BSC: Rocket-powered VTOL - We have a winner!

[sploden]

VTOLPV7.1 Rocket Chair

• Simple - No complex multi-type engine system to futz with. 57 parts.
  
• Safe - 3-way abort system triggered through staging, clicking the abort button, or using action groups 9 and 10.
  
• Tuned - Hovers at approximately 2/5 throttle, allowing for precision as well as agility.
  
• Versatile - Includes a probe core to allow navball orientation switching or unmanned flight.
  

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited February 9, 2014 by sploden

[Giggleplex777]

My current design is looking a little ridiculous so far.

[astropapi1]

My current design is looking a little ridiculous so far.

http://i.imgur.com/geuj5P8.png

I'm guessing it's inspired by the LLTV, isn't it?

[Giggleplex777]

I'm guessing it's inspired by the LLTV, isn't it?

It wasn't not supposed to be.

[Giggleplex777]

Finally! I built something that I am satisfied with.

[Damaske]

Finally! I built something that I am satisfied with.

http://i.imgur.com/RAAu54O.png

That's sweet looking, I've pulled my craft as it needs alt ctrl f12 part clipping for a wingy bit, that and the craft I submitted was a vtol into orbit. yet it was not fully developed. As it runs out of fuel before orbit is reached.

HOWEVER! if there is time left I'll attempt to bogger a quick Vtol up.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Damaske

[Giggleplex777]

Damselfly

A rocket- and jet-powered VTOL trainer.

Features:

• Jet engine - for efficiency
  
• Rocket engines - for precision control
  
• Landing gear - very strong and allows the craft to land safety with forward momentum
  
• Reaction wheels
  
• Probe core
  
• Top facing docking port
  
• Abort system
  
• RTG
  
• 45 parts
  
• No part clipping
  

Craft Description:

Due to the mysterious lack of rotating parts for a concept spinning-wing aircraft, engineers were forced to come up with a different way to take-off and land vertically. Thus, the Damselfly was born.

Built with instructions from that of model car, rocket, and plane kits, the Damselfly is a training platform for rocket- and jet-powered VTOLs.

It is equipped with a top facing docking port for a vertical control point and a probe core. It is not necessary to kill all of the forward velocity as the craft has wheels.

Landing modes:

Rocket-only: Point retrograde (using "control from here" on the docking port) and land like you would land a Mun lander.

Jet and rocket: Set throttle at 2/3 and slowly throttle down until 1/2. Fire the rocket engines in bursts by toggling them on and off by tapping 2. Use the rockets to control the descent.

Jet-only: Slowly throttle up or down to control the descent.

Action groups:

1: Toggle jet engine

2: Toggle rocket engines

3: Toggle ladder

0: Deploy chute

Backspace: Abort

Bonus modes:

Flying car: Throttle to 1/2, jet on. once the jet produces more than 60 kN of thrust, you may move up and down by firing the rocket engines in short bursts by toggling them on and off by tapping 2. The craft should float as if it is on the Mun. When not hopping, keeping the craft level allows for safer travel. Decrease the throttle slightly as fuel decreases. To stop, press 1 to cutoff the jet engine.

Hovercraft: Jet on, throttle to 1/3. Tilt forward to move forward and back to move back. Use yaw and roll simultaneously for corning faster than 5 m/s. Do not pitch forward past 20 degrees and drive at the speed limit posted!

Download:

Damselfly

Edited February 10, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[Xeldrak]

Well, that looks quite awesome - I'm thrilled to see how she holds up

Don't forget: If you want to vote, you have to pm me you email adress, guys.

[Giggleplex777]

Well, that looks quite awesome - I'm thrilled to see how she holds up

Don't forget: If you want to vote, you have to pm me you email adress, guys.

You have to try Flying Car mode! It's like flying on Mun on Kerbin.

It also makes landing on the heli pad easier.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[sploden]

Damselfly

Has my vote so far. There are a couple of issues:

1. Balance is off.

2. Too much torque for my taste.

Good idea on the dual jet/rocket configuration. I had thought of something like it but dismissed it as too complex, not bothering to try it out. Kinda wishing I had now. I just now tried swapping my aerospike with a jet engine and adding four 48-7S's, and was able to reach orbit.. I guess it would be a kind of Bad Thing if I resubmitted, so I'll abide.

[Giggleplex777]

Has my vote so far. There are a couple of issues:

1. Balance is off.

2. Too much torque for my taste.

1. Can you elaborate on that? It should be balanced relatively well.

2. You can always disable reaction wheels. I added extra reaction wheels so that it might help new players to get out of a bad situation. Plus, the stock craft has FOUR reaction wheels!

[sploden]

1. Can you elaborate on that? It should be balanced relatively well.

2. You can always disable reaction wheels. I added extra reaction wheels so that it might help new players to get out of a bad situation. Plus, the stock craft has FOUR reaction wheels!

1. If you take off without SAS, the craft leans forward (rockets are much more noticeable). Granted, people won't be doing that too often, and it's probably a nitpick. I tried my hand at balancing this craft, and it’s tough. So I’ve modified my definition: “Not conspicuously imbalanced; able to be flown without SAS.†Kinda subjective, but works.

2. The stock craft is also much heavier. What I did to test this was to do the same course I ran through with my own craft. I find it easier to do the course with less torque.

Here is my take on the Damselfly, with the above considerations.

Edited February 10, 2014 by sploden

[Giggleplex777]

1. If you take off without SAS, the craft leans forward (rockets are much more noticeable). Granted, people won't be doing that too often, and it's probably a nitpick. I tried my hand at balancing this craft, and it’s tough. So I’ve modified my definition: “Not conspicuously imbalanced; able to be flown without SAS.†Kinda subjective, but works.

2. The stock craft is also much heavier. What I did to test this was to do the same course I ran through with my own craft. I find it easier to do the course with less torque.

Here is my take on the Damselfly, with the above considerations.

http://i.imgur.com/LGmxUde.png

1. It has a tendency to tip forward so that it is harder flip backwards.

2. It weighs half as much, so half the troque.

Your version looks a lot better than mine, but I don't think I should change my entry.

[HazelPine]

Ahhw, don't be sad, I think your craft is ok the way it looks anyway. I mean, take a look at mine: i made it look like a turtle, but after a couple days I started thinking it didn't look as nice. BUT more IS better, so a new person can fly it well, and if s/he thinks it has too much torque then he could shut if off. This weekend I will be testing crafts, so then I can give you and all the other guys feedback.

PS: I really love these simple cute VTOL's, they are so cool!

[Xeldrak]

Just a quick reminder: The building-phase will conclude in about 48 hours. Be sure to submit you entry till then.

I also added a list of registered voters to the OP so you guys know I've read you PMs and for the sake of transparency.

[Majorjim!]

Xeldrak,

Is it right that people who have entries are registered voters?

[Xeldrak]

No, people who have PMed me their email adresses are registered voters.

[Majorjim!]

No, people who have PMed me their email adresses are registered voters.

Quite a few registered voters have craft in the challenge..

[MiniMatt]

Quite a few registered voters have craft in the challenge..

Personally speaking the vote has always been a method of framing the thread and allowing it to come to a logical conclusion such that we can move on to the next challenge. The vote results were, I think to most participants, rather meaningless; of far greater interest were peoples' thoughts on the various crafts which were often extremely detailed, well thought out, and enlightening.

So much gets learnt during these challenges and almost all of that comes during the thread and during the discussions taking place at the commencement of voting; hell I'd argue we've seen some of that in this thread already with PsuedoMonkey noting that vertical navball orientation often allows for easier landing and (I think) every subsequent entry making provision for a vertical option if the primary is horizontal.

Now, if you're worried about ungentlemanly voting conduct amongst competitors I'd suggest you have little to worry about. I'm not sure if it's official rule but I think all competitors end up voting for other peoples' entries rather than their own because the joy is in learning some neat trick from other people, not in winning some internet popularity contest. The vote is just there as a frame for the thread.

Sure, in the past there have been some - let us say curious - voting patterns which have caused some consternation. But I'd say again, far greater value is found in the thread than the vote.

Edited February 10, 2014 by MiniMatt

[Xeldrak]

Now, let me repeat a few points:

-If you want to vote, pm me your email adress - once the submissions are closed, you will receive a link. Don't tell me who you'd like to vote for or just that you would like to vote. I need you email.

-I know, this might seem a bit paranoid, but there have been severe irregularities everytime I loosen the security.

-The primary vote will select a handfull of crafts that will enter the final round that will use the forum-voting system. This final vote will be open, i.e. everybody will be able to see for whom you have voted. I guess this is some deterrent to people who would like to vote for themselfes.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Xeldrak

[Majorjim!]

Personally speaking the vote has always been a method of framing the thread and allowing it to come to a logical conclusion such that we can move on to the next challenge. The vote results were, I think to most participants, rather meaningless; of far greater interest were peoples' thoughts on the various crafts which were often extremely detailed, well thought out, and enlightening.

So much gets learnt during these challenges and almost all of that comes during the thread and during the discussions taking place at the commencement of voting; hell I'd argue we've seen some of that in this thread already with PsuedoMonkey noting that vertical navball orientation often allows for easier landing and (I think) every subsequent entry making provision for a vertical option if the primary is horizontal.

Now, if you're worried about ungentlemanly voting conduct amongst competitors I'd suggest you have little to worry about. I'm not sure if it's official rule but I think all competitors end up voting for other peoples' entries rather than their own because the joy is in learning some neat trick from other people, not in winning some internet popularity contest. The vote is just there as a frame for the thread.

Sure, in the past there have been some - let us say curious - voting patterns which have caused some consternation. But I'd say again, far greater value is found in the thread than the vote.

Seems fair. Thanks.

MJ

[Capt Snuggler]

why exactly do you need our email addresses? could you not set up a poll?

don't want to accuse you of anything, but a fella could sell a nice long list of active email addresses. do I smell spam on the wind?

[briansun1]

why exactly do you need our email addresses? could you not set up a poll?

don't want to accuse you of anything, but a fella could sell a nice long list of active email addresses. do I smell spam on the wind?

Because every other time that we have not used this method someone cheated on the polls

[Xeldrak]

why exactly do you need our email addresses? could you not set up a poll?

don't want to accuse you of anything, but a fella could sell a nice long list of active email addresses. do I smell spam on the wind?

Because it's secure - people who've sent me their adresses will receive individual links to the poll. This way only one vote per voter is guaranteed. Everytime I've used a free poll-service before (this is the 10th BSC challenge I'm hosting) some fishy buisiness happened.

Also - in what universe does a list of 10-30 (30 very, very optimistic) adresses qualify as "a nice long list"?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Xeldrak

[Tarmenius]

Well, it took several designs to find one I felt confident enough with to enter. For this challenge, I considered what the original stock craft might have been made to accomplish and what similarities should be kept. I decided that with most players quite familiar with the Rockomax 24-77, I could use this as an opportunity to showcase a different engine. I chose to highlight a useful application of the often-ignored Mark 55 radial engine. The craft, dubbed "Bullfrog," ended up with the same amount of fuel as the stock craft and a similar full-throttle flight range, but more thrust, making it noticeably more forgiving.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Note: The above images were taken from three separate flights

The craft file is available HERE.

The following can also be found in the craft's description field:

Action Group 1 toggles the trio of Inline Advanced Stabilizers, functioning as ballast and attitude control,

Action Group 2 toggles the Telus Mobility Enhancer, and

Action Group 3 extends the dual Communotron 16's.

Additionally, the Abort action group shuts down the rockets and deploys the parachutes, making it fairly safe even at low altitudes.

The craft is fun to fly and very responsive. Even with the three IASs disabled it turns smoothly, thanks in part to the gimbal range of the Mark 55 engines. Let me know if I've overlooked a detail or somehow missed a critical flaw.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Tarmenius