Mars-Bound Hokie

In this incredible feat of precision flying, I shall use a C-119 Flying Boxcar to catch a falling satellite BEFORE it hits the ground. Historic photograph of the Kerbal Space Center in its early days. Back when the program started, satellites were retrieved via mid-air recovery operations. The plane seen here, a C-119 Flying Boxcar, was derived from an old Allied cargo plane from the later years of the Second Imperial Wars. Many candidates for primary aircraft were submitted for the KSP’s Satellite Recovery Unit, but most of them never made it past the drawing board. There was one proposal that featured a jet-powered cargo plane with robotic arms on both sides that was submitted for final consideration. It would have flown faster than the C-119 and not require as precise an approach to the falling satellite, but the C-119 was cheaper in terms of sale, fuel, and maintenance costs. The C-119 also didn’t need as many people to operate it, hence reducing total wage costs - even if the pilot was more expensive than that for the robotic arm plane. As photographic and data transmission became more advanced, the Satellite Recovery Unit was shrunk and eventually disbanded. Any Flying Boxcars that weren’t on display or put in reserve were sold. The C-119 Flying Boxcar on display in the SPH. I started with @HB Stratos's MK3 Custom Cockpit since the real-life plane’s nose looked too fat to match the regular Mk3 cockpit. Of course, using that cockpit would mean a new set of problems later. To maintain balance, I had to keep the plane’s fuel tanks less than half full. That’s what having a long boom-mounted tail will do. I used the regular fuel tanks instead of structural fuselages in case there was an opportunity and/or need for more fuel near the back of the plane. I tried to add alligator hinges and telescopic cylinders on the door of the cargo ramp to mimic the real Flying Boxcar’s satellite-catching mechanism. However, when I closed the door after assembling it, the mechanism was still floating in place where it was. So, I aborted that plan altogether. For the plane’s engines, I reduced the motor size and output to 66% and set the main throttle torque limit to 1%; I left the RPM limit at the maximum of 460. That way, I wouldn’t have to cruise at such a low throttle setting. Then again, I don’t know if that really maximized efficiency since I was dealing with two engines carrying a Mk3 fuselage. At first, I installed the front landing gear directly on the custom cockpit. However, that backfired since it would not deploy while stowed. So, just like my VC-54C Sacred Cow replica, I put a long I-beam on the cargo bay right behind the cockpit and then a medium landing gear at the forwardmost end of it. Perhaps that should be the standard procedure for whenever I use a custom cockpit for a plane with a front wheel. I managed to click on the command pod inside the cockpit, which would allow me to transfer crewmembers to the Mk1 lander cans. However, that proved useless as all the lander can hatches were obstructed - rendering my ladders useless. So, I removed the ladders and installed a third lander can in the cargo bay so kerbals can EVA in and out of the plane. Since the Flying Boxcar was used to catch satellites, the cargo bay is full of EVA repair kits - and some scientific study kits (kickbacks are suspected to be the reason). The Flying Boxcar on a test cruise. Another picture of the Flying Boxcar on a test cruise. At first, it was flying at 5 km altitude with the throttle at 86% power. It was near the end of that test cruise that I realized that I could have just cruised at 70% throttle, but it was too late to change anything by that point. I then decided to try again - and add a tiny bit more fuel to increase the range a bit more. Unnamed crewmember checking the cargo storage units behind the cockpit. Since the lander can hatches on the side of the cockpit were obstructed - which means that they’re just decorations - a third lander can was placed inside the cargo bay so kerbals can have a means to get in and out. The C-119 low on fuel while flying over Kerbin’s northern polar ice cap. This picture was taken from the latest test cruise, where the 70% cruise throttle rule was implemented from the start. And when the landing gear problem was solved. The previous flight didn’t make it this far. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 5.5 km (~18k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Average Velocity: 157.5 m/s (~352 mph) Started at 165 m/s once settled, then ended at 150 m/s. Blade Deployment Angle: 40 degrees Recommended Throttle: Ascent to altitude: 86% Cruise: 70% Expected Range: 840 km This plane glided for almost 25 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. The C-119 Flying Boxcar, landed safe and sound. In the last test cruise, the front landing gear would not deploy. That problem was fixed when it was mounted on an I-beam which was mounted under the cargo bay behind the cockpit. Here's a blooper photo from the next-to-last test run, before the landing gear and cruise throttle problems were properly addressed. Bet you all didn't expect a prop in the Space Gallery, did you? Including this plane does makes sense, though, as transmitting spy satellite photographs was unreliable (if not impossible) back in the early days of the Space Race. If we had no way to retrieve them before enemy agents did and not expose ourselves in the process, then what would be the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to send it into orbit? The 1960 U-2 Incident had proven that high-altitude recon flights were still vulnerable to Soviet counterattacks, so mid-air retrieval after de-orbit was the best bet. Sorry I couldn't include the extendable net in this replica; that would have been awesome. Overall, I'm still impressed with how it turned out. Replicas Remaining: 196

