|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 15, 2016 11:33:39 GMT
Yey! Since the new update , much smaller missiles became practical , so I'm reluctantly posting my first attempts. Reluctantly since in a few hours they would probably feel quite large  .  The double tank version:  the interesting part of both is this tiny engine , I had smaller attempts but this one was giving me the best performance for the moment.  Warheads are currenly WIP. I'm currently testing dual warhead combiantions - heavy shrapnel with low spread and very light fragments with high spread to make them more multifunctional. |
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 15, 2016 12:41:21 GMT
Engines still lack TWR at small sizes due to turbopump mass efficiencies. You won't get good results from just 1.2cm worth of turbopump radius. Sorry. I'm still in a pirated 1.0 (still intending to buy the game once it goes on sale) so i can't benefit from the higher expansion ratios or smaller nozzle sizes you can have with the throat size reduction, but here's a much better design:  It should save 61.3 grams in mass compared to your current layout, while providing twice the thrust. The missile will still lose about 50m/s due to a worse specific impulse(can't use a larger nozzle without hitting the 10cm size restriction), but i believe the additional thrust to mass ratio should work out better. BTW, you can also use a UHMWPE nozzle with this design to save an added 3 grams for double the cost. RCC also works, though has a worse improvement. BTW - your current missile has a wrong stoichiometric ratio for the fuel tanks, should be 950g:100g (3 grams off), or 1000g:110g(41.7 grams off, i'm assuming 0.1 OoM steps). |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 15, 2016 13:03:50 GMT
I'm not that worried about TWR , for the moment most of the problems are lack of delta V and armor and the ballance of both. Dual warheads are a resounding success  . Edit.: nah , nothing a few cm of aerogel won't fix. |
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 15, 2016 13:38:23 GMT
At these masses, you might as well ditch the explosives and use the remote control as a kinetic payload.
|
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 15, 2016 13:47:15 GMT
 Yes , might try , but for the moment I like the new dual set too much. Strips radiators and punches trough hulls at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by targetx on Oct 15, 2016 14:11:59 GMT
Engines still lack TWR at small sizes due to turbopump mass efficiencies. You won't get good results from just 1.2cm worth of turbopump radius. Sorry. I'm still in a pirated 1.0 (still intending to buy the game once it goes on sale) so i can't benefit from the higher expansion ratios or smaller nozzle sizes you can have with the throat size reduction, but here's a much better design: It should save 61.3 grams in mass compared to your current layout, while providing twice the thrust. The missile will still lose about 50m/s due to a worse specific impulse(can't use a larger nozzle without hitting the 10cm size restriction), but i believe the additional thrust to mass ratio should work out better. BTW, you can also use a UHMWPE nozzle with this design to save an added 3 grams for double the cost. RCC also works, though has a worse improvement. BTW - your current missile has a wrong stoichiometric ratio for the fuel tanks, should be 950g:100g (3 grams off), or 1000g:110g(41.7 grams off, i'm assuming 0.1 OoM steps). Don't be an asshole, buy the game like a decent person at the full price. This is developed by literally one guy and you think it's OK to pirate it, then justify it by saying you'll buy it, but only when/if it's on sale. Seriously.... |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 15, 2016 14:18:52 GMT
Just noticed the ratio error...thanks... and yeah you should probably buy the game. Edit :  just tried a version of your engine, its MUCH better... guess I have to learn that smaller not always means lighter ... |
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Oct 16, 2016 3:56:52 GMT
I usually like to use Polyethylene for reaction wheels when I can get away with it, it really saves up on mass and costs. Even better when I can use Lithium instead. But more importantly, in my experience with combustion rockets, fluorine hydrogen gives a better thrust:mass ratio. Look at this:  |
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 16, 2016 4:29:21 GMT
But hydrogen tanks are ginormous.
|
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Oct 16, 2016 4:38:21 GMT
They don't have to be:  |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 16, 2016 6:03:40 GMT
I had problems with very low RPM lately , even with those small buddies... this is why its the single thing that I didn't really want to save weight with. Tried a hydrogen one , still not worth it in my opinion. I'm shooting those from a conventional gun so I'm overly sensitive to their dimentions. But I'll try again, yours looks small enough, even if a bit wide. Edit : I still don't think its worth it , atleast for me , but here is the result :  12cm longer , same weight , same price, 700m/s more delta V and 3 G on top. I'll try with decane btw. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 16, 2016 9:30:34 GMT
Ok , so, I reached a stable situation and Im happy with the result for the moment. Settled on this combo:   |
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 16, 2016 10:03:37 GMT
Since minimissiles have little delta V, I opted for a submunitions carrier, but hey, if launchers need power, might as well use it up with a coilgun.   |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 16, 2016 10:17:28 GMT
Interesting drone I was thinking at one point of ditching my gun for several conventional missile launchers but I'm finding the additional 1.6km/s too tempting. Can you give us more info on the coilgun? I've been avoiding them, since I don't trust my maths to calculate if they are broken constantly. This desing looks quite interesting - small, doesn't use much power and generally fits my idea of a good drone gun. |
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 16, 2016 10:29:33 GMT
I didn't check but it probably is broken  |
|
.
. 