New game (for DLC), so let's learn to fly?

[MPDerksen]

I have completely ignored the Spaceplane hanger so far, like ALWAYS.  I've never once made a plane.  Now that I'm starting a new game to play the new expansion, it seems a good time to try it out.  I'm getting early missions to take samples at certain places, and shuttle tourists.  But no plane parts are really unlocked yet.  Since I'm not really new to KSP, but completely noob on planes, is there a write up on them to get me started?

Michael

[bewing]

For the initial airplane node, the main point is weight/mass. Because of the limitations on the wheels.

So the first basic point is: don't get fancy! You're limited to (at most) 7 tonnes mass for your first plane. It will fly slowly -- 200 m/s max. So don't expect to fly very far until you've unlocked the next tech node.

If you want to make an easy to fly plane, make it a canard-wing design. Main wings in the back, canard wings (I prefer to use tailfins) on the nose.

If you use the MK1 LF tank, take half the fuel out. You won't need 400 units -- you probably won't even need 100 units.

I find it works well to put an MK1 command pod on the nose, and put the small air intake on the front of that.

Don't expect to land in the wilderness until you have upgraded the wheels, and the engine. A juno is a weak engine, and the cessna stick wheels are fragile.

Once you've slapped it all together, turn on the CoM and CoL indicator, and make sure the CoL ball is just behind the CoM (touching is OK).

And I think there are some writeups in the Tutorials section of this forum about building basic planes.

 

 

[Guest]

Yes there is an really fantastic tutorial: 

I highly recommend going through it in sandbox mode before attempting career planes. Early planes are much harder than late ones because you have such a limited part selection to play with.

 

[Geschosskopf]

13 hours ago, MPDerksen said:

Since I'm not really new to KSP, but completely noob on planes, is there a write up on them to get me started?

The biggest problem I find with early planes is the 30-part limit of the starting SPH and runway.  Planes need more parts than rockets and getting everything in under 30 parts can be a challenge, especially as the initial set of airplane parts are rather clunky and uncooperative.

My 1st plane is almost always has the wings mounted on the bottom of the fuselage and swept forward.  This lets me put the fixed landing gear on the wingtips to create a wide-stance tail-dragger--having the wings low on the fuselage gives more ground clearance for the fixed gear.  This helps with landing as control is always an issue (normally you don't have ailerons).  Also, having the wings swept forward puts the CoL in a better position relative to the CoM than having them swept back.  The power comes from 2 or 4 Juno pods, each consisting of the small intake, the small fuel tank, and the small engine.  I mount these pods on the sides of the fuselage with the fuel tanks centered on the CoM, so the CoM doesn't move in flight as the fuel burns.  4 engines gives better speed and longer range but that's 12 parts, nearly half your total budget, which limits what else you can put on the plane. 

Generally, the parts budget is like this:

• Fuselage:  Mk 1 cockpit, 2x Mk 1 structural fuselage, and either the 0.625m or the 1.25m reaction wheel depending on availability.  4 parts
• Empennage:  3 of the tailfins that include moving control surfaces, or moving winglets.  2 for horizontal (both pitch and roll), 1 vertical for yaw:  3 parts
• Wings:  2 of the swept wings:  2 parts
• Landing gear:  2 fixed and 1 steerable:  3 parts
• Science:  1 thermometer, 1 barometer, 1 antenna, 2 Ox-Stat solar panels, 1 small battery:  6 parts
• Engines:  2 Juno pods:  6 parts

So that right there, just for the basic plane, is 24 of your 30 parts.  Now you have several options for the remaining 6

• 2 more Juno pods (6 parts)  and that's all you can do.  Allows longer range and higher speeds.
• Add 1 or 2 Science Jr to the fuselage and/or hang some Goo pods on the sides.  This prevents having more power and makes the plane more difficult to fly, but it works.  Gets more science, though.
• Stick a Flea SRB on the back of the fuselage to boost to those high-altitude contracts that the Junos can't reach alone.  To still allow having 4 Junos so you can get as high as possible before lighting the SRB, go with a V tail (so only 2 parts in the empennage).  But this whole configuration is a bit unstable due to CoM changes so is best done if you have the 1.25m reaction wheel.

 

 

 

[Fraktal]

Also.

• Since the starter landing gear is so rickety, you can spare yourself a lot of headache if you just plain forget about landing on wheels. Bring a radial-mount parachute and pop it when you're above where you want to land; at starter weight, 1 should be enough.
• If the plane starts rhythmically hopping up and down on the runway, you are too heavy. Lose some fuel or bring another pair of rear landing gear.

[Geschosskopf]

14 hours ago, Fraktal said:

Also.

• Since the starter landing gear is so rickety, you can spare yourself a lot of headache if you just plain forget about landing on wheels. Bring a radial-mount parachute and pop it when you're above where you want to land; at starter weight, 1 should be enough.
• If the plane starts rhythmically hopping up and down on the runway, you are too heavy. Lose some fuel or bring another pair of rear landing gear.

In 1.7.1, there's no problem taking off or landing on the dirt runway with the starter landing gear.  This is a pleasant surprise.  Even though I last played in 1.3.1, the dirt runway had been around long before had always been totally and stupidly unusable because it was MUCH rougher than the surrounding terrain.  I mean, how could even drunken, braindead Kerbals screw that up that badly?!?!?!?  So back in those days, you'd spawn on the runway, taxi off to the ground beside it, take off there, land there, then taxi back onto the runway to recover the plane.  Even with more advanced landing gear, using the dirt runway, which was built like a dirtbike race track, at more than about 10m/s was suicide. 

But nowadays, the dirt runway is just as smooth as the surrounding not-quite flat ground around KSC and the starter landing gear can handle that just fine.  The only advantage of landing in the grass is that it's easier and faster because you don't have to worry about being lined up on any particular heading.  This is always an issue with the 1st plane you have due to it being rather less than a precision instrument.  Usually no ailerons, not much torque, and the dual-purpose horizontal tail surfaces needing a lot of authority for pitch so give too much for roll, plus usually do some of both when you only want 1 or the other.  Thus, while it's no problem nowadays to take off from the dirt runway with the starter landing gear, you might still consider landing beside instead of on the runway, simply due to control issues.  Coming down straddling the sloping runway sides can ruin an otherwise perfect mission.  It all depends on how well you can control this initial POS plane ;).

I've never been a fan of using a parachute for landing a plane.  Especially the 1st plane when you only have 30 parts.  You still need wheels to take off so the parachute adds to the overhead of non-mission parts and thus cuts into the very few extra parts you have to configure the plane to the specific mission.  Also, the starter landing gear is better these days, especially if you apply the same tweaks you do for all wheels and lander legs.  Switch the spring/damper balance from auto to manual, jack the dampers up to 100, and reduce the springs to 0.5 (for Kerbin and any planet with similar gravity.  For planets with less gravity, use less springs but keep full damper).  So, if the contract involves taking multiple readings while landed at far-flung, you'll have to re-fly it for each target, which is expensive both in playtime, attention span, and money compared to doing it all in 1 go.  If the places are close enough together, you can just taxi between them after landing once, but if you can taxi fast enough not to get bored without the wheels freaking out, you can also land from flying speed.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[TheFlyingKerman]

23 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Generally, the parts budget is like this:

• Fuselage:  Mk 1 cockpit, 2x Mk 1 structural fuselage, and either the 0.625m or the 1.25m reaction wheel depending on availability.  4 parts
• Empennage:  3 of the tailfins that include moving control surfaces, or moving winglets.  2 for horizontal (both pitch and roll), 1 vertical for yaw:  3 parts
• Wings:  2 of the swept wings:  2 parts
• Landing gear:  2 fixed and 1 steerable:  3 parts
• Science:  1 thermometer, 1 barometer, 1 antenna, 2 Ox-Stat solar panels, 1 small battery:  6 parts
• Engines:  2 Juno pods:  6 parts

You should not need the battery, solar panels and reaction wheel. The cockpit has a reaction wheel and holds some charge. The Junos generates electricity while running (and they remain on during the whole flight). On the other hand, I would add a pair of flaps/aileron and use the big rectangular wing sections instead of the swept wings for better low speed handling. Also, replace one structural fuselage by an aeroplane tail to reduce drag.

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by TheFlyingKerman

[Geschosskopf]

1 hour ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

You should not need the battery, solar panels and reaction wheel. The cockpit has a reaction wheel and holds some charge. The Junos generates electricity while running (and they remain on during the whole flight). On the other hand, I would add a pair of flaps/aileron and use the big rectangular wing sections instead of the swept wings for better low speed handling. Also, replace one structural fuselage by an aeroplane tail to reduce drag.

Having just played a new 1.7.1 career, I'm pretty sure that the above is more like your 2nd airplane.  The rectangular wings, airplane tailcone, and separate control surfaces aren't available on the 1st airplane node, so you're forced to use the swept wings and rely on tail fins for control.  Which is why you need a reaction wheel.  For some stupid reason, all the airplane cockpits have insignificant yaw and roll torque but lots of pitch torque.  They should really be the other way around.  Anyway, due to having 2- or even 3-axis tail surfaces and no ailerons, the cockpit torque is usually insufficient for adequate stability and control.  Also, the tailcone doesn't save you enough on drag to be worth spending one of your few parts on it.

As to the solar panels and battery, you need that for transmitting science, especially when on the ground.  You will be landing in every biome in the region and taxiing at low RPM into those too steep to land on directly.  Thus, when you need to transmit the most, your engines are either shut off or running too low an RPM to make enough EC.  

[Fraktal]

Reaction wheels do not produce nearly enough torque for any kind of meaningful control against the oncoming airflow trying to keep you at low AoA. Tailfins produce waaaaay more pitch and roll torque than what a starter plane needs.

Transmitting science on Kerbin is, for the most part, pointless. With the exception of surface samples, any early experiments that do not require a scientist for multiple uses bring back 100% science on recovery and until you have the OKTO core, you can't bring a scientist without tacking on another 1.5 tons for the Crew Cabin because trying to fly long distances without SAS is a waste of your time.

And yes, I know people said the Juno isn't meant for long-distance travel, but two Junos with two Mk0 and one Mk1 fuel tanks can reach any biome on Kerbin, including the poles and the badlands. If you engineer your plane so that SAS requires minimal pitch torque to stay level, you can reach the poles at subsonic speed in about 20 real-life minutes using 4x physical time warp. I did this with only starter parts and inside the 30 part limit; took me about 2-3 trips per biome, though.

[Geschosskopf]

On 6/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Fraktal said:

Reaction wheels do not produce nearly enough torque for any kind of meaningful control against the oncoming airflow trying to keep you at low AoA. Tailfins produce waaaaay more pitch and roll torque than what a starter plane needs.

With this I disagree strongly. 

On 6/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Fraktal said:

Transmitting science on Kerbin is, for the most part, pointless. With the exception of surface samples, any early experiments that do not require a scientist for multiple uses bring back 100% science on recovery and until you have the OKTO core, you can't bring a scientist without tacking on another 1.5 tons for the Crew Cabin because trying to fly long distances without SAS is a waste of your time.

You have to transmit crew reports because the pod can only store 1.  It doesn't matter if they're from different biomes, if you already have 1 crew report in the pod, you can't make another without overwriting the 1st.  Thus, the necessity of transmitting.  And if you're going to be transmitting anyway, might as well also transmit the other 100% transmittable stuff like EVA reports, just in case you crash and are playing without reverts (or simply don't want to go through the whole boring mission again after a revert).

On 6/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Fraktal said:

And yes, I know people said the Juno isn't meant for long-distance travel, but two Junos with two Mk0 and one Mk1 fuel tanks can reach any biome on Kerbin, including the poles and the badlands. If you engineer your plane so that SAS requires minimal pitch torque to stay level, you can reach the poles at subsonic speed in about 20 real-life minutes using 4x physical time warp. I did this with only starter parts and inside the 30 part limit; took me about 2-3 trips per biome, though.

Yup, the Junos can get anywhere on a 1-way trip if you don't mind landing far afield and recovering at reduced price.  And if you can transmit crew reports, you don't have to make multiple trips per biome, thus saving lots of real life time  .  Planes rarely require much SAS torque for pitch if set up so the CoM doesn't move as fuel burns and the CoL is at the correct (small) distance behind the CoM.  BUT, accomplishing the essential science transmissions requires so many parts you can't have adequate roll and yaw control without the torque there, and the cockpits don't give enough so need help.

But chacun à son goût.  As @MPDerksen can no doubt see by now, there are multiple ways to handling the your 1st (PoS) plane.  There are general constratins that use up most of your 30 parts but you can play around a lot with the few left over.

[bewing]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

You have to transmit crew reports because the pod can only store 1.

But you can suck the crew report out via a science container if you include one in your craft -- or you can do the EVA trick. Then that leaves the slot open again in the pod to take another crew report.

 

[MPDerksen]

All very useful (as always).  I seem to have available missions that require parts I haven’t unlocked yet.  I had forgotten how limited the beginning parts were.  I guess I’ll just do some early orbital flights and collect some science to unlock the plane parts.  It sure would be nice if there were a few examples of early planes to model after.  I go to KerbalX and everyone seems to put the most complex craft imaginable.  That’s cool, but simply not what I really need to look at.

[Geschosskopf]

9 hours ago, bewing said:

But you can suck the crew report out via a science container if you include one in your craft -- or you can do the EVA trick. Then that leaves the slot open again in the pod to take another crew report.

I tried using a science container for the 1st time ever recently, in 1.7.1.  I found that it did exactly nothing.  It seemed to be counted as part of the pod, so all the limitations of duplicate reports still applied to the craft as a whole, whether the report was in the pod or the container.  It seemed to me that the only thing you could do with the container was put your science in it, then detach it from the ship and recover it, leaving the ship to go on finding more.  But as I said, I'd never tried one before so I don't know if this is how they're supposed to work.

[bewing]

3 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I tried using a science container for the 1st time ever recently, in 1.7.1.  I found that it did exactly nothing.  It seemed to be counted as part of the pod, so all the limitations of duplicate reports still applied to the craft as a whole, whether the report was in the pod or the container.  It seemed to me that the only thing you could do with the container was put your science in it, then detach it from the ship and recover it, leaving the ship to go on finding more.  But as I said, I'd never tried one before so I don't know if this is how they're supposed to work.

You seem to have missed the "Collect All" button in the context menu of the container. It actively gathers one copy of each science experiment on the entire craft.

 

[Geschosskopf]

7 minutes ago, bewing said:

You seem to have missed the "Collect All" button in the context menu of the container. It actively gathers one copy of each science experiment on the entire craft.

 

What's the difference between that and an EVA Kerbal manually stuffing data into the container before boarding the pod?  If 1 method allows you to have 2 crew reports on the same ship at the same time and the other does not, seems to be a bug.

[bewing]

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

What's the difference between that and an EVA Kerbal manually stuffing data into the container before boarding the pod?  If 1 method allows you to have 2 crew reports on the same ship at the same time and the other does not, seems to be a bug.

The difference is that you don't need a Kerbal, and you don't have to go out on EVA -- which is useful if you are flying along in the atmosphere at 500 m/s.

[TheFlyingKerman]

11 hours ago, MPDerksen said:

All very useful (as always).  I seem to have available missions that require parts I haven’t unlocked yet.  I had forgotten how limited the beginning parts were.  I guess I’ll just do some early orbital flights and collect some science to unlock the plane parts.  It sure would be nice if there were a few examples of early planes to model after.  I go to KerbalX and everyone seems to put the most complex craft imaginable.  That’s cool, but simply not what I really need to look at.

Here you go

[MPDerksen]

31 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Here you go

Fantastic.  thanks.  how far down the tree do I have to be to unlock the required parts?

[TheFlyingKerman]

In my older version 1.3.1 only the aviation node (45pt) and nodes below.

Edited June 14, 2019 by TheFlyingKerman

[bewing]

I prefer something more like this:

Cheaper than the plane above. Easier to fly. Easier to land. Probably faster, too.

[MPDerksen]

On 6/14/2019 at 2:38 PM, bewing said:

I prefer something more like this:

Cheaper than the plane above. Easier to fly. Easier to land. Probably faster, too.

BINGO.  I was able to take off, collect my data (for the mission) and land.  Twice.
However, the 3rd mission requires me to take temp data above 19K.  I tried switching from a single Jet engine to 2, but still can’t seem to get enough altitude.  I’m going to do some homework, but any advice on the next step would be really appreciated.

Michael

[guesswho2778]

On 6/11/2019 at 12:00 PM, bewing said:

Don't expect to land in the wilderness until you have upgraded the wheels, and the engine. A juno is a weak engine, and the cessna stick wheels are fragile.

ive somehow managed to land with those wheels while missing my front wheel

i had video evidence but i lost it when i had to reset my laptop

Edited July 2, 2019 by guesswho2778

[TheFlyingKerman]

2 hours ago, MPDerksen said:

However, the 3rd mission requires me to take temp data above 19K.  I tried switching from a single Jet engine to 2, but still can’t seem to get enough altitude.  I’m going to do some homework, but any advice on the next step would be really appreciated.

Use a rocket engine to boost you up. A Terrier is good for the purpose.

[bewing]

4 hours ago, MPDerksen said:

I’m going to do some homework, but any advice on the next step would be really appreciated.

You need to be more specific.  Do you want hints, detailed suggestions, a challenging low-quality plane that you could improve yourself by experimentation, or a super-duper top quality ultra-engineered gift plane?

[MPDerksen]

5 hours ago, bewing said:

You need to be more specific.  Do you want hints, detailed suggestions, a challenging low-quality plane that you could improve yourself by experimentation, or a super-duper top quality ultra-engineered gift plane?

Right. Good point. 

I found a bunch of helpful information on building my first plane. And I see a tons of crazy SSTO Laythe crafts. Not much on the progression between. 

I'm sure that as soon as I add a Terrier, as mentioned above, my mass will go up and everything will scale fast.  Even Manley and Lowne seem to cover the ends of the spectrum but not this middle part.