Jump to content

GoSlash27

Members
  • Posts

    5,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GoSlash27

  1. Mystik, I ran these tests with the Whiplash, which has the highest demand for air. Best, -Slashy
  2. I farted around a little and confirmed some configurations that work.. 2 radial structural intakes per engine 1 precooler per engine 1 nacelle per engine 1 shock cone and 1 precooler per 4 engines Most intakes will get the job done on a 1-1 ratio, but these are lower- drag options. Best, -Slashy
  3. Oh, definitely not "smarter". Just a bit obsessive Best, -Slashy
  4. Tseitsei, That isn't a good test for SSTO intakes. You'd want to fly it to 20km horizontally and note whether the engine cuts out before top speed is achieved (or the TV blows up). Any intake combo that can do this is suitable for SSTO work. Best, -Slashy
  5. I'm with DualDesertEagle on this one. Having garbage floating around up there messes with my OCD, so I mission plan to stage when I'm on a collision course. I think avoiding clutter is it's own reward, so no need for extra incentives or disincentives. For others... it's probably too easy to cheat the mechanic to make this effective. Best, -Slashy
  6. Kerbal007, If your main engine has a higher Isp than the solid boosters, you should fire it. If it has a lower Isp, you should leave it off. Best, -Slashy
  7. Sharpy, That graph is @Right's handiwork. Best, -Slashy
  8. Jarin, I'd love to see some empirical data on this myself, as I haven't done any testing myself. Best, -Slashy
  9. Everything Tseitsei said. There are a ton of design tips to help you build a better space plane, but these are a few design tips that will help you *fly* better. 1: Don't design your plane to be maneuverable. Your plane should be a jet- propelled lumberwagon into space. Maneuvering is bad. Every change in attitude in direction or attitude makes drag. You want your control inputs to be minimal and have very little effect. To that end, you should have very little control authority. 2: Your vertical rudder should not respond to any input. There is no reason to coordinate using active rudder, so turn it off. Otherwise you'll engage SAS and it'll cross control with bank, adding yaw. That makes drag and drag is bad. 3: Turn off your reaction wheels during climbout. Same deal; they hold heading funny and put you into draggy attitudes. 4: Don't use 1 set of controls to respond to 2 inputs. That makes your handling twitchy and imprecise, which makes unnecessary drag and forces you to make more inputs. Good luck, -Slashy
  10. Jarin, I'd recommend balance beaming 2 intakes on a booster and closing one of them. That's how we confirmed it. I think that not everyone had gotten the word, so "close your intakes" was vestigal advice from previous versions. Best, -Slashy
  11. Veeltch, I think your suggestion is one that has been raised before and Squad is aware of. The "clunkiness" of the rocket parts was intentional. They were supposed to give the feel of a junkyard space program where everything is jury- rigged and highly suspect. The sleek and shiny NASA and PorkJet parts were added afterwards and the two styles don't work together. I think this is why PorkJet is busy revamping the rocket parts so that everything will share the "simple and modern" aesthetic you're talking about. Best, -Slashy
  12. Jarin, We had come to that conclusion back in 1.04. There is definitely a change in how the game engine handles drag; it now gives you "brownie points" for an overall clean shape, whereas previously it just computed it from how the parts were assembled. I can't say for certain that there has been no change in the behavior of the intakes, as I haven't researched it since 1.05. Best, -Slashy
  13. Sardia, Attach them serially in front of the engines. That way you add intake area without adding any cross section area. They are only the lowest drag option when you can do that. You don't want to add a radial stack to your plane if you don't have to, certainly not just to have somewhere to put an intake. Best, -Slashy
  14. Here we see an example of "all stock elitism" countered by "mod elitism". Anybody here feel emotionally scarred by reading either? I don't. Of course... that might just be an example of my "reasonably well- adjusted self esteem" elitism at work Best, -Slashy
  15. Plus... Wing shape has no effect on performance in KSP. I'm a space plane guy myself, and I think we're pretty well covered in this area at the moment. Best, -Slashy
  16. "If at first you don't succeed, add moar boosters" "Failure is *always* an option"
