Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aerodynamics'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 45 results

  1. I saw in yt that ppl can make free-shape wings as they like (in the past version). Is there still a function like this stayed in ksp, or again add-ons?
  2. I have encountered a bit of a problem while designing how the re-entry of a large rocket will work. I have a 3-2 converter at the top of my rocket under my command pod. It would be the heaviest thing on the rocket with a mass of almost 17 tons while full. During reentry, the rocket would almost certainly flip and burn up. Question: Is there any way to drain all of the fuel off of a tank without accelerating or moving? If I could, it would reduce the weight to just under 2 tons which should be easily manageable.
  3. This is an unofficial continuation of Ferram Aerospace Research by @ferram4 updated to latest KSP version. The original thread can be found here. New source code repository: https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research All content now licensed under GPL v3. From the original thread: Update to version 0.15.11.1 "Mach" (Note for Kopernicus users: DO NOT overwrite MFI that comes with Kopernicus since it is locked to that particular version) ALL USERS: NO LOGS OR REPRODUCTION STEPS = NO SUPPORT Original Review: Aerodynamic Failures: Building a spaceplane and talking about editor GUI stuff: Features Shape-Based, Vessel-Centered, Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. The shape of the vessel as a whole, not individual parts, controls drag, so shape the vessel as you see fit. Emergent Fairings and Cargo Bays - The voxel model method FAR uses allows for the actual shape of the vehicle to play a role in how lift and drag are applied. Build a hollow shell, and close it up, and everything inside it will be protected from the airflow as it should. Wing Effects - Realistically adjusts lift based on wing position and configuration: wingtips lift less and drag more than wing roots. Stall - Passing the critical angle of attack suddenly reduces lift and greatly increases drag. Can put planes into tailspins, flat spins, and cause crashes. Mach Effects and Area Ruling - Lift and drag will vary as expected with Mach number. Supersonic planes will need to properly area rule themselves for optimum flight characteristics. Body lift - All parts lift: a fast enough brick will fly, if not that well. Download: Get v0.15.11.1 "Mach" from Github! Official FAR Craft Sharing Thread Post your crafts there, not here, please. Violators will have their posts moved by moderators, and will have everyone very annoyed with the additional workload for both moderators and me. The FAR wiki at GitHub The source at GitHub Everything licensed under GNU GPL v3 Part.cfg changes powered by sarbian & ialdabaoth's ModuleManager plugin. Interface with stock heating system and other mods interacting with the physics system powered by sarbian, Starwaster and ferram4 ModularFlightIntegrator Toolbar powered by blizzy78's Toolbar plugin. Installation: Copy the GameData and Ships folders into the KSP root directory and merge them with the existing GameData and Ships folders. Make sure that you copy over everything in the GameData folder. Serious issues will occur unless this is done. Changelog: FAQ - Common Questions and Solutions to Common Problems What does this mod do that stock KSP doesn't? Stock KSP calculates drag as a linear combination of the drag properties of a vehicle's parts, with some interaction changes to handle some of the most obvious aerodynamic interaction effects. FAR instead calculates the drag from the vessel shape as a whole, resulting in a more realistic model of aerodynamic drag and body lift. In addition, FAR accounts for wing shape, rather than just overall area like stock KSP. Finally, thanks to the overall vessel model, FAR can account for things like area ruling, where the vehicle's area cross-section must vary properly in order to fly at supersonic speeds (well, without MOAR BOOSTERS, in any case). I don't like my rocket coming apart under heavy aerodynamic loads; how can I turn it off? In the Space Center scene FAR has a debug menu that can be accessed to mess with a large number of the parameters. Under the "cheats" section of the first tab there is an option to disable aerodynamic failure. Does this plugin work properly with other mods / part packs? Sure; FAR figures out what the properties of the part should be based on its dimensions and some basic aerodynamic assumptions. If you use a mod and suspect that it causes unrealistic behavior, search the thread to see if it has been brought up / addressed by the latest release; if it hasn't, feel free to bring it to my attention. The only exception is with wing parts, which are more complicated and currently must have their properties specified manually. Does this plugin make payload fairings and cargo bays work properly? Yes, it will support any and all fairings and cargo bays. Even those that you make out of completely unrelated parts, so long as you close up the shape. In fact, to FAR, there is little difference between the inside of a closed fairing and the inside of a fuel tank part; they're both just as internal to it. I can't seem to turn off the Flight Assistance Systems... what's going on? In the Flight Assistance GUI every button that is pressed activates a control system; when none are pushed down no control systems are active. I suspect that you've actually created a poorly designed craft and that you're attributing aerodynamic forces that you're not used to dealing with to non-existent control inputs. Do I need ModuleManager and/or ModularFlightIntegrator? Yes; they are used to properly apply aerodynamic properties to stock wing parts and to interface properly with the game's physics system. Not using them will cause FAR to not function. I'm using the win64 KSP build and I am still too outraged to read the topic title or changelog, please mock me. Very well, I shall. Haha, silly person. Anyway, win64 is now unlocked for the foreseeable future. If it turns back into the crashtastic support-heavy nightmare it was, the lock may return, but I do not anticipate the need to do that.
