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

[zekes]

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

Lol, i guess my plane is the "google chrome" of the contest...

[Rhomphaia]

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.

Any comments on mine?

[Xeldrak]

From my notes:

Rhomphaia - Eaglehammer Mk2
+description text
+ladder with toggle
+compact design
+wide landing gear
+good part count

So, I'd say you basically did everything right - thats the problem with 22 contenders and a single vote

[GusTurbo]

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

I have a much-improved version without the silly nacelles and better intakes, so I'll just bide my time until the Ravenspear Mk3 Challenge.

[Tidus Klein]

I'm trying to get some feed back for my plane, other then it spins out in some hard turns( I know that its a little unstable and it should be. a good training plane should be unstable enough to spin out but easily recovered.)

so Xeldrak and anyone else give it to me straight.

Ps this plane is literally a quickly striped down version of the original scout 1 not really meant for a ravenspear replacement.

[AmpsterMan]

Here is another one I made, this one is kind of like the one I posted earlier but much more focused on speed

That's the fastest I can get it to go and still be at a stable altitude. It can do suborbital hops to like 30km and also fly at 20km at very low velocity.

[Sirine]

@ AmpsterMan

Man, forget all intake, except Ram-Air Intake.

As per 0.21, all other intake are for aesthetic purposes only.

[Xeldrak]

Our finalists are:

Giggleplex777 - C-7B

mcirish3 - Ravenspear Mk1 Ultra

Rhomphaia - Eaglehammer Mk2

sploden - Ravenspear Mk1 improved 07

zekes - FRAK-1

Not at home right now - the Final elections will start in a few hours. Check the Challenge-Title

[AmpsterMan]

@ AmpsterMan

Man, forget all intake, except Ram-Air Intake.

As per 0.21, all other intake are for aesthetic purposes only.

Yeah, it's kind of disapointing to me that the only intake/engine worth anything is the ram and Turbojets. Still, as part of a personal challenge, I try to minimize part clipping and also don't mount intakes on cubic struts, backward tails, or anywhere that I can't see the whole thing.

Also, Xeldrak, even though I didn't participate, can I still vote?

[Rhomphaia]

Made the final:cool:

@ Ampsterman - Pretty sure you can, though you did miss the primaries. There were a lot more votes than entries and the OP does mention just voting.

[Xeldrak]

Primary elections are done! Time for the grand finale! You can vote over

here!

Please drop a few line who you've voted for!

Final elections will run for another 48 hours.

Get the finalists .craft files in a singe .zip >>HERE<<

Also check the orignal posts for more pictures and stats on the finalists

Contenders

Giggleplex777 - C-7B

mcirish3 - Ravenspear Mk1 Ultra

Rhomphaia - Eaglehammer Mk2

sploden - Ravenspear Mk1 improved 07

zekes - FRAK-1

---

[Sirine]

zekes，I study your craft and made a more powerful version SSTO. part count less than 50. speed 2120m/s SURFACE. Reach 95km orbit before using any rocket engine....but I feel that...was like cheating cause too much powerful for an aircraft. I have to cut down the wing.

[team.leit]

I just tried all of the aircraft that made it to the finals, and even though I don't like the fact that it has such a high part count, the aircraft that preformed the best when I flew it using a keyboard on my 6-8 year old pc, was zekes FRAK-1

Kaos

[Xeldrak]

Now, I flew every craft once again and theses are my notes:

Giggleplex777 - C-7B

+description

+ladder with toggle

-not fan of these intakes

+forward swept wings

+handles good in low atmosphere

+looks

mcirish3 - Ravenspear Mk1 Ultra

-96 parts

-description text does not fit plane

~ladder but no toggle

-design is just not very elegant

+once it's in the air is flies rather well

-need the whole runway to lift of

Rhomphaia - Eaglehammer Mk2

+description text

+ladder with toggle

+compact design

+wide landing gear

+good part count

-a little on the unstable side

sploden - Ravenspear Mk1 improved 07

+description text

+ladder with toggle

+a lot of power

+I like it

-58 parts is a little high

+hotkeys for outer and inner engine (had the same Idea with my plane)

It's a awesome combination of a creative but practical design and it flies well. No part-clipping makes it easy to emulate. I think you nailed the challenge

zekes - FRAK-1

-103 parts

-really? Lots of intakes simply clipped into each other?

-no description text

+yes, it does fly very well

Basically it's extremely overengineered and stuff like several intakes clippes into each other, makes this plane feel like a cheat. Besides, it completely misses the point of the challenge - we are looking for a stock craft. Let me quote from the guidelines:

-Try to avoid exessive part clipping, a new player should be able to take your ship apart, learn how it works and put it back together

---

Well, sploden got my vote for the reasons above. On the second place I would like to see Giggle, I really like the C-7B, followed by Rhomphaia.

@Zeke: Actually I think you choose the wrong analogy. The problem with your aircraft is, that we are looking for a pencil, you brought a Space Pen.

Yes, I know that the story of NASA spending millions on this pen is a hoax.

@Tidus Klein:

Since you asked for some feedback:

-no description text

~ladder but no toggle

-several intakes clipped into each other (but at least in a way that looks good)

-2 SAS, 4 Batteries, 4 Solar cells

-you allready have emergency chutes, why not a abort function? A low hanging fruit

-trying to roll while pitching leads to interesting results.

I think the plane is a good base with some potential. I'll focus on the negative stuff, because you allready know that she flies high and has lots of power However, there are several things wrong - clipping several intakes into each other feels like cheating to me, also in my mind (as a voter, not as the guy that writes the challenge-rules) is disquallifies for this challenge.

