Fallarnon

It was a not so fun time to be a KSPer I had just come in with 0.18.2 and it was a major shakeup that, briefly, tested my faith in Squad

To the stars!

You might try checking the price some time that there isn't a sale going on. https://www.steamprices.com/us/app/220200/kerbal-space-program#history As you can see, $39.99 has been the regular price for, at minimum, 8 months. I don't know when you last checked up on the price before the recent sale that you missed, but that $23 price is more in the neighborhood of the early access alpha price of $22.99 which was the price ages ago (like three years) and I can say with confidence that the price was at least $39.99 on April 27th 2015 when the game went 1.0 While I sympathize with your disappointment, you're holding Squad to task for a mistake on your part, you clearly weren't paying attention and missed the rather clear indicators on Steam that the price was a sale price. There's good news, though. The Steam Summer Sale is doubtless no more than a couple of months away!

This is what I saw in my head when you said best men.

The pointy part of the white goes aft

It really depends on what you're seeking to cover. That kind of orbit is specifically designed to focus coverage on a specific hemisphere.

The biggest problem I see is that you're 1) putting a ton of weight on gear meant to carry something the size and mass of a Cessna, and 2) severely misaligning your wheels. Your rear wheels are pointed backwards as another posted noted and, from what I can see, they're cambered outward. You need to more carefully align them straight up and down and point them the right direction. There's a reason cars and planes and pretty much everything else in the world have their wheels straight up and down, camber creates all kinds of issues, that's why we go and get our alignments done on cars in real life. If you straighten the wheels out you should probably be okay without the SRBs, I have no idea what those weigh offhand but I'm guessing whatever it is they're seriously overtaxing your landing gear.

Based on what I observed, I have to agree. I was messing around with the SPH today in my new career mod with GAP and I watched carefully as I rotated the fixed gear around. It's weird, it flipped around on its own as soon as I got it straight, and placing it on the opposite side of the craft didn't seem to be helping matters at all. :S

How the heck did I manage that... I could swear they were pointed the right way when I was working on it. Regardless, it flew perfectly fine in testing. Good tip though! Edit: I've repaired the issue in the Cardinal I craft file on KerbalX, sorry about that folks! Best I can figure I pulled them to reposition from the wrong side

I started a mod-free version of 1.1 to test out the landing gear issues people see to be having and built four separate aircraft that each performs flawlessly when handled appropriately on the lowest tier landing gear, culminating in a final craft that should be compatible with the lowest tier of aircraft parts!

So, here it is, the Cardinal II -- 100% Stock, 100% Low Level, 100% Takeoff, 100% Landable: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Cardinal-II It occurs to me that the small fuel tanks are not in the first tech tree unlock for plane parts, no problem. That's a fuel tank they're mounted to, just remove the small tanks and replace them with modular girder segments, your plane will work perfectly and, bonus, it will weigh less giving you an easier time of landing!

Depends, try downloading one of my craft files from my post above and see if you can land them. Cardinal I takes off real easy and is happy landing at 40m/s or slower. I'm continuing testing to eliminate later researched tech on the Cardinal I design. Here's one I flew to the airport with a Juno engine.

I'm not sure, do you have a video I could compare against? Edit: And a .craft file I could test?

It's not wholly exclusive, for what it's worth. I've seen bush planes riding tricycle, it's just less common given the benefits for STOL and not dinging your prop.

Like @regex and myself have been saying, the landing gear are perfectly serviceable if you build to a reasonable weight and treat them with care. Just to prove the point, here's a plane I built just for you: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Cardinal-I The Cardinal I weighs in at a staggering 6.2 tons, safe touchdown speed was approximately 40m/s in the proof of concept flight I took to take this picture, which, yes, takes some crafty flying to achieve, but nothing you're incapable of, I'm sure. Sorry it took so long to post, I was having a lovely time building ultralights and missed your response because my notifications got borked when someone decided to snowball all of the 1.1 related threads. If you're interested, here's a couple of Ultralights I built. For starters, I tried to replicate @regex's design as it was my initial inspiration and I wanted to see where he was starting from, thus was born the Hummingbird I: http://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Hummingbird-I Following on from successful testing thereof, I set out to try to improve upon the design. Thus was born the Hummingbird II: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Hummingbird-II It shares the launching platform from the Hummingbird I but exhibits a less traditional design for an ultralight that in testing demonstrated superior handling characteristics. Where the Hummingbird I needed a speed in excess of 80m/s to lift off the runway (though would sustain flight at far lower) the Hummingbird II is ready to lift of nearly as soon as it's started rolling and comes equipped with a pair of mystery goo observation pods on the wings and space for other experiments as suits the mission plan. So, there you have it, three aircraft, all using 1.1, all using the landing gear you claim doesn't work, and all tested repeatedly in take off and landing drills without a single landing gear detonation. In fact, I screwed up and blew a wing off of the plane and the landing gear still held up. No offense, but you guys snowballing everything into one massive thread is the wrong approach to this. Snowball by topic, not just 'It's 1.1 throw it in there!' You've actually created additional confusion by doing so because now discussions are all interwoven and there is no coherency to the topic being discussed. Why shouldn't there be a landing gear thread, a landing legs thread? At least then there's a snowball's chance that someone will notice it before making their own thread.

It functions fine as one, note the ultralight. The issue here is simply that you don't like the answer, not that the answer is flawed.

Fly it from a chair...

A space rated cockpit is not a reasonable expectation for a light aircraft. I mean hell, Cessnas only weigh a little over a U.S. ton. You don't see fixed landing gear on planes much better than that.

You're in atmosphere, use a rover chair.

Well, since you said so it must be true...

They're fine if you use them on an appropriately sized plane and don't try to come screaming in for a landing at 80m/s

Because?

That definitely makes two of us

I dunno, your guess is as good as mine, I did my best to piece it together with what I know and some assistance from Google Translate. Since 'E pluribus unum' means 'Out of many, one' transposing the E seemed to me to translate to 'Out of/From Kerbin' According to some quick Google checking, from in Latin can be any of the following: a, ex, ,de, ab, e, abs Which to use when? I haven't the foggiest. :X

The consensus seems to be that you shouldn't be trying to land anything much heavier than a simple cessna-like plane on them at present. Whether or not Squad will alter this or not in the future is undetermined.