The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[Hodo]

That one's new.

But in all seriousness, I agree.

You can quote it if you like.

[FourGreenFields]

I think I may have inadvertently started this debate and I am sorry about that.

But about your craft, even if under the non-missile engagements and gun only fights, your craft wouldnt fair very well due to its poor roll rate. Lets look at historical examples of great energy fighters, or Boom and Zoom fighters. The FW-190D9 by far one of the best BnZ fighters in history. It had a phenomenal roll rate better than anything the Allies had during the war. This aloud it to pull off surprisingly quick reversals and get the shot then climb away before anything could counter it.

Next we could look at the Me/Bf-109G6, again, another light weight aircraft that had a great roll rate, and actually could turn pretty decently under high speeds, but suffered at lower speeds. This mated with its power to weight ratio, it could pull itself out of most fights if it needed to. The 109G6 manual even said, "when in trouble point your nose towards the heavens and climb like a home sick angel." The G6 had a 4200fpm climb rate, when the next best allied aircraft could only manage 3700fpm.

Lastly we could look at my personal favorite, the P-47D Thunderbolt. That thing was a TRUE energy fighter. If the jug was caught low, it was dead. But if it had the altitude advantage it would kill anything in the air. And because the Thunderbolt accelerated in a dive like a brick dropped by god, it could retain that energy into a mild climb. But if you asked it to turn it would burn that energy faster than a forest fire through a kindling factory.

Well, debates are what forums are for, right?

109 didn't have a great roll rate afaIk. Can't check my books atm, but iIrc it was nothing special in that regard. Was also reported to suffer from stiffening of all controls at high speeds. On the other hand, it could trim the elevator all the way afaIk, which could be used to assist dive recovery. Also, iIrc the massive climb rate advantage was only at some alts (I think the Typhoon had pretty awesome climb down low, same for the Lavochkins).

7 tons of steel ftw! Although I still prefer the 109 (G-2), the Jug is one of the planes I'm seriously afraid of, if one is above me.

But yea, if we are talking about "my craft" (= seemingly the flying pencil) then I can't score much in dogfights. The flying pencil realy was built for Mach 2 top speed and nothing else. Although ofcourse that prob comes with good high-speed dive acceleration. And I can't remember much about the Shrike. May or may not be [censored]. Anyway, both are a bit dated imo, partially due to ducted area ruling.

[RocketTurtle]

Well, debates are what forums are for, right?

109 didn't have a great roll rate afaIk. Can't check my books atm, but iIrc it was nothing special in that regard. Was also reported to suffer from stiffening of all controls at high speeds. On the other hand, it could trim the elevator all the way afaIk, which could be used to assist dive recovery. Also, iIrc the massive climb rate advantage was only at some alts (I think the Typhoon had pretty awesome climb down low, same for the Lavochkins).

7 tons of steel ftw! Although I still prefer the 109 (G-2), the Jug is one of the planes I'm seriously afraid of, if one is above me.

But yea, if we are talking about "my craft" (= seemingly the flying pencil) then I can't score much in dogfights. The flying pencil realy was built for Mach 2 top speed and nothing else. Although ofcourse that prob comes with good high-speed dive acceleration. And I can't remember much about the Shrike. May or may not be [censored]. Anyway, both are a bit dated imo, partially due to ducted area ruling.

Yeah the 109's were average when it came to roll rate, nothing special.

And I'm not trying to bash your design, it's quite aerodynamic, I just don't think it would work too well in real life.

And an idea for a mod, if anyone would know how to write it. Something that could calculate the radar cross section of a plane, so we could also give stealth points. I'm not sure how this could be done though.

EDIT 666 POSTS I CAN'T POST ANOTHER POST

Edited July 21, 2015 by RocketTurtle

[tetryds]

Yeah the 109's were average when it came to roll rate, nothing special.

And I'm not trying to bash your design, it's quite aerodynamic, I just don't think it would work too well in real life.

And an idea for a mod, if anyone would know how to write it. Something that could calculate the radar cross section of a plane, so we could also give stealth points. I'm not sure how this could be done though.

You could use FAR's voxelization to do that, I offered help to BahamutoD to implement that on radars but he was not interested, we will have to wait and see what he will come up with.

Also, 666 posts, haha.

[ihtoit]

the 109's chief advantage is climb rate. It could out-turn a P-51 (just), but the venerable Spitfire Mk.VIII could out turn it, outgun it and had better cockpit visibility. As with many other aircraft, the 109 climbed better when it showed its belly to the sky (a half barrel), which the Spit had problems with because unlike the 109, it didn't have direct fuel injection - it had to climb belly-down or it'd stall.

Source: many hours of talking with a WWII veteran who fought on both sides of the Axis line - being from Italy.

[FourGreenFields]

the 109's chief advantage is climb rate. It could out-turn a P-51 (just), but the venerable Spitfire Mk.VIII could out turn it, outgun it and had better cockpit visibility. As with many other aircraft, the 109 climbed better when it showed its belly to the sky (a half barrel), which the Spit had problems with because unlike the 109, it didn't have direct fuel injection - it had to climb belly-down or it'd stall.

Source: many hours of talking with a WWII veteran who fought on both sides of the Axis line - being from Italy.

Outgun not quite as much as you'd think just looking at the number of guns/cannons though. 109 had 1 nose cannon (20mm MG 151/20 or 30mm MK 108), + 2 nose mounted MGs. Spit had 2 cannons (20mm) and 4 MGs iIrc. Also less ammo per gun if I am not mistaken.

Nose mounted weapons are easier to aim with. Not quite worth 2 wing mounted weapons, but still. Some Spit variants had 4 20mm cannons, these clearly outgunned the 109 - unless the 109 mounted pods.

I'd be kinda surprised if the 109 would climb better flying inverted. You sure he didn't mean it climbed better inverted than other inverted aircraft did? If not I'd like an aerodynamic explanation.

[Hodo]

Well, debates are what forums are for, right?

109 didn't have a great roll rate afaIk. Can't check my books atm, but iIrc it was nothing special in that regard. Was also reported to suffer from stiffening of all controls at high speeds. On the other hand, it could trim the elevator all the way afaIk, which could be used to assist dive recovery. Also, iIrc the massive climb rate advantage was only at some alts (I think the Typhoon had pretty awesome climb down low, same for the Lavochkins).

7 tons of steel ftw! Although I still prefer the 109 (G-2), the Jug is one of the planes I'm seriously afraid of, if one is above me.

But yea, if we are talking about "my craft" (= seemingly the flying pencil) then I can't score much in dogfights. The flying pencil realy was built for Mach 2 top speed and nothing else. Although ofcourse that prob comes with good high-speed dive acceleration. And I can't remember much about the Shrike. May or may not be [censored]. Anyway, both are a bit dated imo, partially due to ducted area ruling.

Your aircraft was designed with very much the same thought process as the Mig-25/31, and the F-104, speed above all else. This meant they were great interceptors but poor fighters. As the Iraqis found out in the first Gulf War when 2 of their Mig-25s engaged 2 F-15C Eagles.

[FourGreenFields]

Your aircraft was designed with very much the same thought process as the Mig-25/31, and the F-104, speed above all else. This meant they were great interceptors but poor fighters. As the Iraqis found out in the first Gulf War when 2 of their Mig-25s engaged 2 F-15C Eagles.

My aircraft was designed with the thought to pass the challenge no matter what.

Maybe I gotta design some "real" fighters for the cahllenge too. We'll see.

[Hodo]

My aircraft was designed with the thought to pass the challenge no matter what.

Maybe I gotta design some "real" fighters for the cahllenge too. We'll see.

Again not saying your aircraft is not good, it just is not a good fighter. It however is an excellent recon aircraft and high speed interceptor.

[FourGreenFields]

Again not saying your aircraft is not good, it just is not a good fighter. It however is an excellent recon aircraft and high speed interceptor.

