Flying wing challenge!

[Lego_Prodigy]

So we all know how to build a basic plane, but thats with a fuselage. Who needs those? Forget fuselages, who needs vertical control surfaces?

In this challenge, design and fly your own pure flying wing designs! 

CONSTRAINTS:

• CANNOT USE A VERTICAL SURFACE OF ANY TYPE! (vertical is defined as anything NOT on the same horizontal plane as the wings, such as a tail fin).
• FUSELAGES ARE FROWNED UPON! (Blended ones are fine, as you need to put the cockpit on somehow, but NO fuselages that are clearly separate of the wings).
• MUST BE ABLE TO REACH AT LEAST 10,000 METERS!
• MUST PROVIDE IMAGES FOR PROOF!

Scoring system:

6 points total!

• Three for screenshot of a working plane (probably during takeoff and/or flight)
• Three for screenshot of the plane reaching 10000 Meters 

 

GOOD LUCK! ;D

 

Album https://imgur.com/a/ek8Bo will appear when post is submitted

Bonus point if you can do it without SAS! My design would rock up and down with SAS so that was off.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lego_Prodigy
Reworking scoring system

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Flying-Wing-Mk1

Not sure whether the middle bit counts as a fuselage or not. I tried to blend it with the wing.

Has no vertical wing surfaces, doesn't need reaction wheels, and can go well over 10000m

[ZLM-Master]

Even elevon got control surface ,  do you mean not using the flat control surface part like wing connector ?

[ZLM-Master]

Ok , so i try this one .

- No surface Control parts attibute

- No Fuselage

- No cockpit

- No RW

It's a Pure Stock craft , flying like a JetFighter . Can clim vertically and flight level far than 10000 m .

After Burner bind on RSC key .

My craft on KerbalX .

Edited March 31, 2018 by ZLM-Master

[Ozelui]

How in the world did Valentina get inside the cockpit???? 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Ozelui/Trans-sonic-flying-wing-prototype

[Lego_Prodigy]

15 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

https://kerbalx.com/EpicSpaceTroll139/Flying-Wing-Mk1

Not sure whether the middle bit counts as a fuselage or not. I tried to blend it with the wing.

Has no vertical wing surfaces, doesn't need reaction wheels, and can go well over 10000m

It has reaction wheels, but good job!  

14 hours ago, ZLM-Master said:

Ok , so i try this one .

- No surface Control parts attibute

- No Fuselage

- No cockpit

- No RW

It's a Pure Stock craft , flying like a JetFighter . Can clim vertically and flight level far than 10000 m .

After Burner bind on RSC key .

My craft on KerbalX .

Thats not a flying wing, it has a fuselage and a vertical control surface. Try again mate. If you need inspiration, I HIGHLY recommend reading a book called "Northrop Flying Wings", which gives a good history of all northrop flying wings from 1920s-1990s. Good stuff.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 hour ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

It has reaction wheels, but good job!  

 

Wait? It does? I'll have to look again. Built the thing a long while ago. I thought the cockpit was the only thing with reaction wheels and I disabled it in right click menu.

It should definitely be able to fly without reaction wheels as the aibrakes are supposed to give it yaw control.

Edited March 31, 2018 by EpicSpaceTroll139
long not log

[Lego_Prodigy]

Oh it does have them disabled. Good job!

[Andetch]

ADX - Flying Wing - Unkerballed

Didn't see having crew as a requirement!

https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/ADX-Flying-Wing

I make that 10/10

I've frowned on control surfaces in general, having only 4. It actually flies fairly well, better after some fuel has been burned off (around 200 units) and it has a drogue 'chute to assist in landing.

Press 1 to toggle engine mode, but afterburners are better. Press 0 to cut the 'chute.

https://imgur.com/a/ROLqk

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Andetch

[ZLM-Master]

Yep , i go back to the SPH and build a better craft . Still issue without YaW control so i keep tail control for a proper flight .

Maybe not the best but still better than my first 'Fail' submition and have a flying wing look .

- No cockpit

- No RW 

Got tail control and nacelle fuel tank as historical wing i've inspirated .

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

YB-4Z Flying Wing on KerbalX . Afterburner on RCS Key .

