tetryds

Official FAR Craft Repository

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ZLM-Master said:

@dundun92 Haha ! Funny , I'm on a similar project ;)

j3w1rk9.jpg

Nice design! Hopefully it flies as well as it looks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mooarff !

For now , it's more beautiful than it's flies ^^ Not a potato but hard to tune it competitiveness .

Pretty stable with a too slow turn rate , i try fine tuning on the spoilers but doesn't change a lot .

Already 13 Tons weaponized , Mmmm !

Need mome work ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT

 

Edited by Cratzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny.... several years and still here.. still playing KSP... still making aircraft... and still finding new ways to challenge myself.  Here are some of my current projects that are working in my game.

My SSTOs have evolved from planes to actual tail landing and launching rockets...

6jxZqfd.jpg

My fighter aircraft division is even up and running again... with the motto, simple is better.

14PwYKJ.jpg

And my new light duty cargo planes have started to enter service....  They aint fast, but they can land and take off in very short distances.

BhX7E1R.jpg

f7iw9t6.jpg

And my AWAC/Recon aircraft is also now in service...

nXtSNqm.jpg

 

And everything works perfectly in FAR...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Messing around with high speed land vessels:

5Nh3RiF.png

LVssNsM.png

 

Second variant achieved mach 2,5 easily then took off and starts desintegrating at near Mach 3 speeds.

Re20Edt.png

 

 

 

 

 

Some speed boats. This time I wasn't able to build something aerodynamic so I tried brute force which resulted in mach 0,68 speed.

9cH2E3e.png

 

Much more powerful boats were tested but without success. Variant shown below is equiped with 2 F-100 jet engines used in F-15. Rapid dissassembly took place at mach 0,6.

R4487cC.png

 

Edited by winged
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yak-7B (1942 production, M-105PF engine)

Performs almost exactly to historical specifications (~370 mph TAS at 3000m). I also built the Yak-7A with the earlier M-105 engine, but really the only external difference is the tailwheel being fixed in the 7A.

Screenshot20 by LythroA

Screenshot18 by LythroA

Screenshot21 by LythroA

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I had been doing some research and I am going ask all of my FAR fanatics to help me with to test a theory.  

I was researching the British Electric Lightning.... I watched a story of the unlikely test pilot, interesting story I suggest looking it up.   But I was reading about the aircraft design and how they went with an over-under engine design instead of a side by side like most twin engine fighters.  This was to decrease the drag on the airframe.   So I tested the design in FAR.... I built an aircraft using the MK2 fuselage that I set vertical instead of its standard horizontal and looked at the data.  It had lower drag numbers and was faster at sea level and at altitude than the horizontal setup.  But it had the glide slope of a brick.   

I dont have any current pictures of it but here is the basis for the design.

bg.jpg

I would love to see if the other engineering experts here can confirm that this is true in KSP+FAR.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a more obscure one, the Martin Baker MB. 3:

Screenshot10 by LythroA

Screenshot11 by LythroA

Screenshot12 by LythroA

Screenshot13 by LythroA

This and its later derivative, the MB. 5 were arguably the best fighters to come out of Britain during the war, but engine allocation issues and the winding down of the war prevented either from reaching production.

?u=https%3A%2F%2Foldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F06%2Fmartin-baker-mb3-runup.jpg&f=1martin-baker-mb3-left.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for all you experts out there:
I'm currently meddling with some forward swept wings and came up with a plane with its CoL ahead of its CoM;
During test flights I noticed this:
https://i.imgur.com/6wG7ALY.gifv

Hope you guys can see it but if you don't, basically the TVC nozzles, instead of pushing the tail around the axis, is actually pointed slightly towards the opposite direction, countering the pitching moment to keep the plane stable(what I suppose it's doing, I'm running Atmosphere Autopilot).
Q1: I suppose I'm wasting energy with the nozzles pointing at the wrong direction?
Q2: Is this a result of excess control surfaces(too much imput) or pitch instability(CoL ahead of CoM)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 10:06 PM, Schwarz said:

Quick question for all you experts out there:
I'm currently meddling with some forward swept wings and came up with a plane with its CoL ahead of its CoM;
During test flights I noticed this:
https://i.imgur.com/6wG7ALY.gifv

Hope you guys can see it but if you don't, basically the TVC nozzles, instead of pushing the tail around the axis, is actually pointed slightly towards the opposite direction, countering the pitching moment to keep the plane stable(what I suppose it's doing, I'm running Atmosphere Autopilot).
Q1: I suppose I'm wasting energy with the nozzles pointing at the wrong direction?
Q2: Is this a result of excess control surfaces(too much imput) or pitch instability(CoL ahead of CoM)?

The biggest thing on forward swept wings is you have to rely more on the canards for your pitch control than your tail.  Most of my designs that use this setup have removed the tail elevators and use canards for most of the pitch authority.   I also use the fly-by-wire mod which makes the craft fly more like a modern fighter craft.  I also use leading edge slats, on most of my more agile aircraft and even on some of my more mundane designs.  But those engines are designed to gimbal and pitch the aircraft.  And with your COL ahead of your CoM, it isnt helping your design much.   Move it back closer to your COM, so it is abit more stable.  I know that isn't exactly what you are going for but in KSP making a modern aerodynamically unstable airframe is a challenge to fly in this game.   

 

So I like to have my CoL either right on top or a hair behind the CoM.  I have no recent craft pictures but I have a fair number of forward swept wing airframes.  I found they are a bit trickier to design but when they work they work really well for high speed flight and lower speed flight.   But have NASTY stall departures.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Schwarz have gotten some time to upload some of the picks of the aircraft I have been working on for you to give you an idea what I am talking about.  One is a canard and forward swept wing design the other is a more traditional setup with forward swept wings.

Here is the first one.. and also doing the experiment with the vertical engine setup versus the horizontal engine setup.

m4ov4ih.png

And now for the more traditional setup one....

C3ooncn.png

 

The biggest thing I can say between the two is the canard setup will stall its canards before it stalls its wings thus making it a bit more controllable in high AOA situations.  The other design... well if it werent for fly-by-wire it would probably be a bit of a handful. 

 

KVUGnbE.pngSQEbj1X.png

 

And this is where the first craft started in design... for testing.

XszvURN.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been messing around with tailless designs recently. Here's a fighter inspired by the Boeing F/A-XX concept. The outboard control surfaces are split flap rudders while the inboard surfaces provide pitch and roll control, along with the thrust vectoring from the engines.

yxDUaIt.png

bfrFuXc.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, Hodo said:

OK Schwarz have gotten some time to upload some of the picks of the aircraft I have been working on for you to give you an idea what I am talking about.  One is a canard and forward swept wing design the other is a more traditional setup with forward swept wings.

 

Sorry for the so very late reply, many thanks for your great help! Now I have time to play KSP again, I'm currently doing some more experiments and making different crafts, incorporating your advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now