• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

380 Excellent

About neistridlar

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location Somewhere over the rainbow

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I just noticed you have not put a link to the submission post of the aircraft you have reviewed. Me and CrazyJeb started doing that when you were absent. It is just for the convenience of the reader, should they want to try the plane them selves. The agreed upon standard for doing this is to make the name of the aircraft in the title a link to the original submission post.
  2. @Marschig Where is your kerbal?
  3. neistridlar

    [WIP] Neist Airliner parts

    Now I've tried:, /a/ljyIgIH, a/ljyIgIH, /ljyIgIH, ljyIgIH, non of them make an embedded album, though the ones with the a/ in them work as a link to the album at least. And the album is set to public on Imgur, in case that matters.
  4. With Kerbus churning out fuel efficient designs left an rigth, Management at Neist Air decided it was time to put them in their place, and ordered the engineers to make the most fuel efficient plane to date. The result? A 200 seat supersonic jumbo with the name of NA Slinky Tripple 200. The aircraft offers a dry super cruise at 10.7km altitude with a KPPM of 0.0022 all for the price of merely 44 mil. Download: Technical specifications: Price: 44,104,000 Fuelcapacity: 1,200 Kallons Cruising Speed: 620m/s Cruising Altitude: 10.7km Fuel Burn Rate: 0.17Kallons/second Range: 4,370km KPPM: 0.0022 Takeoff and landing speed: 65m/s Optimal Climb speed: 250m/s Pilots handbook: The aircraft has been fitted with flaps. These are not intended for takeoff, but are primarily intended to help the aircraft slow down for landing. Take off could not be simpler, just throttle up and pull back on the stick til the plane lifts off, Tailstrikes should be practically impossible. In the air accelerate to the recommended climb speed and pitch up to ~15 degrees. Gradually reduce pitch to maintain speed. At 5km, engage afterburners and climb at 10 degrees, gradually leveling off, aiming for level flight at cruise parameters. Once sufficient speed is reached turn off afterburners. Once the aircraft is stabilized in cruise the autopilot may be set to pro grade for effortless cruising.
  5. neistridlar

    [WIP] Neist Airliner parts

    If you happen to know how to make embedded albums work I would be happy to listen. Strictly speaking there is only 4 parts that I can think of that are actually finished, the two conformal tanks, the passenger door and the 12NCS nosecone. The cockpits are mostly just missing IVA textures and props though. I could probably make s showcase album with the almost finished parts, there are like 20 of those. And I will update the album in the OP, I just kind of forgot about it. -edit- ok showcase album here:
  6. neistridlar

    [WIP] Neist Airliner parts

    A little sneak peak of the DC-10 Cockpit. It does not have an IVA yet, and as usual textures are not finished.
  7. neistridlar

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    I ran your numbers as well, the calculation is correct. It is just that somehow I have gotten more energy out of the climb than you assumed in your calculation. Your assumption puts the max altitude at 35km. I reran the craft, and it seems I ditch the engines at 15km already, and I got just above 37km altitude. I think that is easier to measure, since the moment does not fly past so fast.
  8. Ok, so there is two issues I am smelling here. One, the propeller should indeed spin faster when in a dive, and slower in a climb. This is true. Spinning faster or slower is not the same as having more or less thrust though, it is the combination of how fast the prop is spinning, and how fast you go that determines the thrust. The slower you go the more thrust you produce, and also the faster the prop spins the more thrust you produce, but there is a limit to how fast the prop can spin. I don't think this mod models the prop speed, so it appears as if the engine is slowing down, when it should speed up, and that is an issue indeed. The second issue is that you expect the prop engines to go unrealistically fast. If you compare the speed that they stop providing thrust at, you will probably find that it is fairly close to the top speeds of the aircraft that they were based on.
  9. neistridlar

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    Pretty much spot on. If you stack attach the intake to the engine, the front face of the engine receives no drag, assuming it is the same size (or bigger) as the intake, and the rear face of the intake also receives no drag, with the same assumptions. Yes, the other stuff is pretty much good. There are some minor nuances that I am not entirely sure is absolutely correct, but the big picture at lest is very much relevant.
  10. neistridlar

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    I did experiment with keeping the junos for that bit, and for my early attempts it did help a little bit. For the design I ended up with in the end though, I found the drag losses in the initial free fall to be bigger than the regain bit. And the 850m/s second figure was based on this formula: v=sqrt(2gh), which assumes conservation of mechanical energy, and also constant g, both of which are wrong of course, But I would think that it is not too far off. @Andetch @Klapaucius The drag model stuff in Keptins tutorial there is outdated, and has been since 1.0. What swjr-swis has posted here is how the new model works. For those interested in the inner workings of it I have written a little piece, it is mostly aimed at modders, but it might be interesting non the less.
  11. neistridlar

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    I'd like to claim my second place on the probe core leader board: 813m/s, using only 7 junos. And my second place for the manned category: 818.4m/s This was intended as a way to break the 820m/s limit, though I have not managed to do so yet. This is what the craft looks like at launch: It flies almost straight up, then ditches the junos when they flame out. It reaches 37km altitude and free falls back down. In theory it should be able to reach 850m/s without air resistance from that height, so it might be possible to break the 820m/s limit this way. And in case anyone wonders, the shock cone on the back is purely for drag reasons, it does not provide any meaningful amount of air to the engines. @Andetch If you want me to I'll beat you in manned level flight as well .
  12. I don't know how the firespitter config stuff works, so I can not answer this. But I also don't understand why the engine should stall in a climb. I mean the engine is perfectly capable of running when the plane is stationary on the ground. The reason planes slow down in a climb is because it has to fight gravity, you still get more thrust at lower speeds, and you simply can not get the engine to produce thrust once you pass the speed at which the propeller is "screwing" it self through the air, at speeds exceeding that it should be producing reverse thrust in fact. And I realize now that your question is very slightly different from this, but this is what I was referring to: Here is the question: And here is the answer:
  13. Welcome to the forums! Yes this is the expected behavior. I believe it is to simulate how the propeller is like a screw that drags the plane through the air, and the engine can only spin it so fast, so when a certain speed is reached, it just can not provide thrust anymore. And If you had read the last two pages of this thread you would have seen that this very question was answered just hours ago .
  14. Hey, don't you dare give me all the credit! HoioH did like half the work! Also @panzerknoef you can request edit access to the sheet, since you are a judge. Lol, are we going to see the first vertically oriented fuselage? Would be draggy as heck, and probably a bit of a bear to land without tipping over, but you know, someone might make it work. It is the far better than anything in the sheet indeed. I will have to extend my stingy series to encompass all categories (I have already started, many planes just need a bit of polishing before release, but it seems my medium regional is 191 per seat). @toxictalon74 The aircraft looks sweet, but it looks like you missed a zero for your price. You are supposed to multiply the price by 1000, not 100, so it would be 355,408,000.