Gman_builder

You underestimate my power

When I say speed run I mean fly in a straight line at full throttle to see it's max speed. Pretty much the opposite of stress testing.

I remember the plane. It was a Corsair thing. I broke it just doing a speed run under "normal" operating specs. Definitely not as durable as Azimech's and mine.

Oh yeah I remember that. It broke when it revved over 46 rad/s. Not unbreakable. But stable. Mine is stable up to 49 rad/s. It can make 51 rad/s but it wont last long at that speed. @AzimechSo is that plane just a variation of the Chakora? or is it something completely different?

Like mine? nice!

What? GPU means graphics processing unit. Graphics card. So your computer does have a GPU. Mine does not. You can get a nicer computer for only a couple hundred bucks at bestbuy you know.

what how My laptop is a Dell XPS 13 with a i5 6700K with a INTEGRATED Iris 5500 graphics. I.E. NO dedicated GPU. I also have 8 gigs of ram. But I still get 7 FPS on a 1600 part ship like what are your computer specs?

My first half attempt at building a ship. Hull turned out great and it floats perfectly, but I have NOO clue where to even begin on the super structure. I have tried multiple different designs but nothing looked good or fit with the hull design. One thing I see that is common in all decent looking ships is a very intricate super structure, but I just don't know how to go about doing that.

k

I use the largest steerable wheels in my engine. Works great.

I tried testing my prop again and even at max blade pitch my engines revs it up over 53 rad/s and the frame explodes. I have the power.

Then its a problem with your thrust bearing. If you modified it even a little form the original engine, revrert it back immediately.

If you took it off the Chakora why is it exploding after 22 rad/s Side note, I was experimenting with different prop designs and I found one that sustained 55 rads for a little while before the vibration tore the engine frame apart, the actual prop held up.

Better make a more capable engine then. Ours are operating at the limit right now of 51 rad/s. Get with it bro.

I told you

Final number was 603 kilometers on internal tanks. Not bad. Maintained a average of 140 m/s at 3300 meters. burning 0.9 LF/S

Destination ahead! That makes about 470 km and I will have plenty of fuel to spare so I will keep going.

Should break 500 km this run. Definitely good. My personal record.

True. I am trying to go as high as I can and doing some math to find out my range compared to a lower altitude. So I was pretty much already at my max altitude. I was cruising at 4200 meters and my absolute MAX is 4250 meters lol. It's performance was severely limited at those altitudes and it is much happier around 3300 meters. Now using less than 1 LF/S and maintaining 140 m/s.

Ok that makes sense. When I did my run I achieved max speed of 253 m/s at 10 meters above the water so ya seems legit. What do you mean the best MPG will have the same result? You mean at sea level they are the most efficient? Well I guess that depends on how define efficient but with all jet engines the higher you go the better the MPG. Speed is also a factor though.

I have found that too. But I think it is the altitude that matters. Fuel consumption(as well as thrust) decreases with altitude so you can fly for longer the higher you go, until you reach the service ceiling obviously. Plus, jet engines have a throttle curve where they have optimal efficiency and then it starts dropping off. I am assuming for Junos that curve is at a relatively low altitude and speed but its still there, so whoever finds the perfect speed and altitude will have better MPG than anyone else. Here is the Gremlin Mk3 - B Designed for endurance rather than speed, but it's still pretty good at the latter. Complete Changelog: 1. Reduced blower count from 80 to 56 2. Lengthened wings and gave them a dihedral cant 3. Added flaps for easier takeoff and landing 4. Modified prop to perform better in high-expansion scenarios 5. Added 2000 more units of fuel under the tail boom 6. Lengthened tail 7. Added quadruple redundant power generation system because I can 8. Changed position of veins on the drive shaft for optimal power 9. Added 1 extra battery to the prop pitch control system for longer endurance

Alright good to know. I just topped of the internal tanks on my Gremlin Mk3 without any modifications and it made it 250 km before the engine failed. I was cruising at 4,500 meters at 150 m/s consuming 1.8 units of fuel/s. definitely could do better, so I am modifying it now to hold more fuel, have less blowers, and more equipment for long distance flight. Like RTGs and whatnot that I didn't need when doing speed runs.

Oh that's cool! I personally think the forest is kinda creepy. Usually eerily quiet and surrounded in dense vegetation. With no way to see whats around you. That noise in the distance could be from a squirrel or a Chupucabra. you never know. I guess that's part of the reason why I don't like CO. NM is a flat desert with all kinds of cool reptiles and stuff to look at. Quick question, is it more efficient to run you prop at low pitch and high RPM or high pitch and low RPM to achieve a certain speed?

Well I spent the better half of my life in Santa Fe, New Mexico. So when I moved to Colorado with my family I just didn't really fit into the lifestyle. The town I live near, Boulder, is mostly snobby, rich, ski-life, 420 blaze kinda people. Whereas Santa Fe is just really laid back and has a cool history with Native Americans and how they affected the culture in the area. It is just a place that really clicked with me the first time I went there. Similar to anyone whos been to Hawaii, its just the perfect place.

Colorado. But I actually hate it here, my real home is in New Mexico. Quick question. When cruising at a constant speed, is it more efficient to go with higher or lower pitch on the blades?