How Did Real Life Flying Help Me Play Kerbal Space Program?

Kerbal Space Program definitely helped me understand how aerodynamics applies to aircraft, which helped immensely during pilot training, and, the reverse is also true, looking at real aircraft and now understanding the design choices made in the real world and how they can apply to making better aircraft for the little green men.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@chaseconnelly2427]

A KSP educational video by Scott Manley? I feel like I'm back in 2014!

[@lachlanparker570]

Good, right?

[@vojislav9372]

MiG-29S Trainee here. After I started my flight training I realised just how much KSP and X-Plane helped me. If you are actually paying attention about the details in the flight sims you can actually learn almost half of what you would get in a flight school.

[@panda4247]

It's like they are designed to mimic reality of the flight

[@vojislav9372]

@@panda4247 Yeah, who would've guessed 🤣

[@Henrik.Yngvesson]

@@panda4247 Not like trying to fly helikepotter's in stupid Ubisoft games! Controls makes no sense at all and the physics feels more like Santa's sleigh flying over the sky.

[@DroneMee]

DCS! Oh and who are you gonna fly the 29 for? If you don't mind answering.

[@nuclearwarhead9338]

@@DroneMee for himself duh! What? Do you think only those two who are currently at it possess Mig 29?

[@MakoOutdoors]

That aileron joke is severely underrated

[@mrman5517]

aeronautical jokes tend to go right over most peoples heads

[@RobertL1999]

Legit spat my water when I heard it!

[@ryanspence5831]

It's... what?

[@ClausB252]

Mentour Pilot has had a t-shirt with that joke for a while now.

[@fask69]

i dont get it

[@999wilf999]

Taking off is optional, landing is mandatory, so that's a good place to focus!

[@SimonBuchanNz]

Parachutes are an option, but we're not all that rich!

[@jacobstutzman7591]

Using a parachute is a crash not a landing

[@johndododoe1411]

I recall a group of about 4 pilots who trained and flew on the opposite assumption. Quite infamous guys actually.

[@SimonBuchanNz]

@@jacobstutzman7591 at the risk of explaining the joke, that is what makes the landing optional.

[@charleslambert3368]

Any landing you can walk away from...

[@matthewmaclaine4788]

Became an aerospace engineer b/c of KSP. My capstone professor said we should get our pilot cert if we really want to understand aircraft. Little did he know that I had been applying the lessons from KSP the whole time. Eventually I'll go for the real thing one day!

[@mroch5836]

Several thousand hours in KSP and still learning new things. Thanks Scott!

[@noelwade]

IMPORTANT note about Spins for the budding pilots out there - "cross-controlling" the aircraft (i.e. yaw in one direction while rolling in the opposite direction) _can_ provoke a spin, but there is a much more insidious (and deadly) way to enter a spin: Fly slowly, with the nose of the aircraft level with (or slightly above) the horizon so you have some angle-of-attack while in a gentle turn. Then add a bunch of rudder in the *same* direction as the turn. Doing this can cause one wing to stall, leading the aircraft to suddenly "drop" the stalled wing (i.e. roll over) and enter into a spin. For most light aircraft it takes ~300-500 feet to recover from a spin. Now, where are you likely to fly slowly, doing gentle turns, close to the ground? In the landing pattern! This trap has caused so many accidents over the years it has a special name: the "base to final stall/spin". This is why its vitally important to not overshoot your turn onto final approach and try to correct it by adding rudder to "speed up" the turn. If you overshoot, its safer to simply accept that you aren't going to make the landing and perform a go-around. Adding rudder while turning in the pattern is *never* a good idea!

[@noelwade]

For anyone curious as to the science of why this happens: Sit in a swiveling chair and stick your arms out like a pair of wings. Now twist in one direction suddenly and notice as you twist that each hand moves relative to the desk in front of you - one hand moves _towards_ the desk while the other hand moves _away_ from the desk. In the air, one wing is being accelerated forwards as you apply yaw, meaning that more air flows over that wing. But the other wing (the one on the "inside" of the turn) is decelerating as the plane yaws, meaning that it receives less air. If the wing was already close to a stall, then the reduced airflow can result in the wing becoming stalled. Now think about the whole airplane: One wing is receiving more airflow, and thus producing more lift. The other wing stalls and stops producing lift. This causes one wing to rise suddenly while the other wing drops suddenly - NOT what you want to have happen down close to the ground! Note for Pedants: As a 1000+ hour pilot and builder of my own aircraft, I know that there are exceptions and complications I haven't touched on. I'm simplifying some things here to make the central issue clearer. 🙂

[@LyzeOfJ]

Scott, I've been a longtime fan and have watched your KSP and other vids for years now. I have my pilot's licence and work at a flight school, and this would seriously be a fantastic training aid for explaining these finer points of aerodynamics. Thank you for showing some important priciples so succinctly.

[@markmuir7338]

Radio controlled aircraft are another great aid - especially in demonstrating the effects of exceeding CofG limits. Generally RC aircraft are harder to fly than real aircraft because of scaling of time, but a lot of modern flight controllers (the electronics in the aircraft) can add stability control to make them more manageable and less sensitive to wind etc.

[@CarlsSimGuides]

Your tutorial on aerodynamics helped me to make functional planes. I still suck at landing with a keyboard, but after viewing this I think I understand just a bit more and my quest to become better at planes in KSP is only going to advance. Thanks, Scott!

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

One important part is the right descend angle and another the right time to flare. Can only recommend to start out with something slow. Or at least a plane with a low stall speed so that you can slowly work your way to the runway. I often end up getting there with like 60m altitude, which is too low since the runway is 80m at the ends and about 78m in the middle (the planet is round and small enough that the flat runway ends up higher at the ends)

[@That0Homeless0Guy]

Little tip. Land with caps lock on. It smooths out your inputs. Or better yet invest in a flight stick.

[@bheemasena2383]

"I love ailerons because that's how I roll" Scott Manley

[@reformCopyright]

Badum tshh

[@sulljoh1]

Everybody boost this comment. Scott will appreciate we got his dad joke

[@jhonbus]

It's an old joke, from the days of yaw.

[@rogerlevasseur397]

Watched the video with my son who shouted out “Me! Me!” When you referred to the KSP videos that you did. He’s big into KSP and watching those videos you did when he was young. He’s now a college student studying mechanical engineering with aerospace minor. You get a big Thank you!

[@platygetzkillz2144]

For me it was the opposite. Learning how to fly a helicopter in KSP helped prepare me for the US Army flight simulators. Can't wait to try the real deal though.

[@Khronogi]

10 year contract?

[@jursamaj]

For me it's weird: according to an Army test, I understood the basics of helicopter flight without having flown any helicopter simulations. I think it was just my voracious reading at the time (sis insists I used to read the encyclopedia, and she's not far wrong…).

[@joaobranco2164]

If you can land in KSP you will be able to "land" an helicopter at the peak of Mount Everest in real life :D :D :D

[@motokid6008]

This is why I hope and dream that KSP2 procedural wings could do compound curves.Let us twist the shape. Loved this video Scott thank you for the KSP revisit. Edit: Maybe do some fancy stuff with FAR for video idea? Would love to see more aerodynamic videos on flaps, slats and spoilers.

[@SkulShurtugalTCG]

Next video from Scott Manley: "How Kerbal Space Program Trained Me to Be An Astronaut"

[@feedingravens]

For a "normal" plane, the center of gravity is in front of the center of lift, and to compensate that nose-down moment, the elevator provides the torque around the center of lift. For a canard it is different: There the canard provides lift, even more (specific) lift than the wing. So the center of gravity is somewhere between wing and canard. That the canard has a higher specific lift is a trick to get a "duck" stable - with rising angle of attack the canard stalls first, the lift sinks, the nose comes down, plane takes up speed, the angle of attack gets less and the airflow reattaches. A well-designed canard cannot be stalled. I had a canard model airplane where that was fascinating, when you pulled the elavator slowly fully through, first the nose rose along, then snapped down and went into a SHALLOW sinking with the elevator pulled fully through You release the elevator and get control back. (just to say, with enough speed loopings were no problem), For even more, the Wrght Flyer is NO canard - it is really a "normal" plane with the tailplane at the wrong end. So the CG like that of a normal plane, near the CL. The Wrights had trouble to get enough control effect, so they put the elevator to the front. In principle the Wright Flyer is unstable, cannot fly hands off, but the speed is so slow that the pilot has no problem to do the counteractions. According to my friend at the Deutsches Museum, that was a crucial achievement of the Wrights, their plan was fully controllable around all axes. When you look at other planes in that period, you can see that they have usually next to no ability to control the flight path in any way.

[@noelwade]

Regarding the Wright Brothers: You are correct. Their biggest innovations were "wing-warping" (i.e. aileron control) and, perhaps even more-importantly, rudder control that interacts with the ailerons to produce what we call "coordinated turns". Most early aircraft designers before the Wright brothers tried to either imagine airplanes like ships and *only* steer with the rudder, or watch birds and *only* steer with wings. Bicycles require the rider to both lean *and* turn the steering wheel, and it has been suggested that this is partly why the Wright Brothers were able to envision this control system (since they were bicycle mechanics). But if you read their writing and look at their experiments, they did not immediately think about "coordinated" turns - it took a lot of trial and error before they started to realize why their early designs would crash when they tried to turn.

[@pesterenan]

Scott, I need to say that this is the best tutorial on how to make a stable aircraft in KSP that I've ever seen. Everything youve explained just made sense! Now I'm going to really level up my aircraft-making skills, haha! Thanks for the video!

[@petrazoliukas]

Its so nice to see this video as pilot and KSP fan. Loved it! One intresting missconseption at 8:20 is that high mounted wing (in regards to the center of gravity) does increase roll stability. It actualy is a type of “pendulum rocket fallacy”. The reason some aircraft use anihedral with high mounted wings is aerodynamic forces between wing and fusselage which increase roll stability. But this is a very common misconception among pilots 😂

[@chrismcquade]

Thankyou! High wing and CoG as a roll stability explanation grinds my gears. I generally avoid commenting but I'm making a post now to try explaining this with \./ and /'\ for di/anhedral low and high wing examples lol. It's honestly wild that it's still published in pilot training books incorrectly.

[@alanoneuser]

Great vid Scott. Playing KSP was definitely one of the things that led me to try for a private pilot license. Checkride coming up in January, wish me luck!

[@TheSkilledballplaya]

iam a fan from old ksp times and as you started your pilot carier i started to actually learning to fly in mfs so i absolutely love these videos.. pls do more about flying, navigation etc..thank you

[@DroneMee]

Wouldn't it be awesome to have an Interstellar Quest 2 in KSP2 some day.

[@patricks_music]

Ay a Scott Manley aviation lesson! I recently got back into MFS2020 and love it. Nice flying in KSP

[@pricelessppp]

Speaking if I got a HOTAS coming in the mail! Should I grab some rudder pedals?

[@patricks_music]

@@pricelessppp I don’t use rudder pedals but man the joysticks are a complete game changer. I plan on building a custom Autopilot module though for ease of use

[@bobalong131]

As someone who had a little experience as a glider pilot when I was younger, I always liked incorporating the same kinds of Knowledge to my Kerbal designs that you are showing. One thing I always thought would be useful was an INDICATED air speed gauge maybe with a pitot tube. That way no matter what altitude or even what atmosphere you were in, you could have some idea how the aircraft would handle.

[@arturoeugster7228]

Dented Yota, Angle of Attack is more important , Stall occurs at one AOA(flap position dependent) irregardless of loading. TAS = IAS × RDR(h) Table of RDR on request.

[@scubastevedan]

Keep up the good work Scott! I'm in my check ride prep phase of my Private Pilot Certificate as well. Following your channel gives me extra motivation and inspiration to reach that goal and I'd love to see some actual footage and cockpit audio from your flights someday. Fly safe!

[@Windknightt]

The stalling example reminds me of why the F4U Corsair had such bad flat spin/stall issues, it's really cool to see an example like this in kerbal!

[@markmuir7338]

The Corsair's stall/spin issues were a little more complicated: there was enough dihedral in the outer wings to more than compensate for the anhedral in the inner wing, so generally it was stable in roll just like most aircraft. But under high angles of attack, there was a lot of 'dirty' air coming from the inner wing, which reduced effectiveness of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, making it much harder to recover from spins. I've built and flown a radio-controlled Corsair, and the problem is quite apparent. Another problem is wing tip stalls, which suddenly induce a spin when you're in gentle level turns at fairly low airspeed.

[@robinsonmedia6370]

Great video! This type of demonstration is very valuable to many!

[@FL2070]

mott scanley

[@Roguescienceguy]

Would be an epic name for a kerbal

[@dahu0du0peuple]

Evil twin ?

[@abcjelly]

@@dahu0du0peuple "& that's it for today. I'm Mott Scanley - fly dangerous."

[@erek4969]

Me pee man

[@amcd-b]

Living the dream. Having played KSP and done 1 very successful learner flight IRL, I'd agree. I credit your videos and instructions for the majority of my flight knowledge too.

[@airplayn]

I soloed my son in a 1947 Cesna-120 (a taildragger yet) after less than 9 hours training because he had so much MS sim time. That surprised me! Speaking of ailerons, when I was in USAF pilot training after flying my hand restored 1940 Taylorcraft to the training base (as in Jimmy Stewart's '50's great movie about Lindbergh, "We".) I came back from the practice area after doing 27 consecutive aileron rolls, and I'm talking about the board winged Cessna T-37 and NOT the T-38! I went to my instructor and said "theoretically I think someone MIGHT be able to do 27 consecutive aileron rolls", he replied, "well, I'm glad you kept it theoretical" ;-)". He was a cool Major who became an instructor after a tour as a fighter pilot. When he found out how much I loved the P-47 we went to the local airport where I kept my T-cart and I was blown away when he opened his hangar and I saw he traded his P-51for a bellied in Jug to restore! Way outta' my league! I also flew with a WW2 P-51 pilot who destroyed 13 planes in China. I was very pleased when they both told me I was a natural "seat of the pants pilot". Of course that was due in part to the fact that the majority of my hours had been flown in a 730# empty weight 65HP T-Cart were the only instruments are a turn and bank, oil pressure/temp, tachometer, airspeed indicator and a fuel gauge made outta' a wire attached to a cork float bobbing up and down in front of you. One time on a cross country the tank sprang a leak and I was trying to fly as I bent under the panel to stuff a rag in the hole while trying to find a place to land. I landed a Timm's airpark with 1/4 gallon of fuel left.

[@dannyCOTW]

Hi Scott, I remember watching your KSP tutorials around the same time I was thinking about getting my PPL. These days I'm working as an instructor! Love the content and happy you see you flying. Fly safe!

[@orestes_io]

What a masterclass. Thank you for teaching and sharing!

[@9voltchicken]

Hey Scott, the timing for your video couldn't have been more uncanny. I'm currently in training for my A&P certificate to become an aircraft mechanic. The topic I am currently learning about is aircraft structures and sub-sonic aerodynamics. Your explaination about center of mass vs center of lift, dihedral wings, wing wash (twist), and stall conditions of the wings/control surfaces are absolutely 110% on point. I'll be sharing this with classmates. Thanks for all that you do!

[@ducky8075]

Hey! Another KSP player pilot in training (based out of wattsonville!) I’ve had to do spin recovery a few times in KSP, one SSTO design I have is very prone to spins after re entry (thanks FAR), first time it happened my training kicked in and instantly thought of PARE (spin recovery acronym). Sure enough, the recovery worked and I landed safely back at the KSC a few minutes later. Was a fun watershed moment for sure! From one almost pilot to another, fly safe, hope to see you out there! Have been watching for almost a decade now :)

[@jhruio]

I got my private back in may and am now working on my instrument rating. KSP helped introduce me to principles of dynamic and static stability and center of lift/pressure. I do tend to also build my creations without SAS and cockpit torque disabled, this really helps for understanding how each element on the aircraft affects performance.

[@000polsris000]

Dang Scott, great video! I'm jealous/happy for you. Making your dream a reality.

[@neogator26]

As an aerospace engineering major, I laughed way too hard at the ailerons joke. I’ve also come to realize that most of my KZbinrs that I’d actually like to meet play KSP.

[@louissivo9660]

Using KSP and turning on the indicators of lift was super helpful in understanding what you were saying. Thx for the mini-lesson there.

[@AirmetSierra]

Another advantage of wing twist that isn't really modelled in KSP is that by moving more of the lift to the wing root and away from the wingtips, it reduces wake turbulence which makes the wing more efficient.

[@christophermadsen340]

Scott, I don't quite agree with your demonstration of the reason for downward lift on the tail surface. You demonstrated the phugoid mode which applies to any stable airplane including ones with lifting tail surfaces. As you alluded to, there's a continuum of airplane designs between the standard one and a canard with varying CG ranges which influence whether the rear wing is lifting. Even standard airplanes operating in regimes with neutral or lifting tail surfaces will phugoid just fine. I'm sure you've noticed that a lot of aerodynamics taught to pilots and between pilots is subtly or entirely wrong, but probably doesn't really matter. I can't explain things as well as you, but I'll make an attempt. There's a wide range of forward CG locations for a conventional airplane where the airplane is so "stable" it wants to pitch into the wind (usually nose down), it requires up elevator (down lift on the tail) to counter this if the pilot wishes to control pitch. As the CG moves aft you eventually lose static stability margin which means for increasing angle of attack the now destabilizing moment from the wing is no longer outweighed by the stabilizing moment from the tail. This can be remedied by increasing the size of the tail or moving it further aft. You slowly end up looking more like a tandem wing, then a canard in the process. The design of the airplane determines whether you'll have a lifting tail surface before losing stability.

[@Gammaduster]

Love aerodynamics content ! Keep up the great work !

[@sleat]

I agree, Scott. Designing and building aircraft (and rockets) as a kid helped me with flying. Flying sims helped me with actual flying, and flying actual aircraft (and playing with rockets) helped me with KSP. The circle-of-life continues.

[@mushylog]

It's good to see some KSP footage again! Really interesting vid, fly safe for real!!

[@JaredYates1]

This video pretty much summed up what I learn in an entire semester of flight vehicle design.

[@andreroets4367]

Another function of the wing “Washout” is the fact that if the Angle of Attack on the tips is greater than the root of the wings, you can stall the tips in straight and level flight causing turbulent airflow over the ailerons, this will reduce your aileron control effectiveness by quite some margin. So the washout negates this. Aerodynamics just get more interesting the more you learn. Also, quick tip for RL. When approaching the stall in exercises, use the rudder to keep wings level. At very low speeds, aileron input can actually cause wingtip stall and my get you into a spin. Fly safe!! Love the videos :)

[@nighthawk043]

I thoroughly recommend using FAR if you're doing any significant plane/spaceplane use. The learning curve is definitely harder, but once you learn, it's FAR more rewarding. I especially enjoy designing planes around the aerodynamic and stability changes in the transonic regions.

[@UltraNoobian]

nice pun

[@ducky8075]

He’s been playing with FAR since 2016 haha

[@nighthawk043]

@@ducky8075 I know Scott is, the recommendation is for viewers reading comments

[@Shupavin]

Nice pun. FAR in combination with Kerbal Konstructs gives you a ton of alternate runways as well, which is basically how I spent the last 400 hours in KSP. Kerbal Weather Project also adds wind forces if things are getting too easy.

