Long Distance Plane

[Hoonter]

Hi. I'm relatively new to KSP and I need to build my first long distance sub-orbital plane. I.e. I need to reach to the other side of the planet and come back. I was wondering if I can do that with the current state of technology I researched and if so, how do I go about building such a plane? I've built one somewhat stable plane, but I'm still very bad at it, to the point where I can barely make a plane that doesn't just drive off the runway. So any help regarding creation of planes would be much appreciated.

[Serenity]

1 hour ago, Hoonter said:

Hi. I'm relatively new to KSP and I need to build my first long distance sub-orbital plane. I.e. I need to reach to the other side of the planet and come back. I was wondering if I can do that with the current state of technology I researched and if so, how do I go about building such a plane? I've built one somewhat stable plane, but I'm still very bad at it, to the point where I can barely make a plane that doesn't just drive off the runway. So any help regarding creation of planes would be much appreciated.

Just an tip, you can also build a ''normal'' plane and use Physical Warp to travel faster without going sub-orbital.Alt+. is the button, test to see how fast each craft can go, you can also use this for long burns in orbit.

If you want to stay stock and your plane keeps turning a bit to the right or the nose is going down you can use Trim.

To use Trim you disable SAS and you hold Alt+W/S/A/D to adjust it.

You can also use Precision controls, i think Caps Lock is the default key, not sure.

If you dont mind a bit of mods, here is a nice mod for flying smoother+autopilot that works really well even with physical warp

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Boyster

[bewing]

You can fairly easily build a plane that goes halfway around the planet and back on one tank of fuel (effectively a circumnavigation). The more important question is -- what do you need to do on the other side of the planet?

1. You want to go to the Badlands to collect biome science.

2. You have a survey contract that is either low altitude, or on the surface.

3. You have a high altitude survey contract.

1 & 2 are fairly easy with the tech you have, but the flight will take a long time. There is no way to do #3 without a Panther engine. You can get a panther engine from a "test" contract, without needing to actually purchase the technology -- because it is in the next higher tech node that you haven't unlocked yet.

The best engine for a low-altitude trip will be a single wheesley. You only want to use MK1 parts, because they have very low drag for their capacity. You will want the MK1 Command Pod for your pilot, because it is lightweight and low drag (remove the monoprop fuel from the pod when you build the plane). One small circular intake is fine, 800 to 1200 units of fuel in your fuselage, and I highly recommend a canard-wing design using tailfins for your canards. The type B modular wings are probably your smartest choices for wing parts.

The next big problem is your landing gear. I would highly recommend delaying your mission until you have the small retractable landing gear. Either by purchasing the tech node, or getting the gear from a "test" contract. The starting Cessna landing gear is not rated for the mass of the plane you would need to do this mission.

 

 

[Hoonter]

13 minutes ago, Boyster said:

Just an tip, you can also build a ''normal'' plane and use Physical Warp to travel faster without going sub-orbital.

 

Right, sorry. I messed up a bit. When I said "sub-orbital" I meant not going into orbital height. More specifically I'm trying to make a long-distance plane that can reach 15k meters tops. So I was wondering what type of engine can get me halfway around the world and back, how much weight it should have, the type of wings. That sort of thing. The trim and precision controls sound useful, I'll be sure to play around with them to see what they do.

As for mods, I'm trying to avoid them because I want to explore the game in its vanilla state before I start messing around. Thanks for the recommendation though, I'll be sure to keep it in mind.

[jimmymcgoochie]

A pretty simple design will cover the distance pretty easily, but getting back again might be a bit more challenging.

Try this:

Circular intake (1.25m edition) > Mk1 in-line cockpit > Mk1 LF fuselage > Wheesley jet engine. Keep your wings relatively narrow to reduce drag- a canard design with the main wings towards the rear would be better than the main wings towards the front- and keep the mass low to get more range; if you’re taking a payload of science equipment or batteries etc. then put them inside a 1.25m service bay to shield them from drag.

[swjr-swis]

On 8/20/2020 at 11:12 AM, Hoonter said:

I'm relatively new to KSP and I need to build my first long distance sub-orbital plane. I.e. I need to reach to the other side of the planet and come back. I was wondering if I can do that with the current state of technology I researched and if so, how do I go about building such a plane?

On 8/20/2020 at 12:36 PM, Hoonter said:

More specifically I'm trying to make a long-distance plane that can reach 15k meters tops. So I was wondering what type of engine can get me halfway around the world and back, how much weight it should have, the type of wings. That sort of thing.

The unlocked tech level you show is not an obstacle, you have all the parts you may need to achieve this, and you don't need any mods - pure stock will do. You don't mention your facility levels, but it's quite possible even staying within the 30 part limit (and you shouldn't even come close to the 18t limit). The limited part selection means you'll have a few less than ideal parts and it may not be 'pretty', but it can still be done.

3-4 Junos can do it, or a single Wheesley - pick whatever you prefer or what you are more familiar with. The Wheesley will generally require less parts in total, but it's possible with Junos too. Regardless of your choice, I would suggest using the Engine Nacelle as intake. You can place it inline on the main body with fore and aft nodes closed and it will still provide ample air to any engine setup you pick in a very drag-minimal way. As a bonus, it adds 150 units of LF which is at least half of what you should need.

Keep the plane as light as you can for what you need to do, as the landing gear you have are easily the most 'risky' parts. I would suggest using the Mk1 Inline Cockpit either in front or after the engine nacelle (depending on how you balance the fuel), it's the best compromise between weight and drag. A service bay to place your science instrument(s) in is advisable. The goal is minimal drag so your plane can cruise supersonic, which will help it get high and save fuel on the long trip. It's quite possible to get Mach 1.7 with the Junos or Mach 1.8 with the Wheesley with what you have at your disposal.

Give it enough main wing area so it can cruise between 13-14km, but don't go overboard as wing area also adds drag that will fight the plane in the transsonic regime; if you stay around 5-6 tonnes, about 1-1.5 lift area per wing should be good. The somewhat prettier Swept Wing can be used, but be aware they offer a less than optimal lift to weight ratio. If you pick the Wheesley, keep in mind that its thrust fades very quickly once over 14km, so its optimal cruising altitude is likely to be slightly below that.

The placement of the wings, contrary to what some believe, is completely irrelevant - the KSP physics model quite simply does not care. So place them in whatever manner that will make it easier to get CoL as close to CoM as possible.  What is VERY important though: use the rotate gizmo to give the main wings a bit of Angle of Attack - iow the leading edge should be slightly higher than the trailing one. This way your wings will generate lift for minimal added drag, while the plane's body can stay pointed prograde for a LOT less drag. When the rotate gizmo is set to angle snap, a single fine tick will add 5 degrees, which as a general rule of thumb tends to be close enough to optimal to not need to bother with any finer adjustment.

In contrast, I suggest to keep your control surfaces perfectly horizontal, even the ones on the wings (counter-rotate them after adding the wing incidence). If you pick the right wing parts, you won't need the relatively small additional lift of the control surfaces anyway, but it will help minimize drag and will make balancing CoL easier.

I don't know why you're being told to use canards - there's no need to, and a more traditional design tends to be easier/more intuitive to new players, so my advice would be to ignore that. Regular wing with a traditional tail is easily possible with what you have. I would suggest to dial down the authority limiter of all control surfaces. If you get CoL nicely aligned with CoM, this tiny size of plane doesn't need much and it will make flight and landing smoother and easier to control.

Do all the above, and you should be able to make do with 200-300 units of LF. That should be enough for a complete circumnavigation if need be, which at Mach 1.7-1.8 should take a bit over 2 hours game time.

Staying within your restrictions, I was able to make a 3x Juno, 29 part, 5t plane, and one with 1x Wheesley, 25 parts, 5.5t; both can do what you need. You only asked for advice so I won't post them yet, but if you run into a dead end and wish for some examples, ask and I can post you a download link.

 

[Serenity]

17 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

I don't know why you're being told to use canards - there's no need to, and a more traditional design tends to be easier/more intuitive to new players, so my advice would be to ignore that. Regular wing with a traditional tail is easily possible with what you have. I would suggest to dial down the authority limiter of all control surfaces. If you get CoL nicely aligned with CoM, this tiny size of plane doesn't need much and it will make flight and landing smoother and easier to control.

I always wondered why the community is so passionate against using canards.

I rarely use them but as a new player i really liked them, they helped me very much in early builds and sometimes i still fill the itch to use them here and there.

I just wish i could use them more without feeling this whole thing of my plane is wrong thats why i use canards 

[swjr-swis]

14 minutes ago, Boyster said:

I always wondered why the community is so passionate against using canards.

Really? I see them constantly used/suggested, which gives me quite the opposite impression.

[Serenity]

17 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Really? I see them constantly used/suggested, which gives me quite the opposite impression.

Well its been a while i watched, but you know the top Kerbal Streamers were very critical about canards, them and most of their viewers were very very against them.

