Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aircraft'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • 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 139 results

  1. Airplane Plus Powerful stockalike parts for aircraft enthusiasts. Feedbacks would be helpful. And if you have time, please take the Poll: Click here to vote on what part do you want to be added Download at: Spacedock · Curseforge Want to support me? You can on either of these: PATREON User Patches: Tweakscale Compatibility RPM Compatibility AJE Compatibility F-16 Cockpit RPM Remotetech Config Community Tech Tree Sound Issue Workaround is under "Issues" Below If you want assist in hovering, I recommend this mod I'm using Craft Files (Click Image): Release 22-24: Release 20: Old Files: Extra Images: Old Part Selection Images: -- Collection of Aircraft Photos: https://imgur.com/a/ySFgL Old Album: http://imgur.com/a/6kDLM -- APU in Action: Huey in Action: Machbuster Video: Extra: Demonstration of the Tilt-Rotor function, assisted VTOL landing and New Diagonal Gear Other videos: Latest Changelog: Installation: Remove old folder if there's an old installation. Copy the GameData folder into your root folder. -Included in the pack are AirplanePlus and Firespitter folders. It also packs ModuleManager* *I do not own these mods, I merely packed them in for Airplane Plus to be functional and avoid linking downloads for dependencies. Big thanks to their Authors. FAQ: License: *I only take credit on my parts. Firespitter and Modulemanager which are included in the pack are made by different authors with their own licenses. Most performance configs powered by @Tanner Rawlings Shout out and big thanks to @acc for doing a test run back then. @kiwinanday helped a lot on producing important info in reconfiguring performance, thanks a lot!
  2. Carrier Vessel eXpansion You can Download it here! Album: https://imgur.com/a/L3mph Images: Videos: What is CVX? CVX is a low parts mod that allows you to build a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier. The mod currently contains 5 parts: 1 screw, 1 rudder, 1 hull, 1 radar tower, 1 bridge tower. The idea behind CVX is so players can explore Kerbin while carrying aircraft and not have to worry about having enough fuel, or... You just want an aircraft carrier without worry about tanking your cpu with parts count. What is Included? 5 parts: 1 rudder 1 screw 1 hull 1 radar tower 1 bridge tower Why only one carrier? More ships are on the way. Soon I'll be releasing a Wasp-class LHD, Essex-class CV (for recovering the Kapollo) and an Admiral Kuznetsov CV (for all you Krussians) in the first phase. The second phase is experimental carriers such as a submersible carrier and a helicarrier. Why are there no weapons or radar? There are already mods covering that, and a list of recommended mods are further down the page. Where can I get that F-14 craft? The F-14, made by GrandAdmiralJon, can be found here on KerbalX. Recommended Mods: BDArmory (Continued) [1.3] (maintained by pappa_joe) SM Marine [1.3] [SpannerMonkey(smce)] BoomsticksRev3 [1.3] [SpannerMonkey(smce)] Master Tech Weapons [1.1.3] (TMasterson5) Blue Hawk Industries [1.1.3] (TMasterson5) MalFunc Weaponry [1.1.3] (Themorris) North Kerbin Dynamics [1.1.3] (harpwner) Never Enuff Dakka Redux [1.3] [SpannerMonkey(smce)] Kerbal Attachment System [1.3] (maintained by IgorZ) Kerbal Inventory System [1.3] (maintained by IgorZ) Hanger Extender is helpful for building very large crafts. Hanger Extender (recompiled for 1.2/1.3 by Alewx) The following is for placing the carrier in water. VesselMover Continued [1.1.3] (maintained by pappa_joe) Boat Launch Central [A channel marker buoy made by SpannerMonkey(smce)] For use with Kerbal Konstructs. [1.2.1] Hyper Edit [1.3] The following is for keeping the massive vessel together. Kerbal Joint Reinforcement [1.3] Arrester Cable and Hook, By Flywlyx Aircraft Carrier Accessories [1.3] Bugs and Issues: The big glaring bug this mod has is the Boat Kraken in 1.1.3, this is where the vessel is flung into the atmosphere, caused by a floating point error. The release of KSP ver 1.2 fixes this so there is nor more the need for either use FAR or AirPark but both are excellent mods, try them anyway. The new current problem is the stock joint system, where even rigid attachment will allow parts to separate, KSP's attachment nodes weren't designed for such heavy masses. I recommend using the cheats for both inserting into the water and operation until Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is updated. Change Log: Version 0.13.1: 1.3.1 Compatibility Update: -Dependency Update Version 0.13: 1.3 Compatibility and Fixes Fixes: -Fixed Fuel Capacity in Nimitz Hull -Fixed Engine Thrust Added: -Added Reaction Wheel to aid in turning -Added Support for USI Life Support -Added Support for Aircraft Carrier Accessories (Nimitz Catapult and Toy Box Catapult [for Future Top Secret Vessel] -Added Pre-made Craft Files -Updated Dependencies 0.12: Various fixes and adjustments: -Models and Dependencies updated to KSP 1.2 -Model recompiled as a second attempt to fix the Light Dim Bug. -Added normal maps -Added new hull textures -Added new resource, KSteam -Adjusted screws (still not perfect, still goes too fast for a carrier, 40m/s, but hey this is a game.) -Adjusted Buoyancy, hull rests at waterline. -KSP 1.2 has better floating point so no more boat bounce -Fixed phantom forces with rudder, but is as useful to steer a carrier as a fly swatter. Hopefully a solution coming soon. 0.11: fixed issues with rudder settings. 0.10: Initial Release Additional Credit: Snjo and RoverDude: for FireSpitter (*.dll Packaged with C.V.X.) RoverDude: for Community Resource Pack (Also packaged with C.V.X.) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  3. Hi all. It has been a while since I posted a craft, but Breaking Ground has brought me back from another hiatus. Today I present the Vertitrace three bladed helicopter. Essentially, I wanted to see if I could implement an R/C three channel helicopter design with the new Breaking Ground parts. As in real life, it was never meant to represent the most efficient or advanced use of helicopter technology. Rather, I was mainly just curious to see how it would work in Kerbal. As such, it is not fast and has a few quirks, but overall the craft can be said to be flyable. If you choose to download and try it out, keep in mind the following: -Rear rotor is bound to pitch axis. -Custom 1 cuts power to and brakes the rear rotor. You must do this if you intend to enter into a hover and/or land the craft. -Custom 2 enables motors with 100% torque. Throttle controls RPM only on main rotors. It is more stable when two small reaction wheels are added to the lower railings (line of fuel tanks that connect to the landing skids), but I wanted to build something that did not need wheels in order to fly. Here is a link to the .craft file for any interested parties: Vertitrace Thanks for reading! Please let me know if you have any questions. *Update: Custom 1 no longer has effect. Rear rotor rpm is tied to pitch. Old version had rpm and torque tied to pitch.
