Mk3 Planes

[-RanZ-]

Anyone been able to build a decent mk3 plane that can actually take off and land horizontally with the current stock landing gears? I have been trying and everything I do the landing gears always fail miserably. I was hoping to make a huge mk3 cluster bomber from stock but even w/ little fuel and no payload everything is just too heavy for the current landing gear. I am hoping they add some better landing gears in the next update.

[wolfedg]

I hate to admit I barely even got off the ground. They (mk3 parts) are so big that they become unstable on the runway. We need bigger landing gear AND bigger wings imo.

[Wanderfound]

I won’t have a demo until tonight, but:

* Use pylons or hardpoints to jack the landing gear higher.

* Use lotsa sets of landing gear; 5 to 10, not 3.

* Keep the rearmost gear as close as you can behind CoM to reduce rotation stress.

[Pixel of Life]

Anyone been able to build a decent mk3 plane that can actually take off and land horizontally with the current stock landing gears? I have been trying and everything I do the landing gears always fail miserably. I was hoping to make a huge mk3 cluster bomber from stock but even w/ little fuel and no payload everything is just too heavy for the current landing gear. I am hoping they add some better landing gears in the next update.

This, so much this. The new parts are nice, but what on earth were Squad thinking when they added bigger spaceplane fuselages without giving us more options for landing gear..? The stock ones are so ridiculously small that even Mk2 designs are difficult to build. Mk3 is outright impossible.

Thank goodness there are mods for that. I'm just waiting for TweakScale to be updated. But seriously, devs - if you see this, please, please give us bigger stock landing gear!

E: Wanderfound may be right, though - maybe more landing gear would do the trick. It's just that the huge girders look out of place and utterly unrealistic on a hypersonic aircraft. And they wobble around a lot.

Edited December 16, 2014 by CaptainKorhonen

[Hodo]

I won’t have a demo until tonight, but:

* Use pylons or hardpoints to jack the landing gear higher.

* Use lotsa sets of landing gear; 5 to 10, not 3.

* Keep the rearmost gear as close as you can behind CoM to reduce rotation stress.

While I hate the pylon gear, I have to agree. You need to increase the clearance and use more landing gear.

The method I prefer is to use the 1.25m structural fuselage parts to create that space needed, they weigh next to nothing and they look better then gear on stilts.

[Wanderfound]

The pylons are wobbly (and have the annoying decoupler feature). Hardpoints are a better option when possible.

The new editor options make it much easier to place gear precisely, too.

This is Mk2, but to illustrate:

[Hodo]

The pylons are wobbly (and have the annoying decoupler feature). Hardpoints are a better option when possible.

The new editor options make it much easier to place gear precisely, too.

This is Mk2, but to illustrate:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Kerboduna/Kerboduna%20II/screenshot525_zps84b1d188.jpg

You should try using the 1.25m structural fuselage parts rolled under the craft to create the distance you need. this with an intake or a nose cone on it will keep it looking smooth and natural without it looking like it is sitting on stilts. It will shift your CoM down a little bit but they are so light you can counter this by adding a bit of counter weight above the CoM in another location.

[The Destroyer]

I didn't get a SSTO.

Instead, after 10 ajustments,

I made my first shuttle that works

[zarakon]

My approach with large planes:

1. Use hardpoints or other heavy-duty connectors when I need more height.

2. Use pairs of wheels, right next to each other (touching)

3. Struts! Don't forget that you can attach struts to your landing gear to keep it steady.

[morscience]

All you need to do is add bigger sets.

[-RanZ-]

Are hard points better than girders? Girders seem really unstable and wobble, especially with landing gears attached to them

[Crimson Sunrise]

Well, maybe because I'm too used to playing the game with FAR...I can't take my planes off the ground since the control surfaces have little to no lifting power over large mass objects like a Mk3 vessel.

[-RanZ-]

Thanks for moving my thread to a forum no one reads... ridiculous

[capi3101]

I saw this procedure earlier today; you might try it out and see if you have any success. I know I'll be giving it a go once I get 0.90 installed.

1) Find the folder "GameData\Squad\Parts\Wheel\SmallGearBay\" in your KSP directory.

2) Copy \SmallGearBay\ and its contents into "GameData\mycustomparts\" or some other directory of your choosing (under Gamedata).

3) Open "smallGearBay.cfg" with any text editor (Notepad is fine).

5) Change the line that says "name = SmallGearBay" to any other name that isn't used by the game, ie "name = BigStockGearBay"

4) Underneath the line that says "scale = 1" add a line that says "rescaleFactor = 2.5"

5) Change the line "title = ..." to some other name. This is the name that will appear in the VAB, so it is useful to be able to identify your new part (it will have the same icon as the old one). Though this isn't technically necessary. You may also tweak the "cost = ..." field, if you care about that. You could change the "mass = ..." and other parameters too, but since this specific part is physics-less it won't matter.

6) Save your changes and load up the game.

I don't know where this person got the notion that gear are physics-less...I'm pretty sure they added physical significance to gear with 0.25. Anyways, it's an idea that might be worth trying out.

[Rakaydos]

I estimate you need 2 "rotation" landing gear per 85 tons of spaceplane. Can anyone confirm?

[KBluey]

I had some success attaching two small gear bays to the bottom of a modular girder segment, which was mounted to the underside of a wing-mounted fuel tank. Doesn't look good, but it takes off without wobbling and without extra struts. My vessel is only about 70 tons though. I attached two gear bays to the bottom of a single girder using mirror symmetry (to make sure the load was totally even across the two wheels), then grabbed the girder and mounted it to the fuel tanks using mirror symmetry. I'm sure Capi's manual tweakscale approach gives a more pleasing result though.

[KBluey]

Well, maybe because I'm too used to playing the game with FAR...I can't take my planes off the ground since the control surfaces have little to no lifting power over large mass objects like a Mk3 vessel.

I feel you! I've returned to building SSTOs in stock after NEAR/FAR, and you need a ton of wing surface to get lift on take-off. It makes a huge difference at top of climb too. Luckily, because you're not using FAR, you can build big wings that don't break off ;-)

[MGCJerry]

I was able to double/triple them up. I created a mk3 plane that can carry 68 kerbals, and while it doesn't exactly lurch off the runway it flies and handles well. However, landings can be a little touchy but possible. However, I do agree we need more durable landing gear and for the connection points for the mk3 parts to be tighter. Light bumps tend to make mk3 stuff fall apart.

[Cheaterman]

"only" 20 passenger space although you could easily make it 36, and more fuel than needed to fly around Kerbin four times or so (call it unlimited range). Can land anywhere too (17.5m/s vertical speed tested, nothing broke) :

[numerobis]

I built a small Mk3 plane: cockpit, two crew cabins, tail section, engines and pods out on the wings, about 45t total. Tripod gear worked fine for both take-off and landing, which surprised me since I usually do that configuration for my 4t aircraft, and here the same landing gear were happy carrying more than 10x as much weight. But that leads me to believe that the landing gear are strong enough to build big planes.

[Wanderfound]

Are hard points better than girders? Girders seem really unstable and wobble, especially with landing gears attached to them

Hardpoints are nicely solid.

[sdj64]

I think it matters more what you attach the landing gear to than the gear itself. For some reason larger size parts work better, I've used landing gear on FL-t800 fuel tanks and structural fuselages with no problem no matter what weight. The offset tool should make it even easier to add the height you need.

This plane was built before Mk3 but weighs 137 tons. It uses a tripod setup with two gears on each structural fuselage.

[Northstar1989]

I didn't get a SSTO.

Instead, after 10 ajustments,

I made my first shuttle that works

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/538508994167812653/CF12F66D0D6B09FD393565A9C617779AEC224D3B/

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/538508994167833655/0FCF7909EFFAC3D88C365A91E2396F0DD1D4E1CF/

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/538508994167823755/3E3DFE344A32B2C23DA8EAEF98AADA4F6FF062A3/

Nice- but I don't understand. WHY do people keep using the Rockomax Jubo-64 fuel tanks as Shuttle External Fuel Tanks?

Is it because they're orange? Because a LOT of other fuel tanks are orange in real life- such as the fuel tanks of the Delta IV rocket, which is clearly what they're modeled after (both in shape and relative size- the Rockomax-64 is meant for medium lifters NOT, Shuttle EFT's- which should be MUCH larger...)

The Rockomax-64 fuel tanks are far too small for a Shuttle External Fuel Tank. You're better off using an SLS-sized fuel tank. Or better yet, a Procedural Parts fuel tank stretched to an even greater diameter... (the Shuttle EFT was 8.4 meters in diameter- which would equate to about 5 meters in Kerbal scale, which is generally about 50% sized...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank

Regards,

Northstar

[kellven]

A little late, but Destroyer's shuttle made me nostalgic for the good old days of crazy flying contraptions before I begged C7 to give us that landing gear just before he joined Squad. Kind of wonder what KSP would look like now if he hadn't, as it's basically the same part now.

Jumping the tower was an art in itself, but we used to launch all aircraft vertical, should be much easier now. Landing was done on skids or the struts, don't know how the current physics joints would handle it though.

[InterCity]

MK3 spaceplane? No problem...

The gear is not much of a problem, if you strut it REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY a lot.

The stock jets, however, are a differrent story. They're not suitable a barely make the plane move even with a TWR of 1.3. Also, be careful, stability is also an issue with big planes.