VertiPlane Challenge

[HamnavoePer]

In This challenge you must build a plane, Vertically!

It must be able to fly, pictures required, Points are given by Aesthetics, Speed, And Fuel Carried.

Aesthetics (worth up to ten points), Speed (5 points for every 50 metres per seconds, Rounded down), Fuel (2 points per 50 units, Stops Counting at 250 units)

Additional Notes: Must Take Off Horizontal, No Rockets. Feel Free to make vtols, Must be Manned, Crashes Allowed as long as kerbal survives.

Scores:

@swjr-swis6 out of 10 for aesthetics, 10 out of 10 for fuel, 15 points for speed, Final Points: 31 Points.

@swjr-swis(Vertiplane Tiny-00) 9 out of 10 for aesthetics, 6 out of 10 for fuel, 15 points for speed, Final Points: 30 points

Edited September 19, 2016 by HamnavoePer
Score Update

[Vanamonde]

I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about. Could you provide an example? 

[RA3236]

5 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about. Could you provide an example? 

I'm thinking a plane that is launched upwards like a rocket but must be able to fly like a plane.

Or a VTOL.

EDIT: Oh, must take off horizontally  

Edited September 18, 2016 by RA3236

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about. Could you provide an example?

Really? It seemed immediately obvious to me...

An entry, the way I interpreted this:

(Takes off and lands horizontally, uses one jet engine. 840 units of fuel, so I guess that gets capped to the 250 max. Forgot to do a speed run, but the last album pic shows 194.7m/s, so let's go with that.)

Spoiler

 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/VertiPlane-00

Video of it landing at the Old Airfield: https://www.dropbox.com/s/60ktx5826514c4k/KSP113-VertiPlane-00.mp4?dl=0

Edited September 18, 2016 by swjr-swis
fuel/speed nrs added

[HamnavoePer]

4 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Really? It seemed immediately obvious to me...

An entry, the way I interpreted this:

(Takes off and lands horizontally, uses one jet engine. 840 units of fuel, so I guess that gets capped to the 250 max. Forgot to do a speed run, but the last album pic shows 194.7m/s, so let's go with that.)

  Hide contents

 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/VertiPlane-00

Video of it landing at the Old Airfield: https://www.dropbox.com/s/60ktx5826514c4k/KSP113-VertiPlane-00.mp4?dl=0

Sort of what i imagined, Scores Updated, Also, If possible could you add a mission log (Optional)

Edited September 18, 2016 by HamnavoePer

[HamnavoePer]

Example:

http://imgur.com/gallery/mwKxQ

Also, Can the community Judge it. Thanks.

Edited September 18, 2016 by HamnavoePer

[TheEpicSquared]

@HamnavoePer It can be VTOL but must take off horizontally? Could you clarify please? I'm thinking you mean a plane that can take off horizontally OR vertically, but I'm not really sure. 

 

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, HamnavoePer said:

Example:

Also, Can the community Judge it. Thanks.

I'll judge:

No disrespect intended, but that is possibly the most stupid design I've ever seen. Why would you ever build this? On the ground all your steering inputs are 90 degrees out, and in the air when you roll upright you transform your wings from useful lift-generating equipment into pure draggy dead-weight.

 

[swjr-swis]

6 hours ago, HamnavoePer said:

Example:

http://imgur.com/gallery/mwKxQ

Ok, so slightly different from what I pictured in my head.

 

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

No disrespect intended, but that is possibly the most stupid design I've ever seen. Why would you ever build this? On the ground all your steering inputs are 90 degrees out, and in the air when you roll upright you transform your wings from useful lift-generating equipment into pure draggy dead-weight.

Dude, easy. It certainly misses a few... refinements. But I'm sure it was just given as a crude example of what he had in mind; I'll admit, I would've not known how to describe this either.

 

Ok, so based on the example, I made a different type of VertiPlane. And I'm glad to notice what I came up with also meets The_Rocketeer's high standards. (*)

I present a more fitting entry, the VertiPlaneTiny-00: top speed level 312.5m/s (unkerballed; with 4 Kerbals in ECS 175m/s). 150 units of fuel. Dual probe cores at 90 degree orientations, and control surfaces appropriately configured for proper steering controls regardless of the orientation chosen. Control from 'vertical' probe core or when kerballed, the upright pilot; when on landing approach, select the 'horizontal' probe core again. Landing gear doubled up so it can be landed upside down in an emergency. Flies like a dream, lands quite easily. Brake action group deploys ailerons/rudders as airbrakes.

(*: it has sufficient lifting & control surfaces and is balanced for flight in all orientations, and has dual probe cores in 90 degree offset for 'proper' navball and controls both horizontally and vertically.)

Spoiler

 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/VertiPlaneTiny-00b

Imgur album: http://imgur.com/a/xM3WC

Edited September 18, 2016 by swjr-swis
image links

[HamnavoePer]

3 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'll judge:

No disrespect intended, but that is possibly the most stupid design I've ever seen. Why would you ever build this? On the ground all your steering inputs are 90 degrees out, and in the air when you roll upright you transform your wings from useful lift-generating equipment into pure draggy dead-weight.

 

I Know its a bad design, I built it as a quick example, The vertical lifting surfaces are hidden in the fuselage, I am working on a better example.

Also, No offence taken. 

[The_Rocketeer]

@swjr-swis the man said judge, I judged.

This whole concept is pretty weird to me - basically just take any plane, turn the cockpit 90 degrees on the longitudinal axis, take off, roll 90 degrees to level the cockpit and call it a win. 

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

And I'm glad to notice what I came up with also meets The_Rocketeer's high standards.

Actually if u meant your first plane, I thought that was pretty silly too. It's just a multiwing-coupe.

And your 2nd plane, I just don't see why you would ever, ever want to fly it without the main wings horizontal. As planes go it's pretty bad all round, but it's at least slightly better when u fly it in its best trim, i.e. horizontal wings instead of enormous and pointless stabilisers.

43 minutes ago, HamnavoePer said:

Also, No offence taken.

Happy to hear it certainly didn't mean to criticise any individual.

[swjr-swis]

8 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Actually if u meant your first plane, I thought that was pretty silly too. It's just a multiwing-coupe.

And your 2nd plane, I just don't see why you would ever, ever want to fly it without the main wings horizontal.

The challenge asks for something out of the ordinary and generally recognized as impractical. Why do you expect practical realistic designs as entries for this challenge?

Does everything in this forum have to be frowny-face serious, or can we just have some fun with the amazing sandbox that KSP is?

 

13 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I just don't see why you would ever, ever want to fly it

For no other reason than that it was fun to do so. I entertained myself for a good nr of hours designing something that met the weird requirements, and flying them around. Judging from Jeb's face, he agreed with me.

[DoctorDavinci]

5 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'll judge:

No disrespect intended, but that is possibly the most stupid design I've ever seen. Why would you ever build this? On the ground all your steering inputs are 90 degrees out, and in the air when you roll upright you transform your wings from useful lift-generating equipment into pure draggy dead-weight.

 

 

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@swjr-swis the man said judge, I judged.

This whole concept is pretty weird to me - basically just take any plane, turn the cockpit 90 degrees on the longitudinal axis, take off, roll 90 degrees to level the cockpit and call it a win. 

Actually if u meant your first plane, I thought that was pretty silly too. It's just a multiwing-coupe.

And your 2nd plane, I just don't see why you would ever, ever want to fly it without the main wings horizontal. As planes go it's pretty bad all round, but it's at least slightly better when u fly it in its best trim, i.e. horizontal wings instead of enormous and pointless stabilisers.

Happy to hear it certainly didn't mean to criticise any individual.

Where I come from a person judging provides constructive criticism .. I see nothing constructive in your comments

 

 

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

The challenge asks for something out of the ordinary and generally recognized as impractical.

At the time this thread got my attention, it wasn't clear what the challenge was asking for. Now that that is clear, I hope u all have fun making glorious nonsense.

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Why do you expect practical realistic designs as entries for this challenge?

I don't. Why would I?

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

For no other reason

See what I did there? Whole sentences mean something other than part sentences.

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Where I come from a person judging provides constructive criticism

I'm not sure what to say to this. That's nice?

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Does everything in this forum have to be frowny-face serious, or can we just have some fun

I'm having great fun with your hilarious grouchy responses to my tongue-in-cheek posts. Maybe you should self-critique before assuming nastiness where there is none.

[EGB9000]

Are mods allowed?

[HamnavoePer]

31 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

At the time this thread got my attention, it wasn't clear what the challenge was asking for. Now that that is clear, I hope u all have fun making glorious nonsense.

I don't. Why would I?

See what I did there? Whole sentences mean something other than part sentences.

I'm not sure what to say to this. That's nice?

I'm having great fun with your hilarious grouchy responses to my tongue-in-cheek posts. Maybe you should self-critique before assuming nastiness where there is none.

Guys! Calm Down.

 

24 minutes ago, EGB9000 said:

Are mods allowed?

Yes They are.

8 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

@HamnavoePer It can be VTOL but must take off horizontally? Could you clarify please? I'm thinking you mean a plane that can take off horizontally OR vertically, but I'm not really sure. 

 

Sorry for not seeing this earlier. What i meant was it should take off on one side but then roll to a vertical position. You could put engines on one side to make a vtol. Hope this answers your question. 

[EGB9000]

Thanks for clarifying.

[HamnavoePer]

40 minutes ago, EGB9000 said:

Thanks for clarifying.

No Worries

 

[EGB9000]

Since screenshots don't work for me, I got the craft images of it in both landing and flight configuration.

http://imgur.com/a/Nv5UO

The aircraft uses Infernal robotics and tweak scale 

KerbalX download: https://kerbalx.com/EGB9000/Tiltwing

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, EGB9000 said:

Since screenshots don't work for me, I got the craft images of it in both landing and flight configuration.

http://imgur.com/a/Nv5UO

That imgur album is doing the zoinks thing. Is it set to public?

[HamnavoePer]

Guys, When I Requested you judge my plane, @The_Rocketeer I only wanted my aircraft judged. Thank you all for reading and taking notice. Thank you.

[swjr-swis]

On 9/17/2016 at 7:00 PM, HamnavoePer said:

(Vertiplane Tiny-00) 9 out of 10 for aesthetics, 10 out of 10 for fuel, 15 points for speed, Final Points: 34 points

I think you scored too much for fuel, and perhaps too little for speed. 150 units at 2 per 50 units, should be 6 out of 10 for fuel, yes? And the top speed -unkerballed- is 312.5m/s, which at 5 per 50m/s would score 30 points. The 175m/s is when it's carrying 4 kerbals in the external seats.

 

On 9/18/2016 at 8:54 AM, HamnavoePer said:

Also, Can the community Judge it. Thanks.

Ok, an attempt (I'm not good at this):

• Assuming the 2nd pic is its top speed (you don't say it is), with 290.2m/s it scores 25 points for speed.
• I can see no indicator for the fuel amount on either picture, so I can't score fuel. Do you have another screenshot with the resources visible?
• Aesthetics: well this is very subjective. I'd say 6/10 for meeting the basic design requirement of the challenge, -1 for a slight lack of visual & drag symmetry in vertical mode (gear, the one Juno on the under/left side), +1 for using the resurrected old small gear (I like, wish it was still in the stock game), -1 for the navball/controls orientation in horizontal mode, +1 for making it unobvious how you provide lift in the vertical mode, and +1 for puzzling me on what the function of the one Juno could be... 7 out of 10.
• Interim total: 32 points without the unknown fuel score.

 

[HamnavoePer]

On 19/09/2016 at 9:48 AM, swjr-swis said:

I think you scored too much for fuel, and perhaps too little for speed. 150 units at 2 per 50 units, should be 6 out of 10 for fuel, yes? And the top speed -unkerballed- is 312.5m/s, which at 5 per 50m/s would score 30 points. The 175m/s is when it's carrying 4 kerbals in the external seats.

 

Ok, an attempt (I'm not good at this):

• Assuming the 2nd pic is its top speed (you don't say it is), with 290.2m/s it scores 25 points for speed.
• I can see no indicator for the fuel amount on either picture, so I can't score fuel. Do you have another screenshot with the resources visible?
• Aesthetics: well this is very subjective. I'd say 6/10 for meeting the basic design requirement of the challenge, -1 for a slight lack of visual & drag symmetry in vertical mode (gear, the one Juno on the under/left side), +1 for using the resurrected old small gear (I like, wish it was still in the stock game), -1 for the navball/controls orientation in horizontal mode, +1 for making it unobvious how you provide lift in the vertical mode, and +1 for puzzling me on what the function of the one Juno could be... 7 out of 10.
• Interim total: 32 points without the unknown fuel score.

 

Thank you. The one Juno helped it get of the ground by pushing the nose up. fuel is 3 mk 1 standard tanks. Also, this is 1.0.5 which is why the landing gear is like that. My computer refuses to run the game for more than 5 minutes in 1.1.x. Also, I Have a better craft which will be uploaded shortly.hi

On 19/09/2016 at 9:48 AM, swjr-swis said:

And the top speed -unkerballed- is 312.5m/s

it has to be manned to count, sorry.

Edited September 20, 2016 by HamnavoePer

[swjr-swis]

36 minutes ago, HamnavoePer said:

it has to be manned to count, sorry.

Ok, I notice you've updated the requirements about that, no problem. In which case, remove my first entry, because it had no Kerbal pilot aboard at all, just the probe core (the cabins don't work as command pods).

And you still need to adapt the fuel score of my second entry, it's too high.

Edited September 19, 2016 by swjr-swis

[HamnavoePer]

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Assuming the 2nd pic is its top speed (you don't say it is), with 290.2m/s it scores 25 points for speed.

That was as fast as it went before I misjudged a low altitude run and crashed. Kerbal Survived so hey, Valid Run.