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

[Pds314]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

I mean everything you've done. previously the best performing wheelless engines could barely lift the lightest airframe possible.

Oh. Yeah. I've been using wheelless designs for months. The avionics cone seems to be the best for high speeds.

 

An added benefit is reduced size, part count, and weight. The Varpulis, sans intakes and prop, is 257 parts, 4.3 meters in every dimension, (part of which is the decoupler base, which can be clipped into things somewhat) and around 24 tonnes.

[Gman_builder]

22 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Oh. Yeah. I've been using wheelless designs for months. The avionics cone seems to be the best for high speeds.

 

An added benefit is reduced size, part count, and weight. The Varpulis, sans intakes and prop, is 257 parts, 4.3 meters in every dimension, (part of which is the decoupler base, which can be clipped into things somewhat) and around 24 tonnes.

Well its still amazing. I wish my computer wasn't as bad as it is. Part of what restricts me from really working on these engines is the framerate. I can hardly deal with 25 FPS and working with craft over 400 parts drops FPS even more.

[Jon144]

41 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

I mean everything you've done. previously the best performing wheelless engines could barely lift the lightest airframe possible.

I wouldn't go so far yet. The raw numbers are honestly very impressive. We all have to say. The one that isn't is the PC crushing part count. Until you can make this technology small and simple there is no innovation. Certainly on the right path forward. I look forward to seeing where it goes. 257 parts even without intakes and props is still even larger than most of my multi-bearing'd non turboshaft helis. 

Make a small version and I will give you literally all of my rep. I want to see it happen!

Edited July 14, 2016 by Jon144

[Pds314]

44 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

I wouldn't go so far yet. The raw numbers are honestly very impressive. We all have to say. The one that isn't is the PC crushing part count. Until you can make this technology small and simple there is no innovation. Certainly on the right path forward. I look forward to seeing where it goes. 257 parts even without intakes and props is still even larger than most of my multi-bearing'd non turboshaft helis. 

Make a small version and I will give you literally all of my rep. I want to see it happen!

It's an upscaled version of small versions, lol. In any case, look at my previous posts, or wait, because I plan on trying to make a tiny, low-part- count engine next. I've already demonstrated engines under 40 parts. The main disadvantage is efficiency, since tiny engines have tiny torque radii.

 

Which is why I've been putting the blades around the tiny engines instead of inside them.

My smallest engine to actually fly:

The plane it flew in:

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

3 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

You just innovated more in the past few days than the entire community has in years.

Oh? Interesting. Ever wondered who invented the turboshaft engine?

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

Oh? Interesting. Ever wondered who invented the turboshaft engine?

I very much agree. You have made considerably bigger strides here. Furthermore, I don't know whether wheel-less designs scale up past a few MegaNewtons. I did once make a wheel-less design with a 1.6 MN thrust on a helicopter rotor, so 600 kN is not strictly the safe limit, but I don't know if wheel-less shafts are necessarily better in that respect. One might have to put crazy reinforcement, making a wheeled engine more simple.

 

4 hours ago, Jon144 said:

Make a small version and I will give you literally all of my rep. I want to see it happen!

As for this idea that wheel-less engines have yet to be miniaturized, here:

44 part engine that's ready-to-fly. If you don't want to figure out where to put a fuel tank, don't worry, it can hold 72 units (A bit under 5 minutes worth) of fuel on its own. 4 Juno blowers, 1852 kg with prop and intake. Probably the lightest fully-functional 4-blower engine ever built. Recommended RPM limit: 49 Rad/s.

DOWNLOAD engine Warning! High torque (30 kN*m)! You might need two of them counter-rotating.

Download previous version (heavier, more parts, no intake, maybe more stable)

 

This isn't necessarily the smallest engine possible (case in point, it would be relatively simple to remove an blower and all associated parts, turning it into a 3-blower engine, and it would be possible to make compact 2-blower engines. Further still, if you don't need ultra-high RPM, you could always remove some of the avionics cones or switch them for an antenna and some non-avionics cones. I strongly suspect that someone will eventually make a useable 2-blower engine with engine weight under 800 kg, 500 kg for blowers. 50 kg for tanks to mount the engines on, 50 kg for decoupler, and a shaft and cage weighing under 200 kg between them).

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

Oh? Interesting. Ever wondered who invented the turboshaft engine?

Come on man. This guy has made just as much of a contribution toward stock propeller craft as you have. In fact his designs share so little resemblance to yours that I wouldn't even call them turboshafts. They deserve a class of their own.

[Pds314]

11 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Come on man. This guy has made just as much of a contribution toward stock propeller craft as you have. In fact his designs share so little resemblance to yours that I wouldn't even call them turboshafts. They deserve a class of their own.

No. They're absolutely turboshafts. They're by no means copied off of Azimech's, but they are easily still turboshafts. My engines are different, but I can actually send you the transitional form between wheeled and non-wheeled engines that had a wheeled front end and an avionics cone at the base. It's far-and-away the most ungainly thing ever, 3 Junos and 3 meters wide, but it sparked my creativity.

People have been working on wheel-less turboshafts for awhile. I just found the best way we know so far. Seriously, I bet if you reverse-engineered one of my engines, it would take you less than an hour to have one of acceptable quality to actually get a plane airborne. Actually, I would be curious to see your and Azimech's designs. We probably stumbled upon different techniques and ideas and may be able to combine those ideas to get better engines.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Pds314 said:

No. They're absolutely turboshafts. They're by no means copied off of Azimech's, but they are easily still turboshafts. My engines are different, but I can actually send you the transitional form between wheeled and non-wheeled engines that had a wheeled front end and an avionics cone at the base.

I mean. Previously almost all engines that can actually make anything happen have been the traditional design. I.E. Frame, two rows of wheels surrounding a central shaft, lots of blowers, thrust bearing, prop.

 

Yours are, frame, blowers, strange multi-rowed atmosphere experiment thing around a 2 part axle made of avionics nosecones and a prop.

 

They both share similarities in design but the implementation is staggeringly different.

[Azimech]

Work in progress, I've rebuilt my FW 190 from the ground up, this is the A3. it has better dimensions for the cockpit and resembles more the real thing. Using the Chakora v1 engine performance isn't lightning due to the drag of the airframe but it doesn't matter and it's still much better than the A2. To do: instal the Chakora v2 engine (plug & play), build the pilot, clean it up, add some struts.

 

I'm sticking to wheeled because I believe one day the problems with the wheels will be over. I kind of like the idea of wheel-less but on the other hand I'm not a fan of floating parts, they feel more like a hack to me. That doesn't mean I disapprove, the joy of engineering and to inspire each other is what counts here.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Azimech

[Pds314]

3 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

I mean. Previously almost all engines that can actually make anything happen have been the traditional design. I.E. Frame, two rows of wheels surrounding a central shaft, lots of blowers, thrust bearing, prop.

 

Yours are, frame, blowers, strange multi-rowed atmosphere experiment thing around a 2 part axle made of avionics nosecones and a prop.

 

They both share similarities in design but the implementation is staggeringly different.

Sure. But. at least at large sizes, they definitely still compete.

A side-note: while you can have 2 avionics nosecones, it is MUCH better to have 3. It's the primary difference between low 30s RPM or less low stability, and high 40s rpm and good stability.

The atmosphere experiment thingy is only present on some designs. When present, it serves one of two purposes: it can hold the axle in place, or it can be the turbine blade. Many things work for these, but not all parts work equally well. General, cubic struts, octagonal struts, atmosphere experiment thingies, and static solar panels work well for the cage, whilst only the latter two make effective turbine blades, as the former two are too small.

[Gman_builder]

11 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Work in progress, I've rebuilt my FW 190 from the ground up, this is the A3. it has better dimensions for the cockpit and resembles more the real thing. Using the Chakora v1 engine performance isn't lightning due to the drag of the airframe but it doesn't matter and it's still much better than the A2. To do: installing the Chakora v2 engine (plug & play), building the pilot, cleaning up, adding some struts.

 

I'm sticking to wheeled because I believe one day the problems with the wheels will be over. I kind of like the idea of wheel-less but on the other hand I'm not a fan of floating parts, they feel more like a hack to me. That doesn't mean I disapprove, the joy of engineering and to inspire each other is what counts here.

d a m n   dude lookin good! You should upload it! I kinda want to experiment with different prop designs.

[Pds314]

28 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Work in progress, I've rebuilt my FW 190 from the ground up, this is the A3. it has better dimensions for the cockpit and resembles more the real thing. Using the Chakora v1 engine performance isn't lightning due to the drag of the airframe but it doesn't matter and it's still much better than the A2. To do: installing the Chakora v2 engine (plug & play), building the pilot, cleaning up, adding some struts.

 

I'm sticking to wheeled because I believe one day the problems with the wheels will be over. I kind of like the idea of wheel-less but on the other hand I'm not a fan of floating parts, they feel more like a hack to me. That doesn't mean I disapprove, the joy of engineering and to inspire each other is what counts here.

Wow. That looks exactly like the real thing.

Sidenote: what are the Chakora V2's specs? I know it has good RPM, but what about torque radius, length, weight, part count, etc?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Pds314 said:

Wow. That looks exactly like the real thing.

Sidenote: what are the Chakora V2's specs? I know it has good RPM, but what about torque radius, length, etc?

To be honest I'd like to learn some stuff like the way you calculate those specs. I left school early, know a lot of the basic principles of physics but I have to visualize and analyze everything beyond. My math skills are very poor.

I've used a trick to be able to run more RPM than in the v1, actually exploiting the fact that turbine blades expand. It puts some more workload on the pilot, you really need to control the engine now.

Gotta go now.

[Pds314]

So.. Anyone wanna organize a dogfight competition using turboshaft planes? I'm gonna be making a heavy fighter, probably about 8-10 tonnes fueled. Maybe I can even give it a working aimable (probably not in both dimensions) ball turret? Better still, give the ball turret to the fighter AI and let me fly the plane.

Hmm.. That makes me wonder if it might be prudent to put kOS machines on my props to control the pitch. Simply make a system that raises the prop pitch when the engine is below its design speed and lowers it when the engine exceeds its design speed. Maybe it could also reduce rpm target at high speeds to reduce prop expansion, since that seems to be a pretty strong reason why planes can't go fast.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

28 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

So.. Anyone wanna organize a dogfight competition using turboshaft planes? I'm gonna be making a heavy fighter, probably about 8-10 tonnes fueled. Maybe I can even give it a working aimable (probably not in both dimensions) ball turret? Better still, give the ball turret to the fighter AI and let me fly the plane.

Hmm.. That makes me wonder if it might be prudent to put kOS machines on my props to control the pitch. Simply make a system that raises the prop pitch when the engine is below its design speed and lowers it when the engine exceeds its design speed. Maybe it could also reduce rpm target at high speeds to reduce prop expansion, since that seems to be a pretty strong reason why planes can't go fast.

Actually I believe prop blade expansion helps. Drag increases ... but so does lift. What it also does is increase strain on the bearings when changing direction. And it's very ugly.

That's really it for now, gotta run.

[Pds314]

16 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Actually I believe prop blade expansion helps. Drag increases ... but so does lift. What it also does is increase strain on the bearings when changing direction. And it's very ugly.

That's really it for now, gotta run.

It definitely does increase lift at low speeds and pitch angles. I don't think it does though at high speeds and pitch angles. In order to maintain rotation rate, the prop needs to take a very shallow angle of attack that reduces thrust. Good if you have a massive excess of torque for your prop (e.g. 72 blowers on something like a 3- bladed prop), bad for anything else.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Revelation: the reason some parts work exceptionally well as turbine blades/paddles and reinforcement is because... THEY'RE PHYSICSLESS PARTS!

[Gman_builder]

40 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Revelation: the reason some parts work exceptionally well as turbine blades/paddles and reinforcement is because... THEY'RE PHYSICSLESS PARTS!

Gimme some examples of physicsless parts. I don't know any.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

3 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Gimme some examples of physicsless parts. I don't know any.

 

Recently checked items include

Communotron 88-88, Communotron 16, Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port, all of the science metering parts, Z-100 Rechargeable Battery Pack,OX-STAT Photovoltaic Panels, FL-A5 Adapter, Octagonal Strut,  Vernor Engine,

[Pds314]

7 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Gimme some examples of physicsless parts. I don't know any.

Physicsless parts don't maintain their momentum independently of their parent. They don't expand when used as turbine blades to spin the shaft.

[Pds314]

Hmm... well, I think I'm near the minimum practical power/weight ratio. Two 30 kN*m torque engines with a 48 rad/s limit on an 11-tonnes plane allows it to take off, but, thus far, it fails to fly more than a kilometer before crashing. Tried prop pitches across the board, including in-"flight" adjustment.

I think I'll try switching out the props for something with a larger swept area. If that fails, then I need to rethink this plane.

[Pds314]

Hmm.. well. It can fly... not *well*  mind you, but it can. It can gain altitude and speed if flown precisely right. It was not flown precisely right, however, and it had about 2.5 minutes of fuel, so it only flew about 5 kilometers.

[Pds314]

Yeah. Definitely capable of flight. Just requires significantly more finesse on the propellers and trim on the elevator. It also seems to be perpetually flying at sub-optimal RPM, which is annoying, but correct prop pitch seems to demand it, and I'm not sure how to make a prop that flies correctly here.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

4 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

 It also seems to be perpetually flying at sub-optimal RPM, which is annoying, but correct prop pitch seems to demand it, and I'm not sure how to make a prop that flies correctly here.

Hmmm ... how did you come to this conclusion? I'd like to see your train of thought. No criticism, just trying to understand what's going on here.