• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

400 Excellent

About Hodo

  • Rank
    SSTO Space Plane Designer

Recent Profile Visitors

985 profile views
  1. The Concorde did have an experimental version, it just never had the "X" designation because that is a USAF military designation, and the Concorde was a French aircraft.
  2. There are several ways to approach your design. For me I look at it from the limited picture you show, and I can see the CoL is quite a bit back from the CoM, causing the craft to be nose heavy or overally stable. If you were running in FAR this craft would never pitch up and actually not fly at all. But to help that craft I would reduce its size, the scale of that craft is a bit too beefy to be "maneuverable". No matter what it will handle like the Exon Valdez. The suggestions of increasing the wing size is a good one. And one I would say myself. But wings are ultimately dead weight in space. Same for intakes and air breathing engines. I would find a way to move your CoL closer to your CoM, I would then increase the amount of lift the craft generates at low speeds. This will help with landing and take off speeds. The sooner the craft is off the ground and above 10km the less fuel it will use getting to space. After that I would work on figuring out the optimal flight profile for it. This is the hard part. Not every craft flies the same. No jets and works just fine. I have even upscaled it and made it able to haul a 20t cargo to orbit.
  3. It would have to pass REAL close. And does it carry ANY weapons? Because I doubt most missiles will survive those speeds.
  4. Being a Dodge and Nissan man.. not to mention a hardcore Trekki, I can say I love both the Dodge Challenger, AND the USS Excelsior. Great job on both.
  5. There is nothing more satisfying than launching your first manned rocket into orbit in Realism Overhaul, with Real Fuels and recovering the capsule and crew intact.
  6. No that would be Mechjeb. MJ has landing autopilot... although I have NEVER had any luck with it.. but I also dont trust a machine to land anything.
  7. Your craft reminds me of my escape system for some of my older cargo craft.
  8. This is or was my best craft, or I should say my most used. SP-407
  9. I love this challenge and I may give it a try but I doubt I will have the success most of you have had due to the fact I run FAR. I have always had very successful military aircraft selection. May see if some of my old designs are still up to the challenge of the ever changing combat environment.
  10. Nukes are horrible landing engines. They are to heavy for the TWR. I would suggest using Aerospikes for landing engines. While not as efficient they are more powerful and lighter. I would also consider a lighter lander instead. There is nothing wrong with sending it as one craft, with a lander docked inside of it. I do that quite a bit now. Found it cheaper and safer to just send a lander down to the surface of most moons. But one problem I noticed with your craft. Your nukes are not inline with your CoM, this means the CoT will be over your CoM, causing the vessel to pitch down in space, meaning you will burn a LOT of RCS monoprop to keep the nose on target.
  11. This was my first and last probe sent to Eve.... Done with DRE, FAR, and Remote Tech signal delay... OH was it a nightmare... I may go back one day. There was some technical issues but it still achieved its mission.
  12. I have built some Variable Geometry wings before, but not like Mr. Elmetian. His design is far better than my own. But I am also a huge fan of the leading edge slats or variable camber leading edge. I use those on most of my current designs to limit wing stall when possible. Leading edges on that only move a max of 6 deg.
  13. The myth of the Aerospike engine being a poor choice for SSTOs is just that a myth. This SSTO is powered by 4 Aerospikes and one small maneuver engine. It took off like a rocket from the KSP launch pad, and lands like a plane. Kind of like the Venture Star program. Which also uses a aerospike engine. The Aerospike has one of the best all around ISPs of any rocket engine in game. Its biggest drawback is the lack of gimbals. As for the launch profile, in normal KSP not FAR, is this... -Climb to 10-12km as fast as possible. -Bring your nose down to about 5-10deg to fly mostly level with a slight climb no more than 10m/s till you reach 1200-1500m/s on jet power. -Switch to rockets and pitch up to 30-45deg (gradually as to not stall your craft), and climb to desired AP, then circularize as normal.
  14. Ok being a former RSS/RO player, and a FAR/AJE player now... I can say I think your problem is two fold. 1- Your engine is clipped into or through the bottom wing/heat shield this is causing it to heat up first. That and that engine has a lower heat tolerance than your craft. Check the max temp on that engine you maybe surprised. 2- Your craft is conducting a lot of heat to the engine which, as stated before has a lower heat tolerance than the rest of the craft. This is causing it to overheat then explode. To fix this place some small radiators or some kind of intercooler between the engine and the craft. This or get a higher temp range engine. EDIT- last thing.. the engine cfg file maybe messed up. Your temp range looks correct but it is overheating at a MUCH lower level than it should. 380k out of 2000k.
  15. There is this one... I use it with AJE which gives me a pretty reasonable realistic atmospheric engine with FAR installed.