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

[Heckspress]

All you really need to do is stick reaction wheels on the box that contains the projectiles. Have it move and let the bearing move with it, not blow on the bearing and have the bearing move it.

[andrew123]

@Gman_builder Yeah. It'd be really cool if squad added 0.625 m structural fuselages. Then I wouldn't have to resort to these frankenstinian solutions.

 

Spoiler

   

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by andrew123

[Gman_builder]

@andrew123 Bro your stuff looks incredible. I loaded up the ship you sent me and i will be *Cough* "Borrowing" parts of your design. Thanks for the help. Reaction wheels are definitely the way to go.

[klond]

2 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

What 

Is

Up

My dudes

 Word up, G.

2 hours ago, Heckspress said:

All you really need to do is stick reaction wheels on the box that contains the projectiles.

 I agree.  How about a more complicated version of this for the turret?

 I angled some solar wafers so the stayputnik ball wouldn't pop out - it limited the range of motion tho.  Very few parts total.

Keep at it.

[Azimech]

16 minutes ago, klond said:

 Word up, G.

 I agree.  How about a more complicated version of this for the turret?

 I angled some solar wafers so the stayputnik ball wouldn't pop out - it limited the range of motion tho.  Very few parts total.

Keep at it.

Nice! I'm using the same method for my car suspension, if using something else than solar panels.

[The_Rocketeer]

I'm feeling frustrated by the small amounts of torque I can generate within the radial limits (radius 1) I have imposed on myself. Maybe you guys have a cool idea I don't have. Help me out.

Today, I modified one of my better planes for a cheaty-experiment - using the offset tool to move my turbine blades and blowers waaaay out. This worked fantastically - too well in fact, I tore the engine apart on the first test! - but having a bunch of Cubic Octaconal Struts floating around the plane is... not immersive. Performance was much improved, but with the blowers so far out I have to use extra engines just to keep the plane from rolling over, and that kills my plane's looks too.

So at the moment I feel like my (lame) choices are:
 

• to follow Azimech's example and go bigger
• to forget the laws of physics (and aesthetics)
• to go mainly/only EC (not a happy solution)
• to use mods (like IR) so my EC is alternator-generated
• hope you guys have another/better idea

[Azimech]

5 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'm feeling frustrated by the small amounts of torque I can generate within the radial limits (radius 1) I have imposed on myself. Maybe you guys have a cool idea I don't have. Help me out.

Today, I modified one of my better planes for a cheaty-experiment - using the offset tool to move my turbine blades and blowers waaaay out. This worked fantastically - too well in fact, I tore the engine apart on the first test! - but having a bunch of Cubic Octaconal Struts floating around the plane is... not immersive. Performance was much improved, but with the blowers so far out I have to use extra engines just to keep the plane from rolling over, and that kills my plane's looks too.

So at the moment I feel like my (lame) choices are:
 

• to follow Azimech's example and go bigger
• to forget the laws of physics (and aesthetics)
• to go mainly/only EC (not a happy solution)
• to use mods (like IR) so my EC is alternator-generated
• hope you guys have another/better idea

 

I'd go bigger.

What we actually need is a physics upgrade. After 1.2.2 is released I'll send JPLRepo or sal_vager a PM about the max rotational speed.

 

[Majorjim!]

12 hours ago, klond said:

 I angled some solar wafers so the stayputnik ball wouldn't pop out

This looks like a larger version/type of bearing @sgt_flyer used for his stock canadarm. Totally different parts and design though, similar result.

[The_Rocketeer]

Last couple of days I've been experimenting with a couple of new ideas. Of note, early applications of roverwheels - even the baby ones - are promising. However, they come with an entire slew of new gremlins and calibration issues:

• One Juno can power a minimum of 2 Rovemax S2 wheels (assuming low revs and high power demand). YMMV with other engine/wheel combinations and engine speeds.
• each wheel has to be placed separately without symmetry and then tested to make sure it's turning the right way
• because of this, adjusting the position of the wheels later (keeping them parallel and balanced) is a job you'd like to avoid, but...
• adjusting them (along with tweaking friction and suspension settings) are necessary steps in calibrating efficient power transfer
• the wheel input keys have to be rebound in the options setting so you don't trim your pitch, but the good news is you can still use trim controls as a power setting with different (not indicated) keys
• watch out tho, because rebinding wheels means all wheels, including your aircraft's steering-enabled wheels - avoid this by only rebinding 'forwards/backwards' keys.

Testing hasn't delivered any solid results yet, but I'm optimistic that I can use this to harvest a little more torque out of my pair of Junos.

I've also been experimenting with a parallel transfer gearbox to amplify propshaft speed. I don't believe this is going to deliver magical improvements, but mechanically it's working nicely - my propshaft can (and has) now reach 50 rads while the turboshaft is turning at less than 7 rads, but an undesired consquence is my turbine blades are prone to overheating.

I'll keep at it.

[Gman_builder]

I finally finished "my" turret. the aesthetics were actually pre-built by @andrew123 for which i am grateful. 

Fully stock lateral and vertical traverse. Works seemlessly and rides extremely fluidly because of the double wheel bearing that spreads the weight among two sections of the frame and minimizes stress on the bottom thrust bearing.

Spoiler

It shoots these neat little semi-guided rockets. I can hit a target 8 km away which is great for lag. You can fire from one 1500 part ship at another 1500 part ship from past render distance so you dont end up rendering 3000 parts. It's really useful actually.

Just over shot by like 300 meters.

This is the hull i designed the gun to fit on. The hull is about 800 parts and each gun is 400 parts. So with 2 guns plus the superstructure and various parts that make the ship work it will end up being the biggest craft i've ever built. Bigger than the 777. IF I DECIDE TO FINISH IT. I'm still contemplating that part.

 

[Heckspress]

2 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

I finally finished "my" turret. the aesthetics were actually pre-built by @andrew123 for which i am grateful. 

Fully stock lateral and vertical traverse. Works seemlessly and rides extremely fluidly because of the double wheel bearing that spreads the weight among two sections of the frame and minimizes stress on the bottom thrust bearing.

  Hide contents

It shoots these neat little semi-guided rockets. I can hit a target 8 km away which is great for lag. You can fire from one 1500 part ship at another 1500 part ship from past render distance so you dont end up rendering 3000 parts. It's really useful actually.

Just over shot by like 300 meters.

This is the hull i designed the gun to fit on. The hull is about 800 parts and each gun is 400 parts. So with 2 guns plus the superstructure and various parts that make the ship work it will end up being the biggest craft i've ever built. Bigger than the 777. IF I DECIDE TO FINISH IT. I'm still contemplating that part.

 

awesome!

[Majorjim!]

7 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

I finally finished "my" turret.

This kinda reminds me of the turret I made nearly two years ago. It had full 360 traverse, smooth as silk and pitch control too. Even if not that large of a pitch angle.

 

[Azimech]

2 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

This kinda reminds me of the turret I made nearly two years ago. It had full 360 traverse, smooth as silk and pitch control too. Even if not that large of a pitch angle.

 

Oi, when are you going to make a turboprop? :-P

 

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

Oi, when are you going to make a turboprop? :-P

 

Oi! When are you gonna wind your neck in?  only teasing. 

 All my KSP time is taken up with other projects man. Constellation mainly. I cannot stress just how hard and how much work is involved it that..

 Having said that I have a few ideas for some small ones as I can build bearings in my sleep now I think I can whip up a few nice turbo prop craft. Don't hold your breath though. 

 

[The_Rocketeer]

 I believe I just built a perpetual motion engine.

Unfortunately it's only in the order of 2 or 3 rads, so no turboprops here

For anybody interested, I positioned extended landing struts against my turbine blades, so that each blade rotated into the collider ray of a strut and was then pushed around by the extending piston. With a little tinkering, I'm getting fairly smooth rotation, but the pistons are too slow for high revs. This is the closest thing I've seen anywhere to the timed application of force like a reciprocating piston though. And yes I've seen Klond's car.

Edited December 6, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[klond]

 

On 12/3/2016 at 4:52 PM, Gman_builder said:

Spoiler

This is the hull i designed the gun to fit on. The hull is about 800 parts and each gun is 400 parts.

 

 

--------

 k while I'm here

 I rebuilt my single juno turboprop island-hopper from scratch and wanted to mention a few things.

 Here's what I learned this past few days.  Maybe it can help someone.

-I was unable to get anywhere near 50rads/s with rigid attachment on any rotating parts.  'Still weird to me.

-That nosecone in the picture makes an ok blade - low wind resistance for the diameter, pretty lightweight, and only one part.

-I didn't need a battery on the rotating unit - a probe core can still manipulate blade angles while under hibernation using almost no juice.

KerbalX

k on to the next thing

Edited December 7, 2016 by klond

[Bubbadevlin]

4 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

 I believe I just built a perpetual motion engine.

Unfortunately it's only in the order of 2 or 3 rads, so no turboprops here

For anybody interested, I positioned extended landing struts against my turbine blades, so that each blade rotated into the collider ray of a strut and was then pushed around by the extending piston. With a little tinkering, I'm getting fairly smooth rotation, but the pistons are too slow for high revs. This is the closest thing I've seen anywhere to the timed application of force like a reciprocating piston though. And yes I've seen Klond's car.

I actually have been trying to get this to work too! Its actually very easily possible to get up to 50 rad/s, but my problem with it is the legs over stressing and exploding. It seems like legs actually have much better torque than electric too 

[The_Rocketeer]

@Bubbadevlin I'm intrigued, because based on my experience of 1.1 I was expecting to have this problem - overstress and boominess - when I first tried it, but everything turned out to be really weak and gentle. I had assumed it was something they'd changed in 1.2. Would you object to sharing a craft so I can compare our approaches and see if I'm missing something?

[Bubbadevlin]

46 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@Bubbadevlin I'm intrigued, because based on my experience of 1.1 I was expecting to have this problem - overstress and boominess - when I first tried it, but everything turned out to be really weak and gentle. I had assumed it was something they'd changed in 1.2. Would you object to sharing a craft so I can compare our approaches and see if I'm missing something?

Not at all, I would post pics but imagur seems to be broken with me today.. 

I found it was just about placement, the greater spring force the more power (and zero dampener). Honestly, the gear only over stresses when i start moving in a plane or something. Even at 50 rad/s they didnt over stress if on launch clamps. I think this is just me failing to make a great bearing

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz8Cg6FNj53Ebnd0SFF4cWZ1ZkE - Testing craft

[The_Rocketeer]

@Bubbadevlin haha I think I realised my mistake - I was upping the damper with the spring! What a plum... I will see if I'm getting better results with this later.

It's a shame that there's no fuel required for this to work, but on the other hand it's got to be the most cobbled together kraken drive ever!

Edit:

So I squeezed in a quick test before bedtime. This is actually very encouraging. I will have to continue testing. Bubbadevlin I'd like to help you out with your bearings, but I've never useful a Stayputnik bearing because I find them too big and heavy for my needs. Based on my brief observations, though, I'd say your craft's destructive tendency may have more to do with overlapping colliders in the piston/turbine assembly than a bearing failure - it looked like the landing struts were kicking wildly before anything broke. I'd try offsetting the legs in two sets of 4 or something to reduce overlap.

Re-edit:

So turns out I had no idea what I was talking about, and strut overstress on moving vehicles is bizarre. Works perfectly on a static engine, but as soon as the struts are moving, kabom. I am mystified.

Edited December 7, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[The_Rocketeer]

@Bubbadevlin I did some engineering today, but having thought I'd cracked it when I got a 12-strut+reaction wheel hybrid to take off and fly around at 40m/s, I now seem to have taken a step backwards - my struts are smoke again. I thought it was because I was trying to switch out the reaction wheel for blowers, but when I stripped it right back to just the struts it was still ripping itself up. Frustration has now got the better of me.

Would you mind comparing notes? What's the furthest you've got with this?

 

[The Optimist]

On 12/1/2016 at 5:42 PM, andrew123 said:

@Gman_builder Yeah. It'd be really cool if squad added 0.625 m structural fuselages. Then I wouldn't have to resort to these frankenstinian solutions.

 

  Hide contents

   

 

Ooh, it that a Hetzer?

[Heckspress]

12 hours ago, The Optimist said:

Ooh, it that a Hetzer?

nope, T-28 tank destroyer I believe. the cannon's not asymmetrical

[Bubbadevlin]

On 12/6/2016 at 10:43 PM, The_Rocketeer said:

So turns out I had no idea what I was talking about, and strut overstress on moving vehicles is bizarre. Works perfectly on a static engine, but as soon as the struts are moving, kabom. I am mystified.

Sadly, thats exactly the same conclusion I have came to. Although it did seem to me that if I kept the rotor bearing below like 20 rad/s it tended to function better. (although that might just be because the craft was moving slower)

 

[The Optimist]

14 hours ago, Heckspress said:

nope, T-28 tank destroyer I believe. the cannon's not asymmetrical

It's difficult to tell from the back, but I think you're right.