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

[Gman_builder]

13 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Well, the problem is the Jumboliner is having the aforementioned engine problems. It's not really gotten into cruising flight. It reaches between 105-135 m/s before something bad happens, and it does so both at 0.1 and 8 drag multiplier. (note: this is with twice its mass in fuel onboard. No idea how it flies with little fuel)

There are no restrictions regarding the use of infinite fuel so that's what Azimech and I used on our speed runs. (224m/s and 235m/s respectively)   So if you really wanna let 'er loose and see what she can do you can use zero fuel and crank the throttle.   Considering how we achieved those speed(excess of 500 mph) with around 44 - 46 rad/s of engine RPM and you've produced a stable bearing running at 80+ rad/s, you should theoretically be able to reach greater speeds with your own engine designs.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, Gman_builder said:

There are no restrictions regarding the use of infinite fuel so that's what Azimech and I used on our speed runs. (224m/s and 235m/s respectively)   So if you really wanna let 'er loose and see what she can do you can use zero fuel and crank the throttle.   Considering how we achieved those speed(excess of 500 mph) with around 44 - 46 rad/s of engine RPM and you've produced a stable bearing running at 80+ rad/s, you should theoretically be able to reach greater speeds with your own engine designs.

Ah. Well it was originally designed for the endurance challenge. It should get extraordinarilly good climb performance empty, like, being able to fly straight up sort of performance.

..Speaking of which..



My latest small engine flying with infinite propellant can lift off!

This thing is seriously approaching the limits. The shaft is a single avionics cone. The entire engine is 30 parts, 6 of which are Junos and 12 of which are solar panels. It weighs 1856 kg. I made a tractor version as well, but it's substantially re-arranged. I also made a version with 2 Junos that weighs 756 kg, coincidentally fulfilling my one prophecy.

The smaller should be small enough that with careful design and flying, an interwar biplane could fly using it.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

14 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Ah. Well it was originally designed for the endurance challenge. It should get extraordinarilly good climb performance empty, like, being able to fly straight up sort of performance.

..Speaking of which..



My latest small engine flying with infinite propellant can lift off!

This thing is seriously approaching the limits. The shaft is a single avionics cone. The entire engine is 30 parts, 6 of which are Junos and 12 of which are solar panels. It weighs 1856 kg. I made a tractor version as well, but it's substantially re-arranged. I also made a version with 2 Junos that weighs 756 kg, coincidentally fulfilling my one prophecy.

The smaller should be small enough that with careful design and flying, an interwar biplane could fly using it.

Alright, no top speed.

In other news. I did some more work on my latest plane. It now reaches 230 m/s and the engine produces a whopping 48 rad/s! I think I can push it faster but with a expense of lower RPM. I guess it doesn't really matter if I can go faster but I'm also trying to create a 50+ rad/s engine that works reliably. The Gremlin Mk3 is the fastest aircraft I have built and designed completely on my own. My previous model, the Gremlin Mk2 is 6 m/s slower and used a Chakora V2 engine so this is quite the achievement for me. the Mk3 has 120 more parts than the Mk3 but it is still playable at around 25 FPS.

The engine is also about 4.5 meters in diameter so it is considerably larger than the Chakora V2 engine and produces more power despite the huge increase in weight. I am going investigator to experiment with                     expansion-less props to try and increase RPM. I might also Change some features on my airframe, as it is a direct Copy-Paste from the Gremlin Mk2 with a couple modifications offset of the leading edge and length. The airframe off the Mk2 is also a direct Copy-Paste of the airframe off one of my very first turboshaft planes, the "2.5 meter turboshaft." You can check that out here along with the rest of my turboshaft aircraft.

That plane is incredibly powerful and efficient but I have still yet to reach DS(disintegration speed) and I am unable to get the engine to break without seriously hard maneuvers at high speed or simply smashing it into the ground.

I think Azimech is kind of left out in the high-rpm department because his system is seemingly unable to handle RPM higher than 51 rad/s. All i can say is good luck dude I hope you can get high performance engines to run on your computer.

On that note, I think max engine RPM is extremely reliant on your system. As in, your computer might just be unable of making it happen. Maybe it has something to do with the building process though, as I tried the reaction-wheels-on-a-stick method and I got a similar max RPM of around 60 rad/s.

Happy turboshafting!

 

 

[Pds314]

7 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Alright, no top speed.

In other news. I did some more work on my latest plane. It now reaches 230 m/s and the engine produces a whopping 48 rad/s! I think I can push it faster but with a expense of lower RPM. I guess it doesn't really matter if I can go faster but I'm also trying to create a 50+ rad/s engine that works reliably. The Gremlin Mk3 is the fastest aircraft I have built and designed completely on my own. My previous model, the Gremlin Mk2 is 6 m/s slower and used a Chakora V2 engine so this is quite the achievement for me. the Mk3 has 120 more parts than the Mk3 but it is still playable at around 25 FPS.

The engine is also about 4.5 meters in diameter so it is considerably larger than the Chakora V2 engine and produces more power despite the huge increase in weight. I am going investigator to experiment with                     expansion-less props to try and increase RPM. I might also Change some features on my airframe, as it is a direct Copy-Paste from the Gremlin Mk2 with a couple modifications offset of the leading edge and length. The airframe off the Mk2 is also a direct Copy-Paste of the airframe off one of my very first turboshaft planes, the "2.5 meter turboshaft." You can check that out here along with the rest of my turboshaft aircraft.

That plane is incredibly powerful and efficient but I have still yet to reach DS(disintegration speed) and I am unable to get the engine to break without seriously hard maneuvers at high speed or simply smashing it into the ground.

I think Azimech is kind of left out in the high-rpm department because his system is seemingly unable to handle RPM higher than 51 rad/s. All i can say is good luck dude I hope you can get high performance engines to run on your computer.

On that note, I think max engine RPM is extremely reliant on your system. As in, your computer might just be unable of making it happen. Maybe it has something to do with the building process though, as I tried the reaction-wheels-on-a-stick method and I got a similar max RPM of around 60 rad/s.

Happy turboshafting!

 

 

Hmm. I think I shall try a speedrun. Hopefully my Varpulis 2 will be reliable enough to get speed maxouts. Still haven't figured out what's wrong with it exactly, but I know it has something to do with the rear avionics cone exploding. Unfortunately, engine heating causes the F3 menu to simply freeze the game and display nothing.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

1 hour ago, Gman_builder said:

There are no restrictions regarding the use of infinite fuel so that's what Azimech and I used on our speed runs. (224m/s and 235m/s respectively)   So if you really wanna let 'er loose and see what she can do you can use zero fuel and crank the throttle.   Considering how we achieved those speed(excess of 500 mph) with around 44 - 46 rad/s of engine RPM and you've produced a stable bearing running at 80+ rad/s, you should theoretically be able to reach greater speeds with your own engine designs.

Que? I never made a statement about fuel. I don't use infinite fuel and neither should you.

[Pds314]

28 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Que? I never made a statement about fuel. I don't use infinite fuel and neither should you.

Hmm.. This effects whether I should climb to space or just go for max speed at a few klicks above sealevel. If I climb to space, I'll use less fuel, but take more time.
Also, to be clear, we're going for level-flight speed, right?

Eh. In any case, I can just take a light fuel load. The consumption rate is about 40 kg/s once at speed, so if I give myself 40 tonnes, that should be about 17 minutes of flight time.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Azimech]

Just now, Pds314 said:

Hmm.. This effects whether I should climb to space or just go for max speed at a few klicks above sealevel. If I climb to space, I'll use less fuel, but take more time.
Also, to be clear, we're going for level-flight speed, right?

Yep, no more than 0.5 m/s vertical.

I use Pilot Assistant, gets the job done.

[Pds314]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

Yep, no more than 0.5 m/s vertical.

I use Pilot Assistant, gets the job done.

Can it be >0.5 m/s up? i.e. going fast in a climb? So far I got 174 doing that.

[Gman_builder]

31 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Que? I never made a statement about fuel. I don't use infinite fuel and neither should you.

Alright, fine. But my planes would be no slower with small amounts of fuel on board compared to no fuel.

[Pds314]

1 minute ago, Gman_builder said:

Alright, fine. But my planes would be no slower with small amounts of fuel on board compared to no fuel.

As Gman_builder re-attaches his air intakes and reconnects his engines to fuel. =)

[Gman_builder]

Have you guys realized we have made over 6 pages of conversation about this new technology. It's like, all the sudden there was a sudden burst of inspiration and innovation.

[Pds314]

1 minute ago, Gman_builder said:

Have you guys realized we have made over 6 pages of conversation about this new technology. It's like, all the sudden there was a sudden burst of inspiration and innovation.

I wonder how Doctor Davinci's fledgeling turboprop designs are doing?

[Gman_builder]

12 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

I wonder how Doctor Davinci's fledgeling turboprop designs are doing?

ya lol. they resemble some of my first designs.

[Pds314]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

ya lol. they resemble some of my first designs.

No doubt he'll figure out some sort of 45+ rads/s technology soon enough.

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, Pds314 said:

No doubt he'll figure out some sort of 45+ rads/s technology soon enough.

may take several months but its part of the learning process XD

[Pds314]

1 minute ago, Gman_builder said:

may take several months but its part of the learning process XD

Nah. Clearly, he'll have a 50-part engine that's more capable than the Chakora V2 or the Varpulis 2 by the end of the month. =D

LOL. This DIDN'T kill the engine... a random failure 5 minutes later did 

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, Pds314 said:

Nah. Clearly, he'll have a 50-part engine that's more capable than the Chakora V2 or the Varpulis 2 by the end of the month. =D

lol totally XD

[Pds314]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

lol totally XD

On another note, I'm truly lost trying to figure out why the Varpulis 2 seems to spontaneously break the back nosecone, like I understand if it goes jiggly for too long and explodes, or if it pulls apart due to thrust, but neither of those things are happening most of the time when it breaks.

[Gman_builder]

21 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

On another note, I'm truly lost trying to figure out why the Varpulis 2 seems to spontaneously break the back nosecone, like I understand if it goes jiggly for too long and explodes, or if it pulls apart due to thrust, but neither of those things are happening most of the time when it breaks.

The most likely cause is probably either KSP's unreliable noodle joints or the fact that the avionics nosecone weighs like, nothing. So it has really low structural integrity and really low crash resistance. I make my shafts out of MK1 crew cabins because they have a 40m/s crash tolerance.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Pds314]

Like, every single time. Reach 170-something m/s, engine breaks, this happens:


And by that time, I've increased the pitch, usually to about +75 and the angular velocity dips from 50 down to 47-48 rads/s. The thrust is also lower at that point. I simply don't get it. What is making the shaft fail?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

Rough dude. I guess there pros and cons to every engine design.

Every engine has two speed limits.

RPM limit

and actual speed limit

I don't know how exactly how each one individually affects the engine and i especially don't know how they interact but i do know that you may reach the RPM limit before the speed limit or vice versa. You engines appear to reach the speed limit first.

[Pds314]

35 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Rough dude. I guess there pros and cons to every engine design.

Every engine has two speed limits.

RPM limit

and actual speed limit

I don't know how exactly how each one individually affects the engine and i especially don't know how they interact but i do know that you may reach the RPM limit before the speed limit or vice versa. You engines appear to reach the speed limit first.

Apparently for that one. The wierd thing though, is it's often assymetrical, and I once did a dive from 6 kilometers and the second engine didn't fail until I was at 300 m/s and it was jiggling like mad.

Based on the drag, weight, mass and thrust, it SHOULD be able to fly level at much, much higher speeds... if the engine doesn't explode.

Hmm. I'm removing 24 struts from the plane, all in the engines. Not sure why I had them there to begin with.

EDIT: AHH! NO! REMOVING STRUTS IS A VERY BAD IDEA.


EDIT 2: Hmm... just had an insane idea: A turboshaft engine scaled for use with planes made of B9 HX 2x2 modules. For all your helicarrier needs!

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

42 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Apparently for that one. The wierd thing though, is it's often assymetrical, and I once did a dive from 6 kilometers and the second engine didn't fail until I was at 300 m/s and it was jiggling like mad.

Based on the drag, weight, mass and thrust, it SHOULD be able to fly level at much, much higher speeds... if the engine doesn't explode.

Hmm. I'm removing 24 struts from the plane, all in the engines. Not sure why I had them there to begin with.

EDIT: AHH! NO! REMOVING STRUTS IS A VERY BAD IDEA.


EDIT 2: Hmm... just had an insane idea: A turboshaft engine scaled for use with planes made of B9 HX 2x2 modules. For all your helicarrier needs!

Oh gawd.

Oh gawd please no

managing one small turboshaft is a challenge in of itself let alone several massive ones. Modded turboshafts generally have worse performance than stock ones. I know from experience.

I changed out my 5 bladed prop on the Gremlin Mk3 for a 4 bladed one and reached 53 rad/s before it failed. However I switched back to a 5 bladed prop because the 4 bladed one made the engine prone to breaking free of it's mount on takeoff for whatever reason. Promising though! I am going to try to slim down the weight in my 2 thrust bearings for hopefully better RPM and then do some more weight reduction on the airframe and hopefully i will surpass Azimech's current speed record of 235 m/s. After all it's only 5 m/s off from my top speed.

 

I captured this screenshot about 15 seconds before the engine exploded. It kept increasing in RPM past 50 rad/s though. I switched over to the main body so i could monitor it's attitude and seed more accurately and that is when the explosion occurred. So i was not really monitoring the RPM at the time. But if it kept increasing as it was before the disaster i could make a educated guesstimate at the DS, about 53 rad/s.

 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Pds314]

5 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Oh gawd.

Oh gawd please no

managing one small turboshaft is a challenge in of itself let alone several massive ones. Modded turboshafts generally have worse performance than stock ones. I know from experience.

I changed out my 5 bladed prop on the Gremlin Mk3 for a 4 bladed one and reached 53 rad/s before it failed. However I switched back to a 5 bladed prop because the 4 bladed one made the engine prone to breaking free of it's mount on takeoff for whatever reason. Promising though! I am going to try to slim down the weight in my 2 thrust bearings for hopefully better RPM and then do some more weight reduction on the airframe and hopefully i will surpass Azimech's current speed record of 235 m/s. After all it's only 5 m/s off from my top speed.

 

The prop won't be able to sustain that speed. It will collapse and break. It could reach 60 before failure but nothing beyond 51 is likely stable or likely to generate any extra useful thrust.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Pds314

[Gman_builder]

2 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

The prop won't be able to sustain that speed. It will collapse and break. It could reach 60 before failure but nothing beyond 51 is likely stable or likely to generate any extra useful thrust.

I added a screenshot and some stuff to my earlier response you should check it out.

I meant, i was going to try to increase the speed off my stable 48 rad/s 5 bladed prop to just get 5 more m/s out of the plane. Mainly by weight reduction and stuff.