The Wright Bros would have quit in disgust

[pandaman]

The thing with plane parts is that they are fine for use on spacecraft,  depending on it's purpose and the aesthetic you want of course, so they are all useful whether or not you want to build purely Kerbin atmospheric planes or not.

That doesn't mean that the rocket parts wouldn't benefit from an update though. 

 

[Diche Bach]

16 minutes ago, SpenSpaceCorp said:

I like trains.

And automobiles!

 

[SpenSpaceCorp]

7 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

And automobiles!

 

YAAAAS! (I see what you did there)

 

(BTW Huge Metallica fan!)

[transitbiker]

So "spaceplanes are hard".  That said... built several things that can fly around kerbin with no input from me, and have created planes that can reach sub-orbit.  Also created probes, landers, etc for space travel.All you have to do is use the center of mass/lift/thrust markers in the SPH and you should be good.  Start simple, and by simple i don't mean the smallest thing you can build.  Smaller things are actually harder to fly than bigger things!  Good luck & fly safe!

 

- Andy

[RoboRay]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

I could not do that, my Scan-Sats all use Mk2 LF fuselage components to fuel their Nerva engine.

That's actually bad, if efficiency is a concern.  Mk.2 tanks have the same amount of LF as 1.25m tanks but mass more.

[cephalo]

I'm thinking that the airplane situation is way better than it was in 1.1.

[Terwin]

13 minutes ago, RoboRay said:

That's actually bad, if efficiency is a concern.  Mk.2 tanks have the same amount of LF as 1.25m tanks but mass more.

I had thought that the fuel tanks had been re-balanced so they all had a similar fuel ratio... apparantly not.

Looks like the Mk0 fuel tank has the best ratio(2000 fuel per ton of tank) followed by the Mk1 tank(1600 fuel/tank ton) with Mk2 and Mk3 parts below 1400 fuel/tank ton.

I am seeing fairings around the bundled drop-tanks of my future probes for launch(at least up to 35km, like the nose-cones on my old ones).

I wonder if surface-mounted tanks can share fuel, or if they need couplers/fuel lines... 

 

I think I'll want KER for checking the most cost-efficient way to get better d-v for my probes(1.25 or 0.625 fuel tanks, probably a combination so I have a sturdy core...) 

[eddiew]

Surely the larger the tank, the less surface area (dry mass) it should have per unit volume? Or does KSP not know that?

[Technical Ben]

5 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You could always....not build planes. 

Many people prefer rockets to planes and mostly (or exclusively) build them. Others prefer planes to rockets and mostly (or exclusively) build them. Isn't it great that the game supports both styles of play?

Early 1.2 Career... I decided to try some early contracts "under 19000 m, perform multuple surveys.... over 19000m etc". Great I thought, easy cash, just build an aircraft that can get there... need more parts? Just upgrade all the hanger... a day later, I've just managed one of the contracts, and decided never to try again... as I almost ran out of funds to upgrade stuff I actually need.

I'll wait until I get to supersonic craft in the tech tree, as I don't want to wait an hour or two to get to the destination

[Greenfire32]

Whether you like it or not, OP, aerodynamics IS a part of SPACE flight.

Half a rocket's journey is through the atmosphere and if you ever want to employ aerobraking maneuvers, you'll need to understand basic aerodynamics.

You cant really learn a whole heck of a lot about aerodynamics if all you ever do is launch rockets. You need crafts that are designed to work in atmosphere to give you a better understanding of what is aerodynamic and what isn't.

And if planes are REALLY not your thing...you can always just....NOT build them....that's the beauty of KSP.

[volcanicshrimp]

2 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

And automobiles!

 

I like planes!

 

(Moths are basically biological planes, right?)

I can even pretend I'm staying on topic.

Edited October 17, 2016 by volcanicshrimp

[Leopard]

Found a simple plane useful in career mode on 'hard', the funds from local survey missions built the space programme, aircraft allowed a 100% recoverable way to do them making them nice little earners early on before much better paying space missions became available.

To avoid upgrading the SPH and runway (and after getting fed up with fishtailing on the grass) I just went the easy way and ahh, cheated a bit.

Can't do picks but basically stack a swivel engine, two '200' fuel tanks then a Mk1 command pod, chuck four tail fins in a cruciform arrangement on the bottom, then a pair of swept wings on the sides with juno engines... Launch vertically, with the jets in a second stage, flip over at about 50 m/s to rocket powered flight at about 45 degrees, switch on the jets, level out and cut the rocket.. in flight, with the rocket for a boost to altitude if needed.

Landing via parachute, can strap goo pods etc on if desired but 100% recoverable and not that expensive either, out, survey, and back, land near KSC for recovery value.

Without the "insanity" (because you look at the thing and think 'no way') I'd not be back on mun now.

 

That and they are great fun when they fail in various spectacular ways

[septemberWaves]

Kerbal Space Program ===> Spaceplanes. Simple solution. Or even merely transporting regular planes through the medium of space, to somewhere like Laythe.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, eddiew said:

Surely the larger the tank, the less surface area (dry mass) it should have per unit volume? Or does KSP not know that?

Your common sense has no place here!  Out with thee!

[nosirrbro]

One thing I don't understand here is why nobody will do anything  if it isn't for the express purpose of maximizing funding... can't anybody build a plane because they like building and fly a plane because they like flying?

Also, in 1.2 it's significantly easier to make planes and spaceplanes so I don't know what the OP is getting on about.

[RocketSquid]

8 minutes ago, nosirrbro said:

One thing I don't understand here is why nobody will do anything  if it isn't for the express purpose of maximizing funding... can't anybody build a plane because they like building and fly a plane because they like flying?

