Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mignear

  1. First step to my plan for this, working so far.
  2. Slight adjustments, and more tests. I think I know what I want to do with this aircraft now.
  3. I had an idea a while back and got it to a sufficiently satisfactory standard.
  4. The larger airliner type aircraft was completed. It carries 138 passengers+6 crew, with over 9000 units of fuel.
  5. Following the development of the AL-M-74, a project for a larger airliner type aircraft was started, it was decided that it would largely based on the AL-M-74 to reduce development time. In the darkness of night, a new airliner type aircraft was rolled out for test flights.
  6. Had to do a quick rebuilding of the airliner transport aircraft I made to make it modular for the 3 planned variants of it, halfway through I made it 4 variants instead. All 4 feature a belly docking port and 2 side docking ports. First variant, the pure passenger airliner This carries 64 passengers+4 crew, with about 5000 units of fuel. Second variant, the passenger airliner with longer range. This carries 32 passengers+4 crew, with about 10000 units of fuel. Due to the weight balance this variant is also the most maneuverable of the 4. Third variant, the fuel transport aircraft. This has no passenger carrying capability, only having 4 crew onboard, but it carries about 20000 units of fuel. Fourth variant, the cargo aircraft Similarly, this has no passenger carrying capability, with only 4 crew onboard. It has about 5000 units of fuel.
  7. Took a while, but the first of the 3 planned transport aircraft is done.
  8. Been a long time since I last touched KSP, decided to build something to shake off the rust a little. A light aircraft in the style of the F-5.
  9. Well, I made a retractable refueling arm for my planes a while back. I had the idea of using it as a towing point to tow aircraft. Evidently expecting the robotics parts to withstand such forces is too much.
  10. I had reinstalled KSP and lost pretty much all my old screenshots, but digging into my imgur account(which does have some old screenshots) I present to you this. Flight test of one of my aircraft.
  11. Well, I reinstalled KSP after a long time, and its a good thing Steam Cloud has my old save. Made a deployable refueling port on one of my aircraft as a refresher.
  12. Did some tests to find the sweet spot for the RPM and the means to control the RPM. Main throttle works well. Next a simple hinge system, I chose a simple hinge system as it would be easier to troubleshoot any issues with the VTOL engine. Has the added bonus of being a half decent bomb bay if the VTOL system is removed. Slight adjustment to CoL via hiding some control surfaces inside the plane, and its kind of done.
  13. Its about 8 tons right now, takes off vertically decently quick so I think I should have a bit of leeway in adding weight to it. Its really just the wing design and the cover for the VTOL system that I'm missing on it right now.
  14. A working VTOL unit on a temporary mockup of a F-35 replica of sorts. Will have to decide if I want to go for a simple hinge system for the lifting fan or follow the F-35 closely, but the VTOL aspects needs more work, namely, being able to land the damn thing entirely with VTOL.
  15. Something came to my mind recently, will have to experiment more on my test craft, but its pretty promising for an idea I have. It actually works pretty well to control the aircraft, but unfortunately linking the rotors to the roll axis doesn't let SAS use them to stabilise the aircraft so some control surfaces tied to roll will be needed.
  16. I turned on autostrut on the hinges for my F-14 replica and it works pretty well, though it has a tendency to spawn with the wings stuck due to the autostrutting, restarting the launch fixes this.
  17. From what I remember, the only difference was that the rear rotor was facing backwards with a clockwise rotation(functionally the same as a forward facing rotor set to anti-clockwise). The blades were the default angles(100 authority) except I used the anti-clockwise variant of the blades. Both rotors were set to max RPM and torque. Its unfortunate that the plane in the pictures were an early build that got overwritten with other changes to the rotor blades as I figured things out so we couldn't find out what was going on. I'm quite certain the default angle of the anti-clockwise variant of the blades is different from the default angle of the clockwise variant of the blades, resulting in different top speeds when independently testing the each rotor. When we exceeded the rear rotor's top speed(due to the front rotor having a higher top speed), it started producing negative thrust which is what we see in the pictures. That is the same conclusion I came to during my testing, though I was doing it for another reason, having 1 rotor performing well at low speed and the other rotor performing well at high speed so that acceleration and top speed can be somewhat tuned on a fixed pitch contra-rotating prop setup.
  18. Pretty good. Something I'd add is colored buttons, for things that are toggled on/off, you could have green and red for the button.
  19. The ability for turboshafts to generate electric charge. After all, its an engine that spins a shaft by using fuel, why would it not have an alternator?
  20. A hybrid design seems pretty promising for heavier designs that might want to use turboshafts, so long as you don't intend to balance the rotational torque using another different rotor. Its a shame the turboshaft doesn't generate power.
  21. The turboshaft version, with its full load of fuel, ended up being twice the weight of the electric variant. This introduced the problem of the plane exploding instantly when it touches the runway a little hard on the landing approach. I also went with 4 turboshafts as opposed to the 8 electric rotors on the electric variant, but compensated by giving them 8 propeller blades per rotor instead of 4. Maybe a hybrid might work better.
  • Create New...