EpicSpaceTroll139

I think as long as your rotors are contrarotating and you move them at the same rate, you should be fine as far as gyroscopic forces go. As for acting a bit like a frisbee when landing, that's kind of why all our helicopters have so many reaction wheels lol. Anyways, I took a break from my Saturn V to work on some other things, such as this thing that might be useful in a range-extended and reinforced form for a tiltrotor. I've kind of edged away from my constant velocity claw joint idea as I realized that such would limit the rpm of the rotors, which would be a major problem in forward flight. Also made this weird balance wheel escapement thingy. Could theoretically be used in a clock. Maybe even a triple-tourbillon clock. Btw @Delay It's possible to make hinges sturdy enough for landing legs with bearings much smaller than the one found in Hazardish's tilt wing. If you need some ideas you can take a look at this sort of falcon-9-workalike I made using thermometer cage / rcs ball hinges. I believe @klond was the first person I saw using this type of hinge, but it may or may not have been someone else that first made them. I forget. It's very sturdy but also compact. https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Failcan-1 I actually got the idea for this from some other people's Falcon 9 builds, but I think I made the hinge mechanism on mine more compact by using the thermo-rcs hinges. Might try to get a better picture of the bearings for you in a minute

Probably the biggest reason there aren't axial tilts (even on farther out planets where you would presumably have gathered the skill to deal with such things) in KSP is because with Unity, you can't give them different tilts. All the planets have to have the same axis of rotation as the Sun (or Kerbol, or whatever you call it) The only reason we appear to get axial tilts in RO is because there is a mod (Principia I believe) that does a very wonky workaround that gives the planet you are currently operating on the correct tilt, but meanwhile all the other celestial bodies will have the wrong axial tilts because their rotation axis must be parallel with the one you are on. It requires a lot of computer magic to make sure everything is put in the right orbit when the axis are getting flipped all around every time you switch to a different celestial body. I think the devs don't feel like using such a wonky workaround, so unless Unity changes, then I am extremely doubtful we will get axial tilts. At least that's my understanding from last time I asked a question about it to one of the devs.

The parts are about half of the DLC, if not perhaps the best quality. Remove half of the DLC and you will probably get about half of the people buying it. Less money for Squad from KSP is not good for us. If the money tapers off then they will move on to make a new game and KSP won't get anymore updates. Maybe some people would be fine with that. KSP does have a lot to offer. As for me however, I Iike getting updates with the occasional new part, game mechanic, or performance improvement. I would have happily payed another $15 bucks to get the DLC if I hadn't been getting it already. As mentioned by JustJim, it's really not that much when you compare it to other expenses in life.

Well I've got this thing. I call it the "Orbitus Space Shuttle". It is derived from an old shuttle I made by the same name way long ago, before wing parts got the overhaul. Like it's predicessor, this shuttle is overbuilt, but not to the same degree. This one was designed with a fuel tank payload instead of the poorly thought out ore tank payload of the old one lol. Anyways, it can lift 50 tons into orbit. Since usually payloads that are put inside do not weigh 50 tons, it often ends up with quite a significant amount of fuel left in the external tank upon reaching orbit. Good for when you need to do that 30 degree plane change. Instead of the usual vectors, this thing uses mainsails for the SMEs, relying on careful design, RCS, and occasionally shutoff of the upper SME to keep the stack on-course. On reentry she's a bit squirrelly.... The COL and COM are pretty much right on top of each other, so minor changes in surplus fuel loading and return cargo can change the stability significantly. I'm thinking of doing a rebuild to reduce the excess fuel left in the external tank on launch, because by reducing the excess fuel, launch costs can be improved. Optimally, the external tank could have parachutes and be deorbited and recovered. Also in the rebuild I want to make the thing a little more stable, so it's not so tedious to land. There's a bit of a fine line though, because if it's too nose heavy, it will become hard to maintain a high angle of attack duting reentry, which is crucial to keeping heat on the belly where it's supposed to be, and also to bleeding off speed or performing crossrange maneuvering. If you want to download it despite the flaws, you can find it here. https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Orbitus-Space-Shuttle Also: @AeroGav what you say about the SMEs is true, but in order for high ISP vectors to be reasonable, we would also need a liquid hydrogen equivalent fuel, otherwise the external tank on any stock shuttle would look rediculously small. I mean, the main reason my own shuttle is so overbuilt is because I couldn't stand the look of the shuttle being as big or bigger than I the external tank. ... And yet it's still almost there... I think Kerbin being so small doesn't help with mass ratios either.

