The HELO challenge

[Darren9]

EIGHT electrics? Ok, While completing those tasks is impressive, I'm going to let you be the judge here. Take a look at the shots of my attempt. In particular, my electric one. Count how many solar panels it took me to get 2 of those rotors to work in cargo throttle (and I tried a Kethane generator and even it couldn't keep up) . Then ask yourself one question. Do YOU think that reactor is OP? If not, I'm downloading that puppy.

For the task of powering an electric propeller any nuclear reactor would be OP, for mega-watt plasma-ion interplanetary things they're reasonable It probably shouldn't go on the scoreboard but if I attempt another with similar performance and no nuclear it's probably going to end up more a plane with a lot more lift surface and rotors stuck on for VTOL to get the necessary efficiency. I started it before the rule adjustments and I'd say that was the only thing that had a chance. Just having to keep one central design with the ability to swap out components does open up new possibilities.

[Deathsoul097]

You said we are allowed to modify our designs right? What if I removed two of the rotors on mine, and then made 8 of the others rotateable for forwards propulsion? I should be able to get some pretty decent speed with that. Also, I am trying to do the jet ranger distinction and the precision award right now. Pics soon.

[Fengist]

For the task of powering an electric propeller any nuclear reactor would be OP, for mega-watt plasma-ion interplanetary things they're reasonable It probably shouldn't go on the scoreboard but if I attempt another with similar performance and no nuclear it's probably going to end up more a plane with a lot more lift surface and rotors stuck on for VTOL to get the necessary efficiency. I started it before the rule adjustments and I'd say that was the only thing that had a chance. Just having to keep one central design with the ability to swap out components does open up new possibilities.

I got a solution. I agree that liquid fueled helos are going to have a hard time doing the distance challenges. Therefore, check the OP. Because you taught me a lesson with this (yea, I downloaded a mod with reactors and they do have advantages like unlimited fuel or nearly so but they have disadvantages. Damn they're heavy), I've created a whole different classification for electrics. BUT... I'm gonna make you rethink your design. If you're going electric I'm gonna cramp your style in order to get that advantage... make it completely electric.

[Fengist]

You said we are allowed to modify our designs right? What if I removed two of the rotors on mine, and then made 8 of the others rotateable for forwards propulsion? I should be able to get some pretty decent speed with that. Also, I am trying to do the jet ranger distinction and the precision award right now. Pics soon.

As long as the frame retains it's basic shape I have no problem. If you look at what I'm working on you'll see 2 rotor, 4 rotor and electric variants of the same basic design. Keep in mind with VTOL type aircraft you still must take off vertically.

[KASASpace]

Umm, what if I designed a Heli that can take 45 tons all around the world, with a crew of 8. This would mean I could take any payload beneath 45 tons anywhere on Kerbin, and 8 Kerbals at a time, as well. So, do YOU or anyone think that is the most you need.

[Fengist]

Umm, what if I designed a Heli that can take 45 tons all around the world, with a crew of 8. This would mean I could take any payload beneath 45 tons anywhere on Kerbin, and 8 Kerbals at a time, as well. So, do YOU or anyone think that is the most you need.

If you can come up with a helo to do that, I'm all ears. BUT... keep in mind you'll still have to do all of the tasks individually. And... another thought for you... the larger the helo, the more difficult it's going to be to land on that roof.

[Darren9]

I got a solution. I agree that liquid fueled helos are going to have a hard time doing the distance challenges. Therefore, check the OP. Because you taught me a lesson with this (yea, I downloaded a mod with reactors and they do have advantages like unlimited fuel or nearly so but they have disadvantages. Damn they're heavy), I've created a whole different classification for electrics. BUT... I'm gonna make you rethink your design. If you're going electric I'm gonna cramp your style in order to get that advantage... make it completely electric.

The problem with propellers is they can only go about 300m/s, and that's on a ridiculously light and efficient design, they're down to single figure thrust at above 10,000m. I'm not sure that's enough to do a lap in 6 hours? I still might try though but it looks like a 3-4 hour flight to do KSC2 and 5 or 6 for the lap - that's a lot of flying.

[Fengist]

The problem with propellers is they can only go about 300m/s, and that's on a ridiculously light and efficient design, they're down to single figure thrust at above 10,000m. I'm not sure that's enough to do a lap in 6 hours? I still might try though but it looks like a 3-4 hour flight to do KSC2 and 5 or 6 for the lap - that's a lot of flying.

Well, not to dispute your calculations but... My 4 rotor does seem to come to a grinding halt at around 11,000m, but it's not terribly fuel efficient. At that alt, I'm still generating a good bit of thrust but I'm packing 20+ tons of helo. Yea, you'd need to lighten things up a bit. If you can get 300m/s then KSC2 shouldn't physically take that long. One thing I've found out about my design, warp 4 is no problem. It's still rock steady. And, since I wanted to drop a flag at KSC2 to use as a target, I flew one of my Kethane jets there which maxes out at around 320m/s and got there in well under an hour (warping of course). I still haven't come up with a non-electric design that's efficient enough to make KSC2 though, payload or otherwise. Since I haven't really experimented with forward propulsion, that's my next option to make the trip.

[ihtoit]

This morning I've been playing with a 1-man (Kerbal?) VTOL with the 2.5m gondola, 2.5m genny and reactor, 12 standard radial heatsinks and 5 folding electric rotor heads arranged in a radial cross pattern. Pad weight: 45 tons or so. TWR: about 1.38. Stupidly easy to control, it's pretty much up/down until you tilt using pod SAS, you do need to action-group all your engines though, or you run into ridiculous stability issues. Top speed (without falling out of the sky): I've had it at 165m/s, haven't taken it any faster but it'll go I'm sure - it's next to impossible to stop though. I've done an ass landing on the roof (missed by >< that much! But Jeb did survive, he's now stuck on the roof) Next: adding legs, ladders, hitchhiker can (or maybe add one as a lift module?) and a Clamptron Senior. We'll see if I can do a pinpoint landing on a tank standing on the runway from the pad. Watch this space...

[Fengist]

This morning I've been playing with a 1-man (Kerbal?) VTOL with the 2.5m gondola, 2.5m genny and reactor, 12 standard radial heatsinks and 5 folding electric rotor heads arranged in a radial cross pattern. Pad weight: 45 tons or so. TWR: about 1.38. Stupidly easy to control, it's pretty much up/down until you tilt using pod SAS, you do need to action-group all your engines though, or you run into ridiculous stability issues. Top speed (without falling out of the sky): I've had it at 165m/s, haven't taken it any faster but it'll go I'm sure - it's next to impossible to stop though. I've done an ass landing on the roof (missed by >< that much! But Jeb did survive, he's now stuck on the roof) Next: adding legs, ladders, hitchhiker can (or maybe add one as a lift module?) and a Clamptron Senior. We'll see if I can do a pinpoint landing on a tank standing on the runway from the pad. Watch this space...

Sounds like yours is working just as erm... nicely as mine. To give you an idea, I was just 90km from KSC2, had the target on my screen and... ran completely out of fuel.

[Fengist]

While not part of my challenge entries (at least not yet) I thot I'd share a wacky idea I had and maybe inspire some of you thinking about doing this challenge.

While researching for this challenge, I found a photo that I remember seeing as a kid. This:

Natrually, since I have KSP my first thought was... I need one of those!

[ihtoit]

I like it. Basing further designs on this, it's extremely stable and more importantly controllable. Update on my electric development: I've discovered that the 2.5m reactor is overkill even for TEN rotors, I've done an analogue of the XFV-1 and found the 62.5cm reactor and four small radial heatsinks, along with the 62.5cm generator, is ample for two rotors (as in, there is no net drain on the generator whatsoever). It might even do more. Next up: fixed-position twin rotor Osprey design, using struts instead of wingboxes, and four tail fins (it's still a VTOL), hitchhiker can to rescue those now FOUR Kerbals stuck on the roof(! Yes, the rescue pod with 3-Kerbal command pod, tiny nuke generator and four command chairs crashed under the command of Bob!) and deposit them on the island so they have some time to think about how STUPID they've been.

The weird thing is, the newer designs are coming up about half the weight of the original one-man lifter.

[Darren9]

Is it OK to use the VTOL engines, they stay pointing upwards. With them I have a design that can attain the Da-Vinci award, I just need to practice landing it a bit more before I go back to KSC2

[Fengist]

I like it. Basing further designs on this, it's extremely stable and more importantly controllable. Update on my electric development: I've discovered that the 2.5m reactor is overkill even for TEN rotors, I've done an analogue of the XFV-1 and found the 62.5cm reactor and four small radial heatsinks, along with the 62.5cm generator, is ample for two rotors (as in, there is no net drain on the generator whatsoever). It might even do more. Next up: fixed-position twin rotor Osprey design, using struts instead of wingboxes, and four tail fins (it's still a VTOL), hitchhiker can to rescue those now FOUR Kerbals stuck on the roof(! Yes, the rescue pod with 3-Kerbal command pod, tiny nuke generator and four command chairs crashed under the command of Bob!) and deposit them on the island so they have some time to think about how STUPID they've been.

The weird thing is, the newer designs are coming up about half the weight of the original one-man lifter.

Glad you're getting a XFV-1 to work. Mine 'thinks' it's an airplane. I tried several different ways to build it but no matter what I did the center of lift was always WAY off unless I built it horizontally. While it does fly really great and I can land it vertically, it's not actually landing. It's more of a controlled vertical stall. If I get the bubble more than 5 or so degrees off absolute vertical, it flips over. Basically, a couple of kilometers from where I want to land I have to do a HARD nose up until it's vertical, I climb to about 4km and then let it stall and fall in reverse. That also means that when it comes time to land the only precision I can guarantee is somewhere within a 2km radius. To show you the crazy way I got to get the thing off the ground, here's how I had to launch it, buy flipping it over onto it's back.

[Fengist]

Is it OK to use the VTOL engines, they stay pointing upwards. With them I have a design that can attain the Da-Vinci award, I just need to practice landing it a bit more before I go back to KSC2

Absolutely. I even experimented with them myself. BUT, one thing I want you to do is fire up those jets and rotate the props to horizontal and try to take off like an aircraft. If you can then it's an aircraft/VSTOL and you have too many wing lifting surfaces. I've had to scrap some really cool designs I made because they became more plane than VTOL/Helo. It's fine to rotate the VTOL engines if you wish once you get off the ground and it's fine to have SOME wing lifting surfaces to help once you get off the ground and moving. This is a helo challenge. I'm thinking VSTOL (like the Harrier which can do both) should be an entirely different challenge.

[leafty]

I don't know if my concept is ok, but if it is it has all these categories with no variant used (only one design) :

• Precision award - Rotors only
  
• The Jet Ranger distinction - Helo flight with some jet boosts, can be done rotors only
  
• The Eggington award - Jet flight
  
• The Ferry award - Jet flight
  
• The Kasprowicz distinction - Jet flight
  
• The Boulet award - Rotors only
  
• The Church award - Rotors only
  

Javascript is disabled. View full album

At low altitude, you fly like a regular helicopter using the rotors and if you want to go fast and high, you turn on the jet engines and stop the rotors. It flies a bit like an airplane, but is much less stable since it has NO lift surface or control surface whatsoever. If I add lawnchairs, I'm sure I can get the Chinook award quite easily since I circumnavigated non-stop.

[Fengist]

I don't know if my concept is ok, but if it is it has all these categories with no variant used (only one design) :

Don't think you're gonna drive that down the runway. Looks great to me. Well done! And I'm betting, with those bear rotors, provided you don't run out of fuel, you could get 10 tons to KSC2 as well. Keep in mind, I didn't say you had to land with the payload but the payload has to get there intact. Only problem you might have is having to strap on some drop tanks.

[Fengist]

By the way I'm going to be out of town for about 3 weeks and my laptop simply can't handle Kerbals. I will be watching for new posts here so if you don't see a reply for a few days, just hang on, I haven't gone far.

