New Mk 3 Part Weight and Other Observations

[Awass]

Let me start by saying that I love the look of the new parts, and they add a ton of new options for spaceplane and aircraft design.

However, here are a few observations I have made:

1. The parts are too heavy/wings don't provide enough lift. Specifically, the passenger cabins. The Mk 2 passenger cabin weighs about 2.5 tons, and the Hitchhiker Storage Container weighs about 2 tons, and they both hold about 4 Kerbals. Since much of a passenger cabin is just empty space, it doesn't take that much weight to expand a passenger cabin to fit 16 Kerbals. The Mk 3 passenger cabin should weigh something like 4.5 tons instead of 6.5, which as it stands is impractical even if you use just one or two of them. Adding some wing parts with more lift but also more drag would help too.

2. A follow-up to number 1, an eighth-size fuel tank would also be nice because the quarter-size (short) already offers way more fuel than is often needed for a lot of planes and aircraft. Yes, you can adjust the fuel amount, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to place one eighth-size tank at the front and one at the back to balance the weight? Flexibility is always good.

3. The windows on the passenger cabin should be raised so that they are not in the middle of the part. This is kinda minor, but it would be nice to place wings in the middle (height-wise) of the passenger cabins without putting them smack on top of the windows. Placing the wings lower or higher than the windows fixes this problem but also moves the center of lift and center of thrust of wing-mounted engines off-center, which can be annoying when trying to balance the forces acting on a plane.

4. IVA textures. Have the internal textures not been added yet, or is it a bug that I just see black when I IVA in the Mk 3 cockpit and passenger cabin?

Mainly, I want to use the new parts to make realistic-looking airliners, but usually that leads to sluggish, slow planes that only stay level at a 20 degree angle of attack for some of the reasons mentioned, even with only a few passenger cabins and minimal fuel.

So how do you use the new parts and deal with the challenges they present?

Edited December 23, 2014 by Awass

[Ziff]

1. The parts are too heavy/wings don't provide enough lift. Specifically, the passenger cabins. The Mk 2 passenger cabin weighs about 2.5 tons, and the Hitchhiker Storage Container weighs about 2 tons, and they both hold about 4 Kerbals. Since much of a passenger cabin is just empty space, it doesn't take that much weight to expand a passenger cabin to fit 16 Kerbals. The Mk 3 passenger cabin should weigh something like 4.5 tons instead of 6.5, which as it stands is impractical even if you use just one or two of them. Adding some wing parts with more lift but also more drag would help too.

1: In the Mk2 cabin if you divide the mass by the number of Kerbals you get 0.625 per Kerbal. In the Mk3 it's 0.33 , a weight savings nearly of 50% per Kerbal.

2. A follow-up to number 1, an eighth-size fuel tank would also be nice because the quarter-size (short) already offers way more fuel than is often needed for a lot of planes and aircraft. Yes, you can adjust the fuel amount, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to place one eighth-size tank at the front and one at the back to balance the weight? Flexibility is always good.

2: I thought there should be more fuel tank sizes as well. Tanks the size of the monopropellant ones would be good. Actually, I wish stock tanks were like the ones from B9 with the subtypes. That would make things a lot easier.

3. The windows on the passenger cabin should be raised so that they are not in the middle of the part. This is kinda minor, but it would be nice to place wings in the middle (height-wise) of the passenger cabins without putting them smack on top of the windows. Placing the wings lower or higher than the windows fixes this problem but also moves the center of lift and center of thrust of wing-mounted engines off-center, which can be annoying when trying to balance the forces acting on a plane.

3: This drives me crazy as well but there really isn't a way around it. If they put the windows any higher they would be practically on the roof. Perhaps the windows could be smaller. I usually either make sure the wings are on the fuel tanks and not the crew cabin, or I put them below the windows or at the bottom of the fuselage so they're out of the way.

4. IVA textures. Have the internal textures not been added yet, or is it a bug that I just see black when I IVA in the Mk 3 cockpit and passenger cabin?

Not implemented yet. It's in the patch notes.

Mainly, I want to use the new parts to make realistic-looking airliners, but usually that leads to sluggish, slow planes that only stay level at a 20 degree angle of attack for some of the reasons mentioned, even with only a few passenger cabins and minimal fuel.

Realistic looking airliners in the stock aerodynamics usually doesn't work very well because of the drag model.

[KevinW42]

Mainly, I want to use the new parts to make realistic-looking airliners, but usually that leads to sluggish, slow planes that only stay level at a 20 degree angle of attack for some of the reasons mentioned, even with only a few passenger cabins and minimal fuel.

I tried doing that, and the only way I could get it to work was by adding a bunch of wing strakes and flipping them around so they were clipped inside the fuselage.

[Wanderfound]

If you want realistic-ish large aircraft, you need to go FAR/NEAR or cross your fingers and wait for the aero update.

And, even in FAR/NEAR, don't expect a Mk3 to climb as easily as a smaller plane. They do work, though; the huge fuel capacity and hefty size means that you can afford to strap a monster rocket on the back (or half a dozen RAPIERs) and light them up at a lower speed and altitude than would normally be possible.

There should be larger wings and landing gear in the next update. Hopefully, we'll eventually get some bigger jets, too.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Awass]

1: In the Mk2 cabin if you divide the mass by the number of Kerbals you get 0.625 per Kerbal. In the Mk3 it's 0.33 , a weight savings nearly of 50% per Kerbal.

/QUOTE]

The ratio per Kerbal should go down somewhat as you extend a fuselage. It's like extending a cylinder, where you already have the end pieces, and you're only adding additional surface area along the circumference. Now 50% might be a bit extreme, but certainly 6.5, from a practical standpoint, is just too heavy given the lift available without clipping wings everywhere.

[Awass]

And I'm not sure what happened to that quote

[klgraham1013]

2: I thought there should be more fuel tank sizes as well. Tanks the size of the monopropellant ones would be good. Actually, I wish stock tanks were like the ones from B9 with the subtypes. That would make things a lot easier.

Can we just get fuel in wings, please? You know, like in real life? Please, Squad?

goes back to his MM fueled wings config file

[ddenis]

3. The windows on the passenger cabin should be raised so that they are not in the middle of the part. This is kinda minor, but it would be nice to place wings in the middle (height-wise) of the passenger cabins without putting them smack on top of the windows. Placing the wings lower or higher than the windows fixes this problem but also moves the center of lift and center of thrust of wing-mounted engines off-center, which can be annoying when trying to balance the forces acting on a plane.

There's no right variant for placing windows, everyone builds different, that's why I vote for living windows as they are.

[ddenis]

Can we just get fuel in wings, please? You know, like in real life? Please, Squad?

goes back to his MM fueled wings config file

Absolutely love this idea with mention that I want procedural wings to be stock with fuel in them.