Val

Thank you. I actually just increased the mass-to-Rapier record to 34 t, but I've yet to see if I'm able to translate that into increased payload fraction. Edit: And it's also at a point where I don't think it can be flown precisely enough without some sort of autopilot. It's so damn sensitive to pitch changes. Just slightly off and you lose speed, instead of gaining.

I improved the Chibi Skylon I made yesterday. The Mk.2 has increased maximum take-off weight to 68 t. Now up to 34 t per Rapier. But even though it carried the same 17 t cargo and the total mass to orbit increased from 37.6 t to 38.8 t, the available dV dropped from almost 400 m/s to 170 m/s. Album + Craft file

You can try shoulder mounted wings. That will give roll stability, without dihedral.

Number of intakes don't affect fuel usage. Turbojets and Rapiers stop producing thrust at around 24 km, no matter how many intakes you add. Basic Jets stop producing thrust around 15 km. 1 Intake per Engine is more than enough.

My guess, is that it is because of yaw instability. Try mounting a vertical stabilizer further back. Normally a yaw stable craft, with dihedral, will roll and "auto-correct" side-slip, but if my theory is correct, your yaw instable craft will just yaw further and therefore roll even more.

According to my tests, a wing area to mass ratio between 1/5 (1 Lift Rating per 5 t) and 1/10 is optimal with 5 degrees AoI. (With low TWR you need a lower ratio, or you won't get off the runway with enough speed to avoid splashing into the sea)Here's a ~1/6 ratio design that takes off at 64.9 t, with just 2 Rapiers. Album + Craft file

They can't be retracted. They are single use probe panels.

Set a new record for Single Stage Air-Breathing in the Stock Payload Fraction Challenge with 45.69 % And then I created a Chibi Skylon with surprisingly good performance. (Thanks to Raptor9 for the inspiration) 17 t cargo. Max take-off weight 64.9 t. Only 2 Rapiers to lift the whole thing. Which is a new personal record. (32.4 t per Rapier) I'm on a roll, today Album + Craft file

This is one. It's not very efficient or pretty. But it can lift very long cargo.

Ah. Now I get what you are saying. You are of course right.

Woohoo. New Air-Breathing Single Stage Entry Take-off mass: 62.38 t Payload to Orbit: 28.5 t (7 full Smal Ore Tanks + 1 partial + struts) Payload fraction: 45.69 % It's a new personal record for me >31 t per Rapier. Craft file

I recreated Slashy's craft as best as I could, with the wings mounted with no incidence. To me, the line of the wing surface intersecting the crew compartments, is exactly the same as on Slashy's. So in my opinion: No, the wings don't appear to be angled on Slashy's craft.

I can't see it from the pictures, and that is not what I understood from his posts. But if that is the case, then I apologize.

It is better to have less wing and mount it with Angle of Incidence. Single Rapier. Take-off weight: 31 t Dry mass: 9.46 t Lift Rating : 5.52 (all mounted at 5 degree Incidence) Mass of craft in orbit: 18.48 t (of this ~9 t is fuel = 2 FL-T800) Cl/m: ~1/5.6 Craft file

I could have sworn... I guess, I was wrong. Excellent detective work. Thanks. I'm pretty sure they finished the precooler and have started construction/engineering on an engine prototype or proof of concept. Yeah, I'm disappointed that is has no cooling or radiating function. Imo, the RAPIER is a bit too powerful and needs something to balance it. Requiring extra cooling, would have been one way.This (useless) craft actually works better with a pure air-breathing Rapier, than it does with a Turbo-Ramjet or a Rapier w/Oxidizer. Craft file

Well. I didn't say they were worth using. Just that they do more than just being intakes and fuel storage. I personally don't use them.

The reason you're having trouble getting up to speed is mostly because your design has a lot of drag from the fuselage. (Referring to the craft in your picture)Reduce the wing area to 1 Lift Rating per 10 t and rotate the wings to have Angle of Incidence. Then you'll see your craft shooting through Mach 1 with no trouble.

You post is very good information and advice, except that last part about precoolers. They work roughly the same as Radiators, drawing heat from the surrounding parts and radiating the heat away.

Have a look at the Stock Bug Fix Modules plugins. The SymmetryActionFix.dll solves exactly that problem.

You made me laugh, because that has happened to me a few times.I'm testing a design. Find a flaw. Press Revert. Consider solutions and consequences. Solutions to consequences. Editor loads. Wait, what was I trying to fix originally? Launch to find flaw again... And I'm not even that old. My age is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

Strange. It has never failed me. I'll try to clarify in case my meaning was not clear. This only works for wing edges (other key-sequence will be needed when attaching to other surfaces) It will look wrong until the mouse cursor hovers over the wing edge, and if you move the mouse away from the wing edge. Pick a fresh Elevon from the part catalog. Hover the mouse over the wing edge you intend to attach it to. Press D, then S. Observe the Elevon is now correctly orientated. Doing Step 3 before Step 2 can also be done.

This has bugged me a lot, too.Press D and S, in that order, before attaching, to get the Elevon oriented correctly. Or press S twice more, if root and tip were reversed. (I use the phrase "Dammit, Sit Straight" to remind me which buttons to press) Click-through is very annoying. Especially the staging interface. Because often, it will also undo all your staging changes when you Ctrl+Z to undo the parts that got clicked. Sometimes I'll move the craft if I can't get the right angle in VAB. In SPH that usually isn't needed unless it's a really big craft. Camera and trying to attach parts, can be odd near the edges of SPH.

I don't do targeted re-entry with spaceplanes, unless I'm close to a 80 km circularized orbit. I use aero-capture/braking and burns as needed to get into such an orbit first. And then I follow these steps: 80 km orbit. In Map mode, focus Kerbin and turn camera so KSC is facing towards you right above the Navball. Time warp until your spaceplane is right behind Kerbin. Put a maneuver node right where you orbit appears from behind Kerbin on the left side. Pull the retrograde marker until the planned orbit intersects the surface through KSC. Perform the maneuver. Turn Prograde and time warp till you enter atmosphere. Keep nose 20-40 degrees above horizon until your speed is around 1400 m/s. (Angle will depend on wing area and mass) Nose down 0-5 degrees below horizon. You should be nearing the coast of the landmass where KSC is at 25-30 km altitude. Aim to pass the mountains at 10 km, at 650-750 m/s. Nose down further, if needed, and aim for a point about half a runway length in front of the runway. When below 1000 m, try to slow down to around 150% of your touchdown speed. At 200 m, pull-up and aim for the runway. Touch down.

Much of the information and many (most?) of the stock designs made prior to the current KSP version (1.0.4) are probably obsolete. So jump ahead in the thread to posts after 23 June 2015. - - - Updated - - - I don't agree with this assessment. I think the Rapier is much more powerful than the Whiplash. While it is true that it has low sea-level thrust, making take-off and acceleration up to mach 1 a little harder. In all other regimes it is much better. Higher thrust at a higher top-speed, to much higher altitude.

I don't remember that much from ToS. And I think I've only watched the first season.