Official FAR Craft Repository

[tetryds]

I was about to explain all the differences and what are the effects of different sizes and aspect ratios of your vertical and horizontal stabilizers.

But I am afraid that someone could take all that I say to heart and think that it's more important than it actually is.

Introducing BUFF2:

http://imgur.com/a/3XDYj

see 77I-BUFF2 FAR 1.0 on KerbalX.com

You carry mk3 parts, oh my god.

Never thought that using the cargo bays like that would look so cool, both from inside and outside.

What happens if you try to close them?

[Hodo]

I was about to explain all the differences and what are the effects of different sizes and aspect ratios of your vertical and horizontal stabilizers.

But I am afraid that someone could take all that I say to heart and think that it's more important than it actually is.

You carry mk3 parts, oh my god.

Never thought that using the cargo bays like that would look so cool, both from inside and outside.

What happens if you try to close them?

Brings to mind....

One part is missing from the current KSP.

A tail ramp for loading and unloading cargo from aircraft. B9 has a tail ramp but not stock, which just sucks.

And if he were to close it.... well that would be something to see.

[Van Disaster]

I was about to explain all the differences and what are the effects of different sizes and aspect ratios of your vertical and horizontal stabilizers.

But I am afraid that someone could take all that I say to heart and think that it's more important than it actually is.

Might be good anyway - people will eventually realise what's actually important after some trial/error/quizzical deconstruction of someone else's design that they think shouldn't work. Some of the stuff I've made fly would probably drive theorists into apoplexy.

Let's not forget the size of control surfaces is dependent on how long their effective lever is.

[Azimech]

You carry mk3 parts, oh my god.

Never thought that using the cargo bays like that would look so cool, both from inside and outside.

What happens if you try to close them?

It's a way of construction I started in December. You can make all kinds of huge hulls with minimal effort. Closing the doors does nothing really, but leave gaps.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 16, 2015 by Azimech

[Hodo]

It's a way of construction I started in December. You can make all kinds of huge hulls with minimal effort. Closing the doors does nothing really, but leave gaps.

http://imgur.com/a/MvhB2

http://imgur.com/a/6GwjG

I wouldn't have thought to do something like that, amazing.

I still dont think I would use it for anything other than station construction. I can imagine the size of the stations I could build with that technique.

Thanks for sharing that.

[windows_x_seven]

I stumbled upon this slideshow a while ago:

These wing configurations are quite interesting. I managed to take off within 75 meters with the X configuration.

(I doubt that those jets in the slideshow will exist, though)

[tetryds]

Giving mods a chance:

Procedural parts, adjustable landing gears and b9 procedural wings, I didn't think these mods were so good.

[windows_x_seven]

This wing shape is actually very good.

It makes the aircraft stable and quite maneuverable, somehow. I love it.

[kcs123]

Giving mods a chance:

http://i.imgur.com/ZKrVmRI.png

Procedural parts, adjustable landing gears and b9 procedural wings, I didn't think these mods were so good.

I using those for long time, highly recommended . Save a lot of time when you need to fine tune wing shape, less flexing due to multiple joints that you have with stock parts, not to mention significant reduction to part numbers. Oh, and you can even use PW with high thickness and low length to create "bumps" on hull where you need it for area ruling smoothness.

[FourGreenFields]

Procedural parts, adjustable landing gears and b9 procedural wings, I didn't think these mods were so good.

Only procedural parts I found where some procedural structural elements (LFO tanks, structural fuselage, LFO tank nose cone, structural nose cone, and Xenon tank iIrc). Mind to link the mod please?

[tetryds]

I using those for long time, highly recommended . Save a lot of time when you need to fine tune wing shape, less flexing due to multiple joints that you have with stock parts, not to mention significant reduction to part numbers. Oh, and you can even use PW with high thickness and low length to create "bumps" on hull where you need it for area ruling smoothness.

