Protip to make your planes look at least 20% cooler

[theend3r]

I'm giving you a free chance to learn. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Here, let me show you a couple of real-world airplanes, both derivatives from the same parent.

This airplane was designed to use the existing wing (more or less) but to have a wingtip device that improved L/D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#/media/File:P-8A_Poseidon_VX-20_Squadron.jpg

So was this airplane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:ILA_Berlin_2012_PD_070.JPG

The difference is wingspan. The Navy plane has a wingspan of 37.6 meters. The commercial plane has a wingspan of 35.9 meters. The commercial plane is designed to fit into ICAO class C airports, which handle airplanes with wingspans of "24m up to but not including 36m". Obviously the commercial plane is "MAX"ed out for wingspan. But without that restriction, the very same company chose a different design for the Navy plane. Why? Because wingspan extension beats winglets for L/D -- if you can do it. The Navy plane also features "raked" wingtips, which is a different method of wingtip vortex control. But crucially, it adds wingspan. For induced drag, wingspan is better than winglets.

Ok, you're right, my bad. The advantage of winglets (i.e. lesser structural load on the wing) can still be utilized though, especially with FAR that likes to break them apart. Long wings also need to be strutted in KSP and it improves maneuverability so it's not useless.

Chance taken.

[mikegarrison]

Thanks for the interesting explanation. One question, do winglets also add lateral stability?

Depends. On a delta wing, yes, they could. On a mid-wing airplane, no, it's unlikely. The difference is the lever arm for yaw.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, you're right, my bad. The advantage of winglets (i.e. lesser structural load on the wing) can still be utilized though, especially with FAR that likes to break them apart. Long wings also need to be strutted in KSP and it improves maneuverability so it's not useless.

Chance taken.

Yes, wing root bending moment is lower for the same effective aspect ratio with winglets than it would be for wingspan extensions.

[peachoftree]

It's not in a state I would like to share just yet. Currently it has an all turboramjet propulsion system, I think if I replaced them with Rapiers it would SSTO without much trouble. The new Mk1 cockpit teased for 1.1 looks like it would be a closer match to the real thing, I'll likely revise the vessel then.

It not being ready for release will not stop me from teasing you further, though.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot45.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot46.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot50.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot65.png

(Asymmetric flameout is apparently still a thing.)

You can fix asymmetric flameout with Intake Build Aid

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I did this just to make this plane look cool, but for whatever reason, they finally made my plane able to reenter without stalling all over the place! It was the first time I didn't have to use my engines during final approach since 0.90!

Since the wingtips are lifted, your COL is moved forward, thereby increasing maneuverability.

[Red Iron Crown]

You can fix asymmetric flameout with Intake Build Aid

I use IBA, but it's not much help when you have four intakes for six engines.

[Nich]

Except KSP doesn't calculate AR or induced drag for wings so winglets wouldn't help. Also on supersonic craft and short range craft with low wing loading winglets add more weight then fuel saved.

The debate of correctly sized wings vs winglets is a hot topic among the aviation community and there is very little consensus either way. I will have to point out that the 787 has blended raked winglets and it is the model of efficiency for commercial aircraft. That being said you will never see winglets on a glider because it has a vastly lower wing loading and vastly higher Aspect ratio.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Nich

[Sharpy]

Nevertheless, I'm willing to make tiny sacrifices to efficiency in exchange for plain good looks of my craft. Sure functionality is the king, but if the 3% or so would make a difference, my craft is under-engineered anyway.

[peachoftree]

I use IBA, but it's not much help when you have four intakes for six engines.

You could add 2 radial intakes, so that when you do get a flameout, two flameout symmetrically

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly it's not that big a deal to me. Thanks for the tip, though.

[mikegarrison]

Nevertheless, I'm willing to make tiny sacrifices to efficiency in exchange for plain good looks of my craft. Sure functionality is the king, but if the 3% or so would make a difference, my craft is under-engineered anyway.

Of course! I completely agree. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun.