Why doesn't this rotor blade design fly?

[Lohan2008]

Thanks for the feedback, got it working!

FAKER !!! The angled rockets are providing lift no the wings.

[sledgeweb]

Thanks for the feedback, got it working!

FAKER !!! The angled rockets are providing lift no the wings.

Hmmm. Interesting point. I'll try making the wings angled and the engines parallel to the ground.

[Col_Jessep]

You mean like lifting 3 orange tanks without using any engine at all?

It's slow of course but hilarious at the same time. Just some wings, reaction wheels and some RTGs in case the sun goes down before you reach a reasonable height...

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

Thanks for the feedback, got it working!

FAKER !!! The angled rockets are providing lift no the wings.

Your just a troll... The wings do provide lift.

[zekes]

1) Yes, armor plates will make a thing fly. i tried.

2) It doesnt work because you have way too much weight on that thing. Try increasing the angle of the blades, extending them, or lightening the fuel load. use Jet engines instead.

[Andrew Hansen]

It definitely doesn't work with stock KSP. I just tested it. Here's some pictures. It works with Hack Gravity. I'm not sure if it's just slightly angled thrust that's doing it. That seems like a likely possibility.

[Col_Jessep]

It does work without hack gravity. Of course not with the orange fuel tanks... But it works! You must be doing something wrong.

PS: Here is a video with console open as proof:

Edited November 27, 2013 by Col_Jessep

[Andrew Hansen]

Hmm... interesting. OK, then. I must just need more wings!

[sledgeweb]

This is an interesting problem. I've confirmed my designs that are working are due to the angled thrust. When I have engines parallel to the ground, I don't fly. But, if I angle the rockets slightly down, I do.

[sledgeweb]

Okay, a little more experiment and I've confirmed it does indeed work. You just need really long wings. This design has the rockets attached to the body so they are perfectly parallel to the ground. Take that, naysayers!

[sledgeweb]

And this is with jet engines also mounted perfectly horizontally from the fuselage.

[ferram4]

The discrepancy between what Andrew Hansen did and what everyone else is doing has to do with where stock KSP measures the velocity of the wings. It calculates the velocity of the wings at the wing root (attach point) rather than halfway down the span. This means that Andrew Hansen's design has the wings essentially "not moving" for aerodynamics purposes. If simple beams were used to push the wings further from the axis of rotation it would take off fine.

[sledgeweb]

The discrepancy between what Andrew Hansen did and what everyone else is doing has to do with where stock KSP measures the velocity of the wings. It calculates the velocity of the wings at the wing root (attach point) rather than halfway down the span. This means that Andrew Hansen's design has the wings essentially "not moving" for aerodynamics purposes. If simple beams were used to push the wings further from the axis of rotation it would take off fine.

Ahh, this also explains why longer wings are needed to get this working really well. The first inner segment of wings probably isn't providing much lift, but the second and third segment being further out, and covering more distance per revolution, are calculated to provide more lift. I'll take this into consideration for my next design. Would probably be too heavy, but I am wondering if you can have a design that takes off under propeller power, and then switches to rocket stages at 20k or so. Just for fun.