[1.2.2] B9 Aerospace | Release 6.2.1 (Old Thread)

[MastaSchmitty]

When attempting to fly one of my pre-B9-install spaceplanes (the one in question uses SP+, for reference), I now find that I am unable to run both my aerospikes and my turbojets (which is generally how I cross over the "running out of intake air but still able to draw some in" threshold). Is this the consequence of the "CrossFeedEnabler" plugin, or is it something inherent in the way B9 operates?

[Motokid600]

Okay so I read through the OP to see why my engines weren't performing as they did before installing B9. I see you changed their configs and thas fine, but im having some other issues in which may be related. Engines seem to flame out very early.. or... that is due to the overheating and.. that might be mechjeb throttling it down ( though ascent guidance is not enabled ). Which brings me too my next question. The engines are overheating and exploding. Is this a property of the rebalanced engines as they overrev? Or is this DRE? Because I see that "Not all parts are supported." in the OP.

Edit:

Actually.. I was just tryint the B9 UL-1 Kornbluth in particular and its engines ( The CF34's ). overheat before leaving the runway. I take it with these reconfigured engines I gave it too much throttle?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Motokid600

[AetherGoddess]

[...]And I think 90% or more of a SSTOSP could be re-usable, pretty sure NASA didn't strip the shuttle down completely between each flight, they inspected it and serviced the engines etc but not the whole thing. Pretty sure the dragon works like that as well, engines and heat-shield are the main points of fatigue/concern.

that's exactly one of the criticisms of the space shuttle, that for all it's recovery planning and "space truck" design ethos, it took months of rebuild between flights. the Dragon is exceptional in that it only needs this type of serious overhaul every 10 flights (if you believe the CEO).

a fully reusable space plane is a long way from dragon. the dragon is 6.1 m x 3.7 m (dia), but it sits atop the Falcon 9, 68.4 m x 3.7 m (dia) for which a PARTIALLY reusable version is in development. best case, dragon will be reusing 1/8th of the whole system stack.

the near future reusable space program doesn't look like your car. the reusable space program looks like a single shot target rifle; you can recover the bullet, and maybe the casing, and put it into a new rifle fresh from the assembly facility and fire a second time.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

By using them with the stock model, where they top off at that speed. FAR and NEAR make half-hearted nerfs to the velocity curves because reaching orbit on jets is stupid, but I didn't want to deal with the hell that would come from taking away the magical toys that everyone had gotten used to.

Oh okay, so users of NEAR and FAR cannot get to Mach 7 already. I had assumed the FAQ were adressed at them, since that's already listed as a prerequisite now.

Problem is that stock only has 2 jets and they're not really separated by what they're used for, turbojet is simply better but on a higher tech node and more expensive, basic is only a bit more fuel efficient very near the ground.

B9 has several jet engines that are designed to be optimal for very different speeds and heights, but that's pointless if the stock turbojet just is universally good at everything.

Hmm then which applications would you say the D-30F7 and the (nerfed) stock TurboJet respectively are best for right now, compared to the F119 and to each other? Edited September 13, 2014 by Hurry, Starfish!

[BudgetHedgehog]

B9 is about realistic airplanes

Uhhh...

Because, yeah, that's realistic.

[K3-Chris]

Oh okay, so users of NEAR and FAR cannot get to Mach 7 already. I had assumed the FAQ were adressed at them, since that's already listed as a prerequisite now.

Hmm then which applications would you say the D-30F7 and the (nerfed) stock TurboJet respectively are best for right now, compared to the F119 and to each other?

I don't have the stats of them in front of me atm but as far as I understand it those 2 should be fairly close in specs and they're useful for going Mach 3~ at altitude, F119 is heavier and I think a bit higher fuel consumption, the wide gimbal range makes them better for maneuverable planes going less high than the turbojets, the turbofans (airliner looking engines) are for subsonic speeds, they're more efficient at subsonic speeds than the turbojets, and the turbojets are higher thrust when going fast.

Because, yeah, that's realistic.

