Junkers Juno Tournaments (Season 1)

[He_162]

Junkers Juno Tournaments

 

This Season:

(seasons end when we don't have a new winner for 1 month, then we assume no one wants to play, or that the best craft that will be submitted, has been.)

 

Build a aircraft powered by 1, 2, or 4 juno engines.

PLEASE HAVE A PILOT

The objective is to build a aircraft capable of the old Kerman specifications for a single, and double engine jet fighter, or bomber, as well as 4 engine bombers.

Here are the specifications, and point systems.

Single Engine Fighter:

-Top Speed of 250 m/s.

-25 second turn time or less.

-Climb to 7000m in less than 6 minutes.

-150 units of fuel.

 

Twin engine fighter:

-Top Speed of 260 m/s.

-30 second turn time or less.

-Climb to 7000m in less than 5 minutes.

-400 units of fuel.

 

Twin engine bomber:

-Top Speed of 220 m/s.

-40 second turn time or less.

-Climb to 8000m in 10 minutes or less.

-Bomb load of 4 fully loaded small ore tanks.

-600 units of fuel.

Quad+ engine bomber: (Don't use over 8 engines)

-Top Speed of 200 m/s.

-60 second turn time or less.

-Climb to 8000m in 10 minutes or less.

-Bomb load of 6 fully loaded small ore tanks. (Radial ones)

-1200 units of fuel.

 

POINT SYSTEM:

Whoever has the best stats according to the specifications above has the best aircraft, so don't JUST do the specifications, try to exceed them.

 

LEADERBOARD: (TOP 3)

Single engine fighter:

1.) @swjr-swis

2.) @Cunjo Carl

3.) @He_162

4.) @qzgy

5.) @hempa2

 

Twin engine fighter:

1.) @swjr-swis

2.) @MiniMatt

3.) @qzgy

 

Twin engine bomber:

1.) 

 

Quad engine bomber:

1.) @He_162

2.) @DoctorDavinci

3.)

 

Allowed Mods: (Suggest one if you want it on the list)

B9 Aerospace Pack

Procedural Parts

BDarmory

SXT (Stock Extension)

Any Mod That Doesn't change game mechanics or modify the Juno engine (not including texture).

 

Heinkel's Attempts:

La-174: http://imgur.com/a/iDJY3

Junkers 4: http://imgur.com/a/Jbhrp

Edited August 5, 2016 by He_162

[MiniMatt]

Interesting idea, and trickier than it first looks; after a couple of iterations I've a twin engined plane that easily meets the climb rate and level speed requirements but falls just short on the flight time, coming in at ~55minutes calculated.

How are you calculating flight time btw (assuming you're not expecting people to fly for six hours and post the MET timer screenshot!) - I've just been taking the indicated fuel flow at ~8000m altitude and extrapolating from there - wonder if it might be simpler to just specify a given fuel load for each category rather than rely on the vagaries of fuel flow, although that approach potentially discriminates against designs capable of very high altitude, hence able to eek out their fuel better.

And the speed requirement - I'm presuming that's a level flight rather than diving? Any altitude floor/ceiling for that speed?

 

Anyway, my best so far, meeting the twin engine speed and climb rate within 3:25, but as I say, flight time is likely just shy at around 55 minutes:

EDIT: Oooh, by junking the tail assembly (I, erm, I'm sure it's not important...) we can climb to over 10km and 275m/s within 4:48 and in the thinner atmosphere sip fuel at 0.04/s, giving a flight time on my remaining 181 units of over 75 minutes - add the ~5 minutes so far and I reckon that happily breaks the hour flight time requirement.

Edited July 27, 2016 by MiniMatt

[He_162]

2 hours ago, MiniMatt said:

Interesting idea, and trickier than it first looks; after a couple of iterations I've a twin engined plane that easily meets the climb rate and level speed requirements but falls just short on the flight time, coming in at ~55minutes calculated.

How are you calculating flight time btw (assuming you're not expecting people to fly for six hours and post the MET timer screenshot!) - I've just been taking the indicated fuel flow at ~8000m altitude and extrapolating from there - wonder if it might be simpler to just specify a given fuel load for each category rather than rely on the vagaries of fuel flow, although that approach potentially discriminates against designs capable of very high altitude, hence able to eek out their fuel better.

And the speed requirement - I'm presuming that's a level flight rather than diving? Any altitude floor/ceiling for that speed?

 

Anyway, my best so far, meeting the twin engine speed and climb rate within 3:25, but as I say, flight time is likely just shy at around 55 minutes:

 

EDIT: Oooh, by junking the tail assembly (I, erm, I'm sure it's not important...) we can climb to over 10km and 275m/s within 4:48 and in the thinner atmosphere sip fuel at 0.04/s, giving a flight time on my remaining 181 units of over 75 minutes - add the ~5 minutes so far and I reckon that happily breaks the hour flight time requirement.

 

Well, I like your first design, the second looks kind of strange to me.

 

I will change it to have some rules, for mods and stuff, and to, as of your comments:

 

I will have a fuel load requirement instead of a flight time requirement, you are right, it makes it easier for people, however, I use Kerbal Engineer Redux, which tells me the flight time, and level flight speed at any altitude is the requirement for the top speed.

[He_162]

This aircraft meets the exact specifications for the twin engine fighter, I will be making some basic craft to show people what theirs should be capable of, etc.

http://imgur.com/a/MMFtm

[Cunjo Carl]

17 hours ago, MiniMatt said:

 

Ohmygod, that is the cutest plane, ever@!!

 

 

EDIT:

Alright, I made one, but it's not nearly as cute.

Little thing flies a treat, though! Top speed 300m/s, turn time 20s, time to 7km 1:50 and 150units of fuel (are we circumnavigating these? ). It handles nice and easy, because the vertical fins are lined up right with the COM, so yaw doesn't induce a roll. I was kinda going for a UAV look, but I don't quite think I hit it... Ah, well. I'll settle for fun to fly.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Cunjo Carl

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

@Cunjo Carl again the striped down version of the dragonfly hahaha

[He_162]

I  made some modifications to the bomber entries, nice job @Cunjo Carl!

[qzgy]

By small holding tanks, which do you mean?

Also, is a kerbal on an external control seat acceptable for fighters?

Edited July 28, 2016 by qzgy

[hempa2]

The Putnik

5 second turntime (the engineers called it overmanouverable, the pilots called it a deathtrap)

Max speed is 255 m/s.

160 units of liquid fuel

Time to 7km is 5:13.

[qzgy]

Two things

The Mosquito 2 : Single Engine Fighter (I made an earlier version, but it only carried 60 liquid fuel and was augmented by 2 twitch engines)

Time to 7 km : 105 seconds

Turn time: 25 seconds

Top speed: 330 m/s

Fuel:150

No crew though

 

The MidgeFly: Twin Engine Fighter

Time to 7 km: 3:28

Turning Time 19 secs

Top Speed: 281 m/s

Fuel: 428 Units

 

http://imgur.com/a/VU47j

Craft images above

Edited July 29, 2016 by qzgy

[swjr-swis]

@He_162, two questions:

1. Are you sure about those fuel amounts? I think perhaps you underestimate the effect of the fuel mass, plus the size and number of the tanks needed to add so much. One does not need to add n+1 (or more!) fuel to keep the same reach/flight time as the nr of engines increase, but the added weight quickly kills the performance. Junos are goodness in a nice tiny package, but they do have their limits at 20kN of thrust.
2. When you say 'small ore tanks', I am assuming you actually mean the smallest tanks, the radial ones, right? Not the 1.25m ones that are named 'small ore tank'? Cause again, between the size (drag!) and the weight when fully loaded, on top of the fuel you already ask for... that's killing the possibilities.

I have two entries ready for the first two categories, and I know I can make things work for the last one with 6-8 Junos. I haven't yet manage a twin engine bomber to get even near the specs you ask for due to the disproportional weight and drag of the fuel and ore requirements (7000 kg for 800 units of fuel + 4x75 units of ore). It's just 40 kN of thrust total at sea level, keep that in mind.

Edited July 29, 2016 by swjr-swis

[He_162]

20 hours ago, qzgy said:

By small holding tanks, which do you mean?

Also, is a kerbal on an external control seat acceptable for fighters?

Yes!

18 hours ago, hempa2 said:

The Putnik

5 second turntime (the engineers called it overmanouverable, the pilots called it a deathtrap)

Max speed is 255 m/s.

160 units of liquid fuel

Time to 7km is 5:13.

Nice!

18 hours ago, qzgy said:

Two things

The Mosquito 2 : Single Engine Fighter (I made an earlier version, but it only carried 60 liquid fuel and was augmented by 2 twitch engines)

Time to 7 km : 105 seconds

Turn time: 25 seconds

Top speed: 330 m/s

Fuel:150

No crew though (CREW IS NEEDED)

The MidgeFly: Twin Engine Fighter

Time to 7 km: 3:28

Turning Time 19 secs

Top Speed: 281 m/s

Fuel: 428 Units

 

http://imgur.com/a/VU47j

Craft images above

You need a crew man, sorry, I'll add it to the rules, I forget stuff.

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

@He_162, two questions:

1. Are you sure about those fuel amounts? I think perhaps you underestimate the effect of the fuel mass, plus the size and number of the tanks needed to add so much. One does not need to add n+1 (or more!) fuel to keep the same reach/flight time as the nr of engines increase, but the added weight quickly kills the performance. Junos are goodness in a nice tiny package, but they do have their limits at 20kN of thrust.
2. When you say 'small ore tanks', I am assuming you actually mean the smallest tanks, the radial ones, right? Not the 1.25m ones that are named 'small ore tank'? Cause again, between the size (drag!) and the weight when fully loaded, on top of the fuel you already ask for... that's killing the possibilities.

I have two entries ready for the first two categories, and I know I can make things work for the last one with 6-8 Junos. I haven't yet manage a twin engine bomber to get even near the specs you ask for due to the disproportional weight and drag of the fuel and ore requirements (7000 kg for 800 units of fuel + 4x75 units of ore). It's just 40 kN of thrust total at sea level, keep that in mind.

Yes, small radial ones.

 

It wouldn't be challenging without the fuel load. Oh, and I didn't say you had to be on full fuel load for combat, maybe carry drop tanks, and drop them once you are in combat, that counts.

I will have bomber examples ready soon.

[He_162]

See, the 8 engine bomber challenge is entirely possible, perhaps someone can make it even better by doing it with 4 engines, pretty sure that's impossible, but anyone is welcome to try, stretch your creativity!

http://imgur.com/a/Jbhrp

[swjr-swis]

 

8 hours ago, He_162 said:

It wouldn't be challenging without the fuel load. Oh, and I didn't say you had to be on full fuel load for combat, maybe carry drop tanks, and drop them once you are in combat, that counts.

So, it only needs to have the capacity. I expected the requested performance requirements to actually be measured when at full load, but ok.

So to be clear: the top/turn/climb speeds can be measured with minimal fuel? What about the bombs, do we have to have them still on or can we drop those too before measuring performance?

 

7 hours ago, He_162 said:

See, the 8 engine bomber challenge is entirely possible, perhaps someone can make it even better by doing it with 4 engines, pretty sure that's impossible, but anyone is welcome to try, stretch your creativity!

The 4-8 engine entry is not the problem, I mentioned that. It's the twin-engine bomber. 40kN to push 7000kg of just the pure fuel and ore, and then add the parts and drag (although if we can drop fuel and bombs before measuring, the story may change a bit).

 

8 hours ago, He_162 said:

You need a crew man, sorry, I'll add it to the rules, I forget stuff.

@Cunjo Carl's single engine fighter entry does not have a crew, does it?

 

The entries I mentioned before are without crew, since they are entirely 0.625m body, so they are out. I'm linking them here anyway just cause of the trouble I went to to make something to match Cunjo's entry:

Spoiler

link to full imgur album

Single Juno Fighter, exceeds all requirements (335.4 m/s, 1:32m to 7km, <5s turn, 200 units LF, >15km ceiling, <20s stable turn on rudder/yaw alone), except it's uncrewed:

 

Twin Juno fighter, exceeds all requirements (347m/s, 1:30m to 7km, <10s turn, 425 units LF), but it's uncrewed:

 

Twin Juno Bomber attempts, cannot make any of the requirements when carrying the full fuel and bomb load (also, uncrewed):

175m/s top, 4700m ceiling with full fuel & bomb load.

194m/s top, 5800m ceiling with full fuel & bomb load.

 

Quad Juno Bomber. Missed screenshotting the one time I managed to get it to 8km within the 10 min from departure.. it can only just make it. Doesn't really matter since it's uncrewed anyway and isn't eligible.  Other than that it can easily turn within the 60s and does 208m/s, all with the full load of bombs and fuel:

 

 

BTW: crew requirement rules out a single-Juno fighter with external command seat. The ECS/kerbal is too draggy in even the most basic tiniest configuration possible for a single Juno to reach 250m/s in level flight. Pure matter of the enormous drag of an external kerbal vs the max thrust of the Juno.

