The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[FourGreenFields]

The Ä for Jäger just came up as a big, messed up letter in KSP, so I decided to just leave it to a normal A. Also, Jäger just means hunter, so I put Luft in front of it for a bit more precision.

If it's a plane, Jaeger simply means fighter. Chasseur (french) would also translate to hunter, but is a fighter.

That's the difference between english and german/french fighters. The english fighters have to fight for their kills, the german/french fighters fly about looking for prey.

If you want to make sure nobody mistakes it for a hunter, call it Jagdflugzeug (fighter plane). Luftjaeger would be closer to "a hunter that hunts air" (not quite sure how I'd have to translate that).

Alternatively Luftueberlegenheitsjaeger (air superiority fighter)

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Will you allowed Dynamic Deflection? A lot of manuverability can be found when tinkering with it. Just askin'

[NotAnAimbot]

If it's a plane, Jaeger simply means fighter. Chasseur (french) would also translate to hunter, but is a fighter.

That's the difference between english and german/french fighters. The english fighters have to fight for their kills, the german/french fighters fly about looking for prey.

If you want to make sure nobody mistakes it for a hunter, call it Jagdflugzeug (fighter plane). Luftjaeger would be closer to "a hunter that hunts air" (not quite sure how I'd have to translate that).

Alternatively Luftueberlegenheitsjaeger (air superiority fighter)

Yeah, my main language is French so I know a bit about the whole "Chasseur" things. I guess I just tried to make it sound cool and all. I'll be changing the name then, as well as a slight redesign for the XF-1.

[TheHengeProphet]

I don't see any problem with someone using Dynamic Deflection, but don't expect anybody else to use it. I've thought about setting it up on mine, but have been lazy about figuring out configuring it.

CrisK, I adjusted the everloving shizzle out of your control surface settings on the S-USAF, and drastically improved its handling. My friend informs me that I'm a bad person for making what was already amazing better. None of my planes can beat it one-on-one currently, but two spites can handle it (both survive about 50% of the time).

I made some serious adjustments to your trainer, and it may now well be the most maneuverable plane of the lot; however, it is rather frail, and I can't seem to strengthen it enough to handle more than 12g. It is also severely lacking in power, weighing 14t with a single engine, so it often never gets above 150m/s during a dogfight, and is quite often sitting around 80-50m/s. Nothing wants to approach it, though, considering they can't get to a point where its nose is not facing them.

I'll work on uploading the files when I get off work. You mentioned you have a version of Kerbpaint which works with 1.0.4?

[123nick]

how can you call this a challenge with such strict rules? like, you might as well tell us to build 1 and only 1 aircraft. maybe a bit more freedom with the rules?

[TheHengeProphet]

how can you call this a challenge with such strict rules? like, you might as well tell us to build 1 and only 1 aircraft. maybe a bit more freedom with the rules?

I disagree wholeheartedly. While all of my and CrisK's planes presented -for example- all are capable of everything in the rules (minus the spite being underweight), they are quite different. Each has their own handling characteristics, are capable of performing various roles with varying degrees of capability, and even look different. Granted, once you start getting to higher and higher levels of performance, things will start to become more similar, as they're nearing in on what is a "perfect form", that is until someone throws something in that changes the meta paradigm.

It is, however, on its own, a challenge in itself to make a plane capable of qualifying.

Edit: Here are the adjustments.

CrisK S-USAF Hvar: tuned control surface actuation, disabled torque.

CrisK Trainer Hvar: Modified strake profile, tuned control surface actuation, modified mass/strength values, disabled torque.

CrisK Trainer Hvar Combat: as previous, but with a gun, AI controller, and weapon manager.

Edited September 17, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[SpaceplaneAddict]

So, I'll take it as a "No" then, about Dynamic Deflection?

WHOOPS, forgot to look upthread.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, time to roll out the K-18. Which is NOT a replica, it is merely a generational update from my K-16, which was somewhat of a replica, but underperformed. Just clarifying beforehand.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me warn you ALL though. Because of Dynamic deflection, my fighter's handling INCREASES at high speeds. Such dogfighter. Many wow.

Before you say you knew this, I was only stating what I think of as a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

I couldn't get thrust limiter to 50, so is 50.5 allowed? If not, I'll go lower, no big deal.

Never mind, I'll make it harder and use 49.5

Edited September 17, 2015 by SpaceplaneAddict

[TheHengeProphet]

Getting the thrust limiter to 50 is so remarkably annoying. I manually set mine to 50 by going into the craft file, then save the engine itself as a subassembly, that way I can tack it on to any plane I wish to have 50% thrust. And yeah, somewhere earlier in the thread, it was said that 50.5 is acceptable.

I guess it makes sense that you have your deflection increase as you get faster, but that is actually the exact opposite of what I tend to want on some planes, heh. Looking forward to seeing what you have!

_{Still not sure if this challenge is still living, but I love what goes on here...}

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I guess it makes sense that you have your deflection increase as you get faster, but that is actually the exact opposite of what I tend to want on some planes, heh. Looking forward to seeing what you have!

_{Still not sure if this challenge is still living, but I love what goes on here...}

By increasing deflection at high speed, many G's of manuuverability is found. Strengthen a plane to handle said force, and you win. Just don't forget AoA. It will MESS. YOU. UP!

Lol, I remember when I was a non forum user looking at the forums at sheer bored ness. This challenge in particular, I held myself back. Because it seemed much harder than other fighter challenges. I hope the thread doesn't get closed before I enter. It happened once.

[FourGreenFields]

_{Still not sure if this challenge is still living, but I love what goes on here...}

[Hodo]

I found there is quite a bit of freedom in this challenge, but I love the fact it has turned into an improvement and optimization thread on aircraft design. Just look at some of the early aircraft in this thread and see how they have evolved into true 4.5gen to 5th gen fighters.

[TheHengeProphet]

Well, I planned to wait 'till 1.1, as the new engine's prob going to have different weight anyway, messing with CoM.

CoM alteration from the engines is not the only thing to consider, and I feel that's an easy one to deal with. The change in model, however, is likely to absolutely ruin my aerodynamic profile on the rear of all of my planes (maybe not the Spite).

Currently, we have no bearings on how the current engines have changed, nor on the capabilities of the Panther. I really want to know what the Panther's power profile is, as well as its gimbal range. If it has a high enough gimbal range, I might even go so far as trying a thrust-stabilized aircraft like the X-44 Manta concept.

I thought about making a negative-sweep plane, but I'm quite sure FAR doesn't model aerodynamic forces realistically enough for it to be useful, or even break even.

I found there is quite a bit of freedom in this challenge, but I love the fact it has turned into an improvement and optimization thread on aircraft design. Just look at some of the early aircraft in this thread and see how they have evolved into true 4.5gen to 5th gen fighters.

Indeed! In truth, the only reason I moved on from the Adder design is that Tweakscale was disallowed. That plane still performs with scary capability... I might pull it back out and see if I can analyze why it's so darn good (not S-USAF good, though...).

[Doke]

Allow me to present the K-3 Skua, a 'generation 4.5 and a half' multi-role fighter-interceptor. It's fast, it's compact, and it's mean.

(next time I'll try PNGs)

Handling isn't great when carrying a full load of 10 missiles, but most of those are intended to be launched outside of visual range. Flying clean, or with a half load, the Skua is surprisingly nimble. I'm using Dynamic Deflection, which may or may not need tweaking (along with structural strength), but it can manage 9-15gs at most speeds over about 200-250m/s. It likes to go fast.

The original idea was to do a 'proper' 5th gen fighter, but since those kept exploding, I'd thought I'd try something more practical. I've learned a lot along the way, and have a few ideas about how I might make something more advanced.

p.s. How do I link to a gallery while making the post display a picture, like everyone else does?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Doke

[FourGreenFields]

CoM alteration from the engines is not the only thing to consider, and I feel that's an easy one to deal with. The change in model, however, is likely to absolutely ruin my aerodynamic profile on the rear of all of my planes (maybe not the Spite).

Currently, we have no bearings on how the current engines have changed, nor on the capabilities of the Panther. I really want to know what the Panther's power profile is, as well as its gimbal range. If it has a high enough gimbal range, I might even go so far as trying a thrust-stabilized aircraft like the X-44 Manta concept.

It also ruins the nose section I currently favor (like on HA-300). Will prob need to adjust that too with the new cockpit.

I thought about making a negative-sweep plane, but I'm quite sure FAR doesn't model aerodynamic forces realistically enough for it to be useful, or even break even.

