The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[TitaniumFortress]

Do we get any extra points for functioning internal weapon bays? Such as having 2 weapons each wing and an additional 2 inside the craft

[CrisK]

I'm cross-posting this here because I think it's a cool screenshot:

[Halsfury]

On December 8, 2015 at 3:54:56 AM, TitaniumFortress said:

Do we get any extra points for functioning internal weapon bays? Such as having 2 weapons each wing and an additional 2 inside the craft

People took issue with the points system since it limited creativity, since then I've introduced a minimum weight requirement so that people don't start building "throwaway fighters" like the He-162 Salamander instead of using points (for all intents and purposes when somebody decides to rep you for a design then you may count it as points in a sense of the word, appreciation points are points after all)

It's really too easy even in FAR to just throw wings on a tube with a massive engine and have it fly, so the rules are all about making you produce realistic as possible fighters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162#He_162_Mistel

 

Also nice one crisk

Edited December 11, 2015 by Halsfury

[FourGreenFields]

12 hours ago, Halsfury said:

It's really too easy even in FAR to just throw wings on a tube with a massive engine and have it fly, so the rules are all about making you produce realistic as possible fighters

Sorry, but for single-engine fighters, that's just a very aerodynamic fuselage to build atm. And due to trying to achieve best performance at lowest possible weight (and cost) (-> Messerschmitt fanboy), most of my designes are single-engine.

 

Could you list and link the entries in the opening post maybe?

Also, will tweakscale ever be allowed? Possibly with limitations (no scaling of engine, etc). Some parts just can't be built with procedural parts (radial intake for example).

Edited December 12, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Halsfury]

On December 12, 2015 at 3:13:33 AM, FourGreenFields said:

Sorry, but for single-engine fighters, that's just a very aerodynamic fuselage to build atm. And due to trying to achieve best performance at lowest possible weight (and cost) (-> Messerschmitt fanboy), most of my designes are single-engine.

 

Could you list and link the entries in the opening post maybe?

Also, will tweakscale ever be allowed? Possibly with limitations (no scaling of engine, etc). Some parts just can't be built with procedural parts (radial intake for example).

Messerschmitts were good fighters for that reason just like how the F-16C became the definitive late 20th century fighter. 

 

I'm thinking personally that somebody should do a Luftwaffe 1946 fighter challenge, basically with the same rules but no missiles and borrow the BD armoury pack made for the BAD-T challenge. The only engines which can be used should be the Junkers Jumo (our stock Juno) and area ruled drag should be placed to high just in case anyone tries to punch through the sound barrier

[FourGreenFields]

13 hours ago, Halsfury said:

Messerschmitts were good fighters for that reason just like how the F-16C became the definitive late 20th century fighter. 

 

I'm thinking personally that somebody should do a Luftwaffe 1946 fighter challenge, basically with the same rules but no missiles and borrow the BD armoury pack made for the BAD-T challenge. The only engines which can be used should be the Junkers Jumo (our stock Juno) and area ruled drag should be placed to high just in case anyone tries to punch through the sound barrier

Wave drag will definitly matter. They were designing fighters for 1000km/h, which is definitly transsonic. Pretty damned sure they'd have passed Mach 1 in a dive.

Also, they were allready testing guided air-to-air missiles in 1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4. Not to mention that unguided air-to-air rockets were commonly used. Which means that the ability to carry external loads should matter (also because droptanks, and takeoff boosters).

 

Thinking about actually doing that challenge. Will need to check some in-game stuff, and also some RL sources.

[CrisK]

Lockheed Martin released their conceptual design for 6 generation F-X fighter. They may also submit it for the FA-XX (Navy) competition:

 

I think that it highly resembles Northrop Grumann's YF-23 design. I tried to replicate it using minimal mods:

It's an exceptional AA fighter: out of 8 battles, I was only able to defeat it once due to AI stupidity. I copied the wing specifications from the wikipedia page, so its wing area and wing loading are comparable to Lockheed's conceptual model.

Northrop Grumann's design for the FA-XX competiton looks identical to their existing small long range stealth bomber design. They won a contract (over Boeing and LM) to build bombers with this design for the air force. Their concept replaces the cannon with a high powered laser. So far I haven't been able to create a version of this design in KSP that is yaw stable at over 240m/s.

 

Here's my attempt at replicating Northrop's design. It flies, but I wouldn't call it competitive. Anyone else want to give it a shot?

[CrisK]

PS: Here's a quick tip that will make your flying wing designs fly in FAR without engine gimbal or a clipped rudder.

1. Create at least 2 horizontal control surfaces with yaw control.

2. Set your pitch control surface to an AOA% of at least 100.

3. Set your roll control surface to an AOA% that's at least 50 degrees different. (50 or 150).

4. Set one of your yaw control surfaces to an AOA% of 150% or 200%.

5. Set your second yaw control surface to an AOA% of -100%, -150%, or -200% depending upon the stability of the design.

You can fine tune it to reach a high degree of stability.

 

Of course, the maneuverability is still low. I'm not sure how to solve that.

[Halsfury]

12 hours ago, CrisK said:

PS: Here's a quick tip that will make your flying wing designs fly in FAR without engine gimbal or a clipped rudder.

1. Create at least 2 horizontal control surfaces with yaw control.

2. Set your pitch control surface to an AOA% of at least 100.

3. Set your roll control surface to an AOA% that's at least 50 degrees different. (50 or 150).

4. Set one of your yaw control surfaces to an AOA% of 150% or 200%.

5. Set your second yaw control surface to an AOA% of -100%, -150%, or -200% depending upon the stability of the design.

You can fine tune it to reach a high degree of stability.

 

Of course, the maneuverability is still low. I'm not sure how to solve that.

Wow It would be great if you showed us more of the process cause I can never get good flying wings.

 

But on an off topic note check out my latest; the Me 163 Komet

Detachable undercarriage included! just like the real thing, it can get to around 16km and has 3 minutes of fuel

 

EDIT: It's optimized for high alt performance and as such has pretty weak wings at low altitude (I had to so that it would be light enough)

Edited December 17, 2015 by Halsfury

[FourGreenFields]

5 hours ago, Halsfury said:

But on an off topic note check out my latest; the Me 163 Komet

*picture*

Detachable undercarriage included! just like the real thing, it can get to around 16km and has 3 minutes of fuel

 

EDIT: It's optimized for high alt performance and as such has pretty weak wings at low altitude (I had to so that it would be light enough)

Are you landing this thing with the chutes? My 163 uses a pretty-much-bicycle landing-gear (2 front wheels, but very close together - slipping or rolling equals death).

 

New Mk 1 cockpit messed with CoM, so had to move the wings forward, as well as the detachable gear. And the landing gear should prob be moved forward too.

[Halsfury]

I put on bicycle landing gear and spoilers. I added more fuel so now it has something closer to the historical 6 minutes of fuel and can reach 16km.

 

About your earlier post concerning wave drag and late WWII jets, from what I understand, it was the wave drag over the propeller which limited the speed of propeller planes more than anything else, the planes really started to act unpredictably after their top speed was surpassed at the time but often it was a trial and error kind of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire#Speed_and_altitude_records

Though mach 0.92 is a truly ridiculous speed for anything propeller driven, it seems that with the right straight wing design and a jet engine it's more than possible to reach these high speeds. Of course KSP is much more forgiving in this regard since we don't have to worry about balancing our control surfaces, and attending to the minor details which would of course have serious implications in real life as regards high speed handling.

 

[Van Disaster]

Compressibility effects in piston craft were what kicked off laminar flow wings, I think ( see Typhoon -> Tempest for a prime example ). Wierd control effects happened in a lot of craft.

This is a fun one: looks like ChrisK's Northrop craft, somewhat?

Actually an attempt at a Chyeranovskii BICh-26, a Soviet design study from 1947! he had a few variable sweep designs also, pity he ended up too ill to build them all.

[Halsfury]

Hey Guys I put together a new short challenge, please take a look at it and see what could be improved, you were all so helpful getting this one to where it is.

 

It's called the KSP Unlimited Race, it's also for FAR, and is a no restrictions air race using the KSC buildings as pylons

[PTGFlyer]

oh, I am SO doing this

but how do you use flaps?

[PTGFlyer]

Can we use the B9 fuselages and stuff (the not-wings)?

[FourGreenFields]

On 28.1.2016 at 0:34 AM, PTGFlyer said:

oh, I am SO doing this

but how do you use flaps?

Right click on wing, activate usage as flap (possibly change deflection). And make sure "lower flap" and "raise flap" (or whatever it's called) are assigned to action groups.

[PTGFlyer]

8 hours ago, FourGreenFields said:

Right click on wing, activate usage as flap (possibly change deflection). And make sure "lower flap" and "raise flap" (or whatever it's called) are assigned to action groups.

The second part is what I meant. Is that just in settings?

[FourGreenFields]

41 minutes ago, PTGFlyer said:

The second part is what I meant. Is that just in settings?

Top, just left of the name of the craft in the hangar. Between parts and crew setup.

[PTGFlyer]

Thanks. Never realized what "extend" meant before.

Has anybody done it yet?

Edited January 31, 2016 by PTGFlyer

[FourGreenFields]

1 hour ago, PTGFlyer said:

Thanks. Never realized what "extend" meant before.

Has anybody done it yet?

Use flaps? I'm pretty sure nearly everyone has used flaps, allthough they aren't really needed most of the time in KSP.

[PTGFlyer]

I meant the challenge. Has anybody finished it?

[Halsfury]

9 hours ago, PTGFlyer said:

I meant the challenge. Has anybody finished it?

Well if you can get a plane to do every requirement then you finish the challenge, but everyone keeps on building

 

[PTGFlyer]

I know, but has anybody done it yet?

[FourGreenFields]

2 hours ago, PTGFlyer said:

I know, but has anybody done it yet?

I did a couple of designes for the redone challenge and the old version of the challenge. Still some plans to build more planes, but I'm mostly playing other games atm.

P 29 "Hobby" P 28 "Sparrowhawk" P 24 "Goshawk" are the designs for the new rules I posted so far.

Edited February 1, 2016 by FourGreenFields

[PTGFlyer]

I can't get the 9g pull-up at all. Is it continuous 9g?