[ASC-III] Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill (BDArmory 4v4 AI Duels: WW1 Theme) - Now Concluded!

[DoctorDavinci]

3 hours ago, Bananders said:

yeah, but 5 engines is mabye a bit over the top

Yeah, but it isn't outside the rules

[TorchedForever]

2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Yeah, but it isn't outside the rules

I think that might be up for discussion though.

ASC-III is the WWI themed rendition of ASC. However, inigma generously extended the time period to pre-WWII so that there was a little more variety. The mark 24 starfish and the Kerman & Kerman Sweep have a little over 100 kN worth of power using 3 and 2 engines respectively. The Sweep maxes out at 105 m/s and can climb at an astonishing rate of 32 m/s at 30 degrees. This seems like a good limit for Interwar craft seeing as a P-40 Warhawk can get to 160 m/s. Five engines fives 260 kN worth of power, twice the power of an afterburning jet engine. I think that easily goes beyond the intended scope of the rules. I would advocate for a 110 kN power limit, it lets you build some interesting designs without throwing reality out the window. Also, it doesn't make any previous craft invalid.

We could lower that limit for ASC-VI to 45 kN for true WWI combat.

[He_162]

12 hours ago, GDJ said:

Actually the Grumman F7 was reported to be very fast  (700 km/hr top speed), and it was flown as early as 1943, which would place it smack dab in the middle of WWII.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/grumman_tigercat.php

There were at least 13 different aircraft of which were faster, and designed in 1942 - 1943.

You should take a look:

He-162 (prototype)

He-178

J7W (Unofficial fastest prop in the world, with a top speed rivaling the Germany Do-335)

Fw-190D-13

R1Y1

There are much more, but eh, can't think of em...

essentially it was designed to be a counter for such aircraft of which could hit really high speeds..

Edited June 23, 2016 by He_162

[Charlie_Zulu]

2 hours ago, TorchedForever said:

I think that might be up for discussion though.

ASC-III is the WWI themed rendition of ASC. However, inigma generously extended the time period to pre-WWII so that there was a little more variety. The mark 24 starfish and the Kerman & Kerman Sweep have a little over 100 kN worth of power using 3 and 2 engines respectively. The Sweep maxes out at 105 m/s and can climb at an astonishing rate of 32 m/s at 30 degrees. This seems like a good limit for Interwar craft seeing as a P-40 Warhawk can get to 160 m/s. Five engines fives 260 kN worth of power, twice the power of an afterburning jet engine. I think that easily goes beyond the intended scope of the rules. I would advocate for a 110 kN power limit, it lets you build some interesting designs without throwing reality out the window. Also, it doesn't make any previous craft invalid.

We could lower that limit for ASC-VI to 45 kN for true WWI combat.

The problem with "they should only have one engine" is that there are counterexamples in real life.  The Germans loved putting multiple D.IVa engines on planes; I can't recall the name, but they even managed to make a bomber with 4 of the engines coupled together to power a single propeller.  If someone wants to put more engines on their plane, that's fair, especially since it's about an extra tonne of mass for every radial engine added, and the engines produce a LOT of drag.   

As for speeds, the vast majority of planes in the competition are limited to under 360 km/h.  While faster than most WW1 planes by about 120-150 km/h, it's in line with what would be expected from interbellum designs - the I-15, for instance, could manage those speeds without difficulty.  

[TorchedForever]

42 minutes ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

The problem with "they should only have one engine" is that there are counterexamples in real life.  The Germans loved putting multiple D.IVa engines on planes; I can't recall the name, but they even managed to make a bomber with 4 of the engines coupled together to power a single propeller.  If someone wants to put more engines on their plane, that's fair, especially since it's about an extra tonne of mass for every radial engine added, and the engines produce a LOT of drag.   

As for speeds, the vast majority of planes in the competition are limited to under 360 km/h.  While faster than most WW1 planes by about 120-150 km/h, it's in line with what would be expected from interbellum designs - the I-15, for instance, could manage those speeds without difficulty.  

So, after a bit of testing with stacking multiple engines I found top speeds tended to max under the limit you described. The extra thrust and drag seem to equal out mostly and fuel consumption because problematic. I guess they are fairly balanced.

I believe the German aircraft you are referring to is the Linke-Hofmann R.II, which also had the largest single propeller in history!

[DoctorDavinci]

51 minutes ago, TorchedForever said:

So, after a bit of testing with stacking multiple engines I found top speeds tended to max under the limit you described. The extra thrust and drag seem to equal out mostly and fuel consumption because problematic. I guess they are fairly balanced.

So your issue with 5 engines is what now?

[TorchedForever]

3 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

So your issue with 5 engines is what now?

Charlie_Zulu helped convince me that allowing multiple engines is probably fine within reason. As long as you aren't reaching transonic speeds or your plane uses vertical engines instead of wings multiple engines are not a problem.

[JollyGreenGI]

Just now, TorchedForever said:

Charlie_Zulu helped convince me that allowing multiple engines is probably fine within reason. As long as you aren't reaching transonic speeds or your plane uses vertical engines instead of wings multiple engines are not a problem.

Hmm. Vertical engines instead of wings could be an interesting outlier. 

[TorchedForever]

44 minutes ago, JollyGreenGI said:

Hmm. Vertical engines instead of wings could be an interesting outlier. 

I whipped up a vertical engined craft. It still had wings (just really small ones) for stability and control. Not sure how much of an advantage vertical engines provide. They can make a plane have a smaller target profile (it's about 6.4 x 4.9 x 6.7) but your vertical engines are vulnerable and you crash without 'em. Here's a couple pics for you.

[epicman81]

When will op add our craft to the roster

[DoctorDavinci]

7 hours ago, epicman81 said:

When will op add our craft to the roster

The OP has been busy on vacation .. it will be taken care of in short order

Don't forget that this time of year is the beginning of vacation for many and the end of exams for others

Doesn't it suck when real life gets in the way

[Charlie_Zulu]

13 hours ago, TorchedForever said:

I whipped up a vertical engined craft. It still had wings (just really small ones) for stability and control. Not sure how much of an advantage vertical engines provide. They can make a plane have a smaller target profile (it's about 6.4 x 4.9 x 6.7) but your vertical engines are vulnerable and you crash without 'em. Here's a couple pics for you.

How bad is the drag, though?  I found that the largest source of drag on my designs was the vertical engine; you're achieving a negligible amount of lift in exchange for a huge increase in mass (almost double a single-engined design) and a lot of drag.  It doesn't seem like a helicopter is worth it.

I've experimented a bit with multi-engined crafts in an effort to build a "support" fighter.  My largest has 4 engines in 2 nacelles and needs a fat-455 wing to have acceptable wing loading.  I'll admit, I'm tempted to keep pursuing it just because it can go 80 m/s in a 30 degree climb and can outrun anything else in this competition, and the centrally-mounted guns means it absolutely tears apart anything it hits, it's just really damn big.  I'm looking into possibly armouring it up and using it to tank damage while a pair of highly maneuverable fighters pick off distracted enemies.

[TorchedForever]

1 minute ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

How bad is the drag, though?  I found that the largest source of drag on my designs was the vertical engine; you're achieving a negligible amount of lift in exchange for a huge increase in mass (almost double a single-engined design) and a lot of drag.  It doesn't seem like a helicopter is worth it.

I've experimented a bit with multi-engined crafts in an effort to build a "support" fighter.  My largest has 4 engines in 2 nacelles and needs a fat-455 wing to have acceptable wing loading.  I'll admit, I'm tempted to keep pursuing it just because it can go 80 m/s in a 30 degree climb and can outrun anything else in this competition, and the centrally-mounted guns means it absolutely tears apart anything it hits, it's just really damn big.  I'm looking into possibly armouring it up and using it to tank damage while a pair of highly maneuverable fighters pick off distracted enemies.

It gets the same top speed with and without the vertical engine. The vertical thrust allows it to have 0 AoA while flying level, which decreases drag. Really, the only benefit is you have much smaller wing area than a conventional design.

Your concept seems interesting. I ran some tests with a Mallard covered in structural panels, it seemed to work fairly well. I'd love some pictures if you can get them!

[inigma]

On 6/20/2016 at 8:29 PM, Triop said:

That's my man !

How many days left to enter btw ?

End when will these fights take place ?

OP updated with all submissions to date. If you're not listed, repost your entry, and confirm that you've defeated the KOTH in combat in your own testing.

On 6/21/2016 at 10:21 PM, epicman81 said:

I would like to present to you the plane to beat all other planes: The Mark 24 Starfish https://kerbalx.com/epicman352/mark-24-starfish 

this beast has 3 engines and is supermanuevarable and carries 2 7mm rapid fire machine guns and takes off on its own without any worry.

This is my real submission

@inigma

It can beat the current king and I bet it can beat even the superbee.

Great! added.

[AlexTheHu]

I am entering my craft "ASC-IIItri.craft" into the ASC-III.

https://kerbalx.com/huthealex/ASC-IIItri

I think I properly registered now

oh and it has defeated the KOTH in testing

now I think I properly registered 

Edited June 25, 2016 by AlexTheHu

[The Optimist]

Can you please substitute the micro-fighter for another Desert Moth? Thanks. I just updated my planes again, they should stand a slightly better chance now. Oh, and I bet the new Beefalo can beat a F-16 in a speed contest

Make sure you click on the probe core and set it as 'control from here', or the navballs will be glitched

Edited June 25, 2016 by The Optimist

[The Optimist]

The new turboprop-powered Beefalo has around 130 kN of thrust.

[epicman81]

My plane is the plane to end all planes

[The Optimist]

5 hours ago, epicman81 said:

My plane is the plane to end all planes

nope

[GDJ]

On June 23, 2016 at 11:15 AM, He_162 said:

There were at least 13 different aircraft of which were faster, and designed in 1942 - 1943.

You should take a look:

He-162 (prototype)

He-178

J7W (Unofficial fastest prop in the world, with a top speed rivaling the Germany Do-335)

Fw-190D-13

R1Y1

There are much more, but eh, can't think of em...

essentially it was designed to be a counter for such aircraft of which could hit really high speeds..

Hey guys and gals: I never said the F7 was the fastest. I just said it was very fast.
 

[The Optimist]

I'm designing a 2.5 meter tank plane, designed to distract all the skrubs while my other ones clean it up.

[Dman979]

44 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

I'm designing a 2.5 meter tank plane, designed to distract all the skrubs while my other ones clean it up.

But what if it doesn't distract them?

[The Optimist]

8 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

But what if it doesn't distract them?

then it shoots them

[GDJ]

Started developing a variant of the Super-Bee. Looks-wise, nearly identical and same armament, but so far it's ending up .35 tonnes lighter.

Speed increased by 7 m/s, but rate of climb has increased to 30 m/s sustainable to 4000 metres.

[The Optimist]

The desert moth can pop the nightingale if it manages to notice it first.

Edited June 25, 2016 by The Optimist