[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

B-52: BUFF, turtles run circles around it, carries more stuff than your local supermarket, seats 6, can serve several generations.

B-58: most beautiful bomber ever made, goes at Mach 2 by design, carries an external nuke pod with rocket engine that was later used for upper stage on a number of space launchers (okay, it actually didn't, but still!), seats 3 in personal escape pods that were tested on live bears who survived the ordeal. PERSONAL ESCAPE PODS. Tested on BEARS. You can't get more manly than that.

However, you're partially right - B-52 carries less stuff than C-5... so let's designate it as a mom's station wagon.

I'd like to note that the B-58 has the same Problem as the B-1 when it comes to Mach 1. It can do it, without payload. With payload the B-1 can barely go mach at all. IDK what the pay load speed of the Hustler is, but I'm willing to bet it's not the full Mach 1, let alone mach 2.

Edited Friday at 07:16 AM by GoldForest

[biohazard15]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

I'd like to note that the B-58 has the same Problem as the B-1 when it comes to Mach 2. It can do it, without payload. With payload the B-1 can barely go mach at all. IDK what the pay load speed of the Hustler is, but I'm willing to bet it's not the full Mach 2. 

B-1 weights a lot (A LOT) more than B-58, though. It's also not as aerodynamically "clean" as B-58, despite using internal bomb bays (swing wings etc - swing wings arent's as cool as you think, actually)

Edited Friday at 07:48 AM by biohazard15

[Friznit]

53 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

B-1 weights a lot (A LOT) more than B-58, though. It's also not as aerodynamically "clean" as B-58, despite using internal bomb bays (swing wings etc - swing wings arent's as cool as you think, actually)

F111  cordially invites you round for a quiet chat.

 

[GoldForest]

19 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

B-1 weights a lot (A LOT) more than B-58, though. It's also not as aerodynamically "clean" as B-58, despite using internal bomb bays (swept wings etc - swept wings arent's as cool as you think, actually)

At least variable-sweep wings (All wings are swept  ) allow for lower speed flying and higher maneuverability. Delta wings perform extremely poorly at low-speed regime.

And F-14, enough said. Best damn fighter we ever made... naval fighter. (Imo ofc)

And in terms of most beautiful bomber to quote an old master, "There is another."

[GoldForest]

Things did not go well... 

[GoldForest]

[GoldForest]

Cursed X-15 launch.

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Too fast, overshot. Good think still had fuel in the tanks.

"'Nother happy landing."

[Jenyam]

Not to go off topic too much, but where did you get that about the B-58? The whole point of that design was to carry a bomb pod at Mach 2...

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I'd like to note that the B-58 has the same Problem as the B-1 when it comes to Mach 1. It can do it, without payload. With payload the B-1 can barely go mach at all. IDK what the pay load speed of the Hustler is, but I'm willing to bet it's not the full Mach 1, let alone mach 2.

 

Edited Friday at 11:28 AM by Jenyam
forgot the quote...

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Jenyam said:

Not to go off topic too much, but where did you get that about the B-58? The whole point of that design was to carry a bomb pod at Mach 2...

 

Oh? I always assumed it couldn't fly Mach with payload, like the B-1. I always assumed the speed was to get it away from the enemy territory quickly. 

My bad.

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Nice build, but I'm gonna have to dock points for referring to the B52 as "Mom's minivan".

 But the BUFF IS Moms Minivan... which is why it is still arround as well as getting UPGRADED!

Convair's Hotrod is long consigned to the boneyard and beyond because it was a cool concept that didn't do anything really more than it Did...   Sure they thought about using it Vietnam (I have seen the photos with 4x MERs loaded with MK82s under the fuselage/wing joint. )   But it gave up most of its performance to carry stuff like that.  

What the USAF needs next is a NEW Minivan to replace the BUFF.  Because sadly those birds are getting long in the tooth.

It turned out that putting those 24 Mk82s on the Hustler slowed it down to just above Mach1 max speed.   With 4 B-43 bombs on the same hardpoints (with or without the big boi pod) it could do Mach 1.7    Yes, having that many small bombs close together acted like a  GIANT speed break.   But, even with it's spindly legs, I don't think the B-58 could actually haul an X-15 underneath it (Both aerodynamically as well as in just plain ground clearance.)

 

Edited Friday at 02:26 PM by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I'd like to note that the B-58 has the same Problem as the B-1 when it comes to Mach 1. It can do it, without payload. With payload the B-1 can barely go mach at all. IDK what the pay load speed of the Hustler is, but I'm willing to bet it's not the full Mach 1, let alone mach 2.

 

6 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

B-1 weights a lot (A LOT) more than B-58, though. It's also not as aerodynamically "clean" as B-58, despite using internal bomb bays (swing wings etc - swing wings arent's as cool as you think, actually)

 

6 hours ago, Friznit said:

F111  cordially invites you round for a quiet chat.

 

 

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

At least variable-sweep wings (All wings are swept  ) allow for lower speed flying and higher maneuverability. Delta wings perform extremely poorly at low-speed regime.

And F-14, enough said. Best damn fighter we ever made... naval fighter. (Imo ofc)

And in terms of most beautiful bomber to quote an old master, "There is another."

 

Ok Lots to answer here... I had posted my B-58 comment then saw the rest of these

1) GoldForest,  The B-1B is intentionally flown well below its maximum speed.   The reason is, as part of the "Radar signature" reduction program that was hastily done to get the B-1B into production as part of the RayGun presidential promises, certain design choices were made.   The main problem with the B-1As radar cross section was it's  "Maximum speed of Mach 2+."    You see from the front, all 4 GE F101 engines with all their spinning Gubbins were reflecting Radar signals like Crazy.   Literally if you checked the RCS of a B-1A without engines in the nacelles it was (maybe much) less than 1/4th what it is WITH the engines it needs to fly.     So USAF/DOD/Rockwell under orders from OoPUSA.  Developed a quick and dirty way to reduce the radar cross section.  The air intakes are liberally coated with RAM material, and the intake ducts are restricted with baffles to prevent radar return of of the engine faces.   The B-1B **CAN** Fly Mach 2 for a time, with full load.   However after the flight, all four GE F101 engines will need to be replaced.  The entire air duct system in the nacelles would need to be replaced.... as you can see that is an extreme emergency use only thing.   And the replacement is required because the ducts are falling appart all through that high speed flight.      There is a lot more information than this I could share but this is not really the place to discuss... that would be for someone's B-1 mod for KSP.

2) biohazard.   What you are actually talking about is "The B-1 is Bigger than the B-58"   Which is 100% true.   But between the two, as far as cleanliness of design, the B-1 is only JUST behind the B-58.... and you are right to point out that the VG wing is mostly to blame... Specifically the glove/wing intersection which has literally flexible parts.   But as others have said, the VG wing is also what allows the B-1 to perform as well as it does.  

3) Friznet.   Of all the Swing-wing designs, the F-111 is probably the most aerodynamically "Best" for straight drag performance.   However it comes at the cost of Lift.   The F-14 as GoldForest pointed out is a much superior design in Lift... Yet the F-14 has much more drag than the F-111 (clean vs clean)  On the same engines at the same weight the F-111 is the faster between it and the F-14 Tomcat.   F-14Ds could super-cruise clean and light on their F110-GE-400s.   But the F-111 could still go faster on less thrust with the TF30 (the same engine which killed so many F-14 crews)   So yes, your point is simple.    It isn't Swing/VG wings that did it.   And 100% correct    I am highlighting it here to show that design choices, more than "a generic aerodynamic feature" are what most often are the determining factor since both F-111 and F-14 which ARE analogous were mentioned in rapid succession. 

Now, WHY most of these aircraft are slower than X or Y it has to do most often with the type of GLASS used in the cockpit!   the B-1B is an exception to this... it has Glass for Mach 2.8 speeds.   It has air intakes for Mach 1.2 speeds    The F-111 has glass for Mach 2.8 speeds as well.   The F-14 has Glass for Mach 2.5 speed     Which is why I love when people tell me the Mk3 version of the CF-105 Arrow was going to be a Mach3+ aircraft.   

Back on topic now.  

Goldforest,  Interesting, I didn't realize that the B-29 parts were so small.   I have not played with any of them in YEARS. 

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Cursed X-15 launch.

Too fast, overshot. Good think still had fuel in the tanks.

"'Nother happy landing."

Isn't that the 3rd landing you have posted with the rear wheels (skids) missing?    I think you are slapping it into the ground a wee bit too hard

Kidding aside, I was almost about to download SOCKs to go with ORANGES and And try to bury the X-15 in the bay but I think the Wingspan is  10% too big?   I assume that is what you have found?

[Rodger]

20 hours ago, hugoraider said:

Now it just goes in an uncontrollable spin when I try to pull up.

I've tested your craft a few times now, and the only issues I had where while trying to fly without any form of stability control active. So for eg: decoupling, switching, then not activating SAS/MJ/AA and trying to fly.

I've had more issues with the root part/controlling from the X15 cockpit instead of the carrier, and decoupling with AA active.

If it's completely unresponsive, it's also possible there's no pilot in the cockpit (done this more than once lol)

For other issues, I'm at a loss tbh

Edited Friday at 02:41 PM by Rodger

[Entr8899]

20 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Isn't that the 3rd landing you have posted with the rear wheels (skids) missing?    I think you are slapping it into the ground a wee bit too hard

Where do the landing skids even go? There doesn't appear to be any attach nodes for them...

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Jenyam said:

Not to go off topic too much, but where did you get that about the B-58? The whole point of that design was to carry a bomb pod at Mach 2...

 

There was a lot of press back in the 60s about how the B-58 was slower than the USAF said.    It is like what you hear about the V-22 Osprey today...     A lot of hype-over inflated statistics to make the backers of the program look bad.  In this case, literally quoting the speed of the B-58 when loaded with a fuel pod and 4 MERs loaded with 24 Mk82 500lb LDGP bombs...

2 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

Where do the landing skids even go? There doesn't appear to be any attach nodes for them...

