Hodo

I have a couple of minor suggestions. 1- I would ditch the turbojet engine and use the basic jet engine, it is cheaper and you don't need that kind of power for a simple disposable aircraft. 2- Move your parachute to the top of the cockpit right behind the canopy glass and ditch the second chute, again this will save you a bit more money and have the added benefit of saving weight. 3- Lose the bi-plane wing design, this is doing nothing but adding drag, mass and cost to a craft that is not going that fast to start with. 4- You should think about using a real tail instead of sticking to small control surfaces like that, I am not sure if KSP even registers them as stabilizers at that point. It is a good idea for a cheap science vehicle but 15k is a bit steep for something I am going to discard, you can get it well below 10k if you were to use cheaper parts.

JackCY's suggestion actually works for the SAS issue, a bit. It is still there just not as bad. i reduced the control surfaces range from the standard 15, to 6 and it has just about gone away, the craft still is maneuverable as I need it to be. But SMART A.S.S MJ is well bad again.... no clue on that one but that isn't a FAR problem.

Then you have the 32bit version, and the 64bit version. You have to go into your KSP folder and manually launch 64bit, the game defaults in 32bit. Also a Steam user.

So glad this was updated. Again a part count saver right here.

I have used FAR since I started playing KSP last year, and I can say it isn't that complex. But as for the SAS issue, I think it was changed somehow in .25, because I am having issues with it causing a "porpoising" affect on every plane I design, no matter how basic or complex.

Glad I am not the only one experiencing this problem. Not sure if it is FAR related though.

So you mean something like this? Or this, Space Cowboy, Check your crafts hull for flex, sometimes it will flex from front to back on long craft like that and cause it to fly odd, like the pitching issue you are describing.

I was trying to help by pointing out possible problems, but seeing as you know all and are aware of all, then you sir can figure it out on your own. And MJ doesn't always turn green when that mode is active, the limit to terminal velocity is most likely the issue. Seeing as MJ and NEAR or FAR for that matter doesn't work 100%.

How2FoldSoup, Kerbinside plugin, it adds a bunch of extra stuff around KSC, and on Kerbin in general.

I mostly use B9 parts for most of my SSTO space planes and most of my SSTOs for that matter. I don't post the craft files anymore because of constant changes in the game and the need to keep them updated. Like this is B9, P-wings and procedural tanks.

Ok first I am going to say. Use of FAR does matter, it even says so in the B9 forum thread first post. Second, you are showing the correct power output for an engine that is throttled back. You have MJ set to prevent overheats and limit to terminal velocity. so it is doing those things. Try turning those off.

This is your issue. B9 is designed for FAR, not for use without it. Here is what my heavy VTOL SSTO design currently looks like with B9 parts. It is not my largest SSTO or my best VTOL but it is something new'ish from me. The trick is finding that perfect thrust to weight ratio and the ascent angle. I highly suggest if you are going to continue to use B9 parts you get FAR, as it is required in the B9 first page post.

Well its been a while so here we go... another new SSTO from me. SP-14V, 159 ton VTOL SSTO space plane. Still in testing, hopefully sometime in the next few weeks I will figure out if I will actually be able to use the cargo bay or move it.

That is unfortunate, I like a lot of your designs and think with the added parts you could create some amazing things.

Wanderfound you really should get B9. I think it would help fill in the gaps where some of the stock parts and SP+ parts are missing. And that is one of my smaller designs. When I go big... I go big. Those were all done with the old B9 pack parts, I haven't messed to much with the new stuff.

My current space station. It has a docking bay but I can't fit some craft in it, like the crew recovery shuttle there. Which will be replaced with a craft that is designed as a crew transport, not a cargo SSTO with a crew hitch hiker module in the cargo bay.

I have a not so quick fix you could try. Duplicate your P-wings cfg file, alter it so it has a different name instead of the ProceduralWing2 as in this section. PART { // --- general parameters --- name = Proceduralwing2 AND HERE-title = Mark2 - PWing Name it what ever you would like, like procedural structure or something like that. And then drop the FAR aerodynamic model from it, and remove the // --- winglet parameters --- // dragCoeff will override the maximum_drag value dragCoeff = 0.2 deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.5 Section. Then when you go into the game, open the FAR setting window, and set the renamed sections to the correct sections in FARs options. Do this in sandbox first to make sure the parts are there and they dont wipe out your original pwings. They shouldn't as long as you keep the cfg file in the same folder and dont change anything but the name in the lines mentioned above.

There is a fix about 2 pages back.

The primary problem with Nuclear propulsion is the radioactivity vs shielding trade off. The US and the USSR both toyed with the concept during the 60s and 70s. The Skunkworks managed to get a working nuclear jet engine, but the engine was lethal to the crew without shielding, but required no fuel. Once you added shielding it became to heavy for the power it was generating. The other method was to have the ignition caused by the reactor itself, but this lead to a heavy radioactive exhaust which is just bad all around. The project was scrapped in favor of more conventional methods.

That's easy, take a AIM-9 increase the size by a factor of 1.5 maybe 2, I would have to research how big a Patriot missile actually is. And when a missile comes in target it, and fire. The missile will intercept the other missile. I know it can be done because I used an old model of the AIM-9 from someone else that actually looks more like a R-73, and changed some things in the cfg file and now I have a thrust vectoring short ranged "IR" air to air missile.

Here is one I did a while ago that still works fine using IR and B9 with P-Wings.

Outstanding challenge, but unfortunately I doubt I will be competing in this one due to some issues I have been having with the moderation. I have been avoiding the forums completely due to it and haven't even booted up KSP because of the frustration caused by these issues. I really do wish everyone the best in this challenge and I hope to see more like this in the future. Vocanus- Have you considered Imgur? You can have MASSIVE beutiful pictures and they thumbnail down to reasonable sized pics for forums but link to the full sized ones. This is why I use imgur.

Here is a few that I have made that I like. And use currently.

Ideally you don't want to do that. A TWR of higher than 1.2-1.4:1 will lead to over acceleration at launch. My best rockets actually launch with a 1.25:1 TWR on launch and are pushing 2.2-2.8TWR by 12km.

Thank you TouhouTorpedo for bringing this back up to date, this and your pitch vector engines mod are two of my favorites.