  4. Hey, guys. This is my first post here but I have a question which I am hoping someone could answer for me. There is a certain common feature lots of the Russian rockets have like the Long March versions and the Falcon Heavy from SpaceX where the head of the rocket has a bigger diameter than the middle and then the end of the rocket has a diameter similar to the head. So the rocket has a thinner part in the middle. Is there any aerodynamic reason for this or is it simply to use up less material? I have no idea about rocket shapes and have every little experience with stuff like this but it would be great if someone could shed some light on this for me.
  5. Update to version 0.15.9.1 "Liepmann", now with voxel-model based aerodynamics! ALL USERS: NO LOGS OR REPRODUCTION STEPS = NO SUPPORT CKAN USERS: PLEASE READ THIS FIRST Users who put issues on Github are awesome. Please consider being awesome. Original Review: Aerodynamic Failures: Building a spaceplane and talking about editor GUI stuff: Features Shape-Based, Vessel-Centered, Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. The shape of the vessel as a whole, not individual parts, controls drag, so shape the vessel as you see fit. Emergent Fairings and Cargo Bays - The voxel model method FAR uses allows for the actual shape of the vehicle to play a role in how lift and drag are applied. Build a hollow shell, and close it up, and everything inside it will be protected from the airflow as it should. Wing Effects - Realistically adjusts lift based on wing position and configuration: wingtips lift less and drag more than wing roots. Stall - Passing the critical angle of attack suddenly reduces lift and greatly increases drag. Can put planes into tailspins, flat spins, and cause crashes. Mach Effects and Area Ruling - Lift and drag will vary as expected with Mach number. Supersonic planes will need to properly area rule themselves for optimum flight characteristics. Body lift - All parts lift: a fast enough brick will fly, if not that well. Download: Get v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" from SpaceDock! Get v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" from Github! Official FAR Craft Sharing Thread Post your crafts there, not here, please. Violators will have their posts moved by moderators, and will have everyone very annoyed with the additional workload for both moderators and me. The FAR wiki at GitHub The source at GitHub Shader and art assets licensed All Rights Reserved Source code and binaries licensed under GNU GPL v3 Part.cfg changes powered by sarbian & ialdabaoth's ModuleManager plugin. Interface with stock heating system and other mods interacting with the physics system powered by sarbian, Starwaster and myself's ModularFlightIntegrator Toolbar powered by blizzy78's Toolbar plugin. Installation: Copy the GameData and Ships folders into the KSP root directory and merge them with the existing GameData and Ships folders. Make sure that you copy over everything in the GameData folder. Serious issues will occur unless this is done. Changelog: FAQ - Common Questions and Solutions to Common Problems What does this mod do that stock KSP doesn't? Stock KSP calculates drag as a linear combination of the drag properties of a vehicle's parts, with some interaction changes to handle some of the most obvious aerodynamic interaction effects. FAR instead calculates the drag from the vessel shape as a whole, resulting in a more realistic model of aerodynamic drag and body lift. In addition, FAR accounts for wing shape, rather than just overall area like stock KSP. Finally, thanks to the overall vessel model, FAR can account for things like area ruling, where the vehicle's area cross-section must vary properly in order to fly at supersonic speeds (well, without MOAR BOOSTERS, in any case). I don't like my rocket coming apart under heavy aerodynamic loads; how can I turn it off? In the Space Center scene FAR has a debug menu that can be accessed to mess with a large number of the parameters. Under the "cheats" section of the first tab there is an option to disable aerodynamic failure. Does this plugin work properly with other mods / part packs? Sure; FAR figures out what the properties of the part should be based on its dimensions and some basic aerodynamic assumptions. If you use a mod and suspect