Nice day on Kerbin .

Edited April 2, 2018 by ZLM-Master

[Andetch]

9 hours ago, ZLM-Master said:

Yep , i go back to the SPH and build a better craft . Still issue without YaW control so i keep tail control for a proper flight .

Maybe not the best but still better than my first 'Fail' submition and have a flying wing look .

- No cockpit

- No RW 

Got tail control and nacelle fuel tank as historical wing i've inspirated .

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

YB-4Z Flying Wing on KerbalX . Afterburner on RCS Key .

Nice day on Kerbin .

But it has vertical stabilizer. The ones going straight up. You need to angle them over.

[Gargamel]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:59 PM, Lego_Prodigy said:

10 points total!

• Two for no fuselage
• Two for no vertical control surfaces
• Three for screenshot of a working plane
• Three for screenshot of the plane reaching 10000 feet

I think this scoring system needs reworked.   If fuselages and vertical surfaces are disallowed, and you have disqualified entries having them, then giving points for following the rules is kind of moot.  Plus it is usually required in all challenges to post screen shots as proof.  It means that every qualifying entry will be given 7 points,  Just for spelling their name correctly.  You'll have a bunch of scores at 10 pts, some at 7, and bunch of DQ's.  Makes it kind of hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

You should mix it up, have a variety of categories: fastest under 10k, fastest over 10k.  Heaviest payload transported the farthest distance.  Heaviest payload to highest altitude, etc. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Gargamel

[Andetch]

3 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I think this scoring system needs reworked.   If fuselages and vertical surfaces are disallowed, and you have disqualified entries having them, then giving points for following the rules is kind of moot.  It means that Every entry will be given 4 points,  Just for spelling their name correctly.

You should mix it up, have a variety of categories: fastest under 10k, fastest over 10k.  Heaviest payload transported the farthest distance.  Heaviest payload to highest altitude, etc. 

Like most KSP challenges, the rules and scoring system will need to be worked on I think.

This is a fair point. Also some definition of "vertical surface" would be nice. 90 degree from horizontal, yes that's vertical, but how about 89 degrees?

[Gargamel]

Just now, Andetch said:

This is a fair point. Also some definition of "vertical surface" would be nice. 90 degree from horizontal, yes that's vertical, but how about 89 degrees?

Well, the F117 is pretty much considered a flying wing, and it had 45' surfaces.  Almost all real life flying wings have some sort of vertical stabilizer on them, even if they are tiny.   So maybe saying no surface angled more than 45' from the main lifting surface, and winglets should be restricted to those little yellow striped fin thingys you get early (Basic fin?).

[Andetch]

13 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Well, the F117 is pretty much considered a flying wing, and it had 45' surfaces.  Almost all real life flying wings have some sort of vertical stabilizer on them, even if they are tiny.   So maybe saying no surface angled more than 45' from the main lifting surface, and winglets should be restricted to those little yellow striped fin thingys you get early (Basic fin?).

Those fins with the yellow stripe don't actually offer any active control, they're passive, so I would go for that, and possibly add the other passive bit you get early on, but not to allow vert wing bits, as even though they're passive I can see that being exploited to defeat the challenge. Also, maybe adding a requirement to actually be able to land the bloody things?

To say landing mine is "a bit tricky" would be an understatement. Flying wings do not like slow flight! Touching down slow enough to not destroy everything, but fast enough that you don't stall is hard - a very fine margin.

[Lego_Prodigy]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Well, the F117 is pretty much considered a flying wing, and it had 45' surfaces.  Almost all real life flying wings have some sort of vertical stabilizer on them, even if they are tiny.   So maybe saying no surface angled more than 45' from the main lifting surface, and winglets should be restricted to those little yellow striped fin thingys you get early (Basic fin?).

Not true, the B2 bomber does NOT have ANY vertical surfaces

2 hours ago, Andetch said:

Like most KSP challenges, the rules and scoring system will need to be worked on I think.

This is a fair point. Also some definition of "vertical surface" would be nice. 90 degree from horizontal, yes that's vertical, but how about 89 degrees?

I shall define vertical as ANYTHING that sticks up relative to the wing and is a surface of control, so yes from 90 to slightly above horizontal.

Its not impossible, I clearly accomplished that myself, and my plane handled beautifully.

[Andetch]

1 hour ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

Not true, the B2 bomber does NOT have ANY vertical surfaces

I shall define vertical as ANYTHING that sticks up relative to the wing and is a surface of control, so yes from 90 to slightly above horizontal.

Its not impossible, I clearly accomplished that myself, and my plane handled beautifully.

So, does my angle on the tail count? FYI, I'm working on an enhanced design that can fly slower and remain stable, and therefore hopefully land...

[Lego_Prodigy]

Yes, vertical surfaces are counted as those that are not on the same horizontal plane as the wings.

[Andetch]

So a 1 degree difference in angle from the wing disqualifies?

58 minutes ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

Yes, vertical surfaces are counted as those that are not on the same horizontal plane as the wings.

 

[Andetch]

2 hours ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

Not true, the B2 bomber does NOT have ANY vertical surfaces

I shall define vertical as ANYTHING that sticks up relative to the wing and is a surface of control, so yes from 90 to slightly above horizontal.

Its not impossible, I clearly accomplished that myself, and my plane handled beautifully.

Also, on this point - it is a great shame that there is only your word, and a broken link to imgur to prove your claim. Any images of your craft? KerbalX link?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I set out to do something different and also to finally use the Onion module for something lol. I think I've succeeded...for better or worse.

My entry is the "Goofy-1" you'll understand the name as soon as you see it, I should hope. All stock, no vertical surfaces, reaches 10k, no SAS what so ever. Yaw authority is provided by a set of left and right flap brakes, controlled by the 1 and 2 keys respectively...flying it is...well, interesting to say the least. Not sure if the fuel tanks on the wing tips count as "fuselage?" but I liked the way it looked, in as far as it made it look even more ridiculous lol.

Arriving at 10k. Note that there is a blended Wheesely engine just behind the cockpit. I was worried 4 Juno's wouldn't be enough to haul it up lol. Also, it makes a nice counter weight to keep the COM forward. (Also, ignore that the SAS and RCS is on. As you can see no E/C is being drained so there is in fact no reaction wheels, it's just habit to hit the SAS key on start up lol. I bound RCS to "control from here" on a docking port because of the odd cockpit setup.)

Aforementioned "Yaw brakes."

The extremely interesting view  from between the pilots legs as we come in for a landing lol. The cockpit is set up so the viewing port on the "floor" is pointed forward, so you basically have to lay on your back with your feet pointing "ahead" to fly this thing. To even my complete and total surprise, this actually worked out, and the 3 vertical white lines were of great help in fine tuning my yaw as I came in!

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[sevenperforce]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:59 PM, Lego_Prodigy said:

Bonus point if you can do it without SAS! My design would rock up and down with SAS so that was off.

While I'm a fan of the spirit of the challenge, it's really not a good idea to offer bonus points if entrants over-design their vehicles to match something that is a problem with your own entry.

 

[Box of Stardust]

This challenge is flawed in spirit, as it doesn't require any turning of sorts.

The difficulty in a flying wing design is controlling lateral stability, but if all you're requiring is to reach 10000m, all anyone has to do is fly straight forward up to 10000m.

A well-designed flying wing will be able to turn and all that in flight, so at the minimum, landing back at KSC should be a requisite.

[ZLM-Master]

I try another setup for my Wings , and it's a pain in the ( Put the word you want ) to make this thing flying !

This wing fly but . wow . really un-fun ^^ I think i cannot do better !

Nice day on Kerbin !

Edited April 3, 2018 by ZLM-Master

[Rocket In My Pocket]

12 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

This challenge is flawed in spirit, as it doesn't require any turning of sorts.

The difficulty in a flying wing design is controlling lateral stability, but if all you're requiring is to reach 10000m, all anyone has to do is fly straight forward up to 10000m.

A well-designed flying wing will be able to turn and all that in flight, so at the minimum, landing back at KSC should be a requisite.

I agree, somewhat.

With no true Yaw stabilization even flying straight to 10k was a chore admittedly.

However my plane was more than capable of turning around and landing, despite the awkward nature of it's control. I'm not against this being added as a "rule."