Mars-Bound Hokie

You're welcome. Did you try it yet? How's it working out for you?

Thank you. I was wondering where would be the most appropriate page for this. I didn't consider looking under the Mods section since this is an Excel sheet.

Quite soothing when you're in orbit. How do you make such a masterpiece?

Some rooms in that pool maze looks so much like an occasional childhood dream I had.

I made an Excel spreadsheet that can calculate: Distance between up to five different sets of coordinates on ALL celestial bodies you can land on in the Kerbol system. Point 1 --> Point 2 --> Point 3 --> Point 4 --> Point 5 Kerbol and Jool not included, since you'll blow up if you hit the "surface." Earth (IRL) included on there as a bonus, so you can calculate the distance between points on our world. Estimated time to travel to said points given velocity in m/s. Expected range for an aircraft given velocity and fuel consumption rate. Includes how much of Kerbin's circumference you can expect to cover. Distance traveled if you flew directly north from KSC, if you want a full range test. Convert U.S. units (mph, ft altitude, miles distance) to metric (m/s, km altitude, km distance) and vice versa. Comes in handy if you want to compare your replica's performance to their real-life counterpart's. Below is the link to my calculator. Have fun: https://mega.nz/file/XeIX1aKB#FszTd3jm-ZEgG5EFn54PZiwbYJtoVOwzd2uGfVVMkyE The spoiler below contains a sneak peek on what it can do, if you're interested. This thing took me quite a long time to make. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments on it, feel free to reply to this thread. I would love to know how it worked out for its users, and I especially would love to know if there's a problem with it so I can fix it. Thank you.

They don't, they're photosynthetic. That explains why they're all green, and why they don't starve to death in long space trips.

Strength, speed, and stealth. Those are the three skills that the United States Air Force's three strategic bombers specialize in. We already covered the B-52 Stratofortress, the Strength Bomber, in this showcase last year. And now, Naruto-running into action, here comes our Speed Bomber the B-1 Lancer. The B-1 Lancer on display in the SPH. Since there are only two useful angles for the wings, straight and swept, I decided to program the AG3 button to switch between them. The motors are faster that way, and I don’t have to worry about the wings not being angled all the way in either direction. WARNING: wings will still flap at high speed/G turns. So far, this has not caused any snapping or resulted in a noticeable decrease in performance. You should still be careful while flying it, and I wouldn’t recommend dogfighting; not that this aircraft was designed to anyway. The cockpit was too far off the ground for regular Kelus ladder to reach, so I had to use a longer one and angle it so that it wouldn’t stick out of the cockpit through the other end. For the engines, I started with Panther engines since I want to leave the option of a quick deceleration when it’s time to drop its ordinance. However, it came at a cost of some serious deceleration during the cruise. So, I used Whiplash engines since they have a more consistent history of letting their aircraft go fast. The hardest part was loading the missile into the cargo bay. I wanted to add an air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) as an accessory. Of course, once deployed, you’ll have seconds to decide if you’re going to sacrifice either the plane or the missile. I started with something sleek with two Mk0 liquid fuel fuselages in hopes of getting an air-breathing missile with a longer range. However, during the test runs (the airframe was incomplete, by the way), parts kept snapping off during deployment. So, I made an ALCM with a smaller fuselage. After some minor adjustments to the ALCM Mk. II, the airframe - specifically, how far the wings clipped into the cargo bay - the finishing touch was adding solid rockets to the missile so that it wouldn’t stay stuck inside the cargo bay after deployment (and to decrease the chances of the Juno engine snapping off. However, even though I was able to deploy the missile safely, the worst was yet to come. Upon deployment, the missile would always end up oriented backwards and sideways on the navball. I tried rotating the front fuel tank - and then reattaching the rest of the missile and the probe core and nose cone - but that didn’t work. So, I rebuilt the ALCM from scratch while technically editing the B-1 itself, but that didn’t work either. After searching the KSP forums for answers to similar problems, I set the AG0 button to control the missile from the probe core; I chose AG0 to reduce the risk of accidental pressing while operating the B-1 with the missile still inside. Unfortunately, that was partially successful; while I got the missile to point forward on the navball, it was still sideways. Finally, I realized that I had the probe core rotated incorrectly. After fixing that, I did some more test deployments and just like that the problem was solved. To sum it up, press AG0 AFTER DEPLOYMENT to activate the missile. ALCM hitting one of the hangars on the Island Airfield. Even though the missile performed well on its own, I didn't know how to fix the post-deployment orientation problem at the time. After several failed attempts, I said "Screw this," and proceeded to finish the aircraft itself. The B-1 Lancer climbing at a pitch angle of 20 degrees ascending to cruise altitude at full throttle early in the morning. This aircraft is not very maneuverable, which is to be expected of a bomber - even a supersonic one. Flying over Rangefinder Mountains shortly after settling at a good cruise altitude and speed. Keeping the plane straight, or at least keeping it on the same heading the entire time, might be a bit of a problem due to how fast it’s going. Just keep an eye on it, and you should be okay. The Lancer flying at cruise altitude and speed with its cargo doors open, ready to deploy the ALCM. The missile’s orientation was really annoying me that night, so I set up a quicksave and decided to test the deployment mechanism alone. Once I confirmed that nothing snapped off, I reverted back to the cruise and resumed the flight (with the missile inside). The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Status: ARMED: LIGHT AIR-TO-GROUND ORDINANCE 1 x Air-Launched Cruise Missile Mk. II Altitude: 20.5 km (~67.2k ft; Class Echo airspace) WARNING: Tends to bounce up and down in cruise while MJ aircraft autopilot is on. FUN FACT: Class Alpha airspace goes from 18k ft ASL to 60k ft. Above that is Class Echo airspace - E for Everything Else. Velocity: 1065 m/s (~2,382 mph) Wing Sweep: All the way back. Expected Range: 2,100 km With ALCM still loaded. A somewhat smooth landing in Kerbin’s southern hemisphere. Taking off from the KSC early in the morning was a bad idea since I’d still end up in the dark. That’s what Kerbnet is for. The Lancer had 60 fuel units left when it was time to land, so the pilot cut the engines and set the wings straight. The pilot checking the cargo bay to make sure the ALCM is still secured inside. The engineers who designed the missile were still having trouble with the control orientation, and the B-1’s manufacturer was on a tightening schedule. So, they loaded a dead prototype in the bomb bay to see how it would affect aircraft performance. Now that the B-1 Lancer was confirmed to be working properly, it was back to that missile. Once the missile’s control orientation problem was solved, a loaded B-1 was launched during the day and deployed its missile shortly after reaching cruising altitude. At 20.5 km, the ALCM was too high up to use its Juno engine. As one may guess by the fire, it was gliding at supersonic speeds. Test runs of the ACLM itself proved that it is capable of supersonic speeds on its own, but it’s saving a lot of fuel with that launch. After some time gliding fast, it was time to see how far the ALCM could fly on its own engine. For this test run, the cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 10 km (~32.8k ft) Velocity: 320 m/s (715.8 mph) Distance Covered: ~555 km (~344.9 miles) from initial mid-air deployment to fuel depletion. I don’t remember where I started the engine, but the first glide is not something to overlook. If you have a multiplayer mod, you could have one person pilot the missile while the other flies the plane. And one more thing: HIT AG0 TO ACTIVATE MISSILE AFTER DEPLOYMENT As if building a stable supersonic replica of the B-1 with variable-geometry wings wasn't hard enough, getting that ALCM to straighten up and fly right was a nightmare. At least I managed to pull it off, and now you all have a supersonic bomber that can carry a remote-controlled missile. Even better, if you watch which direction the probe core is pointed and remember to activate "Control from here" after deployment, you could load something like that in or on other aircraft like the B-52, the B-2 when you're attempting to nuke a giant alien spaceship, or even a Do 335 when conducting a secret extraction mission. Replicas Remaining: 188

Eh, Soviets! Get your knockoff superfortresses out of our Canadian airspace, buddy! We have CF-100 Canucks airborne, and we will use them! The CF-100 Canuck on display in the SPH. To start, I used a fairing to make a nose similar to that of the real-life CF-100; long but not too sharp at the end. Just like my F-94 Starfire replica, I put a second cockpit behind the first and moved it forward for a smooth window. However, in the process, I obstructed the hatches, so kerbals cannot get in and out of the plane. Not that they need to in the course of performing their patrol and interception duties. Behind the second cockpit rests a probe core. Since this is supposed to be an all-weather interceptor and patrol aircraft, it would make sense that pilots would want to see what’s below them in the dark - especially if they’re over mountains. After noticing this small detail on the real CF-100’s wingtip, I decided to include nav lights on the front of the wingtip fuel tanks. The hardest part was deciding what engines to use. At first, I went with Panther engines since they looked the closest to the real-life counterpart’s due to their sleek design. During the initial ascent, I decided Hey, why not? and switched the afterburners on. Sure, the real-life Canuck was subsonic, but since this is Kerbal Space Program I wanted to add something cool to the performance. However, after settling at a good cruise altitude and deciding a suitable speed, the plane’s velocity dropped suddenly and started bouncing up and down a lot more than usual. I thought unlocking the gimbals would help, but that actually made things worse. I still wanted a supersonic version, so I replaced the Panthers with Whiplash engines. While it provided an excellent acceleration during ascent, the plane was on fire and could not fly straight shortly after breaching 1,000 m/s. Believing that supersonic engines would be more trouble than what they were worth, I decided to go subsonic. Due to the Panthers’ poor performance in this craft as well as other craft of mine this was used in, I went with Wheesley engines. I thought that it would provide a stable cruise, but a few minutes after settling at a good cruise setting, the speed suddenly dropped dramatically just like with my first time with the Panthers in wet mode. That was when I realized that the problem wasn’t the engine and more on the plane itself. In the end, after tweaking the airframe design and fuel distribution, I returned to using Panther engines but I locked the gimbals. The default engine mode is still dry, but it’s best to switch it to wet (supersonic) mode once you’re airborne and ready for action. To reiterate, KEEP THE GIMBALS LOCKED. Airframe test of the CF-100 at night at the KSC. Test flights pointed north are taking off at night now to increase the odds of the aircraft ending up on the sunny side of Kerbin once it’s time to land. After confirming that the plane could take off and climb with no problems, the plane returned to the SPH for its nav lights and paint job. Of course, that was all before the series of ascents which led to engine replacements - only to go back to Panthers. The Canuck ascending to cruising altitude with its afterburners on. Just like with my MiG-21, my MiG-23, and Martin NBS-1 replicas, I noticed that this plane performed better than its Earth counterpart - despite the occasional slip-up in the initial test flights. Of course, this particular replica has a buff; a pair of afterburning engines. As predicted, the CF-100 ended up somewhere with daylight after passing over Kerbin’s north pole. O Canada was playing in the background as the aircraft crossed into the northern tundra. Years after after the Second Imperial Wars ended, Maples commissioned CF-100 Canucks to act as patrol and interceptor aircraft in the event Marx attempted to fly bombers over them. At the time, this role was important since Maples was not too far away from Marxan territory and the threat of enemy bomber attacks was credible. Crossing the equator again with plenty of fuel to spare, confirming that the CF-100 can reach anywhere on Kerbin. Although a preliminary calculation was made after flying over Rangefinder Mountains, it would not account for how draining all the tanks would affect landing. Or how stable the landing gear would keep the plane after touchdown. Another piece of good news from this shot was that odds are from there to the south pole (for the most part) the pilot should expect to fly over land when it’s time to come down. POV: you’re approaching Kerbin’s southern polar ice cap after over an hour of flight in the CF-100 Canuck. The aircraft had 60 fuel units left when it was time to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 18 km (~59.1k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 750 m/s (~1,678 mph) Afterburners: ON Expected Range: 2,900 km This plane glided for almost 95 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. That’s what being so high up will do. Smooth and easy landing on Kerbin’s south pole after approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes of flight from the KSC starting north. And since the absolute value of degrees latitude was dropping, the engineers confirmed that the Canuck is able to cover three-quarters of Kerbin (by a hair) before needing to land. Not enough credit goes to Canada for its role in the Cold War. While Canada's military was nowhere near as strong as the United States', it was still its ally north of the border and could act as a barrier from the Soviets. At the very least, it could warn America about incoming enemy attacks from the north. In the early days of the Cold War, the Royal Canadian Air Force's interceptors strengthened that barrier against Soviet bombers crossing the North Pole. Though the CF-100 was eventually phased out, it was useful in its time and still remains the only Canadian-designed fighter to have entered mass production. As I finish this showcase entry, I realize that this aircraft will mark one-quarter of the checklist down. Two years and five months since I started this thread, and although it's nowhere near completion we still made good progress. To everyone who contributed, I'd like to thank you for your help. If anyone has replicas of craft in the museum they'd like to show off, I'm sure we all would love to see them. And if anyone gets at least one replica from each of the four hangars, the All Four Hangars Badge is theirs. Replicas Remaining: 189 25.3% OF CHECKLIST COMPLETED

Look out, talking trees. Here comes the B-66 Destroyer, the U.S. Air Force's new low-level subsonic light bomber. Armed with pathfinder flares and fancy circuitry, this bad boy will fly in front of the cool fighters and mark the targets before they end up leveling the entire jungle anyway. Ooh, those photoflash bombs are making me scared. And don't bother launching guided missiles at it, because you'll only end up losing the lock although you might stand a chance if you used old-school dogfighting or unguided flak. Yep, I wouldn't go anywhere over North Vietnam without a not-really-a-Destroyer. Oh, I'm sorry, I take back that last part. The B-66 definitely destroys things, like my wallet. The B-66 Destroyer on display in the SPH. Mimicking the real-life nose was tricky; it shouldn’t be too long and yet it needed a pointier nose than the aerodynamic nose cone. So, just like my AT-9 Fledgling replica, I used a fairing. Only this time, I did it in multiple smaller sections so that it doesn’t look too much like a triangle. For the antenna on the nose, I used a lightstrip that’s disconnected from the lights button. This plane comes with a probe core and a Kerbnet button since the real-life B-66 was a photo reconnaissance and electronic warfare craft as well as a pathfinder for supersonic fighter-bombers in bad weather. I didn’t want a repeat of my B-58 replica’s dreadful performance from last year, especially since it was supposed to be supersonic. So, I doubled the Juno engines. The real-life Allison J71 engines had twice the thrust of an individual Juno anyway. The AG4 button is for defensive countermeasures in the event the plane gets locked on by a guided missile. The AG5 button is for pathfinding flares so surface targets would be easier to find for low-level bombers. To mimic whatever the two bumps are in the back (I don’t know what they’re called), I used a long, pointed fairing and then a Tail Connector B inside it. For the finishing touch, I installed nav lights as a separate action group from the main light switch. That way, enemies won’t be able to see it so easily - at least with the naked eye or in bad weather. That roast took a while to come up with. Although the real-life plane itself was lame in terms of what it was used for as well as its misleading name, I was impressed by this replica's performance. Then again, I wasn't expecting much; just that it wouldn't suck as bad as my B-58 model did. Shortly after taking off, the pilot launched a chaff-flare combination countermeasure. It was rumored in the air force that pilots who were unpopular were punished by being assigned to fly B-66s. Apart from acting as a shield during low-level bombing runs due to electronic countermeasures, regular countermeasures (chaffs and flares), or just simply being an extra target for enemy fire, it wasn’t much good for anything else. You’ll have to watch your pitch when taking off due to the long tail. Below are the ascent instructions for the B-66. If you want the best cruise experience, PAY ATTENTION. The B-66 settling at cruise altitude while heading north. To increase the odds that the plane will land somewhere sunny, it took off from the Kerbal Space Center (very) late-afternoon to early-evening. As predicted, the Destroyer ended up on the sunny side of the planet after crossing its northern polar ice cap. This would make landing a lot easier, assuming the plane would be over relatively flat land.* And by that, I mean not over water or surrounded by mountains. After crossing into the northern tundra on Kerbin’s sunny side, the B-66 fires a marker flare. The idea was that low-level bombers nearby would be able to see the glowing flare in bad weather - or at least conditions with terrible visibility - and hence know where to drop their ordinance. With how slow the Destroyer was flying and how late at night it was IRL, I had to do a range estimation soon. Since the plane was getting close to flying over nothing but ocean from here until past the equator, I needed to do a calculation immediately. At least it was nowhere near as slow as my lame B-58 replica. While the tanks were over half full, I took the degrees latitude and used that - while accounting for going past the north pole - along with the cruise speed and fuel consumption rate to get a conservative estimation of the expected range. Here's how I calculated the range for this replica: The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 9 km (~29.5k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 220 m/s (~492.1 mph) If you’re using MJ aircraft autopilot, it’s best to set the speed to 225 m/s. For all the time the plane bounces up and down, 220 seems to be the middle of how fast the plane goes along the surface. Expected Range: 2,940 km This is a conservative estimate, since I had to sleep IRL. After landing the B-66 Destroyer south of Kerbin’s northern tundra, an unnamed pilot is retrieving the film from the plane’s probe core. While it was not much use in combat outside of a shield - missile fodder if all else failed - it still proved useful as a photo reconnaissance aircraft. Later variants of the B-66 were designed for electronic reconnaissance as well as countermeasures. Even then, it was unpopular among Kerbin’s airmen since they could name better aircraft for such tasks. They also felt betrayed by its misleading name Destroyer, since nobody expected to destroy anything with it. It would not be long before it was retired from active service. Why is even called "Destroyer" if it didn't do much destroying? Sure, it was made to replace the A-3 Skywarrior, but using that name feels like false advertising; plus, the Skywarrior was carrier-capable. With what the B-66 was used for, like pointing out anti-aircraft emplacements and jamming enemy missile locks, "Shield" seems more appropriate. If I had to pick one of the two for a bombing campaign, I'd go with the A-3 since at least I can finish the missions on land as well as on carriers and it had a longer career. Replicas Remaining: 190

I remember doing that a few times too, and I remember flying through that one bridge after we were done bombing it in Dunkirk. Several months ago, while I was grinding the U.S. tech tree in War Thunder, I would often fly a jet underneath a low bridge (I forgot the map, but I'm guessing it was Spain) on my way to bomb bases. I'm guessing Blazing Angels was practice for that. Flying underneath the Eiffel Tower, even while under enemy fire, is easy. Flying through it, however, is difficult. I had to line it up right before going through the second hole from the ground or else I'd crash into the tower, so it was best that I cleared the area of enemies first. Not even I was crazy enough to do that. I remember landing on the Japanese airfield in Rabaul and that German airfield in the Ardennes, but they were AFTER the fights were over; not during. Bet that came in real handy in Berlin, especially against those jets and/or if you got stuck with that peashooter called a P-51 Mustang. What was your favorite level?

For too long, those meddling NATO aircraft have hidden from our radar-guided missile lock systems while flying around glorious Soviet airspace. All they do is fly below the horizon and our radar pretends they do not exist. To solve problem, we have equipped our new MiG-23 fighters with better lock systems and beyond-visual-range missiles. No longer will capitalist pigs be able to hide from us. The MiG-23 on display in the SPH. I included the NATO nickname Flogger in the craft name in case someone was looking for this plane but did not know the model number. Since I would be using Rotation Servo M-12s for the swept wings, like I did with Tim C’s jet, I realized that I would need to store more power than what’s in the cockpit since there’s a good chance the plane will be gliding without for a long time at the end of the test flight. At the same time, I didn’t want to ruin the aesthetic too much by adding a Z-1k Rechargeable Battery Bank - which is my go-to battery for aircraft - to the fuselage. So, I included a smaller Z-200 battery at the end of the tiny fuel tanks behind the cockpit window. Unlike my Fishbed replica, there’s a parachute in the cockpit cargo slot because at this point the Soviets realized they need to step up their combat game as well as cut back on waste - which might include pilots’ lives. Though the plane is decorated in Soviet stars, the craft’s flag is the classic hammer and sickle. That way, pilots can stake claims in the name of Soviet Russia on places they land. The wing-sweep mechanism was the hardest part of them all. My primary concern was that they would wiggle, like during my first attempt at variable-sweep wing aircraft. I started with Rotation Servo M-12s moving two wings stacked on top of each other, like with Tim C’s car, and set the H and N buttons to control the sweep. As an additional feature, I programmed the AG5 button to reset the wings to the default (straight) angle. To mimic the top of the real-life MiG-23, and since the wings themselves are apparently horrible lift surfaces, I included a lot of wing sections on the top. It took a lot of tries to make a smooth configuration that won’t end up looking ridiculous when the wings were swept all the way back, but I eventually found something. Of course, I had a bit of help examining KAC’s (aka @Blaze_154's) MiG-23 replica. I also tried to keep the wings at a 5-degree angle of attack, but that ended up ruining the aesthetic when I swept the wings. So, I kept everything straight. WARNING: wings will still flap at high speed/G turns. So far, this has not caused any snapping or resulted in a noticeable decrease in performance. You should still be careful while flying it, and I wouldn’t recommend dogfighting at full speed. Oddly enough, I encountered flapping variable-sweep wings when I flew other people’s planes as well - like that other MiG-23 I mentioned earlier, @swjr-swis’s Bell X-5 or his Mk2 41-F Blackwood. On a related note, flapping wings is why I rarely make variable-sweep wing aircraft. After turning north for the test cruise, Marxan pilot Mihaly Kerman swept the Flogger’s wings all the way back and began ascent to altitude. Before it was his turn to fly, he got upset when some rookie pilots pitched up too high during takeoff and destroyed the engine. He noticed that as he was approaching Mach 1, his acceleration started to drop and soon did his velocity. Eventually, after maintaining a near-10-degree pitch, the Flogger picked up speed again. The MiG-23 Flogger settling (somewhat) at cruising altitude with its wings swept all the way back. Shortly before flying over Rangefinder Mountains, Mihaly launched a set of countermeasures. More specifically, a chaff and flare combination. This plane only has enough for eight launches, so use them wisely. Ironically, if you’re flying fast enough to have your aircraft catch fire - or even if your afterburner’s on - enemy heat-seeking missiles will ignore the flares and still go after you. 60 fuel units left, and the Flogger was approaching Kerbin’s southern polar ice caps fast. And just in time too, since the sun was coming up where Mihaly was. Otherwise, without Kerbnet, he wouldn’t find a place to land. Worst-case scenario, he would have had to bail out to not risk crashing into a mountain. He reset the wings to the default angle and began gliding down with the engine off. It took quite a long time due to how high it was at first, but the plane was extremely agile. And that is why a battery is necessary. Perhaps the next northbound test cruise should take off when it’s night at the KSC so that there will be sunlight when the plane is ready to land after crossing the north pole. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 19.5 km (~64k ft; Class Echo airspace) First and foremost, CLIMB TO ALTITUDE AT 10 DEGREES PITCH! WARNING: Tends to bounce up and down in cruise while MJ aircraft autopilot is on. FUN FACT: Class Alpha airspace goes from 18k ft ASL to 60k ft. Above that is Class Echo airspace - E for Everything Else Velocity: 1000 m/s (~2,237 mph) Wing Sweep: All the way back. Expected Range: 2,680 km No weapons or auxiliary tanks. This plane glided for almost 70 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. That’s what being so high up will do. And this also performed way better than its real-life counterpart, although I never got the chance to test its dogfighting capabilities. Mihaly performing a short landing on the ice with the flaps deployed. Although he was coming in low and slow enough to do so without the parachute’s help, he was ordered to test it anyway. Marxan pilot Mihaly Kerman saluting in front of his MiG-23 Flogger after landing on Kerbin’s southern polar ice cap. Not long after he got back into the cockpit to sleep, recovery crews from a nearby Marxan outpost picked him up and refueled the plane for the trip back to Marx. Several high-ranking officials in Marx’s government were debating over whether to keep using the MiG-23 as a fighter or reassign it to long-range interdiction duties. On one hand, it had the advantages over the MiG-21 of utilizing look-down/shoot-down radar and beyond-visual-range missiles, meaning it could hit air targets from further away and enemy aircraft could not use the ground below to hide from radar-guided missiles. On the other hand, some were understandably bothered by the flapping wings when it came to high-G turns - even though Marx’s intelligence services did mention that other variable-sweep wing aircraft used by their geopolitical rivals had the same problem. In the end, although rarely used in dogfights, the MiG-23 was a formidable presence nevertheless. The real-life MiG-23 was intended to be a replacement for the MiG-21. When I compared my replica's test cruise with that of my MiG-21 replica from last year, I noticed some similarities - especially the part where the plane ended up landing on Kerbin's southern polar ice cap after flying north from the KSC. Below is a table comparing the altitude, velocity, and range stats for my two fighters. KSP REPLICA CRUISE PERFORMANCE COMPARISON MiG-21 “Fishbed” MiG-23 “Flogger” Altitude (km) 19 19.5 (W) Velocity (m/s) 1,200 (W) 1,000 Range (km) 2,580 2,680 (W) Which one of these fighters would you fly into battle in? Even if I remembered to include countermeasures in the MiG-21, which I apparently did not. @TheKspEngineer, nice job on the supersonic Corsair... I mean the X-32. I was at the Air Force Museum last night for an after dark event and I got a picture of that plane. X-32A behind the exit ramp from the Space Shuttle crew compartment trainer. You have to admit that the resemblance between the X-32's air intake and the A-7 Corsair II's is uncanny. Photograph taken by me 9/7/2024. If you want to earn the All Four Hangars Badge, you just need three more planes from the checklist - each one from Hangars One, Three, and Four (you already covered Hangar Two with your F-4 Phantom II and F-111 Aardvark). Have fun. Replicas Remaining: 191

I suppose you're right. After all, you can't rely on large planes for everything - especially if the runway is not wide enough for them. Helicopters aren't really famous for range or speed either, so a small jet is your best bet. The C-21 may only carry one litter patient at a time, but some days you may only need to transport one litter patient or a few ambulatory patients, or even something as small as Air Tasking Orders. Using a large aircraft for these jobs would be a waste of time and gas money. After reading the Wikipedia page on the plane, it makes sense that the Air Force would use the C-21 for medium-haul tasks at the time. If I was a theater commander, I'd want my own jet too.

Mom: "Why won't you go fly in formation with the neighbor's plane?" The neighbor's plane: (is an XB-70 Valkyrie) Mom: "Never mind." The XB-70 Valkyrie on display in the SPH. I started with a Mk1 cockpit - and then a probe core for Kerbnet (which would come in handy later) - before beginning a long line of Mk1 liquid fuel tanks. For its unusually long nose, I placed a Type A Advanced Nose Cone facing backwards underneath the cockpit and then attached a Tail Connector B to the cone before moving them up. Unfortunately, that would mean the hatch was obstructed, which makes it ironic that I would put a parachute in the cockpit cargo slot. The control surfaces near the nose, which are supposed to mimic the real-life Valkyrie’s canards, ended up doing the complete opposite of what the rear control surfaces were doing during partial construction flight tests (as in incomplete versions were flown). After inverting the direction didn’t work, I thought setting the authority limiter to -20 would fix the problem; while it did get the front control surfaces to go along with the rear ones, the plane never got off the runway. So, I set the control surfaces back to what they were originally, since at least the plane was flying then. On a side note, there was a discussion about this in the KSP Forums nine years ago. Turns out, there’s a good reason why control surfaces go in opposite directions if on opposite sides of the center of mass. I figured I would end up with two Adjustable Ramp Intakes to mimic the aesthetic underneath the fuselage, but that would not be enough for six Whiplash engines. So, I used an Engine Pre-cooler (and a battery) for each engine. Since they’re technically not in any cargo bays or stowed in a fairing, all six of them should get air just fine. To mimic the real-life Valkyrie’s ability to adjust its wingtip angle, I decided to include hinges with their symmetry removed; I had experience with such a mechanism when I made my XF-85 Goblin replica last year. At first, I tried G-01L Alligator Hinges since the larger ones would stick out through Structural Wing Type As. While the folding controls did work properly, the thin hinges were not strong enough to keep the wingtips steady when the plane broke Mach 2. I ended up the much wider G-32W Hinge - and had to use a Delta Wing or else I’ll get an awkwardly-shaped wing using the Structural Wing Type A. No reports of warping since then. As a bonus, the AG5 button resets the wings to the default orientation. Since the Valkyrie was used by NASA in a joint research program with the U.S. Air Force after the B-70 bomber program was cancelled, I included scientific instruments behind the cockpit. You would not believe how painful it was to arrange the wing parts underneath the main fuselage and the engines (with more fuel tanks) into something smooth. In the end, I got as close to a Valkyrie as I could while minimizing the number of parts involved. If this was graded, I expect a B at most. Before the final test flight, this prototype was tested at checkpoints during the construction. In other words, this picture looks nothing like the final product (at least for the landing gear and what's underneath the fuselage). For this particular checkpoint, I wanted to see if the six engines - or at least the middle two - would get air just fine when the pre-coolers were surrounded on the sides. If all went well there, then I solved my intake air distribution problem and was clear to move on to the next checkpoint, which was the wing-folding mechanism. While I was typing this, I had a flashback to my early childhood. I once had a singing Jay Jay the Jet Plane toy whose wings would flap. It would also sing, but apart from "Wing wigglin,'" I don't remember any of the song itself. Now as an adult kerbalnaut, I build aircraft that can wiggle its wings and actually fly. The completed Valkyrie beginning its test flight after turning north. For a minute, I thought the aircraft was doomed to not go faster than Mach 1 due to its acceleration dropping and the velocity starting to peak near 343 m/s. It also started to drop a little bit. Eventually, the plane picked up speed again. This reminded me of when I used to fly spaceplanes on a regular basis years ago. Depending on the pitch angle, the plane will experience a lull as it gets close to Mach 1, but give it time and it will resume accelerating. Which brings me to this critical piece of knowledge for when you begin to climb to cruise altitude: CLIMB AT 10 DEGREES PITCH It didn’t take long for the Valkyrie to reach the mountain range 400 km north of the KSC. First order of business, I finally decided to name it Rangefinder Mountains since that was the point when I would find - or rather, calculate - how far I expect the plane to fly on one tank of gas. It was the early part of Labor Day and the plane was guzzling fuel quicker than most of my other aircraft thanks to having six Whiplash engines, so I figured that the test cruise would finish soon. Plus, I wanted to see how draining the tanks would affect the plane’s maneuverability and, by extension, how easy or hard it would be to land it. Entering the dark side of Kerbin after crossing over its northern polar ice cap. If you look closely at the wingtips, you'll notice that they're bent downward a bit in this shot. If it changed the flight profile, it was not significant enough to notice. The pilot getting a beautiful view of the night sky while flying south. The wings are still bent downward here. When the aircraft had 100 fuel units left, the pilot was ordered to land immediately. And just in time too. According to the aircraft’s Kerbnet-enabled GPS, it was about to fly over the ocean if it kept flying south. So, the pilot reduced power to 15% throttle while he turned around and cut the engines when he began gliding down. He also reset the wings to default orientation so that no surprise humps on the ground snap them off. Shores or grasslands were acceptable terrains to land on. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 22 km (~72.2k ft; Class Echo airspace) First and foremost, CLIMB TO ALTITUDE AT 10 DEGREES PITCH! FUN FACT: Class Alpha airspace goes from 18k ft ASL to 60k ft. Above that is Class Echo airspace - E for Everything Else. Velocity: 870 m/s (~1,946 mph) Expected Range: 2,325 km A successful landing for the XB-70 Valkyrie. Some were not surprised considering that it was flying alone. Others, however, were surprised that it landed in one piece since it was dark outside and this prototype didn’t have any drag chutes. While Kerbnet does reduce the risk of landing in water or crashing into mountains at night, the engineers decided to mount parachutes on the back of the aircraft - as well as a Spotlight Mk1 on the front end of the front landing gear - after it was brought back to the KSC. While I was reading about how the XB-70 Valkyrie was developed and what happened to it, I couldn't help but notice some parallels between it and the XF-85's story. More specifically: They both were great ideas on paper, but testing proved them to be more trouble than they were worth. And the B-70 project was terminated five years before the disaster on June 8, 1966. Soviet weapons posed a credible threat to them both. GOBLIN: enemy fighters could outperform it. VALKYRIE: Soviet surface-to-air missiles, which forced the Air Force to adjust their strategy and have the XB-70 fly low. They were pushed aside by emerging new technologies. GOBLIN: new aerial refueling technology for escort fighters. VALKYRIE: nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, after the B-70 bomber program was cancelled in 1961, the Valkyrie still proved useful in studying the effects of long-duration high-speed flight. Though the last remaining XB-70 was retired to the museum in 1969, the data obtained from its flights proved useful in developing large supersonic aircraft such as the B-1 Lancer and even the Concorde - and, via espionage, the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144. As I finish this post, I would like to pause for a moment of silence for NASA Chief Test Pilot Joseph Walker (F-104 pilot) and Air Force Major Carl Cross (XB-70 co-pilot), the victims of that fateful mid-air collision. Although North American Pilot Alvin White (XB-70 pilot) survived, he was badly injured. White eventually died in 2006 at age 87. Replicas Remaining: 192

"I, Lyndon Baines Johnson, do solemnly swear that I am up to no good... am a bully and a racist... benefited the most from my predecessor's murder... will faithfully execute all who oppose me.. the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, destroy... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those words were spoken on board SAM 26000, the fourth primary Air Force One, almost two hours after President John F. Kennedy was shot on November 22nd, 1963. VC-137C, also nicknamed "SAM 26000," on display in the SPH. This aircraft had the serial number 62-6000, which then evolved into the nickname "SAM 26000." I included the aka in the craft name so people who know this plane under its civil (Boeing 707) or regular military designation (C-137 Stratoliner) can find it. After all, this particular aircraft - and then SAM 27000 afterwards - was a heavily modified Boeing 707 built specifically for transporting the President of the United States. The Boeing 707 frame was also used for the C-137 Stratoliner, which served as a passenger/VIP transport aircraft. I didn’t mention the E-3 Sentry at all because although its airframe was derived from the Boeing 707, this aircraft does not come with a rotodome. I actually started this replica a long time ago, but I had to put it on hiatus because of poor performance. The most notable problems were that the CoM and CoL were too far apart, causing it to be nose-heavy, and that moving the CoM back to a meaningful distance from the CoL would cause the plane to tip backwards. When I eventually got back to this project, I noticed that I had used engine nacelles and FL-T200 fuel tanks for the engines. In my defense; it was an attempt to mimic the Boeing 707 engine aesthetic. The performance on that first test flight was terrible, so I replaced them with Mk1 liquid fuel tanks to increase it. A pair of FAT-455 wings mostly overlap another pair which hold the engines. That certainly helped with moving the CoL forward, balancing the plane better. I made the nav lights and anti-collision lights separate action groups from the main light button. That way, you can fly with your interior lights off during the day (or night if you want a nap) while staying safe in the sky. I installed lander cans and ladders near the tail so that passengers can get in and out from the back. Since I didn’t have a flag for the Seal of the President of the United States, I had to use the Kerbin World Firsts logo in its place. Other than that, I can safely say that I nailed the logo scheme. Too bad I couldn’t paint it to Jackie Kennedy’s liking. SAM 26000 beginning its climb to cruising altitude after turning to its desired heading. It took a few tries to determine a solid cruising altitude and a procedure on how to get to said altitude. At least it was able to fly over mountains in the end. The only kerbal lore attached to this aircraft is that it’s an early jet airliner since it was based on the Boeing 707 and it has such a large crew capacity. I already have an Air Force One equivalent built and tested, and it comes with its own assassination story too. (SPOILER ALERT) Below are the ascent instructions for this Boeing 707, so PAY ATTENTION. Point the aircraft at the desired heading after taking off. Maintain the aircraft’s vertical speed at 25 m/s. Stop at 5.5 km altitude. Once your velocity reaches at least 200 m/s, climb to 6 km altitude at a vertical speed of 20 m/s. After reaching 6 km, stop there and wait until your velocity reaches at least 200 m/s. Climb to 6.5 km altitude at a vertical speed of 10 m/s, then resume your cruise once you get there. The plane settling at cruising altitude and speed (somewhat) as it flies north towards some mountains. SAM 26000 after flying over the north mountains. At the same time, a range estimation was made in case the test cruise would cut too deep into my sleep schedule. From my experience, assuming no hiccups in the cruise I get conservative estimates compared to what actually happens. I still would prefer to fly until my tanks are almost empty so that I could see how my landing would be affected by the weight change and distribution due to fuel consumption. Flying over Kerbin’s northern polar ice cap. POV: you’re a passenger on board a 707 airliner looking outside. Shortly after this photograph was taken, the captain informed everyone that they were about to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 6.5 km (~21.3k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Average Velocity: 181 m/s (~404.9 mph) If you’re using MJ aircraft autopilot, it’s best to set the speed to 190 m/s. For all the time the plane bounces up and down, 181 seems to be the middle of how fast the plane goes along the surface. Flight Time: 2 hours Expected Range: 1,300 km This plane glided for an additional 30 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. SAM 26000 / Boeing 707 / C-137 / whatever after a long flight and a successful landing. Its ladders are deployed so kerbals can exit from both the nose and the tail doors. Unfortunately, this replica’s cruise stats were not impressive at all. At most, this plane brags a high crew capacity and the fact that it can (slowly) fly a third of the length of Kerbin’s circumference before it has to land. Another iconic aircraft off the checklist; it's unfortunate that its ticket to fame was a national tragedy. I don't know if many kerbalnauts know this, but we have John F. Kennedy to thank for NASA's devotion to getting mankind to the moon's surface in the 1960s. Sure, Nixon was president during the Apollo 11 landing, but NASA wouldn't have gotten that far then had Kennedy not emphasized the importance of reaching the moon before the Soviets. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard," is a quote we live by while playing Kerbal Space Program, whether we're starting our first Minmus landing or our seventh Jool-5 attempt in an SSTO. If only our real-life space programs had that kind of drive today, we could not only return to the moon's surface after 50 years, we could establish a solid permanent presence on there by the end of this decade. And who knows, we may even send people to the Martian surface before then too. Replicas Remaining: 193

