Halsfury

The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CrisK said:

FourGreenFields, I think that's pretty good for a flying wing. It's better than the real X-47B. I can't get that wing shape to fly well at all.

The thing is that the Cd is lower though - despite the plane generating way more drag. Not quite sure if I'm just missing something (weight calculated into Cd or something), or whether it's a bug I should report.

 

EDIT: Ok, Ferram answered me and said it makes sense. Allthough the stuff he said is currently "black magic" to me.

 

EDIT2: Well, looks like she'd even be able to beat the challenge.

8oHSTnz.jpg

If someone wants the craft file to work on it, I'll upload. But performance is too bad imo (wings too big - can take off at 45m/s, which is a bit overkill)

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.2.2016 at 7:29 PM, CrisK said:

FourGreenFields, I think that's pretty good for a flying wing.

Mach 1.4 good for a flying wing™

Just messed a bit with artificial stability... Doesn't seem like flying wings are slower than normal planes.

7h2ERoQ.jpg

Next step is designing a flying wing for high speed ;)

 

EDIT: Either way, she passes the challenge.

Has some issues with yaw stability at high speed without gimbal/thrust. Supermanoeuvreability somewhat limited - cobras-only because the yaw assist will make it yaw prograde when flying backwards.

Craft file

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated my fighters today for the latest version of BDArmory. A lot has changed since this thread started!

I no longer use infernal robotics since BahamutoD created a missile rack. I've also cut down on related mods, and changed the way that I shape wings to work with FAR's new calculations.

Here's my Lockheed Martin F-X design. Internal weapons, supermaneuverable, supercruises, the works. It's also built to scale, so it's larger than most KSP planes. LM borrowed the V tail and shielded engine design from Northrop. Ideally I'd have V-shaped intakes on the side.

Lockheed F-23. I rebuilt this one using MK2 parts and built it to scale. The original used procedural parts. Supermaneuverable, supercruises, slightly heavier due to the empty weight of the mk2 parts and the huge wings. I think this would have been an amazing air superiority fighter if the air force had just given it a chance. C'est la vie.

 

 

Mikoyan MiG-35. This is Mikoyan's attempt to stay relevant in a 5th generation world that's about to move on to the 6th generation. It's a MiG-29 with the best electroincs that Mikoyan and Sukhoi have available. Its reedeeming value is that it's inexpensive at less than half the price of a western fighter, and it can operate from carriers. Its downside is that it has no stealth, no sensor fusion, comparatively limited maneuverability, and a poor reliability record. But it looks cool!

 

Boeing's F/A-XX design has changed a couple of times. I'd say they have a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning the F/A-XX contract over Northrop or Lockheed, but at least they're trying! This semi-flying-wing design is supermaneuverable, highly stable, and sports 6 internal missiles.

Here's the painted black version I posted a couple of pages ago. Here's one painted in the grey that Boeing uses:

 

Finally, my favorite, the Northrop Grumman FA-XX design. I think that this has the best chance of being selected by the navy for the FA-XX program, but less of a chance of being selected for the air force's F-X program. My replica's not perfect: I added tail feathers underneath the engine, whereas the original design has a perfectly flat underside. I tried to use a flat design, but I wasn't able to without resizing the panther engines so I compromised.

Highly maneuverable, but not supermaneuverable. 4 internal missiles. Arguably the stealthiest design, and the by far the most ambitious. It'd be awesome to see a flying wing fighter in service.

This design is very difficult to build in KSP with FAR because of the high sweep, high wing loading, and general flying wing instability.

 

The V-tailed fighters are the easiest to fly and most fun to dogfight in. The Boeing design is competitive with them. The MiG and Grumman are simply not as good in a dogfight with the AI piloting. The Grumman can be competitive if piloted by a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20. únor 2016 at 6:31 PM, CrisK said:

I updated my fighters today for the latest version of BDArmory. A lot has changed since this thread started!

[snip]

Your Mig is incredible, I use it to test my fighters in dogfights. I tried your other planes you uploaded to KerbalX but I find they usually don't survive full turns at high speeds and get torn apart by FAR.

My replica of F-22, as unoriginal as it is, is virtually aerodynamically indestructible under 500-600 m/s and has a great maneuverability to the point that it once lost two of its four rear control surfaces to your Mig and still managed to outmaneuver it and shoot it down with its cannons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theend3r said:

Your Mig is incredible, I use it to test my fighters in dogfights. I tried your other planes you uploaded to KerbalX but I find they usually don't survive full turns at high speeds and get torn apart by FAR.

My replica of F-22, as unoriginal as it is, is virtually aerodynamically indestructible under 500-600 m/s and has a great maneuverability to the point that it once lost two of its four rear control surfaces to your Mig and still managed to outmaneuver it and shoot it down with its cannons.

Cool plane. :cool:

BDArmory's AI struggles to fly any supermaneuverable plane. The supermaneuverable planes in this thread should lose to your F-22.

You can mitigate this by using the latest version of BDArmory. Use the AI interface to limit each plane's AoA to 25, and G to 12g or 15g. Set minimum combat speed to the maximum. Set minimum idle speed to the maximum. If you do that, all the supermaneuverable planes in the thread become incredibly deadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CrisK said:

Cool plane. :cool:

BDArmory's AI struggles to fly any supermaneuverable plane. The supermaneuverable planes in this thread should lose to your F-22.

You can mitigate this by using the latest version of BDArmory. Use the AI interface to limit each plane's AoA to 25, and G to 12g or 15g. Set minimum combat speed to the maximum. Set minimum idle speed to the maximum. If you do that, all the supermaneuverable planes in the thread become incredibly deadly.

I know, I have it set up like that already. Tried going against two Migs at once and got ripped apart by their cannons when I couldn't shake one off. BahamutoD is a genius. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the "fast flying wing":

KjG0tDC.jpg

 

Tbh though, it sucks. To reach Mach 3 I had to let it nose down a little (less than 1G), the Mk 1 fuel tank fails when pulling hard (limiting it to guestimated 6G down low, not tested at alt), and it's just a pain and nothing but a record plane (allthough equiped for the challenge, with only 2 missile racks). Might base a future entry for this challenge on it though.

Will upload if someone wants it.

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RK-7 "VIPER"

THE VIPER VARIANT OF MY RK-7 FIGHTER WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS COMPETITION BASED ON MY PREVIOUS KNOWN RK-7 CONCEPT, WITH MINOR CHANGES:

It meets, and exceeds all specifications given to us in the rules.

(Missiles and countermeasures do not effect flight performance but 0.0004 of a mach speed when loaded, or unloaded.)

-Top speed below 5k:

Afterburning: 2.114M

Non-afterburning: 1.377M

-Top Speed above 10k:

Afterburning: 2.834M

Non-afterburning: 2.064M

-Missiles

6 aim-9 air to air missiles, with 1 second drop times to ensure the missiles do not collide during any kind of maneuver

-G-Forces:

Rated for 16G's at any altitude, and below mach 1

Rated at 12G's at any altitude, and above mach 1-2

Rated at 11G's at mach 2+

No more than 9 G's at mach 3 (High alt dive speed)

-Countermeasures:

Two of each countermeasures needed was added, besides the smoke, one is underneath the rear of the fuselage.

-Extra:

Custom cockpit

Ejection seat

Supermaneuverability

Toggleable thrust vectoring

Airbreak

Custom dashboard

Easy handling

-Mods:

FAR

BDarmory

Edited by He_162

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Sorry I haven't been active here lately, everything seems to be running fine without my intervention though.

 

My Mac proved allergic to Unity 5 and since that point I haven't been able to play the latest version. I'm looking into it again after getting KSP to work on Win 10 but I'm probably only going to be able to come back after version 1.1.3 becomes active

 

Nice craft He 162

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Halsfury said:

Hi, Sorry I haven't been active here lately, everything seems to be running fine without my intervention though.

 

My Mac proved allergic to Unity 5 and since that point I haven't been able to play the latest version. I'm looking into it again after getting KSP to work on Win 10 but I'm probably only going to be able to come back after version 1.1.3 becomes active

 

Nice craft He 162

Thanks! I like it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my take at this:

KZu0OHV.png

Not jet armed but nearly finished, so i will really appreciate any feedback. see G-5Xa on KerbalX.com

Cruising speeds:(may speeds at 5000m not 100% corect)
              No-afterburner    Afterburner
  5000m   1.4                        1.8
10000m   1.8                        2.8

Has no problem puling 9 and 6 G pitch aceleration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lazar2222 said:

Here is my take at this:

*picture*

Not jet armed but nearly finished, so i will really appreciate any feedback. see G-5Xa on KerbalX.com

Cruising speeds:(may speeds at 5000m not 100% corect)
              No-afterburner    Afterburner
  5000m   1.4                        1.8
10000m   1.8                        2.8

Has no problem puling 9 and 6 G pitch aceleration.  

Just looking at this thing, it seems very crude. Leading edges not aligned properly, spoilers slightly sticking out of the wings (your wings need to be slightly thicker than the spoilers), ailerons not aligned either. (Are you sure you're using angle snap when placing control surfaces/spoilers on the wings?)

Also, the leading edges of the elevators and canards seem a tad small. Usually good for hypersonic drag if you cut down on "normal" wing width, and add longer leading edges instead. (On normal wings that reduces your fuel capacity though)

Edited by FourGreenFields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just gotten back up and running and found out that adjustable landing gears is not updated enough, but still I decided to revamp a new design.

A while ago I posted the Su 27, now I've gone 1 further with the Su 33 Flanker D, it's more aggressively stability relaxed, but still flyable with just SAS.

Additionally it has more payload with 2 extra hard points under the belly of the craft and is still to challenge specs.

CSp1fFS.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I'm currently trying to make a craft for this challenge, but having a large amount of trouble with supermaneuverability. No matter what I do with the intakes, one of my engines flames out at about 80 degrees AoA. I even tried making belly intakes just for Kerbs and giggles, and I couldn't keep up with the jets' air hunger. I can't post a craft file at the moment but any tips on maximizing maneuverability? Mine is actually ever so slightly unstable at some speeds, and just about controllable with just SAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been working on a new fifth gen fighter. I need to add infernal robotics to the belly for the cargo bay to work, but I got a functional J-20 stealth fighter jet.

http://imgur.com/a/xDmfF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, using B9 VGIs I no longer flame out at extreme AoA, but I am now unable to actually pull 90 degree AoA save at ~50m/s which is well below stall speed already.

In related news,

vqEvPxt.jpg

Without afterburners, my RK-57 'Widow' is capable of reaching Mach 2, if only just. It passes Mach 1 at 2.5km at only 1/3 throttle as well, but I didn't actually test maximum non-afterburning speed below 5km.

Feh4hAm.jpg

With afterburners, it limps to just about Mach 2.9, which is above flameout speed when not afterburning. However, this was with a rather huge amount of fuel, as you can see in the first screen it has a whopping 3,200km range on the fuel load at 7 minutes in. I believe the PAK-FA has a range of 1,500km with a combat load (Or is projected to), so it is a bit excessive. It can easily pull the necessary Gs as well, though I again did not capture those. My favorite part of the design is that it can near-instantly recover from even massive stalls, including a flatspin at 50m/s induced by an overly aggressive snap roll. Just need to knock the kinks out and get it supermaneuverable, then the airframe is complete and I can get to weapons. Thankfully a small shift in wing area can probably give me the mostly neutral stability I need.

EDIT: Well it has >1.0 TWR. And absolutely silly amounts of post stall maneuvering. If I weren't so twitchy with the throttle I could've landed it on its tail! Still no cobras unfortunately.

EDIT2: Well I'll be damned. Due to a botched takeoff (Me yanking on the stick too hard), I lost an engine. I was still able to surpass Mach 1 and be stable with only the left engine and SAS. I also managed to land, with a dramatic and unintentional handbrake turn. It also seems that it cannot do the Cobra because it has too much wing, as it seems to be unable to surpass 70 degree AoA without miniscule speeds. At such low speed it's basically able to helicopter across the terrain.

EDIT3: Aha! Finally got a Cobra. Well, I think it was. Did require some very low speeds, but I did do a controlled rise above 90 AoA and back. Also did some somersaults. I believe I have demonstrable supermaneuverability.

EDIT4: Well, it can invert its orientation near-instantly at low speeds, and very quickly at high speeds. Easily capable of Gs, can be broken up at above M0.9 with a max-pitch control applied without leading into it. Supermaneuverable, not sure how to screenshot that however. Adding supermaneuverability reduced supercruise to Mach 1.9 and top speed with afterburners to Mach 2.85-ish. Speeds shown here, links only for brevity: Supercruise: http://i.imgur.com/PqnGeN9.jpg With Afterburners (Maximum Speed): http://i.imgur.com/f7kL690.jpg

Does BDArmory work in 1.1.3? At least, enough to put the weapons on?

EDIT5: Well it would seem scooting the intakes back about a meter HALVED my wave-drag area. Unfortunately it means the intake's model clips into the engine... Aside from looking weird, is that a problem?

EDIT6: Alright some new pics for proof. Supercruise is back to Mach 2, have a pic of sustained tailslide for proof of supermaneuverability, supercruise below 5km, and >1TWR.

Spoiler

pnUWcWD.jpg

Supercruising below 5km. Easily making the minimum sub-5km max speed.

 

GnFJDFN.jpg

Just barely a Mach 2 supercruise at 10km. Thank you area rule tweaking.

 

Ijybq35.jpg

Almost Mach 2.9 top speed in general. Extremely touchy, and almost no maneuvering can be done for fear of aerodynamic failure at such speeds.

 

f9aevvo.jpg

Easily climbing vertically, can do so until about 5km.

 

YPtBvA8.jpg

A sustained tailslide, can be done indefinitely given careful throttle management. Punching the throttle allows it to pull out without an attitude change, as can be seen by the above shot. Proof of supermaneuverability, if I'm not mistaken.

 

HRLf9yd.jpg

It can very easily pull in excess of 6 Gees above Mach 1. If the airframe could actually survive turns above 10 Gees at this speed it could even pull that off. As can be seen by the miniscule pitch control, I was using a joystick. Considering the tiny pitch needed at this speed, I assume I don't need a specific 9 Gees subsonic picture? Let me know if I do.

 

Edited by Dman1791

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i yesterday saw this thread and thouth: Chalenge Acceptet

http://imgur.com/a/OVJ15

http://imgur.com/a/XKCsF

ALT 10k

Top Speed With Aftburner: Mach 2.7

Top speed not afterburning: Mach 1.5

ALT less than 5k

Top Speed With Aftburner: Mach 2.5

Top speed not afterburning: Mach 1.3

max pull 33g even at MACH 2  in alt less than 6k

also able to pull The Cobra

above 6k about 9g

it has 3 gatlings with 650 rounds of ammo

16 hardpoins of which 3 can be used for drop tanks.

Each droptank caries 150 fuel units so in all droptanks 450 fuel units.

mods:

FAR, BDarmory, B9 aerospace(For Intakes and fueselage), Tweakscale, Aviation Cockpits

 

Edited by Skyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW i don't understand why the min takeoff speed is 150 m/s thats is 550 km/h most jets takeoff at 320 km/h so around 100 m/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is maximum i just herpa derpt in my brain and wrote minimum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

On 7/11/2015 at 8:18 AM, tetryds said:

Indeed, you are stalling.

The reason why you are stalling? Those canards.

You have way too much deflection on the canards, when flying straight they are fully effective, pitching up generates a lot of pitch momentum.

Then, they stall, at a certain AoA, this creates even more momentum.

That increases your AoA a lot, and that makes your main wings and horizontal stabilizer also stall.

But the stall of the wings and horizontal stabilizers together is very strong, that pulls your nose down violently.

Then your AoA decreases and stall is gone, your canards become effective again and you keep bouncing forever.

Your canards will stall at a very low AoA, and they generate a positive feedback loop.

Their deflection will hardly ever be above 7 degrees, I recommend setting it to something between 4 and 6 degrees.

But be careful, when your canards do not stall they are extremely effective, which may cause disassembles.

After you set your canards right, use this to set your elevators: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121176-Official-FAR-Craft-Repository?p=2060785&viewfull=1#post2060785

...let me add these to my sig now.

This is personally super helpful for me, lots of good tips in here thanks everyone. After just 400 hours with far i might be considered a noob!

Spoiler
On 7/11/2015 at 5:15 PM, Hodo said:

Here is two videos for you. I watched both of them and they help explain a lot in simplest forms.

 

 

 

 

This one too, explained a lot i had no idea about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2015 at 7:58 PM, Halsfury said:

Well, are you talking about the wave drag graphs or the lateral/longitudinal simulator functions?

I never build by looking at the simulators other than to check that the parameters are green or white, most of the numbers it gives you about pitch, roll and yaw rates etc should be negative, when they are, they'll show up green which means that the aircraft will return to level flight after any control inputs. This means it's stable and that you're good to go, also try testing it at different altitudes and speeds to see if you have a winner or not.

If you're talking about how to read the wave drag, cross sectional area, and pressure graphs however it's very simple.

A rocket should generally have a green graph which diverges and then stays as constant as possible all the way to the bottom of the rocket, this kind of profile is consistent with serial staged rockets and is very efficient more or less.

Aircraft are a little harder since they have plenty of protrusions.

Basically there's not really a perfect answer but it's more a compromise, ideally the green curve should ascend to a point somewhere in the middle of the airplane and then taper off towards the rear, the yellow line (measuring change in cross section) should be wavy but pretty flat, and the blue pressure curve should spike at the nose and as little as possible everywhere else.

Yes! Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2015 at 3:55 AM, FourGreenFields said:

*snip*

- Decreased elevator deflection from pitch 100% of 12° to pitch 90% of 12°. Can still easily reach critical AoA at all speeds.

*snip*

Whats 12° mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came here hoping to find this challenge:

  • Create 5th Gen Fighter
  • Must be less capable than 4th Gen fighters
  • Must convince OP that your fighter meets all requirements (or convince OP that requirements should be lowered)
  • Must create the most expensive fighter possible

Left disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.