You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
They have only the wing mass that exists whether or not there is a tank, rather than the various procedural tanks which have a variety of extra dry mass cost. For conventional structure even the top end unpressurized tanks have worse (~10x) dry mass than a 1x1x1 cube with minimum strength, and pressurized tanks are even worse since the wing's tank mass is still 0 (if it can fit your fuels, since the tanks available are more limited). Even with a reasonable strength number they're competitive with the top end conventional tanks if you don't need them to be in a fairing or already have one. For extra silliness they're also cheaper and don't take tooling in RP-1.
For rockets it's easy enough to just ignore it and not use them, but when making rocket planes it would be nice to have less cheesy numbers when using them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
They have only the wing mass that exists whether or not there is a tank, rather than the various procedural tanks which have a variety of extra dry mass cost. For conventional structure even the top end unpressurized tanks have worse (~10x) dry mass than a 1x1x1 cube with minimum strength, and pressurized tanks are even worse since the wing's tank mass is still 0 (if it can fit your fuels, since the tanks available are more limited). Even with a reasonable strength number they're competitive with the top end conventional tanks if you don't need them to be in a fairing or already have one. For extra silliness they're also cheaper and don't take tooling in RP-1.
For rockets it's easy enough to just ignore it and not use them, but when making rocket planes it would be nice to have less cheesy numbers when using them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: