Brikoleur's Simple Plane Race [closed]

[Guest]

Just now, Klapaucius said:

As for flying: I've got it set so the action group 1 locks the front wing once it has taken off. It is too twitchy otherwise. I also, as you could see, lower the authority limiter to about 5% on the elevators once I have taken off. It does not exactly level yet. Needs a bit of very fine tuning, but it works pretty well.

Have you bound the deploy angle on one or both of the wings to an axis? That gives you precise control over trim, you can do gentle manoeuvring by adjusting that. Makes SASless control a lot easier IMO.

[Klapaucius]

11 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Have you bound the deploy angle on one or both of the wings to an axis? That gives you precise control over trim, you can do gentle manoeuvring by adjusting that. Makes SASless control a lot easier IMO.

Not sure what you mean. How do I do that?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Not sure what you mean. How do I do that?

For example, to bind the tailplane: 

1. Set it to Deployed, deploy angle to 0
2. In Action Groups, bind the Forward/Back axis to the part's deploy angle
3. Launch and verify that the tailplane moves the way you want it to when you hit Forward/Back (H/N) by default

I usually do this for the main elevator control surface, usually the tailplane or canard depending on the design. That lets you trim it for straight and level flight (or coordinated turns, or whatever).

Edited April 22, 2021 by Guest

[Klapaucius]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

For example, to bind the tailplane: 

1. Set it to Deployed, deploy angle to 0
2. In Action Groups, bind the Forward/Back axis to the part's deploy angle
3. Launch and verify that the tailplane moves the way you want it to when you hit Forward/Back (H/N) by default

I usually do this for the main elevator control surface, usually the tailplane or canard depending on the design.

Okay, so you are able to independently control the front vs rear surfaces from the keyboard?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Okay, so you are able to independently control the front vs rear surfaces from the keyboard?

Yes, if that's the way I've set it up. Usually it's enough just to control one of them though. But it depends on the design obviously, and I don't think I need to tell you about tuning and iteration  .

– I do know KSP has its built-in trim controls as well (Alt+key) but I find this way is more controlled.

[Klapaucius]

BTW: I noticed I made a mistake. My cost is 2688.9.  Sorry about that. I think that lowers me in the rankings.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

BTW: I noticed I made a mistake. My cost is 2688.9.  Sorry about that. I think that lowers me in the rankings.

Thanks for the correction, it does indeed shift you from the #2 to the #3 spot. 

[QF9E]

Not an official submission as it won't improve my score, but inspired by the other entries with simple skids instead of landing gear, here's a 7 part modification of my original design, with a simple floor plate as landing gear skid:

I've done the Island run with it, but not in a competitive time (about 7 minutes); mass and cost are not competitive either due to the size of the Goliath.

[Guest]

That's impressive. I managed to make a workable 8-part craft, but that's one better!

[Klapaucius]

After my submission I had an idea for cutting costs using prop and helicopter blades instead of wings:

I had built a very successful plane using this technique a while back:

Spoiler

 

https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Huckle-Blade-Plane

However, it seems that regular pitch and roll control has been nerfed in the later updates.  The Huckle plane above does not work at all anymore.

 I was able to get the new one in the air by deploying via action groups, but it is pretty uncontrollable.    A shame.  It shaved 300 in cost, and if I had got it to work with the next size down in blades, I might have managed something for under 2000.

 

I'm guessing this is the culprit:

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Klapaucius

[Guest]

Save that for later, perhaps somebody overtakes you and you'll get a chance to update it. Maybe you'll find a way to make it controllable again via those action groups. There's a lot of options there.

-- Is anyone interested in giving this a shot with a helicopter? I'm think a light copter would be quite competitive in all categories except speed... 

Edit: About those advanced blade controls -- yes, that's indeed the culprit. The blades now behave like real helicopter blades when pitch/roll control is enabled; you get aerodynamic attitude control with the usual flight controls when they're spinning above you, assuming they're long enough: all the helo blades work great, as does the large propeller. However they won't work as elevons (or similar) anymore.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Guest

[OHara]

On 4/22/2021 at 10:08 PM, Brikoleur said:

-- Is anyone interested in giving this a shot with a helicopter? I'm think a light copter would be quite competitive in all categories except speed... 

I started with my helicopter on KerbalX (link) and removed all unnecessary parts. 

The result is TinyCopter (link) :
cost ¤705
8 parts plus 1 Kerbal
183kg including the Kerbal
42 minutes round-trip time

https://imgur.com/a/0qNhTXp

I used two rotors for a counter-rotating prop, but just one blade on each.  KSP puts the CoM of the helicopter blades very close to the root, so the off-balance rotors do not shake the pilot too badly.   The new-with-version-1.9.1 built-in cyclic controls handle pitch and roll.  A fin acts as a tail plane for passive yaw stability.

Edited April 24, 2021 by OHara
don't just say I might have a craft . . . post the results.

[Klapaucius]

On 4/23/2021 at 5:13 AM, QF9E said:

inspired by the other entries with simple skids instead of landing gear,

I've been thinking of  creating a challenge of building planes without gear.  I love how @peridootinspired this one which is now leading to other ideas.

BTW: With a few small changes, your original plane qualifies for the Asymmetrical Aircraft Challenge.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Klapaucius

[QF9E]

7 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

BTW: With a few small changes, your original plane qualifies for the Asymmetrical Aircraft Challenge.

Thanks for the heads-up, that sounds like fun! I've always loved the wonky plane badge that goes with your challenge but did not realize it was still going.

[Guest]

And we have @OHara in TinyCopter turning this into a case of The Tortoise And The Hare, taking first place in three out of four categories, and a decisive overall lead. (The fourth category? We don't mention the fourth category.) This is going to be /really/ hard to beat. Will someone manage it somehow, or is the rest of the contest a race for second place? Congratulations!

I wouldn't have expected single-blade rotors to work well enough to be able to complete the race. As a take-off-and-land proof of concept maybe, but not something that could actually work! Consequently, I'm recognising the coaxial contra-rotating single-blade main rotor as an original innovation: other contestants may not use that particular feature in their designs. 

@camacju @QF9E @Klapaucius @swjr-swis, you have until 2021-04-25T06:00.000Z to update your entries.

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Guest

[QF9E]

Updated plane: as small planes with command chairs dominate I followed suit. While my submission can be seen as a combination of @camacju's and @Klapaucius' designs, it contains a single innovation: I saved an extra part by using the pilot's personal parachute as wing throughout the entire flight. This craft was VERY twitchy to fly so it took a while to transition to landing attitude - no final approach barrel rolls this time :).

Spoiler

In the SPH. 8 parts, 644 kg, $1851

At the start line, engine warming up

Landed at the Island airfield. With a landing speed of about 30 m/s this thing flies a lot slower than I am accustomed to. It also takes a while to slow down, and everything but a gentle touchdown results in a crash

Back at the KSC. Time: 6 min 57.

Edited April 24, 2021 by QF9E
Added in-flight picture as the other pics do not show parachute

[Guest]

Another impressive entry, which puts @QF9E into a strong second place -- and as a consequence of the weighted ranking rewards with more points for the first three ranks than ranks 4-6, reverses the positions of @swjr-swis and @Klapaucius in the overall rankings: while swjr-swis retrains first rank in performance, Klapaucius drops to fourth place in two categories, which loses him more points in the shuffle.

@camacju @Klapaucius @swjr-swis, your time window to update your entries has now moved to 2021-04-25T20:00:00.000Z.

I attempted to make a wingless paraglider work and gave up as it was /really/ twitchy. Now that it has been demonstrated to be feasible, are further refinements possible? Could this be a way to dethrone @OHara and the Tinycopter?

Edited April 24, 2021 by Guest

[swjr-swis]

12 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

as a consequence of the weighted ranking rewards with more points for the first three ranks than ranks 4-6, reverses the positions of @swjr-swis and @Klapaucius in the overall rankings

Interesting result of this particular scoring system. Shame @QF9E's spectacular top time was lost in the ranking shuffle due to the replacing entry... it'll be pretty hard to get anything close to that with the current type of entries.

 

On 4/20/2021 at 12:12 PM, Brikoleur said:

Note 1: The reported flight time for @camacju's entry is 6'32". I'm however docking 10 seconds because no screenshot of the craft stationary on the runway was provided, and the time in the screenshot is mission time rather than universal time.

In all fairness, I think you should dock my time 10 seconds too then, for the same reason (last part anyway).

 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Interesting result of this particular scoring system. Shame @QF9E's spectacular top time was lost in the ranking shuffle due to the replacing entry... it'll be pretty hard to get anything close to that with the current type of entries.

The Goliath + wet wing combination @QF9E devised isn't the only way to get to a 7-part jet, and some of those are very fast. If a sufficiently skilled pilot were to submit one of those, I think it could take and hold the complexity and performance categories against the ultralights. 

If there were two or three such entries, they would push the ultralights down in the rankings in those categories enough to make the approach competitive overall...

Edited April 24, 2021 by Guest

[QF9E]

I just made an Island run of 2 min 58 (mission time, in practice about 3 seconds more - this thing rockets down the runway) in an 11 part plane, so a speed racer might not be completely out of the picture for this challenge. You will have to carefully plan your trajectory for an optimal time; you could put some buoys in the water as target markers for where to set course to and when to initiate airbraking (read: high-g maneuvering) so as to be at the runway threshold at landing speed.

I think it might be possible to improve on this by using a one piece wing (-1 part) and improvised landing gear (-2 parts) for an 8 part racer. Although I'm not sure how much the improvised landing gear will slow the plane down.

But it's not up to me to improve my score just yet; if someone overtakes me I may well take another shot at this.

[Guest]

2'58" is scary good. My piloting skills aren't good enough for that. I've gotten close with a plane that has tricycle landing gear and airbrakes. (Stripped of those luxuries, that craft would be 7 parts only. It's not a one-part wing design.)

[QF9E]

56 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

2'58" is scary good.

Its mostly the Panther engine in wet mode that makes this possible. Braking by doing barrel rolls is still my favourite, during that run I got lucky that after doing so I was going less than 100 m/s close to the Island runway. So I dipped below the runway. pulled up hard to get over the runway threshold and land. 

For the life of me I don't understand how you can make a 7 part design that goes that fast, I'll have to put some more thought into that :).

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, QF9E said:

For the life of me I don't understand how you can make a 7 part design that goes that fast, I'll have to put some more thought into that :).

It uses a Panther as well. Great engine for this job. The sprint to the island is stupid fast. There are two simple tricks I used to get the part count down. Obviously combining functions is key here too, just like in your Goliath + wet wing combo....

[swjr-swis]

Well, I'm entering a new one. It won't be competing for top overall, but should improve on my previous entry.

The bad news: I'm getting pretty frustrated trying to make a safe (read: no parts breakage) run with a better time than what I previously clocked.

The good news: I finally managed to clock one run that while losing a few seconds from my previous entry, still retains first place in performance category with a good margin. Even at mach 1-ish max speed, runs of under 5 mins are possible. I'm just tired of trying. So this one will have to do.

The better news (and reason I'm submitting this entry at all at this point): it takes first place in the complexity/part count category, being the first entry to use only 7 parts.

So, presenting the Brik-SPR-4:

• Cost: 3754 funds
• Parts: 7
• Mass: 2.206t
• Performance: 5m19s round trip KSC-Island-KSC.

This gives it a current overall score of 54 points (2+25+2+25), which together with the resulting ranking reshuffle moves me up to third place overall. I think.

Spoiler

 

[Klapaucius]

This is not an entry since I never managed to succeed with this. It IS possible, that I am sure of, but life is too short to spend more time trying to learn to fly this thing.  However, I thought I would chuck it up here for fun.  The idea came from a bending craft I created a while back ago: https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Viktor-Bendable-Aircraft.  This Viktor plane is actually quite easy to fly.  Not so the one below ...  

 

I am still at 11 parts, but have cut costs to 1665.  Control surfaces are expensive, but hinges and cheap wing parts are not.  The hinge is mapped to IK and the servo to JL.  If anyone is keen to try and fly this death trap, here is the craft file:  https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Woland

I did manage to fly it all the way to the Island and had a pretty good approach.  Alas, I over compensated at the last moment and crashed. But at least the pilot survived.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Klapaucius
typo