totm july 2020 Trans-Kerbin Airways - Regional Jet Challenge 2: Electric Boogaloo

[FahmiRBLX]

12 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

I found names that sound good in french but not in english.

It's worth giving a try. Aerospatiale shared the same luck. Pretty much.

12 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

Two years ago, for Kerbal Express Airlines, I went with Bored/Blind Aircraft Facilities (BAF) which is an industrial complex made of smaller company like SpaceUp (SUp) for space related things, Repurposed Military Cargo aircraft (RMCa) for military looking planes, Grand Airliner Production (GAP) for more standard design, Some Inverted Concept (SIC) for weird or unusual stuff, Sea Proof (SP) when water related, for my first submission for TKA; Lords Rogue Engineers (LoRE) for the most extreme stuff and some more I've forget.

While I want to clean that mess, I don't want to throw away the background, like Sea Proof having been bought by RMCa.

Sounds legit to me. What about one name, which'll be the 'parent company', like how the general public referred almost all of Airbus? This could be the name the judges refer your submissions with.

Spoiler

Actually forgot to think about my own divisions, though I'm still thinking for an original name. Here's what I've came up with:

• Commercial = Frontinco Civillian Aircraft Division
• Military = Frontinco-Froc^[1] Defense Systems Group
• Space = Frontinco Space Hardware & Launch Vehicles Division
• Cars & Boats (which will only be challenge-limited) = Frontinco Autos & Marines Company

[1] "Froc" is the precursor of Frontinco which I've started back when I played SimplePlanes. As the merger-result suggests, I've made mostly military planes in SimplePlanes and only 2 or 3 civillian planes, all but one of which is pretty much General Aviation with 4 engines on 2 nacelles, another is an island-hopper 'airliner' & one is a pseudo-Airbus A330 with 4 engines one 2 pylons that turned out to be very heavy & laggy for my former Compaq Presario V3000. I'll recreate those in KSP when I have time & will to.

 

[Mathrilord]

13 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Sounds legit to me.

Fine then I'll keep going with Blind/Bored Aircraft Facilities

 

Btw... did he skipped my plane?

[FahmiRBLX]

21 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

Fine then I'll keep going with Blind/Bored Aircraft Facilities

It's up to you. You may use the names of other branches when submitting in a military plane challenge thread (or other challenges thread) or simply the Spacecraft Exchange.

21 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

Btw... did he skipped my plane?

I hope not. Mine's also not yet reviewed. So we're caught in a backlog.

EDIT: But they seem to miss @hempa2's Bumba BA-1 & @TheGoldenSoldier's Airtrain 737. I believe they also skipped your HST Mk-8, right? But I'm assuming they have some sort of a spreadsheet where one will review a plane, so the other one is taken by another judge, and considering those judges didn't post in order by submission send-time, hence the skip.

Anyway @HolidayTheLeek the exam is still on? What's that exam? And can you shed us light on how submissions are actually handled, like is there a spreadsheet like aforementioned or what?

Edited July 6, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[Maxorin]

8 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

So we're caught in a backlog.

We do have a small one, which we're trying to clear.

7 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

But I'm assuming they have some sort of a spreadsheet where one will review a plane, so the other one is taken by another judge, and considering those judges didn't post in order by submission send-time, hence the skip.

That's right, we do have a 'claiming system' of sorts, where judges will take on the planes. It just so happens that the ones up in the queue are taken, so I took the next available. Don't worry, I'll wrestle with them to get to it.

7 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

And can you shed us light on how submissions are actually handled, like is there a spreadsheet like aforementioned or what?

It's just a series of messages on Discord. The judge who wants to take a plane with react with a symbol of sorts and 'claim' it. There's no inherent spreadsheet.

[Nantares]

On 7/4/2020 at 1:19 PM, FahmiRBLXian said:

abbreviated names are good if the 'long name' stands for words that exist as a legit English word (or a word kmown by the 'general' public)

N.A.N.I Inc. is  an acronym for "Nantares Aerospace Novelistic Invention" because most of my craft is a fighter jets and X-planes

[Commodore_32]

Alrighty, the new DDR-ISSRJ2 Is now released, fixing most of the flaws stated in the test.

New features:

- Redesigned, bigger wing.

- Smaller control surfaces.

- More stable and maneuverable

- Engines re-positioned, allowing more range.

- Body control surfaces to increase aerodinamic design.

- Front canards to increase pitch stability.

- Tailstrike wheel moved up since we needed slightly more pitch for takeoff

- Rotate speed is now 65m/s

- Stall speed is 70m/s

- Brakes are strong enough that mostly the plane doesnt need reverse thrust.

I hope that the modifications fix all the flaws, and maybe makes the plane better.

https://kerbalx.com/Commodore_Gamer118/DDR-ISSRJ2

Edited July 6, 2020 by Commodoregamer118

[FahmiRBLX]

6 hours ago, Commodoregamer118 said:

Alrighty, ...

Am I the only one feeling like this came out straight from Swiss001?

[Maxorin]

Test Pilot Review: [@Mathrilord's LoRE HST-3-8 Missile]    Long Haul, Low Capacity

(Pictured: The HST-3-8 Missile in subsonic flight)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21 644 000
• Fuel: 440kal
• Cruising speed: 1700m/s
• Cruising altitude: 25000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07kal/s
• Range: 10000km

Review Notes:

On first glance, the plane appeared to be very sleek, fitted with an engine that was uncommon in the civilian sector. Indeed, while it looked like a typical small plane, there were a number of features that stood out. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the plane was the lack of a visible cockpit-the only thing that stood out was a small camera on the nose of the plane. We later learnt that this small camera was the pilots' only view out of the plane, which admittedly did scare them a bit.

Nonetheless, they agreed to take the plane for a spin. Just like its name, the Missile performed like a…missile. At full throttle, the plane accelerated very quickly, reaching its takeoff speed of 85m/s, a bit higher than stated, in 800m. Our pilots did have a concern that excessive pitching could lead to a tailstrike on the engine, although in regular situations this would be unlikely.

Once in the air, our pilots performed the standard control check, noting that the plane had very good handling in all 3 axes. In fact, they even managed to sideslip the plane 40 degrees without causing it to spin out. Furthermore, the airframe managed to withstand a force of 46Gs, which was very impressive. As per its manual, the plane rocketed up to its cruising speed and altitude very quickly, in only 120km and with 300kal of fuel remaining. Also true to its name was the speed at which it cruised: a blinding 1700m/s. This was the fastest plane TKA has received so far. Not to mention, it had an incredible calculated range of more than 10000km.

When it was time to land, the speedbrakes helped to slow the missile down from its hypersonic trip. Our pilots expected the plane to have a high landing speed due to its low wing loading. However, it managed to land at 65m/s, which was a bit slower than expected. That being said, it was at this moment when things started to go a bit wrong. The wheels started to bounce on touchdown which caused some instability in the plane. In fact, it started to skid and spring off the ground. This did catch our pilots off guard, and a later inspection found that the auto-spring and auto-damper systems were the culprits. We recommend having a set value for the springs and dampers to avoid such an incident again.

In emergency situations, the sleek aerodynamic design allows the plane to retain its speed very well, although its single engine design could be a cause for concern in the redundancy sector. The plane also handled extremely well for water ditchings, with no damage whatsoever.

 

The Verdict:

It's relatively cheap and lightning fast. The passenger count, lacking at a mere 16, could limit the Missile to niche luxury trips, aided by the speed of the plane. Maintenance-wise, it's quite a charm, not requiring much at all. The new cockpit arrangement could require some extra training to operate safety. Most importantly, the part that requires some redesign is the landing gears' springiness.

All in all, it's quite a good plane with few flaws. TKA will take 5 for its luxury or time-sensitive trips, with an additional 3 if it's popular with the people.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Maxorin

[Mathrilord]

9 hours ago, Maxorin said:

At full throttle, the plane accelerated very quickly, reaching its takeoff speed of 85m/s, a bit higher than stated, in 800m.

Most importantly, the part that requires some redesign is the landing gears' springiness.

According to the flight manual you should start at half throttle for lower takeoff speed. You can alse unlock the engine gimbal for even lower takeoff speed but be careful to avoid a tailstrike.

Our engineers are already working on enhancing the landing gears behavior.

Something to notice, the two ram intakes are useless but if we remove them the plane become less stable.

edit: Thanks for reviewing

edit: With 26 aircrafts almost ready for submission which one will be next...

Edited July 7, 2020 by Mathrilord

[Servo]

On 6/14/2020 at 2:30 PM, TheGoldenSoldier said:

https://kerbalx.com/Pr3d4tingPilot/Airtrain-737

Test Pilot Review: @TheGoldenSoldier's AirTrain 737

Figures As Tested:

• Price: 400,000,000
• Fuel:  14,600 units
• Cruising speed: 230m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5.5-6.0km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.87 k/s 
• Passengers Carried: 144
• Range: 3300km

Review Notes

There have been many attempts by TKA to find a good long-haul, medium-capacity airliner, but the design challenges have made it a tough nut to crack. With that in mind, our Test Pilots were quite eager to give this newest prototype from AirTrain's commercial division a test flight. The first thing they noticed walking out to this behemoth was the imposing profile it cuts. The design is unmistakable: a long, slender body with a high-mounted cockpit and wing, with a pair of super-powerful high-efficiency turbofans. In a world of low-winged airliners, AirTrain's submission is a bold rejection of the status quo, something that our marketing division is quite looking forwards to pushing.

After the (admittedly long) climb up into the cockpit, our ace test pilots Val and Bill sat in the cockpit for the first time for real. They were immediately impressed by the space-age cockpit internals, and even more so with the panoramic view that their height afforded. Bill was quite enthusiastic -  "it's like we're already flying!", he said, waving at the ground crew blow. The taxi tests were a breeze - the wide-placed landing gear and independent engine throttles made ground handling quite easy. They only thing in particular to note was that the turning radius could be a little too tight, with the tail coming precariously close to certain support infrastructure. That disaster avoided, Bill and Val taxied to the runway and began the checklist for takeoff.

Despite its size, the AirTrain 737 is extremely simple to fly, and the pilot's manual reflects this. "All we have to do is throttle up? This thing is easier to fly than my Aeris 3A!" It wouldn't be quite as easy as expected though, as the crew found out that if they were too enthusiastic about pitching up, tailstrikes were a possibility. With a certain degree of caution, this is no major issue, but it is something that TKA would like to see fixed in any production version. Once again avoiding a near-disaster, the two lifted off at a cool 65m/s ("for such a big plane it sure likes to fly") and pointed the nose skyward to begin the low-speed handling and perform some touch-and-goes to build familiarity before taking it out on a long range-testing leg.

Val had been feeling cooped up after moving to TKA after a long career as a fighter pilot, but she seemed to laugh with glee at the controls in a way that frankly concerned Bill greatly. The concern was rapidly validated as she took advantage of the AirTrain's extreme roll and yaw control to pull into series of barrel rolls that would make a certain test pilot in an alternate universe extremely proud. Despite this, she did note that the pitch authority was average at best, and despite the massive engines the aircraft's bulk made it so that turns were quite sluggish, taking a long time to complete the two 180 degree turns required to do a takeoff-approach-land cycle. However, once around, landing was extremely easy - the massive wing resulted in extremely low approach and stall speeds. This, combined with the powerful brakes on the main gear made for a very forgiving aircraft to land. Later testing in overwater ditching proved that doing so safely was a breeze, with acceptable glideslopes at even full fuel, and a final stall speed of below 50m/s. Additionally, the aircraft proved resilient to thrust losses, as it is able to maintain airspeed and heading with a significant reduction of engine output.

With the low-speed and approach testing done, Val and Bill once again throttled up and took off for the range test. Val expected the aircraft to climb well thanks to to massive wing, and in the initial climbout it exceeded climb rates of 50m/s with ease, shooting up to 1km altitude, but once the engines began to lose thrust at altitude, the climb rate suffered. At 2km and climbing at 20m/s , Bill wondered how long it would take to reach the manufacturer's recommended altitude of nearly 8km. As Val struggled to get the aircraft over 5.5km, Bill looked over the charts again and noted that while the theoretical maximum range was achieved at 200m/s at 7.7km, a sligtly lower, yet still acceptable range could be reached by flying at 230m/s at 6km. Given that the 737 didn't want to climb much higher than 6000m anyway, it was decided that this was an acceptable test point, as it still resulted in a 3,300km range with the slightly higher speed making up for the reduction.

Verdict

Initially, the 230m/s speed at altitude seemed like a win for the scheduling and sales department, who were having a hard time pitching the sluggish 200m/s giant to customers and planning the long-duration flights that the airframe would endure; however, a comparison against competing airliners showed between 10%-30% speed gap between the AirTrain and its competitors. According to our budgeting department, the difference in a 4.5 hour cross-kerbin flight and a 3 hour one adds a significant crew cost, maintnenance cost, a reduction in passengers-per-day, and customer satisfaction. Additionally, while the high wing gives the airliner a distinct profile, it increases the noise in the otherwise highly comfortable cabin significantly, which is a major concern for TKA's long-distance customers. Because of these factors it is unlikely that the AirTrain 737 will find a home in TKA's regularly-scheduled passenger fleet in its current iteration.

That said, our ground crews were checking out some of the panels on the aircraft and found a pair of extremely spacious cargo bays in the front and rear of the passenger section. They reckon that if these bays were expanded so that the aircraft can handle an equal mix of cargo and passengers, the 737's extreme range and efficient cruising would make it an excellent member of TKA's cargo fleet, parts of which are contracted to bring personell and supplies to Kerbin's remotest research stations. The long range, high capacity, and short-field capability exhibited in this prototype indicate to our research team that the airframe would make an excellent replacement for our aging fleet of Combis and dedicacted cargo-haulers.

[FahmiRBLX]

21 minutes ago, Servo said:

Now I can finally appreciate how beautiful the Airtrain 737 is. @TheGoldenSoldier make a low-wing one, I'm sure it'll look a lot better.

[Mathrilord]

Blind/Bored Aircraft Facilities

 

Lord's Rogue Engineers and Sea Proof are here to show you the ultimate subsonic airliner.

The LoRE-SP DF-2-4 BiCloud, long-haul, high capacity, flying boat

Can go everywhere!

Stat

Cruise: 251 m/s @ 4000m
Fuel consumption: - 0.05 kal/s lf and 0.06 kal/s ox
Range: 14400 km
Takeoff speed: 59 m/s on land and 85 m/s on water
Landing speed: 46 m/s
Cost: 400,834,000 dry + 2,938,000 for fuel
Weight: full 163.720t and empty 131.720t
Fuel: lf: 2880 kal 14.4t ,ox: 3520 kal 17.6t
Seat: 2 pilots, 344 passengers  (192, 40, 112)

Download

 

Variants:

Here are some extreme exemple of possible variation allowed by the catamaran design. We should warn you that above 200t water takeoff is still possible but to be avoided as it can lead to dangerous situation.(Above 200t you need to pitch down and up to bounce on water and pitching down too much can break the aircraft) This give you 34t to spend on whatever upgrade you may want to fit under the central section as long as it doesn't shift the center of mass too much and is solidly fix in place. The following are just exemple, you could simply add 56 seats for 15t and 8,400,000 with 14 mk1 crew cabin and still be Sea Proof!

Spoiler

LoRE-SP DF-2-4c BiCloud, long-haul, high capacity, cargo/combi

Tested with 70t payload

Cruise: 232 m/s @ 2500m
Fuel consumption: - 0.06 kal/s lf and 0.07 kal/s ox
Range: 11100 km
Takeoff speed: 76 m/s on land and 77 m/s on water (avoid above 200t)
Landing speed: 68 m/s
Cost: 409,807,000 dry + 2,938,000 for fuel
Weight: full 177.710t and empty 145.710t and 247.810t with fuel and payload
Fuel: lf: 2880 kal 14.4t ,ox: 3520 kal 17.6t
Seat: 2 pilots, 344 passengers  (192, 40, 112)
Payload: 70t

note: soft landing required, tailstrike IS possible.

Dowload preloaded with 70t payload

 

 

LoRE-SP DF-2-4pp BiCloud, long-haul, very high capacity

That's a lot of test subject!

Cruise: 236 m/s @ 2600m
Fuel consumption: - 0.05 kal/s lf and 0.06 kal/s ox
Range: 13500 km
Takeoff speed: 75 m/s on land and 86 m/s on water (avoid)
Landing speed: 58 m/s
Cost: 536,097,000 dry + 2,938,000 for fuel
Weight: full 211.345t and empty 179.345t
Fuel: lf: 2880 kal 14.4t ,ox: 3520 kal 17.6t
Seat: 2 pilots, 504 passengers  (288, 40, 176)

Download

 

DF-2-4p (sub 200t)
Seat: 440

DF-2-4ppp (above 250t)
Seat: 568

DF-2-4pfc
+seat
+fuel
+cargo

...

 

Flight manual

• Details for each version included in their description.
• Throttle is only use to turn on/off the engine. Speed is controled by changing the angle of propellers blades with up/down translation axis. 
  I highly recommend pinning the action-menu of one prop blade to easily see its angle like shown in DF-2-4c picture.
• !!!!!!!!!DO NOT FORGET TO TURN ON THE POWER PACK WITH ACTION GROUP 5!!!!!!!!!
• In engine out operation, manually setting the inoperative engine at an angle of 0 will reduce its drag.
• At around +90 you can reverse, do not attempt in flight
• To slow down on the runway set prop to -90 
• You can use action group 1 and 4 to toggle brake on engine to turn faster on the ground and on water.
• If you never flew with a true prop engine and don't know how to manage the blades angle, then the best way to learn is to try

 

Normally this kind of aircraft would have been done by those guys from S.I.C. but they struggle to get funds after the flop of their latest "Inverted Concept". What were they thinking, replacing fuel pod by crew cabins pod, of course there would be concerns for safety. Meanwhile we still managed to sell a plane that fly fast enough to melt aluminium...

The BiCloud pronounce be-cloud handle well, not fast, at all speed. The c.o.m. could have been closer to the c.o.l. but it induce reaction from the plane that require more complex management of the engine and with Jebediah Kerman as a valid test pilot our engineers decided to stay away from these potential trouble. It won't stop you from reliably pulling the softest landing in the galaxy.
 

 

A piece of knowledge:

Based on my observation. In ksp rotor's torque is constant regardless of the rpm (perfect motor), but electric consumption depends on both torque and rpm (torque x rpm = ec = work). For every propeller design there is, for a given altitude and speed, an ideal configuration of blade pitch and rpm(get very high) to get maximum thrust and minimum torque (opposed to the engine).The problem is that even if your propeller opposed less resistance than the torque of your rotor, it won't spin faster than the 460 hard limit (unless you use some exploit). The thing is that the torque produce by the rotor won't reduce to match what it needs, wasting lot of electric charge.

I'll take the DF-2-4 as an exmple: at 4000m its maximum speed of 256.something m/s is achieve with prop-45 and the maxium fuel consumption of 0.07&0.09 (range: 10,000 km). At a lower angle(like -50 because negative number) speed decrease but fuel consumption stay the same (less efficient). At higher angle speed decrease and fuel consumption decrease too but much faster (better efficiency) the maximum angle to sustain flight being around -38 -37. This is like a transfer window, it disappear above 5000m and below 2000m(not sure for this one). It range depends on your craft. I have one that extend above 7000m and another one that doesn't have this "efficiency window" DF-2-4c at 300t. 

Luckily, fuel cells does scale their fuel consumption with you ec usage.

 

Gallery

Spoiler

DF-1-3 Pterox
An SSTO with a 100t payload, 20 rapier, 6 vector and 2 aerospike

 

DF-3-2
A SSTO with a 17t payload

 

DF-3-3 MiniCloud
Heavily modified for passenger, didn't pass quality check.

 

? UniCloud
Mid-air collision can have good side... Fly well but it's a nightmare to land.

 

DF-0-?
Forever lost in computer backup...

 

DF-2-1 BiCloud (DF-2-2, DF-2-3, all look the same)
Can do stunts!

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

On 7/6/2020 at 6:03 PM, Maxorin said:

It's just a series of messages on Discord. The judge who wants to take a plane with react with a symbol of sorts and 'claim' it. There's no inherent spreadsheet.

My submission's post is an all-image (with embedded link and yes, all pictures are clickable [and there's a ****roll in the contact info segment]). Does that count as a submission that will end up on the 'claiming system'?

[Mathrilord]

@FahmiRBLXian

Don't worry I passed first because he likes speed! XD

edit: Probably, the guy who pick your submission still want to do it.

edit2: I love your bug

Edited July 8, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

edit2: I love your bug

Well it's a cockroach. I've got it here as a Bröthër on Reddit.

EDIT: Reddit username, u/FahmiRBLX

Edited July 8, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[FahmiRBLX]

2 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

 

Try taking its picture from the side like how @Servo did it, use Alt+Mousewheel to reduce the FOV and it'll look a lot more beautiful.

Not hesitating, just giving tips.

[Mathrilord]

Why I submit plane for TKA? Because I got triggered:

On 5/11/2020 at 12:44 AM, Box of Stardust said:

You want to know something? People are bad at building planes.

[Mathrilord]

I'll keep doing this in my submission, sharing "A piece of knowledge". 

• The HST was about surviving long hypersonic flight.
• BiCloud is about using electric prop engine efficiently.

What will the next one be about...

• Wing angle of incidence and engine offset with a concorde-like craft.
• Building trick for structural integrity of very long fuselage with my srb airliner. (well I just spoiled the astuce XD)
• Prop configuration if I decide to experiment more with them.
• ...any idea?

I won't go in jet efficiency because my conclusion will always be go supersonic+++ wheesley 600m/s+(goliath the same but too much drag), panther 800m/s+(900? I'm not good with this engine), whiplash 1400m/s+, rapier 1700m/s+ and as high as possible.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

...any idea?

Make a freakishly long airliner with a Mk3 fuselage and see how noodly it will be. Rules, maximum 4 engines.

^{I was trying to make a comment as cursed as possible but then it ended up as a gang war provoke.}

^{EDIT: Goliaths for propulsion only.}

Edited July 9, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[Mathrilord]

10 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Make a freakishly long airliner with a Mk3 fuselage and see how noodly it will be. Rules, maximum 4 engines.

^{I was trying to make a comment as cursed as possible but then it ended up as a gang war provoke.}

^{EDIT: Goliaths for propulsion only.}

It works?!?!!!!!!!!!!!! First try! Takeoff, flight and landing!

I didn't use goliath because it wouldn't go pass 8 m/s. 30 mk3 passenger modules.

length: 125.3m      cost 1,101,305,000       weight 251.211t        seats: 3 pilots, 720 passengers (720, 0, 0)

fuel: 720 lf    880 ox

cruise 101.3 m/s @ 500m 0.04kal/s lf  0.04-5 kal/s ox  range 1800 km

edit: look at Jebediah face XD

edit2: fly quite well, one thing special with it is that you can only turn with yaw. Land well too.

edit3: can land and takeoff from water!

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

3 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

It works?!?!!!!!!!!!!!! First try! Takeoff, flight and landing!

In the same time I was trying to learn your language. Spanish right?

Anyway,

• Ergol liquide = Liquid Fuel
• Charge életrique = Electric Charge
• Oxydant = Oxidizer
• Monergol = Monopropellant
• [Not gonna translate the whole screen, I have no enough time to]

3 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

I didn't use goliath because it wouldn't go pass 8 m/s. 30 mk3 passenger modules.

So [how many blades are there per motor?]-blade eProp provides better acceleration, right? At the cost of speed?

Edited July 10, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[Mathrilord]

@FahmiRBLXian Its french, I'm from Quebec.

My XL Fan have 24 blades.

I don't know much about the stock turboshaft engine, I skip it because it wasn't powerful enough for my needs. Also using rotor and fuel cell cost more but seems more efficient. (rotor is more draggy too)

For Jet vs eProp yes eProp provide better acceleration for a lower top speed and generally lower optimal altitude but also better speed control as prop are very good airbrakes.

For the number of blades... (Need to experiment a bit more) More blades means better performance BUT more instability. The mk3 noodle above can't go faster than 115 m/s with four engine because they are at front of the plane. Look at the thrust direction of the prop here:

This means that if your prop is at the front it will amplify your angle of attack (difference between your orientation and air flow direction). It's like high wing and low wing. Prop at the front= less stable, prop at the rear= more stable, and more your prop have blades more the effect can be wild.

I haven't encounter this situation yet but too many blades might be possible.

edit:Also you need two counter-rotating prop if you want to use SAS

I do have a plane with 4 electric prop which go above 300m/s but that's the maximum.

edit2: while ergol isn't wrong, in french we say for liquid fuel, essence or carburant

edit3: the v2 of the mk3 noodle have only 2 engine and fly faster

Edited July 10, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

51 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

My XL Fan have 24 blades.

I don't know much about the stock turboshaft engine, I skip it because it wasn't powerful enough for my needs. Also using rotor and fuel cell cost more but seems more efficient. (rotor is more draggy too)

For Jet vs eProp yes eProp provide better acceleration for a lower top speed and generally lower optimal altitude but also better speed control as prop are very good airbrakes.

For the number of blades... (Need to experiment a bit more) More blades means better performance BUT more instability. The mk3 noodle above can't go faster than 115 m/s with four engine because they are at front of the plane. Look at the thrust direction of the prop here:

This means that if your prop is at the front it will amplify your angle of attack (difference between your orientation and air flow direction). It's like high wing and low wing. Prop at the front= less stable, prop at the rear= more stable, and more your prop have blades more the effect can be wild.

I haven't encounter this situation yet but too many blades might be possible.

edit:Also you need two counter-rotating prop if you want to use SAS

I do have a plane with 4 electric prop which go above 300m/s but that's the maximum.

edit2: while ergol isn't wrong, in french we say for liquid fuel, essence or carburant

edit3: the v2 of the mk3 noodle have only 2 engine and fly faster

I usually have two sets of eProps & Turboshafts clipped into each other (and put a Juno at the end of the nacelle) to make a High RPM, High Energy, High Thrust, (rather) High Speed Turboprop.

I usually put up to 8 blades per one set of Turboshaft & eRotor (8 blades on every of the 8 nodes of the TS rotor which is placed at the end of an EM-64 Heavy Rotor. Fuel Cell included but not on the rotor). Depends whether I'm using the Ducted Fan blades or the regular propeller blades (both at the longest length).

[Mathrilord]

Drag rudders seem impossible in ksp

(what control yaw on flying wing, like airbrakes that actually works...)

[Maxorin]

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

Drag rudders seem impossible in ksp

(what control yaw on flying wing, like airbrakes that actually works...)

Hi I'm gonna shamelessly promote my B-2 Spirit. Airliners are not the only things I make.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Maxorin