The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[TheHengeProphet]

Looking forward to testing it when I get home! I have yet to try flying in Haack, as I downloaded it just prior to going to sleep. If what you say is true, then I may need to revise my designs again; or I might not, if this turns out to be a net gain in control capabilities.

[Halsfury]

Oh it's a net gain, on the new Su-27 the CoM looks literally 10 cm away from the CoP and it flies perfectly.

[TheHengeProphet]

Looks like BDA also updated yesterday. I'll have to get on that, considering I've been looking forward to AI improvements.

[Halsfury]

Proudly presenting, the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, this is also a demonstrator for the challenge as a whole, since we're moving to new rules hopefully this will get more people to create new designs.

Range requirements will be reduced to reflect Kerbin's small size and the immense fuel draw of Kerbal engines (until we get the new engines)

A side by side comparison:

The Rudders are disproportionate, but KSP players don't have to worry about having low radar cross sections

The Su-27 comes packed with air superiority weapons and importantly has a 30mm cannon which does not impact flight characteristics at all. In fact my version has been built always with the 30mm in mind.

Also the protrusion behind the twin engines serves an important purpose, since countermeasures are deployed from here.

This is really confusing to missiles I've found, the placement in relation to the engines allows flares and chaff to create more convincing distractions for missiles. This saves weight since an ECM pod is unnecessary, a quick roll and a few flares later and the once threatening missiles will peel off.

here at long last is the craft file, this was much harder than the F-16 to make and near impossible with FAR Goldstein

http://www./download/56979ugyvp571x5/FAR_Su-27_Flanker.craft

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like BDA also updated yesterday. I'll have to get on that, considering I've been looking forward to AI improvements.

Should have downloaded that before releasing a brand new fighter, it's already out of date lol

EDIT: turns out it wasn't a huge update after all, probably only to do with the AI and parts balance

Edited August 26, 2015 by Halsfury

[TheHengeProphet]

Unfortunately, the latest FAR doesn't seem to like... pretty much any of the planes I built. They're down to almost 30% control capability, and have become just a burden to fly. All except the one using stock control surfaces... I'm having a bear of a time with this.

[FourGreenFields]

I don't like what Haack did to the HA-300 tbh. Increased critical AoA to about 35°, reducing stall speed to about 70m/s at low alt and full fuel load - but now it can't reach Mach 2 anymore Only Mach 1.96 or thereabouts.

On the other hand, the Messerschmitt P 1111 replica I was working on yesterday handles better. Slight reduction in top speed as well, but it was faster than the RL one anyway. Sadly, there is no way to make this thing (nor my P 1110, and P 1101 replicas) reach Mach 2 with a basic jet, so I can't participate with late WWII designs. Unless I swap the basic jets for turbo jets ofcourse.

EDIT: Why do the entries have to weigh at least 10 tons now?

Edited August 27, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Halsfury]

I don't like what Haack did to the HA-300 tbh. Increased critical AoA to about 35°, reducing stall speed to about 70m/s at low alt and full fuel load - but now it can't reach Mach 2 anymore Only Mach 1.96 or thereabouts.

On the other hand, the Messerschmitt P 1111 replica I was working on yesterday handles better. Slight reduction in top speed as well, but it was faster than the RL one anyway. Sadly, there is no way to make this thing (nor my P 1110, and P 1101 replicas) reach Mach 2 with a basic jet, so I can't participate with late WWII designs. Unless I swap the basic jets for turbo jets ofcourse.

EDIT: Why do the entries have to weigh at least 10 tons now?

Because modern fighters have to be heavy to carry all the necessary gear. No modern fighter is less than 10 tons on takeoff so putting in this limit will prevent people trying to shoehorn a turbojet onto a 5 ton aircraft with 6 missiles just barely crammed on.

Also all things considered the basic jet wasn't ever intended to be a fighter jet engine, so it's been removed from the challenge.

Also the new rules don't change the old ones it just means that no more results can be added to the legacy scoreboard

[Halsfury]

Unfortunately, the latest FAR doesn't seem to like... pretty much any of the planes I built. They're down to almost 30% control capability, and have become just a burden to fly. All except the one using stock control surfaces... I'm having a bear of a time with this.

What mod are you using for wings?

B9 works virtually unchanged from before, I'm sure it's just a software trick, where is the CoM in relation to the CoP?

[TheHengeProphet]

Using B9 Pwings.

Weight of at least 10t under full combat load is completely reasonable. An F16 weighs 9.1t dry, and carries over 2t of fuel.

My only complaint here is rule 17. What if that targeting pod is actually an integral part of the craft? Just by having it, it MUST be equipped with anti-ground measures? I'm not sure I follow this logic.

I'm not a fan of slow landings, but I'll see what I can do about that...

I would, however, suggest that radar be a requirement. Unless it's exclusively a close-range fighter, it's essentially necessary for target acquisition.

You should also provide a link to all mods required for the challenge in the OP.

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[Halsfury]

Using B9 Pwings.

Weight of at least 10t under full combat load is completely reasonable. An F16 weighs 9.1t dry, and carries over 2t of fuel.

My only complaint here is rule 17. What if that targeting pod is actually an integral part of the craft? Just by having it, it MUST be equipped with anti-ground measures? I'm not sure I follow this logic.

I'm not a fan of slow landings, but I'll see what I can do about that...

I would, however, suggest that radar be a requirement. Unless it's exclusively a close-range fighter, it's essentially necessary for target acquisition.

You should also provide a link to all mods required for the challenge in the OP.

Noted.

As to the whole targeting pod thing, it's about having an adequate setup for ground missions. the ECM pod provides survivability, while the ground missiles are part of the targeting pod's function.

Really it's for ground attack missions only. The rule doesn't mean that you have to have A to G missiles and an ECM pod and a targeting pod all the time, it only means that if you have an anti ground capability you must carry all 3 parts to be considered successful in having an anti ground capability.

Also try thinner wing sections and anhedral, maybe that will help solve some problems. my edition of Crisk's Rafale has not suffered in the slightest and it has B9p wings, so maybe you have too much stability.

[CrisK]

Hals, I think that you should end this challenge and start a new one. Maybe call it "The 5th Generation Fighter Challenge MKII". That's more fair than changing the rules this late in the day.

PS: I posted the Rafale craft file with some slight tweaks, and called it the CrisK & Halsfury Rafale. It still flies well under the latest version of FAR and BD.

[TheHengeProphet]

@TheHengeProphet: So after messing with the craft, I can confirm changes, though not on the order of 3x change in wave drag; in addition, I can't achieve a wave drag of 0.29 with this at all, mine are all reaching a minimum of 0.79, mostly being around 1.0.

Further testing indicates that large variation only occurs with wing parts, so that means all of this waits until the wing overhaul. No point in chasing after a bug there if I'm going to replace it in the next update anyway.

So, there is actually something funky going on with the B9 wings. I'll just keep working with what I have. I just need to drastically increase control deflection to get a similar effect... Not sure I'll be able to pull a 9g sub-sonic turn, though. These engines just don't have that power at half thrust. I can pull a 6g sub-sonic and 15g+ supersonic, though.

[Halsfury]

Hals, I think that you should end this challenge and start a new one. Maybe call it "The 5th Generation Fighter Challenge MKII". That's more fair than changing the rules this late in the day.

PS: I posted the Rafale craft file with some slight tweaks, and called it the CrisK & Halsfury Rafale. It still flies well under the latest version of FAR and BD.

I know it works just fine, I still have my version and it's still working perfectly

Have you checked out the Su-27? I know it has some issues with the spine of the fuselage absorbing the shock of landing, but that has never produced a crash, it just looks funny.

[TheHengeProphet]

I've tried to let the AI fly it, but it just can't. Beyond that, I haven't done much testing... I've been more trying to pinpoint what has gone so desperately wrong with my planes. Do you have an armed version of the Su-27 that is pre-tuned for AI use?

[Halsfury]

Is the Su-27 not armed?

I rarely check that I uploaded the right file, maybe it's not the finished product whoops.

I always intend that the craft be fun for a person to fly.

No I didn't expect the AI to be too successful with a super manoeuvrable fighter

Edited August 27, 2015 by Halsfury

[FourGreenFields]

@Halsfury: Is Tweakscale not allowed anymore, or just not on the list yet?

EDIT: Also, are airbrake and flaps required, or just recomended?

Edited August 27, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Halsfury]

My fault for releasing the pacifists version.

Here 'tis in a suitably more destructive form.

http://www./download/5856fhx9j6fb1z6/FAR_BD_Su-27_Flanker.craft

If it looks like this then your in business

It's super-manoeuvrable! so set the steer limiter to 0.5 when making it AI controlled, takeoff speed should be around 110m/s for drones as well.