[@bahadronurguduru3607]

I played KSP on high school and studied Aerospace afterwards. Now working with these principles when designing aircraft in a company. I am glad I played kerbal, it was a very good experience because you feel the way things work instead of trying to think what will happen in a particular scenario. Intuitive it is. So if you have any plans in aerospace sector, playing kerbal helps a lot.

[@Eo_Tunun]

Stability in stall is not the only reason for the wing twist. It also is a means to get a cheaper to build wing of rectangular planform perform more to Prandtl's theorem of deal lift distribution. This theorem deals with energy losses through the tip vortex every wing generates. The tip vortex will get intensified if you have loads of lift near the tip as a relatively greater pressure from under the wing will try to flow to the region of lower pressure above it, so producing less lift near the tip will reduce the vortex.

[@Arminyus]

How has it been 10+ years of KSP and you still have new stuff to teach us!

[@argh1989]

I mean it is Kerbal _Space_ Program, where low-powered, sub-sonic flight is pretty much the last thing people want to do.

[@asaflevy1540]

Amazing video, so much insights..

[@SergKiev87]

Nice, educational and Kerbaly, you haven't made video this good for a long time, Scott.

[@setaindustries]

Was that shadow at 4:13 a satellite? If it was than that would be really cool!

[@Stoney3K]

One thing that you can also simulate very nicely in KSP is engine placement in relationship to the wings. If you put the engines under the wing like on an airliner, they tend to pitch the plane up under thrust, while engines on the back (like on a smaller business jet) push the plane's nose down when you push the throttle. Unless you have a high wing aircraft with engines hanging from it.

[@murasaki848]

Long ago (1993-ish), but years after I took flying lessons (1986-87), a friend of mine was letting me play Aces over Europe on his computer (I didn't own a PC compatible at the time, though my Amiga was starting to show its age.) When it came time to land the P-38 I was flying, he started tweaking out for some reason (taking it way too seriously) and saying I need to let him land. "Landing's really difficult." "Watch out!" "You're gonna CRASH it!...". I landed it perfectly, then turned to him and said "I did this many times in real life, dude. How hard is it going to be in a friggin' video game?" One other game that real world flying helped me was years after that playing Combat Flight Simulator for the first time in multiplayer (dial up modem days, 2002-ish) against colleagues from work. They didn't like the 8:1 kill ratio I was getting against them, so they made me fly the Sopwith Camel against their P-51s. I still achieved 3:1 kill to loss ratio. See, another thing my flying days taught me is that aircraft had throttles you could use to vary speed. So someone started taking a shot, I'd throttle back and pull up hard for a quick stall, then most of the time I'd drop back down behind them pointing their way as they overshot. None of them ever figured out they should throttle back too when they tried to line up a shot on me.

[@ChadGrenierPilot]

Love the clips of you learning to fly! I've been a long time follower of your channel, and also a pilot, so love seeing my favorite things come together here! I did notice one thing at the 0:34 second mark worth mentioning. It appeared that you were making an approach at night and were under glide slope on the PAPI. Please, please, please do not go under glide slope at night until you have crossed the runway threshhold, this has gotten many pilots killed. In daytime we can see obstacles and can drop below and land on numbers, but night not so much. Anyhow, keep up the good content!

[@bjornseine2342]

An educational KSP video? Full of interesting info I didn't actually know yet? Thank you, you spoil us.

[@anthoneyking6572]

Great Vlog Scott I wondered how the Flying was Going now I know Interesting stuff thanks

[@redstoneactual1709]

Just finished my checkride, you helped a lot with studying for my written test. Thank you!

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

Yep, I grew up in the '80s/'90s playing Microsoft Flight Simulator. It *REALLY* helped me with my own actual fight instruction.

[@isaacplaysbass8568]

It's so cool to hear about the "cross pollination" of IRL vs KSP knowledge/experience. Fly Safe.

[@sulljoh1]

This is the kind of Scott Manley video I love

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

I got my start in flight sims when I was too young to get my license, it was the only thing really that I could legally do aside from flying around with my dad. Spent hours a day for years and years playing on flight sims until I turned 16 and could get my license, and I've been flying ag ever since. The transition was really simple once I figured out how to apply my sim experience to the real world, because the two are completely different in how they act and react. You can't expect to hop in a plane and successfully fly no matter how much sim experience you have, but after some stick time you can stitch the two together. You'll have a basic knowledge of how a plane will react in a situation that you've never actually experienced, because you did it in a sim. That alone can be enough to save your skin.

[@mytube001]

I'm a bit surprised that you're not a long-time X-Plane user. Because X-Plane is much like KSP, but more realistic and much more configurable for aircraft.

[@LayneBenofsky]

Using FAR and designing stable aircraft is so satisfying. It's like figuring out an intricate puzzle where there's no *really* right answer, but plenty of wrong ones.

[@DomedCity]

Very interesting Scott, I've noticed that my poor planning skills helped me a lot with R.U.D. in KSP

[@marsstarlink3235]

9:52 the reason you want to stall the root of the wing first instead of the wingtips is so you still have Aileron authority otherwise would be stalled and helpless if not designed like this.

