Scott Manley showcases everything I find wrong with FAR

[PB666]

The Shuttle Landing Facility (which is now TTS instead of X68) isn't 3 nm, it's under 2.5 (it's 15,000 feet), which is 4.5 km. Many runways for commercial aircraft are around 10,000 feet (particularly at sea level), which is only 1.6 nm (and 3 km).

I remember at some point I measured apron to apron GPS coords that it was close to 3. Many runways for commercial aircraft heavies are either 12,000 (2 NM) or in the process of being expanded to 12,000 feet. Of course the 777 was designed for short runway takeoff but with the 747-8s coming along there will still be a push for long runways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

test bed Area 51 is 23,270ft is 3.823 nm. The Edwards airfeilds are from 2.48 nm to 6.52 nm.

If we go by the theshhold that 12,000 feet is the lower limit of what one wants for a test bed, then KSCs runway should be 3.65 km in length.

[cpast]

True enough. KSC runway is of a perfectly serviceable size for a RL airport, but clearly short for a test facility. Say, compare it with Groom Lake ( aka the famous Area 51 ), that has a paved runway in excess of 7 km or the Edwards Base ones, that are even bigger , even if unpaved .

OFC that is peanuts if we don't consider that in game there aren't ( AFAIK ) any thrust reversers and the surfaces in KSP are in general ridiculously slippery. Without thrust reversers and in slippery conditions in RL, 2,5 km would probably be in the limit of what a decently sized passenger jet ( say , a Airbus 320 ) would find safe ( shorter runways, like São Paulo Congonhas, have see their fair share of accidents in wet condtions ) ... not mentioning that it would be unfit for any plane test facility :/

Thrust reversers are irrelevant to runway length: under dry conditions, aircraft aren't even generally *allowed* to assume thrust reverser operation when calculating runway length. An aircraft's thrust reversers aren't what stops it; it's wheel brakes are what stops it. Thrust reversers are used to reduce wear and tear on the brakes; they only provide critical stopping power on contaminated runways (and are only allowed to do that because the idea is you avoid contaminated runways if you can, so you aren't regularly operating under those conditions), and unless Squad's adding weather to KSP that's not what we have ingame. The proper place to address stopping is in the wheel brake force and wheel traction (this is a major advantage real planes have, because they have spoilers to kill residual lift), not by adding reverse thrust.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember at some point I measured apron to apron GPS coords that it was close to 3. Many runways for commercial aircraft heavies are either 12,000 (2 NM) or in the process of being expanded to 12,000 feet. Of course the 777 was designed for short runway takeoff but with the 747-8s coming along there will still be a push for long runways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

test bed Area 51 is 23,270ft is 3.823 nm. The Edwards airfeilds are from 2.48 nm to 6.52 nm.

If we go by the theshhold that 12,000 feet is the lower limit of what one wants for a test bed, then KSCs runway should be 3.65 km in length.

The longest Edwards runways are unpaved; the longest *paved* runway there is a bit over 15,000 feet (runway length is not measured in nautical miles, by the way). TTS is not 3 nm; you might have been counting overrun area, but that's not actually part of the runway (it's there to take overruns in emergencies, and to keep jet blast from eroding the ground). Runway length is threshold to threshold, and TTS is only 15,000 feet, not the 18,300 that 3 nm would be.

Actual runway length should depend on whether things fit there or not, but brakes should be beefed up and spoilers added if stopping is taking too long. A 3.5 or 4 km runway would make more sense than some oddball number.

[PB666]

The longest Edwards runways are unpaved; the longest *paved* runway there is a bit over 15,000 feet (runway length is not measured in nautical miles, by the way). TTS is not 3 nm; you might have been counting overrun area, but that's not actually part of the runway (it's there to take overruns in emergencies, and to keep jet blast from eroding the ground). Runway length is threshold to threshold, and TTS is only 15,000 feet, not the 18,300 that 3 nm would be.

