The Aeroplane Doctor

[StahnAileron]

@kiwinanday I got the idea to try it out because I sometimes design my SSTOs for looks. Doing so gets me making arching stabilizers/boxwing designs:

I usually do this for either aesthetics or a dumb attempt to add more lifting surfaces. Sometimes it actually works out and the design gets more responsive.

This one is a bit lawn-dart-y. Not quite enough leverage for pitch control. I'd have to add forward canards to help with that. Though this was a design where I was just screwing around. It was actually just to try out designs using the spade tail from MK2Expansion. (I'm using 3 of them: one as actual tail piecefor the centerline fuselage, the other 2 as the leading piece for the engine nacelles.)

[kiwinanday]

Since we've been talking canards and CoM vs CoL, I wanted to mention this:

The CoM is just ahead of the CoL, so that it can be flown FBW on or off. As such, it's quite nimble, though not the fastest bird.

Edited March 29, 2017 by kiwinanday

[Hodo]

A simple fix for that aircraft you posted kiwinanday would be add more forward sweep to the wings.  This will have two effects.  1- it will move your CoL closer to your CoM.  2- it will actually help your supersonic performance.  

 

This will be more pronounced if you use FAR.

And this VERY old design

This fighter was STUPID agile, and was surprisingly easy to land.  

[StahnAileron]

@kiwinanday Where did you acquire that cockpit from? It kinda rare to see 1.25m/Mk1 cockpits with built-in intakes of those sizes.

[kiwinanday]

14 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

@kiwinanday Where did you acquire that cockpit from? It kinda rare to see 1.25m/Mk1 cockpits with built-in intakes of those sizes.

 

[kiwinanday]

5 hours ago, Hodo said:

A simple fix for that aircraft you posted kiwinanday would be add more forward sweep to the wings.  This will have two effects.  1- it will move your CoL closer to your CoM.  2- it will actually help your supersonic performance.  

 

This will be more pronounced if you use FAR.

And this VERY old design

This fighter was STUPID agile, and was surprisingly easy to land.  

True, I actually originally built this as an FAR build, and transonic drag was an issue. I have one other Idea for wings I have to test.

Edited March 30, 2017 by kiwinanday

[Hodo]

12 hours ago, kiwinanday said:

True, I actually originally built this as an FAR build, and transonic drag was an issue. I have one other Idea for wings I have to test.

Those look much better.  One minor suggestion, I would move your canards forward a bit more, not much, and see about sliding the whole wing system forward a bit so that your CoL isnt so far back from your dry CoM.  This will help with some of your nose pitch issues.  And as you travel into the supersonic range, remember your CoL will shift.   

I would also move the airbrake back so that the hinge point is over your average CoM marker.  This will keep your craft from pitching down when your airbrake is deployed.

[kiwinanday]

I haven't had much in the way of problems with either of those. Even with thrust vectoring  and fbw off, the turning radius on this thing is ridiculous, and it flies like a kitten.

[Hodo]

2 hours ago, kiwinanday said:

I haven't had much in the way of problems with either of those. Even with thrust vectoring  and fbw off, the turning radius on this thing is ridiculous, and it flies like a kitten.

How are the control surfaces setup?  

And do you have a screenshot of the FAR derivatives for that craft?

This screen in FAR.

Granted that is a VERY old picture.   

[kiwinanday]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

How are the control surfaces setup?  

And do you have a screenshot of the FAR derivatives for that craft?

This screen in FAR.

Granted that is a VERY old picture.   

I don't have FAR for 1.2 yet. Is it updated?

Also, @Hodo
Cyan—Pitch
Magenta—Roll
Yellow—Yaw

Edited March 30, 2017 by kiwinanday

[Hodo]

1 hour ago, kiwinanday said:

I don't have FAR for 1.2 yet. Is it updated?

Also, @Hodo
Cyan—Pitch
Magenta—Roll
Yellow—Yaw

There is a dev-patch on the github.  

And I do love the reverse wing designs more and more.

[kiwinanday]

I'll admit it wasn't entirely my idea....

[Hodo]

3 minutes ago, kiwinanday said:

I'll admit it wasn't entirely my idea....

Oh I recognized it as soon as I saw it.  You did a good job of replicating it.

 

[kiwinanday]

4 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Oh I recognized it as soon as I saw it.  You did a good job of replicating it.

 

Thanks. The one aircraft I've always wanted to make, but never been able to (at least in terms of flight characteristics), is the X-31. 70° angle of attack flight!

[Hodo]

That trick is difficult to perform in the base aerodynamics, but it is possible with FAR, if the aircraft is designed perfectly.  There are people who have designed craft that can perform the "Cobra" maneuver and go past the 90deg mark in level flight.  I know I have never achieved that goal, but I have never set out to achieve it.   It is a lofty goal none the less.  

But my next challenge is to get back to making larger cargo hauling SSTO space planes.  I miss my utility beast fleet.

[Jefzor]

2 hours ago, Hodo said:

That trick is difficult to perform in the base aerodynamics, but it is possible with FAR, if the aircraft is designed perfectly.  There are people who have designed craft that can perform the "Cobra" maneuver and go past the 90deg mark in level flight.  I know I have never achieved that goal, but I have never set out to achieve it.   It is a lofty goal none the less.  

It's not that hard to create a plane that can perform a cobra. All you need is thrust vectoring and a center of mass and center of lift that are very close together. I also think it helps if you have a relatively small wing surface compared to your plane's weight, so you don't lose all of your speed at 90 degrees angle of attack.

see SU-27 Flanker on KerbalX.com

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Jefzor

[kiwinanday]

@Jefzor shouldn't it be feasible without TV? The SU-27 can do it without.

[Jefzor]

11 hours ago, kiwinanday said:

@Jefzor shouldn't it be feasible without TV? The SU-27 can do it without.

Oh, you got me there, I always thought the real SU-27 had thrust vectoring. I'm not sure if it's possible to make a plane that can do it in KSP whithout thrust vectoring, but it sure would be a lot harder. I'm going to give it a try now. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Jefzor

[kiwinanday]

If I fly it right, I wonder if my X-29-alike could pull it off.

[Triop]

Dear Doctor,

Testing ailerons, but the wings pointed out in the picture won't move...need help please.

 

[Hodo]

15 hours ago, Triop said:

Dear Doctor,

Testing ailerons, but the wings pointed out in the picture won't move...need help please.

 

Are they strutted to anything?  If they are they wont move.

[Triop]

8 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Are they strutted to anything?  If they are they wont move.

Nope, tried other wings, same result...

[Hodo]

7 minutes ago, Triop said:

Nope, tried other wings, same result...

hmm odd.  If I had a stock install I would test it.  But I run FAR and they work fine in that install.  But FAR I have more control over the control surfaces.

[Heckspress]

because your axis of control is at a weird angle.

hard to explain, just mount a probe core or docking port on the front of the vessel, click control from here on it, and you should be good?

[Hodo]

13 minutes ago, Heckspress said:

because your axis of control is at a weird angle.

hard to explain, just mount a probe core or docking port on the front of the vessel, click control from here on it, and you should be good?

 

Ah yes, that makes sense now.. just looked at the nav ball.  Forgot about the landercan being all weird.