  4. HISTORY In mid-1960s airlines had to choose between the low-capacity narrow-body 707 or the massive 747 for transatlantic routes. Future of air travel clearly belonged to the spacious and cost-efficient wide-body jetliners and so a gap in the market appeared for a long-range, mid-capacity wide-body airliner. While Lockheed’s L-1011 may have paved the way for tri-engine jets it’s extremely complex S-duct made it hard to maintain and prone to failures. The odd shape also meant that upgraded, bigger engines could not be fitted. A technological wonder of it’s time was a dead end in the long run. McDonnell-Douglas also developed a trijet of their own and decided to learn from Lockheed’s shortcomings. The fruit of their project was the DC-10. With the engine number 2 integrated into it’s vertical stabilizer the DC-10 was far easier to maintain and could fit a multitude of engines. Three engines allowed it to conduct flights directly over the ocean (it was free of ETOPS restrictions) and it’s sleek silouhette meant that it was more fuel-efficient than it’s contemporaries. It gained some bad reputation after a series of accidents attributed to it’s cargo door locking mechanism. In retrospect the bad press was greatly exaggerated and the DC-10 proved to be as reliable and safe as other airliners of it’s generation over it’s service life. It was quick and fairly easy to maintain compared to 4-engine monsters like the 747 but after the ETOPS restrictions were lifted and aircraft like the B777 or the A330 started making direct flights over the oceans the trijet quickly lost it’s edge in terms of efficiency. Two engines were the future, and in the late 1990s the DC-10/MD-11s were slowly being phased out of service. Last passenger variants of the MD-11 were retired from service with KLM in 2011, but the powerful platform was quickly adapted for cargo-carrying duties by Fedex and UPS among others. Many DC-10-30Fs and MD-11Fs remain operational to this day in those companies. This replica of a cargo variant of the DC-10-30 is my biggest flyable craft to date, and perhaps also the most detailed and functional. It features custom landing gear, flaps, spoilers and a ton of detail which make flying it a great experience. It’s also relatively low partcount for a craft of this size which should make it quite playable! FLIGHT MANUAL 1. STARTUP AND TAKEOFF Since KSP slams your craft onto the runway REALLY hard when spawning, the gear may get a little wobbly and you may have to wait a few seconds until it settles down and straightens out (you may want to enable SAS and brakes). This happens only on loading so don’t worry about it too much when landing. Be sure to enable the APU with AG3 so you don’t run out of power while your engines aren’t running. After the DC-10 is sitting still on the runway you can start up the engines on idle throttle. You can extend the flaps with AG1 for takeoff. To take off apply gentle throttle (no more than 20-25%) until you are moving at approx 40-50m/s on the runway to prevent stalling the compressors and losing thrust. Optimal V2 is approx 80-90m/s. After takeoff you should be moving fast enough to prevent any compressor stalls at high throttle. Retract the flaps with AG1 and retract the landing gear with G. 2. FLIGHT There isn’t too much to it - the DC-10 is very stable and pilot friendly for the most part. Roll rate and pitch authority are both very good for an aircraft of this size. The cruising speed is approx 200m/s and top speed sits at somewhere around 270m/s at 5-6km. Be careful not to overstress the airframe if you are making hard maneuvers at higher speeds. This airframe is rated at no more than 4.5Gs. 3. APPROACH I recommend lining up with the runway in advance to give you time to set up a smooth glideslope. After you line up with the runway drop your speed to about 120m/s to allow for flaps to deploy safely. You can now deploy the landing gear (G), flaps (AG1) and spoilers (AG4). 4. LANDING The DC-10 will become really sluggish and stall-happy below 60m/s so land at approx 75-80m/s if possible. Be sure to flare and reduce your vertical speed to prevent damage to your landing gear. After touchdown, apply brakes and activate thrust reversers with AG2. Remember to reduce thrust when your speed drops to prevent compressor stalls. That’s it! Below are the main controls: AG1: Toggle flaps AG2: Toggle thrust reversers AG3: Toggle APU AG4: Toggle spoilers U: Toggle landing lights Enjoy and fly safe! v1.0 - Initial release DOWNLOAD: https://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10-30F
  5. WELCOME TO THE HANGAR Here there be giants With part counts measured in the thousands, these colossi of the skies aren't for the faint of heart Look inside to find detail-oriented replicas of some of the largest passenger and cargo liners ever built or conceived With no mods or DLC required, these craft are open to all who can handle their bulk! Boeing 747-100 Antonov An-225 "Mriya" Boeing 747-8 Airbus A-380-861 Boeing Pelican "ULTRA" Hughes H-4 Hercules "SPRUCE GOOSE" McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Boeing 747sp (WIP)
  6. 1:1 Scale Replicas Full stock, full scale, full power In a scaled-down universe filled with scaled-down Kerbals, it's easy to forget how big real planes are. I've been building planes to the same scale of their real counterparts, enabling more accurate replicas with functioning mechanisms like swing wings, moving lift engines, and the odd GAU-8 Avenger. McDonnell F-4 Phantom II EC-18B ARIA - Apollo Range Instrumentation Aircraft Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-19ST "Farmer-B" USS Johnston - Fletcher-Class Destroyer McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C/D Hornet Superscale (1.3x) Republic P-47 Thunderbolt Superscale (1.5x) North American P-51D Mustang Grumman YF-28 "Alleycat" Northrop B-2 Spirit Martin XB-51 Ilyushin IL-76 "Candid" Convair B-58 Hustler McDonnell F-101C / RF-101C Voodoo Grumman F11F Tiger Panavia Tornado Fairchild-Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II "Warthog" Shuttle Transport System Northrop T-38 Talon Lockheed L-133 Starjet Yakolev Yak-38 Forger Boeing-Saab T-X Trainer Aircraft Dassault Mirage 2000 North American F-100D Super Sabre Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 North American F-86 Sabre Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Dassault Rafale Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II Republic F-84 Thunderjet Concorde General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon Grumman F-14 Tomcat (MULTIPLE VERSIONS) McDonnell Douglas / Boeing F-15 Eagle + F-15 ACTIVE STOL/MTD McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II Lockheed NF-104A "Zoom Climber" Sukhoi Su-27M/Su-35 Flanker-E More will be posted as I make them. Feel free to suggest favorite craft for me to take on!
  7. My vision for this mod is to create stock alike believable parts to build passenger planes with. It is inspired by Airplane Plus, and will be made to supplement it as well as the stock parts. Here is an album with some concept art and work in progress screen shots: https://imgur.com/a/fAViy And here is an album showing up the semi finished parts: https://imgur.com/a/ljyIgIH Parts currently in the mod: Download at: https://github.com/neistridlar/Neist-Airliner-Parts Tweakscale patch by @TMasterson5: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u6cliq18972oo1g/AADtWdAcCjVC-oGoO1_Jycfaa?dl=0 I am pretty new to modding in general, so if you have advise or suggestions you would like to offer, please do so. I do believe, however, that I have many of the skills required. My plan is to use Fusion 360 along with Blender for modeling, Gimp and Inkscape for image and graphics editing. I do know a little C++, python and matlab, which might come in handy, though I have never programmed anything with more than a command line interface, so I expect to have a few things to learn if I want to get into that side of modding. Also I want to set this up so that it is easy for someone else to take over in the case that I should disappear (knowing my self I usually don't stay focused on one thing for more than 1-2 years at a time), so any suggestions as to how to accomplish this would be welcome. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
  8. My suggestion in a fly-by wire avionics system, and I'm not referring to SAS. It could be implemented into stock or made into a mod. This way an aircraft with, say, a broken elevator or missing canard, could fly. Heck, if the system were properly implemented, you could fly an aircraft that is facing backward without the control surfaces going the wrong way, or even fly an inherently unstable aircraft! Some background info (especially for those who don't know what an actual fly-by wire system is): From Wikipedia TL;DR: Instead of the aircraft responding to the stick being pulled (or in this case [ S ] being held) by deploying elevators, the aircraft just calculates what control surface movements would actually accomplish this pitch up. Here's a hypothetical situation to demonstrate what I mean: You're flying an F-16, but (oh no!) your right stabilator isn't moving, no matter what you do. Now, whenever you try to pitch up, it also rolls the aircraft left. A fly-by wire system would accommodate this by also using the ailerons to stop the roll before it even happens. Another example: you're flying an Aeris 3A (modified to be supermanueverable), and now after pitching up to vertical, you have stalled, but your attitude is still nose straight up. You try to pitch back, and the canards face leading-edge up and the elevators face trailing-edge up. When flying normally, this would do the right thing. But because you are falling backward, it causes a new pitch down. Similarly, roll is also reversed! To simplify it further, the fly-by wire system makes it so that the aircraft does what it thinks you want, instead of what you asked for. KSP could gain so much from a fly-by wire system. Even if you don't fly aircraft, it'd still be useful. Vertically landing rockets would be so much easier because you wouldn't have to fiddle with a negative authority limiter on control surfaces.s2
  9. The Ministry of Space (Aeronautics Department) (MAD) proudly presents it's first product! No dependencies, but works well with FAR. Uses stock mk1 IVA. Download Parts: Known bugs: Options: Planned: If anyone has any suggestions please let me know. Licence: LGPLv3
  10. I have been trying for a while, but no I could not come up with a solution for this. I'm new to this game. just a fey days since I downloaded ksp, I'm tying to do quite ambitious projects for my level of experience. Because of this I need your help. Now for a question: How can I deploy a controllable unmanned aircraft from a mothership? Here is a photo of the aircraft https://imgur.com/a/u6wkqsa I'm trying to make the bigger plane at the bottom be romtely controlled by the smaller one on top. Thank you for your attention. sorry for typos, english is not my first language . mods used: Airplane Plus and Tweakscale
  11. This craft is a 1:1 scale full stock replica of the H-4 Hercules, more popularly known as the Spruce Goose. This craft, while relatively simple in its design, ended up being one of my more involved replicas, with a large amount of work and experimentation put into replicating the design. The craft is powered entirely by 8 of my R-4360 turboprops, which combined produce 3200 kN of thrust. The wings of this replica represent my first attempt at fully constructing a custom aerofoil. The technique used is effective, but I have since improved upon it,and you can expect more advanced versions of it in my future replicas. One interesting quirk of these wings, is that the enormous amount of drag and lift they produce means that this craft flies very smoothly at its top speed of 26 m/s, yup. Performance wise, this craft did not meet up to my expectations. I had intended for this craft to be capable of water takeoff and landing. With this in mind I kept the craft as light as possible, being about half the weight of my other replicas of similar size and complexity. Unfortunately, this craft was not able to land, nor take off from the water, meaning that this replica is basically completely aesthetic. While I am somewhat disappointed by this craft, I learned a great deal whilst making it, and it was ultimately a valuable experience. Download: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-H-4-Hercules-Spruce-Goose Craft Mass: 310.95 tonnes Part Count: 2141 parts I would love any suggestions about what *big* plane I should build next!
