Are these stats good for a discaradable plane?

[Tjakka5]

Hey,

Recently I've been trying to make some nifty planes with the new parts, and I came up with one that I think does pretty well.

But I would like to know from the community if it is actually. Or just pretty rubish.

Stats:

Costs only 15.000 KSP Dollars

Able to reach 750m/s speed. (1600m/s orbital speed)

Able to reach 33.000 meters.

Able to fly at 25.000 meters.

Can fly a total of 750.000 meters on one tank.

Features:

Escape system.

Discardable; fly with it until the tank is empty, then discard the whole body and land with the cockpit.

Easialy capable of carrying cargo.

Cons:

Doesn't provide much lift. Takes a little while to get a take off. (Around 200 m/s)

Pretty rubish at turning.

Will flip out of control when going straight down.

In the VAB:

On the runway:

Lift off!:

Very high very fast:

[Hodo]

I have a couple of minor suggestions.

1- I would ditch the turbojet engine and use the basic jet engine, it is cheaper and you don't need that kind of power for a simple disposable aircraft.

2- Move your parachute to the top of the cockpit right behind the canopy glass and ditch the second chute, again this will save you a bit more money and have the added benefit of saving weight.

3- Lose the bi-plane wing design, this is doing nothing but adding drag, mass and cost to a craft that is not going that fast to start with.

4- You should think about using a real tail instead of sticking to small control surfaces like that, I am not sure if KSP even registers them as stabilizers at that point.

It is a good idea for a cheap science vehicle but 15k is a bit steep for something I am going to discard, you can get it well below 10k if you were to use cheaper parts.

[Tex_NL]

...

Easialy capable of carrying cargo.

...

Do you mean it can actually carry cargo or that it can be carried AS cargo. Because it is pretty darn small.

Bring the rear wheels forward to just behind the CoM and it will take-off a LOT easier.

[GoSlash27]

I'm not understanding the concept of a "cheap discardable plane". Wouldn't it make more sense (fiscally) to have a fully reusable plane? I'd imagine that'd be cheaper to build, get better performance with less parts, and be cheaper to operate.

[Yasmy]

I agree with GoSlash27. Why do you need an escape system and discardability? Discardability doesn't hurt (except financially), but when does it help?

I think you'll find that flying high and fast you can go quite far without fuel. Plenty far enough perform a safe unpowered landing someplace smooth, even if you run out of fuel over mountains. Are you trying to save the capsule because it can store science?

[tg626]

I made a chute recovered plane because I want to get surface samples around kerbin. I haven't unlocked wheels yet, so it takes off and lands on its tail with landing struts and has chutes to land.

Don't know the cost, but didn't worry about it since it gets recovered.

What I wonder is why you have 2 of every part in the sph/vab?

[DrMonte]

Discardability is the main issue here. If you have difficulties with landing (practice makes perfect) you can land whole plane with the parachute at KSP without ditching any part and recover 100% for the parts. Add two more chutes at the rear and land on the gear.

Why do you need the plane? For career part tests you do not need extreme speeds and heights. Simple Jet engine is enough in most cases.

Practice landing near KSP Runway. The plain land is good as the Runway itself. You might need to drive to the Runway when landed to receive 100% instead of 99%.

[Alshain]

I don't really understand the concept of "discardable plane". Why would you want such a thing?