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

[Giggleplex777]

Good morning everyone!

Quick favor to ask.

To those who have reviewed my design so far, what features do you like or dislike? Which would you change?

I'm just wondering because I want to learn how to build better VTOLs. I have kind of fallen in love with the whole VTOL concept, and while mine may not be the best one here, it's a lot of fun to fly! I'm sure that some of you serious builders have ideas to make my VTOL even better and I would love to hear them.

Thanks!

I had a question:

May I ask a question about your craft? Why does it have the 4 angled engines? they only provide a bit of thrust and they guzzle lots of fuel.

[briansun1]

now continuing with my review

PDCWolf - Rocket Powered VTOL 2

highish part count. discription. action groups but not explained. what's with the RCS? low TWR. slugish to fly

Psycix - VTOL Training Or Learning

low part count. flys well. good TWR. more like a lander. (I like this one)

Ravenchant - Pack mule

low part count. description. action groups. escape thing but parachute dose not deploy with it. good TWR. I do like the suspension thing

SaplingPick - LeapFrog LV-I

high part count. not explained action groups. escpae thing but parachute dose not deploy with it.

well that's all for now. I also updated my last one

Edited February 13, 2014 by briansun1

[Giggleplex777]

Rhomphaia - H.A.L.O.

high part count. not explained action groups. escpae thing but parachute dose not deploy with it.

It only has 23 parts!

[briansun1]

It only has 23 parts!

oops wrong craft name

[Rhomphaia]

Good morning everyone!

Quick favor to ask.

To those who have reviewed my design so far, what features do you like or dislike? Which would you change?

I'm just wondering because I want to learn how to build better VTOLs. I have kind of fallen in love with the whole VTOL concept, and while mine may not be the best one here, it's a lot of fun to fly! I'm sure that some of you serious builders have ideas to make my VTOL even better and I would love to hear them.

Thanks!

Like Giggleplex, I am not sure about those engines.

Also the abort group, you have a seperatron to blow the capsule clear, but the parachutes deploy at the same time. This has a fair chance of leaving you with zero surface velocity while still in the air which cuts the 'chutes. best to have a separate action group to deploy parachutes after abort.

[MiniMatt]

Okay. Every craft flown, every craft landed (all but one of them on the VAB helipad). Most of them even landed with the same number of parts as they begun with and with only a couple of uses of the f9 key all pilots survived. That I, with the aeronautical ability of a goldfish (and memory to boot), could happily fly all these is testament to the strength of design on offer.

Thoughts below. Before I start let me re-iterate that these were some simply excellent ships. As a result the only distinguishers are minor and petty failings or personal foibles - and as a further result these thoughts may come across as overly negative. The positives of each craft vastly outweigh the negatives. Before each mini-review mentally append the phrase "I flew this craft, I landed this craft, I HAD FUN with this craft".

Andrew Hansen - Wernhermobile

Very nice variety of modes allows operator to choose between throttle response and flight time. Centre of mass moves around a bit as fuel burnt but kept well in check by SAS modules. Also a passable rover. Would have liked option for vertical navball orientation and some seperatrons on abort system to prevent capsule falling under main body upon eject. Possibly, if I'm being really picky, some landing legs or gear to allow slightly harder landings in addition to rover wheels.

Briansun1 - VV-2V

Jet only operation + oodles of fuel allows for epic flight time but sluggish response. Wasn't personally keen on the very symmetric aesthetic. Would have liked abort system to also kill engines and lower landing gear, some electricity generation beyond engines and a vertical navball option.

DisarmingBaton5 - VTOL Ostrich

Unique and quite pleasing aesthetic from this jet only craft. No description, action groups (one to activate all ladders might have been nice), or abort system. Navball choices offered by docking ports in craft file provided are only horizontal (like cockpit) though note vertical option in your screenshots. Disappointed that 0.23 enhancements weren't taken advantage of leading to redundant oxidiser in fuel tanks and hideously over thrusted jet engines which could have been tweaked down. Wanted to like this one more as aesthetic really grabbed but ultimately couldn't get past some odd choices.

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly

Damn. Really wanted to dislike this one as I see it as amongst my main competition How infuriating that it's really rather good. When I first talked about jet/rocket hybrids back on page 5 I envisaged both in operation at the same time; using jets as 90% thrust and having the rockets as toggleable descent modifiers however does indeed lead to supreme maneuverability and exemplary flight time. Curses If I'm being really picky, would have preferred the vertical navball option placed in line with thrust/mass (perhaps a probe core under the intake) and a slight tidying of the aesthetic, maybe some BZ-52 radial attachment points & modular girder adaptors to replace some of the strutting.

Mhoram - Kerbol Flying Object

Lovely example of what can be achieved in the looks department but the 258 parts made my computer cry & I couldn't get it on to the VAB roof as a result. Flight time felt low but that likely to be an illusion afforded by poor frame rate and hence controlability on my modest PC as by the numbers it should have a good three minutes in the air. Good survivability though, the closest I got was a glancing blow to the VAB which deposited our plucky test pilot back on Kerba-Firma missing a great many panels but alive.

PDCWolf - RocketPower VTOL2

Stays true to the original and as a result perhaps feels most "stock". Genuine improvement on original in a number of areas, but retains some of originals flaws - no ladder! Feels, like the original, a bit overly symmetrical. Initial TWR just a teensy bit under 1, requiring a couple of teaspoons of fuel to be burnt before liftoff. Perhaps could have done with a little bit more SAS as not sure RCS alone quite cut it and a vertical navball option would have been nice.

Ravenchant - Pack Mule

Very solid entry. Doesn't really put a foot wrong and as a result I'm struggling to think what to write; it simply does what it says on the tin, no fuss, easily controlable, ample flight time. That writeup sounds overly negative but is not meant to be, I see this as a very strong contender. Only minor quibbles would be Jeb's entry and egress of the craft can be a bit fiddly and the drop tanks can struggle to drop if the craft is climbing at the time.

SaplingPick - Leapfrog

It's true. I do love turtles. Achieves a unique look without turning into a multi-hundred part monster. Centre of thrust slightly off from centre of mass although that's easily compensated for by multitude of (perhaps slightly spammy) SAS modules making this a supremely easy craft to fly. I really do love turtles. Perhaps an extra thirty seconds or so of flight time wouldn't go amiss, and maybe change the cockpit for one with a better IVA view, but I really do love turtles.

Spartwo - Tern

Had to rearrange staging order to launch without firing off missile compliment(!) and get the LV909 (clipped inside a jet engine) to fire prior to landing gantry. Very very clippy but achieves nice look with it. Arguably some lift generated from control surfaces but little enough to matter. Description field, parachute/abort system, some means for pilot to get in/out, and a vertical navball option would have been appreciated. Handles very nicely with suprisingly good flight time but far too clippy for my tastes in a stock challenge.

Tarmenius - Bullfrog

I like this because it makes use of a rarely used engine which in this challenge has some good qualities (vectoring range). Plus the author reminded me to include an abort group in my own entry Despite designer's best efforts those engines do drain flight time a bit. Would have appreciated a vertical navball option and I think there may be more aesthetically pleasing ways of ballasting the rear than a stack of SAS modules but this remains a solid easy to fly craft worthy of being stock.

ThePseudoMonkey - Omega 16

Solid improvement over original, easy to fly, very respectable range for a rocket propelled craft. Only niggles would be that initial stage drop tanks are a bit wobbly when landed by a klutz like me and perhaps the aesthetic could have been tidied slightly (perhaps modular girder adaptors rather than regular square girders etc).

UpsilonAerospace - Pavo

Very nice aesthetic, feels almost a teesnsy bit clippy. One minute, 23 second max throttle flight time on the slightly skimpy side although as with stock and all other entrants in practice this is likely to near double as throttle is feathered. Feels ever so slightly more unbalanced as fuel shifts than some other entrants but actually has really nice flying characteristics and inclusion of horizontal rocket option greatly adds to the design.

Rhomphaia - HALO

Really love the look. And the description text Jet only but thrust tweaked to an appropriate TWR. Redundant oxidiser left in fuel tank though, schoolboy error Feels a bit over-torqued leading to twitchy controls coupled with jets' natural sluggish throttle response making for an odd flight. But an enjoyable one.

Kasuha - Morpheus

Feel a bit unsure what this wants to be. Were it capsule rather than seat equipped I could almost see it as a Mun Lander/Rover hybrid (not dissimilar to one I built for an earlier BSC). Bit symmetrical but flies nice and smooth with ample flight time.

MajorJim - LLTV Bedstead

Truly fantastic recreation that does actually fly as well as can be expected of a jet powered vtol. Oh I don't know, I love craft like these and I truly believe there should be a category for creations like this in the game because they are inspiring. I'm just not sure that stock craft is the category to fit them in. 190 parts, tricky (but by no means bad) to fly, requiring of capsule-command seat EVA just doesn't feel stock to me. But of all the form over function designs in this challenge and I think any other BSC challenge, this one is undoubtedly my favourite.

Psycix - VTOL Training or Learning

When is a VTOL craft a lander? When is a lander a VTOL? Technically the two definitions are identical but in my gut this feels like any other lander rather than a VTOL craft. As a lander it's fine, it's perfectly capable of landing on the Mun, taking off, and returning safely to Kerbin. As a VTOL it's capable, easy to fly, simple & sturdy. Would note lack of ladder and inability of 48-7S engine choice to generate electricity makes solar panels insufficient for night time operation, esp coupled with limited battery life on offer.

Sploden - RocketChair

Suffers from same is it a VTOL / is it a lander worry I detail above in Psycix's entry. Swapping a capsule for a command seat makes the flight look more fun but it adds complexity to the launch and I'm not sure it adds anything more positive. In my gut this is a direct ascent Mun lander with a chair rather than a capsule. Nevertheless, remains a capable easy to fly craft.

Xeldrak - CRPLTV

Feels the least "landery" of the "is it a VTOL or is it a lander" bunch but I could still envisage this atop a rocket on a Mun mission. Perhaps I'm being overly hard on this category but I tend to think a stock VTOL craft should be SPH based like the current stock rather than VAB. 48-7S engines and solar panels prevent night time flight. The wide spread on the RCS jets do greatly aid maneuverability making this my favourite of the "is it a lander or a VTOL" bunch.

---

With all that I now need to figure some order to put these in. Not sure yet but in no particular order the ones likely to fill the top half of my voting are:

Andrew Hansen - Wernhermobile

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly

PDCWolf - RocketPower VTOL2

Ravenchant - Pack Mule

SaplingPick - Leapfrog

Tarmenius - Bullfrog

ThePseudoMonkey - Omega 16

UpsilonAerospace - Pavo

---

EDIT: Ok, for transparency, final ranking I went with:

1st Giggleplex777 - Damselfly

2nd Ravenchant - Pack Mule

3rd UpsilonAerospace - Pavo VTOL

Joint 4th SaplingPick - Leapfrog

Joint 4th Tarmenius - Bullfrog

Joint 4th Andrew Hansen - Wenhermobile

Joint 5th ThePseudoMonkey - Omega 16

Joint 5th PDCWolf - Rocket Powered VTOL 2

Joint 6th Majorjim - LLTV

Joint 6th Rhomphaia - HALO

Joint 6th Xeldrak - CRPLTV

Joint 7th Briansun1 - VV-1V

Joint 7th DisarmingBaton5 - Ostrich

Joint 7th Mhoram - Kerbol Flying Object

Joint 7th Spartwo - Tern

Joint 7th Kasuha - Morpheus

Joint 7th Sploden - VTOL Rocket Chair

Joint 7th Psycix - VTOL Training or Learning

19th MiniMatt - Snack Wagon

Edited February 13, 2014 by MiniMatt

[Spartwo]

Action groups 1&2.I really need to start again to be honest.

[briansun1]

wasn't really an escape system...

[DisarmingBaton5]

My review of all VAB crafts, more to come soon:

Kausha - Morpheus: A terrible rover, but an ok VTOL. Would be better if it had no rover wheels or a better rover chassis.

Psycix - VTOL Training or Learning: Good lander, low part count, seems good for learning. The only thing I would change is that there is no forward-facing docking port, so it flies more like a lander and less like a Harrier or LLTV.

Xeldrak - CRPLTV: Similar to above, very good lander, less of a VTOL. I like the abort system.

sploden - VTOLPV7.1 Rocket Chair: Very good VTOL here, low part count, overall nice. A bit buggy though, the abort system is unreliable and getting in can be difficult.

Majorjim - LLTV "The flying bedstead": Great VTOL, working abort system, would probably be the best one here IMO if not for the part count.

Edited February 13, 2014 by DisarmingBaton5

[DisarmingBaton5]

Now on to five more SPH crafts:

Andrew Hansen - Wernhermobile: This one gets points immediately for making me laugh upon loading it. Good rover, pretty bad VTOL though due to CoM shifting.

briansun1 - Rocket VTOL (VV-2V): That's no rocket! Great VTOL, not sure about the wheels, though. Without forward propulsion the wheels seem to get in the way.

DisarmingBaton5 - VTOL Ostrich: Obviously the best craft here, and everyone should vote for it.

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly: This is amazing. The only thing I don't really like is the lack of action group for the jet; that makes the craft slightly harder to control.

Mhoram - Kerbol Flying Object: Nope. My little Macbook curled up in the corner when it saw this; part count way too high. Flight time low, torque almost nonexistent, TWR low, rover wheels pointless. It sure looks great, though.

Edited February 13, 2014 by DisarmingBaton5
Added image

[sploden]

Good morning everyone!

Quick favor to ask.

To those who have reviewed my design so far, what features do you like or dislike? Which would you change?

I'm just wondering because I want to learn how to build better VTOLs. I have kind of fallen in love with the whole VTOL concept, and while mine may not be the best one here, it's a lot of fun to fly! I'm sure that some of you serious builders have ideas to make my VTOL even better and I would love to hear them.

Thanks!

My testing notes:

Bullfrog
	Aesthetically interesting
	Too much torque; precision maneuvers difficult
	Narrowish wheelbase
	Good part count

CRPLTV
	Aborting while controlling from probe core is potentially lethal - that capsule moves fast
	Probe core should be flipped and placed on the opposite side
	Hovers at approximately 2/3 throttle
	Good part count

Damselfly
	Hybrid rocket/jet design is cool
	Aesthetically interesting
	A little too much torque
	Balance is off
	Good part count

H.A.L.O.
	Aesthetically interesting
	Jet-only design - precision maneuvers difficult
	Good part count
	Abort shuts engine down - good
	Too much torque for my taste
	Needs a second parachute in the back for landing evenly upon aborting

Kerbol Flying Object
	Very high part count
	Quite large
	Torque is too low
	TWR is too low
	Wheel arrangement is questionable

LeapFrog LV-IVTOL
	Aesthetically interesting
	Too much torque for my taste
	Narrowish tripod landing gear base
	Medium-high part count

LLTV “The flying bedsteadâ€Â
	Very high part count
	Nice replica design
	Jet-only design - precision maneuvers difficult
	Abort system works well
	Part clipping present

Morpheus
	Kinda bulky
	Medium-high part count
	Can drive on the ground
	Command chair transition from the pod is a little cumbersome
	No abort system
	Discards a capsule on launch

Omega 16 VTOL mk6
	Good part count
	Balance is off
	Struggles to roll and yaw. Pitch is better.
	Would prefer horizontal orientation controls - difficult to fly as a result.

Pack Mule
	Medium part count
	Aesthetically interesting
	Works well

Pavo VTOL
	Medium-high part count
	Impossible to take off without SAS
	Legs attached to parachutes
	Seven parachutes
	Parachutes and forward engines triggered on #1
	Requires 100% throttle to take off
	Part clipping present

Rocket VTOL
	Craft named “rocket vtol†has no rockets 
	Jet-only design - precision maneuvers difficult
	Abort action group doesn’t cut engine, problematic because aborting doesn’t split the craft
	Good part count

Rocket-power VTOL 2
	Medium-high part count
	Requires 100% throttle to take off
	Feels sluggish - needs more torque, either RCS or reaction wheels; just more

Snack Wagon VTOL
	Good part count
	Aesthetically interesting
	Could lose the science parts
	Balance is off
	Good amount of torque
	Side engines unnecessary

Tern
	Medium-high part count
	Not sure why it starts mounted to a launch clamp
	Expected pushing space would release the launch clamp
	(Went back to SPH to remove the launch clamp and make it start with legs out, then continued testing)
	Cool missile thingies
	Aesthetically interesting
	Lots of part clipping
	Hybrid rocket/jet design is cool
	No abort mechanism

VTOL Ostrich
	Good part count
	Jet-only design - precision maneuvers difficult
	Aesthetically interesting

VTOL Training Or Learning
	Recursive name is recursive :-)
	Good part count
	Simple design is easy to understand at a glance
	Would prefer horizontally oriented controls

VTOLPV7.1 Rocket Chair
	Good part count
	Aesthetically interesting
	Can be flown without SAS
	Discards a capsule on launch
	Part clipping present

Wernhermobile
	Medium part count
	Balance is off
	Would prefer one toggling action group per engine bank (i.e. 1 = jet, 2 = middle rockets, 3 = outer rockets)
	Kinda big, but torque is good.
	Becomes increasingly imbalanced as fuel is used. Jet engine should use fuel from the rocket fuel tanks, which should move forward, to consolidate the fuel source and thus increase the balance throughout the flight.

...

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly: This is amazing. The only thing I don't really like is the lack of action group for the jet; that makes the craft slightly harder to control.

...

I think the Jet is toggled on action group 1.

[briansun1]

Now on to five more SPH crafts:

Andrew Hansen - Wernhermobile: This one gets points immediately for making me laugh upon loading it. Good rover, pretty bad VTOL though due to CoM shifting.

briansun1 - Rocket VTOL: That's no rocket! Great VTOL, not sure about the wheels, though. Without forward propulsion the wheels seem to get in the way.

DisarmingBaton5 - VTOL Ostrich: Obviously the best craft here, and everyone should vote for it.

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly: This is amazing. The only thing I don't really like is the lack of action group for the jet; that makes the craft slightly harder to control.

Mhoram - Kerbol Flying Object: Nope. My little Macbook curled up in the corner when it saw this; part count way too high. Flight time low, torque almost nonexistent, TWR low, rover wheels pointless. It sure looks great, though.

http://i.imgur.com/Yx8Iyjr.png

well it's called the TVTOL(trainer vtol) VV-2V I just have it title as the BSC rocket VTOL in the file for easy searching and the wheels are there for an easier landing and there is no abort thing just parachutes

Edited February 13, 2014 by briansun1

[Spartwo]

Not sure why it starts mounted to a launch clamp

Wait,have I not updated that since .22?

[briansun1]

everyone please go look at the MISC section of my post before you test my craft thank you

[Andrew Hansen]

Andrew Hansen - Wernhermobile

Very nice variety of modes allows operator to choose between throttle response and flight time. Centre of mass moves around a bit as fuel burnt but kept well in check by SAS modules. Also a passable rover. Would have liked option for vertical navball orientation and some seperatrons on abort system to prevent capsule falling under main body upon eject. Possibly, if I'm being really picky, some landing legs or gear to allow slightly harder landings in addition to rover wheels.

Thanks! I feel like that's a generally positive review. The center of mass does move around a bit, and I did my best to ensure it moved around as little as possible. The COM starts behind the COT, then moves in front of it as the rocket fuel drains. If jet fuel is used up as well, the COM will move back behind the COT the way it started at.

I actually considered attaching a small docking port to a fuel tank for the vertical navball option, but I had already made my video and stated the craft had 64 parts, so I didn't think it was too important.

Sepatrons on abort system? Maybe, but after testing the abort system extensively, I couldn't get the capsule to explode or the parachute to break off due to problems with the main body. The thing is that you're usually leaning forward when moving forward, so the capsule gets tugged underneath the main body by the parachute and the rest goes flying onwards. Only if you're going at 75+ m/s and pointing at your prograde marker, and then press abort will you stand a chance of the parachute breaking off/capsule exploding.

Landing legs to allow rougher landings would be a good thing, but the nice thing is rover wheels can actually take a lot of force, even if they break (23 m/s touchdowns were tested). And it's pretty easy to repair the wheels. Plus, all those frills would add more parts, and at 64 parts I thought that was as high as I wanted to get to.

Anyway, thank you again for the review (and the vote). I really appreciate it!

Edited February 13, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[briansun1]

whose winning the vote right now anyway?

[MiniMatt]

Thanks! I feel like that's a generally positive review.

Very much so, all my reviews tend to sound a bit negative but they're really not intended to be. When faced with such a surplus of quality entries the only things to differentiate end up being rather insignificant negatives

Sepatrons on abort system? Maybe, but after testing the abort system extensively...

Yep, to be fair I tested the abort at low altitude with very minimal forward momentum and a modest vertical descent, this ended with the capsule scraping along the underside and being squished under the body - but important to note that capsule, parachute, and pilot survived just fine.

Re landing legs, vertical navball etc these are all very minor personal thoughts which are really just clutching at straws for something to say. Indeed throughout testing I think I swapped my preference from vertical to horizontal navball orientation.

[BagelRabbit]

Hello everyone! I received a number of comments, and I'll try to explain my reasoning behind each design feature as best as I can.

The canted engines are, in large part, used to provide stability. Without them in their approximate places, the Pavo's CoM goes all over the place during flight. I also canted them to provide my favorite TWR for VTOLs: just above one at takeoff, building to almost two at landing. I know I could have thrust-limited them but I wanted to use that tool as little as possible.

As for the problem of the parachutes deploying right as you press the action group. The abort button is used as a method of last resort for the Pavo. It can land very well without pressing the Abort button but instead activating the craft's parachutes; there should really be no reason to press this unless you are a meter from death. If you are a meter from death, you don't want to spend a lot of time pressing multiple action groups. Besides, the Separatron causes the capsule to move fast enough that the velocity of the capsule never drops to zero. I was worried about this too but I have tested the abort system extensively and never killed a Kerbal or made a parachute disappear prematurely.

In the spirit of shameless self-promotion I direct you to the second half of this video, showing a successful abort.

[edit: Third place from MiniMatt! I might actually reach the finals! Hooray!]

Edited February 13, 2014 by UpsilonAerospace

[briansun1]

Spartwo - Tern MK3

missiles. whats with the launch clamp?. hard to fly after you use the rocket engine for a while. action groups not explained. Not very stock like. highish part count

sploden - VTOLPV7.1 Rocket Chair

not very well explained cockpit design. action groups. parachute not tied to abourt button. flys well. only toggle one leg though this may have been on purpose. the simplest out of all of the chair Vtols to get into.

Tarmenius - Bullfrog

description.lowish part count. action groups though I don't think there in the best order. flys well. overall pretty good

ThePsuedoMonkey - Omega 16

Description. RCS again? low part count. a bit slugish.

on all the craft I have test I took some points off if the nave ball looked like a lander and not like a space plane

[Spartwo]

Spartwo - Tern MK3.whats with the launch clamp?.

Apparently I haven't updated the download since .22.

[Rhomphaia]

Hello everyone! I received a number of comments, and I'll try to explain my reasoning behind each design feature as best as I can.

As for the problem of the parachutes deploying right as you press the action group. The abort button is used as a method of last resort for the Pavo. It can land very well without pressing the Abort button but instead activating the craft's parachutes; there should really be no reason to press this unless you are a meter from death. If you are a meter from death, you don't want to spend a lot of time pressing multiple action groups. Besides, the Separatron causes the capsule to move fast enough that the velocity of the capsule never drops to zero. I was worried about this too but I have tested the abort system extensively and never killed a Kerbal or made a parachute disappear prematurely.

Well, my comment on the parachute was due to that happening to me on my first test of the Pavo abort system.

One more issue, with the choice of landing gear, it may have been better to start on the wheels, might not be as clean a lift-off but I have noticed with the Pavo and PDCWolfs Rocket Powered VTOL 2 that the landing legs tend to clip through the terrain on load and can cause the craft to flip, It can be avoided by throttling up slowly.

Still the Pavo gets a top 5 vote from me.

[Xeldrak]

whose winning the vote right now anyway?

Noone knows - you can only look up the results once the poll is closed.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Five more craft:

MiniMatt - Snack Wagon VTOL: This is a small, fun VTOL to fly, but I am not sure what the science stuff is for. Flight time is not enough to get anywhere except KSC, so what is the point of Science^TM?

PDCWolf - Rocket-Power VTOL 2: I cannot say I like this one; it is too sluggish even with RCS.

Ravenchant - PackMule: Nice, the choice of wheels is confusing and abort system does not work while on the ground, but otherwise maneuverable and overall good.

SaplingPick - LV-I VTOL: Turtles! Or Frogs! Or something... It flies well, and looks better. I like this one.

Spartwo - Tern: I want to like this one. It looks great and has weapons, but it only flies forward and has a tendency to RUD upon landing.

[Giggleplex777]

Giggleplex777 - Damselfly: This is amazing. The only thing I don't really like is the lack of action group for the jet; that makes the craft slightly harder to control.

The jet engine is toggled by action group 1. If it doesn't work, you should redownload the .craft file.

[DisarmingBaton5]

The final few crafts:

Tarmenius - Bullfrog: This is a very nice entry. Balanced, lots of torque, acceptable flight time. Again: Why the wheels?

ThePsuedoMonkey - Omega 16: Vertical navball, no horizontal option; this is more lander than VTOL. Also slightly too sluggish for my taste.

UpsilonAerospace - Pavo VTOL: A bit heavy and too compact; not sure it is great for this challenge. Otherwise a good VTOL.

Rhomphaia - H.A.L.O: This is fun to fly. Almost too twitchy even. I am not sure it entirely fits the parameters of a BSC challenge due to part clipping and cubic octagonal strut clipping, but a fantastic VTOL nonetheless.