Jump to content

Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread


Recommended Posts

Tx4D58L.png

Overlaying images really helped this come along. For some reason, the dimensions I was using just didn't look right. Now, it's less accurate to the real thing by dimensions, but looks much closer visually. This was done by extending the wings, increasing the size of the vertical stabilizers, and flattening the fuselage. I also played around with adding weapons, but ultimately removed them for part count reasons.

golBg0w.png

A slightly earlier version, before the changes mentioned ^  The sidewinders here each have 25 parts, and with the drop tanks + hardpoints, they added roughly 180 parts to the plane. 

EDIT - Update on progress

f32lih2.png

Once again, I'm disregarding everything I know about building low part count planes... As it stands right now, this has 221 parts, and I can see it easily ballooning into the 600 part range. It'll also be my largest plane to date, beating out my B-36J and my C-5 by a good 10m length.

Edited by Servo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I completed the proof of concept Fowler flaps for my Airbus A330-200: 

Note that extension is very slow and retraction is very fast because I anticipate this will be affected by drag.

This took way longer to make than it should have...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A serious improvement from the QF-40 Light Tank made in version 1.0.5, the M-52 Kerman Main Battle Tank, is an echo to this outdated tank. Longer hull, shorter stock, and a better and more stable turret bearing, the M-52 Kerman has surely been the best of them all, hands down. Even though BDarmory can do this all in a couple parts, I enjoy every one of the 268 parts put into this thing. I might upload it to KerbalX as I do have an isometric view picture made which I'll put in here. 

VMyFJ9Q.png

Spoiler

LEFT SIDE: NEW DESIGN        RIGHT SIDE: OLD DESIGN

Qbuxl69.png

TOP: NEW DESIGN        BOTTOM: OLD DESIGN

bXNC5ef.png

LEFT SIDE: NEW DESIGN        RIGHT SIDE: OLD DESIGN4d3MIpQ.png

LEFT SIDE: NEW DESIGN        RIGHT SIDE: OLD DESIGN   (BEARING IMPROVEMENT PICTURE)kn8bEyo.png

 

Edited by ghostbuzzer7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Servo 

you're once again pushing the limits of what is possible in KSP...
And I wanted to suggest a collab between us both because you´re clearly the better builder but I think I have more experience with stock hinges.

I would love to help you working on your concorde...
Currently I´m completely reworking my concorde to have moving thrust reverser flaps etc...

You can contact me via Discord (HB Stratos#0800) or you can pm me here.

Henning

P.s. My concorde is having about 850 parts as it stands now

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kronus_Aerospace said:

Bonus shot of the craft compared to my PTV!

You know what would be kinda funny? If you made the PTV a parasite fighter or like a drop ship of the Biggest Boi.

Progress looks good though.

13 hours ago, prgmTrouble said:

I completed the proof of concept Fowler flaps for my Airbus A330-200: 

owo. How does it work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, qzgy said:

You know what would be kinda funny? If you made the PTV a parasite fighter or like a drop ship of the Biggest Boi.

Oooohh. what If I did but have the PTVs function as dropships for the Griffon.

Ed5UE6L.jpg

And THEN have the Griffons function as dropships for the Hawkmoth!

TG2WlJR.jpg

That's 15 fighter craft in one! 1 gigantic craft, 2 large craft, 4 normal craft, and 8 teeny craft.

Edited by Kronus_Aerospace
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kronus_Aerospace said:

That's 15 fighter craft in one! 1 gigantic craft, 2 large craft, 4 normal craft, and 8 teeny craft.

You'd probably break the record for highest part count aircraft. But it would be amazing doing so!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kronus_Aerospace said:

What do you mean? That would only be over 5000 parts......  (0 _ 0)

Are you suggesting there are crafts with higher part counts? O_o cause Im unaware.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kronus_Aerospace said:

It was quite some time ago, Let's just say it was not a pleasant experience.

Sure ok. Though I'm still somewhat confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kronus_Aerospace said:

Oooohh. what If I did but have the PTVs function as dropships for the Griffon.

And THEN have the Griffons function as dropships for the Hawkmoth!

That's 15 fighter craft in one! 1 gigantic craft, 2 large craft, 4 normal craft, and 8 teeny craft.

N5N1vBe.png

Always gotta be one-upping me, Kronus...

  As a note here, I found that 3x scale for each parent plane is a good metric for being large enough to carry it. For relative scales, this one has 200% scale, 75% scale, and 25% scale.

 

1ZFmpnl.png

The Concorde is working* acceptably well, though there are a couple rough problems. For one, it has a nasty habit of flipping into an unrecoverable tailspin when you try to turn while flying at more than 150m/s. Additionally, due to drag on the droop nose, you can't rotate the nose into the flight position while in flight. This isn't really a problem, because the Concorde would take off and taxi with the nose drooped 5 degrees, as opposed to the 15-20 degrees of landing. It just means that you have to leave the nose in the cruise position for takeoff.

SDps36W.png

Additionally, the drag on this thing's nose is so massive that 8 whiplashes can't push it past 300m/s at altitude. But as it is with so many of my craft, performance yields to looks and functionality, so its not a dealbreaker for me.

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

Additionally, due to drag on the droop nose, you can't rotate the nose into the flight position while in flight. This isn't really a problem, because the Concorde would take off and taxi with the nose drooped 5 degrees, as opposed to the 15-20 degrees of landing. It just means that you have to leave the nose in the cruise position for takeoff.

What's to prevent the addition of counterdrag flaps that reside in a hollow segment behind the nose and bring the CoDrag of the tilting part exactly onto the hinge? 

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

Additionally, the drag on this thing's nose is so massive that 8 whiplashes can't push it past 300m/s at altitude

Have you tried.... More engines?

As for the tail spin problem, my guess is that it would be body drag or lift from the nose. Maybe clipping in more wings in the back would help it not do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I´m remaking my Concorde right now into a 1:1 scale replica.
The first one was a bit to big.
Also the Parrtcount of the old one went completely out of hand so I will remake it from the ground up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 3:37 PM, Servo said:

[...]

Additionally, the drag on this thing's nose is so massive that 8 whiplashes can't push it past 300m/s at altitude. But as it is with so many of my craft, performance yields to looks and functionality, so its not a dealbreaker for me.

This is what part clipping is made for.

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

Also, does anybody have tips to make a rover stable and not understeer-y?

Play around with the friction control. Higher = more grip. You may need to enable advanced tweakables, I don't remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, prgmTrouble said:

Play around with the friction control. Higher = more grip. You may need to enable advanced tweakables, I don't remember.

Less grip, more flexible spring and dampener, also if you can fit a non-working wheesley engine inside pointed at the ground it will lower your center of gravity.

Edited by selfish_meme
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, selfish_meme said:

Less grip, more flexible spring and dampener, also if you can fit a non-working wheesley engine inside pointed at the ground it will lower your center of gravity.

I like to use the rapier for COM alteration because it is flatter and can be surface attached. Either works though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hYgoHSl.png

This absolute mess of machinery will hopefully become my second working F8U. I've been revisiting old craft lately, and its an interesting exercise, seeing how much my craft have advanced.

cPaQU2P.png

The I-beams are guides to keep the wing straight left/right and on the roll axis, and the RCS balls form the hinge/actuation along with the airbrake. As it turns out, some problems just don't go away when you rebuild something. This one has the same problems with getting the docking ports far enough apart that my original craft did. In this case, the aft port (which docks it in the lowered position) redocks just fine, and the lower port (for when the wing is raised) doesn't traverse far enough to redock. Not to mention the fact that the base of the docking ports need to be clear of the radiators in order to function (a fact which is becoming increasingly more frustrating as I run into it)...

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

The I-beams are guides to keep the wing straight left/right and on the roll axis, and the RCS balls form the hinge/actuation along with the airbrake. As it turns out, some problems just don't go away when you rebuild something. This one has the same problems with getting the docking ports far enough apart that my original craft did. In this case, the aft port (which docks it in the lowered position) redocks just fine, and the lower port (for when the wing is raised) doesn't traverse far enough to redock. Not to mention the fact that the base of the docking ports need to be clear of the radiators in order to function (a fact which is becoming increasingly more frustrating as I run into it)...

The way I usually do hinges is to find the longest lever that will fit inside the craft and still get the necessary rotation. If the ports do not get far enough away, that means everything will have to be scaled up. The only limitations are part sizes and patience, meaning that with enough time there will always be a solution eventually. 

It seems that it always happens to take a century to get the moving parts right whenever I attempt it... :rolleyes:

EDIT: A trick I learned is to stick an I-beam at the axis of rotation and stick a port on it. The rotation tool will then rotate the port in the editor as if it was in testing. Thought you might find this useful!

Edited by prgmTrouble
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.

×
×
  • Create New...