Doke

Oooh! I can't decide whether to make a light or heavy fighter. I'm going to make one of each and see which turns out better (I seem to be spending most of my time on the planform anyway). A small note @tetryds : the GLORIOUS 'Falcon' engine doesn't seem to make any sound. Not sure whether it works in the original SXT version, but it's the only one of the props I've noticed the issue with. Reinstalling the mod didn't seem to help.

That's very impressive, then. I've not had much luck incorporating bays into fighter designs without them being a bit awkward.

Oh, I don't know, it has a certain arthropodean beauty. Where on kerbin do you fit those missiles, though?

No, but have you tried dynamic deflection? It lets you set control surface responsiveness based on dynamic pressure in the editor.

Re-entry is often a bit tricky. It's hard to say what the problem is without more detail, but I find there are two things that usually cause issues: (1) Piloting. Re-entry angle can make a big difference. Try either to stay slightly nose-up on a shallow descent, or right on the prograde vector with a very shallow descent. You might want to make a quicksave before you re-enter (with a hardsave on the ground, if you're playing career) and try a few different approaches. (2) Stability. That thing looks a bit nose-heavy already, but your vertical stabilisers are probably inadequate, as others have mentioned. The higher your speed, the harder it is to retain yaw control.

So, I've been playing around with a bunch of sketches based on supposed design concept pictures for an 'LFI', a Russian light fighter proposal from back in the '90s (IIRC). A couple were basically Eurocanards, which I find a bit boring, although the Yakovlev one has a nifty cranked delta and interesting lines. Two ideas that really jumped out at me: a Mikoyan tailless semi-delta (not sure what else to call it), and a Sukhoi which was basically a single engined, kawaii flanker with canards. I attempted to make both.The MiG didn't come out quite the way I intended, but it's fast, if a little ugly. I decided it would make a good ground attack plane. The Sukhoi, though, is awesome. It ended up with a much more blended body than the original, partly because I wanted to see what I could get away with using B9 procedural parts. I also ditched the canards, which didn't seem to add anything. Links: Crow (flankeresque), armed. Crow, unarmed. Magpie (weird delta thingy). All designs use B9 Procedural Parts and Adjustable Landing Gear. The armed Crow and the Magpie also use BD Armory. [edit] Nothing I do will make imgur work, and I'm tired of fighting software today, so you'll all just have to download the planes to see what they look like. I promise the Crow is worth it. [edit edit] All fixed. Thanks @tetryds, I was just tired and couldn't remember how to do albums. Also, if anyone does download the planes and is using DD, the Crow is set up for it but has very conservative settings. You can afford to be a lot more aggressive with the controls than I've allowed. [edit edit edit] Just realised the 'unarmed' Crow had a flipping BD radome. All fixed now.

Huh. That's quite an oversight! Looks like I also need to tweak the AI to be more aggressive; it wasn't pulling its usual tricks even once in those fights. I must have changed something with DD or the AI settings and forgotten about it. [edit] OK, I've tweaked the Currawong's behavior slightly (link). Haven't had a chance to do much testing, but I do want to run some battles eventually.

Ran a couple of test battles this evening. Conclusions: (1) The AI is allergic to immelmans. (2) Supermaneuverability is very much a double edged sword. Running mirror matches, what usually happens is that one or both planes is destroyed by an AMRAAM in the merge. Even with fairly conservative settings, the AI just loves to burn energy. I'll give ECMs a shot later and see if it makes a difference, but otherwise energy fighting might be essential.

Yeah, the AI seems to be much more aggressive with the controls now. I've found you need to tweak the settings a lot to make it more gentle for some planes. Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever had any concept of extending. Maybe speed controls? I see BD just released a hotfix with some AI changes.

How are people finding the new BDA? Lots of interesting tweaks and features for air duels. Missiles seem much more effective, especially AIM-120s (will we start seeing jammers?), and the AI more competent at flying in general and post-stall shenanigans in particular. I just saw the the Currawong and the HF-2X engage in some gun jousting, which was absolutely insane. Thrust vectoring is even more viable now: the AI is much better at stall recovery, and knowing which axis to use for post-stall maneuvre.. 180 degree turn on the yaw axis at 50 m/s for an AIM-120 kill? Sure, why not. I'm really exited to see the AI flying my creation the way it was intended.

The HF-2X is a very capable plane, but you might need to tweak dynamic deflection a bit. The AI has a tendency to push the envelope a little too far and get into a bad stall or over-g and rip a bit of wing off. Ideally, we could just set AoA and G limits, but I have no idea how to go about implementing that. @Van Disaster I think kOS might be going a bit far, unless you want a programming contest. I guess I can't shake the feeling that these fighters ought to be supersonic, but that's nothing to do with this contest. I like to go fast. I've been toying with the idea of some kind of successor to the 5th Gen Fighter Contest -- a 'renaissance fighter contest' with combat as a scoring mechanism but a few other requirements (fuel fraction, speed, paylaod, etc.) for qualification. Meh.

