[WIP] Neist Airliner parts

[Ioseg]

Wow. If all of that cockpits from the imgur link come to KSP it would be great. U do have there almost all of the desired cockpits and i have only one cockpit to add in this wishlist - have a look at Antonov family tranport planes. I mean the middle size which is more for 2.5 - not a huge Antonov-225 Mria but smth like Antonov An-24, An-26. An-32, An-71, An-72, An-74, An-74-TK300.

Have a look at that planes alltogether via imgir link: 

[neistridlar]

@Ioseg AN-24 seems to be a very good match for 1.875m, so it would be weird to make it 2.5m.  The AN-72 is right in-between 1.875m and 2.5m, so I can make it 2.5m like this:

I think it will fit the kerbal anatomy very well. It is good to see some of the soviet designs. I'm not familiar with them, but they have their own distinct style, which makes them good candidates for the mod.

And with regards to my imgur album, I do intend to merge some of the more similar ones together into one, so that there is not enormous amounts of similar cockpits.

 

[Ioseg]

Sounds like a nice plan - I mean the idea to make An-72 cockpit fits 2,5m size. IMHO there is no need to make an enormous amount of cockpits. And I like your idea to merge several models in one cockpit as U've said abot Boeing above. And may be it would be quite enough to make just one An-72 cockpit and not to waste your spare time for the whole line of variants.

Not an advise, just my opinion - there should be just several cockpits in one mod for different cases. We have already have a number of cockpits in different mods. APP, KAX, Fantom Works, SXT. But as an ordinal user i'd like to have a good choice of cockpits in one mod bot not to install a dozen. Not many of'em - no need to make a dozen cockpits for Antonov, another dozen for different Airbus and several for Boeing. Yep - there are differences between different cockpits of one brand IRL. But in game will be quite enough a couple of cockpits for every IRL manufacturer. Othervise U should make hundreds of them :)...

As for my wishes:

• 1,875m size - something for business jets bigger than stock (Cessna or Golfstream or Piper). May be something for regional cargo and passenger planes.

• 2,5m size - Boeing, Airbus, DC-3 (and it will fit all the DCs further in a model line), Hercules (every kerbal wants to fly C-130 himself) and something for cargo transport planes like Antonov's that will fit all the models of this contructor and will be useful for Ilushin's aircrafts like Il-14 or Il-18. May be one more for soviet airliners like Tupolev (Tu-154) and Yakovlev (Yak-42). As for me - 2,5m is the best size for everyday purposes.

• 3,5m size for large cargo and passenger planes. I even don't know exactly what to wish here because it seems to me too large to use in my flights.

There is already a nice airbus cockpit in APP even with a RPM config. There is an almost dead KAX cockpit that is looking like Antonov but has a poor texturing and no IVA at all. There were several cockpits in Fantom Works addon for KAX but with the same sad destiny -  not the best texturing, no IVAs at all, no support, no future development, Thats why I do wish U to make all your plans come true ;)!

[neistridlar]

Passenger door, now with textures:

@[INDO]dimas_1502 Are you getting anywhere with the DC-3 texture?

[Kebab Kerman]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Passenger door, now with textures:

@[INDO]dimas_1502 Are you getting anywhere with the DC-3 texture?

Absolutely amazing!

[Dimas152]

22 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Passenger door, now with textures:

@[INDO]dimas_1502 Are you getting anywhere with the DC-3 texture?

haven't touched my pc yesterday, i'll gon try it now

[Dimas152]

wait i think the UV map u include in the DC-3 folder is or the DC-9

[neistridlar]

41 minutes ago, [INDO]dimas_1502 said:

wait i think the UV map u include in the DC-3 folder is or the DC-9

Yes, They share the same UV/Texture map. It is one half DC-9 one half DC-3. The DC-3 stuff is on the top right, and DC-9 stuff on bottom left. The end caps are the same on both, down in the right corner.

[neistridlar]

So, now I have modeled the 2.5-3.75 adapter as well as a 2.5-3.125 adapter just for you @Bottle Rocketeer 500 . I was running into problems getting big enough wings for this though, so I started on my modular wing idea as well. Need to go in the think box to figure out a few details on how to build them (mostly how to size them). To put the sizes in to perspective here, the root chord length of the FAT wings is ~5m, the root cordlength of the biggest wing here is ~7m, while the wingtip cordlength is 2.5m. Also used the smallest piece for the tail. Still plan to make even smaller pieces, down to ~0.625m. I am thinking there will be a straight leading edge, and swept leading edge with straight trailing edge as well. And they seem to be compatible with the stock control surfaces as well.

[Kebab Kerman]

Try some Corvair 990 parts! I would love to see some, and I don't think anybody has made one yet. Surprising, considering it's the fastest jet liner ever built that didn't go supersonic.

 

EDIT: Unfortunately, I can no longer play KSP. The game is stuck on Loading Asset Bundle Definitions and I've tried everything that works for Windows and it just won't work. I'm now forever sad.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

@Kebab Kerman Have you tried completely deleting the KSP folder and reinstalling KSP?

[Kebab Kerman]

14 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

@Kebab Kerman Have you tried completely deleting the KSP folder and reinstalling KSP?

Honestly, I'm scared to.

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Honestly, I'm scared to.

That's what backups are for  

[Sgt_Yambag]

If I may ask could we also get more inward folding gear with tilting boogies and covered shocks, Ie: the likes of the 767?, I understand that animating tilting boogies can be hard so this doesn't have to be a top priority. 

[neistridlar]

After a little thinking, I think I have settled for this system for the modular wings. Leading edge is swept 30 degrees, trailing edge is swept 20 degrees. Span length for the normal segments all are a multiple of 2.5m. The straight trailing edge ones turned out to be more or less arbitrary lengths. Not sure If I want to do something about that yet. The biggest pieces have a root chord length of ~9m, and the smallest has a tip chord length of ~1.2m. I might be able to make one size smaller as well, but I don't plan to do so for the moment.Of course they will be wet wings. Though I don't think I will be utilizing the whole volume of them. At least not for the biggest one, which I calculated will hold 7000 units of liquid fuel, assuming 10cm thick walls. Not sure the wing will even be able to lift it self at that kind of weight. Stock contorlsurfaces fit these wings nicely thickness wise, But I also plan to do some in 1.25m and 2.5m span length, specifically tailored to this system. Pobably a long and a short span length of each, and a transition between the two chord lengths. Adding some nodes for easy alignment and more realistic drag calculations is also a possible idea.

And b.t.w. the straight trailing edge models are a bit wonky. It will not affect the final model, so I did not bother fixing it.

[Kebab Kerman]

20 hours ago, neistridlar said:

After a little thinking, I think I have settled for this system for the modular wings. Leading edge is swept 30 degrees, trailing edge is swept 20 degrees. Span length for the normal segments all are a multiple of 2.5m. The straight trailing edge ones turned out to be more or less arbitrary lengths. Not sure If I want to do something about that yet. The biggest pieces have a root chord length of ~9m, and the smallest has a tip chord length of ~1.2m. I might be able to make one size smaller as well, but I don't plan to do so for the moment.Of course they will be wet wings. Though I don't think I will be utilizing the whole volume of them. At least not for the biggest one, which I calculated will hold 7000 units of liquid fuel, assuming 10cm thick walls. Not sure the wing will even be able to lift it self at that kind of weight. Stock contorlsurfaces fit these wings nicely thickness wise, But I also plan to do some in 1.25m and 2.5m span length, specifically tailored to this system. Pobably a long and a short span length of each, and a transition between the two chord lengths. Adding some nodes for easy alignment and more realistic drag calculations is also a possible idea.

And b.t.w. the straight trailing edge models are a bit wonky. It will not affect the final model, so I did not bother fixing it.

Maybe add a swept wingtip as an outermost wing peice?

If not, how about two winglet parts: One with a single winglet, and one with two winglets, like on the A380, for example.

[Dfthu]

Just now, Kebab Kerman said:

Maybe add a swept wingtip as an outermost wing peice?

If not, how about two winglet parts: One with a single winglet, and one with two winglets, like on the A380, for example.

Well there should a swept option (like the 777), a blended one (757/767), Or Split (737 MAX)

[neistridlar]

32 minutes ago, Dfthu said:

Well there should a swept option (like the 777), a blended one (757/767), Or Split (737 MAX)

 

35 minutes ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Maybe add a swept wingtip as an outermost wing peice?

If not, how about two winglet parts: One with a single winglet, and one with two winglets, like on the A380, for example.

Agree with you both. I will need to play with the parts a bit, and see which sizes are most apropriate, but I am thinking one winglet part for each apropriate size. Have one straight with a kind of sausage shaped ending like on the winglet-less 737NGs, One blended winglet, one split winglet an one raked wingtip. All of the same size will have the same size, just different meshes.

[Kebab Kerman]

@neistridlar Your suggestion on reinstalling the game didn't work, as it's still doing the thing. I deleted the stuff that was last installed to the game and it still did it... Do you have any more posible solutions?

Anyway, I've been thinking: What if we had a tail passenger ramp, like on the 727?

