blackheart612

[1.4.x-1.6.x] Airplane Plus - R26.0 (A lot of fixes) (Mar 21, 2019)

Recommended Posts

IIRC the KP-12 (Based on the Kuznetsov NK-12) has less thrust reading (150 kN) (At least in the SPH parts list) compared to the K56 (179.x), whereas IRL the Kuznetsov NK-12 series is the most powerful turborprop in service today. Which is kinda made it less relevant for turboprop-powered bomber or cargo plane construction, as the load the plane needs to take could be tremendous; something like 12 (?) BDAC Mk83s.

While the SXTC's KO-TP12 (Based on the same engine) is far more powerful, at 300 kN (Almost on par with the stock Goliath).

What I'm thinking of is the thrust increase up to 250+ kN. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Re: Performance:
This is KSP. I'm already sacrificing speed to use these engines because they're just a delight to play with/listen to. IMO tweaking their performance by minimal amounts (compared to stock engines) just for the sake of realism is a waste of time. (from the perspective of someone that really doesn't know anything about engines and aero)

 

Re: z-fighting:
I noticed this on many many parts too. Mainly just when i connect two bodyparts together, like a cargobay and a staircase because then I tend to look inside to place stuff and I notice the inner radius of the mesh z- fighting with the inner radius of the other mesh.

I haven't (yet?) spotted any obvious z-fighting on the exterior though.

Edited by Jognt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/14/2019 at 5:29 PM, FahmiRBLXian said:

IIRC the KP-12 (Based on the Kuznetsov NK-12) has less thrust reading (150 kN) (At least in the SPH parts list) compared to the K56 (179.x), whereas IRL the Kuznetsov NK-12 series is the most powerful turborprop in service today. Which is kinda made it less relevant for turboprop-powered bomber or cargo plane construction, as the load the plane needs to take could be tremendous; something like 12 (?) BDAC Mk83s.

While the SXTC's KO-TP12 (Based on the same engine) is far more powerful, at 300 kN (Almost on par with the stock Goliath).

What I'm thinking of is the thrust increase up to 250+ kN. What do you think?

Truth, NK-12 is a lot more powerful than the Allison T56 in terms of output but T56 has better power to weight ratio (which is the overall performance). In Airplane Plus, T56 has both better power and weight though, but it's limited on its speed. In reality T56 is scaled up a bit in power because KSP parts are heavy and I want it to be able to carry heavy cargo. NK-12 is mostly used on bombers and not cargo so it's got speed instead to balance it out.

Edit: The speeds are all based in real life too in some ways

Edited by blackheart612

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/16/2019 at 10:35 AM, blackheart612 said:

NK-12 is mostly used on bombers and not cargo so it's got speed instead to balance it out.

I might can say, dont forget the A-90 Orlyonok and Antonov An-22 Antheus / Antei. They carry cargo as well.

But still the thrust output makes no sense to me, at least IMHO.

Anyhow can you make the Pratt & Whitney (X)T57, GE36 UDF & Europrop TP400? As well as a dorsal-opening Mk1 Cargo Fuselage and Size 1.5 Cargo Fuselage with a dorsal door?

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine the NK-12 was used on the Soviet airliner which was also used as a medium cargo plane.  The entire plane was a lot heavier, and more durable than most western plane designs.  The engine itself had a very high power to weight ratio, but is incredibly heavy due to it's size.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ruedii said:

The engine the NK-12 was used on the Soviet airliner which was also used as a medium cargo plane.  The entire plane was a lot heavier, and more durable than most western plane designs.  The engine itself had a very high power to weight ratio, but is incredibly heavy due to it's size.

 

Yes, but I mean the Max. Thrust should state a high thrust output, while the Mass states a heavy weight as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a cargo plane using the Size 2 commercial cockpit and noticed some screens in there.  They reminded me of times years ago on KSP .90 playing with RasterPropMonitor, and they look like those screens as well, so I downloaded that mod.  However, the screens in that cockpit don't turn on with the mod installed.  Is there a way to make them functional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything new on development or one of the best mods of ksp is retired?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, qromodynmc said:

anything new on development or one of the best mods of ksp is retired?

What kind of news would you want? As far as I know the author is still very much engaged in the thread and besides some CFG moduleCargoBay fixes there's not much that'd need work?

edit: do you perhaps mean the topic title not showing explicit 1.7 compatibility? If so, don’t worry, it works fine. 

Edited by Jognt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jognt said:

What kind of news would you want? As far as I know the author is still very much engaged in the thread and besides some CFG moduleCargoBay fixes there's not much that'd need work? 

Yeah, from what I can tell this is feature complete.  It's being well maintained.

The author is currently creating content for his other mod in this Kerbal Standard pack: Grounded.  That one has a lot of cool, highly modular, ground vehicle parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2016 at 7:41 AM, blackheart612 said:

You guys enjoy it. Hopefully, Ill find someone to help me balance these. :wink:

ZentroCatson The problem with razorback is it follows through the entire fuselage. There might be a way to implement something but that might be an entirely new aircraft mod. Best to include parts that could mimic modern jets as well but it's only on my dreams. At least for now.

You could set it up that there's just a second node for 0.625M behind the canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 7:31 AM, Starboost88 said:

You could set it up that there's just a second node for 0.625M behind the canopy.

This is an old discussion, the implementation I chose was a 0.625m radial attachment which acts as the node so I it should work on stock or mine or whatever cockpit you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

This is an old discussion, the implementation I chose was a 0.625m radial attachment which acts as the node so I it should work on stock or mine or whatever cockpit you have.

ah. Thanks for clarifying,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blackheart612  I kinda feel shameless for doing this but for one last time i bring my old suggestion here...

I did look for this type of cockpit for a while, couldnt find a proper looking version at all. I know you're bit busy with other things on your hand but, i'll just as directly;

We need a bubble canopy with one side at 1.25m, other side at 0.25m, nose is not needed, it'll be suitable for many planes. Here are tons of variants that have similar look.

Ads-z.jpg

As you notice, all these planes have huge cockpits compared to their fuselages, this is why other cockpits are not fit for the job.

End of suggestion, of course you're totally free to do whatever you desire and dont forget we always loved your work here, and will be here to support you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, qromodynmc said:

*alot of cute bubbly cockpit pics*

PTZoeqi.png

h4UnJDX.png

DdlC8pV.png

It looks good even with this cockpit, but a properly bubbly cockpit would make it soooooo much better. Please, can we count on you? :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

*Pessimism instict about own suggestion might not gonna make it intensifies*

(Except for the pylonless Lotus which went pretty much successful although the one I meant is a truly pylonless version that fits nicely at the end of a Mk1 fuselage like a Wheesley but longer)

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
1. ) 2. I mean, how can "version" became a Malay-ish word that it has 'b' instead of 'v'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vladokapuh said:

can we count on you? :3

The more people who want it the more I perceive it as important. And the more important I think it is the higher the chance it'll be made first instead. So don't be too pessimistic about it. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KIMCHI said:

I am having issues with starting KSP. I know its this mod because I just installed it and it errors out while loading slats. Can someone look at my error logs and give me some help? I am on the latest 1.7.3 Steam Windows 10 1903.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XXXg6GhYDf52r_G7jwMfm--Wh7uT_qG0?usp=sharing

Have you installed Modulemanager yet?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 11:19 PM, qromodynmc said:

@blackheart612  I kinda feel shameless for doing this but for one last time i bring my old suggestion here...

I did look for this type of cockpit for a while, couldnt find a proper looking version at all. I know you're bit busy with other things on your hand but, i'll just as directly;

We need a bubble canopy with one side at 1.25m, other side at 0.25m, nose is not needed, it'll be suitable for many planes. Here are tons of variants that have similar look.

Ads-z.jpg

As you notice, all these planes have huge cockpits compared to their fuselages, this is why other cockpits are not fit for the job.

End of suggestion, of course you're totally free to do whatever you desire and dont forget we always loved your work here, and will be here to support you.

These cockpits aren't so huge, just fuselages are relatively small. In Kerbal scale it's a good idea for 0.675 fuselage. We haven't seen 0.675 cockpits since Lack's SXT and 0.675 sized planes used to be so cute (they go on being cute because they work in 1.7 too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Manul said:

These cockpits aren't so huge, just fuselages are relatively small. In Kerbal scale it's a good idea for 0.675 fuselage. We haven't seen 0.675 cockpits since Lack's SXT and 0.675 sized planes used to be so cute (they go on being cute because they work in 1.7 too) 

0.675 cockpit run into a serious problem:  Height.

With the new internal IVA overlays, the pilot's head will hit the ceiling, unless it enters a substantially taller profile in  the pilot section (about 1.2m height.) This still makes them smaller than the Mk1 models.

A bigger selection of 0.675 engines might be more important, though plus higher output electric engines to match new electric technology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ruedii said:

0.675 cockpit run into a serious problem:  Height.

That is why a huge canopy is required. If the canopy is almost the same size as the fuselage (as on pictures above) it might have enough space to fit an oversized kerbal's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm. Wouldn’t a stand-alone canopy fix all that? Just the canopy itself, radially attachable to whatever you want. Then you can turn any part into a cockpit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jognt said:

Uhm. Wouldn’t a stand-alone canopy fix all that? Just the canopy itself, radially attachable to whatever you want. Then you can turn any part into a cockpit. 

Personally, I've thought about this and you've reminded me. At some point I wanted to add it and forgot. Even more chance of it being added when I get the time. 

 

BTW Nice clipper but I'm more of a Corvette person (I don't have the rank yet though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.