Hodo

Well looks like you have an issue that doesn't look like it can be fixed by anyone on these forums. Good luck with that.

Try removing the canards or changing the size and angle of the elevators on the rear of the craft.

ok looks like in the second picture you are checking the AoA of the craft. You want to check that and the Sweep Mach setting. I set the upper to 6 and the number of points to 25. And Max Mach/AoA to 5 in the Sweep Mach. As for the red number, longer wings may help, perhaps a bit more sweep to them. Fiddle around with them a bit and you will see.

How many parts mods are you running? I have somewhere in the area of 2 dozen mods on my KSP install and I am running 32bit fine. I just use ATM basic and OpenGL, this keeps my RAM use down to about 2.7GB.

So no one has tested my craft yet. I haven't had much of a chance to test anything. Been on a project spree working on a few things in my career mode and real life.

I had the same problem. At least one that isn't going to water mark the heck out of everything or lag the frak out of my computer. Honestly Imgur albums also do a pretty good job of letting you setup a tutorial album, and with a bit of photoshop you can highlight and add illustrations to key points you are trying to get across. I remember doing a tutorial album a while ago in the FAR thread on how to build a multipart wing that can handle high G maneuvers and not look like it was slapped together with spars.

You should check your numbers at mach 4+ you will see them change, in some cases drastically. For most of my space planes I tune them for high speeds, and sacrifice low speed handling. Here is the graphs and CoM vs CoL for one of my latest projects. CoM and the COL is close, but not right on top of eachother. In this one the graph is set to sweep mach, you can see the CL drop off as the craft goes faster, this is because the lift drops as the craft gets faster. This is the information for the craft at .35 the speed of sound, or about take off speed. And this is the information for the craft at mach 5, see how everything is still in the green but it changes numbers.

While Nicky4096 your attempts are great, this challenge has been dead since March.

No that isn't the reason why I think you need to add a bit more length to your wing root. It is because as I said, the CoL actually shifts towards the rear of the wing at supersonic speeds. So if your CoL is just behind your CoM when in the SPH, it will stay roughly around there till you start going faster than the speed of sound, at Mach 1 it will shift back a small amount, and the closer you come to hyper sonic speeds, in excess of mach 3 your CoL actually can be as far off as a couple of meters, depending on the wing. There are two ways to counter this affect, you can either extend your wing root so you have your CoL sitting closer to the CoM when in subsonic flight, which will make the craft very twitchy. Or you can shift your fuel load from front to rear as you go faster to counter the shift of the CoL, this is what real supersonic aircraft do. I also do this with my craft, it helps a great deal for a lot of reasons.

You don't need the last part of the album identifier. In other words you should delete this part of your album code #2.

Not bad, but I see you are still having some nose pitch problems at speed. This could be fixed by adding a bit more wing forward or extending your wing root so it pushes forward a bit more. The reason is as you reach supersonic and hypersonic speeds, your CoL actually pushes back towards the rear of the wing.

Nose cones have a use now. Even in stock nose cones have some affect now.

Just had a brain storm..... I think I figured out the P-wing fuel issue. Procedural parts maybe the answer. Procedural parts automatically adjusts the volume amount of the tank for the part as the part changes size both length and diameter. So with that said, it maybe possible to add that module to the procedural wings parts in addition to the fuelwings plugin. Unfortunately I do not have the skills or the time to check over this myself. But I think it would work.

Revolution-420 has a valid question there.

I ran into that issue with the thrust transform a few versions ago, I cant remember how I fixed it.

B9 has the VTOL engines, there is a jet version and a rocket version. They both swivel 180 deg in 22.5 deg incriments. The rocket version puts out 100kn of thrust at a ISP of 370 I think. And the jet version has a 55kn thrust after the FAR nerf, and dies off around mach 1.5. I prefer either the rocket B9 VTOL engine because of its low mass .5 tons, or the stock aerospike because of its low profile and high power output and great ISP in all situations. The hard part is performing the transition from hover to forward flight and back.

Here is his album.... The code works like this for albums. [ imgur ] U2iwH [ / imgur ] no spaces in the code. And you don't need anything after the #.

I had that parts pack for a while, but found that non-rocket based VTOL engines were a bit underpowered and useless anywhere without an atmosphere. The one that is like a RAPIER that has a closed and open cycle mode, that was a wonderful engine, but it had problems when .25 came out and I haven't reinstalled that mod to see if it works again. I also have to many conflicts with tweakscale so I don't use it unfortunately. You can make a pretty decent VTOL cargo craft with the B9 parts and stock parts. Actually the Aerospike is a wonderful engine because it is so low profile.

Actually about the same as the SP-406. It sacrificed cargo for VTOL and STOVL abilities. The VTOL TWR sits at 1.4:1 without cargo, and just over 1.02:1 with a 72 ton cargo load on Kerbin. But it uses Mainsail boosters and aerospikes as its VTOL engines. EDIT- One of these days I will get around to replacing the SP-400 line of cargo haulers. They were useful on so many levels. But lately I have been designing military craft so been thinking a bit smaller. Although I have the design process of Grumman, small is not in my vocabulary.

The SP-400A and the SP-406 were before the jet nerf. The SP-406 still worked after the nerf, but it had a drastic change in flight profile. The SP-400A TWR fully loaded was .96:1, the SP-406 was around .6:1 after the nerf. The SP-409 came after the engine nerf and had a TWR of .75:1 fully loaded on jet engines. The trick was the flight profile was real gentle. I would climb at about 20-25deg till 12km then bring the nose down to 10deg and accelerate till I hit mach 5 or 25km, then switch over to closed cycle and then pitch up to 24deg and climb till 100km AP. The whole flight would take between 20-30min to achieve orbit. The other thing was to cut down on accessive drag as much as possible.

The latest out of HARM industries. F/A-113 Falcata

Unfortunately they will not work with hinges. They are quite hard. You could attach the struts to decouplers and then blow the decouplers before you rotate the sats.

The funny thing is that is one of I think 4 in that line of monsters. The one above is the SP-409. This one is the SP-406 the original heavy hauler of mine. It actually built a space station in one challenge. Then there is the SP-407 which was the VTOL version of the SP-406. And the one that started it all, SP-400A.

Honestly Eskandare, I am liking the work. But I would think you would benefit from a bit more focus, finish one thing then move on to the next thing. Granted your work is outstanding, that BTR looks great.

Simple.... [ imgur ] WYqDF [ / imgur ] no spaces in the code so it comes out like this.