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

[The Optimist]

Actually, further tests indicate that it fails when the horizontal velocity gets too high

[Gman_builder]

Just now, The Optimist said:

Actually, further tests indicate that it fails when the horizontal velocity gets too high

Then its a problem with your thrust bearing. If you modified it even a little form the original engine, revrert it back immediately.

[Azimech]

7 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

The engine is ripped directly off a Curious Chakora v2

which I thought would be more suitable than the original PR-0P bearing

Strange ... that one has a redline of 43 rad/s.

 

Ah ... I see the posts after. What kind of prop are you using? The heavier the prop, the more load on the bearings.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Azimech

[Gman_builder]

I tried testing my prop again and even at max blade pitch my engines revs it up over 53 rad/s and the frame explodes.

I have the power.

[The Optimist]

I redid the bearing from the ground up with larger wheels, and so far it seems to be handling it fine.

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, The Optimist said:

I redid the bearing from the ground up with larger wheels, and so far it seems to be handling it fine.

I use the largest steerable wheels in my engine. Works great.

[Azimech]

I've done it!

Here's the album: http://imgur.com/a/Z58rY

[Majorjim!]

3 hours ago, Azimech said:

I've done it!

Here's the album: http://imgur.com/a/Z58rY

Oh. You refueled. I was expecting a full, in one circumnavigation.  So is it a success for bearing stability? Ive seen turbo prop bearings that are essentially unbreakable.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Majorjim!

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Oh. You refueled. I was expecting a full, in one circumnavigation.  So is it a success for bearing stability? Ive seen turbo prop bearings that are essentially unbreakable.

Like mine?

4 hours ago, Azimech said:

I've done it!

Here's the album: http://imgur.com/a/Z58rY

nice!

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Like mine?

I forget who made it but it was a cone of thermometer parts with a nose cone inside. It was impossible to break it.

[Azimech]

5 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Oh. You refueled. I was expecting a full, in one circumnavigation.  So is it a success for bearing stability? Ive seen turbo prop bearings that are essentially unbreakable.

It was the first ever attempt, who knows what happens in the future. First we crawl, then we walk.

Bearing toughness has improved but can still fail. I'd like to see such an unbreakable bearing.

1 minute ago, Majorjim! said:

I forget who made it but it was a cone of thermometer parts with a nose cone inside. It was impossible to break it.

I've tested that bearing ... I was able to break it, it wasn't fit for high power/high speed applications like mine.

Something else:

The plane is on KerbalX guys!

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi13-Stock-Turboprop-Flight-Around-Kerbin

Edited August 7, 2016 by Azimech

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

I forget who made it but it was a cone of thermometer parts with a nose cone inside. It was impossible to break it.

Oh yeah I remember that. It broke when it revved over 46 rad/s. Not unbreakable. But stable. Mine is stable up to 49 rad/s. It can make 51 rad/s but it wont last long at that speed.

@AzimechSo is that plane just a variation of the Chakora? or is it something completely different?

[Azimech]

4 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

 

@AzimechSo is that plane just a variation of the Chakora? or is it something completely different?

Same airframe, slightly changed engine, fuel tanks instead of dummy pilot. This airframe is not the lightest nor the quickest but it's solid and has excellent flight characteristics, plus it's a STOL. I saw no reason to build a different one.  I already have more variants on the table, one for cargo, one for passengers.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Not unbreakable.

Gentlemen.. At the rated level of performance, as he released it, it was unbreakable. And as parts have breaking stress levels if you put in enough force anything will break. Even in reality, anything can break. The important bit is under normal use.

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Oh yeah I remember that. It broke when it revved over 46 rad/s.

The version I tested could not go over that rotation. it just worked. Did not break. So you took his design and made it faster? Do you remember who made it?

Edited August 7, 2016 by Majorjim!

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

At the rated level of performance, as he released it, it was unbreakable. And as parts have breaking stress levels if you put in enough force anything will break. Even in reality, anything can break. The important bit is under normal use.

I remember the plane. It was a Corsair thing. I broke it just doing a speed run under "normal" operating specs. Definitely not as durable as Azimech's and mine.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

I remember the plane. It was a Corsair thing. I broke it just doing a speed run under "normal" operating specs. Definitely not as durable as Azimech's and mine.

What do you mean 'a speed run'? I flew it like a mad man and it did not break. Even the builder attested to it's stability and that he could not break it. You guys see the importance of the difference between 'normal use' and 'stress testing'. If your bearing breaks you have put too much force through it. As I said anything can break with enough force. The importance part is balancing the operational forces and the design of the mechanism. That's basic engineering.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

What do you mean 'a speed run'? I flew it like a mad man and it did not break. Even the builder attested to it's stability and that he could not break it. You guys see the importance of the difference between 'normal use' and 'stress testing'. If your bearing breaks you have put too much force through it. As I said anything can break with enough force. The importance part is balancing the operational forces and the design of the mechanism. That's basic engineering.

When I say speed run I mean fly in a straight line at full throttle to see it's max speed. Pretty much the opposite of stress testing.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

When I say speed run I mean fly in a straight line at full throttle to see it's max speed. Pretty much the opposite of stress testing.

A speed run is in effect stress testing. Same difference.

 Anyway I think I still have his design in one of my saves and I am certain that no matter what you do in flight the bearing does not break. I wish I could find and remember who made it.

 Do you guys remember? I will test it again and post it here.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Majorjim!

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

A speed run is in effect stress testing. Same difference.

 Anyway I think I still have his design in one of my saves and I am certain that no matter what you do in flight the bearing does not break.

You underestimate my power

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

You underestimate my power

LOL power to do what man? the craft can only output a certain level of performance. Are you telling me you are so 'powerful' that somehow you are able to force the game code to change in flight? Man, that's impressive.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

LOL power to do what man? the craft can only output a certain level of performance. Are you telling me you are so 'powerful' that somehow you are able to force the game code to change in flight? Man, that's impressive.

My midi-chlorian levels are high enough to influence the game physics with the force

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Majorjim! said:

A speed run is in effect stress testing. Same difference.

 Anyway I think I still have his design in one of my saves and I am certain that no matter what you do in flight the bearing does not break. I wish I could find and remember who made it.

 Do you guys remember?

Nope ... but I really doubt it could handle 40 - 100 blowers and a giant propeller. The problem is part mass, KSP has this unholy bug which makes colliders ghost through when a certain force is applied if the part mass is low. That's why I use 1 ton MK1 crew modules with a 40m/s crash tolerance instead of the much lighter claw which has 50m/s crash tolerance ... with the claw you see the wheels wobble through the side and punch the shaft around. Same with turbine shafts made out of fairings: utterly unreliable.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Azimech said:

Nope ... but I really doubt it could handle 40 - 100 blowers and a giant propeller. The problem is part mass, KSP has this unholy bug which makes colliders ghost through when a certain force is applied if the part mass is low. That's why I use 1 ton MK1 crew modules with a 40m/s crash tolerance instead of the much lighter claw which has 50m/s crash tolerance ... with the claw you see the wheels wobble through the side and punch the shaft around. Same with turbine shafts made out of fairings: utterly unreliable.

Agreed man. It was a low stress, low RPM set-up. A V8 kinda turbo prop! You guys are striving for a High stress, high rev Formula one type set-up. Which is admirable. I work with very low stress, low RPM diesel motors and I just love the reliability! You need it when you only have one prop on your boat!

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Agreed man. It was a low stress, low RPM set-up. A V8 kinda turbo prop! You guys are striving for a High stress, high rev Formula one type set-up. Which is admirable. I work with very low stress, low RPM diesel motors and I just love the reliability! You need it when you only have one prop on your boat!

Diesel engines on boats or in trucks? I know some truck engines utilize turbocompounding and I was wondering if you knew anything about it that isn't expressed in the Wikipedia article, which is very brief.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Diesel engines on boats or in trucks?

Boats man.