Rhomphaia

Sure you would, but then why would you be jumping into the Mk1, when the Mk4 is sitting right there. That's the Space Pen.

Actually just took it out for another spin, After a couple of mishaps, I managed to land it in one piece. A runway landing is going to be a real challenge though Edit: Damn, meant to edit

I can confirm that it flies. I don't have the skill to land it though. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/49328-BSC-(Better-Stock-Crafts)-Aeris-3a-Yet-another-winner!

Since My opinions on the FRAK-1 and the Ravenspear Mk1 Ultra are pretty much the same as Xeldraks and the space pen analogy is far better than anything I could come up with that's 2 less reviews for me to write up. Obviously any review I wrote of the Eaglehammer would be too biased, so that just leaves the C-7B and the Ravenspear Mk1 Improved 07. And it is pretty close between them. On the builds: both have description text which also lays out the action groups; both have a working ladder, and both are visually in keeping with the tone of the challenge and both look good. (The Su-47 look has really grown on me, sorry I called the Beta jet ugly) Both designs showed nice examples of using rotated parts in innovative ways, and both designs had one feature that might be a bit advanced for the challenge. While Giggleplexs intake design has already been noted, I personally feel that the same could be said of Splodens internally run fuel lines. Since neither technique requires debug clipping nor results in a significant performance gain (the rear facing intakes are practically useless, and Splodens CoM wouldn't actually ever shift behind the CoL even without those fuel lines. Plus the fact that the adapter tanks don't actually fit together properly means that they are not completely invisible) I let both slide. In flight I personally would have liked a jet that would take a snap at me if I pushed it too hard in maneuvers, but not bite my head of like the original would. Neither of these seem inclined to even take a nibble though. The pitch on the Improved 07 did feel a little sluggish to me. At altitude the greater available intake ratio on the Improved 07 gives it an advantage, though the C-7Bs ability to fly on a single engine is outstanding, perhaps a little overkill for the challenge? An asymmetric flame-out should probably be a bad thing. All in all the C-7B was the one I had the most fun flying, the one I had the most fun taking apart to see how it was built and therefor, the one that gets my vote.

Made the final:cool: @ Ampsterman - Pretty sure you can, though you did miss the primaries. There were a lot more votes than entries and the OP does mention just voting.

Any comments on mine?

But I got a slightly better result with them open than when I removed them altogether. So it's not just the drag, but still less than a radial would give. And most probably not enough that a human controling the throttle could take advantage of it.

Yep, Should save me having to pull off engines and replace them with structural parts of the same mass on more complicated designs that throw mechjebs calculations off.

You can also remove the front wheels from the Brakes action group.

3 debris - 3 launch clamps on the pad. 17 Kerbals on assignment 86 screenshots

Ladders don't have physics significance. No point not to use them unless you count the minor part count advantage.

Don't know what is causing your problem, I can get 4 of them on an orange tank with a cupola and a large diameter battery off the runway just fine at top speed of 13m/s or so. No struts required Getting back up is a bit more of a problem. Works fine at 10m/s, any higher though and they will fall off.

Next one will probably be a VAB challenge. Orbiter 1A, Z-MAP satellite Launch Kit and Two-Stage Lander have already been done. ----- Xeldrak - Just noticed that the first link to the challenge guidelines in the OP and the one in your signature is broken, the second link is ok though.

there is one in most cockpit views, it's analogue though.

I wouldn't say no function, the improvement they give is pretty minor though. I did some testing and it seems that the rear facing intakes on the C-7B get out performed by radial intakes somewhere around the 13km mark For a further test I used mechjeb to maintain a 45degree climb straight off the runway and to prevent jet flameout. tried this 3 times with all intakes open and noted the apoapsis and max speed achieved. Results were consistent to 100m and 1m/s at 88.4km apoapsis and 1263m/s top speed. I repeated the trial 3 times with the rear facing intakes closed. again consistent results; apoapsis 86.0km, top speed 1246m/s Removing the rear intakes altogether got me 86.5km and 1249m/s Replacing them with radial intakes showed a significant increase at 99.6km, 1333m/s Edit: Also... I have a vote!

When considering how to vote I first looked at each craft in the Hanger, considering the following. Does it fit the challenge? both in looks and in engineering. is it too over engineered to be a stock craft? Does it use any techniques in the build that can be learned from? If part clipping is used, it should be easy to understand and replicate Does it have a description? Next up were the flight tests. First I flew a short jaunt around the space center followed by a runway landing with a mostly full fuel load to test the basic handling. Then I set off on the speed and altitude trials, trying out some maneuvers at high speed and altitudes and testing the flameout behavior. Lastly the low fuel flying, tested them out as fuel was depleted, followed by a dead stick landing when it was all gone. Ideally I felt a plane should be able to do it all in one flight. If there were catastrophic failures or too little fuel I would need more flights. Too much fuel and I would have to drain off fuel by sitting on the ground with the the brakes on, intakes closed and the throttle open at 4x physics warp until the fuel was down. I was hoping to post a brief comment on all the entries, but I think I will save a more detailed comment for the finalists instead. My vote goes to Giggleplex777 for the C-7B The looks fit well with the challenge, the description is good, the wing and control surface placement is a good example of building techniques without going overboard. On the intake stacking: while I personally don't like it, in this case neither the size of the stacks or the ratio they achieved was excessive so I let it slide, counting it as an example of the technique. Fuel load felt just right to me. and in flight my only complaint is that it may be a little too flyable.

Made some revisions to my design, New .craft and images in my original post. Not sure that another plane would be best for the next challenge, mixing it up between the VAB and SPH regularly would be better.

