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

[Gman_builder]

50 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Send me the design and I can give you some tips.

Thirty ton frame? Is that the whole airplane or just the engine frame? I would try to make the engine frame lighter. Hint: my speed record has an engine frame which is just a MK3 cargo bay. Drive shaft is mostly not a problem. Adjustable prop pitch is paramount (but a problem with BDA).

Ya just the engine is 30 tons, but the rest of the plane has some serious weight reduction and brings the total weight of the BeeGee MK2 to 40 tons. Another thing, maybe if you got rid of all the aesthetics on the chakora it would go faster because less weight. Just an idea.       How does BDA have any effect on turboprops?

[The Optimist]

I managed to get my plane off the ground! She's a heavy one, with a low top speed, but at least it flies. It uses a extensively modified Chakora engine (slimmed down) and a conventional MK3 fuselage.

Edited June 11, 2016 by The Optimist

[Gman_builder]

17 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

I managed to get my plane off the ground! She's a heavy one, with a low top speed, but at least it flies. It uses a extensively modified Chakora engine (slimmed down) and a conventional MK3 fuselage.

Use structural I-beams for the fuselage and the bigger cubic octagonal pieces. Also, shorten the fuselage and make a custom tail plain, if you make it a tail dragger it will get off the ground easier.

 

[Azimech]

3 hours ago, The Optimist said:

Another tip: The less of a plane there is, the better. Consider using I-beams instead of fuel tanks or fuselage parts.

That's actually the opposite of "less" since I-beams are very mass-expensive and don't have any other function ;-)

2 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Ya just the engine is 30 tons, but the rest of the plane has some serious weight reduction and brings the total weight of the BeeGee MK2 to 40 tons. Another thing, maybe if you got rid of all the aesthetics on the chakora it would go faster because less weight. Just an idea.       How does BDA have any effect on turboprops?

The moment someone beats my speed record I'll start with tearing parts off the Chakora :-P

BDA & turboprops: No idea yet.

[The Optimist]

10 minutes ago, Azimech said:

That's actually the opposite of "less" since I-beams are very mass-expensive and don't have any other function ;-)

I mean like a single stick of I-beams, like in this image

Granted, those are scaffolds, but they and I-Beams are pretty much the same mass and size-wise

Edited June 12, 2016 by The Optimist

[Azimech]

5 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

I mean like a single stick of I-beams, like in this image

Yes ... it provides strength but has no other function ... Imagine parts actually helping to keep the airplane in the air ;-)

[The Optimist]

6 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Yes ... it provides strength but has no other function ... Imagine parts actually helping to keep the airplane in the air ;-)

pfft, who needs fancy stuff like fuselages or fuel tanks?

[Gman_builder]

Current project = Stock turboshaft cars. My initial prototype actually works a lot better than expected. You can check it out on KerbalX for more info, specs, and download.

[Gman_builder]

3 hours ago, The Optimist said:

I mean like a single stick of I-beams, like in this image

Granted, those are scaffolds, but they and I-Beams are pretty much the same mass and size-wise

Another thing you can do, is have the tail closer to the ground. This can make takeoffs much easier and quicker. You may also want to try tilting your wings dihedrally and tilting the trailing edge a couple degrees toward the ground for more deflection during flight, which makes the plane kind of "float" at very low speeds.

[Azimech]

I built this huge car back in 0.90, then 1.0 came and there was no more reason to invest time in it. Might continue work on it one day. It's modeled after the Citroën BX I have. Four reversible turboshaft engines, steering is done by varying power to one or more wheels or by braking one or two wheels. 1033 parts.

 

Two modded cars, one of them using my own mod Procedural Parts Extended. Reversible turboshafts and normal steering plus moving gear stick, steering wheel and in the case of the Big American: doors/ trunk lid.

 

 

 

 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

I built this huge car back in 0.90

Have you made any changes to these cars recently?

[Azimech]

15 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Have you made any changes to these cars recently?

Nope, no time. Might happen in the future though.

[Majorjim!]

53 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Nope, no time. Might happen in the future though.

Oh ok I though you added something.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hi all I've stalked this thread for ages downloaded some very clever craft, and last night finally created my first turbo shaft, it's not pretty or very sound but it does run, reliably , well it does after the obligatory blow ups, vanes flying off the shaft, bearing disintegrating etc etc.

It is horribly inefficient.  It does with the tiny prop exhibit some thrust, which is good as the shaft falls out otherwise (rofl).

Do you experts (in comparison to someone two years late   ) have any tips as to ways of increasing efficiency, the  best thing to use for vanes, and I know my not stock wheels are not stock, but them aside it is ( with liberal application  of TS and ed extensions that i didn't know about until reading back a few hundred posts) So sorta qualifies to be here maybe ish

All that aside it's a great toy and I'm glad ( thanks to the inspiration found here) i built it

Spoiler

 

 

[Gman_builder]

@SpannerMonkey Did you use tweakscale? If so, try making a engine without tweakscale and that other mod. Stock engines are harder to make but if you put more time into it, it will probably perform better in the end.

[Azimech]

Using two Chakora engines I was climbing and accelerating at 180m/s (648 km/h), beating my own speed record at less than 900 meters, (old record, 173 m/s, 4100m.) Then KSP crashed.  Promising result!

 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Azimech

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

Using two Chakora engines I was climbing and accelerating at 180m/s (648 km/s), beating my own speed record at less than 900 meters, (old record, 173 m/s, 4100m.) Then KSP crashed.  Promising result!

How fast is it with stock aero settings?

[Azimech]

28 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

How fast is it with stock aero settings?

I don't know that, and I'm not interested in trying it either :-)
I've been able to set the speed record since the beginning in 0.90, only once did someone beat me (user Lotsahn). The increase in speed stopped at 155 when 1.0 was introduced and continued with the 165 in 1.1.x using a variable pitch prop. I've got the feeling drag multiplier at minimum is the same as flying in Errordynamics, I could upgrade my old Azi8 record plane with a new engine and see what it can do.

Anyway ... we want to go faster because that's exiting.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Azimech

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

I don't know that, and I'm not interested in trying it either :-)
I've been able to set the speed record since the beginning in 0.90, only once did someone beat me (user Lotsahn). The increase in speed stopped at 155 when 1.0 was introduced and continued with the 165 in 1.1.x using a variable pitch prop. I've got the feeling drag multiplier at minimum is the same as flying in Errordynamics, I could upgrade my old Azi8 record plane with a new engine and see what it can do.

Anyway ... we want to go faster because that's exiting.

 

 

I can't stop thinking that if you and others stuck at it you could go faster without modifying the game. It seems like you gave up and cheated. I mean that in the nicest possible way, these craft are great I just think you should have stuck to 100% stock.

Yup, I'm nothing if not persistent.

[Azimech]

16 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I can't stop thinking that if you and others stuck at it you could go faster without modifying the game. It seems like you gave up and cheated. I mean that in the nicest possible way, these craft are great I just think you should have stuck to 100% stock.

Yup, I'm nothing if not persistent.

I understand your train of thought but I'll tell you what was a tremendous blow to all of us: introduction of the new aero. My airplane with the 155 top speed ... couldn't get off the ground. Instead of being able to build a turboprop with just two blowers, we needed 16 to get the same performance but with everything else lousy: horrific fuel consumption, 2 - 6 times part count etc. All our airplanes are 2-3 times heavier compared with 0.90. Even without modification if I import a 0.90 airplane it's 1,5 times heavier in 1.1.2. I call that: inversed cheating. This is the only thing we can take back to us and it's a success: turboprops are more popular than ever, every few days I can add a design to the hangar on KerbalX.

Not to mention: the basic jet engine doesn't have exhaust vector thrust anymore but has the best static thrust, the Panther is lousy. The juno is fine but I need 6 times as many, so to upgrade my Azi8 I need 60 of them!

Edited June 13, 2016 by Azimech

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

I understand your train of thought but I'll tell you what was a tremendous blow to all of us: introduction of the new aero. My airplane with the 155 top speed ... couldn't get off the ground. Instead of being able to build a turboprop with just two blowers, we needed 16 to get the same performance but with everything else lousy: horrific fuel consumption, 2 - 6 times part count etc. All our airplanes are 2-3 times heavier compared with 0.90. Even without modification if I import a 0.90 airplane it's 1,5 times heavier in 1.1.2. I call that: inversed cheating. This is the only thing we can take back to us and it's a success: turboprops are more popular than ever, every few days I can add a design to the hangar on KerbalX.

Not to mention: the basic jet engine doesn't have exhaust vector thrust anymore but has the best static thrust, the Panther is lousy. The juno is fine but I need 6 times as many, so to upgrade my Azi8 I need 60 of them!

I see how that could be annoying but isn't that the point? That the game changes and so must our designs?

 I am sure there is a way to get good performance from a turboprop in a stock game. Maybe not as good as it was but the old aero model was garbage. It's kinda like an SSTO builder who relied on air hogging to get to orbit modding the old aero system back in just so his designs will work again..

 I am sure you can find a way to do it stock.

[Azimech]

Just now, Majorjim said:

I see how that could be annoying but isn't that the point? That the game changes and so must our designs?

 I am sure there is a way to get good performance from a turboprop in a stock game. Maybe not as good as it was but the old aero model was garbage. It's kinda like an SSTO builder who relied on air hogging to get to orbit modding the old aero system back in just so his designs will work again..

 I am sure you can find a way to do it stock.

To give you a clue: I upgraded my Azi8 which, as stated before was my record plane doing 155 in 0.90, with the Chakora engine - my most advanced and powerful engine to date. Azi8-2 is 40 tons lighter than the Chakora and runs out of fuel in 6 minutes of flying time while the Chakora flies for an hour. It tops out at 106 m/s, while the Chakora already does 145 at that altitude. So I ask ya: is this cheating or did I get better at building airframes in the last year? Seems to me with the drag slider at minimum, drag is still higher than during 0.90.

There is no way of getting nice & exciting results with aero at stock settings. The goal is to inspire people and get their creative juices flowing, and people want speed or it won't work, they'll just get bored and give up ;-)

 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

To give you a clue: I upgraded my Azi8 which, as stated before was my record plane doing 155 in 0.90, with the Chakora engine - my most advanced and powerful engine to date. Azi8-2 is 40 tons lighter than the Chakora and runs out of fuel in 6 minutes of flying time while the Chakora flies for an hour. It tops out at 106 m/s, while the Chakora already does 145 at that altitude. So I ask ya: is this cheating or did I get better at building airframes in the last year? Seems to me with the drag slider at minimum, drag is still higher than during 0.90.

There is no way of getting nice & exciting results with aero at stock settings. The goal is to inspire people and get their creative juices flowing, and people want speed or it won't work, they'll just get bored and give up ;-)

As I also stated I don't doubt that they used to work better with the old aero system. I also don't doubt that you got better at something you did repeatedly. I would be concerned if anyone didn't!  I just think, as I said before, you gave up too fast with the new aero system and yes I believe that modding the game files to make a stock craft work is cheating. Although I would never discourage anyone from experimenting and building new craft and your efforts so far are admirable. I honestly think you could have made one work if you had tried longer and not caved in and changed the game files. If you have to change the way the game works to make it work it is not stock.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Majorjim

[Azimech]

Just now, Majorjim said:

As I also stated I don't doubt that they used to work better with the old aero system. I also don't doubt that you got better at something you did repeatedly. I would be concerned if anyone didn't!  I just think, as I said before, you gave up too fast with the new aero system and yes I believe that modding the game files to make a stock craft work is cheating. Although I would never discourage anyone from experimenting and building new craft and your efforts so far are admirable. I honestly think you could have made one work if you had tried longer and not caved in and changed the game files. If you have to change the way the game works to make it work it is not stock.

Go ahead, build them yourself and see how far you'll come. By the way, I didn't change the game files except for one thing: 1.1 had max angular velocity back at the level of KSP 0.22: 7 rad/s. I requested the devs to solve this and they did, and they added a line so users can modify it. If you want your engines to perform, change line 89 in your physics.cfg from 30 rad/s to anything you like, just be aware above 50 rad/s PhysX goes gaga. There was no limit in 0.90 and there should never be - it's against the laws of physics.

Now if you don't mind, let's agree to disagree and I'm off doing other things :-)

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

Go ahead, build them yourself and see how far you'll come. By the way, I didn't change the game files except for one thing: 1.1 had max angular velocity back at the level of KSP 0.22: 7 rad/s. I requested the devs to solve this and they did, and they added a line so users can modify it. If you want your engines to perform, change line 89 in your physics.cfg from 30 rad/s to anything you like, just be aware above 50 rad/s PhysX goes gaga. There was no limit in 0.90 and there should never be - it's against the laws of physics.

Now if you don't mind, let's agree to disagree and I'm off doing other things :-)

I don't mean to antagonise you Azi. Far from it.

Just now, Azimech said:

If you want your engines to perform, change line 89 in your physics.cfg from 30 rad/s to anything you like, just be aware above 50 rad/s PhysX goes gaga. There was no limit in 0.90 and there should never be - it's against the laws of physics.

Nah, I won't change my game physics.

 I am trying to encourage you to stick to stock and make them work within it! Your thread is called 'stock turbo props'. I know you can do it!

And dude, changing the game physics is changing the game physics. You cannot argue that doing that is stock. I know you are peeved that 1.0 broke turbo props, I can understand that. Just don't give up!

And yes if you would like to do other things, that's cool. Good luck!

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Majorjim