Pappystein

Almost all of what I have is copyright material so I won't be-able to post much directly. And at lass I am not a model maker, unless you count SCALE models. However I can DESCRIBE a lot as well as finding documents on Wikipedia that are rights-less. In two weeks I will make a trip to my local Museum to take some High Quality (~3K res) pictures of Landing gears of various types. Not sure what aircraft I will find there that I can get close to the gears on (it has been a few years.) I am pretty sure I can get WWII era Korea era and both the F-14 Tomcat and SR-71/YF-12A gears. No Tupolev tumbling gears unfortunately. - - - Updated - - - - - - Updated - - - RE Skylon cargo doors. The Two photos you provided show a tiny clue if you look carefully. This system is a series of angles right? Well the main bearing part (the Dark Grey L shape) has 3 bends on it not one like you would think at first look. Also the Door hinge is on the OUTSIDE and BELOW the door when the door is closed, meaning the open door's top edge is BELOW the closed doors lower edge by several inches even though they are the SAME door edge. When I go to the Air museum I will see if they still have the space shuttle Engineer's book I donated years ago to them. if they do, I might just be-able to get you exact dimensions and angles of those parts. It has been so long I just don't remember what was covered in that book. The book predates Challenger by atleast 2 years but I remember a plethora of dimensioned drawings dealing with the various parts of the shuttle crew could work on or around. - - - Updated - - - Something that would be nice for a Landing Gear mod, A Mk1 and Mk2 version of the F-111 main gear. Not the best photograph but notice how the main gear seems to HANG. This landing gear has a solid plate instead of an axle between the two wheels (think a series of 4 parts to connect the wheels, two squares that each have a triangle on the opisite end. The joint where the square and triangle meet are hinge lines, a Hydraulic ram is attached to these hinges, pulling up to retract and pushing down to deploy. A control arm, not unlike that which holds the front tires of your car on and straight is attached at each end of the triangle right next to the wheels. This narrows the entire assembly as it rises up into the fuselage. The whole assembly is then covered by the drooping door in front of the main wheels. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/F-111B_CVA-43_approach_July1968.jpg <-- US Navy official Photo so no Copyright.

What information do you need about Landing gears? I have a ton of off the top of my head information and feel reasonably comfortable that I can dig out more specific information on short order. I do not have much in the was of specifics of a paticular landing gear unless it was a 1st of it's generation type Landing gear (The Boeing 90 rotation gear, the Kawanishi self lengthening gear etc from the original Shiden...) Like I stated above, the most information I have directly on hand for modern "Bogey" style landing gears comes from the study of the collapse of XB-70 AV-1's landing gear.

I have already started sorting my personal source material Visa-V Landing gears. Probably my best sources will be those relating to the XB-70 Valkyrie since after the failure of the Right main on AV-01 there was an in-depth study done on landing gear strength in relation to thermal heating of the structural elements of the landign gear (the leg, hydraulic dampeners bogie beam truss etc.) Incidentally. RE your Skylon, I am curious as to why everyone assumes black rubber tires. To my knowledge no rubber compound that is black could be usable for more than 1 flight. Would suggest a Silver tire similar to the Valkyrie as the high metal content tire was designed for hundreds of uses. Not just 1. After each flight the US Space Shuttle got new shoes after all

To use a Nautical term. Roll on Roll Off. As cargo/vehicles are moving off from one end, new vehicles and cargo can come in the other.

I will be willing to help as well. However I am not an Engineer but more of a historian with an engineering background, basically an Airplane Nerd. I have a knack for getting accurate data out of innocuous texts. I can find the logic in they WHY things are done without all facts in evidence. This can be helpful for things like RCS placement. Also as my current series of articles cover, I have a nose for ferreting out changes from design to production that are not often documented. The Photo of the cargo visor for the 747 is a perfect example. It is actually a derivative (in process, not exact design) of the McD C-17's visor. And yes a Nose cone that lifts above the cockpit for access to the cargo area is called a Visor. Some people will call it a Nose Cone when it is in flight position but a movable nose cone in engineering parlance is always a visor. One drawback to the term visor though is specific to the 747. The Early 747-100 aircraft did not have normal passenger seating on the upper deck. Rather the Upper deck was the location of a Bar/lounge or sometimes configured as a workspace/meeting place for professionals on the flight. Back in the early days some 747 Pilots and Crews called the Cockpit a Visor because it was ABOVE the passenger cabin. The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which flew for the first time around the same time as the 747 was the first aircraft to have a Visor that lifted above the cockpit. All previous aircraft that had nose access moved the cockpit with the nose.

The Effects on the RS-68 are just like Jeb... VERY BadAss. An engine model request. Could we get engines WITHOUT the mounting rings? Ie the node is at the narrow point of the engine pump/thrust structure assembly. I have many part mods and I really do not like it when the engine ring is larger than the diameter of the tank by a few percentage points. All of the FASA engines, for example, have gone this route and they are EXCEEDINGLY compatible with any tank size.

In all my years of KSP I have not seen an Apollo Rover replica. That does not mean it didn't exist at some point. - - - Updated - - - When I was still using the Apollo CSM stack I had a similar problem. But that was in ver 5.01 I think. It turned out that it was another mod causing it to me (I THINK it was one of the various "Non Snjo compiled" Firespitter.dlls that have been "Modified" to fit a specific mod.) I doubt this will help you directly but it might give you a starting point.

Please read the first page of this thread.

That Color is DAY-GLOW Red. It is ONLY used on EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and Missiles. It was not on any PRODUCTION Atlas unless it was being used in a Test Launch. No Photo from that time-frame can show you the true color of DAY-GLOW. It is more Orange than RED. But it is one of the first Florescent paints (by today's standards it would not be considered florescent.)

I can confirm that I somehow corrupted the Plugins. Thanks, I am up and running!

Probably not a bug but I just download the URM pack for the first time (my first Kosmos mod installed.) None of the primary parts show up in game except some of the ancillary items. Is there some dependency for the tanks and engines to show up? All I have is a URM fuel/monopropellant line showing up in both sandbox and career. I am running several other mods (SpaceY/ModularRockets/Modular Tanks + SpaceX and a slew of Dmagic and Diazo Mods.) Are there known incompatibilities? I did not see any listed on the first page or any of the recent announcements. Troubleshooting I have done: 1) Have steam check my files and update as needed 2) Deleated several mods (B9, Retrofuture etc,) Deleted ATM. 3) Verified I am below 2GB memory footprint in sandbox. 4) Re-downloaded URM from Kerbalstuff and after deleting original files I re-installed. TIA I am looking forward to using a your new RD170 family of models!

I won't second the motion on the Apollo CM. Too many issues with the stupid AJ-10-RD-137 not working right on it's associated SM. I wanted instead to second the motion on the fact that the Gemini Capsule in both original IVA and MOARdV's "Digital" IVA is THE 2.5m base capsule for me. Even if I do not run the FASA mod as a whole, I run the Gemini Capsule! It is in every build of KSP I run currently save one (and that is only because I am only doing planes/SSTOs.) On the Subject of RO, I don't know of something like this has already been implemented like this but maybe it is time to think along these lines. Why not just ask the RO community to post a Link TO THE RO community with a "Problems with XXX mod configs" link next to each CFG download? So to my original point. Frizzank, thanks again for THE BEST COMPLETE Capsule in KSP!

Two questions, with followups 1) why isn't this in with your existing CoffeeIndustries mod? Are you separating out Various country's cockpits? 2) Is there a scalar reason you didn't go with a 45Degree inclined windshield/windscreen? IE did the size of the Kerbals force you to change the angle of the Windscreen? From the first vertical bar aft it looks like a good A6M canopy, but the windscreen is too steep ala 1st generation enclosed cockpit aircraft. 45degrees for almost every new fighter post 1935. All the Kawasaki fighters in common use in WWII were near 45 degrees. The A6M-any Zero was also at 45 Degrees. Thanks!

Mass movement arm. The further away from the Center of mass a control is the smaller it needs to be to impart the same movement. ESP forward of the CoM on an aircraft + Cleaner airflow = more efficient canard.

If I could suggest, Go for the HGR standard 1.875m. It is almost excatly correct for Kerbal scale. There is no way a Kerbal could walk upright in a 1.25m fuselage. The Hawkeye seats 4 GIBs + 1 Visitor + Flight crew. The GIBs and Visitor are seated facing the starbord (RIGHT) side. There is room to walk behind those seats.

