NoClass

We should all probably stop and take note of Ferram's awesome explainer, above. From it, one can not only learn a bit about aerodynamics, but also how to teach aerodynamics. No easy feat.

Interesting... I've been running experiments too, because there's an irritating lack of documentation on how science is supposed to work... Still, I haven't noticed any difference in recovery yield through EVA activation. Specifically, I'm getting 5.4 science for recovering a Seismic Accelerometer mounted to a MK2 can on the launch pad. This is true if Bob (lvl 2 sci) is in the can or on EVA. So your results are curious to me. How exactly are you activating "manually" on EVA? I'm assuming that means that you are controlling the scientist on EVA, getting close to the experiment module, then right clicking to perform the experiment. The only difference the scientist seems to make for me is on the transmission efficiency, which turns to "basic analysis" (in yellow), regardless if the scientist activates manually or is in the can. (Though there is supposed to be a bonus, I get 2.4 regardless. That might be a rounding issue). This is in contrast to what the wiki currently says, that scientists give a bonus to "recovery". It's clearly a bonus to transmission, just like in the Beta. Interestingly enough, I've noticed that the "basic analysis" bonus stays even after the scientist has left the craft and walked away. Using brackets [ ] to switch between craft doesn't seem to reset this bonus, but switching to the space center does reset the bonus. I assume that switching to a distant craft on the map will reset it as well. Experiments collected by non-scientists on EVA don't show the "basic analysis" bonus, even if they're added to a craft with a scientist on board. It would be great if there was some sort of authority out there on how this is supposed to work.

It would be nice to have, allowing slightly easier takeoffs for heavier planes, but I figure if ferram hasn't added it to FAR yet, then it's more complicated than it seems.

Doesn't ground effect have a huge impact for takeoffs and landings for all craft?

Interesting stuff! Do you know the mass of your plane during the level flight test? ...maybe a value for wing loading?

Because the aero model in 1.0 was radically simpler and less realistic. Most parts had a very simple drag model based on their mass, which made it much easier to control a rocket that wasn't pointed into the relative windline. *edit* ninja'd

My understanding is that it's also generally close to where you have maximum L/D, which is related to both a particular speed and AOA. (I use an AOA, because it shouldn't vary with altitude) ...but I don't know how much your actual thrust angle affects best rate of climb if you have high TWR. What I'd love to predict is best range speeds/altitudes for craft while constructing.

Regarding wingtip winglets Whoah?! Really? That's awesome! I guess I have no freaking clue how FAR actually figures out induced drag. Any chance you could explain that? (not actual induced drag, but FARs method)

Hrmm, how would this help with vertical symmetry? Actually, here's a deeper question: Are we sure that the control surfaces are actually misaligned? There may be a difference between where a part is drawn on the screen, and where it is calculated to be for the sake of game physics. Also, if you play around with it, you'll notice that the round pieces of the control surfaces are perfectly aligned. I don't know if this is significant. Mysteries!

Here goes. I thought at first that it might be a clipping problem. You'll notice that wings in tetryds's post are overlapping slightly, despite the fact that they were placed on a centerline using symmetry. It's funny, because I noticed that in recent KSP versions, it can be hard to get a bilaterally placed part to appear. You kinda have to massage it into position for the part to pop up on the other side. Anyway, to eliminate clipping, I simply moved the wing down the side of the tank. Delta Wings Placed Bilaterally near the top of a tank, with Small CS, Hosted by imgur.com ...same problem. So I did as asked, individually placing wings on top, and wings slightly lower. Swept Wings Placed Individually on the Top of a tank, with Small CS, Hosted by imgur.com Swept Wings Placed Individually near the Top of a Tank, with Small CS,Hosted by imgur.com I also tried bilaterally placing the wings, but individually placing the Small CSs, but to no avail. I'll spare you the pics. You'll also notice that I used both delta wings and swept wings. They all seem to just be flipped, and are not symmetrical in the horizontal plane. *sigh* This is making me OCD.

That's... interesting! The only input I have is something I read (can't remember where) about how SAS torque is applied in the KSP engine. That is, SAS torque is applied directly to the center of mass of the craft, rather than on the actual torque part. So, SAS parts on the wobbly section wont stabilize it unless the CoM is in the wobbly section. I'm curious about how SAS works WRT control surfaces, RCS, and gimbals on craft that can flex. Does SAS recognize when the control part has been moved relative to the CoM, and adjust input accordingly? Or do control parts move based on where they are in the craft file?

Here's a technique I used, though it's from an old craft I no longer have (so no pics , words must suffice.) Basically, pick one of the craft and build a spacer part that fits snugly onto both docking ports in the assembly building. This part doesn't have to be fancy (and it will never fly), it's just a few structural components and docking ports that line up with the craft. If you save this part to a subassembly, you can then mount it to your other craft, and it will show you exactly where to put your ports on that other craft. FYI, it's really hard to get these things perfectly. Allow for a little bit of flex in your craft, and expect to be slightly off balance in flight.

Y'all correct me if I'm wrong. In the VAB, the windline for CoL calculation purposes assumes that air flow is coming from the open door, rather than the roof (which is the way most rockets would be pointed). To get an accurate CoL using FAR, one must rotate a rocket to point out the door. Also the vector arrow on the "CoL" indicator doesn't appear to mean anything. (y'all can add me to the list of people who prefer the use of "Aerodynamic Center" to "Center of Lift")

I've been able to get the BACCs boosters to properly separate with a couple of seperatrons mounted to the top of each. That never used to be necessary, of course, but it functions as a workaround.

That's some good info! I had a long winded post explaining that the problem isn't so much with glide ratio, which seems right on, but that craft seem to hold onto their energy for waaay too long. In that video, our brave Viper driver flares about 10 seconds before touchdown, and kills about 75 kts of speed in that frame of time. (~ 215 to 150 kts, or ~105 to 75 m/s). I couldn't get even wide-winged planes to slow down that fast. ...then I dumped fuel (TAC fuel balancer). That's the missing piece. KSP parts tend to be a bit more dense than in the real world to begin with, so an aircraft full of gas will take a lot longer to slow down to max glide speed. TL,DR; Dumping a couple of tons of gas will radically change how quickly your craft slows.