Jump to content

Asymmetrical Aircraft Challenge


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Introducing the BAK Pikasso. This one makes orbit.

Now that's seriously impressive. :o I tried making an SSTO for this challenge earlier, but I just couldn't get it to handle well in the 20-30 km region at all.

(Admittedly, I was trying to do it without rapiers, which probably added needless extra difficulty. But still. Well done indeed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I had to see if I could make one, and I could. This one is Whiplash- and Terrier-powered, and makes orbit with ease. Landing gear and control surfaces still need some tuning, it's pretty squirrelly on take-off now but otherwise quite well-behaved.

Unfortunately the tighter engineering constraints mean I couldn't cut loose like with the Pikasso; this just looks like an ungainly regular SSTO, not a madman's fantasy of a plane, so it's not entirely in keeping with the spirit of the challenge IMO, even if it follows the letter -- only one each of any part, no reaction wheels other than what's in the cockpit, minimum 10 parts.

kMbnSYB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Unfortunately the tighter engineering constraints mean I couldn't cut loose like with the Pikasso; this just looks like an ungainly regular SSTO, not a madman's fantasy of a plane, so it's not entirely in keeping with the spirit of the challenge IMO, even if it follows the letter -- only one each of any part, no reaction wheels other than what's in the cockpit, minimum 10 parts.

 

I reckon I should do a part II at some point with less constraints and see what weirdness is achieved.

 

BTW, I laughed when I saw you had a plane called Pikasso. My "madman fantasy" that I created earlier (which does not qualify due to doubling of parts in places) is named Pablo after Picasso.  It's up on KerbalX here.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I reckon I should do a part II at some point with less constraints and see what weirdness is achieved.

I wasn't thinking of those constraints, they make the whole thing fun. 

But making a twin-engine SSTO within those constraints was that much harder, so I had to "cheat" -- i.e. pretty much make it as symmetrical as I could while staying within the formal one-part-only spec.

It would certainly be possible to go crazier but it would be a lot -- a LOT -- harder. Maybe stack a Whiplash and a Panther on top of each other like in that one, then have a Swivel and a Reliant on each wing, placed so their CoM aligns with the CoT... argh, now I want to do this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

I wasn't thinking of those constraints, they make the whole thing fun. 

But making a twin-engine SSTO within those constraints was that much harder, so I had to "cheat" -- i.e. pretty much make it as symmetrical as I could while staying within the formal one-part-only spec.

It would certainly be possible to go crazier but it would be a lot -- a LOT -- harder. Maybe stack a Whiplash and a Panther on top of each other like in that one, then have a Swivel and a Reliant on each wing, placed so their CoM aligns with the CoT... argh, now I want to do this!

I cannot say for SSTOs, but certainly for my own regular plane (not Pablo, but my one for this challenge), I have mismatched engines and it works.  I just tweaked the thrust limiters. The challenge is the engines spool up at different rates. If you have enough braking force, the thing to do is keep it stopped until you get the engines going and then take off. But even so, I tend to veer off the runway initially until I get full power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meet Brakue.

This little guy flies remarkably well. Makes orbit easily too. And definitely more in keeping with the spirit of the challenge!

T2RKGeP.png

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2018 at 3:20 PM, The_Cat_In_Space said:

This challenge is actually hard, but I'll see what I can do. What's the reward for completing it successfully? 

You get the awesome collectors item badges (posted above and on the top post) which you can proudly display whenever you post to the forums!

 

@panzerknoef, @PrvDancer85, @HerobrineLiu, @Pds314, @SuicidalInsanity, @oAsAo, @vyznev, @Will-ferret, @Dfthu, @Alienwall, @Vít Salava, @doggonemess, @Rocket In My Pocket, @Steel Starling

Come claim your asymmetrical awesomeness :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2018 at 2:20 PM, Dfthu said:

It actually flies pretty well, although it rolls way too much. Can fly without SAS but needs to constant fiddling to keep it straight. Flies perfectly fine with SAS on.

74UoakL.jpg

CEjKYTE.jpg

wG9RKkW.jpg

GdBFWGb.jpg

Have you tried landing this on the VAB in your own challenge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this was WAY harder than I thought it would be! I have a craft that can take off and stay in the air although it wants to roll constantly and landing is .... challenging.

Hg6pIcs.jpg

VGKuI1m.jpg

 It uses 1x ant, 1x spark, 1x juno , 1x Whiplash and 1x panther. I forgot to take a screenshot after landing and to display COM, COL, COT in the SPH :confused:

I can re-do it over the weekend if you require them.

Major Kudos to you crazy cats building SSTO's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
10 minutes ago, Tapeta said:

Another one. I was desperately trying to make it fly well but I just can't get rid of the roll problem.

Are you using the Center of Mass and Center of Lift indicators in the space plane hangar? That's how I got mine to work.  Also, if your thrust is off center, you can counteract that with a Juno on the other end and adjust the thrust limiter as needed.  Finally, just put a massive flap on the side that is dropping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Are you using the Center of Mass and Center of Lift indicators in the space plane hangar? That's how I got mine to work.  Also, if your thrust is off center, you can counteract that with a Juno on the other end and adjust the thrust limiter as needed.  Finally, just put a massive flap on the side that is dropping.

Well, there is problem with drag which is generated on that big landing gear on end of right wing. It flies differently with landing gear down and with landing gear up. But I can't move that big landing gear closer to center, because that landing gear acts as counterweight of the cockpit.

Symmetrical aircrafts are so easy :-)

M9VdBBb.jpg

7Wz4scw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2019 at 12:27 AM, Tapeta said:

Well, there is problem with drag which is generated on that big landing gear on end of right wing. It flies differently with landing gear down and with landing gear up. But I can't move that big landing gear closer to center, because that landing gear acts as counterweight of the cockpit.

Symmetrical aircrafts are so easy :-)

You can move it close and then put something else out there with some weight on it, like more fuel, a small ore tank or some useless piece of decoration that will make the plane look even more bizarre :cool:

And if there is drag when the gear is down, add some more gear on the other side as well or an airbrake and add it to an action group so that pit opens with gear down and closes when it goes up.

You can also extend that right wing and the lift will also act as a counter to the cockpit.

Finally, lock the gimbal on that engine. It is probably causing more problems than it is solving. 

Edited by Klapaucius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did this quite a long time ago but lost all the picture proof.

Anyways, just tryna correct the rules terminologically, assymmetry is essentially different shape on both sides. Hence, the same parts on both sides of the plane should be fine, as long as there's a rather largely noticeable difference on both sides.

1200px-Asymmetric_(PSF).svg.png

Wikipedia can explain this furthermore. If one did more research, you'll get more goodies, but the point is still different shape on both sides, hence repeating parts should be accepted.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
It's not essentially you who needs to do research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Anyways, just tryna correct the rules terminologically, assymmetry is essentially different shape on both sides. Hence, the same parts on both sides of the plane should be fine, as long as there's a rather largely noticeable difference on both sides.

Wikipedia can explain this furthermore. If one did more research, you'll get more goodies, but the point is still different shape on both sides, hence repeating parts should be accepted.

Well;

A. We all understood what he meant by the name clearly.

B. Naming conventions aside, the challenge is to build a plane without ever using a part twice. Perhaps the name isn't 100% accurate but if anything it would be the name that changed, not the rules.

C. No one cares? Lol.

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...