Mars-Bound Hokie

If you want to transition from single-engine warbirds to multi-engine, prepare for a hard time in the AT-9 Jeep. The AT-9 Fledgling on display in the SPH. I made sure to include the aka in the craft name since, although Curtiss-Wright named it the Fledgling, this plane was more commonly known as the Jeep in the United States Army Air Forces. I used a fairing to mimic the real-life nose cone as close as I could; not too long, and yet with a pointier end than the aerodynamic nose cone. Due to the relative propeller length on the real-life Jeep, I figured I could get away with R-25 ducted fan blades on the gas-powered engines. Finding a good spot and orientation for the ladder proved more difficult than I thought, as the pilot often had trouble getting to and from the cockpit in test runs. For the R121 engines, I reduced their motor size to 50%. Though it proved more fuel-efficient than 100%, I don’t know if I should have reduced it some more. For that matter, does the total thrust-to-weight ratio even need to be over 1? Jeb (the Third) doing a barrel roll over the KSC right after taking off as part of his Air Force pilot’s training. Unlike back on Earth, Kerbin’s Air Force kept using this as the primary transition trainer after the Second Imperial Wars. Any airmen seeking to get cleared to fly multi-engine aircraft had to complete the necessary training in the Jeep. And then, they could move on to training in multi-engine jets. The Kerbal Space Program, however, didn’t have multi-engine prop trainers. In fact, after its early years, it didn’t have prop-powered anything outside of those used for airshows - or old planes the KSP’s pilots were hired to test fly. Although it later developed electric prop planes to be sent to Eve, Duna, and Laythe. Jeb clearing Alt Test Mountains at a cruising altitude of 7 km. Another neat shot of Jeb flying the Jeep, this time over the desert. He logged that, to increase fuel efficiency while maintaining speed, he had to gradually ease the throttle back during the course of the flight. Noticing he was running low on fuel while going over water, Jeb decided to turn north for the remainder of the flight. After it reached critical levels, he aimed for a flat spot in the desert and began his landing. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 7 km (~23.0k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 230 m/s (~514.5 mph) Blade Deployment Angle: 42 degrees Recommended Throttle: 1/2 at the beginning Gradually decrease during flight to maintain airspeed while maximizing fuel efficiency Slightly under 1/3 at the end Expected Range: 500 km WARNING: has a tendency to keep its tailwheel off the ground during landing. DO NOT activate reverse thrust until all three wheels are on the surface. Jeb stepping out of the Jeep after a range test. According to his mission report, landing was harder than it looked due to the plane’s tendency to keep its tailwheel off the ground. His father’s friend, Bill Kerman, did warn him beforehand that the Jeep was designed to be hard to land. This plane was relatively easier than I thought to copy. Nevertheless, I still feel like I haven't mastered props. I have so many questions such as: What is the optimum motor size & output % for balancing performance and fuel efficiency on the R121? And what might be the equivalent for the electric engines? How come the regular prop blades have such bad performance in comparison with the ducted blades? How do I take care of that freaking roll for single-engine prop planes. Apparently, reaction wheels aren't enough (at least they weren't for my Kettering Bug replica), and my attempt at repositioning the ailerons made things worse. Replicas Remaining: 215

Thank you very much, @AtomicTech. Out of curiosity, what's your favorite aircraft? It doesn't matter whether or not it was already showcased on this thread. If you have any Air Force Museum craft replicas you'd like to show off (preferably one not already done on the checklist yet), please feel free to do so. If you manage to get a replica from each of the four hangars, you'll earn the All Four Hangars Badge.

Before we had the modern-day cruise missiles we all know and love (and sometimes fear), we had the German V1 rockets from WW2. Before that, however, we had the Kettering "Bug" Aerial Torpedo.* Or at least we would have, had WW1 not ended AND funding for further development wasn't a problem afterwards. The Kettering Aerial Torpedo on display in the SPH. Due to the aircraft’s skinny fuselage, a single EM-32S motor was required. For the propeller blades, (for the final prototype, at least) I used two R-12 ducted fan blades set at 16 degrees. Unless I planned to have the craft be rocket powered (SPOILER ALERT: it was for a bit), I didn’t have much choice in terms of engines available. Just like the real-life Bug and my XF-85 Goblin replica, this craft was mounted on a detachable set of wheels for takeoff. After all, once it is launched, there is no going back. Also like its real-life counterpart, it had detachable wings for when it reached its target. To pull this off, two TT-38 radial decouplers were installed on the sides and a wing was mounted on each one (and had their tips moved up). For the second set of wings, I simply copied the old set and mounted them on a small stack of cubic octagonal struts. The Lf+Ox tanks in this prototype are there for weight and balance purposes now. After the first several test flights on the EM-32S alone ended in abysmal failure, I considered cheating and installed four 24-77 Twitch engines hidden in the back - which meant I needed more Lf+Ox tanks; the motor would have been for decoration. Though those test runs were relatively successful, I had to go to bed immediately afterwards. The next day at work, I thought about my Saltrider and realized that I should have set my propeller blade angle to 15 degrees. First chance I got, I removed the rockets, installed some more batteries - while keeping some tanks to move the CoM to the right spot - and set the blade angles to 16 degrees (it wouldn’t settle on 15). I also installed some reaction wheels in an attempt to counteract that stupid propeller-caused roll, but those alone didn’t work. So, after watching Jake Allen’s video on how to take care of it, I adjusted the ailerons to move the CoL right a little bit. However, that seemed to make the roll worse in the opposite direction. Whether it was because of the craft’s size or me doing it all wrong didn’t matter, since the real-life Bug relied on an autopilot (more or less) to get to its destination. So, after getting this craft to altitude, I engaged MJ aircraft autopilot and had it fly straight until its power supply was too low to carry on. Historic photograph of a Kettering Aerial Torpedo being launched. This most likely took place during a test or a demonstration flight, as it was never used in combat. Nevertheless, it paved the way for UAVs and modern-day cruise missiles. As of May 2023, only one Kettering Bug still exists - and it’s a replica built by personnel from the National Museum of the United States Air Force. It was put on display in 1964, and is currently in the Early Years Gallery of Hangar One. Image taken from museum website. Information on the only surviving Kettering Bug in existence obtained from Wikipedia as well as the museum website. The Bug right after taking off and ditching the wheels. Once the craft reaches a velocity of 30 m/s, pitch up and detach the takeoff wheels. For this prototype, expect to keep climbing. Before rockets were used for this replica, the Bug would fly up for a second or two and then plop back down (mostly tail-first). I still had a bit of motor-induced roll to deal with, but that’s why I activated the MJ aircraft autopilot as soon as I could. The Kettering torpedo replica after being launched from the KSC flying over the ocean. Obviously, the Kerbal Space Program did not exist at the time real Kettering torpedoes were used. More specifically, they were invented during the First Imperial Wars. Unlike their Earth counterparts, they were actually used in combat. However, they were almost ineffective against Heinkelian infantry due to their limited range and low accuracy - and their launch sites blowing up. To maintain the secrecy of how the Bugs worked in case of imminent capture, Allied Command ordered all their front-line storage tents and rail runways rigged with explosives and gave their technicians cyanide pills. Such a drastic measure never had to be used, since the Bug launch site explosions that weren’t a result of a lucky artillery shell were due to idiotic personnel. Some survivors said that the ones responsible "...couldn’t tell the difference between a candle and a dynamite fuse." The model being flown here is a replica that was recently made by Super-Cool Aircraft Museum restoration engineers on a dare. None of the real Kettering Bugs are still around, so this is the only functional replica in existence on Kerbin. Although another replica was built decades prior, that one is for static display only. The Bug shortly before its battery gets too low to carry on. Just like its historic predecessors from the First Imperial Wars, this one is being kept on course by an autopilot - only a far more advanced one than from that time period. Back then, the Bug had to rely on a system of internal pre-set pneumatic and electrical controls - followed by a revolution counter. Nowadays, all you need is MJ. The functional replica was intended for single-use showcasing in airshows and demonstrations of "Olde Tyme Flight Technology." The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 250 m (~820 ft) MAY go higher, but I had no maximum altitude from the real-life Kettering Bug to shoot for. This could still function as a (lame) olde tyme cruise missile against surface targets. Velocity: 80 m/s (~179 mph) Recommended Throttle: 2/3 Expected Range: 30 km Once you reach the target, detach the wings and you’ll start to pitch down towards it. Once the Bug’s batteries were close to getting depleted, the wings were detached and it was BOMBS AWAY! The now-wingless Bug using its remaining momentum, as well as its potential energy from being kept at cruising altitude, to descend on a dummy target in the ocean. Unfortunately, an unexpected gust of wind at the beginning pushed the Bug to the side caused the Bug to miss completely. At least the engineers who made this functional replica proved its effectiveness - at least for the time period it was intended for. I'm surprised NOBODY ELSE has made a replica of the Kettering Bug on KSP. First the Link Trainer, and now this bad boy. What other never-before-copied plane will end up on this showcase thread next? Probably not something famous, though, since there's bound to be at least one functional replica on KerbalX. I also suspect it would be on the older side, too. P.S. I'm still having trouble with motor roll for single-engine prop planes. I tend to stay away from them, but for my own (and everyone else's) reference, I'd like a way to counteract this when I have to face it again. Especially when we start to run out of easy jets and/or someone has an interest in old warbirds. Replicas Remaining: 216

