Jump to content

My current Spaceplane

GKSP

By GKSP
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

 Share

Recommended Posts

GKSP

GKSP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey all.  A long time ago I made this spaceplane and got it into orbit and back.  I'm not one for testing planes so I want to see if anyone else would test it out.  Tips for an optimal trajectory for takeoff would be appreciated.  Also, feel free to edit it and send it back(but keep it stock, save MJ, and don't go too far off of what it is.)  Remember to check the action groups too.  Thanks.

Link: https://kerbalx.com/Brendo/Shadowhawk

Sorry, but the imgur album with my pictures for some reason shows up as someone else's starcraft game so I don't have any here.

Edited by GKSP
Added "Save MJ"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxster

Foxster

Posted
Posted

Works well. Nice job. I made 100km orbit with 885dV to spare. 

Some ideas to get more dV out of it...

1. Consider not using the mk2 parts, they are very draggy. One mk1 section with a single rapier (total of 3) would work better. 

2. Do you really need the 'chutes?

3. A single RTG would do a better job than the solar panels and battery

4. You have more air intake than you need. 

5. The overlapping wings are messy and using the wings that take fuel combines parts for less mass and drag. 

6. Lose the struts - very draggy. 

7. Lose some of the rear flaps to save mass and drag (would look better too). 

8. Lose the tall tail wing sections to save mass and drag

9. Add a little incidence to the wings to reduce drag

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GKSP

GKSP

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Foxster said:

Works well. Nice job. I made 100km orbit with 885dV to spare. 

Some ideas to get more dV out of it...

1. Consider not using the mk2 parts, they are very draggy. One mk1 section with a single rapier (total of 3) would work better. 

2. Do you really need the 'chutes?

3. A single RTG would do a better job than the solar panels and battery

4. You have more air intake than you need. 

5. The overlapping wings are messy and using the wings that take fuel combines parts for less mass and drag. 

6. Lose the struts - very draggy. 

7. Lose some of the rear flaps to save mass and drag (would look better too). 

8. Lose the tall tail wing sections to save mass and drag

9. Add a little incidence to the wings to reduce drag

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments.  Not too much of a spaceplane engineer myself right now, so the advice is useful.  I'm working on the edits right now.  I do have a few comments on your suggestions:

1: Going to implement. 

2: Taking chutes out.   Add them if you want to not risk what I wrote in the Spoiler.  It is old and from before I had the (highly recommended) VNG parachute mod.

Spoiler

My first landing, I overshot the KSC runway; I didn't take into account lift during de-orbit burn.  I had enough fuel left to do a wide turn and make it to the Island Runway, but it was close.  Landed in one piece with about 2 units LF left.  Next flight I ended up in those mountains near the huge crater and needed a safe way to drop down.

 

3: Don't know why, but I prefer to steer clear of nuclear for 'safety' reasons.  Will implement as I can keep the Manual as an original stock copy.

4: Done.  I think.  Got rid of the two extra intakes radial on the mk1-2 adaptor.  Mk 2 will be removed anyway.

5: I'll try to get that in as best I can.  Sometimes I can ignore the clippyness but its hard.

6: Done; it was made before Autostrut.

7: Done, but having 2 per side 'cause I like to separate pitch and roll control surfaces.

8: Will replace those with smaller ones to more or less keep the plane flying straight.

9: That would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XLjedi

XLjedi

Posted
Posted (edited)

First off, that's a great craft!  Good job.

Would it be possible to add a nuke engine to the mix?  

The nuke typically jumps my SSTO's into the 2k DV range for a 100k orbit (and that's with my very crude piloting abilities).  One nuke for 4 Rapiers is a mix that has worked well for me on Mk2 designs.

In your original Mk2 design you seem to have plenty of TWR up into the 1.25 range...  In addition to the nuke, you could also add more fuel and bring that down into the 0.8 to 1.0 range.  At which point I'd try a 10-15° standard climb for ascending as a starting point and plan to use the single nuke drive for interplanetary.  ...maybe also try a bit more air, to keep the rapiers breathing at altitude with the shallower ascent angle.

 

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
XLjedi

XLjedi

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Foxster said:

A nuke engine is the way I go for long range SSTOs but not so much for throwing a Kerbal into orbit. Would change the original craft a fair bit though and the OP seemed keen to keep the original look.

Mmmm OK...  but, if the OP would follow my advice, it might not look too far off his original cool design.  

Maybe something like this leaving his original Mk2 fuselage design intact...  just adding wings that can hold more LF; trading off the 1.25 TWR for a 1.0 TWR.  It did need a couple good inline stabilizers to help it with the offset engine in  space, but there was plenty of room to trade off for the extra parts in TWR.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_1.png

...adjusting the initial ascent angle to 15° on climbout and pretty much not touching it until the RAPIERS convert mode.  Swapped out the small forward air intakes for the larger one in the new nuke engine radial mount so the rapiers can breath easier.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_2.png

...and you might find yourself in low Kerbin orbit with 1900+ LF and over 3000 DV to spend.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_3.png

 

If you or @GKSP would like to give it a spin...  his slightly modified and very cool design is here:

http://www.xl-logic.com/skunkworks/Shadowhawk/Shadowhawk Mk 2.craft

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GKSP

GKSP

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Going to use a spoiler to quote XLjedi's huge post here.

Spoiler

Mmmm OK...  but, if the OP would follow my advice, it might not look too far off his original cool design.  

Maybe something like this leaving his original Mk2 fuselage design intact...  just adding wings that can hold more LF; trading off the 1.25 TWR for a 1.0 TWR.  It did need a couple good inline stabilizers to help it with the offset engine in  space, but there was plenty of room to trade off for the extra parts in TWR.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_1.png

...adjusting the initial ascent angle to 15° on climbout and pretty much not touching it until the RAPIERS convert mode.  Swapped out the small forward air intakes for the larger one in the new nuke engine radial mount so the rapiers can breath easier.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_2.png

...and you might find yourself in low Kerbin orbit with 1900+ LF and over 3000 DV to spend.

Shadowhawk_Mk2_3.png

 

If you or @GKSP would like to give it a spin...  his slightly modified and very cool design is here:

http://www.xl-logic.com/skunkworks/Shadowhawk/Shadowhawk Mk 2.craft

3

Nuclear was always an option I had for making my spaceplanes, and my early prototypes did use it.  Being able to get so much delta v out of it and almost keep a very similar look, I was surprised.  First I probably have to teach myself how to fly spaceplanes better.  When I can, I'm going to test fly these things, I already put them in their SPH folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XLjedi

XLjedi

Posted
Posted (edited)

@GKSP ...yeah well, my piloting skills are pretty crude.  I typically build things that I can point at 15° on takeoff and then not touch them again until I'm on orbital map view and telling the pilot to follow the marker on the navball.  LOL

I'm sure some of the "real pilots" here would skoff at my single attempt that only yielded 3000 orbital DV.

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GKSP

GKSP

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

@GKSP ...yeah well, my piloting skills are pretty crude.  I typically build things that I can point at 15° on takeoff and then not touch them again until I'm on orbital map view and telling the pilot to follow the marker on the navball.  LOL

I'm sure some of the "real pilots" here would skoff at my single attempt that only yielded 3000 orbital DV.

I try to do that technique too.  It's simple yet effective.  Last time I flew one, I stopped paying attention for a moment and thought it was a normal rocket.  In my defense, it had the same appearance on the map view.  The biggest issue is just finding the right engines to get you off the ground.  I've had that issue when trying to build a science mode spaceplane for Laythe exploration without the supersonic flight researched.  My lesson learned was that Jool is a huge leap from Minmus exploration in a science game without going to any other planets first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...