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

[Azimech]

For us turboheads ... enjoy!

 

[Castille7]

 

Hurricane Hunter

Turbos are already challenging enough and I keep trying to get something more compact. Here's a long term goal, a 4 Engine Aircraft named Hurricane Hunter. Right now it's got some decent spin on this new Turbo and Bearing concept. This setup is bringing the weight more to the center of mass. I know other blades work better and with different setups but I've been hoping to get something that looks a little more realistic and still learning in the process. The biggest challenge is moving this much weight for the needed speed to lift and this may not ever happen for Hurricane Hunter but he's looking pretty cool for now.

 

This was my first setup with the Juno's

 

Here I am using structural fuselage and RCS Balls

 

I found out Parachutes can handle some heat! not sure if this discovery was ever made?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Castille7
Added another Picture

[Castille7]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

For us turboheads ... enjoy!

They build Engines like these 20 minutes from my home, the Turbine Bike you saw was built there MTT. Very cool stuff thanks for sharing this one!

Edited September 18, 2017 by Castille7

[Azimech]

1 hour ago, Castille7 said:

 

Hurricane Hunter

Turbos are already challenging enough and I keep trying to get something more compact. Here's a long term goal, a 4 Engine Aircraft named Hurricane Hunter. Right now it's got some decent spin on this new Turbo and Bearing concept. This setup is bringing the weight more to the center of mass. I know other blades work better and with different setups but I've been hoping to get something that looks a little more realistic and still learning in the process. The biggest challenge is moving this much wait for the needed speed to lift and this may not ever happen for Hurricane Hunter but he's looking pretty cool for now.

 

This was my first setup with the Juno's

 

Here I am using structural fuselage and RCS Balls

 

I found out Parachutes can handle some heat! not sure if this discovery was ever made?

 

I don't think I ever tried them. Cool to see ongoing innovation!

By the way, ever tried shift + offset gizmo? You don't need all those cubes to place the RCS balls. Unless I'm mistaken and they serve a different purpose, then fuggetaboutit :-)

[Castille7]

4 minutes ago, Azimech said:

I don't think I ever tried them. Cool to see ongoing innovation!

By the way, ever tried shift + offset gizmo? You don't need all those cubes to place the RCS balls. Unless I'm mistaken and they serve a different purpose, then fuggetaboutit :-)

The offset has a limit on the distance it will stretch out, my first thought was to do this, I'll give it a try without so many cubes this will reduce parts and weight. Thanks for the help I like the pointers and tips that's why I share what I am doing so I can learn ideas that I may have missed.

[selfish_meme]

3 hours ago, Cyriac said:

 

This is my fastest turboprop plane at the moment. It's top speed is ~295 m/s with stock aero. It is heavily inspired by the Thrasher (https://kerbalx.com/JimmyR/Thrasher) , which is actualy 10 m/s faster than my plane, but I still thought I might share it here.

 

 

Craft download: https://kerbalx.com/Cyriac/Amiata-4

Holy crap, whelp there goes my record, I am not even close!

17 minutes ago, Castille7 said:

The offset has a limit on the distance it will stretch out, my first thought was to do this, I'll give it a try without so many cubes this will reduce parts and weight. Thanks for the help I like the pointers and tips that's why I share what I am doing so I can learn ideas that I may have missed.

Also, try editor extensions redux, that removes all the offset limits, and allows up to 20x symmetry

[Castille7]

4 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

Also, try editor extensions redux, that removes all the offset limits, and allows up to 20x symmetry

Does this affect a stock download?

[selfish_meme]

8 minutes ago, Castille7 said:

Does this affect a stock download?

No, it's totally stock

[Azimech]

14 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

Holy crap, whelp there goes my record, I am not even close!

Also, try editor extensions redux, that removes all the offset limits, and allows up to 20x symmetry

And you can remove the 20x symmetry limit as well.

By the way, while I respect his effort, I feel this machine qualifies more like a UFO than a real turboprop. I mean, what's next? Floating parts 100 meters from the shaft? It can't even take off like a real airplane.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Azimech

[selfish_meme]

10 minutes ago, Azimech said:

And you can remove the 20x symmetry limit as well.

By the way, while I respect his effort, I feel this machine qualifies more like a UFO than a real turboprop. I mean, what's next? Floating parts 100 meters from the shaft? It can't even take off like a real airplane.

Neither can mine or g-mans!

