Active steering self-propelled landing gear

[ARS]

I would like to suggest to give retractable landing gears for aircraft an ability to be moved and steered like rover wheels when the engines are off. Basically, when the aircraft's engine is turned off, it can be self propelled to allow the aircraft to be steered/ parked/ repositioned like rover. When the engine is turned on, the landing gears would act like stock landing gear, steering only (without self propelling capability) for a minor correction adjustment in takeoff. It would make make navigating aircraft on the ground far easier and simple (The ability to automatically switch the self-propelling capability based on engine activation trigger only applies on retractable landing gears)

Edited August 22, 2018 by ARS

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I like the idea of optional (editor installable? Possibly a part variant?) motors on landing gears, however I tend to be concerned about adding mechanics connecting things with no clear physical relationship. For example, what if you wanted to use downwards thrust to keep your rover on planets with low gravity? You could make it toggleable in flight, but then you have to explain yet another mechanic in a game that already has a near vertical learning curve.

[ARS]

36 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I like the idea of optional (editor installable? Possibly a part variant?) motors on landing gears, however I tend to be concerned about adding mechanics connecting things with no clear physical relationship. For example, what if you wanted to use downwards thrust to keep your rover on planets with low gravity? You could make it toggleable in flight, but then you have to explain yet another mechanic in a game that already has a near vertical learning curve.

"Only applies on retractable landing gears", which is the aircraft landing gear, not rover wheels. But I like your idea about the optional motor selection for retractable landing gear, it's a neat feature, kinda like "decoupler disable staging" choice in structural pylon which gives you an option to turn that pylon into structural part or decoupler

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 minutes ago, ARS said:

"Only applies on retractable landing gears", which is the aircraft landing gear, not rover wheels. But I like your idea about the optional motor selection for retractable landing gear, it's a neat feature, kinda like "decoupler disable staging" choice in structural pylon which gives you an option to turn that pylon into structural part or decoupler

The problem is that you're then limited to using rover wheels for that type of mission, and while that makes some sense, in my opinion the clarity and simplicity of always being able to use powered wheels of any type anywhere outweighs the benefit of making it easier (if wheel power was an in-flight toggle, you could use action groups) to use them for the intended and most common purpose.

[ARS]

The point is, make a aircraft landing gear allow ground movement control like a rover, which makes it easier for repositioning the craft on the ground

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

That part of the suggestion I don't see any potential problems with.  

[Xd the great]

Can some mods provide this? An MM patch?

[DualDesertEagle]

Well active steering is already there for the smaller ones (even back in 1.0.2) but I do agree that every landing gear should be outfitted with a steering option. About the self-propelling stuff, I think that's unnecessary. If it was me I'd just use RCS if I just needed to go backwards for parking (which, if done right, can be achieved without the need to go backwards) or if I needed a craft with roving capabilities I'd simply go ahead and add some rover wheels that the vehicle can let itself down on by simply retracting the landing gear. And while I was writing this an idea came to my mind how I could even cover the rover wheels with fairings (although that may require some clipping). I'll go ahead and build an example craft real quick to show what I mean.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

Can some mods provide this? An MM patch?

Probably doable with MM. I'd start digging into the .cfg files for the stock powered wheels if I were you. Copy the relevant modules to a gear part and see what happens.
That said, I don't really see the point of this; from a realism point of view (real aircraft use pushback tractors for this), or a from a gameplay perspective, as we already have powered wheels for powered rovers.
Aircraft generally don't need to go backwards, and if retractable landing gear have no disadvantages over wheels people are very likely to use them on rovers rather than using the part meant for the job. It's a balance thing.

[DualDesertEagle]

Ok, so I made this really sloppy example craft (which wouldn't have taken so long if my craptop wasn't behaving like a stubborn child) and it turned out to be wise to drop the fairings while the "rover plane" is still airborne, as may be evident thru the following pics:

 

Retractable rover wheels would be much more elegant of course but I don't have any of those, if they even exist at all.

[Xd the great]

im thinking about MM patches...

[qzgy]

13 hours ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Retractable rover wheels would be much more elegant of course but I don't have any of those, if they even exist at all. 

