[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

[taniwha]

I don't think that's actually possible. The only way to prevent aerodynamic failures is by slow and/or careful flying.

The lighter your plane, the harder it is to break with the air.

[John FX]

I`ve been considering this mod for a while and after looking at the OP I have decided to give it a go based on the place the mod is hosted. It`s on kerbalstuff and github. If it (like some other mods) was only on curse I probably wouldn`t bother (or would need a much better reason)

As it is I think I`ll see how well all my designs work with `better air`

[tetryds]

I don't think that's actually possible. The only way to prevent aerodynamic failures is by slow and/or careful flying.

False, it's completelly possible to make designs that can keep up with super high ammount of gees.

Careful flying is just a thing because depending on the design you substantially increase the maneuverability.

Also that if you dont be careful you can cause a peak in pressure that causes the failure.

Even on weak designs you can slowly increase your pitch and end up with 50% more G force on turns than what it would stand on a sudden maneuver.

On strong designs you can pull a lot more, a lot faster.

[Wanderfound]

False, it's completelly possible to make designs that can keep up with super high ammount of gees.

Careful flying is just a thing because depending on the design you substantially increase the maneuverability.

Also that if you dont be careful you can cause a peak in pressure that causes the failure.

Even on weak designs you can slowly increase your pitch and end up with 50% more G force on turns than what it would stand on a sudden maneuver.

On strong designs you can pull a lot more, a lot faster.

Anyone care to post their craft file for an aerodynamic failure-proof aircraft to settle the argument? Assertions are fun, but evidence is better.

My planes include plenty of well-strutted small-wing designs (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90344-Kerbodyne-Velociraptor-light-cargo-express-SSTO-for-Spaceplane-Plus-and-FAR), and I still find it very easy to rip the wings off at supersonic speeds even without crazy aerobatics.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Wanderfound]

I don't think that's actually possible. The only way to prevent aerodynamic failures is by slow and/or careful flying.

I was performing Mach 4+ tests at sea level with aero failures on (and DCA off) prior to the engine nerf without breaking anything with 400KPA of dynamic pressure trying to kill me.... so technique definitely works.

Now I just gotta figure out the technique for re-entering a spaceplane...

Ignoring the wink for the sake of the potential newbie lurkers: patience.

Set your periapsis to just over 20,000m and on the opposite side of the planet to where you do your retrograde burn, and monitor your climb/drop rate. Carefully and gradually change pitch by a few degrees at a time to zero out your vertical velocity just as you get to the periapsis, and hold that altitude until you've slowed below Mach 2.

[tetryds]

Anyone care to post their craft file for an aerodynamic failure-proof aircraft to settle the argument? Assertions are fun, but evidence is better.

My planes include plenty of well-strutted small-wing designs (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90344-Kerbodyne-Velociraptor-light-cargo-express-SSTO-for-Spaceplane-Plus-and-FAR), and I still find it very easy to rip the wings off at supersonic speeds even without crazy acrobatics.

Yes, for sure.

You can find more rough planes at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84738-Roaken-Corporation-High-end-FAR-planes

They are being updated to FAR 0.14.1.1 this weekend.

SE-14 is the one to go if you want something that won't break at all (instead of you nosedive 90 degrees from the stratosphere then pitch up 100% right close to the ground, then it can break, but only if you do it wrong).

*The versions on that page may be not optimal for the latest FAR, will update it soonish.

It's the latest revision of E36, from Roaken Corp.

Not yet finished, optimal stability over Mach 1.4 at any altitude.

Works with realism overhaul, you just need to replace the fuel tanks (I can provide a realism overhaul model if anyone is interested).

Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/366p08ufw17n3a3/E36%20revision%201.craft

http://i.imgur.com/ISKNbQ4.png

http://i.imgur.com/UetZixa.png

This one is updated, not the latest, but works fine ^

Btw, I don't like the latest FAR engine nerf, it was fun doing stuff like this: http://i.imgur.com/ACVbdyX.png

Edited August 16, 2014 by tetryds

[Master Tao]

SE-14 is the one to go if you want something that won't break at all (instead of you nosedive 90 degrees from the stratosphere then pitch up 100% right close to the ground, then it can break, but only if you do it wrong).

My Minidrone (requires TweakScale) won't break even coming out of a dive from 20+ km. It was difficult to watch the instruments while timing the dive, but I started pulling out of a vertical 460 m/s dive at about 1.5 km ASL. KER reported 39+ gees.

I also had a version for Interstellar (last picture here). That one pulled 50+ gees.

[tetryds]

My Minidrone (requires TweakScale) won't break even coming out of a dive from 20+ km. It was difficult to watch the instruments while timing the dive, but I started pulling out of a vertical 460 m/s dive at about 1.5 km ASL. KER reported 39+ gees.

I also had a version for Interstellar (last picture here). That one pulled 50+ gees.

That is really nice.

Empty SRBs are very light, you probably pulled some very tight curves with that.

Would fit really well as a missle.

What happens with the SE-14 is that if you dive at full engines it passes mach 3.2 while close to the ground, and it's not designed to fly at that speed.

It was a better choice to increase the possible payload than allow it to do that, on a normal cruise it will never reach that speed.

I just stated that you could break it that way because I don't want to say its undestructible.

I've made stronger ones, but their flight characteristics were poor, they rest in peace on our dumpsite.

Also: http://i.imgur.com/SeDBCPO.png

Yeah that's a 180 degree turn! (0.23)

Hey guys, what about we start a guide on how to make stronger designs on FAR, and also tips when making planes on NEAR and FAR.

I see NEAR as one step towards using FAR, and believe that the only thing we need to do is to give some important tips.

Edited August 16, 2014 by tetryds

[Renegrade]

Yes, for sure.

SE-14 is the one to go if you want something that won't break at all (instead of you nosedive 90 degrees from the stratosphere then pitch up 100% right close to the ground, then it can break, but only if you do it wrong).

*The versions on that page may be not optimal for the latest FAR, will update it soonish.

Actually it takes significantly less than that. I managed to break it at around Mach 1.2, 3km above KSC just toolin' around (toolin' around at 87kPa of dynamic pressure, but that's what you get for telling me you can't break it). It's a very strong plane, but it still needs proper flying technique. I'm a bit surprised though that the elevators stay attached at low-altitude supersonic speeds though, they look like they have high deflection.

FYI: With un-nerfed engines it can explode 43 seconds after liftoff by touching a control.

(also it needs wing boards which are impractical for a career Science Plane, which starts operating in the 5th tier, not 8th)

My Minidrone (requires TweakScale) won't break even coming out of a dive from 20+ km. It was difficult to watch the instruments while timing the dive, but I started pulling out of a vertical 460 m/s dive at about 1.5 km ASL. KER reported 39+ gees.

It's typically dynamic pressure that kills, not the Gs (barring DRE). That being said, it should have been fairly high at 460m/sec at 1.5km altitude.. that little plane is a lot tougher than the SE-14.

A test plane I used during the low-drag change.

Just because people are posting weird ships.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying design is unimportant, just that no amount of design can compensate for bad piloting. Of course...

You can try, though!

Edited August 16, 2014 by Renegrade

[tetryds]

@Renegrade: Haha, you are right.

No design can be dumbproof, but they can require some extra level of stupidity to go-debris.

That is a very low drag you got there.

And what the heck is up with that SRB plane, real fuels or smth?

Edit: ah right, the intake has fuel.

I say g's because it is what matters for me, and the speed and altitude parameters are fixed on the tests.

It took a bit less because the design is tweaked for 0.23, it gets toughter on the new revision, which I'm polishing right now.

The thing is mainly that the controls deflect a lot more, pulling forces it's not designed to keep up with.

"(also it needs wing boards which are impractical for a career Science Plane, which starts operating in the 5th tier, not 8th)"-Renegrade

What you mean by that?

It's not a science plane, its an interceptor

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

I would post some weird stuff too but better not.

The design can't get bad enough, ever!

Edited August 16, 2014 by tetryds

[Renegrade]

@Renegrade: Haha, you are right.

No design can be dumbproof, but they can require some extra level of stupidity to go-debris.

Yeah the SE-14 is pretty tough, most planes can't fly in the supersonic range below 4-5km without serious risk of becoming a cloud of debris. I had to tool around for a bit before the SE-14 fell apart, and DRE was trying to kill the pilot the whole time.

And what the heck is up with that SRB plane, real fuels or smth?

Edit: ah right, the intake has fuel.

Yep, bingo! I was just throwing together a quick plane for tests relating to the newer, lower-drag code in FAR/NEAR, and I was like, "I need a body for this.. maybe an FL-T800 tank? no wait, the BACC SRB is about the right size and shape..", and a weird plane was born. It's actually parked on the tarmac in some of my other screenshots.

I de-fueled the SRB of course..

It took a bit less because the design is tweaked for 0.23, it gets toughter on the new revision, which I'm polishing right now.

The thing is mainly that the controls deflect a lot more, pulling forces it's not designed to keep up with.

I'd love to play with the new design when it's done. It's very sharp looking.

What you mean by that?

It's not a science plane, its an interceptor

Most.. okay.. SOME of my planes are meant to collect science. I load them up with a Science Jr, a goo pod, and the various instruments and fly them to different biomes to collect samples for career science points. They basically have to start with the Tier 5 tech (swept wings/basic engine/etc) and work their way up. By the time I get to wingboards and those little white pylon things, I've already collected all the science :C

(I then make spaceplanes to do rescue contracts, but that's a different story)

I would post some weird stuff too but better not.

The design can't get bad enough, ever!

Aww.. I love silly designs

I liked your arch-shaped plane, for instance. That was wild

[tetryds]

Thanks again!

Just updated, check Roaken topic which I linked on the previous page if you interested.

I finally managed to make a plane sideslip proof! Took a while but it's not super complicated.

But considering it can carry more than twice its weight on cargo I guess it could be usefull for science.

But you don't need a science plane to be super maneuverable, I guess.

Yeah, the arch is wild, but it is not a bad plane, and it can carry some considerable payload: http://i.imgur.com/cgooacg.png

Will see how an SRB plane works, may pull some very tight curves.

Tip: don't try E36 with NEAR, and don't double the control surface limits if you do so. Just don't.

[Mister Spock]

Forgive me if I'm posting this question in the wrong thread. I just have a question about how control surfaces interact with FAR. In particular, I'm wondering whether I should make dedicated ailerons, elevators, flaps, etc by disabling the other two axes in the right-click menu. For example, the stock "standard control surface" provides pitch, roll and yaw; but if I put it on a wing, should I limit to roll, so it functions only as an aileron? Should I have dedicated elevators, flaps, etc.? The only spaceplane mod I'm using is Spaceplane-Plus, and I haven't really worked with it yet.

I ask because I have trouble making aircraft that turn correctly when I roll the wings left or right. I've tried making dedicated ailerons, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right. I did search this thread for guidance, and while I did find some helpful comments, I'm still confused. (I'm definitely not an aeronautical engineer in real life.)

[Wanderfound]

Forgive me if I'm posting this question in the wrong thread. I just have a question about how control surfaces interact with FAR. In particular, I'm wondering whether I should make dedicated ailerons, elevators, flaps, etc by disabling the other two axes in the right-click menu. For example, the stock "standard control surface" provides pitch, roll and yaw; but if I put it on a wing, should I limit to roll, so it functions only as an aileron? Should I have dedicated elevators, flaps, etc.? The only spaceplane mod I'm using is Spaceplane-Plus, and I haven't really worked with it yet.

I ask because I have trouble making aircraft that turn correctly when I roll the wings left or right. I've tried making dedicated ailerons, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right. I did search this thread for guidance, and while I did find some helpful comments, I'm still confused. (I'm definitely not an aeronautical engineer in real life.)

Yup. Set vertical surfaces to yaw only; set mid-mounted wings to roll only; set forward and rear surfaces (not necessarily tailplanes, in the case of rear-set delta wings) to pitch and sometimes roll. F/A-18 style not-quite-vertical rudders should probably be set for yaw and roll.

Messing about with max control authority can also be useful, but how much is too much is a matter of personal taste. It's also worth experimenting with spoilers for brakes/downforce during landing and extra drag in the early stages of reentry. Flaps aren't really needed unless you're messing around with 100 ton cargo monsters.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Mister Spock]

Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah, I haven't had a real need for flaps, but spoilers could come in handy; gotta remember to try to make those.

Incidentally, Wanderfound, I think you're one of the people who persuaded me to try FAR. I'm so glad I did. I'm no expert on aerodynamics, but flying "feels" more like flying to me now. (And I like building rockets that look like rockets, too.)

[Wanderfound]

Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah, I haven't had a real need for flaps, but spoilers could come in handy; gotta remember to try to make those.

Incidentally, Wanderfound, I think you're one of the people who persuaded me to try FAR. I'm so glad I did. I'm no expert on aerodynamics, but flying "feels" more like flying to me now. (And I like building rockets that look like rockets, too.)

Yay!

Good deed for the day.

[Mister Spock]

One more question. I'm wondering what payload sizes are plausible using FAR, Deadly Reentry, Procedural Fairings, and stock parts. (I do have Spaceplane Plus, but otherwise using mostly stock parts.) Is there any rule of thumb? I'm curious about not only payload mass, but also payload bulk. What sizes are plausible for, say, 2.5-meter parts? For 3.75-meter parts? I don't mind taking things up in bits and pieces; I'm just trying to suss out what's realistic.

For example, last night I tried to stick a wide lander on top of a rocket with 2.5-meter parts, and the result was a 7-ton payload (with fairings) that was much fatter than the 2.5-meter parts I currently am using. (Haven't unlocked bigger yet.) The mass isn't a problem; I've hauled larger payloads. The bulk is a problem: aerodynamically, I end up with something that looks like a Q-tip -- big fat top, skinny bottom. Maybe I need to be more clever with Procedural Fairings to make the rocket body as thick as the payload? I can post pics if need be. Thanks in advance.

[Wanderfound]

One more question. I'm wondering what payload sizes are plausible using FAR, Deadly Reentry, Procedural Fairings, and stock parts. (I do have Spaceplane Plus, but otherwise using mostly stock parts.) Is there any rule of thumb? I'm curious about not only payload mass, but also payload bulk. What sizes are plausible for, say, 2.5-meter parts? For 3.75-meter parts? I don't mind taking things up in bits and pieces; I'm just trying to suss out what's realistic.

For example, last night I tried to stick a wide lander on top of a rocket with 2.5-meter parts, and the result was a 7-ton payload (with fairings) that was much fatter than the 2.5-meter parts I currently am using. (Haven't unlocked bigger yet.) The mass isn't a problem; I've hauled larger payloads. The bulk is a problem: aerodynamically, I end up with something that looks like a Q-tip -- big fat top, skinny bottom. Maybe I need to be more clever with Procedural Fairings to make the rocket body as thick as the payload? I can post pics if need be. Thanks in advance.

No idea about deadly reentry, but I've managed to launch some fairly ridiculous things with FAR installed. I find that with the more ungainly stuff you need to be very careful on your gravity turn; don't even think about approaching 45° pitch until you're well out of the lower atmosphere or the top-heavy drag will mess you up, and pitch over very gradually when you do.

You can make up some of the loss of the delayed gravity turn by making the circularisation burn a smooth part of the launch. Once you're up into the almost-zero drag stratosphere, even unruly rockets can be set to 0° pitch without much problem. Just hold the "time to apoapsis" at about 10 seconds until you've got your periapsis above 70k.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Wanderfound

[tetryds]

not-quite-vertical rudders should probably be set for yaw and roll.

Yes, that is true, you can set more commands for several controls, like using elevons.

But I heavily discourage you to set rudders to yaw and roll if you are going faster than Mach 0.8 (sometimes even at 0.5 it can be catastrophic, literally).

The best thing is not touch yaw, leave a bit of control there for the SAS, but you don't really need it when piloting on your own.

What I mean is put the rudders for aerodynamic purposes, but don't really use them.

[DaMichel]

There is nothing stopping you from building a "wide body" launcher. Ofc it must be aerodynamically stable. But with the help of some fins this is manageable.

Here are two ships i launched with FAR

http://imgur.com/a/gm6SJ#0

http://imgur.com/a/6IOXJ#0

Edit: Yeah i'm a fan of liberal addition of wing pieces. See what i did to the Eve Lander. It has kind of the tear drop shape you mention. Sure those things may not be efficient but this is not relevant if you have enough thrust and fuel.

Ferram himself once made a very impressive 5000t launcher for RSS. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55145-0-23-WIP-Alpha-Real-Solar-System-v5-5-KSP23-fix-12-23-13?p=982643&viewfull=1#post98264

Edited August 18, 2014 by DaMichel

[Hodo]

Here is a quick wing construction tutorial for FAR that I whipped up in about 15minutes using Procedural Wings.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I did this on a scratch built craft modeled after the Su-17, because it was the most interesting simple wing design I could come up with in a short amount of time. Hope this helps people.

[CarnivorousWalnut]

I'm having an issue with this mod. It occasionally lets me play the game, but most of the times I try to load a save, it crashes my game on the loading screen. I can get through all of the menus just fine, but when it tries to load a save, it tends to crash. I have better luck loading up a save with fewer active flights before loading up my main because this somehow makes it load more successfully. I have no problems once everything loads up, but not being able to start in general is pretty irksome.

[Hodo]

I'm having an issue with this mod. It occasionally lets me play the game, but most of the times I try to load a save, it crashes my game on the loading screen. I can get through all of the menus just fine, but when it tries to load a save, it tends to crash. I have better luck loading up a save with fewer active flights before loading up my main because this somehow makes it load more successfully. I have no problems once everything loads up, but not being able to start in general is pretty irksome.

I am going to tell you what Ferram is going to say.

Can't do anything without an Output.log.

[Beetlecat]

I've done some digging, but I can't figure out what's up.

I seem to have lost my tweakable controls for control surfaces (pitch/roll/yaw toggle) when in flight/outside the SPH. I do see a stall%, and the flap adjustment buttons if that surface is set to a flap, but non of the other mounted surfaces (stock or not) have the pitch/roll/yaw toggle. All is normal in the SPH though, and FAR seems to function fine otherwise.

Am I missing a config somewhere?

Everything seems to be in the right place, and I have only one module manager.

Thanks.

[ferram4]

@CarnivorousWalnut: I just attempt to reproduce this issue given your reproduction steps (simply load a save) and was unable to. Also, without a list of mods or a copy of the full output_log.txt, I have no way to even tell what is happening. Further, if you are using KSP win64, then any issues are likely due to its inherent instabilities and cannot be confirmed to be related to any mod until it is reproduced in an x86 build.

@Beetlecat: No, that is correct behavior. This is because control linkages between control surfaces and the appropriate control systems cannot be magically created or destroyed in flight as needed. Once the plane is designed, its control surfaces do X until it's brought back into the hangar for maintenance.