Mars-Bound Hokie

If you walk by the R&D building at the KSC, you'll notice a semi-lazy entry from the Land of anime girls... I mean pricey but long-lasting cars... Ryanair pilots on crack... surprise harbor parties... the Rising Sun. The rocket-powered Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka. The Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka on display in the SPH. It is oriented upright this time so that it could get moving without needing a bomber to drop it. Just like the real-life Ohka, this replica uses a solid-fuel engine. So, once you fire it up, there’s no stopping it. I put I-beams near the front to simulate the landing skis of the trainer model. The solar panels surrounding the command seat are made to look like the cockpit windows. That was when I started getting Pearl Harbor flashbacks - but NOT from Blazing Angels. During spring break in high school, I was with my parents and brother walking through Pearl Harbor. After touring the memorial itself, we headed to the U.S.S. Bowfin Submarine Museum and Park. For those who don't know, the Bowfin was an American submarine nicknamed the "Pearl Harbor Avenger" that was launched a year after the infamous attack. Indeed, the Bowfin lived up to its nickname by sinking over 30 ships during her wartime service. One of the outdoor exhibits was a Kaiten, which was a kamikaze torpedo. Although there was an escape hatch for pilots once it got close enough to its target, odds are it was never used. This caused some more Blazing Angels flashbacks. Not just from the Pearl Harbor attack itself, but on the kamikaze* levels Dad and I used to play. We weren't kamikazes; we were stopping them. The escape hatch was removed in later variants near the end of the war, so there was no chance of getting out (not that suicidal pilots would want to). Seeing this Ohka at the National Museum of the United States Air Force ten years later (as an adult living on my own) reminded me of that torpedo. There is no denying that the Japanese were outright evil during WWII, but one thing you have to admire them for is their people's willingness to die for their country. So much so that they were willing to lock themselves in planes, rocket gliders, or torpedoes loaded with explosives and guide them towards enemy targets. With that childhood memory with a side of WWII history out of the way, here are the KSP test pictures. Jeb with his helmet lowered sitting in the cockpit of the Ohka. Just like in real-life, this glider was carried by medium-to-heavy bombers and launched at Allied targets during the Second Imperial Wars. Jeb first thought it rocketed elite commandos further into hostile territory before the bomber could turn around, enemy lines - which obviously meant the pilot would bail out before it crashed. Bob had to explain to him that it was a suicide glider. JEB: "Well, if it was a suicide craft, why bother install skis?" BOB: "The model you're playing in was a trainer." JEB: "That doesn't make sense. Why bother training the pilot if the goal is to crash the plane and kill himself?" VAL: "Says the guy who has an accident liability record as long as a bomber's wingspan." BOB: "The idea was that a suicide pilot would crash into Allied ships and kill hundreds of servicemen. If the pilot missed his target, then you just lost a guy, an expensive rocket, and a ton of explosives for nothing." BILL: "They must have been real desperate if they spent their efforts pulling off a move like that." JEB: "Where would they even find pilots for that anyway? Did they look for suicidal asylum patients? Did they... force prisoners to crash?" VAL: "How would you force someone to kill himself and hundreds of others if the alternative is that he dies?" BILL: "And how can you trust a mental patient to not have a break down and crash prematurely?" JEB: "Either you crash into that ship and blow it up or we shoot your wife and kids. That's how." BOB: "Actually, those suicide pilots were volunteers. Crazy as they were, you can't say they weren't willing to die for their empire." JEB: "That's cold, man." A TEST CRUISE WAS NOT PERFORMED BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT WAS DESIGNED AS A SUICIDE GLIDER THAT WAS DROPPED FROM A BOMBER After the vertical launch and the SRB fuel is depleted, the Ohka is gliding north towards the ocean. A conventional takeoff with wheels didn't yield favorable results, and neither did rocket boosters carrying it up before detachment and firing the main rocket. In the end, I decided to fly it as a glider. And, technically, only a training glider variant (K1) made it to the museum. Without the rocket to send it into a spiral, this glider flew quite well. A soft landing on the water about 5-7 km away from the KSC, and not a scratch on the glider or the pilot. Jeb volunteered to fly the trainer variant since it was the model designed to keep the pilot alive - or at least not made specifically to kill the occupants. That was a lot of trouble to go through just to copy a suicide glider - and, surprisingly, a Hangar One replica that's pure stock. I still could use some help in fixing the Goblin replica, please. After the wing deployment problem's fixed, I wonder what's next on the list. Replicas Remaining: 221

In Soviet Russia, you do not fly the MiG-21 "Fishbed." The MiG-21 flies you. The MiG-21 on display in the SPH. I included "Fishbed" in the craft name in case someone was looking for this plane but did not know the model number. For the antenna hanging by the nose (why did the Soviets even put it there), I put a Communotron 16-S on top of a structural pylon, moved it forward as much as I could, then hid the pylon inside the plane. It may decrease flight efficiency due to drag, but considering the test flight results I’d say it’s a near-nonexistent price. Furthermore, the antenna did not explode. I included a battery on the top tanks so that the plane can have a power source in case it needs to glide. Experience shows that you need at least one battery for that or else you’ll lose power before you can switch the engine back on - and then you’re doomed. I originally had a battery in front of the engine, but I removed it to maintain a consistent aesthetic when placing the Soviet star. The cargo bay is empty this time because, well, it’s Soviet Russia. Those communists didn’t care about crew safety (at least not as much as the Americans did). Though the plane is decorated in Soviet stars, the craft’s flag is the classic hammer and sickle. Marxan veteran pilot Ivan Kerman giving a salute before showing off what the Fishbed is capable of. The Fishbed on fire after surpassing Mach 3. This time, Ivan elected to start the demonstration flight north as opposed to west because the engineers estimated he would end up near Marxan territory - which is concentrated around Kerbin’s southern polar ice caps. While flying over Kerbin’s northern ice cap, Ivan got a shot of the Mun and the glow over the horizon. It would be only a couple of minutes before he would enter the dark side of Kerbin. And since this particular plane did not come equipped with GPS, if he was low on fuel he would have difficulty landing. For all he knew, he would have been doomed to splash down or hit a mountain instead of land smoothly. Fortunately, by the time his low fuel indicator started flashing, he was in sight of land. More on that later. Bet there were a lot of kids wishing upon stars that night that ended up wishing upon a flaming jet instead. Less than 45 minutes of flight time, and Ivan's plane is down to its last 50 fuel units. There’s a nice glow over Kerbin’s southern ice cap; perfect place to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 19 km (~62k ft, which is Class Echo (E) airspace) WARNING: Tends to bounce up and down in cruise while MJ aircraft autopilot is on. Velocity: 1200 m/s (~2684 mph) Expected Range: 2580 km And it doesn't even come with auxiliary tanks. And this performed way better than its real-life counterpart. Ivan performing a soft landing on the ice. Although he was coming in low and slow enough to do so without the parachute’s help, he was ordered to test it anyway. Indeed, it performed well - despite being redundant. Probably because most Marxan pilots spent too much time eating up and spewing out propaganda and not enough actually practicing landing. As for Ivan, he is a veteran ace pilot of the Second Imperial Wars from when he was a young man, so it would make sense that he would (still) know how to land this plane well. After landing the Fishbed, Ivan realized that he was close to a Marxan outpost. With the sun rise (or set?) close to his location, he stepped outside to admire it. "Command, tell the recovery crews to take their time. I’m home." I know I said that I'd do the XF-85 Goblin next, but during testing I ran into a problem. Just like the real-life Goblin folded its wings so that it could fit in a bomb bay, I added hinges to the wings so that they can fold up and down. However, after I launched the plane, the hinges tended to freeze up while in action. Sometimes it's one hinge, sometimes it's both, other times I get lucky and they're both working properly - until they don't. Even when I revert to SPH and launch again, whether or not the hinges would work has become unpredictable. Cute, but I didn't design this just to give salutes in Air Force parades. For the record, my original plan was to have it launch from a stability enhancer - but each test ended in explosions. I did not mess with the symmetry, so I don't know what's going on. Could someone please tell me what's going on and how to fix it? I asked this question in the KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section days ago, but no answer. For more details, check out this post. Also has the craft file if you want to mess around with it and try for yourself. Until I could fix the Goblin, that project's been paused. Which is why I decided to skip to the "surprise" I mentioned would come after the Goblin, which was the Fishbed. Any and all help in solving this problem - or getting some of the more difficult replicas down, for that matter - would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and do svidaniya. Replicas Remaining: 222

