Bored 3D Modeler looking for a challenge..

[comham]

If you're doing fictional craft, try not to go for an airfix approach (a bunch of parts to be put together in a specific way). Go for the lego approach (a bunch of parts to be assembled in many different ways, ie bac9)

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

Including the exceptional pWings, that allows you to design your own wings.

Nothing like those cockpits and the engine outlets are pretty one of a kind.

[Cryocasm]

Nothing like those cockpits and the engine outlets are pretty one of a kind.

After reading about the Buran, I decided last night that it was time for a space shuttle cockpit with considerable visibility (much higher than the current Mk3 spaceplane pod).

It will seat 1-5 men. The cockpit will attach to the Control Section of the Allspringer, my Dreamchaser analog. This will most likely be an airfix though, as elaborated on below.

If you're doing fictional craft, try not to go for an airfix approach (a bunch of parts to be put together in a specific way). Go for the lego approach (a bunch of parts to be assembled in many different ways, ie bac9)

Well, ofc, I generalized the pack in the advent of it being far too user specific. Thats why the all-in-one stuff was rounded down into capsule related stuff. I'm also using regular KSP scales, meaning my Service Module for my capsule will fit a regular stock 3-man capsule just snug. I'm also going to attempt at being stock-alike.

The planes aren't. I understand that we won't get that kind of animation nor will we get that kind of flight. Just parts man.

Mmmm, dammit. I was planning on having a simply massive spaceplane capable of delivering 50 tons to LKO in an animated cargobay (similar to B9, but larger, much, larger).

For this design I was considering a Delta Wing similar to our human contraptions or more advanced stuff, more specifically a mixture of aerodynamic wing and canard for control (as this aircraft, the VF-11 shows).

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

After reading about the Buran, I decided last night that it was time for a space shuttle cockpit with considerable visibility (much higher than the current Mk3 spaceplane pod).

It will seat 1-5 men. The cockpit will attach to the Control Section of the Allspringer, my Dreamchaser analog. This will most likely be an airfix though, as elaborated on below.

Well, ofc, I generalized the pack in the advent of it being far too user specific. Thats why the all-in-one stuff was rounded down into capsule related stuff. I'm also using regular KSP scales, meaning my Service Module for my capsule will fit a regular stock 3-man capsule just snug. I'm also going to attempt at being stock-alike.

Mmmm, dammit. I was planning on having a simply massive spaceplane capable of delivering 50 tons to LKO in an animated cargobay (similar to B9, but larger, much, larger).

For this design I was considering a Delta Wing similar to our human contraptions or more advanced stuff, more specifically a mixture of aerodynamic wing and canard for control (as this aircraft, the VF-11 shows).

I didn't read through the entire post, I just saw the first page and that you were bored. I didn't realize there was an actual outcome planned. I just thought you were looking for ideas is all.

[MR4Y]

Nothing like those cockpits and the engine outlets are pretty one of a kind.

It's not about being unique. It's about being functional. making your own wings makes much more sense then mend a bunch of different wings together and hoping to not have a structural failure.

[Cryocasm]

It's not about being unique. It's about being functional. making your own wings makes much more sense then mend a bunch of different wings together and hoping to not have a structural failure.

Well, I have been experiencing the problem of too many wings and too many parts and lag. So I will make our lives easier and introduce larger wings. This includes "fat" wings that can hold fuel as well as wings which have aerodynamic attachment nodes for engines (as seen on the wing at the front page).

I didn't read through the entire post, I just saw the first page and that you were bored. I didn't realize there was an actual outcome planned. I just thought you were looking for ideas is all.

Well, I'm generalizing ideas so that it ends up being a good misc. crap pack. My heavy lifter designs will have their own pack.

The only two real problems I have right now is a massive math exam in T-48 Hours, and the fact that version 0.20 is out.

[MR4Y]

Well, I have been experiencing the problem of too many wings and too many parts and lag. So I will make our lives easier and introduce larger wings. This includes "fat" wings that can hold fuel as well as wings which have aerodynamic attachment nodes for engines (as seen on the wing at the front page).

Well, I'm generalizing ideas so that it ends up being a good misc. crap pack. My heavy lifter designs will have their own pack.

The only two real problems I have right now is a massive math exam in T-48 Hours, and the fact that version 0.20 is out.

If you looked at how pWings work, you can make your wing as big as you want. The wing will generate it's own cfg file for the current craft.

[Cryocasm]

If you looked at how pWings work, you can make your wing as big as you want. The wing will generate it's own cfg file for the current craft.

Well, if everyone likes pWings so much, then I'll just leave wings alone and craft those for my spaceplanes.

[MR4Y]

Well, if everyone likes pWings so much, then I'll just leave wings alone and craft those for my spaceplanes.

We wouldn't mind extra wings. but they have to be FAR compatible, which pWings has problems with.

[Cryocasm]

We wouldn't mind extra wings. but they have to be FAR compatible, which pWings has problems with.

