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

[He_162]

14 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

YOU LIke!?!    

I think we all do.

[Servo]

@Kronus_Aerospace made a beautiful large-scale fighter jet and somehow kept it maneuverable, which got me thinking...

How big can you go?

Powerplant: 8x Panther, 2x Goliath. No idea how I'm putting a cockpit on this thing yet, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

~~EDIT~~

Surprisingly, one of the more maneuverable planes I've made in a while. Can't seem to get the darn thing through the RnD bridge, for some reason...

Edited May 15, 2018 by Servo

[Kronus_Aerospace]

After a 5 month absence of new craft I decided to return to my roots of building gigantic cargo SSTO's. This beasty that I'm working on now currently weighs in at 6,404 tonnes, and is 69 meters long and 55 meters wide. The planned payload capacity of this craft is 3000 tonnes.

In order to give this craft a large enough payload volume capacity such that it would be able to realistically hold a 3 kiloton payload, I had to use a dual payload fairing setup. This prevents the craft from being excessively long which would introduce structural issues.

The craft currently has a decent TWR with 352 R.A.P.I.E.R.s, however considering the fact that this craft's mass will increase by 50% once I add the test payload this is far from the final number of engines that will be used.

The SSTO itself as I mentioned weighs 6.4 kilotons, however this is more than it needs to be. Ideally the SSTO itself should only have to weigh about 5.7 kilotons in order to deliver a 3 kiloton payload, presuming it is decently efficient. This over-engineering is intentional as it allows me to freely adjust fuel levels to optimize preformance as well as fine tune the location of the CoM

EDIT:

I have now added most of the wing surfaces for the craft, as well as adding another section of fuselage with 64 additional engines, bringing the total up to 416. The test payload has been added and the craft's fuel levels have been adjusted, it currently sits at 9.1 kilotons. This is still more than it needs, but I haven't built one of these in quite some time so I don't remember the proper liquid fuel to oxidizer balance.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Kronus_Aerospace

[Majorjim!]

10 hours ago, Kronus_Aerospace said:

-snip

@Whackjob

[Spartwo]

On 5/11/2018 at 11:34 PM, Fraston said:

The images aren't there

It's a post from 2014, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[EvenFlow]

 

So I've updated some visual aspects of my 'Cat. Will be updating it in a few minutes and since I've based it off blueprints I've decided
I might as well show you how nicely it matches the real Tomcat when viewed in KVV after updates to the wings and wing gloves.

[Triop]

[He_162]

On 5/22/2018 at 8:26 PM, Triop said:

-insert A-10 warthog here-

I've never seen an A-10 replica look so on point but smooth looking. Use the drills for a gun barrel.

[EvenFlow]

Overhauling the nose section of my Eagle, I'm trying to incorporate the Gravioli-detector cockpit glazing I used on my F-104 on it. It looks quite accurate, but the drag is turning out to be a big, big issue. Due to how the physicsless parts are handled in KSP, placing about 50-60 Gravioli detectors on a single part seems to f-up the drag values completely. The top speed of my Eagle dropped below acceptable levels (345m/s in level flight at sea level for all of my 4th gen fighter replicas) and now sits at about 336m/s even with the thrust limitations on the engines removed. I'm gonna experiment and try making it less draggy, but it's a tough endeavor. I'd be eternally grateful for any suggestions on how to bypass the drag model for these parts. I've already searched through the CRAFT file and cant seem to find any parameters which could somehow be related to drag calculations. Here's a WIP pic for hype and context.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

4 hours ago, EvenFlow said:

<snip>

What is the powerplant on that aircraft?

[Kerbalwerks]

On 5/21/2018 at 2:27 PM, EvenFlow said:

 

So I've updated some visual aspects of my 'Cat. Will be updating it in a few minutes and since I've based it off blueprints I've decided
I might as well show you how nicely it matches the real Tomcat when viewed in KVV after updates to the wings and wing gloves.

The real wing LH side looks as almost an exact match of the in-game wing, is it not the right size and that is why you didn't use it/

[EvenFlow]

1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

What is the powerplant on that aircraft?

It's powered by 4x Panther engines like the majority of my replicas. It's a nice balance and allows highly detailed, sometimes a bit draggy replicas to achieve near-real-life performance.

37 minutes ago, Kerbalwerks said:

The real wing LH side looks as almost an exact match of the in-game wing, is it not the right size and that is why you didn't use it/

Yes, while the shape of the in-game swept wing is a pretty close match it is far too small. The Tomcat has a wingspan of over 19 meters and the stock, non tweakscaled wing is only about 4-5m in length sadly.

[Kerbalwerks]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:35 PM, Kronus_Aerospace said:

After a 5 month absence of new craft I decided to return to my roots of building gigantic cargo SSTO's. This beasty that I'm working on now currently weighs in at 6,404 tonnes, and is 69 meters long and 55 meters wide. The planned payload capacity of this craft is 3000 tonnes.

In order to give this craft a large enough payload volume capacity such that it would be able to realistically hold a 3 kiloton payload, I had to use a dual payload fairing setup. This prevents the craft from being excessively long which would introduce structural issues.

The craft currently has a decent TWR with 352 R.A.P.I.E.R.s, however considering the fact that this craft's mass will increase by 50% once I add the test payload this is far from the final number of engines that will be used.