May 21st, 1927 - Charles Lindbergh completes his 33.5-hour flight from New York to Paris in his plane, Spirit of St. Louis. This marked the completion of the first solo, nonstop transatlantic flight. Photograph of the Spirit of St. Louis right after landing in Paris. Source: https://www.mnhs.org/lindbergh/learn/aviation/famous-flight FIVE YEARS LATER May 21st, 1932 - Amelia Earhart completes her solo, nonstop transatlantic flight in her Lockheed Vega. Not only was she the first woman to do so, she was the only person to do so after Charles Lindbergh did his in 1927. Amelia Earhart arriving in Northern Ireland after completing her flight. Her flight took 15 hours, while Lindbergh's took over twice that. Source: https://pioneersofflight.si.edu/content/amelia-earhart-solos-atlantic

Harland & Wolff built a ship that many believed to be unsinkable, but then it hit an iceberg. 45 years later, Lockheed built a spy plane that many believed Soviet anti-air defenses couldn't reach, but then it got shot down (and its pilot was captured). The plane in question was the U-2. The Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady" on display in the SPH. I had considered adding Dragon Lady to the craft name, but then I found out that it did not have an official name after the designation (on account of starting out as a secret project). So, I left it as just Lockheed U-2, although I included dragon as a tag in case someone comes looking for it and doesn’t want to attract half the Sukhois on KerbalX. I had originally used two clipped-together Wheesley engines like in my A-7 Corsair II replica, but the test cruise that followed resulted in the plane flying at a low altitude of 9 km. This is a high-altitude spy plane I mean a research aircraft, not your average everyday sightseeing glider with an engine strapped on to it. So, I went with a single Whiplash engine since that has proven to be more reliable (so far) than a Panther engine and I can still attach stabilizers and gear to it. While it did make the plane go high, it also ended up making it supersonic. At first, I wanted to simulate how the real U-2 took off by adding detachable landing gear to the wings. That meant that I would be relying on poorly-balanced landing gear along the fuselage to land (also like the real U-2), although that would mean I would most likely destroy my wings in the process. So, for the user’s sanity’s sake, I just left the wing gear permanently. Shortly after uploading this craft on KerbalX, I updated it with a version that included scientific instruments. The AG4 button was set to collect scientific data (crew report, atmospheric GCMS, temperature, pressure, gravity, seismic). The AG5 button was set for the probe core to gather and store the scientific data obtained. Here's some crucial information on taking off and landing this thing: Taking off will be a challenge; you will tip side to side. Additionally, if you do manage to keep the plane pointed straight the whole time and not lose speed, you will need to go quite fast before you can get airborne. In other words, expect to use the entire runway for takeoff. On the other hand, if you manage to get all of your wheels off the ground during the bouncy takeoff, pitch up while you can. Landing will also be hazardous, as the front landing gear will be further back along the fuselage than usual. You will have to keep your nose pointed upward the second your plane touches the ground or else you’ll destroy it and kill the pilot. After most of your wheels are on the ground, expect more sliding so cut the throttle and apply your brakes. POV: you’re flying high enough to see the curvature of the planet. Just like in real life, U-2 pilots wore pressure suits because they were cruising so high. They started out as original designs, but eventually an incident in which a pilot forgot how to fly due to a lack of oxygen forced Kerbin’s air force to reconsider their pressurization plan. In the end, they decided to use the same EVA suit model as the ones issued to the Kerbal Space Program. The U-2 getting settled (somewhat) at an altitude of 19.7 km. Despite flying at a velocity of 1000 m/s, the flames weren’t nearly as bad as expected - probably because there’s not as much oxygen to feed into said flames that high. This plane went as high as 24 km, but it would not stay there when MJ aircraft autopilot was on. With all the bouncing and altitude-dropping, I had to settle for 19.7 km. Although there was still some bouncing that came, it was still somewhat stable and