GusTurbo

Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, eorin said:

Nice plane, but i have the impression its too much tall.

Edit: after watching photos i can tell you i was right 

StealthBreak_800.jpg

Reducing the tallness (is this the right word?) you can also benefit a reduced wing surface, so a better drag and obviously increased overall performance. You can also reduce rudder size.

 

 

18 hours ago, Servo said:

My best guess is that you're getting all sorts of aerodynamic wackiness from the different angles. I recommend either building it out of non-wing parts (or at lease as few as possible); radiators and basic fins might work better. Or you can go for the fly-by-wire approach and spam SAS.

Thanks for responding so quickly. I reduced the height of the vertical stabilizer, didn't do much. I'm going to look into lowering the overall height of the plane, since it is not historically accurate nor helping with the aerodynamic forces. I'm not exactly sure about not using wing parts for the fuselage as I think it would look best to use wing parts for the fuselage. But, again, just my own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Munbro Kerman said:

 

Thanks for responding so quickly. I reduced the height of the vertical stabilizer, didn't do much. I'm going to look into lowering the overall height of the plane, since it is not historically accurate nor helping with the aerodynamic forces. I'm not exactly sure about not using wing parts for the fuselage as I think it would look best to use wing parts for the fuselage. But, again, just my own opinion.

Well if you are going for a full wings build then try to add more engines clipping them, having a bigger thrust in the back sometimes help a bit with the weird drag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Torquimedes said:

What are you using for an axle inside the thermometers?  

I hope @Servo wont mind me answering this. He's using one of my tiny thermo hinge designs, it's an antenna as the axle.

 The original thread is here, where I recommend using @klond's idea of using an RCS block instead of an antenna. It is not as small but MUCH more reliable for applications such as @Servo's VTOL mechanism.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I hope @Servo wont mind me answering this. He's using one of my tiny thermo hinge designs, it's an antenna as the axle.

 The original thread is here, where I recommend using @klond's idea of using an RCS block instead of an antenna. It is not as small but MUCH more reliable for applications such as @Servo's VTOL mechanism.

:)

Yup. As suggested, I switched the communotrons out for RCS pods, which worked wonderfully. After a lot of test flights, I've had no trouble with the engine assembly clipping out of its case.

i0Luuim.png

I built the F-35 around it, and it flies better than I could have ever hoped. Takeoff and landing is really easy, even for an inexperienced VTOL pilot like myself.

bk7Csiq.png

I did a series of three test passes, testing out the three forms of JSF flight. This is it landing after the VTOL stage. It passed with flying colors, being just as easy to handle as any other VTOL I've flown, with the possible exception of some of Cupcakes designs. The only major twist is that in the VTOL configuration, the rear engine is floating, so to throttle it, you have to switch vessels. I've found that just below 50% throttle is ideal for takeoff and landing, and that once it's set, the forward engines + SAS provide more than enough control to takeoff and land properly without switching.

iNf5Fat.png

The plane itself isn't too shabby either. It clocks in at 127 parts, and handles like a dream in horizontal flight. Horizontal takeoff and landing isn't too much of a problem, as the F-35 has an insane glideslope thanks to all the wing parts. My main gripe is that even with afterburners, the top speed is a dismal 175 m/s ASL, but I can't complain too much. I have a lot of junk on the interior of the plane (SAS, batteries, etc) that could be cleaned up to add another 25 or so m/s to the speed. I don't expect to break Mach 1, though.

g0pKLCm.png

In STOL flight, the F-35 takes off almost instantly with the combination of full lift fan plus afterburners. I attempted to land it on the admin building, but rolled off after I forgot to engage brakes. I recovered and landed on the lawn, so I consider it a partial success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried my own attempt at a U-2 since they've been floating around in the WIP. Takes off a 90 m/s, pitches at around 5 - 10 degrees per second, landing speed around 50 m/s before stalling. 

fBuzGXX.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Servo said:

the F-35

Dang, that is awesome! I'm really happy the RCS blocks did the trick.

Edited by Majorjim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Built a new shuttle. I'm happy with how the wings turned out, but the thing is ridiculously unstable because I angled them...

Had to resort to SAS spam inside the shuttle to (somewhat) stablilize it. Any suggestions?

8Q1tG7m.png

e3HuxJq.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, Majorjim! said:

I hope @Servo wont mind me answering this. He's using one of my tiny thermo hinge designs, it's an antenna as the axle.

 The original thread is here, where I recommend using @klond's idea of using an RCS block instead of an antenna. It is not as small but MUCH more reliable for applications such as @Servo's VTOL mechanism.

:)

I think I'll do the same for my swiveling VTOL as well :) - Sadly though I haven't seen any craft files with the hinge... I always like to start my hinges based off of ones that have already been tested for a better fitting. Have you guys seen the Volta - Switch before? I sadly don't think I have any twitch gods of it but it's a newer version of the Volta VI - Phantom but with swiveling VTOL engines. The only thing I regret with it is the excessive drag from the mechanism to rotate the engines :P

Edited by Avera9eJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yukon0009 said:

Built a new shuttle. I'm happy with how the wings turned out, but the thing is ridiculously unstable because I angled them...

