Search the Community

Mortimer Kerman plans to strike it rich by mining metals on Kerbin! Gus Kerman has supplied all the drills and sifters, and Walt Kerman swears he has a customer lined up, now it is up to you to design the transport. The goal of this challenge to build and demonstrate an ultra-heavy cargo plane to haul metals using Roverdude's excellent Kontainers. To achieve this you must: Take off from the runway at the KSC Fly over the island airfield to demonstrate airworthiness Land intact back at KSC to deliver your metals (you may use the grass for this bit!) Only two mods are mandatory for this challenge: USI Core by @RoverDude for the metals containers (be sure to try out his other stuff too) FAR by @ferram4 because after a hard day's work big aircraft deserve the gentle comfort of voxel-model based aerodynamics! Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is also highly recommended. All other stock-alike mods are fine, and use as many visual or information mods as you like. Unfortunately however I have to say no to tweakscale or any unrealistically overpowered mods (refer to rule 1 below) as it might make this challenge too easy. Scoring: You get a basic point for every unit of metals delivered intact back to the KSC For bonus points, complete extra flybys or landings at Kerbin’s Easter egg locations during your demonstration flight. Add the appropriate multipliers and then multiply basic points by this sum. (note: landing somewhere obviously also includes flyby, so add both) Flyby Landing Island Airfield nil 5 Desert Temple 2 3 Old Space Centre 2 2 UFO Crash Site 5 1 All 5 Kerbin Monoliths 10 50 Total score is the sum of basic points and bonus points. If you have broken your plane returning to the KSC then you get a total score of zero! That’s right, Mortimer isn’t interested in craft that are not reusable. Minor, repairable damage is fine. Drop tanks and boosters (if used) are not required to be attached to the aircraft when you finally deliver your metals. Mid-journey refuelling from another vessel is not allowed. Mid-journey refuelling with ISRU built into your aircraft is fine (but all the metals must be loaded at the start of the journey, no top ups!) Example scoring scenario: 2,500 metals delivered after completing island flyover airworthiness test, flying to and landing at the Desert Temple, and returning intact to the grass at the KSC: total score = 2,500 + 2,500 x (2 + 3) = 15,000 Rules: No cheating… if it feels like cheating it probably is! So no F12 cheats, config edits, hyper edits, or obscene part clipping. Kraken drives are fine, if ye can slay thy beast... Quicksaving is fine, but only while you are landed. This means no endless retries at landing until eventually one works, Mortimer doesn’t want craft that only work occasionally! Calculate your score and submit a brief flight report with an imgur album showing at least: take off from runway airworthiness island fly over any bonus flybys or landings (landed aircraft within view of easter egg) landed craft intact at the KSC final flight results (F3) screen with metals qty observable That’s it! Everything else goes design wise, so enjoy.

Welcome to the ASC Dueling Arena! Tired of waiting for an official tournament slot to see how your fighter fares against others? Wait no more! Post either a duel challenge or a duel result: Open challenge: Make a post stating you want to open your fighter to challenge anyone Link your fighter in the post List any mods used. (You can upload your craft to KerbalX.com to have it do all of this for you). Post a dueling result: Make a post showing a picture or video of your fighter winning or losing against any other craft in this thread. Include a link to your fighter in your result post so your awesomeness can be confirmed by others. Duels are whatever you wish to setup (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 2v4, etc). The idea is to show how you win, or lose, so in the crucible of combat dueling, you and others can improve combat aircraft designs. Who will post the first fighter requesting a duel?

When the game was still in Beta I see that folks managed to create electric powered ion planes. I missed out on all that, but wanted to see if it was still possible to do something remotely similar. I used tweakscale to boost the size of the Ox-Stat panel as much as possible , and covered my wings in them... (also note the thrusters have been boosted to 1.25m diameter, and the larger Advanced Canard) I knew that the Ion thruster wouldn't produce much thrust in the lower atmosphere, so i stuck a jet engine on the back with the idea to jettison high up, and fly to orbit and beyond on ion power. Unfortunately, it looks like these panels made my wing really draggy. Even after firing up my stack of Dawn thrusters (an extra 60kn), we're not able to pass the sound barrier at 12km. I suppose I could have tried flying even higher, but it doesn't bode well. Also, we've used most of our jet fuel. I guess if the sound barrier is our target, i should have swapped the Rapier for a Panther or two, which are more efficient. Worse, it appears midday sun at the KSC only makes enough electricity for about 12kn. That won't cut it. Fuel cells perhaps, to boost us to orbit? It looks like the only way to do this is to mod parts. Wing with flexible conformal solar cells that add no drag and not much weight. High power high temperature 1.25m fuel cell that can run off atmospheric air and hydrogen/LF.

