Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Post your crafts here and compare them! It is optional to help new players. Please notify a Mod if there is any Trouble.:kiss::)

Mods are important and please do not ignore them.

2.5 rockets are now the topic of the compare and share.

Edited by BlueVapor1234
I needed a topic for it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to the forums!

I'd recommend narrowing the scope of this topic a bit - you'll get a bit more interest this way. Is there any type of craft you're looking to compare (landers, spaceplanes, replica craft, launch vehicles, anything really). It may seem odd, but the more specific you are (to a point, obviously), the more likely people are to post. If you're stuck looking for inspiration, take a look around the Spacecraft Exchange (best subforum, IMO) and see if you can find something you want to talk about that there isn't a thread for already.

OM1KxvO.png

In the meantime, I'll kick things off with my most general craft. It's a stock, replica, SSTO spaceplane, and kind-of normal plane. I haven't released it yet because the payload fraction is really bad (or maybe I just need more practice piloting it).

I hope to see you around the forums!

   -Servo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Servo said:

It's a stock, replica, SSTO spaceplane, and kind-of normal plane. I haven't released it yet because the payload fraction is really bad (or maybe I just need more practice piloting it).

Replica? Of what?

Also, from what I've heard, mk2 fuselages are kinda crappy for spaceplanes. Something about high drag and low fuel mass ration. TBH I'd be kinda interested to play with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Servo said:

Hello and welcome to the forums!

I'd recommend narrowing the scope of this topic a bit - you'll get a bit more interest this way. Is there any type of craft you're looking to compare (landers, spaceplanes, replica craft, launch vehicles, anything really). It may seem odd, but the more specific you are (to a point, obviously), the more likely people are to post. If you're stuck looking for inspiration, take a look around the Spacecraft Exchange (best subforum, IMO) and see if you can find something you want to talk about that there isn't a thread for already.

OM1KxvO.png

In the meantime, I'll kick things off with my most general craft. It's a stock, replica, SSTO spaceplane, and kind-of normal plane. I haven't released it yet because the payload fraction is really bad (or maybe I just need more practice piloting it).

I hope to see you around the forums!

   -Servo

Thanks, i edited it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BlueVapor1234 said:

Post your crafts here and compare them! It is optional to help new players. Please notify a Mod if there is any Trouble.:kiss::)

Mods are important and please do not ignore them.

2.5 rockets are now the topic of the compare and share.

Nice choice - I use them a lot as my main worknorse lifters. I have a design that's good for 60t to LKO that I'll dig up.

It's based on the Delta IV heavy. Really simple, but also really effective.

10 hours ago, qzgy said:

Replica? Of what?

Also, from what I've heard, mk2 fuselages are kinda crappy for spaceplanes. Something about high drag and low fuel mass ration. TBH I'd be kinda interested to play with it.

It's based on the Rockwell X-30 NASP concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-30_NASP_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, qzgy said:

Also, from what I've heard, mk2 fuselages are kinda crappy for spaceplanes. Something about high drag and low fuel mass ration. TBH I'd be kinda interested to play with it.

Those are correct. There is apparently a glitch that affects fuselage parts that have a lift surface. I'm regularly plagued by cabins or cargo bays producing immense drag, giving me more reason to use OP engines to get around at high speed. Mk2 tanks only hold as much as any similar length 1.25m tank that fits inside them, leaving a lot of wasted internal volume and (in KSP terms) a load of pointless dry mass. In the tight spaces between the Mk2 internal cylinder and its sharp sides you can fit enough Mk0 tanks to make up another equal length Mk1 tank and double the current fuel amount held by the Mk2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Those are correct. There is apparently a glitch that affects fuselage parts that have a lift surface. I'm regularly plagued by cabins or cargo bays producing immense drag, giving me more reason to use OP engines to get around at high speed. Mk2 tanks only hold as much as any similar length 1.25m tank that fits inside them, leaving a lot of wasted internal volume and (in KSP terms) a load of pointless dry mass. In the tight spaces between the Mk2 internal cylinder and its sharp sides you can fit enough Mk0 tanks to make up another equal length Mk1 tank and double the current fuel amount held by the Mk2.

There is only 40kg difference in dry mass between mk1 liquid fuel fuselage and mk2 short liquid tank.  The problem is drag and drag alone.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 12:22 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Those are correct. There is apparently a glitch that affects fuselage parts that have a lift surface. I'm regularly plagued by cabins or cargo bays producing immense drag, giving me more reason to use OP engines to get around at high speed. Mk2 tanks only hold as much as any similar length 1.25m tank that fits inside them, leaving a lot of wasted internal volume and (in KSP terms) a load of pointless dry mass. In the tight spaces between the Mk2 internal cylinder and its sharp sides you can fit enough Mk0 tanks to make up another equal length Mk1 tank and double the current fuel amount held by the Mk2.

I actually learned something the other day about that shape, it came when I was studying the Electric Lighting fighter.   I found that wide flat shapes like the MK2 forms that create lift, also create a fair amount of drag.  This is because when put simply lift = drag.   

But when I took that mk2 fuselage and turned it on its side, the drag issue pretty much vanished.    Now I do run FAR with AJE, so my install maybe different than yours.  

 

I actually only like using the mk2 forms for planes that need the lift area because of small wings or long range or both.  I rarely use that form for speed builds or anything that I plan on using as a SSTO plane now.  Mainly because I have yet to get it to work.... but that hasn't been the focus of my current playthrough.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hodo You have a great point. I know that lift = drag, and I eventually came to realize that, in its own way, a fuselage part not having a lift surface performs fabulously versus a part that has it. But there is a drawback. Any part without the lift surface part is at the full mercy of aero forces and easily wants to turn in any direction, any axis once that force builds up, and will demand elevons or airbrakes for yaw control, versus a part having lift surface, it will only tend to generate lift in its relative pitch axis.

Being fond of wide bodies in plane design, regular (or "rogue" as I call it) body lift is a big nope for me, and the visual appeal of a non-cylinder body for planes is quite alluring despite the pains of the added lift and drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Hodo You have a great point. I know that lift = drag, and I eventually came to realize that, in its own way, a fuselage part not having a lift surface performs fabulously versus a part that has it. But there is a drawback. Any part without the lift surface part is at the full mercy of aero forces and easily wants to turn in any direction, any axis once that force builds up, and will demand elevons or airbrakes for yaw control, versus a part having lift surface, it will only tend to generate lift in its relative pitch axis.

Being fond of wide bodies in plane design, regular (or "rogue" as I call it) body lift is a big nope for me, and the visual appeal of a non-cylinder body for planes is quite alluring despite the pains of the added lift and drag.

I found there is kind of a "happy" medium in wide body aircraft designs.  You have to rely on the bodies lifting properties to be your primary wing, and use a lot less wing than you would normally put on the craft.   I mean you look at the F-16C as a great example of a blended wing lifting body design.  Its wings are actually REALLY small for what you would expect out of craft of that size.  But it is extremely fast for a fighter of its size and weight.  AND it also is extremely agile.   

 

But when you start getting bigger start multiplying the drag exponentially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

I found there is kind of a "happy" medium in wide body aircraft designs.  You have to rely on the bodies lifting properties to be your primary wing, and use a lot less wing than you would normally put on the craft.   I mean you look at the F-16C as a great example of a blended wing lifting body design.  Its wings are actually REALLY small for what you would expect out of craft of that size.  But it is extremely fast for a fighter of its size and weight.  AND it also is extremely agile.   

 

But when you start getting bigger start multiplying the drag exponentially. 

It's all there in the F12 menu

NkrN3Je.jpg

The Big S Delta Wing is generating 15 times as much lift as the MK2 fuel tank, for half the drag.   It is holding 75% of the fuel too, for half the drag.

The MK1 fuel tank is about 40% of the drag for the same fuel capacity.

Cylindrical tanks are best at holding fuel as far as weight is concerned.  But,  the thing which holds most fuel for a given amount of drag is the big S wing strake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Phoenix 1a, a plane that I built pretty long ago, but it is extremely efficient, cool looking, and easy-ish to fly.

5qlQ3xC.png

https://kerbalx.com/BottleRocketeer500/Phoenix-1X

Also, here is an SSTO I built a long time ago in December of 2016

tUt9Ndj.png

uEdbmg6.png

f4gRSDI.png

https://kerbalx.com/BottleRocketeer500/SkyLark-1

Finally, here is a small stock airplane I made about half a year ago.

SHfsgzy.png

nxXZCRO.png

EipvrOK.png

eeffji2.png

https://kerbalx.com/BottleRocketeer500/Hawk-1a

Also, I just noticed that the topic is now 2.5m rockets, so here is a sub assembly for an upper stage I built.

7dAvQ53.png

Full imgur album

https://kerbalx.com/BottleRocketeer500/ACES

Edited by Bottle Rocketeer 500
Added link to Hawk 1a, which I stupidly forgot to put in. Also, I made a few change (actually just one) to the wording of this comment. Added a 2.5m upper stage sub assembly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AeroGav said:

It's all there in the F12 menu

NkrN3Je.jpg

The Big S Delta Wing is generating 15 times as much lift as the MK2 fuel tank, for half the drag.   It is holding 75% of the fuel too, for half the drag.

The MK1 fuel tank is about 40% of the drag for the same fuel capacity.

Cylindrical tanks are best at holding fuel as far as weight is concerned.  But,  the thing which holds most fuel for a given amount of drag is the big S wing strake

Unfortunately I dont those are available in the FAR setup.  I will check later when I get home.  I have never bothered to look at it seeing as FAR has all of that information available for me in the assembly building.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Unfortunately I dont those are available in the FAR setup.  I will check later when I get home.  I have never bothered to look at it seeing as FAR has all of that information available for me in the assembly building.  

Ah sorry I didn't realise the discussion had moved on to Ferram Aerospace.    IT is much more realistic,  and avoids the drawback mk2 parts suffer in stock aero

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AeroGav said:

Ah sorry I didn't realise the discussion had moved on to Ferram Aerospace.    IT is much more realistic,  and avoids the drawback mk2 parts suffer in stock aero

It really hadn't I just pointed out in my post earlier that it maybe different for me due to me running FAR and AJE.   Which does bring jet aircraft more inline with realistic performances.   It's all good. 

 

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...