that it causes unrealistic behavior, search the thread to see if it has been brought up / addressed by the latest release; if it hasn't, feel free to bring it to my attention. The only exception is with wing parts, which are more complicated and currently must have their properties specified manually. Does this plugin make payload fairings and cargo bays work properly? Yes, it will support any and all fairings and cargo bays. Even those that you make out of completely unrelated parts, so long as you close up the shape. In fact, to FAR, there is little difference between the inside of a closed fairing and the inside of a fuel tank part; they're both just as internal to it. I can't seem to turn off the Flight Assistance Systems... what's going on? In the Flight Assistance GUI every button that is pressed activates a control system; when none are pushed down no control systems are active. I suspect that you've actually created a poorly designed craft and that you're attributing aerodynamic forces that you're not used to dealing with to non-existent control inputs. Do I need ModuleManager and/or ModularFlightIntegrator? Yes; they are used to properly apply aerodynamic properties to stock wing parts and to interface properly with the game's physics system. Not using them will cause FAR to not function. I'm using the win64 KSP build and I am still too outraged to read the topic title or changelog, please mock me. Very well, I shall. Haha, silly person. Anyway, win64 is now unlocked for the foreseeable future. If it turns back into the crashtastic support-heavy nightmare it was, the lock may return, but I do not anticipate the need to do that.
  6. Hi there, I'm an aerodynamics student and am looking to do the same kind of medium-fidelity aero modelling that's done with Ferram Aerospace - the calculation of aerodynamic coefficients, stability derivatives, and the like for some arbitrary body, and as functions of Mach number, AoA, etc. Does anyone know if the developers compiled a bibliography/list of references/papers for the algorithms they implemented? If not, is there any information on how their algorithms work, or could anyone recommend some papers I can look at to get started? (I'm familiar with basic flight dynamics theory already, and am more interested in the actual computational component.) Thanks!
  7. Make hitting the ground a challenge A runway is a death trap designed to kill pilots who do not understand the concept of Ground Effect, a phenomenon created by communists to allow ships to fly with tiny wings. This simple mod adds Ground Effect to the stock aerodynamics, by gradually increasing the lift of lifting surfaces when they're close to the ground. It's not realistic enough to decrease drag, but allows ground effect vehicles (GEV) to work properly. Features Increased lift over terrain and ocean Up to 200% more lift at closest proximity Ground effect scales based on an approximation of wing span Some GEV designs can stay stable without SAS No significant performance loss Works on stock rotors Installation No dependencies, and works on almost every KSP version, just put the GameData files into the right place. CKAN and Spacedock links coming soon? [Latest Github Release] Notes Wing span is roughly calculated by getting the largest value of a lifting surface's distance from the COM, scaled by how perpendicular the wing's position is with it's velocity. It's pretty complicated to understand, it's better explained in the source, but I put this in because it allows rotating vessels to work, such as non-DLC stock propellers. This mechanic can be abused for very slow aircraft Untested, but will probably not work with Breaking Ground rotors, or any mod that has moving parts on the same vessel. Tested to work with the following aerodynamics-related mods: Procedural Wings Bulleted List Extender Continued May unknowingly clash with other installed mods. No FAR compatibility planned; I was working on it for a while but it was really messy, and why make an aerodynamics mod for an aerodynamics mod? Media
  8. Hi all, Does anyone know how KSP computes aerodynamic heating on vehicles in the atmosphere of a body? I've found some basic relationships on aerodynamic heating in this chart package (slides 17-19), but I'd like to find out what KSP does and uses. Does anyone have any insight? Thanks!