They had valid reasons, that canards are the easy way out and stop you from solving the real problems,

 which makes sense but...at that point they got so much hate i was feeling weird to ever use them.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Boyster

[swjr-swis]

10 minutes ago, Boyster said:

the top Kerbal Streamers were very critical about canards, them and most of their viewers were very very against them.

That would explain our different perception - I don't watch or follow streams. My idea of 'The Community' is this forum and the KerbalX site.

My suggestion: don't let general perceptions or 'hate' bother you. Do what works, and let the results count.

[bewing]

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

I don't know why you're being told to use canards - there's no need to

Rear stabilizers work by pushing the back end of your plane down, constantly. This is very inefficient for flying (because you want lift), which is why Burt Rutan never used them. Canards work with your wings to always provide lift. Since the entire purpose of this plane is going to be maximally efficient distance flight, you can not afford to waste lift, and therefore fuel. Additionally, that increased lift makes for shorter takeoffs, softer landings, a higher top speed, and the innate ability to take off from water because you don't have to "rotate" to get airborne. A rear stabilizer design is literally always worse than the equivalent canard design.

Edited August 21, 2020 by bewing

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, bewing said:

Rear stabilizers work by pushing your plane down, constantly. This is very inefficient for flying (because you want lift), which is why Burt Rutan never used them. Since the entire purpose of this plane is going to be maximally efficient distance flight, you can not afford to waste lift, and therefore fuel. Additionally, that increased lift makes for shorter takeoffs, softer landings, a higher top speed, and the innate ability to take off from water because you don't have to "rotate" to get airborne. A rear stabilizer design is literally always worse than the equivalent canard design.

You are usually a good source of information, so it pains me to have to strongly disagree with your -at first glance very plausible-sounding, but incorrect- explanation. My 'inefficient' tail designs certainly do not work like that, nor suffer from the drawbacks you describe, and offer all the same benefits you sum up. If you can give me an example of a tail design that behaves the way you describe, I think I would be able to point out how to correct it, without requiring to change to a canard design.

In any case, it is somewhat ironic you say my design would be inefficient of all things, when you suggest needing 800-1200 units of LF to get around Kerbin and back with your canard proposal, where I just mentioned that a plane of my design would require 200-300 units. That's a factor 4 difference, and not quite in your favour.

I'm feeling the tingle of a challenge here. Care to build a canard plane limited by OP's restrictions, and pit it against one of my inefficient tail designs?  Full circumnavigation of Kerbin, parts limited to OP's tech tree.

"I have the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission, Dave." - famous last words
 

[bewing]

17 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

it is somewhat ironic you say my design would be inefficient of all things, when you suggest needing 800-1200 units of LF to get around Kerbin

Those numbers assume a newbie level of engineering, plus landing and taking off in the badlands, plus maybe using a panther engine with full afterburners. Of course someone with experience can do it for less.

And you are the one advocating for a traditional design. A traditional design has the horizontal stabilizers pushing down to create a passive stall recovery.

 

[swjr-swis]

6 minutes ago, bewing said:

Those numbers assume a newbie level of engineering, plus landing and taking off in the badlands, plus maybe using a panther engine with full afterburners. Of course someone with experience can do it for less.

And you are the one advocating for a traditional design. A traditional design has the horizontal stabilizers pushing down to create a passive stall recovery.

Personally, I see better results from instructing people like upcoming experts rather than like momentary newbies. The 'newbie' part tends to wear off when they try to apply the principles learned, maybe with a bit of trial and error and some faster than others. The OP indicates they already know the basics of plane design, and their choice of unlocked tech evidences awareness of what parts a plane needs. I feel it's safe to give the benefit of the doubt and expect them to be able to take off the training wheels. If not, they've already shown willingness to ask further questions and we can pick up from there.

To be clear: I'm not an aeronautical engineer. I have no training or experience in such matters. When I say traditional, what I mean is 'what I see used in most flying apparatuses'. I would literally use the word 'apparatuses' in that context. In fact, when I use any terms that might remotely sound like actual science or engineering, assume I am merely reproducing the words in roughly the same order as I have encountered them in aimless Wikipedia clicking or TV/movie watching. I won't be offended, honest - I'm quite aware of my lack of formal training in the matter. What I am is a KSP addict, and what I do have is a wee bit of experience with how KSP physics works and how to clunk parts together to achieve certain effects in the game. Clunking btw is the appropriate technical term.