Yes, that is true, the best part is making more complex wing shapes, what bothers me the most on stock are that the edges are often not compatible, leaving visible spikes and not blending as well as they could.

I am using procedural parts bumps there beside the intakes.

Forgot to mention that I am using AJE too, so that craft is a transonic one, flies the best at Mach 0.75.

Still tweaking it.

What surprised me was how fast it is to build with b9 proc wings, I thought it would take a while to tweak all the parameters and fine tune everything, but I was wrong.

Only procedural parts I found where some procedural structural elements (LFO tanks, structural fuselage, LFO tank nose cone, structural nose cone, and Xenon tank iIrc). Mind to link the mod please?

I am using that one, yeah, but area ruling and AJE make me wish very bad for procedural intakes.

[FourGreenFields]

I am using that one, yeah, but area ruling and AJE make me wish very bad for procedural intakes.

That's the one I'm using... but some of the sliders there don't show up for me... Gonna try to reinstall soonâ„¢, else bug report.

[Hodo]

Yes, that is true, the best part is making more complex wing shapes, what bothers me the most on stock are that the edges are often not compatible, leaving visible spikes and not blending as well as they could.

I am using procedural parts bumps there beside the intakes.

Forgot to mention that I am using AJE too, so that craft is a transonic one, flies the best at Mach 0.75.

Still tweaking it.

What surprised me was how fast it is to build with b9 proc wings, I thought it would take a while to tweak all the parameters and fine tune everything, but I was wrong.

I am using that one, yeah, but area ruling and AJE make me wish very bad for procedural intakes.

I love the B9 Procedural wings... mainly because I can place fuel in them which makes them a lot more useful.

I haven't made anything to extravagant lately.

This was the last extreme aircraft I made.

[Aghanim]

I'm still noob at nuFAR stuff, how do I area rule aircraft properly?

This is my simple plane using procedural B9 and procedural parts:

The plane have 1.2 m² wave drag area, but from the generation 5 fighter challenge I've seen designs that can go as low as 0.5 m² wave drag area, how do they do it?

And how do I use spoilers and flaps?

[Hodo]

I'm still noob at nuFAR stuff, how do I area rule aircraft properly?

This is my simple plane using procedural B9 and procedural parts:

http://i.imgur.com/1rIQZWQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vtEfqU4.jpg

The plane have 1.2 m² wave drag area, but from the generation 5 fighter challenge I've seen designs that can go as low as 0.5 m² wave drag area, how do they do it?

And how do I use spoilers and flaps?

The trick is smooth transitions from one point to another on your aircraft. Look at most of those aircraft in that challenge or in this thread, and you will see that most of the successful designs are very simple in shape, but yet elegant in their own way.

Length will make the area rule number go down, but dont get fixated on that number, you still need to make sure it flies right. So you may have to balance it a bit and have a less than ideal number.

Lets look at this one...

It has an area rule number of around 1.3, but it can achieve orbit through brute force, and it still flies quite nicely even at lower speeds.

[FourGreenFields]

I'm still noob at nuFAR stuff, how do I area rule aircraft properly?

This is my simple plane using procedural B9 and procedural parts:

http://i.imgur.com/1rIQZWQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vtEfqU4.jpg

The plane have 1.2 m² wave drag area, but from the generation 5 fighter challenge I've seen designs that can go as low as 0.5 m² wave drag area, how do they do it?

And how do I use spoilers and flaps?

First of all raise the gear. Otherwise you won't get proper data.

You want a cross section distribution like this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C3%A4chenregel#/media/File:Sears-Haack.png, so basicly rising of the green graph, followed by steady reduction or a cut to 0 as 2. best, and more practical option.

To achieve a clean cut at the rear, try to make your delta wings end where your engine ends.

The radial intakes are poorly placed and lead to an increase in cross-section, followed by a reduction in cross section. With the increased stability from moving the delta wings back, it should be possible to move the canards slightly to the front, and put the intakes behind them.

