[1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)

[Lisias]

On 2/24/2025 at 6:05 PM, Manul said:

Some landing gear parts had been misbehaving since KSP v 1.4 update and it was 7 years ago. Later KSP updates didn't affect this mod so it counts as "still works" (it's not flawless but it didn't get any worse for the past 10 major KSP updates)

Yep. They are being worked, but not exactly on a fast pace.

https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/3

@averageksp, on the bright side, we have some proposed fixes being tested on the Experimental Branch (use coldj on the search):

https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/releases

Install the latest A+ (currently this one) and then the latest Experimental (currently this one).

Unless something else happens, I'm planning to spend this day working on A+ (it's Carnival around here).

Edited 6 hours ago by Lisias
Forgot a mention.

[Spike88]

How are TWR calculated for the engines?

I was trying to make a sea plane based of the Vought Kingfisher with the Bumblee engine. After multiple attempts I finally got a prototype that could land in the kerbin sea without flipping over.  However I'm struggling to get it back airborne as I usually hit 20m/s and cant go any faster on the water(disabling the waves in scatterer would probably help). 

I downloaded the Kingfisher(Cessna)  Mk2 from blackhearts kerbalx and noticed that it has a higher TWR than my prototype, and can easily take off from the water. After swapping the the cat turboprop from the Kingfisher/Cessna to my prototype plane my TWR nearly doubled. 

The cat is rated at 25kn of thrust and the bumblee at 52kn. Obviously the cat weighs a lot less than the bumblee. However if I switch over to the count engine, which has the same thrust rating as the cat but 10 times the weight, I'm getting the same TWR ratio as the cat engine. Shouldn't the much more powerful Bumblee have a higher TWR?

I've also experimented swapping out the various engines included in the mod and for the most part all of the 20-25kn WWI type engines seem to offer a higher TWR than the 40-60kn WWII engines. Am I missing something here?

[Lisias]

11 minutes ago, Spike88 said:

How are TWR calculated for the engines?

Less than ideally. Originally these engines used Firespitter engine model, that was tailored to emulate piston engines using propelers.

The conversion to ModuleEngine(FX or not) wasn't the happiest possible, because these engines are tailored to be either rocket engines or jet engines, where the performance and fuel consumption are completely different.

My intention, once more pressuring issues is tackled down, is to provide an alternate (perhaps a variant?) configuration using back the original modules - as soon as I cook a way to make this module to be detectable by MJ2 and Atmospheric Autopilot. Until there, I think it's unwise to change anything as it will break everybody's current designs - so, yeah, whatever we have now is going to linger to preserve current (and previous) savegames.

 

18 minutes ago, Spike88 said:

The cat is rated at 25kn of thrust and the bumblee at 52kn. Obviously the cat weighs a lot less than the bumblee. However if I switch over to the count engine, which has the same thrust rating as the cat but 10 times the weight, I'm getting the same TWR ratio as the cat engine. Shouldn't the much more powerful Bumblee have a higher TWR?

Under what conditions? Please note that you are comparing a piston engine with a turbo-prop.

On a very naive comparison, it's like comparing an old Ford V8 Flathead (85HP) with a Honda L inline 4 cylinders turbo engine (72 hp).

You will get way more raw power from the V8 - eventually, under the right RPM, once the engine is warm and assuming you are on a low altitude place where the atmospheric pressure is higher. Otherwise, it will be beaten by the Honda L every time - unless it's an endurance test, where the V8 will surely win on the long run.

However, both engines are still piston engines - they are still similar enough.

On aircrafts, a turbo-prop is a completely and radically different engine than a piston, not to mention that a radial piston engine is also pretty different from a water cooled inline engine!

Give this a peek:

 

[Spike88]

That makes sense for comparing the Cat to the Bumblebee. However, aren't the Spud, Baron piston engines like the bumblebee? They all offer higher TWR, despite higher weights but lower thrust ratings.

Mind you I'm just looking at the TWR in the SPH with KER and not actually flying them to compare, so I'm not sure if the TWR is a factor.