100% STOCK DC-9 Speed Build in KSP
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 12. 2016
- As requested, here is a DC-9 Build!
KerbalX Download: kerbalx.com/DavidN/DC-9
Music:
Approaching Nirvana - Helix / @approachingnirvana
Buy the song: apple.co/2ckOg6d
Apocalyptica - In the Hall of the Mountain King
Links!
● Livestreams / david_nielsen
● Twitter / davidnyoutube - Hry
It crashes a lot
My god, it's the most accurate DC-9 model I've ever seen.
Hat Man dc9 is one of worlds safest airliners. It had more incidents than other planes because it flew more that other planes.
Coaster Crazy
Actually, I'm basing my opinion on fatal accidents per X flight hours... Douglas aircraft had some pretty high figures for that. Those figures couldn't give a shit less how many total flight hours the airframe's had, since it's a rate, not a total. Douglas didn't have the highest, sure, but the highest tend to be from Russian designed aircraft (not exactly the highest bar set). Douglas isn't far ahead, and it doesn't come close to the safety records of most Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
Furthermore, I've done a lot of research on accident investigation in the airline industry because I find the subject morbidly fascinating... The DC9s and 10s had a lot of major design flaws that other airliners managed to weed out in the design stage.
One design flaw is putting an engine in the rudder, as is the case for the DC10. The safest airliners put engines on pylons that extend from the wings. These keep the engines as isolated from other parts of the aircraft as is possible... In the DC 10's case, they slapped an engine smack in the middle of the rudder.
In 1989, United Airlines Flight 232 demonstrated why this was a bad idea when its middle engine's fan disk fragged out, sending shrapnel flying tearing through the rudder and elevators. The aircraft has 3 independent hydraulic control systems, and only requires one to operate the controls (so it's fairly redundant)... Trouble is, all THREE pass through the tail of the plane, since two of the three major control surfaces are located there... And Douglas decided to put a FUCKING ENGINE there. All 3 hydraulic lines were cut, all three drained, and the pilots were left with no control. They had to attempt to land the aircraft using throttles as their only means of steering and controlling pitch. They landed nose first, and the plane broke apart, killing 111 out of 279 passengers... The number of children deaths was abnormally high as well, due to the airline's "children's day" promotion.
Trijet plane designs of the DC-10 type aren't as common anymore... Hmm... I wonder why? Twin jets are not only safer, they're also less of a pain in the dick to maintain, and jet engines have progressed to the point where twin jets can easily accomplish the same power requirements as tri and quad jets.
Because of flight 232, the FAA had to step in and mandate that hydraulic lines have cutoff valves that prevent total loss of hydraulics in the event of leaks. Had 232 had such valves, they would've continued to have wing controls, such as ailerons, flaps, and spoilers... This seems like a no brainer.
Not that the DC-10s wing mounted engines were any better. In 1979, American Airlines flight 191 (DC-10) rolled over on take off and crashed into the ground, killing all 271 people on board, and 2 on the ground. The cause of this was the complete and total loss of engine 1... Not, as in, the engine stopped working. I mean THE ENTIRE ENGINE FELL OFF. When it did, it severed hydraulic lines to the leading edge flaps. Due to a poor choice in emergency protocol by the airlines at the time, the pilots slowed to stall speed and extended the flaps... But the leading edge flaps did not deploy on the left wing. The resulting asymmetric lift caused the plane to roll over.
Now, this all could've been avoided, after ALL THIS, if the pilots were warned of the asymmetric lift situation... And there IS such a warning system on the aircraft... But coincidentally, that exact warning system was powered by the number 1 engine... 3 engines on this aircraft... And the designers decided to make a warning system powered by only one of them... This is one of many examples I can think of demonstrating that Douglas engineers had ZERO respect for the concept of redundancy when designing their aircraft. This is basic shit most other aircraft companies got right the first time. But time and again, the NTSB and the FAA had to step in and rectify design problems in Douglas aircraft.
Another good example is Alaska Flight 261 (2000), an MD 83 which lost total elevator control, forcing the aircraft into an extreme pitch down. It crashed, killing all 88 people on board.
This is an example of Douglas failing to design fail safes into their elevator trim system. The elevator trim on many airliners operates by rotating the entire horizontal stabilizer, and not just the elevator trim tabs. This is done to counter changes in aircraft balance prior to flight. In the case of flight 261, the jack screw that adjusts the trim failed, allowing the horizontal stabilizer to rotate freely... in a FAIL SAFE design, the point of rotation would've been placed in front of the stabilizer's center of drag. This would've made the elevators almost unusable in this kind of failure, sure, but the horizontal stabilizer would've stayed straight relative to the airflow... Instead, the point of rotation was BEHIND the center of drag. This left the horizontal stabilizer unstable (kinda like trying to balance a pencil on its tip). The airflow naturally forces it full up or full down. In this case, it forced it full up, causing the plane to uncontrollably pitch down into a deadly dive.
Again, more basic shit that should've been spotted in the design stage.
Finally, the DC-10 is responsible for tarnishing the record of the Concorde, and causing OTHER airliners to crash. Air France 4590 was a concord flight out of Gonesse France in 2000. Its wing burst into flames on takeoff, causing it to crash... 113 people were killed.
It took a long time to find the cause. What they found was that one of the tires shredded, sending a piece of rubber flying straight up into the wing at over 300 MPH, punching a hole in the fuel tank, and starting a fire... Why did the tire shred? Searching through the debris along the runway, the investigators found a part that didn't belong to the concord... This was a metal dropped object from ANOTHER aircraft. The concord's tire hit it at high speed rolling down the runway, and tore it open... What plane dropped this debris? A FUCKING DC-10. By the time this was found out, the Concord was already grounded and frowned upon by a negative media campaign, and this amazing aircraft was retired well earlier than it should've been, after its ONLY fatal accident in history... Meanwhile that piece of shit death trap DC-10 still flies today, mostly as mail and cargo planes now since not even passengers will touch the damn thing.
So don't sit there and try to tell me it only crashes alot because it's a little long in the tooth compared to most airliners. That's a bullshit strawman. The accident RATES of these aircraft are atrocious, and aircraft lifetime isn't even a factor to such rates. Furthermore, most douglas aircraft crashes occured earlier on in its lifetime. You should note that every crash I cited as specific examples of design deficiencies is 2-4 decades old.
In fact, to sum things up Coaster, check out these websites to give you a better idea of actual accident rates of various aircraft:
www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml
This one sums up the world's safest aircraft by fatal crashes per X flight hours... DC-9 is rated number 15, MD-80 at 12, DC-10 at 11, and MD-11 at 10. The number 1 through 9 spots are ALL Airbus and Boeing.
Another website that is at least a little bit favorable towards the Douglas aircraft is this one:
www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
though personally, I feel it's a bit skewed since it looks at fatalities per million FLIGHTS rather than per flight hour. An aircraft could have less flights under it's belt and yet more flight hours (and therefore, accidents), if it's a large long haul airliner. That's why the 747 has a pretty abysmal fatality rate on this website, when it's listed as 3rd safest on the previous one.
Either way, even this site lists the top 5 safest aircraft as Boeing, Airbus, and an Embraer.
Every single page of statistics I have found like these ones do NOT list the DC9 or DC10, or ANY douglas aircraft as "One of the world's safest". In fact, they are at best, slightly worse than airbus and Boeing, and at worst, ATROCIOUS. Douglas aircraft don't stack up well even compared to their competitors at their time period. The only aircraft from Boeing or Airbus that are as bad are the older 727 (1963) and A310 (1983). The only one WORSE from either company is the 737-100 from 1967.
The ACTUAL world's safest airliner is the A-340.
And yes, the DC-10 and DC-9 are improved nowadays, but only after major redesigns caused by a long string of accidents. Your argument that it only looks bad because they've had a long service history is moot because they're actually much safer today than as initially designed. In fact, they were deathtraps in the 80s and 90s... It should've been designed properly right from the start. Whenever i've done research on aircraft accidents, most of the douglas ones that have cropped up from the 80s to 2000 have been no fucking brainers, and shouldn't have happened to begin with. It takes a lot to bring down a plane... Not for a Douglas from that time period.
Hat Man so the 15th safest aircraft in the world is a deathcruiser? Trijets are no longer popular due to there inefficiency, not safety. Douglas aircraft have worse safety records because they are from eras of the past. All your sacred embraer/airbus/Boeing aircraft are all realitively new designs. Notice how the dc9s competitor, the 732/731 is 15th on the list.
Dude, DC-9 is 15th out of a list of just 19. There's not a lot of large airliner designs out there, so don't act like 15th in a list of 19 is anything to brag about. It's tied with the A310 and TU154 in the 16th and 17th position. The ONLY aircraft worse than the DC-9 on that list are the russian military conversion IL-76, and the 1967 737-200.
I'll REITTERATE my point about your bullshit lifetime argument. WHEN IT WAS FIRST MADE, the DC9 and 10 were death traps. The DC10 is STILL 11th on the list, despite not having crashed at all in the 20 years in 1st world countries, purely because its track record before the WAS THAT FUCKING SHIT.
And don't blame the "Era" either. 747, 1970, holds the number 3 spot, and it was made BEFORE the DC10 (1971). In fact, the 747 is the reason WHY the DC10 sucked so much, it was rushed into production because Douglas were scared of competition from the 747.
The 757 (number 7) and 767 (number 5) were both made only 2 years after the MD-80 (number 12), and both SPANK it.
The 727, made in 1963 (13), has HALF the fatal crash rate per million flight hours of the 1965 design DC-9 (15).
The MD-11, the 1990 upgrade and redesign to the DC-10, is still 10th on the list. It is beaten by the 2nd gen 737 (9th on the list, 1984), the a330 (8th, 1993), the 757 (7th, 1982), the a320 (6th, 1988), the 747 (3rd, 1971), and the a340 (1st, 1993), ALL of which were from what I'd consider to be the "same era" or prior to the MD-11. This is Doglas' most modern design, one that features a lot of the same technology as other aircraft from its era. This was after Douglas had time to learn the hard way from its earlier aircraft... and it STILL gets spanked by all these aircraft even from the same time period AND BEFORE.
Your argument that all the top 9 spots are "modern" aircraft and therefore are going to crash less is a flat out lie. A good 7 of the top 9 on that list were designed AT THE SAME TIME, OR EVEN PRIOR, to comparable douglas aircraft. This list doesn't even INCLUDE the most modern aircraft, like the 787 and A380.
So even comparing these aircraft to aircraft in "their era", THEY FUCKING SUCKED. In fact ESPECIALLY in their own era. The only reason Douglas aircraft aren't bottom of the fucking list is because of how many years they've flown with FAA mandated changes in their designs. If these statistics were taken back in 2000, Douglas aircraft would be considered among the least safe in the market place. I already explained all this to you, why are you still insisting on using the "era" argument?
These kind of statistics are why McDonnell Douglas was bought out in 1997. Want to know why there's no modern McDonnell Douglas aircraft? It's because their airliners sucked so much, the company had to merge or die. There IS no 2017 era McDonnell Douglas to MAKE aircraft... And it's a shame too. The early days of the company were so glorious. The DC-3, to this day, is perhaps my single favorite passenger aircraft ever made... Hell, a few operators still use the DC-3... What the hell happened Douglas?
Also, I gave you specific examples as well as statistics for a reason. The statistics don't show you WHAT went wrong. All aircraft eventually go through a fatal accident. Even the A340 will likely someday go through a fatal accident. What matters here is WHAT went wrong. The biggest causes of crashes are human error, weather/nature, mechanical failure, and design failure. The last type is of most importance to me in determining whether or not an aircraft is "safe". All aircraft have a design failure of some kind. These are "failures of imagination". What matters is how common these failures result in fatalities, and how obvious the fix should've been in the first place.
A good example would be a 777 accident (in which there were no fatalities) in which ice buildup in the fuel lines choked the engines during final approach. The aircraft lost all power, and crash landed. The failure of imagination? The fuel system was designed to prevent ice buildup, but the engineers were most concerned about ice at altitude, where the air is cold. Thus, the system was designed to work when the engines were putting out power at a steady rate. The engineers did not take into account potential ice buildup on final approaches, when the aircraft was rapidly going back and forth between power and idle to adjust for landing
This is a failure of imagination, yes, but a small one, and one that was understandably missed. Such failures, I have found, are the exception where Boeing and Airbus planes are concerned, and tend to be obscure problems.
... In Douglas, in a large portion of their crashes, failures of imagination are COMMON, and the fixes so obvious that they never should've been failures to begin with. I cited each of those accidents for you to demonstrate PARTICULAR examples where poor design choices were the CAUSE of the accident, or exacerbated the accident ten fold. Statistics for these aircraft already look bad, but when you get into the meat of specific accidents, the very engineering behind Douglas aircraft are questionable from the outset. THAT is why they are considered dangerous.
Furthermore, I'm a jet engine mechanic for the air force, and am currently getting a mechanical engineering degree, so I have some real world experience and knowledge where aircraft, and especially jet engines are concerned. Trijets don't cause much, if any, additional drag compared to a twinjet with the same thrust. Since a twinjet's engines need to be larger to put out the same thrust as a trijet, the inlet cross sectional area needs to be larger. And the jet engine in the tail is exactly the same as those on the wings in trijets. So i dont know where the fuck you got that they were "less efficient" than twin jets. In fact, quite the contrary, aircraft with rear mounted engines like, for example, the DC-9 tend to be MORE efficient than their wing mounted counterparts, since the engines are placed in the slipstream along the fuselage. They were dropped because they are a pain in the dick to maintain and upgrade, a pain in the dick to fly if an engine fails, and failure would cause damage to important control surfaces. THAT's why trijets were dropped.
I work on KC135s, which are based on the old as hell 707, and hope to hell I wont ever have to work on the MORE MODERN KC10s (Based on the DC10). From what I've heard from jet troops who have, that third engine is horrible to access and change. I've heard that safety and maintenance of it is of great enough concern to the air force that pilots ONLY use it for long enough to accomplish their take off and climb, then shut it down for the rest of the flight to avoid further flight hours being accrued on it.
Also, what the actual fuck is a "732/731", and how can it be "15th" if the DC-9 is the "15th"... Are we even looking at the same fucking lists? DID YOU LOOK AT MY SOURCES AT ALL?
Are your referring to the 737-200, the one that was designed in 1967? That argument is you cherry picking. Both airbus and Boeing have 1 each older design on that list with a poor track record (designs that flew side by side with aircraft from similar time periods that have BETTER track records than comparable Douglas aircraft, but I guess you're just going to ignore that). By contrast, ALL 4 of Douglas' major airliner designs UTTERLY FAIL to break the top 9. I am not denying that Boeing and Airbus have had designs that weren't so great, even in the same time periods as the Douglas aircraft were designed... But they are the exception. Since then, Boeing and Airbus have demonstrated time and again that they can design better aircraft, EVEN back in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, back when the DC-10, MD-80, and MD-11 were designed. Quit cherry picking and look at the bigger picture.
David please build a DC-10 I loved the plane and I would like to see it in KSP!
FinnyOinx oink like dc-13
Yaz Antoling what the heck is a DC-13?