[Darren9]

Absolutely. I even experimented with them myself. BUT, one thing I want you to do is fire up those jets and rotate the props to horizontal and try to take off like an aircraft. If you can then it's an aircraft/VSTOL and you have too many wing lifting surfaces. I've had to scrap some really cool designs I made because they became more plane than VTOL/Helo. It's fine to rotate the VTOL engines if you wish once you get off the ground and it's fine to have SOME wing lifting surfaces to help once you get off the ground and moving. This is a helo challenge. I'm thinking VSTOL (like the Harrier which can do both) should be an entirely different challenge.

It has around 650 thrusts at ground level with all the engines pointed forward and weighs not much over 10T, it could probably get airborne with just 4 of the small control surfaces I'm just trying to avoid a behemoth that lumbers around, the jets only become effective after the propellers have run out (above 10,000m) and it takes an amount of lift to keep them up there, they waste fuel below 3-4,000 where the props are more efficient. I already have a nuclear electric that can complete every challenge but it has to do the lap at 10,000m - 230m/s and the trip to KSC2 at 100m/s, and rotatrons don't like even 2x warp so it's nine or ten hours of holding a constant course/altitude above unchanging bland terrain which I'll never complete.

The Osprey achieves efficiency with a high lift "full aircraft" forward fight mode, it's just the blades hitting the ground that stops a horizontal takeoff, I can achieve that effect swapping the VTOLS for large rotors and put the jets below the rotors so no forward thrust can be made at takeoff without the blades clipping the ground, only when it's up can the rotors be rotated for forward jet power - has the same mass/lift/performance as the last one, it would just be deliberate side-stepping though. Without lift to get above 20,000m and exploit the turbo-jets fully (I'm cruising at 28,000m 1600m/s at half throttle) it's just limited to a massive fuel load moving very slowly and more and more rotors to lift the massive fuel load plus 40T payload. I do understand that cruising at high altitude with a turbo-jet isn't a helicopter but for me embarking on a flight that I know will take 5-6 hours with no option to save mid-flight and do a bit more tomorrow is unrealistic

[ihtoit]

Glad you're getting a XFV-1 to work. Mine 'thinks' it's an airplane. I tried several different ways to build it but no matter what I did the center of lift was always WAY off unless I built it horizontally. While it does fly really great and I can land it vertically, it's not actually landing. It's more of a controlled vertical stall. If I get the bubble more than 5 or so degrees off absolute vertical, it flips over. Basically, a couple of kilometers from where I want to land I have to do a HARD nose up until it's vertical, I climb to about 4km and then let it stall and fall in reverse. That also means that when it comes time to land the only precision I can guarantee is somewhere within a 2km radius. To show you the crazy way I got to get the thing off the ground, here's how I had to launch it, buy flipping it over onto it's back.

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/VH5.png

that's because you're relying too much on those wings for lift. I use the short 0.7-rated winglets because they're all I need for control, the idea of a heli is that the rotors do ALL the lifting. All control surfaces are meant to do is provide some semblance of not flipping wildly out of control - even tail rotors are only there to counter the spin induced by the main rotor, and you don't even need tail rotors if you use either contrarotating mains or a Chinook or Osprey-type (AKA tandem) setup. Now, there being no contrarotating props or rotors in KSP (yet), I'm currently at a loss as to how fitting four 0.7 winglets cancels the spin of a twin axial rotor... but for some reason, they do.

Point of order: I have flown helicopters in sizes ranging from the tiny little infrared control jobs to a Jetranger II (yes really), and can tell you right now: it's all hands-on to stop the thing from flipping or spinning. It's the hardest thing in the air to control, for the simple reason that the centre of mass is shifting relative to the centre of lift all the time, and you need to be on top of that every second the skids aren't on the ground. The Jetranger, that all being said, was probably the easier of the lot to control since you're not relying on the rotors for forward thrust, that is achieved by the vectored thrust out of the jet engines which also drive the rotor.

[Fengist]

that's because you're relying too much on those wings for lift. I use the short 0.7-rated winglets because they're all I need for control, the idea of a heli is that the rotors do ALL the lifting. All control surfaces are meant to do is provide some semblance of not flipping wildly out of control - even tail rotors are only there to counter the spin induced by the main rotor, and you don't even need tail rotors if you use either contrarotating mains or a Chinook or Osprey-type (AKA tandem) setup. Now, there being no contrarotating props or rotors in KSP (yet), I'm currently at a loss as to how fitting four 0.7 winglets cancels the spin of a twin axial rotor... but for some reason, they do.

