Longer runway?

[Wjolcz]

I have a feeling this discussion would have been long over if the OP provided us with a picture of CoM and landing gear placement on his spaceplane.

[Kergarin]

33 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I have a feeling this discussion would have been long over if the OP provided us with a picture of CoM and landing gear placement on his spaceplane.

I'm sorry, because I know you want to help.

But it really makes me sad and a little mad, that someone again writes this, after I'm explainig for two pages what's the point 

I have never said that I do have any problems in taking of.

Please reread the first post and all my following statements, to understand why I'm asking this.

 

[Kergarin]

9 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

Or then maybe (just a thought though) you could learn how to build (space)planes... How much mass can you get to orbit with 1 rapier? Since I honestly believe that the problem is not the length of the runway but rather the way you engineer your aircrafts.

If you can get 30+ tons in stable orbit with ONLY 1 rapier you know what you are doing but if it is lower (or even a similar number to that) I find that the problem is your own design and not the length of the runway...

In my experience the limiting factor is breaking Mach1. If you can get above that speed you start getting s**tloads of thrust. And in my personal experience that takes significantly more engines than just the takeoff...

Why so offending again? Didn't I prove countless times that I'm "not bad" in doing so and I do not have any problem to build something like that?

This thread is going in an absolute wrong direction... And I think we can close it.

But it let's me think about a challenge who gets the most payload per rapier to orbit.  anyone interested to prove what's the best concept?

I know about this second barrier, too. If you manage to reach ~400m/s it will boost all the way to 1400-1500m/s easily.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Kergarin

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I think some of you guys are being a little dismissive/judgmental with @Kergarin when he's already explained several times that he has no issues with take off, and is well aware of proper (or what some would call "standard") COM/wheel placement.

I mean, you can take one glance at his signature and see that he builds some ridiculous SSTO's. It's true that the average player should and never would run out of runway unless he's building his COM/wheel placement wrong but that isn't the thing here, these are extreme edge-case designs and he has a valid issue/point in requesting a longer runway. Whether it's worth the effort when it wouldn't affect/help 99% of players is another question entirely.

Maybe this is a small problem with having a forum full of "problem-solvers" (let's face it if you weren't, you'd be playing something else besides KSP) we all assume there is a problem and we are needed in solving it. I'm sure this comes from a good place and you all just want to help but we could stand to be a little nicer about it, and a little more respectful of others. Maybe don't jump to conclusions about what someone knows or what they are doing wrong without asking first, I think we'd all get along better.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Sharpy]

Easy workaround.

Drive off the runway. Drive up to the base of the hills. Turn around. Take off over the grass. Roughly 2.5x the runway length at your disposal. Perfectly flat terrain even before upgrading the runway.

I'm really, really curious what kind of design can reach LKO but can't launch from current runway.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I think some of you guys are being a little dismissive/judgmental with @Kergarin when he's already explained several times that he has no issues with take off, and is well aware of proper (or what some would call "standard") COM/wheel placement.

I mean, you can take one glance at his signature and see that he builds some ridiculous SSTO's. It's true that the average player should and never would run out of runway unless he's building his COM/wheel placement wrong but that isn't the thing here, these are extreme edge-case designs and he has a valid issue/point in requesting a longer runway. Whether it's worth the effort when it wouldn't affect/help 99% of players is another question entirely.

Maybe this is a small problem with having a forum full of "problem-solvers" (let's face it if you weren't, you'd be playing something else besides KSP) we all assume there is a problem and we are needed in solving it. I'm sure this comes from a good place and you all just want to help but we could stand to be a little nicer about it, and a little more respectful of others. Maybe don't jump to conclusions about what someone knows or what they are doing wrong without asking first, I think we'd all get along better.

Yeah, OK. I've taken a look at his SSTOs. Let's omit the fact that some of them are VTOLs and have nothing to do with the runway for now.

The first problem I see: the OP doesn't seem to use any kind of information display mod, like KER or MechJeb. If you're trying to brute force your way up don't cry there's something wrong with the game (OK, the game doesn't have any dV indicator yet, but it's the runway we're talking about here).

We can also assume overbuilt, overweight, overengineered spaceplanes are a part of "playstyle" and blame the game design that it doesn't allow for that. Pick your answer.

The second problem I see (and I was right in my previous post): the gear placement. Making planes take-off is like pushing a lever. You want the pivot point to be roughly in the middle if you want to rise one end by pushing the other. Don't cry about not being able to take off if you don't do that. A longer runway won't help in this case.

To sum up: the OP DOES HAVE issues with CoM/wheel placement.

[Sharpy]

Whenever I see "I want Stock changed because, while there are mods that solve my problems, I want to play pure stock for the pure stock bragging right but it doesn't let me do what I could do with mods" thread, I cringe.

You know what else would make your SSTOs take off easier? If stock had weaker gravity. Or if stock had higher lift and lower drag coefficients. Or if it was providing high-TWR engines of superior ISp. Or if it provided 2.5m form factor scramjets.

"Pure Stock" is a certain set of limitations, which you must either deal with, or remove through application of the right mods. You want to play Pure Stock - play it the way Squad gave it to you. You don't like it that way it is - use mods. Wanting Stock changed, just so that you can retain "Pure Stock" bragging rights but don't want to work with the limitations "Pure Stock" imposes on you? You can't have your cake and eat it.

[Kergarin]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Yeah, OK. I've taken a look at his SSTOs. Let's omit the fact that some of them are VTOLs and have nothing to do with the runway for now.

The first problem I see: the OP doesn't seem to use any kind of information display mod, like KER or MechJeb. If you're trying to brute force your way up don't cry there's something wrong with the game (OK, the game doesn't have any dV indicator yet, but it's the runway we're talking about here).

 

Why are you still so offending? If I am in any way, I'm sorry, its not meant like that.

I please you to read everything that i have said, before you make your posts. You are still missunderstanding the point, and it seems you did not read everything that i have written.
But i will list it up for you again:

I have never cryed that there is something wrong with the game. The game is absolutely fine like it is, and i love it. 
I cant get every weight i want from the actual runway to orbit and further out.

It's just a fact, that a longer runway allowes designs that we can't use now without RATO.

The VTOL SSTO were just to additionaly show, that you are not talking to a beginner, but to a record holder. (sorry if this sounds any arrogant)
I'm playing stock and don't need or want a DV display. I have build the first ever fully working EVE SSTO without a DV display. (sorry if this sounds any arrogant too)

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

We can also assume overbuilt, overweight, overengineered spaceplanes are a part of "playstyle" and blame the game design that it doesn't allow for that. Pick your answer.

I did never blame the game for it.

And yes, it is my playstyle to go to the edges of the game, beacause building a normal SSTO that can pull up its nose at 1/2 the runway and go to orbit easyly became boring to me.
And because i like to build at the edges that the game allowes, i was asking to expand them a little by a longer runway.

 

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

The second problem I see (and I was right in my previous post): the gear placement. Making planes take-off is like pushing a lever. You want the pivot point to be roughly in the middle if you want to rise one end by pushing the other. Don't cry about not being able to take off if you don't do that. A longer runway won't help in this case.

To sum up: the OP DOES HAVE issues with CoM/wheel placement.

To sum up: you are still making your statement before reading everything i have already explained.
And the OP does NOT have any issue with CoM/wheel placement. 
If the OP would like to build a plane that can raise its nose while it rolls on its wheels, he would know where to place them, and where to place the control surfaces.
But on these designs you have seen the OP does not want and not need the plane to be able to pull up its nose while it is rolling on its wheels.

Just read here (from page1):

On ‎01‎.‎01‎.‎2017 at 2:42 PM, Kergarin said:

Thanks for these objectively posts
You are right, the landing gear would be way to far back, if i would consider pulling up while I am on the runway.

But since i allways use the entire runway to build up speed, i do never have to do so.
I do pull up in the moment when the plane gets airborne by "falling" from the end of runway, so it doesn't matter where the wheels are, because they do not touch anything.
I do build all my SSTOs so that they need the entire runway to reach takeoff speed, because - like i said in first post - the runway length dictates the minimum numer of engines and lifting area, and i want to keep both as low as  possible.

 

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

The second problem I see (and I was right in my previous post): the gear placement. Making planes take-off is like pushing a lever. You want the pivot point to be roughly in the middle if you want to rise one end by pushing the other. Don't cry about not being able to take off if you don't do that. A longer runway won't help in this case.

Yes, a longer runway won't help in THIS case, you are right.
But what I am talking about, is just not the case you are discrbing.

The case is: a plane that is so slow at the end of the  runway , that it will lose altitude while keeping speed or lose speed while keeping altitude, while it is able to climb and accelerate if you push it to a higher takeoff speed by RATO.
And if the plane does not have the ability to climb and accelerate at the speed it reaches at end of the runway, it wont help in anyway if it can lift its nose while half way on the runway.

The same plane will work with RATO.
The same plane will work with higher TWR.
The same plane will work with more lifting surface.
You absolutely do not have to explain me all these things.

But the same plane will work on a longer runway too. without adding extra parts and lowering efficiency.

 

And this is not discussion about if this type of design makes sense or anything else. So please stop giving tips. I would have posted in a different forum if i wanted them. Thanks anyway to everyone who stayed objective.

I was just asking if anyone would like this too.
 

And we can close this now.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Kergarin

[Sharpy]

BTW, once again, why no RATO? A fully recoverable one. At the altitudes and speeds we're dealing with, you can drop it some 100m above the sea and it will safely splash down on a parachute for 99% recovery value before you leave its physics bubble, if you design it right.

Is this that 'SSTO bragging rights' thing? And you want stock changed for that?

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

17 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

You're confusing the Big S spaceplane wing parts (which have 2400K tolerance) with the FAT-455 airliner wing parts which have 1200K.

 

By default, a craft's orientation in the VAB is for polar launches. i'd like to see how, if implimented, the second runway clips the first one.

We should make the VAB orientation for equatorial launches by default. It would change if you pressed a 2nd 'Launch' button.

[Sharpy]

5 minutes ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

We should make the VAB orientation for equatorial launches by default. It would change if you pressed a 2nd 'Launch' button.

Shift-click

E

Click.

There, your craft is oriented for equatorial launch.

[Kergarin]

1 hour ago, Sharpy said:

Whenever I see "I want Stock changed because, while there are mods that solve my problems, I want to play pure stock for the pure stock bragging right but it doesn't let me do what I could do with mods" thread, I cringe.

You know what else would make your SSTOs take off easier? If stock had weaker gravity. Or if stock had higher lift and lower drag coefficients. Or if it was providing high-TWR engines of superior ISp. Or if it provided 2.5m form factor scramjets.

"Pure Stock" is a certain set of limitations, which you must either deal with, or remove through application of the right mods. You want to play Pure Stock - play it the way Squad gave it to you. You don't like it that way it is - use mods. Wanting Stock changed, just so that you can retain "Pure Stock" bragging rights but don't want to work with the limitations "Pure Stock" imposes on you? You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

18 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

BTW, once again, why no RATO? A fully recoverable one. At the altitudes and speeds we're dealing with, you can drop it some 100m above the sea and it will safely splash down on a parachute for 99% recovery value before you leave its physics bubble, if you design it right.

Is this that 'SSTO bragging rights' thing? And you want stock changed for that?

I really don't know if thats bragging. I just want to keep the rules.
I want to keep the rule what an SSTO is, and i wand to play stock to be on even terms with everyone else.
Because i like to have a challenge.
And @OHara has shown me in a verry friendly way, that i DO want to have the challenge of a "short" runway, one page ago.

 

23 hours ago, OHara said:

Games like this are fun because they are just challenging enough to be interesting.

A plane with just enough wing-area and thrust to support its weight at 3° incidence at 500m/s, does need some extra design feature to take off and land in 2.5km (plus the descending glide over they bay).  It could be an engine with good low-speed thrust, or flaps (to the small extent they help in stock aero with non-interacting wing parts) or gear positioned to give the wing 15° AoA, or rocket-assist, or just larger wings chosen as a compromise to best serve the whole flight envelope, and then maybe arresting chutes for landing.  

These challenges appeared just about when I was ready to deal with them, so 2.5km might be just about right.

Some other area to use for specialized aircraft might be nice.  Specialized aircraft use dry lake-beds.  In KSP we have the ice caps at the poles, if we somehow teleport there.   A dry fossilized tidal flat south of KSC might be nice.

So i don't know what this thread is about anymore.
I was just making suggestion in the suggestions forum, because i still think the runway length should vary by upgrading it. Maybe then the solution is shorting it on lower tech levels?

But now i have the feeling, its just a hatefull discussion about what people think I'm doing wrong.

I dont understand, why half of the people have to fill this thread with so much hate.
it seems like some people are just posting to offend. What i cant understand.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Kergarin

[Sharpy]

33 minutes ago, Kergarin said:

 

I really don't know if thats bragging. I just want to keep the rules.
I want to keep the rule what an SSTO is, and i wand to play stock to be on even terms with everyone else.

 

The first rule is "Stock is what Squad gives you." All other rules are secondary.

Realism-wise, in another thread, it was determined stock runway is definitely on the "lengthy" side as real runways go. And the terrain surrounding it is unrealistically flat and smooth, so if you can't get your work done with the runway, just drive off it. I know it's a chore, but for testing purposes you can use a small booster to give you the initial kick equivalent to what extension of the runway would give you, and roll to the end of plains only once your machine is ready for the 'real flight'.

I'm opposed to your request for three reasons:

1) current runway is realistic.

2) current runway is challenging.

3) The stock game provides a trivial (if annoying) alternative: grass.

I mean: i've been playing KSP for a couple years now.  I've landed dozens of times in the fields. But only last week I landed *at the runway* for the first time. And then another time. And it was immensely satisfying. And it wouldn't be nearly as satisfying if the runway was bigger, longer, wider. The runway is challenging. Your request would make it less so.

Launching your SSTO over the grass, from the foot of the hills is not cheating, far from it. And neither is testing your design using whatever 'cheaty' tools you like until it's ready for the 'real thing'. So please, drive off the runway and concede 'stock runway is OK'.

[GoSlash27]

@Kergarin,

 I certainly didn't intend any insult, so apologies if it came off that way. My point is just that what you are seeking is a longer runway so that you can run planes with higher wing loading. While I'm not opposed to having a larger runway for many reasons, it's only fair to point out that high wing loadings are not necessary for SSTOs and don't really give you any additional performance. You *could* just put more wings on it and use the existing runway.

 Happy New Year,
-Slashy

Edited January 2, 2017 by GoSlash27

[steve_v]

14 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

But only last week I landed *at the runway* for the first time.

Given the caliber of your craft, and obvious knack for spaceplanes, I find this somewhat hard to believe. Landing on the runway 'ain't that hard. Staying on the runway on the other hand...

[sal_vager]

6 hours ago, Kergarin said:

This thread is going in an absolute wrong direction... And I think we can close it.

Closed by request, sorry guys.