Give us 2.5m plane parts

[Rath]

On October 7, 2016 at 0:19 PM, StahnAileron said:

As for Size 2 parts: I'm more a fan of smaller designs. The MK2 profile to date has served most of my plane needs/wants. If surface bases on Kerbin (or Laythe, though I've never then maybe I would care enough... But really, Between MK2 and MK3 profiles, is there a need for 2.5m plane parts? I see MK2 as medium-ish passenger liners with MK3 as heavy hauler. (I have built a 2.5 liner, but I was using mods like SXT and KAX.) What would a 2.5 aero profile add?

No airliner has wing blending.

mk3 is fine.

[StahnAileron]

15 hours ago, Rath said:

No airliner has wing blending.

mk3 is fine.

Uh... What are you addressing here? I don't see how what you said had any bearing on anything I said. If it wasn't obvious, I was stating how between the MK2 and MK3 profiles, there's no real need for Size 2 (2.5m) aircraft parts. If they were implemented, what needs/roles would they address besides aesthetics?

[Red Iron Crown]

7 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Uh... What are you addressing here? I don't see how what you said had any bearing on anything I said. If it wasn't obvious, I was stating how between the MK2 and MK3 profiles, there's no real need for Size 2 (2.5m) aircraft parts. If they were implemented, what needs/roles would they address besides aesthetics?

Carrying 1.25m payloads with radial parts attached. Mk2 is OK but can't carry a lander can inside or a 1.25m tank with landing legs attached.

I messed around with rescaling the Mk3 parts to 2/3rd their original size as a poor man's mod, turns out it is pretty useful both for the intermediate sized cargo bays and LF tanks similar to 2.5m size. Maybe I should figure out the drag cubes and package it up as a real mod.

[CdrFuzz]

A 2.5m cargo bay would be cool (as would a 1.25m one) but, yeah - as others have said, gimme the 2.5m LF-only tanks and I'll love you forever, SQUAD.

[kiwi1960]

My main problem is that there are never enough of ANY parts no matter the size... I'd love more of everything.

If Squad ever did an expansion pack of aircraft parts, I'd grab it.

I think the space plane parts have been forgotten, mostly, and they should be revamped and added to.

Its a shame, because in the real world, the days of the rocket may well be numbered... the shuttle concept will, by simple necessity, have to make a comeback, but rather than the shuttle idea, a totally reusable space plane as metals become scarcer and more expensive. It would be nice if KSP lead the way... maybe give the designers of tomorrow a few good ideas.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by kiwi1960

[Van Disaster]

I use B9 S2 parts all the time, especially the cargo bay ( the form factor is 2.5m octagonal, IE the edges will meet a 2.5m cylinder ) - you would probably be surprised how much you'd use 2.5m cargo parts, I'd think it'd replace a lot of people's Mk3 use. More use would be something that could *hold* 2.5m parts ( so 2.65m say ) but then where do you stop.

To get a sense of scale:

Spoiler

Mk2 always puzzled me, it never really seemed to fit - it's basically a Mk1 extension ( literally, it's Mk1 with side shape blending ) it's not really an intermediate between Mk1 & Mk3.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Van Disaster

[problemecium]

I say we already have a 2.5m cockpit (okay, "cockpit") and crew cabin, but some 2.5m liquid fuel tanks would be very nice.

[Titan 3000]

If anyone is really looking for a mod that adds really good 2.5m plane parts the praska aeroworks mod does just that with plenty of really cool other parts.

[legoclone09]

2 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

space plane parts have been forgotten

Sarcasm?

We've gotten tons of plane revamps in the past two years.

[kiwi1960]

20 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

Sarcasm?

We've gotten tons of plane revamps in the past two years.

no, fact! LOL

While we have been given a lot of parts... there isn't the variety. (and I'm talking STOCK here)

Wheels, for example, are almost always NOT going to be aerodynamic when raised...

I'd like to see a fuselage that could accommodate some fuel, some passengers and some cargo.... or a combination of that.

I'd like to see wings with built in landing gear so there is no bulge... or very little...

I can easily make a space station and be spoilt for choice... when choice isn't the major factor, you see, once its in orbit, there is no drag so you can have anything...

But a space plane, or, more correctly, a plane to travel within the atmosphere only, is limited because it needs to be streamlined for flight...

so we NEED cargo sections... not only at 2.5m but I'd suggest we need to be able to build planes at 10m... HUGE cargo planes to get section of a Polar base to the North or South pole... etc.

 

[legoclone09]

Just now, kiwi1960 said:

~~snip~~

I do agree with that. More depth and not just breadth.

[Grenartia]

9 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

Uh... What are you addressing here? I don't see how what you said had any bearing on anything I said. If it wasn't obvious, I was stating how between the MK2 and MK3 profiles, there's no real need for Size 2 (2.5m) aircraft parts. If they were implemented, what needs/roles would they address besides aesthetics?

