Gman_builder

I think this mod is beautiful and awesome, but I specialize in atmospheric flight in this game. I wouldn't be able to actually use the mod lol.

Alrighty then.

Why don't you make them 100% scale? Like mine. After all you can just add more detail and make it look better. Check out the 777 I'm making!

@The OptimistLookin better. Why are you using static props for all your engines? It just restricts performance.

Well if you look at my F-15 I recently posted on kerbalX, it is almost 1:1 and it still looks amazing. Side note, I suggest making one thread for all your craft. Once you make a new one just edit the thread and add pics and a link. Saves space and makes it easier to navigate.

Oh ok. That makes more sense. I will try that later.

Correct. It's the projected final dimensions of the triple 7.

Yall got some dank excrementse comin your way in a few days. Heres a couple teasers. I've been working on this project for a month and all the pieces of the puzzle are literally starting to come together.

Here is my test rig. It doesn't work at all. I think the ports are not magnetizing for some reason. When I decouple the levitate-e it immediately reconnects with the port on the other side of the craft. Then if I decouple it again none of the 4 ports are magnetized. Am I missing something?

I'm super interested in this. Seems like it has a relatively high max RPM and can possibly be utilized in high performance turboprops. Will look into it further and report back.

I agree. Proceeds with Ignoring

I actually need a nap right now. Long day. Will work on it later though.

I agree. Working on a entry now. BABY COME BACK to this topic. DONT LET IT DIE

Ya true. It just pains me on a deep level to see people go out of their way to blatantly insult people's hard work because he can. It's uncalled-for and unnecessary. Even if someone's craft does look like garbage you don't tell them. Constructive criticism is much more useful than blatant insults.

Well, the CH-47 isn't REALLY that much older than the UH-60. Only a 12 year difference. The CH-47 is actually really well insulated, it's rotors are just cutting through so much air that it makes much more noise. There's also, you know, the giant open door in the back. Also, the engines on the Black Hawk are located directly above the cabin and doors. Whereas the engines on Chinook are located at the rearmost point of the aircraft and have their exhaust nozzles pointing AWAY from the cabin. As you know. The noise comes from the escaping exhaust and when your inside the Chinook you are facing the cold end of the engines. So the engines on the UH-60 are actually louder(relatively) than the engine's on the CH-47. Though the larger helo's engine's produce a little more power. Plus you are about 10 feet closer to the actual turboshaft when you are inside the Black Hawk vs. the Chinook. I can tell the difference between turboshaft engine noise and rotor blade noise. It's quite distinct actually. The constant hum vs. the chopping sound lol. I can firmly conclude that the rotor blade noise was far louder than the engine noise. Even when you were standing right behind the aircraft. Ironically the loudest and specifically hottest part of the helicopter as you enter is the APU exhaust. That stuff hits 160 degrees blowing right onto your face along with the wind produced by the blades. It's intense lol. Whether the noise was because of the fundamental aerodynamic design of the aircraft, or the placements of the engines. I must say, the Black Hawk definitely wasn't as exciting as the Chinook.(Especially entering and exiting)

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=9839.20;wap2 Interesting article about rotor blades.

I noticed you mentioned tail rotors. Today I got a ride in both a CH-47 Chinook and a UH-60 Black Hawk. I can say from personal experience, the Chinook was WAAAAAYYYY louder than the Black Hawk. Even though it didn't have a "Noisy and inefficient" tail rotor. However the main rotor of the UH-60 is almost exactly the same diameter as that of the Chinook so I fail to see how a tail rotor makes the vehicle any louder. You can read a lot more on it in this article from NASA. http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/publications/files/Shinoda_AHSF02.pdf But the tail rotor of a UH-60 and all other helicopters does not break the sound barrier. If it did it would be so loud that it would actually cause physical harm to humans too close because of the constant sonic boom. You can see this demonstrated on the F-84H, supersonic turboprop prototype aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H Also good examples are the TU-95, TU-142, and TU-114. Which all respectively have props that rotate past the sound barrier. Fighter jet pilots who have to escort those aircraft complain about being extremely uncomfortable and physically sickly because of the extreme noise being produced by the aircraft. In conclusion, helicopter tail blades do not exceed the sound barrier. If they did, you'd definitely know it. Side note: Tail blades are also no less efficient than the main disk. As it actually has to counteract the torque created by the entire rotor head, it is beneficial to engineer a tail rotor that can utilize as much energy as possible that it is receiving from the central driveshaft and engines. Since the tail rotor's diameter is smaller than that of the main rotor, it can spin much faster(which it does) and even be quieter because of that. Many tail rotors are the size of a light aircraft's propeller, and as you know, they can spin at thousands of RPM without breaking the sound barrier.

You sir are a massive D I C K. Does it make you feel better about yourself to insults other people's hard work? I'm sure it does buddo. Get a F ing life.

I'm listening

I agree. They arnt really "turboshafts." They are their own class of engine.

Ya I dunno. It performs to it's design specifications. I am thinking of scaling it down and using my latest developed tiny engine. I just found that pic on the internet, I have no pics or vids of it in flight.

I think a ornithopter would work similar to this. With a turboshaft engine geared up to the wings to do the flapping.

Oh. That makes a lot more sense

Thing with KSP aerodynamics though is this. Wing pushes down, equals downward thrust. Wing pushes back up, equals upward thrust. Therefore you go nowhere. It's all but impossible to make a mechanic device that can replicate a dragonfly's flight pattern in real life let alone KSP. Especially when we could only dream of achieving the same speeds that a dragonfly's wings beat at.

heh. funny joke lol. How would that even be possible in KSP? Maybe it was in 0.90 but I think not 1.1.3. Interesting idea though. How would the joint work?