qzgy

Ok, fine in KSP to use jets underwater. But propellors I think would be much more efficient as opposed to jets.

Have you looked at some of Azimech's stuff? He makes some very nice mid-cold war cars (ford pinto kinda stuff)

Oh, and send me a link when it's published! I'd like to read.

Sure. If you don't mind, can you credit me somewhere for the craft? Oh, also, the camo is not on the craft. I think you would have to ask @Triop for the files.

https://kerbalx.com/qzgy/X-27

False. Kerbals need no oxygen, how do you think the get so much EVA fuel in there? I like KSP cause I can.

See disclaimer at the end of the post. No, I think having these kinds of landing gear (ones that can be angled) would be a great addition to the stock game.

Ksp landing gear need to be fixed in a number of areas. One of my main gripes/problems is the fact that for the wheel model to look right against the ground, the entire part also has to be. This either means wing mounting the landing gear or having your flying machine on landings be like as unstable as a standing up pencil, assuming you are working with mk1 parts and have your landing gear in the fuselage. IRL, planes can have landing gear that can extend also outwards from the craft to some degree increasing landing stability. Examples See how the landing rear landing gear sticks out to the side a bit. Also here. Normally the landing gear are in that recess, just behind the gray thing. I know already that you can just angle the landing gear, but this seems to be an imperfect solution. Why not make landing gear that can be retracted and act in a similar manner to the ones above, also moving to the side? This would certainly help in making smaller craft more stable upon landing and takeoff, and who knows, may have other uses (Stock elevator/piston kinda thing, perhaps?) Before anyone mentions mods, yes, I know mods for these exist.

I believe not, as you have created a very nice SSTO. That is not in line with one of the main points of this challenge.

Ah, Ok. Did not know this. Thanks!

Stock Coaxial helicopter development is going well. This is stable(-ish) and runs at 30 rads or so. Now wondering if its small enough for a replica I plan on making. And if that's not bright enough *cough azimech cough*

Same!

@JoeNapalm - What about sticking some backup chutes on the Duna Dog or at the very least, an emergency vertical engine?

You forgot the 'Oh, Wait'! https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-mission-named-europa-clipper

Thats good, but we really don't like having to LES and waste a tank as an airbag. So Yes, I would have to agree - More/better LES.

I kinda wish it was easier to make a stock blast cover. That would add a lot. Maybe this could be somthing for the DLC, although non-DLC part would be better.

My very much WIP coaxial engine decided to have a rave. Looked much more rave-y in person.

Still not seeing anything....

Also, what about moving the elevons even further away? Also reducing the pitch to reduce drag. I aslo have to agree with @selfish_meme here. VOID is a very useful mod for this, along with editor extensions.

Alternatively, you could slap a bunch of sepatrons on the sides to have a launch escape system. Its kinda similar to what the dragon capsule uses.

@XB-70A Yeah, I saw the response from ME. Also annoying to have that kind of problem. Guess its just a result of the game. That aircraft reminds me of a geebee air racer. Take my like.

I agree on your first point. Your second, however, not so much. Yes, contracts were a thing and NASA had to fly often boring missions. But the current career mod leaves a lot to be desired. You can only do so many "send a satellite in this orbit" before it becomes super boring.

Who defines expert? Also, your earlier statement (in the op) was "it must have the same characteristics" Which I have done. Also, how will the "expert" know if its a mirage III, or IV or V? They all look about the same.

To show the problem with the current scoring system, here is my entry 12 parts. Technically is a "replica" - delta wings, side mounted intakes, rear tail, front cockpit. So this counts, right?

1. Maybe I did, And I couldn't understand. So explain clearly. 2. None, perhaps, since scoring such a thing is too difficult and vague.