  12. This craft is a full stock 1:1 replica of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, this craft makes use of no DLC parts or mechanisms. While I have built a number of large planes, it has been nearly a year since I've built an actual airliner, so I decided to tackle another one. I wanted to built a tri-jet as I had simply never done one before, and true to form I chose the largest tri-jet ever built, The Md-11, a largely altered variant of the DC-10. This craft features refined versions of building techniques I had used in the past, as well as new ones. In total it took 3 months of on and off work to complete, as various difficulties and roadblocks would regularly halt progress on the build. This craft also utilizes a perfected form of the custom actuated wing surfaces used on my Drehmeister fighter craft to replicate the large control surfaces located at the base of the wing. basically every section of the craft had to be reworked or rebuilt from scratch, this made the build the slowest going out of any craft I have built proportional to it's size. However, I feel it payed off as the final product is notably more polished than any of my previous builds. Download Link: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11 Part Count: 1485
  13. Level: Intermediate/Advanced: You need to be able to slap together a plane that flies reasonably well before attempting a VTOL. Background reading: Start with the fantastic Basic Aircraft Design tutorial in this very forum. Craft used to illustrate this tutorial: BAK Cyclone BAK Karmilla BAK Drakula BAK Zephyr BAK Bumblebee What's a VTOL aircraft? VTOL stands for "Vertical Take-Off and Landing." A VTOL aircraft as discussed here is a craft that's designed to fly aerodynamically, using lift produced by lifting surfaces, but take off and land vertically. That's what this guide is all about, so we're not talking about VTOL rockets that don't make use of wings to produce lift. We're also not discussing helicopters here, because stock kerbals have not invented the propeller, and stock propellers are a whole big topic of their own. So this guide is about atmospheric craft designed to fly by making use of lift generated by wings, which can take off and land vertically by use of downward-pointing jets or rockets. This guide also applies to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) aircraft which do their thing using downward-pointing jets or rockets, because they're pretty much the same thing. Their hoverjets just have a TWR of less than 1.0. Why VTOL? Because they're fun and educational and you can. Next question? No, seriously. Is there a point? There are a few missions for which a VTOL aircraft is ideal. Kerbin has some biomes that are difficult to reach any other way. The same applies to Laythe, although it has gentler topography. Finally, it is really difficult to land a HTOL atmospheric craft on Duna because of the thin air: you'll be going really fast and terrain is really bumpy, so there's a huge risk of ending up as a big ball of fire, whereas it's very hard to land a conventional rocket lander precisely, like when you're aiming for your surface base. On the other hand, atmospheric craft are superb for exploring it for the very same reason – you can scout for the perfect spot for your base, then land precisely there. A V/STOL atmospheric craft built for Duna can drop you on any dime, anywhere on the surface. But mostly, the answer is still "because they're fun and educational and you can." The BAK Cyclone hard at work on Duna. It's a flatbed freighter suitable for shuttling base modules to and from the surface. The cargo is near the centre of mass, but because it can shift, it's important to adjust the exact balance by tuning the power on the nose hoverjet... The basics At its core, a VTOL aircraft is a plain old aircraft, with downward-pointing jets that produce a TWR of > 1.0 with the vector centred on the craft's centre of mass, and some way of controlling its attitude when it is hovering, because control surfaces do nothing at an airspeed of zero. Getting all of this into one craft is a pretty intricate business, however. In particular, there's one constraint that needs special attention: centre of mass, and the invariance thereof, as you burn fuel. In other words, your fuel tanks need to be placed symmetrically around the centre of mass so it doesn't shift as the tanks dry, and you need to get your vertical thrust vector exactly aligned with said centre of mass. Regular HTOL aircraft can afford to be a bit sloppy with this because aerodynamic forces will effectively obliterate moderate shifts in CoM -- if your plane gets a bit more tail-happy as the tanks drain it's no problem, as long as your CoM stays ahead of your CoL. Mostly anyway. Not so with VTOLs: if the CoM shifts, you're not going to be able to land vertically anymore. Here's how you go about building a VTOL under these constraints. Build yourself a plane. However, don't put any fuel tanks on it yet, and empty any fuel-containing parts that you are using. Switch on the CoM and CoT overlays. Set the thrust limiter on your main engines to zero. Your CoT vector will disappear. Add enough downward-pointing jets to lift the plane, as symmetrically as you can around the CoM, in a minimum of two pods (fore and aft). (You can add more pods to the sides if your body plan permits it.) Adjust the thrust limiter on the fore (or aft) hoverjets until the thrust vector lines up with the CoM. Add fuel tanks symmetrically around the CoM. Add RCS jets to the bottom of the craft, at the nose, tail, and wingtips. Don't forget the fuel – Vernors need oxidant, the others need monoprop. (If you're building a very small craft, you can just use a reaction wheel instead. But that's less cool.) Set up your control scheme: one action group for toggling the hover jets, another action group for toggling the main jets, plus yet another one to toggle the hover jet bays, if you're using them (as you should). There, done. Simple, eh? Hoverjet design The first challenge you're likely to hit is choice of hoverjet. The second one is likely to be aerodynamics – if you just stick on some downward-pointing jets, you will find that they produce a lot of drag, which is going to be really inefficient. Your plane will be slow and have limited range, or you'll have to make it a lot bigger to brute-force your way around that limitation. The solution is to house the hoverjets in a cargo bay of some kind, with the doors opening downwards. That way you can tuck them away for normal flight, and expose them for hovering. There are lots of ways to make this work, but here are some designs I've used successfully: Juno in a Mk 1 utility bay. Stick it inside the utility bay, rotate it to point towards an opening, move it until it's completely inside. These are easy, pretty light, and you can add more of them – within reason – for more lifting power. Array of Junos in a Mk 2 cargo bay. This needs scaffolding: you need to put something in the cargo bay that lets you attach the Junos to it. A short Mk 2 bay will fit an array of 9 Junos, and a long Mk 2 bay will fit 18. That's a lot of lifting power – three Wheesleys' worth in the bigger bay! Also a lot of parts. I hope you have a fast computer. For rocket-powered hover, use Spark, Aerospike, or Vector (if you really need a lot of hover power). Terriers will also work on Duna. Sparks will fit in Mk 1 utility bays, the bigger ones will fit in the bigger cargo bays (Mk 2, 2.5m utility bay, Mk 3). Giving them air Air-breathing hoverjets need intakes. At this point you'll probably need to go back to the plane design you started with, because air intakes are dry mass and will shift the CoM as you add them. Hint: The engine pre-cooler and engine nacelle are fantastic air intakes, and they can be mounted in-line or combined with other elements. You don't have to use their fuel capacity – you might want to leave them dry if they're not symmetrical to the CoM. Hover control The main challenge for hover control is to keep the craft horizontal. If it starts tipping in one direction, you're really likely to flip over and crash dramatically, like a tree falling over. If additionally you can give it a controlled tilt and hold it there, then it'll start accelerating in that direction, like a helicopter. This can be most helpful when transitioning to or from level flight. Option 1: RCS RCS will get the job done nicely, and looks cool to boot. You will need more jets at the nose and tail than on the wingtips, as there will be more forces on pitch when transitioning to or from level flight. Your choice of RCS jet is the Place-Anywhere or the Vernor. You may need to add several on bigger craft. Option 2: Reaction wheels Reaction wheels will balance smaller craft just fine, but are probably insufficient for bigger ones. Managing centre of mass One of the most finicky problems with VTOL craft is managing centre of mass. In principle it's simple – just place your fuel symmetrically around the dry CoM, and centre your vertical thrust vector on it – but... how? Use wing-mounted engine pods on pylons. Engines are dry mass. Mount them on pylons on the wing, and it's easy to move them forward and back to fine-tune the CoM. Put fuel tanks outside your main stack. Wing-mounted tanks, wingtip tanks, drop tanks, and side-mounted tanks flush with the body all work, as long as they can be moved backwards and forwards relative to the dry CoM. If you don't mind a bit of clipping, you can even make the latter look pretty good by clipping them a bit in the body. It makes no functional difference, but if you consider it cheating, don't do it. Use a long, light tail section. Long tails are good for stability anyway. If you make a long, light tail, you can adjust the balance of the craft by making it slightly longer or shorter without adding a lot of weight or making big design changes. Body plans I've found a few body plans to be especially amenable to conversion to VTOL. They have in common that it's easy to tweak the balance by moving things around, rather than having to add or remove pieces. Twin-boom The twin-boom design is one of my favourites, largely because it looks cool. In a twin-boom design, you have one hoverjet at the nose, and one in each of the booms. Light craft have a single engine at the rear of the fuselage. Larger ones have additional wing-mounted pods. The BAK Karmilla. This one is balanced with reaction wheels. It uses six Mk 1 utility bay-mounted Junos for hovering. The BAK Drakula. A bigger twin-boom design using two arrays of 18 Junos on each boom and a single array of 9 on the nose. Twin-Pod A twin-pod design is similar to a twin-boom, except that it has a conventional tail extending from the fuselage. The hoverjets are housed in the big wing-mounted pods. The BAK Zephyr, a rocket-powered VTOL craft designed for conducting science missions on Duna. It is entirely powered by Terriers. The absurdly big wing and control surfaces make it highly economical for high-altitude supercruising. The BAK Cyclone, delivering a station module to Duna. Note the landing area markers. The Cyclone uses Aerospikes for propulsion. Rockets are much less efficient than air-breathers, so it needs to be much bigger than a Kerbin-bound craft performing the same mission! Control schemes and flight To fly a VTOL craft, you need to be able to perform the following actions, which must be bound to a an action group: Toggle the hover jets Toggle the forward jets Control attitude If you have full RCS control, you will additionally need control for that, and