SSTO/Spaceplane/Airplane Design Contest II: Akademy Awards

[Hodo]

...Not sure why everyone seems to be able to kill my plane. :/

I mean, the brake problem was ideentified, but not updated before the v3 update, which I havnt posted yet. But other than trying to operate the plane under 150m/s, which it wasnt designed for, I'm not sure why people are having problems with aerodynamic failures.

Which stability derivitive is the "neutral pitch moment"

Ok I think i see the problem he is talking about in his review. I looked at your craft myself. There are some hard and fast rules to supersonic aircraft in the real world. Number one of which is Bi-Planes don't work at supersonic speeds, this is why there are no supersonic biplanes anywhere.

While it does increase the wing area it also doubles the amount of drag on the craft without actually providing that much more lift at those speeds. In comparison the F/A-106A vs your Manticore V2 in the pictures. At mach 4 and 10deg nose up, the 106 has a L/D of 5.23 while your V2 has a L/D of 1.55. The wing surface area of the 106 is only 99.9m2 while your V2 is over 172. There is a reason why the F/A-106A handles the way it does and it isn't even the best of my current SSTO Fighter craft.

I suggest you check out some of the SSTOs in my thread linked in my sig, you will see how less is more in the way of SSTOs. And when I get around to uploading my current heavy lifter in testing you will see again how it isn't about the massive wing, but about the amount of drag.

630tons and it can achieve orbit quite easily. I expect it to haul over 150tons to orbit, but I am still streamlining the design.

[kcs123]

@Rakaydos, you should not be sad if your plane didn't fullfill peoples expectations. Try designs from others, see how they solved problems, learn from them, use best from each design and then create your own. But before you start to build craft, you should ask yourself for what purpose you are going to build it. Does it have to be light fighter/bomber plane or heavy lifter, or some kind jack of all trades ?

Hodo has explained one part of your question close enough. Thing that I wish to add is that is not more important wing lift or drag. Thing that matters is Lift/Drag ratio. There is two ways how to improve L/D ratio. One way to do it is to increase wing surface that provide more lift. Less obvious way is to reduce drag, that is what Hodo talk about. Small reduction to drag can have more influence on L/D ratio then higher lift, especially on high altitudes/supersonic speeds.

There is still cases when you will want large surface wings.On low altitudes large wing surface is great helper when you need to take off. You will need less thrust from engines to be able to takeoff and you can takeoff at lower speeds. You will notice most benefit from high wing spans on subsonic speeds and low altitudes.

When you reach higher altitude you will have little benefit from lift because atmosphere is more rare and does not provide enough preasure difference to provide lift. From my test flights in this game it is somewhere between 8 to 12 km. It vary from plane to plane and carried payload. When you reach critical spot when you can't climb up on subsonic speeds, you need to accelerate to supersonic speed. When you do that and pass safely trough transition area, lift from wings in best cases is halved, more often it is 1/10 of lift on low altitude/subsonic speed.

At high altitudes/supersonic speeds, if you create craft with low drag, you will still have good L/D ratio that will help your plane to climb up. Because of supersonic/high altitude problems, there is two main ways to deal with it. One design aproach is to have little to non wing at all. Since they don't provide much lift, those are only unwanted weight and drag and most of time it was only used to help you with pointing nose in desired direction and nothing more. Wanderfound Kerbodyne fleet is good example of that kind of design, he mastered that aproach almost to perfection. However, there is limit to that design aproach - limit is engine TWR that still need to be above 1 or close to 1 to be able to reach orbit, also due to that limit planes like that can't carry much of payload.