[@nuclearwarhead9338]

I exclusively run KSP with procedural wings mod because it actually uses the 25% MAC instead of the 50% MAC the stock wings do. Addendum: MAC stands for Mean Aerodynamic Chord aka the sum of all lifting forces on a lifting part. If you press F12 in flight in KSP you'd see the *blue lines* pointing "up" (under normal flying conditions) or relative towards the opposite of aerodynamic forces acting upon the lifting part(s).

[@AugmentedGravity]

Planes turned into the only reason why i played KSP. I too have now been playing this game for the better part of 7 years, and a million saves and plane designs later i am still having a ton of fun. I spent most my time building realistic flying models of real life aircraft, especially military focused and of course installed bdarmory and the rest is history.

[@Frafor96]

I started flight training 8 years ago when I already had a few hundred hours in KSP. All I could think about during my first takeoff was the countless times I had a spaceplane tip over and smash head first into the runway trying to takeoff.

[@TheNordicVoyager]

Now, that's frightening!

[@josephbryant8799]

One correction, the reason high wing planes sometimes have anhedral wings doesn't really have to do with center of mass so much as side-slip. When in a roll, there is a component of the forward airspeed that turns into side-slip and hits the fuselage creating a zone of higher pressure. If the aircraft has a low wing, this zone of high pressure will want to push the wing further into the roll making it unstable in the roll. If the aircraft has a high wing, it will want to do the exact opposite and have stable roll characteristics. As such, low wing aircraft will often have dihedral wings to compensate for the instability of a low wing configuration, while high wing aircraft will sometimes have anhedral wings to compensate for the stability of a high wing configuration. Otherwise, great analysis, I always love your videos.

[@willsnyder2190]

Great vid showing off aerodynamics you can understand. You should make a follow up vid to this one with FAR to show some more complicated aerodynamics or even a small miniseries!

[@Mr2winners]

Some planes to recover from spins they tell you, just let go of the controlls completely, and the plane will find itself again

[@sixstringedthing]

We're definitely gonna need a "That's How I roll" shirt as a sequel to "Check Yo Stagin'", please and thank you! 😁

[@thewiirocks]

Should say: I love Ailerons that's how I roll Make it happen, Scott!

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

While not a prop aircraft, I build a J-10 fighter and it does work really well in KSP, so the designers of of the plane came up with something that works. And even without SAS. Oh and I learned how to recover from a stall spin. But one thing I noticed is that when applying yaw the tailfin also adds some roll, since it pushes only at the upper part of the plane without another surface compensating at the bottom.

[@bob2859]

I love me some FAR. Stability derivatives are fun :)

[@petersmythe6462]

I almost always add dihedral, flaps, and in FAR, leading edge flaps and some AOA control on almost everything so that it is stable. I usually don't twist the wing but rather have the FAR AOA adjustment effectively decrease the camber at wingtip.

[@Masu_Stargazer]

My initial pilot training (this was actually the 5th time I had ever flown) was done in powered aircraft, specifically Piper PA28-140 & PA28-180 aircraft with nothing but steam gauges and the Kane MK-6B flight computer (see link below) which I still have. After gaining my PPL I somehow got involved in gliding and quickly became addicted to stooging around the sky in magnificent aircraft that in an experienced pilot’s hands didn’t need an engine. So once you have your PPL may I suggest you have a go at gliding as it will definitely broaden your piloting skills (check out the Gimli Glider incident link below). I’m not certain of the rules elsewhere and it may have changed since I ceased flying, but you used to be able to get an endorsement to fly glider tow planes with a basic PPL and gliding clubs are often in need of tug pilots which makes it’s a great way to practice takeoffs, landings and build flight hours without paying for it. Anyway, as a glider pilot one of the things we needed to do in our annual flight review was recover from a fully developed (more than 1 rotation) spin. During one such review I was flying from the back seat (I used to take a lot of friends for a flight so flew from the back quiet a lot) and this time the instructor induced the spin. I don’t know what he did and later found out that the instructor didn’t either, but we ended up in an inverted spin with the both of us hanging from our harness shoulder straps. I don’t know how many rotations it took to get the glider flying again, but I do remember making the decision that if it didn’t respond within one more spin I was going to jettison the canopy and bail out. But it did ultimately respond and I passed my annual flight review. So, as glider pilots say “The sky might be your limit, but it’s where glider pilots play!” Links for Kane MK-6B flight computer; physicsmuseum.uq.edu.au/kane-mk-6b-dead-reckoning-computer-0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqbRapicraipm8k ‘Gimli Glider Incident” or “How to Side Slip a Boeing-767 Glider” kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5jLgJWvoLqGeM0

[@Galactis1]

This is very cool, Thanks Scott. Love how video games eventually help in real life. Very very cool.

[@Beesoldier]

i eventually went to changing how much the control surfaces go being deployed, basically using wasd to fly by changing trim all the time

[@eekee6034]

I love a good challenge too! :D I tend to make my own, but the trouble with that is they're not always _good_ challenges. In KSP, after I'd learned to orbit and got ground broken on the moon-based refuelling infrastructure I always wanted, I challenged myself to make a spaceplane. I read the in-game manual carefully, and then I started with Mk3 parts because I'm crazy like that. A few weeks later, I ragequit KSP! XD I eventually got something built, and so last week, when Matt posted his first spaceplane and asked people to describe about theirs, I was able to comment, "My first spaceplane had 12 Whiplashes and a Rhino!" XD I realise now that sounds like a boast but I only meant to say it was overkill, somewhat like his first but more so. It also took me a lot of work to figure out a balanced propellant load. 5:07 Interesting wing design. It also flies the way I aim to make my planes fly, these days: mostly on the trim and hands-free wherever possible. I learned to like this while playing flight simulators, having learned to fly in MS Flight Sim 2 which was installed on a second-hand PC, and years, later an early version of FGFS for Linux. I was never very good, (I didn't practice enough,) but I got the idea. When I got into KSP, I flew stock planes with SAS on and wondered why it was so different. Ultimately, I found some KSP planes can be flown like this, and aim to build mine this way too, but I'm still figuring it out. My latest trick is putting tail fin(s) and rudder(s) at the same height as the center of mass so I can ignore the rudder while steering. I was doing that anyway because, as I said, I'm not very good. Making too many inputs confuses me. I can be remarkably coordinated when in charge of a vehicle IRL, but I find computer simulation far harder. It might be worse because I've never had a suitable joystick, but I lose coordination with radio-controled cars too. But I'm obviously not giving up on simulation. In fact, I'm taking notes; not something I often do with KZbin videos. :) I like KSP for letting me build planes to my flying tastes. :D I've just started playing Simple Rockets 2 too, but it seems you don't pilot quite so directly in that game. Unless you want to.

[@frankgulla2335]

Great job, Scott. Thanks

[@kirkwagner461]

Landing is when all the flying instincts come into play. Its the best fun there is, unless you get into aerobatics, IMO.

[@stickfigure31]

Thanks Scott! I had a feeling I was still missing something in my aircraft designs. Some times flying with FAR was easier (much better glide performance) other times harder with random spins and stalls, some time even in stock physics. I'd spend hours trying to shift center of lift vs center of mass before eventually having to scrap a design. I had known about the issue with too much control surfaces from your older video which saved some designs, but I now wonder if the new tips you covered in this video will be the secret sauce. True SAS keeps most aircraft designs stable in ksp, but that's less fun.

[@Noircogi]

That looks familiar! I flew IFR from KHWD to KSTS today and ATC routed me right over Gnoss Field.

[@15gamershaven89]

I'm in a groundschool class and have been applying stuff to ksp planes and making them infinitely cooler and easier to fly. It's also interesting how much I've already known about due to the game.

[@nmccw3245]

Wish I’d had cool computer sims back when I did my primary flight training.

[@Ravenscaller]

I was referring to the first plane in the comment below. As you know stall spins are a major cause of GA crashes. That was an interesting take on it.

[@Splarkszter]

Fly safe scott! My favorite uncle died from an unexpected wind current inside and ultralight plane :(

[@ItsHaldun]

This was extremely insightful! Gotta try it now.

[@tgmccoy1556]

Scott if you can, get time in alight, low powered aircraft. Aeronca, Champion. Piper Cub, Taylor craft. They will teach flying and landings . Fly one with a good instructor, you'll be surprised.

[@benderaviation]

KSP was a great (albeit simplistic aerodynamicaly) flight sim I used before my PPL training

[@brcosmin]

Also as someone who's learning Aerodynamic Principles as part of PPL, I've been wondering if they couldn't be explained better visually, through the use of KSP. This answers it, it's definitely helpful and I could see this turn into a very popular series that explains Aerodynamic Principles. Wondering how the aircraft design has to change to be as stable with FAR mod?

[@tjl102]

you need to add this video to the aero playlist, this is the most comprehensive yet... or even better do another ksp plane creation tutorial with this new craft. you are the defacto ksp tutorial channel... and this would make newer craft better/ more unique. almost everyone uses your technics in game.

[@jeromethiel4323]

"I love ailerons, that's how i roll!" Had me pausing the video to have a good belly laugh. ^-^

[@undefined40]

"If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing." Chuck Yeager "I never crash, I just have exiting landings." Free after Gadget Hackwrench, if my memory serves me right.

[@johngotschall]

DIHEDRAL!. Hi, I own a lake LA-4. It has a lot of DIHEDRAL in the wings. That means the wing tips are higher than the wing root when the plane is flying level. The feature provides for yaw control of flight direction. When I press a rudder pedal yaw causes one wing to advance ahead of the other, then the advanced wing displays more of it's underside to the relative wind thereby increasing lift on that wing.. Thanks to DIHEDRAL I need not to use ailerons to make banked turns while in cruise flight. Two channel flight rc planes like gliders use the same function to get banked turns and even perform rolls with airframes lacking ailerons.

