[0.24] Spaceplane Plus 1.3

[WhiteWeasel]

So that's what our spaceplane parts would look like if squad ever decided to update the old textures.

[cdugas4]

Here is my first SP+ craft. It is the KSR-71. On my first test flight it traveled halfway around Kerbin with 2/3rds fuel left. It cruises at 19k meters at 1250m/s. It can reach 1400m/s with some careful flying. I plan on adding a few intakes hidden away somewhere to try for a higher cruise altitude. Sorry for the poor lighting, I was taking off at dawn.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And yes, the reentry effects are during normal flight.

[RoboRay]

I think I'm getting close to a ground-to-LKO crew transporter that I'm happy with. I call the latest design the Dove.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Mass is down to 15 tons wet and it handles pretty well. It can get into orbit and back without any visible thermal effects (going up or down), if flown to the limits of its capabilities. Switchover from airbreathing to closed-cycle rocket mode happens at about 32km and 1600 m/sec. I could probably get higher and faster first, but I lack the patience to play throttle-games.

Edited June 19, 2014 by RoboRay

[Glyph]

Title says version 1.1, but the download link says 1.0.

[soridia]

Hello! I've had a lot of fun with your mod! Thank you!

Recently, I got a problem.

Actually the hatch is exposed, but system message told it isn't and kerbal can't get out.

I think the hatch position is not matched with modeling. I'll be glad if I can get the kerbal out in next update! (and sorry for my bad English D: )

[TheReaper]

I think I'm getting close to a ground-to-LKO crew transporter that I'm happy with. I call the latest design the Dove.

http://imgur.com/a/FOmGK

Mass is down to 15 tons wet and it handles pretty well. It can get into orbit and back without any visible thermal effects (going up or down), if flown to the limits of its capabilities. Switchover from airbreathing to closed-cycle rocket mode happens at about 32km and 1600 m/sec. I could probably get higher and faster first, but I lack the patience to play throttle-games.

itss so awesome, thank you for giving me more inspriation

allthough i have no idea if it has enough fuel for orbitor where it keeps the rcs, that is just beyond my creation skills

Edited June 19, 2014 by TheReaper

[RoboRay]

http://img2.ruliweb.daum.net/img/img_link7/869/868057_1.jpg

Actually the hatch is exposed, but system message told it isn't and kerbal can't get out.

I think the hatch position is not matched with modeling. I'll be glad if I can get the kerbal out in next update! (and sorry for my bad English D: )

I think you can get the kerbal out if you don't put a wing where the hatch is.

[Alshain]

I was playing with this addon last night and I have to say the parts are absolutely beautiful. The only problem I had was the modular wings seem really flimsy and hard to attach to one another when compared to another system like the B9 pack. May have been just something I was doing wrong, but I built a really nice craft using the B9 wings with this fuselage system.

EDIT: P.S. I especially like the inline docking port.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Alshain

[RoboRay]

itss so awesome, thank you for giving me more inspriation

allthough i have no idea if it has enough fuel for orbitor where it keeps the rcs, that is just beyond my creation skills

The Dove reaches orbit with about 300 m/sec of rocket delta V remaining, and there's close to another 300 m/sec of RCS. So, reaching any destination in LKO and then returning to the surface is doable. Even if you burn all the fuel that the oxidizer can use, there's still enough left to fly at least a quarter of the way around the planet on jet-power, so getting back to the runway should be no problem.

I use FAR, though... I'm not sure how it would perform in the stock soup.

I hope to fix the last showstopper issues with the design tonight, then I'll share it with anyone that's interested.

Edited June 19, 2014 by RoboRay

[TheReaper]

The Dove reaches orbit with about 300 m/sec of rocket delta V remaining, and there's close to another 300 m/sec of RCS. So, reaching any destination in LKO and then returning to the surface is doable. Even if you burn all the fuel that the oxidizer can use, there's still enough left to fly at least a quarter of the way around the planet on jet-power, so getting back to the runway should be no problem.

