BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[breakthrough]

Project A4C - Near-perfectly balanced RCS thrusters, and a nice 900 ÃŽâ€v in LKO. The clipped Turbojet/RAPIER engine is interesting, but makes it difficult to manage how they perform, especially given the use of only two ram intakes. Uses a standard docking port, but puts it in an odd location (which looks quite ugly if I may be brutally honest), with no illumination except from landing gears. Rear landing gear could probably be moved forward a bit too.

I really wanted strong cross range capability which required the very large vertical surfaces so that yawing would actually change heading instead of just side-slipping. The large vertical surfaces meant the inline docking port wasn't really practical anymore, and while it could have been a Clamp-o-tron Jr the normal size moved the CoM into a better position.

When building then engine assembly, I was thinking since the Aeris 4A was much more capable than the other stock aircraft it would be a good time to introduce a harder building technique. The craft needed more monoprop storage and stacking the engines on the centerline means there is no reason not to ride air-breathing mode all the way to flameout.

Testing had shown that jet engines don't dump fuel when left activated so I just left it on and the intakes open at all times. I was originally hoping I could build it so it would just fly the entire mission without action groups on automatic mode switching but the RAPIER will not switch back to air-breathing mode no matter how much intake air is available. As I wrote in the craft description, you command the RAPIER to mode switch and the Turbojet starts back up. By the time the jet flames out a second time you're (or at least I was in my testing) basically in space so the intake drag doesn't matter at all.

As for it being ugly, that's just my playstyle that values going to space today (and absolute minimum part count for my old computer) over looking pretty.

[Cruzan]

I'm going to make a video about my testing process. Are there any volunteers to have their design featured in the video? The bonus would be you'd get to hear a more detailed rundown on how and why I scored your design the way I did!

If I don't have any volunteers by tomorrow morning I'll just use the Bolt or create one specifically for the video.

[aarno]

I think you already did mine in the pdf but you can give mine a shot if you want.

[breakthrough]

@Cruzan Go ahead and tear into into Project A4C for being ugly, and clustering the engines by using the nodes on the monoprop tank instead of massless cubic struts like a normal person, and for not giving into OCD and eliminating yaw/roll coupling entirely. I won't be offended.

[Mesklin]

I do not see big problem with your own craft (maybe it is only for me). I designed formal raiting system that more based on objective characteristics of crafts and use it to all crafts (with several exceptions for too complex and unfinished crafts). Tests are almost finished, only 9 crafts left.

[Silverchain]

instead of massless cubic struts like a normal person

I believe every entry uses massless landing gear and all of them rely on it as an integral part of their function (even the VTOLs and mine still land on the gear) - the absence of mass on heavy landing gear is greatly more important than the absence of mass on tiny struts.

[HazelPine]

@Cruzan: I would really like you to review mine, because i haven't really seen any rating explaining the score for mine yet. And I think people might learn something from my craft.

[Mareczex333]

IAre there any volunteers to have their design featured in the video?

If you don't mind, then you can use my Shade. Everyone will benefit from this review, because my Shade is pretty weak, so you can criticize is as much as you can and tell good things about other crafts ;d

[mhoram]

Are there any volunteers to have their design featured in the video?

Feel free to test my Airial Mk 2.

[Mesklin]

My results after testing (ranged), more is better (all details see in this Excel table):

If you have any questions, suggestions and so on, please send it to me by PM, not in this thread. And I am sorry for my english, it is not my native language.

1100 Kaeris I v2 (kasuha)

960 Peregrino (wari)

920 R-2 (Giggleplex)

920 Spike (mesklin)

900 KR100 Kodachi v2 (Blaster)

900 Wholfine Hybrid (oo0Filthy0oo)

880 Aeris 4a Improved 08 (sploden)

880 Mallard SSTO (minimatt)

860 Shade (mareczex333)

860 Spearhead (Spartwo)

840 Ceremonial Go (Silverchain)

820 Aeris-4A-11 (barrenwaste)

820 Icarus I (prophecy)

820 Phoenixhammer Mk1-R (rhomphaia)

820 White Dart 0_23 (rune)

800 Airial (mhoram)

800 CR Atalanta (Xeldrak)

800 Gecko_v1-0 (odoc)

800 HOTOL II c 4 (Heagar)

800 Lynx (pauly)

800 Plover v2 (upsilonaerospace)

800 Strela IV (ravenchant)

780 ARX-6E Volley (ssTALONps)

780 Firebee (kenbob)

780 Starlon (andrew hansen)

760 BSC Bolt (Cruzan)

760 kerbos_2a (derpenwolf)