Sector 7 Space Laboratories - Aeronautics Division - Lil Tiger This craft is one of those craft that are nice to buzz around the Airbase with, it's quick to load because of it's low part count, lifts quickly and makes sharp bank turns. It handles full warp well but won't hold a good level flight at a high warp. Have fun! Lil Tiger Flight Operations: Engage SAS, throttle up to full then press spacebar and have fun! Craft File Lil Tiger

Greetings, KSP Community. Here's an Aircraft I've had in my SPH for a while, and I decided to share it with you guys, as it's a great aircraft. The Hydra I, It's a lightweight, highly maneuverable, two Kerbal aircraft capable of going supersonic. It was originally created after I was inspired by the F-82 Twin-Mustang to build a twin-fuselage aircraft of my own, this was the result. It is highly maneuverable and is capable of accelerating even going vertically upwards, something which would make most aircraft stall. It's statistics are: TWR: 1.71. Mass: 14.347 tons. Delta-V: 20,705 m/s. Parts: 63. Intake Air: 6.0. Liquid Fuel: 600. Electric Charge: 900. Crew Capacity: 2. Engines: 3 J-404 "Panther" Afterburning Turbofans. Takeoff Speed: Around 35 m/s. Height: 4.0 meters. Width: 22.7 meters. Length: 14.6 meters. Power Generation: 6 OX-STAT Photovoltaic Panels. Mods: None. Action groups are the default settings with the exception of RCS, which controls the Engine mode. It is named after the Hydra from ancient Mythology, which was a serpent with more than one head, similarly the Hydra I has two fuselages. Click here to go to the KerbalX page, where you can download it. Thanks for reading, bonus thanks if you download it. -Dolphin.

SERIES III Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill 4v4 AI Duels (WW1 Theme) How Long Will You Claim Air Superiority? Inigma's YouTube Channel Test your design against the current King of the Hill, then Submit your entry to the ASC KerbalX.com Hangar and post a link in this thread to enter! ASC Match Hosts: @inigma | @jrodriguez | @g00bd0g | @Hobbes Novakoff | @Draconiator | @colmo Check out these other ASC Divisions: ASC-IV (No Restrictions) Coming July! | ASC-A (PvE Arena Ladder) Coming Soon! King of the Hill: TorchedForever - K1A Volante Number of Wins: 8 Registered belligerents: The Optimist - 2 Woodpecker, 1 Desert Moth Type 3, 1 Fighter Beefalo - DEFEATED! GDJ - Avro Super-Bee - DEFEATED! He_162 - Heinkel P3 - DEFEATED! Triop - FU-247 - DEFEATED! epicman81 - 1 mk25 Llama (20mm), 1 mk25 Llama (50 cal), 2 mk24 Starfish - DEFEATED! Draconiator - Kerbwith Alpaca - DEFEATED! AlexTheHu - ASC Tri - DEFEATED! qzgy - PointyStickFish Mk 11 - DEFEATED! It began with a challenge... inigma claimed King of the the Hill on April 3, 2016 with a pair of Fighter Papa-1s over KSC and KSC Islands. Not soon after, his son challenged him with a pair of dp class fighters of his own. The Air Superiority Challenge was born! ASC Series Playlist: The Air Superiority Challenge is a rotating challenge series from a catalog of currently adopted rule sets: No Restrictions, Modern Style, WWI Style, and other ideas we come up with by consensus. Only one series is active at at time, but each series will be posted in rotation. Most Series last a month. Some longer or shorter depending on interest, time, and new software releases. What never changes is the general format: two AI teams dueling for control of a piece of territory, most commonly KSC Island, using stock and BDArmory parts only (with a little Kerbal Aircraft Expansion thrown in here or there for spite). How long your team will claim the ASC KOTH title depends on how many times your designs survive challenges to your reign. Air Superiority Challenge III Match Rules: All matches are hosted in KSP 1.1.2 with the latest BDArmory, Kerbal Aircraft Expansion, and Aviator Arsenal mod versions. To ease the load of the match hosts, and to increase confidence in your submission, you may only submit an entry that you've tested against the current King of the Hill. Your post must state you've done so. Challenges to the King of the Hill will be processed on a first-come first-served basis by whichever match host volunteer happens to be available to do so (you can join the ASC Host team, PM inigma to do so). Challenges are best of 3 rounds of 4v4 take off from near KSC runway in opposite directions, BDArmory Tournament Mode: 4km re-engagement over KSC. To win a round or claim title to King of the Hill, one of your surviving craft must: have a Kerbal in your craft have at least one engine remaining (out of fuel ok) have at least one weapon attached (empty ok) still appear on the VS list in the BDA GUI (your weapons module hasn't been shot off) if there are no survivors with all the above, the round will be considered a draw, and a new round required. In case of a draw or bugged round, a round will be added to the match. 3 draws in a row will result in the match going to the current King of the Hill. Any craft that has disengaged is considered lost. All seats on a craft will be filled. Two seater? Two Kerbals. Yes, Kerbals weigh a few. All matches will be made available on the official YouTube playlist embedded above. Air Superiority Challenge III Entry Rules: 4 aircraft (must look like a plane) required per team (can be same or different crafts), all must be manned with at least one Kerbal, all Kerbals in command seats, no closed cockpits. All craft must be built in KSP 1.1.2 50 part limit maximum per craft. 2 fixed guns maximum, no turrets All stock parts permitted except the following prohibited stock parts: all stock engines all Mk3 sized parts Big S wing Big S elevon SAS modules reaction wheel modules No mod parts permitted except the following: BDArmory (required for AI Flight Computer, and AI Weapons Manager. The .50 caliber Browning machine gun is the only weapon from this mod permitted in this series.) Aviator Arsenal (any fixed non-turreted weapon from this mod is permitted) - ASC KOTH.cfg file (to fix issue with Aviator Arsenal's antenna part, goes anywhere in your GameData folder) Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (required for liquid fueled propeller engines only, no other parts permitted) No restrictions on AI, or Weapons Manager settings. Entries must contain download link for the craft file(s) to the ASC KerbalX.com Hangar and posted to this thread (static links prevent me having to update the OP with your new versions). Only AI and Weapons Manager changes are permitted to the ASC champion between matches to fine-tune their AI response to upcoming challengers. No other part changes are permitted to the ASC champion. All challengers are permitted to make any changes they wish to their craft up to and just before their match vs the current ASC champion. If you are next in line, please notify the match host so your changes are committed to the match. If the match host missed your note, it's not their fault. Just re-submit your craft. Only one active entry per person at a time (to prevent dueling yourself). Match hosts will only engage staging once to turn on your engines at 0 throttle up to 3 minutes before match start, so be sure to tie in any components you want activated to the staging action group (competition start engages staging automatically), and be sure to include enough electricity to keep them active while stationary and throttled to 0. You may not trigger the Weapons Manager, or AI, or any of their settings, via the staging or SAS action groups. This prematurely enables fighting, and crafts that do will be disqualified. Hosting Details: Rounds will be processed depending on our time and general availability (hopefully semi-daily). With that in mind, let's see how far we can take this! You are welcome to host your own matches and publish the results in this thread if any of the ASC match hosts fail to respond within 7 days to the next belligerent challenge. If you decide to host an ASC match, you must have a dedicated KSP 1.1.2 64 bit install that only has the following mods installed: Aviator Arsenal ASC KOTH.cfg file (Fixes issue with Aviator Aresnal antenna. Goes anywhere in your GameData folder) BahamutoD's BDArmory BahamutoD's BDAVesselSwitcher BahamutoD's Vessel Mover BahamutoD's DestructionEffects HyperEdit iPeer's InFlightFlagSwitcher Kerbal Aircraft Expansion Malah's QuickBrake Take Command Texture Replacer Visual mods are permitted as long as they don't seriously degrade your match processing. Match hosts must post all rounds to YouTube channel with KSP: ASC III KOTH belligerent vs king (Round # of # or Full Match) BDArmory AI Dogfight Battle and update this thread with a link. Shall we get started? Who will be the first to challenge the ASC King of the Hill? Air Superiority Challenge Series III - Line of Succession SuicidalInsanity - SI-5 Tyrant - 1 win Draconiator - Super Llama - 1 win JollyGreenGI - K&K Sweep - 2 wins Bananders - Crown Nightingale Mk2 - 1 win The Optimist - 2 Woodpecker, 1 Desert Moth Type 3, 1 Fighter Beefalo - 2 wins TorchedForever - K1A Volante - 8 wins Previous ASC Series Top Reigning Kings: ASC-I - SuicidalInsanity - Solarius III - 6 wins ASC-II - g00bd0g - VulcaRaptor - 10 wins - ASC Grand Champion ASC-III - TorchedForever - K1A Volante - 8 wins

Exoplanetary jet engines? What want you mean brother? Okay, the title can be confusing, but the idea is simple: I suggest add special jet engines to fly in "no kerbal like" planets. The main problem of current jet engines is that only works in kerbin and laythe atmospheres. This is not really a problem, because has logic, jet engines works burning fuel, so need a oxygen atmosphere. However this do the planet exploration a little limited. My idea is add special engines fly in not-oxygen atmospheres. These are my ideas: 1. Propeller: It would be a basic device, obtained in the first tech slot with relation with aircraft propulsion (ie, in the same slot that the "basic jet engine". The propeller would have these disadvantages and advantages: + Propeller only needs electricity, and does not need fuel. + Propeller can work in any type of atmosphere (with notable density and pressure), because her propulsion is based by movement of such and not reaction. + Cheap. - Propeller generates very little mounts of propulsion (low isp), unable to obtain supersonic velocities (in kerbal are 300 m/s), also can not support these velocities (explodes or simply does not work) and suffer very big increase of temperature at these speeds, so only works in subsonic and transonic slow speeds. Also, propeller would require of special animation. 2. Dunian/Evenian jet engine: It would be a special engine capable to work in any atmosphere that would make use of two things: intake air and "alkaline fuel". What is alkaline fuel? This jet engine that I suggest is based in real design for mars exploration aircraft. The real version make use of the atmosphere air (that can be of any type, except helium) and magnesium. The magnesium has a big relation with solid fuel, in fact my first idea was make use of solid fuel, but I think that by utility has more sense add a new different fuel. Obviously "alkali fuel" does not fit much, it can be considered an aproximation of the final name, I am opened to suggestions to change the name. This jet engine would be obtained in a advanced tech slot, like advanced landing, hypersonic fly or super-heavy rockery. Disadvantages and advantages of the evenian/dunian jet engine: + Can work in any atmosphere. + Works as well as the "basic jet engine" (similar thrust) in Eve and Dune atmospheres. + Works as well as the cheap "turbofan engines" (similar thrust) in Kerbal and Laythe atmospheres. + Capable to obtain hypersonic speeds in cluster (in theory). - Works with 1/2 the "basic jet engine" power in Jool atmosphere. - Expensive as "RAPIER engine". - Heavy as "RAPIER engine". - Isp ever is minor to normal fuel-based jet engines, due to make use of alkaline fuel that is heavier. The addition of this new jet engine also implies the addition of "alkali fuel tanks" that are a little heavier than fuel tanks. Fount: http://www.wickmanspacecraft.com/marsjet.html Another alternative to "alkaline fuel" (if the idea of add a new material is not convincing), is the "solid fuel". 3. Nuclear jet engine: We have nuclear thermal rocket engines, why not nuclear jet engines? Nuclear jet engines would be heavy but would not make use of fuel, only intake air. Disadvantages and advantages of the nuclear jet engine: + Does not make use of any type of fuel, works in any atmosphere. + Capable to obtain hypersonic speeds in cluster (in theory). + Unlimited flight possibility. - Very heavy, like a "rocketmax engine". - Power of thrust similar or superior to "basic jet engine", difficulty to obtain big velocities. - Very expensive, like a nuclear thermal rocket engine or major. As last curiosity, this type of engine was in development in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft NEW: 4. Joolian jet engine: A joolian would be similar to normal jet engine and dunian jet engine, but only can work in planets with hydrogen/fuel atmosphere. Wait a moment the only hydrogen planet that we have is jool. I can not support this thing due to her specific single use. Don't worry, be happy. Yes, we only have one fuel atmosphere planet, but is planned add two or three new gas giant in the future, in the update 1.1 or beyond. Fount: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features#Celestial_bodies How the joolian jet engine would work? This engine would make use of the intake air in gas giant planets and liquid oxidizer. Disadvantages and advantages of the joolian jet engine: + Can work in gas giant atmospheres. + Works as well as the medium price "turbofan engine" (similar thrust) in Jool atmosphere. + Capable to obtain hypersonic speeds in cluster (in theory). - Only can work in gas giant atmospheres. - Expensive as "RAPIER engine". - Heavy as "RAPIER engine". - Isp ever is minor to normal fuel-based jet engines, due to make use of oxidizer that is heavier. The addition of this new jet engine also implies the addition of separed oxidizer tanks. Thanks for read.

Hi. Lately I have been playing the game in career mode, in hard difficulty, the true is that I have lots of problem, but are not money or science problems... ...are time problems. The control of rocket, although is in hard difficulty, is moderately relaxing and fast, when you are in orbit, you can add a very big warp time. The problem is the aircraft fly (and the use of other types of non-space vehicles), to explore the biomes of the itself planet. The aircraft fly is very slow compared with the rocket fly, implies lots of time-outs, without have to interact in the game, this is really annoying. I suggest add the possibility of warp more than "x4 time speed" when you are in a big height with a stable position, to solve these time-outs of interaction and make the exploration of biomes with aircraft more pleasurable and satisfactory.

I cant put up the craft file because i am using so many mods that idk which i am using for this particular ship although it seems somewhat stock. However i will still post pictures Real life

So I was just up one night, tired from intensive spacecraft testing (which I'll post on the WIP thread soon) and decided to throw something together... It ended up looking like a Su-27 and went, stuff it, i'm doing this. No, it can't "really" do a Pugachev's Cobra, but by definition it still has supermaneuverability, in true, slow speed russian fashion, Max speed at sea level is 285m/s, bleeds speed ridiculously in high speed turns, can do ridiculous maneuvers at low speed (<50m/s), and horibbly unreliable in 4x physics warp (at x3 its on the brink of falling apart), but physics warp is fine at high alt. Can reach 8500m in dry mode and 15000m in wet mode (17000m with low fuel). 1=Afterburner 2=Flaps 3=Close all intakes (immediate engine shut down) 0=Disable Reaction wheels and engine gimbal Sugoi 27 is the original version, Sugoi 27K has the canards on the front DL: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g22yj0mgpk3tu13/AAD_B0piE8NQjfYaQlUwil8la?dl=0

Flies pretty well (without hacking gravity mind you), but it has a short range. I have not tried to put bombs or rockets on it but feel free to share a screenshot of it with weapons if you want. Because of the landing gear placement, you have to come in at a very shallow angle, but it's not the biggest challenge. [Download]

My situation: I've accepted contracts to perform experiments on the surface of Eve. As career players know these sort of contracts require you to visit several small areas in a cluster while carrying a specific piece of equipment. Thus you need to not only land on the planet but aim your landing, and then travel horizontally somehow. Of course the easy method is to install the right mod, or build a tiny rover, but here at KSP we don't do things because they're easy. So I've designed a high lift rocket powered aircraft. I've tested on Kerbin, but not Eve. To be honest although I've logged many hours in KSP I have yet to fly an aircraft to or on another planet. The high gravity of Eve and Jool multiply your weight, and thus the needed lift and thus presumably the size of your wings. In addition you can't use jet engines. Though any rocket plane will still have less range than the equivalent jet plane, or a plane using a electric engine from a mod. Eve has a notoriously thick atmosphere which I believe will increase the lift provided by the wings, but also increase drag, making high speed travel impractical. Though I do believe a slower craft with an excessive number of wing parts could maximize the advantage of lift and minimize the disadvantage of drag. A rocket powered craft should glide most of the time, and only use low throttle bursts to maintain speed without losing altitude, and also during take off and turns. On Duna, I am guessing the reverse would be true. There will be low drag, but also low lift. You could compensate with extra wings, but I would imagine a better solution would be to throttle up your rocket engines and travel at high speed in a quasi-ballistic arc. The orbit line need not reach your destination, but you ought to travel fast enough to make it visible. High speed increases lift which will help you stay aloft, but you will still be burning plenty of rocket fuel. Stopping might be tricky, but will either require excessive parachutes or excessive turning ability. Laythe, so I've read, makes flyign easy. With low gravity, and a similar atmosphere anything that can fly on Kerbin will fly better on Laythe. Jool would be similar to Eve except that landing is obviously not an option, and returning from low altitude flights is barely an option. On a related note, how does one deliver a flyer into space in the first place? The most obvious answer is to make a capable space plane, but I don't have to in game technology or the personal KSP experience for a space plane, and I don't want to borrow someone else's design. Straping two planes to a mother ship is easy enough, but launching it from the KSC launch pad seem to require that the drag producing wings are near the bottom, but also requires that it can jettison stages at various points in flight without anything impacting the wings, which ofcourse extend fairly far. With nuclear engines, a sufficiently large mothership can make the journey and drop off the flyers at low orbit, though I wonder if there are any tricks for staying intact on the way down. Obviously I am most interested in the situation I've described but I also wanted to open up to discussion to flight that utilizes the atmosphere of other planets, and also getting an aircraft from the KSC to another planet.

Dark Star Aeroworks Ltd. have been the premier aeronautics association in the nation of Lithronia ever since before the First Kerbin War. The company has grown exponentially over the past 50 years; fully funding the nations air force, produces 5000 aircraft a year through factories all over the country, and arms at least 5 air forces across the globe with state of the art prop and newer gas-turbine powered pursuit, strike, bomber and trainer aircraft. They have also supplied numerous airlines with highly advanced, turbine powered commercial airliners that have ferried passengers across the planet at heights and speeds never achieved before. The company is a success story that has been felt all over the world. This is the story of a few of the aircraft that they built, and the pilots that flew them. Dark Star Aeroworks: Type. 003 "Puffer" Scout Aircraft The Puffer is an embodiment of the classic FKW (First Kerbin War) fighter. First flown by chief DSA test pilot, Shelberry Kerman, in late May of 1910 AK. One year later the war began, and 13 Puffers were dispatched to No. 1 Squadron, No. 13 Squadron, and No. 512 Squadron of Dark Star Air Fighting Corps (No. 1 receiving six, No. 2 around four, and No. 512 were given three). It was proven highly effective in combat rather quickly. On the first day of aerial combat six Tytherium bombers of No. 38 Bombing Unit were intercepted by four hostile Type 122 "Raikkaou" fighters of the United Nibblian Conglomorate. Luckily, the bombers had escort from No. 2 Squadron, with Colonel Jebediah Kerman and the aforementioned Shelberry Kerman flying top cover. Three Type 122s were destroyed with no loss of friendly life. By the end of the war, the DSAFC had reformed into the Dark Star Air Force. Colonel Jebediah Kerman was the most successful ace of the three year conflict, with 23 confirmed victories, 32 probables, and 12 damaged. Shelberry Kerman came in third, with 18 victories. In 1915 AK, the entire fleet of 127 Puffers were sold off to other nations, aside from three. Of these three, two were de-militarized, and one was left in a hangar for a few decades. Only two examples of the aircraft are left in existence, they are as listed below: Serial N23390 - The personal mount of Flight Sergeant Kelsby Kerman. Was stored in a hanger on a decommissioned front-line aerodrome for some 40 years. Still retains its military equipment. Currently under restoration for display at KSC-001 Space Centre in Lithronia. Serial N23374 - The personal mount of Wing Commander/DSA Chief Test Pilot Shelberry Kerman. Was de-militarized and kept in airworthy condition for 38 years before a fatal crash occured in 1953 AK at the annual KSC-001 Air Day. Crash resulted in the death of Newnand Kerman, a commercial pilot. Had went under extensive restoration until finally put on display at KSC-001 Space Centre in 1959 AK. Serial N22560, the first production Puffer, pictured here during the Gregford Offensive of December 1912 AK. During the two month offensive, this aircraft was the mount of Robert 'Bob' Kerman, in which he destroyed two enemy aircraft. Note the .303 calibre automatic machine gun above the upper wing. Serial N23374 on that fateful day in 1953. The aircraft took off and went into a steep climb. However, an aerodynamic anomaly occurred and the 'plane went into a flat spin. As it plummeted into the ground, the oil pipes in the cockpit tore from the G-level - a common problem with the aircraft. Newnand Kerman survived the initial crash, but soon perished as the oil tank which is located directly underneath the pilot's seat exploded. The aircraft was rebuilt, and is now on display at the same facility. Note the lack of weaponry. Great amounts of inspiration was drawn from @NathanKell, his aircraft, and the back-stories he has written for him. To him I give many thanks! To be continued...

Applies to KSP versions: 1.0.4 and newer. TL/DR: Among other things, this post explains why your reentering Space Shuttle replica and other winged craft can be unstable even though you built it with Center of Lift (CoL) behind Center of Mass (CoM). It also explains how you can improve general stability of any winged craft with Angle of Incidence (AoI), while at the same time making the craft very SAS friendly, and able to fly straight without SAS. The difference between CoL and Aerodynamic Center Longitudinal Stability, the ability of the aircraft to self stabilize, is attained by having the Aerodynamic Center+ behind CoM. +) The wikipedia explanation for how to calculate the Aerodynamic Center for an aircraft is in the spoiler below. I find it useful to imagine the Aerodynamic Center as an arrow that pulls backward in your craft, relative to it's movement, while the CoL pulls perpendicular to the direction of movement. Lift influences the Aerodynamic Center because, among other things, lift creates drag, but it is only a dominant part while the craft is pointed near prograde. When the craft points away from prograde other types of drag become dominant. CoL actually has less effect on stability, than either Center of Drag and Aerodynamic Center. The CoL actually needs to move to be able to control the craft. To pitch down it needs to move behind CoM. To pitch up the CoL needs to be moved in front CoM. Left and right for roll. And that is exactly what control surfaces do*. You can see this in action in the SPH. Create a simple aircraft mockup, with a handful of structural fuselage. Select the root part and Shift+S, to give it a little AoA, because that's needed for the wings to create lift. Add a couple of small wing panels with control surfaces in mirror symmetry as elevators, either at the front or back. Turn on CoM and CoL and add a couple of larger wing panels with control surfaces in 2x radial symmetry, and place them so CoL is on top of CoM. Using the Rotate Gizmo you can now directly see what really happens to the CoL, when control surfaces move, by rotating them slightly up or down. *) I'll ignore yaw for now. It doesn't contribute to CoL in the same way, because it's a vertical surface. In the SPH yaw is shown as a rotation of the CoL marker. As long as the Aerodynamic Center stays behind CoM, designing your craft with CoL in front or behind of CoM doesn't change aircraft stability much, even in KSP, it just changes how much control input you need to apply, to fly straight. And keeping the Aerodynamic Center behind CoM is the hard part. We can't see the Aerodynamic Center, and for many designs it is close enough to CoL, because large control authority can move the CoL to CoM, so that the CoL works OK as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center, during design. But the closer then CoM is to the rear of the craft, the worse it gets. The Aerodynamic Center is now significatly in front of CoL. So even if CoL at design time is behind CoM, the Aerodynamic Center might be right on top of CoM or in front of it. This is why most people believe CoL needs to be behind CoM. And with the available information it is the right thing to do. Except it's not always enough. This is also one of the reasons why Shuttles in KSP are so hard to get stable, even when the CoL is far behind CoM. If the Shuttle isn't built to account for the invisible Aerodynamic Center, the mass and wings are often concentrated in the back, but that long fuselage, with lots of drag, pulls the Aerodynamic Center in front of CoM. The result is a lawn darting shuttle, because of CoL too far back, which at the same time spins out of control, because of Aerodynamic Centre being in front of CoM. This has led people to accuse the aerodynamics or the cargo bays of being bugged. Which is understandable given the information available at design time. Angle of Incidence (AoI) Most of us were taught how lift works with pictures like this. Pictures showing lift from cambered wing profiles without Angle of Attack. It's not completely wrong, but it's missing a big part. Most of the lift comes from Angle of Attack, not from the cambered shape. But because of how we were taught, we all have a tendency to imagine wings mounted parallel to the fuselage. On top of that KSP defaults to wings mounted that way. When really we shouldn't. And to make things even worse, KSP does not model wings as cambered profiles. Which means: Wings in KSP always need Angle of Attack to provide lift. By giving the wings "built-in AoA", Angle of Incidence, the craft can be pointed prograde while still creating lift. That reduces fuselage drag greatly. If you mount wings with no Angle of Incidence, then the fuselage has to point away from prograde (the direction of movement) in order to get the wings to create lift. This creates a lot of drag. Even in real life, wings are mounted with incidence. For the same reason: Less drag from fuselage. There is no one AoI that works for everything and it isn't necessarily most optimal to have the fuselage pointed directly prograde, because the fuselage can also contribute to lift (not just Mk2). But in my experience it is always better to have at least 1° AoI than none. Personally I use between 1-5° Angle of Incidence on my designs. I don't have any set rules, but fast craft and/or big wings, needs smaller AoI, and high altitude needs bigger AoI. For SSTO spaceplanes, I've had good experiences with designs that can fly at 0° pitch, without losing or gaining altitude near sea level at 350-400 m/s. That also means the fuselage is close to 0° AoA at the critical phase just above supersonic where drag is highest and the engines haven't reached maximum performance yet. My Solutions Until KSP is able to show the Aerodynamic Center, I use the rule of thumb, that CoM of the craft needs to be as close as possible to midway between nose and tail, and never closer than 2/3 of the craft length towards the tail. Not a very accurate solution and doesn't work for all designs, but it has worked OK for me. Additionally, I design my crafts so the forward most wing has more Angle of Incidence than those behind it. That works effectively as if the elevator has built in pitch, which you can use to move the CoL on top of CoM, without compromising stability. Here are some examples. A stable conventional design (craft file) The conventional straight wing design with CoM forward of the middle. It's a breeze to get stable with CoL on top of CoM, because the Aerodynamic Center is most often behind CoL. Nonetheless, this design has 2° AoI on the main wing to reduce fuselage drag, and no AoI on the tail plane. A stable canard design (craft file) Canard designs, the most prevalent type in KSP, probably due to the way engines are massed in KSP for the LEGO™-modularity and gameplay balance. CoM is often way behind the midpoint, which means the Aerodynamic Center will most likely be in front of CoL. If the CoM isn't too far behind, you might get away with initially designing it with CoL a good bit behind CoM, using CoL as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center. Once you've tested that it flies stable, you can then add a little more** AoI to the Canard than the main wing, to move CoL up to CoM. If the CoM is far behind the midpoint, see the Shuttle designs. It will now be possible to fly the craft without you or the SAS having to constantly apply pitch-up. It won't reduce drag, but it will make it easier for you or an autopilot to control the craft. The shown craft has a fixed canard with 4° AoI and the main wing has 2° AoI. **) Only very rarely will it be required to have more than 2° difference between main wings and tailplane/canards in KSP. An unstable shuttle design A stable deltawing design (craft file) Shuttles and other pure deltawing designs, are the hardest to balance and require great care taken during design to make sure the CoM doesn't fall too far back. If the CoM is far behind the midpoint, you may be forced to redesign it. It might not be possible to stabilize it without adding dummy weights near the cockpit. Moving the fuel tanks forward might help initially, but instability could re-emerge when the fuel is spent. If the CoM isn't too far behind, you might be able to do something similar as with a Canard designs, by initially designing it with CoL a good bit behind CoM, using CoL as a stand-in for Aerodynamic Center. Again, once you've tested that it flies stable, you can then use the Rotate Gizmo to prebake the elevons with some pitch up, to move CoL up to CoM, to get the craft to fly without you or the SAS having to constantly apply pitch-up. The deltawing jet shown here, has 2° AoI om the main wing and the elevons have been angled up 2° from their default attachment angle. Additionally, the big wing strake has also been angled up 1° more than the rest of the wing. Test showing increased stability with AoI Edit 2016-03-01: Fixed some grammar and clarified a few sentences. Edit 2016-11-03: Added applicable KSP version. Edit 2016-12-01: Added AoI image. (source) Edit 2020-10-21: Format fixes as the new forum software made it apparant, that lots of old style formattings have been mixed over many, many edits.