That said, and at the risk of overstepping the boundaries of my knowledge, I feel the need to question. Are you absolutely certain about the way 'passive stall recovery' is supposed to work? As I understand it, stalling happens when either the airspeed drops or the main lift surfaces are over-pitched, to the point where either or both cause the airflow around the airfoil to no longer provide enough lift. Designing a plane so the passive reaction to a stall is to pitch up even more (pushing down on the tail will point the nose up, after all) seems extremely counterproductive in that situation, making the stall worse. The normal stall recovery reaction should be to pitch down to regain airspeed again and/or point back into the airflow. Pitching the nose down, for a traditional tail design, requires the control surface to push the tail up, which means adding lift, not downforce.

[Hotel26]

7 hours ago, bewing said:

A traditional design has the horizontal stabilizers pushing down to create a passive stall recovery.

The term "stall" has a nautical origin from sailing ship days and is simply a lack of "lift".  This can be due to no/little wind over the airfoil or due to exceeding the maximum (effective) angle-of-attack.  (You can stall a sail in a strong wind by hauling it "too close", or by tacking too close to the wind.)  Coincidentally, both sailplanes and sailing boats utilize little strings of wool to indicate airflow, but for different purposes.  On a sail, the wool flutters as (that part of) the sail reaches the stall.  (On a glider's windshield, it's the most accurate indication of how "balanced" the turn is: yaw with reference to airflow.)

The layman knows the term from a car that won't start but that has little to do with yachts or airplanes.  (Cars don't have airfoils.)

As a result, there are high-speed stalls in addition to low-speed stalls.

Airfoils "bend" the airflow, generating lift.  At the same time that the maximum, effective AoA is exceeded and lift quits, drag is headed north, square-ward (quadratically).

In a "passive stall recovery", there is little lift to speak of but, simultaneously, the empennage -- those massive tail feathers -- are providing automatic DRAG, BEHIND the center-of-gravity, thus centering the nose back near the AoA:0 point; quelling drag; allowing flying speed to rebuild -- and achieving that "passive" stall recovery.  All without the pilot's interference.

The problem for the pilot, suddenly looking directly down at the ground, is that the natural reaction is to "Pull Up".  The Instructor's duty, therefore, is to drum this notion out of the student pilot's head!  "Release pressure on the controls" to allow recovery.  Regain speed.  Then non-precipitously regain control of attitude (lest thee stall again).  Some altitude will be lost and the correct response (starting with "relax") will minimize that loss and, hopefully, avert disaster.  The training is intended to prepare the pilot to recognize and react properly to the situation in order to minimize reaction time in a possibly critical situation.

TL;DR: elevators do not use lift to produce down-force to raise the nose during a stall.  (There is no lift available!!)  They (and the whole empennage) provide drag to produce an "up"- (centralizing) force to lower the nose nearer to AoA:0 to "unstall" the wing.

Designers use one strategy, which is to have the tail QUIT producing lift (negative or positive) shortly before the wings, precisely to bring on the recovery in a way that swings the machine "into the wind", even though that is usually^[1] also downward.  Another technique is a wing shape that causes the inner chord to stall before the outer: thus the turbulence of stalled airflow causes a recognizable 'flutter' that jerks the pilot awake, preceding the onset of full stall).  Perhaps more importantly, the partial loss of lift causes the aircraft to sink, which is the first stage (not only of disaster but) of recovery.

[1] but centrifugally in a high-speed turn (which brings us next to "spins", a kind of asymmetric stall).

Edited August 22, 2020 by Hotel26

[bewing]

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Designing a plane so the passive reaction to a stall is to pitch up even more (pushing down on the tail will point the nose up, after all) seems extremely counterproductive in that situation, making the stall worse. The normal stall recovery reaction should be to pitch down to regain airspeed again and/or point back into the airflow. Pitching the nose down, for a traditional tail design, requires the control surface to push the tail up, which means adding lift, not downforce.

As Hotel26 said, in a near stall, all your control surfaces lose all their airflow, and therefore generate no force. If the tail is not generating any force, and it normally generates force to hold the nose up, then the nose falls. Which corrects the stall.

But think of it this way: you are flying along, and you decide you want to go up. So what needs to happen, if you have your control surfaces at the back? They have to push down, to raise your nose. Then your wings gain incidence and lift you up. If you extend the logic on that, you will see that your control surfaces end up always doing the opposite of what you want your wings to help you do. They are always fighting each other.

[jimmymcgoochie]

After building a traditional wings-forward plane for long-range flying, it occurred to me that the biggest reason for building a plane with canards and the main wings to the rear is that it almost guarantees your centre of lift will be behind your centre of mass, making the plane inherently stable while cruising in a way that a wings-forward plane is much less likely to replicate. Most of the planes I build are wings-rearward for that reason alone.

For shuttles and spaceplanes it also makes more sense to have the drag at the back to ensure the aircraft will stay pointing the right way when re-entering with a nose high attitude.

[Hotel26]

2 hours ago, bewing said:

As Hotel26 said, in a near stall, all your control surfaces lose all their airflow

Nope: past the critical angle, they lose lift; not airflow.  I do understand you possibly mean "smooth airflow" (and you may mean e.g. "elevators" specifically and not include the whole stabilizer), but my statements, anyway, only referred to Lift.  Drag becomes very important.

Nevertheless, I understand the argument you are making.  IF the CoL is behind the CoM (for stability), then the aircraft would tend to pitch down unless the tail pushes down against the fulcrum.  You could state this as the CoL being the pivot point (fulcrum) on a see-saw and the CoM is a heavy adult on the short end of the see-saw and the kid is out on the long tail section.

With a canard, the CoM is hanging between the two lifting forces, which are both working upward, contributing to the fight against gravity (if you're right side up).

A canard may be more efficient at the cost of being more unstable.  That probably explains why most planes DON'T use it and high-performance planes SOMETIMES use it.  That might be an argument in KSP for endurance, as in this case, but I expect that good performance in KSP is, like real engineering, richer and more complex in solutions -- and not just a matter of choice of parts.  That might be closer to the argument swjr-swis is making.

Example: the closer you can bring your CoL up behind your CoM and still design your plane to maintain stability, the less the parasitic drag due to control forces will be.  That then necessitates that your fuel load be balanced with respect to the CoM so that that delicate balance does not deteriorate as fuel is consumed.  (This might not be a beginner technique, but I don't think it's hard to understand for the questing mind, either.)

Only one way to settle it, too...  As swjr-swis suggested: challenge!

 

51 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

building a plane with canards and the main wings to the rear is that it almost guarantees your centre of lift will be behind your centre of mass

Nope.  The canards bring the CoL forward.  Full stop.  They may allow you to position the wings further back but the CoL is the weighted summation of ALL the lifting surfaces, including the canards.

You could argue that the mass of canards at the front instead of elevators at the back brings the CoM forward.  That would be trivially and insignificantly true, I think.

(In my early days, when I couldn't think of any other way to bring the CoL forward, closer to the CoM, I used to add canards.  I now regard it as a technique of last resort.)

Edited August 22, 2020 by Hotel26

[jimmymcgoochie]

3 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Nope.  The canards bring the CoL forward.  Full stop.  They may allow you to position the wings further back but the CoL is the weighted summation of ALL the lifting surfaces, including the canards.

You could argue that the mass of canards at the front instead of elevators at the back brings the CoM forward.  That would be trivially and insignificantly true, I think.

(In my early days, when I couldn't think of any other way to bring the CoL forward, closer to the CoM, I used to add canards.  I now regard it as a technique of last resort.)

KSP doesn't use aerodynamic lift, merely the angle of attack and surface area of the wings to simulate lift; larger wings = more lift, so it makes sense to put the big wings at the back. Angling the wings becomes easier as you can angle both the main wings and the canards to get a bit more lift from both while reducing fuselage drag, and putting the bigger lifting surface near the back of the plane will also counter the weight from the engines more effectively if you're putting your engines right at the back of the plane.

[swjr-swis]

5 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

The layman knows the term from a car that won't start but that has little to do with yachts or airplanes.

And then there's guys like me that only knew the term 'stall' from fairs and markets. My thanks for the very clear explanation of the provenance and applicability of the term in this context.

 

2 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

IF the CoL is behind the CoM (for stability), then the aircraft would tend to pitch down unless the tail pushes down against the fulcrum.  You could state this as the CoL being the pivot point (fulcrum) on a see-saw and the CoM is a heavy adult on the short end of the see-saw and the kid is out on the long tail section.

Considering lift and downforce and length of arm and vectorial math and all, yes, I agree that this is what we would expect. And it may well be exactly how it works in real life, I have no means to question that.

What I've learned in KSP is that, aside from the stock 'CoL' indicator often being rather misleading, overall stability of the plane (as in the passive tendencies of the plane to stay more or less upright and pointing into the airflow towards the intended heading) tends to have more factors to it than just main wing lift and elevator deflection. I find that when optimizing for efficient flight and stability, the CoL ends up considerably more forward than the theory would have us expect, either almost right on top or even in front of the CoM. I observe that and acknowledge it, but I don't go and 'correct' it simply because of theory if the plane is actually more efficient and stable that way.

I've also noticed that my tail elevators end up having to work against the natural tendency of my planes to want to climb. I don't know if that is considered 'bad design' in the theoretical sense, I just know it works. My planes are optimised to be at equilibrium and at minimal drag state at their cruising altitude and speed. At any point before that in the flight envelope, while applying full power, they want to climb, and the tail elevator is having to inhibit/control that natural tendency to climb, which they do by creating lift/upforce to force the nose a bit down from where it wants to be. By the time the plane gets to cruising altitude, keeping the plane level needs no elevator input anymore and it's at neutral, which is also the least drag and thus the most efficient at the point of the flight envelope where that is the most important element. Result = plane goes far on very little fuel.

If someone goes ahead and tells me that all this is a sign of bad engineering according to theory, I won't even argue. It might be. I just know in KSP it works. And it's the result I'm after. If I see someone asking 'how do I design a KSP plane to go far and use less fuel', my answer is going to be based on what I've learned, even if that deviates from what is generally considered how it should be.

 

5 hours ago, bewing said:

But think of it this way: you are flying along, and you decide you want to go up. So what needs to happen, if you have your control surfaces at the back? They have to push down, to raise your nose. Then your wings gain incidence and lift you up. If you extend the logic on that, you will see that your control surfaces end up always doing the opposite of what you want your wings to help you do. They are always fighting each other.

This here I guess is where our designs differ. My planes want to go up from the moment I start applying power on the tarmac. I have to control their tendency to climb. I don't have to raise my nose to make the wings gain incidence, they already have incidence to start with, which means that airflow into prograde already generates lift. My elevators don't fight a tendency to drop the nose... they inhibit the rate of climb. Up to getting to cruising altitude, where they are at their neutral and least-drag configuration.

[Lt_Duckweed]

4 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Only one way to settle it, too...  As swjr-swis suggested: challenge!

I think this would be quite interesting, perhaps a challenge for lowest fuel/ton/km to various destinations (Island Runway, Desert, Circumnavigation, Multi Circumnavigation) with various weight classes?

[Lt_Duckweed]

48 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

This here I guess is where our designs differ. My planes want to go up from the moment I start applying power on the tarmac. I have to control their tendency to climb. I don't have to raise my nose to make the wings gain incidence, they already have incidence to start with, which means that airflow into prograde already generates lift. My elevators don't fight a tendency to drop the nose... they inhibit the rate of climb. Up to getting to cruising altitude, where they are at their neutral and least-drag configuration.

Because I use a built in 5 degrees of incidence on virtually all my planes, I have this same behavior of a tendency to climb.  However, rather than using elevators to inhibit rate of climb by utilizing negative lift me big dumb, I do so by decreasing angle on my canards, thereby decreasing positive canard lift.

Edited August 22, 2020 by Lt_Duckweed

[swjr-swis]

27 minutes ago, Lt_Duckweed said:

However, rather than using elevators to inhibit rate of climb by utilizing negative lift

The tail is pushing up to keep the nose from pointing too much up. This is not negative lift, it's actual lift. Vector point up into the air, away from the ground.

[Lt_Duckweed]

4 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

The tail is pushing up to keep the nose from pointing too much up. This is not negative lift, it's actual lift. Vector point up into the air, away from the ground.

Right, duh, brain fart on my part.

[Aelipse]

Hello @Hoonter and welcome. It pleases me to see that new people are still delving into the world of KSP.

A little tip / trick from me, which has worked for me marvelously in all stages of the game, is to put some radial decouplers under the wings or the hull, set the decouplers to "Enable Crossfeed" and onto them attach a few fuel tanks. Of course, make sure the plane can carry the extra weight (they usually can, KSP engines are powerful enough), and also be careful to place the tanks in such a way that they do not mess up your balance. It is generally advisable to place them where your centre of mass is.

Then, if you manage to take off, the fuel will be first draining from the external tanks while leaving the fuel in your plane's hull untouched. Make sure you monitor the amount of fuel in the external tanks, and once they go empty, drop them. This procedure can double or even triple the range of any flying machine.

Spoiler

The aircraft below uses nothing but Wheesley engines for propulsion and is capable of flying almost twice around Kerbin in one go!

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Aelipse