Rakaydos

What are the proportions of this? Mk 2 is a little taller than 1.25m parts and 2.5m wide The new porkjet Mk 3 is a little wider than 2.5m and 3.75m tall I would love a version of this hullplan that is slightly more than 3.75m tall and 5m wide, for a heavy cargo craft well beyond "shuttle" size.

Still a derivitive of the Manticore hull plan- I suspect you'll keep complaining at me about that until I replace all it with Mk 3 parts. (which I DO have plans to do)

I've worked most of the kinks out of of my resupply/crew rotation shuttle, the Griffon. (most recent problem is that my flaps are TOO effective and I go into a stall off the runway w/o control inputs. Might be a few days before I work it out) At crusing speed, the flight data window is giving me L/D ratios of 4.5 to 5, thouh the angle of attack is a bit higher than others I've seen reccomended. It can put three quarters of an Orange tank's capacity into a low kerbin station and still land on jet power, and brings plenty of RCS and passangers. I dont use B7, so I dont know what kind of nerfs it puts on jets beyond FAR's speed limit. But an earlier version was DRE rated, it has more than enough passanger capacity to resupply life support mods, and it can single stage to Minmus orbit (possibly minmus surface, as it's VTOL RCS is rated for minmus gravity) on Raipers alone, if you've got an ISRU station there. Anyone else want to give it a spin?

So far, about half the entrants have said they use FAR or NEAR. And a lot of the comments say "I use stock because I cant count on people using mods" It sounds like there is an overwelmong demand for Stock FAR/NEAR

It's not much, but it was all carried up in SSTOs It's hard to see at this angle, but the station also mounts an ion probe, a NERVA designed to dock on the spaceplane''s belly port for interplanetary flights, and a handful of microtugs. And one of those spaceplanes has been decomissioned to function as additional fuel tankage.

...I asked if I could use a single flap setting to deflect downward, so I can activate it for landing. until I include a NERVA, I'm not goting to be worried about landing on Laythe, so I really dont care about airbreaks yet. It didnt sound like you answered my question.

Since I want the control surfaces to angle up for launch, but down for landing, would I set the control surfaces to a negative spoiler, and turn on the brakes in orbit to shift "modes"? IE: not have the brakes on for takeoff, and leave the brakes on for landing.

And I still have control athority on top of flap deflection?

This one does what I want on the way up: This one does what I want on the way down: The changes to the foward canard may be a little difficult to replicate, but is there any way to "re-set neutral" on the trailer flaps?

That's actually my point. "Check" being a word that means money, and that means that symbol. I'm just emphasizing (with the brit spelling) that the alternate meaning IS money.

So I've been testing the Manticore V5, based on the craft entered in the contest. Having used flaps to move my "neutral pitch" to a high lift area, I'm starting to have problems with reentry stalling. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vv6fa6vlf47qucr/Manticore%20v5.craft?dl=0 1: Toggle raipier settings 2: Toggle raipiers 3:Toggle turbojets 9: toggle belly Vtol RCS (double click on physics load to turn off) 0: Toggle cargo/docking bay Since the flaps positioning is most of what changed between the Mk3 and the Mk 5 (mk4 was a different apprach to Vtol that had it's own issues), is there a way to change "flap settings" for reentry?

It's a Cheque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque

Thanks to you all, Manticore is up to Mk 5, with a +AoA NPM, a slight roll instability but plenty of contol athority, a high operating cealing with symmetric, tiered flameouts, and an RCS based low-grav VTOL system rated for Ike gravity, that doubles as a landing assist system on kerbin.

...Not sure why everyone seems to be able to kill my plane. :/ I mean, the brake problem was ideentified, but not updated before the v3 update, which I havnt posted yet. But other than trying to operate the plane under 150m/s, which it wasnt designed for, I'm not sure why people are having problems with aerodynamic failures. Which stability derivitive is the "neutral pitch moment"

What's failing? Are you nosing up too hard off the runway? or trying to nose up on reentry below 10km? Those are the problem areas I've noticed so far, do you have any to add?

Fuel drain is supposed to go- Bottom flank tanks (symmetric), Top flank tanks (Symmetric), bottom core tank (symmetric, draining inward toward the dockig port) and finally the top core tanks, draining front to back. With the Mk2 Bicoupler eliminted, my next guess is that the radial attachment of the top flank tank is draining fuel from the top core- specificallly, whichever side hasnt already been "checked" by that engine, which is why I confused the problem with the Mk 2 Bi coupler.

Presenting the Manticore: Never worry about asymmetric flameouts again! ...I think I can, I think I can...

"Ok, it's a bit expensive but there's no better engine in space. Werner says it's good for a thousand years, or until you crash. No refunds."

I assume "smth" means "Something"?

#Save the Magic Boulder

A high price makes uselss. Except if you leave it in orbit as a transfer stage, or refuel it as a reusable single stage lander, or recover it for 100% of the price by landing on the runway or launchpad. Yep. Totally useless for everything a NERVA should be used for. If this happens, it shold be spelled out in the item description- Very expensive, good space engine. Get your money's worth out of it.

Hmm... A simplified test rig gives the expected results... but I'm getting an odd crossfeed on the craft that provoked my post. When the engines of one half are lit, the fuel drains from the expected tanks, AND the tank on the opposite side of the bicoupler. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fj28exlv3r3xea/Griffon%20v1.craft?dl=0 It'll be a mess to untangle, I know, but it's better than locking the tank.

Best case is to have a cement-3d printer on a moon or asteroid base, where you can fill out 90% of your building material with local resources.

...he says, about a game that isnt even in Beta yet...