Building Wings. (I couldn't!)

[Clipperride]

Thanks to the tips and advice in these forums, I've managed to make a workable Mk2 space plane. The trouble now is scaling things up to Mk3 parts.

I need to learn how to make wings. The largest delta wing is undersized for Mk3 parts, but I just can't seem to get the hang of making my own wings. Are there any hints to placing things accurately? Also, how do I make the wing one complete part? If I make changes that shift the CoM then I also need to move the wings. It would be nice if I didn't have to move loads of parts individually.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Clipperride

[GoSlash27]

Clipperride,

The wings aren't too small for Mk3 parts.

The key to wings is to remember that all wings are equal from the standpoint of lift vs. drag so bigger is better in large spaceplanes.

The wet delta is worth 5 lift rating and the airliner wing is worth 7.8. The less you have to stitch your wings together with struts the better off you'll be.

Even this underpowered monstrosity can make orbit efficiently on just 6 wing parts. You're liable to be operating at more t/w, so wing area is less of an issue for you. Few builders operate in the low t/w area that I dabble in, and the higher your t/w the higher your wing loading can be.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited September 18, 2015 by GoSlash27

[A_name]

I'll agree with Big-S wings being large enough, especially if you're making an SSTO, because you really don't need so much lift at the high speeds, levels of thrust and angles of attack you'll be working with.

But if you must build your own wings, I recommend attaching a beam on the fuselage running straight along the side and connect your wing sections to the beam. That way you don't have to move all pieces when making adjustments, like you said.

Other hints:

Understand the wing sections follow the same Lego-style logic of the other parts. Combine them to form larger pieces in any shape you like (within the possibilities offered by the available parts of course).

Build in rows from the fuselage out.

Avoid struts as much as possible. They're draggy and look ugly. You can tolerate a bit of flappiness in the wings as long as they don't break. Avoid high-G maneuvers and you'll be fine.

Build the smallest wing that looks reasonable to you and take it for a test run. Only add more wings if you're unable to lift it off the runway. If it takes off but only if you let it drop off the edge of the runway you don't need more wings, you need to adjust your rear landing gear closer to the COM and/or add more control surfaces.

Try out a procedural wings mod, they open up a lot of possibilities. I personally like to keep mostly stock in terms of parts but I won't deny the procedural wings are cool.

Edited September 18, 2015 by A_name

[Vanamonde]

I build my wings from one root part, and only the root part actually connects to the fuselage. This can be weak and call for strut bolstering, but the nice thing is, I can move the whole assembly as one unit while adjusting COL.

[Nothalogh]

Honestly, we need more Big-S wing parts, the two that immediately come to mind are a 60deg delta and a trapezoidal with a 30deg front and rear sweep

[Clipperride]

Thanks for the tips folks (I always put "guys" first then change it to folks in case not all the answers are from chaps!)

- Nice idea about both the girder and root part for making wings a single unit.

- Slashy. How have you attached those engines to the wing? Are those nose cones sitting in front of the engines, attached to the small wing part at the leading edge?

I'll keep at it. It's just that plane testing takes so much longer than rocket testing. My latest build "Work GDU" will make it to orbit!!

[Val]

I build my wings from one root part, and only the root part actually connects to the fuselage. This can be weak and call for strut bolstering, but the nice thing is, I can move the whole assembly as one unit while adjusting COL.

When I need to use more than one wing I do like that. One wing piece that is the root, and all others attached to that. As if the extra parts were control surfaces. But that usually also limits me to attaching a maximum of 3 pieces on rectangular roots, and 2 pieces on triangular root. Keeping it limited like that, I can usually avoid using struts. (Shameless plug) The Chibi Skylon in my sig is built that way.

Even wing strakes, I attach that way. Though, that requires using the rotation and offset gizmos, to orient it correctly.

If I'm building a really big airplane, 250 t or more. Then I'll use multiple discrete wing assemblies along the length of the fuselage. (more shameless plugs)

The downside is, that this technique doesn't lend itself to building those big beautiful deltawings or blended body and wing designs.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Val
Clarification, typo and grammar

[xtoro]

I build my wings from one root part, and only the root part actually connects to the fuselage. This can be weak and call for strut bolstering, but the nice thing is, I can move the whole assembly as one unit while adjusting COL.

This! And a tip for all those rectangular wing parts: Some attach by the short side, some from the long side. The thing to remember when looking at the part thumbnails is that the right side in the thumbnail is the side that will attach to something.

[Red Iron Crown]

When I need to use more than one wing I do like that. One wing piece that is the root, and all others attached to that. As if the extra parts were control surfaces. But that usually also limits me to attaching a maximum of 3 pieces on rectangular roots, and 2 pieces on triangular root. Keeping it limited like that, I can usually avoid using struts. (Shameless plug) The Chibi Skylon in my sig is built that way.

Do wings attached that way still generate lift? In 0.90 and previous wing parts with fore/aft attach nodes did not generate lift (unless flying sideways). I'm not sure if it got fixed or not in 1.0.x.

Some of my planes end up flying sideways.

[Val]

Do wings attached that way still generate lift? In 0.90 and previous wing parts with fore/aft attach nodes did not generate lift (unless flying sideways). I'm not sure if it got fixed or not in 1.0.x.

Some of my planes end up flying sideways.

Yes, it got fixed in 1.0.

[Red Iron Crown]

Oh nice, now I can stop building wing strips and can have more complex shapes. Thanks!

[cantab]

With the gizmos you can sort it out anyway.

[Clipperride]

Success! I've just launched a small dummy satellite into a 100km+ orbit from the cargo bay of a Mk3 space plane. I simply used Big S 'plane wings, which I thought would generate too much drag and up she went, returning with over â…“rd of the combustibles left.

I also solved my landing gear issues and so didn't need to start yet another thread! Having gotten so used to the large landing gear being bottom right of page 1 of utilities, I had mistakenly been using medium gear since the last time I unlocked some tech! (Doh! Stupidity strikes again)

I'll have a go at making wings though. Thanks for the tips (I didn't know the right side of the thumbnail indicated which side attaches to the other parts - handy to know)) and also the picture posts. I shall be stealing/recreating some of the examples shown this weekend.

Cheers!

[GoSlash27]

Clipperride,

I'm always glad to hear more success stories. Congrats!

On my "behemoth", I attached the FL-T100s radially to the upper wing surface, then attached the nose cones/ engines and realigned/ repositioned them using the widgets.

FWIW I always try to use the minimum number of wing panels for the job. Smaller panels, no matter how they are rooted, tend to be flimsy and require strutting. Strutting is the devil in spaceplanes.

Oh, and since nobody's mentioned it yet: some wing incidence can dramatically improve your spaceplane's performance. Wings produce a lot less drag than fuselages even when they are making lift. The right amount of incidence will allow you to punch through Mach 1 with your nose aligned with the prograde vector, dramatically reducing parasitic drag. This means you can get more mass supersonic and beyond with less thrust.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited September 18, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Clipperride]

Cheers Slashy.

I'll be trying that out a little later (after Big Brother USA vs UK, a guilty pleasure of mine). I've has some success recreating the S-108 Long Mk1in Val's signatures and I'm ready to try some more. I would download the craft files, but I fear strike action from the "Amalgamated Union of Kerballian Space Plane Designer's and Snack Wrangler's" local branch office. So, I shall study the pictures and play"spot that part"

Happy landings.

Clipper

[GoSlash27]

Cheers Slashy.

I'll be trying that out a little later (after Big Brother USA vs UK, a guilty pleasure of mine). I've has some success recreating the S-108 Long Mk1in Val's signatures and I'm ready to try some more. I would download the craft files, but I fear strike action from the "Amalgamated Union of Kerballian Space Plane Designer's and Snack Wrangler's" local branch office. So, I shall study the pictures and play"spot that part"

Happy landings.

Clipper

Clipper,

Ain't nuthin' wrong with that. There's no fun in downloading somebody else's design.

Happy spacing!

-Slashy

[Clipperride]

Yep, I find I learn more from building it myself, solving some of the problems the original designer faced. My KSP house rules (at the moment) are no craft downloads and no Mods.

Liking the Lister profile pic BTW. Love Red Dwarf (apart from the Back to Earth weirdness!)

[A_name]

Clipperride,

I'm always glad to hear more success stories. Congrats!

On my "behemoth", I attached the FL-T100s radially to the upper wing surface, then attached the nose cones/ engines and realigned/ repositioned them using the widgets.

FWIW I always try to use the minimum number of wing panels for the job. Smaller panels, no matter how they are rooted, tend to be flimsy and require strutting. Strutting is the devil in spaceplanes.

Oh, and since nobody's mentioned it yet: some wing incidence can dramatically improve your spaceplane's performance. Wings produce a lot less drag than fuselages even when they are making lift. The right amount of incidence will allow you to punch through Mach 1 with your nose aligned with the prograde vector, dramatically reducing parasitic drag. This means you can get more mass supersonic and beyond with less thrust.

Best,

-Slashy

How many degrees of incidence would you recommend starting with?

[Val]

Cheers Slashy.

I'll be trying that out a little later (after Big Brother USA vs UK, a guilty pleasure of mine). I've has some success recreating the S-108 Long Mk1in Val's signatures and I'm ready to try some more. I would download the craft files, but I fear strike action from the "Amalgamated Union of Kerballian Space Plane Designer's and Snack Wrangler's" local branch office. So, I shall study the pictures and play"spot that part"

Happy landings.

Clipper

I'm honored to be a source of inspiration

- - - Updated - - -

How many degrees of incidence would you recommend starting with?

When I discovered the benefits of incidence, while doing the Laythe SSTO Challenge, I started with a simple 5^o on all wing surfaces. And a wing area a 6th to a 10th of the craft mass at take-off. 20-25t craft per RAPIER. Less wing mass was important to get more dV.

But for the very high performance ones I made for Stock Payload Fraction Challenge, I went for 2^o and wing area a 4th of mass.

[Clipperride]

Val - yep you sure are! Amazed by the size of the orange tank lifter as well as the cool looking engine pods on the wings, I have set the Amalgamated Union of Kerballian Space Plane Designer's and Snack Wrangler's (now incorporating the Under 15s pro/am Association of Illuminated Thinking Kerbalsâ„¢)* the task of recreating it. I just need to tweak the alignment of the engine pods and Thunderbirds are Go, as they say...

*When I mentioned a strike by this powerful labour movement I did mean military rather than industrial. Those are a well armed bunch of negotiators!)

[GoSlash27]

How many degrees of incidence would you recommend starting with?

A-Name,

Actually, I don't have a specific recommendation. It depends on your wing loading and t/w ratio.

Basically you want to get it up to Mach 1 and see where your prograde vector is. Adjust the incidence so it's straight ahead aligned with your forward marker and that should about do it.

Best,

-Slashy

[Val]

I agree with, Slashy. The ratios I listed were pulled from succesful designs I had evolved pretty much as he describes. Though, my target was neutral lift at 375 m/s at sea level (or at least below 300 m).