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

[Gman_builder]

@Jon144 I never said wheel less bearings don't work. I said they're under powered. Try putting that exact engine from your Chinook onto a horizontal airplane. I doubt it will reach 120 m/s if it even gets off the ground. 

I don't want to make enemies here. I'm just stating facts.

Plus, your Chinook is a jet tipped. So it is just taking advantage of leverage rather than torque to make it go and you can't control the throttle from the parent craft. I PERSONALLY don't refer to those as turboprops. Even Azimech said he doesn't either.(can't quote him on that but i remember) Turboprops utilize internal blades and blowers, in a similar layout to a internal combustion engine, and they WORK. Ask Azimech for the definition, as he invented them. On that note, the only reason your bearing IS smaller than ours is because the blowers are outside the engine. It also doesn't move at nearly the same RPM as our turboprops. That's why it is more reliable. If we ran our turboprops at 30 rad/s they would never break. If you ran your engine higher than 30 rad/s it would fall apart.

When i say things are under powered i am looking at the concept as a whole. Not specific engines. That being said, there are some engines out there with wheel less bearings that perform exceptionally well, like @sdj64's most recent one.

You say you haven't built a bearing that uses wheels since 1.1, when they "broke." They didn't break. I've hardly ever had any problems with the wheels and when i do i can just overcome them with tweaking changing it. I don't understand how you can't do the same. I have been making engines since 1.0.5 and first plane flew AFTER 1.1 launched. So how is it that i am already #2 in the speed department after the guy who's been building them for YEARS and you are stuck building helicopters with jet tipped blades and your wheel less "thing." Wheeled bearings work exceptionally well because they dampen vibrations, have lower design tolerances, and perform better overall. I rarely have bearing failures in flight and when i do it's because i am REALLY pushing the envelope. Just like how they brake in WLBs.

They can have lower part count, but so can wheeled bearings. My first engine had 63 parts. Currently the fastest plane(to my knowledge) powered by a WLB was made by @Pds314 It did 237 m/s. That engine alone had 250 parts alone and was slower and heavier than my WB that had 50 less parts, is TONS lighter, and is faster.

All of our planes fly fine in a completely stock install, even more reliably. Albeit they are slow. Just like yours.

I don't judge the creators of the engines and i absolutely respect all the work you have all put into each of your craft. It's when people come out and say that electric engines or WLBs are better or more reliable than WBs that i feel the need to say something. They are not. Once again, i am not saying my craft is superior to yours just because it is.(tbh Chinook is really cool) I am saying WBs perform better because they ACTUALLY DO.

[Jon144]

4 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

@Jon144 I never said wheel less bearings don't work. I said they're under powered. Try putting that exact engine from your Chinook onto a horizontal airplane. I doubt it will reach 120 m/s if it even gets off the ground. 

I don't want to make enemies here. I'm just stating facts.

Plus, your Chinook is a jet tipped. So it is just taking advantage of leverage rather than torque to make it go and you can't control the throttle from the parent craft. I PERSONALLY don't refer to those as turboprops. Even Azimech said he doesn't either.(can't quote him on that but i remember) Turboprops utilize internal blades and blowers, in a similar layout to a internal combustion engine, and they WORK. Ask Azimech for the definition, as he invented them. On that note, the only reason your bearing IS smaller than ours is because the blowers are outside the engine. It also doesn't move at nearly the same RPM as our turboprops. That's why it is more reliable. If we ran our turboprops at 30 rad/s they would never break. If you ran your engine higher than 30 rad/s it would fall apart.

When i say things are under powered i am looking at the concept as a whole. Not specific engines. That being said, there are some engines out there with wheel less bearings that perform exceptionally well, like @sdj64's most recent one.

You say you haven't built a bearing that uses wheels since 1.1, when they "broke." They didn't break. I've hardly ever had any problems with the wheels and when i do i can just overcome them with tweaking changing it. I don't understand how you can't do the same. I have been making engines since 1.0.5 and first plane flew AFTER 1.1 launched. So how is it that i am already #2 in the speed department after the guy who's been building them for YEARS and you are stuck building helicopters with jet tipped blades and your wheel less "thing." Wheeled bearings work exceptionally well because they dampen vibrations, have lower design tolerances, and perform better overall. I rarely have bearing failures in flight and when i do it's because i am REALLY pushing the envelope. Just like how they brake in WLBs.

They can have lower part count, but so can wheeled bearings. My first engine had 63 parts. Currently the fastest plane(to my knowledge) powered by a WLB was made by @Pds314 It did 237 m/s. That engine alone had 250 parts alone and was slower and heavier than my WB that had 50 less parts, is TONS lighter, and is faster.

All of our planes fly fine in a completely stock install, even more reliably. Albeit they are slow. Just like yours.

I don't judge the creators of the engines and i absolutely respect all the work you have all put into each of your craft. It's when people come out and say that electric engines or WLBs are better or more reliable than WBs that i feel the need to say something. They are not. Once again, i am not saying my craft is superior to yours just because it is.(tbh Chinook is really cool) I am saying WBs perform better because they ACTUALLY DO.

Looks like this can spin pretty fast and I only made this in a few minutes as a test. Bet someone could do far better with time.

And if wheeled bearings didn't break do a favor and download any of my pre-1.1 crafts with bearings and try using them in the current version. Yeah they're pretty broken. And you can't really say any design is better than another since it is such a broad and vague term. What classifies as better does not to others necessarily. But when it comes to KSP science jet-bladed rotors will always be more fuel efficient than turbo-shafts unless you make the blades of the shaft longer than the rotor they power themselves.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

@Jon144 I never said wheel less bearings don't work. I said they're under powered. Try putting that exact engine from your Chinook onto a horizontal airplane. I doubt it will reach 120 m/s if it even gets off the ground. 

Well ofc it probably wouldn't work well on an airplane, it was designed for a helicopter. Plane engines don't work well on helicopters, and helicopter engines don't work well on airplanes. They are fundamentally different! Remember your propeller engine that wasn't working well when you tried to make a heli with it?

[Gman_builder]

There is no blade expansion, so it is running at low RPM. Meaning it wont get very far very fast. On top of that there little pitch on the blades so there is zero drag on the drive shaft, resulting in far higher RPM. When i spin up my engine in a unloaded configuration it reaches over 60 rad/s and promptly explodes violently. So unless your using KJR, that engine performs poorly. 

However i commend you for such a low part count engine that works well. I suggest you improve the design until you get something that lifts off.

Just now, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Well ofc it probably wouldn't work well on an airplane, it was designed for a helicopter. Plane engines don't work well on helicopters, and helicopter engines don't work well on airplanes. They are fundamentally different! Remember your propeller engine that wasn't working well when you tried to make a heli with it?

That is absolutely correct, and i redact my statement about that in my previous post. Thank the lord i only visited that briefly

 

@Jon144 Could you please shorten your quote length? So it doesnt take up so much space. We would all appreciate it. Just shorten it to like a single word.

[Jon144]

4 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

There is no blade expansion, so it is running at low RPM. Meaning it wont get very far very fast. On top of that there little pitch on the blades so there is zero drag on the drive shaft, resulting in far higher RPM. When i spin up my engine in a unloaded configuration it reaches over 60 rad/s and promptly explodes violently. So unless your using KJR, that engine performs poorly. 

However i commend you for such a low part count engine that works well. I suggest you improve the design until you get something that lifts off.

As I have already tried to make it clear to you people I will never use or require people who download my craft to have KJR installed. And of course the bearing I showed would perform poorly since it is a turbo-shaft with only 8 little blowers. I have another with 16 which runs twice as fast but I don't know what sharing it would actually be worth at this point. And duh I already have something that lifts off with that bearing. One is stickied on the front page of the spacecraft exhange.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

5 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

Looks like this can spin pretty fast and I only made this in a few minutes as a test. Bet someone could do far better with time.

And if wheeled bearings didn't break do a favor and download any of my pre-1.1 crafts with bearings and try using them in the current version. Yeah they're pretty broken. And you can't really say any design is better than another since it is such a broad and vague term. What classifies as better does not to others necessarily. But when it comes to KSP science jet-bladed rotors will always be more fuel efficient than turbo-shafts unless you make the blades of the shaft longer than the rotor they power themselves.

You can't use pre-1.1 craft as a example of why stuff is broken now. Pre-1.0.5 craft didn't work in 1.0.5 and pre.1.1 craft dont work in 1.1.3. It's that simple. We adapt, and apparently WLBs havn't adapted as quickly as wheeled bearings.

Just now, Jon144 said:

As I have already tried to make it clear to you people I will never use or require people who download my craft to have KJR installed. And of course the bearing I showed would perform poorly since it is a turbo-shaft with only 8 little blowers. I have another with 16 which runs twice as fast but I don't know what sharing it would actually be worth at this point.

All turboshaft - esque craft operate under the law of decreasing return. So that 16 blower craft would have maybe 150% higher RPM. That is some of the problem with these craft, however adding blowers increases torque. So you can fly under higher drag on the blades.

[Jon144]

6 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

You can't use pre-1.1 craft as a example of why stuff is broken now. Pre-1.0.5 craft didn't work in 1.0.5 and pre.1.1 craft dont work in 1.1.3. It's that simple. We adapt, and apparently WLBs havn't adapted as quickly as wheeled bearings.

Oh my god.

I have adapted. WHICH IS WHY I ONLY USE WHEEL-LESS BEARINGS NOW! That is my adapting!? Try making a wheeled bearing using the smallest landing gear in-game. The wheels break if you sneeze on them dude unless you're using one of the ridiculously over-sized ones. And Wheel-less bearings haven't really adapted since there were none before the patch made the micro landing gear we used to use for bearings turned into structural sensitive pieces of tin foil. Wheel-less bearings were the only way for me to adapt since continuing using wheels also required ridiculous size changes I was and am not comfortable with.

It's easy to say all wheel-less bearings are inferior to wheeled bearings when the rationale you're using for that are not purpose built for what you're describing in the first place. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Jon144 said:

Oh my god.

I have adapted. WHICH IS WHY I ONLY USE WHEEL-LESS BEARINGS NOW! That is my adapting!? Try making a wheeled bearing using the smallest landing gear in-game. The wheels break if you sneeze on them dude unless you're using one of the ridiculously over-sized ones. And Wheel-less bearings haven't really adapted since there were none before the patch made the micro landing gear we used to use for bearings turned into structural sensitive pieces of tin foil.

I have made turboshafts with tiny gear that achieve 45 rad/s. However i dont really feel like launching the game to get screenshots. We don't use ridiculously large landing gear. I use the largest still steerable wheels for my fastest engines, which hardly over sized compared to how big some stuff in this game gets. Have you considered that your Chinook is about the kerbal scale of the freaking Space Shuttle!???!?!

[Jon144]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

I have made turboshafts with tiny gear that achieve 45 rad/s. However i dont really feel like launching the game to get screenshots. We don't use ridiculously large landing gear. I use the largest still steerable wheels for my fastest engines, which hardly over sized compared to how big some stuff in this game gets. Have you considered that your Chinook is about the kerbal scale of the freaking Space Shuttle!???!?!

Yeah so it can use the Mk3 parts that make the chassis really low-part count. I could have made it much smaller for higher part count. But I respect the people who download and fly my craft too much for that. And since Azimech's current turbo-shaft replicas are almost twice the size of the chinook then you are talking about airliner sized single-prop aircraft. And the Mk3 parts are the only stock parts that have the loading ramp that is just perfect for the chinook.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I've been working on some wheel-less bearing planes.

It It doesn't get going fast because I can't change the pitch without it going out of control (it's a feisty beast). As for the engine exploding, I'm not sure which out of 3 it is. One, it starts to overspeed since I can't change the pitch to a steeper angle. Two, I can't design a good turboprop plane to save my life (I always have the shaft bending or something). Or three, the wheeless bearing. I'm inclined to think it is a combination of the first two. Probably mostly the second one.

[Jon144]

2 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I've been working on some wheel-less bearing planes.

It It doesn't get going fast because I can't change the pitch without it going out of control (it's a feisty beast). As for the engine exploding, I'm not sure which out of 3 it is. One, it starts to overspeed since I can't change the pitch to a steeper angle. Two, I can't design a good turboprop plane to save my life (I always have the shaft bending or something). Or three, the wheeless bearing. I'm inclined to think it is a combination of the first two. Probably mostly the second one.

Wow! A wheel-less bearing plane flying? Must obviously be hacks according to half the people here. Good work! 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Jon144 said:

Yeah so it can use the Mk3 parts that make the chassis really low-part count. I could have made it much smaller for higher part count. But I respect the people who download and fly my craft too much for that. And since Azimech's current turbo-shaft replicas are almost twice the size of the chinook then you are talking about airliner sized single-prop aircraft.

Ya but he doesn't model them after an actual aircraft. Now that i think about it, why do you even care about size of my engines? You just said yourself you made your heli bigger for less parts. SO why are you criticizing mine for being bigger. After all, according to your logic, bigger means less parts with these things.

Just now, Jon144 said:

Wow! A whee-less bearing plane flying? Must obviously be hacks according to half the people here. Good work! 

I literally said 4 times its not impossible to create WLB and never said it is impossible to make one fly fast. I said they are immature and under performing.

[Jon144]

13 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Ya but he doesn't model them after an actual aircraft. Now that i think about it, why do you even care about size of my engines? You just said yourself you made your heli bigger for less parts. SO why are you criticizing mine for being bigger. After all, according to your logic, bigger means less parts with these things.

Neither do I!? It's the Kinchook. Inspired by the Chinook. Geez. I never said that it is the Chinook. It just has the same basic design as it since it is a tandem-rotor and the Chinook is it's clearest in-game lookalike. But it's not all about size. It is about Kerbal-size. My Kinchook is still well proportioned to kerbals in a way that it can be used practically and don't look like a giant beast. Still small enough and well proportioned to seem realistic for a kerbal to use. Whereas you take one of Azimech's turboshaft planes and try putting a kerbal in it's cockpit. That doesn't make it better or worse just to exist in a different scaled world. My sense of size-realism does not come from sheer size but realism size. For example Azimech's new helicopter too is proportioned for the kerbal-world since it has seats and stuff even though it is rather quite big. Just like it's real soviet inspiration. 

But of course that is overall craft size. I'm just very prejudiced against bearings that are any bigger than a regular Mk1 fuelsalage since due to their lack of compactness are very hard to find practical applications for. And coincidentally just about every bearing right now using wheels fits that description.  I have made dozens of failed designs that only failed in my opinion because they were too big for me. I'm sorry if it seems like my own high expectations for my own designs are translating into me hating your own design. I'm honestly impressed with other people's designs.

And wheel-less bearings are immature? 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Jon144 said:

Neither do I!? It's the Kinchook. Inspired by the Chinook. Geez. I never said that it is the Chinook. It just has the same basic design as it since it is a tandem-rotor and the Chinook is it's clearest in-game lookalike. But it's not all about size. It is about Kerbal-size. My Kinchook is still well proportioned to kerbals in a way that it can be used practically and don't look like a giant beast. Still small enough and well proportioned to seem realistic for a kerbal to use. Whereas you take one of Azimech's turboshaft planes and try putting a kerbal in it's cockpit. That doesn't make it better or worse just to exist in a different world. 

EXACTLY. Our planes are NOT MODELED after anything and are not supposed to be kerbal-scale!!!!! They just work and work well! So stop criticizing our stuff over size if you are going to give excuses of why your craft is also over sized. Your Kinchook looks good and i think it is cool, but don't use it to tell us that our stuff is too big. 

[Jon144]

15 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

EXACTLY. Our planes are NOT MODELED after anything and are not supposed to be kerbal-scale!!!!! They just work and work well! So stop criticizing our stuff over size if you are going to give excuses of why your craft is also over sized. Your Kinchook looks good and i think it is cool, but don't use it to tell us that our stuff is too big. 

What? My craft is not over-sized. It is Kerbal-sized. My Kinchook is perfect to my standards since it's bearings are super-compact for their size, the chassis of the helicopter is reasonably and realistically proportioned to kerbals and is very low part count. I'm criticizing stock turboprops since they are generally none of these things. If the Chakora for instance had a cockpit where the kerbal would not be the size of the pilot's foot it wouldn't be as funny to me. But it's not bad but you can't say that it is realistically proportioned to a kerbal. I never said that made it bad. It's one of the coolest craft on the forum. It's just in my own design philosophy want things to seem like they exist within the world that they inhabit. If they are big or small. For example the Kinchook has a stock cockpit that the kerbals actually belong in. My beef is ultimately not about size but really about practicality. For example using the Mk3 parts for the Kinchook allows it to actually be able to carry stuff in it's cargo hold and uses jet-rotors instead of turbo-shafts so it can stay in the air for over an hour and not lag people's computers.

Also on the example wheel-less turbo-shaft I posted the blades don't appear to expand much since I stuck them pretty deep within the nosecone to start with.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Jon144 said:

What? My craft is not over-sized. It is Kerbal-sized. My Kinchook is perfect to my standards since it's bearings are super-compact for their size, the chassis of the helicopter is reasonably and realistically proportioned to kerbals and is very low part count. I'm criticizing stock turboprops since they are generally none of these things. If the Chakora for instance had a cockpit where the kerbal would not be the size of the pilot's foot it wouldn't be as funny to me. But it's not bad but you can't say that it is realistically proportioned to a kerbal. I never said that made it bad. It's just in my own design philosophy want things to seem like they exist within the world that they inhabit. If they are big or small. 

Alright your heli is not over sized. But stop comparing it to our stuff. After all, our planes go A lot faster than your helicopter. Personal philosophy can't be used in a technical argument, though i respect your opinion. Why don't we all throw out personal opinion into here, i think all Kerbal replica Aircraft should be Human/real scale and perfectly accurate to the T. That's why i built my Boeing 777-200ER, my RQ-4 Global Hawk, and my Lockheed D-21. You can look at them on my KerbalX page. Bigger size just makes it easier to incorporate high levels of detail and improved functionality. At the expense of part count. But my personal philosophy states that part count and FPS don't matter as long as it look good. 

See what i mean? But people will never all start building replica planes like that because it doesn't suit them. Just like building Kerbal scale turboprops like you doesn't suit Azimech's and I along with most other people who build them. We go after raw performance rather than aesthetics. (with the exception of Azimech most of the time on the aesthetics part)

When i was talking about WLBs vs. WB i wasn't using personal philosophy. I used facts and statistics.

[Gman_builder]

21 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

 

Also on the example wheel-less turbo-shaft I posted the blades don't appear to expand much since I stuck them pretty deep within the nosecone to start with.

Doesnt matter. Even with struts, our prop can expand up to 180% or almost double it's size just at initial staging. There was no expansion on that prop. I can judge RPM by looking at blade expansion. If i had to guess that would be somewhere less than 20 rad/s.

[Jon144]

38 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Alright your heli is not over sized. But stop comparing it to our stuff. After all, our planes go A lot faster than your helicopter. Personal philosophy can't be used in a technical argument, though i respect your opinion. Why don't we all throw out personal opinion into here, i think all Kerbal replica Aircraft should be Human/real scale and perfectly accurate to the T. That's why i built my Boeing 777-200ER, my RQ-4 Global Hawk, and my Lockheed D-21. You can look at them on my KerbalX page. Bigger size just makes it easier to incorporate high levels of detail and improved functionality. At the expense of part count. But my personal philosophy states that part count and FPS don't matter as long as it look good. 

See what i mean? But people will never all start building replica planes like that because it doesn't suit them. Just like building Kerbal scale turboprops like you doesn't suit Azimech's and I along with most other people who build them. We go after raw performance rather than aesthetics. (with the exception of Azimech most of the time on the aesthetics part)

When i was talking about WLBs vs. WB i wasn't using personal philosophy. I used facts and statistics.

I'm using stats and statistics myself. Wheel-less bearings are inherently simpler, smaller and lower-part count to wheeled bearings currently which is why i'm using them. And with the proper engineering finesse can still be very comparable and performing to far larger wheeled bearings. Same thing with jet-rotors and turbo-shafts. Jet-engine rotors will always be simpler and require less parts to operate as well but don't necessarily get the same style points.

I am very honestly sorry. 

I never want and have never wanted anything that I have been saying to sound like it is my way or the highway. I'm simply trying to justify why I build the way I do and don't resort to wheeled bearings and turbo-shafts like the majority. You can be happy with their size and part count and etc.  I have been finding my part count and simplicity solutions have been working rather well as very competitive alternatives.

I've just been acting so defensive since you have been claiming my personal design philosophies are pointless? Ive made it clear I have been ready and willing to experiment with turbo-shafts and all of my old bearings used to use wheels. And I personally don't find them as preferable at this moment. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge the notion that these ideas I have been advocating do not have their own strengths. And my criticism of what you have been designing is only because I think that everyone here is always capable of doing better. Just like my own need enhancing with some way to change rotor RPM without having to switch craft.

But again you say all WLB are pointless because my example one is just smaller and under-powered and not an actual finished product. And that somehow turbo-shafts have better performance when they are very inherently fuel-inefficient which you can figure out with your statistics. Believe it or not there are actually huge benefits to my design and we need to share the best parts of both worlds.

Again. I don't want there to be any hostilities on the forums. That's why I left for so long before releasing my latest crafts in the first place. 

I'm just going to stop posting here for now and quit arguing and simply wait and look forward to seeing that cool plane of yours get it's own thread. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

5 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

snip

 

The fact that you interpreted my words as a put down was not my intention and i am truly sorry, but i never said your designs were pointless. I gave ample examples of why your designs and all other WLB designs need improvement but you haven't acknowledged any of THAT. You also haven't acknowledged the fact that wheeled bearings are, really, superior in raw performance to current WLBs. How hard is that too see. Numbers don't lie. I also fail to see where you said that you are, " ready and willing to experiment with turbo-shafts..." I am assuming you mean you mean the wheeled variant. If am remembering correctly, you said that you haven't made a single turboshaft with wheels since 1.1 launched. 

" You seem unwilling to even acknowledge the notion that these ideas I have been advocating do not have their own strengths. "

Lol wut? I thought you were arguing that they DID have strengths.

 

          I also hate for there to be hostilities in the forum and i hate making enemies. I am sorry that you came back to an argument like this. So i am hoping dearly that after this banter clears up, there will be no damage done to our mutual relationship now and in the future. Just think of it as a friendly debate. I try hard not to make personal attacks and always proofread my counter-argument to make sure there are none that i failed to see while writing it. 

[Jon144]

15 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

The fact that you interpreted my words as a put down was not my intention and i am truly sorry, but i never said your designs were pointless. I gave ample examples of why your designs and all other WLB designs need improvement but you haven't acknowledged any of THAT. You also haven't acknowledged the fact that wheeled bearings are, really, superior in raw performance to current WLBs. How hard is that too see. Numbers don't lie. I also fail to see where you said that you are, " ready and willing to experiment with turbo-shafts..." I am assuming you mean you mean the wheeled variant. If am remembering correctly, you said that you haven't made a single turboshaft with wheels since 1.1 launched. 

" You seem unwilling to even acknowledge the notion that these ideas I have been advocating do not have their own strengths. "

Lol wut? I thought you were arguing that they DID have strengths.

 

          I also hate for there to be hostilities in the forum and i hate making enemies. I am sorry that you came back to an argument like this. So i am hoping dearly that after this banter clears up, there will be no damage done to our mutual relationship now and in the future. Just think of it as a friendly debate. I try hard not to make personal attacks and always proofread my counter-argument to make sure there are none that i failed to see while writing it. 

I give up. I'm done.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Gman_builder]

2 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

I give up. I'm done.

Alrighty then

did you read my whole comment?

[Jon144]

5 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Alrighty then

did you read my whole comment?

I'm done.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Jon144 said:

I'm done.

I dont understand

[Azimech]

Yikes ... seems going to bed can be ... still trying to process what just happened. Need a coffee that's for sure.

I'll come back to this later.

 

@EpicSpaceTroll139, judging from your surface speed and the amount of prop blade expansion, your beautiful engines are going past the 51 rad/s limit. You really need an easy way of reading engine speed.

[Gman_builder]

4 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Yikes ... seems going to bed can be ... still trying to process what just happened. Need a coffee that's for sure.

I'll come back to this later.

 

@EpicSpaceTroll139, judging from your surface speed and the amount of prop blade expansion, your beautiful engines are going past the 51 rad/s limit. You really need an easy way of reading engine speed.

Tell me about it. I tried to make things right and thats when he left. Like what.