The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[Doke]

I've always preferred the 109. Better yet, a Lavochkin.

[CrisK]

I've been working on a little visual mod pack for those of us who want to keep a low memory footprint. In the mean time, I've been flying the 5th gen planes through clouds.

Clouds, light scattering, and distant object enhancement make dogfights a lot more challenging and fun. Climbing up through the cloud layer is a great way to escape, and it feels thrilling to dive down through the clouds onto an unsuspecting enemy drone.

Edited September 30, 2015 by CrisK

[Littlerift]

Climbrate > Speed and Dive speed >> Turn time.

TLDR: I'll never get why there are people out there who like the Spitfire better than 109s (past the F-4 at least, and may need to leave the griffon spits out of that).

Well the Spitfires for the most part had a superior rate of climb to contemporary Bf 109, were only slightly slower in level flight and while they had a lower VNE in a dive they accelerated in those dives faster due to having a higher power/weight - which negated the possibility of Bf 109s escaping. When you look at the later models of both aircraft the Spitfire begins to clearly overtake the Bf 109. The simple problem the Luftwaffe faced with the Bf 109 was that its design had less longevity, and less relevance as time went on. Part of this is due to the fact that the demands of the Luftwaffe were far too eclectic - they were pouring money into modifying the Bf 109, modifying the Fw 190 (which was planned to become the mainstay fighter simply because the initial design was far superior to that of the Bf 109), designing successors to the Bf 109, developing jets, developing ultra-long-range bombers. The late Bf 109s rather got left by the wayside, given marginal engine improvements and equipped with ordnance that was really only fit for taking down B-17s and B-29s.

Whereas, the air force, and even navy, of Britain was spending almost all of its money on the Spitfires. The Typhoons and Tempests were very capable and so weren't modified too much, and the same goes for almost all of the bombers used. Britain adopted a "it'll do" attitude with regards to the majority of its air forces except for the Spitfire. Further, money was saved to a great degree by the RAFs initial disapproval of Whittle's jet concept, which led to Whittle developing the jet almost independently without funding from the government until the design was almost completed. Germay, on the other hand, spent vast amounts of government money on developing jet aircraft, and ultimately produced a plane (the Me 262) that frankly wasn't very fit for jet combat.

All of these factors meant that the Spitfire saw much more development time and money than the Bf 109, which ultimately meant that the Spitfire ended up eclipsing the Bf 109 in most performance parameters.

That's, why people prefer the Spitfire. Not to mention the fact that the Griffon-engined Spitfires with bubble canopies (from the XIV onward) are the most beautiful machines mankind has ever produced.

[FourGreenFields]

Well the Spitfires for the most part had a superior rate of climb to contemporary Bf 109, were only slightly slower in level flight and while they had a lower VNE in a dive they accelerated in those dives faster due to having a higher power/weight - which negated the possibility of Bf 109s escaping.

As said, I partially limited it to F-4 and later, vs pre-griffon spits. <3 G-2

Also, with the Spits having high aileron stiffness at high speeds, the 109 could roll away in a dive (no warranty, and only below about 700km/h)

When you look at the later models of both aircraft the Spitfire begins to clearly overtake the Bf 109. The simple problem the Luftwaffe faced with the Bf 109 was that its design had less longevity, and less relevance as time went on. Part of this is due to the fact that the demands of the Luftwaffe were far too eclectic - they were pouring money into modifying the Bf 109, modifying the Fw 190 (which was planned to become the mainstay fighter simply because the initial design was far superior to that of the Bf 109), designing successors to the Bf 109, developing jets, developing ultra-long-range bombers. The late Bf 109s rather got left by the wayside, given marginal engine improvements and equipped with ordnance that was really only fit for taking down B-17s and B-29s.

[...]

All of these factors meant that the Spitfire saw much more development time and money than the Bf 109, which ultimately meant that the Spitfire ended up eclipsing the Bf 109 in most performance parameters.

Germany had to modify it's planes for bomber hunting. Without the heavy armor and armament the 109s would definitly have had better performance. If either the 109 wouldn't have had that problem, or the spit'd have been modified for bomber-hunting as well, the 109'd have been better.

Same for the 262. A plane with 4 low-muzzle-velocity bad-[censored] cannons isn't meant to fight jets (not to mention that the 262 never faced any enemy jets anyway afaIk - Meteors were only used above Britain).

