WhiteKnuckle

Hello fellow pilots, Kerbalnaughts, insane people. I'm proud to introduce the latest Aerospace company, focusing on things with wings, things designed to excite, to thrill, to go places that no Kerbal has gone before and return you safely (ish) home! A few notes before we go any further: -All WKA craft are designed to be flown in FAR/NEAR. WKA takes no responsibility for craft flown in soup, water, or terrain. If you like to fly, do yourself a favor and get FAR. Seriously. Special note: This does not apply to all post 1.0 ships. All craft are now designed to fly in stock aero to increase their usability for new players. -All WKA craft use stock parts unless otherwise noted. -This is my first time sharing ships I've made. Feedback is encouraged and will help steer future designs. If something doesn't work. please let me know. Without further adieu, let's get with the sharing: Hummingbird T1 Type: VTOL Jet airplane. Use: Training, light aerobatics Part count: 45 Weight: 7.8 tons The Hummingbird TI is designed to introduce pilots to the fun of VTOL aircraft and acclimate them with WKA standard flight controls. It features a basic jet engine for vertical lift, a turbojet engine for horizontal flight (both to limit forward airspeed at low altitude and to give it a high cruising speed at higher altitudes. It, like all WKA VTOLs, features LF/O vertical engines that act as braking thrusters to deal with the long spool time of the vertical jet engine. The Hummingbird is not the most stable airframe out there. It is designed to teach pilots to be smooth and gentle with the controls. It has a large amount of SAS torque, so it will recover from any spins as long as you have sufficient height above terrain. If you do not, it comes equipped with the patented Butt-Saver cockpit ejection system. Action Groups: 1. Vertical Jet engine. 2. Horizontal Jet engine 9. Vertical braking thrusters. Abort: Cockpit ejection system (can also use spacebar) Note Hummingbird T1 has been upgraded to T2 in post #19 T1 craft file removed. Happy landings! - - - Updated - - - HUMMERBird TB1 The HUMMERBird is a lightly modified Hummingbird T1 designed to carry light munitions. It has all the same features as the Hummingbird but with two small bomb racks under the wings. Type: VTOL Jet Bomber Use: Training, Bomber Training Part count: 45 Weight: 7.9 tons Action Groups: 1. Vertical Jet engine. 2. Horizontal Jet engine 6. Drop Bombs (can also use spacebar) 9. Vertical braking thrusters. Abort: Cockpit ejection system (can also use spacebar) Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i5qlwa8be2bbtsz/HUMMERBird%20TB1.craft?dl=0 Happy blowing stuff up! - - - Updated - - - Nomad A Nomad E1 takes off from the North Pole Biodome on a science mission around Kerbin The Nomad is the workhorse of the WKA VTOL fleet. It started out as a way for our test pilots to have some fun and drop an occasional fuel tank on the VAB. But it has grown into a fleet of ships that can perform almost any task on or around Kerbin. To date there are seven different variations. A1: Aerobatic demonstrator E1: Explorer science biome-hopper G1: General purpose light cargo L1: Long range extended fuel capacity R1 Racer, low altitude SX1: Spaceplane, experimental T1: Transport T1 delivering scientists to Arakebo Observatory R1 running flat out over the desert All Nomad models share some general features. Vertical power is provided by 2 patented WKA Giddy-UP engine clusters, featuring a basic Jet engine and four Rockomax 24-77 engines that serve as vertical braking thrusters. Most Nomad models also feature a cargo bay aligned with the CoM, and all fuel tanks are aligned with the CoM. What does this mean for you? It means that despite fuel level or cargo load, the Nomad will always be perfectly balanced for vertical or horizontal flight. The Nomad has a very wide performance envelope, ranging from sea level at zero airspeed, to over 20km and 1,000m/s. As such it has very responsive control surfaces and SAS. While being a very easy aircraft to fly, it is also easy to put into a spin. Thankfully all Nomad models come with an overpowered RCS system. If you find yourself going in a direction other than the one you planned on, just key on RCS and you should be able to pull out of any adverse flight profiles. RCS is also useful although not 100% necessary for transitioning between horizontal and vertical flight, and for vertical touchdown. I'll be profiling most of the more unique Nomad models in the days to come, but to start off I'm releasing the A1, partially because it's the easiest to fly, partially because it's the most insane. Nomad A1 Nomad A1 in a flat spin, totally recoverable. The A1 was born when a member of the KSN Green Angels asked WKA to build a flight demonstrator for airshows. Happy to oblige, our engineers quickly stripped all the Vernor thrusters and struts off a Condor SSTO supertanker (on a sad note, they forgot to remove that craft from flight duty, RIP Kenny Kerman, you will be missed) and bolted them onto a Nomad G1 frame, along with reinforced wings and a light fuel load the A1 is capable of sicking maneuvers, turning most test pilots pink with nausea. We wouldn't go so far as to say the A1 is un-crashable, far from it, in fact the Green Angels flight team is no longer allowed to practice at KSC due to the number of A1's raining from the sky. But that is due to the fact that the A1 is so maneuverable and stable that it invites insane displays of piloting bravado. It can be put into any flight orientation and will happily sit there. Yaw 180* turns at speed? Sure thing. Back-flips? Easy. Go nuts, it'll let you get away with almost anything. Type: VTOL Jet aircraft. Use: Aerobatics, flight demos Part count: 130 Weight: 18.5 tons Action Groups: 1. Vertical jet engines 2. Horizontal jet engines 3. Vertical engine bay doors 9. Vertical braking thrusters Abort: Parachutes (can also use spacebar) Flight notes, recomend keeping RCS/SAS and both vertical and horizontal engines engaged when doing aerobatics. Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/li6j4vkz8kzn4a7/Nomad%20A1.craft?dl=0 Happy flying!

I can't stress enough how good an idea it is to take two rovers when going anywhere farther than Minimus. Nothing sucks more than doing a huge mission out to Duna, making a perfect landing, then rolling over or busting a wheel or breaking your solar panels after only 5 minutes on the surface... ask me how I know One of my favorite designs for a Duna rover transport was basically just an engine and fuel tank with a pair of girders sticking out from the sides at the top of the tank, the girders had stack separators that hung the rovers on either side of the tank, and the the rovers each had parachutes on them. Use the main engine to do your deorbit and most of the braking, then when you're at a reasonable airspeed and altitude, stage the separators and chutes as one. The rovers drop away and deploy their chutes and then you can crash the transport into the surface.

Ahh, I get my Vundervepons mixed up sometimes, wacky Germans. About your comments the other day about having enough competition in challenges, it's tough to be sure. It seems hard to get the right mix of fun/challenging. Too easy and it's boring, too hard and not enough people even try it. Personally, the reason I haven't entered any of yours is just because I am so freaking bored of flying around the KSC. I did Scarecrow's VTOL challenge just because I'm on a VTOL kick at the moment, but other than that Kerbin-side has spoiled me. I will be entering your Fairest of the All challenge though. I keep thinking about making a Kerbin-side point-to-point racing league, but I have a feeling only 3 or 4 people would ever enter it. Hopefully Squad will at some point give us something like it in stock so people actually have places to fly to and from.

Not saying that Majorjim's Eagle isn't cool looking, but I'm pretty sure he could take pictures of the KSC Port-O-Potty and make it look good. One way or another he needs to get a nod for best photography. My current vote goes to Chronosheep's Archangel, great mix of realism and sci-fi awesomeness. -Space reserved for my entry sometime this weekend-

Inspired by the German WWII absurdity? Wasn't that thing meant to be carried by a bomber? Hmm....

I don't think there's any easy way to solve this in stock, or with any mods I know of. But there may be a way to design around it. Instead of one jet engine facing down, try putting on two jet engines canted out at 45-degree angles. It should still give you enough lift, but the thrust won't be going straight into your carrier's deck.

Ugh. I'd like to remove my previous entry. I decided to take the chutes off and give it another go, and suddenly my top speed dropped by over 100m/s... to where it should have been if there wasn't something buggy with my game. So with better piloting (well my landings were better, taking off from the island hanger was some of the ugliest flying I've ever done) my time dropped... er... rose to 5:20 Oh and then I forgot to save my ship, so I'm gonna give it a rest until someone breaks my record.

Made a racer version of my standard multi-use VTOL and got a 4:59 (but I had somehow switched the display to Orbit mode, so unfortunately my official entry is 5:12) EDIT: TIME NOT VALID. See post #14 Using FAR. Has emergency chutes but it should be clear to see they were not used at all. If needed I will re-submit without them (I think I can shave an easy 45 seconds off with better piloting anyways )

Cool. Watched the latest vid, getting better.

Video criticism/suggestions: First off, they're very good for someone just starting out. It's tough to be clear, coherent, and not completely boring. And for the most part you've got that down. I think the only real problems are technical ones, editing, sound quality and the like. And it sounds like you're already addressing these. As for what would be cool to see: You've done a vid on how you design a ship, and that's great, but a lot of people design their own ships and then wonder why they don't work right. So maybe a video showing some common problems (lawn darting, backfliping, ect) then go back to the SPH and show what those problems look like in the FAR menu and the CoM/CoL display, and how to go about fixing them. Other than that, maybe a video (series?) on doing a large interplanetary mission using only spaceplanes, go to Duna, Eve or Laythe. Keep up the good work!

Yup I agree that mounting round tanks to the side is the way to go, but like your's most of my designs have a central Mk2 body. And if you're going to do that I can't see any reason not to use the tank-in-bay trick. So using this pic as an example, I'd swap out the Mk2 LF/O tank behind the crew can and the one just before the tail for cargo bays with fuel tanks in them. Should be the best of both worlds. Gonna watch your videos now.

There is a weight penalty, but I think the amount of fuel per ton is actually better. I'll have to check the numbers when I get home, but IIRC: Mk2 LF/O Tank: 3.5t for 270 units of LF = 77.14 units of fuel per ton. Mk2 bay: .5t + 1.25m LF/O Tank: 4t for 360 units of LF = 80 units of fuel per ton. Either way, I used it as a method for reducing the size of the craft, not the weight.

Yeah my biggest issue has been getting enough fuel on board that won't change the CoM when it's burned off. Add to that the need to balance the vertical engines around the CoM and my craft start to get really big or ungainly. Although one trick I've started to use is putting a fuel tank (can't remember the designation but it's the black & white 1.25m tank) in a Mk2 Cargo Bay. The Mk2 Rocket fuel tank holds 270 units of liquid fuel, but a cargo bay the same size can carry 360 units. My best attempt was built off of my favorite VTOL plane, and as such has decent sized wings, I hadn't considered getting rid of a lot of wing on the spaceplane version, that might be all it needs. I'll give it a shot and if that doesn't work I'll download a few of your ships and reverse engineer them to find out where I'm going wrong. Thanks again!

I'm really up in the air about B9 (har har har) On the one hand, some of their stuff does feel overpowered. On the other, the inadequacies of some of the stock parts (I'm looking at you landing gear) make me want to rip my hair out. As much as I want to, I don't think I'll ever be able to give them up, if for no other reason than I love their cockpits. Wanderfound, any tips on making a VTOL spaceplane with stock parts? I have no problem making spaceplanes, and no problems making VTOLs, but putting them together is giving me fits. My best attempt to date can just barely eek out a 70x70km orbit with nothing but fumes left in the tanks. But if I swap out the stock RAPIERS for B9 SABERS I can get the same craft into a 100x100 orbit with enough fuel left over to make several vertical landing and takeoffs. Just wondering if you had any basic formulas for number of engines per ton or anything like that.

If you have Verner engines or even RCS on your aircraft you can use them to push you down into the runway which I believe helps with braking performance, and even if it doesn't you can use them to keep from bouncing up if you hit the runway a little too hard.

Kerbin-Side http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82785-0-90-Kerbin-Side-v0-41-Go-For-Multi-Launch! If you like flying, it is sooooo nice to be able to start from areas other that KSC. Got a new VTOL to try out? Take it for a spin from a mountaintop helipad! Got some 200-ton monster that needs a huge take-off roll? Use the Area-51 runway that's like 3km long! After FAR it's my favorite mod.

The way I reconciled my love of spaceplanes with the long range efficiency problem you pointed out was to build a large SSTO that tows an interplanetary spaceplane behind it to orbit. Send it up as a package, separate in LKO, land the lifter SSTO back at KSC, then the interplanetary ship can go out and do it's thing without lugging a bunch of worthless jet engines around the solar system. Once it's done it lands back at KSC too. While as a package it's not a proper SSTO, I figure as long as all the parts take off from and land on the runway it's close enough. And it's nice to be able to take a spaceplane to Duna or further without having to refuel along the way. Wanderfound, I just wanted to thank you, I've be lurking in this thread since .90 got me back into KSP. Just looking at some of your designs helped me work through some issues I was having with my spaceplanes and VTOLs. Keep up the good work dude!

Not sure if aethseticly pleasing, but this sure ain't your granddad's Eve lifter: Interplanetary stage: Requires: Kethane, bravery, luck.

The sub-assembly menu has a stupid rule that it only allows attachment to the "root" part, which unfortunatly means your rover body. So what you have to do is save the rover as a sub assembly without a docking port on it, then make your lander with a docking port and another docking port attacted to it, then load and connect your rover to that second docking port. Hope that makes sense.

Love the concept, seems like the perfect solution to the SSTO problem of having to cart around your lift stage everywhere you go once you're in orbit, while keeping the ability to do pinpoint landings with both craft (which you usually can't do with craft you stick in a cargo bay) I think I'm going to have to try my hand at making something like this.

Love the paint job on that one, very sinister looking.

I heard the Kraken lived in Eve's oceans... Ooaf. Yeah I added that rule just to keep people from using parts from 20 different mod packs and making it hard or impossible for other people to replicate their run. I should clarify that only mods used on your ship that help you complete the challenge will be counted. If you've got Kerbal alarm clock running in the background, well... who cares. I considered making mods like DRE and TAC add to the score, but I think that's going to make things more complicated than it needs to be, but I will add a special award for people doing things the hard way.

I thought that as well, but it doesn't seem to be the case. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73048-Flying-(off-of)-Eve! Check out SV-ESK's entry, he didn't use FAR and got from sea level to a 780km orbit (!) with an 9 ton ship.

True. Other people have used the thermal turbojets from KSP Interstellar, but as far as I know there is no way to do an airplane design completely stock (although it would be neat to see someone try to land a 150t aircraft on Eve)

If you spend enough time playing KSP your GF problem will resolve itself... It will however leave you with some other problems