Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,981

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by swjr-swis

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Mahnarch said:

    Is that with a yoke or the keyboard?

    Don't know how @Nazalassa did it, but in my experience it is possible to get down to 1-2 m (and even  <0.5 m, altimeter showing 0) over the water surface with a pure stock game, with a well-balanced plane, even at over mach 2 speeds.

    NnTRbQc.png

    No SAS, just using stock trim for adjustments. I have to say: at mach 2.31, it's nerve-wrecking. Stock trim is still in very discrete steps, which means climb/drop rate is almost never exactly 0.

    JXefwMy.png

    A bit easier on the nerves is to use stock SAS to keep ORB PRG, and manually adjust variable angle of incidence on the wings to finely tune the amount of lift. Also helps to fly only at half the speed. :D

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by swjr-swis

    5 hours ago, Cavscout74 said:

    I took it a little safer, jumping back to my 1.8 career and finally got around to flying @swjr-swis's Blackwood on a speed run from DSC to KSC.  I did make a few little tweaks to personalize it, but the basic airframe remained the same.  Even with four external tanks, I had to cut burners halfway through the trip to make sure I would make it.  Very fun plane to fly, both responsive when needed yet still stable to fly.

    Always happy to see pilots enjoying my planes (or derivatives thereof!).

    I was a bit surprised at your findings that you needed any extra fuel tanks at all, considering that I've circumnavigated Kerbin with the fixed-wing original, let alone on a much shorter DSC-KSC run. Made me wonder if there's a marked difference in fuel consumption between 1.3.1 and later versions. Or if it was caused by the extra drag of the variable-sweep redesign of the Mk2.

    So I went and did the DSC-KSC trip at full afterburner blast in 1.12.4, with the MK2 since that's the draggier, slower, and fuel-hungrier version of the two:

    9Z5V6gO.png

    Departing from DSC with the default amount of 950 units LF in the tanks. Engines set to wet mode from the start, no expenses -or fuel- spared.

    Spoiler

    iDEd3f6.png

    Flight profile was to climb as rapidly as possible to the 20-21 km cruising altitude and then beeline for the KSC. Some time and absolute top cruising speed is lost, yes, but I find it is well worth it even on a speedrun, with maybe the exception of very short trips.

    0r2x2ei.png

    Jeb even took the time to play with the variable-sweep configuration, because why not.

    jYQI8TX.png

    KSC in sight, Jeb decided to throw caution to the wind (and mute the engineering team) and dive full bore towards the runway.

    bSvGdDC.png

    Perhaps the engineering team had reason to warn him. Kraken-flapping took the rotors, wings, and one of the engines. Oops.

    3GNAOeb.png

    Non-plussed as ever, heck even with a smile, Jeb continues his approach as if this were business as usual. (It usually is for him.)

    zgB6o4z.png

    Even sans main lifting surfaces this plane proved quite easy to set down gently.

    p72kkJs.png

    And this is 19m18s later on the KSC tarmac. Flown at full throttle wet mode, cruising at mach 2.7+ and peaking in dive at mach 2.9. Still 624 units LF left. And it was by no means an ideal run - see the spoiler for some flight details.

    My SPH engineers respectfully but categorically conclude that whatever caused the high fuel consumption was not due to the original plane design... :wink:

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I guess I'm into pain these days. I took on another DLC robotics part build, this time importing my 1.3.1 non-DLC 41-F Blackwood into 1.12.4 and adding some BG DLC rotors to allow changing the wing sweep in flight. The video shows Jeb on the first serious test flight, scaring the heck out of the KSC crew and generally giving the SPH engineers nightmares while stress-testing the structural integrity of the rotor-actuated wings under all possible flight regimes.

    Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-41-F-Blackwood-Mk2

     

    Wiggling Wings on Variable Sweep-Wing Aircraft

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    On 2/7/2023 at 7:46 AM, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

    How can I get my supersonic plane's wings to stop wiggling all the time?

    I remembered that I did a very similar plane a while ago, only missing the variable sweep wings because 1.3.1 didn't have DLC. I imported the plane into 1.12.4 today and decided to give it a try.

    I ended up ditching the hinges for this one. Even using the bigger-size hinges, the joint strength was too low and it kept either flapping or altogether breaking off, even in straight flight. So then I tried with the rotors, and those seemed to work a bit better. They are draggier than the hinges and thus impact performance a bit more, and there is still a good bit of flexing on high G turns, but overall I think it still a success. The plane is extremely controllable at all times, and the wings stayed on even through some pretty rough testing.

    efmqJgd.png

    Feel free to re-use this solution for your builds. The entire wing assembly, including the 'counter-lift' sections that stay clipped inside the fuselage, is attached to the rotor. From the underside, looking from the back towards the landing gear, you can just grab the lower corner of the rotor and offset it for inspection or lift it off and save as a sub-assembly for reuse.

     

    Some video footage showing Jeb putting the SWiS 41-F Blackwood Mk2 to the test:

     

    Aerospike producing too much drag?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Streetwind said:

    because the nosecone blocked all thrust even when clipped deep into the nozzle.

    Make sure you offset the nosecone forward past the bottleneck of the nozzle. The Nerv is one of the few engines that checks exhaust blocking from inside its nozzle.

