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

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, Gman_builder said:

Update, i cannot get my plane to fly in any conditions let alone stock. KSP is being very unpredictable where sometimes the plane has enough power and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it just explodes. This game will be the death of me.

Yeah. I have found that engine performance has changed. I suggest turning on autostrut: grandparent part for anything moving that shouldn't be. Also, check your existing struts, and if they're not needed, remove 'em.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Trying to get my Archelon XA2 off the runway:

[life_on_venus]

Wow! That's a cool engine design I think I need to have another go at this, with a much bigger engine! Guys, what's the situation with wheeled vs wheelless bearings in 1.2?

[Azimech]

11 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

however its a lot harder now to accurately get good info because VOID isn't updated yet.

 

1 hour ago, life_on_venus said:

Wow! That's a cool engine design I think I need to have another go at this, with a much bigger engine! Guys, what's the situation with wheeled vs wheelless bearings in 1.2?

Wheels have improved a lot except the smallest ones.

[Azimech]

I don't know what kind of problems there are with other engines, my Chakora flies straight out of the box without adjustments, both stock and minimal drag. My helicopters too. I'm annoyed with the new SAS though.

 

[life_on_venus]

Azi, how did you first think about turboprops in KSP? I feel like you've already told that story somewhere but I really can't remember if you did. Just curious

[Azimech]

21 minutes ago, life_on_venus said:

Azi, how did you first think about turboprops in KSP? I feel like you've already told that story somewhere but I really can't remember if you did. Just curious

Well ehm ... when the first helicopters and propeller airplanes were constructed they had rocket or jet engines on the tips of the blades. They were hard to control and had no easy way of throttling. I didn't like that.

[Gman_builder]

@Azimech Is there a 1.2 version of EER too? i just slapped a engine together in 10 mins that reaches the RPM limit and skips but i cant really tell what kind of power its producing because the prop is tiny and not perfectly straight if that makes sense.

@life_on_venus Wheeless bearings are easier than ever but wheeled ones are still pretty wonky as always. Sometimes they produce power and other times they just don't, even if your flying under the exact same parameters.

@Pds314 When i get out of school ill post some screens of what i'm working on. I took inspiration from your exoskeleton-esque engines. 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeletal_engine)

Edit: NVM found EER

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gman_builder

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

14 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

4 hours ago, Azimech said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Azimech said:

...I'm annoyed with the new SAS though... 

 

 

What changed about the SAS? I haven't noticed any significant differences thus far.

4 hours ago, Azimech said:

 

 

[Azimech]

38 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

 

What changed about the SAS? I haven't noticed any significant differences thus far.

 

 

Engine vibrations have a more profound effect, it consistently drops the nose below the horizon. Time to install trim flaps to compensate.

[Oatypea]

I've been looking through this topic for a while now, and I saw somewhere that someone was removing lines from their '.craft' files to allow subassemblies of the engines to be attached in mirror symmetry (the idea being to use two contra-rotating engines to cancel out rotation of the plane). Well, I know a little Python, and I knocked up a little code to remove all symmetry from a subassembly so you can do just that very thing! Works with Python 3. 

INSTRUCTIONS: 

1. Create a copy of the subassembly you wish to remove symmetry from for backup purposes - it's worked every time for me, but you never know... 
2. Copy-paste the code into the folder of the file you wish to work on (the .craft must be openable as a .txt file)
3. Run the file, using the exact name of the craft when prompted (feel free to copy-paste file names - it works that way too)
4. Once the code is finished, open up the new file, which should be prefixed by "COPY - "
5. Change the first line of the .craft file to add "COPY - " after "ship = "
6. Done! 

The code. Please let me know if you cannot access it - I'm new here and as such may have made a mistake in linking it. 

Oatypea

Edited October 21, 2016 by Oatypea

[life_on_venus]

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/5ajchj/i_realise_my_lpost_earlier_today_was_a_bit_low/

So I posted this on Reddit, but it didn't really get viewed by anyone I don't think.

It's another car, this one powered by a very small turboprop. It was created after I was building another turbo engine that wasn't powerful enough to get a plane in the air. I made a super simple rolling vehicle with that engine, and then later in the day I purpose-built this engine and drivetrain.

It's not really "finished", it's more just a fun craft that uses the drivetrain I made. There have been much more impressive car things made, from Klond and from Azimech, but I had a lot of fun with this thing.

Without further ado, some actual info about the machine:

Power is provided by a wheelless turboprop, with 2 blowers and 4 blades. It does not spin terribly fast and does not have a great torque radius. Nevertheless, it produces enough torque to set the car in motion with a 1:1 gear ratio.

The transmission is a single speed, with a 1:1 gear ratio, and the engine is always engaged with the driving wheels. Because it is a turboprop, there is no need for a clutch when stopping, power is just reduced to 0% and the brakes applied. The vehicle is rear-wheel drive.

There's no reverse gear, and the torque provided by the turboprop cannot get the vehicle up the space centre's steep slopes without a runup.

The rear wheels are 2.5m in diameter and have many small landing gear around their edges, with the brakes applied to give grip. Taking these brakes off gives the impression of doing massive burnout . The front wheels are just small extendable landing gear to hold the vehicle up and provide steering. I think I might replace them with a set of 2.5m steering wheels.

The front wheels have their own suspension built into the landing gear part, but the rear wheels have no suspension.

Anyway, that's the fun I've been having recently! Bye!

Edited November 4, 2016 by life_on_venus
Should put the actual link in!

[klond]

52 minutes ago, life_on_venus said:

 I made a super simple rolling vehicle with that engine, and then later in the day I purpose-built this engine and drivetrain.

 Gears, wheels, axles, bearings - I like it!

[life_on_venus]

Thanks Klond, you inspired my folly 

[klond]

 If you wanna keep going you can do your own steering.  You could do a probe core, battery, and sas, then change focus to steer.  Or (oh man, this could be good) put blowers on left and right like this, then program 2 action keys to turn !  Then you wouldn't have to change focus to turn.  Functional or half-baked?  Either way, very exciting.

Go for it.

Edited November 5, 2016 by klond

[life_on_venus]

3 hours ago, klond said:

 If you wanna keep going you can do your own steering.  You could do a probe core, battery, and sas, then change focus to steer.  Or (oh man, this could be good) put blowers on left and right like this, then program 2 action keys to turn !  Then you wouldn't have to change focus to turn.  Functional or half-baked?  Either way, very exciting.

Go for it.

I actually did something similar, with landing gear:

http://imgur.com/a/3uBEX

Problem is, for some reason my crankshaft won't spin anymore. I did lengthen it to add a bigger turboshaft but it has enough bearings that weight shouldn't be an issue. Maybe it's just KSP and when I restart the game it will work again.

The vehicle you see here is V3 and it has a larger turboshaft engine, (tested) larger gear ratio to give more torque, and expanded fuel tanks, because this thing guzzles gas like a Duesenberg and probably weighs about the same too. Eventually I'm hoping I can put a body on it in the style of a Duesy SJ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg_Model_J#Supercharged_version_.28SJ.29

http://silodrome.com/duesenberg-sj-convertible-coupe/

That should work out fine  anyways I apologise for my 41 part count wheels, I'll probably replace them with 2.5m inline batteries or something not too heavy!

EDIT:

The steering system I made with the landing gear works well! The legs are there to kinda center it when needed and the gear do a fine job of shoving the front end around. The thing is that when transitioning back from full steering to central, the thing overshoots its turns a bit. Oh, and the steering controls are all binary! Whoops...

Edited November 5, 2016 by life_on_venus
Comment on the steering system

[Gman_builder]

I did a thing. Not really a turboprop its semi mechanical. Thought i would pop back into this thread anyway.

 

[Azimech]

1 hour ago, Gman_builder said:

I did a thing. Not really a turboprop its semi mechanical. Thought i would pop back into this thread anyway.

 

Nice! Head tracking device?

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

Nice! Head tracking device?

Track IR is life

[The_Rocketeer]

What's happening peeps. Been away for a while, and even now KSP has less of my time now than it used to, but on a limited basis I've been continuing to work on my turboprops. I'm finding wheel-less bearings more problematic since returning - wheeled bearings are just outsize for my needs. Did 1.2 change anything worth knowing about? Any pro tips for which parts to use? Til now I've been following @klond's example from his piston car's crank bearings, using OCTO-struts and nosecones - in the past I got really smooth revs from this approach, but now I don't seem to get the same stability.

[Azimech]

10 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

What's happening peeps. Been away for a while, and even now KSP has less of my time now than it used to, but on a limited basis I've been continuing to work on my turboprops. I'm finding wheel-less bearings more problematic since returning - wheeled bearings are just outsize for my needs. Did 1.2 change anything worth knowing about? Any pro tips for which parts to use? Til now I've been following @klond's example from his piston car's crank bearings, using OCTO-struts and nosecones - in the past I got really smooth revs from this approach, but now I don't seem to get the same stability.

I have no clue, my wheelless helicopters have the same performance, my wheelled turboprops as well.

[Matuchkin]

I'm thinking, if we spin a turboprop with an engine that is spinned by another engine that is spinned by another engine, etc, we can really speed up rotors while ensuring that each part doesn't blow up against another.

[The_Rocketeer]

17 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

I'm thinking, if we spin a turboprop with an engine that is spinned by another engine that is spinned by another engine, etc, we can really speed up rotors while ensuring that each part doesn't blow up against another.

Unfortunately this would be an inefficient approach. The size of such an engine would be prohibitive, and while you would get a very large leverage from the outer-most engines (and it would probably turn) it would be faster to just use the outside engine ring with a very large fan. The reason is that every step inwards would be thrusting in opposition to it's parent, so each step is subtracting thrust rather than adding it.

@Azimech actually you may be right - today I pulled an engine off my B17 and tested it, and it seemed to work ok. Maybe my bearing skills are just rusty.

[Matuchkin]

Just now, The_Rocketeer said:

would be thrusting in opposition to it's parent

What? No, I mean that they will all be spinning in the same direction. How can this possibly subtract rotor speed?

[The_Rocketeer]

4 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

What? No, I mean that they will all be spinning in the same direction. How can this possibly subtract rotor speed?

Yah, I get what you mean. That's why I said what I said.

1. Imagine a windmill - this is your propellor shaft. The vanes (blades) turn when the wind blows them around.
2. Now imagine the wind is created not by nature but by a jet engine. Still good, right?
3. Now imagine the jet is several jets attached to the vanes of another windmill. The windmill they're attached to will turn in the opposite direction than the one that they're trying to blow. So now you have two windmills that turn more slowly than the one you had before.
4. So to fix this, you add another windmill, with more jet engines, to blow the middle windmill around in the right direction. You think this will mean the propellor windmill will turn even faster than before. What actually happens is your new windmill turns one way, the middle windmill stays still, and the propellor windmill turns as slowly as it did before.
5. You could add as many windmills as you want and this would still happen.
6. You situation is slightly different, because it's a windmill inside a windmill, inside a windmill, so the outside windmills have higher leverage than the inner ones, but each windmill still has friction losses to cope with and the forces are still pretty close to balanced. So, the inside windmill - the turboshaft - turns slower than it would if it was just one really big windmill inside a bunch of static blowers.