Mk2 Fuel Trick - Double the fuel amount in half of the space

[Xyphos]

It's a shame that the Mk2 Rocket Fuselage isn't as abundant.

[hoojiwana]

That's the tradeoff for the Mk2 acting as a better lifting surface and having significantly higher crash tolerance of 50 m/s compared to 6 m/s that the regular fuel tanks have. Just in case your landings don't quite go to plan.

[CalculusWarrior]

The spaceplane parts contain less fuel but more structural reinforcements; that MK2 fuel tank can survive a 50 m/s impact, while the FL-T800s will explode when impacting at anything greater than 6 m/s.

EDIT: And ninja'd!

[Edax]

That's the tradeoff for the Mk2 acting as a better lifting surface and having significantly higher crash tolerance of 50 m/s compared to 6 m/s that the regular fuel tanks have. Just in case your landings don't quite go to plan.

I use the same technique on my main 2-man SSTO. There's an advantage to not having lift surface across the entire plane so that you wont encounter uncontrolled lift at certain angles. It's nice, having a little opening in-between the fuselage for air to flow through (So you wont be pushed around by wind as much), plus there's the extra weight in the front resulting in a more stable and well-rounded spaceplane. (Crash tolerance should be too much of a problem since the MK2 cockpit and fuselage are lower to the ground unless you really crash)

Edited July 17, 2015 by Edax

[Xyphos]

Pft, who the heck crashes their planes? just fly 1kM above the ground as slow as possible, pitch up and stall out to kill your horizontal speed then hit the parachutes. perfect landings every time.

[X-SR71]

It's all about the lift the mk2 parts provide. You'll need less wings with them.

[AbacusWizard]

Pft, who the heck crashes their planes? just fly 1kM above the ground as slow as possible, pitch up and stall out to kill your horizontal speed then hit the parachutes. perfect landings every time.

At first glance I misread that as "fly 1 meter above the ground" and freaked out a bit. Not exactly my preferred landing approach!

[TheFishlord]

A bit new here, been lurking a while but never posting. How exactly do you guys get these parallel tanks to fit with the "caps" on either end? Since the game treats only one as part of the "inline" section, the other just hangs off one side of the rocket/spaceplane, fixed at one end but wiggling at the other. That leads to more wiggling with SAS on and structural instability - whenever I try these parallel tanks it seems to end in fireworks (well, at least fireworks sooner).

[Reddeyfish]

Doesn't that create structural/aero problems? A part can't have two parents, meaning that whatever is placed after the two T800s is going to be disconnected from one of them.

(No connection = no node occlusion, so more drag)

[Xannari Ferrows]

Well, the whole interior doesn't hold fuel. The bulging sides are for the lift. The actual fuel tank is the same size.

[pincushionman]

…How exactly do you guys get these parallel tanks to fit with the "caps" on either end? Since the game treats only one as part of the "inline" section, the other just hangs off one side of the rocket/spaceplane, fixed at one end but wiggling at the other. That leads to more wiggling with SAS on and structural instability - whenever I try these parallel tanks it seems to end in fireworks (well, at least fireworks sooner).

Doesn't that create structural/aero problems? A part can't have two parents, meaning that whatever is placed after the two T800s is going to be disconnected from one of them.

(No connection = no node occlusion, so more drag)

The part immediately behind the cockbit there is a bicoupler, which has two attach nodes on it. It's usually done Mk2 Cockpit->Mk2 Fuselage->Mk2 Bicoupler->2x engine, but in thid case he's going Mk2 Fuselage->Mk2 Bicoupler->2x FL-T800->2x engines, presumeably. Works fine as long as you do that, not trying to turn the bicoupler around to feed a single engine. That would be much trouble.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit. I may have misunderstood the question and you already know what the "pants" do, fishguys?

[Xyphos]

Oh, I see now. the trade-off is for extra lift, which means less wings required.

[FancyMouse]

(not talking about efficiency at all but) Am I the only one who thinks op's approach also looks a little bit worse? Mk2 fuselage just looks so cool to me.

[Sharpy]

I really wish the reversed bicouplers would work. I'd love such a section in the middle of a plane. But it creates more problems than it solves, e.g. if you attach wings to these two tanks, they aren't held firmly against each other, and your plane is getting "phantom forces" coming from the tanks twisting relative to one another as each of the tanks has only one wing attached to it and nothing to counter-balance it on the other side. (and no, a strut doesn't quite fix it, even if it helps.)

[Edax]

Just to illustrate such an SSTO in action. This is my reliable and stable 2-man SSTO which I just to transfer crews with the Kerbin Orbital Station.

The back part of the plane are two independent parts connected from the front, and tied together with struts to make sure it doesn't wobble.

[Wolf Baginski]

A partial answer is Struts. Not so good for a two-way split, but a flat three could mount the rear part on the centre tank, with struts between the rear of the side tanks and both the centre tank and rear part.

[AaronLS]

You can get the best of both worlds if you fill a mk2 cargo with fl200/oscar b fuel tanks. You might not see as high a capacity but you definitely get more fuel in the same space than a mk2 fuel tank. I have a recent screenshot posted. Usually dont have a cocmpit and put protodyne in cargo bay with all that fuel.

[Foxster]

I've used something a bit like this to save some space...

This gives the same 180 LF+O as a short Mk2 fuselage but in this same space you can also cram in all your odds and sods.

[Frank_G]

Considering the new aerodynamic model, i would hardly recommend to go for lift instead of higher fuel mass... Lift brings you up there with far less fuel needed when done right.

[yorshee]

This is interesting, I'll definitely have to play around with this to see what the pros and cons are. It might help me immensely with my SSTO-to-Duna-and-back mission that I've been working on for a few weeks. I just need more fuel in my RAPIERS so I can get into a Duna orbit with enough Liquid Fuel for my nuclear engine to get back.

[GoSlash27]

Just to illustrate such an SSTO in action. This is my reliable and stable 2-man SSTO which I just to transfer crews with the Kerbin Orbital Station.

The back part of the plane are two independent parts connected from the front, and tied together with struts to make sure it doesn't wobble.

http://i.imgbox.com/J75lb0VU.jpg

Edax,

All that for just 2 crew?

This one does 14:

Best,

-Slashy

[Edax]

Edax,

All that for just 2 crew?

This one does 14:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/KSII_zpsk4ezfkoa.jpg

Best,

-Slashy

My spaceplane was designed when I had just unlocked turbojets and ram intakes. I didn't have fancy rapiers or big-s wings or even a space station (in fact, I still only have 9 kerbonauts working for me). And since it's a fun SSTO to fly, I never bothered to design a new one, only slightly modified it with a docking port and shock cones, and aerospikes.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Edax

[GoSlash27]

My spaceplane was designed when I had just unlocked turbojets and ram intakes. I didn't have fancy rapiers or big-s wings or even a space station (in fact, I still only have 9 kerbonauts working for me). And since it's a fun SSTO to fly, I never bothered to design a new one, only slightly modified it with a docking port and shock cones, and aerospikes.

Edax,

You can replace the wet wings & strakes with an additional Mk.1 fuel tank in the jet stacks and dry wings.

*edit*

Something like this:

Best,

-Slashy

Edited July 18, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Edax]

Edax,

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/PoodlePower_zpsm1etmsdv.jpg

You can replace the wet wings & strakes with an additional Mk.1 fuel tank in the jet stacks and dry wings.

*edit*

Something like this:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/PoodlePowerII_zpsa2tmxjsb.jpg

Best,

-Slashy

You build your ships your way, and I'll build my ships my way.

[GoSlash27]

I've used something a bit like this to save some space...

http://i.imgur.com/t5a8qO6.jpg

This gives the same 180 LF+O as a short Mk2 fuselage but in this same space you can also cram in all your odds and sods.

Foxster,

I found this very intriguing and tried it out on one of my space planes in lieu of a short LF&O. What I found was that while storage did improve, drag went up dramatically. I tried cycling the doors, but it didn't seem to help any.

Is there a trick to using this method without the drag penalty? I attached the additional stuff to the rear of the preceding bulkhead. Should I have attached it to the FL-T400 instead?

Thanks,

-Slashy

Edited July 19, 2015 by GoSlash27