Harrier Jet replica for 1.0.4

[The_Rocketeer]

Actually mine can reach either pole in half an hour, in fact it's faster than whiplashes because of the rapiers, though that has nothing to do with it's VTOL ability. I have a version that can do a tourist run to LKO, any land spot on the planet, or drop a small satellite so it is practical in a way. It would probably have slightly better performance with whiplashes (I have tried both but only the wheasleys fit in the bays without clipping, so they do provide some utility, about as much as KSP can be said to provide any utility).

Well, putting VTOL engines in bays is also pretty wasteful, tho I admit I've done it too in the past for the aesthetic.

And yes, the 'main' engines aren't what we're discussing.

[BlueCanary]

Well, putting VTOL engines in bays is also pretty wasteful, tho I admit I've done it too in the past for the aesthetic.

And yes, the 'main' engines aren't what we're discussing.

The huge drag of engines at 90 degrees to the slipstream is avoided if you put them in bays, for example this is a dual-wheesley lifted VTOL I made that can take 6 kerbals at well over mach 3 to the north pole and back without huge fuel consumption because it's designed for low drag (although looking at it now it could be improved quite a bit. This was in 1.0.2, but I'd imagine the concept would still work in 1.0.4.

The wheesleys are in the big central cargo bay.

Edited October 25, 2015 by BlueCanary

[Redshift OTF]

They did nerf jet engine thrust in 1.0.3 to compensate for less drag. That hit hardest for stationary thrust which affects VTOL's the most. Have you tried that craft in 1.0.4?

[BlueCanary]

They did nerf jet engine thrust in 1.0.3 to compensate for less drag. That hit hardest for stationary thrust which affects VTOL's the most. Have you tried that craft in 1.0.4?

I doubt that particular craft will work since it had low vertical TWR even before 1.0.3, but I will try it. The concept though, of having a low drag airframe with lift jets in a cargo bay, might still be good, especially since there's now less drag so you might get away with just one turbojet for forward thrust.

[selfish_meme]

I doubt that particular craft will work since it had low vertical TWR even before 1.0.3, but I will try it. The concept though, of having a low drag airframe with lift jets in a cargo bay, might still be good, especially since there's now less drag so you might get away with just one turbojet for forward thrust.

Well if I can get mine to orbit dragging a nuke then there is plenty of room for more performance.

[The_Rocketeer]

I doubt that particular craft will work since it had low vertical TWR even before 1.0.3, but I will try it. The concept though, of having a low drag airframe with lift jets in a cargo bay, might still be good, especially since there's now less drag so you might get away with just one turbojet for forward thrust.

I don't believe the fuel gains due to drag reduction outweigh the fuel losses to extra mass during takeoff/landing. The best justification for using VTOL engine bays is when the bay doors double as landing gears. Even so, the CoM of the vert engines being exterior to the part means you're also making losses to misalignment of CoT/CoM, which is less of an issue when the vert jets are attached radially to the bottom of the fuselage.

It would be interesting if someone wants to invest the time to thoroughly test this, but at the moment this conversation is just batting hypotheses and examples around - there's no solid evidence.

[BlueCanary]

I don't believe the fuel gains due to drag reduction outweigh the fuel losses to extra mass during takeoff/landing. The best justification for using VTOL engine bays is when the bay doors double as landing gears. Even so, the CoM of the vert engines being exterior to the part means you're also making losses to misalignment of CoT/CoM, which is less of an issue when the vert jets are attached radially to the bottom of the fuselage.

It would be interesting if someone wants to invest the time to thoroughly test this, but at the moment this conversation is just batting hypotheses and examples around - there's no solid evidence.

It would be hard to test seeing as both craft would have to be designed from the ground up as using engines in/out of bays to make best use of each configurations characteristics, but I think that for a long range/high speed craft having the drag of two massive lumps of metal at 90 degrees to the airflow would be worse overall than having an extra half tonne of mass, although for a slower/shorter range craft or one designed to lift payloads that weight could become more of an issue.

[YargJay9991]

Hey man.

I'd recommend rotating the rear (horizontal) engines so they point straight back. In my FA-18 Replica I made a while ago, the engines were, at first, rotated about 2 degrees off of straight. When I fixed this, the plane got a lot faster. Around 280 m/s (@ 2000m) as opposed to the orignal 190 m/s at the same height. I was very surprised naturally.

However this may have changed in recent updates. BE WARNED!

Happy Flying

YargJay9991

[YargJay9991]

Congrats Redshift OTF!

Your Harrier replica made it onto my Spacecraft Friday Edition! Check it out here.

Happy Flying

YargJay9991

Edited October 31, 2015 by YargJay9991

[Redshift OTF]

Wow, thanks for featuring my craft! Regarding the engine angle, the CoM is quite high on this plane due to the VTOL engines having their CoM in a funny place. Therefore the rear engines had to be angled so their thrust was more in line with the overall CoM. I found the plane kicked up too much if they were straight when transitioning from VTOL to horizontal flight mode.