[WIP] Neist Airliner parts

[Kebab Kerman]

What if, now just hear me out...

What if we had...

Radial Belly Cabins?

Picture this: A 747, but with the bulge on the bottom. Basically that. Plus, you get a better view of whatever's below you! Hell, add a dome lounge (just a nose cover, but full of windows)! I mean, there's a chance of getting the nose smashed in by a bird (how did that even happen in the first place?), but hey, if it makes it look good, then it sticks (Kerbal logic)! Kerbals aren't very considerate of safety, anyway.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[espartanlast1]

i show you my new a330 and 737 

https://imgur.com/a/lACJayX

Edited October 17, 2018 by espartanlast1

[neistridlar]

@Bottle Rocketeer 500 There is a fixed 25PD up on github now. You just need to replace the .mu file.

@Kebab Kerman I guess you could just put 747 parts upside down, and hope the passengers don't notice. By the way, for your 747 models, it looks like you don't have any AoI. Try adding 2-5 degrees next time you get a chance. Also the plane looks like it is fairly nose heavy, since you need some massive up elevator to keep it flying. I would advise that you build the tail with some downward angle, so you don't have to spend all of your pitch-authority just to keep the nose level (as a starting point you can rotate the tail til the CoL is perfectly lined up with the CoM, and no that does not affect stability much, you are just trimming out the plane). 

@espartanlast1 Nice work.

[Kebab Kerman]

3 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

-snip-

 I guess you could just put 747 parts upside down, and hope the passengers don't notice. By the way, for your 747 models, it looks like you don't have any AoI. Try adding 2-5 degrees next time you get a chance. Also the plane looks like it is fairly nose heavy, since you need some massive up elevator to keep it flying. I would advise that you build the tail with some downward angle, so you don't have to spend all of your pitch-authority just to keep the nose level (as a starting point you can rotate the tail til the CoL is perfectly lined up with the CoM, and no that does not affect stability much, you are just trimming out the plane). 

-snip-

I'll do it next time I'm able to, and thanks for the advice!

[neistridlar]

Suddenly a wild 1.875m nose cone appears. It uses attach node. It is super effective!

Bad textures are bad. That's what happens when you texture on a touch pad. Will probably change it eventually.

[neistridlar]

3.75m A380 Cockpit, designed to go with a 3.75m->5m adapter, but surprisingly it looks almost not terrible just stuck straight to a 3.75m part. And of course the texture is going to change, that is just the DC10 texture I left on there.

[Kebab Kerman]

@neistridlar Make the nose right below the windows... Less blunt? More curved? Maybe make the nose a bit longer, too. Just a bit, though.

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

3.75m A380 Cockpit, designed to go with a 3.75m->5m adapter, but surprisingly it looks almost not terrible just stuck straight to a 3.75m part. And of course the texture is going to change, that is just the DC10 texture I left on there.

*picsnip*

Well, it's certainly better than the old Mk. 3 form factor and command pod... anyone else here remember that blocky abomination?

[neistridlar]

@Kebab Kerman made the window slope more, so the shape is not quite as abrupt. The real thing is even smoother, but that does not play to well with kerbal anatomy, so I want to leave it a little too steep still. Other than that it is very close to the real thing in proportions. Here it is with the 37-50 AD and TCS 50-37C13C4 attached as well.

2 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Well, it's certainly better than the old Mk. 3 form factor and command pod... anyone else here remember that blocky abomination?

Not sure whether this is actually a compliment or not .

[Kebab Kerman]

@neistridlar Nice! I love it!

Also, have you ever heard of the Aurora D-8? It's what drove me to suggest double-bubble fuselages. Here's a pic artist's rendition:

I's currently still a concept, being researched by Aurora Flight Sciences, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pratt and Whitney, with NASA sponsoring $2.9 million. I just thought I should share it.

[neistridlar]

Anyone got 765 kerbals to move? No IVAs yet.

@Kebab Kerman Had not heard of that one before. I was thinking the more conventional double-bubble fuselage with a big one on top and a slightly smaller on bottom when you said double-bubble.

[Kebab Kerman]

On 10/20/2018 at 11:43 AM, neistridlar said:

Anyone got 765 kerbals to move? No IVAs yet.

@Kebab Kerman Had not heard of that one before. I was thinking the more conventional double-bubble fuselage with a big one on top and a slightly smaller on bottom when you said double-bubble.

Yeah, I kinda figured. Also, love the cabins.

EDIT: Do you mind if I ask for cabins with three decks? Like this:

----------------
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
----------------

--
0
0
0
--

The 0's in the second one are doors, which can be opened separately.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Do you mind if I ask for cabins with three decks?

I don't mind you asking, but I have my doubts on the utility of such a part. Many computers will almost grind to a halt trying to fill just a single double decker part with kerbals. Also, the IVA is going to be a real performance hog with that many kerbals (I expect the double decker to be a problem for most people). You do bring up something I had not considered though. The doors, I was thinking theh 37-50 adapter would have a single door, and stair to the next level, though maybe I need to make some cylindrical door parts as well. Which brings up the question, two doors, or one, and if one, first floor or second floor or both variants, and do they have passenger capacity on the other floor?

[JH4C]

14 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Which brings up the question, two doors, or one, and if one, first floor or second floor or both variants, and do they have passenger capacity on the other floor?

If you have 2 doors, I'd put one height on one side and the other height on the other side; the few places I've seen stacked skytubes for linking airports to planes, they shared a common feed. If you decide on 1 door, regardless of which level it's on I would put an internal staircase to link the floors rather than seating on the other level.

[Kebab Kerman]

16 hours ago, neistridlar said:

-snip snoop-

 Which brings up the question, two doors, or one, and if one, first floor or second floor or both variants, and do they have passenger capacity on the other floor?

If one door, then bathrooms on the other floor!

[doggle2]

Just wondering, do you have any plans to make a really interesting cockpit...the Boeing 2707's double droop nose?

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, doggle2 said:

Just wondering, do you have any plans to make a really interesting cockpit...the Boeing 2707's double droop nose?

No, I don't have plans for doing supersonics or prototypes.

[Kebab Kerman]

DeHavilland Comet engines and cockpit?

EDIT: How about a variant of the three largest wings that don't have a swept trailing edge? And then for the rest, a variant with a less swept trailing edge? On larger aircraft, the wings are too short (from front to back,) and look too thin. The swept trailing edge makes for weird flap placement.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[espartanlast1]

i would like to have certain parts added like the cockpit of 747, the neck of the 747 and a bigger twin aisle fuselage to  make planes like the 777/350/747.

PS: it would be very interesting to have two cockpits for the 747. one with seats for passengers and doors and another for cargo that has the gate for loading and 330/340 cockpit
 

Edited November 1, 2018 by espartanlast1

[neistridlar]

4 hours ago, espartanlast1 said:

i would like to have certain parts added like the cockpit of 747, the neck of the 747 and a bigger twin aisle fuselage to  make planes like the 777/350/747.

PS: it would be very interesting to have two cockpits for the 747. one with seats for passengers and doors and another for cargo that has the gate for loading and 330/340 cockpit
 

I am making these parts on a 0.625-0.75 scale, to make them approximately kerbal scale, while at the same time trying to make them fit with the stock/common mod sizes. That means for 777/A350/747 you end up at 3.75m, which I already have. Not only that, but there is a 777 based and A350 based cockpit to go with them. There is a tweak scale patch by @TMasterson5 in the OP, which you can use if you want to make them real size. There is also the issue of KSP physics getting a little wired when things get that big. I do have an Idea for 747 parts, here is a sketch to illustrate it:

These parts are supposed to surface attach to 3,75m parts, though I will probably make some effort to make them usable with 5m as well, we'll see how that works out.

On 10/29/2018 at 1:07 PM, Kebab Kerman said:

DeHavilland Comet engines and cockpit?

EDIT: How about a variant of the three largest wings that don't have a swept trailing edge? And then for the rest, a variant with a less swept trailing edge? On larger aircraft, the wings are too short (from front to back,) and look too thin. The swept trailing edge makes for weird flap placement.

Agreed on the swept wing stuff, already have had that in mind from day 1 (there is even a picture somewhere I think). Re Comet, not now, but maybe sometime. Don't really want to have too many parts either though, so I want to pick my parts carefully.

@JH4C Good points.

[MaverickSawyer]

Comet is easy: just clip the engines into the wings and reduce your fuel load by 10% or so.

[espartanlast1]

ok, but what about A330 / A340 cockpit and 787 cockpit, 

[JH4C]

24 minutes ago, espartanlast1 said:

ok, but what about A330 / A340 cockpit and 787 cockpit, 

It might be an idea for you to look through the thread more thoroughly, as you're suggesting some parts that are either already included or that have been listed as likely to be excluded due to similarities to existing models. Just have a play with what's already been made, see what you can come up with; the idea here isn't to emulate every aspect of a flightsim, but to allow us to build something new.

[neistridlar]

Thanks @JH4C. You put my thoughts into words.

[Kebab Kerman]

Anything new? I mean, I don't want to be pushy, but I'm just curious.