BSC - Ravenspear Mk. 1 - And the winner is...

[sploden]

I've read it..many times...but don't get what it means.

What is control-authority? and please define "stability" (In my case).

Stability: Center of Lift should be behind the Center of Mass. Basically, move your wings back a bit. Try to predict and manipulate the empty center of mass using fuel lines.

Control authority: I suggest adding a couple of AV-R8 winglets to the front, and replacing the AV-T1's in the back with Delta-Deluxe winglets. Make sure your CoL is behind the CoM, as stated above.

Also: I suggest using 3 wheels instead of 5. I removed the back wheels and moved the middle ones back so that the front of the wheel wells were flush with the front of the engine nacelles, and this works pretty well.

Edited October 2, 2013 by sploden

[ssTALONps]

...mine's not intake spam, technically. Each intake is on its own mount attached to the wing (i think), in a way that looks elegant but effective.

I honestly think it's intake spam. 6:1 intake to engine ratio is definitely intake stacking. Elegance and high performance does not justify use of intake spam.

But the more important question is, do the intake spam technique worth introducing to new beginners?

I don't think so 'cause it's basically exploitation of currently broken game mechanics.

I believe KSP should help players understand why certain (and in fact, most) designs don't work IRL.

After that becomes responsibility of choosing between pursuing realistic design or more efficient but unrealistic design.

Intake spam may become handy when building ultra-efficient, out-of-this-world jets and SSTOs but that should be after beginners learn about why intake spam is serious exploitation.

Besides, there is very high chance that future update render intake spam completely obsolete.

I'm not saying all users should not use intake spam, I'm just saying beginners shouldn't.

Intake spamming without acknowledging why it's wrong is basically outright cheating.

I'd be glad to discuss about this topic with other contestants.

As my opinion for your FRAK-1, maneuverability is great as advertised thanks to wing stacking and matched CoM and CoL.

Questionable main landing gear position is only flaw I've found other than high part count and intake spam.

I know FRAK-1 has enough lift force to rotate even with main landing gear far behind CoM, but that's not the most case beginners will face.

For beginners, it should show that optimal main gear position is the point where fuselage and arbitrary line (15 deg downward and rearward from vertical line going through CoM) intersects.

[Rhomphaia]

When considering how to vote I first looked at each craft in the Hanger, considering the following.

Does it fit the challenge? both in looks and in engineering. is it too over engineered to be a stock craft?

Does it use any techniques in the build that can be learned from?

If part clipping is used, it should be easy to understand and replicate

Does it have a description?

Next up were the flight tests. First I flew a short jaunt around the space center followed by a runway landing with a mostly full fuel load to test the basic handling.

Then I set off on the speed and altitude trials, trying out some maneuvers at high speed and altitudes and testing the flameout behavior.

Lastly the low fuel flying, tested them out as fuel was depleted, followed by a dead stick landing when it was all gone.

Ideally I felt a plane should be able to do it all in one flight. If there were catastrophic failures or too little fuel I would need more flights. Too much fuel and I would have to drain off fuel

by sitting on the ground with the the brakes on, intakes closed and the throttle open at 4x physics warp until the fuel was down.

I was hoping to post a brief comment on all the entries, but I think I will save a more detailed comment for the finalists instead.

My vote goes to Giggleplex777 for the C-7B

The looks fit well with the challenge, the description is good, the wing and control surface placement is a good example of building techniques without going overboard.

On the intake stacking: while I personally don't like it, in this case neither the size of the stacks or the ratio they achieved was excessive so I let it slide, counting it as an example of the technique.

Fuel load felt just right to me. and in flight my only complaint is that it may be a little too flyable.

[FlandersNed]

I'm going to hold off voting until the last three winners are picked. I'm not sure where to look in so many choices.

Also, it looks like my plane won't make it. There are clearly better choices than mine

[GusTurbo]

My vote goes to Giggleplex for the C-7B.

Flies great, looks great, and it just fits for what it's trying to replace. Zekes, I really like your plane, but it just feels a little too "advanced" for something called "Mk.1."

[Giggleplex777]

The thing about my plane is that it wasn't built for this challenge. In fact, I actually just slapped it together a month ago more as a "something-I-built-while-I-was-bored" plane. The two intakes in the back were only for aesthetic purposes and serve no function at high altitude (0 intake air).

[Rhomphaia]

The thing about my plane is that it wasn't built for this challenge. In fact, I actually just slapped it together a month ago more as a "something-I-built-while-I-was-bored" plane. The two intakes in the back were only for aesthetic purposes and serve no function at high altitude (0 intake air).

I wouldn't say no function, the improvement they give is pretty minor though.

I did some testing and it seems that the rear facing intakes on the C-7B get out performed by radial intakes somewhere around the 13km mark

For a further test I used mechjeb to maintain a 45degree climb straight off the runway and to prevent jet flameout. tried this 3 times with all intakes open and noted the apoapsis and max speed achieved.

Results were consistent to 100m and 1m/s at 88.4km apoapsis and 1263m/s top speed.

I repeated the trial 3 times with the rear facing intakes closed. again consistent results; apoapsis 86.0km, top speed 1246m/s

Removing the rear intakes altogether got me 86.5km and 1249m/s

Replacing them with radial intakes showed a significant increase at 99.6km, 1333m/s

Edit: Also... I have a vote!

Edited October 2, 2013 by Rhomphaia
gloating

[team.leit]

snip...

I'm a little disturbed to see 14 votes going to the FRAK-1. Although it is a cool plane, it is not at all suited to be a stock craft. Stock crafts must be easy to fly with a keyboard, must have low part counts, must use minimal part clipping if any, must look good, must strike a certain balance... basically, must be believable to some degree. Being able to pull 16 Gs while diving from 3000 meters is a negative, not a positive.

snip..

the reason i voted for the FRAK-1 is because it had great handling when i flew it with a keyboard although i do agree with not liking the high part count.

Kaos

[antbin]

I've read it..many times...but don't get what it means.

What is control-authority? and please define "stability" (In my case).

I found the wing-tip canards on your plane to be a little too strong - rolls were very forceful, and trying to pull up and roll at the same time spun the plane out.

Stability is about having the center of lift a little behind the center of mass. You can compensate for the lawn-dart handling (plane tends to nosedive) by fitting your pitch control surfaces (front and rear) with 1 small rotation (gentle U-shape from side view).

[GusTurbo]

I think I need to apply that technique to my plane -- it wants to pitch down, especially at high altitude.

[zekes]

...yeah i know my plane is 103 parts, but still, that's not too high a number. Most PCs can do that easy.

[team.leit]

...yeah i know my plane is 103 parts, but still, that's not too high a number. Most PCs can do that easy.

Not if you are using an 6 or 8 year old pc that does not have any upgrades except adding two gigs of ram

[briansun1]

could the next one be on a weekend? please

[GusTurbo]

could the next one be on a weekend? please

Just build new versions of all of the stock craft beforehand, then when there's a new competition, you can jump up and post it!

[briansun1]

no not just the building thats the easy part the hard part is trying to get on a computer without all the uploading sites blocked

[Sirine]

Accidentally found this.

[Whatshtisthis]

I think I'll join the next one.

I think I got the main requirements down...

Next is the Ravenspear Mk3, I presume?

[Whatshtisthis]

Double posted.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Whatshtisthis

[Rhomphaia]

I think I'll join the next one.

I think I got the main requirements down...

Next is the Ravenspear Mk3, I presume?

Next one will probably be a VAB challenge. Orbiter 1A, Z-MAP satellite Launch Kit and Two-Stage Lander have already been done.

-----

Xeldrak - Just noticed that the first link to the challenge guidelines in the OP and the one in your signature is broken, the second link is ok though.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Rhomphaia

[Xeldrak]

Ah, thanks Rhomphaia - yeah, the link somehow changed while the forums where moved.

[GusTurbo]

When does voting end?

[Xeldrak]

ignore this post

Edited October 3, 2013 by Xeldrak

[Giggleplex777]

I wouldn't say no function, the improvement they give is pretty minor though.

I did some testing and it seems that the rear facing intakes on the C-7B get out performed by radial intakes somewhere around the 13km mark

For a further test I used mechjeb to maintain a 45degree climb straight off the runway and to prevent jet flameout. tried this 3 times with all intakes open and noted the apoapsis and max speed achieved.

Results were consistent to 100m and 1m/s at 88.4km apoapsis and 1263m/s top speed.

I repeated the trial 3 times with the rear facing intakes closed. again consistent results; apoapsis 86.0km, top speed 1246m/s

Removing the rear intakes altogether got me 86.5km and 1249m/s

Replacing them with radial intakes showed a significant increase at 99.6km, 1333m/s

Edit: Also... I have a vote!

The reason you got a slightly better result with the intakes open is that they produce less drag when they are open than when they are closed. (0 vs 0.3)

[Rhomphaia]

The reason you got a slightly better result with the intakes open is that they produce less drag when they are open than when they are closed. (0 vs 0.3)

But I got a slightly better result with them open than when I removed them altogether. So it's not just the drag, but still less than a radial would give. And most probably not enough that a human controling the throttle could take advantage of it.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Rhomphaia

[Xeldrak]

didn't have the time test every plane as thoughly, but:

Antbin: Nice plane - three engines, six intakes, flies quite well

boolybooly: While it flies well, it flames out at ~15km, wich is rather low

brobel: As usual - a beautiful plane with to much part clipping

DaveofDefeat: Are you kidding me? Also: Are you kidding me?

FlandersNed: A neat plane, but its angled down a bit on the runway and I was able to flip it out. Something for the advanced player

Giggle: Well, many allready told you, its an awesome plane with forward swept wings, not a big fan of these intakes though

GusTurbo: Nice plane, but had flameout at 18km wich is a little low

HueHue: So, you build a Draaken replica? Nice plane, but no nearly as maneuvrable as the original. (Actually it's really sluggish) Maybe some cannards?

Mesklin: A nice plane - one of my favourites. Construction might be a littile complicated.

Sploden: Just a nice plane - good performance, creative but not complicated design, easy to emulate. Lots of power

Myself: Maybe I went a bit too basic, construction could have been more...avantgarde. Also she is too sluggish.

zekes: Well, it's an awesome plane. But it completely missed the point of the Challenge.

Sploden got my vote for the reasons mentioned above - the plane looks good, flies well and nailed the challenge.