The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[CrisK]

Here is the XF-149B download

XF-149 Download

And here is the XF-150A download.

XF-150A Download

Thank you for sharing these. I'll have fun flying the 150A in the morning.

The XF-149B has too many mod dependencies for me - but it looks great. Did you make any changes to the craft?

[tetryds]

I wasn't blinded, I just hadn't heard of it until now.

Am I right to guess that that average pressure blue graph is for hypersonic drag? Or will I have to rely completely on the old fationed calculation of drag at a given speed and alt?

You can use Mach sweep for a given AoA, thay makes It a lot easier.

[Hodo]

Thank you for sharing these. I'll have fun flying the 150A in the morning.

The XF-149B has too many mod dependencies for me - but it looks great. Did you make any changes to the craft?

During the course of the challenge the design changed slightly but I would always go back and retest the previous stages to make sure nothing changed that much.

[FourGreenFields]

You can use Mach sweep for a given AoA, thay makes It a lot easier.

Except the graphs are too inaccurate for small improvements imho (at least when using Mach sweep. The graphs are all near 0 and hard to read, unless at high AoA, but I want to be aerodynamic in straight flight, not when pulling hard).

Anyway, thanks for the help. Let's see if I can build something that is both decently area ruled, and aerodynamic at hypersonic speeds.

[tetryds]

Except the graphs are too inaccurate for small improvements imho (at least when using Mach sweep. The graphs are all near 0 and hard to read, unless at high AoA, but I want to be aerodynamic in straight flight, not when pulling hard).

Anyway, thanks for the help. Let's see if I can build something that is both decently area ruled, and aerodynamic at hypersonic speeds.

Time to poke ferram4.

I agree that they are not precise enough.

We are also missing something like Mach sweep at straight flight AoA, but that may be asking a bit too much.

About the help, no problem, I will continue to post these small guides when people face dificulties.

I have everything ready here just waiting until I have time to make the full video tutorials (as stated on my sig).

For good hypersonic imagine two cones, one on the rear and another on the front, don't place anything crossing them.

Quite a rough advice but it will help.

[Darth Lazarus]

next itteration of the my F-18 Prototype. The shape is getting closer to the real one. Rework of the tailfins, wings got a slight angle, nose section minor adjustments ... the result? even better then before !

funfact: it has nearly the real length, wingspan etc like the real Super Hornet ... that shows how good the KSP parts and properties are compared to the real world. Well done Squad and testers

[Hodo]

Time to poke ferram4.

I agree that they are not precise enough.

We are also missing something like Mach sweep at straight flight AoA, but that may be asking a bit too much.

About the help, no problem, I will continue to post these small guides when people face dificulties.

I have everything ready here just waiting until I have time to make the full video tutorials (as stated on my sig).

For good hypersonic imagine two cones, one on the rear and another on the front, don't place anything crossing them.

Quite a rough advice but it will help.

I look forward to those guides myself. Right now I have been learning from watching 1960s instructional videos on how air travels over an aircraft at or near the speed of sound. As cool as they are, they are a bit dated.

- - - Updated - - -

next itteration of the my F-18 Prototype. The shape is getting closer to the real one. Rework of the tailfins, wings got a slight angle, nose section minor adjustments ... the result? even better then before !

One thing I do is to test the crafts wave form with its hardpoints that are not going to be removable, like the wing tip ones and the gun. That way I know if there is a way I can see what its minimum "combat" performance will be like.

No point in building a super fast sleek aircraft for a combat challenge that can't perform with weapons.

Oh and I am going to total up the points for the XF-150A.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Supercruise at 1.066 10km

Top speed Mach 4+ (I will post pics when I get home later)

Supercruise @ 1.056 10km with 6x Sidewinders, and 2 AMRAAMs and 3 DTs with 251.5L each tank for 1hr12min

Can pull a sustained 12G turn

Has a 1:1 TWR

16 points for weapons, max of 22 if it replaces the droptanks with weapons

1 for TWR

5 for turn

40 for top speed.

Currently without all of the proof pictures 62-68pts. I think.... someone else can double check my math.

[Halsfury]

Ok I posted your entry under BD armoury

Also darth, did you fix the wing flex? I found that I had trouble with that as I worked on your hornet.

Another thing...

After all that talk of a new design class, I thought of what could be done in terms of the rules.

Basically in a slight modification of the challenge unarmed aircraft how about making a second generation strategic reconnaissance role. like the SR-71

I'm thinking cruise at 20km at mach 3 and top speed at mach 4 minimum. New exotic engines could be used for this class, since it doesn't actually have to go into combat.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Halsfury

[FourGreenFields]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Does that count as a reasonable compromise between wave drag, and hypersonic drag (and stall speed)? (Stall speed seems to be 80m/s ish, can't remember exactly, and, at that speed and AoA, it can't keep it's speed using the engine power)

@Halsfury: Did you decide not to add my basic jet design because you'll change the rules anyway?

Just in case you didn't, I'll post it again:

Craft file on KerbalX

Javascript is disabled. View full album

43.27 points. And as long as she is called "Flying Pencil" she looks good

(And btw: it might be a good idea to link either an album, or, if no album was published, an image of the planes on the leaderboard, on the leaderboard.)

EDIT: And btw the 2.: It's P 13 "Shrike". "" indicating a nickname, and although the 'Muricans used P-XX for "Pursuit" (I think) = fighter planes, I use it for "Projekt" = project, as good ol' Willy Messerschmitt did. And, like he did, without a "-". Minor things, I know. But if I'm going to have several designs on the leaderboard, I'd like that to be correct.

[CrisK]

I was able to fly Hodo's X-150A craft around. It reached supercruise at no problem, and was able to sustain a healthy Mach 3.2. It was reasonably maneuverable, but turns caused the nosecone to snap off at mach 1.

FourGreenFields, I'll test out your P 14! Thank you for sharing the craft file.

Here's my official entry: The Boeing CrisK X-32. The design is absolutely original and not copied from a certain American company that starts with B. Single engine, lightweight, trapezoidal delta wing at a high angle sweep, and conventional tails. It's inexpensive at 25,747* Kerbal funds. TWR of 2.07 with the thrust limited to 50%.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file for verification.

*747 reference unintentional.

Edited July 11, 2015 by CrisK
Fixed link to craft file

[FourGreenFields]

FourGreenFields, I'll test out your P 14! Thank you for sharing the craft file.

I haven't shared my P 14 yet... only the P 12 and P 13 (and P 6).

If you want to I could upload it I suppose, but I'd rather improve the design a little before I upload it.

[Hodo]

I was able to fly Hodo's X-150A craft around. It reached supercruise at no problem, and was able to sustain a healthy Mach 3.2. It was reasonably maneuverable, but turns caused the nosecone to snap off at mach 1.

FourGreenFields, I'll test out your P 14! Thank you for sharing the craft file.

Here's my official entry: The Boeing CrisK X-32. The design is absolutely original and not copied from a certain American company that starts with B. Single engine, lightweight, trapezoidal delta wing at a high angle sweep, and conventional tails. It's inexpensive at 25,747* Kerbal funds. TWR of 2.07 with the thrust limited to 50%.

http://imgur.com/a/RmBtt

Craft file for verification.

*747 reference unintentional.

I love the X-32, looks good.

As for my XF-150A I have no clue why the nose is snapping off for you and not me... could be because I run KJR to reduce the slop in KSP construction.

Do you have pictures of when it happens? I would love to see when and how it comes of so I can find and possibly fix the problem.

[Darren9]

I think I might have just over 100 points, and it even looks nice (to me at least ) Has 4 air-air and 4 air-ground missiles, 2 cannon and two 500l drop-tanks. Uses procedural everything.

Super-cruise, mach 1.1, 1 point

Drop-tanks, 1000 units, 20 points

Weapons, 10, 20 points

Top Speed, mach 4.3, 46 points

Sustained G, 10-15, 5 points

Range, 1-2hr, 1 point

Manoeuvrable, Suspected good, 10 points

TWR, Suspected good, 1 points

Total could be 104

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[CrisK]

I love the X-32, looks good.

As for my XF-150A I have no clue why the nose is snapping off for you and not me... could be because I run KJR to reduce the slop in KSP construction.

Do you have pictures of when it happens? I would love to see when and how it comes of so I can find and possibly fix the problem.

Thanks!

I think that it might be due to your use of the CH-J3 avionics nosecone. For some reason it seems to be far more sensitive than the regular nosecone. I stopped using it on my own planes because it snaps off easily.

Darren, that looks great!

[Darth Lazarus]

question about mods: Kerbal joint reinforcements could help a lot with some difficulties in design, actually it would help a lot with my Hornet...

BUT

would it be "legal"? because a plane could withstand more force without struting or magic in building.

[Halsfury]

question about mods: Kerbal joint reinforcements could help a lot with some difficulties in design, actually it would help a lot with my Hornet...

BUT

would it be "legal"? because a plane could withstand more force without struting or magic in building.

I think your problem is that the wing proceeds from a very weak link, it just needs the same parts configured differently

EDIT:

In fact, I just did, all that was needed was taking the type E wing connectors out and building using a type C wing connector as the first part on each side and heavily clipping it into the aircraft.

The wing shape is the same but building from a more solid and more organized base helps a lot.

Also the roll speed is just bad due to the wing flex and the smallness of those ailerons, key in the elevators so that they can roll as well and it will help

Edited July 10, 2015 by Halsfury

[Hodo]

question about mods: Kerbal joint reinforcements could help a lot with some difficulties in design, actually it would help a lot with my Hornet...

BUT

would it be "legal"? because a plane could withstand more force without struting or magic in building.

KJR doesnt make things indestructible. They still come apart, just at more realistic levels. If I take my XF-150A and throw it into a 12G turn at mach 1.2 at low level the air pressure will turn it into confetti pretty quickly.

If you attach something to a weak point structurally it doesn't matter what you use it will still break.

[RocketTurtle]

Okay guys, every single plane I make in FAR porpoises when I turn. If you guys know what I mean... the nose bounces up and down...

and then the plane disassembles itself.

*sigh*

[Halsfury]

Okay guys, every single plane I make in FAR porpoises when I turn. If you guys know what I mean... the nose bounces up and down...

and then the plane disassembles itself.

*sigh*

Reduce your complexity and build something smaller to start, I've never experienced this porpoising you mention but it might be related to some of these problems.

Is your aircraft flexing? if so it is assured to fail, smaller airframes are naturally more resilient, so maybe a downsize is in order

Another thing is if you area rule a craft and then try to make it fly you will make a horrible mess, try instead to build an aircraft which flies well subsonically, and then tweak it so that it can go supersonic.

Also you might not have enough pitch authority, try a bigger canard for the elevator,

Also post an image of your aircraft so that people can see the structure and try to help out

[RocketTurtle]

Reduce your complexity and build something smaller to start, I've never experienced this porpoising you mention but it might be related to some of these problems.

Is your aircraft flexing? if so it is assured to fail, smaller airframes are naturally more resilient, so maybe a downsize is in order

Another thing is if you area rule a craft and then try to make it fly you will make a horrible mess, try instead to build an aircraft which flies well subsonically, and then tweak it so that it can go supersonic.

Also you might not have enough pitch authority, try a bigger canard for the elevator,

Also post an image of your aircraft so that people can see the structure and try to help out

So I added canard to try to help. It didn't.

Here's the design.

Holding W...

Still holding W...

I like it better this way.

I'm not very good with all this aerodynamic-y stuff. I usually just do what looks like it'll fly.

Edit: S. Not W.

Edited July 12, 2015 by RocketTurtle

[FourGreenFields]

So I added canard to try to help. It didn't.

Here's the design.

I'm not very good with all this aerodynamic-y stuff. I usually just do what looks like it'll fly.

My guess is that you are stalling... it might help to open the FAR user interface in flight. I bet it'll tell you that there is a "Major stall".

-> Either don't pull/push as much, or reduce elevator authority. Or mess with the AoA limiter.

Then again, it's just a guess (and the pics haven't all loaded yet, due to a glorious 5kB/s internet connection).

EDIT: And use surface speed, not orbit

Edited July 11, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[RocketTurtle]

My guess is that you are stalling... it might help to open the FAR user interface in flight. I bet it'll tell you that there is a "Major stall".

-> Either don't pull/push as much, or reduce elevator authority. Or mess with the AoA limiter.

Then again, it's just a guess (and the pics haven't all loaded yet, due to a glorious 5kB/s internet connection).

Yes, it is a stall, I knew that. The thing is, if I rdeuce elevator authority, the turning radius is that of a B-52.

[FourGreenFields]

Yes, it is a stall, I knew that. The thing is, if I rdeuce elevator authority, the turning radius is that of a B-52.

Then either your wing loading is too high (= too high mass or too low wing area), or you need different elevator authority, according to the speed you are flying at.

-> AoA limiter, or mess with spoilers/flaps that are meant to help you pull/push.

EDIT: And just to make sure you read it: Don't use orbit speed for planes, use surface.

[Emilio]

After all that talk of a new design class, I thought of what could be done in terms of the rules.

Basically in a slight modification of the challenge unarmed aircraft how about making a second generation strategic reconnaissance role. like the SR-71

I'm thinking cruise at 20km at mach 3 and top speed at mach 4 minimum. New exotic engines could be used for this class, since it doesn't actually have to go into combat.

A challenge I had been thinking about was a cold war type supersonic bomber/cruise missile carrier, like the Tu-22M, Tu-160, Avro Vulcan, H-P Victor, F111. I think it could be challenging because it would require high speeds at very low altitudes, long range capabilities, carrying heavy and high-drag payloads (the Tu-22 carried its missiles externally), and still a certain level of maneuverability for ease of terrain following and the occasional SAM avoidance. Scoring could include an actual test with a target and SAMs from BD armoury.

[TMasterson5]

Hey guys I just came here to let you all know that a new facebook group has been created for the more military themed KSP creations. Feel free to join and post and and create. Link to the new group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/372011822987779/?fref=ts