Halsfury

Thanks for offhandedly mentioning that FAR was updated, just downloaded it. And it's such a relief, Goldstein had a problem where it leading edge slats made from multiple parts would stall asymmetrically for no good reason. Haack has fixed this, so my Su-27 will finally super-manoeuver. But not the Su-27 which I showed earlier, I threw that one out but took the lessons learned from it to build this It's considerably more robust, and I hope to have it posted soon, one of it's cool features is the flare deployer on the boom at the very back, this ensures that the flares cross through the engine plume for maximum confusion factor for sidewinders. Another thing which happened with Haack is that the F-18 I redesigned with Darth had it's C of G moved forwards, or the C of P was moved back, but either way I just split up the 400 units of fuel in the tanks into 200 in the front of the nacelle and 200 in the back. The F-16 which everyone liked so much is still a great flyer, and might have had a performance boost with the patch Now everything is flying much better, I really like the update, it makes flight more smooth in all regimes but especially in high AoA which us fighter builders really benefit from Also here's the updated F-18, it comes with a bunch of stuff for updated BD armoury too, I hope you like the layout http://www./download/b19r3s4mqmawcs9/FAR_BD_FA-18J_Super_Hornet.craft The F-16 was unaffected by Haack as mentioned above

I'm always aiming for negative stability Anyway I'm thinking of releasing one final craft for this version of the challenge.

All this is very interesting feedback I'll also have to create a bofors obstacle course which you can download, it will be some 5km from the runway in the hills to the north. If you beat it that should be points. Also I'm thinking that points should be awarded for being able to fit a 30mm cannon since it's way more effective than the 20mm. A full list of electronic weaponry should be included also in the minimum requirements And my experience with single engine aircraft suggests that there should be points for such a design which outweigh the acceleration penalty

Fair enough tetryds, perhaps the rule should just be hit the min standards in the least amount of money. bonus points could translate into negative funds, so if you hit the standard for the bonus point that deducts a certain amount of cash from your score. also so I don't have to write out scores like 50,000 or 150,000 how about every 10,000 credits equals 1 point, with the objective of having the least points? @ FourGreenFields maybe the maximum cruise altitude could be calculated, I find that some craft aren't able to sustain cruise speed past a certain alt due to area ruling and aerodynamic issues. So that's possible. Short runways, could do, VTOL should earn something but I still think that VTOL people should be held to the 2 engine maximum. I'm trying to create a diminishing returns system yes, you can only get the requirement once. maybe tedryds is right that points should just be basic requirements with some overlay of a bonus points system. AJE I need to install and mess around with.

I use the default settings, mainly because I use stock parts, Also I should probably specify default FAR settings for the challenge. It's more about the limitations of stock parts. Also here's some new prototype rules I was thinking about: I'm thinking that the scoring system will change. From now on each player will strive for a minimum score of 0. How this will work is that points are awarded for design features, while points are subtracted for increased cost. Each feature will give a single point, and each x amount of cash will be equal to -1 points. This will hopefully achieve balance since the amount of positive points will be finite yet the amount of negative points will be infinite. This means that getting those last few points will be more expensive than getting the first few points. So say that the maximum points is 25 so if you net -25 points your score is 0 (which is fine) but, to keep track of everything, the score will be listed as 0/25. Meaning you collected all the points and broke even. a score of 0/18 would be worse since only 18 points are collected but still, the design reached parity in terms of cost benefit. So what do you think of something like this? Is it better than what we have now or worse? - - - Updated - - - Also the Su 27 eventually had to revert, turns out that the wheels don't like the nacelle arrangement, but the main thing I wanted to show was the 30mm GAU-8 on the undercarriage, it will make dogfights easier. Nice work Crisk, the Rafale looks great

My Su-27 now has a new feature, hope it makes it easier to shoot down planes Also I crabbed the intakes in so the jet engines are now diverging at the back like the real thing.

Well I'm daft so I'll never find it lol AJE? could do, I want everything to have similar power plants for AI battles I need engine data to compare all the viable 1.1 engines and AJE, will have to install telemachus to monitor it or go get the thrust curves some other way. I'll have to do that after 1.1 comes out

Well thats good for me at least since I never use more than stock but most people are dissatisfied with stock wings. I really love FAR ferram4 is my favourite modder, considering that he relies on donations, and I haven't the funds I should do something to help out. Where can I find the latest Dev version? - - - Updated - - - NEWS: With all the updates which will be occurring soon (especially KSP 1.1) I think that the rules will receive an overhaul. This time with less emphasis on speed and BD armoury usage will become mandatory. I'm also thinking that vehicle classes will open up, such that supporting aircraft with different requirements will be added. Also depending on how acceptable the new fighter jet engine is, it may be that they become the mandatory power plant for fighters, while the higher performance Turbojets become available for high speed reconnaissance. The high by-pass basic jet will likely be relegated to subsonic attacker aircraft. The current leaderboard will become the legacy leaderboard when this occurs. Also hopefully everyone will help with formulating the rules into the most plain english possible so that people need less clarification this time around.

I'm willing to blame B9proc wings maybe it is possible that I installed B9 wrong all I did was port the stuff in the game data folder into my game data, I didn't bother with the texture stuff and all seems well. May be that you need to update B9 and that they've done something to it to make it more FAR compatible. I want to say that my version is more accurate with regards to physics since I've gone out of my way to imitate Dassault's design closely, but it could simply be that formerly wing shape was an aesthetic and structural choice by B9 yet FAR always calculated the flat stock boards and B9 roughly the same. If you have an earlier version of B9 it could mean that FAR is making assumptions about the wing which don't dovetail with reality, I'll go check on the voxels on my end to see what FAR is getting. EDIT: voxels are getting the whole picture. Does my Rafale do high AoA like in my pictures on your end?

Now I just don't get how your old design was pulling 15 g's for me it would only pull 4-5 g's even though it was going like a bat outta hell, it was painful to turn and every landing was rough and ugly something's not right, are you running FAR "Goldstein"?

At high speed it reverts to how it was before down low, controls stiffen up a bit but it has the recommended 6g turn at 200 to 300m/s at 5000m. At 15,000m it goes from flight mode normal to large AoA sideslip and doesn't have a stall point within 40 degrees of your velocity vector Instead it is meta-stable in the direction you point the nose and the velocity vector makes itself accommodating to your desired flight path. It's quite unusual to fly, as I said it's you point the nose and physics takes over and now you're flying in a different direction EDIT: I added the Halsfury TM area ruling blister to the rear of the cockpit, I wasn't a fan of the obvious parts clipping of the two Mk 2 pods Also you might have noticed the large leading edge slat running across the wing, I cheated here, on the real thing there are 2 slats which can be independently computer controlled, want to invent a KOS script to adjust wing slats on negative stability fighters? lol - - - Updated - - - Also I think I've held you in suspense long enough now I'll leave it to you to arm it http://www./download/09qj4eqg2pm8e4v/FAR_BD_Dassault_Rafale_F1.craft Also slap a speed brake on there while you're at it, it could use the control

Well, my intention was mainly to take the stiffness out of the controls, now it's epic I got to 90 degrees AoA before it quit on me Aww yes preparing for the leaf manoeuvre Leaf! EDIT: I don't know why the FAR GUI is failing to display the flight status, it is as I'm playing the game, anyway needless to say this is a large scale stall... I love this design... Landing speed was 75m/s, it's very smooth across it's flight profile, and I never had to break out the flaps for all those manoeuvres

Yes, also I've been trying to match the wings on Crisk's plane to the Rafale, I thinned them out a bunch at the root and I'm thinking I need a strake to play the part of the blended wing body before it actually turns into the wing. It's a very complex aircraft from an aerodynamics perspective. Once I get the wing just right, I'll add weapons to it and see how it flies. @ Crisk No I'm not overthinking it, FAR can take account of these details, at any rate your delta wing was too big and too low aspect, I'll get it to manoeuvre like it ought to, you know the real thing has flown as slow as 15mph while maintaining control?

The Rafale is a difficult case, like many delta wings it is always fighting against itself, it has plenty of stability, which is also a concern. On the real thing the wings have a downwards sweep to counteract this. I think there are a few other tricks Dassault is using, leading edge flaps are used and the wings have a minor forward sweep on the trailing edge. Also the wings are thin and just look at the sweep on them! Clearly the intention is both to have negative stability and as it turns in high G manoeuvres to minimize "resistance" if you will, of the layer of air on top of the wing

Maybe it's that you're running an older version of B9 wings, it's the only thing I can think of I was unable to get it to turn and the AI was in the same situation, just always running away. Also I have to release the Su-27, it's a great craft

That's interesting I've been fighting against your Rafale with the Su-27 which I just built, frankly I've got to criticize the Rafale's poor turn performance, I got behind it every time no matter how high or how low I chased. Also I recently discovered that it has it's thrust limiter set high, that was cheeky of you Victory! Somewhere in that debris cloud is a Crisk Rafale I really hated the low turn rate on the Rafale, even though it was a bullet it had such bad manoeuvrability I felt that flying it really consisted of holding down S. Got a Dev version which is not hampered by AI limits? Also to achieve this I turned down the max speed slightly, I had to, without reducing the speed the plane would just fly off past render range and disappear. On the plus side, the speed meant that missiles were very ineffective, the only missile which got close enough to kill was a Sparrow fired from 700 meters, only after I had done some damage with gun hits. Final verdict is that the Rafale is too extreme on speed. It would be among the best if it could get 9 g's on pitch, I have a suspicion that the wing you have made is of the wrong shape and that it could be fixed with a bit of reworking. The Rafale doesn't use such a simple delta wing in fact is has a chine in the front and a forward sweep on the trailing edge. Also the wing has a pretty fat root and the CoL could be closer to the CoM. Hopefully this will mitigate the inherent flaws of a delta wing giving it greater manoeuvrability More Edits: Also I really like your trick for mounting multiple missiles onto 1 strut.

It's a stock replica in theory but there are some things which I can't reproduce in stock, oh and adjustable wheels of course Also I get frustrated with B9 wings, I've always been a stock builder.

Ok Also I think I tallied up Darth's F-18 so I'll be posting the score. 14 pts for weapons 1 for TWR 4.32 for external stores 5 for 9 g's 0.5 pts for 89 min time in super cruise 2 pts for super cruise at mach 1.2 36 points for max speed 62.28 points

That's incredible, what mods?

@ Crisk that's an awful long edit, what mods are you using? (Other than BD armoury) As it stands I can't destroy your aircraft since they can't load:P Also I took the Mig 29 to higher altitude and it's showing a typical Russian behaviour pattern of quick turns at low speed and sluggish turns at high speed, also due to a bit of a mix up with plans, the Mig 29 that you just saw will be renamed as Su-27:rolleyes:

Yeah I think I'm cheating with the humpback, it does serve a wave drag reduction purpose but it's also adding character, even if it's not there on the real thing it's making it look less stock and more as you said, alluring... craft file: http://www./download/3j45a1n8aam283i/FAR_BD_F-16C_Fighting_Falcon.craft It's still not very fast, use 1/3rd throttle for cruise, it makes the fuel flow lower and you still get a quite fast subsonic cruise out of it Also this challenge has really improved my aircraft designs, check out this Mig-29, only took this morning to do it

You quite literally need a big orange tank to draw fuel from or more to make the nuclear engine viable. When 1.0 first came out I posted this article in tutorials concerning the fuel efficiency of stock upper stage engines. With the advent of 1.0 the NUK only uses liquid fuel so the efficiency is marginally greater than the data screen tells you (since the rocket is lighter), that being said it's easy to forget to remove the oxidizer from the nuclear stage http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119333-Choosing-the-right-rocket-engine-for-greatest-efficiency-in-1-0-and-up

I should look into AJE actually, maybe I could add rules for it. In other news I'm happy to present the F-16C Fighting Falcon. What's so special about this you may ask? Well I checked up on the specs of the real thing and have designed this aircraft to match the F-16C pound for pound, it's acceleration even, is reminiscent of playing Falcon 4.0. I'm thinking that even though this is clearly a 4th gen fighter and can't get the specs necessary to compete in the challenge, there should be some use for it, maybe a Falcon 4.0 challenge? I'm going to make an artwork out of this plane, I'm thinking of in front of the runway with the cockpit open and Jeb climbing in with a bunch of ground control guys around it. No not a render, just rendered in graphite:) - - - Updated - - - Also this challenge might be impacted by 1.1 when it comes out but this will be great. http://imgur.com/a/NkzMp Looking forward to some better engines for us aircraft builders, maybe the "Panther" will become a new favourite engine Ah and the half meter jet is called the "Juno" that must be referencing the Junkers Jumo 004

Thanks Also, can you see a resemblance? Can't get it to go too fast yet, I think with just 1 engine I actually have to care a bit more about area ruling.

I Figured out the laser targeting system eventually, I sort of couldn't help but notice as my missiles flew right past an AAA cannon emplacement. What I haven't figured out yet is HARM missiles, I think that a version of the hornet with electronic warfare missiles would be much more useful but I can't get a lock on the smaller track and scan radar I've been using on my air defence platforms In short I would like a wild weasel F-18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel