gilflo

New very long range cargo, low cross section and weak Mach 1 drag...

I noticed a kind of issue with temperature gauge. I am in orbit on the first pic Time 4D:02:14 and T° is 416 On the 2nd pic Time is 3sec later 4D:02:17 Temp is 414° On the 3rd pic Time is more than 1h later, 4D:03:22 I switch on another ship, made an orbit and switch back to my SSTO: Temp is still 414° Temp is not going down when you're not here! Is it a stock issue ?

I noticed a kind of issue with temperature gauge. I am in orbit on the first pic Time 4D:02:14 and T° is 416 On the 2nd pic Time is 3sec later 4D:02:17 Temp is 414° On the 3rd pic Time is more than 1h later, 4D:03:22 I switch on another ship, made an orbit and switch back to my SSTO: Temp is still 414° Temp is not going down when you're not here! Is it a FAR issue or a stock issue ?

Well i have got intake build aid and I used it to build the Avenger. I also got a big fuel depot in orbit, but this SSTO dont need it as it is able to fly to Mun or Minmus, deliver a satellite and fly back to Kerbin and land without need of any refueling. For landing I just need to experiment a 24-77 Twitch engine on top of cockpit to flip it down just before landing

What you mean LKO top up? - - - Updated - - - About air intakes, I experienced some engines stall at high AOA (>15) below 24km that's why i put 2 air intakes per engines, the second one being slightly turn down( around 5°negative AOA on ground) so that they'll be more in airflow at high AOA, but i don't know whether it is simulated in FAR

To WANDERFOUND Thank you for our discussion and your advices a few posts ago. I built a long range SSTO cargo able to deliver a 6T cargo load to Minmus or Mun and return without refueling using RAPIER and Nukes http://www.hostingpics.net/album/gilflo-242771.html

The minimum speed you can fly is defined by your wingload and the lenght of runway needed for take off depends on your TWR as well as your take off speed. Minimising your weight by removing engines and keeping same wing surface is not necessarily minimising runway length as you will get better wingload and lower take off speed but also lower TWR..... So what is the maximum weight you can send on orbit on one Rapier and what make the difference between 2 Rapier and 2 Rapier plus one nuke? At 24km when you switch your Rapier on rockets, Do you really need the small thrust of the Nuke or is there a kind of "frontier" before reaching orbit where you will switch off rockets and rely only on Nuke, that will save some fuel? Another question: when building spaceplane in SPH can you really see TWR and DV capacity with KER or Mechjeb under FAR?

Bad stall because it will not be fliable. But what is the matter, because as long as i got enough runway lenght a higher take off speed gives a higher manouvreability and better climb angle. I light rockets at 24.5 km.

Well, in FAR, in SPH, Take off speed is around 150 (mach 0.42 at 0km) with AOA 12.5, so 140 is my rotation speed, 150 is lift off. Before 140 the nose won't lift and if i place the main gear to help the nose lifting before 140 i stall. There's 87m2 for wings for 73T lo lift so that's quite not a glider.... Second option is easy. I tested docking and refuelling, not a problem.What is more challenging is the interplanetary flight, with refuelling on planet, that's why i am looking for engine optimization to get more DV left in orbit

Taking of speed is 150, TOW is 73T. It can reach a 250 km orbit with 29% left in tanks. The longer version with 4 Rapier got a long cargo Bay plus a small cargo bay. Inside is a big 5T scansat satellite with 3000Dv . No more tanks Same take off speed, same wings, and TOW 80T. Reach also 250 km orbit with 25% left in tanks. Got a docking port on both for refuelling in orbit. In fact i think i don't needthat extra intakes air, but i put them because in 0.90 version, under FAR RAPIER with 1 B9 sabre air intakes each were working up to 30000m on aircycle, so i thought the more air they got, the higher i could keep enough power before switching on closed cycle. Here i switch between 24000 and 25000m at mach 4. I tested the ratio 20T by Rapier that is the maximum, more than that and you are unable to accelerate over mach 1.4 at 10-12 km. Mach 1.4 seems to be kind of barrier.....once it's passed, acceleration grows quicker and quicker and you need to keep an eye on temperature to optimize acceleration and altitude gain.

Hi guys, I got a question about spaceplane engine choice I am wondering if 4 RAPIER are the best choice for 70-80T spaceplane under FAR. Here is mine: http://kerbalx.com/gilflo/FAR-Avenger-3 I am trying to find a combination giving the best DV option with enough TWR for orbit. I need 4 turbo to be able to take off from runway, so 4 turbojets + another combination of Closed cycle engine will add more weight and I need more than 0.5 TWR to make orbit from 20.000m where turbojets become inefficient. A combination of 2 turbo, 2 rapier and 2 nuclear or 2 other engines.... i am not sure that the weight added gives me more DV on final. Then once in vacuum if you want to transit on Mun you can light 2 or 4 engines, you don't get more DV, you just do it faster or lower.....

Hi guys, I got a question about spaceplane engine choice I am wondering if 4 RAPIER are the best choice for 70-80T spaceplane under FAR. Here is mine: http://kerbalx.com/gilflo/FAR-Avenger-3 I am trying to find a combination giving the best DV option with enough TWR for orbit. I need 4 turbo to be able to take off from runway, so 4 turbojets + another combination of Closed cycle engine will add more weight and I need more than 0.5 TWR to make orbit from 20.000m where turbojets become inefficient. A combination of 2 turbo, 2 rapier and 2 nuclear or 2 other engines.... i am not sure that the weight added gives me more DV on final. Then once in vacuum if you want to transit on Mun you can light 2 or 4 engines, you don't get more DV, you just do it faster or lower.....

Here is my spaceplane, tested with FAR, so it must work without FAR. http://kerbalx.com/gilflo/FAR-Avenger-3 There's explanations how to use it and accelerate before switching on rockets. Some pictures here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121176-Official-FAR-Craft-Repository?p=1991998#post1991998

In fact, the game is lagging when i select the adjustment button for main gears, that means for 2 gears, left and right When i select adjustment for the front gear, which is alone, there's no lagging. Very strange!!

Hello Here is my 4 RAPIER Spaceplane tested with FAR. Flies perfectly Re-entry and landing Find it here http://kerbalx.com/gilflo/FAR-Avenger-3

I think i have the latest one. The difference between Mechjeb and KER should be around 3T, according to the wings weight which is different when using FAR. I built the same SSTO again and know final weight is 61T which is correct. I don't know why the previous one was 67.

Does PA record the PID setting as well as KP, KI..... settings when i change them and update them in a new preset? Because i did it and every time i charge my preset i loose PID preset.

Sorry english is not my native language. I don't understand what you mean. Inside or outside SPH, weight should be the same, flying or not flying. I see that KER takes account of all part weight, even the smallest as Mechjeb don't ( Vernor engines for example) I see that FAR change the weight of wing parts, it cost 3T on my SSTO. What I don't understand is the final weight of 67T, because i build again the same SSTO, with same parts and Mechjeb weight is now 57T when KER shows 60T, what is correct because it looks it is taking in account FAR wings weight.

Hello Each time I toggle the adjustment for the gear in the SPH, all the game begins lagging very much. When i toggle again it does not lag any more!

I have a question: Does FAR change the indicated weight of stock wings ? I can see that they are heavier when i use FAR.

I don't think it's only a FAR issue. I can see that FAR change the weight of wings, but theres is still a difference for some parts between indicated part weight and real part weight, once built. I loaded my game without FAR and and difference between Mechjeb and KER is always 10T. But i loose 3T du to the fact that wings weights are now correct.

I think there is definitely something wrong with the indicated weight of a lot of stuff. But I dont know if it is KER or KSP parts or Mechjeb Here is a Mk2 cockpit (2,06T) , then i add a MK2 rocket fuel fuselage (3,57T) and a Rapier Engine (2T) Total weight should be 7,63T In fact it is 7,435T, because if you look the weight of the fuselage (right click) wet weight given is 3,375T and not 3,57T given in SPH Fuel tank part. Then I add 2 delta wings. Given weight of each is 0,2T as indicated in aerodynamic parts. Total weight should be 7,435+0,4 = 7,835T In fact it is 8,279 . So each delta wing weight is in fact 0,422 and not 0,2T If you add mechjeb on the aircraft, it will find the same total weight as KER. They agree. And you can try a lot of wings, each time the real calculated weight is not the indicated weight. So there is something wrong somewhere with the weight and in final, my SSTO is given for 67T by KER and 57T by Mechjeb. Here Mechjeb is right and disagree with KER But when i launch my SSTO, Mechjeb take the wrong KER weight in account, 10T more! Weight is now 67T In other way, I can see that mechjeb don't take in account weight of some small parts, when I add them, like vernor engines or adjustable landing gear......

I think there is definitely something wrong with the indicated weight of a lot of stuff. But I dont know if it is KER or KSP parts Here is a Mk2 cockpit (2,06T) , then i add a MK2 rocket fuel fuselage (3,57T) and a Rapier Engine (2T) Total weight should be 7,63T In fact it is 7,435T, because if you look the weight of the fuselage (right click) wet weight given is 3,375T and not 3,57T given in SPH Fuel tank part. Then I add 2 delta wings. Given weight of each is 0,2T as indicated in aerodynamic parts. Total weight should be 7,435+0,4 = 7,835T In fact it is 8,279 . So each delta wing weight is in fact 0,422 and not 0,2T If you add mechjeb on the aircraft, it will find the same total weight as KER. They agree. And you can try a lot of wings, each time the real calculated weight is not the indicated weight. So there is something wrong somewhere with the weight and in final, my SSTO is given for 67T by KER and 57T by Mechjeb. Here Mechjeb is right and disagree with KER But when i launch my SSTO, Mechjeb take the wrong KER weight in account, 10T more! Weight is now 67T In other way, I can see that mechjeb don't take in account weight of some small parts, when I add them, like vernor engines or adjustable landing gear...... That's why i posted in mechjeb and KER section

I think there is definitely something wrong with the indicated weight of a lot of stuff. But I dont know if it is KER or KSP parts Here is a Mk2 cockpit (2,06T) , then i add a MK2 rocket fuel fuselage (3,57T) and a Rapier Engine (2T) Total weight should be 7,63T In fact it is 7,435T, because if you look the weight of the fuselage (right click) wet weight given is 3,375T and not 3,57T given in SPH Fuel tank part. Then I add 2 delta wings. Given weight of each is 0,2T as indicated in aerodynamic parts. Total weight should be 7,435+0,4 = 7,835T In fact it is 8,279 . So each delta wing weight is in fact 0,422 and not 0,2T If you add mechjeb on the aircraft, it will find the same total weight as KER. They agree. And you can try a lot of wings, each time the real calculated weight is not the indicated weight. So there is something wrong somewhere with the weight and in final, my SSTO is given for 67T by KER and 57T by Mechjeb. Here Mechjeb is right and disagree with KER But when i launch my SSTO, Mechjeb take the wrong KER weight in account, 10T more! Weight is now 67T

Hello Something useful and very simple i am looking for is a slider (and/or some virtual key to add by step of 1% or 5%) so as to move the Throttle more precisely than when using keys.... Davon system or TCA are to sophisticated for simple use.