So we're back at it. I'm not sure that I relish the prospect of facing the Hummingbird again, but I'll give it a shot. I really like the idea of weight classes. Given that the current 'meta' has been tending toward 'lowest possible wing loading', some kind of external constraints to make planes a bit more well-rounded seem like a good idea. I was seriously thinking about a sort of 'intercept challenge' or 'bombing challenge' to mix things up, but the AI and physics limits seem to render it moot. Anyway, here's one I had hanging around that works perfectly for the heavy category. The Dok-7 Currawong. A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. I haven't even bothered to set up DD for it, because it seems beside the point. All stock except for the BD Armory stuff. I've also got a nifty little medium which is a great plane to fly, but it might need some work to make it more competitive under AI control: the Dok-9 Crow. Needs B9 procedural parts and adjustable landing gear.

@Wanderfound There's something very rewarding about making a functional plane with the entry-level parts. Mine are rather more shambolic than yours, but I'll post them later. I actually built a sort of MiG-105-esque orbiter for 3 Kerbals and it survives re-entry, miraculously, though it flies like a brick.

0.08? That's mad. What are the 'bits and pieces' that raise it, weapons? (i.e. could you keep it low with bays?). Below 0.2 is doable with stock, but if that cockpit is the cause, it does seem pretty spiffy. Downloading the mod now, because I can't resist the possibility of making a plane with a DCS-style clickable cockpit any longer. I've mostly used stock parts for my planes thus far, but I feel a heavily modded one coming on...

It seems everyone is making minimalist planes now. I like them, but here's something less subtle: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/glnoPS5.png[/IMG] Craft file: [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/47ic3gqfsbr7eaf/Dok-5%20Cormorant.craft?dl=0"]https://www.dropbox.com/s/47ic3gqfsbr7eaf/Dok-5%20Cormorant.craft?dl=0 [/URL] The finished(ish) Cormorant. Max speed Mach 2.8, cruises at Mach 2. It can carry half a dozen munitions internally, and has ECM, cannon and IR ball built in. Not exactly a turnfighter, but it's supermaneuverable and very agile. The leading edge flaps double as control surfaces. They're not currently configured for pitch control, but if/when I set the plane up for Dynamic Deflection I'll change it so that they switch between elevator and flap mode depending on the dynamic pressure.

Nice! Which mod are you using for those intakes?

[quote name='Van Disaster']Post-stall maneuverability is not something western doctrine looks for, it's still based on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory"]Boyd's theories[/URL] despite decades of combat with the Harrier. The Typhoon/Rafele bend it by dipping into the high-drag part of the envelope a fair bit, but I'm not sure either of them will even let you stall. No reason you couldn't get your initial homer lock from the AWACS or a drone via data link, assuming you're not being jammed - if you are being jammed then even active radar isn't going to help ( and you've probably been seen too ).[/QUOTE] Didn't know that about missiles and AWACS. I'm traditionally more of a WW2 buff. As for post-stall -- I'm not exclusively interested in Western stuff. :) My [I]completely scientific[/I] testing with KSP suggests that it isn't much use in a dogfight until one or both planes has a low energy state -- at which point it's actually really useful. I'm sure it's different IRL where you might have off-boresight weapons, teammates, etc. Anyway, I should have said 'super-' rather than 'post-stall'. [quote name='Robet.G']So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless. Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it.[/QUOTE] Well: (1) Fighters are cool. (2) Kerbals are basically drones (high G tolerances). (3) Speed is arguably still important. Energy state of missiles, ability to intercept or escape, etc. Also, it's cool. (4) Lasers are uncool (and possibly involve heat/power/other issues). (4) Dogfights are cool. Also, possibly necessary IRL, where unknown factors like rules of engagement and electronic warfare might interfere. (5) Even without dogfights, energy state and tactics matter in a missile duel. It's not just a matter of pushing a button. (6) Fighters are cool. (7) How did I get to seven? My fast missile fighter can beat your slow laser drone. [quote name='FourGreenFields']Better not to look at German late-WWII designs then, eh? TLDR: Paper planes ftw![/QUOTE] Some of those are pretty Kerbal.

[quote name='RevanCorana']The F-22 has no passive detection meaning it is either blind or has to betray its presence by using radar. And IR signature tracking which F22 lacks, not only negates radar stealth but also is totally passive.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm sure it has a passive radar-warning setup, and probably some kind of link to AWACS etc. Also, IRSTs are cool but have very limited range compared to modern radar (I don't think ex Soviet ones are ever quoted as having more than 50km, and that's from behind an afterburner or something). Oh, and you'll still need an active radar somewhere to launch any proper long-range missiles (unless someone figured out how to get them to the terminal phase without a lock -- I guess the R-27 sort of can?). I'd love an IRST in BDA, though (oh, and a Gsh-23, and R-73s that can fire off-boresight, and more Soviet/Russian stuff in general). I suspect you're right that stealth isn't all its cracked up to be, but surely low-observability is still a desirable quality. Just a matter of what it costs, I guess. And fifth-gen is totally a buzzword, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. Supercruise, fancy sensors, post-stall maneuverability -- these are not things people used to take for granted. [edit] Never mind all that. Here's what happens when you spend too much time looking at pictures of unbuilt fighter concepts: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vVuKp5V.png?1[/IMG] Flies well, but less so since I gave it a 'proper' MiG-29/Su-27-esque high nose/low wing & engine layout (originally the wing ran down the centre of the fuselage). It's picked up a nasty yaw instability at high AoA. I mostly changed it for looks, so I suppose I can go back. What's the deal with that layout, anyway?

2.8-ish seems to be the cap for most planes with that engine now. Which seems quite realistic. I think I could probably break Mach 3 with the Cormorant if it weren't for engine heat issues -- again, a realistic constraint. It seemed way too easy to build planes that were nearly hypersonic with the previous engines. Regarding stealth: I agree that it's impossible, because there's no way to test it and no way to build it without using nothing but procedural parts, but I wonder how Halsfury feels about e.g. giving a point for carrying an arbitrary weight of 'stealth coating', having a weapons bay, having vaguely stealthy wing geometry (canted tails, repeated angles, zigzags?), etc.

[quote name='Van Disaster']Deltas should be able to pull such vast AoA that landing slowly is doable ( probably safer than a more conventional craft, even ). Just keep pulling the nose up until you're increasing thrust again, and you have braking on demand. You could try Q-dependent wing shaping with surfaces like I mentioned a while back, but that's a bit much for just landing. Stalling is a huge energy sink, whether you keep control or not. Highly swept wings don't really stall the same way as straight ones but even vortex lift runs out eventually, and vortex lift itself is not low-drag...[/QUOTE] I think it's a matter of practice, but the tiny stock landing legs I'm using probably don't help. Powered landings do seem to be necessary. [quote name='Robet.G']The rules reads like this to me: "must look exactly like an F-16 or it doesn't count"[/QUOTE] What? Just the last couple of pages contain all kinds of planes.

Yeah, I'm starting to think less in terms of maximising AoA and more in terms of AoA versus energy retention. 'Post-stall maneuverability', as I believe the Russians are calling it, seems like it would always be a desirable quality, though. Incidentally, I saw Bahamut demoing some fights on Twitch last night, and I swear at least one of them had craft using thrust vectoring with no discernable wobble. BTW: any tips for increasing a craft's aspect ratio? I suppose I could make it spout narrow flaps sideways. The Cormorant has plenty of lift area, but the aspect is so low that landing is quite tricky. Not impossible by any means, but it likes to come in fast. [edit] To clarify, I mean [I]temporarily[/I] increase aspect ratio.

I tried to replicate this, but unfortunately (?) I can no longer replicate the bug with the new version of FAR. Regarding vectoring: more control over axes would certainly be welcome, as would some way to apply dynamic deflection to them, but part of the problem seems to be an extension of the tendency of stability controls/BD AI to get itself into nasty oscillating situations with overcorrection. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about that. I wouldn't completely write off vectoring, though. Aside from the ability to pull off cool stunts (I spent quite some time last night pulling 360 degree flips in both yaw and pitch axes for giggles -- quite a lot of fun while low over the KSC in IVA mode), it really helps in situations where control authority might otherwise be weak. The poor Skua has taken quite a beating with the recent patches; the relative centre of lift has moved back a lot (or the centre of pressure has moved... Forwards? Is that how it works?) -- in any case, pitch authority is now dismal. Fixing it seems to require a complete redesign of the planform, and my efforts in that direction quickly ran into new problems, so I would essentially be designing a new plane. However: with thrust vectoring, the Skua is able to regain some of its former glory. I ran a few test fights, Skua versus its replacement ('Cormorant'), and while the Cormorant completely destroys the Skua if neither have vectoring, a Skua with TV has enough energy retention (and otherwise undesirable stability) that it can still spring nasty surprises on more agile planes (though it does wobble like a top in the process). EDIT: I tried to replicate the problem TheHengeProphet had, but no luck.

I had no idea that could happen. I feel really dumb now.

@tetryds I salute that landing. Show off! @Van Disaster That's a shame. Won't stop me from trying, though Hopefully mod updates will remedy things.

I was experiencing the exact same roll instability that Sean Mirrsen describes. I just installed von Helmholtz, and that has fixed it completely. It was very strange, though, effecting even craft in near-vacuum, capsules floating on parachutes at 4m/s, etc. Every time I deactivated SAS, there it was.