the altitude was centered around that mark. In nearly an hour, the U-2 cruised to the dark side of the planet. Less than 80 minutes after takeoff, the U-2 was flying past the Kerbal Space Center. If you look at the center of the green circle, you can see tiny specks which are the lights. Since this plane still had plenty of fuel left after passing the KSC, it can be safely said that it pefrormed better than Plane Prime V5. On the other hand, Plane Prime was designed as a luxury supersonic transport while the U-2 was a high-altitude surveillance photographic aircraft - which means comfort would not be a high priority. The U-2 returning to the sunny side of the planet after completing the dark half. This plane had already gone one full flight along Kerbin’s equator (as in passed the KSC) when this shot was taken. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 19.7 km (~64.6k ft; Class Echo airspace) Will fluctuate for the first and middle part of the cruise, but on average expect the plane to cruise well at this altitude. Velocity: 1000 m/s (~2,237 mph) Expected Range: 4,850 km This is a conservative estimate, since I took a nap near the end of the first test cruise (since the fuel was draining slowly). By the time I got up, the plane had already crashed, so I had to try again. For the second test cruise, I pointed the plane north and waited for it to settle at cruising altitude and velocity (a little bit). Then, using MathPapa’s equation solver for the distance from the KSP and Symbolab for the range given fuel consumption and velocity (and distance from when data was taken, which was calculated in MathPapa), I got a good feel of how far I can expect this plane to fly before it would need to land. Even if the math is all wrong, at the very least it can cover Kerbin’s circumference with plenty to spare. U-2 pilot Francis G Kerman running away from his plane after landing in Marxan territory. In the early days of Kerbin’s central government, which was formed after the end of the Second Imperial Wars, Marx and a few allied regions wanted control of the planet for itself. Albeit, it was not willing to start a hot war to get it - yet. To assess Marx’s ICBM capabilities, Prime Minister Haparnold Kerman authorized a reconnaissance flight over the rumored missile sites. The U-2 was chosen for this task since it was the air force’s best surveillance aircraft of the time. After getting to cruising altitude, Francis G took a nap before reaching his mark. When he woke up, however, he noticed that he was on the opposite side of the planet from where he was supposed to be. Since the U-2 had such an immense range, and since secrecy was essential to mission success, he decided to go around and try again instead of landing to refuel. The Marxans had detected Francis G flying over the first time, but they could not scramble their fighters and SAMs soon enough before he left their airspace. When he came back for the second time, they were ready. A SAM detonated underneath his plane, causing fuel to leak out. As a result, he was forced to land within Marxan borders. He was soon captured, convicted of espionage, and sentenced to life of torturous labor. Ten years later, however, he was released in exchange for a Marxan agent convicted of extortion by Kerbin’s central government. When comparing this replica's stats with the real-life counterpart's, I am confident in announcing that I have crushed the real U-2's speed - although I'm not 100% sure I beat the range (80% tops). As for the altitude, I managed to surpass that but I couldn't hold it for long. As long as it looked like the plane it was trying to copy and could actually work, it was acceptable for the showcase. Honestly, if range was no problem, I'd still use a SR-71 Blackbird as my go-to surveillance craft. Then again, it was able to cover most of the planet before landing, so it's still useful for the most part. Maybe I should upgrade it and/or log some cruise stats. Regardless, I hope the 1960 U-2 Incident serves as a reminder to all engineers not to dismiss the possibility of something going wrong - especially the very thing you designed your product to avoid happening. At least Francis Gary Powers prepared for capture beforehand, which explains how he survived the ordeal. Oh, and @AtomicTech, months ago you mentioned that the U-2 had recently become a favorite of yours, and then I said that I tried to make a U-2 some time ago but failed. Well, I tried again and succeeded this time. How do you like it? Replicas Remaining: 197

On the off-chance that there's another Ghostbusters sequel, their main antagonist should utilize a gunship whose model name (and other variants) literally means "ghost." What better way for an evil spirit to challenge our heroes than with an AC-130 Spectre? The AC-130 Spectre on display in the SPH. I included the aka in the craft name so people who know the AC-130 under one of its other names can find it. I chose Spectre as the primary name - and the reason why the engines have four blades each - since that was the model that ended up in the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. However, as of April 2024, only the Ghostrider is still in service. To mimic and make use of the real-life AC-130’s long nose, I included a probe core with Kerbnet access and a fuel tank on the cockpit nose. For the guns, I started with just simple I-beams mounted on the left side pointed down. However, I later decided to add some fireworks at the ends to include a little functionality. YOU ONLY GET EIGHT SHOTS. At the end of the first test cruise, the rear landing gear would not deploy since it was stowed. Though I was able to make a soft landing, how the interior and part of the exterior turned out suggests that I not try that again. So, I removed one of the rear landing gear sets and moved the other set further outward so that it doesn’t rest inside the cargo bay. The next few takeoff tests proved that move to be successful. At first, I took the engines from AceGecko’s C-130 replica and replacing the blades with ducted ones and modifying the engines for more power. I could not make the blades go as far away from the engine mounting points as s/he did, so I tried simply borrowing his/her engines instead. However, they were shaky and blades were flying everywhere while they were running. So, I used my own design; the NCS adapter mounted on the front of the engine, the small nose cone on the front of the adapter, and the ducted blades mounted on all four sides of the nose cone. That arrangement did not eliminate the shaking completely, but it helped a lot. For this large plane’s engines, I kept the motor size and output at 100% BUT I set the main throttle torque limit to 1%. I left the RPM limit at the maximum of 460. I keep mentioning the engine setup in case someone reading this has a better idea on how to optimize aircraft performance as well as fuel efficiency. Interior of the AC-130, taken from the cockpit entrance. Here you see two gunner seats - one near the front, and the other near the back - and the other two seats manning the sensors and targeting systems. Behind the desk light is a SEQ-3C conformal storage unit for extra cargo. The AC-130 Spectre flying around the KSC, performing a nighttime urban warfare drill. More specifically, its task is to destroy a target - in this case, an armored car - converging on the VAB while leaving everything else alone. Such precise targeting is crucial when attempting to minimize (if not negate) collateral damage. Below are the operating instructions for the AC-130. If you want the best cruise experience, PAY ATTENTION. The AC-130 flying over Kerbin after settling at a cruising altitude. Another picture of the AC-130 on a test cruise. It is not intended for high-altitude operations, as being closer to the target to increase gunner accuracy would require flying lower. However, being able to go over mountains doesn’t hurt - especially if they’re on the path to the battlefield. An AC-130 low on fuel flying over Kerbin’s north polar region. While the AC-130 is making its landing over the north pole, it fired some rounds. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 8 km (~26.2k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 205 m/s (~459 mph) Will fluctuate between 205 and 210 m/s over time. Blade Deployment Angle: 40 degrees Recommended Throttle: Ascent to altitude: 2/3 (66%) Cruise: 30% Expected Range: 820 km This plane glided for almost 40 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. The rear landing gear was stuck, but the front gear could extend fine and the plane was gliding rather slowly. So, while the pilot was forced to make a (mostly) belly landing, minimal damage was expected to both the outside of the aircraft and the inside. After the plane came to a complete stop, the in-flight mechanic noted that nobody sustained any obvious injuries and began assessing the damage to the interior. The cargo racks came loose and parts of the right-side rear landing gear flew inside during the crash-landing. Post-crash assessment of the exterior. The starboard (right) side of the plane sustained the most damage, with the most obvious sign being that the right-side landing gear is completely detached. After the aircraft and crew were recovered, the design was edited to bring the landing gear further outward so that it wouldn’t be stowed. In other words, this problem should not happen again. @TheKspEngineer, thank you for your F-111 Aardvark replica. That thing may not do so well in air-to-air combat (at least from my experience in War Thunder), but it can carry enough bombs to destroy three bases in Air RB and still fly with the wings fully swept while loaded. If my fighter escort is good enough - or if the enemy's not paying attention, I could do some serious damage to their ground forces before returning to the airfield to reload and do it again. Since both your entries so far came from Hangar Two, if you want to earn the All Four Hangars Badge (see OP), you just need at least one entry from each of the other three hangars to complete it. If you decide to go for it, then good luck. Hangars Three and Four should be easy picking, but Hangar One will be tricky since the available planes there are all props. Replicas Remaining: 198

After my new friends and I checked out the Memphis Belle II at the Air Force Museum two weekends ago, I suggested that we stop by the WWII Gallery to admire the original namesake. The museum was only a few minutes away from closing, so we had to move fast; if we could, we would have ran the whole way. And now, ladies and gentlemen, here comes a war hero straight out of Memphis. The most iconic heavy bomber of WWII, get your tailguns ready for the B-17 Flying Fortress. Historic photograph from the later years of the Second Imperial Wars. Here we see one of many B-17s on its way to destroy a Heinkelian industrial complex. Before we continue with the demonstration flight, here are some more details on what the B-17 was used for. Man, that was long. Anyway, on to the test cruise. The B-17 Flying Fortress on display in the SPH. I began with modifying the 2.5-m Cockpit to have a longer, wider nose. To mimic the gunner/bombardier window, I added another small fairing and made them orange since they were the closest to in-game window colors. Although the main control module is a Mk1-3 Command Pod encased inside the cockpit piece (along with a RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit, which was added later), I added a Mk2 Lander Can in rover mode on the top for decoration. During the test cruise, after I tried getting a cockpit shot (even with MJ autopilot on), the plane lost control and started nosediving. To correct this, I set the control point to Forward. The plane shouldn’t take the lander can as the master control module, but it shouldn’t be a big deal if it does. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a 2.5-m cargo bay long enough to serve as a bomb bay. The stock service bay wouldn’t suffice since both ends opened up. So, I took the elevator bay from my C-54 Skymaster replica, removed the elevator itself, copied the bay itself, and put it in the middle of the fuselage. On @swjr-swis‘s advice, I raised the wings’ angle of incidence by 5 degrees. This helped me out a lot when it came to the plane’s range. For this large plane’s engines, I kept the motor size and output at 100% BUT I set the main throttle torque limit to 1%. The cargo bay has a lot of parachutes, repair kits, and lights. More than enough to evacuate the plane’s crew in a worst-case scenario and, if possible, get the plane fixed while setting up camp. Not that such an event happened often. This plane has (mock) turrets set up at: the nose the top, right behind the Mk2 Lander Can hatch the belly, right behind the wings both sides of the fuselage, near the back the tip of the tail Picture of the B-17F known as the Memphis Belle on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. This particular plane, which was on loan from the Air Force to the city of Memphis, TN, was relocated to the Museum in 2005. Years of restoration later, it was put on public display in May 2018. Photograph taken by me 4/9/2022. Below are the operating instructions for the B-17 replica. I jotted them down after I tried a consistent procedure on how to get to a good cruising altitude since my last few tests were all over the place. If you want the best cruise experience, PAY ATTENTION. Cockpit shot from the lander can during the test cruise. At first, just one second viewing out the window and the MJ aircraft autopilot would mess up and cause the plane to point downward and lose altitude. It took a while to get it back to cruise, which cost quite a bit of fuel - and, by extension, kilometers of range. I then turned off the autopilot for a few seconds to get this shot. I still lost a bit of altitude, albeit not nearly as much as I would have if it was on. After that cruise, I set the control point of the lander can to Forward. Photo of the Baikerbanur Bombshell, which had recently been restored to airworthiness, flying over some mountains. Another beautiful color shot of the B-17 flying. The skies over Kerbin yesterday were peaceful and quiet during this test cruise, but it would not last. At least in my mind, I was over Germany in 1945 with enemies from all directions shooting at me. It had been over half a year since Joe, our squadron's in-flight mechanic, died over the beaches of Normandy. Tom, Frank, and I had to be extra careful as we pushed further into Europe since we didn't have him to repair our planes anymore. We had already liberated Paris and foiled the German counteroffensive at the Ardennes, but we knew better than to get overconfident. With him around, we could be on fire and one stray bullet away from going down and he'd fix us up good as new in seconds. That's how good he was. This particular mission was a surprise for us. We were used to escorting bombers in our own fighters, and now all three of us were crammed in one bomber. Along with dozens of other B-17s, our task was to bomb German factories and supply lines along the Ruhr Valley. I don't know why our squadron wasn't assigned to the fighter escort since we had already proven ourselves more than capable of that many times, but I'm guessing that the higher-ups needed as many available airmen as possible to man the bombers and we got selected to fill that quota. Another surprise was the inconsistency on who was piloting our bomber. More specifically, Tom took the stick while between factories while I was in charge when we were bombing them. At least Frank was consistent and stayed at (one of) the turrets the entire time. While Tom was flying, German fighters were surrounding us from all sides. I had to switch turrets depending on who was chewing up our plane that second. I remember getting more kills from the belly and tail turrets than I did the top one, and I barely got anyone at the nose. Occasionally, Frank would complain that I stole his kill. I didn't really care at all, since our job was to keep the bomber safe long enough to blow up Germany's factories; tracking which gunner got how many kills did not matter. While I was flying, the B-17 had lousy maneuverability and such a low speed - and it didn't help that we were getting shot at by AA guns and artillery. Fortunately: their aim was so bad they make Imperial stormtroopers from Star Wars look like crack shots. each of the three industrial complexes we destroyed had their buildings arranged in such a way that we didn't have to do any tight turns to bomb our important targets. the B-17 was designed to take a lot of punishment. Of course, that was only if Frank and I did our jobs when the German fighters attacked. Over and over again, Tom told me, "Stay the course - it's the only chance we have of making it back." I understood he meant that we need to focus on the red targets or else we would have to turn around and go again - hence draining fuel (which was probably leaking thanks to enemy rounds in our fuel tank) and reducing our chances of returning to base. However, with the dozens of so other bombers with us, I'm sure anything we missed would have been leveled anyway. When we eventually reached Berlin, our bombers were dropping like flies and it was up to Tom, Frank, and I to save their tails - as usual. I swear, where did the Allies get their gunners? If we were manning one of those B-17s like we did in our last mission, we could have shot down most, if not all of, the German props sent after us. I wouldn't get my hopes up on fighting off the jets, though. Now that the childhood Blazing Angels story is over, back to the flak-free test cruise. The B-17 had barely made it over Kerbin’s north pole when had 30 fuel units left. That was when the pilot shut off the engines and began its slow final descent. It managed to glide almost 40 kilometers before touching down smoothly. This is quite a beautiful picture, actually. If I were more artistically inclined, I might actually make a painting out of this. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats, provided the ascent procedure was followed beforehand, were as follows: Altitude: 7.5 km (~24.6k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 140 m/s (~313 mph) Will increase gradually over time, but then start to drop near the end. For now, this is a good start - and eventual finish. Blade Deployment Angle: 40 degrees Recommended Throttle: Ascent to altitude: 2/3 (66%) Cruise: 30% Expected Range: 1,000 km This plane glided for almost 40 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. A historic photograph of a B-17 stuck in the snow. This one was damaged in combat from a Heinkelian fighter’s bullets puncturing the fuel tanks. While that fighter was soon forced to break off the attack, the bomber however was unable to return to base after its bombing run. So, the pilot performed a smooth landing over Marxan territory and the crew set up camp during a snowstorm. They were eventually found by Marxan soldiers and, after a longer than usual waiting period, repatriated to Allied forces. Kerbal lore stories and Blazing Angels flashbacks in one post. This sure took forever to write. Anyway, thank you all for taking the time to read those. I'm sure they were quite interesting. If you have any such stories involving B-17s, either in videogames or IRL, I'd be glad to read about them. Replicas Remaining: 200 REST IN PEACE, JOE

Thank you for reminding me of that. I had completely forgotten how well raising my wings' AoI (angle of incidence) by 5 degrees worked out for me on a few of my planes here. I'll be sure to implement that in my (SEE SPOILER) replica, which is coming next. Imgur is still working fine for me. It's KerbalX that's giving me trouble now, since it's been at least a day now and still getting a stupid Application Error message. EDIT: As of 1150 Hours EDT, KerbalX has been fixed.

While I continue on the long grind for the F-14B, I am having an attack aircraft with a talisman (that I got by pure chance) take its place to save backups in Air Arcade matches, speed up the tech tree research, and also gather crew points for when I finally get the F-14B. Also, last weekend, some new friends I made at the Air Force Museum wanted to check out the Memphis Belle II. It felt right that I make a replica of that plane next. And so, without further ado, here's the F-105 Thunderchief. The F-105 Thunderchief on display in the SPH. I included the aka in the craft name since it was a popular nickname for the plane and so plane enthusiasts who know it can find it. I tried to add the airbrakes in the back. According to War Thunder and pictures I found on the internet, the real Thunderchief’s afterburner could open up and function as an airbrake. However, I decided to scrap that idea since my attempts to add them proved useless. At least I included a drag chute (but I didn’t really test that part). The air intakes were a rather interesting challenge. They were not only positioned right where the wings were attached to the fuselage, but they were angled to go outward. To maintain aesthetic, I chose a Panther engine for this craft. However, part of me wanted to go with a Whiplash for performance since most of my other replicas that used Panthers did not do so well. The Thunderchief ascending to cruising altitude at quite a steep angle. It was approaching Mach 1 when the pilot decided to speed up his ascent. The sad part is that, unlike its real-life counterpart, this plane never made it past Mach 1. Settling at a cruising altitude after the initial ascent. Historic footage of the famous F-105 named the Baikerbanur Bombshell II cruising over Kerbin’s desert. It is currently on display in the Super-Cool Aircraft Museum. The original Baikerbanur Bombshell was a B-17 Flying Fortress that participated in the Second Imperial Wars - and is also on display in the Super-Cool Aircraft Museum. However, the F-105 did not get nearly as much fame as the B-17. Just like in real life, the Baikerbanur Bomshell II could carry more bombs than its namesake predecessor from the Second Imperial Wars. The Thunderchief ending its test cruise after approximately 43 minutes of flying at full throttle and only 30 fuel units left. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 10.9 km (~35.8k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Starting Velocity: 290 m/s (~649 mph) The cruise ended at 320 m/s (~716 mph) Recommended Throttle: 100% Flight Time: ~43 minutes Expected Range: 760 km Old photograph of an unknown pilot walking out of his F-105 after landing. I've noticed a pattern in my planes' performance when it came to the Panther engine. Specifically, even when it was in wet mode, the plane did not fly supersonic to start. If it did go fast, it would be within the last five minutes of powered flight before landing. Any ideas why that's the case? Anyway, until I get that issue resolved, I might want to stick with the Whiplash for supersonic planes. Replicas Remaining: 201

Everybody knows about the famous Corsair Skipper Riley and his role in WWII (or lack thereof) - and how he trained the fastest crop duster in the world. However, nobody seems to recall that he had a son who fought in Vietnam, an A-7 Corsair II. And unlike his dad, he kept flying into danger despite setbacks. The A-7 Corsair II on display in the SPH. To increase thrust and speed, I used two Wheesley engines clipped together (by using two crossfeed-enabled small hardpoints and small Oscar-B fuel tanks to attach them to the aircraft) and stashed them in a structural fuselage. However, the plane has one air intake - which has led to a few flaming outs in the very beginning and the end of the flight. To address the flaming out, I used two air intakes clipped together. However, for some reason, that resulted in a worse cruise performance. So now, the replica has one air intake. You’ll get some flameouts in the beginning, but the engine/s will get back online soon and your plane will run better. To repeat, DO NOT add another air intake. The real-life A-7 had an airbrake under the fuselage, so I included one in this replica. To make sure it didn’t activate along with the gear brakes, which would result in the plane losing balance and/or crashing while landing, I removed the airbrake from the brake action group and set it to be toggled by the AG5 button. The wing connectors on the side of the fuselage are just for aesthetic purposes. The A-7 firing decoys a minute after takeoff. It only has eight, so use them wisely. Better yet, don’t get locked on by enemy missiles in the first place. Historic photograph of an A-7 Corsair II flying over Kerbin’s oceans 15 minutes after taking off from a carrier. This plane was intended for close air support (CAS) against enemy ground units. It should therefore come as no surprise that this plane was nominated to be transported to Laythe when Kerbin established a military presence there many decades later. The A-10 Warthog was also a good choice, but it was not designed for use on carriers. Either way, it got turned down for faster and more modern carrier-borne aircraft. After a little less than 45 minutes, the plane could fly at cruising speed and gradually ease up on the throttle. Of course, the pilot would be in for a very long flight if he didn’t have any missions to complete. #planareclipse Sometimes, daring aerial photographers would fly directly underneath aircraft and line it up with the sun so that it looks like a plane-shaped eclipse. A front view shot of the A-7 Corsair II flying over Kerbin. Four hours and almost 3,000 kilometers later, and the plane had 20 fuel units left. Just like with my C-141 Starlifter replica, I had to turn south to avoid running out of fuel while too far into water. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Status: UNARMED; MINIMAL COUNTERMEASURES 8 x Flares 8 x Chaffs ONE LAUNCH: (1 x Flare) and (1 x Chaff) Altitude: 7.4 km (~24.3k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 220 m/s (~492 mph) Flight time: 4 hours Expected Range: 3,000 km WARNING: the plane will get bouncy and will experience a few flameouts while landing, but if you know what you’re doing you could put the plane down in one piece. Also, make sure your airbrake is retracted before touchdown. A navy pilot stepping out of the A-7 after putting the plane down on dry land. Airbrake test over the KSP. Don’t worry about it tipping your plane up and throwing it off-balance before takeoff and during landing - unless you hit the AG5 button by mistake. The brake action group will not work on the airbrake. That's another plane down that I also have in my "Maximum USAF" aircraft lineup in War Thunder. I've already copied the A-10 Warthog and the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and @TheKspEngineer recently did the F-4 Phantom II. All that's left is: Already have in War Thunder, in museum: F-111A Aardvark Don't have in War Thunder yet, in museum: F-15A Eagle Don't have in War Thunder yet, NOT in museum: F-14B Tomcat I sure got a long grind to go, both in War Thunder and in this KSP thread. Thank you all for taking the time to check it out. Replicas Remaining: 202

