pTrevTrevs

Well... The only way the Luftwaffe could get Hitler to approve its production was by promising to deploy it as a fighter bomber. You see, Hitler was crazy, and still thought he could bomb Britain out of the war if he tried hard enough. IIRC, the first operational variant was a fighter bomber, and the 262 was deployed as such until the Arado 234 was introduced to Hitler, who allowed one Me-262 to operate as a fighter for every two Ar 234s to be deployed (or vice versa, I'm too lazy to pull out my books).

Whenever I say Kerbal scale, I mean a vehicle that is proportional to a Kerbal's size, so the Kerbal doesn't seem too large or too small compared to the vehicle. Maybe this proportion will help. Real vehicle/Human = KSP vehicle/Kerbal

I would like to see it smaller, closer to Kerbal scale. The small jets make this easier, and you can keep the same technique for the fuselage shape by using Mk0 fuel tanks. Also, the Mk1 inline cockpit would fit better as well.

LIGHTS?!?!?!! On a combat mission over Germany? Hehehehehehe... Hehhe... Heh... Ha! No, lights would have made the bombers easier to spot, both by fighter interceptors, and by the ground installations (flak and spotlights). The navigator did have a light so he could few his charts more easily, but he operated behind blackout curtains so no light was visible from outside the aircraft. I would just forgo lights. Hehehehe... Lights...

Nah, don't bump the thread, the mods will descend upon you like vultures on fresh roadkill (no offense to either party, the analogy just fit). I would suggest making several related craft and releasing them in a pack, adding new content every now and then, instead of trying to milk this one plane. To be honest, people won't be as impressed by one little, unoriginal (sorry, but it's sort of true) craft as they would of one big/innovative craft or a collection of craft. Say, if you like WWII jets, why don't you do a pack of them? It could have the Me-262, He-162, Ar-234, Ho-229, Gloster Meteor, V-1, etc.

Good job with those wings, I may have to steal them... Once my computer gets fixed, I'm going to make a reverse thrust aircraft, maybe an F6F or an Fw-190. I tried this with a seaplane of mine, but it crashed in the ocean...

Looks good! How many Kerbals? Also, maybe add a few pictures of it flying at night (I would get Hellblazer or somebody to photoshop them to make them easier to see). After all, it was a night bomber.

Hooray, we actually got one out on Friday this week!!

Danke schön, danke schön, das ist gut Scatterer didn't do that when I had it before, I guess it's new?

Nice! Mind telling me where you and MRS got that beautiful ocean?

I'll be honest, I came here expecting to find a Learjet modified to carry bombs. This is still a nice jet though!

Ah, I'll be sure to look into that mod! I do play with mods (my favorite is Tantares), however any craft I release on Th Spacecraft Exchange are stock unless necessity dictates otherwise (see my Tow Glider in sig) so that more people can access them without having to install mods they do not need/want. Of course, I usually build planes or ships, not spacecraft (with one notable exception). How about you try an Atlas? Not a modern one, I'm talking about the ICBM used to launch Mercury. You can later upgrade it to an Atlas-Agena, and possibly build some Mariner probes and an Agena Target Vehicle. Hell, if you like, I wouldn't mind doing spacecraft for you, it would be a nice break from biplanes and completely useless submarines.

If only they were all about Adding Larger Boosters too. Four (separatron doesn't count) SRBs isn't really enough, especially considering how many liquid fuel engines there are. Nice rockets, by the way. Where'd you find that Orion?

I hate to be a party-pooper, but don't we already have one of these threads?

I see this strut girder technique being used to build a Blériot Monoplane! Too bad my computer is out of commission again... Nobody steal this from me, I'm the Vintage Plane Addict around here, not anybody else!

This reminds me, I need to build something! I've gotten into Total War and War Thunder so much lately that I've neglected KSP. The forum update hasn't helped things in that regard either. Good crafts, glad to see my knockoff logo is seeing some use, although if I had known people would use it at all, I would have made that strikethrough like straight.

Indeed I do! I've been wanting to build a Gotha or a Handley Page 0/400 for some time now, but I haven't been able to get a good looking fuselage. Those flat radiator panels in 1.0.5 do look like they will work though, maybe I'll give it another try. Ever since 1.0.5, I've been obsessed with building boats and submarines, it's time to return to my roots...

I feel like it should be called the November Revolution. We'll have to see if anyone gets guillotined for coming up with the idea to move the forums.

I guess I had better make my first post on the new forum an assessment of it. I'll just say this: Please, please tell me that these problems are happening because I'm on a mobile version and that the desktop version is better. I feel pretty intimidated by this new forum, hopefully I can learn to navigate it though. Th... There is a mobile version, right? Hey, at least I don't have to worry about my cursor unexpectedly changing places whenever I used bold, italics, or different fonts like it would on vBulletin!

Oh, I see you've added my description! Very nice, although I would recommend adding a link to my Fokker triplane ([url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/135799-Fokker-Dr-I-Triplane-The-Red-Baron-s-Ride%21[/url]), it's a much better craft, probably more famous too. I learned many things from building the Pup, but to be honest I'm more proud of the Fokker. Of course, it's up to you, if you like the Pup better, so be it.

I think that the control block should not have an airlock, but instead make the smallest segment of the Salyut parts (it's replaced by the docking node on Mir) have the hatch. That's where the airlock was in real life, and it spreads out systems across the entire station instead of clustering everything into one part, leaving the others to be mere aesthetic additions. On Mir, this would also give another reason for adding extra modules, as the station will not be able to support EVAs until you add an airlock module. Of course, for lazy people, you would still be able to EVA from the Soyuz OM.

[quote name='Camacha']Do you have any substantiation for that statement? Aircraft have been relying on electronics for quite a while now, which makes the discussion about an aircraft that uses more electronics rather academic. [/QUOTE] Yeah, F-4 Phantoms and MiG-19s do have electronics, but they're things like missile targeting systems or airborne radar, not essential instruments such as airspeed indicators or artificial horizons. There are no MFDs, all the instruments are in gauges which do not use electronics to give a reading. If a Vietnam jet gets EMPed, it will still have the systems necessary for the pilot to at least fly the plane, and the guns should even still work, allowing the plane defend itself if necessary. [QUOTE] What makes you think they did not do that? Do you assume that a couple of lads on a forum thought of a (somewhat obvious) weakness that a large team of highly trained engineers overlooked?[/QUOTE] Maybe they did try and protect the F-35 against EMPs, but as far as I know, it's still vulnerable. It's biggest selling point (and, therefore, the aspect which likely took up most of the designers' efforts) is what makes is such an expensive aircraft. So expensive, in fact, that several nations have decided not to buy significant numbers of the aircraft because they are afraid it will be too expensive to operate. It's stealth limits its payload capacity drives up the process, complicates repairs, and for what? The chance to be able to sort of hide on today's radar? Remember, the F-35 won't be in widespread use until the 2020s, by which time radar will have advanced to the point where the F-35 is easily detectable.

I ate so much, I feel like someone has poured cement into my stomach. Its worth it though, we finally fried a turkey this year instead of grilling it.

Granted, Mars's oceans cover its entire surface, destroying [I]Curiosity[/I] and [I]Opportunity [/I]and making future landings much more difficult. A manned mission to Mars is now much less valuable, as it will cost more to make vehicles that can explore the oceans. Oh yeah, the ocean on Mars is exactly the same as Earth's oceans, there's no reason to explore it. I wish I had free internet wherever I go

[quote name='Camacha']I will ask you again: what are the actual statistics on these things happening? My guess is that they do not, or so rarely that the gains of electronics vastly outweigh the risk of something so unlikely. The lightning argument is moot, because the insignificant risk of a total loss of aircraft due to lightning strike is well worth the bonus of an aircraft performing better or even surviving due to advanced electronics. Besides, glass cockpit or not, lightning can both be a problem or not be a problem. I have heard stories of glider planes crashing, because lightning hit and welded the simple metal wire cables to the frame. Having less advanced technology will not necessarily save you.[/QUOTE] Alright, lightning is a problem for pretty much any plane, and although it seems far fetched, it does happen (Remember, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during launch), but what about EMPs? Lightning is just an environmental hazard that happens by chance, but EMPs can be deliberately created by an enemy to attack planes. An aircraft from, say, the Vietnam era wouldn't be as badly affected because it has little or no electronics in it. Modern fighters will be easily taken out by EMPs. The F-35's biggest selling point; its stealth, is going to be useless very soon, so all the money that went into it will have been wasted. It probably would be a better idea to invest money in finding ways to make aircraft resistant to EMPs, so they can safely fly with all those fancy avionics.