Search the Community

While I was walking through the National Museum of the United States Air Force last Saturday, I was reminded of all the KSP replicas of those same aircraft. Some of them looked like they can be done with pure stock parts and no DLCs, while others (mostly the older ones) need mods that come with more parts. So, I started this thread for everyone to showcase their replicas of the aircraft that the four large hangars (plus the Missile Gallery) have on display. The guidelines for this showcase thread are simple: You are free to use any and all parts necessary, including ones that come in DLCs and mods. Vehicle has to be functional. Which means pictures/video of the craft in action. Similar performance stats are a plus. EXCEPTION: if the craft in question could not move on its own (as in it needed to be attached to a larger assembly to go anywhere) then the functionality requirement may be waived. e.g. the Apollo 15 command module. You'll only need one picture of your best replica (or half-assed; it shouldn't make a difference in that case), since it's useless unless attached to the rest of the spacecraft. If you want to make the rest of the rocket assembly, fine. Only the capsule made it to the museum, and that's what I need. Vehicle has to look as close as possible to whatever real-life craft you're trying to copy. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you have photographs to reference. Build something not yet claimed on the checklist (link below) first. EXCEPTION: for craft that appear more than once in the museum (such as the Superfortress and the Twin Mustang), you may only sign off on one of your craft's variants. Leave the rest of them for others to claim. e.g. I only do one Twin Mustang; the one in the Korean War section in Hangar 2. I'll leave it to someone else to get the other Twin Mustang in Hangar 3 and claim it on the log. If you want to show something that's already been showcased on this thread, fine - but you don't get credit for it. I don't care if you built the craft 7 minutes or 7 years ago, so long as it's yours. If you have an old stash of aircraft replicas that you're willing to showcase (and can work), great. Weaponry (e.g. guns, bombs, missiles) not necessary, although I won't object to them either. If the original aircraft was manned, so is your replica. If the original aircraft was unmanned, so is your replica. I won't object to a probe core for your manned aircraft if it doesn't deviate too much from the aesthetic, so long as you include the appropriate crew module/s. You don't need to match the passenger/crew capacity of your original aircraft, so long as your replica comes close to looking like its real-life counterpart AND it's functional. e.g. if you use one or more Mk. 3 Passenger Modules for an Air Force One variant, as long as your aircraft makes a convincing replica I don't mind you exceeding or falling behind its real-life counterpart's passenger capacity. Those things weren't designed for carrying a lot of people anyway; just provide comfort for the president and his staff. (SIDE NOTE) Whoever builds the Douglas VC-54C "Skymaster," I'm not requiring you to install an elevator in the back to load polio-stricken passengers in and out. If you do and the plane still flies smoothly, even better. The one housed in the museum was designed specifically to transport then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who needed a wheelchair. Craft files a plus. Below is the link for the replica checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tA9IGsSCQIuTFjw9eNHYcgv8JboCxKiAy9ep5-nflR0/edit?usp=sharing Here are the instructions on how to use it: Pick an aircraft that has not already been built Like I said earlier, if you want to build something that's already been done here, don't steal credit from the original kerbalnaut. And for duplicates, you can only claim one of the type. Once you're done, write: Column D: Your KSP Forum name Column E: The link to the specific forum post showcasing your replica/s It is acceptable to put more than one craft in the same post. Just leave a link for everyone to find it. Column F: Whatever DLCs you used to make the replica If this doesn't apply to that specific craft, leave it blank Column G: Whatever (parts) mods you used to make the replica If this doesn't apply to that specific craft, leave it blank Column H: (IF YOU WANT TO) Additional notes that other readers may find interesting Please don't modify someone else's notes. If you want to debate/talk to someone about their craft, don't do it on the spreadsheet. Source for my list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_United_States_Air_Force Click here to see this thread's replicas assembled on KerbalX As a prize, if you make at least one replica from each of the four hangars (not counting the air park or missile silo since they're too small; specific hangar category (e.g. Early Years vs WWII, Experimental vs Space) doesn't matter), you'll earn this sweet badge: I made it myself. It's a representation of all four hangars by using a combination of the following four logos: U.S. Army Air Corps, whose planes dominate Hangar One. Classic U.S. Air Force, which became mainstream at the time period Hangar Two covers. Modern U.S. Air Force, which has a lot of planes in Hangar Three still in service. NASA, since the space gallery is in Hangar Four. Entries from the Missile Gallery can be used as "wild cards." They're ultra-rare, so get them while they last. Depending on what hangars you lack, it can be used as either a Hangar Three or Hangar Four entry. To make things fair for everyone, only one Missile Silo entry per person All Four Hangars Badge Recipients @Mars-Bound Hokie (Me, the OP) @swjr-swis I'll start us off with my favorite, the SR-71 Blackbird. The SR-71 Blackbird on display in the SPH Picture taken February 2020. Ted Kerman enjoying himself flying at high altitudes at a speed higher than the aircraft's real-life counterpart. There you have it, folks. Have fun, and I can't wait to see what you got. Build a plane from each of the four hangars, and you get the badge.

The F-104G was an export version of the original Starfighter built for the USAF in the early 60s. This aircraft saw extensive service with European countries, it was often used outside of it’s original role of a high speed interceptor, being assigned to low altitude ground attack missions which didn’t really suit it’s sluggish flight characteristics caused by high wing loading. It’s quirky flight characteristics and speed-focused, low lift design made it an exceptionally tough plane to fly in European conditions. Multiple accidents, often resulting in death of the pilot earned it the Widowmaker nickname among the German pilots. The Starfighter was a troubled, but a classic design and one of the first high mach interceptors in service. The G version features an additional dorsal fin for stability. This plane also features a jettisonable canopy activated either through staging or the abort key. Due to fairing drag issues present in 1.4.3. this planes speed is lowered. This is a game bug and will hopefully be fixed in the future. Have fun flying! DOWNLOAD LINK: https://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/F-104G-Starfighter v1.0 - Initial release v1.1 - Major changes to the canopy and the nose section of the airplane, they have been made more proportional and pointy (thank you for the feedback selfish_meme!). Minor tweaks to the positioning of the undercarriage. Vertical stabilizer leading edge angle has been corrected to match the real aircraft.

F-117A Nighthawk I've decided to give this rectangular, highly draggy brick a try. Making the Nighthawk really is a problem of making a really unflyable shape flyable. After a ton of fine-tuning I've managed to make it quite manageable and neutrally stable without SAS. It definitely isn't as easy to fly as some of my fighters (Well, it shouldn't be really) and requires some practice to get used to it's input response delay and odd yaw behavior, but it is by no means frustratingly sluggish. It can pull 4-5G turns at 140-150m/s. At low altitude it tops out at approx. 160m/s and can hit 270-280m/s high up. It also features a functional internal bomb bay opened with AG2. It houses a payload of two GBU-10 bombs dropped through staging. Overall I'm pretty happy with the result as this has been a very experimental build for me. I hope you will enjoy flying it. CRAFT LINK: v1.0 - Initial release v1.1 - Intake grids moved to the front to appear more realistic, wing structure modified to appear smoother, strutting improved. https://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/F-117A-Nighthawk

https://youtu.be/tmpQT3SBobk

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Hi, a couple of days back i built a stock Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. I thought i could share it in the forums. I think it's the best plane i've built so far (my others were... well, let's say "alright"), from the looks to the handling and speed, it is pretty close to the original (maybe a little too fast if you push it). This Plane: I tried to built it as close to the original as possible. Didn't get it perfect matched in terms of size but i think it is alright. I spend a lot of time to get the nose the way i wanted it. The fairing was the best way to get it realistic, since all the tanks and nose cones were to round in my opinion. I used to solar panels and batteries to model the windshieldm since there was no stock part that looked like the fighters windshield. the plane doesn't go straight from front to back with tanks etc. I tried to model this sort of "belly" the real F 104 has. To get that hull realistic i had to build things a little complicated. I used autostrut to avoid doubling the part count. In the end i think not goint the easy way but to make things more complicated worked good, since it is stable in flight but does also look more realistic than a F 104 where i would have build the hull by just putting parts at the end of parts. It technically seats 2 kerbals. I used to cockpits to make it look like one long one, but since their was a real 2 seated version of this plane i guess it's alright To get the fighter stable in slow flight i used a hidden "wing" in the front. Handling: Flying this is quit easy (for a starfighter) i guess. It is better to have SAS on from liftoff to landing. Lifting off must be done gently to not have the engine touch the ground (putting the rear wheels to further back would've made the liftoff speed to high). Generally the plane lies stable in the air at any speed. It is no friend of a lot of yaw tho. Due to the short wingspan it rotates really fast, so hitting the right angle can be tough. besides that it really handles well for such a neelde of an aircraft. Reaches it's topspeed at about 15,000m and its highest altitude is about 23,000m. Landing speed should always be between 75m/s and 120 m/s. This is where it touches down the most gently. It should be relatively horizontial as well (max. 15% pitched up). It might need some distance to roll out safely. Craft File to download: https://kerbalx.com/SpaceTrashCan/Lockheed-F-104-Version-2 I hope you like the craft, check it out if you like to Here are some inflight pictures:

INTRODUCTION As a relaxing little break from creating propeller aircraft I've decided to recreate one of the most prominent 4.5th gen jet fighters of the modern era - the F-15C Eagle. Not a single Eagle has ever been lost to enemy fire and the airframe itself, although almost 40 years old by now is continiuously proving itself to be a formidable foe to every modern jet fighter. The F-15C is currently the definitive variant suited for air-to-air combat and maintaining air superiority. It is a heavy airframe weighing in at approximately 20 tons loaded, powered by Pratt and Whitney F100 low-bypass turbojet engines, each putting out approximately 100kN of thrust when running reheat. The plane is capable of reaching over Mach 2.5 at it's operational ceiling. The Eagle is extremely capable in terms of it's maximum loading and can achieve an operational range of over 5500km when used with it's conformal FASTPACK fuel tanks. This replica is an attempt at creating a detailed and correctly performing Eagle. The weight is about right, and the engines have been tuned to provide the exact same amounts of static thrust the real F100s would provide. I managed to get the values down to 0.1kN accuracy. The replica is fully stock. I hope you will enjoy flying it. FEATURES Here are some basic features included with the replica. 1. Correctly performing recreations of P&W F100 turbojets producing exactly 64.9kN of dry static thrust and 105.7kN of static thrust wet (toggle with AG 1). 2. Retractable flaps (Toggleable with AG 2) 3. Functional airbrake (Toggleable with AG 3) 4. Realistically modelled drop tanks, the centerline tank is exhausted first. HOW TO FLY The flight characteristics of the Eagle are rather standard. If you can fly any other jet in KSP, flying this one should also be relatively easy. Flaps and the airbrake can be used to slow the airframe down. The top speed at sea level with the drop tanks on sits at Mach 1 and gets better with altitude. Keep in mind that the drop tanks add considerable weight to the airframe and they should be ditched when entering combat. Take off at about 70m/s, land at approx 65m/s. Keep in mind that the airframe, although agile, is rather heavy and has plenty of intertia, especially when performing low-level maneuvering with drop tanks on. Have fun taking the Eagle to the skies and fly safe. Feel free to leave requests and suggestions down below so i can improve my replicas! DOWNLOAD LINK https://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/F-15C Updated on 22-07-2017, V1.1 CHANGELOG 1.0 - initial release 1.1 - major structural tweaks done which make the craft more similar to the original in terms of proportions. before, the ratio of lenght to width of this replica sat at about 1.52:1 (14.2m x 9.3m) and the horizontal stabilizers were unproportionally big when compared to the main wing. now this issue is fixed and the replica has the exact same length-width ratio as the real plane (1.46:1 14.2m x 9.7m for the replica and 19m x 13m for the real Eagle). pictures were changed accordingly, but here is a gif to portray the changes I made better: (old one in the first frame, fades to the new one which is visibly wider and more proportional) (i think it just goes to show how bad my OCD is with those replicas. WELP, GOOD FOR Y'ALL I GUESS)

X-37B before the latest launch May 20th 2016 marks exactly a year since the launch of the Boeing X-37 mission (launch designation USA-261) when the X-37B OTV unmanned spacecraft was delivered to low Earth orbit. It was the fourth launch of this type with the first one launched in 2010 but up until these days not all questions about this spacecraft had been answered. Boeing X-37 also known as Orbital Test Vehicle, OTV is a small orbital unmanned spaceplane. It is launched by a rocket and lands using the lifting force produced by its wings like an airplane. Boeing started this project in 1999 by a contract with NASA and US Air Force. The initial cost of the project was $192 million contributed in different proportions by NASA, USAF and Boeing, and after the first success Boeing received a new $301 million contract to continue the development. X-37B on the runway Generally, the project is based on more than 30 years of experience gained from the Space Shuttle Orbiter program. Initially X-37 was intended to be delivered to orbit inside a Space Shuttle cargo bay then approach malfunctioning satellites for repairs (X-37 is 9 m long while the length of a Shuttle is 37 m), but later the using of Shuttles was deemed too expensive, and X-37 was re-designed for rocket delivery. In 2006 USAF declared that they would develop a new independent design of an X-37 variant called X-37B OTV. X-37B was supposed to be capable of staying in orbit for up to 270 days. A USAF secretary stated that the project will be focused on “reducing risks, experiments, and developing a working concept of reusable spacecraft in order to achieve the long term goals of space exploration”. Spaceplanes comparison Finally it was decided that X-37B would be delivered to orbit by Atlas-V rockets, and for landing and maintenance purposes, the old Space Shuttle hangars and runways at the Kennedy Space Center would be used. All this said, the specific goals of the program are classified. All we know is that it’s used for “testing of technology for USAF reusable space platform”. Supposedly, they test onboard electronic flight systems, navigation, heat protection and re-entry capabilities. The current mission of X-37B officially has something to do with testing of a new version of Hall-effect thruster (a variant of ion drive) which is supposed to be used on NASA satellites in the future. X-37 Spacecraft schematics USAF, however, has been for several times in the past accused of developing of space-based weapon systems and also of using X-37B as a spy satellite. In 2012 several accusation were raised against its involvement in espionage mission against Tiangong-1 – the first Chinese space station, but in fact they had been rather convincingly disproved by the comparison of the orbits of the two craft. In 2014, The Guardian quoted some experts who claimed that this craft tests espionage and surveillance systems. X-37 inner schematics Many questions arise because of the secrecy of the mission details, particularly in view of the prolonged duration of the mission. The current mission, for example should have lasted for no more than 200 days, but it’s been almost a year by now. If USAF really had been testing the systems listed in the official mission description it would have been in their best interests to land the spaceplane as soon as possible and start processing the experiment results. The prolonged nature of this mission suggests behavior peculiar to surveillance satellites. Of course keeping an aura of secrecy around the experiments that are currently being conducted by the military is not something unique. Perhaps X-37B really performs some peaceful experiments and has nothing to do with espionage. There’s still hope that new technologies won’t pave the way for a new space arms race even though a set of prerequisites for it is already in place. In the beginning of May The Washington Post published an article that directly accuses Russia and China of the development of anti-satellite technologies capable of attacking the US spacecraft.