If you want to show off that flying vacuum cleaner, that's fine with me. Just know that you won't get credit for it on the checklist, like when @Azimech posted his AH-64 Apache replica nine months ago and when I built the Link Trainer nearly five months before that. The reason I never changed the plane roster since 2022 is so that I don't have to keep changing it every time a plane gets put on or removed from display at the museum. From all the times I visited, it seems like the Research and Development gallery gets the most roster changes, which means I would have to check the website on a regular basis, sort through what is and is not on display, and then adjust the checklist accordingly along with the number of replicas remaining - and that's just for one gallery. Of course, if you want to add craft that are not on the list, that's okay as long as you're aware that the "Replicas Remaining" number will not change (unless you include something that IS on the list in the same post). Have fun.

Okay, I got it. Thanks. First of all, how did you offset the structural pylon that far forward? I thought you attached it to my I-beam, but when I removed it the pylon was still there. For some reason, I cannot move the pylon that far forward. Is there a mod involved? I experienced a similar problem three months ago while I was making an AC-130 replica. More specifically, I tried to offset the propeller blades and nose cone far forward like AceGecko did with his C-130 engines, but I could not. Pictures of his engine in one piece and disassembled below. You'll see the nose cone (and the blades attached to it) offset quite far forward. AceGecko's C-130 Engine Engine fully assembled Engine taken apart (NCS Adapter was the root part) Second of all, I tested your modified C-119 and it worked like a charm when I tried the quicksave while the gear was stowed. My only complaint was that it ruined the nose aesthetic a tiny bit, but at least the gear was functional when quicksave (while stowed) was involved. You can see the landing gear underneath the fuselage near the nose. Not a smooth look. On the bright side, at least the front landing gear works when quicksave is involved (if they were retracted while setting a quicksave) and I don't plan on using custom cockpits often. #spontaneousbailout And the plane was working fine too. Now that I have a(nother) possible remedy for this problem, I just need to know how I can offset parts farther than the regular hangar would let me.

The landing gear was okay WITHOUT the quicksaves involved. It was when they were that I started experiencing trouble, and the reason why I asked for help in the first place. Even then, I would be okay if I (Extended landing gear) --> F5 --> (whatever) --> HOLD-F9 until quicksave reverted --> (whatever). Like I said in my previous post and OP, if the landing gear was RETRACTED at the time of setting my quicksave, the front wheels would get stuck when I reverted to said quicksave and tried to extend them.

Yes, since all my KerbalX craft since my (updated) F-104 Starfighter replica were made in 1.12.5. More specifically, I have: 1.12.5.3190 (WindowsPlayer x64) en-us 1.7.1 Breaking Ground KSPLauncher says I have: Installed version: 3190 Most recent version: 3187 Also, are you sure you (Retracted landing gear) --> F5 --> (whatever) --> HOLD-F9 until quicksave reverted --> (Extended landing gear) when you tested those craft? If so, then is it possible that the problem is a one-time thing on my end? Maybe something that requires an equivalent of turning off and on again to work properly?

Thanks. I already posted the KerbalX links for the planes I tested on the OP.

That's okay. It's not every day you see pure stock aircraft with custom cockpits that have low part counts. Is there another way I can use front landing gear on aircraft with custom cockpits (besides the quicksave tip)? Or do you recommend I stay away from those?

To be honest, those cockpits are mostly for aesthetic purposes - especially when I make replicas of planes on display in the Air Force Museum. For original works such as the Surveyor or the XE-41 Edison (the Fliegendlabor doesn't count since it has a tailwheel), I can't find any other 2.5-m cockpits that make it obvious it's a plane (like the Mk1 or Mk3). Furthermore, I can only move the front landing gear so far forward after attaching it to the part behind the cockpit. This limitation will put the craft at greater risk of the nose hitting the ground and snapping off during landing.

That's what I was trying to avoid with the I-beam idea, but apparently that didn't work. I get the "Cannot deployed while stowed" message when I set the quicksave while retracted and then revert to said quicksave. How can I tell if a part is technically "stowed" or not? I even put a landing gear on the bottom of my B-36 cockpit without needing the I-beam (because I didn't discover that problem at the time I made it), but that didn't work in the recent experiments. Click on your profile --> Account Settings --> Signature From there, you can adjust the badge size accordingly and set them to direct you to specific links if someone clicks them.

I made several planes with custom cockpits; my own for 2.5-m fuselages, and @HB Stratos's custom cockpit (my inspiration for my own, by the way) for Mk3 fuselages. One thing I noticed on several of them during test flights was that the front landing gear would have trouble deploying. I then tried adding I-beams to the parts right behind the cockpits and attaching the landing gear to the forward end before moving said I-beam up, and that seemed to work. Until a few days ago, that is, when I tested my E-41 Edison. More specifically, after I broke the propellers during a landing, I reverted to quicksave to try and land at the Temple of Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn. Despite the presence of an I-beam landing gear, it just would not deploy. After repeated failures, I decided to let it crash and scrap the project. If you want an example of what to expect, see the picture below of a C-119 test flight months ago. The outer fairings are doomed; the fate of the capsule inside depended on how slow the plane was when the fairings hit the ground. I then pulled some planes from my SPH with custom cockpits of both sizes and experimented with the quicksave with the landing gear already deployed and not. Here's what I found: If you set the quicksave WITH THE GEAR RETRACTED and you then revert to said quicksave, then the front gear WILL NOT DEPLOY. If you set the quicksave WITH THE GEAR EXTENDED and you then revert to said quicksave, then your front landing gear IS FINE. What's the problem? Why is it that the landing gear status at the time of setting a quicksave will affect whether or not the front landing gear under a custom cockpit will deploy if you revert to said quicksave? How can I fix this problem? Right now, this quicksave warning is the best solution I have - but it's a temporary solution until I get to the bottom of this. I want to be able to extend and retract all my wheels as I please, regardless of status at the time of a quicksave. If you want to try it out for yourself, the planes I experimented with are: VC-54 "Sacred Cow" - https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/VC-54C-Sacred-Cow-aka-C-54-Skymaster B-36 Peacemaker - https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/B-36-Peacemaker C-119 Flying Boxcar - https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/C-119-Flying-Boxcar Surveyor - https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/Surveyor-NO-SCIENCE-STATION By the way, after a follow-up experiment with the Boxcar, the Surveyor randomly blew up when I selected it from the KSC (it was close enough to get selected directly instead of having to use the tracking station).

A lot of kerbalnauts are familiar with the Ace Combat games, and a lot more know about War Thunder. However, very few know about a hidden gem from the early days of air combat gaming. Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII (Image source: Steam) Just like @TwoCalories's Ace Combat Thread, I decided to make one for Blazing Angels players to talk about their experiences with that game. How well did you fare in the campaign, favorite plane/s and missions, did you ever make it past the Norwegian fjords, playing with family, et cetera. For those who don't know or forgot, Blazing Angels follows the story of American pilots who partake in various iconic battles throughout the Second World War. Some of those battles include but are not limited to: the Battle of Britain, Desert Rats, Pearl Harbor, Midway, D-Day, and then you eventually end in Berlin. The player is an unnamed captain of a squadron of four composed of Tom the "shield," Joe the mechanic, and Frank the hunter; by the way, the captain talks. You can command your wingmen to stay with you, attack enemies, or protect you from incoming threats. The dialogue among the characters is great, and although the music can get repetitive sometimes it still feels appropriate for the situation. I will admit the graphics are mediocre, especially compared to Ace Combat 7, but I'll give Ubisoft a break considering it was released for the Wii in 2007; that was the version I got for Christmas two years later. The cutscenes and "old man captain" narrations before each level were very insightful since I would know more about what I was getting myself into, just like the mission briefings in AC7 only with way less advanced graphics (e.g. model vehicles and/or army guys moving on a blue and red map with the occasional explosion) - just like mission commanders using models on a map in the 1940s. After each mission was completed, I would get treated to another old man captain narration describing the aftermath. If I did well enough, I would get an "Ace" medal - and hear my dad quoting Chicken Little if he was nearby. As for the gameplay itself, although I enjoyed it a lot - and my years of playing it served me well when playing some levels in AC7 last year (despite it being on a PS5) - I was a bit disappointed that I had to do everything. Seriously, a lot of those levels had British/American air and/or ground forces with me besides my wingmen, and all they did was sit there and be green damsels in distress instead of actually blowing up enemies like they're supposed to. I can help take out the carrier decks of the main Japanese fleet, for example, but what was the point of me and the boys protecting the bombers from the Zekes if all they're going to do is fly around and expect me to sink everything? What about you all? What were you experiences with this game - or its lesser-known sequel, Blazing Angels 2: Secret Missions of WWII?

I got Ace Combat 7 on the PS5* last year, and I managed to complete all 20 levels in only 2 days; some levels I didn't get shot down or fail once. I remember my brother and I taking turns playing "Danger Zone" on our phones in the background - we also tried the Blazing Angels theme song, but it didn't really fit - and I was so excited to get iconic American planes. For example, the A-10 came in real handy in levels involving a lot of ground units. Eventually, I completed the final level in an F-35. Technically, it's my brother's PS5. He asked me if I wanted him to get a new game before I visited for the Fourth of July weekend, and I suggested Ace Combat 7. After that, the only other time I played that game was when I came over for Christmas months later. Speaking of Blazing Angels, I am so glad I played that a lot since getting it on the Wii as a pre-teen. All those painstaking hours and crashes going through the Norwegian fjords in "Top Secret" paid off when it came to Ace Combat 7 levels such as Operation: Lighthouse Keeper (fourth mission) or Operation: Werewolf (fourteenth mission). I was semi-used to flying in trenches on a regular basis - I think I can still complete that Blazing Angels level in a Tempest without any problems if our old Wii still works - so those levels in Ace Combat were a snap. Getting used to the PS5 controls was a bit of an issue, though, as that was my first time using one and I do not have my own. So, to all those who think that the canyon in Cape Rainy is hard, I dare you to try the Norwegian fjords in 1944 - and while you have a time limit AND Messerschmitt Bf 110 tailgunners shooting at you for two of the runs.