I use FAR, though... I'm not sure how it would perform in the stock soup.

I hope to fix the last showstopper issues with the design tonight, then I'll share it with anyone that's interested.

i have stock installed, from what i understand basicly FAR makes things a bit harder, i think the plane could move a lot more with the same amount of fuel with stock aeronotics installed

[RoboRay]

FAR doesn't make things harder... it makes them more realistic.

If you build a craft with good aerodynamics and fly it well, FAR makes things easier. And because FAR relies on real-world physics instead of fantasy-land mass=drag, you can apply real-world principles to your designs without having to just figure out nonsense as you go along.

FAR only makes things harder if you build things that simply should not fly well (or at all), in which case the stock KSP system may allow them to work anyway.

An aerodynamic design in FAR needs less fuel to get into orbit than it would in stock KSP, from the reduced drag. On the other hand, a non-aerodynamic design might need more fuel in FAR than in stock KSP (if it worked at all).

Edited June 19, 2014 by RoboRay

[Hodo]

FAR doesn't make things harder... it makes them more realistic.

If you build a craft with good aerodynamics and fly it well, FAR makes things easier. And because FAR relies on real-world physics instead of fantasy-land mass=drag, you can apply real-world principles to your designs without having to just figure out nonsense as you go along.

FAR only makes things harder if you build things that simply should not fly well (or at all), in which case the stock KSP system may allow them to work anyway.

An aerodynamic design in FAR needs less fuel to get into orbit than it would in stock KSP, from the reduced drag. On the other hand, a non-aerodynamic design might need more fuel in FAR than in stock KSP (if it worked at all).

This is so true. I can not agree with this more. +1

[TheReaper]

FAR doesn't make things harder... it makes them more realistic.

If you build a craft with good aerodynamics and fly it well, FAR makes things easier. And because FAR relies on real-world physics instead of fantasy-land mass=drag, you can apply real-world principles to your designs without having to just figure out nonsense as you go along.

FAR only makes things harder if you build things that simply should not fly well (or at all), in which case the stock KSP system may allow them to work anyway.

An aerodynamic design in FAR needs less fuel to get into orbit than it would in stock KSP, from the reduced drag. On the other hand, a non-aerodynamic design might need more fuel in FAR than in stock KSP (if it worked at all).

yeah under good or perfect aerodynemic designs yes, but you know not many of us are aeronotic engineer graduates since i also do some crazy ninja stunt spins and flips within atmosphere (for reasons) far breaks the craft into a thousend pieaces,(yeah i know the reason, just dont want it to , i love fantazy) i am also low on memeory, running on absolute KSP ram limits

[Alshain]

Well, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The wings will not attach to the fuselage except by one pivot point, which makes them very unstable because the tail end fall into the ground and the plane breaks apart at the slightest increase in pitch. B9 definitely doesn't have this issue so there has to be something wrong with this packages config.

[mike9606]

Well, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The wings will not attach to the fuselage except by one pivot point, which makes them very unstable because the tail end fall into the ground and the plane breaks apart at the slightest increase in pitch. B9 definitely doesn't have this issue so there has to be something wrong with this packages config.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/Alshain/screenshot18.png

Put some struts on it, they fix most things.

[Alshain]

Put some struts on it, they fix most things.

Umm, no. I don't have to strut B9 wings together, that looks terrible and probably screws up the aerodynamics.

[Hodo]

Umm, no. I don't have to strut B9 wings together, that looks terrible and probably screws up the aerodynamics.

Struts have no drag. The B9 struts have no drag and I don't think the stock struts do either. At least not in FAR.

I have tested and tested.

If you place your struts right they can be invisible.

[BigD145]

Umm, no. I don't have to strut B9 wings together, that looks terrible and probably screws up the aerodynamics.

B9 comes with invisible struts. The ends are visible, the tether isn't.

[RoboRay]

B9 definitely doesn't have this issue so there has to be something wrong with this packages config.

Then there's something wrong with Squad's stock wing parts configs, because they do the exact same thing as these wings.

Unity has a branching-tree hierarchy for part attachment. Each part attaches to its parent part, only. If you attach a series of parts together as shown in your picture with another series of parts adjacent to them, they are only attached to each other at the one common parent part to both of them (the pivot point you mention).

Struts are how you create additional physics joints to stitch the child parts to other child parts. If you don't want to use them, I'll have to suggest you stick with the big simple wing parts in B9 instead of building your own wings from these panel sections.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RoboRay

[Starwaster]

Well, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The wings will not attach to the fuselage except by one pivot point, which makes them very unstable because the tail end fall into the ground and the plane breaks apart at the slightest increase in pitch. B9 definitely doesn't have this issue so there has to be something wrong with this packages config.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/Alshain/screenshot18.png

Oh yes, definitely something wrong with this part's config as evidenced from the torrential cries for updated configs by the many unhappy players.

Have you looked through this thread at other people's creations?

This person has managed to get his space plane off the runway and those look to all be SP+ wings. Landing gear is B9. You will note it's mounted on engine pods so it can be lower than if it were mounted on the wing bottom.

Here is RoboRay's creation. (one of them) Using stock gear and.... SP+ wings. Struts seem to be artfully hidden, so they're clearly not an asthetic showstopper.

Here is SharpSpoonful's spaceplane. It launched vertically but landed just fine without coming apart or dragging its a$$ to death.

Do you get it? The fault lies not in your parts but.... ok ok fine I'll stop preaching now.....

[CptRichardson]

I just get around it by using the B9 wings for great justice (and launch-stice)!

[Alshain]

Look I'm just reporting what I believe to be a bug or problem. Take it or leave it, I was trying to help the author... which I note that none of you are.

[Starwaster]

Look I'm just reporting what I believe to be a bug or problem. Take it or leave it, I was trying to help the author... which I note that none of you are.

And I'm pointing out to you that other people are not having that problem and are able to go on to produce clever and imaginative designs, and fortunately for you, I don't have to be the author to do that!

A smart person (which I hope you are) would go look at the links I helpfully provided.

[sharpspoonful]

Umm, no. I don't have to strut B9 wings together, that looks terrible and probably screws up the aerodynamics.

The example crafts in B9 are strutted, and I think the back end isn't supporting the engine weight because it looks like the last delta wing section isn't connected to anything. It seems to me that the error is occurring between the keyboard and the chair.

Edit: Oh, and your landing gear set up pushes the nose up. You have the gear on the wings in the rear, and on the body in the front. Download the KAX mod and it will give some beefier gear for the rear half of the plane.

Edit 2: also, it would be better to construct the wings on the frame rather than prebuilding them. That may also be why it only has one pivot point. Rather than having multiple child parts, subassemblies of radial parts will only connect on the parent part of the subassembly.

Edit 3: Oh, and I almost forgot to add for clarity's sake; none of my wings have any struts. During my launches my boosters have a tendency to bounce off of the wings. Thanks to Squads fix on joint strength, I have yet to lose a flight due to wing integrity. I have tested all of my planes with FAR, so I know they are well built. Revise your wings and be a little more open to constructive criticism.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sharpspoonful

[Wren]

I basically ripped off RoboRay for my design but I have a crudton more mods installed, so I am using interstellar nuclear reactors and electric generators to provide power and I have b9 for the sabre engine, and the electric power from the generators power two ion engines without the need for solar panels. The hardest part I am working on now is trying to get it to be waste heat neutral. (which it isn't, still heats slowly, but I'd run out of life support before it reaches max)

http://s20.photobucket.com/user/Wrenpheonix/slideshow/Spaceplane?sort=3

Edited June 20, 2014 by Wren