Hear a plane being described as "a missile with a man in it," and you might think about the Japanese Okha and/or the German Komet (or its Japanese variant) from WWII. While both certainly qualify for such titles, it was actually used to market the American F-104 Starfighter from the early Cold War. The F-104 Starfighter on display in the SPH. After the nose, I went straight to the engine and the tailfin. When choosing the engine, I was stuck between the Panther and the Whiplash. I then chose the panther since it was shorter in length, could switch between supersonic and regular mode, and had a higher vectoring range than the Whiplash. As for the tailfin, I had to move it back as much as possible just for the tip of the rudder to be placed further back than the engine tip - just like the real Starfighter. After that was completed, I added a battery and a drag chute. The real-life Starfighter’s fuselage was long, but I didn’t want to make the replica’s fuselage took long or else it would look ridiculous and flimsy later. So, I worked on the engines and had their tanks end where the tailfin began. I then placed the engines on the tanks, moved them closer to the fuselage, and bent them downward. To extend the plane’s range - and since a lot of pictures of the F-104 I saw had wingtip fuel tanks - I added those to the craft. After the test cruise, I configured the fuel flow priority so that the external tanks will drain first. The AG5 (Action Group 5) button will toggle the crossfeed and switch the fuel flow from the external tanks to the main fuselage. Hitting it again will switch it back to the external tanks, and so on. If you’re unsure about which tanks are draining now, right-click on a fuselage or external tank and see which one of them is draining. The AG0 (Action Group 0) button will detach the external tanks from the plane. I set that button farther away from AG5 to reduce the risk of accidental detachments. This plane starts with 1120 fuel units total (out of 2010), and the external tanks hold 300 of them. Assuming you don’t touch the AG5 button at all, you can lose the tanks once you hit 820 fuel units left to shed some dead weight - and extend your range. Someone in the manufacturing plant screwed up the cockpit button labels and put the "ENGINE ON/OFF" label on the button that actually detaches the fuel tanks. The KAA investigators thought Jeb was being dumb, but the owner’s manual was found to have not matched what was displayed inside the cockpit. Further testing of the aircraft’s controls later proved that Jeb was telling the truth about the buttons being mislabeled. In other words, anyone could have gotten it wrong. Less than five minutes down, and the Starfighter has already cleared Alt Test Mountains. Flying over the ocean at 9.975 km altitude. At the 33-minute mark, the plane on autopilot was picking up speed. When this picture was taken, the Starfighter was flying at 800 m/s at an altitude of 10.1 km. This phenomenon reminded me of my F-16 replica from a year ago. It started out slow at full throttle in wet (supersonic) mode and the altitude locked, but in the end it was flying just fast enough to catch fire. With such an inconsistent performance, I don’t know if I could even log recommended cruise stats since they rely on consistency. At least I can jot down how the flight began vs how it ended. 50 units of fuel left, and the Starfighter is flying at 814 m/s. Jeb cut off the engines and looked for a nice flat spot to land his jet, and there were plenty of them here. I’m sure the plane could go farther if the empty tanks were detached earlier, but I didn’t set the fuel flow priority until after this flight. You can expect a better performance this time. TEST CRUISE STATISTICS COULD NOT BE LOGGED BECAUSE THE PLANE’S FLIGHT PERFORMANCE WAS FAR TOO INCONSISTENT TO QUALIFY The KSP replica's test flight performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 9.975 km (32,726 ft) Starting Velocity: 295 m/s (659.9 mph) Ending Velocity: 814 m/s (1,821 mph) Throttle: 100% Range: 820 km (509.5 miles) External Tank Status: Attached the entire time Jeb doing a smooth landing with the F-104 Starfighter, and with the aid of its drag chute. Both tanks were recovered without a scratch, although KSP personnel have argued that Jeb should have ditched them and increased his range. At the same time, the tank’s design engineers were rumored to have contemplated installing parachutes that would deploy upon detachment from the plane. Perhaps that can be done in the next upgrade. Sorry I've been gone from this thread for so long. Besides a marathon, work, road trips, and watching the eclipse, I've been grinding the U.S. Air tech tree in War Thunder lately. I still have a long way to go before I get the F-15A Eagle and the F-14B Tomcat (in that order), and then my "Maximum USAF" collection is complete. Any and all help to add to this showcase thread is greatly appreciated. UPDATE: I changed my craft file with the following: Finally updated my game to 1.12.5 this afternoon; was previously 1.12.4. Installed drag chutes on backs of external tanks and set them to deploy upon detachment. Replaced the front nose cone with a fly-by-wire for aesthetic and so non-pilots can use it. Put a USAF symbol on the top of the left wing. Replicas Remaining: 203

