Speeding Mullet

Banned for having waaaay more rep than posts SM

Known for incredible KSP creations. Notably, the first stock fully function Rubik's cube. SM

8/10 - we bump into each others (high quality) posts often SM

I think this is a good idea in certain instances! Of course you can EVA and manually transfer science experiments via Kerbal, but this isn't a valid method in the use case you cite (Atmospheric probes). The other way of doing it is to have a suitable CommNet in place so you can bounce science from one relay to another that will transmit to Kerbin with direct line of sight, but I think you should be able to bounce science results (not physical experiments) to a relay (or other ship) for later communication to Kerbin when LOS is achieved. So basically - Allow storage and forwarding of science results from and to any ship in range of the antenna with the requisite parts. good call. SM

Urgggggg I can't count how many times I have awarded you STS 1a and b now. I think I'll stop if you don't mind. Kudos though lol Hey welcome to the challenge! Nice shuttle. At first I thought it was crew-less and was preparing a big spiel about the rules, but then I opened my eyes and got over myself. It's a nice sleek design, so well done! Here's a couple of badges to get you started: SPECIAL NOTICE: CHECK INTO THE WEEKLY CHALLENGE SECTION OF THE FORUM - ITS ABOUT DESIGNING AND BUILDING SHUTTLES WITH A TOTALLY FREE REIGN. GO NUTS: SM

That's a great call RIC, and @The_Rocketeer you are right, it makes a far better case for KSP than it does for real life. In the middle of the circular runway you could also have a rover proving ground. no need to waste all that space SM

Which is exactly where it is uploaded to if you click the "Craft File" link in the thread. SM

Ah nice - I think I did it the military way - I embedded the LY-05 wheels in the cargo bay upside down, and had the pallet roll straight out the back. Thanks for showing the detail SM

Cheers! I think I've seen it done before, but I think it improves the look of the back of small jets, particularly in side profile! ahha, Maybe it was you I copied. Thanks for the complement. I'm really pleased with the shape SM

That is verrrrry nice indeed. Beautiful wing profile and a lovely location for an air drop! I played around with using LY-05 landing gear to roll the cargo out the back with a lot of success previously. Looks like you've perfected it though. Interested in more detail if you feel like providing! Today I messed around with a couple of designs, and ended up with a Very Personal Jet. I also had time to start developing a little mini sub: SM

A Very Personal Jet This isn't really based on anything more than a bunch of conceptual images of small personal jets (hence the name). The closest I could get (and really the style of aesthetic I was shooting for) is the Maverick Personal Jet: I wanted to try and make it amphibious, but any way I looked it at the overall aesthetic and handling was destroyed so I landed with this. I think the biggest aesthetic I've achieved is the mating of the adjustable ramp intake with the two Juno's. I'm sure this has been done before. It provides a slightly different way of looking at the rear of the aircraft, and gave me a way to taper the angled radial intakes into the engine from over the wing. Over all it makes for pleasing profiles from any angle. As you can see from the top down profile the proportions look just right, and the radial intakes coupled with the rear engine and fuselage tank set up mean this is not just another flying cigar. The fuel consumption is pretty good. A throttles buried flight to the island runway consumed 8 of the 200 units of fuel on board, meaning the Very Personal Jet has a decent enough range. It handles beautifully at all stages of flight and full throttle is certainly not required once at cruising altitude. It's really comfortable hands free at about 5 degrees AoA, 140 m/s and 75% throttle. Action grouped speed brakes means a short landing to go with the ultra short takeoff. Takeoff can be achieved from 32 m/s, and landing speeds can be as low as 45 m/s. I've also softened the rear gears spring strength to about 0.85 to prevent the dreaded KSP bounce. The track is also super wide on this personal jet which means super stable takeoff and landings, even on grass or rough terrain! A Very Personal Jet STATS Parts - 39 Weight - 5.435t Height - 3m Width - 9.6m Length - 8.7m Powerplant - 2 x J-20 Juno Jet Engines CRAFT FILE EDIT: I guess I should think about starting a thread for my designs. I don't want to cause "cluttering" of all my terrible craft into the main forum section SM

It's an aesthetic choice for the overall look of the aircraft. Beriev designs quite often feature a blunt tail (the Be-200 is another good example). There's no stock part that suitably ends in the correct taper. Consider this image: A rounded end cap would spoil the over all look of the plane. SM

Great! Just bear in mind that it is fueled to a level that works (i.e. the majority of the fuel tanks are totally empty). It's still got something like 1,300 units so plenty for the given task. If you wanted to experiment with heavier fuel loads it's probably best to add fuel at the rear, otherwise water take-offs become challenging. Good luck! SM

Yep 100% stock SM

I'm British. I was born in the South East. Ah yes Boris Island! a 747 requires a minimum safe distance of 2.3km of runway to stop. A 3.5km diameter runway means an 11km circumference. So if you are super efficient as a pilot, then you'll have to shut down 1/4 of the runway to land. With any form reasonable cross/tail wind (quite likely on any given day) you'd be limiting your 11km loop to one plane landing at any one time. A 747 max tail wind landing speed is 10 knots, and Heathrow airport average wind speed for 12 out of 12 months of the year is 9 or 10 knots for example. Your smaller, more efficient and less intensive airport just became the opposite for a large percentage of it's design life. It would be an unprecedented change so fundamental to flying aircraft that every pilot would become a student again. Enormous retraining globally in procedures on top of new instrumentation inside and outside the cockpit would be required. Future plane designs could indeed be built with circular runways in mind, but for the next 30 years or so (average time to reach the cycle limit (long and short haul) of a commercial aircraft) you will be operating with much reduced margins of error for 100% of commercial jets (reducing over time) on things like: Landing gear shear limits Engine nacelle strikes LAHO procedures (Land and Hold Short) Then you have to consider so many other factors, for example: ice and rain landings. Rejected takeoffs. Go arounds bringing you dangerously close to other air traffic. Max breaking scenarios. The list goes on. If a plane has to make a no flaps emergency landing at 200 knots (or any other type of emergency landing whatsoever quite frankly) then you want a stable path. If for whatever reason during takeoff or landing the planes controls stop working the plane will not go straight. Making the runway straight means the plane with a little luck will stay on the runway. On a circular runway if you lose lateral force being applied to control surfaces for any reasons, the plane is guaranteed to depart the runway at speed. This is an example of solving one problem by creating 300 more. It was a bad idea in the 1940's and it's a bad idea still.

Yeah I read this follow up after I read the original article and thought "terrible idea". The guy basically agreed it's a fundamentally flawed idea at this present time. Less clearance to wing tip, faster landing speeds to avoid stalling, potentially dangerous go arounds, increased stopping distance, movable ILS being far fetched etc. No idea why this got so much traction (that was also cited as a major hurdle) in the media, beyond being something unusual. Maybe I should start a design house and position massive trampolines as a way of getting to space cheaply. SM

Today I did a little bit of further reading on Beriev aircraft, as I've discovered I have a bit of a soft spot for them. After a little bit of messing around with my latest (and incredibly outlandish) mission to Moho I set about building a Beriev Be-10 replica: Link to full thread including craft file here. SM

Perhaps a tweakable option in the right click menu of the part could change the model (picking a part at random lets say the Mk2 liquid fuel fuselage) to one with an ablative tile coating with the properties of a heatshield. This would look better and be a better option that introducing a separate part. I agree with @Tex though, it's not really required if you do it right, but it'd be a nice touch for the game in my opinion. SM

I was looking at your stuff on Kerbal X this morning and was mighty impressed with not only your design, but also your presentation. Beautiful stuff well done! SM

Love how you got the atrocious body roll in there. It's all in the details I still really like classic Citroëns SM

I threw this together this morning and I have to say I'm extraordinarily pleased with the final design. This replica of the Beriev Be-10 flying boat is very easy to fly, to the point that if you engage SAS on the runway and bury the throttles this large tail dragger will lift it's tail, then take off into level flight without a single control input. As a consequence it is incredibly well balanced and maneuverable at all stages of flight, and a general joy to fly BERIEV Be-10 Flying Boat STATS Parts - 102 Weight - 29.523t Height - 9.4m Width - 22.5m Length - 21.8m Powerplant - 2 x J-33 Wheesley Turbofans CRAFT FILE EXAMPLE MISSION REPORT SM

Thanks @Red Iron Crown and @Dman979 for you input. @Frybert thanks for dropping in . I hadn't considered the perception of giving false authority (or the belief of quasi moderation status) to the OP in the post to be honest, as it's not something I ever knowingly fall foul of. Back to running the Shuttle Challenge with an iron fist SM

All good! I'm interested in your thoughts while you are here though - Do you see the idea as having any negative effect, or can you see any reason why it wouldn't be a good thing to implement? SM

I know that the OP is listed at the top of the page of each thread, but when reading through huge threads it's a nice QOL touch to be able to visually distinguish the OP's posts at a glance (or less). I can link you to the forum via PM that I'm talking about if you'd like to see it in a "live" setting? I won't link it in this thread as said game has age advisory I think. SM

I really have come to like Beriev aircraft. I've just made another one. It's one of those times where you spend days fiddling around and getting nowhere, then suddenly you throw the thing together in about an hour. BARTINI BERIEV VVA-14 VTOL STATS Parts - 244 Weight - 90.136t Height - 9.8m Width - 25.6m Length - 29.6m VTOL - 8 x J-33 Wheesley Turbofans Starter Engines (Blast air under the wing cavity to create lift - 2 x J-33 Wheesley Turbofans Cruising Engines - 2 J-90 Goliath Turbofan ACTION GROUPS 1 - Starter and Cruising Engines Toggle 2 - VTOL Engines Toggle 3. - VTOL Engine Bay Covers Toggle 4. - Reverse Thrusters (Goliath's Only) CRAFT FILE EXAMPLE MISSION REPORT SM