if your hoverjets are inside pods, you will want a control for toggling them too. Taking off The procedure for a vertical take-off is as follows: Hoverjet pods OPEN Forward jets OFF RCS ON SAS ON Hoverjets ON Throttle MAXIMUM When off the ground at a sufficient altitude to clear obstacles, main jets ON When at sufficient speed for aerodynamic flight, hoverjets OFF, pods CLOSED, gear UP The procedure for a short take-off is the same, except that forward jets and hoverjets will both be ON from the start. The craft will lift off once generated lift + hoverjet thrust overcome its mass. Landing To land a VTOL aircraft, approach the landing zone as you would with a regular HTOL craft, until on final approach. Then: Hoverjet pods OPEN Gear DOWN Throttle ZERO Main jets OFF Hoverjets ON Keep pitching up as you approach stall speed. When you're close to it, INCREASE THROTTLE until your rate of descent nears zero. Your airspeed will also fall. When your airspeed is low enough that aerodynamic control is getting sluggish, RCS ON, SAS ON. Control your vector primarily with pitch, and your descent rate with throttle. When your airspeed is near zero and you're above your landing spot, reduce throttle until you start descending. Touch down, CUT throttle, CUT engines, BRAKES ON. You've landed. ...and that's it really! I hope you've found this short tutorial useful. Have fun with your S/VTOL craft – and don't forget there are more ways to do them as well, including helicopter-like things that don't fly aerodynamically at all. My first VTOL craft was the Bumblebee, and it's still one of my favourites!
  14. I have seen one other suggestion topic about this before and it was abruptly closed and not re-opened again. Really my question is why don't we have propellers yet and what might the chances of us getting them be? (And yes, I'm aware of mods, but I happen to like playing games stock)
  15. P-101 Boomerang Stock KSP 1.3 Personal Flying Wing Download Craft File @ KerbalX! Inspired by early flying wings such as the Gotha Go229, the P-101 brings back the pioneering spirit with its radical, yet simple flying wing design. Featuring just 22 parts, the pint-sized Boomerang is powered by two Size 0 turbojets making it one of the simplest aircraft capable of controlled flight at subsonic speeds.
  16. Applies to KSP versions: 1.0.4 - 1.7.x TL/DR: Among other things, this post explains why your reentering Space Shuttle replica and other winged craft can be unstable even though you built it with Center of Lift (CoL) behind Center of Mass (CoM). It also explains how you can improve general stability of any winged with Angle of Incidence (AoI), while at the same time making the craft very SAS friendly, and able to fly straight without SAS. The difference between CoL and Aerodynamic Center Longitudinal Stability, the ability of the aircraft to self stabilize, is attained by having the Aerodynamic Center+ behind CoM. +) The wikipedia explanation for how to calculate the Aerodynamic Center for an aircraft is in the spoiler below. I find it useful to imagine the Aerodynamic Center as an arrow that pulls backward in your craft, relative to it's movement, while the CoL pulls perpendicular to the direction of movement. Lift influences the Aerodynamic Center because, among other things, lift creates drag, but it is only a dominant part while the craft is pointed near prograde. When the craft points away from prograde other types of drag become dominant. CoL actually has less effect on stability, than either Center of Drag and Aerodynamic Center. The CoL actually needs to move to be able to control the craft. To pitch down it needs to move behind CoM. To pitch up the CoL needs to be moved in front CoM. Left and right for roll. And that is exactly what control surfaces do*. You can see this in action in the SPH. Create a simple aircraft mockup, with a handful of structural fuselage. Select the root part and Shift+S, to give it a little AoA, because that's needed for the wings to create lift. Add a couple of small wing panels with control surfaces in mirror symmetry as elevators, either at the front or back. Turn on CoM and CoL and add a couple of larger wing panels with control surfaces in 2x radial symmetry, and place them so CoL is on top of CoM. Using the Rotate Gizmo you can now directly see what really happens to the CoL, when control surfaces move, by rotating them slightly up or down. *) I'll ignore yaw for now. It doesn't contribute to CoL in the same way, because it's a vertical surface. In the SPH yaw is shown as a rotation of the CoL marker. As long as the Aerodynamic Center stays behind CoM, designing your craft with CoL in front or behind of CoM doesn't change aircraft stability much, even in KSP, it just changes how much control input you need to apply, to fly straight. And keeping the Aerodynamic Center behind CoM is the hard part. We can't see the Aerodynamic Center, and for many designs it is close enough to CoL, because large control authority can move the CoL to CoM, so that the CoL works OK as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center, during design. But the closer then CoM is to the rear of the craft, the worse it gets. The Aerodynamic Center is now significatly in front of CoL. So even if CoL at design time is behind CoM, the Aerodynamice Center might be right on top of CoM or in front of it. This is why most people believe CoL needs to be behind CoM. And with the available information it is the right thing to do. Except it's not always enough. This is also one of the reasons why Shuttles in KSP are so hard to get stable, even when the CoL is far behind CoM. If the Shuttle isn't built to account for the invisible Aerodynamic Center, the mass and wings are often concentrated in the back, but that long fuselage, with lots of drag, pulls the Aerodynamic Center in front of CoM. The result is a lawn darting shuttle, because of CoL too far back, which at the same time spins out of control, because of Aerodynamic Centre being in front of CoM. This has led people to accuse the aerodynamics