Pds314

Remember that Jool's magnetic field is only effective at throwing charged slow moving particles into radiation belts. Penetrating radiation would be gone and thin lead would easily be enough to stop such particles. Also, laythe, Jool, Kerbin, Duna and Eve all have strangely scaled atmospheres. If Laythe had a similar temperature to Earth, it should scale at about 10 km, much like Jool does. This means that the pretemperatureon the surface of any object other than Jool should cause the atmosphere to explosively expand. Laythe's new atmosphere would be only 0.32 atm at the surface and around 121 km high. Of course, if laythe had a temperature of around 115 Kelvins (-158 C) then its atmosphere would be as dense as it is now, but it would still only exert .32 atmospheres. Basically, we have a pressure, a scale height and a temperature that make no physical sense together. This means radiation must pass through somewhere between 3.2-8 tonnes of air per square meter on it way to the ground if it goes straight down. Judging by this, you would be quite safe as air stops alpha and beta radiation extremely quickly.

One of my kerbals was named Kerbin Kerman

I leave such debris in orbit for future use as target practice. Sometimes I "dock" with it. Sometimes I use a guided missile launched from a spaceplane to smash it to bits. Sometimes I fire unguided rockets at it. Of course, this adds to Kessler syndrome, but the closest I have ever got to random debris by accident is a bit over 1200 meters.

No. But I have FAR installed.

You don't have a sig. I wonder how well an Ion works in FAR??? OKAY, what i've discovered is that the SSI Ion works fine as a plane, but unless I'm doing something wrong, can't get to orbit (in FAR anyway).

Tested the Arrow in FAR. My attempts to fly precisely at low altitude failed miserably. Fortunately, due to extreme SAS torque, the craft is rotatable even during a stall (much like my own VL-110, though mine uses aerodynamic surfaces to control itself.) IMO: LOOKS: Good, conventional besides the third engine, but good. 4/5 SPEED: With a TWR worthy of a bullet instead of a plane, the Arrow reaches 303 m/s by the time it get to the ocean. It can sustain a speed of 314 m/s at sea-level and can reach at least 1975 m/s at 31 km high. That is nearly machingbird territory. 5/5 CEILING: It can easily sustain level flight up to 40+ km. 4.5/5 MANEUVERABILITY: While it is agile enough to literally fly straight backwards and can right itself from a stall thanks to gratuitous SAS-torque, its center of mass is far enough back to stop it from being very precisely controllable. 3/5 NOOB-FRIENDLINESS: It will fly straight as.... an arrow.... if you let it be, absurdly high TWR help with fixing problems as does absurdly high SAS-torque. However, that can be a problem during take-off as it wants to literally bend itself into the ground (and sometimes does). Fish-tailing ensures every takeoff is extremely dangerous, and any split-second decision made during landing could result in the plane stalling upside down at 80 m/s only 5 meters from the ground. Finally, the fuel is distributed such that the central engine burns out VERY early compared to the other two. 2/5 PROS: small and maneuverable, if you don't end up flying backwards. guaranteed to escape any stall more than 50 meters from the terrain. takes off very quickly, under 500 meters uber-powerful engines with high TWR and top speed. CONS: may explode, roll, twist in half, or cause a micro-black hole to form on takeoff. stalls when maneuvered very quickly, upon stalling, orients itself perfectly retrograde. considering its size and lack of a lot of fuel, payload, or SSTO-capability, it weighs a lot. 11.58 tonnes for a craft 8.5 meters long and 6.5 meters wide. It has 50% less wing area of a VL-110EA, but it has 35% more mass.

.CRAFT? Also, very Eurofighter-ish.

Will make variant of my spearhead with unclipped intakes.

Science stuff placed just ahead of centre of mass. For brief periods. Also, 33 gee, not 37. 37 sustainable AOA.

