Hodo

You can see it here more clearly.

I have found a minor work around for dealing with overheating cockpits. There are heatsinks in the parts, if you place them in a way that does not interfere with your aerodynamics it and turn them on, they will vent a great deal of heat as you come in or go out. I think you can just barely see them on the bottom of the nose of this craft. I have two, one on either side.

My company is HARM industry. Hodo Aerospace Research Munitions I do military space and terrestrial applications.

SP-255 simple yet it works... even on a rescue operation.

Wow that launch TWR is a bit excessive. Most of my launch vehicles dont have much more than 1.4TWR at launch, and stay around 1.0 till orbit then it drops to about 0.4. But it sounds like you are having issues with your launch profile more than the MJ program. That and you have no real control on the final stage there. No RCS, no fins, no real SAS of note. I dont think the Poodle has much gimble on it.

Yep, F-16XL, but it is a fine example of the Cranked Arrow wing design. The outer tips of the wings, will provide a fair amount of lift when landing and taking off or in low speed situations. While the large delta wing does bulk of the work for lift, at supersonic speeds. Also note the lack of canards. This is because the CoM that is because the CoM is quite a fair ways back on the airframe. EDIT- An interesting technical read on the F-16XL wing design by NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070003727.pdf

I have built several dozen delta wing aircraft, the thing with them is they will have a high landing and take off speed. This is the downside of an actual delta wing. They have great high speed performance but suffer in low speed area. The MiG-21 is a great example of this. It handles like a dream at any speed above 400kts but will wobble and stall and generally be a handful at anything less than 300kts. If a MiG-21 attempted to pull a high AoA turn at 300kts it would go into a VERY sharp stall situation. So landing with that aircraft was often done at high speeds and aided with a drogue chute. The best compromise for high speed and low speed handling is a cranked arrow design. The other option is to create a variable geometry wing. (Swing wing) The thing with the lift on a wing is the faster you go the further back the CoL on the wing is. While at right behind the CoM, the faster you get the further back it gets... "Mach Tuck" as it is called. To counter this you can do like many of the newer fighters, and have your fuel shift rearward the faster you go. Also I highly suggest you look at other successful Delta wing designs, and cranked arrow wings, like the Su-17 and MiG-21, and even the F-106. I have also found setting up leading edge "slats" to help counter the AoA stall. I have them in the first picture, the crafts leading edge is set for AoA only, -100% max control angle 7deg. So as I pitch the leading edge of the wing will move up to 7deg down to keep the stalling minimum. Try it it works.

Testing new craft, and trying different things, and a shortage of pilots lead to this design... The SDP-21 Unmanned SSTO light cargo vessel.

That is a much better looking and functioning aircraft. Now you have broken one barrier, the stars are your limit! I love B9 P-wings. But still mess with stock wing parts quite a bit because I find it a bit of a challenge to come up with decent wing designs with them.

I am of the school of thought if it drops ANYTHING that is power, or fuel or a lifting surface of the craft, it is no longer a SSTO. If it drops landing gear or shrouds around something that is fine.

Both the canards which are at a very high sweep so when they actually move they dont move even with the craft, they move kind of like air brakes, out from the airflow. Which should lead them to stall way before they actually should, unless you have the inner canards as your actual moving surfaces. Unfortunately I am not at home so I cant take your crafts pics and highlight exactly what I am talking about. I am a huge fan of canards on 90% of my craft, they are a great "safety" feature. But you can often achieve the same goals with a better wing design. I have learned over the years, less is more with SSTO wing designs.

The other problem I see with that design is the control surfaces angles. If you have them set for pitch authority the angles on those wings near the end will not give you the best authority. They are not going to give you much use. Same for the leading canard. The leading edge "slats" or controls are to close to the CoM to be much use for pitch. It does look cool, but sometimes looks dont function well.

There is several ways of doing this. You can create refueling stations around the planet, in specific areas where you fly to, to dock with them and refuel. A docking port on the nose of your craft, and build a truck with a fuel tank and fly it there or use a rocket and drop it there. Leave it remotely controlled so you can just drive and dock it to it. The other option is to put a drill and a converter on it to convert your mined resources to fuel.

You have to much wing for those speeds. This is part of the reason for your "tuck" issues. Remember as you reach supersonic speeds the point of lift moves back on the lifting surface. The faster you go the further it ends up moving. This is why I prefer the cranked arrow delta wing design. It gives me the lower speed stability I want for landing at a speed slower than 130kn, but still gives me the supersonic speed control that I want around mach 1.5-3.0. I have recently fallen in love with the reverse swept wings, those have so many advantages for light weight aircraft.

I run a career mode with FAR and AJE, but not real fuels. And I found it is possible to get to orbit with jets... well close to orbital speeds to cut down on oxidizer needed. I have used both the engines from the SR-71, and the RAMJET engines. Both work pretty well. The hardest part is getting them to 4 times the speed of sound. You have to ride a very narrow line around 8km-11km ASL while accelerating to around mach 4. Once you get to that speed you let the nose gradually pitch up to around 15-25deg ride the speed up till your engines lose power or start to overheat. Which ever happens first. Usually around 20-25km I can switch over to my rocket(s) engine. And continue to climb to target AP.

That is a good looking craft, but as far as drag is concerned running a clean config, without drop tanks will be more efficient than running drop tanks. I have built combat aircraft that are not SSTOs that run drop tanks to extend their range. But for the most part I found DTs, are just more of a hassle then they are worth. Every one of my SSTO space planes and SSTOs in general have to be able to achieve a circular orbit at 100km x 100km. If they can not achieve this they are useless to me. No drop tanks, and it is a completely mission capable single seat craft. Granted not my best, I have several others that are already well past this design. I had gotten rusty in the year I took off.

First thing is not all SSTOs are planes. So if you are good at traditional rockets, try building a rocket SSTO. One that takes off like a rocket, and lands on its tail or lands like a plane. I have one that I built it is a fascinating test craft, that I may expand on later. SSTO space plane takes off like a rocket (from its tail on a launch gantry). But lands like a plane. And this was a SSTO "Rocket" and tail lander.

To end the debate on Mk2 vs Mk1 is this. MK2 works better in FAR because they are a lifting surface, unlike mk1s, which are basically lawn darts. But the old fashioned saying always comes to mind, "If anything goes fast enough it will generate lift."

Ah yes, that makes sense now.. just looked at the nav ball. Forgot about the landercan being all weird.

hmm odd. If I had a stock install I would test it. But I run FAR and they work fine in that install. But FAR I have more control over the control surfaces.

Are they strutted to anything? If they are they wont move.

Not going to cover the obvious that others have beat into the ground about SSTOs. But the idea of drop tanks on a space plane is one option, often not the most practical option if cost is a factor. But it depends on the way you play the game. If you are playing a full RO version of KSP then you may have to use a more conventional Space Shuttle program style of launch. But if you are running a FAR version but otherwise stock, you may not need to go through the hassle of drop tanks. But if you run AJE with FAR then you may want to re-think your designs completely as jets lose their OP nature. I love SSTO space planes, been doing them for the past few years. My only major issue with drop tanks is they change the CoM of the craft and can upset the balance of the craft for re-entry or during space flight. But it is a challenge, and it ultimately comes down to how you want to play.

That trick is difficult to perform in the base aerodynamics, but it is possible with FAR, if the aircraft is designed perfectly. There are people who have designed craft that can perform the "Cobra" maneuver and go past the 90deg mark in level flight. I know I have never achieved that goal, but I have never set out to achieve it. It is a lofty goal none the less. But my next challenge is to get back to making larger cargo hauling SSTO space planes. I miss my utility beast fleet.

Oh I recognized it as soon as I saw it. You did a good job of replicating it.

There is a dev-patch on the github. And I do love the reverse wing designs more and more.