Reusables
-
Posts
520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Reusables
-
Wow, I could hardly expect that backward nose cone can help.. I decided to forget about the engine mount due to poor behavior of poodle. It gets better when CoM gets nearer to the center of shape of the plane, right? I can't have wing engines since I have something big on the middle...
-
What I have now does exactly that. But the poodle engine on 2.5m node is getting a lot of drag(bigger than the mk3 cockpit), which is very confusing. Do you know why it has so much drag? Besides, I can't have lift at backward because it makes the aircraft hard to pull up.
-
Playing billiards with Jool
Reusables replied to AeroGav's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Laythe could definitely be better choice in most case where the entry speed is not too fast. This is because maximum delta-v from gravity assist is two times the velocity difference. The ratio to the maximum does increase for bigger planets/moons, but it is relatively less effective due to the bigger radius. EDIT: For normal prograde orbit, the difference could be smaller if you perform the assist on the Pe. But using normal component of the velocity to avoid collision, you can shed some more speed with nearly perpendicular approach to the moon. Faster orbital speed gets better in this case. So try passing in front of Laythe. -
What parts are the best for tail of Mk3 SSTO? Currently I'm using the engine mount, but it seems that it causes lots of drag on the middle mk2 size node. Also, does a draggy tail make a plane stable? Then mk3 engine mount would be acceptable.
-
I found that I'm getting more drag on higher altitude during level flight. (Using the aero gui) It's probably because of the AoA increase to compensate the reduced lift, but how does the airplane compensate the drag in this case? The only cause I can think of is increase in thrust..
-
So I've been trying it on Kerbin, which seems to work better. I was lacking wings and had too much nukes, I'm adjusting those now. (My calculation shows that aerospike-only configuration will yield 3k dv and reasonable thrust for entire flight which would be enough for Kerbin, but on Eve it just lacks dv)
-
Do you mean somewhere over 12km by high? I don't expect that propellers ever work there either. I wanted to see if rocket engines can get rest of the plane to the orbit, though it will certainly be marginal to impossible for eve.
-
I know that it won't work that way for smaller drag on higher atmosphere(maybe a bit over sea level). What I wanted to say was that there would be maximum thrust the propellers can provide on high density(drag). Thus higher atmospheric pressure would make the effects other than drag nominal. That's why I said that I should test the plane on eve sea level.
-
I meant exactly that; it's constant for certain AoA.
-
That's what I meant by stock propellers. I got that thrust of single propeller engine is only affected by AoA and craft speed. I didn't know that L/D is constant, but it seems now that it's the case, so I know that there's certain limit of thrust for specific engine. Anyway, thanks for the explanation!
-
Yeah, but what I mean was that thrust of props is affected by drag. Since L/D ratio is only dependent on AoA, thrust is proportional to drag assuming constant AoA. I expect the drag to be nearly same as torque from SAS modules divided by radius, as other friction will be small. This means that thrust will be constant for certain AoA and nominal friction.
-
Then I think I can just add more wing surfaces to improve L/D and max altitude. Thanks! On the other hand, I found that I need to try the props on eve surface as they gets more drag slowing the rotation. It seems that thrust decreases over certain pressure... In the case, this will be the certain limit.
-
Doesn't that mean level flight is always possible on most altitude with constant thrust(certain TWR)? In other words, lift-drag ratio is constant for certain AoA. Do you mean that?
-
Well there are stock propellers which works based on stock lift. It's what I'm using. By the way, how about lift characteristics? Is it proportional to speed? What about altitude?
-
It'll be really helpful to know the Lift&Drag characteristics on altitude and speed, to fly a proplane. Anyone knows something about this?
-
Yeah, it likes to explode on high speed/altitude though the limit can vary via control surface pitch. So, I'm planning to re-dock it in flight. It's really problem of typing speed, and it will get easier if I change the design. I forgot about that since my 40t plane flied better on 10km. I thought drag decreases faster than lift till specific altitude around 9km... As it isn't the case, I might go bigger and lower. How's the lift&drag characteristics for altitude and speed? Anyone knows? This could be really helpful..
-
Propeller rotors can be re-docked to the stator by shielded docking port/claw reliably. So it is reusable if only it can get into the orbit. Yeah, the mass penalty is very big. I made propellers of TWR 4(half of jets), but still it is marginal for SSTO. (I'd go up to stratosphere) About the drag penalty, I think it won't be too much as it'll be certainly smaller than wing surfaces, and fully deploying it will make it parallel to the airflow. (4 Big-S control surfaces is simillar size with a structural wing C) By the way, isn't a plane with TWR 0.5 supposed to be fly well even in stratosphere? How much winget surface per ton do I need for this?
-
I know that this is definitely possible, there's a video about it. It used a propeller plane to launch the rocket. (Propeller planes can go high up to stratosphere, so this is problem of bigger planes; Just use more engines then) What I'm aiming at is SSTO, in single vessel. I'm talking about any SSTO. I agree that it's nearly impossible with traditional rockets/spaceplane, but there's an infinite-range vehicles for atmospheric planets: propeller planes. I think there could be other ways too. So, my question here was this: are they unpractical to get to orbit?
-
Take a look at the OP. mods are invalid here.
-
How much dv will be needed from the stratosphere of Eve? Is it still too big?
-
Well I meant the stock propellers, not those from mods.
-
Hm, I'm thinking about props in my mind, are they too draggy to haul them from the stratosphere? Or does it require too much delta-v?
-
Thanks, so is there no way in stock without debug screen cheating? Is there no briliant idea to work around the thick atmosphere? Though it needs mining, it's still interesting! What vehicle did he use to escape Eve and get to orbit? Also, ANY cheatless way in stock can be okay if it's SSTO. (By cheat I mean the cheats in debug screen)
-
Hello! I'm designing a mission to eve, and it'd be great if I have a SSTO for this. I know that there were several SSTOs, but I want one which doesn't need any precision manuever and fuel mining time. It'd be better to have long range for science purpose. Is there ANY way to do that? EDIT: I mean, completely stock SSTO without debug-cheating in flight. Other than that anything is okay.
-
Well I think that they should update the config settings if the value remained default, so in my point of view this is a bug. But yes, it depends. (Programmatically one can't easily find if a file is copied from old file, or it just remained same in the old version. And mine was the latter case) Or, the settings update may be prevented due to the change of settings (I changed key bindings). Then it really looks like a bug.. But this depends too.