Though you can steer mine...lol

Edited September 18, 2017 by selfish_meme

[Castille7]

I remember this subject was mentioned and stumped across this, thought I'd put it here for future reference.

Torque and Horsepower Relationships:

Torque (ft lbs)  =  horsepower (hp) x 5,252  /  speed (rpm)

Horsepower (hp)  =  torque (ft lbs) x speed (rpm)  /  5,252

Speed (rpm)  =  horsepower (hp) x  5,252  /  torque (ft lbs)   

 

[Azimech]

So, this one is ready:

Someone on Reddit asked me for this:

And maybe in the future we can have some powerboat racing as well. I'm already building a twin screw.

 

 

[Cyriac]

23 hours ago, Azimech said:

Nice, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks

[selfish_meme]

On 18/09/2017 at 6:15 AM, Cyriac said:

 

This is my fastest turboprop plane at the moment. It's top speed is ~295 m/s with stock aero. It is heavily inspired by the Thrasher (https://kerbalx.com/JimmyR/Thrasher) , which is actualy 10 m/s faster than my plane, but I still thought I might share it here.

 

 

Craft download: https://kerbalx.com/Cyriac/Amiata-4

3

So far I have not been able to get yours off the ground because I can't reach 120ms before it's run off the side of the runway, JimmyR's I have only (only! still much faster than mine) got to 250ms, I tried different altitudes and I have not looked to see if he set blade deployment, I wouldn't think so because he has them pretty angled already. Still, they are both fast! I would not have thought antennae and solar panel bearings would be able to withstand so much.

 

Brings us to an interesting convo that happened earlier in the thread, and has been suggested to me, that replacing Junos with Panthers is not rewarded. It seems however that 4 Junos = 1 Panther in dry mode and 6 Junos = 1 Panther in wet mode. So both these craft have 8 Panthers in Wet mode which would mean I would need 48 Junos to match the power. That does not seem a reasonable number for a plane.

[Azimech]

23 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

So far I have not been able to get yours off the ground because I can't reach 120ms before it's run off the side of the runway, JimmyR's I have only (only! still much faster than mine) got to 250ms, I tried different altitudes and I have not looked to see if he set blade deployment, I wouldn't think so because he has them pretty angled already. Still, they are both fast! I would not have thought antennae and solar panel bearings would be able to withstand so much.

 

Brings us to an interesting convo that happened earlier in the thread, and has been suggested to me, that replacing Junos with Panthers is not rewarded. It seems however that 4 Junos = 1 Panther in dry mode and 6 Junos = 1 Panther in wet mode. So both these craft have 8 Panthers in Wet mode which would mean I would need 48 Junos to match the power. That does not seem a reasonable number for a plane.

It does make for a more compact build. My record planes had something like 80 -120 Juno's, can't remember now. Those MK3 planes have some advantages, like the ability to mount those blowers radially.

[Cyriac]

On 18.9.2017 at 2:22 AM, Azimech said:

And you can remove the 20x symmetry limit as well.

By the way, while I respect his effort, I feel this machine qualifies more like a UFO than a real turboprop. I mean, what's next? Floating parts 100 meters from the shaft? It can't even take off like a real airplane.

The only goal was to make a really fast turboprop powered craft, not to make it look / function like a real plane. Also it's hard to draw the line. Would it make it a "real" turboprop plane if I connected floating parts to the craft and added real landing gear?

[Azimech]

12 minutes ago, Cyriac said:

The only goal was to make a really fast turboprop powered craft, not to make it look / function like a real plane. Also it's hard to draw the line. Would it make it a "real" turboprop plane if I connected floating parts to the craft and added real landing gear?

True, it's all a grey territory. Personally I'm no fan of designs where turbine/propeller blades are not visually connected to the shaft when the engine isn't running. Also floating blowers are an eyesore to me. My record planes didn't use them. However, we never discussed any rules except the need for burning fuel (otherwise someone would install a rocket engine).

I'm currently not busy with turboprops except maybe building a fighter for the challenge. If any of you want to discuss and define rules, it's fine by me.

[Castille7]

This seems like the place where Hot Rodders & Motorheads come together and I found some candy for us. Not sure how long these guys been around, I must have been living under a rock lately . Always did love Hod Rod Magazines and Muscle Cars if you are into this stuff you must see this! Oh wait! these guys been around about 25 episodes!! 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Castille7

[Castille7]

Hurricane Hunter
Update 09.21.2017
 

Here is a quick update on the Engine Package I'm working on. Looks like I will need more Panthers and Chutes for the drive train because I still have a need for speed...haha

I was able to reduce my part count, I plan to lose more cubes too

Edited September 21, 2017 by Castille7

[PaperAviator]

I'm so happy because yesterday I made my first working turboprop helicopter! It's a cross between an s-64 and a mil-12...

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, PaperAviator said:

I'm so happy because yesterday I made my first working turboprop helicopter! It's a cross between an s-64 and a mil-12...

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Congrats and welcome to the club!

[Gman_builder]

On 9/17/2017 at 2:15 PM, Cyriac said:

 

This is my fastest turboprop plane at the moment. It's top speed is ~295 m/s with stock aero. It is heavily inspired by the Thrasher (https://kerbalx.com/JimmyR/Thrasher) , which is actualy 10 m/s faster than my plane, but I still thought I might share it here.

 

Craft download: https://kerbalx.com/Cyriac/Amiata-4

Yay! You posted it finally! We have a new record holder!

On 9/17/2017 at 6:30 PM, selfish_meme said:

Neither can mine or g-mans!

Though you can steer mine...lol

Mine takes off like a real plane tho

[Krog34]

18 hours ago, Castille7 said:

Hurricane Hunter
Update 09.21.2017
 

Here is a quick update on the Engine Package I'm working on. Looks like I will need more Panthers and Chutes for the drive train because I still have a need for speed...haha

I was able to reduce my part count, I plan to lose more cubes too

...

...

...

 

 

Love the Hurricane Hunter! Similar to my K-29 actually aside from the totally different bearing setup. What kind of speeds are you working with?

In my limited experience in dealing with turboprops, I've noticed that once you reach high enough rad/s on a horizontally spinning turboshaft, you can begin adding more control surfaces (to a point) with limited penalty to the spin rate. I became fond of the triple elevon setup because iirc, their combined surface area was just over a single "big elevon" and had less clearance issues at top speeds during max centrifugal-blade-stretching. Plus it doesn't look TOTALLY unrealistic 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Krog34
spelling

[Castille7]

9 hours ago, Krog34 said:

 

Love the Hurricane Hunter! Similar to my K-29 actually aside from the totally different bearing setup. What kind of speeds are you working with?

In my limited experience in dealing with turboprops, I've noticed that once you reach high enough rad/s on a horizontally spinning turboshaft, you can begin adding more control surfaces (to a point) with limited penalty to the spin rate. I became fond of the triple elevon setup because iirc, their combined surface area was just over a single "big elevon" and had less clearance issues at top speeds during max centrifugal-blade-stretching. Plus it doesn't look TOTALLY unrealistic 

Thank you! The speeds are terrible atm (9 m/s surface travel not speed..haha) it's really a test model for me to learn all the what works and what don't at the same time getting pointers from you peeps. This is why most are going to smaller aircraft and I might even have to scrap Hurricane Hunter......hope not. I will be adding more shaft and panthers after I finish testing the pitch on these props. My hopes are to not stretch the blades off the hubs to keep it looking more realistic. If the blades need help I am considering basic fins on the inside of these to help with the push. I hope to have some better results this weekend. @Azimech makes this stuff look easy...haha but we know he's had his hours of trial and error .

Edited September 22, 2017 by Castille7
9 m/s surface travel not speed

[Gman_builder]

7 hours ago, Castille7 said:

Thank you! The speeds are terrible atm (9 m/s surface travel not speed..haha) it's really a test model for me to learn all the what works and what don't at the same time getting pointers from you peeps. This is why most are going to smaller aircraft and I might even have to scrap Hurricane Hunter......hope not. I will be adding more shaft and panthers after I finish testing the pitch on these props. My hopes are to not stretch the blades off the hubs to keep it looking more realistic. If the blades need help I am considering basic fins on the inside of these to help with the push. I hope to have some better results this weekend. @Azimech makes this stuff look easy...haha but we know he's had his hours of trial and error .

Try using engines you KNOW work well in other craft instead of building a new one from the ground up. After all, in real life most of the hundreds of different planes only use a handful of different engines. The 757 and C-17 essentially use the same P&W 2000 and basically all major airliners use some derivative of the RB211 or Trent. I through that Me 264 together by taking the fuselage from my B-29 and the engines form that record plane i just made with some modifications. The wings and the cowling were the only only parts I purpose-built. 

I'd also suggest using a custom wing instead of the FAT one. You'll get more lift that way.