That's no excuse not to do it

Do it because you can!

Tweakscale was disallowed

What?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!1!!1

Ok, I may deal with it, but I'd seriously like to have it ('specially for nose section and drop tanks - and possibly intakes as on the HA-300).

[Hodo]

What?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!1!!1

Ok, I may deal with it, but I'd seriously like to have it ('specially for nose section and drop tanks - and possibly intakes as on the HA-300).

I prefer procedural parts for that very reason.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought about making a negative-sweep plane, but I'm quite sure FAR doesn't model aerodynamic forces realistically enough for it to be useful, or even break even.

It did the last time I checked.

[FourGreenFields]

I prefer procedural parts for that very reason.

Procedural Parts aren't allowed either (yet - I hope!)

[TheHengeProphet]

Wait, if negative sweep is properly accounted for, perhaps washout is as well. I might actually be able to make some of my planes even more crazy, and maybe get the Mamba to stop having its bizarre tip stall.

I would like to see Tweakscale and Procedural Parts available. Particularly as it could likely reduce part counts drastically in planes which use them.

Edit-

@Doke, sorry I missed your post earlier. That's an interesting looking plane. How to post an album from imgur: {Imgur}albumcodehere{/Imgur}, replacing {} with [].

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[Doke]

@TheHengeProphet thanks! Let's try:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Here's a WIP craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ibmv80cje8urg1y/K-3%20Skua%20%28intercept%29.craft?dl=0

Edited September 18, 2015 by Doke

[TheHengeProphet]

I did a few test flights of your plane, and I must say I'm impressed. It's remarkably light, and incredibly maneuverable, though it is quite easy to stall out parts despite its remarkable 30° stall angle. I did notice that it tends to kick hard to one side if a stall is induced, but it's not hard to regain control. It is certainly capable of achieving all the requirements here, except that I proved completely unable to land it. Pretty sure that thing would light up like a christmas tree on a radar pass, but really that's rather moot here, haha.

I'll try letting it dogfight some, when I'm less tired. I anticipate I'll need to install Dynamic Deflection to get it to dogfight at its proper potential...

[Doke]

Glad you liked it. The AI can fly it passably without Dynamic Deflection, but only if you tune the max elevator deflection down to about 20 degrees, which may hurt it in that 250-400m/s zone. Stalls were nastier before I replaced the tail fin with an all-moving one and added those little dorsal winglets above the gear nacelles, which was my layman's attempt to improve lateral stability and add a sort of wing fence to hold off stalls.

Regarding landing: that's actually been the biggest challenge. The problem for me is always the same: the plane rolls to one side or another while on the ground. I assume the problem is the gear alignment, but I haven't been able to fix it yet.

I don't expect too much stealth capability from what is basically a 21st century MiG-21 The idea was to follow a similar design philosophy to the Fishbed: a fast, cheap(ish), ground-controlled interceptor. I suppose the official line would be that it uses its datalink and passive sensors to launch low-altitude ambush attacks or something. Not sure how well that would work in reality.

[FourGreenFields]

@Doke, sorry I missed your post earlier.

From what I saw, the post had to be approved by a mod first, so you couldn't have not missed it (iIrc everyone who's new to the forum is mod qued at first).

Regarding landing: that's actually been the biggest challenge. The problem for me is always the same: the plane rolls to one side or another while on the ground. I assume the problem is the gear alignment, but I haven't been able to fix it yet.

Have you tried pressing "F" while in rotation mode to change it to absolute, and then rotate using angle snap? That should make the gear legs perfectly aligned.

[CrisK]

I just caught up with the last few pages of this thread.

Will you allowed Dynamic Deflection? A lot of manuverability can be found when tinkering with it. Just askin'

I can't speak for Halsfury, but in my opinion Dynamic Deflection should be allowed.

I don't see any problem with someone using Dynamic Deflection, but don't expect anybody else to use it. I've thought about setting it up on mine, but have been lazy about figuring out configuring it.

CrisK, I adjusted the everloving shizzle out of your control surface settings on the S-USAF, and drastically improved its handling. My friend informs me that I'm a bad person for making what was already amazing better. None of my planes can beat it one-on-one currently, but two spites can handle it (both survive about 50% of the time).

I made some serious adjustments to your trainer, and it may now well be the most maneuverable plane of the lot; however, it is rather frail, and I can't seem to strengthen it enough to handle more than 12g. It is also severely lacking in power, weighing 14t with a single engine, so it often never gets above 150m/s during a dogfight, and is quite often sitting around 80-50m/s. Nothing wants to approach it, though, considering they can't get to a point where its nose is not facing them.

I'll work on uploading the files when I get off work. You mentioned you have a version of Kerbpaint which works with 1.0.4?

I just sent you a PM.

I'm glad that you're having fun with the S-USAF! It's probably the nicest, simplest design that I've created. The trainer is also really fun, but like you said it's fragile.

Edit: Here are the adjustments.

CrisK S-USAF Hvar: tuned control surface actuation, disabled torque.

CrisK Trainer Hvar: Modified strake profile, tuned control surface actuation, modified mass/strength values, disabled torque.

CrisK Trainer Hvar Combat: as previous, but with a gun, AI controller, and weapon manager.

I will play around with these. Thanks!

Vis-à-vis the thrust limiter: I've completely disregarded that part of the challenge for all of my planes other than the Rafale which was jointly-built with Halsfury.

Allow me to present the K-3 Skua, a 'generation 4.5 and a half' multi-role fighter-interceptor. It's fast, it's compact, and it's mean.

http://i.imgur.com/qIpZC8a.jpg

(next time I'll try PNGs)

Handling isn't great when carrying a full load of 10 missiles, but most of those are intended to be launched outside of visual range. Flying clean, or with a half load, the Skua is surprisingly nimble. I'm using Dynamic Deflection, which may or may not need tweaking (along with structural strength), but it can manage 9-15gs at most speeds over about 200-250m/s. It likes to go fast.

The original idea was to do a 'proper' 5th gen fighter, but since those kept exploding, I'd thought I'd try something more practical. I've learned a lot along the way, and have a few ideas about how I might make something more advanced.

p.s. How do I link to a gallery while making the post display a picture, like everyone else does?

This looks good! It reminds me of the older Russian MIGs!

[TheHengeProphet]

Have you tried pressing "F" while in rotation mode to change it to absolute, and then rotate using angle snap? That should make the gear legs perfectly aligned.

WHAT? ^mind_blown How did I not know about this?

As for those fins, hmm... You're using them to avoid stall, but all they're really doing is acting as stabilizers, considering I don't think FAR actually models flow that way (yet?). I think more control and stability can be attained via ventral fins, however, considering you're losing lateral stability during pitch stall, which is probably caused by occlusion of your vertical stabilizer/rudder. I'll have to mess with it later and see if I can net some benefit.

[CrisK]

I think I'll have a bit of fun and stream dogfights with everyone's planes this weekend, starting tonight.

I've modified P.E.W. and BDArmory on my own install so that long-range AA BVR combat is possible and deadly. (25km-40km)

[Doke]

Have you tried pressing "F" while in rotation mode to change it to absolute, and then rotate using angle snap? That should make the gear legs perfectly aligned.

I had no idea! Thanks for this. It's going to make using the editor a much more pleasant experience in the future. I just gave it a quick try, and it didn't seem to help my landing much, though. I thought it might try lowering the plane's attitude on the ground, but that didn't help either. I'll need to give it another try later when I have time.

This looks good! It reminds me of the older Russian MIGs!

Yeah, I'm a sucker for those old MiGs. Those old Soviet planes always seem to be one part rugged simplicity, one part elegant efficiency, and one part borderline insanity. Perfect for KSP!

WHAT? ^mind_blown How did I not know about this?

As for those fins, hmm... You're using them to avoid stall, but all they're really doing is acting as stabilizers, considering I don't think FAR actually models flow that way (yet?). I think more control and stability can be attained via ventral fins, however, considering you're losing lateral stability during pitch stall, which is probably caused by occlusion of your vertical stabilizer/rudder. I'll have to mess with it later and see if I can net some benefit.

Good points about the stall. I also wanted to improve stability in level flight and on the ground, but it's entirely possible that the new tailplane is the actual cause of improvement and I can delete the dorsal fins. Actually, a large number of the design elements of the plane are down to my attempts to make it easier to land. Drooping nose, wide landing gear and hence wing geometry... I can't complain, because the alterations have always resulted in a better plane, but I do hope I work out how to land it eventually...