The Art of landing.

[Tourist]

You do it the same way you get the Carnegie Hall.... practice. Just kidding, just kidding. Lots of good advice here. My two cents is that it often comes back to design. Make sure you have plane you can control empty. I find my spaceplanes always comeback completely out of balance... I really need to fight to keep the nose up and pretty much can't land (without losing the engines at least) without just a little fuel left to for the engines to lift the nose up and flare.

[katateochi]

A way would be to place probes, giving markers similar to a real runway approach. But how to place these so that they're correctly aligned?

On the subject of putting markers, I know alot of folk suggest using flags, but I prefer to use a set of 3 small probes placed 500m, 1km and 1.5km from the runway. I prefer to use probes because it's much easier to set them in a straight line. build a rover that holds 4 probes on decouplers on a boon on the back of the rover. each probe is just a probe core, a couple batteries, solar panel and lights (if you use aviation lights mod, then the flashing lights are visible on approach). Turn the rover around in the SPH before launching it and disable steering on all its wheels. drop first probe on the runway (use this one to measure distance and then clear it away later). Then just drive steadily to 500m, drop probe, repeat. Gives you a nice approach line that's visible far enough away that you can get perfectly lined up.

With the new aeroD I've been enjoying having most spaceplanes return as unpowered gliders, and you can still be moving pretty fast by the time you reach the runway, but it's all about timing the point of deorbit and how much pitch you apply in the early part of descent. Each plane differs depending on how much lift it has, so some trial and error is usually needed, but I have a number of land marks over the desert that I use as de-orbit markers. Generally speaking from a 100km orbit, start deorbit burn over the mountains in the desert and put the trajectory near the runway. assuming the plane has enough lift and you pitch up to 30-40 deg during the initial descent the trajectory will get moved past the runway and then once in the thicker lower atmo you should be able to control enough to adjust course to aim for the end of the runway.

I absolutely suck at using joysticks to land (or fly aircraft at all for that matter) in KSP!

[bonyetty]

Are you playing the latest version of KSP as the drag was increased from in the last few patches of the botched 1.0 release.

[Wjolcz]

Would be nice to see how the spaceplane looks.

[Taki117]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Fixed it for you. Also, There's your problem! Your craft is massive, with very little lift in the wing department. Like, it's a wonder you got it off the ground and into space at all. This is a case of "Bigger isn't always Better." Might I suggest a redesign? Your landing gear are far too close together, you hae far too little wing area for such a large craft, SSTOs are notorious for how little payload they can carry, if you're looking for the ability to carry a large payload to orbit you're better off with a rocket. I would start by designing something that actually looks like an aircraft and work on your flight profile (SSTOs are not like normal rockets)

If you need some design Ideas check out This Thread. It's a tad dated, but it will give you a nice starting point.

Also, this thread has more design ideas.

[martinborgen]

Well, this space"plane" is going to be hard to land - hence why I need to organize my landing approach. As I earlier said, I'm no stranger to the mechanics of landing, but I find it's really hard to control in KSP. The AoA is lost when doing other manouvres (nose dips), and the plane tends to roll to one side without reason. On a more sane design, I'm able to overcome these obstacles, but a saucer design is harder.

Anyways; here's the plane.

http://imgur.com/a/DGQRK

[Red Iron Crown]

Try using trim rather than SAS to maintain your AoA, that will reduce how much it is affected by other adjustments. (Alt+WASD to set trim, Alt+X to cancel it.)

[Wjolcz]

Well, this space"plane" is going to be hard to land - hence why I need to organize my landing approach. As I earlier said, I'm no stranger to the mechanics of landing, but I find it's really hard to control in KSP. The AoA is lost when doing other manouvres (nose dips), and the plane tends to roll to one side without reason. On a more sane design, I'm able to overcome these obstacles, but a saucer design is harder.

Anyways; here's the plane.

http://imgur.com/a/DGQRK

Ow... That RATO, tho.

To me it's overbuilt. A long, noodle-like spaceplane will always be hard to land. It seems the wings are way too small for it's size, too.

Try building something that looks (more or less) like something that would work IRL.

EDIT: Basically what Taki117 said.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Veeltch

[GoSlash27]

Yeah, way too high a wing loading.

Best,

-Slashy

[martinborgen]

My idea is similar to this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15.

So forum verdict is that it's not really feasable?

[Val]

...

I asked because this aircraft in particular has quite small lift - it's a rocket SSTO with wings on it (starting weight 380 tons, landing weight ~80t). It relies mostly on body lift. Landing speed was at about 275 m/s, and that's where I will do my next modifications - more wings, or chutes, or retro thrusters. However, to get the first aircraft down safely, I needed several tries, and hence I started thinking of these problems when waiting for my plane to burn through the atmosphere.

Now the aircraft is down, although I had to stop right after the runway and just before the water.

...

http://imgur.com/a/DGQRK

You craft is not lacking much in wing-area (Looks like it has ~24 Lift rating). But it looks like you haven't mounted your wings and controlsurfaces with Angle of Incidence. Doing that will let you keep the nose lower during landing without needing high speed, plus it will reduce drag during ascent.

This SSTO spaceplane, which weighs around 85 t when landing and is about same length, has ~32 Lift rating. It touches down at a very leisurely ~60 m/s and uses less than half the runway to stop.

(NavHUD is what gives me prograde-marker and the yellow-indicator)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file

[Red Iron Crown]

Since we're sharing pics in here this is one of an approach using a rover at the west end of the runway as a marker. It's been set as the target, which makes the navball more useful for lining up.

[Vegetal]

Lol, your "plane" is very bad man. Also, the X-15 didn't take off by itself, remember... it was also quite small.

[Cryova]

This is my most common landing tactic:

1. Get somewhat lined up with a flat surface somewhere.

2. 0% throttle and glide in low.

3. Flare the wings and slam into the ground.

4. Fireballs!

5. Everything explodes minus the cockpit.

Or rarely if I am lucky;

1. Get somewhat lined up with a flat surface somewhere.

2. 0% throttle and glide in low.

3. Flare the wings and touchdown.

4. Skid along until I come to a stop.

I am definitely more of a rocket builder than a jet builder.

[martinborgen]

Lol, your "plane" is very bad man. Also, the X-15 didn't take off by itself, remember... it was also quite small.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. Perhaps you need help distinguish between the act of taking off and landing - we're discussing the latter. The X-15 did land by itself, in case you didn't know.

[Mikki]

Hi martinborgen

I use to land like this, or at least, i try to do so... :

No matter how heavy the plane, sinkrate about 5m/s, not to fast (but before stalling...), straight to runway... , rear brakes tweaked harder than front, A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S. is allways good idea, if managable without SAS (what is diss, asayas?), aiming allways the very beginning of the landingstrip (for obvious reasons ), happy landings!

If not going well, full throttle, pull up, retry from the opposite direction. As in RL. A good balanced Plane should also land well...

Edited August 11, 2015 by Mikki
.....typos....sure

[Wjolcz]

My idea is similar to this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15.

So forum verdict is that it's not really feasable?

X-15 is one of those designs that wouldn't work very well as a scaled up version. It was small and had 1 crew only.

Here's an SSTO I made a few minutes ago. The only use I have for it is crew transport to LKO and back.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

As others said: SSTOs aren't made for big payloads. Unless it's Rune's MK3 monstrosity.

[A_name]

My idea is similar to this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15.

So forum verdict is that it's not really feasable?

No dude, don’t get discouraged! This is KSP, the game notorious for allowing you to fly the most improbable and ludicrous creations. Such is the spirit of our mantras: “moar struts†and “moar boostersâ€Â. By all means continue to pursue this design if that’s what floats your boat.

As I said earlier in the post, if this was my plane I would definitely fit it with parachutes instead of trying for a rolling landing on the runway. You can still land on it, or at least near it, by opening your chutes until you’re over the KSC.

If a rolling landing on the runway is a must for whatever reason, I would still consider a small parachute at the back and/or retrothtrusters, to be deployed as soon as you reach the beginning of the runway. I’m sure you already discovered that stock parachutes will disappear when you touch the ground, but they’re still useful for slowing down before hitting the ground. For the retrothrusters I would use sepratrons or vernor engines.

Whatever you do, don’t stop making funky creations just because some people on the forums say it won’t work.

[Red Iron Crown]

^^ Wise words.