I would like a CD-9
A CD-9? 😂
Me too I want the dc10-30(md11-30)
Reinforce the wings with struts, i usually hide them on the underside. Make them as flat/close to the surface as possible. Try to attach the biggest and farthest part of the wing from the fuselage to the body itself, or engines. Depending on your build. It will prevent the wings from detaching on rough landings.
You are a great engineer. And a terrible pilot.
XD
James TheGamer yeah your right but crazy drive
James TheGamer Ii
Just like me
not that terrible, im having trouble landing since 2014 when i started playing
I love how reverse thrust works
Pretty cool but try to build the CL-604 CHALLENGER from the Australian airforce
good idea i'm a plane person myself it would be a good remembrance to rebuild but don't reenact the crash am, i right.
The engines are too fat for a DC-9... other than that limitation of ksp it's perfect :3
I would say that he could have just called it a 717 and gotten away with it.
Matthew McColl what I'll call it 707
Pigeon Floof Lord why no airports
Yaz Antoling What are you on about airports for? Oh and the boeing 707 looks nothing like this, do some research before saying random numbers hoping that it works.
Yaz Antoling
Wow, how many hours has he had on KSP??
Amazing!
Good job dude with all the planes I love all the planes you make
Damn dude, great creations.
Wow! Good work! Despite the fact that the landing gear is too small, it still looks amazing!
great timing with the symphony
Hi! I love these kinds of videos! Do you take requests? If you do, I'd love it if you tried to do the b2 spirit! It would be interesting to see how you could get the body to match the flatness of the wings and how to keep it on course without a horizontal stabiliser. Keep it up :D
Good video.
Gonna have to sub if I keep seeing this stuff.
To land you gotta butter the bread
Now make a A340! Like if you agree
It's so funny on attempt 13, u made it xD
Some random person screaming for help after the tail section containing the person in it screaming:
H E L P M E
Lol at 3:46 “ I think I figured out your problem. U see as of that time the plane’s.center of lift was going *cough* down instead of *cough* up” lol
it bounces
Oh and you're great at building
Who else was basicly screamimg at their screen saying "flare! Flare already!"
Me...
hey David, could you please attempt to make the Saab Gripen. it's a small fighter, but looks cool.
hey dude! i got a tip for you. if the plane has got a tail-heavy, it might shake a little bit. but if you got a nose-heavy, it may be solved. just a tip, so, no hate. cause they always say: ''nose-heavy is better then tail-heavy. if you got tail-heavy, then you will get the problem that is can pull up, so then it can get the problem that is have got no more speed to fly, or that you can push the nose down anymore. maybe it will work!
You should try making an MD-80!
DC-9 is my favorite plane.
Is it Possible that you can make a Stock Prop Bombardier Q400 Or ATR-72?
Its possible, check out the youtube channel Inter's Odessy
When I first looked at the wings, I was like surely their too small, I was obviously wrong.
THE SONG!!!!!!!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
What's the mod for mid-air quicksaves? It seems crazy useful!
mod? you can normally quicksave in the air
Is that new? It's been awhile since I've played, last time was when the new MK3 cockpit was added.
The engines are for b747 a380 etc.
What is they key you use to engage reverse thrust without right clicking in the engines? Im trying to find out how
Brave Heart Gaming action groups
In the top left of building screen yo press action groups button, press engine, select thrust reverser and map it to 1 or whatever number. In flight u press the number and it does that
Nice video, but you have to learn some landings😂👍👍👍nice video keep going dude
Some airbreaks might be useful to help landing ;)
5:16 Supersonic DC-9 mode: Activated.
can you build a stealth bomber b2 with bomb bay's?
How did you get a realy good building skills
Did you place the music deliberately for the final beat of "Hall of the Mountain King" to co-inside with the successful landing of the plane?
+Downunda Thunda yup
More a 717 cause the engines. I’d use the Juno jet engines with an edited thrust for it.
hey the landing gears are a little bit small
*Finishes Landing with a Tokyo Drift*
Can we get a MD-80 next
Put struts from the fuselage to the landing gear and voila.
its autostrutted
Please Build a E-42
David when your landing a plane make sure your speed is at 170-180 kt and when you are in line with the runway and on short final cut your engines and when at touch down reverse your engines and then boom you've landed :)
P.S this might take time.
+Jhantilloto yea ok, the gear are just super weak for the plane
alright alright yah, but make the gear bigger for a softer landing :)
+Jhantilloto the next bigger gear has 2 extra wheels
hmmm, ok, can you customize the wheels?
Please build a ATR 72
I have to say that he doesn't know the art of buttery.
please can you make stock f35?
You should try and build a C-130
Dude that looks like a private jet
plilots have a 1 out of 13 chance of survival in this plane
sometimes you need to butter the landing
and by butter the landing i mean do the smoothest landing
Can you please build a Airbus A380?
Well, just use autostrut and some strut to make it stronger
That thing is impossible to land
But flies great
Try building a Hondajet
The landing gear is too small. That’s why it kept crashing a lot.
the ending is DC in a nutshell
Please Make The Airbus Beluga
Craft to download ? 😉
Maybe the landing gear is too tiny and not strong enough
I would have solved that problem by adding more gears and clipping it inside the original one
rip
What he said plz make a concorde
ugh the FAT wings dont fit the MK3 fuselage they are too small
How many people died ?
Can you reproduct a Concorde ?
Sebastian Cosmatchi He did
The 70's yeah,I'v seen the video just after this one
Sebastian Cosmatchi oh
Nice planes nice pilot school BAD FLYING... •-•
Cmon, please make a beluga airbus!
+liam orr okay that might be my next vid
David Nielsen nice!
you know your supossed to put the wings to the back! like I mean where the engines(In front of engines)
jajajajajaajjajajajajajajajaaaaaajjjaajajajajajajajajaja i love this music (me encanta esta musica ) jajajajajajajajajajajajajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ja. god job ¡wow!
not bad but the engines can put back more and the wheels bigger more
larger landing gear needed
It's mated its
More like a 717 dont you think?
When you forget to autostrut
Buttern't
He finalyl lands it at 8:45 lmao
Good build tho
Why you don't do Boeing 797
Đảng Xuân Doesn't exist.
you came at full speed for landing so dont complaing
D_C 10 pls that one is hard to make
Make an Airbus a321
100% STOCK AIRBUS BELUGA SPEED BUILD IN KSP
video suner
But the number was 13 illuminati confirmed
I think too many knots at landing
You know why you keep crashing,because your wiggleing
The plane broke because you go too fast for a dirt runway.
Wait who also saw 4 nodes during building it?
Sans the skeleton nodes??
Do a A380 PLZ!!!!!!
Steven he did
thats a drunk plane you build
But seriously, why are all the parts on ksp so fragile?
Its like a fuel block is made of glass. And if you do a buttery landing, its like you hit the ground at around 2510 G’s
Idk maybe that's how ksp physics works
what game is this?
Gabe Swenson kerbal space program.
Gabe Swenson David is getting crazy now
Please don't judge me
Try and land smoothy
you know.. you could also just have chosen for one size bigger as rear landing gear (yes I know front landing gear is limited to this size to be able to use steering) but no.. you chose to try and land it a trillion zillion times XD
if that was me I wouldn't even have a quicksave anyway, because I always forget it XD
and second: I would've quit after trying 3 times XD then I will do something else. or play a different game LOL
+Phoenix Plays Games The larger landing gear has 2 extra wheels, and the dc9 doesn't
He's plane compared to mine he's is awesome I uploaded mine and my channel got taken down
7:21
…
It has too tiny of landing gear
dc 9 can go 200 meters per sec concord could go 605 seems legit
When you say stock do you mean the materials are stock
+Countrygamer25 yep, no mod parts or vehicle altering stuff
David Nielsen do you have x-plane 10