Ski-jump ramp for runway

[LethalDose]

I agree that there is little need for such a ramp. Someone could mod one in, but I don't think it would have a place in the stock game.

As a work-around, could you add RCS thrusters or small radially mounted engines to the nose of the plane to force its nose up during take off instead of a ramp?

Or build a ramp using the metal plates in the stock game and rover it over to the end of your runway. Then you could also remove it for landings.

[Wahgineer]

What we need is a longer runway. Why? What if you have an airplane that doesn't leave the runway before it gets to the end, but will take off if it has 5 kilometers of straight, level ground. At that point, the plane isn't at fault, the runway is.

[Anton P. Nym]

I'd rather keep the runway as-is, and find some way to make Rocket-Assisted Take-Offs (RATO) more practical for planes in KSP. (Big brother to the Seperatrons?) Adding a ramp* or significantly extending the runway** will complicate spaceplane operations more than they'll help, in my opinion.

-- Steve

* makes the runway asymmetrical, making a westerly landing approach nigh-suicidal

** much longer and, as noted above, Kerbin's curvature complicates things

[Nobody]

For those who build planes that fly well but have trouble getting it off the runway you might take a tip from the military and use JATO setup on the plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO

Place radial decouplers on the side of the plane with sepetrons mounted onto them. When you get up to speed you fire the sepetrons to kick off the runway then after your up fire the decouplers to drop the weight/drag. Needless to say you would need some trial and error to figure out the angle and number you would need for your massive launch.

[tetryds]

Making a plane that takes off from the runway and don't fall like a brick is part of the challenge in building a plane.

This request is the same as ask for a rocket catapult.

[briansun1]

What we need is a longer runway. Why? What if you have an airplane that doesn't leave the runway before it gets to the end, but will take off if it has 5 kilometers of straight, level ground. At that point, the plane isn't at fault, the runway is.

if it needs 5km to take off you really should rethink your design

[tetryds]

if it needs 5km to take off you really should rethink your design

Also, if your plane doesn't reach terminal velocity within 5km you are doing it wrong.

[coolitic]

Instead of a new runway, just get more lift/torque

[Wahgineer]

if it needs 5km to take off you really should rethink your design

tell that to the guys who designed the 747 or the A380, the biggest airplanes on earth that easily dwarf anything we build in ksp.

Look at B9: it comes with parts to make massive aircraft that in most cases need 5km of run-up space. Just because a plane needs the 5km of run-up space the runway doesn't provide doesn't mean it is a bad design. Some people like to launch large space/planes that are actually more practical than the tiny two seat skippers that can take off without 2.5km of runway. Another case is that a simple plane with a RAPIER engine can't take off with the current runway distance. If a simple all stock plane can't get off of the runway until the end, then something is wrong with the runway (I actually did this. The plane flew fine, but it had to use the beach to actually get airborne).

[Kasuha]

Boeing 747 or A380 might require 3 km runway, but only because of safety regulations. They must be able to speed up to V1 speed and then brake to full stop on that length. In other words, even these two would have no technical problems lifting off the KSC runway.

Even AN-225, the heaviest plane in the world, would lift off KSC runway.

[Wahgineer]

Taking off is one thing, landing is another.

If that is the case, then why do a lot of big planes in KSP ( much smaller than the Ann 225) have trouble taking off?

[Galacticruler]

Taking off is one thing, landing is another.

If that is the case, then why do a lot of big planes in KSP ( much smaller than the Ann 225) have trouble taking off?

KSP does not really model aerodynamics(Like FAR does), if it did then those planes would either never fly or never have issues flying.'

Most of KSP's issue is it just adds the whole craft's drag to one number and uses that to dictate how easily it moves.

That is why farings in stock are a terrible idea, because they add rediculous amounts of drag with no benifit aside from looking better.

There was a tutorial on this somewhere....

[SuperBigD60]

I suspect that instead of a ramp, you simply need to move your rear landing gear forward or perhaps ad some canards.

Once you lift up your nose I imagine you'd lift up fine, OP.

Also, FAR rules, man.

[Wahgineer]

KSP does not really model aerodynamics(Like FAR does), if it did then those planes would either never fly or never have issues flying.'

Most of KSP's issue is it just adds the whole craft's drag to one number and uses that to dictate how easily it moves.

That is why farings in stock are a terrible idea, because they add rediculous amounts of drag with no benifit aside from looking better.

There was a tutorial on this somewhere....

I know and understand that, I'm just saying that it's pointless and rather stupid to say that the an 225 would be fine in ksp when most planes smaller than it can't take off with the current runway. Also, that is a good point: the an 225 could take off from the ksp runway if it had to deal with real aerodynamics, which ksp doesn't model.

[michelleandrada]

I have the same problem. thank you for your thoughts.

[Trollsama]

Since the post was necro'd already, I feel it is important something of value is added to the conversation. so for your entertainment i give you:

Some interesting facts related to the topic.

---------------------------------------------------

Kerbins equatorial circumference is 3,770 km

Earths equatorial circumference is 40,030 km

thats about 10% scale (as expected)

Kerbins runway is 1.8 Km long.

at 10% Scale, that's 18km in Earth terms....

The Largest Runway on the planet[1] is found at Changdu Bangda Airport (Seen Here) And measures in at 5.5 km

that is less than 1/3rd the length of the Runway found at KSC at scale.

A 5km Runway at KSC would be in earth terms, 50km long. Long enough to reach downtown Watertown New York, from the shore of Kingston Ontario

And if made wide enough would be visible from orbit.

1) That i could find records of. There may be perhaps secret military runways longer. But nothing on public record

Edited July 21, 2014 by Trollsama

[pa1983]

Runway is long enough!

One can easily build a 200-300 ton plane that takes off half way down the runway and lands at less then 1/4 down the runway. The two main factors are lift and landing gear placement and the angle of attack.

Properly designed underbelly will allow one to take off in no time even with limited TWR.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/11214-The-K-Prize-100-reusable-spaceplane-to-orbit-and-back?p=616764&viewfull=1#post616764

Thats craft was over 200 tons and takes of in no time and lands on a dime. Runway is fine as it is. Practice at building and landing/takeoff is whats required.