BSC: Albatross 3 - And the winner is...

[Ojimak]

As the original Albatross 3 has a design clearly reminiscent of the Virgin Atlantic Voyager, I thought it fitting for its replacement to be a Global Flyer look-a-like (and because the OP suggested it)

Pesenting, the Klobal Flyer:

On the runway:

At its built in maximum altitude of 10,000 meters:

Excellent pitch/roll control; yaw control leaves some to be desired:

Action Groups:

1. toggle ladders (2 of them)

2. toggle medium sized antenna

3. run atmospheric analysis with the nosecone

4. log data from thermometer, gravioli detector, barometer, and accelerometer

5. Observe the materials bays (2 of them)

6. Observe Mystery Goo (2 of them, hidden behind science junior modules)

This plane is equipped with every single science-gathering part in the game to maximize the career-mode utility of the plane.

The equipping of the craft with two of the goo modules and materials bays allows for the keeping of some data and the transmission of other data, to maximize science gained.

With 18 OX-STAT solar cells, 1 RTG, and 2 Z-100 battery packs, in addition to the electricity supplied from the jet engine, the plane has enough energy to satisfy all data transmission needs.

Due to the high center of thrust, there is a built in operation ceiling of ~10,000 meters above which the air is too thin for the control surfaces to overcome the high center of thrust, causing the plane to automatically begin a very shallow decent. Such a system prevents flame-outs completely and fulfills the designation as a low altitude aircraft. In addition, the high center of thrust also prevents tail-strikes completely.

With 750 units of jet fuel and only one basic jet engine, the range, although untested, should be fairly far.

In addition, this craft introduces several new techniques, including minor airhogging via use of the cubic octagonal struts, action groups via the many sensors, and part-clipping for hiding the goo modules so that they don't look ugly.

The plane is capable of very stable low altitude flight and is capable of surviving physics warp x4 and remaining easily flyable at physics warp x3.

Finally, with only 117 parts, the plane shouldn't cause very much lag.

Download Link

-Ojimak

note: the download version has the addition of two mostly hidden Z-100 battery packs to supplement to supplement the solar cells not shown in the pictures.

[edit] added description text and 2 struts to improve physics warp survivability and flyability

Edited November 1, 2013 by Ojimak

[Sirine]

I'm not going to miss this episode! I've thought of the Albatross as a search-and-rescue craft - lord knows the Kerbals leave enough debris and capsules scattered all over the planet. So it needs long range, but also to be able to land in cramped areas (or even recover at sea).

So I built a VTOL.

Love your plane. I've put it to my collection, beside the Frak-I, yours are the best plane that I like.

Anyhow, the Frank-I, lost the competition last time, due to its too many part count >100. Beside that your plane also a bit complicated, too many engines and parachute? Good for experience user. but not really for the beginner.

[Xeldrak]

Well, technically SSTO are allowed, however - I would spare them untill we get to the Aeris 4A.

We are still looking for planes, that would be good stock craft and in this case that fullfill the same roll as the albatross.

Now, I'm completely fine with high altitude crafts - even though the orignal Albatross uses low altitude engines, their designers seemed to be drunk anyways. I've updated the suggestions in the OP accordingly.

Now, Sirine, in how far is you Albatross a better stock craft than the original Albatross? Does it teach a Newbe anything important? Is it easy to emulate? Can you learn something by disecting it? Because you asked for more rules and when I referred to the existing guidelines you seemed content. So I guess you considered them?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Xeldrak

[Giggleplex777]

I'm still brainstorming about what I want to build for this challenge.

[Sirine]

Now, Sirine, in how far is you Albatross a better stock craft than the original Albatross? Does it teach a Newbe anything important? Is it easy to emulate? Can you learn something by disecting it? Because you asked for more rules and when I referred to the existing guidelines you seemed content. So I guess you considered them?

Wow, a direct assessment for me, Thanks.

For answering your question:-

Yes, my albatross are better than the original albatross.

Yes, it did teach Newbie important things.

Well, pretty easy to emulate due to low part count.

Of-course you will learn something by disecting it.

As I said, you love the gray line, I merely walking on it. I can tell that you are under-pressure... good, looking forward for your submission, I would not hesitate to critic it. Remember this, you give the guidelines, you are the one should 100% follow it.

[briansun1]

so what dose it teach them? and how is it better?

[Sirine]

so what dose it teach them? and how is it better?

Well, that are a bit of..."Gray line" here. If they are newbie, they will know. However you are not newbie, so, it is bit hard for you to understand.

For example:- put some illumination on the plane, it show how "beautiful" a plane fly "at night". And not looking dark sky..

And for technically on "how better"...well, seems that the OP would like the gray line, so, no technical data/value to be compair, example, how long does it last a flight, how high this plane go, or how easy/hard it to be control/landing...etc...

Of course if you like the technical / skill things...I'm not lack of those. Ask OP to change the "guide line"/"gray line", I could give you a brand new, hard to beat value/data.

You may refer to the below..

@Xeldrak

May I suggest that the next BSC:-

1) Specifically list out the score base on the requirement or goal to achieve?

2) No more, vote for what you like.

3) No more, guess for what the other like for and build for the vote.

All the previous BSC are having gray line on defining the "best" replacement. And all the participant are just guessing around on what to enhance.

Once a topic has been decided, a pre-poll about what is the most value added to that "best" replacement, and we can actually have a common goal to achieve for that build.

More stable, is a very broad word. How stable is stable?

More delta-v, also a very broad word. How much more is more?

Ideal mass, what is ideal mass anyway? ratio base on mass/delta-v? How asparagus staging in ratio calculate?

So, at least work out some point system so we can actually have a goal in mind for the next BSC build.

Please consider.

Thanks,

Sirine

and the reply from OP..

Thanks for your input, Sirine.

Well, the previous BSC had a very gray line of "best" - and I like it that way. It's supposed to be a creative challenge as well, built what you think is best, not built so that you get the most points on a chart. All these questions you wrote down are questions the contender has to face and aswer for themselves. They are part of the challenge and answering them (at least I hope so) is part of the fun.

Furthermore, I did write several of my thoughts about what the stock craft should and should not be down and several people (e.g. you) completely ignored what I wrote. For example, I allready ask you guys explicidly in the Guidelines to not simply vote for what you like.

Also: This is no challenge to find the objectively best craft - it's a challenge to have fun. Thats also why I included designs, that clearly paid no mind at all to my scribbling. As I said before - we are not actually replacing the original stock craft. It's just make-believe.

Conclusion: Make something convince yourself that it is "the best replacement", and try to promote it, and let other agree with you. and hope that the vote will favor you. Xeldrak, think what the strock craft should or should not be. But thats what he, thinks. Nothing similar with what I think. So, at the end, I build what "I think" is the best.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Sirine

[Xeldrak]

Yes, I give you guys a lot of free space so you guys can be creative. But just because I do not demand technical details doesn't mean that they are not welcome. I trust you guys to behave maturely and put your own thoughts into why your plane is a good stock plane.

Not flippin' me the bird and post whatever comes to your mind just because I trusted in you common sense instead of a rigid set of rules, that lets each one of you gain points on a chart. Therefore betraying the trust I've put in you.

At the same time I thinks it's funny that while asking for more rules you ignore the few the there are. Instead of answering the question I've put to you, you avoid them. This is supposed to be a fun challenge where each one of us can promote their plane in a friendly atmosphere and where we can discuss them and learn from each other. Instead you seem to try to dance around the rules where you can and mock the original intent of he challenge.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Xeldrak

[xoknight]

Introducing the Vampire B2, A mere 24 parts, this plane is very agile and fast, exceeding speeds up to 200 meters per second. She ain't a big bird, but she's very easy to fly and takes off like a dime, although landing can be a slight tricky, and I haven't tested the exact range of this plane, this plane is the perfect beginner plane.

(Flies well at low/ medium altitudes)http://www./view/q5n5pgvodhayo2t/Vampire_B2.craft

Edited October 30, 2013 by xoknight

[Sirine]

Yes, I give you guys a lot of free space so you guys can be creative. But just because I do not demand technical details doesn't mean that they are not welcome. I trust you guys to behave maturely and put your own thoughts into why your plane is a good stock plane.

Not flippin' me the bird and post whatever comes to your mind just because I trusted in you common sense instead of a rigid set of rules, that lets each one of you gain points on a chart. Therefore betraying the trust I've put in you.

At the same time I thinks it's funny that while asking for more rules you ignore the few the there are. Instead of answering the question I've put to you, you avoid them. This is supposed to be a fun challenge where each one of us can promote their plane in a friendly atmosphere and where we can discuss them and learn from each other. Instead you seem to try to dance around the rules where you can and mock the original intent of he challenge.

Well, seems that you are against me on everything. I have nothing to say anymore.

[gm537]

Excerpt from Bob Kerman's Diary: "I must say am very happy with the Kalbatross. While I was very worried about building some new contraption I had gotten quite fed up with almost dying every time I flew that 'Albatross 3' that Jeb designed. This new one has only one engine to make it slower, so that Jeb won't want to steal it, and the engineers say it will still fly all the way around Kerbin. Of course such a feat would be most terrifying so I don't think I will attempt it soon. Those silly scientists did require that it have a number of 'sensors' on it, but they also agreed to add a remote control unit so that on days when my vertigo is acting up I can just fly it from the ground. Neat! Having flown it a bunch, and even getting in once, I really appreciate the increased maenuever... turniness, and the amazing brakes! Now on to scrap-booking the photos I took."

Pictures from Bob's scrapbook:

Sitting in the SPH with my new baby.

It flies! Of course I'm not in it yet.

"Wow it really can go far!"

Me conquering my fear of flying! It even stops safe when I smash the breaks from 50m/s.

Hey Bill you can fly it too if you want. But please don't let Jeb near it... He'll add more engines.

http://www./view/ss5zk83dw6sa8z0/Kalbatross.craft

Edited October 30, 2013 by gm537
Accidentally included non-stock part, replaced with stock part.

[mcirish3]

How's the yaw control?

-Ojimak

Just fine test it out for yourself.

[AmpsterMan]

The original stock Albatross 3 is a "low altitude" plane. You can tell that by the engines it use.

Hmnn... You might be right. I hsve to look at the plane when I get home. I've been away on vacation so haven't had a chance to look at them.

[El_Gato_Bandito]

The Albatross 3 Replacement- The Globerunner 1

Ladies and Gents... Sit down, Strap in, and shut up because I'm about to show you the replacement for our beloved quirky duck.

I don't know about you but I heard long range, easy to fly and in atmo were the main qualifications for this plane. Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear about these hippy productions like the Swiss Solar Impulse I just shake my head. Yeah... They are great if you have nothing to do, to just piddle around the world. Probably growing 3-5 ft of beard in the process...

These are the prius of the airplane world. They are slow, boring, and just lack in the primal part of flying something. Now, let me bring you to what I built.

This thing isn't exactly a "Fuel Efficent" aircraft, but it is durable, a pleasure to fly and capable of strapping science to it and sciencifying. Now, when you get bored sciencing and flying this pleasure around, discovering the islands and the area around the KSC, you can jam the throttles to their stops, and get the wondrous feeling of speed.

Now, what can a newbie learn from this wondrous piece of aeronautics that is the result of El Gato Bandito's Southern Engineers? First that simplicity is great. Second... There is no problem with bracing everything. Third, this plane can be tore apart by my dog and put back together easily. Fourth and finally, This plane is versatile! I can slap a few extra air intakes, and climb to ridiculous altitudes, or I can modify this plane to be an even heavier carrier, and then I can modify it to orbit if I want to. But the key to all of this is that we hand them a basic plane, and they can do what they want with it!

Now, without any further adieu... I introduce you to the Globerunner 1

Now, I will say... If you attempt to just flat burn through your fuel to get around the world... you won't make it, but if you throttle down, and play it smart... a global hop should not be out of the question.

If you want mamby pamby t-sippin hippy planes... then the Globerunner is not for you...

But if you want a durable, versatile, powerhouse of a plane that has a massive set of brass balls.... oh? I'm not supposed to say that word? Oh, ok...

Anyhoo... The Globerunner is your plane.

(Note: If you would like pics of the Globerunner in action carrying science stuff just ask I'll get them for you)

If you want pictures of all the different variants and how I did them... let me know. I'll get those up too if that is what it takes to prove the Globerunner.

http://www./download/ykmuzi93hshqqgo/Link_to_Globerunner_1.craft

Edited October 30, 2013 by El_Gato_Bandito

[MiniMatt]

I've never been particularly good with planes, but quite by accident I appear to have stumbled on a design which by my usual standards is remarkably stable at all fuel loads, can take off and land at c.100m/s, can circumnavigate the globe and can sit all day at mach 4 whilst 20,000m up. So my first ever entry to a plane based BSC, may I present:

Polar Express

Need to get to the North Pole quickly? Choose the Polar Express!

