SSTO/Spaceplane/Airplane Design Contest II: Akademy Awards

[Wanderfound]

My SSTO wasn't entered in that category. I belive it was placed there by mistake.

Gah...

If there are any other errors in the listings, please let me know.

[Pecan]

...Notably:

- SP 40 B: this one was withdrawn as it won't fly in 0.25...

*Sob* so much to do, so little time *Sob*

Confirmed - it's not hard to re-build that to fly but I still don't have the time to post it. The entry's only still there in case someone wants the .craft files.

- Sorry Wanderfound. I hope I'll make it up to you a bit tomorrow with a rather expanded tutorial :-(

[numerobis]

I had been hoping to make it into "best interplanetary science" but (a) I'm late, I don't have time to play this game enough, and ( the category got nixed anyway. Oh well. Still, you motivated me to post it to the exchange.

[davidparks21]

Gah...

If there are any other errors in the listings, please let me know.

There were a few others that looked out of place, enumerated in my post:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1545491&viewfull=1#post1545491

Edit:

Never mind, it looks like you cleaned up that whole category and were referring to other categories!

Thanks!

[INTERKOSMOS]

My vote in category Stock Aero - Best Sporty Pleasure Craft

I wasn't able to download all .craft files. Some links simply expired. So I tested only 4 planes.

Pecan - Bantam - Obsolete design. In 0.25 this craft is incontrolable.

FCISuperGuy - KSV Raven/KSV Swan - Almost the same thing. I was barely able to take off. In flight it was quite hard to control it and keep it's nose up.

Roflcopterkklol - SR-72 White Bird - Very well made plane. It's pretty agile, very stable and easy to flight without SAS. Landing, however, is a bit harder than I used to, but it's not a problem. It had some.... realistic feel, so that's good.

Fenya - Wasp - This one is also not "0.25 ready", but i was able to make it work. At least, i think so. It's kind of wild horse. Very fast, very agile, but hard to control. Fuel balance is major problem in this craft. After a couple of minutes i wasn't able to fly it without stalling.

My vote in this category goes to Roflcopterkklol and his SR-72 White Bird. Well done, sir!

[Alshain]

BTW, can anyone confirm whether or not tweakable wing strength exists in NEAR? If it doesn't, all of the Kerbodyne entries are going to have substantially disturbed weight balance under NEAR.

I can confirm it does not have a tweak-able option on the wings at all. It looks like NEAR and FAR may not be as cross compatible as they used to be. Since I just recently moved to FAR, all of my planes are still built for NEAR.

[Wanderfound]

Trade you; I'll test yours in NEAR if you do mine in FAR.

[Alshain]

Trade you; I'll test yours in NEAR if you do mine in FAR.

Well, I was thinking that if I'm the only one using NEAR, maybe I should just withdraw from the contest. I only have the weekends to play and if I start over, I'm probably not going to finish.

[Rakaydos]

I'm still trying to figure out how to land my own spaceplanes at KSC, so I probably wont be reviewing anyone else anytime soon.

Lost the bottom row of engines on the grasslands, bounced over the runway, threaded between the hanger and mission control, before coming to a stop...

Edited November 17, 2014 by Rakaydos

[davidparks21]

I'm still trying to figure out how to land my own spaceplanes at KSC, so I probably wont be reviewing anyone else anytime soon.

Lost the bottom row of engines on the grasslands, bounced over the runway, threaded between the hanger and mission control, before coming to a stop...

I've had the same problem so many times. Flattening out in the last moments before landing is important. Also making sure that the brakes are disabled on the front landing gear will help significantly with stability, if that's not already done, particularly if the front gear touches down first when you flatten out on landing.

Edited November 17, 2014 by davidparks21

[Wanderfound]

I'm still trying to figure out how to land my own spaceplanes at KSC, so I probably wont be reviewing anyone else anytime soon.

http://i.imgur.com/G0bQFCX.png

Lost the bottom row of engines on the grasslands, bounced over the runway, threaded between the hanger and mission control, before coming to a stop...

Nah, get testing; "how user-friendly is this ship to a novice pilot?" is a legitimate criteria. And if nothing else, it should produce some entertaining screenshots.

And, as usual, see the reentry and landing guide in the Kerbodyne thread. The ​Skua should make a decent landing trainer, BTW; good low-altitude stability, tailstrike proof and not too narrow landing gear.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Wanderfound

[kcs123]

Review thread. - It will take a while until I prepare all galeries from test flight, so I will update this thread as soon as I can. I will just listed tested planes for now. Spoler sections are updated with notes taken on test flights and picture galleries

In test flight I have tried to do at least take off, turning back to runway, making some basic turns, aproach to runway, how well I can align plane to runway without issues, land and breaking on the ground - breaking stability. After that I have tried to reach orbit, stability in trasition to supersonic speeds, stability at high altitude and establishing stable orbit. For some planes I was tested reentry and landing from orbit - I'm not good with this, so I will not put that one in consideration when comes to judgment.

For finall criteria, I will try to put in consideration that not all people use B9 mod that nerfs jet engines, so their plane will perform better if I remove B9. Also when comes to NEAR, I will try to put in consideration that planes have better performance with NEAR when they were designed in that enviroment.

If you are not sure what I was talking about, you may want to read "Building steps with FAR graphs info" spoiler section in my entry post. I wrote some additional info in reply to Rakaydos questions that you may found usefull.

I have big expectations from those. With big expectations you end with big disappointments.

Not everything is so bad as sounds and what you can conclude from provided images. This fleet offers a good variety of stock part arrangements for various purposes. Enybody can learn something from it. Most of planes are good looking too.

But here comes things what I didn't like. I put all planes in same category because all those planes are designed in similar way. Each craft is designed to be highly maneuverable with neutral pitching moment placed at zero AoA.

With that design you gain very little from wings lift.

Most of times it will be used only as control surfaces to put planes nose in desired direction and let engines thrust do all lifting jobs. Because of this you don't want to have many wings and for those that you have you want to have less weight as possible and when they don't produce any lift, you want from them to produce least amount of drag as possible. So, it is understandable to reduce weight/strength ratio to make them weight less as possible. Unfortunately other control surfaces are too sensitive, allowing novice pilots to sway nose too much from prograde vector. When you do that due to fragile design you will destroy plane if you are not carefull all times.

Only few crafts comes with flaps/spoilers that could be used to slow down plane prior landing and those are not so effective. Meaning you will need to perform various maneuvers to slow down, like S-turns, pitching/diving and you can often destroy plane when you try to do that. It is possible to touchdown plane even with higher speeds, most of planes are stable on ground, but it is hard to stop them on ground..

Those planes still can be good for veteran pilots, and oversensitive control surfaces could be controled better with joystick. But if you don't have any analog controlers and you are novice pilot that always forget plane limits in terms of speed, altitude and safe AoA/roll/side angle you will find those aircrafts difficult to fly.

When I said that I'm not good pilot, I mean I know in theory how plane should be controled, what you need to do if you want to slow down plane, for example. But I often fail to execute that theory in practice. Beginners with FAR mod will probably find Kerbodyne fleet difficult to use, so I cant recommand any of this to novices. However, veterans could find more value in this fleet.

Test results:

Kerbodyne Scapa - review galery - First plane from Kerbodyne fleet that wasn't ripped apart in flight.

Slightly unstable on low speeds and higher altitudes. Highly maneuverable, easy to steer off from prograde vector and when you do that more then 15 degree, plane falls in unrecoverable spin.

Without airbrakes it is not easy to slow down before touchdown on runway and hard to brake once it touch it, but at least is stable on ground.

Kerbodyne Wedgetail XXV - review galery - Fragile, require gentle handling. Takoff easy, stable enough on runway aproach, hard to stop on ground.

Could use more batteries, or power generator for finall push to orbit. Light unstability on high altitudes.

Kerbodyne Whirlwind - review galery - All is in engine power - hard to safely control.

I was unabe to make simple moves, turn to runway and land. Plane is to fragile for extensive TWR.

Too sensitive controls makes SAS to wooble too much. It is hard to have pleasure with this craft when you need to carefully plan your stunt moves to stay in one piece.

Kerbodyne Alphatek - review galery - Light unstability on high altitudes and/or low speeds. Could use more vertical surfaces on tail or small wingtips to improve stability.

Too fragile wings require gentle handling. Plane easy accelerate, oversensitive controls often push craft in undesired state that rips off wings. Couldn't test landing properly with this one.

No AG assigned for engine toggling, either rockets and jets. Could be some bug in inport/export craft, I will not put that in consideration for finall grade, just puting a note for this.

Kerbodyne Atlas - review galery - Slightly unstable at high altitudes, like other Kerbodyne fleet aircrafts require gentle handling.

Need a lot of space for landing once it touch ground. Not easy to stop this craft.

Wing surfaces could be damaged from engine exehausts. Jet engine doesn't have separate toggle group.

Lifted FLT- 800, 2 x FLT- 400 and one FLT- 200 in orbit, doubt that I can lift safely more, despite of engine power.

Kerbodyne Cicada - review galery - Neutral pitching moment in center offers high maneverability, but FAR graph shows some red numbers in high altitudes.

Reach high speed soon, riping off fragile wings. Missing separate action group for engine hidden in cargo bay.

Kerbodyne Dropbear - review galery - Only empty cargo bay loaded with FLT-800 to simulate payload 4.5t. With payload CoM is unbalanced, making VTOL option hard to use.

Fragile and hard to handle plane, difficult to master VTOL capabilities.

Kerbodyne Endeavour - review galery - Cargo bay untouched only B9 info put inside. Fragile and unstable at high altitude, unable to reach orbit properly, probably because of B9 engine nerfing.

Kerbodyne Invasion - review galery - FAR Graph shows some red numbers at high altitudes. Fragile aircraft have to be gently handled, hard to stop even when you touchdown on begining of runway.

Difficult to set proper pitch and speed before finall push to orbit.

Kerbodyne Skua - review galery - FAR graph shows sideslip and pitching unstability at high altitudes. Difficult to gain high speed on finall push to orbit, FLT-400 and FLT-200 used as payload.

Electrical charges depleated before reaching orbit, could have some power genarators onboard, or one rapier replaced with jet engine. Could not figure out purpose of RCS toggling, but that is only pilot fault, not fault of design.

Kerbodyne Tartaglia - review galery - This one suppose to be a bomber. Bomber usually need to be high maneuverable at low altitude and high speeds. Not this plane. It is maneuverable, but when you need to make simple move, you will often destroy airplane due to aerodinamic failures.

Kerbodyne Lancer - review galery - Rocket like design for vertical launching.

Requires optimal ascent path, otherwise you can't establish stable orbit with B9 mod nerfed jets.

Basalisk HUAS-IV - review galery - This plane shows why I have gave up with positive pitching angle on runway. While it makes take off easier, safe landing is much harder. Breaking stability could be improved if plane have two landing gear in front and only one in rear or by dissabling breaks on front landing gear. If you can learn how to land safely, flying will not be problem. Easy to fly and control.

Behemoth HMCS-IV - review galery - Requires high takeoff speed, sideslip and yaw unstability at low speeds, hard to land - tail breaks. Unstable in trasition from subsonic to supersonic with tendency to backflip, hard to control.

CoM and CoL placed to center for high maneuverability, but unfortunetaly because of this it is unstable.

Stability also highly depends on payload and fuel distribution, small weight changes influence a lot on stability. It could lift larger cargo if it is not unstable with heavy payload.

Clever usage of tail part for air intake and engine mount on wings. Good arrange of B9 wing parts that offers high L/D ratio, but unfortunately L/D ratio can't be used enough due to unstabilty.

Incubus HMCS-III - review galery - Sideslip unstable on low speeds.

Need high speed for takeoff, highly responsive on pilot input controls that could sway plane too much too soon from prograde vector that leads to unrecoverable spin.

Have tendency of backfliping, you need to be carefull on finall push to orbit.

C-47 Globemaster IV - review galery - Unusuall placement of struts in cargo bay, but works well as described in entry post.

Neutral pitching moment set in negative AoA area, but with shallow curve that still allows controls.

Unusuall trim controls on tail provide fine tuning and switching neutral pitching moment in positive AoA area.

Nice placment of wing parts, combined together into large delta wing. Have bigger expectation on lifting capabilities, but does job well.

Easy on take off and controlable on landing even with full payload. With provided trim controls it is good at low speeds. Sucessful delivery to orbit 2 orange Rockomax Jumbo 64 LFO tanks.

Could use surface mounted dock port from B9 mod, and more powerfull vernor engines instead of RCS thruster block for orbital tasks. Performed well otherwise.

DC 1.1 E - review galery - Neutral pitching moment set in high negative L/D area. Requires high speed for takeoff and if you pitch down slightly it is hard to recover from that.

High TWR from engines can't save if you are on low altitude and pitching down.

Danagerous to lift even small 3t payload. This is good example how not to build plane.

Small wing surfaces on tail if placed on small angle could put neutral pitching moment in AoA with positive L/D ratio.

In that case, plane could take off on lower speeds and it could be controled without high thrust from engines and engine gimbals.

Manticore_v1.1 - review galery - This one is for some firework entertainment, it will not be used for finall judgment.

Manticore V2 - review galery - FAR version bugs resolved but plane still need some improvments. Sideslip and yaw problems on low speeds/altitudes. Craft need wide radius to turn plane for 180 degree without falling in unrecoverable spin. Large surface area is almost unused because neutral pitching moment is in negative AoA area. Canrads on nose helps to controle negative pitching, but plane doesn't use much of wing surface to help with lifting - check L/D ratio in flight on taken screenshots and compare them with FA-106A Thundergod. B9 mod nerfs jet engines and this is probably reason why I couldn't push this plane to orbit, but with better design (neutral pitching moment in positive AoA area) it will be possible.

To improve design try to put larger vertical surfaces to solve sideslip/yaw problem and you can put either canrads in front or some elevator surfaces on back on slight angle in a way that those surfaces shift neutral pitching moment (point where yelow line cross X axis) in AoA with positive L/D ratio.

O-107 Vireo - review galery - Sideslip unstability on high altitudes and low speeds. Larger vertical surfaces could solve problems.

Neutral pitching moment set in 4-5 AoA area, but cross X axis two times cousing unstability between 4 -6 AoA degree that require oposite pilot reactions to compensate this. Needs carfefull handling on turns, otherwise easy can fall in stalling spin. Considering that this plane was made with NEAR, it performed quite well.

O-109_Shrine - review galery - Small cargo bay does not offer much room for equipment. Pitching moment cross X axis several times on AoA sweep, could couse unstability in flight. Designed for maneuverability, main neutral pitching moment placed in center.

Easy on takoff, but require gentle handling because it wants to backflip if swayed too much from prograde vector.

Spoilers do the job well on slowing down in air, but it is hard to control plane on low speeds, requires aligment long before reaching runway. Most probably behave better with NEAR mod that is more forgiving on pilots mistakes.

O-210 Eagle - review galery - Decent L/D ratio, pitching moment placed close to center, but sligtly in positive AoA L/D area. Flaps moves pitching moment to far in negative AoA, could couse problems with stall.

Sideslip and yaw problems at low speeds and raised nose on one landing gear makes landing difficult. Airbrakes and flaps do jobs good enough on finall aproach. CoM problems, probably FAR related, I have to remove fuel from tail to make plane stable again.

Rockets are not properly aligned, cousing backflip problems in uper part of atmosphere.

More obviously then other planes this design show difference between FAR and NEAR mod. But even with NEAR there is more efficient way for passenger transport.

Unable to complete review due to lack of CPU power. Way too many overcliping wing parts make this plane demanding on CPU. I have tried to take off, seems that plane is designed just to the limits of runway to be able to take off. I was unable to do anything but take off with this plane. I will let other to judge this one.

FA-106A Thundergod - review galery - Performed well in all important tasks. Takeoff easy, controlable on low speeds/altitudes, stable on touchdown.

Have problem in space however. Too much thrust can put plane in backflip spin. Can be solved with lower thrust and RCS to correct course. All in all, pleasant suprise. Too bad it can't lift some payload to orbit, but this plane is not designed for it, so it can't be judged as something negative for this plane.

Edited November 29, 2014 by kcs123

[kcs123]

@Alshain, I don't think that you should withdraw from contest, despite the fact that your planes are made for NEAR, some of them are performed better then planes made with FAR.

[Rakaydos]

After reloading a few times, the Manticore Mk 3 returns from a single stage, mun flyby, minmus flyby for my first runway landing. Didnt have enough DV to test the Mk 3's new minmus-rated (Ike rated, really) VTOL RCS, but the VTOL RCS definately helped with the runway landing.

[Batz_10K]

My vote in category Stock Aero - Best Light Cargo SpacePlane

After a round of testing consisting of these tests:

General observations

- Examine the ship in the SPH, the construction techniques used, and general design

Low altitude handling

- flying around the KSC, and some general manoeuvring. Then out to the Island and land on the runway.

- This is to test general handling. Is it easy to fly? is it possible to spin and crash accidentally? how easy is it to land?

Orbit testing

- Fly into orbit, circularize at 75km, orbit a couple of times, land at KSC (on the runway)

- This is to test the ascent into orbit - does the nose drop at speed or any kind of trim problems

Orbital Rendezvous and docking (if applicable)

- Fly into orbit, dock with station in 100km Orbit

- This is mainly to test the placement of the docking ports, and how balanced the RCS is, and whether there is enough RCS fuel

Cargo Carrying.

- Can it carry 5t into at least a 70km orbit?

The Space Goose and Serpens docked at a station

Detailed testing notes:

General

- Needs updating for 0.25

- No action groups to close intakes (but probably not really required)

- No action groups to shut down turbojet on orbit

- All control surfaces active for all axes. A lot of control surfaces for such a small craft. I guess you can always infiniglide home if you run out of fuel :/

- Lots of clipping

- No ladder?

- No cargo bays? how do I attach cargo? Is this the right category for this craft?

- could remove monoprop from cockpit as there is no RCS fitted.

Low Alt handling

- medium takeoff roll. Risk of tailstrike on takeoff. Tracks straight on the runway, generally easy takeoff

- nice and manouverable, and spin recovery is easy. can get a little squirrely if forward tank is empty.

- Lots of power due to it's small size

- tailstrike risk on landing, but can take heavy landings quite well.

- Braking behaviour is good. (can apply full braking without issues) Front gear not unlocked

Orbit testing

- Nice and stable on climb. No handling issues at high speeds.

- 748ms dV on-orbit (75km)

- Stable when firing rockets on-orbit

Orbital Rendezvous

- Not tested (No docking port, or RCS)

Cargo carrying

- Not tested. No means of carrying cargo.

Modifications I'd like to make...

- It would be interesting to see if it could be made to fit into a cargo bay. Possibly then it could be used as a Laythe lander

General

- Wow. spiky. I think I'm going to accidentally cut myself if I go near it

- No action groups to close intakes. (and there are a lot of them...)

- All control surfaces active for all axes.

- cargo bays open downwards. (well if you need a bomber...)

- missing wing strake (and control surface) on the bottom of the left hand pair of turbojets (looking from the back).

- has a *lot* of monoprop but no docking ports?

- very high part count. noticeable lag

Low Alt Handling

- Medium takeoff roll - tracks straight. nosegear locked.

- nice handling, stable and generally pleasant to fly. flexes a bit during manouvers. Was afraid I might break it by manouvering hard.

- handles well on the approach, easy to line up and land on the runway. No issues with full braking on landing.

- very difficult to manouver on the ground.

Orbit testing

- Nice and stable on climb. slight drag to the left (due to missing strake, I suspect). Need to roll slightly to keep 90 degree heading

- Not an ascent profile I have flown before. Made it into orbit OK

- 1037ms dV On-orbit (77km)

- Not much SAS torque ... *Now* I understand what all the monoprop is for....

Orbital Rendezvous

- Not tested. No docking port.

Cargo Carrying

- Easily made orbit with 5t test cargo

- plenty of fuel left for the return journey.

- Cargo did not have a significant impact on handling. (placed in forward cargo bay)

Modifications I'd like to make...

- remove some of the wing strakes and wings to reduce the part count somewhat. I am not sure if the backwards-facing strakes have any effect

- Add bracing to eliminate the wing flex in the atmosphere.

- maybe add some probe cores or SAS units and remove some of the monoprop.

- add a docking port

General

- Nice looking. I especially like the small details like the angled outer intakes and the way the LVNs are lined up with the jets

- lots of science instruments. Looks like it would be a good Laythe explorer

- Yay! action groups listed in the description

- Control surfaces are set for their correct axes

- I like the probe core so that you can fly it unmanned. Just the thing for rescue missions

- Quite versatile with cargo, science and passengers.

Low Alt

- No take-off roll (VTOL!)

- very nice handling. you can pretty much throw it around like a fighter, it didn't feel like I was going to break it or enter an uncontrollable spin

- well balanced on the lift jets, and plenty of SAS torque to stay stable

- VTOL makes for safe easy landings at the island runway.

- good ground handling, easy to manoeuvre on the ground

Orbit testing

- Wow. difficult to make orbit. requires very exacting flight profile to make orbit. Fortunately enough fuel to run the nukes into orbit for us mortals.

- asymmetrical thrust issues between 28000-38000km. can be difficult to keep a straight ascent

- 1603ms dV on-orbit. (76km)

Orbital Rendezvous and Docking

- Plenty of on-orbit dV for rendezvous

- RCS well balanced and plenty of SAS torque makes for easy docking

Cargo carrying

- Smaller cargo bay than the others, was a bit of a challenge to fit 5t in there

- Was not quite able to balance the CoM over the centre lift jet using ballast tanks, but this had pretty much no effect on the handling apart from a slight nose-down attitude on (vertical) take-off

- Extremely difficult to make orbit with cargo on board. Took a *very* long time - but eventually did make it.

- asymmetric thrust less of an issue with cargo on board.

- was a bit surprised to run out of liquid fuel on the approach to KSC. (moving some from the ballast tanks solved the problem)

Modifications I'd like to make...

- try playing with the intakes/jet engine (removing then adding them in order) to reduce the asymmetric thrust

- replacing the vertical basic jets with rapiers. That way it should be possible to do VTOL landings on any world except Tylo.

Yes, this is my ship. I thought I would subject it to the same testing as the others...

General

- Clean and simple design - the only non-airhogging design in the group

- Fuel lines and struts not concealed

- Lights in the cargo bay

- Action groups in the description

- Control surfaces are set for their correct axes

- Large cargo bay

Low Alt

- Medium takeoff roll. Extreme risk of tailstrike, need to be careful just after takeoff

- Nice handling. A bit less manouverable than the others. Stable, and copes with heavy control inputs, feels like it won't spin

- wanders a bit on approach. need to be careful not to strike the tail when landing. Lands rather hard.

- braking is good, front steering unlocked. ground handling ok

Orbit tests

- Easy ascent into orbit, lack of intakes limits the performance somewhat.

- 972ms dV (72km)

Orbital Rendezvous and Docking

- RAPIERs are fuel-hungry on orbit

- RCS reasonably balanced although pitching also causes translation

- Docking port directly behind cockpit means that care must be taken to avoid hitting the cockpit during docking

- POWER ISSUES! can run out of power during rendezvous on the night side of the planet!

Cargo carrying

- Made orbit with 5t test cargo. 200ms @70-72km

- Need whole runway for takeoff run when loaded

- In this case, a girder was used to ensure that the test cargo was in the proper position

- handling pretty much unaffected

- climb profile was not as steep, and RAPIER switchover ocurred at 1300ms instead of the usual 1500ms

- Made it home after de-orbit. 2 engines switched off to save fuel for the approach into KSC. Not much fuel left

Modifications I'd like to make

- adding an RTG so that you don't run out of power on the dark.

- jacking the rear landing gear up so that there is less risk of tail strikes on takeoff.

Conclusion

The decision was tough, all of the ships here are of a very high standard. However, one stands out. The Titan Hunter mk5 SSTO - it simply is bigger than the others and therefore much easier to get cargo into orbit, combined with stable easy handling, it gets my vote.

[Rakaydos]

Not your usual circularization burn... requires some quick docking.... but...

Payload Nerva for space operation. 2200m/s left after circularization. (2700 if I include reserve fuel, but that'll throw off the balance a bit)

Edited November 18, 2014 by Rakaydos

[Batz_10K]

My vote in the Stock Aero - Best Looking category

Methodology

- Essentially the same as I used for the Light Cargo category

Low alt handling

- flying around the KSC, and some general manouvering. Then out to the Island runway.

Orbit testing

- Fly into orbit, circularize at 75km, orbit a couple of times

Orbital Rendezvous and docking (if applicable)

- Fly into orbit, dock with station in 100km Orbit, return to KSC

Jeremy, Richard and James Kerman discuss the relative merits of their spaceplanes.

General

- A demented airplane designed by an unholy union of M.C Escher and Picasso.

- I wonder if it will fly..

Low Alt handling.

- ...Nope.

- Severe left hand roll on takeoff.

- Extremely unstable when airborne. reducing the fuel load mitigates this somewhat. Doubles flying time to approx 20sec before you crash

Orbit testing

- Not tested

Orbital rendezvous and docking

- Not tested

General

- Needs updating for 0.25

- *lots* of clipping

- Interesting use of I-beams to protect the engines against over-rotation on takeoff

- Control surfaces are correctly set for their axes

- Pretty heavy for a small fighter-type aircraft.

- doesn't carry much fuel

- very short landing gear (clipped inside tanks)

Low Alt handling.

- Medium takeoff run. flies without a high AoA

- Flies brilliantly, stable yet controllable and manouverable

- easy to land, need to be careful on the flare to ensure the landing gear hits first.

- good under brakes, and good ground handling.

Orbit testing

- Not tested (aircraft)

Orbital rendezvous and docking

- Not tested (aircraft)

General

- Looks to be a multipurpose small spaceplane.

- MK1 Lander can looks odd on a spaceplane.

- CoL slightly ahead of CoM... hopefully that's OK

- No action groups in description (need to go look at web page for AGs)

- General old-school design, without extra strakes or control surfaces

- Non airhogging, and a refreshing lack of clipping

- Everything you need, nothing you don't

- Fuel lines nicely placed

- Not sure how to use the landing struts as there doesn't seem to be a matching pair at the top of the aircraft.

Low Alt Handling

- Short takeoff run. flies without high AoA

- Very manouverable, is possible to spin if you are not careful.

- Easy to land. good under brakes, good ground handling.

Orbit testing

- Easy ascent profile. Was able to recover from asymmetric flameout (at 24km) and continue climb to orbit

- Stable at all speeds.

- On-orbit dV is 3344ms (nice!)

Orbital rendezvous and docking

- RCS is well balanced - supplied RCS fuel is plenty for docking.

- There is a risk of damaging/breaking the solar panels as they are reasonably near the docking port

- A handy light is provided for docking in the dark

General

- Interesting design

- No action groups in description

- Quite a bit of clipping.

- Not sure if this is the 0.25 version.

- Control surfaces are set to their proper axes

- A lot of control surfaces for such a small spaceplane

- A lot of antennas and lights

Low Alt Handling

- Very short takeoff run

- Extremely manouverable. twitchy even

- Very easy to spin if you are not careful. can be a handful to recover (I almost crashed it on my first flight)

- A little tricky to land, she wants to fly

- Poor braking performance (front wheel brakes disabled- reasonable considering how far back the front gear is)

- Ground handling good. care needs to be taken not to tip over if turning at speed

Orbit testing

- Very easy to make orbit. nearly hit orbital velocity at 36km - small circularization burn needed (150ms)

- 1439ms dV on-orbit

Orbital Rendezvous and docking

- No issues. Well balanced RCS. The docking light is a nice touch

Wasp

- Tested previously

Serpens

- Tested previously

Space Goose

- Tested previously

Sleazy Weasel 7E

- Not tested due to B9 parts.

I had to quickly build an extension to the station as I don't use Jr docking ports...

Conclusion

- Another close one. This time the vote goes to the Space Goose

[CocoDaPuf]

I've gotta say, "hats off" to you Batz for some high quality testing posts. I'm sure everyone is appreciating the feedback. I feel foolish now, as while I did do some extensive testing, I didn't think to take screenshots or jot down immediate reactions while I was doing it.

ps. I Thought using rapier engines for VTOL on the Space Goose was a pretty brilliant idea. So I tried it, and unfortunately they just won't fit in a mk 2 cargo hold, that would've been really cool though.

[Wanderfound]

Kerbodyne Scapa - review galery

Kerbodyne Wedgetail XXV - review galery

Kerbodyne Whirlwind - review galery

Kerbodyne Alphatek - review galery

Kerbodyne Atlas - review galery

Kerbodyne Cicada - review galery

Kerbodyne Dropbear - review galery

Kerbodyne Endeavour - review galery

Kerbodyne Invasion - review galery

Kerbodyne Skua - review galery

Kerbodyne Tartaglia - review galery

Thanks for the reviews.

Some notes: all of the ships have the cockpit batteries locked off as emergency reserve, and deployable solar stashed away somewhere. And some have Vernors set up as landing retro thrusters.

The VTOLs should be opening the doors with the same action group as toggles the engines. If they aren't, there's an action group bug in play.

None of them are designed to use staging at any time.

The basic trick to piloting the more fragile lightweight stuff is to be very careful at low altitude. Nearly all of your blowups were around 1,000m or below, and you were usually above or close to supersonic.

Low altitude supersonic can be done (see the entry post screenshots for the Scapa), but if you're having aero failure trouble, get a few thousand metres of altitude before you try to go supersonic. You can either throttle back until you've climbed a bit, or just climb steeply enough that all of your thrust goes into fighting gravity instead of acceleration.

When you're manouevring, watch the g-meter as much as the navball. If it gets above five, back off (unless you're messing about with something like the Scapa at moderate altitude). If the g's constantly spike up and down to higher than five, you need to be less rough with the control inputs. If flying by keyboard, tap the controls, don't hold them down. In extreme situations, use fine controls or trim.

All of them except the Invasion can be pulled into a vertical climb immediately post takeoff if done gently enough. And they do need a PID tuner if SAS is going to be on at low altitude; if you haven't already got one, there's one included in this rapidly developing mod - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100073-0-25-Pilot-Assistant-0-6-Nov-20-Atmospheric-piloting-aids

Edited November 20, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Batz_10K]

ps. I Thought using rapier engines for VTOL on the Space Goose was a pretty brilliant idea. So I tried it, and unfortunately they just won't fit in a mk 2 cargo hold, that would've been really cool though.

(Apologies for the thread drift everybody)

Well, if you don't mind a bit of clipping, something like this might work...

Flies like a pig...

We can continue this in another thread if you like.

[CocoDaPuf]

My vote for (Stock aero) "Best light cargo spaceplane"

Competitors:

- Fenya, Wasp

- Batz_10K, Serpens-C

- Roflcopterkklol, Titan Hunter Mk5 SSTO

So as some people have already mentioned, the wasp is a somewhat odd entry. The obvious gripe being "where does the cargo go?". The gallery provided does show the wasp ferrying a couple FL-T800 tanks to orbit, but this doesn't exactly seem ideal. I will say though, that the minimal part count is quite impressive, and it actually inspired me to build a very similar craft with mk2 parts specifically for personnel transport.

The Serpens-C is the next craft on this list. Broadly, I'd say the Serpens-C is a very elegant craft, good looking and well designed. I had no problem taking off, it handles quite well at low altitudes (I actually never had trouble with tail strikes). I did find higher altitude flight a lot more challenging though; so it could probably use more intakes, and I would bet that by adding just two more spike intakes, the plane would be capable of getting to orbit with a lot more delta-V left over. The other issue encountered at high altitudes, was the all too familiar death spin when a jet engine flames out on 1 side. Honestly, just adding a couple reaction wheels or increasing the size of the tail fins could help a lot here. Another way to address that issue could be to put 1 set of rapiers closer together, so that when 1 engine goes out, the center of thrust will still be close to the center of mass. Overall though, a great craft, easy and fun to fly.

Finally, the Titan Hunter Mk5 SSTO. Somehow, the screenshots don't do it justice, the plane is really pretty damn cool looking in person and as you're flying it. However, I did have some issues flying it. It handles great at lower altitudes, but with basically no reaction wheels, it's a real bear in the upper atmosphere. I have to admit as well, I'm a real stickler for clipping, so tons of mid fuselage intakes and control surfaces were a big turnoff for me. Action groups to control the intakes would also be nice, that can be a great way to save fuel on your ascent as well as control your center of drag during reentry. Still, it has enough fuel to get to orbit mostly on rapiers and it looks good doing it!

My vote for (stock aero) best light cargo spaceplane goes to: the Serpens-C!

Edit:

Sorry to everyone for being slow to finish my voting. The last few days have been really busy for me, but since I don't want to hold up the contest, I thought I'd do a shorter form for the rest of the categories I'm voting in and just comment on the ship I actually chose as my vote. I'm thinking I may do a second pass to add feedback for the rest of the crafts I tested in a couple days. Thanks to everyone for a totally entertaining contest!

My vote for (stock aero) "Best all stock parts spaceplane"

Contestants:

- FCISuperGuy, KSV Globemaster.

- Avera9eJoe's, Aurora II.

- INTERKOSMOS, Orzel-4DSR H1HO-V3M.

- Batz_10K, Serpens-C.

- Space Cowboy, Generation Twenty Five Lifting Body Pilot Trainer.

- CocoDaPuf, The Space Goose VTOL

My vote for (stock aero) "Best all stock parts spaceplane" Goes to: Space Cowboy, Generation Twenty Five Lifting Body Pilot Trainer

(Stock Lifting body SSTO .25)

Space Cowboy's entry is a very interesting craft indeed. It takes off without anyy trouble, flys pretty well, it actually handles great in the upper atmosphere and makes orbit without any trouble. But the reason I chose this as my vote for best stock parts was because of how it uses it's stock parts. This plane's relatively spacious interior give other players a pretty clear view of what's going on under the hood, like a cutaway of the plane's parts. For instance, just taking a peek on the inside, I was able to pick up a few tricks about fuel routing. And while all the fuel tanks and hoses are placed clearly and deliberately on the inside, on the outside the plane still looks simple and elegant, like it is just one uniform wing. For that reason this plane totally would have been one of my top choices for best looking as well.

Of course this plane has a few issues too. First off, some action groups for the engines and intakes would be great. Both to toggle the engines on or off, but also to toggle just 2 or 4 engines at a time. It would also be nice to have defined roles for the control surfaces (roll, pitch, yaw). The intakes probably could be mounted on the exterior, not a big deal, just a nitpicky "it makes more real world sence" complaint. And finally, the plane is a bit... floppy (hey that happens to a lot of planes, no judgement). You could probably fix that just by adding some struts between wing segments and the central fuel tanks. A more rigid aircraft is going to handle better, will hold tegether better and be a little more "aethetically dignified" in the air.

All and all, great spaceplane!

My vote for (stock aero) "Best Looking Spaceplane"

Contestants:

- O-Doc, Robin.

- Sirine, Better Aeris 3a.

- Fenya, Wasp.

- noname117, NAFA-7 Mamba Multi-role fighter.

- INTERKOSMOS, Orzel-4DSR H1HO-V3M.

- Batz_10K, Serpens-C.

- CocoDaPuf, The Space Goose VTOL.

- Spatzimaus, Sleazy Weasel 7E.

My vote for (stock aero) "Best Looking Spaceplane" Goes to: Batz_10K for the Serpens-C

I've already reviewed the Serpens-C previously, and let's be honest, it's pretty slick.

Thanks for sharing the craft!

My vote for (stock aero) "Best of the Rest"

Contestants:

- Sumrex, Cadzilla.

- Silks, Klutterfly.

- Batz_10K, SC4A Kestrel

- CocoDaPuf, The Space Goose VTOL.

- O-Doc, Dragonfly.

- Stratzenblitz75, Triton-14400.

- INTERKOSMOS, Orzel-4DSR H1HO-V3M.

- O-Doc, Hawk.

- O-Doc, Airwolf.

- Avera9eJoe's, Spruce Moose.

My vote for (stock aero) "Best of the Rest" Goes to: INTERKOSMOS for the Orzel-4DSR H1HO-V3M.

I think I had more fun testing The Orzel than any other plane in this contest. The description claimed that this 65 part count aircraft could take off from kerbin, land on the mun, take off from the mun, land on minmus, take off from minmus, then return to kerbin... So I had to try that. Actually, it worked! This plane totally succeed at taking 2 kerbals to both moons and then returning to kerbin for a safe landing (and netted me something like 2000 science). Probably my favorite feature of this craft was it's landing legs, these legs had 3 uses for me on the moons. First off, they let you do a powered vertical landing, bringing the plane to a full stop so it can safely fall down onto it's wheels. Secondly, when taking off from a moon it gives you a solid pivot point, so using reaction wheel torque you can stand the plane up vertical and then take off vertically. Finally, on low gravity moons like minmus, the wheel brakes do practically nothing; but you can extend the landing legs and pitch the plane up to dig them into the ground, it actually brings the plane to a stop pretty safely.

So what didn't I like about this plane? Well it would definitely make life easier if you added the science devices to an action group. Also, by the time I left minmus I had shattered both sets solar panels, making any kind of maneuvers pretty complicated, I guess that is really my fault, but maybe they should be moved further away from the cockpit, they're like eva kerbal magnets.

Great craft Interkosmos!

Edited November 23, 2014 by CocoDaPuf

[Hodo]

So no one has tested my craft yet.

I haven't had much of a chance to test anything. Been on a project spree working on a few things in my career mode and real life.

[Alshain]

So no one has tested my craft yet.

I haven't had much of a chance to test anything. Been on a project spree working on a few things in my career mode and real life.

I will be soon, I had issue with Pwing, turns out it's not compatible with NEAR and then it turns out NEAR isn't compatible with FAR anyway. So I'm basically starting over.

[Hodo]

I will be soon, I had issue with Pwing, turns out it's not compatible with NEAR and then it turns out NEAR isn't compatible with FAR anyway. So I'm basically starting over.

Sorry to hear that, I never tried NEAR, by the time it came out I had a pretty good grasp on how to create very effective lawn darts in FAR.

[Alshain]

Sorry to hear that, I never tried NEAR, by the time it came out I had a pretty good grasp on how to create very effective lawn darts in FAR.

Flight-wise it's very much the same, but there are apparently options in FAR like Wing Mass/Strength that do not exist in NEAR. It's likely a NEAR plane will fly in FAR, but not the other way 'round. I was testing Wanderfound's planes especially and thought it was very odd they were incapable of landing. Now I know why. Though I'm not entirely sure what the mass is for.