FL-T800 vs mk2 Fuselage and more

[Roflcopterkklol]

Why does the FL-T800 fuel tank hold more LF/O than the mk2 LFO fuselage?

I can not see the point in using the mk2 fuselage when i can make a smaller craft using the FL-T800 fuel tanks behind a mk3 fuselage.

Also more beef, No more connecting the mk3 cockpit to the mk2 fuselage.

Last bit of beef, Why did the old wings/control surfaces need to be removed?

sure put new ones in but why get rid of the old wings all together?

My SPH is missing a few monsters because of that.

[ferram4]

There is a very good reason to use the Mk2 fuselage instead. Its drag is lower. Actually, it's half that of the regular parts per unit mass (in the stock game). This can easily be exploited to reduce the dV to orbit significantly, because if you can reduce your drag force by almost half, you can reduce your drag losses and gravity losses (remember, you'll have a higher terminal velocity, which means less dV spent fighting gravity) significantly enough to get serious gains out of your launch vehicle.

I'd expect you can save at least 500 m/s if you build your rocket out of Mk2 fuselages. Considering that the dV to orbit is ~4500 m/s stock, that's knocking off ~11% of your fuel requirements right there.

[RocketPilot573]

There is a very good reason to use the Mk2 fuselage instead. Its drag is lower. Actually, it's half that of the regular parts per unit mass (in the stock game). This can easily be exploited to reduce the dV to orbit significantly, because if you can reduce your drag force by almost half, you can reduce your drag losses and gravity losses (remember, you'll have a higher terminal velocity, which means less dV spent fighting gravity) significantly enough to get serious gains out of your launch vehicle.

I'd expect you can save at least 500 m/s if you build your rocket out of Mk2 fuselages. Considering that the dV to orbit is ~4500 m/s stock, that's knocking off ~11% of your fuel requirements right there.

Wait what.... Why did I not notice this before? *Heads off to VAB to exploit*

[Roflcopterkklol]

There is a very good reason to use the Mk2 fuselage instead. Its drag is lower. Actually, it's half that of the regular parts per unit mass (in the stock game). This can easily be exploited to reduce the dV to orbit significantly, because if you can reduce your drag force by almost half, you can reduce your drag losses and gravity losses (remember, you'll have a higher terminal velocity, which means less dV spent fighting gravity) significantly enough to get serious gains out of your launch vehicle.

I'd expect you can save at least 500 m/s if you build your rocket out of Mk2 fuselages. Considering that the dV to orbit is ~4500 m/s stock, that's knocking off ~11% of your fuel requirements right there.

Hmm this requires testing ill be back

[SunChaser]

There is a very good reason to use the Mk2 fuselage instead. Its drag is lower. Actually, it's half that of the regular parts per unit mass (in the stock game). This can easily be exploited to reduce the dV to orbit significantly, because if you can reduce your drag force by almost half, you can reduce your drag losses and gravity losses (remember, you'll have a higher terminal velocity, which means less dV spent fighting gravity) significantly enough to get serious gains out of your launch vehicle.

I'd expect you can save at least 500 m/s if you build your rocket out of Mk2 fuselages. Considering that the dV to orbit is ~4500 m/s stock, that's knocking off ~11% of your fuel requirements right there.

This. Balance trumps realism in this case, as I think the Mk2 fuselage would be too good if it had more fuel than the FL-T800. Makes for ugly craft if you put them on rockets, though...

[Levelord]

The Mk2 fuselage has less drag because it is lighter but overall it is the same as a regular fuel tank with its fuel drained accordingly. Drag is measured as a value of mass in ksp so there isnt a real advantage over using one over the other.

[ferram4]

No, I mean per unit mass it makes half as much drag. This is specified in the config file by the aerodynamic module that it uses.

[Levelord]

It is? That's interesting. Although I wonder why they made it that way, the regular cylindrical tanks still have their uses in spaceplanes (Mk1 cockpits) so it's a bit of a bummer they aren't standardized.