    21 hours ago, Lt_Duckweed said:

    Are you sure it's actually node attached and not surface attached?  Hold alt while placing the aerospike to disable surface attachment.

    Quoting for relevance.

    Wiggling Wings on Variable Sweep-Wing Aircraft

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

    How can I get my supersonic plane's wings to stop wiggling all the time?

    Start by removing pitch (and yaw, while you're at it) authority from the ailerons (elevon 5). In that position they have near to zero pitch leverage anyway, plus their 'hinge line' goes right through the CoM which very often causes KSP to randomly reverse their pitch action mid-flight. This one change by itself makes the plane controllable at least.

    It will still miss considerable lift to perform adequately. The swept wings are horrible lift surfaces, despite their better-than-stock-average looks. Note that in my Bell X-5 replica, they are literally just for show: the actual lift is provided by the clipped Type D wing sections.

    As for the flapping: it suddenly happened after what seemed like a tiny and completely unrelated change to my Bell X-5 too. I had to then revert several iterations because they *all* suddenly had the flapping bug. If I manage a bit of playtime I'll see what I can tweak on the Tim C Car.

    United States Air Force Museum Replica Collection

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    On 1/26/2023 at 7:23 AM, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

    Obviously, I can't do ALL of these on my own.

    Fiiiiine.

     

    Here's a Bell X-1B to add to your collection: the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in sustained level flight.

     

    zEZpmVq.png

    egtxZ5C.png

    y2fiDrX.png

    n1kAewz.png

     

    The full album records many test flights and comments (https://imgur.com/a/eTasnRy). I've had to battle imgur the past couple of days over this, and only have very limited play time, so I'm not going to replicate the lot in this report.

    Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Bell-X-1B-Mk1b

    I may or may not do more. No promises.

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Orbital Maneuvers in the Dark.

    (or how Jeb and Bill survived a harrowing first test, only to go back and do it again, the right way)

     

    RAPIER-based WHA-3, KSC to LKO and back, Take 001:

    Spoiler

    pOyLLhh.png

    Effortlessly punching through mach 4. Space beckons.

    cFuu05j.png

    "Just uhm... we have a problem."

    QNMlIz9.png

    "We seem to be missing half of our ship. I can see parts of it floating past the window."

    ysvffEP.png

    "That's our starboard engine assembly over yonder, re-entering the atmosphere."

    eZoXIoS.png

    "Good to see you, KSC. We've had to learn to fly this thing all over again, but we're in stable orbit now. We could really use a rescue plan though. The explosion took our fuel cell, and battery power is running out. Shutting down all systems until you guys come pick us up. WHA-3 out."

     

    The second sortie went without a hitch. WHA-3 tested spaceworthy - except someone forgot to fill the monoprop tanks. Docking will have to be tested some other time.

    Spoiler

    Qxy6PTA.png

    Second sortie. Going smoothly this time. Avoided overheating by choosing a slightly steeper ascent. Not the most fuel-efficient, but we get to keep both our engines.

    K1zKLVD.png

    Successful orbit. Looks like we carried a generous excess of LF (and a distinct lack of MP, ahem). This could be tuned for some (outboard?) payload capacity.

    l3z2SS6.png

    Bill gets to do the external check-up before reentry is attempted. Looks A-OK.

    eebGz7I.png

    By choosing a very steep reentry, aerobraking is fast enough to stay well within thermal tolerances.

    xJ2utkl.png

    Overshot a bit, so landing from a 270(-ish) approach. Bill is still recovering from the vertical 180...

    QKf10TV.png

    Back home. WHA-3 is certified spaceworthy. So, about that monoprop...

     

    TL;DR: Jeb and Bill upgraded the WHA-3 to RAPIERs and made it to space and back... after going bada-boom during the first ascent (and still getting to orbit).

    pvGQhDa.png

    jZOr1Bh.png

    Too late now to make the last edits. Need to figure out how/where to add the MP tanks, and how and what kind of demonstration payload to include in place of the excess LF. I'm thinking a set of 4 comms relay sats under the wings. First sleep and work.

     

    Rapier Engine

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

    Yes, and that's the same for all the jet engines since at least 1.0. It's because there is no model for the engine's turbine (they briefly added one in 1.0, but it was removed in 1.0.5), but since the turbine is supposed to be there it offsets the CoM forwards.

    More info: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/124423-the-new-longer-jet-engine-models/

    Still makes me chuckle when people get all fussy about 'no clipping engines and fuel tanks' rules on challenges or shared craft. Your engines are *literally* always clipped... they just made that part invisible.

    Get rid of the stupid launcher, nobody likes them and they do nothing but ruin the gaming experience.

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Lisias said:

    The PDLauncher's depot was added to almost all KSP's packages.

    Dork move, but ok.

    My point still stands though. Did they recompile or change the game itself to need/require/search for the launcher? They may have done this for 1.12.4, but I very highly doubt they've gone back and done the same for all the older versions. If they couldn't even be bothered to do more than edit a few tutorial files, they sure as heck didn't go back the source tree to hard-bake the launcher into the older versions.

    Re-download the older version of your preference, delete the launcher crap, and you're left with an install that's identical to how it was before.

     

×
×
  • Create New...