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

[Majorjim!]

I am a boring so and so sometimes. If we where sitting face to face drinking a beer I would not seem so combative.. My personality does not translate well into text. It is such an inadequate form of communication..

[The Optimist]

On 6/11/2016 at 11:36 PM, Gman_builder said:

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.

Similar to the thing in my signature?

[Gman_builder]

@The Optimist No not really, as mine works with 1 engine and has a geared transmission.

[Azimech]

5 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I am a boring so and so sometimes. If we where sitting face to face drinking a beer I would not seem so combative.. My personality does not translate well into text. It is such an inadequate form of communication..

Heartwarming and maybe we can do it some time :-) If you like, let's do a Skype thing with lots of beer and/or wine ;-)

[Gman_builder]

7 hours ago, 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!

Gosh darnit Azimech stop beating your own speed record! XD. Secondly, if my plane can get off the ground without changing the physics, why can't yours? Third, I agree with @Majorjim that changing the physics to make something work is cheating. HOWEVER, the changes squad made to the erro in 1.0 really sucked and changing the drag setting is really the only way to make high performance planes. I also changed my RPM limiter to 50 but I haven't been using it, as I never need to go above 25-30 RAD/s to get something to work. I firmly think squad should just reduce the weight of parts. As the current weight of say, an I-beam, I unrealistically high. That would make getting planes off the ground much easier. They could also improve the spaghetti joints and make collisions between wheels and other vessels better.

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Gosh darnit Azimech stop beating your own speed record! XD. Secondly, if my plane can get off the ground without changing the physics, why can't yours? Third, I agree with @Majorjim that changing the physics to make something work is cheating. HOWEVER, the changes squad made to the erro in 1.0 really sucked and changing the drag setting is really the only way to make high performance planes. I also changed my RPM limiter to 50 but I haven't been using it, as I never need to go above 25-30 RAD/s to get something to work. I firmly think squad should just reduce the weight of parts. As the current weight of say, an I-beam, I unrealistically high. That would make getting planes off the ground much easier. They could also improve the spaghetti joints and make collisions between wheels and other vessels better.

:-)

My new planes do get off the ground even with the drag slider to standard, thanks to improved engine tech & variable pitch prop. But here's a big tip: improving engine RPM helps with getting a higher speed. It's all about drag/lift ratio. Doesn't matter if you build an engine 10x stronger than ever seen before at static thrust, if it does only 5 rad/s, you'll never go fast.

[Azimech]

Revisited my old stock 0.90 FW 190-A2 ... gave it the Chakora engine but due to bad aerodynamics, it's still slow. But ... still looking glorious!

 

[Gman_builder]

54 minutes ago, Azimech said:

:-)

My new planes do get off the ground even with the drag slider to standard, thanks to improved engine tech & variable pitch prop. But here's a big tip: improving engine RPM helps with getting a higher speed. It's all about drag/lift ratio. Doesn't matter if you build an engine 10x stronger than ever seen before at static thrust, if it does only 5 rad/s, you'll never go fast.

Do you just speed up your video clips or do you actually get like 60 FPS with these planes. Also, you said the Azi-8 couldn't get off the ground...... BTW I love the cowling on the Focke-Wulfe

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Azimech]

30 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Do you just speed up your video clips or do you actually get like 60 FPS with these planes. Also, you said the Azi-8 couldn't get off the ground...... BTW I love the cowling on the Focke-Wulfe

 

Yes, I speed the clips up to make them fluid. Azi-8 couldn't get off the ground with it's original engine (just talking amount of blowers here) and it would've been too much work to redesign it, so I just replaced it. And thanks! What do you think of the cooling fan?

[Gman_builder]

5 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Yes, I speed the clips up to make them fluid. Azi-8 couldn't get off the ground with it's original engine (just talking amount of blowers here) and it would've been too much work to redesign it, so I just replaced it. And thanks! What do you think of the cooling fan?

The cooling fan is the part that makes it look good! I'm assuming it also produces some thrust which is also cool. You should do a Fw-190 D-13. You could use the A2's airframe and just make a different engine cowling.  How fast is the 190 A2 BTW?

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

The cooling fan is the part that makes it look good! I'm assuming it also produces some thrust which is also cool. You should do a Fw-190 D-13. You could use the A2's airframe and just make a different engine cowling.  How fast is the 190 A2 BTW?

I agree on all those things but if I make the nose longer ... the tail has to be longer as well, just like in the original. Performance of the A3 is poor, I haven't seen it do more than 70. Current stock aero is still a far cry from realistic ... my Chakora is 100 m/s faster while in reality it would've been the other way around!

Anyway, I'm off to bed, more tomorrow :-)

[Gman_builder]

5 hours ago, Azimech said:

I agree on all those things but if I make the nose longer ... the tail has to be longer as well, just like in the original. Performance of the A3 is poor, I haven't seen it do more than 70. Current stock aero is still a far cry from realistic ... my Chakora is 100 m/s faster while in reality it would've been the other way around!

Anyway, I'm off to bed, more tomorrow :-)

Alright, but I have a question... I was doing some experimenting with the Chakora engine and it seems that whenever it reaches 100 m/s it explodes, every time. Without fail. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with the acceleration of the aircraft. If you could help me out id appreciate it

UPDATE: Solved that problem.    top speed of my plane is 220 m/s  I BEAT YOUR SPEED RECORD BOI WOOOOO the plane is more of a top fuel dragster and cant be maneuvered at those speed without the engine disintegrating. Lower speeds of around 100 - 160 m/s yield much better maneuverablility. The plane is a Chakora engine with a custom airframe made of sekhrit dokumentz.

 

http://imgur.com/lkAE7th

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gman_builder
update

[Azimech]

5 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Alright, but I have a question... I was doing some experimenting with the Chakora engine and it seems that whenever it reaches 100 m/s it explodes, every time. Without fail. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with the acceleration of the aircraft. If you could help me out id appreciate it

UPDATE: Solved that problem.    top speed of my plane is 220 m/s  I BEAT YOUR SPEED RECORD BOI WOOOOO the plane is more of a top fuel dragster and cant be maneuvered at those speed without the engine disintegrating. Lower speeds of around 100 - 160 m/s yield much better maneuverablility. The plane is a Chakora engine with a custom airframe made of sekhrit dokumentz.

 

http://imgur.com/lkAE7th

 

 

 

Congrats! Well done!

I'd like to see the album but somehow I just get a blank page.

[Gman_builder]

 

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

Congrats! Well done!

I'd like to see the album but somehow I just get a blank page.

http://imgur.com/a/O8yC1 There, I updated the link. It only has one pic tho ATM. ill add more later when I feel like flying for another half an hour to get to that speed. I have yet to name the plane. I'm open to suggestions!

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Azimech]

4 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

 

http://imgur.com/a/O8yC1 There, I updated the link. It only has one pic tho ATM. ill add more later when I feel like flying for another half an hour to get to that speed.

From here on it will be evolution instead of revolution, as we're close to transonic.

[Gman_builder]

4 minutes ago, Azimech said:

From here on it will be evolution instead of revolution, as we're close to transonic.

Well considering how propellers in real life are only efficient up to 450 ish mph, I don't know how much farther we'll get in KSP.

[Azimech]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Well considering how propellers in real life are only efficient up to 450 ish mph, I don't know how much farther we'll get in KSP.

Prop diameter has influence, which is huge. On the other hand prop speeds are very low compared with real life, most commercial or sport planes have props rotating 2500 - 3000 RPM although high altitude, high speed fighters like the P-47 had it different: Max engine power of the Double Wasp is delivered at 2700 RPM but the Curtis Electric prop runs at half that speed. Since the current theoretical max of a stock turboprop is 477 RPM (50 rad/s) some more evolution is possible in engine/prop design. I still have a number of tricks up my sleeve.

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

Prop diameter has influence, which is huge. On the other hand prop speeds are very low compared with real life, most commercial or sport planes have props rotating 2500 - 3000 RPM although high altitude, high speed fighters like the P-47 had it different: Max engine power of the Double Wasp is delivered at 2700 RPM but the Curtis Electric prop runs at half that speed. Since the current theoretical max of a stock turboprop is 477 RPM (50 rad/s) some more evolution is possible in engine/prop design. I still have a number of tricks up my sleeve.

I'd like to hear them, because whenever the engine on my plane gets above 43 RAD/s it explodes. I keep it around 41.5 - 42.5 whenever I do speed runs in the plane. Also, the Reno racer called Rare Bear, which holds the world speed record for fastest level flight in a prop plane, makes about 8000 RPM in it's prop. The engine and prop technology behind it is top secret so all I can tell you is that it is powered by a heavily modified Wright R-3350 and it has a modified version of the prop off a DC-7. That plane "only" makes 528 mph, 36 mph higher than my plane does.

[Azimech]

18 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

I'd like to hear them, because whenever the engine on my plane gets above 43 RAD/s it explodes. I keep it around 41.5 - 42.5 whenever I do speed runs in the plane. Also, the Reno racer called Rare Bear, which holds the world speed record for fastest level flight in a prop plane, makes about 8000 RPM in it's prop. The engine and prop technology behind it is top secret so all I can tell you is that it is powered by a heavily modified Wright R-3350 and it has a modified version of the prop off a DC-7. That plane "only" makes 528 mph, 36 mph higher than my plane does.

Hehe ... good engine huh? I just made a WW2 lookalike with a lot of greeble and beat my own speed record, then you build your own specialized airframe and voilá

Anyway ... 43 rad/s is the designed limit for that engine.

And 8000 RPM for a prop ... they must've had so much power they decided to actually push the prop way beyond transonic! Can't find a source with it mentioning prop speed, do you have one?

[Gman_builder]

50 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Hehe ... good engine huh? I just made a WW2 lookalike with a lot of greeble and beat my own speed record, then you build your own specialized airframe and voilá

Anyway ... 43 rad/s is the designed limit for that engine.

And 8000 RPM for a prop ... they must've had so much power they decided to actually push the prop way beyond transonic! Can't find a source with it mentioning prop speed, do you have one?

Actually I heard it from a member of the plane's ground crew when I went to Reno to watch the 2014 Reno Unlimited Class Gold Race. He gived me da sekhrit dukumentz man.

Redlining the engine yields a little bit more speed, but there is a high risk of it failing. Explosively. I've reached 224m/s.

http://imgur.com/a/O8yC1 added more pics to the album. More to come

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Gman_builder]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

Prop diameter has influence, which is huge. On the other hand prop speeds are very low compared with real life, most commercial or sport planes have props rotating 2500 - 3000 RPM although high altitude, high speed fighters like the P-47 had it different: Max engine power of the Double Wasp is delivered at 2700 RPM but the Curtis Electric prop runs at half that speed. Since the current theoretical max of a stock turboprop is 477 RPM (50 rad/s) some more evolution is possible in engine/prop design. I still have a number of tricks up my sleeve.

What is the limiting factor when your talking about the maximum RPM? Is it the prop expanding to much and breaking free? Or can the physics just not handle it....

[icedown]

The issue with props in real life is the drop in efficiency and increase in centrifugal and drag forces as the begin to move into the trans-sonic region

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, icedown said:

The issue with props in real life is the drop in efficiency and increase in centrifugal and drag forces as the begin to move into the trans-sonic region

I meant props in KSP, but ok.

[Azimech]

16 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

What is the limiting factor when your talking about the maximum RPM? Is it the prop expanding to much and breaking free? Or can the physics just not handle it....

Don't know how it is on other machines but on mine physics go gaga above 50 rad/s.

Anyway, there's more to come, just improved the Chakora engine to run at least 46 rad/s! How I've done that ... that will be my little secret for now

[Azimech]

Okay, at this point the engine blew but as you can see, there is room for improvement. Streamlined the Chakora, got the pilot & cockpit out, removed a few fuel tanks and improved engine RPM & efficiency. I might be able to beat you next time, @Gman_builder!

Now I've gotta replace a clutch on someone's car

Edited June 14, 2016 by Azimech