• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

1 Follower

About Shaun

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

966 profile views
  1. So cute yet so versatile, I love it!
  2. Try setting your propeller authorities to around 120 (or -120 if reversed). That's what I use to get the most thrust when stationary... on Kerbin at-least...
  3. Motors that consume liquid fuel like the R121 and R7000 should be able to generate electricity, depending on the torque output. Even the smallest torque settings like 1-2%, which can power a 2-4 blade type B prop should be able to generate enough electricity to power a cabin light or landing light at night. This became apparent because I don't use lights during the daytime making solar panels useless, and the RTG is often more expensive than the aircraft itself.
  4. He cursed! REPORT! REPOOORT! Delete this now admins, k thx gbye! On a serious note, that’s a nice bugger buggy u got there.
  5. Perhaps a new thread is needed for a more ‘hardcore’ type competition that’s is more balanced, calculated maintenance costs dependant on engine costs and number of parts, and more emphasis on speed, access and cost per 100km as well as KPPM, more accurate range calculations, takeoff and landing distance as well as speed, and so on.
  6. I agree with you and I’m aware of the drag created by props, but is it just too much though? The Kitty can produce up to 65kN and the drag maxes out at maybe 5kN(?) While I would expect power to drop fairly quickly, I wouldn’t expect the drop to be so sudden. Most performance props maintain speed at altitude with only 55-75% throttle, and can maintain better speeds at higher altitude to a point. It may just be the aerosport isn’t turbocharged or has a good leaning simulation, but who knows. It would just be nice if I could go a tad faster so I could throttle down, maintain a decent speed and get a good fuel economy.
  7. I began to review your Swirlygigs (although I’m not sure the first review was genuine or not, page 27) and I have to say I just can’t beat it’s efficiency with my own turboprops, even if they’re lighter. I think it’s because I prefer stock wings over the fuelled ones so I have to use a belly tank or fuselage tank, which is just more drag. Hopefully I will release my review by tomorrow. By the way, I made a great medium airliner candidate, but my question is am I allowed to clip a wing at the front of the fuselage to bring forward the centre of lift? Otherwise if I move the entire wings forward, the plane just looks off.
  8. Yes but the Titan’s engines are only 375hp, which works out to approximately 4kN. The aero sport does way more. Stock KSP’s drag is already multiplied by 8 to compensate for the sheer power of the jets in game. A prop doing 15kN of drag while only producing 20kN of thrust is ridiculous. There is a thrust limiter for a reason. What I’m saying is the aerosport gives a lot of thrust when taking off but the drag quickly takes over. Could just be the aerosport is an overpowered engine with huge drag and ISP to offset. I don’t believe the other props work like this, and certainly not the turboprops. 40kN on a 7T aircraft is a lot. I understand props are limited because of the sound barrier, but this shouldn’t mean having two massive props should limit me to 90m/s, when the sound barrier is at 340m/s.
  9. Lisias If I make a light aircraft with two Aerosports, about 7 tonnes in total, the aircraft can not reach over 100m/s, while the likes of a Cessna Titan can reach around 120m/s cruise. If you had a Juno (20kN static), you could propel your little plane quite fast. Now I understand the drop off is a lot larger for a prop, but the Aerosport drag is wayyy to high. Use the debug/cheat menu, aero, then show in menus. Click on the engine, the drag will be close to 15kN, which is probably more than the rest of your aircraft combined. This is more drag than even Mk3 parts, and more drag than any other prop or turboprop I’ve come across in KSP.
  10. Quick question regarding the aerosport engine... should the drag really be 15kN+? Can't get above 90m/s at all!
  11. Fair enough. Btw, how many passengers do the 1.5m (CRJ looking) cabin constitute?
  12. Why not use an average? Take off with full fuel and get cruise stats, then do it at 20% fuel (not empty because reserves) and test cruise stats again, then average them out. This is because many aircraft would obtain higher altitudes with lower mass, therefore being more efficient.
  13. Yes I would also like to submit a sample review. I haven't posted any craft for the very fact it would take months or even years to receive a review.