Plane vs plane! (frak-1 vs 61b-legisy)

[Tidus Klein]

The frak-1made by Zokesia Skunkworks is A high performance fighter capable of Mach 3+ and service ceiling of 43K. Range is 3000+km. Lands at 25m/s.

and is HIGHLY MANEUVERABLE!, but has also gained incredible praise for being one of the best planes in KSP,

Download:

http://www./?t1bfqq9g69nv51l

The 61B-Legisy, An Air-Craft made by A,A,T (a subsidiary of Zokesia) is another High performance SSTO fighter, with speeds above mach 7 (2.100 m/s), 70,000K+ ceiling, and also lands at 25m/s. With no reputation and still has that fresh new plane smell.

Download:http://www./view/51laff30h8ghp5t/AAT%2C%2061b-legisy.craft

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Your mission Test each Craft and Vote for your favorite one, and you may even post your own craft if you think its got the guts.(craft must have a picture a download along with some simple stats to enter )

Each craft will be rated from 1-5 in five catagorys

• looks
  
• speed
  
• ceiling
  
• maneuverability
  
• noob friendliness
  

Now get out there and let the best plane win

[Pds314]

Performing tests in Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) since stock aerodynamics are weird.

[zekes]

Perhaps I understated the speed. I've taken the frak up to 2150 before. Also, it looks better But this should be interesting!

[Spartwo]

can I throw my 2235m/s arrow into this?

[Sirine]

Frak l. Win.

[Pds314]

Frak-I is too unstable to take-off in FAR.

Looks: Gorgeous Flying Delta-wing design with intakes perched unobtrusively but functionally inside the wings. cockpit is exactly where it belongs. 4.5/5

Performance characteristics: could not be tested.

Noob Friendliness: I never maintained control even to the end of the runway. The thing wants to fly backwards or upwards or downwards, but not forwards. 1/5.

AAT 61B Legisy is amazingly maneuverable, especially since it was designed for stock aerodynamics.

Looks: Ram intake on the front looks interesting, if unusual. Engines under the wing and general body style look amazing. 4/5

Speed: At 280 m/s at sea-level under jet-power, 1820 m/s At ~30 km, and 266 m/s by the time it is over water, this fighter is second to few in speed. 4.5/5

Ceiling: The vehicle suffers significantly from the problem of losing speed with altitude above ~33 km. So while it has enough wing area to easily reach much higher than that, it is energetically unfavorable to go very much higher. That being said, 33 km optimal speed, and likely 45+ for optimal fuel consumption, even higher for maximum cruise height, is not only respectable but amazing. 4.5/5

Maneuverability: It has more maneuverability than it can handle, able to maneuver with control surfaces easily at 35 km in the air. In my tests, it can easily take off and fly straight up before reaching the control tower (or any other buildings). That is to say, it would be able to escape from a 750-meter-wide 10000-meter-deep pit. In fact, I landed at 75 m/s on the island runway, and even though I went past 75% of the runway during the landing, I was able to take-off from a dead-stop before the end of the runway. It also helps that the thing has a TWR of about 2.5. Actually, it got to over 11 G once while pulling up. Another time, it tore the back third of each wing off just pulling up into a stall. 5/5

Noob-friendliness: It is slightly unstable in Yaw, making any precision flying best done with the SAS on. It is however very intuitive to fly and doesn't even need to have action groups to get into orbit. One problem however is that it tends to stall itself if pulled upward very very hard, and requires expert maneuvering to re-orient prograde. In fact, with the SAS engaged, I cannot reliably escape a stall at several kilometers high. Low-altitude stalls are very likely to end in a low-speed crash that may or may not be fatal, but will certainly destroy the plane. If the SAS is disengaged, I could generally escape a stall, but would often be thrown off-course and off-heading. It does have good operational tolerances though. I could get it to a 75*73 km orbit with 117 units of oxidizer and enough fuel to match. Based on its weight and the Isp of Its engines, That is ~199 m/s of Delta-V to mess with after orbit. A cautionary note: Re-entry control is good, but on my first attempt to land at KSC, I pitched down a bit too far and stalled, I went within literally 1/2 meter of the tallest mountain (The giant spire) near KSC before crash-landing in the rocks below. Overall, I consider this score a 3.5/5.

