TheDestroyer111

I don't seem to like them. They are all ugly, their handling varies widely from real life, so do the engine/crew setups. Many of them are also completely outsized compared to proper kerbal scale.

Building an Mk2 air/spaceplane has almost no difference from building Mk1 air/space planes. I see that you are building fighter-like aircraft, you might want to start by building a plane with one Mk1 cockpit, Mk2 fuselage behind it (attached on the short Mk1-Mk2 adapter) and using two engines on a Mk2 Bicoupler (or however that part is called). You might want to look at some real-life fighters such as the F-15 Eagle, F-22 Raptor, or Dassault Rafale.

I can build a craft that can go there and back 3 times . That distance isn't really impressive, but you're new here so there's no reason to make that something negative . What I can say is that the air/spaceplane doesn't need the additional small intakes, the Diverterless Supersonic Intake is big enough for a Panther engine and has good air supply at all speeds. Also, could you please give a download link? I think I can get this into space myself

This looks like an airplane (not a spaceplane), although a skilled pilot might actually get this into a suborbital flight. Remember that the difference between airplane and spaceplane is that airplane can't (or at least shouldn't) go into space, and spaceplane uses wings for atmospheric flight/gliding but is made to go into space. Contrary to popular opinion, spaceplanes don't have to be single stage craft, there are lots of good two-stage spaceplanes or ones that are launched on a rocket. For example, real-world spaceplanes are the X-37B, X-15, and Space Shuttle. Skylon is a SSTO spaceplane project under development.

I have designed many planes which are slightly unstable or barely stable in order to replicate the aerodynamic properties of an F-16, and most of them were barely statically stable (with no control input) in all flight conditions and flew relatively well at low altitudes and medium/low speeds, but for some reason whenever I went low&fast or just high altitude, the planes would become hyper-sensitive to control surface deflection needed for more than one g (or to engine thrust, if they used asymmetrical thrust), and, when I maneuvered them they either went into spins, or started temporarily flying at a high angle of attack, stabilising out once they bled off enough speed. So why does that happen? Is there any explanation, and can this theoretically happen IRL too?

Uhh... What you gave me is for the categories visible in advanced mode, BDArmory creates its own category visible in simple mode (so, filter by function). You know, BDArmory's parts are in a special category below Utility and Science and all the others.

How to give your mod parts their own part category? BDArmory is one of the few mods doing that, and it really makes everything more clear when you have zillions of mods installed. But how does it do that? All I found on that is that it gives its parts "category = none" in .cfg files but that of course can't be the only thing you have to do to give the parts a special category. Setting "category = SomeNonStockCategory" causes an error when the game loads configs. Setting "category = none" without doing anything additional lets the game load but the parts don't appear in the editor if you don't use advanced categories mode.

Ask on this mod's forum thread... what? this mod has no forum thread? Well then, why use such a strange and not very popular mod in the first place? rofl I have no idea But there are lots of weapons mods, most known one is BDArmory.

What is the chemical composition of RP-1? Wikipedia doesn't give any source on its article about it, and I can't seem to find any serious source about that on the internet... //EDIT: Wow, thank you very much for the quick answer!

In War Thunder (a WWII MMO flight/tank sim), many Tiger tank users say that the T-34 is the most annoying vehicle in the game - sure, it has inferior armour and armament, but it's quite fast, and eventually a Tiger will attract a lot of attention and get overrun. and btw the f-35 is not actually invisible to visible light (no matter whether it is the 10 dollar model or the actual plane), it's only invisible for radar (and the 10 dollar model is visible in all wavelengths)

When the Rosetta spacecraft descended onto the asteroid it orbited, it was stated that its descent speed was 2 m/s. But then they lost contact with it. But why? 2m/s onto an asteroid is not much, I don't think it could destroy the spacecraft... I can't find any source as to why did they lose contact with the spacecraft.

Did you just say something about making rovers useful in career mode for something more than surface base attachment? I am absolutely FOR this idea, this is amazing!

Solar panels are still attached to the ship after getting broken, this works in the same way as when you deploy a fairing - the part itself is still attached, and even though the detached/broken fairing shells/solar panels still have their own colliders, they aren't parts and can't be switched to, and disappear if you go out of physics range from them. i h8 u

It is possible at all to make this useful only with very advanced and terribly complex aerodynamic setups and while releasing the missile at a specific airspeed, and even then a direct hit is drastically less probable than when manually guiding the missiles. So no. //EDIT: While your missile apparently worked, target hold guidance is good only at short range and/or low relative speed. If you want to use the missile at long range for a target that doesn't have hugely exaggerated size (like your target), you have to use impractical aerodynamic setups or manual guidance. Also, that won't work well for "tank busters"

Yep, although I wouldn't call them "homing" but rather guided - if you don't use some sort of crazy and advanced sas-target-hold-based system w/aerodynamics, they are guided manually by switching to them and controlling them.

Granted, but it blows you up soon after running.

-32, I added one so that the number's absolute value is as small as possible.

In these good old times, everything was possible for the military, no matter how absurd- just like in KSP.

(issue still exists cuz im still on 1.1 Darn it)

Nice, you finally have some craft thread! Hmm, I could use having one too

I really hope squad does the right thing and completely removes this part pack and any of its traces from their website! //EDIT: Contrary to an proof-less opinion being spread by @Veeltch, I am NOT being sarcastic here.

May I use stock SAS powered paddleboat or propeller engines? They are very cool after all!

Well then, just attach the wings on a docking port that is attached to a docking port... if you need screenshots then HOLD ON //EDIT: @Fireheart318Here you are: http://imgur.com/a/lmXOR Yes, I know that it's in KSP 0.25, but it launches 3 times faster than 1.1 (I still couldn't update to 1.2 due to crappy internet provider) and docking ports look and work identically as they do now.

Just attach the wings on a decoupler, and use strut connectors in case they bend too much and/or fuel lines if you have fuel inside the wings (the latter only applies to Big-S or FAT-455 wings). BTW that would remove one of the biggest benefits of SSTO spaceplanes over other configurations, which is accurate and controlled landing capability.

What the crap? 220 m/s? #HowDidYouEvenDoThatWTF