Thinking about it, it's probably to make up for the fact that cargo bays and payloads will weigh down the Mk2 parts anyway so I guess it still balances out in the end.

[Wanderfound]

This. Balance trumps realism in this case, as I think the Mk2 fuselage would be too good if it had more fuel than the FL-T800. Makes for ugly craft if you put them on rockets, though...

Eye of the beholder etc, but:

[chuangatronic]

I've been trying to use the mk2 parts to make an SSTO VTOL and the drag/aerodynamics makes it very difficult to come in tail first. Has anyone else had this problem?

[Wanderfound]

I've been trying to use the mk2 parts to make an SSTO VTOL and the drag/aerodynamics makes it very difficult to come in tail first. Has anyone else had this problem?

Solution: don't come in tail first.

Spaceplane parts have integral heat shields, you don't need to hide behind the engine bell. Just keep it above 20,000m until you've washed off some speed.

[magnemoe]

I've been trying to use the mk2 parts to make an SSTO VTOL and the drag/aerodynamics makes it very difficult to come in tail first. Has anyone else had this problem?

Yes, the parts have lift, my solution on my x-ving VTOLSSTO is to use parashutes and engines in front who lift nose before I open them.

[Sky_walker]

Solution: don't come in tail first.

Spaceplane parts have integral heat shields, you don't need to hide behind the engine bell. Just keep it above 20,000m until you've washed off some speed.

Say what?

There are no heat shields in KSP. Never were. There's absolutely no difference which way around you're entering into the atmosphere. You might be randomly spinning in every direction - it won't change a thing.

I know, I know, logic doesn't work in KSP.

[Wanderfound]

Say what?

There are no heat shields in KSP. Never were. There's absolutely no difference which way around you're entering into the atmosphere. You might be randomly spinning in every direction - it won't change a thing.

I know, I know, logic doesn't work in KSP.

I assumed he was using Deadly Reentry, due to the desire to come in tail-first. Engines have high heat tolerances; you can get away with using them as improvised heatshields at times.

What other reason is there for wanting to come in tail first? If you're worried about parachute shock, just spin it around immediately pre-deployment and/or deploy the chutes in stages.

[Voyager55]

They carry less fuel because it's not just a metal tube stuffed with rocket fuel, it's an aircraft fuselage.

[Kulebron]

No, I mean per unit mass it makes half as much drag. This is specified in the config file by the aerodynamic module that it uses.

Also drag is low if you pitch it like a knife, narrow side forward, not like a plane. I guess this is what devs did not intend. I also see lift indicator moving in VAB. Does it produce lift?

[chuangatronic]

I assumed he was using Deadly Reentry, due to the desire to come in tail-first. Engines have high heat tolerances; you can get away with using them as improvised heatshields at times.

What other reason is there for wanting to come in tail first? If you're worried about parachute shock, just spin it around immediately pre-deployment and/or deploy the chutes in stages.

The problem is that my thrusters are on the back and even at speeds of below mach 1, I am essentially stuck facing forward with these fuselage parts. I tried designing the ship to fly something like a cupcake vtol but the aerodynamics of these new mk2s are throwing the balance all off. I was wondering if that was actually the case or if I need 20 reaction wheels to counteract that drag in general.

[Wanderfound]

The problem is that my thrusters are on the back and even at speeds of below mach 1, I am essentially stuck facing forward with these fuselage parts. I tried designing the ship to fly something like a cupcake vtol but the aerodynamics of these new mk2s are throwing the balance all off. I was wondering if that was actually the case or if I need 20 reaction wheels to counteract that drag in general.

No, you need to use aerodynamics. The fuselages need to point in the direction of flight unless that flight mode is limited to the low subsonic (i.e. VTOL style hovering).

If you're fine with a slow hovering speed limit and it's just the horizontal-to-vertical flight mode transition that's giving trouble, again use the aero to help. Kill the engines and pitch up to trade horizontal velocity for vertical, and keep doing it until you stall at 100m/s or whatever. Then point the nose at the sky, power up the engines and start flying VTOL style.