Lower the large lights at the ends of the runway

[Murph]

The big lights at the ends of the runway (the 4 corners) are proving to be a serious annoyance to me. I've been working on a heavy transport fuel delivery space plane which is pretty much exactly the width of the runway concrete, and 200t fully loaded, so needs the entire runway length for takeoff. It flies just fine (for a large, heavy transport plane), hits orbit nicely with useful payload, looks reasonably realistic, etc. The major PITA is that it is extremely difficult to takeoff from KSC due to the wingtips and outer engine nacelles only just clearing those lights. Building the wings and nacelles higher is not an appropriate solution  the fault is with the runway lights, not the plane.

I think the lights need to be reduced in size and/or lowered, as they seem stupidly large and high to me, for a runway edge feature. I suggest making them flush with the ground, embedded in the ground, or non-collidable, and with safe clearance for a wing on standard landing gear above them.

If they are intended to be PAPI lights, they are wrong on 2 counts  no sectoring; and PAPI lights are pretty much always positioned safely to the side of the threshold, generally very low on the ground, commonly on the grass, not even remotely close to where a wing might legitimately be. PAPI lights are also usually a single group of 4, not 2 groups of 2, separated by the runway.

[Traches]

the fault is with the runway lights, not the plane.

You may have a case against the lights being poorly placed and too big, but I have to disagree with you here. If you're using the last brick of the runway to take off, you probably have your landing gear set too far back, which is making it impossible to rotate and generate any lift. Your plane isn't taking off, the ground is falling away from it.

Solutions: Move the gear further forward and be careful not to tail-strike, or mount the nose gear lower, which will make the plane sit nose-high on the runway.

[Murph]

You may have a case against the lights being poorly placed and too big, but I have to disagree with you here. If you're using the last brick of the runway to take off, you probably have your landing gear set too far back, which is making it impossible to rotate and generate any lift. Your plane isn't taking off, the ground is falling away from it.

Solutions: Move the gear further forward and be careful not to tail-strike, or mount the nose gear lower, which will make the plane sit nose-high on the runway.

Thanks for the suggestions, but they are not all that practical in this case. It basically requires the entire runway to reach takeoff speed, and the gear positions are pretty much as good as they can be, while keeping the part count reasonable, the gear structurally sound, and the chance of a tail strike down (it's got a Concorde-style tail wheel because the margin is already so slim, mounted high so not preventing rotation). It's not just wide, it's also long. If it stays perfectly aligned to the centre line on the takeoff run, it has about a 50/50 chance of the wingtips clearing the lights ok. Keeping it perfectly on the line, that's hard. It doesn't need more thrust or lift really, as it's got narrowly enough to takeoff fully loaded and ascend without fuss, if it wasn't for those damned lights.

Yes, I'm kinda pushing the limits, without just throwing more power into it, but I'm an engineer, and I like trying to push for max out from min in.

[ratrace24]

agreed, with any large plane it causes me an issue, with any long/wide plane there will almost always be a problem with the runway lights. my suggestion would be to lower the runway lights so they will not interfere or make the runway longer, a wider runway would be nice also

[Traches]

Real world airplanes never intentionally use the entire length of the runway, and there absolutely can be approach lights off the departure end that are a few feet high.

A good design that doesn't work isn't. If it weren't for that little drop-off at the end of the runway you probably couldn't make it into the air at all. You either need more wing area, more AOA on rotation, more thrust, or some combination of 3. If you're willing to use mods, the B9 pack has some nice big landing gear that may solve all your problems.

[Kilmeister]

The runway is already pretty forgiving since you can clip through all the other lights. As others have said, if your plane requires the entire runway to liftoff it's almost certainly because of COM/COL & gear placement issues. The reason it actually flies is that the small dropoff at the end allows your craft to change its' AoA enough to generate sufficient lift. If I have to do this I just consider it a design failure because I shouldn't have to rely on a cliff to make a plane fly,and revert back to the drawing board. That being said, It is true that the stock landing gear is too short for larger craft. There are mods which provide bigger and better landing gears, but there should be a stock part which is much taller to prevent the tail dragging problems you have to deal with with such short landing gear when trying to design larger craft.

[horndgmium]

You guys seem to be missing the point. The lights at the end of the runway DO on occasion cause collisions, and are therefore a problem. Runways are for taking off, not on occasion causing a crash. Those are opposites. If some people have planes that require the whole runway to take off, but WORK, who are you to say that the plane isn't supposed to be like that? It's his plane. Not yours. If it gets to space, it's not problematic. Stop trying to change someone else's plane design and not acknowledging a problem.

[Psycix]

I'm with horndgmium here: No need to bash this guys plane, this thread is about the lights.

The lights are annoying in the same way the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP.

They might be aesthetically pleasing, but they could achieve that as well while not colliding, or being positioned lower, next to the runway.

[Traches]

Stop trying to change someone else's plane design and not acknowledging a problem.

My entire point is that the plane is the problem, not the game. The attitude of "I'm doing it right, it fails because the simulation is wrong" is itself almost always wrong. If you're arguing that it's not realistic, you're right, but in the wrong direction-- there aren't nearly enough lights, and friendly cliffs are very rarely found at the ends of runways. If it looked like this:

Would that airplane still fly?

[horndgmium]

All I'm saying is, if it works for this runway, the only one we take off from, and hits the lights sometimes because they ARE raised, then it sure is a problem.

Anyway, the game is a simulation of reality, yes, but we're playing the game, not ourselves simulating reality.

[Kasuha]

While I can understand what leads OP to this suggestion and often suggest changes to things which annoy me myself...

the fault is with the runway lights, not the plane.

This is just wrong. Lights are part of the game, at least for now. So the fault is with the plane because it's not designed to safely take off the available runway.

[allmhuran]

The lights are annoying in the same way the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP.

Yep, I haven't seen and don't expect to see any argument that can counter this point of view.

[Traches]

Yep, I haven't seen and don't expect to see any argument that can counter this point of view.

"They are annoying" is not an uncounterable argument.

[Guest]

What do we need is a bigger, longer runway. Real spaceplane design calls for a high-speed vehicle, which pretty much necessitates sacrificing some low speed stability. Which means high takeoff speeds and long takeoff/landing runs. With a spaceplane the size of 747, you're either going to have mammoth runway or mighty powerful engines. Since the latter can be inefficient and/or clumsy (RATO boosters), a long runway makes things much simpler.

[allmhuran]

"They are annoying" is not an uncounterable argument.

That's not the whole of the argument. They are annoying in the same way that the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP. Indeed, the situation is perfectly analogous. Since the launch tower was removed because of the problems it created, it would make sense that we treat these lights the same way, or it seems you would be logically compelled to suggest that the launch tower also be put back.

[Kasuha]

They are annoying in the same way that the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP.

Come on. If two VAB buildings were standing in their place just clear of the runway exit, that might be considered annoying on similar level.

The current lights are about as annoying as the flagpost. Sure, you can build a rocket which will crash to that flagpost, too. And then you can come complaining that your design is ok and the flagpost should be removed.

[allmhuran]

I would say that the degree to which the flagpole inhibits rocket construction in no way compares to the degree to which the lights inhibit aircraft construction, and that the degree to which the launch tower did is a far better match. Do you disagree with that?

If so, you must be able to demonstrate that it is possible to build an otherwise viable rocket where the flagpole presents a problem, since the OP has demonstrated that it is quite possible to build an aircraft such that the lights present a problem.

If you are unable to create such a craft, then it seems you would have to agree that the lights are analogous to the old launch tower, whereas the flagpole is not.

Edited December 3, 2013 by allmhuran

[Kasuha]

I would say that the degree to which the flagpole inhibits rocket construction in no way compares to the degree to which the lights inhibit aircraft construction, and that the degree to which the launch tower did is a far better match. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree.

If so, you must be able to demonstrate that it is possible to build an otherwise viable rocket where the flagpole presents a problem, since the OP has demonstrated that it is quite possible to build an aircraft such that the lights present a problem.

I already crashed to it once with one of my designs that had about 1.01 initial TWR. I don't see need for any more proofs. I claim this was identical situation to that with the plane.

The only difference is that with that ship, I understood the problem is on my side and improved the ship design to satisfy both necessary orbital requirements, and necessary launch requirements.

By the way, OP has not demonstrated anything. Statements are not demonstration.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Kasuha

[allmhuran]

You could have gone in any direction, but your poor piloting meant you ended up going straight for the flagpole. You could have piloted the craft differently, but you did not.

In the case of the OP, it is not true that "it is possible that he could have piloted the craft differently". Therefore your response is non sequitur.

[Traches]

That's not the whole of the argument. They are annoying in the same way that the launch tower was in the earlier versions of KSP. Indeed, the situation is perfectly analogous. Since the launch tower was removed because of the problems it created, it would make sense that we treat these lights the same way, or it seems you would be logically compelled to suggest that the launch tower also be put back.

Yes I get that, no they're not, no it's not, and no I wouldn't be. The launch tower impeded perfectly good rockets; the landing lights only impede aircraft that are flawed to begin with because THEY CAN'T TAKE OFF, THEY CAN ONLY STAY IN THE AIR LONG ENOUGH TO LET THE GROUND FALL AWAY FROM THEM. If that's how your aircraft takes off, then you have problems with your quite possibly otherwise perfect design. It's impractical, unrealistic, and most importantly not the game's fault.

I would say that the degree to which the flagpole inhibits rocket construction in no way compares to the degree to which the lights inhibit aircraft construction, and that the degree to which the launch tower did is a far better match. Do you disagree with that?

Strongly. If you build a rocket that can only barely lift off, it might hit the flagpole. If you build an airplane that can only barely lift off, it might hit the landing lights.

What you really need are better stock landing gear. The available ones are way too tiny for many purposes.

[Kasuha]

You could have gone in any direction, but your poor piloting meant you ended up going straight for the flagpole. You could have piloted the craft differently, but you did not.

My piloting skills are ok. The flagpole is the problem.

[allmhuran]

It's impractical, unrealistic, and most importantly not the game's fault. <...>

Strongly. If you build a rocket that can only barely lift off, it might hit the flagpole. If you build an airplane that can only barely lift off, it might hit the landing lights.

You're conflating a craft that is "difficult fo fly" with a craft that is "impossible to launch due to nearby geometry". These are not the same.

We're going to do some logic here:

The airplane that the OP has built, or if you like a conceivable airplane, could be a viable design except for the fact that the the geometry of the landing lights makes it impossible to launch.

Is it true that a rocket that is "difficult to fly and may be flown into the flagpole" is viable except for the fact that you might fly it into the flagpole? Clearly, no: The rocket has already launched, so clearly it is possible to launch, and is therefore viable. The fact that someone might pilot it into the flagpole after this has happened is not relevant: If you have flown the rocket into the flagpole, then tautologically (a fortiori) you are flying the rocket. There is no "except for the fact that".

So, the problem with the launch tower (and in a completely equivalent way, the problem with the landing lights) is that it prevents the craft from being launched. There is no amount of good or bad flying that can make a difference, because the conception here is of a craft that cannot be flown due to KSC geometry, and would be able to be flown otherwise

There has not yet been any argument that refutes this, or if you like, there has not been any argument that would not also, by its own logic, be in favour of the return of the launch tower.

What you really need are better stock landing gear. The available ones are way too tiny for many purposes.

I certainly agree with this.

Edited December 3, 2013 by allmhuran

[allmhuran]

My piloting skills are ok. The flagpole is the problem.

This is evidently not true according to your own description of the problem. I think you should consider your argument further. If you are unable to follow the logic of this, then I see no reason to attempt to continue a rational discussion with you.

[Kasuha]

This is evidently not true according to your own description of the problem. I think you should consider your argument further. If you are unable to follow the logic of this, then I see no reason to attempt to continue a rational discussion with you.

I can see you're not interested in discussion. You're just trolling.

My opinion stands, I don't see any problem with these lights. Just as I don't see problem with the flagpole. If certain design is not able to get past them, it's time to get back to drawing board and improve that design.

If any improvement at all, realistic lights like in this photo should be put there. On both ends.

[Psycix]

Even if you always build planes that take off before the end of the runway, why do you oppose a relocation of the lights? It doesn't hurt you in any way, and allows other people to use more of the runway.

Many people enjoy KSP by going BIG, and the landing lights are limiting that.

Sure, it is possible to construct planes that can take off without running off the runway. You can also not. Why would moving the lights be such a problem to you?