Ok I don't fly "Real Saturn" missions so I haven't spent a lot of time on this. outside of Skylab I use Saturn II INT-18 And Gemini Titan IV almost exclusively for in Kerbin SOI+. But here are some observations from my few launch tests with the Saturn S1C stage. 1) The more launch clamps attached radially the worse the twist is. 2) Using alternative engines of similar total thrust with bottom node attachments (RD-191/RD-170 from Soviet Engine Pack at .64 scale.) and using the 2.5m FASA launch clamp on the central RD-170, the roll was GREATLY reduced (4 total launch clamps, CL engine, and 3 of the SPACE-Y super clamps at every 120 degrees.) 2a) Using only bottom attach launch clamps of the 1.25 and 2.5m FASA persuasion eliminated Launch twist to a non issue (It was so negligible that I couldn't see it under the low resolution NAV-BALL. However the Full Saturn V tries to tip over with just these. During the Test I was using a probe core on a parachute equipped and properly fared S1C stage only. 3) issue is even worse with Nova sized 1st stage. Same test conditions as above 4) Issue is mitigated with asparagus style launch of smaller diameter "stages" until you get to about 10-15meter radius launch stacks then it can appear again. hypothesis: Radial launch clamps are staged sequentially. At a smaller radii it is not noticeable. But the higher number of clamps + Greater radii cause enough lag for some radial clamps to release before others with a "Physics calculation scene" in the middle of the release process. I believe this is tide in some way to the NODE SIZE and an internal calculation dealing with the greater radius than expected (EG 5m class instead of 3.75m class.) NOTE: I have not tested this with any other 5m tanks or other 5m class engine/engine launch plates. But CFG wise I see nothing in the existing CFGs to cause this issue on their own.

This was covered two pages back. Frizzank's exact reply was

First I will start with the oft stated, Follow the steps on the first page of this forum. Second the entirety of FASA is based on KERBAL Scale, not EARTH scale. Thus any mods that change the size or gravity of Kerbol/Kerbin will likely break FASA. Third, Make certain you are at full throttle when you start. I have had engine starts at the default 50% that cause the engine to fail. Hope that helps!

The animation will clip and it won't push of the fuselage. However I would still do the animation. Add a small separator motor with no visible thrust using the De-coupler icon that kicks the nose of the booster away from the rocket fuselage. No fuss no muss. Rocket actually has a seperatron style micro rocket in the nose but the player it looks just like it should in real life.

You can combine two Modules in the CFG but they will operate separately. Necrobones has done that with his SpaceY OMS/RCS pods. The OMS engine portion is completely separate from the RCS and operates just like any other engine, even though it is the same CFG and the same Model. IE Squad has not set up KSP to allow RCS control schema to switch to a throttleable rocket schema with gimbals and such. RE Soyuz engine, I would suggest Core engine has 4 nodes for the Verniers. The 4 boosters would get two Verniers each and the core would get 4. OR alternatively The models for the tanks get 2 and 4 Vernier nodes and one larger node for the engine itself.

The new Models look fabulous! I am wondering if I could ask you to make a modified version of your 1.875 to 2.5 adapter? I use your exiting HGR mod combined with FASA to make the Titan I rocket (among many other uses I have for the HGR parts pack.) The 1.875m tank parts are perfect for Titan I's second stage (comparing to a 2.5m first stage.) Would it be possible to request out a hollowed out version of the 1.875 to 2.5 adapter to be used as a stack separator? I feel the Size difference stack separators are seriously missing from the game at the moment. Thanks

I can not currently use this mod as others have hinted it crashes both of my KSP machines. However, Cdodders, If you right click on the Fuel tank you can switch between types (atleast you could in .25)

Two questions about this; 1) you stated you would like to make FASA a Standard so that the entire game can be run on it about a hundred posts back. Are you planning on creating your own Contracts so you can slow down development? For example: Currently I am getting Explore Duna missions well before any of the FASA landers are available (Either the Gemini or the Apollo landers.) 2) Any chance of a Gemini lander craft file? Every time I try to build a Titan IIIC for it I somehow screw it up. (Not enough Delta-V to get to the mun and then back seems to be the biggest issue.) 2.a) Are we going to see the Titan III/IV SRBs earlier in the progression then?

You can almost do that with the current partset for the S-IVB. You use the RL-10s that are associated with the Centaur Upper stage with the standard J-2 Engine plate for S-IVB. You can only put 5 RL-10s instead of the origional design 6 but it work OK (as of 4.98, I have not tried it with the update 5.0 cfg files.)

What do you mean non standard? Many mods out there use the 1.875m standard, and this is the correct way to depict a Gemini (within the scope of "Standard" sizes.) You could easily download the Home Grown Rockets mod or other mods like it to get the 1.875m parts. In fact here is my take on a Titan I with Gemini (Now I just need a Titan I warhead and bus!)