EpicSpaceTroll139

Not really, because the "main rotor torque" is actually coming directly from the panther blowers. The torque from the "main rotor" therefore increases/decreases at the rate it takes the panthers to spool up, which is reasonably quick. The tail rotor however has to wait for the the Juno to spool up (which itself seems to spool up at roughly the same relative rate as the panther), and also for the tail rotor to spin up. The tail rotor takes a long time to spin up. Thankfully, the large number of reaction wheels on the heli seem to take up the slack pretty well, but to be honest, it flew better when it had a Juno acting directly to counter the torque. That's not to mention that I didn't have to worry about it spontaneously exploding.

Here's the craft file for the Heli MkII 18-6. Be aware that the tail rotor likes to blow out. https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Heli-MKll-18-6

I managed to adapt @Pds314's Parakeet's engine to give an actual tail rotor to a helicopter!It even uses exactly the same fuel as before (it used to use a juno as a tailjet). It does come with the cost of the risk of a tailrotor strike, more parts, and slightly more weight tho. (Craft file coming soon)

Here's a picture of the thing: https://imgur.com/a/LB9Iu I seem to have knocked something out of whack; it doesn't shake like a washing machine as much but it also only goes 60m/s now. I'm thinking with tweaking I could get it to match or exceed the old 75m/s. Anyways, you can try it out here: https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Electric-Speedster-Mk7

@AzimechI don't remember about RPM but somewhere I have a light plane that went 75m/s in stock aero powered by RTGs and reaction wheels. Takeoff was a bit tricky and in flight she shook like an off-balance washing machine, but hey! No fuel required!

Lots of moving parts powered by a turboshaft motor which has a connecting rod to create reciprocating motion. It would probably require gears to get more power and less speed from a light motor. I've thought of building one at some point, but right now I'm also too lazy

@Azimechis that a person made of monopropellant tanks in that upgraded Chakora?

Yes, that is, if I can get the baby kraken out of my upper swashplate. I'm realizing now that it is neither going to be compact nor low in part count.

Anyways, because I couldn't stay focused on making the ugly duckling engines work better, I've been working on making a compact swashplate mechanism. So far I've got this:... annnnd imgur isn't working so here's the link: http://imgur.com/a/KTNCq. Obviously it's not finished yet. It's only got the bottom part of the swashplate. But at least it works with the cockpit/control point pointed forward instead of up. So it uses pitch and roll controls. Also an action group can be used to perform collective... Problem is the collective will be binary... it's either full up or some certain lower value... how are we going to work with that?

...uh...but it doesn't move sideways... It tilts... It tilts in whatever direction and goes up and down. I don't see the problem. From most helicopter hub mechanisms I've seen (well, diagrams and pictures), this is how it works on almost all helicopters. Imagine placing a paper plate on top of 4 pincels (for the sake of simplicity imagine the plate can't rotate around, only tilt). You could raise the front pencil and lower the back one or Vice Versa to tilt the plate forward or backward. You could raise the left pencil and lower the right or Vice Versa to tilt it right or left. You could raise or lower all of them to move the plate up or down. Or you could do any combination of these movements to move the plate up and down and tilt it in any direction. It's that simple. You could even theoretically do this with only 3 rods connecting to the bottom plate.

With 4 linkages to the swashplate it can perform both cyclic and collective control.

Actually the engine doesn't stay at full throttle, but rather changes to maintain a target rpm. Climbing takes greater blade pitch -> more blade drag -> more power than hovering, however the the rotor rpm remains the same. If the engine always was at maximum throttle, the rotor would probably rip itself apart when a heli tried to descend as there wouldn't be much pitch --> drag on the rotor and it would be getting all that power, which would make it spin faster and faster. This is why there is a throttle on helicopters in real life (some helicopters do it automatically though.) Also referring to the last previous post: with 4 linkages you don't need a second swashplate, you can just shove the single one up with all 4 linkages at once to perform collective inputs P.S. I like your car but this is only here bcc mobile won't let me get rid of it. V

I've been working on some radicalish designs. Mainly this thing that kind of looks like the ugly baby of a propfan and a ducted fan. I'm hoping to upgrade my giant-ring-turbine concept to go much faster eventually, but right now I guess I should focus on non-explosiveness. Apparently some of my pictures haven't come up, and they're out of order, but I can get at least 45m/s out of this (running it at half throttle, at high throttle above this speed it seems to have a habit of throwing something out of whack resulting in one or the other prop busting, and consequentially spinning out of control. Right now it's getting only 37 or so rad/s, but if I can figure out the expansion/wiggle issues with it, I think it is capable of at least 50 to 60 rad/s.

Still, what's the point of having a runway bumpier than the surrounding area? It doesn't even make sense... Anyways sorry this is off topic

Sure planes can take off from dirt runways, and yes taildraggers work great for that. It's just the 1st tier runway might as well be made of concrete. Without soft body physics, it simply does not behave like it's made of dirt. It's just bumpy and has a texture to make it look like dirt. It's completely silly to have a runway that is less flat than the surrounding grass. I'd buy it if the dirt was flat and everything had more friction, but it's just ridiculous for the runway to be harder to land on than the outside area. It's pointless to compare it to real life. Also, when did I say anything about bigger planes?

Found your problem. The 1st tier runway will wreck planes with better than basic gear. It's the real problem here, with its bumps that appear to made of loose dirt, but actually are hard as rock and will break many a plane. The gear here are simply a victim. Taxi your planes off the dirt runway to the silky smooth grass, and they will probably takeoff and land just fine.

And I thought I was a perfectionist.

Funnily enough, after my 3rd or so attempt at using them when they first came out , I never had any problems with the fixed gear blowing up. What I have had problems with is the "fix" that replaced the suspension with marshmallow and makes it so the tires visibly clip through their fairings, even with full 2.0 spring and damper settings... I mean, seriously?

I've been hoping for these for a long while, but I've always been to lazy to mention it lol These would help a lot with spaceplane and ship design!

What I mean is that the propellers are made out of stock parts, like Azimech's turboprops.

Oh I didn't realize that! I'll fix that as soon as I'm home (mobile tends to derp stuff up). For now here's the link Fixed

@Koro ^ How do I remove this on mobile? @sdj64 I've found success with making one wing longer than the other in order to counteract torque.

I actually found that gears made from thermometers work quite well even at high speeds (I found this out while working on a helicopter with intermeshing rotors. I never bothered to complete it though. If someone wants it I could however do so)

And I thought the 1200kN rotor I was working on for a helicarrier was big...

Actually the SAS are just there to help stop them after landing, after which you can quicksave/quickload to reattach them to the main body via the docking ports. Idk what it would do with the rotor SASs on in flight, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be pretty. As for getting more thrust with the rotors than you could from the jets alone, this doesn't indicate anything whacky (well, the way the jet exhaust efficiently spins the disk is weird, but continuing on). The rotors work based on real life principles. So I'll give an explanation using 3 engine types. So first off you have your turbojet. It works by making a little bit of air move really fast out the back. This is good if you want to make a plane move fast at high altitude, but it has bad fuel efficiency when you're at low speed and altitude. The Concorde used this kind of engine. Next you have your high bypass turbofan. It works by making a fair bit of air move reasonably fast out the back. This is good for moderately fast speeds at fairly good altitude, and is pretty efficient. It is what you find in modern jetliners. Then you have your turboprop. It works by pulling a lot of air through a propeller relatively slowly, spinning it using a jet engine. This is good for low speeds and is quite efficient. It's used on short range commuter airplanes. Basically, by looking at this trend, you get that by moving more air at a slower rate, you can get more force from a the same amount of fuel. However, you can't go as fast. Helicopters use turbo shafts, which are basically oversized turboprops.