[Pds314]

Should I bother posting craft with B9-aerospace parts?

[inigma]

I submit the Aeon or Ion, in my sig below. ack, scratch that. just go for the Ion. the Corvette of the skies.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited December 3, 2013 by inigma

[Giggleplex777]

[I_Killed_Jeb]

this "challenge" just looks like a very thinly, very poorly veiled attempt to get people to download and test your craft.

[Bilfr3d]

This isn't really a challenge, as such..............

[The Spacemonkey]

Don't know why people like the FRAK-1 more. The Legisy has the speed, the looks, the engines, the everything.

[Pds314]

The "Arrowtip" Light fighter. Same as below but atmospheric with even better maneuverability. I have yet to get this thing into a stall that wasn't controllable. At Just 8.43 tonnes fully fueled and 71 parts in total, it is one of the most maneuverable fighters I have seen in FAR. In addition, and unlike many maneuverable fighters, it is totally stable without engaging the SAS, even at a 70-degree AOA. In fact, it can sustain over 40 degree AOA when facing down. This allows unprecidented agility and turning power with uncompromised controllability. Preliminary testing shows that it can get up to 40 km per unit of fuel at 35 km. If it can get there on 80 units of fuel going nearly vertical, then this gives a range of 12000+ km.

DOWNLOAD

Maneuvering between buildings while pulling up 40 degrees.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Friends, Kerbals, Countrymen, may I present you with the VL-110EF "Spearhead"

Javascript is disabled. View full album

.CRAFT file: WARNING, made for use with FAR. While it will almost certainly fly OK without FAR installed, it may behave strangely or be unable to reach orbit. (or it may reach orbit more easily)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByX0QEf-aILZMTZkWUZSYzJ3Smc/edit?usp=sharing

My opinion on scoring categories:

Looks: In my opinion, it matches the FRAK I for looks, although I am obviously a biased opinion: 4.5/5 IMO.

Speed: It is very closely matched to the Legisy in speed, 4.5/5.

Ceiling: It has a ceiling of ~43 km on jet power, but there is little purpose to going that high, as it is fuel inefficient for orbital launch. 4.5/5

Maneuverability: It is like the Legisy but it can deal with stalls much more easily, and when full, it is essentially perfectly stable as well. It can also roll 360 degrees in 1.36 seconds based on accelerometer measurements, stall itself at 38-degrees AOA while maintaining control, or otherwise do most-any maneuver you would want to do in a dogfight/airshow. 5/5.

Noob-friendliness: High maneuverability and lack of drift allows for control over mistakes and less attention to be given to constantly correcting yaw, pitch or roll. The plane flies well even with SAS disabled. The only issue is after consuming most of its fuel, it will be slightly unstable and get into stalls with SAS disabled or at extreme angles of attack. It is also dramatically easier to un-stall and even flies well during a deliberate stall. Finally, the smaller size and enhanced durability (No wings falling to bits even at sustained 182 m/s^2 accelerations) make for a better combat aircraft and also allow for a lower target area. Finally, the close landing gear allows it to land un-powered on virtually any non-mountainous terrain, making difficult runway-landings unnecessary during emergencies: 4.5/5

Technical specifications:

Length: 11.5 meters

Wingspawn: 6.5 meters:

Height: 4 meters including rudders.

Wing area: 127.16 meters^2

Peak thrust under Jet power: 300 kN.

Thrust under Rocket power: 120 kN.

Weight: 11120 kg.

TWR (Jet, full): 2.73

TWR (Rocket, full): 1.09

TWR: (Everything, full): 3.83

Top cruise speed: 1872.7 m/s at 28600 meters.

Rocket fuel: 3000 kg (600 Units, 330 O, and 270 LF).

Jet fuel: 1600 kg (320 units).

Empty weight: 6.52 Tonnes.

Take-off distance: 800 meters.

Vertical after: 850 meters.

Loop-the-loop from take-off: 560 meters above sea-level (495 meter diameter).

Sea-level top speed: 278 m/s.

[Highlad]

Should this not be in spacecraft exchange or general ksp?

[Tidus Klein]

@ killed-jeb maybe but the perpose was to assemble the best planes in Ksp, pit them in battle, and see who comes out on top- so ya it may not be a challenge as you see it, it's is a challenge of planes!

@highlad - if you feel like it needs to be moved, I don't mind.

@ everyone else. Nice feedback and there are some really awesome planes out there that are coming to the spot light!

Keep up the good work, and never stop improving.

@ pds ....... 37geeeeeee.... 0.0 uuuuu zekes I think we both need to visit the oll drawing board.

Ps what did you use to measure all that. - mod,flight log,science stuff?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Tidus Klein

[Whatshtisthis]

I see your... whatever that is called, and present to you the WT-19.

[Pds314]

@ pds ....... 37geeeeeee.... 0.0 uuuuu zekes I think we both need to visit the oll drawing board.

Ps what did you use to measure all that. - mod,flight log,science stuff?

Science stuff placed just ahead of centre of mass. For brief periods. Also, 33 gee, not 37. 37 sustainable AOA.

[Khobai]

too much cheaty part clipping on both. For once id like to see someone design a legit plane that doesnt excessively clip intakes.

[Pds314]

Will make variant of my spearhead with unclipped intakes.

[Xeldrak]

I agree with Khobai - if you need exessive part clipping to make it fly well, it's not a good plane.

[Spartwo]

I raise a picture of the Arrow.

[Pds314]

I raise a picture of the Arrow.

.CRAFT? Also, very Eurofighter-ish.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Pds314

[Spartwo]

http://www./view/od7pyt4x8k60raa/Untitled%2520Space%2520Craft.craft

[Pds314]

I raise a picture of the Arrow.

Tested the Arrow in FAR.

My attempts to fly precisely at low altitude failed miserably. Fortunately, due to extreme SAS torque, the craft is rotatable even during a stall (much like my own VL-110, though mine uses aerodynamic surfaces to control itself.)

IMO:

LOOKS: Good, conventional besides the third engine, but good. 4/5

SPEED: With a TWR worthy of a bullet instead of a plane, the Arrow reaches 303 m/s by the time it get to the ocean. It can sustain a speed of 314 m/s at sea-level and can reach at least 1975 m/s at 31 km high. That is nearly machingbird territory. 5/5

CEILING: It can easily sustain level flight up to 40+ km. 4.5/5

MANEUVERABILITY: While it is agile enough to literally fly straight backwards and can right itself from a stall thanks to gratuitous SAS-torque, its center of mass is far enough back to stop it from being very precisely controllable. 3/5

NOOB-FRIENDLINESS: It will fly straight as.... an arrow.... if you let it be, absurdly high TWR help with fixing problems as does absurdly high SAS-torque. However, that can be a problem during take-off as it wants to literally bend itself into the ground (and sometimes does). Fish-tailing ensures every takeoff is extremely dangerous, and any split-second decision made during landing could result in the plane stalling upside down at 80 m/s only 5 meters from the ground. Finally, the fuel is distributed such that the central engine burns out VERY early compared to the other two. 2/5

PROS:

small and maneuverable, if you don't end up flying backwards.

guaranteed to escape any stall more than 50 meters from the terrain.

takes off very quickly, under 500 meters

uber-powerful engines with high TWR and top speed.

CONS:

may explode, roll, twist in half, or cause a micro-black hole to form on takeoff.

stalls when maneuvered very quickly, upon stalling, orients itself perfectly retrograde.

considering its size and lack of a lot of fuel, payload, or SSTO-capability, it weighs a lot. 11.58 tonnes for a craft 8.5 meters long and 6.5 meters wide. It has 50% less wing area of a VL-110EA, but it has 35% more mass.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Pds314