Asymmetric Aircraft Thread

[Pthigrivi]

Woot!

 

This isnt even that crazy. What have people got? For reference points for the stupidest looking thing that flies.

E: Wooops and misspelled the title. That eggnog'll getcha.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[roosterr]

Brilliant thread.

Rutan Boomerang comes to mind...

Edited December 6, 2015 by roosterr

[Renegrade]

An old FAR design I came up with at one point.  I even made a pre-1.0 aero version of it.  Fully operational for both versions, can take off, fly around, and land (although not especially well).  I built it from the cockpit outwards I believe (either that or the left side nacelle)...any symmetrical look to it is merely coincidence.

This craft is also built in a non-symmetrical fashion if I recall correctly (one cockpit is slightly ahead of the other, for example).  It's from a similar era as the previous.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Renegrade

[Foxster]

This flies beautifully...

[wrcsubers]

4 hours ago, Foxster said:

This flies beautifully...

Haha that's great, it looks so silly, it's like an inside-out plane... Even more awesome is that it flies well

[numerobis]

Upon liftoff I wondered why this plane had such a strong tendency to roll.  

[322997am]

All this is great but this is what my brain thinks when it sees that:Eww Eww plane asymmetrical Eww Eww.

[wrcsubers]

12 minutes ago, 322997am said:

All this is great but this is what my brain thinks when it sees that:Eww Eww plane asymmetrical Eww Eww.

I totally agree, although it is quite funny to see... It's weird how symmetry is such an innate part of us.

Humans can tell very small differences in symmetry, especially in other humans.  Symmetry is actually one of our built in standards to tell us wether someone is beautiful or not.

Edited December 6, 2015 by wrcsubers

[Vanamonde]

This exchange of craft has been moved to the craft exchange subforum. 

[Azimech]

2 hours ago, wrcsubers said:

I totally agree, although it is quite funny to see... It's weird how symmetry is such an innate part of us.

Humans can tell very small differences in symmetry, especially in other humans.  Symmetry is actually one of our built in standards to tell us wether someone is beautiful or not.

While a perfect symmetry in a car, boat or plane is perceived as pleasing, a perfect symmetry in a human face creeps the hell out of us, because it cannot and does not exist. Some even call it demonic when they're shown a photoshopped picture with it.

[wrcsubers]

Introducing: 'The Outrigger'

This flies quite a bit better than you think it would, although it does require constant and concurrent use of Pitch/Yaw/Roll.  Stable in straight flight, I was able to take-off, fly around and land!  One of the more unique contrails I've seen too...

 

 

[wrcsubers]

14 minutes ago, Azimech said:

While a perfect symmetry in a car, boat or plane is perceived as pleasing, a perfect symmetry in a human face creeps the hell out of us, because it cannot and does not exist. Some even call it demonic when they're shown a photoshopped picture with it.

...sounds like a girl I used to date haha

[Pthigrivi]

Points for Wrcsubers!

Lets get weird!

The Ugly Duck. Actually flies quite well...

4 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

This exchange of craft has been moved to the craft exchange subforum. 

Hmmm... is this where it belongs? I've actually never even been to this subforum.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Thingymajigy]

Plane itself is symmetrical, but fully capable of flying (and taking off and landing) with asymmetrical thrust, albeit a little slower. Just a bit of trimming and flies better than with SAS

[Bloojay]

I'm trying to make an symmetric challenge thread on the forums, and for that I made a few ships that clearly belong here

(tis a shuttle)

#TinyNecroThisThreadIsStillKindaRelevantPlsDunBan

Edited June 23, 2016 by Bloojay
Formatting, this is a weird editor

[Pthigrivi]

^Current leaderboard winner

[RRFroste]

I submit: Every space shuttle replica on the forums.

I win. 

[Bloojay]

@Pthigrivi Woooooooooo!

 

15 minutes ago, RRFroste said:

I submit: Every space shuttle replica on the forums.

I win. 

well they have a symmetry in at least one axis, mine do not! 

[TedwinKnockman66]

Asimo

Based on Doppleganger from crimson skies

[Bloojay]

Feast Yo' Eyes!

[Corona688]

Well, if spacecraft qualify, I frequently build asymmetric probes and landers to save on weight.  They balance instruments on one side with fuel on the other etc.

Mun Lander, made just yesterday, one way to make do without radial engines.  It flew very well and landed light as a feather.  The case on the right contains a probodyne and many science instruments.  Both booms were discarded (once science and fuel were transferred) before lifting off the lunar surface.

Mistake of Science.  (Back when the cyborg nosecones were science parts).  This was a Duna lander which, after landing there, managed SSTO by accident!

The Lemming, named for its throwaway science probes ready to leap to their doom.

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Corona688

[kiwi1960]

The Germans were the real life masters of this industry...
 

Posted to inspire anyone that thinks these kinds of planes are not real....

[valens]

Diogenes is my solution to the following problem: how to land & recover as much science as possible on the Mün, return to orbit to refuel and upload the science and so on. Nifty little craft, although a bit short on monoprop. The tricky part was adding a platform so my kerbonauts can take all the data, while keeping everything balanced. The first version of this had the mk1 lander can on the side, attached straight on the science package, but I scrapped it as the SAS and EVA-ing were too complicated.

Edited September 6, 2016 by valens
link update

[Corona688]

As wide and flat as it is already, I wonder if the landing legs are really needed.

If you stack all your instruments beside the cockpit, you don't have to let go of the ladder to retrieve data during a spacewalk.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Corona688

[valens]

They are actually accessible from the hatch, except the atmospheric spectrometer (which is useless on the Mün anyway) and the material bay. I had to make a compromise between balance and accessibility though.

It could probably do without the landing legs, though these are the lightest ones and do not cost that much ∆v (packs about 2.5k ∆v, I can go back and forth from 50 km orbit and still have about 1/3 of the starting fuel). Still, I prefer breaking a landing strut than an engine.

[Edit: verified accessibility]

Edited June 30, 2016 by valens
verification