Great job with the F-4 Phantom, @TheKspEngineer. I play War Thunder as well; U.S. air's my favorite (though U.S. naval isn't bad either). Interestingly enough, the F-4S Phantom II I bought at the 2023 Christmas sale is my most reliable plane so far. If you look at my checklist for this thread, you'll recognize a lot of these planes from their respective countries' tech trees. Replicas Remaining: 204

Bet that will be a great story to tell the grandkids.

I'd love to see the timelapse when it's completed, please. Was it a looooong drive arriving to your watch spot as well? My family and I agree that April 8th, 2024 might have been the most profitable day of that farmer's life. With cars from 25 different states (plus at least one car from Ontario) pouring in for the eclipse at a high-demand spot, why wouldn't he take advantage of that opportunity? Even on the off-chance he charges for parking on his field for Fourth of July celebrations, the total sales for one of them would still be nowhere near what he made this Monday. I'd also like to see your timelapse when it's completed, please. That would make a fun KSP challenge. Waiting for the right time for an eclipse. Will need outside help in determining the dates and times. Getting in position for said eclipse. Will also need outside help in determining the location and the path of totality. Flying at the same speed of said eclipse when it happens. I may not know where and where said eclipses will happen on Kerbin, but I got a lot of supersonic planes on my KerbalX ready to go.

PLOT TWIST: that was no moon. Dang it, I was so close. We parked less than 100 feet from the corn field entrance.

That's awesome, although if we did then neither of us would have recognized the other. By the way, my family also found cars from 25 states (and one Canadian province) in the field next to the museum grounds (and the nearby Lowe's).

My family came to visit me in Ohio (and they brought the dog, too) a few days ago for the eclipse. We left early this morning for the Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta, and it's a good thing we did. The line to the museum parking lot was long, but we found an empty field next to the grounds that charged $40 for parking; totally worth being so close to the exit and having grass for the dog to lie on. The next several hours included having breakfast at Bob Evans, walking around, playing card games and mini cornhole, texting friends, drinking water, my mother messing with her camera's new eclipse filter, and also getting pictures in our "Twice in a Lifetime" t-shirts. When the partial eclipse began, we would frequently look up with our eclipse glasses on and see the sun turning from an orange circle into Pac-Man, then a crescent moon, and then a tiny sliver. While waiting for totality, I used the phone camera filter Mom gave me and took some partial eclipse photos. Below is my best shot from my phone. Taken 1434 EDT When totality was getting closer, it got dark in Wapakoneta fast. More specifically, it looked like a storm was coming while all the lights were turning on. It reminded us of when we watched the eclipse of 2017, only there were no farm animals making noise this time while the sun was getting blocked. Finally, when totality hit at 1509 EDT, we saw an amazing thin ring of fire. That was also when Dad bunched us all together to take a group selfie with the total eclipse in the background. Taken 1511 EDT My best shot from my phone, although I think Mom got clearer images with her fancy digital camera. We noticed a small orange spot at the bottom of the ring, but we don't know what it is. Taken 1511 EDT At first glance, you would think it was sunset at Wapakoneta. But it was actually early-mid afternoon, and the sun was blocked thanks to the moon. Taken 1512 EDT I changed my phone's orientation to include the eclipse. If you look closely enough, you can see the center of the ring. And you can see Venus in the sky too. After totality ended, we rushed back into our car and left town immediately. Getting out of Wapakoneta had almost zero traffic; we were so close to the field exit and we had packed everything in the car, including the dog, at least 20 minutes before totality even began. However, when we hit Dayton, that was when the major traffic jams began. Long story short, we returned to my apartment in plenty of time for dinner. And that's my eclipse story. Really? Where specifically?