[Mikki]

Hey Veeltch your Plane is truly AAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!

HOW did you???

[Wjolcz]

Hey Veeltch your Plane is truly AAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!

HOW did you???

Thanks. It just happened, I guess. Took me 2 days to make it space-worthy.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Veeltch

[A_name]

Thanks. It just happened, I guess. Took me 2 days to make it space-worthy.

I agree, it's a nice plane. So what's the deal with the tail piece? Just to cover the Nerv's or is it actually functional?

[martinborgen]

Hi martinborgen

I use to land like this, or at least, i try to do so... :

No matter how heavy the plane, sinkrate about 5m/s, not to fast (but before stalling...), straight to runway... , rear brakes tweaked harder than front, A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S. is allways good idea, if managable without SAS (what is diss, asayas?), aiming allways the very beginning of the landingstrip (for obvious reasons ), happy landings!

http://i.imgur.com/1TUF6Be.png

If not going well, full throttle, pull up, retry from the opposite direction. As in RL. A good balanced Plane should also land well...

Thanks! Yes, how do you get the 5 m/s sinkrate to converge with the beginning of the runway?

No dude, don’t get discouraged! This is KSP, the game notorious for allowing you to fly the most improbable and ludicrous creations. Such is the spirit of our mantras: “moar struts†and “moar boostersâ€Â. By all means continue to pursue this design if that’s what floats your boat.

As I said earlier in the post, if this was my plane I would definitely fit it with parachutes instead of trying for a rolling landing on the runway. You can still land on it, or at least near it, by opening your chutes until you’re over the KSC.

If a rolling landing on the runway is a must for whatever reason, I would still consider a small parachute at the back and/or retrothtrusters, to be deployed as soon as you reach the beginning of the runway. I’m sure you already discovered that stock parachutes will disappear when you touch the ground, but they’re still useful for slowing down before hitting the ground. For the retrothrusters I would use sepratrons or vernor engines.

Whatever you do, don’t stop making funky creations just because some people on the forums say it won’t work.

Haha, thanks! No, I'm not discouraged, though I was a little peeved at some peoples response. Lots of good advice also, like this. However, I've found that parachutes deployed while rolling won't be cut. However, the stresses on the fuselage by the parachutes is immense - often the plane lands nicely but is broken apart by the chutes.

[Fearless Son]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. Perhaps you need help distinguish between the act of taking off and landing - we're discussing the latter. The X-15 did land by itself, in case you didn't know.

If you do not mind a little actual constructive criticism, might I recommend you replace the rocket engine? You are using a Mammoth, which is unmatched in power as a heavy lifting engine, great for when you need to accelerate a lot of mass off the surface. Unfortunately, it is also very heavy and very fuel-hungry, and by the time a spaceplane needs its rockets it is already going supersonic and rising out of the thickest of the atmosphere, which means that the Mammoth is rarely an efficient spaceplane engine. If you swap it out with something else, you can reduce both the mass of the engine as well as the mass of the fuel it requires. That reduction in mass, though not a pancea, will make the design a bit easier to take off and land because less mass means you require less lift to stay airborn.

The easiest swap to make would be to use the Rhino engine as a replacement, since it is the same diameter. It does not have the Mammoth's immense thrust, but its thrust is still substantial by the standards of a single engine and it has one of the better fuel efficiency ratings, especially at the level of thrust it outputs. Alternatively, you could use an appropriate adapter part and quad coupler to place a cluster of smaller engines on the back. Aerospike engines are traditional for spaceplanes, and offer a good balance of thrust and efficiency, though LV-45 engines also work well in that role. Might be worth taking a fuel tank out of the fuselage while you are at it, shortening the splaceplane a bit if you replace the engine, since you will need less of it and carrying more than you need runs into diminishing returns, especially where spaceplanes are concerned.

[Wjolcz]

I agree, it's a nice plane. So what's the deal with the tail piece? Just to cover the Nerv's or is it actually functional?

It works as a normal tail piece, though tends to be a bit slippery, because of it's low profile. And funnily enough, it doesn't use Nervas and "Swivel" engines instead.

EDIT: BTW, here's the link to the thread for anyone who's interested in checking out the Roadrunner: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131272-The-Roadrunner-SSTO

Edited August 11, 2015 by Veeltch