totm june 2018 Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

[Servo]

I've been messing around with Air-to-Air missiles, with the ultimate goal of making a Top Gun pack. AARMS are really inaccurate and hard to use, so if anyone has any tips on making them keep their target, and turn on liquid fuel engines, I would appreciate it greatly.

This was the only hit I scored after a couple tries. I'm using a missile with 4x elevon, 1x small SAS wheel, 1x OKTO 1, and 4x spark, with some success. I feel like most of my problems would be fixed if I could target from the F-14 and launch the missile without having to switch crafts.

Also for the Top Gun pack, I made a F-5 MiG-28. The MiG flies great, and can transfer from dogfighting mode (hypermaneuverability) to transit (really stable flight) by shifting one fuel tank. It's also pretty fast compared to my F-14, topping out at 300m/s compared to 230m/s on the Tomcat.

[Azimech]

11 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

It's ugly, it's unstable, it's fragile, and it's... evidently not powerful enough to fly... *incomprehensible swearing*

@Azimech, would it be better to replace the four small jet engines with two larger ones? Should I add more blades or remove one? Should the blades be larger to create more lift or smaller to cut down on weight?

First of all, I Iove the design! It feels like something from the begin era, late 1940's.

* The problem with KSP helicopters and their lifting power is mostly associated with engine diameter, the reason @erasmusguy creates very powerful engines is because he places the turbine blades on the outside and the blowers on the inside. The look is an acquired taste though.
* With a conventional setup: I always choose a max of eight turbine blades because that ensures the blowers don't miss their target. More only creates more drag and is dead weight. I never choose control surfaces as turbine blades because the drag is higher than with the short I-beams. You could try angle them at 45 degrees, should provide less drag.
* More blowers is always better but make sure you setup multiple action groups to enable/disable sets of blowers for economy.
* One of the worst enemies of these engines is internal friction.
* The Juno's are more efficient than the larger jets - except when part count is an issue.

More later, I'm in a hurry.

20 hours ago, vitekc45c said:

Try autostruting the rotor asembly, replacing the outward facing engines with one placed on the very end of the tail and changing the prop pitch.

Also replacing the small evelons with linear RCS ports could help you to make it more compact and reduce drag.

Autostrut on the turbine/rotor parts has an adverse effect on performance, both for the system and the engine itself. Unknown why.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

On 2/18/2017 at 8:32 AM, Azimech said:

 

^bad mobile compatibility strikes again

Anyways, I've been working on that general purpose helicopter I showed earlier. It now uses coaxial rotors. I need to work a bit more on the assembly to make it more compact and less ugly, but mechanically the rotors are working OK.

So far it has about 2½ hours of endurance hovering at 68% throttle (at least at the begining, that probably goes down as fuel burns off).. It's not very fast at the moment, but once I get the rotor assembly into a more compact form, I plan to tilt it forward a bit and add some larger tail surfaces to help it cruise efficiently at moderate speed (hoping for 50+m/s).

[Azimech]

@EpicSpaceTroll139 ... 2.5 hours endurance ... Man that seems unreal! Must be the most efficient turboshaft ever!

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

7 hours ago, Azimech said:

@EpicSpaceTroll139 ... 2.5 hours endurance ... Man that seems unreal! Must be the most efficient turboshaft ever!

While I do think my turboshafts are reasonably efficient, I think most of the endurance is because I packed 3625 units of liquid-fuel in there.

Anyways, refinement of the rotor system has lead to this:

It actually hovers at about 63% throttle, but I think my endurance estimate is still reasonably accurate.

Now all that's left to do is tilt the rotors and do some modifications for aesthetics (it looks silly with the engines on tiny struts).

Edit: It seems I accidentally touched something in the rotor assembly and now it won't stop breaking UGH!

Edited February 25, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Castille7]

The Cantilever Bridge Project

The Cantilever Bridge Project is an idea of a Bridge design that will be constructed on location. First the plan is to setup Piers for the decking of the Bridge to rest on. I have made success with setting one Pier as shown in the video, the second Pier will need to be mobile, not knowing the exact lengths needed or the possibility of making a perfect drop calls for a way of adjustment. Some of my projects are hopeful ideas so bare with me on it's final outcome. There are so many ways Bridges can be built in KSP and the process I use is not always the most efficient, as I build them I come across other challenging ideas (Example: Small ROV's could be added to the Seahorse). Rather than shortening the process I like to make those ideas happen if possible. I am not sure what the final look of the Bridge will be, I only have the Deck and Piers made at this time and plan to add Truss to the Decking. Needless to say this project could make quite a few twist.

On another note, PM me if you think this should have it's own WIP or if my updates here are not a problem as I have been doing in the pass.

 

Pier I

Spoiler

 

One of my first test had a small amount of Ore in the holding tanks for weight that would help the Piers lower end fall to the Sea Floor while keeping the Pier upright, that was the plan but here I hadn't put enough Ore in the tanks which made them more buoyant, the amount of Air Space was too great making them buoyant. I was trying to keep the weight minimal for shipping.

 

Testing was not a complete failure, I was able to use it as a measuring stick to determine what the Pier height needed to be for the next trip.

 

Having the Engines visible in the Stern makes it nice for checking their status (Ex Forward or Reverse)

 

One of the first ideas was to load the Pier with a ramp, after testing I found the ramp needed to be stronger and the process was taking more time than I care to spend on it so that lead me to attaching the Pier to the Ship as one Craft, this has made the process less problematic. This ramp is what the Bridge Decking looks like so far, I plan to add the Truss to this.

Enroute with Bridge Section

http://i.imgur.com/w8Ml7JR.mp4

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Castille7
Added an Animation

[Thingymajigy]

hmm...it could work...maybe

[Jefzor]

On 24-2-2017 at 4:45 AM, Servo said:

I've been messing around with Air-to-Air missiles, with the ultimate goal of making a Top Gun pack. AARMS are really inaccurate and hard to use, so if anyone has any tips on making them keep their target, and turn on liquid fuel engines, I would appreciate it greatly.

This was the only hit I scored after a couple tries. I'm using a missile with 4x elevon, 1x small SAS wheel, 1x OKTO 1, and 4x spark, with some success. I feel like most of my problems would be fixed if I could target from the F-14 and launch the missile without having to switch crafts.

 

I've struggled with the same problem. The trick is to set the okto core from your missile as root part in the VAB, and then use "control from here" on the okto core in flight. I hope this helps. 

[Rune]

5 hours ago, Thingymajigy said:

hmm...it could work...maybe

I was just thinking about the same thing the other day, only the other way around, with the bays vertical.

 

Rune. At the very least, they'll be sturdy.

[The Raging Sandwich]

I'm building an N1 with Tweakscale.

It actually handles surprisingly well. It is perfectly maneuverable believe it or not. I tried last night to fly it to the Mun but ran out of fuel in the Block D (mostly because I jettisoned the other stages too early). I'll be posting it on KerbalX later once I've actually landed on the Mun and returned.

[vitekc45c]

Decided to build crewed base to go with my refinery, now I just need a (flat) place to land it on.

Radio tower

hangar

Runway (some asembly required)

Experiments

 

[Thingymajigy]

15 hours ago, Rune said:

I was just thinking about the same thing the other day, only the other way around, with the bays vertical.

 

Rune. At the very least, they'll be sturdy.

Mm, bit of a shame the ramp can't be file edited to go beyond 100% like control surfaces can.

Success! kind of. 300 tonnes of cargo means it just slides down any slope.

[manek22]

24 minutes ago, Thingymajigy said:

Mm, bit of a shame the ramp can't be file edited to go beyond 100% like control surfaces can.

Success! kind of. 300 tonnes of cargo means it just slides down any slope.

Awesome idea!  Totally going to play with that.  I agree, it'd be nice if it could open wider.  But hey, 50m/s impact tolerance is something to make use of.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Spoiler

Dangit... Mobile problems *swearing*

Anyways, I spent the better part of a day trying to get the rotor assembly on my General Purpose Heli to work for more than 30 seconds again. Then I stuck an antenna on top and it was working just like it had been earlier. But that wasn't good enough for me, so I've been working on improving the speed. Currently it sticks together up to about 35m/s, and it can go higher in a dive if engine rpm is reduced.

 

I'm experimenting with switching the antenna-Ostat bearings out for sensor-octostrut ones because they seem more resistant to being wrenched out of alignment.

I might look at different rotor blade designs too. Might consider different parts, but I'm mostly thinking about adding twist to the blades, because I noticed once in a high power climb that the innermost segments were thrusting down instead of up. Obviously less than ideal.

Edited February 27, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[9t3ndo]

Working on a Cargo SSTO.

Spoiler

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by 9t3ndo

[TheKorbinjer]

On 1/30/2017 at 8:53 PM, Munbro Kerman said:

Starting work on a B-2 Spirit. It's pretty far from done, I need to clean up a few spots. Here's a preview of what's to come.

 

I tried to build a 1:1 scale B2 Spirit, with very accurate wing sweep, but it never flew more than 30 meters before crashing. Any tips on how to improve?

[Azimech]

Little experiment. Doesn't look like it will work and I'm not willing to invest more time in it. Unless Squad can do something about the physics timing, collider friction values and give us real bearing elements - landing gear bearings won't work. It's pretty durable though. Reduction is 3:1.

 

I should really just continue with my piston engine mod and leave stock for what it is for a few months.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Azimech

[Jefzor]

I was working on a Saab Viggen replica, but summoned the Kraken by going overboard and adding the lights by clipping a whole bunch of batteries. Notice how it's Untitled, 0T, 0x0x0 meters and has 0 parts according to the game.  

I guess I'll have to restart from scratch. 

