are really some pretty ones in here. Nice work, guys!
  12. I hope and think so! But sadly @Mjp1050 didnt review a craft recently... Anyway it is a hell of a lot of planes in here and a lot of work to review everything in the good quality the last reviews have been.
  13. Hey guys, as I'm a real glider pilot, i thought i might enter into this So, her is my first glider, built in KSP: Ratio of 26,308 and sinkrate of 1,920 in controlled flight. Seems that these values are actually really good I think! Design is a bit ugly but practical. Only problem: didn't manage to land it it one piece yet. But the cockpit always stays intact, so Jeb survives... https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Ultra-Glider Edit: managed to land it safely without any destruction on water
  14. So... The Kupolew and the Koeing air and space companies agreed, whether they are opponents from the eastern and western kerbisphere, to present their newest inventions anyway together. Here they are: Koeing 747-100 Super, super large Jumbo Jet Because Kerbin seems to be a parallel universe, it was Koeing's turn to present the first double-decker design. It may look ugly, it may look fat, but it can carry a whole lot of Kerbals - 312. The Koeing 747-100 is powered by an exclusive engine design. Because engineers at Koeing where not able to develop powerful enough Turbofans, we re-used four "Bear" engines from stolen Kupolew-Bombers and added two large Turbofans for additional thrust. (Make sure that the backward-pointing "Bears" are set to reverse, should be in the craft file, but sometimes KSP messes around with it). The engines are mounted far away from the cabin to make it as less noisy as possible. Also the wings are placed between the two passengher decks, to assure nearly everyone get's a nice view. To keep T/O and LDG speeds low, 80-90m/s are recommended, massive flaps have been added. T/O flaps stage is set to "1", additional landing stage to "2", reverse thrust toggle to "3" and speedbrakes to "4". Cruising speed is about 230 at 5000m or a bit lower which results in an approximate range of 1500km. https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Koeing-747-100 Kupolew Ku-100 SSJ The famous Kupolew Aeroplane Design Bureau would also like to enter its Ku-100 Super-Sonic Jet. It can carry 40 passengers, got a range of about 4150km with a cruising speed of 1000m/s at 15.000m altitude. It has got a simple, slim and sleek design and is a pleasur to fly, as it has got an insanely high TWR (bigger than 1 on sea-level, can ascent vertically even fully fueled) and due to the large, high altitude optimized wing area it got low T/O and LDG speeds of just 70-80 (T/O) and a relaxed 50-60m/s (LDG). To help slowing it down on approach, speedbrakes at the back have been added and set to toggle on "1". And don't be mislead by the very small T-tail, due to the fact, that CoM and CoL are very close to each other it handles exceptionally well. https://kerbalx.com/no_intelligence/Kupolew-Ku-100
  15. Behold, guys - some crafts, a Kupolew Supersonic Jet and a Koeing Jumbo Jet are coming up soon Just to reveal a bit: The Jumbo is by far the ugliest and nearly largest plane i ever built. And it flies. Some sort of.