Dispatcher

Now version 1.1 Removed all solar cells & most ladders. Moved thrusters on space planes. Adjusted some wings and added some control surfaces on some planes for improved flight behavior. How is it possible to have self flying planes, you ask? These planes are designed to take off, reach altitude, fly until out of fuel (and most glide down to finally safely ditch or land). They work in KSP v. 0.21 (and probably in earlier versions too). Only stock parts are used and most assembly is normal (minimal use of shift S or whatever to adjust part fit). These are not modded and craft files are not edited. So aerodynamics and (dynamic) mass balancing are the key design factors. Why make such planes? I wanted to make planes which anyone could use to learn to fly in KSP. I decided that if a plane could fly without a pilot, such a plane would be good for beginners as well as more experienced pilots to fly. These should be no harder to fly than any other KSP plane. Perhaps easier! The planes: Air Wasp (Experimental) – mixed engine jet uses rocket fuel. Crazy Ivan – rocket plane (name from “Hunt for Red October†novel and movie, due to runway behavior) Hammerhead – turbojet Hawk V. 1.1 – mixed engine jet uses ... jet fuel. Adjusted lift surfaces. Last Shadow – single engine jet. Adjusted control surfaces. Mosquito – ramjet Nova Hawk – mixed engine jet. Better for experienced pilots. Kept ladders. Shrike – turbo ramjet Wasp – rocket jet. Note: as in the original, fire both stages at launch from runway. Only fire first stage from orbit. There is also a rocket: Hubris of Debris – concept demonstration craft. It shows staging techniques, various kinds of jet, liquid (even solid if you can find them) multistage boosters, “asparagus†fueling, jettisoning some fins; all in one craft. The payload is also staged. Unlike most of the plane designs, either use SAS or fly it manually! For some photos, see the previous version post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/46009-Dispatcher-s-Self-Flying-Planes-%28Mostly%29-and-a-Rocket Users of the original version should see improved flight behavior. Try the improved version! http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/dispatcherplanesv1-1/ Note: any landing which your Kerbal can walk (or swim) away from is a good landing!

According to Steam, 560 hours. Really. I love baked goods too. :-)

Dang. I selected only one; aerodynamics. If I would have known, I would have selected ALL of the choices. :-) I failed to see that it was a multiple choice poll, having only encountered single choices before. Duh.

Wow! I didn't know that. My 3 engine planes have been a nightmare to handle when it comes to recovering from flame outs. Its because as a rule I design my fuselage and its back engine first, before working laterally. Now I know this particular rule of mine should be broken when the proper occasion requires it.

The extra intakes is a good idea. I'm gonna have to try that with some of my planes (the ones which flame out when left unattended).

Try the space enabled (vectoring rocket, docking port, monopropellant) planes in my "self flying planes (mostly)" stock package at the Spaceport. You would probably want to remove the solar cells and ladders first, as these seem to affect flight behavior. You'll see that some of what I've done is in harmony with the advice given above. But I always try to get the fuselage (or if it were a rocket, the stack), landing gear and a tail fin figured out before I start with the lift (wings, control surfaces). Note too that I had certain design goals which might not be the same as yours. Things to consider are: do I intend to send this plane up as payload on a rocket and use it from orbit? Or take it up from a runway? Both? Good luck!

Try aerobraking. The design of your spaceplane (lift, control surfaces, etc.) and how it works with vectoring engines, for example, will influence your results. The atmosphere is thin, but not as thin as Mars'; Duna's is about 20% the air density as Kerbin's. Your angle of attack will need to be somewhere between "skipping like a rock off a pond back into space" and "plunging right at the heart of the planet, ready to make the largest crater ever". Good luck!

The atomic engine is either very bad or very good, depending on your needs. Its downside is its mass. Its a poor choice for an aircraft or even a space plane (at least launched from a runway), but it is an excellent choice for an orbit to orbit craft. Its fighting much less gravity, no air drag and the iSP makes it the best stock engine to use in space (for the power, that is).

Scott Manley recently did a You Tube video (of course) about editing the quicksave.sfs file. In it he started with a craft at launch altitude. He edited the file and changed the launch altitude to, well, you'd be in orbit to start with. That's probably taking it a bit further than you are wanting, but I found it to be interesting. Of course now I don't know which video it is, but if you progress back through his KSP videos, you should encounter it.