  17. The launch values for bodies with atmospheres are either guesstimates or empirical results. It is possible to overperform or underperform in comparison, depending on your aerodynamics and launch profile. All other values are calculated and highly reliable. Values to orbit are calculated by assuming infinite t/w and a Hohmann transfer to orbit. These values should be considered an absolute minimum for planning purposes. Transfers to SoI and beyond are computed using n-body math, and are thus a little overestimated. It's safe to assume that you can match or even better these values in practice with an ideal Hohmann transfer. All bodies are assumed to be coplanar and zero eccentricity, so a *specific* case may require a little more or less. The DV to match inclination is computed for the worst case scenario. HTHs, -Slashy
  18. I found a link to the old discussion: I'm still operating on this info and it still works fine in 1.2.2, but that doesn't mean that Squad hasn't changed some things since then. Best, -Slashy
  19. mystic, Sounds good. The altitude limit really only applies to the engine itself, so I'd recommend focusing on speed at 20km altitude (so long as you don't fry it). This is how we confirmed a lot of our older findings. Best, -Slashy
  20. Mystik, Remember that intakes (no matter which you use or in what combination) have the sole purpose of keeping your engine lit up to the point where it can't accelerate any more. Adding intakes doesn't add thrust, it just extends the condition where the engine stays lit. The speed at which an engine stops producing thrust is completely dependent upon the engine itself. When we look at how much intake is needed to feed an engine, we look at the effective intake area at speed. That is, we note the engine's max speed, then interpolate the intake's flow multiplier at that speed and multiply it by the intake area. In a practical sense, you can think of it as the intake area opening or constricting with speed. So long as you have about .0012 m2 of effective intake area per engine at speed, you should be good to go. If memory serves, the Whiplash needs a little more, like .0015 or so. What I found back when I ran this study was that intakes were ridiculously overpowered, and almost any intake is adequate. The focus then becomes "how do I supply adequate air with a minimum of additional drag?" For this part of the job, you look at the drag of the part in the PartDatabase.Cfg and see how much "flat plate area" it adds to your design. The analysis must include how the intake is installed; at the front of a stack, radially, or within a stack because they add drag differently. So to get to your questions... 1) I have found that a single precooler is adequate *by itself* to feed a single engine. This is ideal because it is the only intake that adds no frontal area. 2) Some intakes are adequate to feed a ridiculous number of engines, especially the shock cone. Others may require several intakes to feed a single engine. It all comes down to how much effective intake area it has at speed. 3) Remember that the work that I'm going on is dated now. Squad may have changed some things... HTHs, -Slashy
  21. Just Jim, If the engine runs out of thrust and stops accelerating at the top end, then it is adequately fed. If it is still accelerating and suddenly flames out, it's not. Best, -Slashy
  22. I prefer to put mine as far back as possible and mount them on the top of the plane. This way the added drag is behind the CoM and improves stability while giving good thermal protection to the intakes and maximum ground clearance during takeoff and landing. Best, -Slashy Wcmille, The drag penalty is actually the most important part. We have a discussion going on in this thread: There's a lot more info on the subject, but it's been so long I don't remember where it all is now. Best, -Slashy
  23. All, We had worked out this relationship for intake performance back in 1.02 (I think). Those charts are good, but what is important to remember is that a single engine only needs so much airflow to operate at it's full potential. Any more than that is wasted and just adds drag. The idea is to give an engine "enough" air to keep it humming up to it's limit while incurring the minimal drag. The ideal intake is actually the precooler because it adds zero drag in the transsonic region, yet supplies adequate air to keep an engine fed to it's velocity limit. I haven't revisited this since 1.2 and there may be changes... but my designs based on the earlier findings still work as expected. HTHs, -Slashy
  24. You're welcome. Hope it works out for you. -Slashy
  25. 3 of those radial intakes should be sufficient to feed an engine to it's full potential. Try 6 of them. Best, -Slashy
×
×
  • Create New...