Friends, Kerbals, Countrymen, may I present you with the VL-110EF "Spearhead" .CRAFT file: WARNING, made for use with FAR. While it will almost certainly fly OK without FAR installed, it may behave strangely or be unable to reach orbit. (or it may reach orbit more easily) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByX0QEf-aILZMTZkWUZSYzJ3Smc/edit?usp=sharing My opinion on scoring categories: Looks: In my opinion, it matches the FRAK I for looks, although I am obviously a biased opinion: 4.5/5 IMO. Speed: It is very closely matched to the Legisy in speed, 4.5/5. Ceiling: It has a ceiling of ~43 km on jet power, but there is little purpose to going that high, as it is fuel inefficient for orbital launch. 4.5/5 Maneuverability: It is like the Legisy but it can deal with stalls much more easily, and when full, it is essentially perfectly stable as well. It can also roll 360 degrees in 1.36 seconds based on accelerometer measurements, stall itself at 38-degrees AOA while maintaining control, or otherwise do most-any maneuver you would want to do in a dogfight/airshow. 5/5. Noob-friendliness: High maneuverability and lack of drift allows for control over mistakes and less attention to be given to constantly correcting yaw, pitch or roll. The plane flies well even with SAS disabled. The only issue is after consuming most of its fuel, it will be slightly unstable and get into stalls with SAS disabled or at extreme angles of attack. It is also dramatically easier to un-stall and even flies well during a deliberate stall. Finally, the smaller size and enhanced durability (No wings falling to bits even at sustained 182 m/s^2 accelerations) make for a better combat aircraft and also allow for a lower target area. Finally, the close landing gear allows it to land un-powered on virtually any non-mountainous terrain, making difficult runway-landings unnecessary during emergencies: 4.5/5 Technical specifications: Length: 11.5 meters Wingspawn: 6.5 meters: Height: 4 meters including rudders. Wing area: 127.16 meters^2 Peak thrust under Jet power: 300 kN. Thrust under Rocket power: 120 kN. Weight: 11120 kg. TWR (Jet, full): 2.73 TWR (Rocket, full): 1.09 TWR: (Everything, full): 3.83 Top cruise speed: 1872.7 m/s at 28600 meters. Rocket fuel: 3000 kg (600 Units, 330 O, and 270 LF). Jet fuel: 1600 kg (320 units). Empty weight: 6.52 Tonnes. Take-off distance: 800 meters. Vertical after: 850 meters. Loop-the-loop from take-off: 560 meters above sea-level (495 meter diameter). Sea-level top speed: 278 m/s.

The "Arrowtip" Light fighter. Same as below but atmospheric with even better maneuverability. I have yet to get this thing into a stall that wasn't controllable. At Just 8.43 tonnes fully fueled and 71 parts in total, it is one of the most maneuverable fighters I have seen in FAR. In addition, and unlike many maneuverable fighters, it is totally stable without engaging the SAS, even at a 70-degree AOA. In fact, it can sustain over 40 degree AOA when facing down. This allows unprecidented agility and turning power with uncompromised controllability. Preliminary testing shows that it can get up to 40 km per unit of fuel at 35 km. If it can get there on 80 units of fuel going nearly vertical, then this gives a range of 12000+ km. DOWNLOAD Maneuvering between buildings while pulling up 40 degrees.

Should I bother posting craft with B9-aerospace parts?

Frak-I is too unstable to take-off in FAR. Looks: Gorgeous Flying Delta-wing design with intakes perched unobtrusively but functionally inside the wings. cockpit is exactly where it belongs. 4.5/5 Performance characteristics: could not be tested. Noob Friendliness: I never maintained control even to the end of the runway. The thing wants to fly backwards or upwards or downwards, but not forwards. 1/5. AAT 61B Legisy is amazingly maneuverable, especially since it was designed for stock aerodynamics. Looks: Ram intake on the front looks interesting, if unusual. Engines under the wing and general body style look amazing. 4/5 Speed: At 280 m/s at sea-level under jet-power, 1820 m/s At ~30 km, and 266 m/s by the time it is over water, this fighter is second to few in speed. 4.5/5 Ceiling: The vehicle suffers significantly from the problem of losing speed with altitude above ~33 km. So while it has enough wing area to easily reach much higher than that, it is energetically unfavorable to go very much higher. That being said, 33 km optimal speed, and likely 45+ for optimal fuel consumption, even higher for maximum cruise height, is not only respectable but amazing. 4.5/5 Maneuverability: It has more maneuverability than it can handle, able to maneuver with control surfaces easily at 35 km in the air. In my tests, it can easily take off and fly straight up before reaching the control tower (or any other buildings). That is to say, it would be able to escape from a 750-meter-wide 10000-meter-deep pit. In fact, I landed at 75 m/s on the island runway, and even though I went past 75% of the runway during the landing, I was able to take-off from a dead-stop before the end of the runway. It also helps that the thing has a TWR of about 2.5. Actually, it got to over 11 G once while pulling up. Another time, it tore the back third of each wing off just pulling up into a stall. 5/5 Noob-friendliness: It is slightly unstable in Yaw, making any precision flying best done with the SAS on. It is however very intuitive to fly and doesn't even need to have action groups to get into orbit. One problem however is that it tends to stall itself if pulled upward very very hard, and requires expert maneuvering to re-orient prograde. In fact, with the SAS engaged, I cannot reliably escape a stall at several kilometers high. Low-altitude stalls are very likely to end in a low-speed crash that may or may not be fatal, but will certainly destroy the plane. If the SAS is disengaged, I could generally escape a stall, but would often be thrown off-course and off-heading. It does have good operational tolerances though. I could get it to a 75*73 km orbit with 117 units of oxidizer and enough fuel to match. Based on its weight and the Isp of Its engines, That is ~199 m/s of Delta-V to mess with after orbit. A cautionary note: Re-entry control is good, but on my first attempt to land at KSC, I pitched down a bit too far and stalled, I went within literally 1/2 meter of the tallest mountain (The giant spire) near KSC before crash-landing in the rocks below. Overall, I consider this score a 3.5/5.

Performing tests in Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) since stock aerodynamics are weird.

Reminds me of the Reddit challenge were you take a full orange tank to orbit using one vehicle, then take THAT vehicle to orbit full using another. There was also a "Scott Manley mode" for that challenge, which involved taking the ship that lifted the first ship that lifted the tank to orbit using an even larger ship.

I have a FAR+B9 SSTO spaceplane that can get 500 m/s dv in orbit with 146 kerbals. If I replicate the concept in stock and add boosters or drop-tanks, I'm sure I could do pretty well at this. Obviously, SABRE engines wouldn't be available, but I think it could still be done.

Also, when I crash my prototype 700-kerbal airliner at 160 m/s during takeoff, the 12 HW21 wings fly forward at supersonic speeds with no explicable cause (all engines are gone).

No, this is definitely infiniglide. I can circumnavigate, turn at 13 G, accelerate upward, etc. For example, say I pitch 3 degrees up and am moving 289 m/s, If I engage SAS, I slow down by about 3 m/s. If I then proceed to disengage SAS, I accelerate back up. I have now gained both kinetic and potential energy, thus proving that it is actually accelerating against gravity, that is to say, generating thrust.

Strange issue with B9: B9 Aerospace HW21 heavy wings (The really big ones that allow you to make airliners with single-piece wings) have an infiniglide-like bug. Above ~230 m/s, they resonate and move at about mach 1. So as long as you stay below about 3-5 km, a ship mostly composed of said wings can sustain indefinite un-powered flight. However, going above the maximum altitude in such a craft causes the wings to exert bizarre aerodynamic forces powerful enough to tear some planes apart (16.4 G in one test) Simple test, put a small stock SRB below a command pod mk I, attach 8 HW21 heavy wings to it, you now have a controllable high-subsonic low-altitude infiniglider (that can't be turned off.) It is also recommended that such a vehicle have control surfaces behind the wings to keep it oriented correctly.

I'm curious as to whether ground effect could be accurately portrayed... E.g. high pressure air cushioning a hovercraft or specially designed plane...

Why 30 km? I have plenty of planes that can operate perfectly fine at 40 km.

-redacted-

-redacted-

Made a new luxurious hypersonic-airliner using B9-Aerospace. Imgur gallery: Yes, at the end, I accidentally smash the engine during landing, it was no fault of my design, I do that with my 737-replica fairly often and my 747-replica pretty often as well (the 6.1-meter fuselage made out of panels attached to 8-meter HL-cargo tanks looks pretty amazing when it disintegrates) Score: Type: Score bonus Total Comment Pilots: 1 +15 15 S2 hypersonic only holds one pilot, unfortunately. Passenger: 36 +1080 1095 Not as high capacity as some, but better safety and comfort than open-air lawn-chairs. (IMO, these should be restricted to Q<6000 and Altitude<5000 for safety and comfort purposes, either put a fuselage around them or they shouldn't be going into the upper atmosphere and put a windscreen in front of them or they shouldn't be going at break-neck speeds) FAR mod +40 1135 Go FAR or go home. B9 Aero -90 1045 Fuel left:3041 +300 1345 Max Speed: 5 +250 1595 I wish the airliners I rode in could go Mach 5. Penny Pincher: +100 1695 91 parts for 37 Kerbals. Engine Shortage:+100 1795 1 SABRE M with a Precooler and no fewer than 20 large devertless supersonic intakes. Risk Taker: +75 1870 Max altitude of 39977 meters, to put that into perspective, that is less than half it's length and it is less than its wingspan. Perfectionist: +50 1920 Blackout: +25 1945 No lights on the aircraft besides ladder lights, which remained unused. Total: 1945 points, although if I had stuffed the Kerbals into lawn chairs, I could have actually made it have 100+ Kerbals with the same weight and aerodynamics. Sure it would have 200 points fewer bonuses from fuel and part count, but it would still do the job and it would also have an additional 1920 points, totaling 3665 points, smashing any and all competition beating most other scores. I will not, however, make it out of lawn chairs, because the idea of having to wear a pressure suit, portable heater/refrigerator and a neck-brace on an airline is silly. Also, re-entry would be pretty problematic, probably face-meltingly so. For that matter, going to an altitude of 40 km on Kerbin is like going to 64 km on Earth, you have to deal with things like radiation and ionized air and micro-meteors and such, if only for the 23 minutes you are actually exposed to it. Specs: Cockpit crew: One. Seating Capacity: 36 in S2 crew tanks (First class, not lawn chairs), 1 Pilot in S2 hypersonic front end (Cockpit). Length: 55 meters Wingspan: 26 meters Wing area: 448.9 m^2 including body, 368 without. Wing Sweepback 65.2 degrees (Going from front corner to wingtip) Overall height: 8.4 meters (approx) Maximum Cabin Width: unknown. Fuselage width: ~2.4 meters (approx) Cargo capacity: 160 m^3 if converted to hold cargo instead of crew. Empty weight: 58470 kg. Maximum take-off weight: unknown, predicted to be ~140,000 kg from KSC's runway. Cruising speed: 1700 m/s (Mach 5.00) Maximum speed (level flight): 1720 m/s (Mach 5.05) Takeoff Field Length: ~800 meters (with flat terrain at end, ~600 with drop down like at KSC.) ~900 to clear small obstacles. (e.g. lights at the end of the runway if you are unfortunate enough to aim yourself at them) Maximum range: 32276466 meters if you fly like I did. Fuel capacity: 3860 (15.44 tonnes) standard with no oxidizer, 20240 (80.96 tonnes) with all crew tanks converted to fuel tanks. This would weigh 140.8 tonnes, making it still likely able to takeoff from KSC. Service ceiling: Untested, above 40,000 meters. (at which point the engine is at 25% throttle and produces ~110 kN at 1700 m/s. The AoA required is about 15 degrees to maintain such an altitude. As such, it is unlikely to be able to fly above 44 km.) Engine: Single-Precooled SABRE M with 20 large divertless supersonic intakes across the back of the wings. Thrust: 860 kN (MAX), ~650 kN (Takeoff), 110 kN (Cruise)

Hmm... Well, I did once use landing gears to attempt a Munar landing at ~600 m/s. The craft wasn't vaporized, but it was shattered into lots of pieces and the Kerbals didn't live through the initial impact. The trouble with that strategy is that you need to get to LMO so low that you are flying by craters and such, my craft nearly vaporized itself a about 10 times from almost smashing into a crater wall at orbital speeds. At one point, I was within less than the height of a landing gear of a crater rim, having only been saved by the fact that I had temporarily retracted the gear.