But there is not overrun on KSC you drop down 3 meters into the grasslands. And those Edwards runways, and certainly the Area 51 were test bed runways, so . . . you are essentially dodging the critical points

1. Even for a commercial runway KSC is shortish, particularly given the fact there are not overun areas.

2. But for a test bed runway that cannot be extended either direction as a dry lake bed or salt flat or emergency areas, its about half the RL distance

The point that Manley's video is making is here you have two flyable boosters leaving a vessel going more vertical than horizontal and they need a place to land, they curl around to return and whoa they have alot of speed, as any vehicle that has alot descent thermodynamic, and the runway is for a 737 (probably too narrow for that but....) Even if he had good brakes its doubtful he could have stopped a 180 m/s land, thats almost double the RL land speed for much longer runways. That is what you would call a tear your gear off belly draggin speed.

[Warhawk]

Neither stock aerodynamics nor FAR seem to model ground effect. If they did, Scott could have snaked his way to the initial point and landed that machine at a much lower speed. Of course, ground effect decreases drag as well, which means he'd still need more effective braking systems.

[Van Disaster]

Neither stock aerodynamics nor FAR seem to model ground effect. If they did, Scott could have snaked his way to the initial point and landed that machine at a much lower speed. Of course, ground effect decreases drag as well, which means he'd still need more effective braking systems.

FAR did ground effects briefly - ferram took them out again after he said nobody noticed ( or perhaps said it wasn't worth it ). I'd kinda like it back just to help get heavy ships off the runway a little easier, maybe after the new FAR drag model arrives.

A 737 has a glide ratio of something like 18:1, that might be a bit easier to replicate for testing. Don't forget the very squashed pressure gradient of Kerbin's atmosphere.

[KerikBalm]

Actually, the pressure gradient isn't very squashed, the scale height is about 65% of Earth's scale height.

I think its the exagerated vertical height of the mountains that gets people into thinking they aren't as high as they really are.

5km in KSP feels low... but its pretty darn high on Earth... 16,400 feet

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html

At 5 km, the atmospheric pressure is only 53.8 kPa, relative to 101 at sea level.

It seems according to that table, that the air pressure on Kerbin at 5km is equal to the air pressure on Earth at 7.6km

Considering the 1/10th scale radius... the atmosphere is pretty close

[Charzy]

I've never had trouble landing aircraft on the runway. FAR supports spoilers and flaps, use them.

[KerikBalm]

I find drogues acton grouped so I can cut them really fast can also be helpful

[Van Disaster]

Actually, the pressure gradient isn't very squashed, the scale height is about 65% of Earth's scale height.

I think its the exagerated vertical height of the mountains that gets people into thinking they aren't as high as they really are.

For sure: but then if you're looking at Earth-scaled glide ratios, which is what the argument about shedding speed comes down to, you have to translate that to Kerbin's atmosphere - and not just in terms of numbers, but in behaviour. I suspect wing-loadings in KSP FAR craft are quite high too, given the relative mass of most parts...

[Plusk]

FAR and DRE were the first mods i installed, back in 0.23. I enjoy realistic flight models it gives me. That said, ive never landed on a runway. I tend to land just north of it, i touch down about 300m due west of the runway, and gently land until im safely splashed down in the sea ;P

[Yemo]

Link to thread and download

This is a small spin-off package from B9 Aerospace for FAR/NEAR (thus redundant if B9 Aerospace itself is installed).

It just provides the B9 airbrakes by bac9 and the jet engine rebalances by Taverius.

Thus dealing with one of the major hardships for FAR/NEAR users, the inability to bleed off speed for landing approaches and

during the landings themselves, while having only a marginal RAM/catalog footprint.

[Overland]

its not exactly friendly to those odd people who actually do other things besides aircraft and spaceships in KSP.. although I do enjoy FAR for flying. and yes it makes it challenging..

having an entire train pull apart and explode, left looking like someone dropped a box of white chocolates on the floor.. fun does not make

[Alshain]

http://i.imgur.com/6mwfJml.png Link to thread and download This is a small spin-off package from B9 Aerospace for FAR/NEAR (thus redundant if B9 Aerospace itself is installed). It just provides the B9 airbrakes by bac9 and the jet engine rebalances by Taverius. Thus dealing with one of the major hardships for FAR/NEAR users, the inability to bleed off speed for landing approaches and during the landings themselves, while having only a marginal RAM/catalog footprint.

ROFL, nerf Turbojets without adding the B9 engines. So basically, limit yourself to nothing but RAPIERS for space travel? Why?

[metl]

I'm not a big fan of FAR/NEAR. That said, I have started using NEAR recently just o get a better feel and be a little more prepared for how the new aerodynamic model with act. The more heavy loads I lift that want to cartwheel out of control make me hope they scrap the new model if that is what they have in mind. I really don't feel like I should being going vertical well into the upper atmosphere just to overcome the aerodynamics trying to do a gravity turn (and with a heavy payload, starting a turn lower, even from launch, just leads to tipping cause by the gravity pull.) Gravity turn too low= too much horizontal speed caused by weight, which leads to reverse cartwheel caused by aerodynamic drag. I'm failing to see how a "better" aerodynamics model actually improves the gameplay. But to each his own I guess.

[Yemo]

ROFL, nerf Turbojets without adding the B9 engines. So basically, limit yourself to nothing but RAPIERS for space travel? Why?

Turbojet Thrust is nerfed by FAR, this config just changes the velocity curve. Building a small SSTO with a single TurboJet with this config is very easy.

[Alshain]

Turbojet Thrust is nerfed by FAR, this config just changes the velocity curve. Building a small SSTO with a single TurboJet with this config is very easy.

The velocity curve in FAR is fine. There is no need to nerf it further. B9 nerfs the turbojet in order to accent it's own engines, without those, your nerfs serve no purpose.

[Yemo]

The velocity curve in FAR is fine. There is no need to nerf it further.

Actually compared to rl, the jets are still massivly OP with regards to TWR, but this is a gameplay mod, not a realism one.

At least the velocity is now a bit more balanced.

[Alshain]

Actually compared to rl, the jets are still massivly OP with regards to TWR, but this is a gameplay mod, not a realism one.

At least the velocity is now a bit more balanced.

RL TurboJet engines don't go to space. Perhaps you didn't notice this is a game... where you go to space. My point is still valid. The nerfs are there so B9's jet and sabre engines fit in a progression. Using the nerfs without those engines is just silly. I mean, if you want to, I'm not trying to stop you. But what a headache.

[magnemoe]

RL TurboJet engines don't go to space. Perhaps you didn't notice this is a game... where you go to space. My point is still valid. The nerfs are there so B9's jet and sabre engines fit in a progression. Using the nerfs without those engines is just silly. I mean, if you want to, I'm not trying to stop you. But what a headache.

Yes, the turbojets are basicaly sabres without the rocket part, before the sabre buff using turbojets+ 48-7S was better also as you don't need an strong rocket for the last 1-300 m/s and you could run both the jet and the rockets to get some more trust out of the jets.

[godefroi]

My FAR (well, NEAR, actually) usability package consists of RealChute for drogues and that's about it. I REALLY like the look of the SXT Airbrake mini-pack, though, and I think I'll give it a shot.

My experience was that NEAR made the game easier, except for two things:

1) I had to learn how to make a real gravity turn. This means turn slowly and keep TWR at reasonable levels (there's a reason that the center engine on the Saturn V cut out before the rest!)

2) Landing continues to be difficult for me. This is not a surprise; the last game where I could consistently land an aircraft was Gunship 2000. Maybe not even then. Using RealChute to make drogues has considerably increased the life expectancy of my pilots.