[@Allen46u5k]

Does your Kerbal airplane have a Parachute like the one you flying?

[@halepauhana153]

Working on your night rating already, nice! I took our Cherokee up for a night flight over Vancouver BC just a couple of nights ago.

[@bbgun061]

In the USA, night training is required for a PPL. It's not a separate rating.

[@lucywucyyy]

i actually do use these irl plane tricks in kerbal! i specifically use kerbal to test these things and learn more about aircraft so i can fly them better in xplane

[@gregorysiebers3721]

My rule for kerbal atmosphere sphere flight is 1 of 2 parts a. It must be stable without sas and b. It must be equally stable upside down if not you will undoubtedly have a harder time

[@chrismcquade]

I know Scott Manley knows this but I can't help myself. High wing itself has nothing directly to do with stability, same reason as rocket fallacy. Lift doesn't produce a torque about the CoG, so no rotation is produced corrective or otherwise. The real reason for stability differences is aerodynamic. Imagine a flat wing portion say 1 unit long with a vertical winglet 1 unit long |_O_|, would be equivalent to 45° Dihedral low-wing \O/ with length SQRT(2) ~1.4, which is more efficient weight wise but aerodynamically equivalent for our purposes. The more the an/di-hedral the larger the vertical components of the wing tips pointing up or down, this helps to visualise what's happening (for me at least) when the aircraft is banked (slip state) and the under vs over bank tendencies that result (stable vs unstable respectively). (A) HIGH WING and DIHEDRAL. Wing vertical component begins +1 unit (ABOVE) CoG, extends +1 unit (HIGHER), average vertical surface arm = +1.5 units ABOVE CoG. Slip gives ANTI-BANK tendancy (VERY STABLE) (B) HIGH WING and ANHEDRAL. Wing vertical component begins +1 unit (ABOVE) CoG, extends -1 unit (BELOW), average vertical surface arm = +0.5 units ABOVE CoG. Slip gives ANTI-BANK tendancy (STABLE) (C) LOW WING and DIHEDRAL. Wing vertical component begins -1 unit (BELOW) CoG, extends +1 unit (HIGHER), average vertical surface arm = -0.5 units BELOW CoG. Slip gives PRO-BANK tendancy (UNSTABLE) (D) LOW WING and ANHEDRAL. Wing vertical component begins -1 unit (BELOW) CoG, extends -1 unit (LOWER), average vertical surface arm = -1.5 units BELOW CoG. Slip gives PRO-BANK tendancy (VERY UNSTABLE) In reality more mass is lower down in the fuselage for both high and low wings because we're seated, baggage on the floor, and we look over the top of the engine, therefore wings have to be over our heads abnormally higher above CoG than a low wing sits below CoG. Low wing probably 0.5 units below CoG (or less), where high wing starts 1 unit above CoG for instance. This changes (C) to be more neutral and (D) to be less unstable, both though would require comparitively greater dihedral than a high wing to have comparable lateral stability. Add in the vertical stabiliser effect, lateral angle of attack, and you start to see how it all comes together for high vs low. Knowing this, you can see why high wings need less dihedral than low wings, and it's nothing to do with pendulums! Although some people may correctly understand it all but still call it the pendulum effect... Press (X) for doubt. Hope this makes sense, happy to be educated if there's factors I've missed. - Flight Instructor (AUS)

[@scottmanley]

Good clarification of this.

[@nikkiofthevalley]

This gives me some ideas relating to how I design my helis in Besiege, particularly what happens if you twist the blades to have that same "more lift towards the center" effect, maybe it would increase stability? Another idea is relating to the dihedral angle [of the blades/wings], my helis are more stable when putting in positive collective, and less stable when putting in negative collective, maybe this is why? The reason I think that may be the case is because the blades are somewhat unstable and bend by about 10° when putting in collective.

[@Aerosfilis-Eona]

The only thing I don't do is the twisted wings, because it's just too much of a pain to do in KSP. I think the most clear aspect of that applied to how I design planes in KSP is that I'll often put the wings first with a bit of pitch (default angle of attack) with no stabilizer, balancing the lift indicator just a bit behind the center of mass if not almost right on it. If that was left alone, the plane would be extremely unstable and usually pitch down from the default pitch of the wings, which forces horizontal stabilizers to pitch down to add down force and stabilize the plane. What might be interesting is how I got to that. It was a mean to solve the issue of being able to take off and land at lower speeds. Having the default pitch/aoa on the wings gives a nice lift boost without needing to pitch the entire plane that is usually stuck to the ground. And as mentioned that alone makes the craft unstable so a bit of down pitch on the stabilizers and voila! Another note I'll add to anyone struggling to land planes in KSP: if you issue is that you need to land super fast as to not completely lose lift, consider flaps, it makes quite the difference~