Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

Huge update today, with the majority of my SPH Revamp project finished.  As I mentioned previously, while a lot of the SPH craft designs are technically "updates" to existing craft on KerbalX, most of the craft files themselves are brand new having been rebuilt from scratch.  Some of them have minimal changes, but most have been significantly tweaked for handling and aesthetics.  The full list of updated craft files are in the OP, but included below are a couple examples of the brand new designs.

Side note: I'm keeping the files in 1.4.5 for now until the body lift bug is fixed in 1.5. (facepalm)

And like my F-14 analogue, the F-111 analogue pictured above has non-rotating wings as well.  But she's fast as hell.

There are a handful of craft files I still have to do, like the X-17 revision, the X-7 (which is a brand new design), a new spaceplane to replace the current SR-19, and update the C7 130 to fix some deficiencies.  Eventually I want to revise/update all the larger aircraft as well, but those will come later along with some other ideas I have; I'm wanting to pivot back towards Phase 2 of the Probe/Satellite Revamp project.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Raptor9

[redmonddkgamer]

Which one of your planes would you say is most like a bush plane? Short landing capabilities, etc.

[Hodo]

On 10/12/2018 at 9:45 PM, dundun93 said:

@Raptor9, not have swing-wings sort of defies the point of making a F-14. Thats all it was famous for.... Is it possible to make swing wings?

Swing wings in stock KSP would be pretty pointless as how the drag is calculated.   

I agree with @Raptor9 the Tomcat was famous for so many things other than its variable geometry wings.  When I was making swing wing designs I actually had about a half dozen working variants for FAR.

[Guest]

On 10/17/2018 at 9:53 AM, Hodo said:

Swing wings in stock KSP would be pretty pointless as how the drag is calculated.   

I agree with @Raptor9 the Tomcat was famous for so many things other than its variable geometry wings.  When I was making swing wing designs I actually had about a half dozen working variants for FAR.

Uhh. That argument/conversation was long gone and settled, But it would be more practical in FAR though.

On 10/17/2018 at 8:15 AM, redmonddkgamer said:

Which one of your planes would you say is most like a bush plane? Short landing capabilities, etc.

If you want to get somebody's attention, ping them by adding a "@" before the name of the person like this:

@Raptor9

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, dundun93 said:

If you want to get somebody's attention, ping them by adding a "@" before the name of the person like this

That's an effective technique but not necessary if trying to get my attention in this particular thread.  Since I "follow" this thread I generally get email notifications whenever there is activity.  I've just been busy with an evaluation at work and haven't had a chance to get on the forums in the past day or so.

On 10/17/2018 at 10:15 PM, redmonddkgamer said:

Which one of your planes would you say is most like a bush plane? Short landing capabilities, etc.

I depends on the the location and nature of the landing area.  The two things I look at are takeoff/landing distances and gear strength.  The C7 120 has a really decent STOL capability due to the powerful J-33 on such a small airframe, and the ability to thrust reverse on it.  However, the C7 115 has stronger gear and can absorb a higher vertical descent rate on rough terrain, but has weaker engines and no thrust reverse.

Those are just a couple examples, but that's what I personally consider.  If you are landing/taking off from locations like a higher elevation, or on Laythe where the air is thinner, you want a stronger engine.  But if you are landing/taking off near Kerbin sea level, you can get away with a weaker engine.

[Raptor9]

The remaining updated craft for the SPH Revamp are now on KerbalX.  As mentioned previously, the C7 130 needed some additional tweaking due to not having enough battery reserves to transmit a full atmospheric sensor report in flight, and even now you have to monitor the alternator feed rate to ensure you're at sufficient electric generation rates.  but it keeps you on your toes.  The other was a TR-9 variant adopted as a full spaceplane, the new SR-9 'Archangel'.  This revised spaceplane takes over the slot previously occupied by the SR-19.

The two new designs are the X-7, which is obviously modeled after the X-15; and the WR-18U, which is an analogue of the MQ-9 Reaper drone.  The X-7 is really fun to fly IMO, and is capable of landing at the desert airstrip after making a westward high-altitude/suborbital hop from the KSC.  The WR-18U is set up in the same manner as the WR-6 in regards to scientific capabilities, but is much slower and can only go a fraction in altitude by comparison.

     

This completes Phase 1 of the SPH revamp.  Phase 2 is targeted at the "heavies", like the SR-21's, C7 200 and the 300 series aircraft.  But those will come later after other priorities I have.

[Beetlecat]

The X-7 was an extremely wild ride, and a whole lot of fun to try and keep from smashing upon return to the surface. Short of building an entire launch/carrier craft, adding the drop tanks was a great idea, and didn't feel like it impeded the craft much at all.  Watching First Man made me want to fly it over and over again.

The consistent high quality and subtle creativity in your designs keep me subscribed to everything on KerbalX. Thanks for sharing!

Edited October 26, 2018 by Beetlecat

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

Short of building an entire launch/carrier craft, adding the drop tanks was a great idea, and didn't feel like it impeded the craft much at all.

Yeah, I considered trying to make a B-52, but every time I launched the X-7, the crew in the B-52 would die; and if I made the B-52 a drone aircraft, that's an awful lot of money to throw away for every X-7 test flight when the carrier aircraft de-spawns.  But the X-15A-2 had extended range fuel tanks, so it wasn't so much of a stretch.

6 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

Watching First Man made me want to fly it over and over again.

Ugh, that movie.  Two hours of my life I can't get back...   But that's just my opinion.

[Jestersage]

38 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Ugh, that movie.  Two hours of my life I can't get back...   But that's just my opinion.

Watch Right Stuff, design teh NF-104A. Do a mimic of Yaeger's jump. (Climb to max height, burn the airplane till red hot, bail)

Edited October 27, 2018 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

@Jestersage, that's crazy! I never heard of the NF-104 until I just googled it.  Those flights seem even more crazy than the X-15 flights since they were piloting an aircraft that wasn't even designed for doing anything like that.

This explains your comment on KerbalX.  I'm gonna have to give this a go myself, and see what happens to my Kerbal. 

[SiriusRocketry]

How did you place all those ion engines offset from the EV-5?

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, SiriusRocketry said:

How did you place all those ion engines offset from the EV-5?

Very carefully and precisely, using the offset tool and symmetry.

[Jestersage]

So based on what you know, what is the difference between the Lockheed Mars Lander (RL inspiration for LV-7A) and the Oct 3rd debut Luna lander? I feel like it's basically the same craft without the extra aerodynamics, so I am curious whether you will even bother.

On the other hand, you do need to redo the LV-2D, so...

EDIT: Rechecked it. It IS actually a stripped down Mars Base Camp lander. Lockheed explicitly mentioned it's based on that.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

11 hours ago, Jestersage said:

so I am curious whether you will even bother

Probably not.  I already have so many Mun landers as it is, and the last thing I want to do is add more craft files to my large catalog that duplicates mission capabilities.

11 hours ago, Jestersage said:

On the other hand, you do need to redo the LV-2D, so...

I assume you are referring to the legacy LV-2D that was powered by three O-10 monoprop engines?  I stated a while back (you probably missed it) that particular design has been rendered redundant and defunct.  Redundant in the fact that the new LV-2C has the exact capabilities as the legacy LV-2D, and defunct in the fact that some of the monoprop tanks were nerfed when they standardized the tank volumes in 1.4.0.

So as it stands the LV-2C would be the closest thing to what you are looking for.  Or the LV-3A if you use it as a single-stage lander; Lord knows it has so much delta-V and TWR.

[Jestersage]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

I assume you are referring to the legacy LV-2D that was powered by three O-10 monoprop engines? 

I was actually refering to the 1.1.3 version using the Oscar tanks... namely, the size and design (large lander cans and 2.5m parts).

Fair enough -- that just means something I can design

[Raptor9]

5 hours ago, Jestersage said:

that just means something I can design

By all means.  I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with. 

[Raptor9]

With a solid majority of my craft updated/revised to 1.5.1, I found some time after work this evening to publish the first craft files from Phase 2 of my Sat/Probe revamp project.  The trio of satellites all come with a basic scientific sensor package and at least a short-range comms relay capability.  The 'Crimson Sky' is your basic biome/terrain scanning satellite, with the Duna Survey and Resource Scanning (DSRS) satellite acting as an identical platform plus a narrowband resource scanner.  The 'DunaLink' is the main communications bridge between the Kerbin DSN and the Duna SOI, with the smaller satellites acting as short-range relays.

This orbital comms infrastructure is important to establish prior to sending other probes such as the 'Scarab' surface rover.  However, these craft files are representative of later generations of spacecraft.  I'm planning to publish analogues to earlier counterparts, like an orbital comms relay based on the Mariner 9 probe, and a Duna lander based on Viking 1 and 2.  And then of course more craft for other planetary bodies to expand and add more depth to my satellite/probe collections.

One final note: each of these satellites above include a small docking clamp so they can be serviced with propellant in orbit.  If an ISRU infrastructure is established in the Duna SOI, a player can be more generous in adjusting the satellite orbits as necessary to scan specific target locations around Duna.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Raptor9
repaired image link

[Jester Darrak]

Finally, been waiting for those for an eternity!.Additionally I gotta say that once the LITE was my favorite upper stage and go-to for the majority of my missions. But the 'Thunder 2' took it's role. Looks and performance make this one of your best crafts ever. Kudos!

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Additionally I gotta say that once the LITE was my favorite upper stage and go-to for the majority of my missions. But the 'Thunder 2' took it's role. Looks and performance make this one of your best crafts ever.

Yeah, the 'Thunder 3' family and 'Lightning' are my workhorses too.  The LITE is better at pushing heavier payloads, but the economy of the 'Thunder 2' is definitely a plus when you're sending lighter probes on interplanetary trajectories.  On the other hand, the LITE is intended to be reusable for other missions, so you recoup funds over time the more you use it after it's initial mission, to push payloads around in space.  After I had my CisMunar propellant economy established with a handful of LITE stages operating around the Kerbin SOI, I would just put payloads on the 'Thunder 3' to get it to LKO for pick-up by the next available LITE, and ship it elsewhere.  That's where the true pay-off begins.

[Raptor9]

A few more craft have been updated this weekend, even a few that have been languishing since 1.3.1.  As always, the full list is annotated at the bottom of the OP.  I also took some time to explore other uses of some older craft.  The purpose was to see what older designs could be re-used and implemented in the current M3V and ISRU/depot mission architectures.

In the example below, I was revisiting some thoughts I had on growth options for the EV-4 'Longship'.  The original inspiration for these options can be read in a NASA document HERE; specifically figure 6 on page 9.  I had read this paper a while ago, and it was on my mind when I updated my EV-4 design this past spring.  I implemented docking ports inside the EV-4 saddle truss segments so that other modules and equipment could be inserted as needed, and I had considered the possibility of using EV-4's converted from LF-only LV-N propulsion to conventional LF+O propulsion.

In this case, an EV-4 Block 1 has already jettisoned its LF drop tank from the 'Saddle' truss and its docking/service module from the Hab/Lab truss.  The aft NTR Assembly has been replaced with an LFO-powered NITE stage, and a single drop tank with LF+O added to the aft 'Saddle' docking port.  This allows an EV-2C and LV-2C to be docked in the remaining truss real-estate.  This concept is why I replaced the solar panels on all my EV-2C's with the models that can be retracted (and it only cost a few m/s of dV).  This configuration has 3,858 to 3968 m/s of dV (not including the propellant on board the EV-2C or LV-2C), depending on whether the drop tank is jettisoned when empty, or retained for reuse later.  That's just enough for a one-way trip from low Kerbin orbit to low Dres orbit, at which the LV-2C can easily conduct a single landing.  For the return trip, propellant could be sent ahead to Dres orbit, or an ISRU site could be set up using an M3V 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit'.

Anyway, you get the idea.  Certainly a lot of possibilities remain to adapt some of the EV-4 modules to existing missions.  I'm actually designing an Ike mobile refueling station that is essentially built from a used EV-4 Block 3.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

I did a quick look at the NASA paper and noticed that the truss' diameter is more like the 3.75m tank than the 2.5m hab. But I guess you chose to have rather a "oversized" tank than an "undersized" hab since KSP is lacking proper 3.75m crew parts. I wonder if you could MacGyver something out of your M3V stuff to make it look like a 3.75m hab.

[Raptor9]

9 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

But I guess you chose to have rather a "oversized" tank than an "undersized" hab since KSP is lacking proper 3.75m crew parts.

That was exactly my line of thinking; it was also a decision to have the 'Saddle' truss the size it is to be proportional to the 2.5m drop tank it would carry.  I think all in all, it's a smooth enough transition from the 2.5m Hab+Lab, to the 'Saddle' truss diameter, to the 3.75m NTR tank in the back.

I tried to make the Lab look a little chubby using the radiators with equipment storage underneath.

[Jester Darrak]

How did the update affect the EV-2B? Did they fix the drag in the structural tubes?

[Raptor9]

15 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Did they fix the drag in the structural tubes?

They did not. But regardless, I just didn't want to deal with them anymore, so they're completely removed from all my lifters. In fact the only craft that uses a tube while exposed to drag is the EV-1C. But with a more powerful lifter, the drag doesn't impact the launch to LKO that much so I stuck with it.

15 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

How did the update affect the EV-2B?

I just built a new EV-2B, without necessarily basing it on the CST-100 or Crew Dragon. The main thing I tried to achieve compared to my (never-published) EV-2B 1.4.1 revision was low launch costs, simplicity of use, and a relatively low part count. So I threw any real-life influences out the window and went with what made sense going from the A to the C model EV-2.

On the surface, the latest EV-2B is a couple hundred funds cheaper to use per mission than the current SVR-10. However, the SVR-10 is technically the cheaper means to get a three-kerbal crew to LKO since it can be landed back on the KSC runway for full funds recovery; whereas the EV-2B capsule would return more funds but depending on the distance from the KSC will incur recovery losses which drives its actual end-of-mission price a little higher than the SVR-10.

But compared to any spaceplanes, the EV-2B is the easiest and cheapest craft to get to LKO, including tourism contracts since it doesn't require a pilot.
________________________________

EDIT:  Also, for all those Space Shuttle fans out there, I forgot to point out this weekend I updated the 'Ranger', and re-designated it from 'SVR-16' to 'SVR-20' to fit into the revamped SPH designations.  As promised earlier this year, as my most-downloaded craft, I kept it DLC free.  However, I swapped out the O-10 engines for Mk55's to serve as the OMS engines.  Other than that, I tweaked the action groups slightly, but everything else remained the same.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

Four more probes uploaded on KerbalX, which completes my collection of "Generation 1" Sat/Probes in my project.  I'm still organizing the category, but in essence Gen 1 satellites and probes will consist of all Kerbin/Mun/Minmus craft, and what I consider to be "vintage" space probes.  Everything from the Soviet Luna 3 moon probe to NASA's Voyager program.  Generation 2 will mainly consist of probes from circa 1990 to present day, with maybe one exception from the Mariner program.

So first up is the 'Beacon', which is inspired after the NASA Surveyor moon landers.  Not much to this one, just a no-frills probe.  The second is the 'Scorpion' orbiter/lander pair, inspired by NASA's Viking 1 and 2 Mars landers.  The lander half is really not much more complicated than the 'Beacon', it just has a more complicated EDL sequence.  The orbiter half carries it's own set of instruments for orbital readings, as well as a relay antenna for receiving data from the lander.  Even that antenna is insufficient for sending data all the way back to Kerbin.  That brings me to the second two...

     

The 'Vanguard' probes are modeled after Mariner 2 and Mariner 8 respectively, and are designed to be "entry-level" interplanetary probes for less-experienced players, or players that haven't taken that leap and ventured beyond the Mun or Minmus.  They are very simple in functionality, and relatively-speaking contain a large excess of delta-V to account for a player's first time plotting interplanetary trajectories, or trying to slow down to insert into an orbit of Eve or Duna.  For players experienced at these interplanetary transfers, you will have a lot of propellant to play around with at the finish line, so feel free to take some sensor readings of Gilly and Ike while you're there, or adjust your orbits willy-nilly as needed.  The 'Vanguard 2' is also particularly important for establishing that comms foothold in the Duna SOI to route signals and data transmissions for follow-on probes, like the 'Scorpion' orbiter/lander.

     

Just like the Duna orbiting probes I recently published, these two probes have the ability to be refueled by future assets you may send to Eve or Duna.  This will allow you to re-position these satellites as needed to adjust their comm link orbits, if you have used up their initial propellant supply.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Raptor9