Jump to content

Why does the Mk2 fuselage have the same amount of liquid fuel as a Mk1?


Recommended Posts

It's been bugging me for awhile that, while larger, the Mk2 short liquid fuel fuselage has the same amount of fuel than the Mk1 one. Shouldn't it have a little bit more than that? If it doesn't, there's really no big advantage in using it instead of a Mk1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bloody_looser said:

It provides body lift, and it is an advantage. If you look closer at the model you'll see it's mk1 tank in a structural fuselage. :wink:

Yah, Mk2 tanks produce lift, but that isn't really an excuse to make them have the same amount of fuel as a smaller Mk1. It's only logical to have the extra space contain fuel. If balance is a concern, they should just be made more expensive or similar, not made space-inefficient. Sure you could say there are structural supports in there, but they certainly shouldn't take up all available space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has slightly higher temperature tolerance too, so that balances it out a bit more. I admit that I have many times wished for more fuel capacity in Mk2 fuselages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Actually as of 1.0.0+, body lift is modeled in stock KSP.

Strange, there's no CoL sphere with the fuselage alone.

Even then, the lift it provides wouldn't be significant enough for the added cost, most of your lift being provided by wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Strange, there's no CoL sphere with the fuselage alone.

Even then, the lift it provides wouldn't be significant enough for the added cost, most of your lift being provided by wings.

Well, body lift is bugged in 1.1.2 and it's missing actually. :D

200 funds is a way too large sum? IMO Mk2 short's cost is totally fine, since it sturdier, has better heat tolerance and provides lift - well, supposed to. With all that features it's just 0,04 tons heavier than mk1 - it's weight of two LV-1 engines. Everything seems balanced enough.

Edited by Bloody_looser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the size isn't really important. the important thing is that mk2 tanks are only very slightly heavier than the 1.25m tanks and you get a massive amount of heat resistance and decent crash tolerance for that tiny bit of extra mass. they are not automatically the better choice, but they do have their uses. for example on space planes that don't dump the fual tanks but actually bring them back down for recovery.

not really sure about the body lift. i remember that it was quite possible to actually land mk2 craft with no wings or parachutes - just with the body lift they provided. haven't tried that stunt in v1.1.2, though. it's quite possible that the body lift is currently bugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...