I understand about being sure before releasing a product. While my "self flying planes" (at the Spaceport) are good planes and fun to fly, I added ladders (and for those space capable models, solar cells and thruster nozzles) AFTER testing them. I've seen that such seemingly minor additions do influence flight behavior. After all your hard work, you'll want to release the best, funnest product you can. I'm really impressed by your round trip designs. I've been concentrating on things planet side and in Kerbin orbit, simply because I'm learning so much about rockets, planes, rovers, boats and other craft. After seeing some of the creations here, there are even more things to make that I hadn't thought of. But seeing your ships has motivated me to leave orbit and head for the other planets and moons. Keep up the good work.

He is showing that he's played 100 hours of KSP via Steam. I didn't get anything from Steam when I reached the 100 mark, but when I hit 300 I got some virtual game cards. Sadly, when I hit 500, I didn't get anything extra. Thanks for the gift package! Ribbons? Is that part of belonging to a group?

Uh, Terragen?

Very interesting. I've found that sometimes the most logical arrangement of a plane flies like a brick, and some which might draw laughter by their looks fly very well. Its mostly "drawing board and testing". Keep up the good work!

Really really cool! After all that hard work, its nice to start to have it pay off in satisfaction.

Its probably best to assume that it makes a difference, or probably will make a difference in a future KSP version. When I design craft, I try to design with probable future updates or refinements of the simulation. I can say that plane landing gear does have mass and/ or drag effects while flying; retracted or extended. You may test this by taking off without piloting. See how the plane behaves. Then in the SPH slide the forward gear either toward the front or toward the back a little. Then repeat the test. You should see a different behavior in the second test. Your results may vary. Update: I tested my Air Wasp plane (its in my package of "self flying planes" at the Spaceport). Prior to the addition of ladders to the craft, when flying at 1/3 throttle, pilotless and without SAS or any autopilot, with gear retracted, it flames out and attains an altitude of somewhere near 24000 meters and then tends to partially recover until it finally crashes about 15 minutes into the flight. However, when I test it now with gear extended, its maximum altitude is 18150 m, max speed is 545, and it flies for 50 minutes. After that it glides for another 10 minutes. It gets to about 300 meters altitude and speed of about 15 m/s, then due to the lack of forward momentum and lift, it dives the rest of the way; hitting water (in this case) at about 60 m/s, destroying the craft and killing my Kerbal. So landing gear does in practice affect flight. My Kerbal should have ejected. Hmmm. Wait. Someday? I must say that when flying without piloting, there are probably random variables in KSP which may yield varying flight results, so I can't say for sure what elements have the most influence on variation between flights.

Inspiring indeed!

I must say that I do enjoy your You Tube videos, Scott. Keep up the good work!

Your own fairings out of stock parts. Way cool.

Really nice work! I'll have to try it out. I like how the reentry vehicle seems to behave with respect to lifting surface placement.

I bought KSP in June. So, no, I'm not fond of the idea of buying expansion packs while others get them free; simply because I missed the "cut off" time by less than a month. That said, I expect KSP 1.0 to be such a great game (it already is) with so much to do, that I'll not feel the need for expansion packs. I don't buy expansion packs for other games either.

It appears that having added ladders, solar panels and even thrusters may affect the behavior of the planes. This may affect flights which are "pilotless" or do not use any auto piloting. If you want your flight experiences and results to be closer to my testing data, try removing the ladders, solar panels and even thrusters before flying; otherwise for normal piloting, the planes seem responsive to pilot control. May you find these to be fun!

Try http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mission.php#deltav http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/engines.php#totaldeltav and http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

Let's try this: Mosquito: Wasp (which is more touchy since I added ladders, solar panels; and actually thrusters): And let's try the rocket, Hubris of Debris: I hope this works!

I'm glad you like the idea of self flying planes. They are essentially concept planes that can and should be flown manually, just like any other plane; but most do really well on their own. :-) I did use appropriate tags inc. craft, but I did not check everything else for tags, which seems prevalent (or the search engine needs work). The download is small (around 11 mb) and includes photos and stats on each plane and the rocket, as well as a pdf read me which spells out more detail. If you still want descriptions, just indicate that and I'll provide more details. According to the permissions at the bottom of my view of this page, I do not have permission to post attachments (which I'd assume includes photos). Its probably due to me being a noob here. Or I really can post attachments and I'm not supposed to know it yet. :-o

You all have come up with some really cool ideas. Too bad that what I've put up so far at KSP Spaceport is not only all stock, but function dependent rather than aesthetic oriented. (Self flying planes are a challenge for me to make: take off, gain altitude, fly until out of fuel, glide, safely land or ditch: no autopilot and no piloting). But I'll be sure to try out some of your ideas and hopefully contribute something which you can use in the future. Keep up the good work!