Kicked to the Kerb

Yes this is what I meant. I didn't explain clearly, but by foremost I meant external surfaces, i.e. Not the "inside" edges of a part. My fault, I worded it badly. Thanks for the posts ajburges, always very informative and desciptive! KTTK Edit : It just hit me, the word I was looking for was "outermost"!

I saw a "Sir" Scott Manley video where he used attachment nodes to make a VTOL (structural hardpoints), but it was several versions ago, and every time I've tried It won't let me attach to one side of it. Did they fix it or am I missing something? As for cargo bays, in that case they need a MK1 cargo bay to fill the gap imho I've used the MkII cargo bay for VTOL but not SSTO capable (yet) with the Aero update. I hear what you're saying about suspension of disbelief, just to clarify though, I'm not talking about overlapping wings "inside" each other, just making them so that they come to a point at the end. Not sure if that was clear, it's hard to explain without visual reference (which I don't have privelages for yet) Agreed about hiding wings in a cargo bay, that would be "cheating". IRL they wouldn't get the flow of air to make them aerodynamic in the 1st place. Edit : Oh wait, surely it's just the foremost component(s) that drag is calculated for, as would be IRL?

By the way has anybody tried said "layering" method I used to use since the new Aerodynamics? If so, what were the results? KTTK

Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been a little busy the last few days. I did however have a chance to test a few of my older designs with the recommended flight changes, and WOW what a difference it makes. As far as I can tell, the only real limiting factor on my previous attempts was stupidly ignoring how much effect the transonic would have on flight, which is actually a huge amount! On my first flight (in a single RAPIER craft making the dive at about 18km) I got a 72km apoapsis and a 56km periapsis (which of course is not quite a stable orbit due to licking the atmosphere and orbital degradation), and I wasn't really paying much attention to fuel consumption or angle of attack (apart from the dive), I was just experimenting with punching through the transonic. I'm sure if I actually try to improve my flight profile on the way up I'd easily make it to a stable orbit with fuel to spare. Also, the way drag is now implemented makes a massive difference, as I had some vertical fuel tanks attached to one design (for VTOL purposes), and there's almost no way I can see that getting into orbit without severely overbuilding (and probably losing the VTOL capability as the plane would be too heavy to lift by then). So really, breaking the sound barrier seemed to be the main withholding factor in getting a Spaceplane into orbit. I am going to experiment more with newer builds though as this is what I gleaned from about an hour of testing 3 or 4 designs which is not enough for conclusive evidence. FYI I don't use any mods at the moment (I used to but my game broke in one update and I have stayed with stock since) though I think some of them are amazing. (Just for those commenters who do use them and want to give accurate feedback.) Great info here. The CoM and CoL I feel comfortable with, but this is incredibly well explained and clear. The more specific info and numbers actually helped a lot! Thanks again to you all, and I'll check back in once I've had a chance to space out. KTTK

Oh I see, yes I understand where I got confused, it's not just your info, I double checked on the KSP Wiki about RAPIERs and it talks about it "being the first engine with multiple engines incorporated (4 to be exact)", or something along those lines. I thought it was talking about 4 engine MODES not 4 physical engine outlets (The 4 leaf clover shape of the outlets at the back), hence the confusion! I think my main error has been my flight profile, I didn't realise they had even built in the transonic! Way to go devs!!! I read all the links, and I think the main tips I have taken are that I need a higher TWR, I need to make the "jump" to rockets sooner i.e. no "lingering" at the edge of atmosphere, and most importantly, a dive to breach the transonic at around 10km, as many have suggested. I'm gonna go and mess around, I'll post results soon. Once again thank you all for your feedback. Though I've been reading the forums for a long time now, I usually choose not to get involved, (more responsibility), but I am so glad I did, and it doesn't seem like a hassle at all. I guess if we're all flying little green men with a silly sense of humour into space, I should have expected a kickass community! KTTK - - - Updated - - - I have recently started designing my wings a little like this. Before that I would "layer" them. What I mean by that is I'd have Deltas as the main wing, and for extra lift I'd take the small Deltas, attach them to the fuselage above and below the main Delta (One either side of the main wing) and angle them so they all met at the same point at the wingtips (not parallel) I guess you could visualise it like this : /|\ (only it would be on its side and the ends of the wings touch). This was an EXTREMELY useful method of adding extra lift without compromising the width or length of the spacecraft, though I would imagine the new Aerodynamics would affect this setup, as the flow of air would be partially obstructed. Has anybody tried this method since the new model? KTTK

Wow, thanks for the swift responses! The Kerbal Community is awesome! I had no idea about the RAPIERs being technically 4 engines in one, I thought it was just 2! That changes a lot in terms of design, I'm gonna have a mess around with them and see what I can stick together. I was also toying with the idea of a nerv/Turbo ramjet hybrid, but wanted to perfect my simpler designs first so I can build with confidence, you make a good point though Coga19000, I'll give that a whirl too. I've never had a problem with the aerodynamic design challenge as my dad was a pilot, but it sounds like I need to be stacking more engines or at the least more dv to make the leap from Upper Atmo to lower orbit. I will post my results soon! Thanks again for the help, you've all given me great input and food for thought! KTTK

Thank you for the links cybersol, I will check them out right away. That makes sense about the altitude and speed changes to the engines, though I perfected the technique of "lingering" so I'll now need to learn a new skill (story of my Kerbals' life) That's quite a lot of dv once you've already made the effort to get up to high speeds/altitudes, but tbh the added realism is a welcome addition. I'll check out the linked threads and have a go at hitting orbit. Wish me luck! KTTK

I don't know if my last post here went through, but I reposted with a different title, and this can be deleted, sorry and thanks!

REALLY sorry my comp decided to post before I was ready This can be removed, I posted a new thread

Firstly, as I am new posting to the forum, (though I have been playing since Early Access), I was not sure where to put this. I have read a lot of threads surrounding this topic but none that explain clearly the differences since the Aerodynamics were updated. So... After getting to the stage where I felt comfortable building rockets of all shapes and sizes, and landing them on various bodies in Sandbox mode, (at that time the only option), I moved onto SSTO spaceplanes design. After MANY hours of trial and error and inevitable explosions, (YAY KSP ), I finally became comfortable with designing those too. Anything - from a Plane/Rover 1 man Hybrid (drone control optional), through a 10 man "Ker-bus" with space for a deployable probe, to a SSTO/nuclear hybrid which could not only reach orbit but get all the way to Laythe, all with the ability to get into orbit without ejecting any fuel tanks - were the norm for me. However I have now hit a major snag in my SP designs. For some reason since the Aerodynamics model was updated, (a great move imho), I have struggled to reach orbit. I usually design my SSTO Spaceplanes around a RAPIER Engine or 2, for their multi-purpose functionality, but have designed many without (Using rockets when the Turbo RAMJETs run out of altitude). However using either method I have currently not been able to replicate my previous success, and I am at a loss. The main problem seems to be the "jump" from traveling anywhere between 850-1400 m/s up to the beyond 2000 m/s required for orbit, whilst retaining enough fuel, and if I add tanks, that only increases weight/drag, lowering the speed I can get up to on the jet engines, and increasing the time taken getting there. I just seem to be running out of fuel too quickly, and cannot find the right balance. I feel like I have gone from knowing exactly what a design will do before I fly it, to expecting some unknown failure to befall me... Any help would be MUCH appreciated (and I apologise if this is in the wrong section!) Many thanks, KTTK

Firstly, as I am new to the forum, (I have been playing since Early Access), I was not sure where to put this. I have read a lot of threads surrounding this topic but none that explain clearly the differences since