Jump to content

Surefoot

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    371

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Surefoot

  1. Surefoot
    Checked the Concorde configuration, it's a delta wing with slight ogival shape, anhedral (drooping from the middle of the wing approximately), no leading edge slats, no flaps, no airbrakes, no canards ! Just elevons (3 pairs). Doing this with pwings and still attaching the engine pods straight on will be an interesting challenge. (edit) useful link: http://www.concordesst.com/wing.html
  2. Surefoot
    See a few posts before, i clearly mentioned i tried the elevon design (and even played around with fuel transfers) - and i am still missing something. When i look closely these planes all have some degree of wing camber, clever tricks such as lifting body for the blackbird, and so on. The combination of all these tricks is what makes them fly, and i am missing at least one, since so far my tests are mostly lawn darts.
  3. Surefoot
    And that's why i am trying to take inspiration from them, and see what "any means available" is actually, since they did find a solution. My current problem with tailless designs is two-fold, first is an unrecoverable mach tuck, the other is constant pitch-down even at subsonic, to the point i cannot even fly up sometimes. I have quite some experience with FAR (and have very successful conventional designs, including SSTO's that can go to Laythe and such), it's just i think i am reaching the limitations of KSP modelling tools at the moment - i would need finer rotation increments (so far it's 15°) in order to create a proper cambered wing for instance, which seems to be a common feature of those delta-winged supersonics. Trying to compensate with leading edge control surfaces, the idea suggested by Ferram that they would be situated near COM has to be explored
  4. Surefoot
    i was more specifically thinking of tail-less designs such as SR-71, Concorde, XB-70, Space Shuttle... How do they avoid the very violent pitch-down tendency i noticed when recreating said designs, and mach tuck effects ? I was thinking about leading edge control surfaces, and maybe some flaps... when i have more time i'll check out the designs for Concorde. For example the aborted Boeing supersonic had a very visible wing camber, which is very hard to reproduce in KSP due to too large angular increments when positioning wing elements.
  5. Surefoot
    @ferram: you say ideally flaps should be around the COM, i suppose the same goes for control surfaces, including leading edge flaps ? That would enable delta wing / elevon designs where the trailing edge is quite far behind...
  6. Surefoot
    Interesting. I'll have a try and see if it fits in RAM with all the mods.. That will spice up my next Grand Tour.
  7. Surefoot
    Yep. I do it all the time for big fuel tankers and huge ships - makes them easier to launch (or possible at all, in some cases). Inflatable stuff can keep a lower profile, which is better for ascent (i use FAR), as large stuff can be tricky.
  8. Surefoot
    I have seen it many times, including "dancing" engines (they dance around the launchpad by themselves), and also a "walking eve lander" (with a Kerbal in EVA even ! i had to run after my ship ! ), all this with previous versions, so i think it's not new or specific to v2.
  9. Surefoot
    I did a quick test with RAPIER engines and had them overheat in rocket mode, in a matter of seconds, and i dont have KSP Interstellar (but i have MFT).
  10. Surefoot
    Same here. Takes me a loong time to iterate over my Eve lander design, i can manage the landing OK, but i'm where i need to get to that mystical 10000dV with a ship that holds together, and each test means a looong landing procedure (with a fail sometimes due to randomness of landing in atmosphere with FAR)... Or maybe i missed the function that allows to change the gravity of Kerbin (to match Eve) ? (i'll take a second look ) (edit) my bad, after a second look we can alter the gravity of Kerbin So i dont need to do the whole Eve landing to test my lander-that-can-return woot.
  11. Surefoot
    Not sure if that was asked before, i have B9 airbrakes burning off a bit prematurely off my SSTO, while landing gears are ok. Is it normal ? (using FAR too).
  12. Surefoot
    300 pages, let's pop the champagne How do we throw a little money at you Ferram, you extended my gameplay for maybe that many hours (that's about 300) just thanks to your mod. Still having a blast flying my various planes, space going or not. Also still *****ting bricks when aerobraking on Jool. FUN !
  13. Surefoot
    Thanks, that's good enough for me.
  14. Surefoot
    When i am on dark side of Kerbin, i still can see the clouds quite clearly - is there a way to tune that down so the dark side is completely dark ?
  15. Surefoot
    @Thrombo: a quick test gave me 21.6% in orbit: jumbo64 + RCS battery control module + small tank and engines, basically a refuel module, a bit over 54t in orbit with a 260t launcher (rounded down). Maybe one could do better i used a conventional staging and no detachable side engines for the launch... I think you cant do much better with conventional means since you are still fighting gravity anyway. (edit) that's for reaching 80x80km orbit. Tried again with proper payload fairings and adjusted fuel volumes, still get to around 21% payload fraction.
  16. Surefoot
    Well i'm still planning to fly that 2000t tanker to Jool I aint no afraid of some wobbly, as long as everything stays together, and as long as the kraken stays wherever he is.
  17. Surefoot
    I see. They are so useful though, precise control over masses and fuel quantities, precise control over size of elements, all that with very few parts in the catalog.. I use them exclusively now for just everything. Good to keep in mind (i think that's something you might want to put on 1st post by the way). So the solution to have a huge fuel capacity, is not to use one big 5mx60m tank, but to split it in small sections right ? The main problem i would see is whatever structural piece is connected to the tank (such as SAS wheels typically) will cause problems. Is it solved if i use progressively smaller sections in order not to exceed the 5:1 ratio ?
  18. Surefoot
    Does it mean you replaced it with the proper version ? Or that we're back to noodle mode when using stretchies ?
  19. Surefoot
    I didnt make any calculation yet (i'll do so today) but it's much higher than 15% by feel - i'll design a quick test rocket with a jumbo-64 payload.
  20. Surefoot
    In a similar vein, an "empty all resources" would be neat too, i would have quite a few uses for that when testing lander designs.
  21. Surefoot
  22. Surefoot
    Depends if you understand aerodynamics (in this case it's easier) or if you dont (in which case it's much, much harder). Also good designs become really easy to fly, and awkward designs are... awkward at least
  23. Surefoot
    Do i spot an integrated control surface ? Awesomeness.
  24. Surefoot
    Kevin MacLeod's suitable tracks for space, in the same spirit as stock tracks: Darkest Child Deliberate Thought Fanfare for space (for that 2001 feel !) Hypnothis Schmetterling Spacial Harvest (almost 11 minutes long) Tempting Secrets And for the VAB/SPH, more light, swingy jazzy tunes, most with that Film Noir feel: Airport Lounge Bass Vibes Covert Affair Dispersion Relation Fast Talkin George Street Shuffle (enjoy those vibes !) Hot Swing I knew a guy Intractable NoGoodLayabout On the Cool Side Shades of Spring Sidewalk Shade Sweeter Vermouth (a bit short though)
  25. Surefoot
    .. challenge accepted If we reach that level of realism, that will be very impressive, i dont know if any sim out there goes that far (pun intended).
×
×
  • Create New...