For those who served in America's ground forces, (besides the usual "Thank you for your service") once you saw this plane and/or heard the sound of its Gatling gun, you knew at that moment the battle was won. Behold, the source of the deadly BRRRT - and my dad's favorite plane - the A-10 Warthog. The A-10 Thunderbolt II on display in the SPH. I included the aka in the craft name since odds are people would most likely know this as the Warthog. At the same time, I wanted to include the name that it was given before the popular nickname. For the Gatling gun in the front, I used an retracted Gigantor panel. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT EXTEND IT! Balancing the CoM and CoL so that the plane won’t be so nose-heavy, tail-heavy during takeoff, and (for that matter) actually fly was a nightmare. After looking at CrissMatt’s (armed) Warthog, I used engine nacelles for air intakes and realized I needed to drain the FRONT tanks as opposed to the rear ones. I installed small hardpoints on the wings to mimic the real Warthog’s impressive weapons capacity. Unfortunately, since I didn’t have BDArmory anymore (and I had trouble using guided weapons systems when I did), this version is more or less unarmed. On the bright side, that means you can add whatever weapons you want. Underneath the fuselage, I included fireworks to mimic the A-10 dropping some air-to-surface ordinance. This aircraft has 24 shots in it, so use them sparingly. Action Groups 4, 5, and 6 have eight shots each. Before a weapons test could be performed, this prototype had to undergo a cruise test. With that knowledge, the military would get a better assessment of what the plane was capable of and how to deploy them in combat. Here, we see Victor Kerman, Val’s older brother, after flying over Alt Test Mountains. Before he was cleared to go interplanetary, he volunteered to get certified in flying attack aircraft. As part of the test, he had to do a cruise flight of an unarmed Warthog from the KSC. The Warthog flying over the desert with 110 fuel units left after covering 728 km. In his mission report, Victor stated that he didn’t care about the plane’s combat range since "If you do your job right, you’d have leveled the enemy enough to make a new airstrip." With fuel at critical levels, Victor is determined to get past this upcoming mountain range before landing. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Status: MINUMUM ARMAMENTS 24 x Fuselage-launched unguided air-to-surface fireworks Altitude: 7 km (~23.0k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 270 m/s (~604 mph) Expected Range: 890 km This plane glided for almost 30 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. After flying 890 km from the KSC, Victor made it over the mountains and glided for about 30 kilometers before touchdown with only 12 fuel units left. While awaiting the recovery crews, he stepped outside and gave a salute in front of the Warthog. He then called his sister and told her "I dare your nerd friend Bill to build a plane to beat this one. Oh, wait, he can’t. Nobody can." The next evening, Victor got called for a weapons test. Though the wing-mounted racks were unloaded, the fuselage-based ordinance weapons were not. Here, he rains some hell on dummy boats in the water. After this photo was taken, he proceeded to strafe a fake convoy with the Gatling gun. After watching Ruffles Kerman's video on building a P-38, I realized that if I wanted to go for aesthetic AND functionality on older warbirds with larger propellers, I've been approaching it all wrong. More specifically, I should have used ELECTRIC motors instead of crummy gas-powered R121s with small blades. If I manage to get hold of propeller-caused roll, I may also end up using electric motors on WWI-era planes. What do you all think of this approach? Replicas Remaining: 217

For pilots who seek to get their night flying hours in a multi-engine prop plane, you might want to use the P-61 Black Widow. And no, you guys. This aircraft doesn't come with hot Russian assassins. The P-61 Black Widow on display in the SPH. The prototype originally had Type B Propeller Blades to maintain aesthetic, but the plane could not get off the ground during takeoff. Type C would have been too long, so I went with R-25 Ducted Fan Blades. They may have been too small and too curved to pass off as a true replica, but at least the craft could work. Plus, that airframe does a good job at looking like a P-61 even without propeller blades. For the turret on the top, I used a Communotron HG-55 and four 16-Ss. The storage unit in the bottom of the fuselage is to carry emergency supplies in case the plane crash-lands and the survivors have to wait a while in the jungle for rescue crews. Of course, if it crashed over enemy territory during the Second Imperial Wars, odds are the survivors would have ditched the wreckage and tried to flee or else be taken prisoner - assuming they weren’t already. Since the real-life P-61 had a radar system (as well as the P-61C-1 in War Thunder), as it was designed specifically as a night fighter, this replica was equipped with a probe core for Kerbnet. Solar panels were also added in the very back of the fuselage to mimic the glass end of the real P-61’s fuselage. Too bad this model doesn’t also come with a target lock and interception system. How do you even use that plane’s radar in War Thunder, anyway? For that matter, what advantages would radar give the P-61 over other WWII aircraft? Anyway, back to the test flight of the KSP replica. Just like what the real-life P-61 was designed for in the Second Imperial Wars, Candace and Tim C Kerman tested this restored prototype at night. Tim C wanted to test it during the day, but Candace wanted to "Relive what our forefathers went through and fly this bird at night." This prototype was one of two operational P-61s left in existence, as the very small number of models that were not scrapped after the Second Imperial Wars were eventually put on static display in museums. One prototype crashed in Nye Island during the war, and was found many decades later by a runner who slipped and fell through its window - and got tangled in vines. It was then collected by the Nye Island Aeropleen Museum (aka NIAM - and whoever spelled that sign should be fired) and underwent several more decades of restoration to airworthiness. It would be a lot of time and money spent before it would be up and running again. As for the second operational P-61 left on Kerbin, it has a more nefarious history. The P-61 flying at night with the lights off and the moon behind it. Enemy fighters would surely have a hard time locating this bad boy - until it was too late, that is. At least during the Second Imperial Wars. Nowadays, this plane would get spotted from kilometers away - even in the dark. Then again, who would use this in modern-day air combat? The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 6 km (~19.7k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 225 m/s (~503 mph) Blade Deployment Angle: 42 degrees Recommended Throttle: 2/3 Expected Range: 440 km WARNING: Although fuel was wasted going full throttle for part of the way, the plane had flown ~450 km in total before it touched down with only one fuel unit left. Tim C standing in front of the P-61, about to set up camp before the recovery crews pick him and Candace up. Candace, however, wanted to sleep in the plane. In her mission log, she stated that she was too tired from stress to help her brother. That seems understandable, as the plane only had one fuel unit left when it was picked up. Pulling off a smooth landing with that little fuel would stress out anybody, even trained pilots. #gunsafetyfail Tim C Kerman standing in front of the turret after his older sister landed the plane. Candace reminded him to never stand directly in front of turret barrels, but Tim C told her "You really think the restoration crews would keep the ammo in there? Besides, I checked it myself. The guns are empty." And in case you were wondering, this was the plane that crashed in Nye Island. Sheesh, that took a long time to write. What should I do next? Replicas Remaining: 218 MAY YOU FLY AGAIN SOME DAY, USAAF 42-39445

I did both, and the hinges started working properly. Thank you very much. In addition to the wings deploying and retracting on command, they were doing so CONSISTENTLY after each launch. In other words, I didn't have to cross my fingers hoping both hinges would work properly each time. A mid-air wing retraction test SUCCESS For more details on how the plane performed, check out this post on the National Museum of the United States Air Force replica showcase. If you want to comment on its performance, or if you have replicas of your own to show off, feel free to do so. Thank you.

And now, the moment you (and the Peacemaker guys) have all been waiting for, the Green XF-85 Goblin. The XF-85 Goblin on display in the SPH. I structured the fuselage interior and rear stabilizer configuration after looking inside fatology’s Goblin replica. After reading what @KolonelKerbal (aka Boeing737) said on my triplane replica earlier today about how I can stabilize single-engine prop planes using SAS wheels, I figured that a reaction wheel hidden inside the fuselage would be very useful in future projects. Thanks for the idea. I had the wings fold in half to mimic its real-life counterpart’s intended purpose of being stowed in a bomb bay and then deployed once the bomber was attacked by enemy fighters. I never actually tried it, though. At first, the hinges were having trouble deploying properly - and would often freeze. Under @Hotel26's advice, I disabled the autostrut for the wings and the joints and then removed symmetry from one of the joints. Once that was done, the wings worked like a charm. Since the real-life Goblin was never meant to take off from a runway, I originally had it attached to a stability enhancer - and later two - while the engine got warmed up. However, all those test runs ended in failure. So, I added landing gear to the fuselage, but I later decided it would ruin the aesthetic. Eventually, I went with detachable landing gear. They do have parachutes that deploy after detachment so that it’s not a total waste. One large parachute wasn’t enough to bring the craft down intact, and neither were two. So, I went with four. I didn’t worry the chutes obstructing the hatch, though, since it was ALREADY obstructed. I may or (most likely) may not merge this with my B-36 Peacemaker Replica. Despite its terribly short range, there’s a slim chance I would succeed where the real-life USAF failed. After Hotel26’s DM about how to fix the hinges, I started with a wing deployment test. Though the winged salutes from the failed prototypes were cute, I needed them both down to fly right. In this case, it worked well all times. After getting at least 100 m over the surface, Jeb detached the takeoff wheels and turned to heading. The takeoff was bouncy, but the Goblin was not designed for a runway takeoff. Wait until you’re AT LEAST 100 METERS AGL before ditching the wheels. That should give the chutes time to deploy and send the wheels back down to the surface without breaking anything. Those things are expensive, you know. A real-life Goblin hanging by a trapeze from a modified B-29 during a test flight. If all went well, the pilot would detach from the bomber and reattach itself via the trapeze with no problems. Unfortunately, that was not the case for at least half the tests. The Goblin project ended up cancelled almost a year after its first flight. Photograph copied from museum website. The Goblin doing a range test along Kerbin’s equator. At the very least, it should be able to cruise at the same altitude as, if not higher than, the B-36 replica. That way, it can go after enemy fighters with an altitude advantage over the bomber and, if the pilot’s extremely lucky, can also dock with the host bomber when its done. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 6.6 km (~21.6k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 295 m/s (~660 mph) Maximum Endurance: ~40 minutes Maybe a bit more, but it’s wise not to push it. Expected Range: 700 km For this craft, since the real-life Goblin was never designed for conventional runway landings, there are only three ways to land this thing: Mid-air attachment to another aircraft that would carry you in. Whichever craft you pick to be your host, you need insane piloting skills and an even more insane amount of luck to pull it off. A slow landing on water, like with my Ohka. (IF NEITHER OF THE ABOVE CAN BE DONE) Parachuting down. For another test flight, Jeb’s doing a barrel roll. This was to be expected, as the Goblin was originally designed to be a fighter - and would be expected to pull off evasive maneuvers in combat. While testing the abort system, Jeb retracted the wings in mid-air and deployed them again. The original plan (in KSP lore, at least) was that the wings would remain retracted once stowed. Then, once the Goblin was launched, the wings would deploy mid-air and the pilot would be ready for action. The latest prototype with all four chutes deployed. Now the plane can go down slow enough to remain in one piece upon impact. Jeb after a soft landing via parachutes. He was found taking a nap when recovery crews caught up with him. Not that he could come out to give them a high-five anyway. I would like to thank everyone who offered to help fix this problem. Now that the hinges are working properly and I've proven that this egg can fly, I can check this failed experiment off the list. In my opinion, the Goblin was a good idea when it was first thought of in the mid-1940s. The only way we would have found out if it was a bad one is if it was tested, and that's what the test flights were for. It wasn't just testing failures that got the project cancelled. Not only were the Goblin's performance stats lame compared to other jet fighters, which meant that they would have been at a disadvantage against enemy fighters from the start, but aerial refueling technology for escort fighters showed promising development results. Even so, can you imagine being carried by the very bomber you're assigned to protect? It would save you fuel, and (if you didn't mind engine noise) you could take a nap while flying from your base to the target - or at least on the way back home. Kind of reminds me of the plane fight scene from Captain America: The First Avenger. Replicas Remaining: 219

If you're referring to the B-58 Hustler, I'm sorry I couldn't provide a supersonic replica. That would have been awesome. If you're into cool jet bombers with way better stats, you'll have plenty of fun with my B-52 Stratofortress copy. On the bright side, despite the Hustler replica's (terrible) performance, it's gotten relatively popular on KerbalX. Within 24 hours of uploading, it reached a total of 8 downloads and 2 upvotes. You can contribute some craft on this thread too, if you're bored and have nothing else to do on KSP1. Bet there's at least one old plane in your save files you want to show off.

If Netflix was looking on this thread for a bomber replica in its latest original show or adaptation, it can start with the B-58 Hustler. The real-life Hustler was actually great and won awards, but it had a smaller range and bomb capacity than the B-52. Though this was America's first supersonic bomber, Soviet high-altitude surface-to-air missiles combined with its own limited range (without aerial refueling) forced it to take on low-penetration roles. Add a high rate of accidental losses, and the Hustler was retired in 1970 after 10 years of service. The B-58 Hustler on display in the SPH. Unlike its real-life counterpart, don’t expect this prototype to win any flight performance awards. Originally, it had four J-404 engines and the fuel tank underneath had fuel inside. While it did provide the supersonic speed I wanted, it came at a cost of an extremely short range and making it near-impossible to land in one piece thanks to the low-hanging engines. That’s when I decided to switch to J-20s; it came closer to the aesthetic anyway. Unlike most of my replicas from the Cold War and before, I installed a probe core specifically for Kerbnet since the real-life Hustler had a …sophisticated inertial guidance navigation and bombing system. (Air Force Museum Webpage) Just like the real-life Hustler, I rigged the cabin to have an ejection mechanism if the ABORT button was pressed. To get this new prototype airborne soon enough, I had to DRAIN THE DROP TANK. That’s why the AC6 button is useless now. If you want to read about how my original prototype test flights went, feel free to expand the spoiler. Otherwise, keep going. The Hustler getting a good view of the northern lights while approaching the polar ice caps. Bob did not expect any plane with weak engines like this to go over Alt Test Mountains, so he got the green-light to fly north for this test flight instead. Since Bob’s grandfather was a bomber jet pilot (before specializing in material science), Bob thought it would be nice if he was the one to do the test flight. Of course, Jeb warned him that This plane’s performance stats are lame, which means you’ll have to do a trench run through the mountains. Bob flying over Kerbin’s north pole with the moon shining behind him. Very low on fuel, and Bob’s contemplating whether or not to land before or after going over this mountain range. In the end, he decided to just land early in a green, (relatively) flat spot. At least he managed to cover 1,225 km before being forced to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 3.3 km (~10.8k ft) Velocity: 150 m/s (~313 mph) Expected Range: 1,225 km A successful landing in a relatively flat part of the the highlands, and with only 10 fuel units left. Like I said earlier, since the real-life Hustler had an escape pod, I launched this prototype again specifically to test it. The ejection capsule was launched and the cabin parachuted down to safety. Too bad you can’t say the same for the nose antenna (but who cares about that). Also why I installed a third parachute on the cabin afterwards. It's a shame that this replica could not come close to its real-life counterpart's performance stats. At least one can look at this plane and say "Yep, it's the B-58 Hustler, all right." Anyway, now that I marked this one off the checklist, I am two funny joints away from checking off the Goblin as well. Maybe if we get enough planes showcased on this thread after that one, the actual museum would notice.* And who knows, they may use Kerbal Space Program (either 1 or 2, but probably 1 if they feature this thread) to teach "The Physics of Flight" or "Design, Build, and Fly Your Own Jet," or something. Replicas Remaining: 220

