The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[FourGreenFields]

I try. I die. .-.

Ever tried some subsonic plane?

Just to get the stability right. Try to build something that you can trim out for level flight, and come back, half an hour later, noticing it's flown through heavy turbulences without changing course.

Or do your designs misbehave in other ways?

[Hodo]

would this plane count? The Fighter version and not the 4 Engine VTOL.

One question... does it work in FAR?

[RocketTurtle]

Ever tried some subsonic plane?

Just to get the stability right. Try to build something that you can trim out for level flight, and come back, half an hour later, noticing it's flown through heavy turbulences without changing course.

Or do your designs misbehave in other ways?

Yeah my designs just turn like crap, stall really easily during turns and disassemble quite a lot at any speed above Mach 1. I can get the speed part down though.

[FourGreenFields]

Yeah my designs just turn like crap, stall really easily during turns and disassemble quite a lot at any speed above Mach 1. I can get the speed part down though.

Turn like crap -> Lower wing loading, possibly thicker wings (increases max AoA if I am not mistaken). Possibly wing "slats" (= leading edge deflects down as AoA increases, possibly being deflected up at 0 AoA), to further increase max AoA. Don't forget that the tail wings can also stall, so they may need to be equiped with slats too.

Stall realy easy -> Lower elevator authority, increasing max AoA (see above). Also, you might want to try and make the inner part of the wing stall first. That way, asymmetric stalls won't be as severe, and your nose'll drop without you losing all your lift (allthough still alot of lift)

RUD: Lower elevator and rudder authority, more wing strength (if wings break first), struts (they don't add much weight, and, if clipped, no drag).

That's all I can think of atm.

[Halsfury]

Hahah, well you can list it as just 'GAD M-21a' if you want but yeah I quite like the nickname! It's reminiscent of some of the NATO reporting names for 4th Gen Soviet fighters, which I took some inspiration from. It's also synonymous with Nightjar (the dev version's name) according to wikipedia. I will neither deny nor confirm any intentions of hilarious slightly self-depreciating innuendo of any kind.

Oh it's like a nato reporting name? some of those are quite offbeat I'll add both names

[Halsfury]

So I finally finished the F/A-18 build on my end darth, I'll post the craft file friday

Here's the synopsis of it's performance against my F-32 Hurricane which is itself modelled after the latest sukhoi's

versus

They are actually similar in a high speed turn but the Hornet is very weak below 200m/s, the best moves for the Hornet are displacement maneuvers which trade speed for altitude and help widen the gap between the Hornet and the faster turning plane, this makes pulling lead easier.

If this fails and you fear that your opponent is beating you in the turn, you can just pull up and use your superior climb, this is risky however because it's easy for your opponent to shoot at you as you flee in an upwards direction.

From a position of higher altitude the Hornet is a deadly foe since it has such a great power to weight ratio that it will always recover quickly to altitude. It's not recommended that a Hornet pilot aim for the sky at low speed because even if the power to weight ratio exceeds 1:1 it won't be by enough to make a speedy escape. Even so it's possible and recommended if you get in a jam.

The bad news about the hornet is that it suffers from aeroelasticity at moderately high dynamic pressures. This means that if you are in a dive, at a certain amount of dynamic pressure equivalent to mach 1.7 at 2000m most control inputs will do absolutely nothing, even the elevator controls will just make the airframe bop up and down and maybe move a little the way you want to go. in this phase of flight using the air brakes is really not recommended since they are very large and when exposed to more pressure than they can handle, will part company with the airframe and take large and important things with them.

[TMasterson5]

I invite all of you to join us over at KSP Military Creations on facebook!Link to group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/372011822987779/

[Emilio]

I invite all of you to join us over at KSP Military Creations on facebook!Link to group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/372011822987779/

Just to let you know - you already posted this 16 pages ago.

[Halsfury]

As promised, here's my final revision of the F/A-18 with drop tanks. I can't really decide whether I like this or the F-32 Hurricane more

http://www./download/5n9sl3tatxph3ni/FAR_BD_FA-18_Super_Hornet.craft

The only difference from the pic is the nose is tilted downwards like the real thing and there's a probe core in the hump behind the cockpit

mods:

BD armoury, adjustable landing gear

Edited August 8, 2015 by Halsfury

[Hodo]

As promised, here's my final revision of the F/A-18 with drop tanks. I can't really decide whether I like this or the F-32 Hurricane more

http://i.imgur.com/S0bLOwH.png

http://www./download/5n9sl3tatxph3ni/FAR_BD_FA-18_Super_Hornet.craft

The only difference from the pic is the nose is tilted downwards like the real thing and there's a probe core in the hump behind the cockpit

mods:

BD armoury, adjustable landing gear

I like the F-32 best but they both are beautiful aircraft, far better than both of mine. And I am not ashamed to admit it.

[Halsfury]

I think the only issue with the F-18 now is how the rear fuselage is attached to the forward fuselage, it's a little scary to see all that flex even though it has never caused a crash in combat.

Also at high speeds and altitudes making aggressive turns induces huge shear loads which when coupled with the inherent size and number of parts of the aircraft make things want to fall apart. If there were any way to tighten up all those joints it would be a much better fighter than the F-32 all the way to 20km

[TheHengeProphet]

I am curious. Is there a particular reason the turbojets are restricted to 50% thrust? [edit]Turns out a singular TurboJet has 130 kN of thrust, and the singular F-16 engine has 131.2 kN of thrust. Forcing half throttle here is hardly a good way to display a 5th Gen fighter when its engines can't compete with a 4th Gen. Thoughts? [/edit]

Edit: More questions. Edit: More data to back up the questions.

Is there a particular reason droptanks are requested for bonus points? Is it simply because it's easier to dump fuel for a fight that way? My current plane iteration has an internal capacity of 1610 (8050kg) units of fuel on board, but it's unreasonable to load it with more than 630 (3150kg) for "local" work. [edit] In contrast, an F16 carries 2685kg of fuel internally. [/edit]

Is there a reason you ask for an operational time versus an operational range? [edit] I believe most fighters are measured in operational range rather than time... [/edit]

Sorry for the question bombardment, but I'm just trying to figure out if the jet I made while just goofing about qualifies. That and the operational range is more useful for a multi-role fighter than an operational time.

[edit] Another reason for this question bombardment is that I really do want to enter this, as the contest here quite interests me. [/edit]

Edited August 14, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[CrisK]

I updated the X-32 for the latest version of BDArmory. I also lowered the mass by around 4k and the part count by 20. It pulls 20g turns without a problem, is capable of vertical climbing, and carries a slightly larger loadout. This version also uses Infernal Robotics to deploy stowed missiles.

I've been using it to dogfight with @clown_baby's creations and @Halsfury's F/A-18. I'm now confident that this little guy can take on any other plane in this thread.*

It can't hold drop tanks, but it has upwards of 30k deltaV internal fuel (though I usually stick with 5k for dogfights).

6 AMRAAMs, 2 sidewinders, 2 hellfires (optional).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

However, it's not as durable as @clown_baby's F-22 or @Halsfury's F/A-18 because it only has one engine, and it has less "armor"/wing parts. If it gets hit, it's game over.

[TheHengeProphet]

That's a nice looking plane CrisK, but I think it's weird you're carrying so many AMRAAMs and so few sidewinders. Typically, to my knowledge, that load-out quantities would be reversed.

[CrisK]

That's a nice looking plane CrisK, but I think it's weird you're carrying so many AMRAAMs and so few sidewinders. Typically, to my knowledge, that load-out quantities would be reversed.

It might be weird, but it's what Boeing specified for the X-32. The entire design is a little goofy, but that's what makes it more fun for me than a more standard design.

I posted an ASF-14 and an ATF-23 a few pages ago that also carry somewhat weird armaments. Maybe their weird specifications contributed to the fact that these aircraft were never put into production!

PS: The F-22 has 6 internal AMRAAM and 2 internal sidewinder missiles. So maybe it's not that crazy.

Edited August 15, 2015 by CrisK

[Hodo]

I am curious. Is there a particular reason the turbojets are restricted to 50% thrust? [edit]Turns out a singular TurboJet has 130 kN of thrust, and the singular F-16 engine has 131.2 kN of thrust. Forcing half throttle here is hardly a good way to display a 5th Gen fighter when its engines can't compete with a 4th Gen. Thoughts? [/edit]

Edit: More questions. Edit: More data to back up the questions.

Is there a particular reason droptanks are requested for bonus points? Is it simply because it's easier to dump fuel for a fight that way? My current plane iteration has an internal capacity of 1610 (8050kg) units of fuel on board, but it's unreasonable to load it with more than 630 (3150kg) for "local" work. [edit] In contrast, an F16 carries 2685kg of fuel internally. [/edit]

Is there a reason you ask for an operational time versus an operational range? [edit] I believe most fighters are measured in operational range rather than time... [/edit]

Sorry for the question bombardment, but I'm just trying to figure out if the jet I made while just goofing about qualifies. That and the operational range is more useful for a multi-role fighter than an operational time.

[edit] Another reason for this question bombardment is that I really do want to enter this, as the contest here quite interests me. [/edit]

These are all valid questions, I look forward to reading the answers.

But I have no problems with the challenge. It was fun.

[TheHengeProphet]

The MRF-1B Adder.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I can't seem to get the album working...

I've been having severe issues with the front canards stalling out, and haven't been able to pinpoint how to deal with it. They stall out rather easily under ~200 m/s, but at ~300 m/s, they're fine no matter how hard I pull, which allows the plane to pull consistent 10-16g turns at trans-sonic speeds.

Craft file is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/MRF-1B%20Adder.craft

Mods used for construction are KAX, Mk2 Expansion, and B9 Pwings. Don't think there is anything else...

Edited August 16, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[CrisK]

I updated the YF-23 that I posted earlier in this thread. It now has a larger internal armament, is a bit more maneuverable, and looks nicer.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[FourGreenFields]

The MRF-1B Adder.

http://imgur.com/a/sEvV6 I can't seem to get the album working...

I've been having severe issues with the front canards stalling out, and haven't been able to pinpoint how to deal with it. They stall out rather easily under ~200 m/s, but at ~300 m/s, they're fine no matter how hard I pull, which allows the plane to pull consistent 10-16g turns at trans-sonic speeds.

Craft file is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/MRF-1B%20Adder.craft

Mods used for construction are KAX, Mk2 Expansion, and B9 Pwings. Don't think there is anything else...

Add (Imgur)album code, in this case sEvV6(/imgur) just with ][.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

'Bout the canards, I see only one way, besides lowering deflection. Thicker canards. One reason to love B9PW.

Edited August 16, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[TheHengeProphet]

Thanks! Fixed the post. I'm not sure why thicker canards would work, but it's worth a shot, I guess. I do like the B9PWs, because they have a lot of possible variability; however, I dislike that I can't have a wing taper down as it goes aftward.

Unfortunately, if I could get the front canards to have variable control based on speed, that would be the best... Unfortunately, I may have to dump this design, as it only has reasonable control over 200 m/s.

[FourGreenFields]

Thanks! Fixed the post. I'm not sure why thicker canards would work, but it's worth a shot, I guess. I do like the B9PWs, because they have a lot of possible variability; however, I dislike that I can't have a wing taper down as it goes aftward.

AfaIk/as far as I guess, the relative thickness of a wing increases critical AoA, because the change in airflow direction (at the tip/leading edge at least) isn't as sudden if you have a thick airfoil.

What do you mean "taper down" though?

[TheHengeProphet]

I mean that the B9 wings are a flat board from front to back, but it's alterable from side to side. I found myself unable to eek out the same performance from the B9 wings as I was able from the Biggie deltas.

[Darth Lazarus]

As promised, here's my final revision of the F/A-18 with drop tanks. I can't really decide whether I like this or the F-32 Hurricane more

http://i.imgur.com/S0bLOwH.png

http://www./download/5n9sl3tatxph3ni/FAR_BD_FA-18_Super_Hornet.craft

The only difference from the pic is the nose is tilted downwards like the real thing and there's a probe core in the hump behind the cockpit

mods:

BD armoury, adjustable landing gear

sorry for no reply for so long, had a lot of things to do ...

i took the Hornet refit for a flight and it's wobnderfull. the placement of the new wepaons is good i liek it

thanks for reworking it. i would say the F-18 Hornet is ready for combat now

[TheHengeProphet]

And finally, my entry: The MRF-1B3S Adder. _{I hope this challenge is still going...}

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Scoring...

Mach 3.257 at supercruise: 22.57 points (I unintentionally left on the AMRAAMS, and realized they were still there after the test...)

Mach 4.598 at 16655: 25.98 points

Mach 4.225 at 11742: 22.25 points

1:1 TWR: 1 point (woooo)

Drop Tanks 216L: 4 points

9G+ Turn: 5 points

2 Vulcan Cannons, 4 AMRAAMs, 4 Sidewinder missiles: 20 points (I could install more if I removed the drop tanks)

Total: 54.82 points, 74.82 with BDA

All testing was performed with BDA, mounts intact; however, the vertical climb was completed without drop tanks or missiles, seeing as the allowed power for the engines is insufficient to achieve adequate thrust otherwise.

Craft file is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/MRF-1B3S%20Adder.craft

Mods used for construction are KAX, Mk2 Expansion, B9 Pwings, Tweakscale, and BDArmory. I used tweakscale to increase the size of my forward landing gear, and decrease the size of those giant delta wings a bit.

After testing, the plane has a maximum lifting weight of 19.9T, which is formidable. It is also entirely re-configurable to allow for ground-strike missions, even though it is currently set up as an air superiority fighter. If any of you wish to try this thing, be my guest, but keep in mind that at below 200m/s, it has enough pitch authority to stall out with relative ease (it will correct itself with fervor, preventing execution of Pugachev's Cobra, which really is more a show of instability than manoeuvrability).

P.S. Also, the craft should remain combat capable if it loses one or both of its canards, or even one or two of its rear control surfaces.

P.P.S. Serious thanks to FourGreenFields for making me think differently about those front canards.

P.P.P.S. If you give control of the craft to the AI node (it's on the bottom of the plane, near the rear), I suggest you restrict its stearing to 70%. I don't think it understands how to self-govern, currently.

Edited August 24, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[FourGreenFields]

As a Messerschmitt fanboy, I have to find a way to make this thing reach it's historical calculated top speed of Mach 2 with a basic jet! If I manage to do that, I'm pretty sure it passes the challenge.

(It's supposed to be the Heluan Ha-300)

EDIT: Messerschmitt ftw!

Edited August 19, 2015 by FourGreenFields