Plane is too fragile even for full pitch-up input at speeds higher than 100m/s

[FahmiRBLX]

(Tags may explain a bit more detail)

 

I have this craft, made to resemble the Boeing 777-300 while having air-to-air refueling capability.

 

The problem is that the craft used to be so rigid that an aircraft carrier-level landing won't even break it, back when I still have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement installed. However, since I've updated my main install to 1.9.1 and got a fresh batch of mods; most are the same as my older install, one or two are newcomers and some from my older install didn't make it to my main 1.9.1 install (and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is one of them).

 

I initially forgot to download the latest KJR from the forums, but then I decided to just ditch it (since even KerbalX didn't include that mod in the automatically-generated modlist). And this happened. Even a full pitch up input would spell RUD on the craft.

 

So I'm needing advise for stock joint strength. I've tried strutting every joint of the fuselage, no good. Tried making a 'spine' over the fuselage and make it work with the strutted joints, also no good. Autostrut, more like 'autoslut'; still no fruit. Rigid attachment, no difference as well.

Edited June 10, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[AHHans]

Hmmm... I don't know how sturdy the connections of the aircraft parts are without KJR, but in pure stock with MK3 parts it shouldn't fall apart that easily. (I.e. only fall apart if you do a really hard landing or try to pull up at supersonic speeds.)

Do the actual connections between the parts fail, or does one central part fail and then everything becomes separate "craft"?

Some more ore less random comments:

• I usually autostrut everything to "grantparent" and this seems to help quite a bit.
• Don't bother using manual struts between parts that are already directly connected or use more than one strut between two parts. I'm not 100% sure, but I guess that just doesn't give you anything.
• Rigid attachment makes connections less "wobbly" but (much?) more likely to break. So that won't help you here.