[WIP] R.E.L Skylon C2. Alpha Released. FAR config broken. (08 Dec 2014)

[CaptainKipard]

Found it was Advanced Jet Engine that not playing nice with the skylon.

Do you have any specific details that might be helpful to me?

[Mecripp]

Here is a link to the post where blowfish found my problem http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70008-0-90-Advanced-Jet-Engine-v2-0-3-Jan-29?p=1822116&viewfull=1#post1822116.

[Mäpä]

Any plans for nuFAR after finishing the 1.0 version?

[CaptainKipard]

Not really. I couldn't get it to work before, and since ferram will not be overhauling his mod to fix the limitations that my mod presents I don't see why I would.

[blowfish]

Will the issues that were encountered with FAR be fixable in the new stock aero? The only unfixable issues I encountered with FAR before were (1) FAR not detecting the vertical stabilizer's orientation correctly and (2) Severe pitch instability*. (1) might be fixed easily but based on the positioning of the wings and canards I suspect that (2) will persist.

*It's fixable if you "cheat" and tell FAR that the wings are farther back than they actually are.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm just slowly getting back to this mod. It will be some time before I'll be able or even inclined to look into the technical issues. There are some graphical problems to go through first.

[StainX]

Looks very promising, keep it up Captain!

[blowfish]

Not bad for a craft of this size, though perhaps a little room for improvement. I'm surprised REL didn't extend the central fuselage narrowing back a bit to match the end of the engine nacelle, though perhaps FAR doesn't account for the effects of engine inlets and exhaust on area ruling.

Anyway, I've learned information that may solve many of the FAR issues. FAR relies on the wing being oriented along a certain axis. I think the plane of the wing has to be perpendicular to the y axis, but don't quote me on that (it's however the stock wings are oriented). Of course, this would require rotating the attach nodes a bit. Pitch stability (or the lack thereof) will still be an issue but I suppose one thing at a time...

[Mecripp]

@blowfish how did you get the skylon to load in 1.02 ? I keep getting

[WRN 01:25:22.213] Module 'KipEngSkylonIntake' requires another module which is not present! Shutting down.

[blowfish]

@blowfish how did you get the skylon to load in 1.02 ? I keep getting

[WRN 01:25:22.213] Module 'KipEngSkylonIntake' requires another module which is not present! Shutting down.

I didn't try to fly it - I just loaded in the VAB to look at area ruling, though this did require changing the CRP resource names (LiquidHydrogen->LqdHydrogen and the same with oxygen). Not sure what the error you're getting is.

[Mecripp]

Thats on load up then ksp just stops loading.

[blowfish]

The module in question is KModuleAnimateIntakeAir, which is part of KineTechAnimation. If a module can't be found KSP usually just warns in the output log and continues. Perhaps you have an old version of KineTechAnimation sitting around in your GameData folder somewhere which is making it think that the module is there but failing when it actually tries to create one? That plugin hasn't been updated in a while.

[CaptainKipard]

The inlets have a vertical plane inside at the back. I've read that's bad for stock aero. Maybe it's the same for FAR.

These are the wings in Unity right now. I'm doing it according to this.

This shows the orientation of the wing root stack node, which brings up the question of how you managed to build the Skylon in 1.0 at all since the nodes are all backwards since the node system was updated.

[blowfish]

I loaded the included .craft file. That still works.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok other than the Z direction of the node do you see anything else that's wrong? I was sure this is all correct, because it flies.

[blowfish]

The payload bay needs the new module for stock aero. The engines need a velCurve (thrust vs mach) and an atmCurve (thrust vs density). Some parameters probably need to be adjusted for the new reentry heating system. I think that's it...

[ujm1]

same thing happens to me

[ujm1]

dose not load up for me in 1.0.2

Edited May 24, 2015 by ujm1

[CaptainKipard]

If you read the thread you'll know that it hasn't been updated.

[ujm1]

please update i need this

[CaptainKipard]

I have a lot of work to do on this.

[JoCRaM]

While the Nacelle material is still (AFAIK) undetermined, the external skin of the main body is to be comprised of 300x300 mm panels.

The RCS is 32 point, but still no real indication of where they are....

hypothetical ISP and thrust curves are on page 10 of this http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/JBIS_v56_108-117.pdf

The D1 dimensions are in the latest manual, but the overall don't seem significantly different from the C2 model you have on the front page - the canards and nacelles are a little bigger than yours and the rudder a little steeper. The ailerons much bigger and the whole rudder is the control surface. The rear undercarriage is slightly further apart and the cargo bag a smidge further forward.

Edited May 31, 2015 by JoCRaM

[CaptainKipard]

While the Nacelle material is still (AFAIK) undetermined, the external skin of the main body is to be comprised of 300x300 mm panels.

The RCS is 32 point, but still no real indication of where they are....

hypothetical ISP and thrust curves are on page 10 of this http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/JBIS_v56_108-117.pdf

The D1 dimensions are in the latest manual, but the overall don't seem significantly different from the C2 model you have on the front page - the canards and nacelles are a little bigger than yours and the rudder a little steeper. The ailerons much bigger and the whole rudder is the control surface. The rear undercarriage is slightly further apart and the cargo bag a smidge further forward.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

WRT the dimensions I wonder just how important it is to change it to the D1. I've specifically made it with C2 proportions, because I only had access to those blueprints (scaled down to KSP size obviously).

WRT the covering, I've read somewhere that the skin is going to be painted with a ceramic paint, so I'm wondering whether or not the panels would even be visible. Where did you get this information?

Does anyone know whether this will look like the space shuttle hull or something else? I simple went off of the info that the plane is made with big single piece carbon fiber parts and painted with the ceramic. If the panels are going to be smooth, they wont be seen.

[JoCRaM]

The original SiC fibre reinforced glass ceramic is no longer available, the current material of choice is Pyrosic. page 3 http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/The%20SKYLON%20Spaceplane-Progress%20to%20Realisation,%20JBIS,%202008.pdf

shows the front to back corrugation and texture, but the pitch will take a little fiddling to determine from the forced perspective because they weren't considerate enough to include a full width shot.

That's the state of play in 2008, but references to Pyrosic and Pyromeral are still being made.

That PDF also a very nice visual reference for the space frame, to allow the "cuts" to be textured in your model.

The Sklon bay is designed to match the shuttle bay width, does your model match the MK3 bay width?

No, I don't think you need to change the proportions. From memory the C2 engines were 7 degrees below horizontal, in which case the D1 being only 5 is (I think) the most significant change, but this is all fine tuning, and I think the C2 is as good a reference as the D1 - certainly until such time as a real world vehicle flies.

Edited June 6, 2015 by JoCRaM

[JoCRaM]

Does anyone know whether this will look like the space shuttle hull or something else?

The SR-71 "Blackbird" wings are mentioned in relation to the corrugation of the body panels