Thats true, but that's still a decently elegant one way solution.

I have to ask though what version that it. Looks different.

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, qzgy said:

I have to ask though what version that it. Looks different.

Looks similar to mine, I just have most of the Gfx settings bottomed out. 

[qzgy]

3 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Looks similar to mine, I just have most of the Gfx settings bottomed out. 

As in you have the same version?

Jet engine and cockpit are definitely different than 1.3.

[Gargamel]

1 minute ago, qzgy said:

As in you have the same version?

Jet engine and cockpit are definitely different than 1.3.

Ohhh.... yeah, that engine model got nerfed a while back I do believe. 

[qzgy]

1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

Ohhh.... yeah, that engine model got nerfed a while back I do believe. 

Yeah, since 1.0.5 I believe.

[DualDesertEagle]

7 hours ago, qzgy said:

Thats true, but that's still a decently elegant one way solution.

I have to ask though what version that it. Looks different.

 

7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Ohhh.... yeah, that engine model got nerfed a while back I do believe. 

My "Location" says it all, I'm stuck in 1.0.2 and can't update for some weird reason. But I'm willing to spend the game's price a second time once I finally get a decent PC up and running. Should the same thing happen to me again I'll at least be stuck with a far newer Version.

[qzgy]

5 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

 

My "Location" says it all, I'm stuck in 1.0.2 and can't update for some weird reason. But I'm willing to spend the game's price a second time once I finally get a decent PC up and running. Should the same thing happen to me again I'll at least be stuck with a far newer Version.

Oh didn't notice. Thats weird though......

Back to the actual topic though, the only worry about adding motors to landing gear would be making something that is vastly better than the actual rover wheels. Landing gear are already so much more durable and don't break, so if you add a proportionally powerful motor, you might end up actually just using landing gear instead of rover wheels. This could probably be fixed by adding some sort of variable that only allows for relatively slow movement though.

[ARS]

1 hour ago, qzgy said:

Oh didn't notice. Thats weird though......

Back to the actual topic though, the only worry about adding motors to landing gear would be making something that is vastly better than the actual rover wheels. Landing gear are already so much more durable and don't break, so if you add a proportionally powerful motor, you might end up actually just using landing gear instead of rover wheels. This could probably be fixed by adding some sort of variable that only allows for relatively slow movement though.

A slow, limited movement speed seems like an acceptable tradeoff, especially since adding motors to landing gear is mainly used to reposition or reorient the craft on the ground, not travelling on the ground at high speed, this is very practical when your aircraft landed and stopped just on the edge of the cliff, where you can reorient it on the opposite direction for safe takeoff, or very handy when trying to park aircraft close to each other like on the airport or taxiing on aircraft carrier

[DualDesertEagle]

3 hours ago, qzgy said:

Oh didn't notice. Thats weird though......

Back to the actual topic though, the only worry about adding motors to landing gear would be making something that is vastly better than the actual rover wheels. Landing gear are already so much more durable and don't break, so if you add a proportionally powerful motor, you might end up actually just using landing gear instead of rover wheels. This could probably be fixed by adding some sort of variable that only allows for relatively slow movement though.

 

1 hour ago, ARS said:

A slow, limited movement speed seems like an acceptable tradeoff, especially since adding motors to landing gear is mainly used to reposition or reorient the craft on the ground, not travelling on the ground at high speed, this is very practical when your aircraft landed and stopped just on the edge of the cliff, where you can reorient it on the opposite direction for safe takeoff, or very handy when trying to park aircraft close to each other like on the airport or taxiing on aircraft carrier

Plus, I don't think any self-propelled landing gear would be powerful enough for anything else than flat pavement. Can't imagine a plane the size of a Cessna (let alone bigger ones) moving up a hill using only the self-propelled landing gear. So if that would be made a thing in the game the self-propelled landing gear should be extremely bulky due to its powerful motorization. On top of that, any plane with proper design would have its main landing gear close to the CG, which means tail draggers could tip over when the brakes are applied while going downhill and planes with tricycle gear could slam on their tail when going uphill. And any custom landing gear placement designed for roving would lead to take-offs becoming pretty damn hard. That's why it's been so hard to build cars that transform into planes and vice versa, a car has to have its CG between the 2 axles and a plane needs to have its main gear very close to the CG so it can get its tail or nose off the ground during take-off, and why my example craft looks the way it does.

[Aeroboi]

Isn't it true that there aren't such landing gear in real life, mainly because one would require a electric motor in the landing gear which will overheat long before the brake discs turn red when braking?
Ever seen the brake disc of a aircraft that just landed? Good luck keeping a direct drive motor cool enough next to it. Any cooling solution is overly heavy.

If it is a indirect drive it will become unnecessarily heavy and complex especially since landing gear needs to extend and retract. Cool kid that can think of a mechanism involved to make it work. Weight and complexity will be added just to make it work which goes against aero/astronautical logic.
Weight and complexity is bad for aircrafts and rockets alike you know?

While it still would be possible (I guess) using heavy batteries for on surface taxiing on a air worthy craft like a plane goes against most economic concepts since it's far more economical to have the fuel onboard in exchange for the heaviness of any such batteries or motors just for the purpose of on ground taxiing.
That fact holds true for aircraft, it would be worse for rockets.

As for KSP, battery weights and units of electricity converted to power really don't make sense in this game. As long as electricity in this game makes NO SENSE whatsoever nothing else should be electricity driven imo.
If a concept by itself can't be explained or partially conceptualized to even work or be logical in a game, much less in real life then I think such a idea should be ignored.

Also, I haven't had a single issue to create self roving aircraft before. Assuming you don't want to go faster then 20 m/s in all directions and over all terrain (and you don't need to go faster, thus...)
I'm of the mentality by the way to optimize my craft so that they can land where you intend to land, at worst you would require a couple dozen Delta-Vee fuel to reposition your craft from where it landed to where you wanted it to be.

If self propelled landing gear were to be introduced then the hardware required to motor the landing gear and store that electricity over the full course of a space mission is not going to save the few dozen amounts of Delta V saved with self propelled landing gear regardless for what destination you need it at (and you don't need it, which is the biggest point of them all)

If you want to make a U-turn, well, you can. If you build your craft with one condition you always can. That condition is having 2 outboard engines instead of a single one or cluster of several in the center. I make my spaceplanes that way, in that they usually have at least 2 engines (rapiers or nervas) on the larboard and starboard end. For a proper U-turn to succeed I activate the brakes, if necessary I right click my landing gear and play with the friction as much as required which you can do in flight (which is absolutely ridiculous by the way but cool nonetheless) Then I use any of both engines (which depending on where I want to turn) and fire it.
The friction on the wheels should be set so that the engine firing rotates the craft but still having enough friction to stay in place.

Your craft should turn sharply in any direction you want its nose pointed at. You can do this at the cliff of a crater even if the front gear already plummeted over the edge. Ironically self propelled landing gear would get stuck in this position as they shouldn't be able to deliver the force to get out of said stuck position.

On most worlds a small amount of velocity keeps you rolling for somewhat of a while.
Done right you probably need 2, maybe 3 dozen, perhaps 50 m/s of delta V if your clumsy to U turn your craft and roll another 1-200meters to where you want to be.

Also, I don't know about you, maybe there's some hardcore mentality to keep yourself from quickloading and quicksaving, O heck, I just said it, why don't you?
I'm sure if you miss your landing zone by several hundred meters you can reload and try again, right?
Personally I explain this behaviour away by argumenting that Kerbal kind has similar autopilots, computers and automative maneuvering functions we humans use to plant our vessels on the ground with sub 1meter precision.
Because we lack this in KSP and we have to do everything by hand I use that fact to argument myself to reload everything as long as the piloting wasn't executed perfectly.
With modern programming a vessel should be able to land at X marks the spot.
Therefore a air or space worthy craft would NEVER, I repeat NEVER require any form of surface powered motorization because there would be no need for it. 
Only if you desire to drive around then you would, but then you don't require to haul the air/spacecraft around anyway, so what do we do?

We invent cargo bays and roll out a dedicated roving craft to enable this function for us, in a cooler fashion, at a greater speed with roll cage safety.