Doke

The cockpit is actually a command seat on top of a structural tube, with four B9 proc wing pieces providing the structural panels around the pilot. That way there's no clipping involved. I'll put up the craft file later when I have a moment.

Aaagh, that was close! I had a feeling I was going to lose to the Skyrebal. Although, actually, I think it was a lack of accuracy more than anything else that did the Kite in. I never was able to perfect its shooting. Ah, well. At least my Kites put up a fight. [edit] As for picking a winner... I think it's too close to call. I think all the planes that have made it this far are really excellent from a technical perspective, and there are just too many variables to consider. I will say that the Tytonid's accuracy is truly terrifying, but the others aren't far off.

Some kind of space fighter challenge does sound like fun, with or without an AI combat element, so I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the BD AI can handle space combat. It won't fly properly, and no weapons except lasers will target properly. Perhaps you could run the challenge in atmosphere, but make space capability a requirement or something?

MOAR POWER actually was the primary consideration for me, but I was also concerned with drag and weight distribution. A longer engine cowling worked really well with my design. I'm interested in the different philosophies that informed people's designs, though. I went with a sort of 'energy-maneuverability' design philosophy, which is why power/weight was so important to me (you can also see it in other details on the Kite, like the elliptical wings, relatively high aspect ratio, and extreme efforts at weight reduction). Other people seem to have emphasised wing loading, or top speed, or what-have-you.

Interesting fights! I'm not looking forward to facing the Skyrebal in round 2. Accuracy vs. agility was a constant concern for me. I very nearly went with 2x30mm for the Kite, since I found a setup (more by accident than design) that made it really good at deflection shooting with those guns, but the added weight of the guns and ammo and the reduced control deflection needed to get that level of accuracy put the plane at a slight disadvantage versus the more lightly armed version.

I think this is a great idea.

This is fair. My plane has some (very slight) automatic leading edge flap action, partly because I was afraid I would need it to be competitive, but I'd be happy to do without next time if everyone else does. Maybe the AI will one day be able to manually deploy flaps. Me too!

Submitted!

You mean the crash? That's odd. I have noticed that I have to set a higher minimum alt since the latest BDA patch due to a lot more ground collisions, but I'm not sure of the cause. Does changing the altitude settings help?

Don't be discouraged! Making planes is hard, but I'm sure people will be happy to give you advice. Anyway, it doesn't have to be the best plane. The point is to have fun.

The problem with a 'Darwin fighter' is that there's no way of controlling for AI and control deflection. I find that every plane needs different AI and control settings, and small changes to either can make a big difference to performance.

Some pictures:

I've got a few screenies of various designs I'll share when I have a moment. Most of them are much more conventional than what others have been showing, but oh well. Till then, I have a serious question: I understand (more or less) the purpose of an elliptical wing, but what's the point of the 'reverse elliptical' wings you see on some prop aircraft? I'm thinking especially of Soviet fighters, particularly the Yak-3, where the wing taper actually decreases toward the tip. I remember reading once, long ago, that there was a specific aerodynamic reason for this configuration, but I can't for the life of me recall what it was.

@ferram4 Sounds great! It seems like people are going for a wide mix of designs, anyway. I see turnfighters, low-drag energy fighters, weird speed demons, and all kinds of stuff. @TangerineSedge That thing is a beast. How fast is it?

Fair enough. FAR's readout gives my plane 1-2 hours at full power with 20 units, but it might of course be wrong. Fuel is a relatively small weight on these planes, anyway (compared to afterburning jets). I really like this design. Reminds me of something from Crimson Skies. Nifty. What's that thing behind the pilot?

Since my Pfeil replica attempt is better suited to boom and zoom tactics, I settled on a light fighter design. Something of a jack of all trades; I wanted agility but also performance. The result looks a bit like a mix of a Ki-61, MiG-3 and Hawker Tempest. Not coincidentally, three of my favorite planes. I really like the flying wing design. You might have too much fuel, though. Even twenty units can last an hour, I think.

I was toying with the idea of using a pair of 23mm cannons, but your Kerbals need pretty good marksmanship for it to worthwhile. I'm still experimenting, but I think I'll go with 2-4 guns in the 12.7-20mm range. Enough oomph to bring an enemy down with one good burst, but without adding excessive weight or points cost. I'm also thinking that ballistics and rate of fire are really important.

@Pds314 That's a nice aspect ratio you have there. Also an impressive fuselage. Do you have an analogue controller lying around? I find its much easier to test FAR designs with a gamepad, because you can make much gentler motions and get a feel for where your plane's limits are. Then you just need to adjust control authority to the 'safe' zone. Without a pad or joystick, it may just require trial and error (though I believe there is an analogue mouse mod). Bear in mind also that the AI will sometimes find ways to stall planes you thought unstallable, so it can pay to err on the side of caution when setting pitch authority. Regarding design itself, there's a lot that can go wrong. I'm sure others here understand these things better than I do, but I'd say the first thing to do is check the FAR statistics and make sure nothing is red. Some of the stats are pretty arcane, but Pitch stability is especially important and mostly to do with the old CoM/CoL stuff that I'm sure you're familiar with. Another common problem is lack of yaw stability, which is fixed by making vertical stabilisers bigger and/or further back. In other news, here's Billy-Bobnam enjoying some fresh transonic air:

Sorry, my previous post wasn't clear. I meant more along the lines of visibility, i.e. your solar panel example. How do you feel about e.g. a blue nosecone for a windscreen, or is that pushing it? What's the verdict on service bays? Sorry for all the questions, but I want to make sure I don't do something illegal. When I'm building, I become a little obsessed with reducing weight and drag.

That's extremely light. Sounds like you're using a command chair instead of a cockpit. I might have to try that. That reminds me: what are the rules re: Kerbals being able to see? If I make a 'fake' cockpit around my command chair, is that legal?

I'm definitely in. Currently trying to decide between my light and heavy designs. Not very. What I left out of my previous question about ShKAS guns was that I was using them as backups for a pair of 23mm cannons. It's all moot, though, because the AI never used the cannons. It might depend on your particular gun setup; I haven't tested.

Noooooooo! Fair enough, though. They weighed too much anyway.

Small question: "Weapons cost their caliber in millimeters" excludes decimals, right? I'm trying to work out how many ShKAS I can cram into my plane.

Thanks, that's fixed it.