This whole battery-SAS-solarpanel-module fells like superflous frills to me. My motto when doing these challenges is allways:

Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away

Also, if you use a Winglet instead of a cannard as vertical stabiliser, the strange behavior when trying to roll while pitching should vanish.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Xeldrak

[antbin]

I gotta vote for Sploden again... 3 turbojets is really the spirit of the Ravenspear Mk1. Also, gotta respect the dainty strutting on the rudders to make them plausible for a stock aircraft.

Giggleplex would have gotten my vote without the rear-facing clipped intakes and with a little better runway feel (wheelbarrowing and no-stick dive handling). I reckon one degree of pitchup on control surfaces and a little wing-sliding would do it?

[team.leit]

Now, I flew every craft once again and theses are my notes:

snip...

sploden - Ravenspear Mk1 improved 07

+description text

+ladder with toggle

+a lot of power

+I like it

-58 parts is a little high

+hotkeys for outer and inner engine (had the same Idea with my plane)

It's a awesome combination of a creative but practical design and it flies well. No part-clipping makes it easy to emulate. I think you nailed the challenge

zekes - FRAK-1

-103 parts

-really? Lots of intakes simply clipped into each other?

-no description text

+yes, it does fly very well

Basically it's extremely overengineered and stuff like several intakes clippes into each other, makes this plane feel like a cheat. Besides, it completely misses the point of the challenge - we are looking for a stock craft.

snip...

Well, sploden got my vote for the reasons above.

snip...

one of the main reasons I chose zekes is because I have yet to build a ship that flies well and looks good, but he managed to do both, also I chose it is because of the superior handling when compared to any of the others

@zekes would it be alright if I used your aircraft in a story that I am currently writing?

Kaos

Edited October 4, 2013 by team.leit
forgot a space

[searlefm]

well i will have to vote for zekes just because of how it looks, the thing looks dam good.

and now back to sulking as i didn't get to the finals ethen tho this one had a ladder and all,

why do you not love me internet, but more seriously you guys have come up with alot of good desings

[zekes]

@zekes would it be alright if I used your aircraft in a story that I am currently writing?

Kaos

You are awesome i give permission!

..and yes, Xeldrak, that is 100% correct analogy you gave

[Sirine]

Nothing to do with this challenge...

@zekes <--Thanks for your FRAK-1 technologies.

Check the mission time. The speed.Tried few attempt, too powerful, I'm making a lesser version.

Surface speed over 2200m/s (last image). Means the craft already exceed the Lower Kerbin Orbit velocity...

Oxydizer use = 0 at 95km altitude...able to make it circular orbit using less than 20 unit of fuel.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 4, 2013 by Sirine

[Rhomphaia]

Since My opinions on the FRAK-1 and the Ravenspear Mk1 Ultra are pretty much the same as Xeldraks and the space pen analogy is far better than anything I could come up with that's 2 less reviews for me to write up. Obviously any review I wrote of the Eaglehammer would be too biased, so that just leaves the C-7B and the Ravenspear Mk1 Improved 07. And it is pretty close between them.

On the builds: both have description text which also lays out the action groups; both have a working ladder, and both are visually in keeping with the tone of the challenge and both look good. (The Su-47 look has really grown on me, sorry I called the Beta jet ugly)

Both designs showed nice examples of using rotated parts in innovative ways, and both designs had one feature that might be a bit advanced for the challenge.

While Giggleplexs intake design has already been noted, I personally feel that the same could be said of Splodens internally run fuel lines.

Since neither technique requires debug clipping nor results in a significant performance gain (the rear facing intakes are practically useless, and Splodens CoM wouldn't actually ever shift behind the CoL even without those fuel lines. Plus the fact that the adapter tanks don't actually fit together properly means that they are not completely invisible) I let both slide.

In flight I personally would have liked a jet that would take a snap at me if I pushed it too hard in maneuvers, but not bite my head of like the original would. Neither of these seem inclined to even take a nibble though. The pitch on the Improved 07 did feel a little sluggish to me.

At altitude the greater available intake ratio on the Improved 07 gives it an advantage, though the C-7Bs ability to fly on a single engine is outstanding, perhaps a little overkill for the challenge? An asymmetric flame-out should probably be a bad thing.

All in all the C-7B was the one I had the most fun flying, the one I had the most fun taking apart to see how it was built and therefor, the one that gets my vote.

[Sirine]

rear facing intakes are practically useless

Nope, It doesn't. It do draw in air. And hiding the Ram inside the fuselage is consider cheating for me. zekes, put it out clear, "I'm clipping". But Giggle does not mention it.

Anyhow, high speed + high altitude (the core design purpose of Ravenspear Mk1) my vote goes for FRAK-1 again.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Sirine

[FallingIntoBlack]

Nope, It doesn't. It do draw in air. And hiding the Ram inside the fuselage is consider cheating for me. zekes, put it out clear, "I'm clipping". But Giggle does not mention it.

Anyhow, high speed + high altitude (the core design purpose of Ravenspear Mk1) my vote goes for FRAK-1 again.

Define "high altitude."

[Sirine]

Define "high altitude."

high altitude = Go to orbit if you can. As far away from Kerbin surface as possible.

[GusTurbo]

I think "high altitude" should mean "highest cruising altitude." Plenty of jets in KSP can make sub-orbital hops if they have enough power and pitch up high enough.

[FallingIntoBlack]

I think "high altitude" should mean "highest cruising altitude." Plenty of jets in KSP can make sub-orbital hops if they have enough power and pitch up high enough.

So would highest cruising altitude be maybe 15km?