Official FAR Craft Repository

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ZLM-Master said:

@dundun92 Haha ! Funny , I'm on a similar project

Nice design! Hopefully it flies as well as it looks!

[ZLM-Master]

Mooarff !

For now , it's more beautiful than it's flies ^^ Not a potato but hard to tune it competitiveness .

Pretty stable with a too slow turn rate , i try fine tuning on the spoilers but doesn't change a lot .

Already 13 Tons weaponized , Mmmm !

Need mome work

[Guest]

Here is the finished design:

https://kerbalx.com/dundun92/F-17A-Python-Blk-10

 

And here is a non-bda version:

https://kerbalx.com/dundun92/F-17A-Python-Blk-5-NO-BDA

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Guest

[ZLM-Master]

Yop !

I have a Demo Version workable . I have to deal with FAR to make it better ^^

[Joseph Kerman]

F-35 Lightning II

[Cratzz]

First Flight - https://youtu.be/uE1m8eJWQg8

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Cratzz

[Hodo]

It is funny.... several years and still here.. still playing KSP... still making aircraft... and still finding new ways to challenge myself.  Here are some of my current projects that are working in my game.

My SSTOs have evolved from planes to actual tail landing and launching rockets...

My fighter aircraft division is even up and running again... with the motto, simple is better.

And my new light duty cargo planes have started to enter service....  They aint fast, but they can land and take off in very short distances.

And my AWAC/Recon aircraft is also now in service...

 

And everything works perfectly in FAR...

 

[winged]

Messing around with high speed land vessels:

 

Second variant achieved mach 2,5 easily then took off and starts desintegrating at near Mach 3 speeds.

 

 

 

 

 

Some speed boats. This time I wasn't able to build something aerodynamic so I tried brute force which resulted in mach 0,68 speed.

 

Much more powerful boats were tested but without success. Variant shown below is equiped with 2 F-100 jet engines used in F-15. Rapid dissassembly took place at mach 0,6.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by winged

[MightyDarkStar]

Yak-7B (1942 production, M-105PF engine)

Performs almost exactly to historical specifications (~370 mph TAS at 3000m). I also built the Yak-7A with the earlier M-105 engine, but really the only external difference is the tailwheel being fixed in the 7A.

[Hodo]

So I had been doing some research and I am going ask all of my FAR fanatics to help me with to test a theory.  

I was researching the British Electric Lightning.... I watched a story of the unlikely test pilot, interesting story I suggest looking it up.   But I was reading about the aircraft design and how they went with an over-under engine design instead of a side by side like most twin engine fighters.  This was to decrease the drag on the airframe.   So I tested the design in FAR.... I built an aircraft using the MK2 fuselage that I set vertical instead of its standard horizontal and looked at the data.  It had lower drag numbers and was faster at sea level and at altitude than the horizontal setup.  But it had the glide slope of a brick.   

I dont have any current pictures of it but here is the basis for the design.

I would love to see if the other engineering experts here can confirm that this is true in KSP+FAR.

[MightyDarkStar]

Here's a more obscure one, the Martin Baker MB. 3:

This and its later derivative, the MB. 5 were arguably the best fighters to come out of Britain during the war, but engine allocation issues and the winding down of the war prevented either from reaching production.

[Schwarz]

Quick question for all you experts out there:
I'm currently meddling with some forward swept wings and came up with a plane with its CoL ahead of its CoM;
During test flights I noticed this:
https://i.imgur.com/6wG7ALY.gifv

Hope you guys can see it but if you don't, basically the TVC nozzles, instead of pushing the tail around the axis, is actually pointed slightly towards the opposite direction, countering the pitching moment to keep the plane stable(what I suppose it's doing, I'm running Atmosphere Autopilot).
Q1: I suppose I'm wasting energy with the nozzles pointing at the wrong direction?
Q2: Is this a result of excess control surfaces(too much imput) or pitch instability(CoL ahead of CoM)?

[Hodo]

On 11/24/2018 at 10:06 PM, Schwarz said:

Quick question for all you experts out there:
I'm currently meddling with some forward swept wings and came up with a plane with its CoL ahead of its CoM;
During test flights I noticed this:
https://i.imgur.com/6wG7ALY.gifv

Hope you guys can see it but if you don't, basically the TVC nozzles, instead of pushing the tail around the axis, is actually pointed slightly towards the opposite direction, countering the pitching moment to keep the plane stable(what I suppose it's doing, I'm running Atmosphere Autopilot).
Q1: I suppose I'm wasting energy with the nozzles pointing at the wrong direction?
Q2: Is this a result of excess control surfaces(too much imput) or pitch instability(CoL ahead of CoM)?