Other design aproach is to use wing surface area to help you with climbing up your plane instead of raw power from engines. That is more demanding and not easy to understand design aproach. You need to experiment a lot until you find good wing shape and surface that will help you with lifting and don't add much drag and weight to craft. If you have larger wing surfaces on craft, you will want to use benefit from wing lift all times, not just to point craft nose to desired direction. One way to accomplish that is to make sure that your plane have positive L/D ratio at 0 degree of AoA, in case that your plane have neutral piching moment placed in center of FAR graph. Another, and I think more efficient way is to "place" neutral piching moment in positive AoA, where wings produce most of L/D ratio. On most craft designs it is somwhere between 4 and 8 AoA degree.

On Manticore plane it is in negative AoA area. Check FAR static analysis graph for -25 to +25 AoA degree, not only 0 to +25. Also check it for speeds 0.2 and 0.35 when you need to takeoff / land your plane and critical speeds like 0.7; 1.4; 2; 4; 6 mach. It seems that lot of people have missed spoiler section "Building steps with FAR graphs info" in my entry post.

You will find there better explanation what I mean when I talk about "neutral pitch moment", but here is a picture that I hope will provide you with enough info if you don't want to read spoiler section.

[Hodo]

Rakaydos, KCS123 is dead on again. His picture he shows in the above post is perfect for figuring out the FAR graphs. I often used to use trial and error to get my craft to work before, then I talked with NK and Ferram about those graphs and how to read them, now I get most of my craft to fly exactly the way I want them to before I even leave the SPH. Half of my early designs came from looking at other peoples designs and seeing how they worked, I even downloaded a few and tested them out. Once I figured out the basics I was able to start designing my own, the first ones were basic, then I started experimenting with new designs. I know one of my earliest designs I used for almost a year without changing the basics to it, it was the best SSTO cargo hauler I had made for a good while. I just kept streamlining the design, and cleaning it up. I think when I finally retired the Orca it was up to version J. And I have been tempted to bring it back because it was by far my most useful all around SSTO.

[Rakaydos]

Thanks to you all, Manticore is up to Mk 5, with a +AoA NPM, a slight roll instability but plenty of contol athority, a high operating cealing with symmetric, tiered flameouts, and an RCS based low-grav VTOL system rated for Ike gravity, that doubles as a landing assist system on kerbin.

[Jimbimbibble]

Here's my review for Sonertial's SSLSv3.

Despite looking like a Flood ship (yes, from Halo) and having more parts than a 747, it actually flies surprisingly well. I don't know how you did it, but well done! It's hard to take off but when it gets into the air it's quite stable and easy to fly. TWR is a bit low but sufficient for the task. I like the fuel module functionality. It would be impossible to dock this thing without a detachable fuel tank. My biggest concern is part count. I'm overclocking my CPU to 4.6 GHz and I had about a 2x slowdown in physics speed, so the amount of time it would take to actually use this ship makes it somewhat impractical, especially for someone without a nice gaming rig. I would suggest that the designer use B9 or P Wings and minimize strut use to significantly reduce part count.

Here's my review for Wanderfound's Kerbodyne Wedgetail XXV.

It looks great! The designer obviously put a lot of work into making this thing look good. I like that the designer exercised restraint by not making it so huge that it becomes impractical. However, there are two areas of improvement that I see. The craft is overpowered. It would be more efficient to use less engines and have a lower TWR without sacrificing very much on performance. Personally, I don't need my planes to climb at 45+ degrees. Stability is also an issue. There is an up-down wobble induced by SAS (which is hard to avoid because SAS is not optimized) but it could be improved. There was also a roll right-roll left wobble which can be eliminated entirely by redesigning the wing and tail. Check your stability derivatives. Some dihedral might help you here.

I'm not done reviewing yet, but so far my vote goes to the Wedgetail for best tanker because despite its issues its a lot more practical than the SSLSv3.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Jimbimbibble

[Wanderfound]

A new review: kcs123, Sporty Mk1. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...=1#post1501186, under consideration for both Best Sporty Pleasure Craft and Best Non-space Aeroplane in the FAR categories.

There's nothing offensive about the functional, broad-shouldered aesthetics, but they're not a selling point either. The undisguised struts could have been hidden, and it would definitely benefit from the Kerbpaint treatment.

There are nice detail touches in place such as the automatically triggered flaps and spoilers, however.

Plenty of grunt; so much, in fact, that the brakes can't hold it stationary at full throttle.

Effortless liftoff, plenty of tail clearance.

Agile at low airspeeds.

Able to rapidly go supersonic in a true vertical climb.

And easy to flick over into level flight.

No trouble with high G-loads, positive or negative.

Even when combined with high dynamic pressure. There's a tiny bit of pitch wobble at extreme pressure that might be tuned out with a slight alteration of control surface tweakables or PID adjustment, but nothing significant.

Even in extreme conditions like these, you can hold the elevators at maximum deflection all day long. Although it is possible to tear the wings off this, it requires a vigorous and deliberate effort to do so. It can easily cope with anything short of deliberately suicidal flying.

The choice to set the wing surfaces as elevons instead of ailerons is surprising. Although the plane has no notable handling flaws, it would be interesting to compare what effect this has on the handling vs a normal aileron setup.

Easy and stable low-speed approach behaviour.

And simple to land. Stable runway behaviour, rapid deceleration.

All good. Thank you, Nedke.

Overall: a very nice little ship, well designed and lots of fun to fly. The only real weaknesses are aesthetic (which is highly subjective anyway) and the relatively low flight ceiling imposed by the circular intakes. It's a definite contender for atmospheric aircraft, and will only be beaten in the sports category by a similarly enjoyable spaceplane.

Give it a go yourself; worth the time.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Wanderfound]

BTW, folks: there is a link to a PID tuner in this post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1353890&viewfull=1#post1353890

If you install that mod and use these settings (in FAR, no idea about stock):

...then all of your SAS wobble problems should go away.

[steve_v]

BTW, folks: there is a link to a PID tuner in this post

I thought Regex pulled that

I recon Pilot Assistants is better.

It's too late now but if you ever do this again, I've totally got some planes to show off

[Wanderfound]

I thought Regex pulled that

I recon Pilot Assistants is better.

It's too late now but if you ever do this again, I've totally got some planes to show off

It's no longer a supported mod, but the licence permits free redistribution.

Pilot Assistant is certainly promising, but it may be a touch buggy at the moment. Soon to be fixed I expect; it's under rapid development.

[kcs123]

There's nothing offensive about the functional, broad-shouldered aesthetics, but they're not a selling point either. The undisguised struts could have been hidden, and it would definitely benefit from the Kerbpaint treatment.

Fair enough. I agree that is not best looking plane around, with shock cone air intakes it could look better, or with some parts from B9 mod. But I wanted to build it with enierly from stock parts. Contest aside, I also wanted for my entry post to be partly tutorial, so I placed struts in visible place for a reason. To let people know that they need to strengthen out connection between parts that are not attached directly - parent root part for that fuselage and engine is fuel tank in front (or structural part, can't recall what I have used).

There's a tiny bit of pitch wobble at extreme pressure that might be tuned out with a slight alteration of control surface tweakables or PID adjustment, but nothing significant.

Plane was designed in way that "want" to stabilize itself at desired AoA. Unlike other planes, neutral pitching moment for this one was placed close to center of FAR graph, designed for high maneuverability. Because of this, there is always possible situations (certain speed, altitude and pitching) when plane could wooble. There could be some improvment trough alteration of control surfaces, but I have made this plane in hour or so, just to fullfill some FAR categories.

As for a PID tuner, lokks interesting, but who knows if that will going to work or not further in KSP development. Pilot assistance also looks promising, could need some time to get mature. I have turned towards kOS, however. I wiill still going to need some time to study kOS and use it more efficiently, but I thing it will worth the effort, since I also plan to use it for IR parts.

Edited December 2, 2014 by kcs123

[Hodo]

It's no longer a supported mod, but the licence permits free redistribution.

Pilot Assistant is certainly promising, but it may be a touch buggy at the moment. Soon to be fixed I expect; it's under rapid development.

Actually I haven't had any issues out of the Pilot Assistant mod. Granted all I use it for is the PID tuner in it. It is quite easy to use and has quite a few options that are handy for fine tuning the SAS. Which is good.

[Wanderfound]

A new review: Alshain Orbiter 106 - Shrike. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1527784&viewfull=1#post1527784

http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Akademy%20Awards/Testing/Orbiter%20106%20-%20Shrike/story

--

BTW: it's dragging on a bit, and we're still a little short of reviews. I've already done almost all of the non-B9 ships, so I can't do a lot more myself.

If no-one has reviewed your ship, post a short review/demonstration of it yourself (or talk to one of your competitors and arrange to swap reviews). Keep it brief enough that people will be willing to look through it, but demonstrate that your ship can get to orbit and back and any special tricks that it has. If you look at the reviews that have already been posted you'll get an idea of the sort of format to be used.

[Hodo]

A new review: Alshain Orbiter 106 - Shrike. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1527784&viewfull=1#post1527784

http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Akademy%20Awards/Testing/Orbiter%20106%20-%20Shrike/story

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Akademy%20Awards/Testing/Orbiter%20106%20-%20Shrike/screenshot46_zpsb2f5a187.jpg

--

BTW: it's dragging on a bit, and we're still a little short of reviews. I've already done almost all of the non-B9 ships, so I can't do a lot more myself.

If no-one has reviewed your ship, post a short review/demonstration of it yourself (or talk to one of your competitors and arrange to swap reviews). Keep it brief enough that people will be willing to look through it, but demonstrate that your ship can get to orbit and back and any special tricks that it has. If you look at the reviews that have already been posted you'll get an idea of the sort of format to be used.

I haven't had the time I would like for testing other peoples crafts, which is unfortunate. With the holidays on us, I haven't had the time I would like. It seems the older I get the less time I seem to have.

[kcs123]

I haven't had the time I would like for testing other peoples crafts, which is unfortunate. With the holidays on us, I haven't had the time I would like. It seems the older I get the less time I seem to have.

Getting older really sucks when you compare available free time for gaming when you were younger. I have already provided galeries from test flights for my planes in entry post, but I would rather to let other to try them and write critics then to base judgment only from my pictures. I will try to test as much planes as possible before choose finall score for any of crafts.

[HafCoJoe]

So when are winners announced? Just curious

[Wanderfound]

So when are winners announced? Just curious

When sufficient votes are in. There are still a lot of entrants who haven't done any testing or posted their votes, AFAIK.

[zekes]

Not sure what category this applies for, but I will apply nonetheless.

Full Scale Space Shuttle

FEATURES:

-Realistic space shuttle ascent, looks

-large cargo bay

- landable shuttle

CRAFT SPECS:

KSP Gross weight: 2400 tonnes on launch

Real Shuttle Gross Weight: 2000 tonnes on launch

KSP Cargo to LKO: 33 tonnes

Real Shuttle Cargo to LEO: 30 tonnes

KSP Cost/ Launch: $1,771,573

Real Shuttle Cost/ Launch: $450 million

KSP Parts: 1300+

DOWNLOAD: http://www./download/9hjfjg4qqqawrrg/Full+Size+Space+Shuttle.craft

[Hodo]

Not sure what category this applies for, but I will apply nonetheless.

That is not a Single Stage To Orbit craft. As it drops the SRBs before it achieves orbit.

[kcs123]

KSP Cargo to LKO: 33 tonnes

Real Shuttle Cargo to LEO: 30 tonnes

KSP Gross weight: 2400 tonnes on launch

Real Shuttle Gross Weight: 2000 tonnes on launch

Good to know that facts. I have lifted 30t payload in orbit with Gross weight ~90t plane (payload included). It's must be that I have build good plane, or something compleatly wrong with game mechanic .

Not a bad looking craft, although, from pictures it have too many overlaping wing parts, could not test that craft with my PC, but nice galery and Shuttle replica. Are those made only from stock parts and stock aero ?

Edited December 7, 2014 by kcs123

[Rakaydos]

This contest was useful for getting me past a roadblock I had in spaceplane design, but by this point my entry is so obsolete (v2 vs V7) that I dont really feel like I'm competing anymore.

With the new Mk3 coming out, and the MkIV Spaceplane mod, will you be starting another contest early next year?

Edited December 8, 2014 by Rakaydos

[Hodo]

This contest was useful for getting me past a roadblock I had in spaceplane design, but by this point my entry is so obsolete (v2 vs V7) that I dont really feel like I'm competing anymore.

With the new Mk3 coming out, and the MkIV Spaceplane mod, will you be starting another contest early next year?

Its ok, I went from the F-106A to my latest fighter which is SO much faster and agile then the 106.

Like this which was an improvement over the F-114.

Or my new F-119, which is made with stock parts + BDArmory.

[zekes]

That is not a Single Stage To Orbit craft. As it drops the SRBs before it achieves orbit.

oh is this an SSTO challenge? Whoops

EDIT: it's also past the deadline. My bad.

[kcs123]

This contest was useful for getting me past a roadblock I had in spaceplane design, but by this point my entry is so obsolete (v2 vs V7) that I dont really feel like I'm competing anymore.

With the new Mk3 coming out, and the MkIV Spaceplane mod, will you be starting another contest early next year?

That makes you a winner, regardless of "official" announcement. If you didn't enter contest nobody would test your plane, wrote critics and you will be unable to improve your craft.

I have also found many design ideas that I could use in my future builds, like using stock tail saction for airintake/engine mount, using vernors for VTOL crafts, and some other small things that makes plane a lot better. Found also some interesting mods that I didn't even bothered to try before and that could be part of my essentials ...

Meaning that this contest already fullfilled it's purpose, with or without winner. It will be nice to see what people will come up with additional assets in V0.90

[Wanderfound]

That makes you a winner, regardless of "official" announcement. If you didn't enter contest nobody would test your plane, wrote critics and you will be unable to improve your craft.

I have also found many design ideas that I could use in my future builds, like using stock tail saction for airintake/engine mount, using vernors for VTOL crafts, and some other small things that makes plane a lot better. Found also some interesting mods that I didn't even bothered to try before and that could be part of my essentials ...

Meaning that this contest already fullfilled it's purpose, with or without winner. It will be nice to see what people will come up with additional assets in V0.90

Yup.

We don't have enough votes in to declare any winners, and short of stalking and nagging the entrants who haven't shown up for the testing and voting, there's not really anything I can do to keep this moving.

And, as observed, the changes to parts and FAR aerodynamics in .90 are going to render some of these designs obsolete anyway. Should we call this one closed here?

I'd be happy to enter a third iteration of the contest, but I wouldn't complain if someone also took over the job of organising it.

[Noname117]

Yeah, I do feel as if a third iteration may be needed, seemed like updates got in the way of this competition.

If possible, can there be some more attention given to non-space airplanes too, like maybe a warplanes category? I felt like too much of the challenge was for spaceplanes and there wasn't as much for just normal aeroplanes. Actually, maybe have 3 categories of craft (SSTO, airplanes capable of going to space, and non-space airplanes), and maybe add in a forth category for non-horizontal flight VTOLs. Of course, I'm guessing everything would still have or be in a Stock and a FAR/NEAR category, and would probably each have their own individual categories (like best flying, best looking, most useful, most useful in a specific role, etc.). Honestly, I think this organizing would give more aircraft and spaceplane designs a chance, and pit them only against other planes designed for similar purposes rather than comparing them to completely different aircraft.