And no, the 109 G-2 is prettier.

[Aerolfos]

Quick question, are the engines from BD Dynamics allowed? The high gimbal ones. I made an air superiority for myself, want to see if it flies with FAR and some modifications to fit as a 5th gen fighter.

[NotAnAimbot]

I've always preferred the 109. Better yet, a Lavochkin.

Fw-190 please.

[TheHengeProphet]

Quick question, are the engines from BD Dynamics allowed? The high gimbal ones. I made an air superiority for myself, want to see if it flies with FAR and some modifications to fit as a 5th gen fighter.

Sadly, no, but theoretically 1.1 is dropping soon.

[CrisK]

I was inspired by @Thingymajigy's Pak FA, so I created a version based on his design:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Supermaneuverable, etc. etc. just like the others.

[Aerolfos]

Sadly, no, but theoretically 1.1 is dropping soon.

OK new design it is. I anyway need a completely different install, this one is beyond broken and crashy. I hate the RAM limit...

[MatterBeam]

Hi!

I've created a few jet fighters in Algerian AeroSpace program, but that is with Advanced Jet Engine and Real Fuels.

Which AJE engine closest corresponds to the stock wheesley?

What is your stance on the use of Kerosene instead of LiquidFuel?

[Hodo]

Hi!

I've created a few jet fighters in Algerian AeroSpace program, but that is with Advanced Jet Engine and Real Fuels.

Which AJE engine closest corresponds to the stock wheesley?

What is your stance on the use of Kerosene instead of LiquidFuel?

I dont think there is an AJE engine that is close to the wheesley.

But my take is kerosene using AJE engines is a fair bit more challenging because of the realistic fuel consumption rates. Along with the turbine temp ranges. I have mad respect for anyone that can get a fighter using AJE sustained mach 2.5.

[MatterBeam]

I dont think there is an AJE engine that is close to the wheesley.

But my take is kerosene using AJE engines is a fair bit more challenging because of the realistic fuel consumption rates. Along with the turbine temp ranges. I have mad respect for anyone that can get a fighter using AJE sustained mach 2.5.

If you don't mind, I'll submit a design soon (...) using AJE and the real-world F-15 and F-16 Pratt and Whitney F100 engine.

@title = F100-PW-229 turbofan
    @manufacturer = Pratt & Whitney
    @mass = 1.7
    @description = Pratt and Whitney F100 low-bypass turbofan with afterburner, used by F-15E/I/S and F-16C/D. Powered by NASA EngineSim. 129.4 kN wet, 79.2 kN dry. SFC 0.74/2.05 lb/lbf-hr static. Temperature limit Mach 2.85.

[Halsfury]

Wow my challenge got posts up until the 28th and that was 2 months of neglect!

I'll be back soon, with new rules reflecting the changes with 1.05

[Doke]

How is everyone finding the new engines? The geometry is completely different and I'm finding that it messes with earlier designs. My 1.05 Skua now has a wave drag of at least 1.7-2.0, up from 0.45; combine that with CoM/CoL changes and I might have to rebuild it completely.

[TheHengeProphet]

I'm actually having a lot of problems with FAR placing my center of lift ridiculously far forward, and I can't figure out why it's doing it, but I'm just sure I'm doing something wrong...

[Hodo]

I'm actually having a lot of problems with FAR placing my center of lift ridiculously far forward, and I can't figure out why it's doing it, but I'm just sure I'm doing something wrong...

Are you using 1.0.5 or still using 1.0.4?

And what does the craft look like?

[Doke]

I'm actually having a lot of problems with FAR placing my center of lift ridiculously far forward, and I can't figure out why it's doing it, but I'm just sure I'm doing something wrong...

I'm actually having the same problem with my existing designs. Not sure if it's FAR or changes made to the stock parts.

[tetryds]

I'm actually having a lot of problems with FAR placing my center of lift ridiculously far forward, and I can't figure out why it's doing it, but I'm just sure I'm doing something wrong...

I am this close to suggesting the "center of lift" indicator to be removed on FAR.

But then we would get reports that it is not working.

[Doke]

I take it back; the CoL didn't shift at all. I was confused by something else. However, I have noticed some other changes. Intakes seem to have a different effect on aerodynamics now.

