BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[briansun1]

(Trainer SSTO)TSSTO XV-5V

craft file

To Fly: WIP

[Rune]

SSTOs should be BIG.

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

Size matters not... Can't wait to try that!

[LordFjord]

This is what I have so far:

Dont worry if you cant spot your plane, there are still many more I want to get together for a pic.

[capi3101]

Glad you were able to get the Auk to work. And fly over to the island runway...first time I tried to do that I botched the approach (what I get for making the attempt at night). Good thing it's got an ejection system; else Jeb might've had a bad day.

Pretty neat group photo, IMHO.

[Prophecy]

I am trying each of the craft now - several fail to load in the SPH.

I get an NullreferenceException whenever one of the following craft files is present:

Aeris 4B.craft (Even if i rename it, please dont name your plane after existing stock craft)

Auk Ia.craft

Buffalo.craft

Icarus I.craft

Leisure.craft

SSTO_1.craft

I am no expert on the craft files so I cant track down the reason for the error. All other can at least be loaded.

If your craft is in the list, please doublecheck it or where you have it hosted - they didnt work for me

I intend to fly each of them to the island runway and park them for a group-shot

I downloaded my Icarus I to an other PC and had no problems with loading it in the SPH.

Do you use a Sandbox-Profile for testing?

[BagelRabbit]

Augh! This extension of the challenge means I must create a better SSTO!

I though mine was 'good enough' but had more than its fair share of design flaws. NO! I must push onwards, in the Eternal Quest for Perfection!

To those who have tested my first SSTO, whaddaya think? What must I change?

[LordFjord]

A small hint / general feedback to the SSTO builders: disable breaks on the front gear (and maybe enable steering) I had a couple of accidents on the small island runway due to flipovers. So far almost all had all breaks enabled.

I won't comment on specific ones, it would affect other voters.

Gimme a few days to get all those planes together, then I'll post a savegame, then everyone can just start/crash all the planes from the island.

[Guest]

A small hint / general feedback to the SSTO builders: disable breaks on the front gear.

Breaks are a function of the game applying forces to the part in question, I don't think you can disable them.

Unless... Are you talking about "brakes"? Yeah, that's a good idea.

[Silverchain]

To those who have tested my first SSTO, whaddaya think? What must I change?

According to my scrawled notes (well, ok, it's a spreadsheet) there was a lack of electric charge storage and while the launch was good and the flight characteristics alright I wasn't able to get it to orbit. Attempting to land, the plane went into an impressive flat spin (I looked at it and thought, more or less verbatim, "wow, that's a real flat spin like they talk about!") but I was able to recover it and bring it to a good landing in moderately hilly terrain.

I think there's RCS stored, but no thrusters, or something like that. You could either add thrusters or tweak the stored monoprop out. I noted the good safety features, but a trial of the eject button during a test launch didn't work out too well as while the cockpit separated the chutes on it didn't work properly for some reason. I marked it "some clipping" but it's only aesthetic, not functional-cheaty, so cool with me.

I marked it in bright highlighted orange meaning "try this one again and make orbit this time."

[HazelPine]

What do people think of my Aeris 4A RedoNE? I want it to be as perfect as whackjobs crazy designs for the challenge!

[Tarmenius]

After five other designs that were almost right, this is the one I kept coming back to. It showcases the new RAPIER engine while still making the pilot worry about asymmetric flame-out. I'm not sure whether it will actually go into a spin if I let it, but it certainly will yaw menacingly. The Rasvelg is capable of reaching a 100 x 100 km orbit, even if the pilot switches modes at only 25,000m and under 1200 m/s. I'm pretty sure in one of my many test flights, I was at as low as 23,000m when I switched over, and I still got to orbit.

On takeoff, it is possible to damage the probe against the runway if you have the nose high enough at any takeoff speed. This is intentional, though easily avoidable. Recommended takeoff speed is anything above 70 m/s, though it can be done (without damaging the probe) as low as 60. It is not terribly maneuverable with a full fuel load, though it's meant to be climbing, so that's less important during the first half of the flight. Still, it can make an immelman turn in under 1500m at full throttle, so that's not too bad, right?

When the Rasvelg is almost empty, it flies as I want it to: it's more responsive, easy to handle and has a good glide slope. I really designed its flight characteristics for what I consider the most important phase of the flight: Landing. Too much lift here and it may be difficult to get it to the runway. Too little and, well, we all know what happens then.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Rasvelg craft file

Action Group 1 toggles the RAPIER engines.

Action Group 2 switches between the RAPIER modes.

Action Group 3 closes and opens the air intakes.

Action Group 4 releases the probe, extending its Communotron and activating its ANT engine.

Action Group 9 toggles the ladder,

Action Group 10 extends the Rasvelg's Communotron.

None of the Action Groups are necessary, as the staging can be used to activate the RAPIERs then release the probe. Intakes don't need to be closed to reach orbit, and the engine is capable of switching modes automatically. But advanced pilots may wish to have a greater level of control, and they certainly can.

All of the important information here can also be found in the Rasvelg's description field.

[BagelRabbit]

Attempting to land, the plane went into an impressive flat spin (I looked at it and thought, more or less verbatim, "wow, that's a real flat spin like they talk about!") but I was able to recover it and bring it to a good landing in moderately hilly terrain.

Yeah, the original Plover goes into spectacular flat spins. That's one of the things that I really want to change. I almost killed a Kerbal or two when the plane was undergoing one of these, but I've always managed to recover just in time. Regardless, not good for beginners.

Almost done with my new spacecraft design (It's much, much better!).

[Spartwo]

Spearhead

Tail Strikes are almost impossible,as is spinning out unless you count pointing backwards because you held D for too long.It can also return from Minimus.

-2 crew.

-105 RCS.

-2.2km space d/v.

-2.8 intake.

-Jr and Sr docking ports.

-21 tons

-80 parts

Daytrip to Minmus(which is pretty impressive due to the limited nature of RAPIERs)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

For those who remove points for Pseudo-clipping,I'd like you to keep in mind the version below which has no clipping whatsoever and performs the same.But it looks pretty bad.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Spartwo

[KissSh0t]

@Tarmenius

I like the rear docking of yours.. that is cool.

[ssTALONps]

@Xeldrak

I've updated my entry. Please check and revise my entry's name.

Also, to all those already downloaded Volley, you'll have to download updated 'E' version.

[Tarmenius]

I like the rear docking of yours.. that is cool.

Thanks!

When I decided to do a twin RAPIER configuration, I wasn't sure what to do with the central fuselage. I considered adding a tail assembly, but that came with a huge risk of tailstrike on the takeoff roll so I decided against it. I also wanted to have the option of adding a small satellite to give the design some "purpose" beyond simply getting a Kerbal into space, but without sacrificing the IVA view (usually, the docking port and probe would be in front of the inline cockpit). This was the only solution that was simple and effective. I guess that's why I kept coming back to that design; I really like how the craft turned out.

[breakthrough]

At first I tried to make my craft look sexy with hidden landing gears and whatnot. But it didn't work well and my style has always been ugly but practical because usually I just want to go to space today. So I made this.

Project A4C

Statistics

Part Count: 58

Mass: 19.1t

Dry Mass: 9.7t

Takeoff speed: approx 80m/s in less than half the runway

Delta-V: approx 500m/s after LKO

RCS Delta-V: approx 30m/s

Powerplant: 1 Rapier, 1 Turbojet, 2 Ram Air Intakes

Payload: complete suite of science instruments

Action Groups

1 Rapier mode switch

9 toggle ladder

0 active repeatable science instruments

Launch Profile

40 degree climb until intake air at half

20 degree climb until turbojet burnout

switch rapier mode, turbjet restarts

continue 20 degree climb until second turbojet burnout

switch navball to orbit mode

burn prograde until target apoapsis

I wanted to make sure it had some degree of use outside of getting of a single kerbal to orbit. It is in some respects similar to a science jet I made in my career game, but a bit more reliable and less hacked together each time a tech node unlocked.

Album with extra pictures for the interested

Project A4C Craft File, right click and save as

[MiniMatt]

A small hint / general feedback to the SSTO builders: disable breaks on the front gear (and maybe enable steering) I had a couple of accidents on the small island runway due to flipovers. So far almost all had all breaks enabled.

Very good call. Pleased to say the Mallard already had front brakes disabled (although via removing them from the built-in "Brakes" action group rather than via the part toggle, in hindsight latter approach may be better/more visible to the player). Steering I've personally left locked as tend to find small yaw adjustments needed in landing or takeoff can be too savage if front wheel is steering when still in contact with the ground - but yep, very much a personal choice.

Meanwhile, just double checked and found the Mallard can (just) reach the Mun, circularise into a ~50km orbit around it, and still have just enough fuel to return safely to Kerbin:

As always, I'm really loving this BSC challenge. Looking back I can see how they've really improved my designs - almost entirely as a result of learning from other people. As such, things like neutering front brakes, setting up abort groups, simplifying action groups, balancing RCS and building for ease of use around a defined mission criteria have become second nature to me now, something I do with all builds whether BSC related or not. That learning has come directly from these challenges.

I've never been particularly good with planes but the combined experience of this and other BSC challenges has allowed me to produce what is easily *my* best ever space plane, something I'm really enjoying playing around with and incorporating into non-BSC play.

[Rhomphaia]

Made a few changes to the Phoenixhammer, mostly to improve docking systems, with a few areodynamic tweaks.

[LordFjord]

Oh dear just how am I going to handle the updates...

[BagelRabbit]

So very close to finishing my new design. It has a lone jet engine and two little liquid-fuel engines to boost it up into orbit. So far, I'm quite happy with it...

Should I delete my initial substitution page and make a separate one, or should I just transfer the new aircraft over to that page?

Edited March 6, 2014 by UpsilonAerospace

[Xeldrak]

Just edit your original submission - this ways I don't have to change the link

[Silverchain]

Some of the challenge planes (an Airial, Kaeris, Ceremonial and Aeris 4a Improved B) docked in 1000km x 1000km Kerbin orbit.

After flying so many spaceplanes of late, Kerbin's equatorial belt is starting to seem horribly familiar, especially the approach over the desert towards KSC.

I'm not sure where I'm going with my entry at the moment - I'm keen to make my spaceplanes rovers, so that's the direction I've developed the design in.

But it feels like I'm straying from the task of building a better Aeris, and because the rover wheels pose an interesting problem when balancing the vacuum thrust from the 48-7S engines (especially as the wheels are attached to the massless landing gear) it's not as simple as removing them to offer a non-rover model.

A newer model Ceremonial landed on one of those little rocky islands out in the bay. I was pleased with my mad landing skills until I broke a wing off driving over the top of the hill and trashed it.

I'm interested in people's impressions of the Ceremonial's air intakes. There's a lot of them, but they aren't clipped, all have a reasonably unobstructed forward field and all feed into the central fuel tank that the engine is attached to; it's essentially a giant radial intake around the sides of the fuselage. It certainly doesn't need so many, but it makes flying to orbit much easier...

[capi3101]

^^^

Screenies like that one make me wish I'd stuck a docking port on the Ia. Alas that that particular improvement did not arrive until the Auk IV, which I would not classify as a "beginner's" plane. But it's still cool; completed the K-Prize with that one...

But I digress.

[BagelRabbit]

I'll post it in a few hours, after some final parachute tests.

Here's a teaser of (basically) the finished plane: