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

[Azimech]

Launched the improved version of the Focke Wulf 190! Check the OP!

[Zwolff]

These are really fantastic!

Have you tried electric propulsion? It would be nice to try a propeller aircraft as a first ascent stage from Eve.

[Azimech]

Thank you! I haven't considered electric propulsion because I like noisy, smelly and complex things that rock, shake and sometimes explode. Once the technology is there to recreate a Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp, I'll start while downloading the software.

[Jakalth]

Got 2 more radial styled engines for ya Azimech. I said I was going to make a more compact version and I have finally delivered. Both are based on 6-cylinder designs since it allows the engines to be smaller diameter and yet still radial designed. Both engines are not quite as sturdy as the 8-cyl design, couldn't find quite as suitable bearing races that were smaller then the one I used for the big guy. But, the results are workable and also fairly high RPM.

The first is the Lite 6-cylinder Radial engine. This engine is about 2/3 the size of the 8-cylinder engine, has nearly 50 less parts, and weights in nearly 6 Tons lighter. It has similar performance characteristics as it's bigger brother but is not quite as sturdy, or stable for that matter... Does require running it a little slower then the 8-cyl version unless the prop hooked to it can keep its speeds down enough. Other then that, it's a nice little engine.

Part count: 119 parts

Weight: 17.8 Tons

Next we have this engines' much bigger brother, the 12 cylinder double 6 radial engine. This engine is nearly the same size as the lite 6-cyl version and based on the same design. But unlike the 6-cyl, the 12-cyl variant is a lot more stable. It also has considerably more power. For being possibly the most powerful engine I have made, it is still quite small. The only drawback is that this engine is a little less sturdy then some so it may succumb to engine fatigue a bit easier. But on the plus side, the cylinder placement does improve stability and smoothness a good amount over it's two brothers.

Part count: 169

Weight: 26.5 Tons

Downloads:

6-cyl Radial Engine

12-cyl Double 6 Radial Engine

The double 6 is not quite a double wasp engine(not sure how to pull off the 9-cyl alignment...), but we're getting closer.

[Azimech]

Although I like what you're building, it's not the path I'll choose once there's the software to make these really run:

[_Bugs]

Is there any chance we may get a downgrade of these engines?

I may start experimenting.

[Azimech]

What do you mean with a downgrade? And yes! Experiment! Don't let anything stop you!

[Jakalth]

Ah yes, your true piston engine. Yeah, can't wait until you can get that thing running combustion style.

The radials I've been making are a stepping stone, or at least a bit more compact version of the already tried and tested turbo shaft.

[Redshift OTF]

http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p685/Jakalth/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/8cylradialfront_zpsnz8wmhuj.jpg http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p685/Jakalth/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/8cylradialside_zpsew17apki.jpg

This engine! Yes, this is the one I rate the most. The TR-38 Decoupler is an SLS part and when they brought them out they made the connections very strong to handle the really heavy parts. That piece is designed to handle pretty big payloads. Good thinking! I will put this on my Chinook to see how it handles. Thank you!

[Redshift OTF]

Looking good. These engines are better suited for rotor blades and I can get a horizontal speed of 50 m/s without the blades bending too much.

[Jakalth]

Heh, glad to see some use being gotten out of the engines. I'm going to make a separate topic for just the radial engine designs so this topic doesn't get cluttered anymore by me and can stay on topic. I can clean out the posts I made related to the engines if you like Azimech, for topic continuity.

[Azimech]

Don't bother, I don't mind your posts here :-)

[Lothsahn]

By the way, I solved the propeller problem. From now on we can fly planes with the proper amount of blades

How did you "solve" the propeller problem? I always get less thrust and more torque with fewer blades? Details, man! Details!

Ah. You dual-stacked the blades. Clever man!

Edited March 1, 2015 by Lothsahn

[Azimech]

Something I hacked together in a few minutes. This is how it's done in real life: the turboshaft runs at a higher speed than the prop. In KSP it should be reversed, because the turboshaft has a defined max rpm (around 270) which is quite slow compared with what the prop should be doing.

[_Bugs]

Azi, that engine looks like it could fit in a P-51 if you were to build one.

[Yukon0009]

Something I hacked together in a few minutes. This is how it's done in real life: the turboshaft runs at a higher speed than the prop. In KSP it should be reversed, because the turboshaft has a defined max rpm (around 270) which is quite slow compared with what the prop should be doing.

http://i.imgur.com/GWS3InR.gif

.........So that's how the damn things work.

[Majorjim!]

Something I hacked together in a few minutes. This is how it's done in real life: the turboshaft runs at a higher speed than the prop. In KSP it should be reversed, because the turboshaft has a defined max rpm (around 270) which is quite slow compared with what the prop should be doing.

http://i.imgur.com/GWS3InR.gif

Hi! That's very interesting. What advantages does this have over a single bearing?

[Redshift OTF]

Something I hacked together in a few minutes. This is how it's done in real life: the turboshaft runs at a higher speed than the prop. In KSP it should be reversed, because the turboshaft has a defined max rpm (around 270) which is quite slow compared with what the prop should be doing.

Can I haz download pls?

[Azimech]

Work in progress.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

- - - Updated - - -

Hi! That's very interesting. What advantages does this have over a single bearing?

The advantage would be able to propel a vehicle over land, primarily. But, if I'm able to create a gearbox with minimal losses, driving a prop would have my preference.

- - - Updated - - -

Can I haz download pls?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5fz4733xe328sp/Gears%200_1.craft?dl=0

It really is a 0.1, so don't expect too much.

[Majorjim!]

The advantage would be able to propel a vehicle over land, primarily. But, if I'm able to create a gearbox with minimal losses, driving a prop would have my preference.

I still don't see the advantage here. Is it that you can drive two objects from a single bearing to be used for wheels? But how is that an advantage for props? All this seems to do is add to the part count and create power losses..

Please enlighten me.

MJ

[Redshift OTF]

It really is a 0.1, so don't expect too much.

Runs pretty well. There's a lot of weight on the front though. Also perhaps the TR-38 D SLS decouplers would make good gear wheels as they are pretty sturdy. Maybe not attached to I-beams though. Also it seems to run just as well on 4 engines, (I hooked them up wrong at first).

- - - Updated - - -

How about this? It runs at full speed. I used x16 for the I beam pieces.

[Azimech]

I still don't see the advantage here. Is it that you can drive two objects from a single bearing to be used for wheels? But how is that an advantage for props? All this seems to do is add to the part count and create power losses..

Please enlighten me.

MJ

In every power transfer there are losses ... you know why a car has a gearbox, right?

in KSP the advantage would be a higher rpm for the prop, thus more thrust. Simply because the turbine begins to do weird things at high rpm (above 250 rpm)

In real life the prop rpm is made lower to give a higher max speed otherwise the tips of the prop blades break the sound barrier and efficiency drops dramatically. Also, this way the turbine has less load and more torque.

[Majorjim!]

In every power transfer there are losses ... you know why a car has a gearbox, right?

in KSP the advantage would be a higher rpm for the prop, thus more thrust. Simply because the turbine begins to do weird things at high rpm (above 250 rpm)

In real life the prop rpm is made lower to give a higher max speed otherwise the tips of the prop blades break the sound barrier and efficiency drops dramatically. Also, this way the turbine has less load and more torque.

Yes I know about gearboxes. The need for them was apparent from the first time I rode a bike with gears!

So in the spinning gif you showed the turboprop is spinning faster than the prop right? I noticed the turboprop gear was smaller than the one above.

Runs pretty well. There's a lot of weight on the front though. Also perhaps the TR-38 D SLS decouplers would make good gear wheels as they are pretty sturdy. Maybe not attached to I-beams though. Also it seems to run just as well on 4 engines, (I hooked them up wrong at first).

- - - Updated - - -

How about this? It runs at full speed. I used x16 for the I beam pieces.

http://i.imgur.com/03raZr3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JjWGDS5.jpg

This is a 1/1 gear ratio right?

[Redshift OTF]

This is a 1/1 gear ratio right?

Yeah, it doesn't really do much, I just thought giant cogs looked cool.

[Majorjim!]

Yeah, it doesn't really do much, I just thought giant cogs looked cool.

lol I know what you mean.