Powered by belief in the magic of Khristmas (several tons of aviation fuel also supplied should belief in magic be found wanting) this long distance craft will get you to the North Pole and back with magic/fuel to spare.

Equipped with a full science package to enable experiments on elves/reindeer/rotund inhabitants.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Vital Statistics

Just 44 parts.

9.9 tons.

600 units fuel

Single turbojet engine for manageable flameouts.

Ceiling around 25,000m (possibly higher with more careful pilot)

Top speed around 1,600m/s

Landing light, full science package, no part clipping.

Can circumnavigate the globe with fuel to spare.

Range

EDIT: Just completed a more cautious test flight and made it round the globe with 80 units of fuel to spare in an hour. Thus now more than happy to classify this as a true long distance plane. Screenshot proof added to pic album above (was mostly completed between 23 & 25km at 50% throttle and between 1,300 & 1,500m/s).

ORIGINAL: Tricky one for me to work out. Has c.4,200 DV at 1200 ISP but I'm not sure how relevant that is in normal flight. Was sufficient to fly to the north pole and back to KSC with around 50 units fuel spare. That trip involved a lot of high altitude testing shenanigans and course changes so worst case scenario is half way round the world. Flying at more sensible velocity at around 10,000m altitude I'd wager a fair bit further can be achieved.

Action Groups

1: Toggle Ladder

2: Take full scientific measurements.

Craft file

Is here.

Edited October 30, 2013 by MiniMatt

[gm537]

Oh man look at all these awesome designs! This competition definitely brings out the best designs from people. I am a bit confused on the Vampire though since the only thing we've consistently said as a guideline for what the Albatross should be is 'long-range' and probably not very high altitude/ very fast; which is not to say that plane is anything other than awesome!!! Just maybe a better Aeris 3A replacement.

Hopefully you guys all understood what Bob was talking about regarding the Kalbatross. Overall I must say it's one of my favorite designs I've ever done. It's not perfect but is a marked improvement over the Albatross while retaining most of it's unique design that makes it look just amazing and really interesting. In fact back when I first got the full game in 0.18 the first stock plane I flew was the Albatross because it was just so interesting looking. Even back then I realized it was pretty bad so I immediately tried to make an improved design while retaining the character. So thank you for a competition that finally inspired me to go back and finish that dream!

[Ojimak]

Excerpt from Bob Kerman's Diary: "I must say am very happy with the Kalbatross. While I was very worried about building some new contraption I had gotten quite fed up with almost dying every time I flew that 'Albatross 3' that Jeb designed. This new one has only one engine to make it slower, so that Jeb won't want to steal it, and the engineers say it will still fly all the way around Kerbin. Of course such a feat would be most terrifying so I don't think I will attempt it soon. Those silly scientists did require that it have a number of 'sensors' on it, but they also agreed to add a remote control unit so that on days when my vertigo is acting up I can just fly it from the ground. Neat! Having flown it a bunch, and even getting in once, I really appreciate the increased maenuever... turniness, and the amazing brakes! Now on to scrap-booking the photos I took."

-snip-

Your craft includes a non-stock heavy winglet.

-Ojimak.

[GusTurbo]

Preview of my entry, still fine-tuning:

Edited October 30, 2013 by GusTurbo

[gm537]

Your craft includes a non-stock heavy winglet.

-Ojimak.

Haha Ooops. Yeah it wasn't a stock install so I guess I just mistook that for the tail fins. Thanks for the catch! I will edit the post with the new .craft ASAP.

Edit: It's done. Unfortunately the changes do make braking a bit less stable. Though still not nearly as bad as the Albatross 3 and I (and Bob) still love how the design looks!

Edited October 30, 2013 by gm537

[Xeldrak]

Ah, nice to see all those different designs Keep them comming.

I'm looking forward to GusTurbo's plane - I've tried more than once to build a plane that looks like a modern commercial aircraft.

[whistlehead]

My first submission to a BSC challenge; be gentle!

Totally Legit Aerospace Ltd (Makers of fine aircraft, spacecraft & small household goods) is proud to present the Kerbaltross I

The Kerbaltross I is a lightweight, fuel efficient, high altitude two-Kerbal aircraft.

As lead design director, I'll begin with a list of criteria for what I wanted my plane to have/do/be:

- Simple in design (Easily replicable)

- Light

- Graceful (with long wings)

- Long range (efficient)

- High altitude

- Slow takeoffs

- Unusual in design

- Easy to fly (Noob proof)

- Time acceleration proof (Clarification: The plane can fly an 4x time warp - controllable is not part of the criteria! Thanks gm537)

- Teach the player something

- An amusing description

With these in mind, myself and my crack design team of invisible flying mice in party hats set to work.

Note: The first image isn't of the craft I am submitting - read the description!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

After this, Jeb decided to do his own flight test...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

So, does she meet the criteria?

- Is she simple in design?

I think so. 56 parts.

- Is she light?

Yes, she is.

- Is she graceful?

You be the judge, but I think so. Slow takeoffs and gentle turns help.

- Is she long range?

She can circumnavigate with a third of her fuel left over, and that's with ME at the controls.

- Is she high altitude?

30000m max.

- Does she take off slowly?

Yes.

- Is she unusual in design?

I think so.

- How does she fly?

Very well indeed. Roll, pitch and yaw are all slow but very easy to control, and she resists going into a spin quite strongly. I'm quite proud of her take-offs - so far as I can tell she is literally impossible to tail strike. I found that the best way to circumnavigate with her was to climb at 45 degrees until about 20000m, and then aim down to 10 degrees, 4x timewarp and balance the throttle on the intake air. When the nose hits 30 degrees, come out of timewarp and point it back down to 10 degrees. Conveniently, this is also the perfect time to hit full throttle again! She 'bounces' off about 27-28km in high-altitude flight. She is not a slow aircraft - over 1000m/s all the way around Kerbin. Landing was the easiest I've ever done - it was a pleasure. She's a very laid-back aircraft which will just keep going if you let go of everything - even with SAS off - the upswept wings take care of that. Flameouts are no problem with the single central engine. The SAS module is right in the centre of mass, so it has plenty of influence. You can slam on the brakes from 60m/s without killing the pilot - though she might tip. The wide undercarriage makes for good stability. And for final proof of her noob-proof-ness: This was my first ever circumnavigation!

- Is she time acceleration proof?

4x warp with no negative impacts. Don't try to steer her though!

- Does she teach the player something?

I think she shows how a good, simple strut structure can hold even the most slender of aircraft together. She's also good for learning how to circumnavigate. On a more advanced level, deconstructing her the player might find the carefully angled wings and surfaces and the finely judged centres of mass/thrust/lift.

- Does she have an amusing description?

Judge for yourself!

As to doing science: There's plenty of space for a player to add science equipment if they want to - I'm not going to spoon-feed them!

Downsides: No science (read: open to modification by end user to suit specific operational requirements )

The file http://www./download/amuvb9glayno93e/Kerbaltross_I.craft

Totally Legit Aerospace Ltd thanks you in advance for your upcoming vote

Regards and best of luck to all of you,

Chris

Edited November 2, 2013 by whistlehead

[MiniMatt]

I'm normally very down on tricksy designs in the BSC challenges but thus far I'm going to have a very hard time not voting for Antbin's design in the first round at least. It's a frikken VTOL! It can land and take off from the water!

[mhoram]

Here is my first published plane

The Firestarter

17.677 ton

16-18 km cruising altitude

50 parts

https://www.dropbox.com/s/klin3t3rdq1o3k9/Firestarter.craft

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[antbin]

I'm normally very down on tricksy designs in the BSC challenges but thus far I'm going to have a very hard time not voting for Antbin's design in the first round at least. It's a frikken VTOL! It can land and take off from the water!

Thanks for the comment. I gotta agree with you, Xeldrak's guidelines are very clear and 'gimmicky feature spam' is not in the spirit of the BSC challenge.

At first I was just trying to get more landing gear clearance, hence the upside down Mk3 fuselages. But then it looked like a seaplane, and one thing led to another...

Unfortunately KSP's water model can't simulate aquaplaning, and there's no stock deployable pontoons, so vertical was the only option.

I'll argue it's still newbie-friendly though! Just hit space and shift, and it'll take off on its own.

[gm537]

- Is she time acceleration proof?

4x warp with no negative impacts.

No side effects?!? Um no fault to you here but I flew it at 4x and pressing ANY control button for more than a millisecond causes one of the two rear wings to break off and the whole thing to nose dive. Now given it does not immediately dissingetrate upon hitting 4x but that's not 'no negative impacts'. Again more of just a weakness of the current build of the game but still the claim is a bit outrageous.

Now even with that said I love the design! I've flown a few of the designs so far and this is my favorite so far! Good job Whistlehead!