Early aircraft and beating the T1 runway.

[PanzerAce]

3 hours ago, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

Love the post but I always tend to do this:

 

That's basically exactly what I do.

[jpinard]

On 4/23/2016 at 11:59 PM, DrMarlboro said:

After reading one of many threads on how the t1 runways is too hard to use, and since there are many threads that talk about plane design but leave out the importance of gear layout and it's affects on take off and landing, I decided that I would Rectify that here. 

Next, we have Tailwheel aircraft:

 

Can you give us more information on the wing parts?  Or another picture top down?I recognize the aileron but I can't figure out what you're using for putting the two together.

[DrMarlboro]

5 hours ago, jpinard said:

Can you give us more information on the wing parts?  Or another picture top down?I recognize the aileron but I can't figure out what you're using for putting the two together.

I should be home late today and I will post a top down pic of it. It was just a plane I cobbled together with the first plane tech node in my new career. It is basically just 2 swept wings with the crap gizmo'd out of them to create some sort of high eliptical wing. 

 

On 4/24/2016 at 8:12 PM, Alshain said:

There are more than just those two styles also, you can have tandem gear and outrigger wheels such as the B-47.  You can have quad wheels, these are more common on planes used with removable pontoons, or pontoons with extendable wheels however, the B-52 also had quad wheels.

As a private pilot and an aerospace engineering major, I am well aware of the many, many, types of landing gear. The reason I didn't include bicycle, single main, quad, multi-bogie (not that we have the power to make this since the second you use a gear higher than medium it is by definition a multi-bogie set up), and so on is this was geared towards early flight in career where you likely won't be building planes that can benefit from these types of gear (or even have the parts to do so).

But what the heck. I can add them in this evening when I edit the main to change the name to tricycle since it's such a foreign name to everyone here. =) and it will give me something to do. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by DrMarlboro

[eddiew]

This was an interesting thread   Inspired me to try out a new design to handle the dirt track:

I had a Panther engine available, so used that, but I'm sure it would work fine with a Wheesley, or even a set of Junos mounted under the wings. Did have to learn how to come in dead-slow however. First attempt at landing required me to circle round because I will still doing 120m/s. Also quite important to turn down the brakes on the front wheels, because they aren't all that far ahead of the CoM and it's prone to wanting to topple forwards when slowing.

Not sure if the double rear-wheels is quite what @DrMarlboro had in mind, but it seems perfectly viable and hopefully puts less stress on them if you accidentally tap the tail down before the main gear.

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by eddiew

[Splitsie]

This is definitely something I need to try, far too many kerbals have died since I turned off reverting flights and didn't change my approach to spaceplanes :(

Thanks for the helpful post @DrMarlboro

[EnderKid2]

15 hours ago, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

Love the post but I always tend to do this:

LOL

[eddiew]

My little tail-dragger bush plane still serving me well for some high-profit local jaunts. I'd always worried about this kind of design on the assumption coming down on the narrow rear wheel would destabilise the whole thing. Then I learned to come in flat and slow and it all made sense. Easy landings, and the funds from this trip more than cover the next Mun shot 

Weirdly, with the increased length of a materials bay, it now lifts off at 42-45m/s, down from 50... Admittedly this is still about 100 miles per hour, which goes some way to explaining why wheels are getting a bad rep at the mo. Starting to suspect that what we're actually seeing is what would happen to real wheels if you landed at the 2-300mph a lot of players are trying to.

Wish it had airbrakes though, that landing at the pyramids was pretty hair-raising!

Edited April 26, 2016 by eddiew

[Norcurion]

On 23.4.2016 at 5:59 AM, DrMarlboro said:

Another issue with landing i've seen is that people try to land with the front wheel first, or on all at the same time. This is a bad habbit and is going to cause lots of frustration on the T1 runway. Always make sure that you are tough down with your main gear first. This is will require lower speeds and higher AoA on Nosewheel planes, but a shallower AoA on Tailwheel. Getting this down is important, and unfortunately I am not fast enough to grab the screenshot on touchdown, so I may edit this with a short video later on.

Hammered F12 last time i landed, got a lucky shot:

  http://imgur.com/o9FofwZ

Edited April 26, 2016 by Norcurion

[troyfawkes]

Question for the airplane lovers out there; are you guys using the keyboard for everything, joystick, or the mouse-steering mod that came out? Or what have you tried and your thoughts?

I'm usually pretty good with a joystick, but flying/landing KSP planes has always been a bit of a hassle for me.

[Skystorm]

Up until 1.1 came out I had been using RKE Joystick for airplanes and shuttles.

[Brofessional]

I've been using this on my new career save.  Just have to override the traction control and lower the friction on the wheels.  The range isn't the best, but it's really maneuverable and can carry a few science instruments.  Good enough for early career jobs.

As for the runway, I don't use it.  The plane is light enough that you can just do a U-turn after spawning and take off on the flat end-portion of the runway.  It gets airborne as it reaches the drop-off of the runway kind of like an aircraft carrier.  Alternately you can just roll it off the side and onto the flat ground.

 

[Guest]

On 25/04/2016 at 11:50 AM, eddiew said:

This was an interesting thread   Inspired me to try out a new design to handle the dirt track:

I had a Panther engine available, so used that, but I'm sure it would work fine with a Wheesley, or even a set of Junos mounted under the wings. Did have to learn how to come in dead-slow however. First attempt at landing required me to circle round because I will still doing 120m/s. Also quite important to turn down the brakes on the front wheels, because they aren't all that far ahead of the CoM and it's prone to wanting to topple forwards when slowing.

Not sure if the double rear-wheels is quite what @DrMarlboro had in mind, but it seems perfectly viable and hopefully puts less stress on them if you accidentally tap the tail down before the main gear.

If you want that plane to achieve even shorter landings it may be prudent to install an extra raised wheel or two forward of the main gear, which could allow you to crank the brake torque back up and make potential nose-overs a (relative) non-issue. I think there's a name for this but I couldn't find it for you. Still, here's a picture of it:

[eddiew]

1 hour ago, String Witch said:

If you want that plane to achieve even shorter landings it may be prudent to install an extra raised wheel or two forward of the main gear, which could allow you to crank the brake torque back up and make potential nose-overs a (relative) non-issue. I think there's a name for this but I couldn't find it for you. Still, here's a picture of it:

Heh, that's an interesting idea, cheers   Though so far, I've touched the Bushtucker down in the desert, grasslands, highlands, tundra and ice caps without incident ^^

[mikegarrison]

9 hours ago, eddiew said:

Weirdly, with the increased length of a materials bay, it now lifts off at 42-45m/s, down from 50...

May be other things that have changed, especially if there were some tweaks to the lift/drag or the mass of the parts. But stretching the fuselage does increase the control authority of the tail. And it probably moves the c.g. a little further back.

Edited April 26, 2016 by mikegarrison

[JAFO]

20 hours ago, eddiew said:

Wish it had airbrakes though, that landing at the pyramids was pretty hair-raising!

As I understand it (haven't played with it yet), you can now add a pair of ailerons, optionally disable all control surface functions for them, then when you activate 'deploy', whether from the right-click menu or an action group, they will function as flaps, effectively acting as airbrakes and also lowering your stall speed, thus allowing you to land at even slower speeds. Don't recall if you can set the deployment angle, though.

[aleis]

Early in my airplane days I would always equip parachutes just didn't feel like wasting time trying to easy into a perfect glide plane and all that. Just get reletively over the runway on full slow and stage. 

 

Mayne I'm not the best builder / pilot but it works.

 

[jpinard]

On 4/26/2016 at 9:26 AM, eddiew said:

My little tail-dragger bush plane still serving me well for some high-profit local jaunts. I'd always worried about this kind of design on the assumption coming down on the narrow rear wheel would destabilise the whole thing. Then I learned to come in flat and slow and it all made sense. Easy landings, and the funds from this trip more than cover the next Mun shot 

Weirdly, with the increased length of a materials bay, it now lifts off at 42-45m/s, down from 50... Admittedly this is still about 100 miles per hour, which goes some way to explaining why wheels are getting a bad rep at the mo. Starting to suspect that what we're actually seeing is what would happen to real wheels if you landed at the 2-300mph a lot of players are trying to.

Wish it had airbrakes though, that landing at the pyramids was pretty hair-raising!

That image in the upper right.  Is that beautiful window a stock part?  If not, what mod is it?  Thanks!

[Skystorm]

Looks like the stock MK1 Crew Cabin.

[Rath]

Is a 'Nosewheel Ride' an airmans version of being keel-hauled (Tied to the keel of a boat right a the water line while is moves)

[bewing]

4 hours ago, jpinard said:

That image in the upper right.  Is that beautiful window a stock part?  If not, what mod is it?  Thanks!

That is a "Cutaway view." New in 1.1 on all krewed capsules. Click the little circular button next to the kerbal profile pix.

[eddiew]

So I upgraded to the T2 runway... and now half my designs start doing doughnuts just before reaching take-off speed. On a good day, they then take off and narrowly miss the tower. On a bad day, the runway seems to be covered with glue that simply won't allow the wheels to leave the ground.

Was better off with T1... at least for every bump that makes you veer left, there's another one that makes you veer right - and they tended to bump you up into the air. Not enjoying the new wheel physics any more  

[jpinard]

18 hours ago, bewing said:

That is a "Cutaway view." New in 1.1 on all krewed capsules. Click the little circular button next to the kerbal profile pix.

Ohhhh I had no idea!  Cool!!!

[DChurchill]

Wow. It never even occurred to me to make a taildragger.

[Freshmeat]

Thank you, @DrMarlboro

I made a small taildragger very much in the style of the OP, and it can handle the grass beside the runway with early landing gear in testing.I have fastened a radial chute for landings, though, to be deployed on touchdown to ensure that the wings stay with the plane. Next phase will be testing how much fuel I can load unto it and still take off, to see how far away I can take missions.