palker

Well i have it always installed but i cannot build aircraft that could fly above 940m/s below 1000m so those scramjets are pretty useless, though they perform nicely when you get some altitude.

Honestly the stay below 1000m at all times part of the challenge is a bit too strict at those speeds even tiniest error in control can cause you to cross the boundary especially if your plane is a bit hard to control or unstable.

Try IL2 Cliffs of Dover excellent graphics and immersion impressive dmage model etc. You will need community patch from here http://www.theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/ to get the best experience. The forum is full of helpful people that would be happy to help you get started. Other than that IL1946 is excellent although graphics are dated but flight models are still very good certainly better than the likes of warthunder and world of warplanes, also there are still active servers for it. Also DCS Mustang and upcoming DCS World War 2 are/will be extremely detailed study sims with fully interactive cockpits and incredibly detailed flight models and damage models.

Well i think you are correct at all points. I would also like if they could be bothered with proper aerodynamics. I mean their are doing educational version and they are going to distribute it with their BS aerodynamic model! I mean WTF? FAR is the best mod most important mod that should be stock and i would not play without it.

Did you try Kerbal joint reinforcement? it might help you with spontaneous disassembly.

My version of 162 it uses 2 tiny jets sort of on top to avoid the flipping.

So i tried a redesign unfortunately the plane is still quite impossible to land. I will try to make something that can land later today. Hopefully it will stay above Mach 2 at least.

The small parts are Taverios Pizza and Aerospace http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/15348-0-22-x-Taverio-s-Pizza-and-Aerospace-v1-5-1 (TV PP for short) and incidentally the same mod fixes the bug in FAR that causes engines to not to lose thrust at high speeds because it modifies the engines as well. Thrust cuts of at about 1100 and to go faster you would need ramjets.

So i decided to build really small aircraft for this using the TV PP small engines and fuselage parts. The first iteration weighted around 800 kg and it was so small that it had to be launched from the clamp as it was barely larger than the smallest landing gear bay. Current craft shown on the video weights 1549 kg. It contains two 0.625 fuel tanks two 0,625 structural fuselage sections 3 small turbojets one radial engine mount with air intake smallest probe core procedural fuselage shrouds to make up for the lack of decent 0,625 m nose cones. Wings are procedural as well as the all moving horizontal tailplanes. Vertical stabilizers use control surface and small wingtip from TV PP. This thing is absolute ***** to fly it is extremely twitchy at high speeds mainly in roll the tiniest input and you are flying inverted and i cannot do anything about it without compromising elevator authority(well separate control surfaces for everything would help but also would cause more drag). Another thing is that the thin high aspect ratio high sweep wing has murderous stall characteristics as you can see in in the video at about 3 minute mark crossing the critical AOA is death so you have to be really gentle with the controls and that also means very high turn radius. Another side effect of that is that low speed flight is very difficult so landing is nearly impossible even though the aircraft is mostly landing gear when you look at it. Touch down speed is over 100 m/s and that combined with how the KSP landing gear behaves at high speeds especially on aircraft with narrow landing gear causes wobble that most of the time ruins the aircraft. The last segment of the video shows this. I tried drogue shoots, different landing gears but the results are always same - explosions. Few times i managed to bring the aircraft to full stop but never it was standing on the 3 wheels and always there was at least one bit missing. So technically it is possible to land it but you have to be really lucky. It is also quite difficult to actually slow down to that speed because drag of that thing is so low and TWR is about 11. Again most of this could be sorted out with bigger wings and some flaps but that would get in the way of speed.

I do not think that real aerospace engineer would hide intakes inside fairings

Saw it on PC gamer way back in february 2012 http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/10/sim-plicity-i-am-a-rocket-scientist/ After a fe months in may i was wondering what game i will play i wanted something different so i downloaded the demo on steam played it for about an hour or so and when i finished i immediately bought the game in KSP store.

Interesting i though you would be playing something like this. http://clickingbad.nullism.com/

From http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/250-The-0-24-Update-Goals-Post What say you ferram how will this affect this mod and will it still be necessary to prevent wet spaghetti rockets?

Been playing since 2007 and still playing it on evenings on my fav server but it has to be said if it was not for that server and its community i would have uninstalled the game a long time ago.

*runs to the kitchen and grabs a fridge* I am holding a fridge that shall protect me against all bombs, true story.

They are in the FASA pack and i think that they are fair game as real probes have surface sample analyzing instruments and cameras. And if you return sample back to Kerbin it does not really matter who took it.

Launcher with enough dV to land on the mun -> 2,5 FPS at launch. First 2 minutes of launch ingame take real world 12 to 15 (4,3Ghz AMD 6300). Probe lander 15-20 Fps, launching in real time. I think i know which i will stay with.

Did you consider boosting the science returns of EVA reports and Crew reports cause as it is right now the manned space program is just a waste of science. I mean 8 science for eva report from high orbit that is useless considering how difficult it is to actually get there. I know that it it is possible to get plenty of science on the Mun but landing Kerbal there requires rocket that brings my FPS to grinding halt while unmanned rockets are much more CPU friendly. I guess i will try to edit my save file to get a refund on that science and re-lock the node.

I would like to ask how long will liquid hydrogen last in tanks before it evaporates. I want to to do Moon mission and i am wondering if it is possible to use it in the upper stages or if it will disappear like the time i sent hydrogen/oxygen fueled probe to Eve and when i got there i found that there was no more H2 fuel left.

Yeah i love when people start a challenge and then cba to update the leaderboards.

I second this idea lets make it happen at least as mod. If doge can have virtual money so can Jeb

Runway In air F3 after G force caused explosion. My first and the best attempt could not get anywhere near after that. The plane can generate instant g forces of such magnitude that it explodes completely with only the B9 wheel surviving it is quite amusing to watch. It is also very hard to control and i doubt anyone could land with or get more than fe Km from space centre without it exploding

Not really a challenge I do this nearly every time i play KSP.

I did make a ridiculously maneuverable aircraft with FAR but when i tried to do the challenge deadly reentry killed my kerbals and disassembled my plane .

This how you jam sensors in space.