EDIT: Ah an unforeseen design error has been caught! I changed the link as a result

- - - Updated - - -

@Halsfury: Is Tweakscale not allowed anymore, or just not on the list yet?

EDIT: Also, are airbrake and flaps required, or just recomended?

I've never messed around with Tweakscale, just so long as engines are not tweaked.

I wish you would add an air brake, considering just how massive these fighters are.

I used should with purpose, these craft have to land at less than 150m/s in order to be considered and that's a fairly high speed.

to put that in perspective the takeoff and landing speed for the SR-71 was 170m/s and most jets land at around 200knots or about 100m/s in real life.

So basically should means this might help satisfy the whole not blowing up on landing part of the challenge.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Halsfury

[FourGreenFields]

I've never messed around with Tweakscale, just so long as engines are not tweaked.

Well that's a relief. Been working on a fighter, and it reaches Mach 3 at 21km with 6 AMRAAMs (or whatever they're called), and the necessary G loads are no problem either, even with the AMRAAMs and it's 4 20mm cannons + one box of ammo for each one.

Still need to work on it (no counter measures yet for example), but it seems like it'll pass.

[TheHengeProphet]

Actually, is there a reason it has to be below 150m/s? If it can land on the island runway, that really should be sufficient.

[FourGreenFields]

Actually, is there a reason it has to be below 150m/s? If it can land on the island runway, that really should be sufficient.

May I ask how you manage to land on the old airfield while touching down at more than 150m/s?

Airbrakes all over the place? Chutes bigger than your craft?

EDIT after reading the stuff Halsfury edited into his answer:

I wish you would add an air brake, considering just how massive these fighters are.

I used should with purpose, these craft have to land at less than 150m/s in order to be considered and that's a fairly high speed.

to put that in perspective the takeoff and landing speed for the SR-71 was 170m/s and most jets land at around 200knots or about 100m/s in real life.

So basically should means this might help satisfy the whole not blowing up on landing part of the challenge.

Ok, then I won't have to add an airbrake. Lands fine (except not if you touch down hard) without one (tested touch downs at around 80m/s, still need to do more tests)

Edited August 27, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Phearlock]

Very few fighter jets actually land around 200 knots, they can in an emergency that would dictate higher than usual landing speeds. But usually it's in the 130-170 KIAS region for your typical F-16, F-15, Su-27 etc landing speed (depends a little on aircraft and weight on landing)

[Halsfury]

Very few fighter jets actually land around 200 knots, they can in an emergency that would dictate higher than usual landing speeds. But usually it's in the 130-170 KIAS region for your typical F-16, F-15, Su-27 etc landing speed (depends a little on aircraft and weight on landing)

Fair enough but often 200kts is the approach speed, what I said was an oversimplification.

Anyway the point is that the SR-71 lands at 150m/s so you should be able to land as a fighter at considerably lesser speeds

[TheHengeProphet]

I just noticed some things... heh... So, are there no other mods allowed than the ones listed in the OP?

Rule 19 feels like it should be referencing Rule 18, not 14. "18) Should an AA/AAQ-28 Targeting pod be mounted, an ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) pod must also be mounted" implies that either you have the targeting pod and all related peripherals, or you don't have it at all, even with what that rule goes on to explain.

I may, or may not have figured out what was wrong with my planes, but I certainly don't understand what I did... They started working in a horrifically nimble manner.

Also, I was trying to figure out why your Su-27 had so much lift compared to my planes, despite the simulations saying that they have near identical lift profiles. Then I remembered something Ferram said:

Well, for one thing, the stock wings are overperforming greatly. Procedural wings are much more likely to be correct now, and that should be fixed in the wing overhaul that should be in the next update (unless 1.1 comes out first, in which case, compatibility update first).

I wonder if this is something to take into consideration, but probably doesn't matter much, as B9 wings carry their own benefits, even with the loss in lift.

[Darren9]

Could you add Baha adjustable landing gears to the mod list? And maybe Procedural Parts although I can do without that if I have to.

[TheHengeProphet]

Adjustable landing gear is already on the list.

My primary concern is I may not be able to use the cockpit I have been using, and there is no way to approximate its shape in stock.

Speaking of which, this is my current project: MRF-3* Black Mamba

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I created this particular album for the Adjustable landing gear thread in hopes they can help resolve this bizarre wobble I'm getting from the landing gear.