Point of order: I have flown helicopters in sizes ranging from the tiny little infrared control jobs to a Jetranger II (yes really), and can tell you right now: it's all hands-on to stop the thing from flipping or spinning. It's the hardest thing in the air to control, for the simple reason that the centre of mass is shifting relative to the centre of lift all the time, and you need to be on top of that every second the skids aren't on the ground. The Jetranger, that all being said, was probably the easier of the lot to control since you're not relying on the rotors for forward thrust, that is achieved by the vectored thrust out of the jet engines which also drive the rotor.

Glad I have somewhat impressed a real helo pilot enough to try my challenge.

BTW, I found another solution to controlling the beast. 60+ points of reaction wheels. Works in KSP anyway

[Fengist]

It has around 650 thrusts at ground level with all the engines pointed forward and weighs not much over 10T, it could probably get airborne with just 4 of the small control surfaces I'm just trying to avoid a behemoth that lumbers around, the jets only become effective after the propellers have run out (above 10,000m) and it takes an amount of lift to keep them up there, they waste fuel below 3-4,000 where the props are more efficient. I already have a nuclear electric that can complete every challenge but it has to do the lap at 10,000m - 230m/s and the trip to KSC2 at 100m/s, and rotatrons don't like even 2x warp so it's nine or ten hours of holding a constant course/altitude above unchanging bland terrain which I'll never complete.

The Osprey achieves efficiency with a high lift "full aircraft" forward fight mode, it's just the blades hitting the ground that stops a horizontal takeoff, I can achieve that effect swapping the VTOLS for large rotors and put the jets below the rotors so no forward thrust can be made at takeoff without the blades clipping the ground, only when it's up can the rotors be rotated for forward jet power - has the same mass/lift/performance as the last one, it would just be deliberate side-stepping though. Without lift to get above 20,000m and exploit the turbo-jets fully (I'm cruising at 28,000m 1600m/s at half throttle) it's just limited to a massive fuel load moving very slowly and more and more rotors to lift the massive fuel load plus 40T payload. I do understand that cruising at high altitude with a turbo-jet isn't a helicopter but for me embarking on a flight that I know will take 5-6 hours with no option to save mid-flight and do a bit more tomorrow is unrealistic

I recently submitted to a challenge and was 'disqualified' because I made my landing at 1,500 m instead of 2,500+ m. I'm not going to bother to resubmit to that challenge because my design worked and performed exactly as I wanted it to and more than served it's purpose, regardless of the challenge rules. Above anything else, this challenge is about designing an aerial vehicle that's capable of doing more than just flying around in circles at warp speed. It's about creating something that is not only fun to fly, but has utility as well. The big goal is to take what you design and test here and have it hopefully, come in useful in other challenges. If you're satisfied that your design meets the challenge criteria, then I'm satisfied. Go show me what it can do.

[g00bd0g]

What motors/engines/props/rotors are allowed for the "main" rotors? Specifically, can I use the "nose mounted" props for the mail VTOL engines?

Edited January 24, 2014 by g00bd0g

[Fengist]

Yes, you can. However, unlike that behemoth I've been showing shots of, your primary lift needs to come from the prop blades, not wings and you have to take off vertically.

[g00bd0g]

Yes, you can. However, unlike that behemoth I've been showing shots of, your primary lift needs to come from the prop blades, not wings and you have to take off vertically.

I am trying not to be nit-picky, but can you please define "primary lift"? I don't want want to put a bunch of effort into a design only to have it DQ'd. Maybe some sort of ratio of total lift rating of all lifting surfaces divided be total mass? i.e. 10 total units of lifting surface decided by 10t mass is a ratio of 1. 20 units of lift would give you a ratio of 2. So maybe 1 or less? .5?

And to be even more of a pain, lifting bodies can be somewhat effective with FAR, and I'm not sure how you regulate those...

Cool challenge and lots of really neat entries.