The title's self-explanatory, but here are the details. I'm experiencing some trouble with the hinges in my XF-85 Goblin replica. More specifically, they have a tendency to freeze up while in action. Sometimes it's one hinges, sometimes it's both, other times I get lucky and they're both working properly - until they don't. Even when I revert to SPH and launch again, whether or not the hinges would work has become unpredictable. Cute, but I didn't design this just to give salutes in Air Force parades. For the record, my original plan was to have it launch from a stability enhancer - but each test ended in explosions. Here's what I have set up for both servos. As you can see, I didn't mess with the symmetry. Could you please tell me how to fix it. If you want to mess around with it and/or provide a predictably working copy (one whose servos can be trusted to work every time), here's the craft file if you want to try it out for yourself. https://mega.nz/file/fL52CQLQ#1-We2O0mCHTyx6DXuppJ_yEjQ6kJLvw47aCDoTCp400 I don't really care for takeoff stability, since it was originally designed IRL to be launched from a host plane. After I got both wings down, once I got airborne it flew very well. Thank you all very much. P.S. For the record, I made the wings fold since the real-life Goblin was designed to be stowed in a bomb bay and then deployed once the bomber was attacked by enemy fighters. That project ended up getting cancelled in 1949 due to: Too many failures in the "attach to the mothership" part during testing. Lackluster performance compared to other jet fighters. Development of aerial refueling technology for escorting fighters. P.P.S. I based the general design somewhat off of fatology's pure stock copy of the Goblin.

Ladies and gentlemen, props and jets, straight out of the Strategic Air Command, get your engines hot for the B-36 Peacemaker. The B-36 Peacemaker on display in the SPH. I started this project by downloading @HB Stratos' MK3 Custom Cockpit, then adding more fuel cells and modifying some of the fairings to look more like a B-36 cockpit. I then added another small fairing on the top for the dome. If you're reading this, thank you. In order to maintain optimum CoM and CoL balance, I couldn’t fill up all the fuel tanks. At the same time, with each passing test run, I had to be careful deciding which tanks got fuel so I can increase my range. I went with longer blades - as opposed to my favorite R-25 ducted blades - to maintain the aesthetic. During one of the test runs, two of the prop engines froze without explanation. I then installed air intakes on all the engines so that they get adequate air. Thanks to @swjr-swis's advice when talking about my fuel flow problem on my Stratofortress replica a month ago, I enabled crossfeed in the pylons so that the jet engines get fuel from the main tanks. The storage unit in the bottom near the nose is meant to look like a turret. In the end, though the aircraft was able to take off, fly, and land in one piece, I was not pleased with the performance stats. No wonder the B-52 Stratofortress replaced it as a heavy bomber - both in Kerbin and in real life. The Peacemaker flying over Alt Test Mountains. Surprisingly, this plane was quite maneuverable for a bomber. But unlike the real-life Peacemaker, I left all ten engines on during cruise. Undercarriage shot of the B-36 while in cruise. Just like this photograph broadcasted from Earth. The grabbing unit extending with its claw open during the test flight. I installed a robotic arm with a claw in the bomb bay in case I get ambitious enough to attach an XF-85 Goblin, which was originally designed to take launch from and rejoin the B-36 in real life, to this plane. Then again, since the Goblin project was cancelled due to too many failed redockings with a B-29, odds are I’ll end up making the Goblin replica as a separate aircraft and leave it at that. Controls for the arm are in the KerbalX page. Flying over a mountain range up north in the last test cruise. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Jet Engines: ON Altitude: 6.4 km (~21k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 158 m/s (~353 mph) Blade Deployment Angle: 38 degrees Expected Range: 440 km This plane glided for almost 30 km afterwards before touchdown in the latest test flight. The real-life B-36 can fly 10,000 miles (16,093 km). For reference, the circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,075 km. The B-36 landed at a desert with the ladders deployed. Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to reach the command capsule that the crew was in through the fairings. If there were people on board the side capsules, they could have gotten in and out - although I don’t know how that would affect the control scheme since the bomber doesn’t have a probe core. While the B-36 did earn its in the Hangar Three since it served as a nuclear deterrent in the Cold War's early years, had things turned out differently during WWII it probably would have ended up in Hangar One. If you're wondering why, it's because the B-36 was originally thought of as a means to bomb targets in Europe from North America in the event that Great Britain fell to the German Blitzkrieg. Though that ended up not being the case, the U.S. Army Air Corps was uncertain at the time and wanted to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. After WWII ended, America still needed a long-range bomber to destroy targets in Soviet Russia. Though many argued that the (mostly) prop-driven B-36 was obsolete from the start, none of its rivals at the time had the range to attack the Soviet homeland from North America without aerial refueling and couldn’t carry the Mark 16 hydrogen bomb. Until the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (which is still active) became operational in 1955, the B-36 continued to be America’s primary nuclear weapons delivery vehicle. Next on my hit copy list: the XF-85 Goblin. After that (or if I abort that project for whatever reason), it's a surprise. Replicas Remaining: 223 SIX TURNIN' AND FOUR BURNIN', BABY

If you thought that the first VTOL jet ever built was the British Harrier, you'd be wrong. Although it was technically used as a concept demonstrator and nothing else, that title goes to the Ryan X-13 Vertijet. The X-13 Vertijet on display in the SPH. Unlike the other planes on this showcase thread, this one starts out pointed upward. Though subsequent test runs proved vertical takeoff possible, vertical landing in such an orientation was not. At least it can fly, right? The reaction wheel was an attempt to stabilize the plane during a horizontal takeoff, since it kept tilting to the side due to the rear landing gear being so close together. I added Vernor engines in an attempt to make vertical landing easier, but they weren’t much help. In the end, I decided vertical landing wasn’t really worth it - especially since the more famous VTOL jets always did their thing with their noses horizontal. The parachutes were a last-minute addition to make the craft look more like its real-life counterpart, since I noticed in the beginning of this video that the horizontal landing involved a drag chute. Contemporary illustration of the Vertijet’s transition from vertical to horizontal flight after takeoff. Image taken from museum website. The Vertijet successfully TAKING OFF vertically. That is why the engine is originally set to wet mode, so that the pilot can take off quicker - or at least at all. You can switch to dry mode when you get the Vertijet pointed horizontally. Launch truck not included - not that it’s needed. Before the vertical takeoff test could be done, the Vertijet underwent a horizontal takeoff in dry mode. Needless to say that the end result was successful. A TEST CRUISE WAS NOT PERFORMED BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT WAS DESIGNED AS A CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR AND NOT INTENDED FOR ANYTHING SERIOUS. Horizontal landing was tricky because of the rear landing gear being so close together, but at least each time I managed to get it done without breaking anything. Then again, it could be due to my experience, which means I don’t know how newbies will be able to handle it. Unfortunately, I was unable to orient the Vertijet vertically and fly at a slow enough velocity to land. This craft is definitely VTO, but not L. I'm so glad to have gotten another (mostly) successful replica done, especially after all my attempts at an X-36 ended up with uncontrollable spinning followed by crashing seconds after takeoff. This particular plane looks very "kerbal" with its vertical takeoff - WITH THE NOSE UP. Yesterday, I drove to the museum (for the tenth time) to check out the Operation: Homecoming 50th Anniversary Presentation - which involved the Hanoi Taxi itself. After that was over, I went to the gift shop to buy some jigsaw puzzles for the office where I work, and a 2024 calendar caught my eye. I bought it as a Christmas present - but for whom I have not figured out yet - and noticed something interesting. All the planes featured on it were from the Research and Development Gallery. Here is a list of all the planes featured on that calendar as well as a status report of which of them were replicated on this thread as of today (Sunday, July 16th, 2023): 2024 Calendar Experimental Craft CHECK IF DONE (AS OF 7/16/2023) MONTH CRAFT NAME January McDonnell XF-85 Goblin YES February Convair XF-92A YES March Northrop X-4 Bantam YES April Bell X-5 May Douglass X-3 Stiletto YES June Bell X-1B July Republic XF-84H August Bell Helicopter Textron XV-3 YES (THIS ONE) September Ryan X-13 Vertijet October Avro Canada VZ-9AV Avrocar November Northrop Tacit Blue December Grumman X-29A Boy, a lot of those planes - and many others - look like they were made in Kerbal Space Program due to their very unconventional designs. I wonder which plane's next to be replicated after this one, whether it be made by me or somebody else (preferably someone who knows how to make functional single-engine props). Replicas Remaining: 224

Yeah, no chance I'm trying that. That would be great, thank you. I tried that myself, both in-flight and right before takeoff, but it didn't seem to work. In fact, when I did it right before takeoff, it seemed to make things worse. Whether a prop engine has an even or odd number of blades shouldn't make a difference in aircraft performance - but blade angle and type do. As for engines, if I have an even number of them, all I have to do to take care of the roll is have them rotate in opposite directions. It's odd-numbered-engine* props that are causing me trouble since I don't have that option. And yes, three-engine (and five-engine) prop planes do exist - or at least they did.

I checked the key binding list and confirmed it. However, I have to ask: Can I only do it mid-flight, or can I set it up in the SPH? And, by extension, have that problem taken care of before I post it on KerbalX? (IF IT CAN ONLY BE DONE MID-FLIGHT) How will I know if I'm not overshooting it? Is there a trim limit? (IF IT CAN BE DONE IN THE SPH) Do I need to click on any specific parts before adjusting trim? Any other ideas for stabilizing odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades? Right now, my best idea (out of so many bad ones before asking you all on the forums) is to keep motor size at 10% and blade angle at 15°.

That'd be great, if I was making a Dornier Do 335 - or, if obvious part-clipping's not a problem, a Fisher P-75 Eagle. Otherwise, I'll just have to hide the second "counter" engine in such a way that it would not ruin the CoM placement to the point of testing failure. Any other ideas?

I made a replica of the (Bloody) Red Baron's triplane, the Fokker Dr.I. "Dr" is short for Dreidecker, which means "triplane" in German. Historic photograph from the First Imperial Wars. Here we see the Green Baron, whose real name was (Baron) Manfred von Kermthoven, returning to the recently-built Island Airfield after an air attack on Krakopolis. And here is the story behind this photograph, which is also the story of how the Island Airfield came to be: The Fokker Dr.I, along with its engine and propeller settings, on display in the SPH. I included "Red Baron’s Triplane" in the craft name in case someone was looking for that plane and didn’t know the model plane he used. Though I suspect it's extremely unlikely anybody who uses KerbalX would know that "Dr." stood for Dreidecker - or that it means "Triplane" in German. Making an open cockpit was tricky. In the end, I decided to borrow the design from ZobrAz’s White Baron - who borrowed the idea from Castille7’s Mrs. Chrissy Too. There’s also a fixed ladder for the pilot to climb in and out, but he would have to click on the command seat and board once he reaches the top. I had to use I-beams connected to the bottom wings to get the top set of wings on. Which are the only ones with ailerons since that was the case for the real-life Fokker triplane. The last test run before this photo was taken had the "Motor Size and Output" setting at 20%. Though it was a success, I dropped it to 10% in hopes of reducing propeller-caused rolling. I’m so used to making even-numbered-engine propeller planes with adjustable-angle R-25 blades, so it was extremely difficult to decide on how to set up a single-engine prop with fixed-angle Type B blades that will not only fly, but spin about its engine axis as little as possible. If the current configuration is giving you trouble, or if you know a way to improve its performance, please tell me. Image of the Fokker Dr.I replica on display (upside down) on the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Underneath it is a Sopwith Camel, which is a great opportunity for those who remember Peanuts to take a picture. As previously stated, this plane is merely a replica. Although a total of 320 Fokker Dr.Is were built before production ended in May 1918, none of them have survived. Photograph copied from museum website. (BACK IN PRESENT DAY) Jeb flying low over the KSC in a replica of the Fokker triplane. Not that he had much of a choice. By modern standards, this plane’s performance was terrible. Val assured him that "Back in the First Imperial Wars, any pilot would kill to have a plane with performance stats like that." Bob replied with "And in many cases, they did," earning some laughs from his friends. He was hoping to fly the real thing, but the last real Fokker triplane was destroyed during the Second Imperial Wars. After nearly 12 minutes and 30 seconds of flight and constant course-corrections, Jeb managed to reach the Island Airfield. Just like the Green Baron in the First Imperial War so long ago, Jeb is getting ready to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: WARNING: Has no autopilot Requires constant attention during flight Prone to axial spinning as propeller runs Altitude: 700 m (2,297 ft) Velocity: 47 m/s (105 mph) Recommended Throttle: 2/3 to Full Throttle For the cruise, it's best to stay at 2/3 Expected Range: 90 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens A successful landing at the Island Airfield If you think flying this thing is hard, try landing it in one piece. I had to revert to a quicksave I set up over the island right after my wings snapped off the first time. Man, that was quite a challenge. If I thought making an open cockpit was hard, I was in for a real doozy setting up the prop engine in a configuration that both works and keeps the aesthetic. I don't know how everybody else does it while getting rid of that incessant roll while the engine runs, and I'd like to learn the secret. For now, I think I'll stay away from odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades (at least). Once I do learn the secret, I can make a Sopwith Camel and then Snoopy can pursue the Red Baron. How do I stop that constant rolling? Please help.

Achtung! Jetzt wir singen zusammen die Geschichte über den Schweinköpfigen Hund und den lieben Red Baron! Oder, technisch ausgedrückt, der Fokker Dr.I "Dreidecker." Historic photograph from the First Imperial Wars. Here we see the Green Baron, whose real name was (Baron) Manfred von Kermthoven, returning to the recently-built Island Airfield after an air attack on Krakopolis. And here is the story behind this photograph, which is also the story of how the Island Airfield came to be: Now back to the present-day test flight. The Fokker Dr.I, along with its engine and propeller settings, on display in the SPH. I included "Red Baron’s Triplane" in the craft name in case someone was looking for that plane and didn’t know the model plane he used. Though I suspect it's extremely unlikely anybody who uses KerbalX would know that "Dr." stood for Dreidecker - or that it means "Triplane" in German. Making an open cockpit was tricky. In the end, I decided to borrow the design from ZobrAz’s White Baron - who borrowed the idea from Castille7’s Mrs. Chrissy Too. There’s also a fixed ladder for the pilot to climb in and out, but he would have to click on the command seat and board once he reaches the top. I had to use I-beams connected to the bottom wings to get the top set of wings on. Which are the only ones with ailerons since that was the case for the real-life Fokker triplane. The last test run before this photo was taken had the "Motor Size and Output" setting at 20%. Though it was a success, I dropped it to 10% in hopes of reducing propeller-caused rolling. I’m so used to making even-numbered-engine propeller planes with adjustable-angle R-25 blades, so it was extremely difficult to decide on how to set up a single-engine prop with fixed-angle Type B blades that will not only fly, but spin about its engine axis as little as possible. If the current configuration is giving you trouble, or if you know a way to improve its performance, please tell me. Image of the Fokker Dr.I replica on display (upside down) on the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Underneath it is a Sopwith Camel, which is a great opportunity for those who remember Peanuts to take a picture. As previously stated, this plane is merely a replica. Although a total of 320 Fokker Dr.Is were built before production ended in May 1918, none of them have survived. Photograph copied from museum website. (BACK IN PRESENT DAY) Jeb flying low over the KSC in a replica of the Fokker triplane. Not that he had much of a choice. By modern standards, this plane’s performance was terrible. Val assured him that "Back in the First Imperial Wars, any pilot would kill to have a plane with performance stats like that." Bob replied with "And in many cases, they did," earning some laughs from his friends. He was hoping to fly the real thing, but the last real Fokker triplane was destroyed during the Second Imperial Wars. After nearly 12 minutes and 30 seconds of flight and constant course-corrections, Jeb managed to reach the Island Airfield. Just like the Green Baron in the First Imperial War so long ago, Jeb is getting ready to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: WARNING: Has no autopilot Requires constant attention during flight Prone to axial spinning as propeller runs Altitude: 700 m (2,297 ft) Velocity: 47 m/s (105 mph) Recommended Throttle: 2/3 to Full Throttle For the cruise, it's best to stay at 2/3 Expected Range: 90 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens A successful landing at the Island Airfield If you think flying this thing is hard, try landing it in one piece. I had to revert to a quicksave I set up over the island right after my wings snapped off the first time. Man, that was quite a challenge. If I thought making an open cockpit was hard, I was in for a real doozy setting up the prop engine in a configuration that both works and keeps the aesthetic. I don't know how everybody else does it while getting rid of that incessant roll while the engine runs, and I'd like to learn the secret* if possible. For now, I think I'll stay away from odd-numbered-prop engines with fixed-angle blades (at least). Once I do learn the secret, I can make a Sopwith Camel and then Snoopy can pursue the Red Baron. Unless someone else beats me to it. Replicas Remaining: 225

Last night, I built a replica of the Link Trainer, also known as the Blue Box. Also known as the first flight simulator. Historic footage of a student pilot learning to fly in a Link Trainer with an instructor checking his progress (both student and instructor unknown). Picture taken six years before the Second Imperial Wars broke out. This came in real handy when the war did happen, as Heinkel's enemies in the air were experienced "flying blind" - giving them an advantage. Now imagine listening to this in the voice of the guy who narrates those old black-and-white PSAs: The Link Trainer and the instructor’s desk on display in the SPH. It was difficult deciding what motors to use and in what order, and I had to look at my old swept-wing jet to figure out how to set up the action groups. In the end, I managed to set up the motors to obey the main steering control inputs. Since the pilot would be flying in complete darkness, I disconnected the cockpit lights from the main light button. The two small lights on the fuel tank in the opposite corner are just for decoration, which means they’re also disabled. In summary, the only working light is the overhead instructor desk lamp. I used two grip strip to mimic a conduit connecting the trainer itself to the instructor’s desk, since two smaller I-beams would have been too long. I put a motor under the instructor's chair to mimic a swivel chair. The J and L buttons spin it. Although I don’t expect much use out of this apart from decoration (and bragging rights for me, since nobody else has made a KSP replica of the Link Trainer), this craft has 2,650 charge units. A picture of the real thing and the instructor’s desk in the WWII Gallery (Hangar One) of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Photograph taken by me 10/9/2022. Jeb Kerman stepping out of the Link Trainer in utter disappointment, talking to his friend, Bill Kerman. When Jeb heard that the first flight simulator - or at least an operational model of it that survived - was coming to the Space Center, he was first in line to try it out. Of course, until then, he didn’t know what it looked like. Although Bill did know what the Link Trainer was, he lined up along with Jeb because he wanted to see it in action up-close and personal. The daughter of the engineer sent to demonstrate how this worked started filming their conversation. Granted, she was filming anyway for her upcoming video "Modern Kerbalnauts Hop On Ancient Flight Simulator." She ended up keeping that part because it was funny. JEB: Why didn’t you warn me that this simulator would suck? BILL: What do you mean? JEB: For starters, it has no computer screen or heads-up display - not even with 4-bit graphics. It also has no sound effects, nav system, or onboard radar. Oh, and I can’t find the music settings. BILL: Obviously none of those things were available when the Link Trainer was made. By the way, why were you looking for the music? JEB: Because the simulators in Basic had those. BILL: They did? Val never said anything about music. JEB: I also can’t find the cockpit light switch. The only source of light I have is from the crummy glow-in-the-dark instrument panel. BILL: It doesn’t have a light switch; the whole point was to get you used to flying in total darkness. By the way, the instrument panel was brighter back in those days, but the original material had to be replaced recently because it was radioactive. JEB: You fly it then if you know so much about it. That was when Bill immediately acted as the "instructor" for the next pilot in line, an unnamed rookie from Nye Island. Surprisingly, he flew it very well on his first try. When asked how he did it, he replied (with a heavy accent) "The arceed I went to as a lad had a Link Traina. I yesed ta (used to) play on it all the time when the lines to the cool games were too long." And indeed. At the time the pilot in question was a child, Nye Island's local arcade had an operational link trainer used as a game - and it still does. I thought I'd build this replica since nobody else has, so it was a fun challenge. It's still in my museum replica hangar, since I put in a bit of time and effort to make a functional replica - along with the instructor desk. When I was done posting it on the USAF Museum Replica Showcase Thread, it was time for me to go to bed - and put off posting it on this thread until the next day. Less than 24 hours after that, it got a few downloads on KerbalX - and it was put in @T116's Kerbal amuSement Park. I thought it was fitting since the real-life Link Trainer was used as an amusement park ride during the Great Depression as well as an IFR training tool. WHERE ARE THE LINK TRAINERS NOW?

Yep, it sure is. Guess you beat me.

