Nose cones are not useless, and people need to stop saying that they are

[_Aramchek_]

The importance of the nosecone is dependent on the type of ship you are building. If you are building a straight up rocket, then the current physics of the game make a nosecone a detriment. The added weight and drag reduce the fuel efficiency and increase the thrust needed. On the other hand, with atmo craft like planes and many ssto's the nosecone is quite useful. Platforms that spend anytime in horizontal flight need the center of mass to be in front of the center of lift. This can cause problems because the most massive parts are most often attached to the rear and middle of the platform. While the nosecone doesn't add much counter balance, each little bit adds up. The balancing effect of the nosecones is also more apparent and useful in horizontal flight where you often need to add stability without moving the center of lift forward any further. In many cases you can increase the flight performance of your craft by using cones where you had placed your ram air intakes. This means you don't need the canards and won't push the center of lift forward.

TL;DR: The benefit of the nosecone is dependent on the flight characteristics of the craft you are building. Rockets no, planes yes.

There are many different categories for "flight performance", I have tested this, with two planes that aside from minor alterations required for adding a nosecone, are identical.

The centers of lift and weight are for all intents and purposes, identical.

The planes are equal in speed, the plane with the nosecone flies a little straighter with no s.a.s or input, it flies fairly well on it's own actually.

But, it is FAR less maneuverable it can pull about 2-4 g's less than it's counterpart, it is slightly more stable "at the edge", but it's edge is not as sharp as the nosecone-less plane's. And the difference in stability is negligible.

[barrenwaste]

Originally posted by _Aramchek_

There are many different categories for "flight performance", I have tested this, with two planes that aside from minor alterations required for adding a nosecone, are identical.

The centers of lift and weight are for all intents and purposes, identical.

The planes are equal in speed, the plane with the nosecone flies a little straighter with no s.a.s or input, it flies fairly well on it's own actually.

But, it is FAR less maneuverable it can pull about 2-4 g's less than it's counterpart, it is slightly more stable "at the edge", but it's edge is not as sharp as the nosecone-less plane's. And the difference in stability is negligible.

You are positing that all craft are equal. That is not true. The benefits of using a nosecone are, like all other parts, circumstantial. If your platform is not in need of extra weight at the nose or of added stability, then the nosecone is purely cosmetic. From the description of the experimental craft you chose, this holds true. However, take a craft that is slightly out of balance or that could use more stability and nosecones can and do provide the needed difference. I suggest you experiment at high altitude and at speeds over mach 4 where the added stability spells the difference between a little bumping or a flat spin and flame out. As to maneuverability, the extra drag can have an impact on the craft, however, the use of canards or clipped ailerons have even more. Are they the answer to every problem with stability and lift? No. That doesn't make them useless, though, just narrow in scope at this point in time. In the right situations they can provide benefits beyond the cosmetic, though the cosmetic can't be discounted either.

[_Aramchek_]

You are positing that all craft are equal. That is not true. .

I think you will find, for purposes of this game, that it will be true more often than not.

Applying real world concepts to the game engine does not always equal what you might expect it to, and what you might not expect to work, given real world variables, may work beautifully. In game.

I suggest you experiment at high altitude and at speeds over mach 4 where the added stability spells the difference between a little bumping or a flat spin and flame out.

I suggest you look around some at my posting history, I've done extensive testing with planes, I have not even touched rockets much at least in a year.

Nosecones do not make much of a difference generally speaking, and there are better ways to balance your planes, with parts that add other functionality as well.

Like slapping a nice big old circular intake on the front of your plane.

As to maneuverability, the extra drag can have an impact on the craft, however, the use of canards or clipped ailerons have even more.

In terms of the game, this is simply not true and I will post a video later today/tomorrow showing this definitively.

I already have the planes, as I said I've already tested this quite extensively.

Canards make little impact by the way, that I have ever seen, if anything it is no more than a tenth or two of a m/s.

Statistically negligible.

Nosecones, as they are, don't do much, save add some stability at the cost of slower turning speed/lower maneuverability.

I would like for that to change actually.

[pigletx2]

Nosecones are completely useless no-matter-what, as rockets don't need any more drag,drag slows them down, and massive crafts already have enough from KSP's drag=mass crap. And on space-planes, just use air intakes if you need more drag. Not dead weight.

[zxczxczbfg]

In any case, detriment to function or not, nose cones look nice and that's reason enough for me to add them.

[MR4Y]

Stock KSP and Stock Nosecones to justify aerodynamics is pretty much the same as shaving your body for competitive cycling with the same goal.

[DJEN]

They have a limited use, and are not really good at being used.

Claiming nosecones are useful is equal of claiming that carbon dating is useless.

Do your research.