The SSTO itself as I mentioned weighs 6.4 kilotons, however this is more than it needs to be. Ideally the SSTO itself should only have to weigh about 5.7 kilotons in order to deliver a 3 kiloton payload, presuming it is decently efficient. This over-engineering is intentional as it allows me to freely adjust fuel levels to optimize preformance as well as fine tune the location of the CoM

EDIT:

I have now added most of the wing surfaces for the craft, as well as adding another section of fuselage with 64 additional engines, bringing the total up to 416. The test payload has been added and the craft's fuel levels have been adjusted, it currently sits at 9.1 kilotons. This is still more than it needs, but I haven't built one of these in quite some time so I don't remember the proper liquid fuel to oxidizer balance.

The awesomeness of this beast is well............ Beastly.

I have a question for you:  I know lots of parts cause lag and other problems, I currently am in the build process of a large very [Heavy ship],  been able to keep part count down but the mass is great, will large mass ships cause teh same issues as too many parts or have noticed? the project is approx. half built, tried loading it on the runway and seemed like it took awhile for it too load not sure if PC was having trouble calculating the large mass or what.

[Kronus_Aerospace]

2 hours ago, Kerbalwerks said:

I have a question for you:  I know lots of parts cause lag and other problems, I currently am in the build process of a large very [Heavy ship],  been able to keep part count down but the mass is great, will large mass ships cause teh same issues as too many parts or have noticed? the project is approx. half built, tried loading it on the runway and seemed like it took awhile for it too load not sure if PC was having trouble calculating the large mass or what.

Part count is a pretty good measuring stick for how long load times will be, since the game basically has to build the craft on the runway while loading. Mass isn't really a factor, but what is a factor is part size. Larger parts have more complex models and therefore take more processing power. This SSTO that I'm working on takes longer to load than smaller craft that have more parts. That being said part count is still the biggest factor. Fairings might also be the culprit, Fairings are great for in-game performance, but cause a lot of lag in the VAB/SPH. I can't say exactly how much they contribute to load times, but in my experience they do increase them, the size of the fairings in question is also a much bigger factor than number of fairings in this case. Other times certain craft have ridiculous load times for reasons I can't pin down. Determining what's causing KSP to slow down or lag can be kind of a crap-shoot sometimes. Hope this was helpful!

Edited May 26, 2018 by Kronus_Aerospace

[prgmTrouble]

Me taking forever to design a wing:

 

Suggestions welcome!

Edit: Progress update!

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by prgmTrouble

[Gman_builder]

My first ever electric plane

Pretty zippy too

Spoiler

 

[He_162]

5 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

My first ever electric plane
Pretty zippy too

I'd say it looks a lot like that blue aircraft made by Bugatti, but also twin engine! Of course its zippy! Well done!

[Servo]

On 5/26/2018 at 12:48 PM, EvenFlow said:

Overhauling the nose section of my Eagle, I'm trying to incorporate the Gravioli-detector cockpit glazing I used on my F-104 on it. It looks quite accurate, but the drag is turning out to be a big, big issue. Due to how the physicsless parts are handled in KSP, placing about 50-60 Gravioli detectors on a single part seems to f-up the drag values completely. 

I'll put this little experiment of mine up here again:

Basically, experimenting with different parts and their drag. Large fuel cells and structural panels are awful, but solar panels don't actually drag at all (except at very high speed). I know it's not the solution you were looking for, but solar panel cockpits can get 80% of the look with 20% of the drag.

 

A friend challenged me to actually leave the atmosphere for once - so Ike ho! A couple interesting design aspects here - primarily the airbrakes / wing parts to assist in Aerobraking at Duna (hopefully).

 

Meanwhile, in the big plane department, there has been some serious commotion...

Plus, this is likely going to be one of my lowest-part replicas in ages.

 

[qzgy]

11 hours ago, Servo said:

Meanwhile, in the big plane department, there has been some serious commotion...

Looks like another tomcat. Seems to be going well by the look of things. Don't accidentally stage though, I don't the the pilot would be happy to realize that his fuselage is now in little bits and pieces everywhere around around him 

[Castille7]

@Servo ........... @klond and I thought you might like this little replica we're working on?

Sanchez Besa 1912

Edited May 28, 2018 by Castille7

[Servo]

4 hours ago, Castille7 said:

@Servo ........... @klond and I thought you might like this little replica we're working on?

Sanchez Besa 1912

That's a very cool craft you've got there! I've never seen the original, so more props (get it?) to you for that as well.

 

I did a bit of work on the fairing-heavy F-14, though I don't think I'll see it to completion. The F-14 is such a big fighter already, a 200% scale would just be unwieldy.

I've been doing a bit of building at the other end if the size spectrum as well, resulting in this zippy little F-16.

 

Astute followers of my craft might realize that this now means that I now have F-16s built at 200%, kerbal scale, and 30% scale. You should see where this is going...

And what is probably my favorite KSP screenshot now:

 

[Castille7]

2 hours ago, Servo said:

That's a very cool craft you've got there! I've never seen the original, so more props (get it?) to you for that as well.

I did a bit of work on the fairing-heavy F-14, though I don't think I'll see it to completion. The F-14 is such a big fighter already, a 200% scale would just be unwieldy.

I've been doing a bit of building at the other end if the size spectrum as well, resulting in this zippy little F-16.

These are some really nice builds, I didn't think an F-16 could get so tiny!
As for those formation shots, they are definitely really cool, I like this one 

[VR_Dev]

This thread has me reminiscent of my old f-16

https://gfycat.com/DefinitiveFittingHamadryad

Follow up to my hexapod. Wanted to make something walk on all fours, with the option for upright locomotion. Finally happy with the design, so its time to make it walk and fly.

 

[Triop]

Dropping drones

[klond]

On 5/28/2018 at 2:57 PM, Castille7 said:

 It makes me think of this, even though it's totally the wrong plane.  North by North Jeb.  lol

Edited May 30, 2018 by klond