Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Kerbal007]

Dear @Raptor9 This week I launched Skylab thanks to your hanger share, everything was "nominal"? and on track. I sent up EV2 to setup the solar panels, with much difficulty. After the first was installed, I re-docked and F5'd (for safety). I goofed as anticipated and needed to revert only to hear a !!!BOOM!!! and the EV2 was gone along with Jeb, bob, and an unnamed soul. I was mortified. Lucky for me Jeb was only MIA for a few hrs .

Would use your service again.

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, Kerbal007 said:

Dear @Raptor9 This week I launched Skylab thanks to your hanger share, everything was "nominal"? and on track. I sent up EV2 to setup the solar panels, with much difficulty. After the first was installed, I re-docked and F5'd (for safety). I goofed as anticipated and needed to revert only to hear a !!!BOOM!!! and the EV2 was gone along with Jeb, bob, and an unnamed soul. I was mortified. Lucky for me Jeb was only MIA for a few hrs .

Would use your service again.

Uh....thanks I guess? 

[MacLuky]

Hi

quick question, how do you get the rat out of the frog lander? I don’t see a decoupler

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, MacLuky said:

how do you get the rat out of the frog lander? I don’t see a decoupler

Per the graphics, press Action Group [6].  It deploys the rover.

[Guest]

On 9/13/2018 at 9:33 AM, Raptor9 said:

Uh....thanks I guess? 

weird...

Three things:

• I'm having trouble finding what I need because there is sooo much and I downloaded everything.... any filters?(like filters for mun crafts or duna crafts) and the craft pictures dont appear until you load each one once so I cant tell by the picture until I load each one one by one...

• it seems that you put the bare bone minimum Delta V required for the rocket to go to its designated destination and back. make a mistake, and you dont have enough fuel to get back or compete your mission.(Maybe and more fuel...)

• Why do you disable SAS? I mean, real rockets use it and its easier to steer with SAS than RCS.

 

Also in assuming the Thunder series is still down for redesin?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Guest

[Raptor9]

58 minutes ago, dundun93 said:

• I'm having trouble finding what I need because there is sooo much and I downloaded everything.... any filters?(like filters for mun crafts or duna crafts) and the craft pictures dont appear until you load each one once so I cant tell by the picture until I load each one one by one...

If you are referring to filters on KerbalX, I've grouped them into hangers for downloading similar craft types, or craft by mission architecture, like early Mun missions, etc.  If you are referring to filters in the VAB/SPH itself in-game, there are none.  You will either need to know what craft you are looking for, or keep a list somewhere for reference.  But for the most part, my craft list has followed a consistent naming convention to help me keep my own list straight.

There are several mods out there however that do allow you to sort through craft file lists.  KSP Craft Organizer is one such mod.

1 hour ago, dundun93 said:

• it seems that you put the bare bone minimum Delta V required for the rocket to go to its designated destination and back. make a mistake, and you dont have enough fuel to get back or compete your mission.

There are some designs with minimal propellant margins, but others with quite a large excess.  It depends on your skill level, play style, and if you are using the craft as intended.  I'll point out that I have been playing KSP for a very long time, so if you are relatively new to the game, you may find my performance margins unsatisfactory.  What craft are you having trouble with specifically?

1 hour ago, dundun93 said:

• Why do you disable SAS? I mean, real rockets use it and its easier to steer with SAS than RCS.

By SAS I assume you mean Reaction Wheel torque.  That being the case, let me clarify some things.

1) Reaction wheels in KSP do not behave anywhere close to how real reaction wheels and control moment gyros (CMG) work.  Essentially, KSP reaction wheels are "free" attitude control with ridiculous torque values that rely solely on electric charge, and do not build up any heat or ever become "saturated".  In real life, reaction wheels only provide small amounts of attitude control, and do so relatively slowly.  The amount of torque that KSP reaction wheels provide is very overpowered and not true to real life physics. (Yes I know this is a game with fictional little green men in a fake star system, but still)

2) Real rockets and most large spacecraft do NOT use reaction wheels; only satellites, probes, and space stations use reaction wheels and CMG's.  And even then, due to the limitations that I explained above, reaction wheels are only used to supplement propellant-based RCS systems, such as hydrazine or ion thrusters.  This helps conserve RCS fuel, or provide extremely fine attitude control.  (You may notice that most of my satellites, probes and space stations do in fact use reaction wheel torque for attitude control)

3) Planning enough RCS propellant for the duration of any mission is a challenge I enjoy, as well as the proper placement of RCS thrusters to ensure accurate, balanced and continuous attitude control throughout the flight.  I've never run out of RCS fuel on any of my missions.  In fact quite a lot I end up with excess at the end of a mission.  Two things that lead to over-use of RCS fuel is improper RCS design (which could include improper mounting location or angle of RCS thrusters, improper thruster axis assignments, or unbalanced/excess thruster limiter settings) or aggressively/over-controlling the spacecraft.  Spacecraft are not fighter jets.  Movements should be done methodically and deliberately.  Remember, for every unit of monoprop you use to rotate/translate your spacecraft, an equal number of monoprop units are needed to arrest that movement.

1 hour ago, dundun93 said:

assuming the Thunder series is still down for redesin?

Yes.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

What craft are you having trouble with specifically?

The Saturn V one. I had to reload 3+ quicksaves just to get it on the ground with enough fuel.

[Guest]

On 9/19/2018 at 8:36 AM, Raptor9 said:

Per the graphics, press Action Group [6].  It deploys the rover.

You used transmitters antennas to make a hinge.

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, dundun93 said:

You used transmitters antennas to make a hinge.

He was referring to the LV-1 'Frog' landers, which have no such hinges.

9 hours ago, dundun93 said:

The Saturn V one. I had to reload 3+ quicksaves just to get it on the ground with enough fuel.

These are built with tight propellant margins to be sure, but so were the real-life Apollo landers.  Not sure what descent profile you have used, but try this one:

1) Start from a parking orbit of 15km that passes directly over the target landing site
2) On the opposite side of the Mun from the landing site, perform a small retro burn to lower your periapsis to around 6,000 meters over the landing site (keep in mind in particularly high terrain in your way)
3) Create a maneuver node over the landing site which cancels out almost all of your horizontal velocity
4) Start the burn when the burn duration straddles the node countdown timer (ie: 30 second burn is started 15 seconds to the node; or a 1 minute burn is started 30 seconds to the node; etc)
5) By the time you have cancelled out most of your horizontal velocity, you will have just enough time to rotate vertical and start arresting your vertical velocity and perform the final approach to your landing site.

This landing technique reduces the amount of gravity losses you incur by minimizing the amount of time you are using your engine to fight the downward pull of gravity.  This also gives you an easier "abort-to-orbit" capability if you decide to abort the descent during your initial retroburn over the landing site.  For an example of this type of approach, go to 12:50 in my CisMunar Propellant Economy  tutorial video.

An example of how the real-life Apollo landers had tight propellant margins is the fact that during later Apollo landings the CSM performed the retro-thrust to drop the periapsis over the landing site prior to undocking the LEM.  After undocking the CSM returned to it's normal orbital altitudes.  This technique was developed to save propellant on the LEM so it could land with more onboard payload mass, which included the lunar rover as well as more consumables for longer surface stays.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Raptor9

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

He was referring to the LV-1 'Frog' landers, which have no such hinges.

Ok. but I've seen some with it. (very clever and smart! I never knew you could do that)

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

1) Start from a parking orbit of 15km that passes directly over the target landing site
2) On the opposite side of the Mun from the landing site, perform a small retro burn to lower your periapsis to around 6,000 meters over the landing site (keep in mind in particularly high terrain in your way)
3) Create a maneuver node over the landing site which cancels out almost all of your horizontal velocity
4) Start the burn when the burn duration straddles the node countdown timer (ie: 30 second burn is started 15 seconds to the node; or a 1 minute burn is started 30 seconds to the node; etc)
5) By the time you have cancelled out most of your horizontal velocity, you will have just enough time to rotate vertical and start arresting your vertical velocity and perform the final approach to your landing site.

This landing technique reduces the amount of gravity losses you incur by minimizing the amount of time you are using your engine to fight the downward pull of gravity.  This also gives you an easier "abort-to-orbit" capability if you decide to abort the descent during your initial retroburn over the landing site.  For an example of this type of approach, go to 12:50 in my CisMunar Propellant Economy  tutorial video.

An example of how the real-life Apollo landers had tight propellant margins is the fact that during later Apollo landings the CSM performed the retro-thrust to drop the periapsis over the landing site prior to undocking the LEM.  After undocking the CSM returned to it's normal orbital altitudes.  This technique was developed to save propellant on the LEM so it could land with more onboard payload mass, which included the lunar rover as well as more consumables for longer surface stays.

Ok thanks

[MacLuky]

On 9/19/2018 at 3:36 PM, Raptor9 said:

Per the graphics, press Action Group [6].  It deploys the rover.

Thanks, its a brilliant design

[Raptor9]

With the 1.5 update coming soon, I feel the KSP bug crawling on the back of my neck.  At this time, I will say that the project I've been working on intermittently in recent weeks is a craft file revamp for the SPH side of the catalog.  A lot of the SPH craft were showing their age, and were long overdue for a revision.  The majority of the craft have already been rebuilt and re-tested (I'm holding off on updating graphics until I see the full suite of re-vamped parts in the 1.5 update).  The main goal of the revamp was to make each craft more stable and fly better for players without joysticks; the secondary goal to make the craft look more "BadS".

The existing list of aircraft will of course receive varying levels of redesign, with most of the craft being completely rebuilt from nose to tail.  But with around a dozen brand new designs, the stable of atmospheric steeds will grow.  The list of new aircraft includes a variety of airframes from a P-80 "Shooting Star" analogue to the F-14 "Tomcat" (non-swiveling wings unfortunately), from conventional aircraft like the de Havilland "Dash-8" to a heavy VTOL inspired by the CH-47 "Chinook".

Unfortunately, this update also brings a re-ordering of the craft list in the X-planes, KSA Fleet, and C7 Aerospace models.  An example for this would be the F-15 analogue is renamed from X-5 High-Speed Flight Test to X-12 High Performance Flight Test.  A full list of naming conversions will be provided when I am close to finalizing and publishing the craft updates.
_______________________________

On the VAB side of the house, I've been dabbing back into some work there too.  A new Duna lander and some more probes.  And this EV-7 'Skipjack' is proving to be an elusive craft to narrow down.  I love the craft to death, but I just can't seem to get satisfied with it to the point of publishing.  But I am at least thankful to be drawn back into KSP like I have been in recent weeks.  

Edited September 30, 2018 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

I can't believe it's been 4 months since I last posted a craft.  I thought about waiting until 1.5 dropped before posting this craft, but since the update is apparently right around the corner and it doesn't appear to affect any parts that are in this craft, I decided to publish it on KerbalX.  As a side note, my first attempt to build such a craft was a year ago , and it was an abysmal failure in both form and function.  The original post can be seen HERE.

This new version is obviously a dramatic improvement in aesthetic, but more importantly, it functions better and has a robust delta-V reserve.  Because of this, the craft turned out to have other applications in the Kerbol system beyond just going to and from the Duna surface.  Like the real-life inspiration from Lockheed Martin, this lander is capable of landing on moons, such as the Mun, Ike or Dres.  Then I decided to test some higher gravity wells like Vall and Moho.  Check!  Worked wonderfully on those worlds too!

The delta-V, high TWR, redundant power generation, and large habitation make this lander equally capable of being used in similar manner to the EV-2L (however I wouldn't try to land it on Kerbin).  Because of this, and it's ability to operate in so many different destinations, this lander has been given an M3V rating. 

An infographic for it's Duna entry, descent and landing sequence is provided in the OP along with it's download link, and the graphic is also posted on the KerbalX page itself.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

A few aircraft updates today.  The C7 130 'Shrike' is updated to include dedicated science equipment for it's survey mission, and looks a little more like the A-10 it's based on.  Additionally, the C7 140 and 142 were redesignated 180 and 182 respectively as part of my naming convention revisions.  The C7 180 'Kestrel' and C7 182 'Seahawk' have received some minor tweaks as well.

Now for the new aircraft.  The first is the C7 140 'Sea Skimmer', which needs no explanation as to what it is based on.   Like the 130, the 140 also comes with pre-installed science equipment for it's research/survey mission, along with a dedicated rear seat for a scientist.  Please note the wings do not rotate.

The second aircraft is based on the V-280 Valor prototype (as are the 180 and 182); but the C7 185 is also influenced by the CH-47 Chinook and the Bell/Boeing Quad Tiltrotor concept.  To that end, it includes a rear loading ramp so the pilot doesn't have to get out to let the passengers board through the cockpit.  It's also faster and has a slightly longer range than the C7 180.  I've already dropped a few Kerbal sky-divers out the tail-ramp in flight.  Speaking of which, don't drop the tail ramp while in forward flight; it will act as an elevator and pitch the aircraft into a dive.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Raptor9

[qzgy]

13 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

The first is the C7 140 'Sea Skimmer', which needs no explanation as to what it is based on.  

Uhhhhhhh the F-22 raptor right?

Both look pretty good though. I'd be interested in a better picture though of that tail ramp on the 185. Sounds like a pretty neat feature.....

[Raptor9]

18 minutes ago, qzgy said:

I'd be interested in a better picture though of that tail ramp on the 185.

Ask and you shall receive.

"Jumpers aboard!"

Edited October 8, 2018 by Raptor9

[qzgy]

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

Ask and you shall receive.

"Jumpers aboard!"

ooooh fanceh. Like the little ambient light especially.

[RealKerbal3x]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:40 AM, Raptor9 said:

 



OOH. I like that. Very much.

[Guest]

On 10/7/2018 at 9:04 PM, Raptor9 said:

Please note the wings do not rotate.

aww man!

[Jestersage]

On 10/6/2018 at 2:40 AM, Raptor9 said:

The delta-V, high TWR, redundant power generation, and large habitation make this lander equally capable of being used in similar manner to the EV-2L (however I wouldn't try to land it on Kerbin). 

So basically don't use it as BFS. Got it.

[Raptor9]

22 hours ago, Jestersage said:

So basically don't use it as BFS. Got it.

Nope, but by all means, use it like the Lockheed Martin MADV.... 

[Guest]

@Raptor9, not have swing-wings sort of defies the point of making a F-14. Thats all it was famous for.... Is it possible to make swing wings?

[Raptor9]

6 minutes ago, dundun93 said:

@Raptor9, not have swing-wings sort of defies the point of making a F-14. Thats all it was famous for.... Is it possible to make swing wings?

I would disagree on the first two points.  Regarding the statement of that's all it was famous for; if variable sweep-wings were the only defining characteristic of that airframe, the F-111 and B-1 would have been just as iconic (or any number of Soviet/Russian swing-wing aircraft).  Within the public knowledge and media, the F-14's popularity and recognition can be largely attributed to the movie Top Gun.  Perhaps even the TV series JAG, but I doubt a show about military lawyers would have even included the F-14 pilot angle had it not been for Top Gun's prior success.  Within the military and aerospace circles, the F-14 is better known for it's versatility (including recon and ground attack), it's extremely long-range sensors and missiles, and it's long and successful operational history through many conflicts between the early 80's into the previous decade.  I imagine the aircrews and Naval Aviation personnel would also argue against the wing-sweep feature being it's sole defining characteristic.

To address the swing wing implementation in KSP, I did in fact explore multiple ways to do it in stock KSP, and unfortunately none of them were sufficient for me to implement.  The rotation would work sufficiently on the ground, but in flight (even straight and level flight), the weight of the aircraft being supported by the wings would cause them to flex and twist upward due to the lack of adequate structural reinforcement or autostrutting since they would technically be separate entities from the main aircraft.  I've always stressed function over aesthetics, and the lack of a wing-sweep feature doesn't hinder this craft's performance or overall aesthetics.

There are a lot of things I wish we could have or make in KSP, but the reality is that we are limited by the scope of the KSP physics and stock part selection.  There are a number of users that have made functional wing-sweep mechanisms for KSP aircraft (both stock and modded), but in my personal play-style those rely on making significant compromises in other areas, such as part count, craft stability, or relying on third-party mods.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

I would disagree on the first two points.  Regarding the statement of that's all it was famous for; if variable sweep-wings were the only defining characteristic of that airframe, the F-111 and B-1 would have been just as iconic (or any number of Soviet/Russian swing-wing aircraft).  Within the public knowledge and media, the F-14's popularity and recognition can be largely attributed to the movie Top Gun.  Perhaps even the TV series JAG, but I doubt a show about military lawyers would have even included the F-14 pilot angle had it not been for Top Gun's prior success.  Within the military and aerospace circles, the F-14 is better known for it's versatility (including recon and ground attack), it's extremely long-range sensors and missiles, and it's long and successful operational history through many conflicts between the early 80's into the previous decade.  I imagine the aircrews and Naval Aviation personnel would also argue against the wing-sweep feature being it's sole defining characteristic.

 

2

When I meant " That's all it was famous for ", I meant that when someone thinks about an F-14, they think about the swing wings on it and maybe top gun (That's what makes it unique being the only swing wing fighter). Neither the  F-111 or B-1 are fighter jets and aren't very famous. Only those who know a lot and are into aircraft know it for its versatility.

 

But I found one cool thing. You can rotate the wings and it still works. I made 3 homemade variants by rotating the wings.

 

The one with wings forward turns faster but they all go the same speed. Results would be interesting in FAR though. Did you intentionally make the wing rotateable and still work or is this just chance?

You still make the absolute best airplanes ever!

Edited October 13, 2018 by Guest

[Raptor9]

7 hours ago, dundun93 said:

The one with wings forward turns faster but they all go the same speed. Results would be interesting in FAR though. Did you intentionally make the wing rotateable and still work or is this just chance?

More or less.  My first go-to was DockRotate.  That seemed to be the best compromise between rotation and remaining stock only.  Since it's a plug-in that adds additional functionality to docking ports to operate as servos, it allows players to still use existing craft with stock parts even if you delete the plug-in from your KSP.  So the idea was to put the hardware in there with the appropriate settings and action groups, but players not using the plug-in in vanilla KSP would still have the aircraft to use.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out very well since I obviously didn't include the feature.  However, aerodynamically the aircraft was still stable and flew well in either fully-swept configuration or full forward.