Hodo

On a delta wing design you really don't want flaps like you have. All they would end up doing is pushing the nose down more than creating lift. I found using leading edge slats with flaps helps far more on a tailless delta wing design. Lately I have been testing variable geometry wing systems with stock parts + IR. So far I have found that a simple Mig-23"ish" design is capable of mach 2.3 at 1km alt and still be quite agile, 7g turns. And capable of 80m/s landing speeds when wings are at their normal position. I can use flaps normally on it and it flies like a dream at low speeds and quite well at high speeds. Really happy with the design testing. I will post pictures later when I am at home.

I want to see it return and land.... LOL

Question. Why did you go with that setup for the 4cyl engine. When most of the four cylinder engines run a 180 firing order of 1-3-4-2. And your engine appears to be a 2 stroke. But good job on an early engine setup.

My first was Ike orbiting Duna. I had a miscalculation that caused me to abort my landing on Duna when I failed to calculate the fact that Duna's atmosphere was MUCH thinner than I planned. I couldnt slow down to land so I achieved orbit and landed on Ike... to refuel the craft.

Wow, lots of complaining. This is a great challenge, doesnt seem all that hard except the supercruise part. But that is an issue I personally am overcoming in my own designs. The mk2 bay is not at all a restriction and I have several OLD designs that use it as internal bay. This was BEFORE BDArmory had the rotating rack for weapon bays. When I get some time I will most definitely be attempting this.

Hmm, odd I haven't had this problem. I may have to test out some more rockets in my game to see what all has changed. I havent launched an actual rocket in almost 3 or 4 months.

This is a common mistake. You are most likely pushing the nose to far from the current flight path. I generally start my "gravity" turn at 1km alt or 100m/s which ever happens first. I go 5deg at first, then another 5deg about 10-20s later. Then from there the rocket will usually work on its own from there. By around 10-15km I am pitched over almost 60deg and accelerating like a scalded dog.

An aircraft will "bounce" when you pull to much AoA and stall the wings out. As the plane pitches back down the wings will suddenly bite into the air and provide lift again. If you are still pulling back they will attempt the same move again. The Mig-21 was actually pretty bad for this affect in real life. If you attempted low speed high G maneuvers it would buffet violently till it stalled hard. If you are flying with SAS turned on it will bounce in game due to the way SAS works in KSP. I would suggest getting a PID tuner which will help you negate that bounce. Keep flying!

As Geschosskopf said, all fighters lose speed or energy when turning. In a short version everything works on math, even cars. If you want to turn you have to devote energy to that, energy = speed. How hard you turn will depend on how much energy you are willing to spend to do it. Now this is in the simplest terms. I think it went something like Altitude = Energy = Speed = Altitude. This is why Dicta boelcke still holds true to this day. Altitude: From the advantage of flying above his opponent, a pilot had more control over how and where the fight takes place. He could dive upon his opponent, gaining a sizable speed advantage for a hit and run attack. Or, if the enemy had too many advantages- numbers for instance- a pilot could fly away with a good head start. At best, World War I aircraft climbed very slowly compared with later types. Altitude was a hard earned 'potential energy' store not to be given away capriciously.

Here is the thing with cargobays and ramps in KSP. If you attach anything with a claw, docking port or decoupler and it is not supported by struts it will flex at the connection point and fall through the bottom of the bay, because it loses its clipping detection for some reason. The fix for this is to attach at the centerline of the vehicle or cargo going in the bay. I like to put an inline docking port in the middle of my rovers that faces down, and a docking port on the floor of the cargo bay of the aircraft, so when I drive over it I just extend the inline docking port and it attaches, it wont flex and wont fall through the bottom of the craft.

The trick with a good VTOL, is to make sure your CoT is in line with the CoM for the vertical mode. I like to build everything then set the rear engine or the pusher engines to 0 thrust on the limiter, and see where the CoT ends up. I will then adjust the fuel load and vertical engine placement until I get them perfectly or as close as I can get them to centered with each other. If it all works out well I can usually fly the craft without RCS or SAS support or minimum of either. I like to adjust the fuel loads as it changes. I suggest RCS Build aid to help with the build of any craft and should be stock with the game. I also suggest TAC Fuel balancer but it isn't required to make a good VTOL. Here is a few of my more recent VTOLs that are in use as of 1.05 for me. Unmanned SSTO science craft and VTOL. Atmospheric rescue and science craft VTOL.

Did you remove the old FAR install before installing the new one? And the output.log would be helpful.

All I did was deploy my newer.... mostly, PV-7 VTOL rescue and science aircraft.

Oh on the last two pictures? That last one I have since modified the design that is an old picture. I am not even sure I still use that craft anymore, I like it but I dont use it. It was an early SSTO Fighter/Attack craft, with an internal weapons bay. But had a limited payload in the bay, I think a max of 6 500lb bombs, or 3 CBUs. Which isnt a great deal, so I have since retired the design and moved on to others. I am still working on refining them but they are a secondary project at this time. I have to get my deep space exploration back underway. I have an Ion powered long range exploration vessel in orbit now that is waiting for a window to head out to Dres as a shake down run. As for the roll and sideslip problems on the cranked arrow wings, those are easily overcome by doing the V tail designs or going with a twin tail setup. The next two are my XF-149A design, which was a STOVL/VTOL fighter with a super cruise ability The tail went through a few redesigns over the time of its development... This was the final configuration for the fighter.

I may have found the second .dll... hiding in a Medsouz file.

There are many types of Delta wing designs.. I am partial to a cranked arrow delta but that is me. Those are examples of my cranked arrow delta design.

Yes and no. Clicking the left one brings up the base selector and it defaults to the basen base, and I can not select any bases including the KSC. The right button does nothing. And no faults show up in the debug or in the output.log It is odd. Quite a few parts in that picture... the tanks are from procedural tanks. The engines are from Mark IV Spaceplane parts. The main body and cargo bay and ramp are from OPT Spaceplane parts.

I have one minor bug coming up with Kerbinside. I have no way of doing anything with any of the bases, I cant choose them or change anything.. I also have 2 KK icons on my screen... as seen here. There is no bugs in the log, and nothing comes up from it... just odd. This was on the previous version. Updating tonight and will test tomorrow

Posted this in the FAR thread but it is an SSTO, and my current largest cargo SSTO at a cargo lift capacity of 72tons to a 100km x 100km orbit. SP-517

So while I am here... my latest cargo SSTO the SP-517. 72 tons into an orbit of 100km x 100km and a docking with my space station to refuel the station.

I think if you were to just create a true delta wing design out of it, you would get rid of some of the shock at the rear of the aircraft and it would possibly go faster. I would also add more control surfaces to it.

People are obsessed with Russian designs lately. It is almost a 60/40 split between the Flanker and the F-15 Eagle. I personally always loved the simplicity of the F-104 Thunderchief or the Mirage 2000.

I have been building SSTOs in FAR for a couple of years now. And I can say my biggest factor in my SSTO designs is I tend to design them to do to much. So I have a wide range of SSTOs. But unfortunately I havent made an SSTO that I have been happy with that is a full utility craft. I have fighters that are SSTOs that work after a year since design, I have science SSTOs that work. But no long range science SSTOs. I have this which is coming up on a 6 months old. I use this little thing more than I care to admit.

@Elthy Your craft is partly a lifting body, but not as smooth as the venture star design. See how the craft is basically a flying wedge, yours is 4 massive cylinders tied to the top of a triangular wing. And even the Venture Star will have some issues at lower speeds, as its mass starts to become a HUGE problem.

The problems I am seeing with your design is the Venture Star is a lifting body design. Your craft is not. The thing that could be causing you problems when you roll or yaw is flex of the wings. They must have a MASSIVE wing loading for that craft and the stain on them must be quite high. So you may want to increase the size of your wings and find ways of reducing the mass of the craft without compromising the strength or mission capabilities of the craft.