The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[Halsfury]

Thanks Hodo, but I'm not 100% convinced. Landing gears are my design weak point generally and the fact that the landing gear makes for a higher takeoff speed than landing speed is ideal for stability on landing

I might increase the size of the pylon though to help with the takeoff issue, I know it looks ugly but it works and doesn't melt at mach 4

Also did you detach the drop tanks before fighting it? they completely disintegrate when ejected at high speeds mind you

Edited July 6, 2015 by Halsfury

[Hodo]

Thanks Hodo, but I'm not 100% convinced. Landing gears are my design weak point generally and the fact that the landing gear makes for a higher takeoff speed than landing speed is ideal for stability on landing

I might increase the size of the pylon though to help with the takeoff issue, I know it looks ugly but it works and doesn't melt at mach 4

Also did you detach the drop tanks before fighting it? they completely disintegrate when ejected at high speeds mind you

I detached the drop tanks before both fights. Mind you your craft out performs my XF-149B even with the drop tanks attached. But against the XF-150A, the 150A can turn with it, and out accelerate it.

[Halsfury]

I detached the drop tanks before both fights. Mind you your craft out performs my XF-149B even with the drop tanks attached. But against the XF-150A, the 150A can turn with it, and out accelerate it.

You must have a lighter craft then. Too bad the AI doesn't know to save up energy and perform boom and zoom attacks cause the F-32 sure has the mass for it.

is the XF 150 stock with BD or are any other mods used?

[FourGreenFields]

Ok, there we go. 138.25 points, if I am not mistaken.

Craft file, with added take-off booster (all tests have been done without using the take-off booster).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Tell me if anything is wrong. Not sure if I got everything right. Just don't beat the score before I finished a basic jet entry please

EDIT: And I forgot to mention: As internal fuel tanks are worth nearly no points, I had to reduce the internal fuel load below what is theoritcally possible, to be able to take off without boosters.

Edited July 6, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Hodo]

You must have a lighter craft then. Too bad the AI doesn't know to save up energy and perform boom and zoom attacks cause the F-32 sure has the mass for it.

is the XF 150 stock with BD or are any other mods used?

Stock with BD, that is it. I will post the craft file later when I finish putting it through the trials. So expect it by the end of the week at the latest.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, there we go. 138.25 points, if I am not mistaken.

Craft file, with added take-off booster (all tests have been done without using the take-off booster).

http://imgur.com/a/n7kme

Tell me if anything is wrong. Not sure if I got everything right. Just don't beat the score before I finished a basic jet entry please

EDIT: And I forgot to mention: As internal fuel tanks are worth nearly no points, I had to reduce the internal fuel load below what is theoritcally possible, to be able to take off without boosters.

Looks like a dart, I like the simplicity of the design. But where are the weapons going to be held?

[Halsfury]

Ok, there we go. 138.25 points, if I am not mistaken.

Craft file, with added take-off booster (all tests have been done without using the take-off booster).

http://imgur.com/a/n7kme

Tell me if anything is wrong. Not sure if I got everything right. Just don't beat the score before I finished a basic jet entry please

EDIT: And I forgot to mention: As internal fuel tanks are worth nearly no points, I had to reduce the internal fuel load below what is theoritcally possible, to be able to take off without boosters.

That's a wicked looking ship, but where are the control surfaces? are you just using canards front and back?

[FourGreenFields]

Succes!

Pretty sure I'll be able to make this thing pass the challenge.

That's a wicked looking ship, but where are the control surfaces? are you just using canards front and back?

Canards up front are the only classical pitch control surfaces. Trailing edge of the tail wings are set as flaps with negative deflection, to be able to pull higher AoA at low speed. Ailerons and rudder are normal.

[Cinocal]

I would just like to add that even though effective, IMO if it doesn't look equally impressive it won't sell. Take a look at any 5th gen ride on the first page. They are all pleasing to the eye, IMO of course.

[Halsfury]

I would just like to add that even though effective, IMO if it doesn't look equally impressive it won't sell. Take a look at any 5th gen ride on the first page. They are all pleasing to the eye, IMO of course.

Yeah, it's true but sometimes something which people find weird or doesn't conform with their perception of being aerodynamically sound or very pretty eventually enters popular culture such that we assume that we need it aerodynamically when we don't, or that it's more attractive.