Has anyone noticed that commercial aircraft registrations in the US follow specific patterens? Delta usually has its registrations with the prefix "N" (I think that signifies the plane is registered in the United States) followed by usually a three digit number and a prefix, usually "DL", "DA", "DZ", or "DN". I've also noticed that some of their 757s have weird registrations that incorporate the fleet number of that plane. For example, ship 6704 is registered "N6704Z" and ship 6717 is registered "N67171". Some of their 737-800s follow a different registration format, with N as the prefix and then a four digit number that is the fleet number of that plane, followed by a random letter. For example ship 3741 is registered "N3741S". Like Delta, American's planes also follow the "N + 3 digit" format (with suffixes AA, AN, or AC, etc..) with some exceptions. I've noticed a MD-83 registered "N474" with 474 being the specific fleet number of that jet. American's former A300s also followed an "all-number" registration format composed of an "N" followed by a five digit number. American's A319-115 aircraft also seem to follow an interesting fleet number format that varies in term of a general pattern. For example ship 001 is registered "N8001N" and ship 003 is registered "N93003". Southwest's planes mostly followed the "N###WN or N###SW" format (where the #s stood for numbers), but this has changed recently. Apparently Southwest shifted their registration format to a format not unlike Delta's 737-800 format. New planes that come into the Southwest fleet are registered with "N", plus a four digit number that is the fleet number, and a random letter. All Southwest 737-800s use this registration format, and certain 737-700s (new ones starting from the ones that came from AirTran) are registered this way. Prior to the United/Continental merger, all United planes followed the "N###UA" format, where the #s are numbers. Continental, however, decided to use an all number registration format with N followed by a certain 5 digit number ( I think the last three digits make up the fleet number and the first two digits are random numbers). Haven't figured out why this happens. It might be that if Continental registered its planes like everybody else, their registrations would follow the "N###CO" formats, where the "CO" could be misinterpreted as "C0", which would not make it a valid registration. Your thoughts and opinions are welcome guys!

Nanotech now has the capability to make the space elevator and private, orbital launchers possible. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it. Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/1633027 For technical background see: From nanoscale to macroscale: applications of nanotechnology to production of bulk ultra-strong materials. http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/02/from-nanoscale-to-macroscale.html Bob Clark

Well just like the name, this large jet plane was inspired by Antonov An-225. You can see the I've use the An-225 cockpit and 3.75m cargo bay to build the main structure. Vertical tails is quite similar too. But the difference is I put the only four engine along the body at the root of main wing, with the large air intake form B9 it looks much modern than an-225. The main wings are build with B9 PWs in an advanced shape with big flpas. The good point is they are both light and strong enough to hold the entire plane., providing about 1200kn of lift With a 3.75m-Mk3 hallow adapter, it have both front and rear cargo ramp. (so just like the second picture, maybe I can drop cargo on a short runway or maybe just on the flat ground without landing. Now everything of this plane is looking good and I'll keep testing and updating it. Besides ............ it works in FAR environment (actually it can only fly in FAR)

It's a real simple challenge: build a Juno-powered jet that flies as fast and/or as high as possible. Rules: 1) Juno power only. You can have as many Junos as you like, but no other type of propulsion is allowed. 2) Conventional HOTOL single-stage aircraft. It must be able to make a rolling take off or landing from the runway; it cannot drop any parts. 3) Must be Kerballed. You can do this with a command chair if you want, but that's unlikely to be good for your aerodynamics. 4) Stock parts only. Minor part clipping (adjusting wings, stashing batteries in an empty fuel tank, etc.) is fine, but no stacking twenty engines onto a single node. Minor flight assistance mods (Kerbal Flight Data, Pilot Assistant's PID tuner, etc) are fine. 5) Scoreboards will be kept for both fastest and highest, in separate categories for stock aerodynamics and FAR. 6) Post screenshots of your highest and fastest moments, and a link to the craft file. 7) Using different planes for highest and fastest is fine. 8) Remember Wheaton's Law. To get it started: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/p68iml1ev3zhhcr/Junoracer.craft?dl=0 Scoreboard Stock Altitude Nefrums, 33,115m DoctorDavinci, 20,954m Speed Nefrums, 721.6m/s DoctorDavinci, 646.5m/s FAR Altitude DoctorDavinci, 26,622m Wanderfound, 25,652m Speed DoctorDavinci, 633.7m/s Wanderfound, 598.7m/s ZalgoWaits, 530m/s

