Turboshafts need alternators

[CocoDaPuf]

It seems like an oversight more than anything else, turboshafts are an engine just like any rocket or jet engine, there's no reason they shouldn't also have an alternator to run electric parts of your crafts.  Without this, I can't see any way to make a prop or rotor craft that isn't range limited by it's battery capacity.

And while we're at it, Since the robotic parts introduced the idea of an adjustable slider for engine strength/weight, you could also have a slider for alternator power/weight.

At the moment, this is just one of many issues that make helicopters extremely frustrating.  It's not game breaking or anything, but if you're going to add helicopter rotors at all, it seems important to make using them feasible.

Edited August 29, 2019 by CocoDaPuf
grammar

[Mikki]

3 hours ago, CocoDaPuf said:

It seems like an oversight more than anything else, turboshafts are an engine just like any rocket or jet engine, there's no reason they shouldn't also have an alternator to run electric parts of your crafts. 

Basically a must-have in the next update, this is the most obvious mishap in the breaking ground DLC.
I hope this is scheduled on top and doesn`t get overlooked along the mentioned surface revamps.

But just to be sure, i say again, Alternators on turboshafts!   

[AHHans]

Considering that someone from SQUAD looked at the corresponding bug report:
    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/23190
I believe that there is a good chance that something will be done on this before the heat death of the universe.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by AHHans
fixed typo

[Mieszko]

AMEN! Also the turboshaft engine really REALLY needs a swashplate, or a separate swashplate part. Building functional realistic helicopters is impossible without a collective and cyclic control. Being able to properly control the YAW moment with a tail rotor would be incredible as well. The expansion is amazing and the new parts are incredible but it just scratches the surface of what building propeller/rotor aircraft means.

[StevieC]

ehh, while a swashplate would be what most people think of, I would more prefer a control-gyro of the sort used by Lockheed in their hingeless "rigid" rotor system, which was so dramatically showcased in their XH-51 as seen here.

Although it's often called a "rigid" rotor, the more accurate name is a hingeless rotor, because it omits the articulated rotor-head's lead/lag and flapping hinges, designing the blades themselves to be flexible enough to not need those hinges. The resulting hingeless rotor-head boasts better responsiveness to pilot control input, eliminating the lag that articulated rotor-head helicopters are often plagued with. The lack of hinges also reduces risk of so-called "mast-bumping" inherent in teetering and hinged rotor-head designs.

[IkranMakto]

On 9/17/2019 at 7:48 AM, Mieszko said:

AMEN! Also the turboshaft engine really REALLY needs a swashplate, or a separate swashplate part. Building functional realistic helicopters is impossible without a collective and cyclic control. Being able to properly control the YAW moment with a tail rotor would be incredible as well. The expansion is amazing and the new parts are incredible but it just scratches the surface of what building propeller/rotor aircraft means.

Look at this. Its swashplate is pure stock. 

 

[JPLRepo]

1.8 changelog:

* Add alternators (producing electric charge) on LiquidFuel Robotic Rotors.