Project XR3 Phoenix (WIP)

[Urwumpe]

I know I suggested it earlier, but if you deepen the fuselage profile a bit you'll have more vertical space to accomidate both the payload and the hover engines/theoretical propellant tanks.

I am not sure. Depends on where you want to optimize. For sub-sonic glide, a bulge on top would work out and maybe even reduce drag. For high supersonic speeds, the shape would actually need to be much flatter and with sharper angles.

Both is possible for a space-plane. The first option would permit lower landing speeds, but have worse L/D and higher heating during reentry. A smaller profile would improve L/D at higher speeds, but result in higher landing speeds.

Yes, you can overengineer things. :lol:

It is really sad that there is no DG-style vessel that follows the area rule (like some fighters of the 1950s) or is a highly optimized wave rider. I have a design idea for a orbit-only XR style vessel, but that looks too much like a Starfury from Babylon 5. :rofl:

 

[Loru]

I know I suggested it earlier, but if you deepen the fuselage profile a bit you'll have more vertical space to accomidate both the payload and the hover engines/theoretical propellant tanks.

It's not the total vertical space the issue for aerospikes. It's the fact engine appealing outside the craft looks ugly in deep bay.

I am fairly satisfied with current hovers design as they're detailed enough. With my habbit of not deleting meshes I may reuse it at some point or just give it away if someone will need that mesh for something.

With current mesh all I need to do is replace nozzle and combustion chamber to fit new one as the rest of engine is prepared for that but no promisses at this point. I had thought of using something like that:

but TBH I'll wait till rest of mesh is complete and then try it.

 

[Urwumpe]

You can chop off the end of the cone - it is really not needed, it is even pretty ineffective. By using base-bleed (ejection of hot gases through the base of the rocket engine) you can have finer control of the specific impulse and permit optimal conditions even outside the otherwise fixed design point of the full aero-spike.

 

[Loru]

You can chop off the end of the cone - it is really not needed, it is even pretty ineffective. By using base-bleed (ejection of hot gases through the base of the rocket engine) you can have finer control of the specific impulse and permit optimal conditions even outside the otherwise fixed design point of the full aero-spike.

Something like that??

 

[Urwumpe]

Like that:

The second image there shows a cross section through a optimized truncated aerospike.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/aerospike.shtml

 

[Loru]

hmm - may pose a problem for exhaust flame renderings.

 

[Urwumpe]

hmm - may pose a problem for exhaust flame renderings.

Only if you want to be perfect. For small lack of perfection, it is enough to let the exhaust start a bit behind the nozzle.

I can understand trying to be perfect for a 10m diameter engine, but for the small hovers, it would not be needed.

 

[Loru]

I'll take that into consideration after more of actual mesh is done. Now I need to create APAS compatibile docking port

 

[Loru]

APAS meshed and placed:

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

and close up:

---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

and some more detailing: on the left EVA hatch for 0G ops, on the right you can see docking radar.

 

[Ark]

This is awesome, dude, it looks like you're cooking right along.

 

[Loru]

and we have retros

 

[jangofett287]

Those retro's don't look especially beefy, are they going to be enough to slow the ship at a reasonable rate when fully loaded?

 

[Loru]

Those retro's don't look especially beefy, are they going to be enough to slow the ship at a reasonable rate when fully loaded?

You have a point but I can't fit bigger ones in the wing. I'll probably use 2 per side then.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

and we have retros

I think it looks a bit too much like the Ravenstar. Would it be a big issue if the vertical stabilizers were put completely vertical for a cleaner look?

 

[Loru]

I think it looks a bit too much like the Ravenstar. Would it be a big issue if the vertical stabilizers were put completely vertical for a cleaner look?

Yeah they're similar - both have angled verstabs and delta wings. That's about it. Also keep in mind that it's a member of family sharing proven concepts. And place it correctly in the context: it's Ravenstar's bigger brother/sister (whatever you prefer)

Also I think there is enough difference between them not to confuse them

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Yeah they're similar - both have angled verstabs and delta wings. That's about it. Also keep in mind that it's a member of family sharing proven concepts. And place it correctly in the context: it's Ravenstar's bigger brother/sister (whatever you prefer)

Also I think there is enough difference between them not to confuse them

Well, its your choice, but I think it would look better with the stabilizers pointing straight up. Are they used for any vertical lift?

 

[dbeachy1]

I quite like the vertical stabilizers angled as they are.

 

[RisingFury]

Hey Loru, could you make a screenshot with the stabilizers angled outwards just to see how it looks?

 

[Loru]

It looks bad IMO:

 

[garyw]

I agree, I like the XR-2 style look, besides, I think it's a nice, natural evolution between XR-2, 3 and 5.