[Stock Helicopters & Turboprops] Non DLC Will Always Be More Fun!

[Azimech]

So in the spinning gif you showed the turboprop is spinning faster than the prop right? I noticed the turboprop gear was smaller than the one above.

Indeed, just like real life. Unsuitable for a plane, but it is suitable for a helicopter.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Azimech

[Majorjim!]

Indeed, just like real life. Unsuitable for a plane, but it is suitable for a helicopter.

How does it perform the other way round, as you stated in a previous post? You know, with a smaller cog for the prop and larger for the turboprop.

I'm curious as to the benefits.

[Azimech]

I have written about the benefits, earlier in the topic :-)

But ... physics calculations become increasingly filled with errors at higher rpm's ... physics delta-t needs to be at minimum. Before we really see functional gearboxes, I'm afraid the computational power of our pc's need to increase with the average of a CPU generation.

[Yukon0009]

Work in progress.

http://imgur.com/a/x2ViK

- - - Updated - - -

The advantage would be able to propel a vehicle over land, primarily. But, if I'm able to create a gearbox with minimal losses, driving a prop would have my preference.

.

Is that a Mustang I see? Nice!

[_Bugs]

If you're going the 109 route I can help with that and by the looks of it you're mixing up the Emil model with the Gustav model (which has the superchargers under the bulges in front of the cockpit.)

Your best bet is to ditch the bulges because the nose is more boxy and looks more like an E.

[Azimech]

Is that a Mustang I see? Nice!

A Mustang might come on the list.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're going the 109 route I can help with that and by the looks of it you're mixing up the Emil model with the Gustav model (which has the superchargers under the bulges in front of the cockpit.)

Your best bet is to ditch the bulges because the nose is more boxy and looks more like an E.

I like the Gustav better, but I was aiming at the Kurfürst. I might lose the bulges and clean up the nose. Instead of the big magazines of the MG131's the bulges are fuel tanks.

I might lose the cargo bays and create thinner wings, I've invented a retractable gear system while daydreaming in the train. Unfortunately this system is too large to retrofit on the 190 but there's room under the cockpit in the 109.

[Azimech]

First flight of the 109! Still needs a lot of work. Engine isn't strong enough ... yet. Undercarriage is very flaky, the lander legs meant for locking the the aren't strong enough and break easily. Time for a redesign.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Lothsahn]

First flight of the 109! Still needs a lot of work. Engine isn't strong enough ... yet. Undercarriage is very flaky, the lander legs meant for locking the the aren't strong enough and break easily. Time for a redesign.

...so it's basically like a real BF-109?

[_Bugs]

Eh? 109 was a damn fine machine.

How many parts is it atm Azi?

[Lothsahn]

Eh? 109 was a damn fine machine.

How many parts is it atm Azi?

Oh, it was a fine machine, but it's notoriously tricky to land. It has a high and narrow wheelbase, making groundloops very easy. In addition, the landing gear had strength issues, and was prone to collapse. Pavement made things even more tricky.

There are plenty of examples during the war, but the most recent I'm aware of is this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-eads-messerschmitt-bf-109-undercarriage-collapse-and-groundloop-at-ila-berlin-224294/

In addition, the engine on the early BF-109's was significantly less powerful than the British Merlin:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

(the above post goes into quite a bit of detail as to why this was so)

Edited March 2, 2015 by Lothsahn

[_Bugs]

Emil wasn't too underpowered, after all, Adolf Galland was an ace in it

[Azimech]

It's horrible ... I'm close to 750 parts. The plane flies fine, it's fast and pretty agile. Building yourself a landing gear with these parts is ... difficult.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'm surprised my pc takes it so well!

[Azimech]

Some pictures together, enjoy.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The 109 undercarriage is closer to usable but still doesn't have enough strength. Raising and lowering goes better with each modification. Part count ... probably around 800 with retractable gear. I also made a version with static (dropable) gear. Part count 711.

Gear retracted:

Gear lowered:

Edited March 3, 2015 by Azimech

[Azimech]

Growing fast but I expect the total part count to reach close to 1k.

[Azimech]

Open view of my very simplistic model of a coaxial, two spool, low-bypass turbofan. All stock, 775 parts. The fans produce thrust. There is no thrust going out the back of the engine, therefore it's only a very large and heavy model. I could slam on some jets pointed backwards but I feel it's nice for demonstration purposes. We need more parts on a very small scale, Squad. One day people will be tired of stacking tanks on rocket engines and they wish to build with more detail, themselves!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Jakalth]

Ok, that is a cool static model there Azimech.

[Vashts]

Open view of my very simplistic model of a coaxial, two spool, low-bypass turbofan. All stock, 775 parts. The fans produce thrust. There is no thrust going out the back of the engine, therefore it's only a very large and heavy model. I could slam on some jets pointed backwards but I feel it's nice for demonstration purposes. We need more parts on a very small scale, Squad. One day people will be tired of stacking tanks on rocket engines and they wish to build with more detail, themselves!

http://imgur.com/a/tMGTM

[Yukon0009]

.......Good lord. What have you done???

[Azimech]

It's a good thing that with KSP 1.1, we'll probably have multi-threaded physics! So I'm building a bit for the future here.

Heavy work in progress. Recognize the view? Don't mind it being a bit bended here and there ... haven't strutted yet.

[Yukon0009]

Is that the BF109?

[Azimech]

Nope, check the album in #138 There you'll see my Bf 109 & Fw 190 together.

[_Bugs]

Corsair?

[Azimech]

Bingo!

[Majorjim!]

Squad. One day people will be tired of stacking tanks on rocket engines and they wish to build with more detail, themselves!

Dude, we've been saying this on the forums for years. KSP just isn't meant for these kinds of contraptions. That's why stock choppers and bearings died out a while back.

I am surprised they are back to be honest. I'm not bashing your work. These are nice examples of some good building. They are, as I have stated before, just a novelty and not really practical.

Unity 5 will sadly not solve the part count issues either I'm afraid.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Majorjim

[Azimech]

Hmmm ... do you have a source or discussion on the subject of Unity 5 and PhysX 3.3?

Small steps, eventually things will grow in the right direction. It's only logical Squad or a different company will someday create a more engineering oriented game. Computational power will increase, that's a constant. The price of this power will drop, that's a constant (unless the global economy hits the fan).

I think we should create a plan for such an expansion. I don't know about you but I've got a ton of ideas. If I had a coder and a modeler, I'd probably start my own company :-)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Azimech