I'll have to second Vanmonde on this. Saying just "PLS HELP" gives us nothing to go off of. We can't help you until we know what your problem is. From what you have given us it could be anything from "where are people getting those cool Soyuz parts?" to "I can't get my rocket to look good!" to "why is it spinning and exploding?"

Ok so a while back in the "What did you do today in KSP?" thread I mentioned I was finally getting back to work on my 5/6 scale Saturn V + Apollo replica. I've pretty much finished the S-II stage. It does look a little bland without a proper paint job, but we don't have that in stock currently, so it is what it is. On the bright side it came comfortably below my partcount cap for this thing of 200. So I figured I should start work on the S-IC stage. My favorite thing is how the S-IC stage alone just completely dwarfs my standard Apollo-style Mun rocket. It gives you an idea of just how much more delta-v you need to get places in the real world.

Not a whole lot. Built the basic S-II stage structure for my Saturn V. I need to build the fairing that makes up the top of the LH2 tank so it actually looks like something as it falls away after being jetissoned. Then I need to add all the greebles, including (and for the sake of part count limited to) LH2 suction lines, a cable tunnel, and the aft heatshields. Does anyone have an opinion on how the interstage should be made? I was thinking of going with a single arc full circle (possible through craft file editing) fairing for the interstage, but I've just realized that would prevent the addition of ullage rockets. I could just do without the ullage rockets (the final four apollo missions didn't have any). Alternatively I could build the interstage using static radiator panels. This would give some semblance of the corrugated structural metal, and would give a surface to attach the ullage rockets to. It would however add a lot of parts. I want to avoid putting this stage over 200 parts, lest the whole rocket go over 1k. Edit: Not sure if this stuff should be going in the WIP thread or here. I mean it's WIP, but it's what I did in KSP today too lol

Tested a J-2 engine for the Saturn V replica I'm finally getting back to work on. The difference in collision mesh of the new Donut from the Round-8 tank make it much easier to put the ring bit (I think it's the thingy that introduces fuel to the cooling tubes in the engine bell) on the engine now. It works but I'm realizing the exhaust flame is going to look weird, both with stock and realplume. What do you all think would be better? Realistic looking engines, or Kerbal engines with more appropriate flame? (Might work fine for J-2s, but I think the F-1s are gonna look weird no matter what) Anyways, for those wondering, it's gonna be for this thing: To do: add details to Command module Remove LES, add boost cover, and replace LES again. (This will be a pain in the bum due to all the struts on the LES) Add S-II, S-IC, and interstages Maybe use ore tanks to add the black stripes to the rocket, if the part count isn't over 800 or something stupid like that by the time the structure is finished. Me gusta the plain white fairings though. So much nicer than with those yellow stripes around the thing. ...And I just realized a lot of the heavily "strut arted" parts on here, such as the landing legs, are attached to pre-1.4 decouplers. They're still in-game though so this thing loads fine. Please Squad I beg you, do not get rid of those... this took hours...

Yah you're right. It does look like it is bending a total of around 60 degrees or so. Maybe my brain is tricking me that one looks like it's bending less than the other. Definitely going to try putting 3 claws to get 90 degrees. The main reason I don't want to put tanks on the ends of the claws because it means one would have to regularly transfer fuel to them which could get annoying. Ah well

While I remember realizing after I suggested the same thing that you said it didn't work, I wonder, if KJR was installed when you first tested it, could that have been causing the problems? Maybe clipped landing gear work ok without KJR? Also... what if you inverted the bearing? Attached the spindle to the airframe and the radial gear to the propeller? I know that didn't work for my solar panel bearings, but maybe it would work for these larger bearings?

Wait? It does? I'll have to look again. Built the thing a long while ago. I thought the cockpit was the only thing with reaction wheels and I disabled it in right click menu. It should definitely be able to fly without reaction wheels as the aibrakes are supposed to give it yaw control.

Hmm... I tried setting up staging the way you recommended, but I'm still getting the same results. I mean, both claws bend, but one bends a lot more than the other, and when it reaches its limit it causes problems. Since you mentioned there seems to be a rotation speed limit when using them, I'm going to try what you suggested and put the motor itself on a claw hinge, and have a rigid propshaft. I think that should make the thing more capable of heavy lift anyways, because with the bending shaft I found that one end of the shaft has to be able to slide axially in the bearings to some degree, which means that there would be a lot of side-loading in the bearings when in vertical-lift mode. Edit: Also, now that you mention it, this could be great for space shuttles. Not only would it allow lower cost, high gimbal engines based on the LV-T30 or such, it could also be applied to large engines such as the Mainsail, allowing even larger shuttles to be less tedious to launch. No need to fiddle with thrust limiter or such on the way up. Edit2: It would seem engines cannot draw fuel through claws, so it looks like I'm back to the bendable propshaft.

https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Flying-Wing-Mk1 Not sure whether the middle bit counts as a fuselage or not. I tried to blend it with the wing. Has no vertical wing surfaces, doesn't need reaction wheels, and can go well over 10000m

I remember there was once when I started working on a S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier replica as part of my oddball 5/6ths scale series... I recall I abandoned it because I couldn't get the kraken out of the helirotor things with their 20 blades or whatever it was. Not to mention I realized it would fly like... Well...an aircraft carrier, at something like 620m long or something like that. I really should do more in that series lol. Anyways, out of curiosity, how does that thing handle?

I actually purposely avoided the use of DLC parts on this. I figure for the builds that take a lot of work like these helicopters, engines, and other mechanical contraptions and such, I want them to be as accessible to as many KSP players as possible. I might however make a Soyuz like craft or something soon using the DLC parts. Anyways, here's the joint thing: https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Prototype-Tiltrotor-shaft-joint

Currently got the joint tilting up to 45 degrees. I think it can theoretically go to 80 degrees, but I need to figure out how to make the joint stop favoring one of the claws. A couple of millimeters in change of position of the frame hinge bearing is the difference between it favoring the forward claw and favoring the back claw. The problem with the joint favoring one of the claws is that when that when it reaches its gimbal limit it starts causing a lot of friction and jitter, instead of smoothly allowing the other claw to take up the slack. Not really sure why. If anyone wants I can share the craft file.

Oh... oops. Hmmm... but what if you place two landing gear, but offset one forward or backward out of the bearing? Or just make the front and back bearings have landing gear oriented opposite from eachother? You would still get some vibration, but at least there would be less. Depending on the way you did it, you might be able to eliminate most of the vibration, though it could put some bending stress on the propshaft.

Why not just use two of the large or very large landing gear using 2x symmetry? That way they cancel eachother out at all speeds.

My bad. I forgot to put on a propeller so it doesn't look as clear as I intended. It's a prototype movable constant velocity joint that, with some work, I hope could be used in a tiltorotor similar to the V-280 Valor. The idea is that the turboshaft engines will remain attached to the main craft continuously throughout the transition from vertical to horizontal flight, and there will be no docking ports connecting and disconnecting at the end. That way you always have control over the engine thrust and don't have to worry about the engines suddenly cutting out when a docking port connects. Update, Pics. Overall the thing is a lot smoother now. I however need to figure out what's causing the rpm to take a hit when the thing tilts past 25 degrees. Once that's fixed I plan to rejigger the airbrake jack system to accomodate two stacked claws for about 80 degrees of motion. I wish I could do the thing using timewarp to trick a single claw into freely rotating to whatever angle I want (I could do 90 degree tilt then without much change to this thing), but for some reason that seems to break the bearings whether I have decoupled the parts in them or not. By the way does anyone have stats on the default gimbal of the claw? I think it's 40 degrees because my joint starts glitching out when I go past that, but it might just be something else going on.

Like HalcyonSon mentioned, the docking port probably won't reattach without doing something like quicksave+quickload, which risks breaking the bearings before they dock. What I've started doing, when possible, is to use a claw placed close enough to the rotating part that when armed it will immediately grab it, but far enough away that when disarmed it will not stop it from rotating. I should also mention that bearings using the decoupler itself as a sleeve will not work, as the decoupler is not hollow like it appears. In the past I used a bearing that had an antenna "pin" spinning inside a hole in a disk of 5 or more of the small static solar panels, but I'm starting to experiment with linear RCS port bearings, since KSP 1.4 broke literally all of my helicopters. You can find bearings of all shapes and sizes in these threads:

A little something I've been working on:

Since I hear there is a backlog of craft to be reviewed, I thought I would mention I am happy to help with reviewing in my spare time. I however am not sure if I'm... umm... "qualified", since I have only submitted one craft for this thing so far, and have not observing this challenge for a long period of time.

Reminds me of once when I was landing on the island runway on a dmp server with a large cargo plane that had low slung engines. I didn't realize somebody had lined a bunch of Kerbals across the runway until I was right on top of them. WHAM! One of my engines hit one of the buggers and exploded. Both the engine and the Kerbal gone in a flash. My plane had engine-out capability though, so it was able to take off later. Anyways, on the subject of the possible mod, I would say that pretty much all of the parts should be able to damage jet engines, at least to the first damage level. I know many jet engines in real life are designed to be able to take a small bird and keep going (and take a large bird and keep the failure contained in the engine casing), but I don't know of any jet engines designed to ingest a kilogram of metal (which is the lightest part in the stock game) and keep working. I wonder if on the levels where the engine is still running, but damaged, could they be made to cause vibration? Missing fan blades would set the engine off balance and likely cause a whole lot of rattling at high rpm, which could perhaps be reduced by lowering throttle. I have no idea how hard such a thing would be to program, so whatever you want.

PassTranz Aviation engineers apologize for their needless questioning of design goals earlier. They had been on a long break from designing large aircraft, and needed a couple days to gather their wits. With no further ado, PassTranz Aviation Co. presents the PT-704 "Lambda", which should qualify for the Jumbo category. Passenger capacity: 192 Range: ~4300km Cruise Speed: 260m/s (295m/s can be achieved if one is not worried about engine noise and wear) Cruise Altitude: 5000m (A cruise climb may be used to improve range above specification) Min Rotation/Takeoff Speed: 58m/s, however 70m/s is recommended for better controllability in the event of an engine losing thrust. Recommended Min SL Gliding/Idle Speed: 70m/s Recommended Climb Speed: 120m/s ASL, may be allowed to increase with altitude Approximate Time from Takeoff to Cruise: 5-6 minutes Airframe Rating: +3g, -2g (maneuvers over 1.5g and negative g maneuvers not recommended for passenger comfort) Price: 303,632,000 (Fueled) 297,868,000 (Unfueled) The 704 wasn't designed to be revolutionary, but rather to be simple and reliable. The twin-engine design provides redundancy in case of engine failure, while minimizing engine maintenance and maximizing efficiency. The passenger cabin and crew cockpit are constructed in one continuous unit, allowing in-air access to the cockpit by flight attendants to provide food and (non-alcoholic) drink during longer flights, and in emergencies, any onboard doctor or Dennis Fitch Kerman. A password-locked metal door of course prevents any unwanted visits. While the aircraft is technically capable of sustaining a tailstrike if flown improperly, a bumper prevents this from damaging the airframe at speeds below 80m/s, though it should be near-impossible to hit the tail at speeds above 60m/s. This same bumper system allows the aircraft to belly land in the event of hydraulic and gravity extension failures of the gear, although it is postulated that it is more likely for the pilot to simply forget to deploy the gear. This is also limited to 80m/s. The 704 is also capable of safely ditching, and can apparently take off from water at lower fuel loads, though this will void the warranty on the engines. Action groups: (2 - engines), (6 - thrust reversers), (7 - flaps) https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/PassTranz-704-10-Lambda

I wasn't planning to put them between passengers, but assuming the cockpit is at the front, putting fuel tanks at the front and back of the aircraft results in a fuel tank sandwiched between the pilots and the passengers, which would imply a tunnel passing through the tank. Such a tunnel would be hazardous, providing a possible route for fuel to leak into the cabin, especially problematic in the event of an accident. Not to mention it presents an easy target to those pesky terrorists. Our engineers are currently working on Large Wings TM to avoid this issue.