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by swjr-swis
imgur links/albums are becoming an issue again :(

[Cunjo Carl]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

 

@Cunjo Carl's single engine fighter entry does not have a crew, does it?

Nope, the standard cockpits just look so dopey on a Juno sized plane unless you have some serious talent like @MiniMatt up there. So I decided I'd try for a little UAV look instead, and I think I got close.

Oh no! I just read around and noticed it's been expostfacto'd. Ah well, other design rules should overtake this one soon anyways. Anyways, just 'cause it had so much fuel, I had decided to take my little UAV on a trip to the old airbase. I think it actually might have circumnavigated if I kept flying!

<Offtopic>

</Offtopic>

 

These 5 second turns people are talking about. Are they full speed turns that actually turn the flight vector without just stopping it? If so, that's some crazy Gs! I did my 20s turn with (in effect) rudder and gentle banking keeping the speed high. Can I instead just pitch up 'till I'm facing backwards? That sounds a lot easier!

@swjr-swis I love the shuttle strakes, it looks super futuristic!

[swjr-swis]

24 minutes ago, Cunjo Carl said:

Anyways, just 'cause it had so much fuel, I had decided to take my little UAV on a trip to the old airbase. I think it actually might have circumnavigated if I kept flying!

See that's the thing: I think the amounts of fuel requested are way more than practically needed, especially for the twin fighter and bomber. The single juno fighter can cruise comfortably at 13 km using a pittance of fuel. The others would be able to as well, if the fuel amount was more proportional to their need. You know there's too much fuel on board when the flight range will actually improve by dumping part of it...

 

7 minutes ago, Cunjo Carl said:

These 5 second turns people are talking about. Are they full speed turns that actually turn the flight vector without just stopping it? If so, that's some crazy Gs! I did my 20s turn with (in effect) rudder and gentle banking keeping the speed high.

I had to severely limit how hard I pitched to not end up backwards, as you say. It's hard to limit the authority to prevent over-turning, and still have enough pitch left for the climbs. In the turns, I did keep the prograde marker going along to make it a 'proper' turn. Not easy when flying on keyboard and mouse, and keeping an eye on the timer and the navball heading at the same time. These craft really turn very hard though.

Found out while trying a tight loop that it's quite possible to end up in a stable and level glide backwards and basically braking on forward thrust and transition into forward flight again. But that actually takes longer than a good tight turn.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Cunjo Carl said:

@swjr-swis I love the shuttle strakes, it looks super futuristic!

The basic fins pack the most lift for weight, they are usually the most efficient for Juno-sized craft. I had some ideas to compete with you on that basis, but I wanted to try enter something very different so went with strakes instead.

I love the look of them, have been doing all kinds of things with them since the Juno came out. It's a lot of lift and 'hull' to work with for not much weight, plus it packages fuel too if needed. Very efficient. Makes for some pretty and very flyable TIE-fighter designs too , I have some on my KerbalX page.

 

Anyhow, I'll wait to see what @He_162 says about the fuel/ore and the moment of measuring performance, before trying to enter anything.

[He_162]

29 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

See that's the thing: I think the amounts of fuel requested are way more than practically needed, especially for the twin fighter and bomber. The single juno fighter can cruise comfortably at 13 km using a pittance of fuel. The others would be able to as well, if the fuel amount was more proportional to their need. You know there's too much fuel on board when the flight range will actually improve by dumping part of it...

 

I had to severely limit how hard I pitched to not end up backwards, as you say. It's hard to limit the authority to prevent over-turning, and still have enough pitch left for the climbs. In the turns, I did keep the prograde marker going along to make it a 'proper' turn. Not easy when flying on keyboard and mouse, and keeping an eye on the timer and the navball heading at the same time. These craft really turn very hard though.

Found out while trying a tight loop that it's quite possible to end up in a stable and level glide backwards and basically braking on forward thrust and transition into forward flight again. But that actually takes longer than a good tight turn.

 

 

The basic fins pack the most lift for weight, they are usually the most efficient for Juno-sized craft. I had some ideas to compete with you on that basis, but I wanted to try enter something very different so went with strakes instead.

I love the look of them, have been doing all kinds of things with them since the Juno came out. It's a lot of lift and 'hull' to work with for not much weight, plus it packages fuel too if needed. Very efficient. Makes for some pretty and very flyable TIE-fighter designs too , I have some on my KerbalX page.

 

Anyhow, I'll wait to see what @He_162 says about the fuel/ore and the moment of measuring performance, before trying to enter anything.

The objective of the challenge is to meet the requirements or beat them. Not to design something more or less efficient than what I have requested.

 

The idea is that it SHOULD be difficult to beat the others designs due to the insane request. IE. Lots of fuel / bomb load weight.

Also, a pilot is not required, but I expect some really good results without one. Nice job @swjr-swis

I will add you guys to the board at the end of each day from now on out, that way there is less work for me to do.

[qzgy]

8 minutes ago, He_162 said:

The objective of the challenge is to meet the requirements or beat them. Not to design something more or less efficient than what I have requested.

 

The idea is that it SHOULD be difficult to beat the others designs due to the insane request. IE. Lots of fuel / bomb load weight.

Also, a pilot is not required, but I expect some really good results without one. Nice job @swjr-swis

I will add you guys to the board at the end of each day from now on out, that way there is less work for me to do.

Wait - so are pilots required? Yes or no? Since earlier, you said they were.

[Cunjo Carl]

I had this idea for an extra-heavy 1 Juno fighter I cooked up while doing chores. It's, um. It's apparently a good way to not make a quick fighter . Well, they can't all work out- just figured I'd share it before moving on to the next adventure. I'll keep an eye out though; I can't wait to see some ore tanks dropping!

Spoiler

It maneuvers like a boss, but boy does it toodle. And as for looks..... There's one aspect I like, which is the 1.25 service bay cockpit. Service bays make the best cockpits!

 

[DoctorDavinci]

I now present for your approval the CANUKWorks DB-8J

Meets all your requirements ... 8 Juno's, Top Speed well over 200m/s, 8000m in 4:43, 1200 fuel, 6 full small ore tanks (radial attached ones ... carried internally)

 

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, He_162 said:

The objective of the challenge is to meet the requirements or beat them. Not to design something more or less efficient than what I have requested.

The idea is that it SHOULD be difficult to beat the others designs due to the insane request.

That part is clear, and I am not arguing this; it's your challenge, you set the rules.

In the specific case of the twin bomber category, there is no one to beat, so that's not the issue. No one has yet entered a design that meets the requirements. What I'm trying to say is that this is not by chance: the combination of requirements do not appear feasible, because of the disproportionate weight of fuel and ore requested compared to the other three categories.

The first two categories can be designed to a 1.1+ TWR and hardly any drag. Not enormously challenging, literally my first attempt already exceeded the requirements. The last category has a lot of drag due to the bombs and fuel, and starts at a low of 0.5 TWR with 4 junos, but by going up to 8 junos it can reach a 1.1+ TWR too. Challenging, but still feasible because there is room to play with optional extra engines. But the twin bomber is stuck with 2 junos at around a 0.4 TWR, with very little room to improve it, and it is far from meeting the requirements. At least in stock.

Anyway, no harm done, I'll just skip the twin bomber category. Should be interesting to see what entries make it to that board.

 

A question: what is considered 'turn time' for the purpose of this challenge? I've been wondering since Cunjo asked. I assumed it meant fully reversing the direction of travel (eg. going from a 90 to 270 degree heading), but I'm wondering if you actually mean it to be a full circle 360 degree turn that exits to the same heading as it was entered.

I'll load up the craft and redo the turns to time a 360 full circle, just in case, as that obviously takes longer than just reversing the direction of travel.

[qzgy]

Single Engined fighter: Mouse

Top Speed: 270 m/s

Fuel capacity of 180 units

Time to 7000 m: 3 minutes 20 seconds

Turn time (180 degrees): 7 seconds

http://imgur.com/a/nbEWq

"Slightly" unstable. Side effects of piloting include nausea, dizziness, coma, and death. Can seat 1 crew member

Edited July 30, 2016 by qzgy

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

13 hours ago, qzgy said:

Single Engined fighter: Mouse

Top Speed: 270 m/s

Fuel capacity of 180 units

Time to 7000 m: 3 minutes 20 seconds

Turn time (180 degrees): 7 seconds

http://imgur.com/a/nbEWq

"Slightly" unstable. Side effects of piloting include nausea, dizziness, coma, and death. Can seat 1 crew member

isnt single engine 150 units of fuel??

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

isnt single engine 150 units of fuel??

Minimum. You're free to pack more.

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

17 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Minimum. You're free to pack more.

oh thx