Gman_builder

I added a screenshot and some stuff to my earlier response you should check it out. I meant, i was going to try to increase the speed off my stable 48 rad/s 5 bladed prop to just get 5 more m/s out of the plane. Mainly by weight reduction and stuff.

Oh gawd. Oh gawd please no managing one small turboshaft is a challenge in of itself let alone several massive ones. Modded turboshafts generally have worse performance than stock ones. I know from experience. I changed out my 5 bladed prop on the Gremlin Mk3 for a 4 bladed one and reached 53 rad/s before it failed. However I switched back to a 5 bladed prop because the 4 bladed one made the engine prone to breaking free of it's mount on takeoff for whatever reason. Promising though! I am going to try to slim down the weight in my 2 thrust bearings for hopefully better RPM and then do some more weight reduction on the airframe and hopefully i will surpass Azimech's current speed record of 235 m/s. After all it's only 5 m/s off from my top speed. I captured this screenshot about 15 seconds before the engine exploded. It kept increasing in RPM past 50 rad/s though. I switched over to the main body so i could monitor it's attitude and seed more accurately and that is when the explosion occurred. So i was not really monitoring the RPM at the time. But if it kept increasing as it was before the disaster i could make a educated guesstimate at the DS, about 53 rad/s.

Rough dude. I guess there pros and cons to every engine design. Every engine has two speed limits. RPM limit and actual speed limit I don't know how exactly how each one individually affects the engine and i especially don't know how they interact but i do know that you may reach the RPM limit before the speed limit or vice versa. You engines appear to reach the speed limit first.

The most likely cause is probably either KSP's unreliable noodle joints or the fact that the avionics nosecone weighs like, nothing. So it has really low structural integrity and really low crash resistance. I make my shafts out of MK1 crew cabins because they have a 40m/s crash tolerance.

lol totally XD

may take several months but its part of the learning process XD

ya lol. they resemble some of my first designs.

Have you guys realized we have made over 6 pages of conversation about this new technology. It's like, all the sudden there was a sudden burst of inspiration and innovation.

Alright, fine. But my planes would be no slower with small amounts of fuel on board compared to no fuel.

Alright, no top speed. In other news. I did some more work on my latest plane. It now reaches 230 m/s and the engine produces a whopping 48 rad/s! I think I can push it faster but with a expense of lower RPM. I guess it doesn't really matter if I can go faster but I'm also trying to create a 50+ rad/s engine that works reliably. The Gremlin Mk3 is the fastest aircraft I have built and designed completely on my own. My previous model, the Gremlin Mk2 is 6 m/s slower and used a Chakora V2 engine so this is quite the achievement for me. the Mk3 has 120 more parts than the Mk3 but it is still playable at around 25 FPS. The engine is also about 4.5 meters in diameter so it is considerably larger than the Chakora V2 engine and produces more power despite the huge increase in weight. I am going investigator to experiment with expansion-less props to try and increase RPM. I might also Change some features on my airframe, as it is a direct Copy-Paste from the Gremlin Mk2 with a couple modifications offset of the leading edge and length. The airframe off the Mk2 is also a direct Copy-Paste of the airframe off one of my very first turboshaft planes, the "2.5 meter turboshaft." You can check that out here along with the rest of my turboshaft aircraft. That plane is incredibly powerful and efficient but I have still yet to reach DS(disintegration speed) and I am unable to get the engine to break without seriously hard maneuvers at high speed or simply smashing it into the ground. I think Azimech is kind of left out in the high-rpm department because his system is seemingly unable to handle RPM higher than 51 rad/s. All i can say is good luck dude I hope you can get high performance engines to run on your computer. On that note, I think max engine RPM is extremely reliant on your system. As in, your computer might just be unable of making it happen. Maybe it has something to do with the building process though, as I tried the reaction-wheels-on-a-stick method and I got a similar max RPM of around 60 rad/s. Happy turboshafting!

There are no restrictions regarding the use of infinite fuel so that's what Azimech and I used on our speed runs. (224m/s and 235m/s respectively) So if you really wanna let 'er loose and see what she can do you can use zero fuel and crank the throttle. Considering how we achieved those speed(excess of 500 mph) with around 44 - 46 rad/s of engine RPM and you've produced a stable bearing running at 80+ rad/s, you should theoretically be able to reach greater speeds with your own engine designs.

What's it's top speed in stock drag and with the slider set to zero?

I find your lack of other references disturbing

i find your lack of computer knowledge disturbing.

Jees. 2000 RPM!?!?!?!? That's insane! I've reached 450 lol! Why are you editing the gravity of planets? I made a turbojet style engine a while ago that had a very long shaft and eventually all the blades went into jiggley mode and it actually MAINTAINED speed! About 80 m/s but still that's pretty good for a something that looks like a octopus having a seizure.

I still don't know what you mean by hyperspeed technology. Whats different between hyperspeed technology and current normal technology

k

d a m n i t

oh ok So you know how FAR has body lift for everything and stuff shaped like airfoils produces lift? Well I wonder if you could make a prop out of physicsless parts in FAR

Ya I mean how do you get a stack of cubic struts to spin that fast without reaction wheels or a command module

How do you make a stack of physicsless parts spin in space?

I think the rad limit before your shaft started to jiggle depends on it's part count. My shaft has 2 parts and there is zero vibration up through 60 rad/s. Whereas Azimech's example was a shaft with a lot of parts vibrates a lot at 50 rad/s.

I had minimum pitch In order to maintain the speed I was at. The only reason this engine would disintegrate is the forward pull of the shaft overcoming the thrust bearing. I implemented a double thrust bearing and I havn't gotten it to fail to date in flight. So I am not sure what the max RPM is but I am confident it is above 50 rad/s. However, if what you are saying about prop expansion is true, I should put a better prop on the shaft. But I don't really know how to go about making a expansion-less prop. On the other hand I could go the easy way and add more blowers at the cost of a performance hit in order to try and increase my RPM to DS.

I see. I was testing an engine last night and I realized that max performance was 43.8 rad/s at 157 m/s. The prop was huge I planning on adding another couple rows of Junos, as it couldn't reach disintegration speed(or DS) Should I go with adding Juno's, or making a better prop in order to increase RPM and speed?

I think the whole Kerbol system needs a huge overhaul. I.E. Better more detailed textures, and different terrain scatters. Like geysers, canyons, rivers and volcanos. I also think the orbits of all the planetary bodies need to be much larger. Then there would be more room for smaller details like a asteroid belt, comets, and dwarf planets. It would also make the system a better analog to real life. Possibly even a "Planet 9" analog that doesn't appear on map view, who knows maybe that's already in the game... But seriously the planets and their moons need new textures and better terrain scatters. I think volumetric clouds could be done with a much lower performance hit than what current mods like EVE create. Look at War Thunder for example. Gaijin added PHOTOREALISTIC ACTIVE clouds with little to no performance hit at all. I know WT and KSP are almost un comparable as games but the technology to create clouds and weather is there. On that note, clouds and weather like wind and rain need to be a stock feature with certain aspects of it that can be turned on and off similar to terrain scatters. More Easter eggs is also a necessity. Another mission to the kraken just doesn't really spark the same enthusiasm that it did years ago. The game is amazing as is but there isn't that much to actually DO anymore. Adding more Easter eggs would encourage people to go out into the great unknown again in a blind hunt for the rumored Kraken's brother or planet 9. Feel free to tell me what you think of my ideas -Gman