It's balanced even if it doesn't look realistic, realistic balance doesn't preclude an element of the fanciful in visuals

[dzikakulka]

Are there any plans for a (sc)ramjet-like powerful and efficient engine with velocitycurve zeroed until few machs? Maybe someone has some config to change one into something like that? I'd like to build some super light and fast UAV (towed to mach 3 or something) but sabres are quite heavy

Of course I could make one myself (I'm trying) but I suck at balance and have very limited knowledge (of how stuff is supposed to work irl). Just asking if anyone has something similiar.

[K3-Chris]

Are there any plans for a (sc)ramjet-like powerful and efficient engine with velocitycurve zeroed until few machs?

Yes, in the meantime http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/220695-taverios-pizza-aerospace

[BubbaWilkins]

http://imgur.com/a/kzkGd

Launching a fineprint mission satellite in a re-usable fashion, too bad you can't install new payload and re-fuel the same plane, I guess I'll have to pretend that's what happens each time I land back at KSC and recover it.

Well, that depends entirely on how hardcore you want to be about it. With a few more mods, you could make a service vehicle which can refuel your craft as well as another which can place a payload. You could go even further hardcore and do a 100% Kethane based system (no free fuel once your kethane operation is running).

[Hurry- Starfish!]

Yeah, the F119 is definitely good for maneuverability and efficient subsonic engines make sense too. It's just that the D-30F7 takes long to change throttle, eats more fuel than the nerfed TurboJet and goes less than 100m/s faster, so I'm not sure where its niche is.

[dzikakulka]

Yes, in the meantime http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/220695-taverios-pizza-aerospace

Thanks! Turns out flying hypersonic is quite hard.

PS. Link in your sig is broken (missing ':')

[K3-Chris]

Yeah, the F119 is definitely good for maneuverability and efficient subsonic engines make sense too. It's just that the D-30F7 takes long to change throttle, eats more fuel than the nerfed TurboJet and goes less than 100m/s faster, so I'm not sure where its niche is.

Hmm, Tav is much better qualified to answer that than me, spinup and spindown on a engine meant to take you that high isn't really an issue imo, I just let em spin up on the runway with the brakes on if I use them for takeoff, stock being better still doesn't sound quite right.

Thanks! Turns out flying hypersonic is quite hard.

PS. Link in your sig is broken (missing ':')

Argh the double http bug of copying FF's URL field strikes again, thanks.

Well, that depends entirely on how hardcore you want to be about it. With a few more mods, you could make a service vehicle which can refuel your craft as well as another which can place a payload. You could go even further hardcore and do a 100% Kethane based system (no free fuel once your kethane operation is running).

Yeah I got karbonite, my main complaint really was that you can't attach new decouplers to an existing craft and a new payload in that fashion, you need to use docking ports or KAS and KAS struts to secure it.

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Yeah I got karbonite, my main complaint really was that you can't attach new decouplers to an existing craft and a new payload in that fashion, you need to use docking ports or KAS and KAS struts to secure it.

Have you tried active struts?

[BlackDragon Korean]

(I don't know much about English grammar.So I hope you understand, even if the error in my post.)

I'm trying to make a movie now.

so I have some question for the mode.

first,When are you going to release a bug fix patch?

I must to use the BDAmory mode, but I can't use it.

Second, I don't likeHX engine's effect in the vacuum. so I want change the cfg file, but I don't know where to fix.

[Taverius]

The D30-F7s are behaving as intended, pretty much.

You get more speed but you pay for it in lots of ways, because speed from a turbine is anything but for free - higher speed -> higher HP turbine temps -> heavier HP turbine stage -> slower spin ups, heavier engine, and its an exponential thing.

That's why even high-bypass turbofans still do ~10% thrust from the turbine - diminishing returns means extracting that last bit of thrust as axle power for the fan costs you more in mass than you gain in thrust.

Its also why modern fighters use engines like the F119, with top speeds in the mach 2.2-2.5 range. Upping the top end costs you so much in loiter time, engine response and mass its just not worth it. Also, supercruise ability eats into the efficiency of the afterburner.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Taverius

[K3-Chris]

Yeah that makes sense, he says the stock turbojets are "better" than the B9 ones though, I don't have the numbers but only difference I know of off-hand is the spin time difference, then again I don't use stock jets if give any other option.