Spoilers and flaps: When not inside a building nor flying a vehicle you can acces the FAR settings (top-right of screen), and set the default action groups for them. Or you can modify the action groups manually (SBH/VAB top-left of screen). Keep in mind that the control surface needs to be set as spoiler/flap in the right-click-options.

[taniwha]

I have found that trying to build a supersonic craft before getting the hang of building subsonic craft to be... rather frustrating. The main reason being that all craft fly subsonic at one stage or another (even if the wheels are on the ground). Thus, especially when dealing with flaps and spoilers, it is best to focus on subsonic craft until you get a bit of a feel for how things work in that regime before tackling transonic and supersonic since you never use either when going that fast (FAR will rip them off if you try).

[edit] Well, not never, but certainly not at relatively low altitudes.

Edited July 19, 2015 by taniwha

[gilflo]

Do the B9 wings work with KSP 1.02 or 1.0.4 and associated F.A.R? What exactly is the part of B9 working with both?

Because it's easier to design own wing with B9 than trying to assemble many stock parts to make a wing....and it's really awesome to have fuel inside wings like on real plane.

[kcs123]

Yes, B9PW work nice with both, stock aero and FAR. It is separate mod from full B9 aerospace mod with parts.

None of parts from B9 aerospace mod is required for B9 procedural wings.

[Wanderfound]

A slightly different one:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/li9jzb03lsl1hnl/Kerbodyne%20Lancer.craft?dl=0

[sashan]

Rafale. Flies very well, literally took me one hour to make and polish it.

Tweakscale, Ven's revamp, OPT cockpit, BahamutoD gears.

Can't get it supersonic so far. It isn't perfectly area ruled, but nothing terrible as well. I just need an engine with more thrust, but not as much as the Turbojet has. The stock game has big gap in jet engines, 150kN and then 800kN.

Should I clean it up and upload?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 20, 2015 by sashan

[Van Disaster]

Yep, pWings are a godsend, the B9 ones especially; the integration of the control surfaces is just fantastic.

Can do all sorts of whacky fun ( 0.90 stuff still, but nothing that wouldn't work in current... probably. Cept for the missing mods of course ).

[Hodo]

My new medium lift SSTO spaceplane.

SP-365

So far I have tested up to 50tons to a 100x100 orbit. It is capable of hauling more, but limited mainly by space. Right now it is being used to haul tourists into orbit and back.

[capi3101]

Hey y'all, quick question - while I was at my in-laws I designed a plane that had crappy pitch authority, one of those that didn't really want to pitch up (but did) at takeoff and eventually got into an un-recoverable dive after a bit (and overheated and exploded). I know the usual tricks for fixing this at this point, but I was wondering if there was a good way of predicting this kind of behavior from the stability derivatives prior to takeoff (you know, fix the problem ahead of time instead of getting up there and realizing the problem exists). So, how about it - is there a value in the stability derivatives that should say to me "your pitch authority is going to go from suck to blow at this point"? It'd be a relatively high magnitude green number - I'm thinking M_w but I'm not wholly sure.

[FourGreenFields]

Hey y'all, quick question - while I was at my in-laws I designed a plane that had crappy pitch authority, one of those that didn't really want to pitch up (but did) at takeoff and eventually got into an un-recoverable dive after a bit (and overheated and exploded). I know the usual tricks for fixing this at this point, but I was wondering if there was a good way of predicting this kind of behavior from the stability derivatives prior to takeoff (you know, fix the problem ahead of time instead of getting up there and realizing the problem exists). So, how about it - is there a value in the stability derivatives that should say to me "your pitch authority is going to go from suck to blow at this point"? It'd be a green number - I'm thinking M_w but I'm not wholly sure.

I'd use the AoA graphs. Calculate at pitch setting 0 and 1 (and possibly -1). Ideally you should be able to just barely reach critical AoA (or just barely fail at reaching it) at all speeds.

EDIT: Or at least at all lowish speeds. Reaching high AoAs at Mach 3 - not as usefull as it may seem