I can get Mk2 planes into orbit, but not Mk3s. With suitable parts to make a Size 2 SSTO, I could probably more easily bridge that gap. 
 

9 hours ago, CdrFuzz said:

A 2.5m cargo bay would be cool (as would a 1.25m one) but, yeah - as others have said, gimme the 2.5m LF-only tanks and I'll love you forever, SQUAD.

Also wouldn't mind a decent plane cockpit for 2.5m. 2.5m jet engines and intakes also wouldn't be bad. We already have rockets in that size, why not jets/intakes? Sure, you could argue that we could simply pile on more size 1 engines and intakes, but you could also argue that you don't need 2.5m rocket engines by that same logic. Why do you need a mainsail if you can just mount a crapton of Reliants at the bottom of the orange tank?

 

[Sharpy]

Personally, I don't really see the 'ecosystem gap'. MK4 is a very fine mod that meets all my needs for *containing* 2.5m parts. I don't see anything 2.5m could do that MK3 can't.

But I agree that stock needs more LF tanks - or just a built-in fuel switch. The Interstellar Fuel Switch is a real game changer. (except for Xenon and Monoprop. They really messed up the ratios for these.)

 

 

[SSgt Baloo]

I'd be happy if they'd just give us a cockpit that wouldn't look out of place on a DC-3 (c-47) or C-45. The currently available stock parts don't look like pilot visibility was much of a concern when they laid them out. I would also like to see an inline Mk1 cockpit with dual (side-by-side) seating, and another with tandem seats. so I could build some trainer planes.

Edited November 26, 2016 by SSgt Baloo

[Hay]

Gimme them clean white fuel tanks! The only good looking 2.5m fuel tank we have right now is the jumbo

[Magzimum]

21 hours ago, Hay said:

Gimme them clean white fuel tanks! The only good looking 2.5m fuel tank we have right now is the jumbo

Aww! Hate to say but I disagee. As I said in a previous post, the Rockomax 2.5m tanks really look like a big barrel, and we have yet to find out if it contains rocket fuel, or some kind of pickled herring. That's really Kerbal in my opinion!! (I mean, the Kerbonauts also look a little clumsier than the real ones, right?).

Having said that, I agree with pretty much everyone else that we could use a few more LF tanks: different shapes and volumes.

 

[Fireheart318]

On 10/3/2016 at 9:19 AM, Veeltch said:

Don't think it's needed. I like to build planes, but IMO the game has enough of them and could use some surface base parts instead.

Why not both?

[Pds314]

Oh my gosh yes.

There should be not one but several 2.5m cockpits.

Also 2.5m and mk3 mixed cabins. What I mean is, for example, a cabin which has LF, LFO, or monoprop. What would also be awesome is a mk3 cabin with a built-in payload bay on the underside.

Also, it can never be said enough: airliner cabins and space habitats are not the same. The current mk3 cabins manage to "squeeze" 16 2'6" Kerbals into a cabin 3.5 meters wide and ~4.5 meters long. That sounds pretty good until you realize that every major airline's economy class 737s fit 36 6'0" humans in the same space. They also fit cargo, fuel, etc without extra parts.

But look at it from the other side and 16 Kerbals becomes impractically optimistic? If someone said you'd have a 200 square foot apartment to share with 15 other people for years, and that would be the ONLY place you could be, not, say, downtown, you'd probably run screaming.

It seems like what needs to happen is there needs to be some kind of happiness/comfort/stress level of Kerbals. At the very least, being able to sleep in a bed is a good thing. Real long-range aircraft like the B-2 Spirit have appropriate facilities onboard for long missions. Real space habitats have facilities appropriate for the duration someone is expected to stay. The space shuttle had sleeping arrangements because it was expected to be in space for 2 weeks. The ISS has all sorts of facilities to prevent the crew from going insane from cabin fever. Bombers like the B-29 could cruise for 30 hours straight without refueling. Germany's late WW2 potential prop-based Amerika-bomber designs would've needed to cruise for 2 days straight!

Point is, some crew modules should be fit for permanent habitation. Some should allow a week or two worth of stay before adverse consequences begin. Some should not even be fit for 24 hours of habitation.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Pds314

[Gaarst]

Please no. Give us something to build actual rockets for once.

I couldn't care less about planes or shuttle but we have literally no diversity at all in rocket parts. We had plane parts for the last few major updates so give rockets some love please.

[Pds314]

Part suggestions:

cockpits:

Mk2.5 observer cockpit: dome-like elliptical cockpit. Good visibility forward and upward. Low subsonic drag but high transonic and supersonic drag. Should be basically a modernized B-29 cockpit. 3 crew. 2 tonnes.

Mk2.5 streamliner cockpit: sleek airliner cockpit for the transonic flight regime. 3 crew. 2.5 tonnes.

Mk2.5 spearpoint cockpit: long, sharp cockpit with high heat tolerance. Good for supersonic flight. 3 crew. 3 tonnes.

