Scrooge
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Scrooge
-
-
moar realistic aerodynamic with flux simulation that can give effect to vortex between wings, and stalling of wing tips...?
-
1 minute ago, Dragon01 said:
No, it can't. Quite the opposite, in fact. Extending guidance time is a bad thing. The missile won't become more accurate by guiding longer, and in fact, the longer it flies, the easier it is to evade. Also, if you turn and run early enough, the missile will run out of energy and fall to the ground. Turning tail is, in fact, the best way to evade modern missiles. You just have to do it early enough. Every BVR missile evasion maneuver begins by showing the missile your tail (because at least with the AMRAAM, if you're inside the "range turn and run", then you're not in BVR anymore).
So, what's the major advantage of tail radar?
-
17 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:
Note, we're talking BVR. This is not off-boresight launch. It's a normal launch, then turning tail and updating the R-77 from the rear radar until it goes active. Naturally, R-77 does have LOAL, because all active radar missiles do. The only question is, can the rear radar encode datalink updates to R-77, and can it be switched over from one to the other, neither of which is a trivial problem. This would be a very powerful BVR tactic, because it would allow guiding your own missile while denying the enemy the launch window. Range at which you can hit a target that flies directly away at high speed is disappointingly short when compared to "rated" range.
And yeah, MiG-31 can be configured either as a flying Iskander TEL, or a flying S-300 battery. A very poweful weapon system if used right.
Aiming enemy from tail can lengthen the time for guiding missiles and increase accuracy of them while evacuating from the danger zone.
-
4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:
Having a missile-armed fighter in front, especially one that's going fast, gives you a huge increase in missile range. You add the fighter's combat radius, and then add the boost it gives the missile by lifting it to high altitude and launching it at high speed. All this adds energy to the missile and places it closer to the enemy, which is what makes it more likely to kill things.
Missiles generally don't throttle, so what you do in a fighter is to force the missile to follow you into dense air when it's going very fast (thus hitting it with a huge drag penalty), and once it has lost its energy to drag and doing tight turns in dense air, you climb out into thinner air, which causes it to slow down to its stall speed.
Networked sensors can help avoid missiles, by detecting the incoming missile and notifying the pilot, and they can also aid the planning of an attack, but for actually guiding the missile, modern radars are more than adequate.
It's a good article from which I can learn the development of air-combat strategy, Thanks!
My comprehension is: A missile platform enhancing range and accuracy of missiles is the role fighters should play, is that it?
-
30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
I don't mean exactly AWACS.
AWACS as a supernode, fighter-like planes as minor nodes. Why dogfight when you can call for a pack of AA missiles from ground/sea instead and help guiding them.
And a drone assault squadron in front, as BVR eyes of the crewed leader plane, at 100 km behind.Missile/drone assault cruisers instead of WWII-style aircraft carriers, and 1-2 classic for marines in local conflicts.
That's my imho, of course.
That strategy is impressive!
Guiding by other vessel seems to have been implemented, but I am not sure.
I also focus more on fire & run instead of close range combat, but I was reminded by a reply that fighter do need to be considered with a dogfight situation:
5 hours ago, Dragon01 said:For a proper fighter, you want to have a gun. No matter how many missiles you cram in, there's always that one bandit who goes in too close and keeps at it until you're too low and two slow to go for Fox 2.
Otherwise I even think of some kind of design with no carried missile but crammed full of radars and sensors...just for guiding missiles fired from base afar.
16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:I wonder how long it will be before fighters become so expensive that any country can only afford one.
And maybe only one is still enough...?
-
22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
No meatbags onboard.
Only airbots.
Manned planes only as flying analytic centers to recognize non-standard situations and call for missiles&drones redirection.
As you said, the role of fighter maybe replaced by drones, since they can do maneuvers with very high Gs.
But AWACS is centralized, once splashed by BVR missiles, the node of radar and datalink fall apart, compare to this, a squardron made of 4 F-35 seems more robust than a single AWACS...?
33 minutes ago, DDE said:You may be doing it wrong. One, somewhat controversial like of advocacy, calls to reduce the use of active sensors.
Or bigger missiles.
Supercruise increases costs and clashes with stealth, especially infrared stealth.
I forgot the heat caused by high speed air-flux, thx for your mention! :-)
-
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Then buy Yak-141 designs in early 1990s.
Oops... Done...
"(º Д º*) LOL
VTOL is good, but it is optional for those 4 tasks as well...I think?
The major shape of Yak-141 resemble MiG-31/25 which is a well-known manned rocket...I dont think it will have a good aerodynamic maneuverability...
-
15 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:
3 and 4 just mean cramming the thing full of electronics. All-round IRST, maybe also tail radar would all help SA, and the primary radar has to be powerful enough to detect enemy stealth aircraft. For a BVR platform, you also want a decent fuel load.
Also, what you're describing is more of an interceptor. For a proper fighter, you want to have a gun. No matter how many missiles you cram in, there's always that one bandit who goes in too close and keeps at it until you're too low and two slow to go for Fox 2. Thrust vectoring and a low-speed wing are both very nice to have, too. BVR is great against bombers or inferior aircraft that can't shoot back at that range, but not so much against other fighters. If you fire an AMRAAM at 100km at a maneuvering target (that is, one that can just turn and run), you'll miss. You need to get in closer, and if the opponents have a comparable missile (say, an R-77), you're also improving their chance of hitting. A BVR duel typically plays out much like a high speed game of chicken. Granted, high speed helps extend the effective range of your missiles and reduce that of your opponent's, but if you sacrifice too much maneuverability, you won't be able to turn back fast enough to defeat the enemy missile.
Your reply is informative and helpful! Thank you!
Now I know the difference between F-35/22 and MiG-31/25...
12 minutes ago, Scotius said:3.
.jpg)
What else you might want?
No reasonably light fighter can match E-3 Sentry's sensor suite capabilities. Just make sure you have constant radio connection and you are ready to go.
Err...maybe I was not clear about the question, AWACS is good but I want a F-35 acutally...
-
As I know, the tasks below are common parts of modern air-combat:
1.BVR
2.Stealthy
3.Situation awareness
4.ECM
As a KSP player, these are all relative designs I can come up with:
1.Supersonic cruise -> small section area derivative & ramjet engine & high specific impulse
2.Low RCS and IR characteristic -> Polygonal surface and thermal control (cuz the algorithm used by BDA do not consider the influence of IR shelter for IR missile)
But for 3rd (Lighter vessel for more weight of radars and electrical supplies?) and 4th points, I haven't figured out any useful designs...
Anyone have good ideas about vessel designs for these tasks?
-
On 12/15/2019 at 6:19 AM, HvP said:
Just be aware that if the flaps are too far back then they will cause your plane to pitch nose downwards. Ideally, they should be exactly in line with the CoM. But because in KSP it's usually not possible to control the weight precisely enough to position the edge of the wing right on the CoM, I usually have to surface attach my flaps somewhere on the underside surface of the wing, deploying downwards when needed.
Experiment and adjust as needed, and happy flying.
Sure! and now I fully experience what you've told me, besides, it does have something in common with reality, the theory behind designs makes me more content than any other sandbox game!
and recently I found a new (Yeah, it's just new for me) design that might help the task mentioned in this thread, the basic idea is using wings as structural parts to make aircraft lighter and generate more lift, the detail can be seen in this thread:
-
On 12/19/2019 at 9:58 PM, AHHans said:
Errr... Why should that be the case? What keeps you from moving lift further forward or weight further backward? E.g. by adding more lift to the front of the plane or weight to the aft of the plane? In the craft from the picture e.g. you could move the structure with the air intakes/tail-part/control-fins further back.
Yes, you are right, and I tried to adjust the level by adding weight to the tail (wings are too forward already):
and I made this VTOL aircraft with small area of central wings, and too much additional weight for balancing torque makes aircraft heavier than expectation, I suddenly came up with a hypothesis: maybe the weight of VTOL engine made CoM too forward, so I remove the VTOL parts and rebuild a aircraft with only central wings, and here is the result:
...since the CoM cause by engines, fueltanks and air-intakes are moved backward, the CoL could be easy to set with a large area of central wings behind the pod.
-
2 hours ago, AHHans said:
I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but I don't understand what your actual question is.
Err...my bad...sorry
1. I've seen a plane in KerbalX which has wings as its body structure (while my previous crafts have barrel-like MK1 inline parts as their body structures)
2. This design has 2 major advantages compared to MK1 body structures as far as I concerned:
2.1. Reduce the weight of the aircraft.
2.2. Increase the total lift on the aircraft
3. However, since available positions for those wings are mostly behind the CoM, which cause too much lift behind the CoM, and thus aircraft become too stable to be steered.
4. My question is:
How to utilize wings as the body of aircraft and reduce total torque of lift in the mean time?
-
One day, I was browsing KerbalX for learning experience from others' masterpieces, and I found this:
https://kerbalx.com/Skyshrim/VX-4-Swiftlet
Advantages of that aircraft considered by me has been submitted as a comment, the most interesting part is the wings-for-structure design, which reduces weight and increase lift, that is really a one-shot-double-kill, when I try to replicate this design on my own craft, I found it hard to balance the torque, cuz the major part of wings-for-structure is behind the CoM, and additional wings cause too much stabilizing torque and thus do harm to its maneuverability.
I haven't decide to give up this design, I am thinking about a way to make CoM almost overlapping CoL and using wings-for-structure in the mean time.
Any guy have ideas? I'd really appreciate it if you could give some practical solution to meet both needs.
-
...and finally made it via flaps and large area of wings, it weights 7.3t, which cause the small load of wings and high TWR to make it stable and controllable at a speed about 80-90m/s
I used PilotAssistant to help controlling the speed so I can focus on steering.
I only add 1 pair of small flaps, maybe I can replace some more fixed wings with flaps...?
-
2 hours ago, dkavolis said:
No, I'm just maintaining FAR
Yeah, FAR is key of all my playing
Wish to see vortex in FAR someday
-
47 minutes ago, dkavolis said:
WindTunnel does not work with FAR since its simulation methods are not exposed in the API. In the current implementation, simulation is not thread safe so even exposing it would not make much difference as it would take too long to simulate all the points.
Ok, now I understand, thank you!
wait a minute, aren't you the author of multiple magnificent mods? I benefit a lot from your works!
-
6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
Have you tested stock wings? Improper installation of FAR will result in all wings generating NO lift.
Yes, stock wings are ok but only their AoA changes the result, different types and AoAs of stock wings do have influence, but the result still wont be different if wings of a same type with a same AoA are placed at different positions (CoM relativly).
The result I mean is for WindTunnel, all wings function normally during flights.
Thx for replying!
-
On 12/14/2019 at 1:42 AM, HvP said:
The game automatically determines the direction that control surfaces will deploy based on where they are relative to the center-of-mass. If they are in front of the center of mass they will go in the opposite direction than if they are behind it. For flaps this shouldn't matter as much because you should have auto pitch, yaw, and roll disabled from their right-click menu in the space plane hangar, and only deploy them from an action group toggle. For clarity, I'm talking about flaps which add drag and lift without otherwise changing the direction of the plane. Ailerons, rudders and elevators control roll, yaw, and pitch respectively and do need to have those specific inputs enabled (and only those for which they are meant to control.)
There is an option to reverse the deploy direction of the flaps in the right-click menu (this might need "advanced tweakables" to be enabled in the settings menu.) As I understand it, this only works to reverse the direction they move when using the "Deploy" command assigned to an action group. It won't change the direction they move when under pitch, yaw or roll input - that's based on their position relative to the center of mass.
I would suggest either reversing the deploy direction of the flaps if you want them on the leading edge of the wing or moving them slightly behind the center of mass marker. It's important to make sure that you check the position of the CoM marker with the tanks both full and empty, because the balance of the plane will move as you consume fuel.
Your suggestion is informative, I will try putting my flaps behind my wings, thank you very much!
-
2 hours ago, UncleManuel said:
Check the assignment (right click) of each control surface. By default all axis are turned on. I found the planes hard to control once they are in a stall spin, with the CoM centered or slight in front. The SAS has no chance of regaining control nor manual control (keyboard or XBOX-Controller for Windows)...
That said please note that KSP ist not a very accurate simulation of aerodynamics...
Yeah, you are right, but I found it easy when you add exceeded control torque to fully cancel the fixed torque, then your plane can go any AoA you want...
I add TV engine (Panther), 2 reaction wheel, 40 degree control surfaces...and now, the plane can go stall and do Frolov's Chakra at a speed below 100m/s
High TWR make it quick to recover speed, I think I seize some inspiration, but I haven't figure the system out...
-
9 hours ago, HvP said:
Flaps would produce the same result, just with less wing area and usually less total lift as a result. Flaps do have the benefit of being able to control when and how aggressively they are used, whereas the wing incidence is a permanent property of the plane's design.
If you want to add incidence to the wings: when viewing the plane from the side use the rotate tool so that the forward-leading edge of the wing is raised slightly.
If you want to add flaps, put them close to the center of mass of the plane relative to the front/back of the craft. That way the will add lift without causing a torque that would pitch the plane up or down. Then assign them to an action group toggle.
I try my first plane with flaps, but encountered a weird situation...
When my plane is head-down with 0 AoA (140m/s), the flaps are slightly ahead of CoM which caused more downward torque to the head after they are activated...
Why is that...?
PS. the flaps are flipped upward and face forward, I am not sure whether they can be implemented like this...
9 hours ago, swjr-swis said:To answer both questions, this is how I would do it:
TL;DW: 1) go slow, align from far. 2) lots and lots of wing area. and 3) make it a wacky design and record it, we wanna see!
that's right, someone told me that large wingspan is also helpful, I am not sure and will try this tonight...
-
KSP version: 1.8
Question 1:
I installed WindTunnel and PWings, when I try to obtain flight envelops of aircraft with wings (made by PWings) having different scale and shape, I always get the same results, no matter how I resize and reshape PWings, the WindTunnel always give the same result...
Question 2:
There is a mod called KerbalWind which can generates wind in atmosphere, I installed it and set the wind with a speed about 70m/s, from south to north, then I switched F12 on and observed the difference of torques in my aircraft before and after activating wind, I cannot find any changes on torques whether I activate winds or not.
-
13 hours ago, HvP said:
Consider adding a few degrees of positive incidence to the wings. This means that the leading edge of your wings are rotated up slightly.
It increases your lift while still allowing you level flight, giving you better control than if you were constantly trying to pitch up to maintain lift. It also allows for better visibility from the cockpit view during maneuvering, especially during landing.
Depending on the design it can cause more drag because the main wings present a larger area to the air - or it could actually reduce drag, because the fuselage and tail plane no longer have to add as much drag as they would when you constantly pitch up for lift in a zero-incidence design. Either way, you produce more lift at slower speeds by adding a slight upwards angle of incidence to your wings.
Did you mean something like flaps of FAR? I think it's a good idea!
47 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:Go small. All things being equal, the lighter it is, the less speed it needs to get airborne. Additional wing area helps as well. Check out some of the biplanes on KerbalX. A lot of these will fly quite slowly. I was able to cruise at around 30 m/s in this one:
https://kerbalx.com/KerbalAstronautics/Sparrow-B
Thanks for your example!
Wow, that retro style is quite a master-piece...
-
41 minutes ago, XLjedi said:
Do you have the breaking ground DLC?
Yes, do you mean the rotor or helicopters?
-
29 minutes ago, bewing said:
The slower you want to fly, the more wing you need to have. Especially as a ratio to weight.
However, please note that flying with large wings at low speed is very efficient. So you can't just wait for the speed to bleed off before you land. You have to force the craft onto the ground.
After trying several times and fail again, I'am quite agree with you.
And I am thinking about making parts of the wing to be spoilers...
37 minutes ago, Fierce Wolf said:There is a video in the Scott Manley youtube channel where he straps a drone core to a pair of wings with elevons, puts it 50 meters up by attaching a Stability Enhancer. On the launch pad he releases it and voila! it glides for several minutes at low speeds.
Thank you! I will watch that!
No reasonably light fighter can match E-3 Sentry's sensor suite capabilities. Just make sure you have constant radio connection and you are ready to go.
Err...my bad...sorry
The fighter design for modern air-combat
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Maybe I wasn't clear about my expression, but the main idea I want to convey is common with yours.
Turning backward while keeping radar toward hostile area is kind of guarantee for evacuation.