Hodo

I have had that a few times. Never quite figured out what caused it.

Not going to derail this thread with "I can put more into orbit with a space plane then you!" picture, all I have to say is look up some of my SSTO space planes 108 tons is a pretty good cargo. As for taking them to other planets, this can be tricky. If you rely on turbojets you are hauling several tons of dead weight through space and to another world that it most likely will not work on. On the other hand, this is why the RAPIER and SABRE were invented. They kill two birds with one engine. If you mate them with a more efficient rocket engine for space maneuvering you, like the LV909 or a Aerospike. You will find that you can have a booster phase, the RAPIER/SABRE, and the maneuver phase, the LV909 or Aerospike or some other HIGH ISP rocket engine. This old craft, the SVO-17, used SABRE-S engines to go everywhere in the Kerbin SOI. And VTOL rocket engines to let it land on an airless surface. It can be replicated with stock parts, but at the cost of parts count.

Quick question. Which version of FAR are you running? The latest version with the nerfed engines or the previous version 14.02? The only thing that I can guess is that you have some kind of flex somewhere causing the gear to buckle due to the mass.

So seeing a lot of "USE AN ENGINE PACK!" in there. Do you have links to the correct working engine packs?

The thing is, if you want more realistic jet engine performance, download AJE by Camlost. It should not come in FAR as that is an additional item that really has nothing to do with what FAR does. I use AJE on one of my installs and I love it for its realistic jet engines. But I also like the stock KSP jet engines for their overpowered nature in the basic KSP sized universe. If I wanted realistic jet performance in my stock sized KSP, I would use AJE or KIDS, but seeing as I have a full Realism Overhaul install on here also I do not want an additional realism overhaul light install from my FAR.

Noticed the flicker also, it is only the FAR menus, and in the speed of the aircraft display. The air speed would flicker between my set MPH and m/s.

There are plugins and parts add-ons for that. B9 has cargo bays, and a few others have cargo containers that work quite well. Several of them are even FAR compatible.

Not quite 1.25m but it is 1.18m and the GE-F110 creates 120-125kn of thrust Saturn AL-31 1.28m creates 122kn of thrust and that is an old version, the newer AL-41 creates over 170kn. P&W F100, 1.18m and creates 127kn. Soloviev D-30F6, 1.46m and creates 152kn of thrust. Those are just what are in use today in most military fighters. Perhaps instead of cutting the thrust in 1/3rd why not cut them in half. That would be a far more reasonable drop, seeing as you can find real life counterparts that create roughly half the power of the turbojet in game at the same size. But if you keep heading this direction you may as well take over AJE from Camlost because that is EXACTLY what he is doing. Which is why I say leave this out of FAR. If people want more realistic jet engines they should get AJE.

Rolling the cfg file back also worked. All that did was delete that hole line.

About the same here. Sometimes I wished I would have been an engineer, I would be making a fair bit more money now.

Sean Mirrsen said it best below. Couldn't agree more with this post.

It isn't necessary to understand the graphs and bars. They can be helpful if you can figure them out. But you would have to read the FAR Wiki on that, Ferram4 has done a great job of having all that explained out on there far better then I ever could.

From this fuel consumption information on the P&W F100, Military thrust: 77.5 kg/(kN·h). And from AJE plugin and comparing the ISP of the stock Jet engine, vs the F100 in AJE.

I have one simple answer. Your landing gear are to far behind your CoM to rotate to take off. This is why your gear are wobbling as soon as you try and lift the nose. You are lifting the nose and pushing the rear gear into the tarmac.

I hate to sound a bit mean here but, not everyone can grasp all subjects easily. While the idea of aerodynamic flight is some what simple to us, it maybe pure ferry magic to him. We all have subjects we are weak in, this maybe his. And I applaud him in his attempt to understand it better. But I am not sure if I am able to break things down any simpler. My only suggestion is now to watch a few Youtube videos on how a wing works and how an airplane actually flies. The wind tunnel footage is worth it on its own.

Even the newest most powerful jet engines, are shy of the power of the Turbojet in KSP. Here is a few to compare. -D30-F6 from the Mig-31 Foxbat (top speed over mach 2.8), 93kn dry, 152kn afterburner. -P&W F-119-PW-100, from the F-22 Raptor, dry thrust 104kn dry (roughly), 156+kn afterburner. -NPO Saturn Izdeliye 117, from the Sukhoi PAK FA, 107kn dry (roughly), 176+kn afterburner. And all of them have a ISP of almost 10 times that of the jet engines in KSP.

Well I am glad I see others have given a great answer before i could even get here. RoboRay is dead on with his answer. The only thing to factor into for KSP is if you are playing stock KSP or with FAR/NEAR KSP. Stock KSP you can get away with less realistic CoM vs CoL placement then you can with FAR/NEAR.

Yep, blaming him. And removed the "tweaks" already.

I think its a bit of an over nerf. Right now I have a single SABRE-S that is powering a 27 ton SSTO Space plane. Pre-14.1= 215kn of thrust Air breathing mode. Now - 61kn of thrust. To be quite frank, that isn't a nerf or a balancing, that is a castration. Might as well just slap rockets on everything or operate the SABRE and RAPIERs in closed cycle because they would be more efficient. Simple fix, just replaced this file with the previous version. FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg All of the nerfing is gone.

So this new build of FAR, I think Ferram you went a bit TO far on the nerfing of some engines. Right now the same SSTO I built in 14.02, with a SABRE-S engine, can barely get off the ground with the same engine running in open cycle. The issue I am having with this nerf on air breathing engines is, I can still go closed cycle on the same SABRE-S and get to space without even needing intakes. So why nerf air breathing engines THAT much when rockets are left untouched. It looks like you went close to 30-40% of stock thrust for all air breathers.

But what about this build you linked about 6 pages ago.

To me it doesn't matter if it is a traditional plane design SSTO or a tail sitter Buck Rogers rocket SSTO. The rule is the same, patience. As for "Asparagus" launchers, we will agree to disagree on that one.

As Alshain said. Or let me put it this way. Lift is just that the force that picks the craft up off the ground or moves it on the vertical access and not the horizontal access. Pitch, is the leverage used to change the angle of attack, or point the nose up and down in relation to the crafts horizontal access. Yaw, is the leverage used to change the slip angle, or point the nose left and right in relation to the the crafts horizontal access. Most aircraft turn better when they roll and apply pitch up to bring the nose to the new direction. This unfortunately is at the cost of lift and speed. Fighters work on this simple equation, Speed = Life. Or Energy = speed Speed = Altitude Altitude = Energy. You can either go up at the cost of speed, or go down and gain speed. You can turn, essentially going up sideways and lose speed, or you can go straight and gain speed. In KSP most of that doesn't apply because of how over powered the jet engines are in relation to the real world. A great example is, the F-100 used on the F-16 Fighting Falcon only generates 129kn of thrust in afterburner. But the stock basic jet engine creates 140kn of thrust. And the turbojet creates almost double that of the F-100. - - - Updated - - - No, you don't want your pitch authority close to the CoM. You want them near the end of the craft. You want the CoL near the CoM.

Try 1/3rd of Earths atmosphere.

LOL true. Real aircraft, F-15, F-16, and the Mig-29, all turn extremely well at a certain speed. The F-16 is one of the most nimble non-thrust vectoring aircraft in the air and it still cant turn 180 in less than 4 seconds at some speeds.