Presenting the Eaglehammer Mk2 .craft file

I have done a few IVA mun landings, but never the entire mission, only the final descent.

Couldn't look at your .craft since I don't have the required mods. But from looking at your picture I am guessing that you have used an octagonal strut as a spacer between the command pod and the docking port. There is a known problem that occurs when you have those or the cubic octagonals between docking ports and command pods (the cubics are usually the cause of people reporting problems with clipping since they are commonly used clipped in to provide lightweight radial attachment points.). The simplest solution would be to either use the 1 man lander can instead of the command pod and attach the docking port directly, or to use the Octo or Hex probe and have that as the spacer.

Congrats on the win, I'm liking the 3b a lot And thanks for the review. Taking your suggestions on board I replaced the forward winglets with slightly angled delta deluxes. This both reduces the wheelbarrowing and also, in combination with the repositioned rear elevators, reduces the roll authority without compromising the pitch too much. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much I can do about the parachute. the connections on the Mk2 cockpit don't seem to be very strong, and even with every part of the plane stitched together with struts the Mk1 cockpit pops off like a champagne cork if you open the parachutes low and fast. In the old version it still had winglets attached and I did once glide it to a safe splashdown on a test. the new versions winglets attach to the rear cockpit now though Further development of the T has been shelved as the Eaglehammer - X Prototype is now in early testing, so bring on the BSC Aeris 4a challenge.

Is this what you are looking for?

For the finalists, I felt that AmpsterMan and Brobels designs were too large for the challenge, plus the X-2 swift had the whole exploding deal counting against it. Mulbins design looked great but the part clipping is a bit too advanced for a replacement stock craft; also the tail strike hazard and the fact that pitching up before you reach take off speeds causes the control surface to block the jet exhaust, puts it out of the running. Between Xeldrax and Antbin there was not much in it in flight. In design both had made interesting choices with the CR Molochs reversed wings and the adapter on the To Aeris Kerbal 3a. Unlike some other voters I actually like the way that looks, and I feel Antbins design looks slightly better though still not much in it. The parachute and description on the To Aeris Kerbal 3a are the things that set it apart and so once again it gets my vote. Although I didn't manage to come up with anything in time, after shamelessly ri... I mean... drawing inspiration from many of the entries, I would like to show my own take on it. Download I've been really impressed by the quality of the Voting stage of this challenge and would be grateful if anyone would take the time to offer a critique of this build.

Since I wasn't entering this one I decided to devote my time to coming up with a scoring system and test out all the entries to see which one would get my vote I scored each entry in three categories. Aesthetics Points awarded for how much I liked the look of the craft and also for how well I felt it fit the design aesthetic for replacing the Aeris 3A as "a small and nimble one-seater plane, mostly used as a training craft for fixed-wing flight, and to annoy ground staff by 'buzzing' the space center facilities. " Flight The main part of the scoring. Since I have very little experience with planes my scores are entirely subjective and may not reflect the performance in the hands of an accomplished pilot, but since this is meant to be a training craft, that is probably alright. First off I tested take-off, how well it performed using several take-off procedures both with and without SAS. Second I tested how it would handle level flight and various maneuvers; both with and without SAS and with and without fine controls. Third was landing, tried landing each plane over a small range of different vertical and surface speed to see what would explode. Additional features Extra points awarded for things like usable ladders to allow reentry after EVA, Emergency systems (tested under several conditions), Having a description, etc. Adding up all the scores I arrived at the results 26. X-2 Swift: Disqualified for sometimes exploding the instant it loads 25. Better Aeris 3a: 0 points. 24. Double Delta III: 19 Points. 23. A3.1 trainer: 20 points. 22. TR-32_BULLFROGNO: 21 Points. 20. EEA2-F Mayfly: 23 points. 20. Jet 03: 23 points. 19. Aeri 2 aka turkey buzzard mk2: 25 points. 17. 04 - KP Fly v1.2: 26 points. 17. Novaworks SlowSafe Mk1 aka Functional Plane Mk1: 26 Points. 15. Gullplane Doublegull: 27 points. 15. D-2 Wyvvern: 27 Points. 14. Ares 3B: 28 points. 13. BSC Sprite: 29 points. 12. Kerbalicious Mk1: 31 points. 11. A.S.S-10: 33 points. 10. The Mitchells: 34 Points. 9. The Batman: 35 Points. 8. KGBureau B: 36 Points. 6. SR-2 "Ranger": 38 Points. 6. CR Moloch: 38 points. 4. Beta Jet: 39 points. 4. Bumblebee: 39 points. 3. T6e Peregrine: 40 Points. 1. Aeris 3A improved 03: 41 points. 1. To Aeris Kerbal 3a: 41 Points. So after all that a tie. Not much between these two an any category, for aesthetics I felt Splodens design fit the concept slightly better while Antbins was prettier. For flight Splodens edged it in the take-off with a shorter distance. Also in the maneuvers where I felt Antbins was a bit slow on the pitch and a bit twitchy on roll without SAS or fine controls. Those points were made up by the features where in adition to a working ladder there was a very secure parachute system and an original description. In the end I decided to vote for Antbins To Aeris Kerbal 3a Partly because I realized I had never tested the craft without reaction wheels, so that little solar panel may have been important, also because I had probably been a little stingy due to staging and action group issues (I like my "make rocket go now" button and the ladder in the brake group was a bit odd). Honorable mentions The Jet 03: On looks alone this was my favorite both personally and as fitting for the challenge. The Beta Jet: It might be ugly(imo) but boy can it fly. The Better Aeris 3a: Very difficult to get off the ground but can be flown if you manage, Not sure if it can be landed intact though, the pilot survived my attempts at least.

Well, you were in time, but your edit still has 2 back wheels.