The biggest thing on forward swept wings is you have to rely more on the canards for your pitch control than your tail.  Most of my designs that use this setup have removed the tail elevators and use canards for most of the pitch authority.   I also use the fly-by-wire mod which makes the craft fly more like a modern fighter craft.  I also use leading edge slats, on most of my more agile aircraft and even on some of my more mundane designs.  But those engines are designed to gimbal and pitch the aircraft.  And with your COL ahead of your CoM, it isnt helping your design much.   Move it back closer to your COM, so it is abit more stable.  I know that isn't exactly what you are going for but in KSP making a modern aerodynamically unstable airframe is a challenge to fly in this game.   

 

So I like to have my CoL either right on top or a hair behind the CoM.  I have no recent craft pictures but I have a fair number of forward swept wing airframes.  I found they are a bit trickier to design but when they work they work really well for high speed flight and lower speed flight.   But have NASTY stall departures.   

 

[Hodo]

OK Schwarz have gotten some time to upload some of the picks of the aircraft I have been working on for you to give you an idea what I am talking about.  One is a canard and forward swept wing design the other is a more traditional setup with forward swept wings.

Here is the first one.. and also doing the experiment with the vertical engine setup versus the horizontal engine setup.

And now for the more traditional setup one....

 

The biggest thing I can say between the two is the canard setup will stall its canards before it stalls its wings thus making it a bit more controllable in high AOA situations.  The other design... well if it werent for fly-by-wire it would probably be a bit of a handful. 

 

 

And this is where the first craft started in design... for testing.

 

[spacehead3]

I've been messing around with tailless designs recently. Here's a fighter inspired by the Boeing F/A-XX concept. The outboard control surfaces are split flap rudders while the inboard surfaces provide pitch and roll control, along with the thrust vectoring from the engines.

 

[Schwarz]

On 11/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, Hodo said:

OK Schwarz have gotten some time to upload some of the picks of the aircraft I have been working on for you to give you an idea what I am talking about.  One is a canard and forward swept wing design the other is a more traditional setup with forward swept wings.

 

Sorry for the so very late reply, many thanks for your great help! Now I have time to play KSP again, I'm currently doing some more experiments and making different crafts, incorporating your advice.

[spacehead3]

Here's an F-22 design that I've been working on.

http://imgur.com/gallery/4Iug4AZ

Features working missile bays, shown here with two of my cruise missiles.

http://imgur.com/gallery/u7KQAEz

Edited December 11, 2018 by spacehead3

[sturmhauke]

This is my entry for the BAD-T IV tournament that's wrapping up. It's about in the middle of the pack - not bad for my first FAR competition.

 

[SVS]

[Me1_base]

Super Hornet

 

[CMF]

On 11/28/2018 at 8:25 AM, Hodo said:

And now for the more traditional setup one....

The biggest thing I can say between the two is the canard setup will stall its canards before it stalls its wings thus making it a bit more controllable in high AOA situations.  The other design... well if it werent for fly-by-wire it would probably be a bit of a handful. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Hi Hodo! Can I get your F-152B for test, but only Stock+FAR? 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by CMF

[Cratzz]

Im trying to find a cockpit mod guys & gals that is just a simple glass dome that you simply put on top of a structure element for example.

Maybe this isn't the place to ask, however a general focus here is jet's so maybe anyone know's what im talking about?

To make this post a bit more...novel i quickly slammed together a ugly (and no way serious) F-4 drone on KSP v1.6.1 as my first build for you're viewing pleasure

 

F-4 Drone - take of & landing?

Edited May 9, 2019 by Cratzz

[Cratzz]

Latest creation

Thanks for doing the mods, so happy i got most of RO working minus RSS in 1.6.1 with much better FPS & smoothness overall...

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Cratzz

[kcs123]

53 minutes ago, Cratzz said:

Thanks for doing the mods...Latest creation

Something is wrong. Such light craft ~12t and with 0.9 TWR should be able to take off at much lower velocity. At least slightly above 100 m/s, but should be possible around 70-80 m/s too. Consider using flaps, that can help you to slow down and maintain stable landing velocity below 100 m/s. That will be significant help to avoid explosions on landing. Or at least allow you to walk away from craft after landing .

Nice looking craft, though.

[Cratzz]

22 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Something is wrong. Such light craft ~12t and with 0.9 TWR should be able to take off at much lower velocity. At least slightly above 100 m/s, but should be possible around 70-80 m/s too. Consider using flaps, that can help you to slow down and maintain stable landing velocity below 100 m/s. That will be significant help to avoid explosions on landing. Or at least allow you to walk away from craft after landing .

Nice looking craft, though.

Thx, yea a mod wasn't loading...fixed, perceptive of you