[Van Disaster]

The first-load CoL ball position is bust at the moment, so I'd always check Mw & hope it's not suffering from the random "oops my derivatives are all wrong" bug itself. Wave drag is considerably affected by intakes also - the engine changes wrecked one of my challenge craft ( the other FAR fighter one, not this one ) thanks to massively more thrust, but it's wave drag went down.

Not that we care much about wave drag over there given there's a 400m/s limit...

[Halsfury]

So far the only thing I've found with 1.05 is that the new KS-25 engine makes building 2nd and 3rd stage engine clusters easy, also that it doesn't make space shuttles "easy" to build.

I've yet to try FAR, still getting used to the new parts, and trying to build a stock shuttle clone

[CrisK]

Here's a design that wasn't possible pre-1.05. A Boeing Bird of Prey semi-replica.

Stable at AoA turns up to 23 degrees with no vertical stabilizer. Not supermaneuverable.

I've also updated my flanker, fulcrum, and two USAF style designs. I'll post the craft files tomorrow. The USAF designs are stable at AoAs of 65+.

Edited November 12, 2015 by CrisK
Added the gallery to a post below.

[TheHengeProphet]

@CrisK That's awesome! I thought about making a plane which largely uses the thrust vectoring for yaw stability, but looks like I was beaten to it!

True that the CoL indicator is broken, but I've just been having a lot of problems where now my planes are no longer stable, so I'm going to wait a bit for any patchwork to happen.

I know ferram4 does not like the CoL indicator, but trying to recalculate the stability derivatives after every minor adjustment is a nightmare. The indicator used to be great for getting a ballpark estimate allowing for further adjustment from there.

There are more issues I have with 1.0.5, as well. The panther, for example, is a nightmare on single-engine designs, seeing as it forces full yaw on attempted roll maneuvers if the engine is even remotely out of line with the center of mass. Yes, I can disable gimbal, but that kind of defeats the point of the engine.

Edited November 12, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[CrisK]

I updated my designs for 1.05. I also made the new Bird of Prey supermaneuverable (to an AoA of around ~25, not as good as the more stable designs).

CrisK Flanker 1.05

Stable up to an AoA of ~80*. Supermaneuverable. Recovers within seconds of a full stall using the afterburner. This allows it to perform stall maneuvers similar to the SU-27 variants. Able to do verticle climbs. Supercruises. Very easy to fly, very forgiving. Mods: B9 Procedural Wings, Adjustable Landing Gear, BDArmory.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

CriSK S-USAF

Supermaneuverable. Stable up to an AoA of ~65*, recovers immediately from a full stall. Can perform stall maneuvers. Slightly more challenging to fly, but still relatively easy. Able to perform vertical climbs. Supercruises.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

CrisK E-USAF

Larger F-22 style plane. Supermaneuverable. Probably the most stable unstable aircraft I've designed. Stable until an AOA of 75* with armament and drop tank. Much higher performance without the drop tank or missiles. Vertical climb. Supercruises. This is probably my favorite design simply because it can perform any stunt that I attempt, so it has the fun factor.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

CrisK Bird of Prey

I tweaked this fellow a lot this morning. It's now highly maneuverable sub-sonic. AOA of 25*. Capable of vertical climb. Now stable while supercruising. Highly stable sub-sonic. No yaw problems (unless fully stalled, but that's not possible while the afterburner is on). It's actually a really decent fighter. Its numbers are similar to the real-world F-16, which I would have thought impossible given the limited yaw stability. It makes me wonder what would have happened if the Navy had commissioned Boeing's Bird of Prey instead of turning it into the unmanned X-45.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I haven't had time to update the Fulcrum, Trainer, PAK FA, X-32, Rafale, or YF-23. I may abandon them.

Edited November 12, 2015 by CrisK

[Van Disaster]

@CrisK That's awesome! I thought about making a plane which largely uses the thrust vectoring for yaw stability, but looks like I was beaten to it!

You can do it with yaw brakes too, so tailless craft have been possible for quite a while. Never have been terribly fond of thrust vectoring engines without some further mod to restrain them; it'd be helpful if the vectoring gimbal counted as control surfaces, then the other surface mods could work on them.

All you need for a controllable aircraft in current FAR is a wing: