Need Larger Size 0 Fuel Tanks Like the Oscar-B

[Ransom]

Although the Oscar-B is a good tank that can be stacked, when you need to create the fuel volume of four to eight of these stacked, it becomes painful to perform a refueling mission and quickly adds to the part count for drop tanks.

If there were a few stock tanks with the Oscar-B radius, but perhaps four times as long (four times the fuel and oxidizer) and another eight times as long (eight times F&O), then you would dramatically reduce the part count and still allow for crafts with side drop tanks that easily fit within the existing cargo bay.

[Superfluous J]

Agreed. Like an Oscar-D (2 Oscar-Bs, or 4 Oscar-As which don't exist) and an Oscar-H (8 Oscar-As) would be nice. They'd be the size-0 equivalent of the FL-T200 (the Oscar-B which we have already), FL-T400 (Oscar-D), and the FL-T800 (Oscar-H). The FL-T100 equivalent is probably not necessary.

Or we could just get procedural tanks in stock.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Fuel Tanks Plus!

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, please. Even if it is just the Oscar H.

[Stoney3K]

8 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Yes, please. Even if it is just the Oscar H.

Seconded. Please give us a long 0,625m fuel tank for upper stages or landers.

[cfds]

I would prefer that stacked tanks of the same diameter and fuel type get combined to one physical part in flight: two stacked Oscar Bs in the editor behave as one tank with the length of two Oscar Bs and the capacity of two Oscar Bs in flight.

[legoclone09]

 Maybe some more 0.625m engines? Something a little more substantial than the Spark. Like a shrunk-down LV-T45.

[Frozen_Heart]

8 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

 Maybe some more 0.625m engines? Something a little more substantial than the Spark. Like a shrunk-down LV-T45.

Well the Spark did fill a proper probe launch engine roll but they nerfed it hard as people were using it as a vacuum engine.

Trouble is the nerf stopped it being used in its intended roll and made that its only use.

[legoclone09]

3 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Well the Spark did fill a proper probe launch engine roll but they nerfed it hard as people were using it as a vacuum engine.

Trouble is the nerf stopped it being used in its intended roll and made that its only use.

Ah. I'm talking about something akin to an AJ-10, that is 0.625m and is vacuum only. That would be cool.

[Rath]

The Size-0 system just needs to be expanded.  I want to launch microsats with it.  Thats just not possible right now.

[Wjolcz]

There are so many threads requesting more tank parts I actually start to think SQUAD should consider implementing procedural parts. I'm not very fond of them (yup, the LEGO aspect is part of the charm for me) but I think they could satisfy a lot of people, including me.

[Norcalplanner]

On 8/24/2016 at 8:37 PM, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

Fuel Tanks Plus!

Seconded.  Fuel Tanks Plus adds a lot of flexibility to gameplay and solves so many structural / balance / part count problems that at this point, I can't imagine playing without it.

[septemberWaves]

I could make some pretty good low-mass lifters if we had a good 0.625m first stage engine as well as a few more tanks in the same size. Additionally, by using the 0.625m tanks from Fuel Tanks Plus I've been able to make some great looking single stage landers for most planets/moons, which I will be using for my Extended Kerbol Grand Tour because they have great fuel capacity, look good, and still fit inside a mk3 cargo bay. It would be nice to have something like that available in stock.