Jump to content
  • 0

Plane manuevering to slowly how do I get it to manuever faster.


BlockGaming06
 Share

Question

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

For a more maneuverable aircraft, you are going to want the center of aerodynamic pressure to be very close to the center of mass. As is, you can see that your center of pressure is very far behind the center of mass. Try moving your wings forward, then add a small set of elevators on the back end of the craft. I cannot tell exactly where your rear landing gear are either, but they should be just a little behind your center of mass.

I like to use a mod called RCS Build Aid to help make planes. It is able to show the wet and dry centers of mass. Then I try to balance the craft such that the center of mass hardly changes as fuel is used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I find that KSP aircraft almost always need canards (steerable fins) toward the front of the plane in order to handle well. Others may say otherwise. This is just my opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
24 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

I find that KSP aircraft almost always need canards (steerable fins) toward the front of the plane in order to handle well.

I agree.  I have built a few successful planes without canard surfaces, but almost always end up adding canards.

One issue is if you mounted an engine or two on the back of the plane, the COM will be towards the aft of the plane- so traditional elevators do not have a long lever arm to work with, limiting their effectiveness.  In that case, even a small canard on the nose will be very effective, for the same reason- the lever arm is long.

Another consideration is the COM and CL representations in the SPH are not always accurate.  Relying on the graphical depictions of COM and CL can make building a good performing plane difficult.

Also, if you always fly with SAS engaged that will cover up a lot of design issues.  I often find that turning off SAS in flight is the best way to discover COM/CL issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 7/13/2022 at 6:19 PM, 18Watt said:

I agree.  I have built a few successful planes without canard surfaces, but almost always end up adding canards.

One issue is if you mounted an engine or two on the back of the plane, the COM will be towards the aft of the plane- so traditional elevators do not have a long lever arm to work with, limiting their effectiveness.  In that case, even a small canard on the nose will be very effective, for the same reason- the lever arm is long.

Another consideration is the COM and CL representations in the SPH are not always accurate.  Relying on the graphical depictions of COM and CL can make building a good performing plane difficult.

Also, if you always fly with SAS engaged that will cover up a lot of design issues.  I often find that turning off SAS in flight is the best way to discover COM/CL issues.

how could I do this but keep the f-14 look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIuffLFXLq54GSb4Qp6xY

This is an F-14. Notice the large elevators at the back beside the engines, which your plane doesn’t have. You’re missing at least a quarter of the plane.

Your fuselage is too short and the wings are right at the back of the plane, meaning a) the centre of lift is too far back compared to the centre of mass and b) you only have two relatively small pairs of elevons for pitch control, which have to try and counteract the inherent tendency to nosedive and so have little additional leverage to actually pitch up.

Add at least one more fuselage section where the wings currently are and add some all-moving fins beside the engines as dedicated elevators. Drain some fuel from the tanks to lighten the plane and tweak the fuel priority so the CoM doesn’t move too far forwards or backwards as fuel is burnt and unbalance the plane.

It’s also worth mentioning that the F-14 isn’t the most agile of fighters and you may have more success with a manoeuvrable fighter jet if you model it on a smaller, lighter plane such as the F-16, Saab 39 Gripen or Eurofighter Typhoon.

Edited by jimmymcgoochie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • If your main goal is a highly maneuverable plane, the main thing to look for is how close the CoL (blue ball) is behind the CoM (yellow ball). In fact, 'behind' is not even the right word: it should be inside the CoM. If you get this one thing right, every other detail becomes almost irrelevant. Get them practically together, and you could even build a plane without any control surfaces at all that will still maneuver like a cat with its tail on fire, using nothing but the reaction wheel in the cockpit (note: not recommending this, just saying).
  • You can still get very maneuverable planes without doing the above, but you are just making your life difficult. The more distance between the two, the more the aerodynamic forces will fight the plane pitching away from pure prograde, so the more and bigger control surfaces you will need with more leverage (distance from CoM) to still win the battle and make your plane pitch.
  • The catch is of course that it's a compromise: you want your plane to react quick and decisively when you pull the stick, but not so much that you risk losing control and just flipping in the air. In snap mode, a single fine tick more to the front or back can make all the difference.
  • Knowing this, you should always build the wings with the CoM /CoL indicators on, and as you build, make sure that you keep them very close together. When you add a wing section and you see the CoL suddenly jump way back, you know you'll either need to move that section forwards a bit, or you'll have to add wing area in front of the CoM to compensate.
  • (Note: stock CoM/CoL indicators are... quirky, and depending on your building techniques, sometimes outright deceiving. Don't trust them blindly, take them as indications and always test. There are mods that Correct this.)

Looking at your plane's main body and the general F-14 look you're going for, I woud suggest the following:

  • That Swept Wing Type B is offset and swept too far back, both for the CoL and for the look you want. It adds a lot of lift area behind the CoM, making it hard to compensate. At least offset it a good bit forward, even better if you rotate it so it's not so swept back, or replace it altogether (suggestion: Type C + 2x Type D + 2x elevon 1).
  • The wing 'shoulders' can be a set of two wing strakes, slightly offset above and below the main wing. Simple, but mimics the F-14 pretty convincingly, and at the same time helps move that CoL closer to the CoM a nice bit.
  • Take the recommendations already given about adding a set of elevators. Not only because that is how the F-14 actually looks, but those will be doing all the hard work of making your plane pitch in high-G turns. A pair of tail fins will do very nicely.

 

If you follow the above recommendations, there's is no need for canards (there hardly ever is, to be honest). It could look something like this:

FBsVFS6.png

(I later adjusted the tail fins to 75% and the Panther gimbal to 50%... it was too easy to stall and flip the plane at default settings.)

Notice the CoL being entirely inside the CoM, CoM almost perfectly centered on the tanks, which should allow to use their entire LF capacity without CoM moving much in flight. I haven't even added any angle of incidence to the wings, since you seem to have built without that (but it is highly recommended!).  As for performance:

 

I haven't taken the time to learn the nuances of this particular plane as I usually do before recording or sharing, so forgive me the janky flying (keyboard controls, yay) and the not-quite-tuned plane. It's really just to demonstrate the difference in responsiveness my suggestions make.

You can find the craft file for the BG06-F14 if you want to dissect it in-game, although the screenshot and the items I listed above really give all the relevant information.

I hope it helps with your design. If you encounter other issues ask away, you can see there's quite a few that will gladly help. Keep us informed on your progress, and by all means share videos/screenshots/craft files of the finished thing.

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
Answer this question...

×   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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...