Hodo

Yes FAR jets got nerfed, and people still complain that FAR use is overpowered. But these are people who think a brick with a mainsail on the bottom is a functional like real rockets and asparagus launchers with 14 stages just to get to an orbit of 75km. It is still very possible to make a function SSTO space plane or tail sitter. I have made a few already, haven't made much lately been busy with WARGAME:Red Dragon. But I have made a few that use SABREs and RAPIERs and a few that use jets and rockets. EDIT- Here is a couple that I have made that work using FAR. EDIT2- Here is one that is completely stock. It uses a turbojet and to tiny rockets to achieve orbit, so it can still be done.

Ok this is what I see with that craft. First I am not familure with the engines you are using so I can't say anything about your thrust to weight ratio. But as for the CoL and CoM, I see you have your CoM when wet (fully fueled) way ahead of your CoL. You will have some serrious pitch issues when you hit mach 3+ the craft will become extremely nose heavy and not much pitch authority at those speeds. If you are using some kind of fuel balancer program you could shift the fuel load towards the rear of the craft and keep it a bit more balanced. Your dry CoM location is perfect for hypersonic flight because your CoL will actually move back at supersonic and hypersonic speeds in FAR .

In short. -Stock aerodynamics, with enough intakes you can send anything to orbit, including but not limited to asteroids, planetoids, small houses, whole bases, the death star (look it up no really), Space Battleship Yammato, and a space shuttle. Jet engines are overpowered in stock KSP. Otherwise Wanderfound is dead on about his tips.

Yes I use FAR, and yes I use parts packs, because the stock parts are hideous. Many of those parts I use are heavier, and provide less power then the stock parts. Like the B9 cockpit on that craft I posted, it weighs more then the 3 kerbal capsule, currently it comes in at 3.9 tons. Stock wings are overpowered, and provide way more lift then something there size should. The stock jet engines, are so overpowered that you can not find a real life counterpart in any part in world history. There is no turbojet engine that weighs in at 1 ton that creates 150kn of thrust and is only 1.25m by .5m. And because you have most likely never bothered to even research FAR, you probably don't know that it nerfs ALL air breathing engines. It reduces their power to 50% of stock so you can't take a turbojet to Duna. And it fixes the infiniglide and krakken drive systems so they don't work. I also use DRE, Deadly Re-Entry, does that make the game easier also? What about Remote Tech 2? Tac Life Support? If you want to nit pick about things perhaps you should do some reading first. And people, or just Wackjob have put 3+kiloton payloads into orbit using only stock parts, and the famed broken asparagus launch system.

They are weak? I use them on some of my smaller SSTOs and they work fine. Not sure what you are talking about.

It is at least a break through. Granted I have always called that drive the "Triphammer" drive after something from a GURPS game I used to play in my youth.

Double post. I call shenanigans on that. You can use a 1:1 ratio if you built the craft correctly or better. I have a SSTO space plane right now that hauls 40 tons into orbit and it has a 1:1 ratio of intake to air breather engines. There are 4 intakes on the wings, and 4 under the wings, for a total of 8. There are 4 RAPIERs and 1 SABRE-M which is a 2.5m RAPIER, and has 4 times the power and air requirements. And that is just one of my .24.2 space plane SSTO. I currently have 9 that are working and working on a new one almost every day.

Not a bad design. I did the same trip around the world, for a challenge some months ago. Did it in just over 45min with a 63 passenger plane.... But I like the looks of your design better, expecially how you clipped the intakes into the body so they look like they were molded into the fuselage.

Space planes and SSTOs are handy for a few things, more so now that there is contracts and it rewards you for designing and using reusable craft. I found I can lift far more into orbit with my SSTO space planes then I ever could with most rockets in KSP. This is quite the opposite when I get into Realism Overhaul, but it doesn't stop me from trying to make a working SSTO space plane. While there are many people who play this game who enjoy just making the most unrealistic contraptions ever seen and then bragging about how they got it into orbit on the forums, or how they went to some planet somewhere and did some science. Those who often choose to use FAR/NEAR are often not of that mindset, and tend to want more from their gaming experience. My only suggestion is stick with it, if you are unsure of what you are doing wrong ask in the NEAR/FAR thread or in the Q&A section, post pictures of your craft, if there is a bug post your output.log. But most importantly, KSP is a game, if you are not having fun move on to something else that is to you.

Really you just need the TOW, the TOW is used in both A2G and S2S missions. Javelin is just a smaller ATGM.

No offense but, just use the current 20mm on the turret or the twin 12.7s if that is all you are using it for? Or better yet save mass and use a missile. I would like the ability to lock them if there is a gimble function added to them.

IL-2 is a really well done arcade game, with some sim modes in it but not that close to reality, this is why I quit playing it. FAR is pretty accurate for the type of craft we are putting together with superglue and duct tape. Most people build their aircraft wrong and then overpilot them and end up blowing them to peices and then blaming FAR for their failures. One of these days I will put together an instructional post on how to build an aircraft in FAR that wont blow apart because of a strong breeze.

That is all, I even use it now so yes.

Sorry I can't agree with this. The open vulcan is fine with its swivel. Real M61 20mm vulcans mounted in an aircraft don't swivel.

I vote no-thanks. If it does have a swivel option give me the ability to turn it off, real M61 20mm cannons don't have a range of motion once installed inside the plane.

1- .24.2 2- Steam.

You shouldn't need to add thrust, most guided bombs use aerodynamics and their fins to guide them to the target.

It is from Realism Overhaul, Reaching for the Stars pack.

Your CoL is to close to the center of the CoM, odds are your fuel is draining and causing the crafts CoM to shift forward.

It is from the Reaching For the Stars pack in the Realism Overhaul, by Nathan Kell.

Sevio are you running KSP .24.2? And did you choose control from here on another command module or docking ring? And not choose to control back at the cockpit of the craft?

I have two installs and both are different. One install is stock sized Kerbin system with a few dozen mods, and that is career mode. The second install is my full Realism Overhaul, and it is in sandbox because I don't feel like dealing with the funding issues yet.

My only problem with 64-bit has been the lack of stability. Otherwise it is a good idea, 32-bit is a thing of the past, and is quickly going away across the board in all things computing. It is like the 16-bit OS of the early 90s.

Thank you for sorting that out for me, I don't think I would have found that anytime soon.

I would just put a simple "laser" pointer on the gun barrel. It would just place a dot where the bullets should go with in say 500m of the craft. Nothing special for that, just a camera with a much finer field of view that places is mounted on the gun. So that way no matter where you mount the gun it will "zero" the gun site for that location.