Basic Aircraft Design - Explained Simply, With Pictures

[keptin]

Added Chinese version of guide to front page, along with backup mirrors for both French and Chinese guides. Thanks for your translation work!

As for the guide itself, I know drag has since changed from when the tut was created, but the rest of the guide is still very useful.

[Grand Ship Builder]

On 5/31/2017 at 11:10 PM, keptin said:

Added Chinese version of guide to front page, along with backup mirrors for both French and Chinese guides. Thanks for your translation work!

As for the guide itself, I know drag has since changed from when the tut was created, but the rest of the guide is still very useful.

Yes, we get it, the rest of the guide is useful, but PLEASE, just update the drag guide! It would save lots of time and effort if you just quickly updated the drag guide, instead of posting that the drag has changed but the rest of the guide is useful. It's starting to get annoying.

[keptin]

Quote

PLEASE, just update the drag guide! It would save lots of time and effort if you just quickly updated the drag guide, instead of posting that the drag has changed but the rest of the guide is useful. It's starting to get annoying.

It's not worth spending the time unless I plan to add to it, and right now I rather actually play the game.

I give you permission to stop checking this thread so you don't get annoyed, god forbid.

Edited June 27, 2017 by keptin

[Furinyx]

On 6/26/2017 at 8:58 AM, keptin said:

It's not worth spending the time unless I plan to add to it, and right now I rather actually play the game.

I give you permission to stop checking this thread so you don't get annoyed, god forbid.

Thanks for the guide, it was good to solidify theories I've gotten through trial-and-error.

Though I want to point out that seeing that you having recently updated the guide while it still states drag is bad is damaging to leave in.

If I was following this without having already worked out a lot of things from trial-and-error first, I would have thought that was still the case and most likely outright avoided bothering using the aerodynamic parts (something I actually did for awhile after having played the demo version - the demo version is an old build so I noticed that the parts were worse).

At the very least, erase that part completely (as it has zero relevancy now) or write a very obvious disclaimer in bold that drag has changed since.  Your guide is the top, and basically only well-titled, search result in google so just leaving it there makes it bad for new players (especially with the steam summer sale currently going).

[vianna77]

This tutorial is simply amazing! 

Do you guys know about a tutorial like this one for SSTO?

[kcs123]

31 minutes ago, vianna77 said:

This tutorial is simply amazing! 

Do you guys know about a tutorial like this one for SSTO?

Welcome to forums.

There is some tutorials provided by Wanderfound, you have to search for his threads. Also, I have tried to point out some of design choices in my thread. Link is in my signature.

[GoatBOT]

Great tutorial, saw it a while back just didn't grab it at the time.  About to dig into planes a bit heavier so this will come in handy.

[Grand Ship Builder]

No reply, of course.

[monstah]

33 minutes ago, Grand Ship Builder said:

No reply, of course.

To what? To this?

On 24/06/2017 at 0:52 PM, Grand Ship Builder said:

Yes, we get it, the rest of the guide is useful, but PLEASE, just update the drag guide! It would save lots of time and effort if you just quickly updated the drag guide, instead of posting that the drag has changed but the rest of the guide is useful. It's starting to get annoying.

It's the post after yours:

On 25/06/2017 at 5:58 PM, keptin said:

It's not worth spending the time unless I plan to add to it, and right now I rather actually play the game.

I give you permission to stop checking this thread so you don't get annoyed, god forbid.

 

[GameTourist]

Wow, fantastic post worthy of body parts first-borns! (I'll hold on to mine for now though )

I just wanted to be the 938382889 person to thank Keptin

Thank you, sir!

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by GameTourist

[HerrCrazi]

Wonderful !! Let's crash some planes now!

 

[OME]

Really wonderful work!! I recommend to add it to KSPedia!

I just wonder whether the stock DRAG system is still not changed so far? Then what’s the meaning of the existence of those caps? Just for esthetics?

[B-STRK]

5 hours ago, OME said:

Really wonderful work!! I recommend to add it to KSPedia!

I just wonder whether the stock DRAG system is still not changed so far? Then what’s the meaning of the existence of those caps? Just for esthetics?

Both aesthetics and because there is a stock effect now. Going by the Mk2 SP tutorial thread, an exposed node will produce more drag than if it was capped off with those caps. The pics forming this tutorial date back to the souposphere, so it's probably easier to just drop in a line or post saying that post-1.0, cap off nodes and fairing/cargo bay draggy payloads, than it is to redraw to edit the tutorial.

Exception: if your plane's got rocket propulsion and it's got an attachment node at the bottom of the engine, then obviously plugging it plugs the engine as well, so that node being uncapped is unavoidable. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by B-STRK

[OME]

6 hours ago, B-STRK said:

Both aesthetics and because there is a stock effect now. Going by the Mk2 SP tutorial thread, an exposed node will produce more drag than if it was capped off with those caps. The pics forming this tutorial date back to the souposphere, so it's probably easier to just drop in a line or post saying that post-1.0, cap off nodes and fairing/cargo bay draggy payloads, than it is to redraw to edit the tutorial.

Exception: if your plane's got rocket propulsion and it's got an attachment node at the bottom of the engine, then obviously plugging it plugs the engine as well, so that node being uncapped is unavoidable. 

Thank you~ That makes sense much more and I think it's better to drop such a line before the tutorial too.

But if it's so, is there any necessity for FAR mod the author recommended?

 

[B-STRK]

31 minutes ago, OME said:

Thank you~ That makes sense much more and I think it's better to drop such a line before the tutorial too.

But if it's so, is there any necessity for FAR mod the author recommended?

 

On the necessity: not anymore, if you're okay with just a general, almost-intuitive (think "layman") simulation of aerodynamics. Never flown with FAR before (closest I got was NEAR--heh, I should be PUNished for that ). The more hardcore you want your flight simulation, the more you'll want FAR. (The Mk2 thread I linked, for example, among other places I've found in researching how to stop my shuttle from whipping its hair back and forth, notes that FAR will simulate changes of stall angle of attack at supersonic and hypersonic regimes, whereas stock dynamics stall all wings at 30 degrees AoA across all regimes. Wing sweep I believe would also be accounted for in FAR naturally; I'm not sure how stock drag effects model it--maybe by increasing the drag factor of straight wing parts compared to swept?).

Apart from now accounting for a different drag model in either case, the basics the tutorial introduces will cover both post-1.0 stock and FAR, no doubt about that. I've used this both pre-1.0 and post-1.0--more so post now that planes have become more fun to fly (after Squad sorted out exactly how they wanted stock atmo to feel over four or five sub-versions, I guess?). It's just that in both cases, there is still more to learn after the basics taught here, those "more to learn" being either shared between the two, or unique to stock and FAR respectively, that will further improve your plane design. So think of this tutorial as the starting place for nuggets to learn about what makes planes tick, and to get around in the lower atmosphere. Once you get to the part of wanting to make operational spaceplanes at the high alt, high-Mach regime, it will be the combination of this and other knowledge scattered around the kommunity that will make it successful.  

(I am still working on neutralizing its squirreliness, though, she's really twitchy coming in through the stratosphere.)

ADDENDUM: The assymetrical flameout isn't a problem in stock aero anymore as far as I can recall, so having spaced-apart engines generally isn't the killer it once was. I think it might be an issue in FAR if it will model directional airflow into air intakes, you have to check with someone in the know.

Edited October 18, 2017 by B-STRK

[OME]

8 hours ago, B-STRK said:

On the necessity: not anymore, if you're okay with just a general, almost-intuitive (think "layman") simulation of aerodynamics. Never flown with FAR before (closest I got was NEAR--heh, I should be PUNished for that ). The more hardcore you want your flight simulation, the more you'll want FAR. (The Mk2 thread I linked, for example, among other places I've found in researching how to stop my shuttle from whipping its hair back and forth, notes that FAR will simulate changes of stall angle of attack at supersonic and hypersonic regimes, whereas stock dynamics stall all wings at 30 degrees AoA across all regimes. Wing sweep I believe would also be accounted for in FAR naturally; I'm not sure how stock drag effects model it--maybe by increasing the drag factor of straight wing parts compared to swept?).

Apart from now accounting for a different drag model in either case, the basics the tutorial introduces will cover both post-1.0 stock and FAR, no doubt about that. I've used this both pre-1.0 and post-1.0--more so post now that planes have become more fun to fly (after Squad sorted out exactly how they wanted stock atmo to feel over four or five sub-versions, I guess?). It's just that in both cases, there is still more to learn after the basics taught here, those "more to learn" being either shared between the two, or unique to stock and FAR respectively, that will further improve your plane design. So think of this tutorial as the starting place for nuggets to learn about what makes planes tick, and to get around in the lower atmosphere. Once you get to the part of wanting to make operational spaceplanes at the high alt, high-Mach regime, it will be the combination of this and other knowledge scattered around the kommunity that will make it successful.  

(I am still working on neutralizing its squirreliness, though, she's really twitchy coming in through the stratosphere.)

ADDENDUM: The assymetrical flameout isn't a problem in stock aero anymore as far as I can recall, so having spaced-apart engines generally isn't the killer it once was. I think it might be an issue in FAR if it will model directional airflow into air intakes, you have to check with someone in the know.

So professional and kind of you! Thanks for your such a exhaustive explanation.

I’m starting to get in touch with aeroplane and realize it’s really a unique and professional field. There is still a long way to go for me. 

I noticed there were much knowledge around the thread and I will definitely check them one day . Thanks for all of your tutorials and help.

[Jetpackmaniac]

Thanks to you @keptin I can build planes that fly, not end up smeared all over the ground.

[Ten Key]

Removed some political content from this thread for 2.2b violation.

[nightstalker101s]

Phenomenonal, I've been playing for a while and even watched the old Scott Manley video for the basics. I still was having issues though when I recently added another batch of mods. Two that I added are FAR and kerbal construction time. Which means I really have to wait to fly and then my pilots were dying (nonreverts in gameplay). I really feel like I can fix this now.

[KerBlitz Kerman]

This. Is. The. Best. Source. Out. There. PERIOD*.

 

*(s) Galore

[GenjoKoan]

On 12/3/2017 at 9:30 AM, nightstalker101s said:

my pilots were dying (nonreverts in gameplay)

Have you tried this?  I am pretty sure Valentina and Jeb approves this mod.

 

[Fett2oo5]

WOW, this OP is amazing!  Well detailed, simply explained, and the illustrations are incredibly helpful.  Thank you so very much for this information, and presenting it in a manner that is easy for the lay to digest.  It is quite evident that you put a lot of love and effort into it.  I can't thank you enough.  Great work @keptin !!!

[nightstalker101s]

On 2/6/2018 at 10:56 AM, Fett2oo5 said:

WOW, this OP is amazing!  Well detailed, simply explained, and the illustrations are incredibly helpful.  Thank you so very much for this information, and presenting it in a manner that is easy for the lay to digest.  It is quite evident that you put a lot of love and effort into it.  I can't thank you enough.  Great work @keptin !!!

I actually found that mod shortly after my original post. 

[Kerbalwerks]

The Aero Force is strong in this one.  Loved it. Thank you for posting.

[riddler]

Hey, @keptin great post! I will be reading it as I intend to start building aircrafts and why not SSTOs.

 

Only thing, though, the craft files' links are broken. Could you re-upload it? 

 

Thanks!