Heinkel 1079A Stock + Tweakscale Craft File: Heinkel 1079A (KerbalX)

Sea Vixen (esk) for your delight and fun Craft File: http://kerbalx.com/JohnRE/Vixen-002

PHOENIX SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT First Craft of the Year! (Also my first aircraft released!) This is the Phoenix Supersonic Aircraft, capable of reaching Mach 4.5 and transporting 8 passengers easily across the world. Need to reach the KSC 2 in just 15 minutes? This craft is for you! The design was inspired by the SR-72, a unmanned conceptual spy plane. (Featured on Spacecraft Fridays!) It can reach a TWR of 1.03 on takeoff and flying up to 25 kilometers, and over 1350 M/s at top speed. I don't really recommend physics warp for this craft, though KJR may make the situation much better. Powered by two Panthers and double R.A.P.I.E.R engines, it can quickly reach its take off speed of 85 m/s. The design was featured in The Asteroid Sentinels, though slightly different. Ascent profiles should be around ~20 degree heading, so the Ramjets can get enough speed to start increasing thrust while gaining altitude. The plane contains only 82 parts, so practically all machines should be able to use this aircraft. DOWNLOAD Action Groups: 1 Switches the Panther Engine modes. 2 Toggles the RAPIER engines. Here's More Pictures! Thanks for Reading, and I hope this aircraft will help you fly across Kerbin!

D.F.I. is a private military research division which aims to provide top quality stock craft to all clients. All of our crafts are adaptable to the mission or service specific needs. All Craft Posted here will be made available through my kerbalx account here ------->DOWNLOADS Aircraft Watercraft Spacecraft The Melkor is designed as an interplanetary tug vessel, capable of pulling massive cargo loads to various destinations. The Sr. Docking Port at the rear provides maximum stability for large trailers. There are also 4 Jr. ports aligned outside of the Sr. for various utility/refueling purposes. Heat dissipation extends and retracts from cargo bays. Launcher Included. Warning!!! do not attempt to gravity turn before 15,000 as this will result in tumble and breakage. Also the nuclear motors are correctly in stage 1 and fire throughout ascent to provide better stability on launch. (refuel after orbit required)

Replica of Old good Superfortress! This aircraft is main american bomber in 1944-1960 Mods used SXT, TweakScale Screenshots Say cheese! Inside in real life craft file https://www.dropbox.com/s/f4b27h81p66usaj/B-29%20SuperFortress.craft.craft?dl=0. Emergency https://www.dropbox.com/s/f4b27h81p66usaj/B-29%20SuperFortress.craft.craft?dl=0.

Welcome to the official replica craft repository of DeltaV Industries! All of my current and future replica aircraft will be stored here and free to download. Feedback and requests are very appreciated. Aircraft avalible should be updated every once in a while. Pretty much every plane i've made or i will make in the future meets some standards: 1. All aircraft are made and flown in vanilla KSP, no mods aside from visual enhancement ones were ever involved in their creation. 2. Most of my fighter aircraft replicas don't exceed 100 parts (this does not apply to bigger craft and bombers i've made in the past). 3. Specifications of my replica aircraft are semi-realistic and approximately meet their real-life conunterparts performance. 4. Afterburners on aircraft that have them are linked to action group 1, no exceptions on that. Aircraft that don't have the afterburner linked to the action group probably don't have it in reality aswell. 5. Same applies to engine gimbal. Most of real life fighter jets don't utilize it. Unlocking the gimbal might lead to excessive instability on some aircraft. 6. Sharp turns at Mach 2.5 WILL overload your airframe and turn your craft into a fiery mess. Totally planned and unsafe! The Hangar: McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/F-15C.craft Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 Foxbat Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/MiG-25.craft Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/MiG-21.craft Lockheed U-2S Dragon Lady Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/U-2S.craft Northrop T-38 Talon Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/T-38.craft Lockheed YF-12A Blackbird [NEW!] Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/YF-12A.craft Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29A Fulcrum [NEW!] Download link: http://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/MiG-29A.craft (YF-12A nosecone corrected, MiG-29A engine power decreased to fit actual performance, some F-15C visual tweaks done) More to come! Once again, feedback and requests are welcome!

So after seeing some of the crazy stuff Gag09 came up with in his thread, I was inspired to build this: As you can see, it uses Panther engines which give it great maneuverability for such a large aircraft and the afterburners give it a TWR > 1 on takeoff (without ordinance anyways). You may be wondering why there's a cargo bay at the front. The idea is to fill it with missile/gun racks so you can close it off when doing hypersonic speeds. The next step is to fill that bay full of ordinance. Here's the craft file for anyone who wants to give it a go. It's completely stock, although I did use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement to keep the part count down so you may need to add some extra struts to keep it from wobbling around. Craft