Hodo

OK I was thinking you were talking like 60-90deg turns. I havent really had a chance to test this latest version.

What kind of turn rate do you expect out of a sidewinder? The real one can't pull that tight of a turn. Actually a F-16C can turn inside of an AIM-9X, which is one of the counters to a missile.

I use a PID tuner so the SAS wobble is not an issue. As for the graph. C/D=Drag C/L = Lift L/D = Lift vs Drag ratio. If you want high maneuvarability you want to have a high L/D and high C/L and a low C/D. Because the lift is what is going to give you the lift when you bank and turn. The drag is going to pull your speed down and thus affect your lift for craft that have small wings. Look at the F-16C Falcon, it is amazing at 300-450knts but still quite nimble at lower speeds. This is because it has a high lift vs drag number.

This is what I mean by not compatible. They both work individually but not together. They may cause crashing or a string of errors in your output.log.

You are a bit misinformed there. Former M1A1 tanker here. So the M256A 120mm gun on the Abrams M829 and M830 rounds are APFSDSDU rounds and HEAT. The APFSDSDU round is Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium round, DU rounds will richochet or skip off armor, they are used because they are the densest projectile out there. The Russian use Tungstun core rounds because they are cheaper, but not as dense, they compensate by fireing them at a MUCH higher muzzel velocity then the 120mm rounds of the US and most NATO nations. And the Russians have developed armor now that is designed to help make the APDU rounds skip off of their tanks. The newer T-90 and T-80s have the Kontact-5 reactive armor system which is quite ingenious and very effective in tests. The HEAT or High Explosive Anti-Tank round is a simple concept of taking a shaped charge and melting a copper lining cone into a projectile of superheated copper that will melt its way through most armor in the world without the need for raw brute force to penetrate. So it can be fired by a MUCH lower muzzel velocity gun and still have the same penetration level at all ranges and all angles of attack. There are some other rounds still out there, like the HESH round, which is a High Explosive Squash Head round which hits a tank and flattens itself against the outside armor and explodes, sending bits of the interiour armor into the tanks crew compartment. Or in simple terms it turns the inside of a tank into a blender by creating spalling (my spelling is horrible today) Then there is the plain and simple HE round, and that is just as it says, High Explosive. Modern tank armor isn't as simple as tank armor back in WWII. Now you have Reactive armor, spaced armor, ceramic composite armor, combinations of any of the privious armor. A modern battle tank armor is rated in thousands of millimeters of armor depending on the type of round hitting it. The old T-72MU turret armor front is rated around 750-1250mm thick depending on where you hit it with a Kenetic Penetrator (KE) round. I could go into MUCH more depth but I dont have that kind of time.

That is a nice craft, but your mach static graph is showing you are generating a lot of drag, your L/D is pretty low. Notice how that one its red line is pretty much non-existant and the L/D Line drops with speed. Then we look at the stability at take off speed for the same craft. Now at Mach 5. Notice how this craft actually performs better at higher speeds. It unfortunately has a serious dip in performance around mach 2-3 but that is minor. In the search for high G maneuvers and mobility you don't want to make it overly "busy" or cumbersome. Right now the design looks cool but it has to much going on, way to many wings and control surfaces, and other items that actually cause drag more than lift.

Funny, your single seat fighter looks a fair amount like mine. And my latest attempt at a stock SSTO fighter.

KCS is right, I think you are mistaken in your reading of the graph. I rarely if ever use a capsule for anything, unless it is in my RSS install and in that case, I have re-entry down to a science. I know what works and what burns up. Even in my "normal" install I rarely use the AoA part of the graph but I live by the FAR mach graph and the numbers chart, those two bits of information is enough for me to know if the craft will fly or be a brick. I have now started making some designs that are quite low drag and VERY efficient in the SSTO lifter area, and we wont even talk about my fighters. Since the F/A-106A that I entered in the challenge linked by KCS, I have made about 12 new craft, and the latest bunch are almost 2/3rds of the drag of the 106. And that has just been further understanding those charts and numbers.

I run KJR and I had the PID tuner, now I use the Pilot Assistant Tool, with the PID tuner in it. I havent had that issue. check the mass of the parts comming off in the SPH.

You are going to fast to low that is your problem. I have KJR and it really isn't needed with FAR. I have pulled 13.5Gs at mach 1 at less than 5km altitude. If you build it right you wont have parts fly off due to pressure. To overcome the dynamic pressure issue you increase the mass/strength of the wing or control surfaces. If you are still having problems with parts flying off look at your craft and make sure you aren't sticking strong parts on light flimsy parts.

I haven't had the time I would like for testing other peoples crafts, which is unfortunate. With the holidays on us, I haven't had the time I would like. It seems the older I get the less time I seem to have.

That is because skillful and BDarmory are NOT compatible.

Now in testing, a completely stock SSTO, aside from the BDARMORY parts, fighter.

More accurately it is like asking how far will petrol get me. Delta V or Delta Velocity, is basically the ISP of the engine in use vs the type of fuel and location will give you the delta V of the amount of fuel on board. So if you have an engine that has an ISP of 300 it will get less delta V then one that has an ISP of 390. There are other factors that play into this equation, like the mass of the vessel, if it is an engine the requires air or a specific fuel type or even the atmospheric density or lack of atmosphere. You can go to Google and type in Delta V calculator or calculations and it will give you the mathmatical formula for calculating your delta velocity for your vessel or project.

Ok so we are talking about the same area. That number is just the pressure on the outside of the craft at that time, or the dynamic pressure. While that CL and CD will give you your current paresitic loss for the craft at that speed and altitude. It is not one of the most important numbers in that chart. Overall I am most concerned with the C/D if that number is to high it is like pushing a house through the air. There is a reason why some wing designs work well and others dont. I know on my heavy lifters the delta wing is the way to go for them, and even then it isn't a true delta wing, I took a book out of the Russian aero designs. I have compound delta wings that have verying sweep angles to provide lift at different speeds.

I was asking which Q you are talking about? The one in the FAR Flight Data screen when flying or the one in the graph in the SPH? The Q is a VERY important line and number to pay attention to in the SPH, but in flight Q is just air pressure on the craft at that speed and altitude. And that is not that important, not as much as your L/D or any of the other numbers. "Mach tuck" can be overcome by proper balance of the craft for those speeds or shifting your fuel load around, which is what I do. As the craft goes faster and the CoL shifts back I shift fuel towards the rear of the craft to keep the CoL and CoM where I want them. I usually design most of my craft with a partially empty tank for this very reason. Which is how some modern supersonic aircraft do it. As for your flap issue, that is a pretty simple one. You will want your flaps to be inline with your CoL or as close as you can get them to it, this will help to generate lift and not push the nose down. I found that you can also add leading edge slats for thin wings that help also. I used them on one of my delta wing designs a while ago and got the landing speed down to 60m/s an take off around 65m/s. On a craft that was about 30tons and would handle up to 11G maneuvers and still achieve orbit.

Are you talking about the Q number in the flight FAR screen? If so that is the pressure on the exteriour of the craft. That number should go down the higher you go if you maintain a steady speed. If you are up around 10km and pushing mach 1+ you will get high Q numbers, generaly around 45-55kpa. You may actually have a bit more success with your spaceplane designs if you went with a bit more wing width or just more wing area. Right now you have a large thin wing which is great for planes like the U-2 which pretty much are powered high alt gliders. But on the upside your thin wings wont generate a whole bunch of drag.

It depends on how high and fast you manage to get before you fire the rocket engine. If you manage to get to mach 5 or about 1500-1600m/s and 30km alt you wont need much d/v to get to orbit.

i3 Processer is also a source of your bottleneck. The i3 isn't the best gaming cpu out there, not even close. Odds are you have an old GPU that is not helping matters any either. To be honest you have what I would consider near the minimum to run KSP.

I have sent ONE unmanned lander down to Eve, I pre-programmed all of its re-entry profile before it lost link with the KSC. I had 10min to do it in, and had to plan out a 35min decent profile to land at a spacific point on Eve for a challenge, I did it.... there was much swearing a few hundred quick save reloads but I did it. The probe landed on Eve with in 200m of the target coords but it failed to deploy the landing gear so it rolled down a hill knocking its solar panels off and its long range antenna but it still had its long range omni which transmitted data up to the mother ship. It was a success, mostly. But you can just pre-program all of the flight data into the RT2 console and the lander will do it automatically. Just remember the signal delay.

This is a quote of quotes. "Well we finalized the design, it should work with all of the mission needed equipment but we removed the drag chutes so it can come in under budget."

I tend to over-engineer many of my designs. I come from the Gruman and Republic aircraft school of thought, "redundancy is safety!" I also like having a bit more power to take less time getting something somewhere. I think my average in space time is less than 15min except for system lag. But gametime 15min is average for most of my heavy haulers, and less than 10 for my light weight stuff. The redundant systems can REALLY be seen in this landing picture of my long haul craft, that takes comm sats up to geosync orbit in a single bound. Two chutes, 20 air brakes, several sets of landing gear, 2 communications omnidirectional antenna and a single dish, 2 battery sets 2 generators and life support to have the crew of 7 survive in space for a year. Yep, slightly over engineered, but it hasn't failed me yet.

Oddly enough the nose wheel on mine lifts pretty easily it just wont come off the ground till it gets to around 90m/s then it lifts off fine. Now the F/A-106A lifts off at 75m/s everytime, and flies great, but it has a bit more wing to it. The deltawing is by far my favorite wing type, I have even recently made larger SSTOs that use the same wing shape. 60 ton cargo. 150ton cargo 40-60 ton cargo All of which are VERY capable SSTOs and some of them, like the first one when empty take off at 70-80m/s.

Good looking craft there. You should try them in FAR, some of them would actually do quite well.

An updated picture of the Hodo Aerospace Research & Munitions or HARM SSTO combat craft line. There is one or two more that have been made but haven't finished trials yet.