Jump to content

Firespitter propeller plane and helicopter parts v7.1 (May 5th) for KSP 1.0


Snjo

Recommended Posts

They are rather weak, but they seem to be realistic as well. They're modelled after single row radial engines, probably circa 1930-1940, which only made about 500HP or so. Compare that with the 2500+HP you get out of the most basic of turbojet engines and it all makes sense. Real world you'd never see more than 250MPH out of any aircraft using them, and indeed, that's about how fast I could get an aircraft to go when using them in KSP 0.21.

250MPH feels like an absolute crawl in KSP because we're used to jets that can barely fly at that speed. Landing at 110m/s, which is what Google tells me is equivalent to 250MPH, is entirely normal for us. I imagine that's why the FS bomber wings have so much lift, KSP aerodynamics don't really allow flight at such low speeds with the vanilla wings.

My solution shot game balance in the face, but I just doubled their output. They suddenly became a very useful and very viable alternative to the basic jet engine. I do wish Snjo would toss in some better radials though, something like a Pratt and Whitney R2800? And maybe a bonkers R4360-like for those really heavy propjobs?

Edited by Kenobi McCormick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are rather weak, but they seem to be realistic as well. They're modelled after single row radial engines, probably circa 1930-1940, which only made about 500HP or so. Compare that with the 2500+HP you get out of the most basic of turbojet engines and it all makes sense. Real world you'd never see more than 250MPH out of any aircraft using them, and indeed, that's about how fast I could get an aircraft to go when using them in KSP 0.21.

250MPH feels like an absolute crawl in KSP because we're used to jets that can barely fly at that speed. Landing at 110m/s, which is what Google tells me is equivalent to 250MPH, is entirely normal for us. I imagine that's why the FS bomber wings have so much lift, KSP aerodynamics don't really allow flight at such low speeds with the vanilla wings.

My solution shot game balance in the face, but I just doubled their output. They suddenly became a very useful and very viable alternative to the basic jet engine. I do wish Snjo would toss in some better radials though, something like a Pratt and Whitney R2800? And maybe a bonkers R4360-like for those really heavy propjobs?

The thrust and lift numbers are all basically evolutionary. The first thing I made was the radial engine, and it needed to be fast enough to take off with a small single engine plane, but not fly stupid fast. To make bombers work, I tuned the wings and engines again so that it would fly well with four engines on them. For the Lancaster engine, I threw that thought out the windows and just gave it lots of power cause I know people want that, so it has something like 4x150 thrust. Maybe 150 thrst isn't a lot compared to a Mainsail, but as you said, these ain't jets.

For a more powerful radial engine, I'd like to do a new model on the casing at least, so that it's a bit heavier and longer, so it could house one of those massive engines, but still attach to a regular round piece of course. Maybe throw in my particle fx code on it.

Now that I can make more consistent lift values, I will set up a new set of bomber wings with the proper span and surface area, and we'll see how much lift they would actually give in comparison to a smaller wing. My plan for the wings with new lift code is to release them as an extra, not replace the existing wings. This is because they require a bit more setup if you are using a wing in the "wrong" place. An aileron will only respond to pitch by default, and you have to alter its response values if you want to make it work as a rudder or flap instead. More power to you, less convenience :)

UpU5Fza.png

Setting up a flapperon. GUI is still a bit rough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a more powerful radial engine, I'd like to do a new model on the casing at least, so that it's a bit heavier and longer, so it could house one of those massive engines, but still attach to a regular round piece of course. Maybe throw in my particle fx code on it.

Of course, of course, the R2800 and R4360 are absolutely massive. I figure they could be used on particularly heavy craft in multi-engine configuration while still getting reasonable speeds(Say 175-200m/s ala B29), or in a single-engine application where you want to be hitting 75% of Mach straight and level without touching a jet/rocket. Still not quite equal to jets but definitely a viable alternative just the same.

I wonder if it'd be possible in your plugin to make the thrust of piston engines taper off as speed increases and prop efficiency plummets.

Edited by Kenobi McCormick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I wonder if it'd be possible in your plugin to make the thrust of piston engines taper off as speed increases and prop efficiency plummets.

There are three ways to handle engine efficiency, Stock engines have the velocityCurve and the atmosphericCurve.

The velocityCurve is nice, it basically sets different thrust levels at different speed, so for instance at 0m/s you have 100% thrust, at 100m/s you have 90% thrust, and at 200m/s you have 10%. I use this to limit top speed, just like you see in jets etc.

The atmosphericCurve is really dumb in most cases. It lowers the ISP of the engine at different altitudes. While that sounds nice, it does nothing to your thrust output, so the result is just that you drain fuel super fast all of a sudden when you reach a certain altitude. I don't really use this, cause I have a better method.

The FS Atmospehric Nerf lowers the thrust output of the engine as the air gets thinner. Since these are propellers, their efficiency is directly related to the atmospheric density. If the air is thin, you get less thrust, but without the fuel just draining straight through the engine. To make things more stable, there's a service ceiling option that halts this reduction in efficiency until you reach a certain altitude. (And a way to make it super efficient in the denser atmospheres on Eve)

So the answer to your question is, yes, the stock engine module handles this effect just fine if you set the values properly.

(If you meant the effect of the propeller spinning too fast, that would really just mean you have an engine with a lower max thrust, right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Snjo, got some fanmail and a suggestion for you.

The new tech tree insertions have really made my space program feel realistic. I started with the planes section of the tree, and the tech available to me really feels appropriate to the WWII-Cold war tech era. A perfect example of this is what I made for some science. I took the Corsair design base and rebuilt it with mystery goo loaded where drop tanks would be and a Science Jr in the fuselage. Surprisingly enough, the design auto-stabilized at different speeds and altitudes. I could fine-tune my cruising height and speed by altering nothing other than the trim and throttle. The plane peaked at 143M/s at high altitude, with 120m/s being the sustainable cruise. It got up to 170m/s in a dive, pulled a maximum of 6Gees while pulling out of one of these dives (4.8 g's in a regular turn at peak speed) and had enough range that I was able to take it roughly 500Km from KSC before reaching PNR (there's an alternate and more common term for PNR that fighter pilots use, but for the life of me I can't remember it, any help would be appreciated.)

When its mission was finished, I flew it to the island runway and parked it in one of the old hangars. I figured it was fitting leaving it there. Old building, old plane. It's actually still sitting there even as I prepare for a manned Laythe mission.

rusting.png

Why do I bring all this up? Two reasons. One; you nailed it. This plane gave me so much deep, meaningful satisfaction, both because those numbers fall almost exactly in line with the real life corsair and because the placement of the components on the tech tree is very close to the real times they became prominent (give or take a decade)

The second reason I bring it up is that I had an idea for a component. Those WWII fighter wings are nice, but as you can tell from the image I wasn't able to give them the gull shape of a real corsair wing. Also, the breadth of various models back then varied. Heck, a Thunderbolt had a wingspan of 40'9", but the Spitfire was a mere 36'10" My idea is adding a piece which is just the first few feet of the WWII fighterplane wing, so people have the option of gull wing and large-span designs.

Oh, and one more question, do you have any plans of adding old WWI era biplane components? I noticed the recent addition of biplane landing gear, so I was curious about it.

~~Tanya Sapien, Sapien Tech L.L.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Why do I bring all this up? Two reasons. One; you nailed it. This plane gave me so much deep, meaningful satisfaction, both because those numbers fall almost exactly in line with the real life corsair and because the placement of the components on the tech tree is very close to the real times they became prominent (give or take a decade)

The second reason I bring it up is that I had an idea for a component. Those WWII fighter wings are nice, but as you can tell from the image I wasn't able to give them the gull shape of a real corsair wing. Also, the breadth of various models back then varied. Heck, a Thunderbolt had a wingspan of 40'9", but the Spitfire was a mere 36'10" My idea is adding a piece which is just the first few feet of the WWII fighterplane wing, so people have the option of gull wing and large-span designs.

Oh, and one more question, do you have any plans of adding old WWI era biplane components? I noticed the recent addition of biplane landing gear, so I was curious about it.

~~Tanya Sapien, Sapien Tech L.L.C.

Your story reminds of the good times I've had doing polar runs with that plane. The trip to the north pole with drop tanks landed me some 50km shy of the pole, but the south pole trip was a roaring success, getting down there with a little bit of fuel to spare. Ran a few cool physics and camera experiments down there (wind and cardinal direction test etc.)

uOxZxEF.png

That break in the black line in the snow? That's the pole exactly. Does weird stuff to you if you walk over it!

About gull wings - I think your suggestion is by far the best way to handle it. Trying to make a single wing that will work, with that bend in it just isn't doable. an extender is the only good option given the symmetry rules.

Biplanes? - Yes, I want to do more of those parts. Stuff that's obviously just cloth over wood, strut connectors that look like ropes or wooden beams, open cockpit with a Kerbal sporting a white silk scarf? Yes :)

Just gotta get around to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{os.eventcall: run 'FangirlMode'}

that....by Kod that. YES! you could use the rover seat code for it! I think there's a plugin floating somewhere around the spaceport that allows the modification of suits and the removal of helmets. Adding a conditional branch to that of something like "IsInCockpit = True {remove helmet; add scarf; add goggles}" would be a snap. As for ropes, you could ask the guys over at K.A.S. (Kerbal Attachment System) they have coding that supports cables which only exert force under tension, falling limp when compressed. Maybe you could give ropes a fraction of the strength of struts and making the end pieces look like the mooring hooks of boats. (or more hilariously, a knot tied around a metal hook) or giving wooden struts a sawdust and splinter particle effect when they break. That's an untapped goldmine of possibilities!

{os.eventcall: halt 'FangirlMode'}

But, by no means should you consider this to be me rushing you; I understand quality takes time. Just know that I'll be one of the first in line if/when things like that get implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(If you meant the effect of the propeller spinning too fast, that would really just mean you have an engine with a lower max thrust, right?)

More or less. I was also referring to the absolute speed cap for propeller driven aircraft of around 85-90% of mach due to the prop blades going supersonic and losing all of their bite as well as the altitude gradually causing them to lose efficiency. I figure these engines should provide a more or less constant thrust right up until you start hitting extremes, at which point performance drops like a rock. That'd seem pretty close to how they worked in WW2 from what I understand. Close enough, anyway, for kerbal aerospace needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About gull wings - I think your suggestion is by far the best way to handle it. Trying to make a single wing that will work, with that bend in it just isn't doable. an extender is the only good option given the symmetry rules.

Biplanes? - Yes, I want to do more of those parts. Stuff that's obviously just cloth over wood, strut connectors that look like ropes or wooden beams, open cockpit with a Kerbal sporting a white silk scarf? Yes :)

Just gotta get around to it.

I think Procedural wings has your variable length/angle parts covered already. That was what I used to realize the proper look of my Corsair here:

And because biplanes are fashionable:

I'm just now unlocking the parts in career mode, so hopefully will be recreating my full fleet soon for a group picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Procedural wings has your variable length/angle parts covered already.

I'm aware, and I have that installed, but you can't answer every problem with piecemeal solutions, not to mention it would be nice to have a wing that matches the Firespitter components. Besides that, due to the potential for game-breaking abuse, I didn't patch procedural wings into my career mode. I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to make superlifters and joolean gliders at early tech stages.

Really, the motivation behind suggesting it as a firespitter component is cosmetics. Sure, you can shlop something together that has the attributes you want, but odds are it would be a nightmare of clipping and akwardly placed control surfaces. The whole point of firespitter is believability and aesthetics, I feel that an integrated extender would serve the end user better than requiring them to install another mod with another plugin from another location which features another texture and mesh shape which may not have the look or performance they're wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am far too dignified to utter a girlish squeal of delight, but that sorely tempts me to do so.

WHOOO

Pardon me.

Snjo, what's the Kerbal ---OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWEEEE-- what's the Kerbal doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am far too dignified to utter a girlish squeal of delight, but that sorely tempts me to do so.
WHOOO

Pardon me.

Snjo, what's the Kerbal ---OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWEEEE-- what's the Kerbal doing?

I'm gonna make a way to put this guy in the cockpit when it's occupied and the camera is external, and hide him when the cockpit is empty or the camera is IVA.

That way, You will still get all the benefits of an IVA cam instead of a kerbalSeat which has none, while also providing the proper amount of dashing.

While I'm sure you could also apply the jacket and pants on a normal kerbal like universe replacer does, and possibly also replace the helmet with goggles, that's for some other crazy late night coding binge.

I think I gotta figure out mesh deforming animation now to make that scarf move in the wind :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna make a way to put this guy in the cockpit when it's occupied and the camera is external, and hide him when the cockpit is empty or the camera is IVA.

That way, You will still get all the benefits of an IVA cam instead of a kerbalSeat which has none, while also providing the proper amount of dashing.

While I'm sure you could also apply the jacket and pants on a normal kerbal like universe replacer does, and possibly also replace the helmet with goggles, that's for some other crazy late night coding binge.

I think I gotta figure out mesh deforming animation now to make that scarf move in the wind :)

Perhaps you can just take a hollowed out oblong cockpit and insert the command chair there. A scarf would be pretty cool. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an interest for it a firespitter style pWing could be arranged just like I did for B9 Aerospace and if Snjo is up for it.

YES! BIGGER SPITFIRE WINGS AND STUFF!

Btw how are the other procedural wings going DYJ? Haven't seen much updating.

And if Snjo says yes to it, good luck with the pWing :D

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...