or the cargo bays of being bugged. Which is understandable given the information available at design time. Angle of Incidence (AoI) Most of us were taught how lift works with pictures like this.Pictures showing lift from cambered wing profiles without Angle of Attack. It's not completely wrong, but it's missing a big part. Most of the lift comes from Angle of Attack, not from the cambered shape. But because of how we were taught, we all have a tendency to imagine wings mounted parallel to the fuselage. On top of that KSP defaults to wings mounted that way. When really we shouldn't. And to make things even worse, KSP does not model wings as cambered profiles. Which means wings in KSP always need Angle of Attack to provide lift. By giving the wings "built-in AoA", Angle of Incidence, the craft can be pointed prograde while still creating lift. That reduces fuselage drag greatly. If you mount wings with no Angle of Incidence, then the fuselage has to point away from prograde (the direction of movement) in order to get the wings to create lift. This creates a lot of drag. In real life even cambered wings are mounted with incidence, for the same reason. There is no one AoI that works for everything and it isn't necessarily most optimal to have the fuselage pointed directly prograde, because the fuselage can also contribute to lift (not just Mk2). But in my experience it is always better to have at least 1° AoI than none. Personally I use between 1-5° Angle of Incidence on my designs. I don't have any set rules, but fast craft and/or big wings, needs smaller AoI, and high altitude needs bigger AoI. For SSTO spaceplanes, I've had good experiences with designs that can fly at 0° pitch, without losing or gaining height near sea level at 350-400 m/s. My Solutions Until KSP is able to show the Aerodynamic Center, I use the rule of thumb, that CoM of the craft needs to be as close as possible to midway between nose and tail, and never closer than 2/3 of the craft length towards the tail. Not a very accurate solution and doesn't work for all designs, but it has worked OK for me. Additionally, I design my crafts so the forward most wing has more Angle of Incidence than those behind it. That works effectively as if the elevator has built in pitch, which you can use to move the CoL on top of CoM, without compromising stability. Here are some examples. A stable conventional design (craft file) The conventional straight wing design with CoM forward of the middle. It's a breeze to get stable with CoL on top of CoM, because the Aerodynamic Center is most often behind CoL. Nonetheless, this design has 2° AoI on the main wing to reduce fuselage drag, and no AoI on the tail plane. A stable canard design (craft file) Canard designs, the most prevalent type in KSP, probably due to the way engines are massed in KSP for the LEGO™-modularity and gameplay balance. CoM is often way behind the midpoint, which means the Aerodynamic Center will most likely be in front of CoL. If the CoM isn't too far behind, you might get away with initially designing it with CoL a good bit behind CoM, using CoL as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center. Once you've tested that it flies stable, you can then add a little more** AoI to the Canard than the main wing, to move CoL up to CoM. If the CoM is far behind the midpoint, see the Shuttle designs. It will now be possible to fly the craft without you or the SAS having to constantly apply pitch-up. It won't reduce drag, but it will make it easier for you or an autopilot to control the craft. The shown craft has a fixed canard with 4° AoI and the main wing has 2° AoI. **) Only very rarely will it be required to have more than 2° difference between main wings and tailplane/canards in KSP. An unstable shuttle design A stable deltawing design (craft file) Shuttles and other pure deltawing designs, are the hardest to balance and require great care taken during design to make sure the CoM doesn't fall too far back. If the CoM is far behind the midpoint, you may be forced to redesign it. It might not be possible to stabilize it without adding dummy weights near the cockpit. Moving the fuel tanks forward might help initially, but instability could re-emerge when the fuel is spent. If the CoM isn't too far behind, you might be able to do something similar as with a Canard designs, by initially designing it with CoL a good bit behind CoM, using CoL as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center. Again, once you've tested that it flies stable, you can then use the Rotate Gizmo to prebake the elevons with some pitch up, to move CoL up to CoM, to get the craft to fly without you or the SAS having to constantly apply pitch-up. The deltawing jet shown here, has 2° AoI om the main wing and the elevons have been angled up 2° from their default attachment angle. Additionally, the big wing strake has also been angled up 1° more than the rest of the wing. Test showing increased stability with AoI Edit 2016-03-01: Fixed some grammar and clarified a few sentences. Edit 2016-11-03: Added applicable KSP version. Edit 2016-12-01: Added AoI image. (source)
  17. This craft is a full stock 2:7 scale replica of the SR-71 Blackbird. This craft has Spark engine afterburners, which necessitate the use of infinite fuel. The craft is very slow unfortunately, but is decently maneuverable. This craft was built purely for aesthetics, and true to form for me it has an absurd part count for its minuscule size. This craft was originally built some time ago, and was recently retrofitted. Ideally I would rebuild the craft from scratch as it’s old infrastructure was a constant obstacle to the redesigns. Given more time a full revamp would be more accurate and have better performance. In the future I may revisit a mini SR-71 again. Download: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-SR-71-Blackfinch Part Count: 405 Craft Mass: 11.12 tonnes
  18. The DC-10 Something dangerous in the sky... The Might of Three Rolls Royce engines propell the aircraft through the sky. Taxiing..
  19. F-4 Phantom II: .CRAFT file:https://kerbalx.com/KAS/F-4-Phantom-II
  20. Welcome to my semi-scale F4 Phantom. Not intended to be a true scale replica, but hopefully giving the feel and flavour of the legendary Phantom, this version is easy to fly and completely stock. Only 2 action group keys to remember : 1 toggles the afterburner on and off and 4 toggles the ladder. That's it. Once launched on the runway, turn on SAS, throttle up and stage the engine. With no further user input, the Phantom will take off at around 110 - 120 m/s. What could be easier? Download the craft file from KerbalX
  21. Hello! I have built many craft with Mk1 sized parts, but I find it annoying how there is a Mk2 Drone Core, and yet nothing for Mk1. Sure, we have the CH-J3, but that is not capable of controlling a craft. I suggest a Mk1 drone core, maybe it could be a long nosecone, or like the Mk1 cockpit but with the windows covered and replaced with wires or panels. Thoughts about this?
  22. Serving no specific purpose, and with a relatively short range, depending on engine mode used, this is an easy to fly aircraft with no vices. Turn on SAS and throttle up, and this plane will happily take off on it's own with no further user input. It's also easy to land with a gentle glide ratio that only needs a nudge of back stick to settle it back on the runway. Download craft from Kerbal X - Foxtrot
  23. Huge thanks to @Azimech, whose incredible advice made this craft pososible. This craft is a full stock, 1:1 scale replica of the Boeing Pelican Ultra, a cargo ekranoplan/aircraft. This Colossus would have carried massive amounts of military hardware long distances, primarily across the sea to maximize fuel efficiency. However, it never made it past the concept stage, and now only exists in the form of vague specifications and inconsistent artist renditions. Having taken 5 months to complete, being composed of just under 3,000 parts, weighing in at 1.8 kiltons, with a wing span of 150 meters and being 120 meters in length, this craft is by far the largest and most ambitious project I have ever undertaken. The craft is also full to the brim of stock mechanisms. It utilizes 4 of my T-4650 stock turboprops, which together produce nearly 19,000 kN of thrust. The craft’s entire nose section rotates upwards to reveal the cargo bay, this is made possible with what is perhaps the largest stock joint ever created. The joint in question is made up of an orange tank that is held within a fairing precisely tuned to its diameter. It also features a ramp, which is incredibly mundane by comparison. All this work on to ensure that the craft could feasibly be used to transport payloads would have been for naught if the craft didn’t actually have any payload capabilities. Fortunately, this craft can easily carry payloads of well over 1000 tonnes, although it’s exact upper limit is as yet unknown. To get this beast into the air, a huge number of hidden control surfaces are used. The center of lift is also placed in front of the center of mass to ensure that it flies nice and easily. Download: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-Pelican-ULTRA (<-- As well as additional screenshots) Part Count: 2857 Irrelevant Information (AKA Gloating): -You could play a full sized game of Football (Soccer) on this craft’s back across its wings. -The cargo bay is so large that you could easily fit a 747 inside. -With full payload this craft is both larger and heavier than the Saturn V. -This craft produces 24 times the thrust of a 747. -I think you get the point.
  24. Kerbal Aircraft Corp requests your specifications! Post specifications of the aircraft you want and have them delivered within one week if the engineers find the time. We will reply with a craft file once complete. At Kerbal Aircraft Corp, it is our aim to make sure your aircraft needs are fulfilled with quality and humor.
  25. The challenge: build an aircraft that can take-off, land and fly in either direction. * Extra credit: Try to build an aircraft that can successfully change directions mid flight. RULES: 1. You must have a pilot. 2. The craft must take off horizontally. No VTOL. 3. No additional reaction wheels (and bonus style points if you can fly yours with SAS off and all internal reaction wheels turned off) 4. It can be a palindrome aircraft, meaning it is symmetrical front and back, but that is not a requirement. Otherwise, anything goes. However, this challenge is about design, not about getting around rules. I'm sure I forgot some detail, so just bear that aforementioned in mind. I built this one a while ago and had a play with it today, as well as took this footage. (I still have not figured out what I am doing for @Triop's Temple rally, so this was a fun distraction). It is certainly not my most fun plane to fly, but it more or less works. I created the challenge because I am keen to see how others solve the problem.