Yes there are, I have built the X-15 several different ways for an upcoming series I plan on posting.   You have to ROTATE the skids a certain way to get them to line up with the nodes.  The nodes are JUST in front of the engine on the sides of the fuselage (near the wing trailing edge.)

[Rodger]

5 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

Where do the landing skids even go? There doesn't appear to be any attach nodes for them...

Here

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Goldforest,  Interesting, I didn't realize that the B-29 parts were so small.   I have not played with any of them in YEARS. 

Isn't that the 3rd landing you have posted with the rear wheels (skids) missing?    I think you are slapping it into the ground a wee bit too hard

Kidding aside, I was almost about to download SOCKs to go with ORANGES and And try to bury the X-15 in the bay but I think the Wingspan is  10% too big?   I assume that is what you have found?

B-29 is like 1.875 scale in KSP, but the parts are 2.5 so, had to compromise.

Pretty sure my last landing or the one before it was a good landing.

Too wide, yes. If they folded, it would fit, but too wide. Wonder if we could get benjee to add the humpback payload bay just for X-15.  I joke, ofc.

Although... it would fit inside the conceptual ET payload fairing, which is in Oranges.

[Entr8899]

https://prnt.sc/mW-bN1dTG3Ks

How are you supposed to launch the Titan 34D with an IUS? The upper lip clips through the fairing.

[CobaltWolf]

9 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

https://prnt.sc/mW-bN1dTG3Ks

How are you supposed to launch the Titan 34D with an IUS? The upper lip clips through the fairing.

You've activated the "Cobalt didn't properly think through that part 5 years ago" trap card

[GoldForest]

26 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You've activated the "Cobalt didn't properly think through that part 5 years ago" trap card

So, is IUS too big or the fairing too small? 

[Pappystein]

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

So, is IUS too big or the fairing too small? 

Yes?

30 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You've activated the "Cobalt didn't properly think through that part 5 years ago" trap card

Geeze has it been 5 years already?

 

[Pappystein]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:22 PM, Entr8899 said:

https://prnt.sc/mW-bN1dTG3Ks

How are you supposed to launch the Titan 34D with an IUS? The upper lip clips through the fairing.

Boy I sometimes hate how Gramerly and Firefox interact... soo many problems with THIS and ONLY THIS Forum.

Sorry, to answer your question Entr8899,  do a full send.  If it works great, if it doesn't then revert the launch.

None of these rockets are perfectly scaled.   Some are pretty close to Scale Factor X,  Some are close to scale factor Y, and others use yet further scale factors to bring the parts to a lego-able playable experience.    That being said there are just sometimes things be like this.  Could it have been made "more playable?"    MAYBE...but not certainly!   But  making it more "playable" will throw the scale off of other things and people would rage about that.     In the end the BDB Team has to choose what they feel/hope is right and just do it.    A great example of this is while it is the correct design, the Agena Interstages almost all of them clip if anything other than *edited* the SPS are attached to the Agena aft rack.

And it is not like we are paying CobaltWolf, Zorg, InvaderChaos, Roger, and when they were active Jso.   Each of them volunteers their work and more importantly time.   Time is a thing few of us have a lot of free to do this stuff.   I kind of wish Cobalt was still doing his "Dev Streams" like he used to so a lot of new players can see just how hard it is to actually make these things look as awesome as they are!   A great example... The Titan IV upper stage, took 2 or 3, 3ish hour Streams for ONE color choice as I recall.   The amount of effort put into these parts is amazing.   I was helping (well trying to help) to find reference photos for the Atlas rebuild  FOUR YEARS AGO...    That is when Zorg started the Atlas refresh.   Zorg can talk to how much time he spent reaserching, and how much time he spent designing and then modeling.  But suffice to say it started 4 years ago

It is for this reason I only asked for a node to be added to the Existing GEM-60 SRM to work with the new Atlas V SRM decouplers.   Because the time it would take to rebuild the GEM-60 to match current standards would be a lot of work!   And the GEM-60 is a pretty simple part.  

Edited Sunday at 02:49 PM by Pappystein
Missing end of first big paragraph!

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

CSM-106 & LM-4



You may know that LM-4 Snoopy was unique for being mostly covered in black blankets and silver foil unlike the other LMs which notouriously has gold foil. This is what I've attempted to recreate here!




 

Edit: I JUST realised Snoopy didn’t have RCS deflectors for some reason. I wanna take some better pics so maybe I’ll fix that tomorrow haha

Edited Saturday at 12:54 AM by AmateurAstronaut1969

[harveylates]

one slite the lem les kill kerbals for some reason is this a bug?

[Rodger]

8 hours ago, harveylates said:

one slite the lem les kill kerbals for some reason is this a bug?

I’m not quite sure what you mean, can you maybe link some pictures of it occurring?

[ra4nd0m]

Hey guys! Haven't been playing for a while and now I'm wandering what's new was added in the latest dev branch in addition to atlas rework and x-15 since last version.
Kinda hard to track what's going on considering the size of each update and the over-the-place scope.

Edited Sunday at 12:01 AM by ra4nd0m