  9. Release Thread This is a very simple mod that increases the lift of a lifting surface at close proximity to ocean, terrain, or buildings. It makes it a little harder to hit the ground. Though far from realistic, it allows ground effect vehicles to function nicely. Drag isn't decreased, but at least it considers wingspan. Ekranoplan of course: https://gfycat.com/TenderIllHedgehog Floatiness over the runway: https://gfycat.com/slowordinaryamericancreamdraft Test of old version: https://gfycat.com/HoarseFixedGroundbeetle Requires Module manager Tested to work on almost all versions above 1.3.1 Github Releases First post, I've just been looking around the forums for some help, though you might recognize me from the /r/kerbalspaceprogram discord server. I'm not really sure if I'm doing things properly. Plenty of testing, cleaning, and a few tweaks is needed for this mod to be considered complete. I also have a mod that creates particles on separations, and one that ejects kerbals when the cabin explodes. This was the only mod that seemed successful.
  10. I would like this discussion to be a place to share personal interests related to KSP. Aerodynamics, rocket science, physics, chemistry, etc. People can ask questions about real life topics they're interested in and learn about things others are interested in.
  11. So I recently decided to make a larger plane than I normally do. But whenever I make turns or pitch it goes forcefully then goes back down. I've noticed it happens around 100 m/s. I's Guessing it is drag because I learned that with my rockets. Please excuse this horrible question I have very basic knowledge on aerodynamics let alone in KSP.
  12. So I wanted to use one of my premade planes but now when I try to fly them, they just spin out and go wild. Also I do use cheats in my science save cause why not. Though I only use Unbreakable Joints, No crash damage, Inf Electricity and Inf Propellant. I have accidentally click on the physics tab but went back. So I don't think I changed the aerodynamics myself as they worked the last time I play KSP. Was there a change I wasn't aware about? Also running 1.4.1
  13. I'm making some really big truss segments, but the procedural drag cube treats each part like it's clad in plastic. When falling through the atmosphere, it basically drifts down like a feather. I could just make the parts super heavy, but they're supposed to be made of lightweight materials. Anyone had a similar problem in the past? I could use the help
  14. Good day! We are looking for the best aerodynamic model, in passing figuring out the properties and characteristics of certain parts in KSP 1.2.1. Finding the golden mean between minimalistic craft and one large fairing is a very important aspect of the game. At this time, I've written a series of video experiments for you to see firsthand the effectiveness of different models. These five KSPeriments relate to Kerbin. How to make the perfect craft? Let's find out! I'm going to regularly update this thread with new videos. But, sure, you can always see new experiments there: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTc4sm01Q9olAZW008Kn5i63YrURAoCzB This is my KSPeriments playlist. Feel free to comment and ask anything. English is not my native language, but I'm sure I can explain all that's required. Thanks for watching! :3
  15. KSP Version: 1.3.1.1891 (Windows 7 x64), fresh install, fresh sandbox savegame. I keep this particular KSP install for such testing only. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Description: if there is a long enough part inside a cargohold that consists of two shorter ones, then drag is applied to the payload. (I think its because the game thinks that payload part is clipping through the cargobay. Although visually it is only clipping through its front or its back as it is longer than the cargobay.) I also think the problem is known. But I'm not sure. Also I'd like to know if it's gonna be fixed or not. The reason I'm reporting this is because there are many modded parts that are longer than the longest cargobay available. Fuel tanks for example. It also limits how one should attach their payload inside cargobays. UPD: not every part bugs. Incomplete list of parts which I've tested (yes = causes the bug): - FL-T800 Fuel Tank: yes - Modular Girder Segment XL: no - M-Beam 200 I-Beam: no - Mk1 Cockpit: yes - Orange Tank: yes - RT-10 Hammer Solid Fuel Booster: yes (omg i've ignited it inside my cargobay.. omg.. oh nevermind it didnt explode) As a lil' bonus I've also tested the situation when a small part is placed between two cargobays. It didn't bug at all (tested with 2x FL-T200 Fuel Tank). Steps to Replicate: 1) Create a plane with two connected short cargobays so they make a longer one together. 2) Put a long enough part inside - its length must be longer than one of the short cargobays. Example: two connected Mk3 Cargo Bays CRG-50 and an Orange Tank inside. 3) Attach additional parts like a Cockpit, landing gears and an engine (if the payload isnt a fuel tank - then attach a fuel tank too of course). 4) Launch the craft. 5) Make aero forces visible in parts' gui menu through the debug menu. 6) Open the payload right-click menu. 7) Accelerate and watch its drag. Result: The payload's drag isn't zero although it must be as it is fully enclosed. Fixes/Workarounds: - attach the payload differently (if there are multiple crafts or parts as a payload); - use different nodes; - use the largest cargobay available; - don't put larger parts inside Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: Both Mk3 and Mk2 cargobays have this problem. I believe its an internal technical logic problem, not a bug. Its just how the game calculates drag. But still it is a problem. Craft files: Mk2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kk4h6y8h4alamx0/Bugged Mk2.craft?dl=0 Mk3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fe4zaluf436nniq/Bugged Mk3.craft?dl=0 Screenshots (the right part-menu reflects the payload on both screenshots): Thank you Squad for making one of the best games! No sarcasm involved. Bugs happen. (I believe there is no need to include logfiles. Will attach if Im wrong.)
  16. An audible sonic boom when a part surpasses the sound barrier would be a nice touch. It would add a bit more realism and satisfaction.
  17. My spaceplane somehow has more drag acting on the nose during re-entry than on the delta wing and tail, causing it to be unstable and flip to retrograde no matter what I do. Why is the drag so mismatched? The center of lift is well behind the center of mass.
  18. This rocket has been having stability problems on its 2nd stage. I have checked everything that normally makes rockets unstable. The center of mass is way above the center of lift, I checked for clipping parts, I strutted everything together. It hasn't helped. Through making the winglets into an entire wing, I managed to make the 1st stage only just stable, however no matter what I've done, the 2nd stage is still unstable. I've moved the wing as far down as possible, but it still flips. I have no idea why, and would like some help. I don't know how to upload the craft file, so I cant do that, but I will if i figure out how to. Thanks for any help.
  19. So, I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but ladders have a ridiculous amount of drag. I've had them create as much drag as a Big-S Shuttle Wing on some occasions. Now, is there any nice way to make drag cubes check for other drag cubes existing in the same space, or would this be an absolute nightmare for anyone to code? I don't know a thing about modding on KSP, so I am posting this as a request, but if anyone knows some of the basics on how to do this, I'd be willing to try my hand at it.
  20. I suspect that this one should be reported already, but I'd report this issue nevertheless. After 'Revert to Launch', payload in cargo bay gets draggy(Large reaction wheel in this case). It does not happen when the cargo bay is not the root part of the craft. Here's the screenshots to confirm this issue. Before the 'Revert to Launch': After the 'Revert to Launch': Here's the craft file: http://pastebin.com/YkVZPzCA I'm using latest version of 1.2.2, with V.O.I.D and Editor Extension Redux installed. I think this should happen in stock, though.
  21. I was playing around with a simple plane with infinite fuel enabled, in order to test the effects of dihedral and high vs low wing, but I was getting some extraordinarily weird results. I was expecting the high wing dihedral arrangement to counteract sideslip disturbances and make the plane not tend to bank into level turns, but that wasn't what was happening at all. This was my test craft: It is, as far as I can tell, completely symmetrical around the longitudinal axis. Reaction wheels were disabled and I was flying without SAS. Ignore the radial parachutes on the bottom, I was trying to balance out the high wings to neutralize torque from the engine thrust axis being off center mass, but they have no effect on the test and I just removed them. After taking off and trimming pitch neutral, I was getting a very noticeable and annoying roll tendency to the left, and I just couldn't figure out why. I could trim it out, sure, but where was it coming from? On my actual planes I was planning to fly with SAS on (for autotrim, mostly) and I find that making the plane as stable as possible without SAS on helps a lot with making it fly well. After investigating if there was asymmetric drag or lift going on somewhere and scratching my head for a bit I discovered this little bit of weirdness: if the wings are set to autostrut to heaviest part (the engine), the plane consistently rolls to the left. If they are set to autostrut to the root or grandparent part (the cockpit in both cases), the roll tendency is much less pronounced but still there. With autostruts disabled, the wing configuration does what I expected, and the plane is quite well-behaved in level turns - just bank it over 20-30° in either direction and it will quickly stabilize in a clean turn with no sideslip by itself with no input other than the pitch trim, and it has a weak tendency to bank out of the turn and return to wings level regardless of turn direction. Rigid attachment of the wings seems to have a similar effect of making the plane tend towards to rolling left, but the effect is quite weak and it could easily be a mistake on my part (my testing methodology is hardly all that scientific and the testing environment isn't exactly controlled). What is going on here? Why does this happen? Surely autostruts don't actually have drag (even if they did, I don't think that would cause this). I've seen some discussion of some old symmetry joint rigidity bug that could have similar effects but I couldn't find it on the bug tracker. Here is the craft file for the test aircraft (with autostruts and rigid attachment off) in case you want to play around with it yourself. To reproduce my test conditions, take off (it is pretty nose heavy at low speed but you have more than enough pitch authority to counteract that) and get into stable level flight, without SAS, with nose pointed at horizon. Adjust pitch trim so that the plane maintains level flight. I did my tests at quite low AoA - around half a degree. Bank the aircraft left or right and observe how it behaves in a turn. Now, while you're in such a turn, autostrut the wings to the heaviest part and observe the roll tendency. It's more noticeable in a right hand turn because then the high-wing dihedral tendency to return to wings level combines with the tendency to roll to the left. It is also more noticeable at higher speeds.
  22. I can't find any aerodynamic cones that are suitable for the front of a mk2 or mk3 spaceplane... what do people do? Always use a mk2 or mk3 cockpit? ah, there are fuel converters to std cone shapes... just need to flip them round. Ignore me!
  23. The wiki suggests that the fancier nose cones are a waste of cash and mass: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Advanced_Nose_Cone_-_Type_A http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Advanced_Nose_Cone_-_Type_B "The Advanced Nose Cone - Type A is a part introduced in version 1.0. It is an aerodynamic nose cone. It has a drag coefficient of .1 and a mass of .075, .045 more than then Aerodynamic Nose Cone part which is considerably less expensive and has the same drag coefficient making it a purely aesthetic part." "The Advanced Nose Cone - Type B is a part introduced in version 1.0. It has a drag coefficient of .1 and a mass of .075, .045 more than then "Aerodynamic Nose Cone" part which is considerably less expensive and has the same drag coefficient, additionally its slanted shape provides no lift." Is this really the case? I'd have hoped that the parts would have some small reduction in drag coefficient to make them worthwhile? It's far from scientific, but I've noticed that swapping basic nose cones with the Type A have increased the solid booster stage of my launch from 65k to 66k. It could just be that the craft is slightly more stable on the way up.
  24. Okay, this is a rather technical question that is probably best answered by a Squad programmer, but if anyone else knows feel free to chime in. I have been thinking a lot about aerodynamics lately, and in particular the vortices that form in the wake of atmospheric compression. Obviously these are essential for lift, but controlling them is essential for managing drag. I wanted to know how closely the Kerbal Space Program aerodynamic physics engine models these vorticies. For example, are there advantages to putting small strakes to break up airflow before it builds to a larger vortex behind the craft? Will long swept wings generate smaller vorticies than short square ones? Is there any lift advantage for adding bulkier perturbations in the topography of the airframe on top of it compared to on the bottom? I know the answers to these as concerns of real-engineering, but I want to know how closely they apply in KSP, since they would impact my design choices.
  25. Hello! I was designing a new prop. plane, which included a structural component(small cubic one) to hold a engine. So it files, but there seems to be one problem: speed. (It can't beat 50~60m/s ) I know that proplanes can't have very fast speed. The problem is, there is similar proplane I made which is much more faster. this one seems to be slower even with bigger thrust. The only differences I saw was: 1. The slower one used structural component to hold engines. 2. The slower one has bigger wings for prop. engine, which might have bigger drag. 3. The slower one has shorter cone, which would be more draggy. So how can I reduce drag in this situation? Are there some great techniques to reduce drag? If there is, please let me know and it'll be greatly appreciated! + Also I'd like to know which structural part with node attachment? This is necessary to offset parts far enough.