Flying wing challenge!

[ZLM-Master]

yep , you find a tricky build for control your craft , but i don't find it , but wp if you done it

I had to be extremely gentle with the control or it's ennevitable crash . XD

I try the challenge but i mostly fail , haha , that's happen !

[Phreakish]

With some dihedral and thrust vectoring, it's not impossible to keep directional control

T/W is also decent enough to go vertical to 10km. 

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, Phreakish said:

With some dihedral and thrust vectoring, it's not impossible to keep directional control

T/W is also decent enough to go vertical to 10km. 

Love the way you seamlessly integrated the radial intake into the engine modules.

[Box of Stardust]

5 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

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."

It's a pretty good demonstrator of why true flying wing designs are computer stabilized. Piloting my design is near impossible to put into a turn, just because controls in KSP can't be told to actuate control surfaces in a specific manner. Controlling split ailerons as aibrakes for yaw control through action groups isn't precise or fast enough, nor can they be dynamically actuated when mixing inputs (though for my design that can be solved to an extent by just not using them for roll control).

 

Anyways, this is my entry, going for the closest as possible to the spirit of the challenge (no thrust vectoring, since that's the obvious 'easy' solution), while at the same time also maybe kind of cheating. But I'll leave others to determine exactly what might be and why. Anyways, the outboard controls are the split elevons. Originally, they were the inboard controls on the large wing, but putting them further back and outwards would provide better yaw control when deployed. The downside is that they're also the ailerons, so control input mixing isn't really feasible in stock KSP. (The version with the split elevons inboard could reasonably turn though, if incredibly difficult.)

 

Does it make it to 10km? Well, yeah, in a straight line. Straight line flight is somewhat doable with the action group mess of yaw control. And a bit of debatably-challenge-legal engineering. There's no control surfaces hidden/clipped inside though; what's seen here is what's there.

[Lego_Prodigy]

6 hours 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 can't do that, so that would make me look more pathetic than I am, but if you insist, i can make that a few points.

[Box of Stardust]

1 minute ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

I can't do that, so that would make me look more pathetic than I am, but if you insist, i can make that a few points.

lol

Well, it's your challenge. Not like I managed it either.

[Lego_Prodigy]

God damn it I can't upload images. how do you guys do it?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

55 minutes ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

God damn it I can't upload images. how do you guys do it?

Well, I'm on Steam, so I just copy-paste the link from there.

However, most people use Imgur.com to upload their pics.

[Lego_Prodigy]

Wont work, doesn't show the images.

[Box of Stardust]

14 minutes ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

Wont work, doesn't show the images.

By 'submit reply', there's 'insert other media' and in it 'insert image from URL'. Have you tried that?

[Phreakish]

Here's a completely new version that requires no thrust vectoring, has no verticals and is still well able to climb to 10km. Much harder to fly vertically, but controllable. Climbing at anything other than pure vertical is far more stable though. 

The secret is plainly visible - but it will be interesting to see who else 'gets it'  The trick makes it stable, but it will still 'wiggle' in yaw sometimes. Turns are less than coordinated, but once you get used to it the thing is a ton of fun to cruise around with. 

The airbrakes are mostly for slowing down for landing. This thing is so slick it's tough to land... 

[GDJ]

Not sure if the OP would call this cheating, but.....





Below 250 m/s you have to watch your banking when turning or else it will spin out, but if you're careful it's not a big deal. Past 340 m/s it's rock solid.

[Gargamel]

19 hours ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

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

Hence, the word "Almost". 

[Lego_Prodigy]

8 hours ago, GDJ said:

Not sure if the OP would call this cheating, but.....





Below 250 m/s you have to watch your banking when turning or else it will spin out, but if you're careful it's not a big deal. Past 340 m/s it's rock solid.

Thats cheating. I can see those vertical surfaces. ANYTHING NOT ON THE SAME HORIZONTAL PLANE AS THE WING IS COUNTED AS A VERTICAL CONTROL SURFACE
 

[roboslacker]

 

Flying wings can have vertical stabilizers

[Thor Wotansen]

14 hours ago, roboslacker said:

 

Flying wings can have vertical stabilizers

  I love the YB-35 and the YB-49!  So freaking majestic and good looking.  The no vertical stabilizer requirement was mainly for stealth reasons with the B-2 and B-21, as the vertical surface is a great radar reflector, but the N9M and the YB-35/49 were both incredibly stealthy aircraft, for being magnesium alloy construction and having no radar absorbent paint/fancy electronics.

[Box of Stardust]

18 hours ago, roboslacker said:

 

Flying wings can have vertical stabilizers

Yeah, but OP wants B-2/high-altitude recon UAV-style flying wings.

 

Anyways, I'm pretty sure this is what @Phreakish did, and I can't believe I forgot about the weirdest flight control in the game that does allow the SAS to properly correct for yaw (unlike the other conventional control surfaces that have to be oriented in an angle where the control input will actually have effect for them to actuate), as well as turn in a stable manner by manually doing a realistic coordinated turn with yaw and pitch controls. Craft link included for interested.

https://kerbalx.com/Box_of_Stardust/MANTA

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[Phreakish]

I did try to use airbrakes for yaw, but found them to be slow reacting and near useless at low speed.  Placing them in an aesthetically pleasing manner is tough too. I also tried to get KSP to clamshell mix some surfaces at the wingtip by putting in some dihedral and maxing the authority, but there wasn't enough deflection with the modest dihedral I was able to put in place. 

What I actually did was increase the wing sweep substantially. KSP seems to do a pretty good job accurately modeling induced drag. Wings create more lift, and thus more drag, the more perpendicular they are to the relative wind. Having a steep wing sweep aids directional stability by increasing drag on the leading wing when yaw is experienced. My craft have no direct yaw authority at all, but the upside is that SAS is not necessary for well-controlled flight either. For added stability, you can droop the outboard control surfaces and then reflex the next inner-most surface. Control surfaces tend to increase lift (and thus drag) faster than they can kill it (one of the major contributors to 'dutch roll' in real aircraft). KSP seems to model the same, though not perfectly accurate since control surfaces act as independent lifting surfaces rather than affecting the lift of the parent component (wing). 

[Garga]

A lot of beautiful planes. What could I do? Build something in the realm of silly, so I present to you, "ID Eaart's Ocgon". No fuselage, no SAS, no vertical surface and no thrust vectoring:

Album https://imgur.com/a/GTu7Y will appear when post is submitted

The album contains another attempts of building flying wings. The Kerbal aesthetics was the main focus of the designs. They all have something in common: They all do their best to kill the pilot!

Edited April 7, 2018 by Garga

[Dobelong]

This thing doesn't need any control surfaces, and can fly up to 30,000 meters!

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Dobelong

[hoioh]

Tried to build something that resembles a B2:

Doesn't need control surfaces, but it's got a little sideslip, so you have to angle it a little bit, especially at lower altitudes and speeds, but once she gets going and gains a bit of altitude the problems go away. I even managed to land her on rough terrain.

Remaining images: https://imgur.com/a/dhtGy

 

[Andetch]

On 04/04/2018 at 8:19 AM, Lego_Prodigy said:

God damn it I can't upload images. how do you guys do it?

First, upload the images to imgur. When they have finished uploading, you right click the image and select "copy image address" and then paste that link. It will then add the image, like so - I have also removed the . and replaced it with a  [dot] so you can see the link difference.

This image is one that imgur gives if you search for KSP - It is not mine, and has nothing to do with anything other than serving as a demo to Lego as to how to do it. 

It took an explanation from another forum user before I could do it!

https://i.imgur.com/x25m58M[dot]png

 

[Lego_Prodigy]

On 4/5/2018 at 9:21 AM, Thor Wotansen said:

  I love the YB-35 and the YB-49!  So freaking majestic and good looking.  The no vertical stabilizer requirement was mainly for stealth reasons with the B-2 and B-21, as the vertical surface is a great radar reflector, but the N9M and the YB-35/49 were both incredibly stealthy aircraft, for being magnesium alloy construction and having no radar absorbent paint/fancy electronics.

The purpose for that is almost everyone usually uses vertical stabilizers for planes, but You don't actually need them for flying wings if done correctly, as with the B-2 and the Horten HO-229. 

[Laie]

I'll just leave this here...

Can't possibly qualify because stabilizers, but (hint, hint) the SXT mod has some huge wings, for when the FAT-A55 is no longer enough.

[obi_juan]

Flying wings, I think that is my favorite type of plane, but the lack of vertical stabilizer give it a lot of troubles flying it. I usually follow the Alexander Lippisch designs, with vertical stabilizers. I also love the Horten brothers planes and other tailless planes, but they have a sophisticated combination of different curvature parts inside of the same wing, and we can not do that in the game. 

So I took several of my previous designs and started eliminating the vertical surfaces, the lateral instability made impossible to manage the planes.... So I decide to use a delta plane, with an original name of "Delta mk1", but I was not content with only a plane I thought that I prefer an SSTO. The result was surprisingly good, with a lot of fuel extra, and straightforward path to orbit, only 15º degrees all the flight. The only problems are at taking off; the lateral instability is too powerful at low velocities, only at higher speeds of 300m/s the effects is reduced, and the flight is straight.  The other problem is to land, the minimum velocity of this model is around 40m/s, and you can lose the direction or the sustentation.

Album a/9Hc20 will appear when post is submitted

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by obi_juan
Imagur