When you hear the words "flight simulator," the first thing that pops into your head would be: machines that look like arcade games - and in some cases are arcade games videogames such as MS Flight Simulator or X-Plane that need extra hardware to work or computers with said hardware that you'll often find in brick-and-mortar flight schools or museums or similar venues. computer programs like Google Earth or GeoFS which are great for cheapskates and/or those short on space 90 years ago, if someone interested in flying heard those same words, odds are they'll think of the Link Trainer (also known as the Blue Box) Historic footage of a student pilot learning to fly in a Link Trainer with an instructor checking his progress (both student and instructor unknown). Picture taken six years before the Second Imperial Wars broke out. This came in real handy when the war did happen, as Heinkel's enemies in the air were experienced "flying blind" - giving them an advantage. Now imagine listening to this in the voice of the guy who narrates those old black-and-white PSAs: The Link Trainer and the instructor’s desk on display in the SPH. It was difficult deciding what motors to use and in what order, and I had to look at my old swept-wing jet to figure out how to set up the action groups. In the end, I managed to set up the motors to obey the main steering control inputs. Since the pilot would be flying in complete darkness, I disconnected the cockpit lights from the main light button. The two small lights on the fuel tank in the opposite corner are just for decoration, which means they’re also disabled. In summary, the only working light is the overhead instructor desk lamp. I used two grip strip to mimic a conduit connecting the trainer itself to the instructor’s desk, since two smaller I-beams would have been too long. I put a motor under the instructor's chair to mimic a swivel chair. The J and L buttons spin it. Although I don’t expect much use out of this apart from decoration (and bragging rights for me, since nobody else has made a KSP replica of the Link Trainer), this craft has 2,650 charge units. Another picture of the real thing and the instructor’s desk. This time, it’s in the WWII Gallery (Hangar One) of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH. Photograph taken by me 10/9/2022. Jeb Kerman stepping out of the Link Trainer in utter disappointment, talking to his friend, Bill Kerman. When Jeb heard that the first flight simulator - or at least an operational model of it that survived - was coming to the Space Center, he was first in line to try it out. Of course, until then, he didn’t know what it looked like. Although Bill did know what the Link Trainer was, he lined up along with Jeb because he wanted to see it in action up-close and personal. The daughter of the engineer sent to demonstrate how this worked started filming their conversation. Granted, she was filming anyway for her upcoming video "Modern Kerbalnauts Hop On Ancient Flight Simulator." She ended up keeping that part because it was funny. JEB: Why didn’t you warn me that this simulator would suck? BILL: What do you mean? JEB: For starters, it has no computer screen or heads-up display - not even with 4-bit graphics. It also has no sound effects, nav system, or onboard radar. Oh, and I can’t find the music settings. BILL: Obviously none of those things were available when the Link Trainer was made. By the way, why were you looking for the music? JEB: Because the simulators in Basic had those. BILL: They did? Val never said anything about music. JEB: I also can’t find the cockpit light switch. The only source of light I have is from the crummy glow-in-the-dark instrument panel. BILL: It doesn’t have a light switch; the whole point was to get you used to flying in total darkness. By the way, the instrument panel was brighter back in those days, but the original material had to be replaced recently because it was radioactive. JEB: You fly it then if you know so much about it. That was when Bill immediately acted as the "instructor" for the next pilot in line, an unnamed rookie from Nye Island. Surprisingly, he flew it very well on his first try. When asked how he did it, he replied (with a heavy accent) "The arceed I went to as a lad had a Link Traina. I yesed ta (used to) play on it all the time when the lines to the cool games were too long." And indeed. At the time the pilot in question was a child, Nye Island's local arcade had an operational link trainer used as a game - and it still does. Although the Link Trainer is at the Museum, it's not on the checklist so it doesn't count as a tally; I already have three Hangar One entries anyway. I thought I'd build this replica since nobody else has, so it was a fun challenge. It's still in my museum replica hangar, since I put in a bit of time and effort to make a functional replica - along with the instructor desk. Replicas Remaining: 226 WHERE ARE THE LINK TRAINERS NOW?

That's pretty impressive, but is that all you got? Last week, I made a replica of a C-141 Starlifter (American military transport plane that was retired in 2006). Given the amount of command seats I was able to squeeze in the cargo bay, it can easily function as an airliner on KSP1. Here's a brief summary of its performance: C-141 Starlifter (KSP Replica) Test Run Performance Stats Crew Capacity 4 pilot + 60 passengers (Passengers in command seats) Powerplant 4 x J-33 “Wheesley” Cargo Capacity 52 (7 loaded + 45 empty) Landing Gear Configuration Tricycle Tailfin T-tail Cruising Altitude 7.9 km Cruising Velocity 260 m/s Expected Range 3,250 km For more details, check out its showcase post from my National Museum of the United States Air Force replica collection.

No, it didn't. It was separated quite distinctively from the other hangars, as seen in the screenshot below. There was no hangar number assigned to the Missile Gallery, and it was separated by a thick black line. It was its own section on the list. Maybe I should have been a little more clear at first. Revealing information like my initial and weather were blocked in this shot.. Regardless, since there were only eight possible craft (seven now) one could make from the Missile Gallery, they're now wildcards that can be used as either a Hangar Three or Four entry. I can't wait to see your (non-wildcard) Hangar Three entry, though. It shouldn't be too hard. Either way, you're qualified for the All Four Hangars Badge. If you're in or near west Ohio (or are visiting someone there), or don't mind the road trip from somewhere farther away like Cleveland or Louisville (KY), it's definitely worth checking out. For those who cannot make it and/or haven't visited recently, here's the current general layout of the museum. As you can see, you have to go through the Missile Silo if you want to get to Hangar Four. I mentioned people who haven't been there recently because Hangar Four wasn't built until 2016, so they may not know about it or what's in it. Depending on when they last visited, they may not know about Hangar Three either. Source: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/documents/maps/nmusaf_map.pdf Technically, I already have a replica hangar - just not for all of the craft on this thread. All the craft in it are mine, as in I built them. Nobody else's craft is in it. It includes the F-35, which is not in the museum, and craft from: The Incredibles movie (IG99 - the plane Mrs. Parr flew to Nomanisan Island in) Phineas and Ferb (Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated) The album cover of Club Ninja from Blue Öyster Cult (That freaky-looking space station) The guitar-shaped UFO in Boston's album covers So, basically, I include copies of not only real planes (especially ones not in the museum), but craft from album covers and movies/TV shows. Side note: I tried making a model of Star Command from the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command show, but the rocket kept failing before breaching the atmosphere. You're right, maybe I should start a KerbalX hangar for the replicas in this thread (the ones that are even on KerbalX, that is) - including the ones not made by me. -------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: just started one: https://kerbalx.com/hangars/167846 Doesn't have my Apollo 15 capsule or shuttle because I never posted them on KerbalX since making them was far too lazy. By the way, if I am going to post a shuttle replica, I'm including everything else that comes with it.

A wise man once said "A good soldier never leaves a man behind." Not only does following this mantra reduce the amount of manpower and equipment wasted, but it's great for morale. If you end up wounded, lost, or captured, you can count on your brothers-in-arms fighting tooth and nail to bring you back; sometimes it means fighting their own superiors. In the unfortunate event you do lose your life, they'll still fight to bring you home. Don't expect all the higher-ups to be as eager, though, but that's another story I'd rather not share in a forum for spacefaring game-players and flight enthusiasts. I do not intend to start now, which is why I built this replica of the C-141 Starlifter. The C-141 Starlifter on display in the SPH. I included "Hanoi Taxi" in the craft name since it's the most famous C-141 used (as far as I know). If any aviation or history enthusiasts are looking for the Hanoi Taxi specifically - or just happen to come across it - it would make it easier to find on KerbalX. For those who don't know, the “Hanoi Taxi” (serial number 66-0177) is a C-141 used in the repatriation of American POWs from Vietnam during the conflict's closing days. The plane in question is currently on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The fuselage is nothing but cargo bays with external command seats inside arranged in four lines - each fifteen seats long. This is to maintain the image of a real-life empty fuselage with seats installed, just like with the real-life Hanoi Taxi. It also looks way smoother than a cargo ramp that leads up to four Mk3 passenger modules - and given that I ended up with a passenger capacity of 60 as opposed to 64 (plus the 4 crew in the cockpit either way), that’s not a bad trade. It also has a ladder leading up to the back door of the cockpit from the "passenger cabin" (or cargo bay, depending on how to look at it) so kerbals can get in and out of it If you want to modify this plane to carry nothing but cargo, feel free to remove the seats as necessary. Although I wouldn’t say no to this being used as an airliner either - especially one with no class division. Everybody rides coach, after all. This plane has multiple separate SEQ-3C Conformal Storage Units lined up in the fuselage. Most of them are empty, but the two units in the rear each have four EVA kits and large work lamps. The cockpit has eight repair kits and a couple of small work lamps in the highly (opposite of) unlikely event the plane takes damage during its mission. Historic photograph of recently-released POWs in a Starlifter before taking off. Just like this photograph from Earth’s historic records. Although the photographer was competent at his job, he often had trouble keeping his camera still while the plane was moving. Especially with a plane not designed for comfortable rides. Nobody named Jane was on board this time - mostly because all the plane’s passengers and crew for that mission were men. Ladi… um, gentlemen, before we begin our safety presentation, please rise and salute the flag for the playing of our National Anthem. Why wouldn't I put that flag there? The Starlifter doing its best to stay at cruising altitude and speed. At first with MJ aircraft autopilot on, it was bouncing up and down a bit. Eventually, it managed to keep straight and level. Whatever you do, DON’T time warp. Otherwise, your flight will get bouncy (at least mine did during the warp) and you’ll waste fuel. Rare footage of the Starlifter with its cargo door open mid-flight and its bay empty. The Starlifter flying over the ocean to bring POWs back to their home region. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 7.9 km (~25.9k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 260 m/s (~582 mph) Flight Time: 3 hours, 30 minutes Expected Range: 3,250 km DO NOT fly over water when this happens More details on how I calculated the range in the spoiler below. If you're not interested, feel free to skip it. The Starlifter landing on Kerbin's grasslands with the reverse thrusters on. I don’t know if the real-life Starlifter had reverse thrusters, but I wouldn’t be surprised since reverse-thrust systems were invented before the C-141 was introduced. Even if it didn’t come with any, I thought it would be cool to have on a KSP replica. @swjr-swis, Well, technically the missile silo isn't part of any hangar - just between Hangars Three and Four. Since there are only seven left in that category (eight counting the one you just did) and to avoid further confusion, I'll specify in the OP that, for the purpose of qualifying for the All Four Hangars badge, Missile Silo entries are (ultra-rare) "wild cards" that can be either a Hangar Three or Hangar Four entry depending on what you lack. So, for everyone else, use it while you can. I'll also add a "One wild card per person" rule so nobody hogs them all (or tried to "cheat" by having two wild cards to fill in the Hangars Three and Four slots), but I might end up lifting it later. In a nutshell, you've earned the All Four Hangars badge. I'll also put your name in the Hall of Fame. If you want to continue making replicas, go ahead. I thought about calling it the "Wall of Honor," but you (kind of) have to be dead to qualify for something named that. To everyone else reading this, now you have something (high) to aim for. Replicas Remaining: 226 FLY, FIGHT, WIN

First of all, that is not a Hangar Three craft. That's from Hangar Four, which contains the Space Gallery. Second of all, I did say that: any and all parts, including DLCs and mods, were fair game. the vehicle has to be functional unless whatever was displayed at the museum could not move on its own. so if just the capsule was there, the functionality requirement would be waived and just a stationary capsule would be fine (like with my Apollo 15 capsule replica). the craft has to look as close to its namesake as possible - and you nailed it. So it's not really cheating so much as it was seizing the chance at an easy shot at a replica. Speaking of easy shots, third of all, Hangar Three has a lot of planes that look easy to copy - like the F-15 (or its Russian twin the MiG-29), U-2, or the A-10 to name four. I'll also (technically) accept another F-86 since the showcase grants an exception to the "no claiming any duplicates" rule for craft that appear more than once throughout the museum (e.g. F-82, B-29). So if you go the F-86 route, as long as you're the one who made it there should be no problems. Its Soviet ripoff, the MiG-15 Fourth of all, great detail you put into this - even down to the display stand. And nice story to go with the mission photo gallery too. Though you got the hangar number wrong, thanks for checking this off the list. As for me, I'm testing a Hangar Four replica as I type this post. It's been airborne for over three-and-a-quarter hours now, and it's already past the third-quarter point around Kerbin. So start packing your footlockers, because the plane arrives tomorrow. Replicas Remaining: 228

As seen in the previews, here's our entertainment for the night. Presenting the X-4 Bantam. The X-4 Bantam on display in the SPH. Since this is an experimental plane, it comes with a parachute in case the test pilot was dumb enough to forget his own. The ailerons weren’t any help in me getting off the runway; they kept moving in the opposite direction, in fact. Even when I pitched down on the controls in an attempt to get up, it got airborne for almost five seconds before it went on an irreversible dip. To give this plane some pitch while maintaining the look of a wingless experimental aircraft (that turned out lame), I hid canards near the front ends of the wings. Subsequent testing proved successful, and you can barely notice the clipped canard. At least the plane’s functional, but (just like in real-life) don’t expect much. I was split over using the standard SPH shot angle or recreating this photo from the X-4’s Wikipedia page. In the end, I decided to maintain uniformity. Finally, a successful takeoff. Seymour Kerman, when he tested this (would-be failed) prototyped a long time ago, decided to fly north. Though it was procedure then to fly west to see if aircraft would go over Alt Test Mountains, Seymour had expressed concerns beforehand that the Bantam would not make it that high. The X-4 cruising north, with this shot looking just like the picture of the real-life X-4 on the runway. Surprisingly, though the plane’s altitude and cruising speed aren’t that good, it was able to maintain a straight-and-level flight path. Seymour having to break cruise to go around the mountains up north - kind of like a trench run. For a plane that was an experimental transonic tailless fighter, it’s got quite an impressive range if it can fly over Kerbin’s north pole. It’s also a nice shot of the northern lights. A notable moment in aviation testing history was when at the time this plane crossed this point, Seymour Kerman’s mother ran into the ATC room and screamed to warn her son about something. WOMAN AT ATC: "Seymour, your plane is on fire!" SEYMOUR KERMAN; X-BANTAM: "No, mother, it’s just the northern lights." Nighttime or daytime? Around here, who knows. 7.26 units of fuel left, and Seymour is halfway around Kerbin after nearly 2 hours and 20 minutes in a polar flight. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 4.5 km (~14.8k ft) Velocity: 230 m/s (~514 mph) Expected Range: ~1,880 km The plane was flying on fumes when it reached the halfway point around Kerbin, so it's best not to push it. When it comes to gas-powered prop engines, I agree. Besides aesthetic, making replicas of old aircraft, and making something for your KSP fanwork-verse (both of which would relate to the "aesthetic" reason), they have no real purpose. Who even needs helicopters to fill out land survey contracts on Kerbin, anyway? Electric-powered rotors, however, do have their uses. Like flying around Eve, circumnavigating Kerbin in the air (possibly) for days without end, and propelling boats, to name three. They don't require an air intake or refueling stops/craft/ISRU, so they're good for any planet with an atmosphere. Making a craft for Duna will be tricky due to the thin atmosphere. @swjr-swis, I will admit that I'm still struggling to get your C-47 replica to cruising altitude and speed, but thank you for providing a replica that works. At least knowing the general concept of the structure, I (and others) will know what to aim for when making larger old planes. That's three hangars now you have under your belt. Only one left from Hangar Three before you qualify for the All Four Hangars Badge, and those planes look very easy to copy on pure stock. And don't worry about me stealing something you want from there, since my next target is something from Hangar Four. You'll find out what and why when I post it. After that, if I ever master making helicopters, my target after that will be from Hangar Two. If I can't do that, then I'll bite the bullet and copy something from Hangar One. Thank you all for helping out. Replicas Remaining: 229

This is mainly for @swjr-swis, but this also applies to everybody else too. I call dibs on the X-4 Bantam since I managed to get a working prototype on KSP1. I just need to post it on KerbalX (after sleeping, eating, working, and exercising IRL) before I show it on this thread tomorrow. Below is a sneak peek of what to expect. You'll all get full details of this aircraft's performance tomorrow. So, if anyone feels guilt-tripped about making more replicas, at least let me have this one please. I'd rather not my work turn out to be for nothing because someone had beat me to it while I was busy. I mentioned swjr-swis specifically because he made the most planes from the Research and Development Gallery - and I mentioned the X-4 in a post replying to him earlier. Thank you all very much, and fly high.

Yes, thank you very much. I also liked the part where you copied Yeager's dive in an attempt to breach Mach 1, but could only achieve it during that short a period (just like in real-life). Also, where did the G-limit warning come from. I don't have it on my sandbox save. It's great that you've been dabbling into the experimental planes, even though they turned out failures. Guess I shouldn't expect much if I attempt to copy the X-4 Bantam - again. However, if you want this cool badge to add to your signature (see my OP for the larger version), you'll need at least one plane from all four hangars. You already have something from Hangar Two, so all that's left to qualify is a plane from Hangars One and Three. Replicas Remaining: 231

I made a replica of the B-52 Stratofortress and posted it in the National Museum of the United States Air Force replica thread. My replica on display in the SPH. Due to the engines being connected to the aircraft’s structural pylons via a M-1x1 structural panel, they’re cut off from the fuselage’s tanks and have to rely on the cylindrical Mk. 1 tanks entirely. In other words, any fuel I put in the fuselage’s tanks is dead weight and my range is reduced. The B-52 flying west at night. In hindsight, I should have waited until sunset to take off. For this test, since the real-life B-52 was a subsonic bomber, I decided to leave the afterburners OFF. I could go faster and fly higher if they were on, but it would probably come at the cost of range. 12 fuel units left per engine, leaving 96 usable fuel units left, and I need to land. I had to use the exhaust to see if I was over land or not, and I was lucky to have been over (I think was) some peninsula. Like I said earlier, the fuel tanks in the fuselage were no good (except for moving the CoM), so all I could use were the eight Mk. I Lf tanks - with one per engine. I had to right-click on one of those tanks to accurately see how close I was to empty. Right now, there’s only 3,200 fuel units usable when ready. The other 750 units in the back are the dead weight. When I turned on map view after landing, I noticed that I was halfway around the world. After further testing with the MJ rover autopilot, I then realized that I've been calculating my aircraft ranges incorrectly the whole time. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Afterburner: OFF Altitude: 9.9 km (~32.5k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 220 m/s (~492 mph) Expected Range: 1,885 km Assuming it can still fly that far when loaded with ordinance, if it’s a two-way bombing mission, you’ll need to half that expected range if you want to land at that same airfield - with some fuel left to spare since you’ll be shedding weight after you blow up some enemy bases. The real-life B-52D can fly 13,419 km unrefueled For reference, the circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,075 km Photograph of Amelia Kerman, Jeb’s (late) mother, doing a pinup pose on the nose of a B-52 bomber. Another flight test. This time, the bomb bay doors were open - but the plane itself is unarmed. Although this replica meets the criteria to be accepted in my replica collection (looks like its namesake and functions), I disappointed by its performance stats - especially its range. How can I get the eight engines to connect with the fuselage tanks while maintaining the B-52 look, and can I still use the structural panels or are they a no-no? I think it might have also killed my range in my Jetstar replica. As for my range problem: Thank you in advance for your help.

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, live from above the jungles of 'Nam, the B-52 Stratofortress. The B-52 on display in the SPH It has the basic look: eight jet engines, long swept wings near the top of the fuselage, a bomb bay, and a conventional tailfin. Due to the engines being connected to the aircraft’s structural pylons via a M-1x1 structural panel, they’re cut off from the fuselage’s tanks and have to rely on the cylindrical Mk. 1 tanks. In other words, any fuel I put in the fuselage’s tanks is dead weight and my range is reduced. I didn’t add any bombs - or anything to act as ordinance - to this one. I didn’t have BDArmory (anymore), and I wanted to see how well it would do without that extra weight. If you want to modify it to carry weapons, go ahead. If you know a way to maintain the B-52 look while allowing the engines to use the fuselage tanks, I’d like to hear about it please. Thank you in advance if you do. The B-52 flying west at night. In hindsight, I should have waited until sunset to take off. For this test, since the real-life B-52 was a subsonic bomber, I decided to leave the afterburners OFF. I could go faster and fly higher if they were on, but it would probably come at the cost of range. Without Kerbnet, I couldn’t really see what was underneath me, which meant it would be hard to find a suitable landing spot when I was very low on fuel. Which is why I should have waited until sunset to take off for a westward flight. 12 fuel units left per engine, leaving 96 usable fuel units left, and I need to land. I had to use the exhaust to see if I was over land or not, and I was lucky to have been over (I think was) some peninsula. Like I said earlier, the fuel tanks in the fuselage were no good (except for moving the CoM), so all I could use were the eight Mk. I Lf tanks - with one per engine. I had to right-click on one of those tanks to accurately see how close I was to empty. Right now, there’s only 3,200 fuel units usable when ready. The other 750 units in the back are the dead weight. When I turned on map view after landing, I noticed that I was halfway around the world. After further testing with the MJ rover autopilot, I then realized that I've been calculating my ranges incorrectly the whole time. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Afterburner: OFF Altitude: 9.9 km (~32.5k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 220 m/s (~492 mph) Expected Range: 1,885 km Assuming it can still fly that far when loaded with ordinance, if it’s a two-way bombing mission, you’ll need to half that expected range if you want to land at that same airfield - with some fuel left to spare since you’ll be shedding weight after you blow up some enemy bases. The real-life B-52D can fly 13,419 km unrefueled For reference, the circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,075 km Photograph of Amelia Kerman, Jeb’s (late) mother, doing a pinup pose on the nose of a B-52 bomber. Picture taken by her boyfriend, Jebediah Jeb Kerman (Senior), after they snuck into a hangar for a daring date. Eventually, the pair would get married and have two kids, Vanessa and Jeb. Unfortunately, while Jeb (Junior) was only a baby, Amelia and Vanessa died in a plane crash caused entirely by Amelia’s utter disregard for flight safety. Jeb Senior kept a framed poster-sized copy of this picture at his house in Baikerbanur, in a small room he turned into a memorial for his wife and daughter. Another flight test. This time, the bomb bay doors were open - but the plane itself is unarmed. Wow, my first Southeast Asia section entry. Maybe I should learn how to make helicopters for my next one*; we shall see. If you want to join my quest to replicate the entire museum, which I repeatedly stated I couldn't do all on my own, that'd be awesome. I promise to have a badge ready for you by the time of my next entry here. And if that's too hard, I could always stick with the simple jets. As for my range problem: Replicas Remaining: 232

I built another private jet to succeed the Embracer. After witnessing what it can do, it has earned the throne of WinterOwl's ultimate private aircraft. Not to be confused with any spaceplanes it would build, since this craft is designed to stay within the atmosphere at all times. The Lexie with its cargo inventory on display in the SPH. I was originally going to name it "Lexington," but it didn't really sound like a cool name for a private plane (a ship, maybe). So, I shortened it to "Lexie." The first and most important thing I did was switch the Embracer’s Wheesley engines with Panthers and the air intakes with those more suitable for supersonic speeds. After that, I installed airbrakes, removed the antenna (and the thermometer this time), and programmed a flaps action group. Other than that, everything else on the plane remained the same. Only 5 minutes of flight down, and the Lexie is flying at over Mach 2 at an altitude of 19 kilometers. Pretty neat glow, isn't it? The Lexie flying high over Kerbin after settling at a cruising altitude. It was also at this point where the aircraft had left the dark side of the planet and entered the sunny side. POV: you’re flying so high up you can see Kerbin’s curvature from the cockpit window. And just like that, the Lexie is back in the dark side of Kerbin. Too bad I didn’t get a nice glow shot. The full HUD on when the Lexie has 50 fuel units left (and perfect timing with the shot, too) and requires an immediate landing. The aircraft is less than 100 km from the KSC and I was very high up, so I can get away with gliding the rest of the way. If I had to use engines, they would be in subsonic mode. I didn't log Kerbin's full circumference in the expected range in order to account for pilots who aren't as willing to glide on fumes the rest of the way. Podnand Kerman checking out the moon after landing at 2-7 KSC, and with only 43 fuel units to spare. That was extremely close. Had he spent less time trying to settle for a cruising speed and altitude and bouncing around, he could have spared more fuel and end up with a longer expected range. Lexie Test Run Performance Stats Crew Capacity 1 pilot + 2 passengers Powerplant 2 x J-404 “Panther” Cargo Capacity 12 (6 loaded + 6 empty) Landing Gear Configuration Tricycle Tailfin Dual tail Cruising Altitude 18.9 km Cruising Velocity 775 m/s (Afterburners ON) Expected Range 3,690 km (Able to perform a full circumnavigation flight if the pilot doesn’t mind gliding at the end) And that pretty much describes what WinterOwl Aircraft Emporium's ultimate private aircraft is capable of. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/Lexie

I made a business jet using the same airframe design as my Beachcraft. Keyword: jet. The Embracer with its cargo inventory on display in the SPH. I started with removing the prop engines from the Beachcraft (and the cones behind them) and replacing them with jet engines. The Beachcraft was for short-range pleasure flights, and the Embracer was for getting serious. On a related note, the thermometer’s still there in case you want to take thermal surveys (mostly because I forgot to remove it). If you wish to upgrade your Embracer with other scientific instruments, go ahead. After that, per @Hotel26's advice I raised my wings’ AoA by 5 degrees and then rearranged my landing gear in a tricycle configuration. I mean, how many jets do you see with a tailwheel sticking out? I did the same thing with my wings for Plane Prime V4, which I forgot to post on here about. The Embracer turning around and climbing soon after takeoff from KSC. Like the Beachcraft, I had a pretty low liftoff speed. As predicted, I was able to clear Alt Test Mountains with ease. It was just a matter of how to cruise around afterwards. Some time after flying west in the dark (literally), the Embracer is seen flying towards the sun. That was also when I decided I needed to install some more lights after this cruise was done. If one didn’t know the heading, s/he would assume the plane was flying towards the sunrise the whole time. However, it’s technically a setting sun; it’s just flying faster than 175 m/s, which is the speed that sunlight moves west along Kerbin’s surface. After a few hours in-game (and several IRL; time moves slower in KSP with warp off, and I didn't want to risk running out of fuel while on autopilot while I was folding laundry), I took this thumbnail shot of the Embracer flying west high over Kerbin. And surprisingly, at a higher altitude and with a better range than the fourth Plane Prime (though not necessarily a better speed). On the other hand, while the Embracer only has to carry 3 people plus a light cargo load, that other plane has to carry 20 with a larger load. The full HUD on when the plane has 50 fuel units left and requires an immediate landing. Here, one can see: Cruise altitude and velocity. How far away I am from the KSC. In this shot, I am flying TOWARDS the KSC since I’ve already passed the halfway point around Kerbin. How long I’ve been airborne. Whether or not I’m over water, which is real handy if flying at night. Kerbnet was on because, when I started flying the Embracer, I didn’t know if I would need to land in the dark and would therefore need to see if I was over water or not. Of course, it would be hours (both in-game and IRL) before I would get to that point - and it was on the sunny side of the planet too. Jeb Senior (Jeb’s dad) stepping outside after a bouncy yet otherwise successful landing. He had managed to fly 3 hours and covered 3,350 km before he needed to land By the time he was rich enough to buy his own Embracer, WinterOwl had already stopped producing them. Fortunately, he managed to locate a used model that was well-maintained by its previous owner and purchased that one (and at a lower price than what he originally expected). Jeb Senior didn’t want to buy anything supersonic due to his son’s (and late wife’s) history of reckless piloting and he couldn’t risk tempting him with something fast. Embracer Test Run Performance Stats Crew Capacity 1 pilot + 2 passengers Powerplant 2 x J-33 “Wheesley” Cargo Capacity 12 (6 loaded + 6 empty) Landing Gear Configuration Tricycle Tailfin Dual tail Cruising Altitude 9.4 km Cruising Velocity 300 m/s Expected Range 3,350 km Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Mars-Bound_Hokie/Embracer By the way, is there a website like this one (https://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-circle-tool.php) in which I can enter a radius and origin point - including the KSC - and see the circle plotted on Kerbin (or any other Kerbol System planet or moon, for that matter). It would be great in determining what places my vehicles can reach if it doesn't have a range greater than 1,885 km, especially if it's electric and there's no sunlight available. That website is great, but only if you dream about flying your KSP creations on Earth.

My sincerest apologies for not posting earlier. Two weeks ago, the museum turned 100 years old and opened its Centennial Exhibit to the public. It showed how the museum evolved from an aviation engineering showcase in 1923 to the largest military aviation museum we all know and love today. Feel free to check out the post I made below for some more details. https://www.ideastream.org/2023-05-16/national-museum-u-s-air-force-100th-anniversary - News article placing the date of the museum's actual 100-year anniversary on May 16th, which fell on a Tuesday. Of course, I already knew this since I had talked to someone working at the museum months prior. Other related media: Now that the warm-up act is over, on to the main event. If you joined the Air Force before 2009, you'll remember having to train in a T-37 Tweet. Also known as the A-37 Dragonfly. The Cessna T-37 Tweet on display in the SPH. I am aware that the real-life counterpart had a crew capacity of 2, but I went for manufacturing simplicity as well as looking like its namesake. The few replicas of the Dragonfly I found on KerbalX look a bit hard to make and messy. Since my KSP headcanon would have this plane be a pre-Famous Four jet trainer, this didn’t have a probe core. Later variants, especially those equipped with modern avionics, would have those. Installing a fly-by-wire would require a longer nose, so I went with a regular nose cone with a retracted antenna sticking out of the end. "WHO IN GOD'S NAME AUTHORIZED JEB TO SET ONE TOE IN THAT COCKPIT?!" Jeb buzzed the tower after taking off at a mere 40 m/s. Understandably, this ticked off everyone in the tower. Jeb flying away from KSC after tuning out ATC (while they were chewing him out for that stunt he pulled). Instead of flying west towards Alt Test Mountains, he chose to fly northwest. "Hey, if it can get over 5 kilometers altitude, it has a decent shot of going over the mountains." Apparently, flying northwest would come with its fair share of beautiful sights. After 45 minutes of continuous flight, Jeb managed to fly 600 km before he needed to land. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 8.55 km (~28.1k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Velocity: 230 m/s (~515 mph) Takeoff Speed: 40 m/s (~89.4 mph) 77.8 knots for you IRL pilots Range: 600 km The real-life T-37B could fly 1,046 km Jeb running away before he could be caught with the plane. When local police found him not long afterwards and dragged him to the KAA to face consequences for his tower buzzing, he sure got in a lot of trouble. When the plane was recovered, it had 5.71 fuel units left - and not a scratch on it. It started out with 145 fuel units, and was burning at a rate of 0.05 (later 0.04) while cruising. Any and all help in completing the list would be nice. Perhaps I should make a badge for those who contribute to this thread, with a fancier-looking one for those who add at least one plane from each of the four hangars. I need to know how to counteract the rolling so I can make stable single-engine prop planes, by the way. Replicas Remaining: 233