Kerbal National Aircraft Standards

[VolitianK]

I think it is time that people post aircrafts to a standard. This will help people understand the capabilities of your aircraft. Here are my suggested standards.

As such if accepted by the community future aircraft posts should all list if the aircraft is capable of doing the given attribute and a statistic must be given in the "Statistics" section

Kerbal National Aircraft Standards

Test the following attributes:

Can it land on the runway?

Can it takeoff before the end of runway?

Can it land on dirt runway?

Can it handle Physics Warp?

Can it eject the cockpit and save the crew if it goes out of control?

Is it Stock?

Can it fly without pilot input with ASAS guidance?

Specs for aircraft should include:

Takeoff speed

Level Cruise speed at 5000m and 10000

Flight Ceiling (Maximum Altitude)

Fuel available per engine (Total fuel/ # of Engines)

Maximum vertical landing speed

Stall speed (Ferram if possible I don't use and I'm not familiar with it so I can't say much)

Manoeuvrability: Start at 1000m then pitch up when you are pointing in the opposite direction you started check your new altitude.

Tell me what you all think

--Edit--

No I don't mean all planes MUST be able to do THIS and THAT. What I mean is when posting craft files for planes you should give some kind of sense to the capability of the said aircraft. I've seen many a plane on Spaceport that just says "easy to fly" leaving the potential downloaders no idea what standards those are set to and what that really means.

Edited September 13, 2013 by VolitianK

[sal_vager]

Variety is the spice of life so they say, and it's more fun to see what people come up with when they aren't trying to build to a standard

[DiscoLizard]

I don't think VolitianK wants people to build to a standard, but rather for uploaded crafts to have information available so that people have a better idea of the capabilities of the spacecraft before they download it.

[Flymetothemun]

I'd say more of a set of guidelines. Pretty much the only one that would be really useful is the "Is It Stock?" one. I agree with sal, standards just restrict the freedom of building insane planes that somehow work and distributing them. Also, your manoevrability test is slightly flawed, you're just covering the vertical axis and not including the horizontal axis.

[razark]

Nothing in this restricts what anyone can build. It just asks that they describe what they build. It's less a request for an "aircraft standard" than an "aircraft description standard". It makes sense to explain what your aircraft can do in a standard manner. Makes comparison easier.

[Javster]

This seems to e getting mild hate, so I'll just say this: well done for thinking of these standards

[leax256]

can it land in water, you forgot can it land in water

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/boat-plane-wip/

[TTurchan1]

Great idea, and great start on what the standard description should be, but I think some refinements might help, one that might be good is "Does it fly straight without input or SAS, or are trim adjustments needed?" "Does it have docking capabilities (port and well balanced RCS)" < I know this is for aircraft but I sometimes dock planes to my space station if they have orbital capabilities, and on that note "Can it reach orbit." Just a suggestion, but great start.

[Randox]

I think it could actually be interesting if the community created classes for types of craft that would allow people to, at a glance, have some idea of capabilities and performance, provided that such a system doesn't end with people feeling like they need to build a certain type of craft.

Mostly I just have design specifications for the craft I build, that my craft are supposed to be able to meet. Of course, I don't always feel like such extensive testing, and sometimes it's more fun when you have surprises. I grade most of my planes on how tight they can turn without going into a death spin, because most of what I do with planes is fly around the space center while doing loops.

[regex]

I think it could actually be interesting if the community created classes for types of craft that would allow people to, at a glance, have some idea of capabilities and performance, provided that such a system doesn't end with people feeling like they need to build a certain type of craft.

I seriously hope this doesn't catch on. It's not like I'm out there posting craft, but if I did I wouldn't want some obnoxious posters asking me what "class" my craft is when I post without following some arbitrary naming scheme. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn't go well with an enormous Erector set like we have here.

OP has a pretty good idea.

[leax256]

Great idea, and great start on what the standard description should be, but I think some refinements might help, one that might be good is "Does it fly straight without input or SAS, or are trim adjustments needed?" "Does it have docking capabilities (port and well balanced RCS)" < I know this is for aircraft but I sometimes dock planes to my space station if they have orbital capabilities, and on that note "Can it reach orbit." Just a suggestion, but great start.

the docking capabilities are based mostly on the skill of the player