If you walk by the R&D building at the KSC, you'll notice a semi-lazy entry from the Land of anime girls... I mean pricey but long-lasting cars... Ryanair pilots on crack... surprise harbor parties... the Rising Sun. The rocket-powered Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka. The Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka on display in the SPH. It is oriented upright this time so that it could get moving without needing a bomber to drop it. Just like the real-life Ohka, this replica uses a solid-fuel engine. So, once you fire it up, there’s no stopping it. I put I-beams near the front to simulate the landing skis of the trainer model. The solar panels surrounding the command seat are made to look like the cockpit windows. That was when I started getting Pearl Harbor flashbacks - but NOT from Blazing Angels. During spring break in high school, I was with my parents and brother walking through Pearl Harbor. After touring the memorial itself, we headed to the U.S.S. Bowfin Submarine Museum and Park. For those who don't know, the Bowfin was an American submarine nicknamed the "Pearl Harbor Avenger" that was launched a year after the infamous attack. Indeed, the Bowfin lived up to its nickname by sinking over 30 ships during her wartime service. One of the outdoor exhibits was a Kaiten, which was a kamikaze torpedo. Although there was an escape hatch for pilots once it got close enough to its target, odds are it was never used. This caused some more Blazing Angels flashbacks. Not just from the Pearl Harbor attack itself, but on the kamikaze* levels Dad and I used to play. We weren't kamikazes; we were stopping them. The escape hatch was removed in later variants near the end of the war, so there was no chance of getting out (not that suicidal pilots would want to). Seeing this Ohka at the National Museum of the United States Air Force ten years later (as an adult living on my own) reminded me of that torpedo. There is no denying that the Japanese were outright evil during WWII, but one thing you have to admire them for is their people's willingness to die for their country. So much so that they were willing to lock themselves in planes, rocket gliders, or torpedoes loaded with explosives and guide them towards enemy targets. With that childhood memory with a side of WWII history out of the way, here are the KSP test pictures. Jeb with his helmet lowered sitting in the cockpit of the Ohka. Just like in real-life, this glider was carried by medium-to-heavy bombers and launched at Allied targets during the Second Imperial Wars. Jeb first thought it rocketed elite commandos further into hostile territory before the bomber could turn around, enemy lines - which obviously meant the pilot would bail out before it crashed. Bob had to explain to him that it was a suicide glider. JEB: "Well, if it was a suicide craft, why bother install skis?" BOB: "The model you're playing in was a trainer." JEB: "That doesn't make sense. Why bother training the pilot if the goal is to crash the plane and kill himself?" VAL: "Says the guy who has an accident liability record as long as a bomber's wingspan." BOB: "The idea was that a suicide pilot would crash into Allied ships and kill hundreds of servicemen. If the pilot missed his target, then you just lost a guy, an expensive rocket, and a ton of explosives for nothing." BILL: "They must have been real desperate if they spent their efforts pulling off a move like that." JEB: "Where would they even find pilots for that anyway? Did they look for suicidal asylum patients? Did they... force prisoners to crash?" VAL: "How would you force someone to kill himself and hundreds of others if the alternative is that he dies?" BILL: "And how can you trust a mental patient to not have a break down and crash prematurely?" JEB: "Either you crash into that ship and blow it up or we shoot your wife and kids. That's how." BOB: "Actually, those suicide pilots were volunteers. Crazy as they were, you can't say they weren't willing to die for their empire." JEB: "That's cold, man." A TEST CRUISE WAS NOT PERFORMED BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT WAS DESIGNED AS A SUICIDE GLIDER THAT WAS DROPPED FROM A BOMBER After the vertical launch and the SRB fuel is depleted, the Ohka is gliding north towards the ocean. A conventional takeoff with wheels didn't yield favorable results, and neither did rocket boosters carrying it up before detachment and firing the main rocket. In the end, I decided to fly it as a glider. And, technically, only a training glider variant (K1) made it to the museum. Without the rocket to send it into a spiral, this glider flew quite well. A soft landing on the water about 5-7 km away from the KSC, and not a scratch on the glider or the pilot. Jeb volunteered to fly the trainer variant since it was the model designed to keep the pilot alive - or at least not made specifically to kill the occupants. That was a lot of trouble to go through just to copy a suicide glider - and, surprisingly, a Hangar One replica that's pure stock. I still could use some help in fixing the Goblin replica, please. After the wing deployment problem's fixed, I wonder what's next on the list. Replicas Remaining: 221

In Soviet Russia, you do not fly the MiG-21 "Fishbed." The MiG-21 flies you. The MiG-21 on display in the SPH. I included "Fishbed" in the craft name in case someone was looking for this plane but did not know the model number. For the antenna hanging by the nose (why did the Soviets even put it there), I put a Communotron 16-S on top of a structural pylon, moved it forward as much as I could, then hid the pylon inside the plane. It may decrease flight efficiency due to drag, but considering the test flight results I’d say it’s a near-nonexistent price. Furthermore, the antenna did not explode. I included a battery on the top tanks so that the plane can have a power source in case it needs to glide. Experience shows that you need at least one battery for that or else you’ll lose power before you can switch the engine back on - and then you’re doomed. I originally had a battery in front of the engine, but I removed it to maintain a consistent aesthetic when placing the Soviet star. The cargo bay is empty this time because, well, it’s Soviet Russia. Those communists didn’t care about crew safety (at least not as much as the Americans did). Though the plane is decorated in Soviet stars, the craft’s flag is the classic hammer and sickle. Marxan veteran pilot Ivan Kerman giving a salute before showing off what the Fishbed is capable of. The Fishbed on fire after surpassing Mach 3. This time, Ivan elected to start the demonstration flight north as opposed to west because the engineers estimated he would end up near Marxan territory - which is concentrated around Kerbin’s southern polar ice caps. While flying over Kerbin’s northern ice cap, Ivan got a shot of the Mun and the glow over the horizon. It would be only a couple of minutes before he would enter the dark side of Kerbin. And since this particular plane did not come equipped with GPS, if he was low on fuel he would have difficulty landing. For all he knew, he would have been doomed to splash down or hit a mountain instead of land smoothly. Fortunately, by the time his low fuel indicator started flashing, he was in sight of land. More on that later. Bet there were a lot of kids wishing upon stars that night that ended up wishing upon a flaming jet instead. Less than 45 minutes of flight time, and Ivan's plane is down to its last 50 fuel units. There’s a nice glow over Kerbin’s southern ice cap; perfect place to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 19 km (~62k ft, which is Class Echo (E) airspace) WARNING: Tends to bounce up and down in cruise while MJ aircraft autopilot is on. Velocity: 1200 m/s (~2684 mph) Expected Range: 2580 km And it doesn't even come with auxiliary tanks. And this performed way better than its real-life counterpart. Ivan performing a soft landing on the ice. Although he was coming in low and slow enough to do so without the parachute’s help, he was ordered to test it anyway. Indeed, it performed well - despite being redundant. Probably because most Marxan pilots spent too much time eating up and spewing out propaganda and not enough actually practicing landing. As for Ivan, he is a veteran ace pilot of the Second Imperial Wars from when he was a young man, so it would make sense that he would (still) know how to land this plane well. After landing the Fishbed, Ivan realized that he was close to a Marxan outpost. With the sun rise (or set?) close to his location, he stepped outside to admire it. "Command, tell the recovery crews to take their time. I’m home." I know I said that I'd do the XF-85 Goblin next, but during testing I ran into a problem. Just like the real-life Goblin folded its wings so that it could fit in a bomb bay, I added hinges to the wings so that they can fold up and down. However, after I launched the plane, the hinges tended to freeze up while in action. Sometimes it's one hinge, sometimes it's both, other times I get lucky and they're both working properly - until they don't. Even when I revert to SPH and launch again, whether or not the hinges would work has become unpredictable. Cute, but I didn't design this just to give salutes in Air Force parades. For the record, my original plan was to have it launch from a stability enhancer - but each test ended in explosions. I did not mess with the symmetry, so I don't know what's going on. Could someone please tell me what's going on and how to fix it? I asked this question in the KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section days ago, but no answer. For more details, check out this post. Also has the craft file if you want to mess around with it and try for yourself. Until I could fix the Goblin, that project's been paused. Which is why I decided to skip to the "surprise" I mentioned would come after the Goblin, which was the Fishbed. Any and all help in solving this problem - or getting some of the more difficult replicas down, for that matter - would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and do svidaniya. Replicas Remaining: 222

The title's self-explanatory, but here are the details. I'm experiencing some trouble with the hinges in my XF-85 Goblin replica. More specifically, they have a tendency to freeze up while in action. Sometimes it's one hinges, sometimes it's both, other times I get lucky and they're both working properly - until they don't. Even when I revert to SPH and launch again, whether or not the hinges would work has become unpredictable. Cute, but I didn't design this just to give salutes in Air Force parades. For the record, my original plan was to have it launch from a stability enhancer - but each test ended in explosions. Here's what I have set up for both servos. As you can see, I didn't mess with the symmetry. Could you please tell me how to fix it. If you want to mess around with it and/or provide a predictably working copy (one whose servos can be trusted to work every time), here's the craft file if you want to try it out for yourself. https://mega.nz/file/fL52CQLQ#1-We2O0mCHTyx6DXuppJ_yEjQ6kJLvw47aCDoTCp400 I don't really care for takeoff stability, since it was originally designed IRL to be launched from a host plane. After I got both wings down, once I got airborne it flew very well. Thank you all very much. P.S. For the record, I made the wings fold since the real-life Goblin was designed to be stowed in a bomb bay and then deployed once the bomber was attacked by enemy fighters. That project ended up getting cancelled in 1949 due to: Too many failures in the "attach to the mothership" part during testing. Lackluster performance compared to other jet fighters. Development of aerial refueling technology for escorting fighters. P.P.S. I based the general design somewhat off of fatology's pure stock copy of the Goblin.

Ladies and gentlemen, props and jets, straight out of the Strategic Air Command, get your engines hot for the B-36 Peacemaker. The B-36 Peacemaker on display in the SPH. I started this project by downloading @HB Stratos' MK3 Custom Cockpit, then adding more fuel cells and modifying some of the fairings to look more like a B-36 cockpit. I then added another small fairing on the top for the dome. If you're reading this, thank you. In order to maintain optimum CoM and CoL balance, I couldn’t fill up all the fuel tanks. At the same time, with each passing test run, I had to be careful deciding which tanks got fuel so I can increase my range. I went with longer blades - as opposed to my favorite R-25 ducted blades - to maintain the aesthetic. During one of the test runs, two of the prop engines froze without explanation. I then installed air intakes on all the engines so that they get adequate air. Thanks to @swjr-swis's advice when talking about my fuel flow problem on my Stratofortress replica a month ago, I enabled crossfeed in the pylons so that the jet engines get fuel from the main tanks. The storage unit in the bottom near the nose is meant to look like a turret. In the end, though the aircraft was able to take off, fly, and land in one piece, I was not pleased with the performance stats. No wonder the B-52 Stratofortress replaced it as a heavy bomber - both in Kerbin and in real life. The Peacemaker flying over Alt Test Mountains. Surprisingly, this plane was quite maneuverable for a bomber. But unlike the real-life Peacemaker, I left all ten engines on during cruise. Undercarriage shot of the B-36 while in cruise. Just like this photograph broadcasted from Earth. The grabbing unit extending with its claw open during the test flight. I installed a robotic arm with a claw in the bomb bay in case I get ambitious enough to attach an XF-85 Goblin, which was originally designed to take launch from and rejoin the B-36 in real life, to this plane. Then again, since the Goblin project was cancelled due to too many failed redockings with a B-29, odds are I’ll end up making the Goblin replica as a separate aircraft and leave it at that. Controls for the arm are in the KerbalX page. Flying over a mountain range up north in the last test cruise. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Jet Engines: ON Altitude: 6.4 km (~21k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 158 m/s (~353 mph) Blade Deployment Angle: 38 degrees Expected Range: 440 km This plane glided for almost 30 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. The real-life B-36 can fly 10,000 miles (16,093 km). For reference, the circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,075 km. The B-36 landed at a desert with the ladders deployed. Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to reach the command capsule that the crew was in through the fairings. If there were people on board the side capsules, they could have gotten in and out - although I don’t know how that would affect the control scheme since the bomber doesn’t have a probe core. While the B-36 did earn its in the Hangar Three since it served as a nuclear deterrent in the Cold War's early years, had things turned out differently during WWII it probably would have ended up in Hangar One. If you're wondering why, it's because the B-36 was originally thought of as a means to bomb targets in Europe from North America in the event that Great Britain fell to the German Blitzkrieg. Though that ended up not being the case, the U.S. Army Air Corps was uncertain at the time and wanted to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. After WWII ended, America still needed a long-range bomber to destroy targets in Soviet Russia. Though many argued that the (mostly) prop-driven B-36 was obsolete from the start, none of its rivals at the time had the range to attack the Soviet homeland from North America without aerial refueling and couldn’t carry the Mark 16 hydrogen bomb. Until the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (which is still active) became operational in 1955, the B-36 continued to be America’s primary nuclear weapons delivery vehicle. Next on my hit copy list: the XF-85 Goblin. After that (or if I abort that project for whatever reason), it's a surprise. Replicas Remaining: 223 SIX TURNIN' AND FOUR BURNIN', BABY

If you thought that the first VTOL jet ever built was the British Harrier, you'd be wrong. Although it was technically used as a concept demonstrator and nothing else, that title goes to the Ryan X-13 Vertijet. The X-13 Vertijet on display in the SPH. Unlike the other planes on this showcase thread, this one starts out pointed upward. Though subsequent test runs proved vertical takeoff possible, vertical landing in such an orientation was not. At least it can fly, right? The reaction wheel was an attempt to stabilize the plane during a horizontal takeoff, since it kept tilting to the side due to the rear landing gear being so close together. I added Vernor engines in an attempt to make vertical landing easier, but they weren’t much help. In the end, I decided vertical landing wasn’t really worth it - especially since the more famous VTOL jets always did their thing with their noses horizontal. The parachutes were a last-minute addition to make the craft look more like its real-life counterpart, since I noticed in the beginning of this video that the horizontal landing involved a drag chute. Contemporary illustration of the Vertijet’s transition from vertical to horizontal flight after takeoff. Image taken from museum website. The Vertijet successfully TAKING OFF vertically. That is why the engine is originally set to wet mode, so that the pilot can take off quicker - or at least at all. You can switch to dry mode when you get the Vertijet pointed horizontally. Launch truck not included - not that it’s needed. Before the vertical takeoff test could be done, the Vertijet underwent a horizontal takeoff in dry mode. Needless to say that the end result was successful. A TEST CRUISE WAS NOT PERFORMED BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT WAS DESIGNED AS A CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR AND NOT INTENDED FOR ANYTHING SERIOUS. Horizontal landing was tricky because of the rear landing gear being so close together, but at least each time I managed to get it done without breaking anything. Then again, it could be due to my experience, which means I don’t know how newbies will be able to handle it. Unfortunately, I was unable to orient the Vertijet vertically and fly at a slow enough velocity to land. This craft is definitely VTO, but not L. I'm so glad to have gotten another (mostly) successful replica done, especially after all my attempts at an X-36 ended up with uncontrollable spinning followed by crashing seconds after takeoff. This particular plane looks very "kerbal" with its vertical takeoff - WITH THE NOSE UP. Yesterday, I drove to the museum (for the tenth time) to check out the Operation: Homecoming 50th Anniversary Presentation - which involved the Hanoi Taxi itself. After that was over, I went to the gift shop to buy some jigsaw puzzles for the office where I work, and a 2024 calendar caught my eye. I bought it as a Christmas present - but for whom I have not figured out yet - and noticed something interesting. All the planes featured on it were from the Research and Development Gallery. Here is a list of all the planes featured on that calendar as well as a status report of which of them were replicated on this thread as of today (Sunday, July 16th, 2023): 2024 Calendar Experimental Craft CHECK IF DONE (AS OF 7/16/2023) MONTH CRAFT NAME January McDonnell XF-85 Goblin YES February Convair XF-92A YES March Northrop X-4 Bantam YES April Bell X-5 May Douglass X-3 Stiletto YES June Bell X-1B July Republic XF-84H August Bell Helicopter Textron XV-3 YES (THIS ONE) September Ryan X-13 Vertijet October Avro Canada VZ-9AV Avrocar November Northrop Tacit Blue December Grumman X-29A Boy, a lot of those planes - and many others - look like they were made in Kerbal Space Program due to their very unconventional designs. I wonder which plane's next to be replicated after this one, whether it be made by me or somebody else (preferably someone who knows how to make functional single-engine props). Replicas Remaining: 224

Yeah, no chance I'm trying that. That would be great, thank you. I tried that myself, both in-flight and right before takeoff, but it didn't seem to work. In fact, when I did it right before takeoff, it seemed to make things worse. Whether a prop engine has an even or odd number of blades shouldn't make a difference in aircraft performance - but blade angle and type do. As for engines, if I have an even number of them, all I have to do to take care of the roll is have them rotate in opposite directions. It's odd-numbered-engine* props that are causing me trouble since I don't have that option. And yes, three-engine (and five-engine) prop planes do exist - or at least they did.

I checked the key binding list and confirmed it. However, I have to ask: Can I only do it mid-flight, or can I set it up in the SPH? And, by extension, have that problem taken care of before I post it on KerbalX? (IF IT CAN ONLY BE DONE MID-FLIGHT) How will I know if I'm not overshooting it? Is there a trim limit? (IF IT CAN BE DONE IN THE SPH) Do I need to click on any specific parts before adjusting trim? Any other ideas for stabilizing odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades? Right now, my best idea (out of so many bad ones before asking you all on the forums) is to keep motor size at 10% and blade angle at 15°.

That'd be great, if I was making a Dornier Do 335 - or, if obvious part-clipping's not a problem, a Fisher P-75 Eagle. Otherwise, I'll just have to hide the second "counter" engine in such a way that it would not ruin the CoM placement to the point of testing failure. Any other ideas?

I made a replica of the (Bloody) Red Baron's triplane, the Fokker Dr.I. "Dr" is short for Dreidecker, which means "triplane" in German. Historic photograph from the First Imperial Wars. Here we see the Green Baron, whose real name was (Baron) Manfred von Kermthoven, returning to the recently-built Island Airfield after an air attack on Krakopolis. And here is the story behind this photograph, which is also the story of how the Island Airfield came to be: The Fokker Dr.I, along with its engine and propeller settings, on display in the SPH. I included "Red Baron’s Triplane" in the craft name in case someone was looking for that plane and didn’t know the model plane he used. Though I suspect it's extremely unlikely anybody who uses KerbalX would know that "Dr." stood for Dreidecker - or that it means "Triplane" in German. Making an open cockpit was tricky. In the end, I decided to borrow the design from ZobrAz’s White Baron - who borrowed the idea from Castille7’s Mrs. Chrissy Too. There’s also a fixed ladder for the pilot to climb in and out, but he would have to click on the command seat and board once he reaches the top. I had to use I-beams connected to the bottom wings to get the top set of wings on. Which are the only ones with ailerons since that was the case for the real-life Fokker triplane. The last test run before this photo was taken had the "Motor Size and Output" setting at 20%. Though it was a success, I dropped it to 10% in hopes of reducing propeller-caused rolling. I’m so used to making even-numbered-engine propeller planes with adjustable-angle R-25 blades, so it was extremely difficult to decide on how to set up a single-engine prop with fixed-angle Type B blades that will not only fly, but spin about its engine axis as little as possible. If the current configuration is giving you trouble, or if you know a way to improve its performance, please tell me. Image of the Fokker Dr.I replica on display (upside down) on the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Underneath it is a Sopwith Camel, which is a great opportunity for those who remember Peanuts to take a picture. As previously stated, this plane is merely a replica. Although a total of 320 Fokker Dr.Is were built before production ended in May 1918, none of them have survived. Photograph copied from museum website. (BACK IN PRESENT DAY) Jeb flying low over the KSC in a replica of the Fokker triplane. Not that he had much of a choice. By modern standards, this plane’s performance was terrible. Val assured him that "Back in the First Imperial Wars, any pilot would kill to have a plane with performance stats like that." Bob replied with "And in many cases, they did," earning some laughs from his friends. He was hoping to fly the real thing, but the last real Fokker triplane was destroyed during the Second Imperial Wars. After nearly 12 minutes and 30 seconds of flight and constant course-corrections, Jeb managed to reach the Island Airfield. Just like the Green Baron in the First Imperial War so long ago, Jeb is getting ready to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: WARNING: Has no autopilot Requires constant attention during flight Prone to axial spinning as propeller runs Altitude: 700 m (2,297 ft) Velocity: 47 m/s (105 mph) Recommended Throttle: 2/3 to Full Throttle For the cruise, it's best to stay at 2/3 Expected Range: 90 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens A successful landing at the Island Airfield If you think flying this thing is hard, try landing it in one piece. I had to revert to a quicksave I set up over the island right after my wings snapped off the first time. Man, that was quite a challenge. If I thought making an open cockpit was hard, I was in for a real doozy setting up the prop engine in a configuration that both works and keeps the aesthetic. I don't know how everybody else does it while getting rid of that incessant roll while the engine runs, and I'd like to learn the secret. For now, I think I'll stay away from odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades (at least). Once I do learn the secret, I can make a Sopwith Camel and then Snoopy can pursue the Red Baron. How do I stop that constant rolling? Please help.

Achtung! Jetzt wir singen zusammen die Geschichte über den Schweinköpfigen Hund und den lieben Red Baron! Oder, technisch ausgedrückt, der Fokker Dr.I "Dreidecker." Historic photograph from the First Imperial Wars. Here we see the Green Baron, whose real name was (Baron) Manfred von Kermthoven, returning to the recently-built Island Airfield after an air attack on Krakopolis. And here is the story behind this photograph, which is also the story of how the Island Airfield came to be: Now back to the present-day test flight. The Fokker Dr.I, along with its engine and propeller settings, on display in the SPH. I included "Red Baron’s Triplane" in the craft name in case someone was looking for that plane and didn’t know the model plane he used. Though I suspect it's extremely unlikely anybody who uses KerbalX would know that "Dr." stood for Dreidecker - or that it means "Triplane" in German. Making an open cockpit was tricky. In the end, I decided to borrow the design from ZobrAz’s White Baron - who borrowed the idea from Castille7’s Mrs. Chrissy Too. There’s also a fixed ladder for the pilot to climb in and out, but he would have to click on the command seat and board once he reaches the top. I had to use I-beams connected to the bottom wings to get the top set of wings on. Which are the only ones with ailerons since that was the case for the real-life Fokker triplane. The last test run before this photo was taken had the "Motor Size and Output" setting at 20%. Though it was a success, I dropped it to 10% in hopes of reducing propeller-caused rolling. I’m so used to making even-numbered-engine propeller planes with adjustable-angle R-25 blades, so it was extremely difficult to decide on how to set up a single-engine prop with fixed-angle Type B blades that will not only fly, but spin about its engine axis as little as possible. If the current configuration is giving you trouble, or if you know a way to improve its performance, please tell me. Image of the Fokker Dr.I replica on display (upside down) on the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Underneath it is a Sopwith Camel, which is a great opportunity for those who remember Peanuts to take a picture. As previously stated, this plane is merely a replica. Although a total of 320 Fokker Dr.Is were built before production ended in May 1918, none of them have survived. Photograph copied from museum website. (BACK IN PRESENT DAY) Jeb flying low over the KSC in a replica of the Fokker triplane. Not that he had much of a choice. By modern standards, this plane’s performance was terrible. Val assured him that "Back in the First Imperial Wars, any pilot would kill to have a plane with performance stats like that." Bob replied with "And in many cases, they did," earning some laughs from his friends. He was hoping to fly the real thing, but the last real Fokker triplane was destroyed during the Second Imperial Wars. After nearly 12 minutes and 30 seconds of flight and constant course-corrections, Jeb managed to reach the Island Airfield. Just like the Green Baron in the First Imperial War so long ago, Jeb is getting ready to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: WARNING: Has no autopilot Requires constant attention during flight Prone to axial spinning as propeller runs Altitude: 700 m (2,297 ft) Velocity: 47 m/s (105 mph) Recommended Throttle: 2/3 to Full Throttle For the cruise, it's best to stay at 2/3 Expected Range: 90 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens A successful landing at the Island Airfield If you think flying this thing is hard, try landing it in one piece. I had to revert to a quicksave I set up over the island right after my wings snapped off the first time. Man, that was quite a challenge. If I thought making an open cockpit was hard, I was in for a real doozy setting up the prop engine in a configuration that both works and keeps the aesthetic. I don't know how everybody else does it while getting rid of that incessant roll while the engine runs, and I'd like to learn the secret* if possible. For now, I think I'll stay away from odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades (at least). Once I do learn the secret, I can make a Sopwith Camel and then Snoopy can pursue the Red Baron. Unless someone else beats me to it. Replicas Remaining: 225

Last night, I built a replica of the Link Trainer, also known as the Blue Box. Also known as the first flight simulator. Historic footage of a student pilot learning to fly in a Link Trainer with an instructor checking his progress (both student and instructor unknown). Picture taken six years before the Second Imperial Wars broke out. This came in real handy when the war did happen, as Heinkel's enemies in the air were experienced "flying blind" - giving them an advantage. Now imagine listening to this in the voice of the guy who narrates those old black-and-white PSAs: The Link Trainer and the instructor’s desk on display in the SPH. It was difficult deciding what motors to use and in what order, and I had to look at my old swept-wing jet to figure out how to set up the action groups. In the end, I managed to set up the motors to obey the main steering control inputs. Since the pilot would be flying in complete darkness, I disconnected the cockpit lights from the main light button. The two small lights on the fuel tank in the opposite corner are just for decoration, which means they’re also disabled. In summary, the only working light is the overhead instructor desk lamp. I used two grip strip to mimic a conduit connecting the trainer itself to the instructor’s desk, since two smaller I-beams would have been too long. I put a motor under the instructor's chair to mimic a swivel chair. The J and L buttons spin it. Although I don’t expect much use out of this apart from decoration (and bragging rights for me, since nobody else has made a KSP replica of the Link Trainer), this craft has 2,650 charge units. A picture of the real thing and the instructor’s desk in the WWII Gallery (Hangar One) of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Photograph taken by me 10/9/2022. Jeb Kerman stepping out of the Link Trainer in utter disappointment, talking to his friend, Bill Kerman. When Jeb heard that the first flight simulator - or at least an operational model of it that survived - was coming to the Space Center, he was first in line to try it out. Of course, until then, he didn’t know what it looked like. Although Bill did know what the Link Trainer was, he lined up along with Jeb because he wanted to see it in action up-close and personal. The daughter of the engineer sent to demonstrate how this worked started filming their conversation. Granted, she was filming anyway for her upcoming video "Modern Kerbalnauts Hop On Ancient Flight Simulator." She ended up keeping that part because it was funny. JEB: Why didn’t you warn me that this simulator would suck? BILL: What do you mean? JEB: For starters, it has no computer screen or heads-up display - not even with 4-bit graphics. It also has no sound effects, nav system, or onboard radar. Oh, and I can’t find the music settings. BILL: Obviously none of those things were available when the Link Trainer was made. By the way, why were you looking for the music? JEB: Because the simulators in Basic had those. BILL: They did? Val never said anything about music. JEB: I also can’t find the cockpit light switch. The only source of light I have is from the crummy glow-in-the-dark instrument panel. BILL: It doesn’t have a light switch; the whole point was to get you used to flying in total darkness. By the way, the instrument panel was brighter back in those days, but the original material had to be replaced recently because it was radioactive. JEB: You fly it then if you know so much about it. That was when Bill immediately acted as the "instructor" for the next pilot in line, an unnamed rookie from Nye Island. Surprisingly, he flew it very well on his first try. When asked how he did it, he replied (with a heavy accent) "The arceed I went to as a lad had a Link Traina. I yesed ta (used to) play on it all the time when the lines to the cool games were too long." And indeed. At the time the pilot in question was a child, Nye Island's local arcade had an operational link trainer used as a game - and it still does. I thought I'd build this replica since nobody else has, so it was a fun challenge. It's still in my museum replica hangar, since I put in a bit of time and effort to make a functional replica - along with the instructor desk. When I was done posting it on the USAF Museum Replica Showcase Thread, it was time for me to go to bed - and put off posting it on this thread until the next day. Less than 24 hours after that, it got a few downloads on KerbalX - and it was put in @T116's Kerbal amuSement Park. I thought it was fitting since the real-life Link Trainer was used as an amusement park ride during the Great Depression as well as an IFR training tool. WHERE ARE THE LINK TRAINERS NOW?

Yep, it sure is. Guess you beat me.

When you hear the words "flight simulator," the first thing that pops into your head would be: machines that look like arcade games - and in some cases are arcade games videogames such as MS Flight Simulator or X-Plane that need extra hardware to work or computers with said hardware that you'll often find in brick-and-mortar flight schools or museums or similar venues. computer programs like Google Earth or GeoFS which are great for cheapskates and/or those short on space 90 years ago, if someone interested in flying heard those same words, odds are they'll think of the Link Trainer (also known as the Blue Box) Historic footage of a student pilot learning to fly in a Link Trainer with an instructor checking his progress (both student and instructor unknown). Picture taken six years before the Second Imperial Wars broke out. This came in real handy when the war did happen, as Heinkel's enemies in the air were experienced "flying blind" - giving them an advantage. Now imagine listening to this in the voice of the guy who narrates those old black-and-white PSAs: The Link Trainer and the instructor’s desk on display in the SPH. It was difficult deciding what motors to use and in what order, and I had to look at my old swept-wing jet to figure out how to set up the action groups. In the end, I managed to set up the motors to obey the main steering control inputs. Since the pilot would be flying in complete darkness, I disconnected the cockpit lights from the main light button. The two small lights on the fuel tank in the opposite corner are just for decoration, which means they’re also disabled. In summary, the only working light is the overhead instructor desk lamp. I used two grip strip to mimic a conduit connecting the trainer itself to the instructor’s desk, since two smaller I-beams would have been too long. I put a motor under the instructor's chair to mimic a swivel chair. The J and L buttons spin it. Although I don’t expect much use out of this apart from decoration (and bragging rights for me, since nobody else has made a KSP replica of the Link Trainer), this craft has 2,650 charge units. Another picture of the real thing and the instructor’s desk. This time, it’s in the WWII Gallery (Hangar One) of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Photograph taken by me 10/9/2022. Jeb Kerman stepping out of the Link Trainer in utter disappointment, talking to his friend, Bill Kerman. When Jeb heard that the first flight simulator - or at least an operational model of it that survived - was coming to the Space Center, he was first in line to try it out. Of course, until then, he didn’t know what it looked like. Although Bill did know what the Link Trainer was, he lined up along with Jeb because he wanted to see it in action up-close and personal. The daughter of the engineer sent to demonstrate how this worked started filming their conversation. Granted, she was filming anyway for her upcoming video "Modern Kerbalnauts Hop On Ancient Flight Simulator." She ended up keeping that part because it was funny. JEB: Why didn’t you warn me that this simulator would suck? BILL: What do you mean? JEB: For starters, it has no computer screen or heads-up display - not even with 4-bit graphics. It also has no sound effects, nav system, or onboard radar. Oh, and I can’t find the music settings. BILL: Obviously none of those things were available when the Link Trainer was made. By the way, why were you looking for the music? JEB: Because the simulators in Basic had those. BILL: They did? Val never said anything about music. JEB: I also can’t find the cockpit light switch. The only source of light I have is from the crummy glow-in-the-dark instrument panel. BILL: It doesn’t have a light switch; the whole point was to get you used to flying in total darkness. By the way, the instrument panel was brighter back in those days, but the original material had to be replaced recently because it was radioactive. JEB: You fly it then if you know so much about it. That was when Bill immediately acted as the "instructor" for the next pilot in line, an unnamed rookie from Nye Island. Surprisingly, he flew it very well on his first try. When asked how he did it, he replied (with a heavy accent) "The arceed I went to as a lad had a Link Traina. I yesed ta (used to) play on it all the time when the lines to the cool games were too long." And indeed. At the time the pilot in question was a child, Nye Island's local arcade had an operational link trainer used as a game - and it still does. Although the Link Trainer is at the Museum, it's not on the checklist so it doesn't count as a tally; I already have three Hangar One entries anyway. I thought I'd build this replica since nobody else has, so it was a fun challenge. It's still in my museum replica hangar, since I put in a bit of time and effort to make a functional replica - along with the instructor desk. Replicas Remaining: 226 WHERE ARE THE LINK TRAINERS NOW?

That's pretty impressive, but is that all you got? Last week, I made a replica of a C-141 Starlifter (American military transport plane that was retired in 2006). Given the amount of command seats I was able to squeeze in the cargo bay, it can easily function as an airliner on KSP1. Here's a brief summary of its performance: C-141 Starlifter (KSP Replica) Test Run Performance Stats Crew Capacity 4 pilot + 60 passengers (Passengers in command seats) Powerplant 4 x J-33 “Wheesley” Cargo Capacity 52 (7 loaded + 45 empty) Landing Gear Configuration Tricycle Tailfin T-tail Cruising Altitude 7.9 km Cruising Velocity 260 m/s Expected Range 3,250 km For more details, check out its showcase post from my National Museum of the United States Air Force replica collection.

No, it didn't. It was separated quite distinctively from the other hangars, as seen in the screenshot below. There was no hangar number assigned to the Missile Gallery, and it was separated by a thick black line. It was its own section on the list. Maybe I should have been a little more clear at first. Revealing information like my initial and weather were blocked in this shot.. Regardless, since there were only eight possible craft (seven now) one could make from the Missile Gallery, they're now wildcards that can be used as either a Hangar Three or Four entry. I can't wait to see your (non-wildcard) Hangar Three entry, though. It shouldn't be too hard. Either way, you're qualified for the All Four Hangars Badge. If you're in or near west Ohio (or are visiting someone there), or don't mind the road trip from somewhere farther away like Cleveland or Louisville (KY), it's definitely worth checking out. For those who cannot make it and/or haven't visited recently, here's the current general layout of the museum. As you can see, you have to go through the Missile Silo if you want to get to Hangar Four. I mentioned people who haven't been there recently because Hangar Four wasn't built until 2016, so they may not know about it or what's in it. Depending on when they last visited, they may not know about Hangar Three either. Source: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/documents/maps/nmusaf_map.pdf Technically, I already have a replica hangar - just not for all of the craft on this thread. All the craft in it are mine, as in I built them. Nobody else's craft is in it. It includes the F-35, which is not in the museum, and craft from: The Incredibles movie (IG99 - the plane Mrs. Parr flew to Nomanisan Island in) Phineas and Ferb (Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated) The album cover of Club Ninja from Blue Öyster Cult (That freaky-looking space station) The guitar-shaped UFO in Boston's album covers So, basically, I include copies of not only real planes (especially ones not in the museum), but craft from album covers and movies/TV shows. Side note: I tried making a model of Star Command from the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command show, but the rocket kept failing before breaching the atmosphere. You're right, maybe I should start a KerbalX hangar for the replicas in this thread (the ones that are even on KerbalX, that is) - including the ones not made by me. -------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: just started one: https://kerbalx.com/hangars/167846 Doesn't have my Apollo 15 capsule or shuttle because I never posted them on KerbalX since making them was far too lazy. By the way, if I am going to post a shuttle replica, I'm including everything else that comes with it.

A wise man once said "A good soldier never leaves a man behind." Not only does following this mantra reduce the amount of manpower and equipment wasted, but it's great for morale. If you end up wounded, lost, or captured, you can count on your brothers-in-arms fighting tooth and nail to bring you back; sometimes it means fighting their own superiors. In the unfortunate event you do lose your life, they'll still fight to bring you home. Don't expect all the higher-ups to be as eager, though, but that's another story I'd rather not share in a forum for spacefaring game-players and flight enthusiasts. I do not intend to start now, which is why I built this replica of the C-141 Starlifter. The C-141 Starlifter on display in the SPH. I included "Hanoi Taxi" in the craft name since it's the most famous C-141 used (as far as I know). If any aviation or history enthusiasts are looking for the Hanoi Taxi specifically - or just happen to come across it - it would make it easier to find on KerbalX. For those who don't know, the “Hanoi Taxi” (serial number 66-0177) is a C-141 used in the repatriation of American POWs from Vietnam during the conflict's closing days. The plane in question is currently on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The fuselage is nothing but cargo bays with external command seats inside arranged in four lines - each fifteen seats long. This is to maintain the image of a real-life empty fuselage with seats installed, just like with the real-life Hanoi Taxi. It also looks way smoother than a cargo ramp that leads up to four Mk3 passenger modules - and given that I ended up with a passenger capacity of 60 as opposed to 64 (plus the 4 crew in the cockpit either way), that’s not a bad trade. It also has a ladder leading up to the back door of the cockpit from the "passenger cabin" (or cargo bay, depending on how to look at it) so kerbals can get in and out of it If you want to modify this plane to carry nothing but cargo, feel free to remove the seats as necessary. Although I wouldn’t say no to this being used as an airliner either - especially one with no class division. Everybody rides coach, after all. This plane has multiple separate SEQ-3C Conformal Storage Units lined up in the fuselage. Most of them are empty, but the two units in the rear each have four EVA kits and large work lamps. The cockpit has eight repair kits and a couple of small work lamps in the highly (opposite of) unlikely event the plane takes damage during its mission. Historic photograph of recently-released POWs in a Starlifter before taking off. Just like this photograph from Earth’s historic records. Although the photographer was competent at his job, he often had trouble keeping his camera still while the plane was moving. Especially with a plane not designed for comfortable rides. Nobody named Jane was on board this time - mostly because all the plane’s passengers and crew for that mission were men. Ladi… um, gentlemen, before we begin our safety presentation, please rise and salute the flag for the playing of our National Anthem. Why wouldn't I put that flag there? The Starlifter doing its best to stay at cruising altitude and speed. At first with MJ aircraft autopilot on, it was bouncing up and down a bit. Eventually, it managed to keep straight and level. Whatever you do, DON’T time warp. Otherwise, your flight will get bouncy (at least mine did during the warp) and you’ll waste fuel. Rare footage of the Starlifter with its cargo door open mid-flight and its bay empty. The Starlifter flying over the ocean to bring POWs back to their home region. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 7.9 km (~25.9k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 260 m/s (~582 mph) Flight Time: 3 hours, 30 minutes Expected Range: 3,250 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens More details on how I calculated the range in the spoiler below. If you're not interested, feel free to skip it. The Starlifter landing on Kerbin's grasslands with the reverse thrusters on. I don’t know if the real-life Starlifter had reverse thrusters, but I wouldn’t be surprised since reverse-thrust systems were invented before the C-141 was introduced. Even if it didn’t come with any, I thought it would be cool to have on a KSP replica. @swjr-swis, Well, technically the missile silo isn't part of any hangar - just between Hangars Three and Four. Since there are only seven left in that category (eight counting the one you just did) and to avoid further confusion, I'll specify in the OP that, for the purpose of qualifying for the All Four Hangars badge, Missile Silo entries are (ultra-rare) "wild cards" that can be either a Hangar Three or Hangar Four entry depending on what you lack. So, for everyone else, use it while you can. I'll also add a "One wild card per person" rule so nobody hogs them all (or tried to "cheat" by having two wild cards to fill in the Hangars Three and Four slots), but I might end up lifting it later. In a nutshell, you've earned the All Four Hangars badge. I'll also put your name in the Hall of Fame. If you want to continue making replicas, go ahead. I thought about calling it the "Wall of Honor," but you (kind of) have to be dead to qualify for something named that. To everyone else reading this, now you have something (high) to aim for. Replicas Remaining: 226 FLY, FIGHT, WIN