[MaverickSawyer]

Second the call for aft air stairs. However, if I may make a suggestion... Leave the aft end of the air stairs as a 1.25m attachment node, and add a chisel tail cone, akin to what's used on the MD-80/90/717, DC-10/MD-11, and 777, as a separate part. That way, you could make the 727 by simply slapping a Wheesley on the end of the tail, and adding a pair of them alongside the tail.

[neistridlar]

5 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Second the call for aft air stairs. However, if I may make a suggestion... Leave the aft end of the air stairs as a 1.25m attachment node, and add a chisel tail cone, akin to what's used on the MD-80/90/717, DC-10/MD-11, and 777, as a separate part. That way, you could make the 727 by simply slapping a Wheesley on the end of the tail, and adding a pair of them alongside the tail.

 

6 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

@neistridlar Your suggestion on reinstalling the game didn't work, as it's still doing the thing. I deleted the stuff that was last installed to the game and it still did it... Do you have any more posible solutions?

Anyway, I've been thinking: What if we had a tail passenger ramp, like on the 727?

I have not shown it yet, but if you download the latest version, you will find that there is already a tail door that tapers to 1.25. It is non function all still, and I may change the model still. Having done some research It seems 12-13 degrees is a typical slope for the tail, and that is what the stock Offset tail connector is, so I will try to conform to that on all future tail pieces.

As for the chisel tail cone I will have to study them a little more before I comment on that, but it sounds promising.

As for your KSP issues @Kebab Kermancheck the log files, maybe it contains some clues. You might want to contact support as well. This is not really the place for general support for the game it self, only for my mod.

[MaverickSawyer]

30 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I have not shown it yet, but if you download the latest version, you will find that there is already a tail door that tapers to 1.25. It is non function all still, and I may change the model still. Having done some research It seems 12-13 degrees is a typical slope for the tail, and that is what the stock Offset tail connector is, so I will try to conform to that on all future tail pieces.

Ah, didn't know you were releasing parts for public destructive testing... uhhh, field testing. I'll take a look at that.

Quote

As for the chisel tail cone I will have to study them a little more before I comment on that, but it sounds promising.

Here's some examples:

All I know about them is that the wedge/chisel tails were found to be less draggy than more traditional conical tails... but many new designs like the A350, ERJ-190 and 787 have different tailcones. I suspect that it may come down to a case-by-case basis, but it's still a neat little design feature.

(Side note: the DC-9 family tailcone is ejectable to allow it to be used as an emergency exit.)

Edited May 25, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[neistridlar]

15 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Ah, didn't know you were releasing parts for public destructive testing... uhhh, field testing. I'll take a look at that.

Here's some examples:

All I know about them is that the wedge/chisel tails were found to be less draggy than more traditional conical tails... but many new designs like the A350, ERJ-190 and 787 have different tailcones. I suspect that it may come down to a case-by-case basis, but it's still a neat little design feature.

(Side note: the DC-9 family tailcone is ejectable to allow it to be used as an emergency exit.)

Ah, I see. Wonder if it would be sufficient to make a 0.625m wedge and have tailcones that end at that diameter. Also maybe I need to make tailcone with a decoupler module.

I have linked the github repository in the op. Just clone that, and get the appropriate files. Mind though that things are pretty much guaranteed to be broken or unfinished.

[MaverickSawyer]

Nah, no need for a decoupler. If someone wants that, they can use a normal one and the offset tool.

[neistridlar]

19 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Nah, no need for a decoupler. If someone wants that, they can use a normal one and the offset tool.

True. If I get my art style right they should not even need the offset tool, unless they want it to break off in a sloped section.

Something I have been thinking about the last few days is whether to change the DC-9 cockpit to 2.5m. Why is that you may ask? Well, I discovered that there is also a DC-8, who would have thought right? Well as it turns out the DC-8 would be a good fit for 2.5m, and is very similar in looks to the DC-9, so it makes sense to make a double duty cockpit for the two. Also the DC-9 is already pretty much perfectly inbetween 1.875m and 2.5m at 0.75 scale, which is what I am going for here, so either one should work fine. Also it allows me to remove one of the compromises I made for the current DC-9 cockpit to fit a 1.25m nose cone, namely the bottom is perfectly straight in stead of curving up like the real one does.

I am thinking an AN-24, Dash-8 or ATR-72 will replace it as a third 1.875m cockpit. AN-24 because of unique looks, and because someone requested it. Dash-8 because I want one, but it looks a little too similar to the CRJ I think, at least for now. ATR-72 because of unique looks, and because it seems to be popular many places. I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this.