Mk2.5w wedge cockpit: .625m side extensions built into the chassis. Good body lift and sleek transonic and supersonic shape with good heat tolerance. Holds 4 crew. 4 tonnes.

Mk2.5w cockpit: .625m side extensions built into it. Subsonic or transonic design. Holds 4 crew. 3.5 tonnes.

Mk2.5w-Mk2.5 hollow cockpit: vertical Mk2.5w fuselage with a 2m-tall cargo bay inside. 4m-long Inline cockpit. Holds 3 Crew. Weighs 3.5 tonnes.

Mk2.5w-Mk2.5 cabin cockpit: has passenger capacity. Identical to hollow cockpit but has room for 8 additional passengers. Weighs 6 tonnes.

fuselages:

Mk2.5 jet fuel fuselage series: 1-8 meter fuel fuselages. Hold 800-6400 fuel. Weigh 0.5-4 tonnes dry.

Mk2.5w jet fuel fuselage series: 1-8 meter widebody fuel fuselage: Hold 1000-8000 jet fuel.

LFO fuselages of those types.

Mk2.5 cargo bays 2-8 meters.

Mk2.5w cargo bays 2-8 meters.

Mk2.5w fuel tank cargo bay. 2-8 meters and 400-1600 fuel and Mk2.5 cargo bay.

Mk2.5w intake fuselage: Mk2.5w fuselage with a pair of supersonic intakes on the shoulders. Equal combined intake area to Mk1 intake.

Mk2.5w-Mk3 adapter A: 4m fueled adapter fuselage which converts a vertical Mk2.5w to a vertical Mk3. (Makes it fatter)

Mk2.5w-Mk3 adapter B: 4m fueled adapter fuselage which converts a horizontal mk2.5w to a vertical mk3. (Makes it marginally thinner but taller)

Mk2.5w adapter: 4m Mk2.5 fuselage which bows out to a 3.75m wide Mk2.5w fuselage.

Short adapters: same adapters, just shorter with less weight and fuel.

Cabins

Mk2.5 passenger cabin: 4 meters long, 4 tonnes. 8 passengers. Holds 800 fuel.

Mk2.5w passenger cabin: 4 meters long, 12 passengers. 5.5 tonnes. Holds 1200 fuel.

Mini passenger cabins: basically a sawed off version of the big ones that have exactly half as much stuff.

Mk2.5w windowseat cabin bay: 4 meters long and holds 8 passengers. Has a 1.75-meter-thick cargo bay running down the middle.

Mk2.5w windowseat cabin tank: 4 meters long and holds 8 passengers. Also holds 2400 fuel.

Mk2.5w double decker: 6.75 tonnes. Holds 16 passengers but does not contain fuel. A Mk2.5w meant to be placed upright so that it is 3.75m tall and 2.5m wide.

Mk2.5w Adapter cabin: 10 passengers, 4m long. 4.75 tonnes and 1000 units of fuel.

Mk2.5w doubledecker adapter cabin: 4m long. Only holds 10 passengers and nothing else in 5 tonnes.

 

 

I would also suggest a modified 3.75 series of parts, like 3.75*6.25m with Mk1 convex sidebody parts or something. In particular, the cargo bays would be valuable for things like big rovers and small planes.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Pds314

[royying]

I think configurable tank is the ultimate solution,

All tank should able to change the fuel type.

If we have orange tank with LF only, this request can simply solve by add a 2.5m cockpit

[paul23]

Quote

 

Its a shame, because in the real world, the days of the rocket may well be numbered... the shuttle concept will, by simple necessity, have to make a comeback, but rather than the shuttle idea, a totally reusable space plane as metals become scarcer and more expensive. It would be nice if KSP lead the way... maybe give the designers of tomorrow a few good ideas.

Please don't talk repurposed bovine waste.

 

Current development is leading away from any "shuttle" like design: and we're going to make more and more non reusable spacecraft. The maintenance costs and reliability of reusing crafts is simply way too high to make it economically feasible. - A simple craft which you know works and doesn't require highly specialized products is much cheaper to produce - and on top of that because of the reliability it becomes much cheaper to launch too.

What we will probably see in the future is for LEO recoverable booster stages, which will do the brunt force and then land using parachutes/gliding/vertical landing. Followed by a non reusable stage that brings the craft in a complete orbit. For high orbits the power required makes technically complex boosters a less viable option and thus we will see for those applications rockets with cheaper stages, which burn up in the atmosphere. (Potentially first stage recoverable).

But a craft that is a one-stop vehicle is not something we will see in the near future, it's just too expensive and actually require *MORE* energy to maintain than to recreate from scratch.

Edited December 5, 2016 by paul23

[Mr.GReAt]

On 10/3/2016 at 1:56 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

*AHEM*

I think we need not.

I just can't help but see this and think those parts don't belong together. My apologies if you put effort into it, however I just dislike making crafts that I don't like the look of and a part of that is the parts have to at least look a little like they belong together.