I'll have a look, but I'm tending to keep my wings to my craft. I've got this idea of a Energia-Urugan floating in my head.

[rpayne88]

Why don't you make some engine heat shields. They don't have to be operational, I only need the model. I'd like to see something that folds down to fully encapsulate the engine during reentry for when reentry heating is added so I can protect my ships. (I know Deadly reentry already has heat shields that do this, but the look horrible before they're deployed and they create so much drag they flip over.

[BananaDealer]

Why don't you make some engine heat shields. They don't have to be operational, I only need the model. I'd like to see something that folds down to fully encapsulate the engine during reentry for when reentry heating is added so I can protect my ships. (I know Deadly reentry already has heat shields that do this, but the look horrible before they're deployed and they create so much drag they flip over.

Hmmm... That gives me an idea... Reverse thrusters! A flap (or two- one below and another above the engine) that would extend behind the engines' exhaust in order to provide extra drag for V/STOL aircraft, particularly during the short landing part (where reverse thrust is needed). During flight, they would also provide protection from damage to the engines and from heat to other nearby parts (their Max. Temp. value would be higher than normal)...

Would that be possible? I mean... It should- just make them a module that would reverse the thrusting vector...

[MR4Y]

Hmmm... That gives me an idea... Reverse thrusters! A flap (or two- one below and another above the engine) that would extend behind the engines' exhaust in order to provide extra drag for V/STOL aircraft, particularly during the short landing part (where reverse thrust is needed). During flight, they would also provide protection from damage to the engines and from heat to other nearby parts (their Max. Temp. value would be higher than normal)...

Would that be possible? I mean... It should- just make them a module that would reverse the thrusting vector...

I think aerobrakes and drogue chutes would be more effective.

[rpayne88]

You mean one like this:

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1118794M.jpgWh

I think that system is only used on the Panevia Tornado. I know for a fact it is not used on any U.S. aircraft.

[BananaDealer]

You mean one like this:

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1118794M.jpgWh

I think that system is only used on the Panevia Tornado. I know for a fact it is not used on any U.S. aircraft.

And the importance of there being a US aircraft implementing this concept is relevant because?

Anyways, MR4Y- How would one implement drogues successfully on a spaceplane/regular jet plane? I've tried it and they simply flip over...

Aero-brakes are one thing, to be implemented on wings and such, but reverse-thrust flaps on engines would also be a nice thing to have...

[MR4Y]

And the importance of there being a US aircraft implementing this concept is relevant because?

Anyways, MR4Y- How would one implement drogues successfully on a spaceplane/regular jet plane? I've tried it and they simply flip over...

Aero-brakes are one thing, to be implemented on wings and such, but reverse-thrust flaps on engines would also be a nice thing to have...

You use them for power landings, I suppose? I looked at the KSP stock parts and there is a drogue parachute, but it's not radially mounted.

[BananaDealer]

You use them for power landings, I suppose? I looked at the KSP stock parts and there is a drogue parachute, but it's not radially mounted.

As I said- chutes work fine during vertical falls, but in horizontal flight, once you deploy the thing- the craft just flips downward due to the breaking force of drag...

The idea of a reverse-thrust flap would be to deploy it just as you hit the runway (along with regular aero-brakes, the resulting drag from the engines' exhaust should be sufficient to shorten your breaking distance by at least half...

[wetmelon]

If you're still bored and interested in a challenge, I would like someone to make I-beam junction points so we can turn corners more effectively. Also junctions with 45 degree angles.

[Cryocasm]

If you're still bored and interested in a challenge, I would like someone to make I-beam junction points so we can turn corners more effectively. Also junctions with 45 degree angles.

So a hub for I-beams and structural stuff rather than direct 1 meter beams. This one I will look into, especially due to the .CFG file challenges behind it.

As I said- chutes work fine during vertical falls, but in horizontal flight, once you deploy the thing- the craft just flips downward due to the breaking force of drag...

The idea of a reverse-thrust flap would be to deploy it just as you hit the runway (along with regular aero-brakes, the resulting drag from the engines' exhaust should be sufficient to shorten your breaking distance by at least half...

To my understanding of aerodynamics, an aircraft has 3 integral control surfaces for landing and takeoff:

Flaps, Spoilers, and Slats. Given KSP's current model of aerodynamics, none of these can be applied without dirty "hacks". The spoilers are probably the easiest, and the best to counter misuse with. A spoiler would be an animated part, which would (through control group) pop up and be "deployed" therefore creating tons of drag. In KSP this suffices.

In the real world, a spoiler has less to do with direct air braking and more with transferring the weight of the aircraft from the wings to the wheels (as to prevent it from taking off again). This creates additional drag (as the wheels are actually carrying weight now). The main braking method of an aircraft during a powered descent is its thrust-reversing mechanism, which are simply panels deployed into the exhaust shaft at low throttle (so the engine doesn't rape itself), and then throttled up again, being held in place purely through a simple mechanical locking mechanism and the force of the exhaust. I always carry drogue chutes on my spaceplanes, and my earliest spaceplanes were configured to even do parachute descents, as I wasn't the best at planning my aerobrake and managing to get the KSC runway aligned properly (in the sense of the length of the runway, its easy to hold course, but on an unpowered descent its hard to modify glidepath). The drogue chutes now serve the purpose of assisting in braking the aircraft once on the ground.

[BananaDealer]

So a hub for I-beams and structural stuff rather than direct 1 meter beams. This one I will look into, especially due to the .CFG file challenges behind it.

To my understanding of aerodynamics, an aircraft has 3 integral control surfaces for landing and takeoff:

Flaps, Spoilers, and Slats. Given KSP's current model of aerodynamics, none of these can be applied without dirty "hacks". The spoilers are probably the easiest, and the best to counter misuse with. A spoiler would be an animated part, which would (through control group) pop up and be "deployed" therefore creating tons of drag. In KSP this suffices.

In the real world, a spoiler has less to do with direct air braking and more with transferring the weight of the aircraft from the wings to the wheels (as to prevent it from taking off again). This creates additional drag (as the wheels are actually carrying weight now). The main braking method of an aircraft during a powered descent is its thrust-reversing mechanism, which are simply panels deployed into the exhaust shaft at low throttle (so the engine doesn't rape itself), and then throttled up again, being held in place purely through a simple mechanical locking mechanism and the force of the exhaust. I always carry drogue chutes on my spaceplanes, and my earliest spaceplanes were configured to even do parachute descents, as I wasn't the best at planning my aerobrake and managing to get the KSC runway aligned properly (in the sense of the length of the runway, its easy to hold course, but on an unpowered descent its hard to modify glidepath). The drogue chutes now serve the purpose of assisting in braking the aircraft once on the ground.

Your understanding of how real-life aero-braking and powered descent works is absolutely correct, and the deployable panel is actually what I'm referring to...

Flaps and slats would also be implementable in the same sense as a spoiler or drogue- just have it as a module that generates drag... The way KSP models it's aerodynamics and mass allocation, I guess it'd be hard to "relocate" the weight to the bottom of the craft- in particular the wheels...

[MR4Y]

I tried the stock drogue chutes as well as the normal chutes for horizontal decceleration. Both disintegrate after being deployed, when trying to make a Thrust SSC-esque vehicle. And yes, the aerodynamics of KSP are not suitable for this mostly. When you go at higher speeds, the vehicle will drift to one side, even with perfect simmetry, this happens with planes as well. The more thrust you have, the worse it becomes, even flipping your vehicle, which is not how objects moving fast on land work IRL. I believe this is due to the fact that KSP has no friction physics(which also explains why vehicles move on their own if you don't aply brakes to them, even on a perfectly flat surface.)

[rpayne88]

I'm just saying that I don't know of any U.S. aircraft that use this system. I don't tend to keep up on other countries aircraft. I only know of the Tornado from a documentary I saw.

[BananaDealer]

I'm just saying that I don't know of any U.S. aircraft that use this system. I don't tend to keep up on other countries aircraft. I only know of the Tornado from a documentary I saw.

Actually, there's quite a lot of aircraft designs that use thrust reversal of some variety...

It could be a panel that deploys behind the engines' exhaust, like I suggested, the so-called clam-shell design. Probably the most notable being the Fokker 70, which used the Rolls Royce RB.183 Tay, and the Boeing 737, which had the P&W JT8D. Both of those used a clamshell. Along with the Tornado's T-U RB199, which is I think maybe the only fighter craft to implement reverse thrust of that design (as far as I know)...

Or more commonly found on commercial airliners- a deployable gap in the engine body that closes off the backward exhaust, leading thrust forwards. Most modern-day airliners use that design- from the A320 and Boeing 777, to the A380...

[MR4Y]

Actually, there's quite a lot of aircraft designs that use thrust reversal of some variety...

It could be a panel that deploys behind the engines' exhaust, like I suggested, the so-called clam-shell design. Probably the most notable being the Fokker 70, which used the Rolls Royce RB.183 Tay, and the Boeing 737, which had the P&W JT8D. Both of those used a clamshell. Along with the Tornado's T-U RB199, which is I think maybe the only fighter craft to implement reverse thrust of that design (as far as I know)...

Or more commonly found on commercial airliners- a deployable gap in the engine body that closes off the backward exhaust, leading thrust forwards. Most modern-day airliners use that design- from the A320 and Boeing 777, to the A380...

And aerobrakes as well, to increase drag and slow down.

[BananaDealer]

And aerobrakes as well, to increase drag and slow down.

Aero-brakes come in forms of wing flaps and slats, though they don't "increase" drag, rather push the weight of the aircraft down towards it's rear gears...