Jump to content

localSol

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About localSol

  • Rank
    Sometimes Hypersonic
  1. Good to know! This article is about turbofan nozzles I think , I thought i had heard of compressed air systems too at one time, I wonder if a plane could compress air as it flew efficiently enough to refill air tanks for that purpose. Canards helping mach tuck? I will try this today too with a sort of wild x/cross wing type craft. B9's super tall landing gear are convenient. Spaceplane Plus parts look high quality, I would love an inline mk2 cockpit too, I don't know of any other available.
  2. Cool! What was the blue ring looking part on the front of the first version? Did the one with canards and vertical fins fly better?
  3. Satellite uplink audio recording..Timestamp Apr 12, 1979 : "chht!Ahh, Kerbtraut-33-1 this is foxtrot-32-1, we have the alien scout on radar, we're receiving helium sounding giggling from your communication ID, you're moving out of formation please respond, ahh, over.chht!" Thanks for another great FAR release! I remade the 'MiG-32 Foxtrot' from the game Xenonauts in KSP. It could maybe have fancier shaped control surfaces, I got impatient. It flew amazingly well on the first test takeoff, straight to supersonic after only four struts. !? Maybe too well, I wonder if anything is malfunctionin
  4. Nice one! I like to see what people come up with, I have never made one quite like that. There are so many possible combinations.
  5. Sometimes I was surprised at what happened. In your pictures your plane is climbing, how is it in level flight? I would think near or over 200 m/s at least. Even that is hard. I made many planes that were under 200 m/s but had other useful characteristics. What are the dark things used on the back? I was looking for an alternative to the stock bicoupler that causes lots of drag in FAR.
  6. I have doubts about it being possible to do much with FAR, but the advantage of ion engines is the high and flat isp. My plane could fly with TWR 0.21 (or maybe lower, I think VOID is not always accurate with these particular electric engines?) But I think the takeoff TWR would need to be higher. Big disadvantages from ion are low thrust and much higher energy consumption. I'll play with the kethoelectric generator and/or a nuclear generator but I doubt even that will help much. Who knows. Also not perpetual since xenon fuel is needed. The energy requirements for a ~0.114 TWR quick test I did
  7. This was hard, but I spent many hours testing a few different things to see what might work, and re-learning a bunch of ksp navigation stuff with FAR in the process. I'll post below an album of one I flew with for about 2 hours real time, making around 4 hours at 2x time compression. I had ot take breaks. No wonder airlines use two pilots! I was going to go for a high aspect ratio wing but by mostly using the FAR static analysis , it ended up becoming something like an airliner hybrid. In retrospect I'll not put wings low for long distance planes especially if they have elevators way back, it
  8. I did lots of tests going between solar challenge and this. Since these electric engines start to lose power at 1000m, the amount needed to get faster than about 200 m/s becomes obsurd(ly funny). I made one that could go to about 280 m/s at 1000 meters, 'batcurve_mintoo_7' . I think the engine placement would not allow for that much power realistically because of wash/turbulence/I-don't-know-what-magical-aerodynamic-word from close other propellers. It also might just tear itself apart, but it was fun to try. I made more reasonably placed multi-engined planes too though. I made an album includ
  9. You're welcome and thanks! I didn't see the battery powered challenge, I'll check it out now. I built several more planes today but they didn't work the way I expected. Fun though. I like challenges that give participants the opportunity to show what they've done in many ways instead of or in addition to a point system, since to me challenges are best with flexibility, discussion and experimentation. The badges people come up with can be pretty hilarious. I would track multiple entrants but I can see how it can be inconvenient.
  10. Thank you, yes, I didn't notice that but I get the same thing and it makes sense to me. I could improve resource and part efficiency by using less panels. More panels in more places let you maneuver better though of course a plane with no batteries is unusual to do that. At 8000m my plane's electric folding prop made 5.2kn at full throttle using 4.95 energy units per second reported by Fusebox. It uses 20.02 energy units at 1000m at full throttle. There, even at level flight it seems to reduce power over the first 5 seconds that I can maintain full throttle, from 23kn to about 21kn. I wonder w
  11. Nice forward swept one. Funny that, I guess a poor transonic kerbal would really be obliterated. I have DRE, I wonder if it would do that. How can you get so much power with what looks like only 15 panels? The pointing straight up must help, though I had to use 30+ for one folding electric engine. With one engine I had takeoff TWR of about 2.0(!), I wonder what 2 or 3 engines would do? I noticed some weird drag effects sometimes with procedural fairings on reentry where the drag was down to practically 0.000. Can't be right? Otherwise I used a huge one as a very good lifting body on a rocket
  12. I remember your amazing nuclear powered land vehicle with suspensatron suspension. Another good plane. I like the all-pwings tail. Are those panels inside a recessed fuselage? Cool. I'm glad you mentioned 5km for a good altitude, I used that to start on another plane. [720p in Kerbalvision where available] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjjemvKuXr0 I made this 'K-84 SolarScreech' based on the F-84H Thunderstreak aka Thunderscreech which was capable of 299.517 m/s, with a gas turbine propeller and "emitted ~15 sonic booms per second, even at low speed". They say it was loud(!), I've never actu
  13. I'm using it like that too. With KSP mod admin you can uncheck the kinetech animation folder when installing it to keep the plugin from being installed. I recommend the mod a lot, I hope it doesn't cause any confusion lately because I have been adjusting it as needed without remembering for the newer ksp versions. Also for smaller parts you can use StretchySRB that has 0.5 and 0.625 diameter various tanks and also diameter-stretchable (which it calls super-stretch) SRBs and more. Edit : Also the included module manager is an old version, and I removed the ballshark to save space. Also there is
×
×
  • Create New...