gilflo

There's still no way to connect any fuselage or what else to the Vulture cockpit in SPH

OK i understand, but if it' works in metric system why would not it work in aeronautic system as it is just a matter of conversion? Then why a mod to convert km in NM, it's just an option or a line code more with a multiplication? The set up of the aircraft is just a question of option with a multiplier or a divider operation......

Yes maths are the same but it's much more difficult, that's why all aircrafts in the world have their altitude in feet, the speed in knots and their VS in feet/mn. On the equator, the great circle is 40000kms for 360°, that means 111kms for 1° If you convert in NM it's 60NM for 1° and as there is 60mn in 1° of arc, it's 1NM for 1mn of arc. That's why it's much more simple to use this units in aviation If you target point which can be runway start, is at 10NM and you are at 3000ft altitude, then your descent path is 30/10= 3° or 5% Then if you want to touch down at your target point and not pass over the whole runway you just have to keep the relation between your speed and your VS: approach speed is 100kts, so your VS must be 500 ft/mn, if you accelerate to 120 kts, so your VS must be 600 ft/mn, you just have to play between throttle and stick with very simple calculations. There's just the chinese people on earth, still using meters and m/s and annoying themselves and all other pilots by using conversion tables when flying over their country and there is no airliner with metric system units.

Yes, it's simply to add 4 new reads out. The target can be whatever point you need, you just need the coordinate of the point where you want to touch down and its altitude: it can be the runway start or a point you designed on the ground, when you want to land out of a runway, where you have enough place to perform a landing run. The waypoint manager mod allows the selection of any point on any planet but gives the distance to target in km and it also give you the path in degree depending on your altitude. The distance to target must be the horizontal distance. The the height must be the height over the point if you want your path to be correct. So your indicated altitude must be your sea level altitude minus the height of the target point. The ground may be not level in approach, that's not a problem if you know your altitude to your target . Then if there is slope on your landing site it's up to you to perform a good flare to land. The last thing that could be great, but it's not a KER implementation , would just be an HUD line, which iss just a visual indication (through windshield), that shows you the touch point on the ground. That's the visual approach help on aviation HUD that you can see through your windshield. it is just the projection on ground of your speed vector, which is continuously calculated with the the settings i explained. In the real world you have to integrate the wind effect, so calculations are much more difficult. Here, with no wind, it's more simple, if i take the example I gave on your 5% path with 100kts and 500ft/mn, if you maintain strictly this setting your HUD line should be on your target touch point. Let's say you take 400ft/mn somewhere on your path, your touchdown point will be behind the target and your HUD line will show you your new touchdown point on the ground. Same if your increase your speed, but keep 500ft/mn, you will be on a higher path. So this HUD line can help you to maintain your path settings, without looking at the values, you just have to look at the line projection on the ground. In the example, if your line goes behind the target, that means you are going to high on your path, because you have lowered your VS, so you push on your stick, to align the HUD line with the target, but by the time it will increase your speed, so you will have to correct it also... To keep a path, knowing horizontal distance and altitude, you just need to adapt your speed to your VS or your VS to your speed, you just have to coordinate stick and throttle. I hope it's clear enough.

Last version of my OPT tanker K59, 480T on take off and much more maneuverable with 2 sets of "canards" near cockpit. 59T of liquid fuel or whatever fuel you need (more than 8 rockomax Jumbo 64), 80% left on 110km orbit. Dry COG and fueled COG are exactly at the same place. Tested within flight enveloppe with Correct COL mod and in flight. Engines working only on LiquidFuel Downloadable https://kerbalx.com/gilflo/OPT-tanker-K59

Hello I have a simple request: would it be possible to have an option to get the distances in NM (nautical miles)? It would be very usefull for plane as knowing a distance from touchdown in NM we could be able to calculate a descent path in % : Path in Degrees is Height in hundred of feet/Distance in NM It is common in aviation. Then with a speed in kts your Vertical speed to stay on path and be sure to land on touch down point is Speed (kts)Path in % (1% = 0.6°)

Hello I have a request: Is it possible to get an option with horizontal speed in knots, height in feet, vertical speed in feet/mn and the distance in Nautical miles ? That's because it is very useful for plane as when you are a on descent path for landing, as there is no wind in KSP, when you know your distance from touch down point there is a simple relationship between these 4 indicators that can make you sure to reach the ground on your touch down point: A HUD with this 4 indicators in these units will be great for airplanes Here is the relationship: 1/Calculate your descent path: Height in hundred of feet/Distance in NM gives path in degrees : 3000ft and 10NM gives 30/10=3° . You descent from 300ft every NM 3° is 5% (1% is 0.6°) and is the commun glide path in aviation 2/Calculate your VS with a given approach speed to stay on path: Speed in kts X Path in % gives VS in ft/mn: At 100kts, to stay on a 5% descent path your VS must be 500ft/mn. At 140 kts it should be 700ft/mn So with a height and a distance from TCH down point you can calculate a path and a vertical speed to stay on this path at a certain speed. If you keep speed and VS on this path you will be sure to land on runway on touch down point or very near from it. You do not need any ILS. It you are to high or to low, with a quick mental calculation you can correct your VS to be on ground at touch down point

Well, i found that the problem was Mechjeb2.

Thank you, i would like to test your aircraft. I use a lot of mods. Maybe you're right, because i tt tried it on a stock plane and it wouldn't work!! here is the list

In the game, since i play RCS has always been used for translation and rotation in space, using HNIJKL for translation on 3 axes and WSQEAD for rotation. We were able to use it on a plane or on a rocket. And on a plane we could use it on yaw, pitch and bank via the flight control command if RCS was on, for example helping to lower or rise a wing provided there was an RCS block on each wing, RCS blocks each side of COG. While a wing is lowering, the other is rising via aileron control and it can be helped by RCS with the same control, and it's call Attitude control. Same way with Yaw and pitch. And it's very helpful in space where flight controls are somewhat inefficient.... From 1.2.1 it looks like this is no more possible on aircraft to use RCS to control attitude. But maybe there's something that i did not see in the settings...... Any idea to help me?? thank's

Since my post, some lift coefficient that were wrong on OPT wings were rectified. I must also say that i made a mistake my OPT wings being tweakscaled at 140% for this test., so the differences between OPT and Squad wings were not 3 times but 2 times, but the differences with procedural wings stay high. With the changes in lift coeff in OPT wings i managed to fly an 410T OPT tanker. But i find it still missing of control authority, but the aircraft as twice less surface wing compared to the sme aircraft with B9 wings, which may explained this authority lack......

That's right, but the main fact is the big difference between the areas announced and roughly calculated using the stok part. And I have no figures for the lifting coefficient of stock and OPT wings......

Yes the COL is far from COG, but wathever you place it, nearer or far away there's no way to take off with OPT wings. With the B9 wings, it will take off even with the COL near COG , but i set the COL where the aircraft is the most stable in pitch and yaw at sll speed and all altitude according to the Correct COL mod which is very accurate for pitch and yaw stability

I want to point out here a discrepancy between OPT wings, Stock wings and B9 wings that may explain the relative inefficiency of OPT flight controls. I posted this discussion on OPT topic, but maybe it's more interesting in general KSP discussions. Here are 2 OPT SSTO, nearly same weight, same wings architecture and same engines, nearly same COG and COL settings, stability being validated by the Correct COL mod. The first SSTO with OPT wings will never take off whatever is the speed reached at the end of the runway and despite its slightly bigger TWR The second one with B9 wings will fly perfectly. 2 tanks have been added on both sides too reach the same weight and settings It's very hard to fly big OPT planes because the flight controls seems inefficient, but maybe it's due to this: If you take the wing area that is given for the OPT large Pylon wing: it's said that relative wing area is 1.99. Then if you build the same wing with the stock Structural wing type B whose area is 1, you will need roughly 7 Type B wing to cover the OPT Pylon wing, so in this case for the same wing area is more that 3 times the Pylon wing area. Now if you take B9 mod and build the same wing you will see in he wing data settings that the surface is around 30m2 and the lift coefficient is 1.22 So if we are talking with the same units, it's 15 times the OPT Pylon wing area, and 4 times the stock wing area, but we have no indication on lift coefficient for OPT wings nor for stock wings........ This is why i choose to fly my OPT aircraft and my stock aircraft with B9 wings, but i must say that having flown aircrafts with roughly same area with B9 wings or Stock wings i did not notice so much differences

I mean it's really unstable without AA, but i don't use the stock trim. I don't like it: how to trim when you have no physic feeling??? The graph should be correct

Well, it's quite tricky without AA on low fuel because there's no trim. Aircraft is not stable...I guess the best would be to have exactly the COG on dry and fueled aircraft, what is not easy to set....

If you mean taking the aircraft by its cockpit which is the root part to put it a little bit higher or ahead in the hangar, or move back or down, and update the graph, no the graph won't change

Hello Boris I am wondering if the graph is very accurate about pitch stability. I built a Mark IV Tanker with B9 Wings. Center of lift is behind Dry center of mass and fueled center of mass as you can see on this picture. Whatever is the position of the center of lift behind the 2 centers of mass, the graph says the aircraft is low fuel unstable at high speed and altitude and at low speed and altitude on both graphs. Dry COG is near Fueled COG and i tested the aircraft with you Atmospheric Autopilot. It flies very well even with 5% of fuel left. So how can the yellow pitch curve for dry aircraft and the green pitch curve for fueled aircraft be so different and tell it will be unstable at low fuel?

Hello Mark IV space plane working wonderfull for me, except that I cannot attach any fuselage (tank or cargo) to the vulture cockpit. It won't take any of it. Works only for the Thunderhawk cockpit !!!

the links to version 2.2.9 on first page leads to version 2.2.8 on Curse forge

The version file of this 2.0.7 file i just downloaded is dated from July 9th and says: "Version 2.0.5" KSP "1.1.3" The version file of the 2.0.6 version i download before is dated from October 18th and says:" version 2.0.6" KSP "1.2" So what is really the latest one???

I saw the rules but with no engines/ wings and/or autopilot mods, it far less interesting.....at leat we should have a no mod challenge and a mod challenge.

Well, one of my OPT plane flies like a charm.......

Here is the dropbox link. It's a very big modded aircraft, OPT mod..... https://www.dropbox.com/s/rouinh83t56drjp/OPT Humpback supertanker.craft?dl=0 Thank you to look at the file

But what can I do when my plane explodes on launch du to "structural failure on linkage between extra large gear and fuselage" ??? Landing gear is always strutted to heaviest part and whatever is set the rigid setting, on or off, same result. This plane was fine with KJR in 1.1.3 and now it's impossible to launch.....