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

[Gman_builder]

On 7/25/2017 at 4:01 AM, Azimech said:

I might want to try that.

Meanwhile, since I like modding as well, I wouldn't mind adapting a Juno to create just that. But knowing me, I would put in some technical element ... in other words: you'd need the whole system and it wouldn't be easy to use. Special resources, piping, intercooler, heat management, I'd even give it a different sound.

Still interested?

 

yeah thats kind of what i was thinking.

[RoadRunnerAerospace]

BEHOLD! My fist turboprop!

although it`s not the most stable thing, the oscar-b that I used as its "axle" tries to go through the solar panels and gets a case of the bounces, any ideas as to how to fix that?

don`t try to time warp with it!

 

[Gman_builder]

16 minutes ago, RoadRunnerAerospace said:

BEHOLD! My fist turboprop!

although it`s not the most stable thing, the oscar-b that I used as its "axle" tries to go through the solar panels and gets a case of the bounces, any ideas as to how to fix that?

 

Its because the bearing is not circular. Its hexagonal. So inherently the oscar B will be clipping through the panels as it rotates, causing part collisions.

[qzgy]

33 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

hexagonal

octagonal. 8 sides.

I think you already knew that, but just being pedantic.

[Gman_builder]

On 8/1/2017 at 0:19 PM, qzgy said:

octagonal. 8 sides.

I think you already knew that, but just being pedantic.

Yeha whatever

[qzgy]

I made a thing. Bearing based off of @Azimech's

Also in theory a tilt wing.

Still needs a lot of work. For one, I'm still flying using infinite fuel and electricity. This needs to be rectified. Also, balance and fuel is an issue.

Edited August 6, 2017 by qzgy

[Gman_builder]

36 minutes ago, qzgy said:

@Azimech

 

Interesting

[Gman_builder]

Think about this, Rapiers and the like make the most power at above-mach speeds right? So if you carried a rapier powered engine up to 450m/s would it make ridiculous torque? Could a turbo-supercharger system that simulates higher intake pressure be used to create that kinda of thrust at sea level? If so we could potentially make transmissions and cars that can actually do stuff instead of just display pieces.

[qzgy]

I have a question for the master helicopter builders - How do you make sure that the engines on both sides, which can't be mirrored as a sub assembly, are consistent?

[selfish_meme]

4 minutes ago, qzgy said:

I have a question for the master helicopter builders - How do you make sure that the engines on both sides, which can't be mirrored as a sub assembly, are consistent?

Not a master, but with two engines I use a mirrored mount and then copy one to the other, then I just change the pitch on the blades to the opposite of the other engine

[Gman_builder]

My powers have doubled since the last time we met

New inline engine built by me. More powerful and more efficient. 

The road to 100 m/s continues

[selfish_meme]

5 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

My powers have doubled since the last time we met

New inline engine built by me. More powerful and more efficient. 

The road to 100 m/s continues

Love the intakes on the top

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, selfish_meme said:

Love the intakes on the top

Thanks!!!

[selfish_meme]

The road to 100ms, 2 blowers and vicious torque

[Gman_builder]

@selfish_meme Neato! Can u post closeups of the engine? Looks cool. I like.

[selfish_meme]

29 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

@selfish_meme Neato! Can u post closeups of the engine? Looks cool. I like.

I will, I am working on making it into a contender for @Azimech's Stock Turboprop Dogfighting challenge. I may have reached the torque tolerance of the RCS ball bearings and I am having to dial it back to stop it exploding. It's a fair bit faster than that version currently with stock aero but explosive at maximum RPM.

It is based off this design, which I think @Azimech is using as well

https://kerbalx.com/quitessa/Ultrasmooth-Microbearing 

Edited August 23, 2017 by selfish_meme

[Morthgal_dwarf]

Hey everyone! I've just got back into KSP, and wanted to make some things, and decided on a turboprop. I've got a design that can get up to speed (I'll post images if necessary), however the wheel's I'm using in the structural fuselage explode after a little bit of speed. I've had it reliably spinning before, but never at this speed. I haven't measured the RPM, but I'm guessing it's probably about 60RPM before, and now probably double that (although that might be wildly wrong). The wheels are the small steerable wheels, and I think that they are somehow going over the 325 m/s impact tolerance. Anyone got any ideas, or will images be necessary?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 minute ago, Morthgal_dwarf said:

<snip> The wheels are the small steerable wheels, and I think that they are somehow going over the 325 m/s impact tolerance. Anyone got any ideas, or will images be necessary?

I've had nothing but trouble from the small fixed steerable gear when it comes to bearings. I'd recommend either using the small retractable gear, or using a wheeless bearing (stayputnik, solar, and RCS types come to mind).

[Morthgal_dwarf]

4 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I've had nothing but trouble from the small fixed steerable gear when it comes to bearings. I'd recommend either using the small retractable gear, or using a wheeless bearing (stayputnik, solar, and RCS types come to mind).

Hmm, i don't know if i will have enough space for the retractable gear, as it is supposed to all fit within a mk1 structural fuselage. Ah, well, back to redesigning the center piece!

[selfish_meme]

Making progress slowly, not up to fighting speed or reliability yet, new RCS bearing design test.

[Azimech]

3 hours ago, Morthgal_dwarf said:

Hmm, i don't know if i will have enough space for the retractable gear, as it is supposed to all fit within a mk1 structural fuselage. Ah, well, back to redesigning the center piece!

The good days for using landing gear is essentially over. They were usable in 2015 but it seems RCS balls are the future for multiple reasons.

[Morthgal_dwarf]

2 hours ago, Azimech said:

The good days for using landing gear is essentially over. They were usable in 2015 but it seems RCS balls are the future for multiple reasons.

Yeah, I've switched over to solar panel bearings for now, but had a little bit of success with the little rovemax wheels, but the solar bearing is far better. I've got a plane that can move now too, but i don't think it will get off the ground, but haven't tested it as KSP crashed. I will probably switch to RCS bearings if it can't get in the air, but otherwise the solar bearings work, although it took me a while to fix the comms antenna popping out of the solar panels.

[NoobTool]

I recently built my first stock bearing for a small lifter/crane. I was so impressed by how well the mechanism worked that I decided to try my hand at building a helicopter.

 

Spoiler

I wanted to build something capable of carrying cargo with decent cruising speeds in level flight and high endurance. The Wyvern ticks all the boxes to my satisfaction and looks pretty good doing it. I'm pretty happy with the design for my first attempt.

A CRG-100 cargo bay with a loading ramp provides ample cargo space. I have yet to test the payload capacity, but with the afterburners going on the blowers, she's able to climb straight up at nearly 10m/s.

In level flight, she cruises at ~160m/s, sipping fuel all the way. I haven't tried anything other than the wheesley for forward flight engines, I imagine it can probably go quite a bit faster with panthers or whiplashes (if the bearings stay intact).

She's no acrobat. Inversion voids warranty and may result in serious injury or death (and funny kabooms). She's still pretty fun to fly. She handles much like a winged aircraft in forward flight.

The turboprop is nothing revolutionary. 2 panthers push a 3.75m fairing base, providing torque. Solar panel/antenna bearings hold everything together (most of the time). I haven't seen many designs that use the lifting surfaces I chose (I imagine there's a good reason for this), but they work pretty well in this application. I chose them for their high lifting surface area relative to rotor diameter.

The side-by-side contra-rotating props provide stability without the need for a tail rotor. She's very stable and easy to fly.

Precision landings are pretty easy. I even managed to land it atop the tower at the island airfield, but I didn't grab a picture in time. While I waited for the rotors to spin down, it became unstable and slid off the roof. I was able to save it by kicking in the afterburners, but it was a near thing.

I really enjoyed designing and building the Wyvern (especially the part when it started working). If any of you heli-heroes out there have any tips or advice for improving performance, I'd be grateful for it.

Thanks for reading!

Edited August 23, 2017 by NoobTool

[selfish_meme]

Problems with the last model experimental fighter prompted a redesign to improve several areas, two engines at the front was problematic because of weight distribution and wing placement. The fuselage became long and the cockpit was right at the back. The wings were very far forward, essentially floating in air because of the engines. Two engines placed serially also produced a prop that was displaced very far from the bearing, this caused issues with the light RCS bearing and made them fail easily. A twin outboard engine mounted design like a DeHavilland Mosquito was considered but would increase complexity and probably be larger and have a slower roll rate. Instead a Push/Pull design like the Dornier Do 335 has been adopted. This was the fastest piston engined German fighter produced before the end of WWII. Only a few were supplied before the end despite being given priority over many other production planes. This test aircraft is using a 4 bladed prop which has limits on it's extension and must be angled quite severely to stop over-speed on the engine. It is much better behaved, and the part count is quite low for a twin engined aircraft. The next version will move to a 5 blade design like a Griffon engined Spitfire to allow for less angle and greater deflection when deployed. Top speed undeployed is 53ms (in level flight) and the bearings do not self destruct during small maneuvers. I have some ideas on how to make the engines more durable for the next version. - Stock Aero

Edited August 24, 2017 by selfish_meme

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I don't have any pics on me, but I tried switching over the bearing on my own turbofighter from a solar panel type to an RCS type. It now is able to withstand hard maneuvers, but has trouble getting off the ground for whatever reason. I think the design I chose has too much mass in the propshaft,and thus suffers from gyroscopic effects. Either that or it adjusted the COM just enough to give it extreme ground-loop tendencies.