[Munbro Kerman]

3 hours ago, TheKorbinger said:

I tried to build a 1:1 scale B2 Spirit, with very accurate wing sweep, but it never flew more than 30 meters before crashing. Any tips on how to improve?

Well, if you can show me a picture I think that would help out a bit. Do you have to use the entire runway to take off or does it leave after 60 m/s? From my experience, it is probably because you don't have enough control surfaces on the wings. Did you check the center of mass overlay and aerodynamic overlay? If it is in front of the CoM then your plane will be pushed down, which will cause you to crash. If you can't find a fix I have no problem with you sharing a craft file. 

 

[Jefzor]

7 hours ago, TheKorbinger said:

I tried to build a 1:1 scale B2 Spirit, with very accurate wing sweep, but it never flew more than 30 meters before crashing. Any tips on how to improve?

If you could share the craft file, or a picture with center of mass and center of lift and the wheel placement all visible, we could help you out. Center of lift should be slightly behind the center of mass (further back= more stable, but less manoeuvrable). The wheels should also be slightly behind the center of mass (further back=less likely to slam your tail into the ground, but harder to get off the ground). 

 

In other news, I managed to save rescue my Viggen putting most of it in a subassembly. 

I'm also working on an A-10 Warthog (with lots of bells and whistles, like airbrakes, camera pod, and of course the gatling gun). 

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Jefzor

[Torquimedes]

On 2/27/2017 at 3:20 PM, Jefzor said:

I was working on a Saab Viggen replica, but summoned the Kraken by going overboard and adding the lights by clipping a whole bunch of batteries. Notice how it's Untitled, 0T, 0x0x0 meters and has 0 parts according to the game.  

I guess I'll have to restart from scratch. 

It is a shame to lose such a beautiful bird to the Kraken.  Did you fly it at all?  Is it the auto-saved craft?

I sometimes find I've tested several major designs of a new idea before realizing I didn't save any of them, which means I can't load them in for comparison.  Now every test flight after making minor changes, I save a new minor number.  After a major redesign I increment the major number. ie, "Moller Skycar v12-34" = 12 major redesigns, 34 revisions of v12.  You can use a period between them, but it makes a mess because that character isn't allowed in the filename.  I do periodically have to clean out the craft folder of all those revisions, but I prefer that to losing them, in case I come back to a craft much later and want to review what I've already tried.

[Jefzor]

 

6 hours ago, Torquimedes said:

It is a shame to lose such a beautiful bird to the Kraken.  Did you fly it at all?  Is it the auto-saved craft?

I sometimes find I've tested several major designs of a new idea before realizing I didn't save any of them, which means I can't load them in for comparison.  Now every test flight after making minor changes, I save a new minor number.  After a major redesign I increment the major number. ie, "Moller Skycar v12-34" = 12 major redesigns, 34 revisions of v12.  You can use a period between them, but it makes a mess because that character isn't allowed in the filename.  I do periodically have to clean out the craft folder of all those revisions, but I prefer that to losing them, in case I come back to a craft much later and want to review what I've already tried.

I managed to save it by adding the non-bugged parts to a subassembly.

Handling is all right, even whithout SAS, but it's not super manoeuvrable. 

craft file here

I'm working on a whole series of planes from DCS World, hoping to bring more soon. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Jefzor

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

So, while peering inside the housing of my helicopter during a flight, I noticed that the engine mount was jerking up and down at random intervals. I theorized that there was simply too much stress being put on the mount, so I reattached the pins that held the rotors on to the main fuselage. Voila! No more jitters, and it became much more reliable while carrying a load on the hook.

However, I still had problems with flight above 30m/s. Befuddled, I tried removing the motor housing to see inside clearly. And then...

Spoiler

IT WORKED PERFECTLY!

What's more, it could also go about 65m/s using the afterburners on the blowers. I don't have a picture of that though.

 

I do have a picture of something cooler though.

Yes. It does loops.

Shouldn't be too long before I've got a new non-explosion-inducing housing for the motor and release it.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Jefzor]

9 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

So, while peering inside the housing of my helicopter during a flight, I noticed that the engine mount was jerking up and down at random intervals. I theorized that there was simply too much stress being put on the mount, so I reattached the pins that held the rotors on to the main fuselage. Voila! No more jitters, and it became much more reliable while carrying a load on the hook.

However, I still had problems with flight above 30m/s. Befuddled, I tried removing the motor housing. And then...

  Hide contents

IT WORKED PERFECTLY!

What's more, it could also go about 65m/s using the afterburners on the blowers. I don't have a picture of that though.

 

I do have a picture of something cooler though.

Yes. It does loops.

Shouldn't be too long before I've got a new non-explosion-inducing housing for the motor and release it.

 

Impressive. Did you recover from that loop? 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Jefzor said:

Impressive. Did you recover from that loop? 

Omg wth mobile

 

 

Yes I did pull out of the loop, with much altitude to spare.