Had to resort to SAS spam inside the shuttle to (somewhat) stablilize it. Any suggestions?

8Q1tG7m.png

e3HuxJq.png

 

 

Nice nose!   :wink:

 I'm happy to see someone else use those parts for the nose, they seemed so perfect to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little side project I've been working on, a F-4 Phantom II. I like the way the wings turned out, although they could look a little cleaner.

qjH3z2i.png

IUn7Yi9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plane is finished.

stay tuned this night or tomorrow morning (Italy time).

Some shots taken by Exothermos.

0vEcd6T.png

 

fixKu0s.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

I've known for many years that my Uncle SSgt Lee G. Castille was a casualty of WWII but never knew how he died. Thanks to some help from a kind fellow Kerbonaut @EVA_Reentry sharing his research expertise with me I've gained some details about this incident. He was a crew member of a Consolidated B-24 Liberator. After discovering this it compelled me to build one in KSP. So far it's coming along great except the front landing gear, I would love to use the large Rover Wheel because it looks nice but at the moment I can't get it to retract and extend it will look nice if I could, I hope to figure something out. Also if the fuselage could narrow less abruptly it would look a little better and the cockpit still needs some tweaking. I would also like to mention a New Stock Propeller Design, not sure if this one has ever been designed before?

New Stock Prop

zM23xy2.png

tgNMSHK.png

mlsYI5t.png

xb24-1a.jpg

Edited by Castille7
New Stock Propeller Photo added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2017 at 8:58 PM, Yukon0009 said:

RX5855A.png

Oh god... this made me remember that I haven't booted up KSP in about two months. I need to finish that Saturn V project...

I really don't want to build the LEM though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine larger helicopters could be made less laggy by making multiple smaller engines rather than one larger engine, or a couple large engines, since multiple craft on multiple cores is better for frames than just two craft (engine + craft)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EVA_Reentry said:

@Castille7--That's a nice job.

Thank you! :) Just added bombs and did a few drops at the airbase, the bombs at the moment are getting a little damaged. I love the idea that the little Sepratron Rockets have adjustable fuel & oxidizer, I am able to tweak them for ejection of the bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Oh god... this made me remember that I haven't booted up KSP in about two months. I need to finish that Saturn V project...

I really don't want to build the LEM though...

Finishing a build is so satisfying though :)

 

Rebuilt my R-7 family from scratch. Soyuz now has only 500 ish parts on the pad as compared to 700 parts for previous version

8qJJRbx.png

Xu96zjW.png

 

 

North American MEM:

8OVUy77.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, He_162 said:

I imagine larger helicopters could be made less laggy by making multiple smaller engines rather than one larger engine, or a couple large engines, since multiple craft on multiple cores is better for frames than just two craft (engine + craft)

The problem is not so much the shaft(s) & rotor(s), they have a pretty low part count. Multi-engined craft helicopter craft will always have a higher part count, consume more fuel, have more drag and be heavier than single-engined, for the same amount of power. The only reason to go for a multi-engined design is because of a design limit with a particular engine. If you can't scale it up any further, go for a total redesign or just use more of them.

Oh and there's another reason. They're awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2017 at 5:47 PM, Servo said:

g0pKLCm.png

In STOL flight, the F-35 takes off almost instantly with the combination of full lift fan plus afterburners. I attempted to land it on the admin building, but rolled off after I forgot to engage brakes. I recovered and landed on the lawn, so I consider it a partial success.

  • Builds a beautiful F-35 replica in a couple days, the first with a rotating engine
  • Demonstrates all three flight modes with a single airframe
  • Declares partial success.

I'm certain kids these days have an emoji to react to that. ^

In all seriousness, that is amazing work and I look forward to buzzing the tower with it.

What did you use for the lift fan? Another Panther?  How much gimbal do you allow on the Panthers?  Are afterburners required for V/STOL takeoff/landing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Torquimedes said:
  • Builds a beautiful F-35 replica in a couple days, the first with a rotating engine
  • Demonstrates all three flight modes with a single airframe
  • Declares partial success.

I'm certain kids these days have an emoji to react to that. ^

In all seriousness, that is amazing work and I look forward to buzzing the tower with it.

What did you use for the lift fan? Another Panther?  How much gimbal do you allow on the Panthers?  Are afterburners required for V/STOL takeoff/landing?

I'm actually not the first to to a stock JSF engine, I've seen at least two before (@Giggleplex777 and Brewtis on KerbalX.) I think mine is the first to use thermometer hinges. Also, the landing on the admin building was a partial success, I'm really pleased on how the craft as a whole turned out.

The lift fan and the rear swivel engine are both paired panther engines. It takes off at about 60% throttle, and lands at 50% throttle, dry mode. The lift fan gimbal is locked, but there is full gimbal on the rear engines. Throttle control on the lift fan, plus six SAS wheels is plenty to control the F-35.

LHK4MU0.png

Takeoff is really solid. All you have to do is know where to set the throttle, and which action groups to press in order to take off easily.

cK3yL3h.png

The STOL on the F-35 is also really insane. I landed in less than 350m conventionally without really trying (I even landed under throttle). When taking off, I used full throttle on the afterburners and lift fans, and the takeoff distance was 19m. I landed 344m from the marker flag, and took off 363m from it. STO is pretty tricky, because if you screw it up, the plane does a backflip because the lift fans are too strong.

da6dpGx.png

In order to transfer out of horizontal flight, toggle the engine positioning and the lift fan at the same time, then switch over to the engine to set throttle. This takes a bit more finesse as you have to switch between craft while in midair, but I've had no trouble doing so multiple times.

AezCyp7.png?2

Plus, it looks really sweet. One thing I dislike is how scatterer bugs on the landing gear (the grey triangles beside the cockpit on each side).

I'll probably post it tomorrow, and I'll try to download some video recording software in order to showcase the VTOL aspects, plus general performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Servo said:

I'm actually not the first to to a stock JSF engine, I've seen at least two before (@Giggleplex777 and Brewtis on KerbalX.) I think mine is the first to use thermometer hinges. Also, the landing on the admin building was a partial success, I'm really pleased on how the craft as a whole turned out.

The lift fan and the rear swivel engine are both paired panther engines. It takes off at about 60% throttle, and lands at 50% throttle, dry mode. The lift fan gimbal is locked, but there is full gimbal on the rear engines. Throttle control on the lift fan, plus six SAS wheels is plenty to control the F-35.

LHK4MU0.png

Takeoff is really solid. All you have to do is know where to set the throttle, and which action groups to press in order to take off easily.

cK3yL3h.png

The STOL on the F-35 is also really insane. I landed in less than 350m conventionally without really trying (I even landed under throttle). When taking off, I used full throttle on the afterburners and lift fans, and the takeoff distance was 19m. I landed 344m from the marker flag, and took off 363m from it. STO is pretty tricky, because if you screw it up, the plane does a backflip because the lift fans are too strong.

da6dpGx.png

In order to transfer out of horizontal flight, toggle the engine positioning and the lift fan at the same time, then switch over to the engine to set throttle. This takes a bit more finesse as you have to switch between craft while in midair, but I've had no trouble doing so multiple times.

AezCyp7.png?2

Plus, it looks really sweet. One thing I dislike is how scatterer bugs on the landing gear (the grey triangles beside the cockpit on each side).

I'll probably post it tomorrow, and I'll try to download some video recording software in order to showcase the VTOL aspects, plus general performance.

Another question for you... Does the rear engine dock once it's lowered? You say you have full gimbal control on it once it's lowered but I don't see a docking port for it to attach too :0.0: In all seriousness though this is one of the prettiest and most streamlined remake I've seen yet... Bravo :)

Edited by Avera9eJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Servo said:

I'm actually not the first to to a stock JSF engine, I've seen at least two before (@Giggleplex777 and Brewtis on KerbalX.) I think mine is the first to use thermometer hinges. Also, the landing on the admin building was a partial success, I'm really pleased on how the craft as a whole turned out.

My humble apologies to @Giggleplex777 and Brewtis for my ignorance.  Well done, all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Azimech said:

The problem is not so much the shaft(s) & rotor(s), they have a pretty low part count. Multi-engined craft helicopter craft will always have a higher part count, consume more fuel, have more drag and be heavier than single-engined, for the same amount of power. The only reason to go for a multi-engined design is because of a design limit with a particular engine. If you can't scale it up any further, go for a total redesign or just use more of them.

Oh and there's another reason. They're awesome.

I was just suggesting, since most people don't have amazing single core performance, unlike I do with a Pentium G3258 at 5ghz, or my other PC with an i5-4590 at 4.1 ghz (I BCLK overclocked it, and it works!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I've been working on, a stock-as-usual Voyage-style Duna mission, inspired by seeing @Nittany Tiger, *rseferino from Youtube , @winged  and @Chris P. Bacon.

I originally aimed to keep the whole stack under 400 parts, but it looks like my computer will be frying as the MEM alone is 200 parts, and the transfer stage is somewhere around that. Not to mention that I don't have a working Saturn V yet, which will complicate things.

I also aimed to keep the MEM/Hab/CSM stack under 80 tons, but I didn't expect the Hab to be a whopping 60 tons alone, so I have that to deal with as well.

 

Here's some eyecandy:

2VKcz4p.png

0X2sR6D.png

re4UmDs.png

mxTUMsl.png

zKJF97T.png

 

 

 

 

Edited by Yukon0009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.