Firespitter propeller plane and helicopter parts v7.1 (May 5th) for KSP 1.0

[Snjo]

Well um...

Heres what happened:

I was building floats for my weird bomber/VTOL, using alt+click. I then noticed that I could not pick up a piece, so I ctrl-z, seemed to fix it. But then it happened again and again, and then it gave me that error down to 0.000000000000001 FPS. Couldn't ctrl-z, and suddenly the sound of a bajillion "delete" sounds playing at once. Had to alt+F4 it.

Oh, and it created those nodes outa thin air.

the floats do nothing more than any other structural strut piece, so it can't create those errors. I would blame on of the other mods you have installed that play around with your SPH stuff.

[angusmcbeth]

An easy rescale..perfect for my microlight. Thanks.

[KOCOUR]

Tried to create a helicopter again. Before 0.20.0 i was able to create somewhat "stable" helicopter using lots of controlsurfaces and stuff. Now all the choppers spins and wiggle like crazy ,no matter how much surfaces i use, if i dont hold F. Unfortunately holding F overheats the engine. So helicopter parts are useles.

The rest is great. I created Vtol propeler seaplane with this, and was really happy how it came out. But the helicopter parts just dont work. Seems like tailrotors have not enough power to counter the torque of main rotor.

[Snjo]

There is no rotor torque. If the craft yaws on its own, something else is off balance. I don't use any control surfaces at all, since the main rotor has built in roll and pitch control, and the tail controls yaw. The rest is fixed with trim and carfuel positioning of the main rotor.

You can right click the tail rotor to increase its power (up to 32, which is very powerful indeed)

The number one rule in flying pure helicopter with asymmetrical drag (which they pretty much all have), is don't go too fast, or you will spin out. Most of my helicopters freak out around 60 m/s. That's over 200 km/h, faster than an average helicopter, and about as fast as a Blackhawk according to a random internet person. (It was claimed that the Chinook can do 210 knots)

[colmo]

It's about time I got busy building choppers again - I love the challenge they present!

#1 tip is DON'T use control surfaces - the angular drag they impart make it almost impossible to hover for landing.

I've just realised that FS + B9 could make for some very, very pretty designs...

[BubbaWilkins]

Tried to create a helicopter again. Before 0.20.0 i was able to create somewhat "stable" helicopter using lots of controlsurfaces and stuff. Now all the choppers spins and wiggle like crazy ,no matter how much surfaces i use, if i dont hold F. Unfortunately holding F overheats the engine. So helicopter parts are useles.

The rest is great. I created Vtol propeler seaplane with this, and was really happy how it came out. But the helicopter parts just dont work. Seems like tailrotors have not enough power to counter the torque of main rotor.

Helicopters work just fine. Just pay attention to the arrows on the tail rotor assemblies.

This one has achieved 80m/s under normal and 4x time compression.

The three secrets to stable helicopter flight:

1. The main rotor HAS to be centered above the CoM.

2. Mechjeb Killrotation is a godsend. I've never had good luck with SAS or ASAS alone on choppers.

3. The helicopter cockpits have built in "hover" modes which can be set at specific altitudes to aid level flight.

and as an added rule, never use full power when 3/4's or 1/2 will do.

It's still touchy, but I can manage full flight missions this way. The russian rotor is hugely powerful and should only be used on craft of sufficient mass to require it.

[Snjo]

The basic propeller engine was the first part I ever made for KSP, and I've always wanted to improve the mesh for it. I didn't want to change it drastically, but I was never happy with the blades, so here's a slight update.

(I have not changed the size of the casing the mounting point, or the modules, so nothing should have changed for pre-existing craft)

It now also sports the nice new blurry disc when at full speed.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Snjo

[Weatherman159]

I've been trying to add reverse thrust capabilities to the stock turbojet engine but without much success. Does it need any other modules besides FSswitchEngineThrustTransform? Can it even be done this easily?

[Snjo]

It will only work on non-gimballing engines, because any gimbal module present will flip the thrust right back. But if you have the name of the thrust Transform correctly, which you can see in the cfg file, it should work.

But if the object used as a thrust Transform also holds a mesh, it will look quite odd when that thing is rotated 180 degrees.

[Weatherman159]

It will only work on non-gimballing engines, because any gimbal module present will flip the thrust right back. But if you have the name of the thrust Transform correctly, which you can see in the cfg file, it should work.

But if the object used as a thrust Transform also holds a mesh, it will look quite odd when that thing is rotated 180 degrees.

Yeah, I figured the gimbal was screwing my attempts up. Removing the module made the reverse thrust sorta work, but also somehow screwed up most of FAR, so, I'm scratching that attempt. I'll probably just slap some retro rockets on it and call it done. Thanks for the help.

[Snjo]

new version, v5.3

-Added the current version of the parts guide as a pdf in the zip

-Propellers at full speed switch to a blur graphic (editable cfg value)

-New model for the original propeller engines

To be honest, I just uploaded this now so I could finally replace my thumbnail on spaceport

edit: I needed a new desktop background, so I made these:

1920x1200 / 1920x1080

Edited June 23, 2013 by Snjo

[Avalant]

Love the mod Snjo! It was a bit buggy here and there, but your latest update seem to solve most of my problems! I made a amphibious VTOL with your parts and LLL stuff!

Simple and easy to control aircraft, very rugged too!

Anyway, thanks for the awesome mod and I can't wait for some rocket pods

[Snjo]

Cool craft. What's LLL short for again?

Are those adapters on the end of those girders?

Seeing the blurry discs in the screenshot makes me think of an alternate frozen blade plus motion blur display when the game is paused. But that would be insane. Not... going.. to... do... it!

I really need to get working on some new stuff, not just messing with the old and tweaking those pieces of code. The rocket pods are a worthy endeavor.

[Avalant]

Lack Luster Labs, in the development section in case you're wondering. And yes, I used the round adapter to mount the propellers. Currently I'm working on a similar design, just a lot bigger and badder (Weapons!) hope all goes well in your add on endeavors!

[Naten]

I'm back after I died in the forum massacre

Love your mod, now I can mess around with electric drones. And HL airships with electric props. The electric props sound nice. Whiiiiiiir! So much better than the sputter. sputter-spu-spu-spuupupupu of the kerosene props. But, the sounds are really nice, overall.

Looking forward to the next update.

P.S.

the Tiny Jet and Bonus Jet from Damned Aerospace are cute XD

So small.

EDIT: Try the Tiny Jet with the props. Cross-era. It's fun. Start on props, go up, and then use the Tiny Jet and Bonus Jet as boosters so you can get even higher with the props.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Naten

[Caspian Sea Monster]

Man, I disappear for a few months and someone nukes the forums. Anyway, daaaaang son. The current standard-bearer of seaplane floats? Functional MFDs? Snjo, you are amazing.

I was reading a few pages back, your response to someone making an assertion that airplane engines shouldn't need air intakes...

The .5m liquid fuel nose engine does not, as it's only meant to be the actual nose of an engine, and was built for planes like the mustang, which does in fact have a large visible air intake on the fuselage.

You might know this, I don't know if other people do - the large air scoop on the bottom of the Mustang is actually for the radiator (it's a water-cooled V-12 engine); the air intake for the supercharger is a much smaller opening directly under the propeller hub. The thing I think would be cool as an oblong fuselage nose, however, is to build a Curtiss Warhawk radiator cowling nose and make that an air intake. Again on that one, the actual supercharger intake is a separate opening above the prop hub, but even if you don't include that the Warhawk front clip looks coooool.

I also gotta say though, the exhaust pipes on the current oblong front-end imply that it's V-8 powered, and that's just offensive; no self-respecting aerospace engineer would ever use such a badly balanced engine! I poke fun, but it's awesome work.

I like the new radial engine model and the propeller POV-blur is actually kind of... relieving? The jitteriness of the propellers before always was setting off a framerate complaint in the back of my mind. One thing about the new model though, I'm sad the spinner cone is gone; it's more appropriate for the B-17 certainly, but the old style was good for air-cooled fighters kind of like the Hawker Sea Fury or the racing-modified F8F "Rare Bear".

The trim preset tool is worth its virtual weight in gold. That and the info popup are now, as with FAR, something I consider mandatory to have. Joystick support still being broken in Unity, this actually makes aircraft worthwhile since I can land them more reliably and consistently now without things exploding. Twenty perfect landings in a row with this plane:

Also more exploits with the seaplane floats and the airboat engine:

95m/s, give or take. That is a fast boat. Oh, one request on the seaplane floats: A longer straight section, like 3-4 times the length of the standard one, if possible. I try to keep my parts count as minimal as possible due to my PC not being all that powerful, and having to stack together ten float sections for something like that isn't helping.

--Katemonster

[Snjo]

Thanks,Kate, lots of great feedback as always.

I was wondering why there were two intakes, but never looked into it. I tried making an air intake in the nose section, but it looked real ugly every time. Also it didn't exactly help relieve the cartoony look to have a smiling mouth at the front. I might revisit it though, and fix that.

Ideally the nose section would be a working engine powering the blades, but that would kill so many other designs that I'm not gonna do that.

The old cone shaped large propeller model and texture is still available in the legacy mod files for 0.19, or, since I forgot, it's actually still the model used for the electric engine. So you could make a custom part by copying those over, since the scale and attach point is still the same in both models.

I can make a longer float for sure, putting it on the list.

Oh, and what's the best engine configuration? I feel like Kerbals would use a single cylinder engine

[colmo]

Was trying to get a sea fighter into the air last night - couldn't get off the ground safely due to speed wobble.

For engines, check out the latest TT Omniwheels.

[Caspian Sea Monster]

Hah! Yeah, they probably would. IRL though, the best piston engines for minimizing vibration are the boxer engines (horizontally opposed with two opposite pistons moving toward TDC/BDC at the same time, examples being the air-cooled Volkswagen Beetle or Porche 911 engines, and are commonly used on light aircraft in 4- or 6-cylinder configuration,) the inline-6 (which you saw a lot of on older aircraft; the de Havilland DH.88 Comet had these,) or the V-12. The Spitfire, Mustang (which uses almost the same engine as the Spitfire,) Lightning, Warhawk, King Cobra, Messerschmitt Bf 109, all of these had water-cooled V12 engines; look at any of them and you'll see six exhaust pipes sticking out either side of the engine fairing.

Water-cooled engines are heavier and less reliable than air-cooled engines - a hole in the radiator is a lot worse than a couple broken cooling fins on a cylinder head - but they run much more efficiently and allow for a more streamlined fuselage/engine cowling. There was a big push in the years leading up to WWII to develop good water-cooled V-12 engines for fighter aircraft. In the end they were the exception to the norm because the efficiency just wasn't worth the weight and reliability trade-offs and most fighters continued carrying air-cooled radial engines, but the fighters that they powered were still pretty impressive, no doubt.

ETA: Four-stroke radial piston engines always have an odd number of cylinders in each row/stack because the spark firing order wouldn't work out if there weren't. With every other piston firing as it goes 'round, the firing order (on a 9-cylinder engine) is 1-3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8 (watch the spark plugs in this video get highlighted red when they fire, that might explain it better than in words.) If it were eight cylinders, the firing order would be 1-3-5-7 and the even-numbered cylinders wouldn't fit into the order. Larger engines are made by stacking together multiple rows or radial 'disks', as though you stuck one 9-cylinder to the back of another to make an 18-cylinder engine. The B-17 had 9-cylinder engines, the Japanese A6M 'Zero' had a 14-cylinder engine, and most radial-powered US and British fighters had 18-cylinder engines. The largest radial engine ever produced in the US (there was a bigger one in Russia but I don't think it was ever mass-produced) had 28 cylinders in four rows.

THE MORE YOU KNOW

===============☆

...sorry, I have an insane compulsion to explain things in great detail.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Caspian Sea Monster

[Hellbrand]

All things considered , a Set of floats like Toshes' old Floats would be rather Epic, and be incredibly useful more long and slender,. i notice the other ones don't tend to stay together too well at high landspeeds. that and would be awesome to make a Ekranoplan >_>

[Read have Read]

All things considered , a Set of floats like Toshes' old Floats would be rather Epic, and be incredibly useful more long and slender,. i notice the other ones don't tend to stay together too well at high landspeeds. that and would be awesome to make a Ekranoplan >_>

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/26460-0-19-1-Tosh-s-Seaplane-Mod-Updated!

They do tend to stick together a little better in extreme conditions (you may need to check that breakingForce and breakingTorque are set properly, and part { } wrappers and scale=1 if you are updating them to .20) however they are more cumbersome to build with, and they don't look half as good as Snjo's.

[bimbo0099]

Nice to see how far you have come from your basicpropspin thingie, great mod!

Any plans on adding FAR compatible cfg-files? :-)

[mrsinister]

hey Snjo, quick question with the regular prop.... are the controls reversed? ,it seems when I use the fighter wings 2 tails in V formation with the winglets for stabilizers in conjunction with the prop for the nose....I noticed if I push up on the yoke it goes up.... and while pulling back makes it dive.......if I take off the prop and slap a jet engine on the back its fine.....does this happen to anyone else? and if I push forward a bit and then pull back a bit, and repeat that action,.. my plane will gain speed as well....and again, does anyone else have this issue as well?

also great mod btw!

and would you mind if I painted your plane and heli parts almost black in color?

Edited June 26, 2013 by mrsinister

[Black-Talon]

[cross-posted in Ferram Aerospace Research Addon Thread]

I've been enjoying seeing all the great things made using Firespitter for quite some time. Unfortunately I had a rough time when I went to try it because I had the bright idea to install with into my game with Ferram Aerospace Research installed. My thinking was that of course I wanted to fly awesome planes using a much better flight model (thanks to Snjo or Ferram for great mods, and wonderful support!). I quickly realized there must be a problem with this and used Firespitter without FAR. But I still really wanted to do it... sadly I haven't seen anything obvious on how/if this can work. A couple comments seem to have the same issues I had when using with FAR...

Using the Firespitter's Stock K-17:

• Controls don't update graphically unless they are locked and then unlocked prior to flight
  
• Even once the control surfaces are updating graphically they don't seem to apply much control to the craft
  
• Take off results in a uncontrolled loop and unintentional rough 'landing' ;-)
  
• For someone familiar with FAR you would notice that the control surfaces aren't configurable in the VAB
  

After reading a few more tips about how to apply FAR onto wings, how Firespitter wings have the FAR values included on them by default, etc... I dug into seeing if something in particular was wrong...

DISCLAIMER - I really am new to both FAR and Firespitter. I did my best to find information on how to use both together... I don't claim to really know what I'm doing here. :-) And I would love to hear from others on the best way to get these two fantastic mods working well together.

Here are a list of things I found:

1. I firstly discovered that (sadly) the FSwingletRangeAdjustment Module seems to conflict with FAR.
   
2. The FAR configuration values are all configured as FARWingAerodynamicModel - it seems a FARControllableSurface is more accurate for the wings with control surfaces? Note that there is some concern noted in both the FAR and Firespitter threads that wings with integrated control surfaces are not yet supported in FAR...but I've found that without at least some tweaks, Firespitter wings are unusable in FAR, but work enjoyably once modified.
   
3. The default drag and lift configuration is zeroed out on stock parts...should the same should be true for Firespitter wing/control parts?
   
4. Some of the FAR configuration values used on Firespitter wings aren't documented in the FAR Readme.txt, perhaps they shouldn't be there? Others need to be there instead?
   

Results:

1. I created this ModuleManager config which allows me to use Firespitter and FAR together (suggested changes/improvements?): FirespitterFAR_MM_CFG.zip
   
2. With heavy trim, the Firespitter Stock K-17 is a joy to fly. :-)
   
3. I don't really have confidence that this was done correctly and it obviously loses the ability to adjust the control range in flight (something I'd love to have on all my planes while using FAR - hope a solution for them to be compatible is found/developed).
   
4. In FAR, when a AoA Sweep analysis is done, only CL is graphed... does the lack of CD and others indicate incorrectly configured parts?
   

Lastly - If either Snjo or Ferram object in anyway to the ModuleManager configuration I will happily take it down or adjust it to meet their needs. I only wanted to share what I've found to get things working. Oh, and I'd be happy to pass on videos and logs of the behavior I'm describing if that would be helpful to anyone.

-Talon

Edited June 26, 2013 by Black-Talon

[Caspian Sea Monster]

Personally thus far I just haven't been installing the Firespitter airfoil surfaces, just the engines and fuselages and such. It sucks, but the importance of FAR wins out. I generally use the Procedural Dynamics wing, Taverio's Pizza control surfaces, and the B9 airbrake.

ETA: Snjo, I haven't looked into it myself yet - been busy - but is there a way to mod the .cfg file to get the 1.25m v5.2 engine with the old model to have POV-blur, or is that dependent on the new model?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Caspian Sea Monster