I wasn't thinking that, I was just mentioning that it wasn't the same thougth process. It realy was meant just for the challenge.

[Halsfury]

Since we're on the topic of energy fighter versus manoeuvrability versus boom and zoom/spray and pray I want to weigh in to say that at most times combat victories happen without the victim even registering a threat, therefore one should think of a fighter as a hunter with merely the difference being that the prey can fight back.

A very successful fighter therefore needs speed and manoeuvrability (the former for hunting and the latter to avoid becoming the hunted) and in terms of manoeuvrability there is a choice; either maximize low energy manoeuvre, or maximize high energy manoeuvre.

maximizing high energy manoeuvre at the expense of low energy ability is often chosen since high energy manoeuvre can be integrated into an offensive strategy more easily, however low speed manoeuvre can be used to "energy trap" fighters in an attacking position by goading the faster fighter into tight turns by presenting false opportunities.

Basically there's no right answer to how to build a fighter, only a right answer to how to use one to advantage.

[Dwerto]

I have been trying for a while to make a working entry using only a single basic jet engine in KSP 1.0.4. So far I have had no success.

Does anyone know how difficult this is to do in 1.0.2 as I believe version 1.0.3 reduced the thrust of all jet engines?

I assume the people with BDarmory are using KSP 1.0.2.

[RocketTurtle]

I have been trying for a while to make a working entry using only a single basic jet engine in KSP 1.0.4. So far I have had no success.

Does anyone know how difficult this is to do in 1.0.2 as I believe version 1.0.3 reduced the thrust of all jet engines?

I assume the people with BDarmory are using KSP 1.0.2.

BDarmory works with 1.0.4

[CrisK]

Based on this discussion, here's my take on an interceptor-style 5th gen fighter. (Mods: Adjustable landing gear, b9 wings, FAR, BDArmory, MK2 Cockpits)

Supercruises at Mach 3.4. Highly maneuverable. Able to perform a vertical climb. Stable at all altitudes up to 24km.

It carries a relatively small armament of 4 AMRAAM missiles and 2 sidewinders.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I also updated my Boeing X-32 design. It's now 3,000kg lighter with 1.9m/s more DeltaV. (Mods: Adjustable landing gear, b9 wings, FAR, BD Armory.)

[Hodo]

Based on this discussion, here's my take on an interceptor-style 5th gen fighter. (Mods: Adjustable landing gear, b9 wings, FAR, BDArmory, MK2 Cockpits)

Supercruises at Mach 3.4. Highly maneuverable. Able to perform a vertical climb. Stable at all altitudes up to 24km.

It carries a relatively small armament of 4 AMRAAM missiles and 2 sidewinders.

http://imgur.com/a/WIKJV

I also updated my Boeing X-32 design. It's now 3,000kg lighter with 1.9m/s more DeltaV. (Mods: Adjustable landing gear, b9 wings, FAR, BD Armory.)

Great looking fighter....

And I hope its stable at 24km, because thats space.

[CrisK]

Great looking fighter....

And I hope its stable at 24km, because thats space.

Hodo will be here all week, folks. Tip your waiter...

[Darren9]

I'm not sure those AoA cockpits work properly with FAR, if you look at the green line in wavedrag there's no increase in cross-section from nosecone to cockpit bubble, I turned the voxel debug on with one a while back and it shows a hollow shape that air can flow through the inside. It doesn't matter that much but I think it should have a bigger bump at the start rather than almost no cross-section until after the air intake.

[CrisK]

I'm not sure those AoA cockpits work properly with FAR, if you look at the green line in wavedrag there's no increase in cross-section from nosecone to cockpit bubble, I turned the voxel debug on with one a while back and it shows a hollow shape that air can flow through the inside. It doesn't matter that much but I think it should have a bigger bump at the start rather than almost no cross-section until after the air intake.

You may be right. It flies well with the regular mk2 and mk2 expansion cockpits. Maybe I should replace the cockpit with one of those. I wish that @SuicidalInsanity would create a bubble canopy.

[SuicidalInsanity]

I did have a WIP fighter style cockpit model at one point that got superseded in favor of something else. I might still have it somewhere; If I can find it, you might get your wish, CrisK.

[CrisK]

I did have a WIP fighter style cockpit model at one point that got superseded in favor of something else. I might still have it somewhere; If I can find it, you might get your wish, CrisK.

Awesome. I'm looking forward to it! Can you also create a matching nosecone for your SR-71 cockpit?

Just for Kerbs and giggles, here's a Boeing X-32 built with the 2.5m Mark IV parts. Single engine. Stable up to Mach 4 at any altitude. Super maneuverable. Supercruises. Thrust limited to 50%. Holds a full BDArmory armament. Bonus: looks just as ugly and ridiculous as its real-life counterpart.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Mods: Mark IV, Adjustable landing gear, B9 wings, FAR.

[FourGreenFields]

Cruise missiles add too much drag to fly even transsonic on 2 turbojets

Still, managed to reach Mach 4.5 (at 16km though. Prob gonna reach Mach 4.3 at 12.5km - that is assuming that adding the missile racks didn't decrease performance too much), can pull 12 G with positive specific excess power, and can accelerate in a 90° climb. Let's win the BD Armoury challenge.

EDIT: And I calculated the score.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

140.8 points. Now just to upload it and make something to pass the BD Armoury Basic Jet part of the challenge.

EDIT2: Uploaded. Craft file on KerbalX

EDIT3: Seems this thing can zoom climb to space And live

Edited July 27, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[RocketTurtle]

Can anyone give me other tips on making my plane more maneuverable, and structurally stable?

.craft if anyone missed it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzk92c6vz0z02kx/pls%20dont%20die.craft?dl=0

[Phearlock]

Well rocketturtle. I ruined your area ruling a bit so you'll have to re-do some of that. But I added some typical fighter-y modifications to make it turn better. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhumx7kpo2fa9hc/pls%20dont%20die%20MOD1.craft?dl=0 See if it helps any. You may also have to move some more mass forward as I moved the CoL forward slightly. Sadly the NCS adapter is notorious for falling off at high dynamic pressure, so still have to watch out for that.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Phearlock

[Hodo]

Cruise missiles add too much drag to fly even transsonic on 2 turbojets

http://i.imgur.com/mNfiwSR.jpg

Still, managed to reach Mach 4.5 (at 16km though. Prob gonna reach Mach 4.3 at 12.5km - that is assuming that adding the missile racks didn't decrease performance too much), can pull 12 G with positive specific excess power, and can accelerate in a 90° climb. Let's win the BD Armoury challenge.

EDIT: And I calculated the score.

http://imgur.com/a/dUpii

140.8 points. Now just to upload it and make something to pass the BD Armoury Basic Jet part of the challenge.

EDIT2: Uploaded. Craft file on KerbalX

EDIT3: Seems this thing can zoom climb to space And live

Well you built a pretty decent aircraft there. But man you REALLY have to let things go, I am sensing some angst in some of your subtitles for your album.

"Top Speed at "roughly 10km"â„¢"

I am amazed though that that craft has any Yaw stability with such little vertical stabilizers it has. Good job on that one.

[FourGreenFields]

Well you built a pretty decent aircraft there. But man you REALLY have to let things go, I am sensing some angst in some of your subtitles for your album.

"Top Speed at "roughly 10km"â„¢"

That's just a reference to the fact that I consider "roughly 10 km" to be 10km +- 500m. Not +- several km.

Actually, the original goal was to build a flying wing. So basicly, there were no vertical stabilizers planned at all at first. That proved to be... difficult. So I ended up using winglets. And canards.

Anyway, the aerodynamic layout is capable of reaching Mach 2 with basic jets. Tbh though, I'd rather try and build something that is actually new, instead of nearly copying a previous design.

Edited July 28, 2015 by FourGreenFields