Jump to content

Real life Spacecraft! Post your Replicas here!

Sickle

By Sickle
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

 Share

Recommended Posts

Yaeah

Yaeah

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wait, Sickle, I have an idea for this thread: what if we had a cache of space craft on a single post, where we organize the spacecraft we create.

Like we could go like this:

Manned Spacecraft

Orion (dwnldlink)

Soyuz (dwnldlink)

Dragon(dwnldlink)

Unmanned probes

Cassini

Voyager

SpaceStations

and so on:)

Edited by Yaeah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cranium

Cranium

Posted
Posted

I don't have an inflight picture of this craft yet, but here is my K-10 Thunderbolt II: 6vVPV

It has an extreme propencity to pitch forward after nosing down. It will fly straight if you are careful, but at high speeds, just like the attack aircraft it's modelled after, it's very unstable. This is designed for low, slow attack runs.

It's incredibly forgiving while landing as well, and recovers from a flatspin in no time, thanks to the dihedral design of the wings.

With a max loadout of ten AKM-2 Missiles, it's a dominating force to be reckoned with.

(posted in another thread before I remembered this thread)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurotenshi

Kurotenshi

Posted
Posted

Yes it is based is on the pictures, I specifically didn't want to look at the crafts in the VAB, to prevent an almost exact copy. I built my Soyuz even before he released his craft, and is probably the most different. My main goal was to reduce the part count a bit, which I did with about 200 parts, but fully assembled it's still 1000 parts :P

What I'm most proud of is the solar panels and girders. They were attached later, or moved, like the real thing. For example: the panels on Kristal were stored inside the fairing, the attached radially in orbit, and eventually moved to Kvant-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pds314

Pds314

Posted
Posted (edited)

Made a FAR+B9+P-wings, F22 to spec.

That is to say, It has very accurate weight, accurate USEFUL fuel load, accurate thrust (when correctly throttled down) and roughly accurate dimensions. It uses the B9 F119 "replica" for engines, but they default to being throttled back to 65% so that it has a more realistic amount of thrust sans afterburner. They are also set to have thrust vectoring turned OFF at launch to avoid potentially fatal jiggle of the rear landing gears.

One thing that I've found it that it has fairly unrealistic intakes. Even though the ones I used are smaller than in real life, at service ceiling with 58% thrust (because of the over-aggressive curving far from sea level, I find that it is most realistic to set the thrust on the engines to 58 without afterburner, 83 with when at altitude, and 65/100 when ASL.) and moving at mach 1.8 (top speed and real top speed without engaging afterburners), It still pulls in around 600%-700% the required amount of air. Suggesting it should be able to operate well above the equivalent 12.5 km (5/8*20km) that it works at. It would appear that if the real thing is as efficient as B9 makes DSI out to be, it should be able to fly much higher.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I will note that the landing there is legitimate and took place at night with no lights on the first try, but I also found that if you land at high speed, or with too much pressure on the front gear, the plane tends to fishtail and explode.

Also, take-off does not mean "Pull upward until you escape the ground." The control surfaces are set to very high pitch and if you engage the thrust vectoring on the engines before taking off, both of these forces will contribute to your back landing gears being crushed out of the way and the plane likely exploding. This didn't happen to B9 landing gears as much before 0.23, but now it is a very common issue, such that one of my previous hypersonic airliners/SSTOs that could transport 146 Kerbals to LKO now transports 146 Kerbals to a fiery death at the end of the runway.

Anyhow, I tested it to see what sort of G-load I could get out of it. It seems to be capable of +10.5/-4.5 G under exceptional circumstances such as stooping and then pulling up quickly, but normal maneuvers can only briefly get past +6 up to +9. (Note that this may not be true for high-altitude stalls.)

Speaking of stalls.... I tried stalling it several times, I once managed to even get it into a flat spin, but within a few seconds, I could easily escape from said spin and continue flying normally.

Also, kind of funny story, I flew it past the VAB and pulled up at the SPH, It bounced off the top at high speed (200+ m/s) and then hit the tower, all but an intake and the cockpit survived. I quickly used the torque to aim the intake to hit first, and managed to survive the fall and high-speed impact. Never mind blowing a $150,000,000 Stealth fighter to smithereens, I saved a Kerbal!

So yeah, extremely realistic functional F-22 replica that is extremely lucky with its SPH crashes.

P.S. This is a good demo of the fact that real planes have much lower TWRs than Kerbal ones. I've seen many subsonic Kerbal Airliners with a better TWR than this state-of-the-art fighter.

It also exemplifies that Kerbal craft are lighter than real ones, with over 11 tonnes of weight intended to do nothing but make it more realistic. (don't worry, the weights are really streamlined and dense and aerodynamic to stop adverse performance effects).

Edited by Pds314
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sickle

Sickle

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

CCCP MIR Station

2014_01_30_00008.jpg

MIR (Missing Shuttle dock module) I had a little debris problem.... which is why it took a while to post it :P

Soyuz/Progress

2014_01_29_00007.jpg

My attempt at a Progress/Soyuz.

STS Shuttle

2014_01_30_00001.jpg

Space Shuttle Equinox (Remake of the STS) (B9 Aerospace)

Edited by Sickle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted
Speaking of challenger it was on the 28th. A bit late but, Rest in peace all those brave people who risked and lost their lives for the pursuit in Human exploration of the Cosmos.

Well said. ;.;

Right after the Challenger disaster is the Columbia disaster as well, in different years obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...