760 Wingspan (NeatCrown)

740 Rapid Mk1 (kisshot)

720 Aeris-Jumbo-Blitz (astecarmyman)

720 SSTO 1 (JABUSCUS)

720 X-901-AR (ABalasz)

680 Auk Ia (capi)

680 Speedy Box (exothermos)

680 UFB T (aarno)

660 Aeris 4A RedoNE v2 (saplingpick)

660 Aeris 4B (mrmcp1)

660 Cormorant (regex)

660 Dubble-V11 (blspblackdeath)

660 Leisure (sirine)

640 Rasvelg (tarmenius)

620 Spacegull 5 (lordfjord)

600 Buffalo (xoknight)

580 Mako II (batz)

560 XV-5V (briansun)

400 Xeno (woopert)

180 Aereon 4B (pds314)

-80 X-1 Gremlin (fallingintoblack)

-100 Dionysus (ThePseudoMonkey)

-100 Project A4C (breakthrough)

-100 Reacher (1revenger1) (not complete)

-100 spaceplane (tigik) (not stock)

-100 Y Wing (BlazeFallow)

[Rune]

Well Mesklin, I've looked a bit at your grading system, and I can already tell it's weighted heavily on delta-v performance. Mostly because Kashua's comes on top, and that one is a beast with the nuke engine in that regard (and aerodynamics, it stands out in my mind for that too, and after so many entries graded that's no small feat). Now the obviously biased question: Are you sure that's a good thing, considering other entries with perfect scores in all other aspects end up much lower on the chart? Not that mine is one of those...

Rune. Of course, don't take me too seriously, and vote just the way you want to!

[capi3101]

I think I'll vote for mine on top. It looks like it could use the help...

No, seriously - I'll abstain from the first round of voting. I've enjoyed the competition so far.

[Mesklin]

Rune, maybe I overweighted this bonus from craft's dV (maybe because I tested kasuha's craft almost at the end), but for me, dV is very important thing for SSTO in this challenge, it is common using crafts, not dedicated for one task, when you can optimize your dV. And if you have good portion dV on orbit it is always good, especially for newbie. And I do not make big attention for craft's aerodynamic, because almost all crafts in this challenge can not fly in reality with current level of real technologies for many reasons. For me, if craft fly good - it is good craft.

[oo0Filthy0oo]

I'm going to make a video about my testing process. Are there any volunteers to have their design featured in the video? The bonus would be you'd get to hear a more detailed rundown on how and why I scored your design the way I did!

If I don't have any volunteers by tomorrow morning I'll just use the Bolt or create one specifically for the video.

If there is still room The Wholphin volunteers!

[BagelRabbit]

Mesklin,

I see that I actually scored pretty well according to your data! The real punishing factor was my SSTO's limited Delta-V once it was in orbit. Personally, I think that the challenge calls for a beginner's SSTO, which in my opinion means one that can fly very well and is easy to control.

I keep seeing Kashua's SSTO on the top of the list. Personally, I wouldn't get the whole 'flip the craft around' thing the first time around, and I don't know whether beginners would manage to fly the plane (other than that, it's good). Congratulations to Kashua for creating a long-range SSTO, a feat which I am utterly incapable of accomplishing.

This is shaping up to be an interesting competition. All ten top entries will likely be very capable craft, and, quite frankly, I'm glad I'm not judging.

Cruzan, I would be more than happy to offer up the the Plover mk2 for your testing video! I want to see what you think about my Plover, and what I can improve on in the future! Thanks.

[Silverchain]

I keep seeing Kashua's SSTO on the top of the list. Personally, I wouldn't get the whole 'flip the craft around' thing the first time around, and I don't know whether beginners would manage to fly the plane (other than that, it's good). Congratulations to Kashua for creating a long-range SSTO

I agree. There's a lot of generally good craft entered but not so many good Aeris 4A replacements.

Personally I wasn't inclined to weight on-orbit delta-v too highly, but the stock Aeris 4A has quite a lot (well, more than many entries) so any replacement should too.

It's a very difficult thing to measure precisely, though, because getting a plane to orbit optimally is an art, and doing it reliably for fifty planes, well... it's not going to happen.

And there's not really any way to get around it; you can't tell how much fuel a plane uses getting to orbit without flying it there.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Silverchain

[Heagar]

My results after testing (ranged), more is better (all details see in this Excel table):

..snip

Next time offer an exel-spreadsheet without makros, please. Because with that i will not download it.

For your information: In Makros an programming-language is used called VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) with a runtime.exe. You can write Worms, Trojans and so on or format the Hard-disk, if you want.

[Blaster]

KermaJet did modify an Aeris 4a in an attempt to improve the vehicle. The result was the A4M Type 120, which used the same engine layout as the KJ120, the first KermaJet. The wings were rebalanced, and most notably, the canards were removed. Ever since the Ravenspear project, KermaJet no longer uses frontal canards on any aircraft due to inherent instability. The A4M Type 120 performed well compared to the original, but the engineers felt the vehicle was excessive in size for its capabilities. A complex wing system and high parts count makes it a costly vehicle to maintain, and an unweildy flier.

[Rune]

I agree. There's a lot of generally good craft entered but not so many good Aeris 4A replacements.

Personally I wasn't inclined to weight on-orbit delta-v too highly, but the stock Aeris 4A has quite a lot (well, more than many entries) so any replacement should too.

It's a very difficult thing to measure precisely, though, because getting a plane to orbit optimally is an art, and doing it reliably for fifty planes, well... it's not going to happen.

And there's not really any way to get around it; you can't tell how much fuel a plane uses getting to orbit without flying it there.

Hum. Well, I am mostly 100% with you. Unless you have actually built so many SSTO's you have tried pretty much every powerplant combo used in these entries already, and can actually eyeball airbreather cutoff speed and delta-v on the hangar (I admit kerbal engineer redux also helps). The last one I built and tested got the working name of SSTO Mk XXIX, and that doesn't count either the ones with mods or the family versions... I told you guys this challenge was my thing

BTW, my White Dart at least is deceptive on that (delta-v): with good throttle control, you can get cutoff speeds over 1800m/s and save a good percentage of total delta-v to get to orbit. That is also why it has excess liquid fuel, not only to guarantee you can fly back to KSC after reentering (crossrange!), but also to experiment with how high and fast you can go before you run out of air. Then again, as long as you have a healthy margin, yeah, I also don't weight delta-v heavily on my grading system, which in fact I think is heavily influenced by aerodynamic handling when full and with the engines out. Mostly, because everyone can put a lot of intakes and a high airbreather T/W, and get awesome performance with nukes and low rocket T/W. No fun in that, and no learning experience, you might as well build a rocket-like VTOL (more than a fair share of verticlimbers out there!). The hard part is to balance everything in the craft, using as few engines as necessary to do the job, and still getting a good mass ratio out of it.

Now do that in a simple and eye-pleasing way, throw in fidelity to what I think is the spirit of the Aeris 4A (single seater to fool around in low-to-medium kerbin orbits and learn how air can be your friend getting to space), and you definitely get my attention.

Rune. BTW, does anyone else get a lot of broken action groups in the posted save?

[breakthrough]

I have been seeing large numbers of broken action groups. I've decided to round in the player's favor and forgive pretty much any flaw that can be fixed just by assigning action groups. Especially if its things like all the intakes on one side not responding to action groups.

[Mesklin]

Rune. BTW, does anyone else get a lot of broken action groups in the posted save?

One time yes, second time no. When I started test porecess I found a lot of broken actions groups, but after reload game miracle happened, all links were restored.

[LordFjord]

One time yes, second time no. When I started test porecess I found a lot of broken actions groups, but after reload game miracle happened, all links were restored.

Had this on maybe 2 or 3 planes.

Good to know, I thought it was some oversight by some builders (maybe due to last-minute changes). Restarting the game did not change it. I'll ignore missing action groups and pretend they're there. I'm using the savefile that is linked in the 1st post.

I hope to finish the 1st round of testing tonight.

[Mareczex333]

I had almost in every craft broken action groups. Ladders, lights, intakes were working, just engines weren't so I had use "SPACE" and i noticed, that "SPACE" toggles ladders in 2 crafts ;d

[ssTALONps]

I had almost in every craft broken action groups. Ladders, lights, intakes were working, just engines weren't so I had use "SPACE" and i noticed, that "SPACE" toggles ladders in 2 crafts ;d

I believe it's caused by Module Manager. That's why I'm not using Hot Rockets, etc.

[Silverchain]

I don't use Module Manager - I have only one mod installed, the Mk2 Cockpit IVA, which I manually set up specifically to avoid having to install Module Manager - and I've seen a lot of problems with action groups on the craft. I haven't seen any instances where a not-working action group randomly starts working after a program restart. I'd thought that the problem was caused by the bug/feature that group actions for parts that are attached with bilateral symmetry in the SPH don't survive properly when the root part is moved (which is 100% reproducible on my machine) but it sounds like there's more to it than only that one.