Also, in 1.2 it's significantly easier to make planes and spaceplanes so I don't know what the OP is getting on about.

Easier to make and fly, but still a bit harder to take off than in say, 1.0.5.

I personally have managed one of my first-ever stock SSTOs in 1.2, so I'm happy.

[BigFatStupidHead]

I like using my rockets to to fly my planes to far off planets, where I fly them. In fact, one of my very first missions was to fly on Duna. KSP could use more exo-plane parts.

[eddiew]

Wrong thread, ignore...

(Why is there never a simple delete button on forums?)

Edited October 17, 2016 by eddiew

[Diche Bach]

Not sure how things are different in 1.13 . . . I like my mods so may never upgrade . . . but here is a thread where I got a lot of help from experienced KSP plane designers and pilots and it helped me to go from "able to fly but with difficulty" to "no problemo."

The couple designs at the top are originals which do not reflect the benefit of the advice I was given. However, if you look at my Space X craft files linked to any of those you'll find several alternates. Sorry they have some mods included, that poses a problem for integration with 1.2 (thus part of why I didn't mention previously . . .).

If there were some demand expressed, I could redo them without the mod parts and upload them stock.

[Red Shirt]

@sneekyzeke people take posts way too serious around here sometimes. I found your post extremely amusing because I have crashed and burned way too many planes trying to figure out the fascination. Hasn't happened so far. That said, after reading your post I grabbed the stock craft Aeris 4A for the first time and went straight into space with it. Awesome! ...and during reentry it exploded. It was glorious. _{Stupid planes.}

[Starman4308]

4 hours ago, eddiew said:

Surely the larger the tank, the less surface area (dry mass) it should have per unit volume? Or does KSP not know that?

Not necessarily; larger tank mass -> more fuel mass -> more sturdy tank needed, plus you still need pressurant, you need fuel lines for anything except monopropellant, etc.

As to spaceplanes, well, I have a level 3 runway, a level 3 SPH, and a whole bunch of rovers queued up for it. Might do a bit more in the future, although 6.4x scale means 40x more territory to explore.

[klgraham1013]

4 hours ago, nosirrbro said:

... can't anybody build a plane because they like building and fly a plane because they like flying?

Raises hand.

[ThatHomelessGuy]

10 hours ago, regex said:

I wouldn't blame reality for humanity's lack of coherent and unified vision.

This is just one of the realest things I've read all day, thank you.

 

9 hours ago, Gaarst said:

I agree. But if Squad could leave plane parts aside for some time and start giving rocket parts some love, it would prevent such threads. (Seriously: Mk2 parts, Mk3 parts, at least two redesigns and recent individual parts additions (Mk3 ramp, Juno and other stuff) on one side; vs 3.75m parts and a possible redesign that may never go stock on the other)

Edit: Vector is a rocket engine designed for shuttle so I count it in neither category.

Edit2: and the whole landing gear stuff which I have yet to see the use in rovers (and rockets for that matter). Spike and Thud got redesigns though.

You forgot about the whole coms network thing that has pretty much no effect on planes beyond drones and even then most of the time most people just zip around the ksc for the most part If they had a drone they wanted to fly around the planet it would force any real player (those who use 1 ground station) to launch a bunch of rockets to ensure they didn't loose coverage and just drop out of the sky mid flight.

Also landing gear work so much better at speed than rover wheels do on the minimus flats a great way to get your rover and your "fall over and explore" rocket around without that motor friction getting in the way. All you need is some rcs on the back and you coast like a dream.

[KerikBalm]

13 hours ago, eddiew said:

Surely the larger the tank, the less surface area (dry mass) it should have per unit volume? Or does KSP not know that?

Well, the mk1 tanks have a lower heat tolerance. They are cylinders not a wide flat shape that produces more aerodynamic lift... and I think they have lower impact tolerance.

I'm fine with Mk2 tanks (and mk3 to a lesser extent as they are more cylindrical) being heavier for the RP/balance reason of extra mass for heat shielding and structural strength.

17 hours ago, Terwin said:

Admittedly, after hearing how much easier space-planes are in 1.2, I did launch a few attempts over the weekend.  Some got over 1100m/s before the air-breathing engine died,

I don't think they did much at all to change space-planes in 1.2. 1100 m/s on airbreathing engines was easily achievable since 1.0

The biggest difference in 1.2 is the landing gear, which makes planes much easier to take off and land. I there weren't any changes to the engines or wings, and I don't recall any atmosphere changes either.

16 hours ago, eddiew said:

To be fair, it's been nearly impossible to do air-nerva-air spaceplanes since 0.90. With careful management, rapiers will get you to 1400m/s but the low thrust of nuclear engines just can't get you the next 800 in a reasonable time. Switching to LFO at some point during ascent is almost mandatory   (If it's easier in 1.2, great, I can't wait to see if I can do the old long-rangers from 0.90 again!)

Its been more than possible for a while. You can find quite a few posts about LF-only designs. They need more wing area than normal, but still make orbit with a lot of dV to spare... but almost all will agree that a bit of oxidizer for use with rapiers would make them more efficient.

16 hours ago, Jovus said:

The saddest thing about RO/RSS is that the SPH becomes basically useless...

Well, if you're going to mod, then you can mod in Sabre engines and try to get a Sklon "replica" working.... I've seen pics of people making functioning Skylons for RSS.

You could also try a scramjet mod that can get you to mach 10...

 

As to the OP, I don't even understand what your problem is....

[Streetwind]

4 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

As to the OP, I don't even understand what your problem is....

I would bet money that he mounted the rear landing gear too far behind the CoM and is confused why the plane won't pitch up from the runway.