For example 70 years ago the aerodynamic wisdom of the time said rounded leading edge with a with a tapered trailing edge. The popular culture got influenced by these aerodynamic advancements and cars went from .

This:

to this:

you might say that this makes sense since cars were going faster, but since then cars have still taken their cues from bleeding edge aerodynamics, even though it's just for looks.

for instance cars don't need area ruling and people in the 50's thought area ruling looked weird and ugly

But today this design feature makes it into sports cars, (yes it's a concept but I know you've seen this waisted look on a less exaggerated scale)

This is of course totally useless on a car which won't even reach 200mph on city streets, and it might even have a negative subsonic drag impact but it's a bit of a modern design meme

Edited July 7, 2015 by Halsfury

[Hodo]

So the XF-150A finished its supercruise test.

Mach 1.075 was the best at 10km alt. It held this speed with a full combat load of air to air weapons, 6 AIM-9X, 2 AIM-120Cs, 3 251.5L Drop Tanks.

Total flight time 1:12min (3sec shy of 12min but whats 3sec)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Cinocal]

All were probably perceived in their time as new and appealing in terms of mechanical design but I digress.

[Hodo]

Yeah, it's true but sometimes something which people find weird or doesn't conform with their perception of being aerodynamically sound or very pretty eventually enters popular culture such that we assume that we need it aerodynamically when we don't, or that it's more attractive.

For example 70 years ago the aerodynamic wisdom of the time said rounded leading edge with a with a tapered trailing edge. The popular culture got influenced by these aerodynamic advancements and cars went from .

This:

http://www.earlyamericanautomobiles.com/images/autos4986.jpg

to this:

http://cdn.retrowaste.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1947-Buick-Convertible.jpg

you might say that this makes sense since cars were going faster, but since then cars have still taken their cues from bleeding edge aerodynamics, even though it's just for looks.

for instance cars don't need area ruling and people in the 50's thought area ruling looked weird and ugly

http://www.456fis.org/THE%20AREA%20RULE/Eclipse_program_QF-106_aircraft_in_flight%252C_view_from_tanker.jpg

But today this design feature makes it into sports cars, (yes it's a concept but I know you've seen this waisted look on a less exaggerated scale)

http://psipunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ferrari-Xezri-fantastic-sport-car-Samir-Sadikhov-01.jpg

This is of course totally useless on a car which won't even reach 200mph on city streets, and it might even have a negative subsonic drag impact but it's a bit of a modern design meme

There is a bit of a difference between car design and aircraft design.

While that Buick Convertible was great looking for its time, it was designed in a wind tunnel or to handle speeds in excess of 100mph. The F-106 Delta Dart there was designed in a wind tunnel and was the peak of technology in the 1960s, not to mention one of the hottest single engine fighters in the air for almost 20 years.

Now that Ferrari, Ferrari have always taken a different approach to car design, they design their cars to be works of art AND functional, so they end up compromising somewhere in the middle and often coming up with works of fantastic art. If you want to see function over form, look at the Bugatti Veyron that thing is horrible looking, but it was designed in a wind tunnel, with no other job than to go fast, and stay on the ground.

The YF-23, which to me was the REAL winner of that contest and the biggest mistake the Airforce made. It is designed to be fast, sleek and stealthy. While it didnt turn as well as the F-22 it did many things better, flew further, higher, and faster all the while carrying more weapons, and stores.

[FourGreenFields]

I would just like to add that even though effective, IMO if it doesn't look equally impressive it won't sell. Take a look at any 5th gen ride on the first page. They are all pleasing to the eye, IMO of course.

Assuming you meant my basic jet design: As long as it's the only one that meets the requirements, or has a massive performance and/or handling advantage, I won't need to worry about looks.

[CrisK]

So the XF-150A finished its supercruise test.

Mach 1.075 was the best at 10km alt. It held this speed with a full combat load of air to air weapons, 6 AIM-9X, 2 AIM-120Cs, 3 251.5L Drop Tanks.

Total flight time 1:12min (3sec shy of 12min but whats 3sec)

http://imgur.com/a/ikWzZ

Hodo (as always) I really like your design. Hmm, now I am inspired to create a competing jet.

[tetryds]

About the looks, yes that is super important.

There are many examples of worse planes that won simply because they looked better, even though they were worse in every single aspect.

Good ugly planes exist, but bad good looking ones are everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

Even though not a requirement it would be interesting if we tried to keep our planes eye-pleasing as a plus

Edit: by the way, looks are not totally useless, they are a marketing and appealing factor.

[CrisK]

I created a plane that fits the design requirements, but I'll excuse myself from competing because my plane is a direct copy of the Dassault Rafale's design. Still, it was a fun challenge!

It has 5 drop tanks in the same design and position as the Rafale. It easily maintains Mach 3.2 at 10,000km with all 5 drop tanks. It can go faster without them, but I did not attempt this because I worried that the exposed tanks would explode if I dropped them at such a high speed.

Two-seater, like the original.

It supercruises at Mach 1 for 17hrs + at 10,000km, or 1hr and 45 minutes at Mach 3. It needs all 5 tanks for this.

Mods used: B9 procedural wings (no fuel added, durability set to default settings of 1), adjustable landing gear, Kerbal Engineer (for the readouts).

The drop tanks are a little part that I made by rescaling the stock liquid fuel tanks to 0.5 and setting the fuel appropriately. I'd be happy to share this part with everyone - it makes for some really nice stockalike drop tanks!

Dassault Rafale:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Hodo]

Hodo (as always) I really like your design. Hmm, now I am inspired to create a competing jet.

The funny thing is that design was inspired by a few aircraft in history.

YF-23 Black Widow

A-4 Skyhawk

and the Avro Vulcan

The intakes are not the most efficient design, I can make them better but I cant squeeze them in that small area. I may change the intakes inside that space to increase max altitude and performance, but I will have to do some more testing before I make any major changes. Right now the craft is pretty nice as is.

And thanks to this challenge I started rethinking some of my design philosophies on my SSTO fighter line and built a new SSTO fighter, that is surprisingly easy to fly.

NOT FOR THE CHALLENGE!

[Darth Lazarus]

working on a 4.5th generation jet fighter (if this is allowed)

my inspiration is the F/A-18 Hornet and it is very intersting to see, what kind of decision has influcend the design.

sadly i have some problem with FAR. this is my first time using FAR and i'm getting used to the additinal informations in the SPH (currently working on the body rule etc to smooth out the profil to get finaly supersonic)

my two main problems are these: with SAS on, the jet keeps wiggling (sometimes a wobble to death). Is this normal? or a fault of poor design? my second question is: how to make the jet withstand high G-loads without braking apart? struting the hell out of it don't work

i really want to try this out, the challange is very entertaining. so i hope for some advises

here a picture of the current version, only modparts are the adjustable landinggears:

[CrisK]

The funny thing is that design was inspired by a few aircraft in history.

YF-23 Black Widow

A-4 Skyhawk

and the Avro Vulcan

The intakes are not the most efficient design, I can make them better but I cant squeeze them in that small area. I may change the intakes inside that space to increase max altitude and performance, but I will have to do some more testing before I make any major changes. Right now the craft is pretty nice as is.

Your plane(s) may be based on historical designs, but they are different enough that I would still consider them to be original (unlike my plane).

working on a 4.5th generation jet fighter (if this is allowed)

my inspiration is the F/A-18 Hornet and it is very intersting to see, what kind of decision has influcend the design.

sadly i have some problem with FAR. this is my first time using FAR and i'm getting used to the additinal informations in the SPH (currently working on the body rule etc to smooth out the profil to get finaly supersonic)

my two main problems are these: with SAS on, the jet keeps wiggling (sometimes a wobble to death). Is this normal? or a fault of poor design? my second question is: how to make the jet withstand high G-loads without braking apart? struting the hell out of it don't work

i really want to try this out, the challange is very entertaining. so i hope for some advises

here a picture of the current version, only modparts are the adjustable landinggears:

http://i.imgur.com/d7VKzJM.jpg

If you post the craft file then I can help you adjust it to make it FAR friendly. I can also explain how/why I adjusted things to make the plane perform better in FAR. I like your design!

Edit:

Dont forget to set the turbojets to 50%, and take pics to show this. But GREAT looking craft.

Even easier, I'll post the craft file so that others can play around with it and verify what I've posted.

Ok the problem of the SAS wobble is caused by over control of the craft, you will have to reduce the control surface angles to reduce this affect. The other option is to get the PID Tuner, that is what I use along with the reduction in control surface angles. I usually change the default angles from 20 to 12-15deg max depending on the surface, the position on the craft and the job.

A second option: use action groups to control the deflection of control surfaces. I have key 5 set to decrease deflection (for high speeds: over mach 1) and 4 set to increase deflection (low speeds, below mach 1).

Edited July 7, 2015 by CrisK

[Hodo]

I created a plane that fits the design requirements, but I'll excuse myself from competing because my plane is a direct copy of the Dassault Rafale's design. Still, it was a fun challenge!

It has 5 drop tanks in the same design and position as the Rafale. It easily maintains Mach 3.2 at 10,000km with all 5 drop tanks. It can go faster without them, but I did not attempt this because I worried that the exposed tanks would explode if I dropped them at such a high speed.

Two-seater, like the original.

It supercruises at Mach 1 for 17hrs + at 10,000km, or 1hr and 45 minutes at Mach 3. It needs all 5 tanks for this.

Mods used: B9 procedural wings (no fuel added, durability set to default settings of 1), adjustable landing gear, Kerbal Engineer (for the readouts).

The drop tanks are a little part that I made by rescaling the stock liquid fuel tanks to 0.5 and setting the fuel appropriately. I'd be happy to share this part with everyone - it makes for some really nice stockalike drop tanks!

Dassault Rafale:

http://imgur.com/a/KGvPL

Dont forget to set the turbojets to 50%, and take pics to show this. But GREAT looking craft.

- - - Updated - - -

sadly i have some problem with FAR. this is my first time using FAR and i'm getting used to the additinal informations in the SPH (currently working on the body rule etc to smooth out the profil to get finaly supersonic)

my two main problems are these: with SAS on, the jet keeps wiggling (sometimes a wobble to death). Is this normal? or a fault of poor design? my second question is: how to make the jet withstand high G-loads without braking apart? struting the hell out of it don't work

)

here a picture of the current version, only modparts are the adjustable landinggears:

http://i.imgur.com/d7VKzJM.jpg

Ok the problem of the SAS wobble is caused by over control of the craft, you will have to reduce the control surface angles to reduce this affect. The other option is to get the PID Tuner, that is what I use along with the reduction in control surface angles. I usually change the default angles from 20 to 12-15deg max depending on the surface, the position on the craft and the job.

And my favorite shot of my new craft....

[Darth Lazarus]

can't upload the craft file right now, will do it later. but thank you very much for teh first ideas

i will work on the plane body a bit more before posting it for your judgements and improvents

[FourGreenFields]

can't upload the craft file right now, will do it later. but thank you very much for teh first ideas

i will work on the plane body a bit more before posting it for your judgements and improvents

If you want to pull high Gs without falling apart, you'll want low wing loading (as this reduces the AoA required to pull Gs it will also reduce the ammounts of RUD), and high mass/strength for the wings.

I'm pretty damned sure it's area rule btw, not body rule

[CrisK]

Here's a Dropbox folder with the craft file(s) for my plane.

There's a sub-folder that contains parts for a stockalike drop tank and an ICBM body. These will let anyone add stockalike (RAM-free) ICBMs and drop tanks to their planes. That should help everyone with this challenge.

(These are just modifications of Squad's models with slight alterations to make them perform better at high speeds and altitudes. I offer them under the CC BY license.)

Edited July 7, 2015 by CrisK

[FourGreenFields]

And she's alive! Aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive!

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.

Edited July 7, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Emilio]

I've started working on a new yet to be named design.

I managed to lower its wave drag area to about .65, and it's now able to supercruise at M2.4 @10000m, and go past M2 on afterburner at 3000m (further than M3-4 and it tends to rip itself apart). Fuel tanks are quite straightforward and I have plenty of fuel to spare in the internal tanks - range is excellent.

Right now TWR is the problem - it tends to exceed 2 in horizontal flight but I have been unable to test in the vertical because it seems to have lost pitch authority over the course of its versions - Pulling GS and sometimes taking off can be quite difficult. I'll try bringing the CoL and CoG closer together.

By the way, any recommended values for mass/strength and deflection angle on control surfaces ?