@SufficientAnonymity: No, it sounds interesting but it also sounds very early, I've used Quantum Struts before though so I get the idea, it's still a bit of a chore to have a docking port on the cargo bay and payload and have some kind of crane to put it into the plane, I still think being able to roll into the VAB/SPH as-is would be a really neat and useful.

[Sufficient Anonymity]

@SufficientAnonymity: No, it sounds interesting but it also sounds very early, I've used Quantum Struts before though so I get the idea, it's still a bit of a chore to have a docking port on the cargo bay and payload and have some kind of crane to put it into the plane, I still think being able to roll into the VAB/SPH as-is would be a really neat and useful.

For something that's still kinda experimental, it works really well actually - so nice having the freedom to toggle links by action group like quantum struts, but also being able to route them to specific parts like KAS is really neat. That all said, I totally get what you're saying about faffing about adding payloads - the best way I've found to streamline it is by keeping all my payloads as subassemblies (which does require a bit of thought when building them) then mating them onto the appropriate SSTO, with the self-imposed rule of not having ten different instances of the same type of SSTO in orbit at once.

[SpaceCommanderNemo]

Has any progress been made with tweaskscale compatibility? Since InsterstellarLite requires it to be useful at all, it's kind of a game-breaker. I've deleted the b9 tweaskscale config but i'm still getting issues with the tweakable parts.

[K3-Chris]

Has any progress been made with tweaskscale compatibility? Since InsterstellarLite requires it to be useful at all, it's kind of a game-breaker. I've deleted the b9 tweaskscale config but i'm still getting issues with the tweakable parts.

No idea, not up to us.

[Taverius]

Biotronic is MIA, so I doubt there will be any progress in that regard until he's back, although depending on what NathanKell manages to do, you might be able to bypass it by using ModularFuelTanks.

[Atrius129]

One of my biggest issues with reusing a plane would be getting the monster turned around and positioned on a runway in a way that it could be launched again.

I really understand what you mean though in not wanting to recover some craft. Sometimes when you make it back after a crazy mission, I feel bad essentially selling it for scrap as soon as I land.

What if an second recovery option was available? Like "Recover Vessel As-Is". It would take the current craft and save it as a brand new craft file. That way you could just reattach the boosters, refuel, or fit another payload. It wouldn't recover craft funds, but it also wouldn't cost anything in the SPH save what you are adding. Bonus points if you can make another building in the Space Center so you can view your saved craft GTA V garage style.

[Taverius]

One of my biggest issues with reusing a plane would be getting the monster turned around and positioned on a runway in a way that it could be launched again.

That's why we have steering on the landing gear, although it would be easier if there was a taxiway connecting the parking lot next to the SPH to the end of the runway.

[K3-Chris]

Wow, just wow, had no idea this was even possible:

Was testing this airplane design:

Not happy with the wings, they're too small but adding another set of 4x4 wings to it makes them too large imo, man I wish pWings weren't so far up the tree...

Might notice I "forgot" the airbrakes, well I didn't truly expect the design to get into space with that little wing, but it did, I dropped my test payload in orbit and burned retrograde to get back to KSC.

Problem was that no airbrakes and that little wing meant I couldn't really slow down in any appreciable sense of the word, and well, I play with FAR and DRE:

DRE removed all the wings, but the main stack of the plane survived, including the rocket engine on the back, as a last ditch effort since I was already going crazy fast (2400m/s~) and I had about 1/4 of my LF+Oxi left I fired up the rocket engine and pitched back with it's small gimbal range, it was enough, hit 550km Ap at 15km~ altitude, dropped to 400km~ by the time I got out of the atmosphere, had enough fuel to burn prograde at Ap enough to get into 400/100 orbit.

I guess there is a lesson in there somewhere, if you're going way too fast, it's better to accelerate than slow down.

Next version will have larger wings and airbrakes >_> Jeb insisted on it.

[Taverius]

Looks like plenty of wing to me, you just need to come in more shallow and slow down by doing tight alternating turns.

[Atrius129]

That's why we have steering on the landing gear, although it would be easier if there was a taxiway connecting the parking lot next to the SPH to the end of the runway.

It really wouldn't be a problem if the runway weren't so narrow. It would be nice if it were more of an airfield instead of a runway with death on either side. I love how you added steering and motorization to the gear, but I still end up feeling like: