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

[Tarmenius]

1- The Bullfrog. It is my 1st choice because it is very simple and manouverable, but it also shows a potential use of the engines it used (we downgrade them so much i forgot their name). it was easy to fly and had a great air time!

Thanks for the kind review! For potential stock craft, those are (in my view) the most important factors.

My testing notes:

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

Thanks for the positive critique. Note that Action Group 1 toggles the torque on all three rearward Inline Advanced Stabilizers.

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

Thanks for the compliments! I chose wheels over landing struts to allow pilots to land either vertically or horizontally. If the brakes are set before touchdown, they tend to act like landing struts anyway, so there's very little downside as I see it.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Tarmenius

[DisarmingBaton5]

Thanks for the compliments! I chose wheels over landing struts to allow pilots to land either vertically or horizontally. If the brakes are set before touchdown, they tend to act like landing struts anyway, so there's very little downside as I see it.

Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering why so many people were using the wheels.

[briansun1]

i'll get the last few up tomorrow and then decide though I think I have my 1st and second place down

[ihtoit]

Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering why so many people were using the wheels.

I'm not doing this challenge, but I thought I'd chime in with this: I hardly ever use landing struts anymore, I prefer wheels for the simple reason that I can't do vertical descents to save my life; it's easier to simply point the nose at the sky, roll to prograde and meet the ground running, as t'were.

[Tarmenius]

Tarmenius - Bullfrog

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

Thanks! I wasn't sure what to do with the Action Groups, to be quite honest. I usually have set keys for set functions (10 is always solar panels, 9 is always ladders, etc), but I didn't want to assign the groups for this craft according to my own conventions since I wasn't building it for myself. Do you (or anyone else) have a suggestion for a more intuitive order? For future reference of course, since voting has already started.

... it's easier to simply point the nose at the sky, roll to prograde and meet the ground running, as t'were.

When piloting VTOLs on Kerbin, I also find it much easier to simply "meet the ground running" as you put it. That's the major reason for me choosing wheeled landing gear over struts, though most of my other VTOL designs (those not suitable for this challenge) have both... for convenience and aesthetics.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Tarmenius

[MiniMatt]

I don't get what the science stuff is for

but I am not sure what the science stuff is for... ...what is the point of Science^TM?

Could lose the science parts

Sacrilege! Burn the witches! BUUUUURRN THEM!!!

Ahem.

Ok, moving on. So like, it would appear, most people I quite enjoyed Giggleplex's Damselfly. But being a small and bitter man fuelled by petty jealousy I criticised the aesthetic finding it a teensy bit strut heavy. So, faced with a spot of insomnia I rebuilt it as the Mayfly:

Cockpit now affixes to central fuel tank via radial attachment point rather than strut staples; strut stapling also forgone for the outboard tanks in favour of small hardpoints. Landing gear structure is now

(i-beams) rather than panels and tail section uses girder adaptor rather than regular girder for smoother fix to SAS units (of which I use just one, personal preference) rather than more strutting. Probe core for vertical navball orientation now under air intake so as to be in line with thrust/mass.

Craft file, should anyone be curious, is here. Action groups I think the same as Giggleplex's original, ie. 1 toggles jets, 2 toggles rockets. Mass slightly different and I haven't tuned jet thrust so throttle positions will be a little different to the original but largely flys exactly the same. Oh the abort group is a whole craft recovery rather than pod ejection, purely for simplicity as I forgot about it at first (again). Oh, and rather important, root part is currently the central fuel tank rather than the cockpit (as that's the only way I could get cockpit to mount to central tank via clean lines of a radial attachment point.

[briansun1]

Thanks! I wasn't sure what to do with the Action Groups, to be quite honest. I usually have set keys for set functions (10 is always solar panels, 9 is always ladders, etc), but I didn't want to assign the groups for this craft according to my own conventions since I wasn't building it for myself. Do you (or anyone else) have a suggestion for a more intuitive order? For future reference of course, since voting has already started.

have the ladders first as they are the most important craft wise and the others second and third...

[BagelRabbit]

Sacrilege! Burn the witches! BUUUUURRN THEM!!!

I had a full load of Science on my rover, the last time I participated in a BSC competition. I really loved it, but everyone else just thought it was extraneous waste. So, for the Pavo, I put on other extraneous waste instead.

[PROTIP: There are two struts that aren't connected to anything, that are right below the forward-most 24-77s. I just realized they were there. They're not doing anything. You might want to remove them. ]

By the way, I was bored in math class, so I created a "official" Pavo VTOL logo. (Look at that crosshatching!)

On the off chance that you want this image, it is at http://imgur.com/RuAVm5Y . I'm also adding it to my original post.

[Spartwo]

but it only flies forward and has a tendency to RUD upon landing.

-That makes no sense whatsoever.

-Did you land on the engine?

[Rhomphaia]

-That makes no sense whatsoever.

-Did you land on the engine?

One thing I have noticed in .23 is that clipping seems less stable than in previous versions. if you land hard enough to damage the forward landing leg, the Tern does have a tendency to explode spectacularly.

[Spartwo]

I'll check that out,if it isn't fixed by .24 I'll decommission it.

[MiniMatt]

I had a full load of Science on my rover, the last time I participated in a BSC competition. I really loved it, but everyone else just thought it was extraneous waste.

Meh, Luddites

By the way, I was bored in math class, so I created a "official" Pavo VTOL logo. (Look at that crosshatching!)

At the risk of sounding like your Dad: Good God man! Stop doodling and start paying attention in math class! It's the only way you'll get to play with real rockets in a few years Unless you're also doing log tables in art class - in which case *shrug* carry on

[briansun1]

UpsilonAerospace - Pavo VTOL

highish part count. discription. action groups. escape system that has the parachute deploy with it. RCS. flys well. delta V a bit low. not very stock but I like it

Xeldrak - CRPLTV

description. action groups. escape system where the parachute placement on the staging makes sense. flys well. more lander then Vtol. rcs again?

Rhomphaia - H.A.L.O.

low part count. action groups. description.flys well good TWR.(I like it)

ok I going to go vote now

[briansun1]

my voting order

I'll explain if anyone wants

[HazelPine]

brianshun, could you explain how you scored mine out of curiosity (what you liked/hated)? I don't know how I made it to your number 7... I thought I would be like the 10th for everyone! I really like how people like my design, nut I must agree: it does have a highish part count, but It worked for my laptop so I though i would be ok. Now, Time for my voting!

UPDATE: I voted!

I voted in categories, because there were some ships that were powered in jets and some hat were rocket powered. I rated them in the categories that a couple fitted in and ordered the categories in the way I saw was fit. This is what I came up with:

Ask me anything concerning your entry if you have questions, like the guy above me!

Edited February 14, 2014 by SaplingPick
VOTED!

[briansun1]

well I put all of the ones that were more lander then Vtol at 10th and the ones that to me weren't very stock like.(Tern, LLTV,Morpheus) and the KFO had too high of a part count. the snake wagon vtol had some extra science stuff which is not need and didn't fly as well

[Rhomphaia]

brianshun, could you explain how you scored mine out of curiosity (what you liked/hated)? I don't know how I made it to your number 7... I thought I would be like the 10th for everyone! I really like how people like my design, nut I must agree: it does have a highish part count, but It worked for my laptop so I though i would be ok. Now, Time for my voting!

I also ranked yours #7, would have been higher with a description.

I wasn't a huge fan of the looks, but the part count was not an issue for me.

I did some vertical drop tests from launch clamps to asses sturdiness, the LeapFrog was one of three that survived a fall from the height of the SPH ceiling (27m/s on impact), landing legs broke but they are repairable.

[HazelPine]

Ahh, ok! interesting testing system you have there guys! tnx for answering so fast!

[briansun1]

Ahh, ok! interesting testing system you have there guys! tnx for answering so fast!

oh and my testing methodology was just flying around in it for a minute or 2 and try to land it at the end

[Spartwo]

Yep RUD upon a landing fast enough to break any legs,Don't vote for it.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Xeldrak, when exactly does voting end? I'd like to get in as much testing as possible to refine my vote.

[Xeldrak]

The poll will close

11:23 am CST | Sunday, February 16, 2014 (UTC−6:00)

Righ now that is about 1day, 6hours in the future. I have to close the poll by hand, so it might be open up to a few hours after the aforementioned point in time.

[Andrew Hansen]

Well, I'll quickly say that I really appreciate it when people show who they voted for and why, or do craft reviews. That's the best part of the BSC challenges, in my opinion. I've done some more testing on the Wernhermobile, looking for ways to improve it - especially the slight COM shifting that some people have pointed out. Even though the COM shifting is easily compensated for by the reaction wheels, it would obviously be nicer to eliminate it somehow.

At the end of the competition, I may or may not post a better version of my craft depending on whether or not I can get that COM shifting removed.

Speaking of which... sploden commented on my craft, saying,

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.

Would you mind elaborating on what you meant? I couldn't quite get the whole meaning of the sentence.

Thanks to everyone who voted for me, by the way!

ADVERTISEMENT:

Sometime in the next few days I'll be posting a video of a stock VTOL Duna SSTO (takes off and lands like an airplane) that I made, so if you liked my Wernhermobile video, you may consider checking that out. This challenge has kind of put me in the "VTOL" spirit!

Edited February 14, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[Tarmenius]

So, I spent a good two-and-a-half hours briefly testing each craft and making notes about my impressions. Before I list those notes, I'd like to comment that all the crafts were interesting and each had their own merits and unique characteristics that made them fun to play with. It was very cool to see the variety of design styles derived from a single (though somewhat vague) purpose.

I would also like to lay out my own criteria for determining a craft's worthiness to shed some context on why certain craft received certain overall ratings. First and foremost, as we are attempting to replace the Rocket-Powered VTOL, I significantly penalized craft that did not use rockets for their primary propulsion. This resulted in otherwise Good designs being ranked Poor. I'd like to stress that without that criteria, many of the crafts here would be Good or Excellent.

Secondly, as these craft are meant to be potential Stock craft, ease-of-use and simplicity-of-design are also key. I considered how easily a relatively new player could visually dissect the design (without taking it apart) before reverse-engineering it through disassembly. Thus, crafts with much part-clipping or advanced construction techniques were also penalized to some degree.

Those two considerations really drove my analysis of each craft, with some importance also placed on the standard criteria (maneuverability, flight range, Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, etc). So, having said all that, you will find my notes below. The template is NameofCraft (Author): Overall Rating (Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor / Terrible) followed by 4 main observations.

Wenhermobile (Andrew Hansen): Fair

- Four different flight modes may be daunting to new pilots, particularly when analyzing AG tab

+ Clever placement of jet engine and good overall design

- Jet and Jet/Rocket modes underpowered

+ Rocket-only mode handles well and has sufficient power

Rocket VTOL (briansun1): Poor (only because of non-rocket propulsion)

+ Interesting design aesthetic (Nice use of radial hardpoint instead of clipping!)

- Non-rocket propulsion

+ Good balance of torque

- Side fuel tanks don't drain

VTOL Ostrich (DisarmingBaton5): Poor (only because of non-rocket propulsion)

+ Great-looking

- Non-rocket propulsion

- No description, Action Groups, or emergency safety system

+ Nible, responsive handling

Damselfly (Giggleplex777): Fair/Poor (great design, but jet is primary engine)

+ Awesome-looking (near-future-looking greatness)

- Rocket or Jet propulsion, limited rocket-only range (jet is primary engine)

+ Very agile

+ No other noticable flaws

Morpheus (Kashua): Poor

+ Interesting engine configuration (forward flight by engine rather than pitch) and overall design

- Underpowered vertical flight (barely gets off the ground)

- Too little torque

- Necessary transfer to command seat is cumbersome and may confuse new pilots.

LLTV_The flying bedstead (Majorjim): Poor (Non-rocket propulsion and complex design)

+ Awesome homage to Lunar Lander test

- Non-rocket propulsion

- Complex design may be difficult for new pilots to reverse-engineer

+ Cool factor

Kerbol Flying Object (mhoram): Terrible (part-count)

+ Neat UFO design

- Restrictive part-count

- No description or use of Action Groups

- Complex design may be difficult for new pilots to reverse-engineer

Snack Wagon VTOL (MiniMatt): Excellent

+ Great design aesthetic (Nice use of radial hardpoint instead of clipping!)

+ Good description/tips (Note: Cannot re-activate engines after abort)

+ Use of pre-set thrust limiting gives good flight time while retaining lifting power

+ Responsive and agile: great to fly

Rocket-powerVTOL2 (PDCWolf): Poor (Power / Torque)

+ Good-looking extension of original design

- Abort doesn't detach side tanks

- Underpowered (barely gets off the ground)

- Too little torque (even with RCS)

VTOL Training Or Learning (Psycix): Fair

+/- Simple design is easy to use, but teaches new pilots little

- No description or use of Action Groups (though simple design doesn't need AG)

+ Responsive with plenty of power

- Limted flight range

PackMule (Ravenchant): Excellent

+ Nice, compact design

+ Plenty of power and torque

+ Good flight range

+ Can't think of anything negative to comment on

LeapFrog LV-I VTOL (SaplingPick): Fair/Poor

+ Flying turtle!

+ Good power and torque

- Hidden structure makes reverse-engineering difficult

- Limited flight range

Tern (SparTwo): Poor (Non-rocket propulsion and complex design)

+ Coolest-looking

- No description

- Non-rocket propulsion

+ Responsive and agile: great to fly

VTOLPV7_1 Rocket Chair (sploden): Fair

+ Otherwise simple design (except for transfer to Seat and ejection system)

+ Plenty of power and sufficient torque

- Command Seat makes NavBall hard to use (new pilots might not know how to switch control)

- Aside from Eject System, basic design teaches new pilots little

Omega 16 (ThePsuedoMonkey): Good

+ Interesting design layout

+ Plenty of power

+ Good flight range

- Great pitch authority, poor yaw and roll authority (even with RCS)

Pavo VTOL (UpsilonAerospace): Good

+ Beautiful design

+/- Average flight range (good for a couple minutes of fun)

+ Stable design with sufficient torque (with or without RCS)

- Abort System seems dangerous (though fun!)

CRPLTV (Xeldrak): Fair

+/- Simple design is easy to use, but teaches new pilots little

+ Great use of girder segment for RCS control authority

+ Plenty of power and maneuverability

+/- Average flight time

H_A_L_O (Romphaia): Poor (only because of non-rocket propulsion, would be "Good" otherwise)

+ Very creative design

- Non-rocket propulsion

+ Very responsive and agile

+ No other noticeable flaws

Again, I just want to stress that even craft marked "Poor" were fun to play with and would likely receive Good or better were it not for my Rocket-Powered focus. I had fun testing all of these designs, and each one would be a welcome addition to my Hangar.

[briansun1]

Damn I knew there was something I forgot...