SSTO/Spaceplane/Airplane Design Contest II: Akademy Awards

[kcs123]

...

As far as I know everything is listed in the OP, but I'm sure that I've overlooked one or two things. Point 'em out to me and I'll update the list.

(and if we've got any last-minute entrants, we could use some numbers in the Interplanetary Science Explorer and VTOL categories...)

I'll probably do a "best of the rest" category, which will include all of the craft that were submitted for things that didn't get the required 3 entries.

Well, GoSlash27 requested withrawal from contest in this post, and my latest craft Sporty Mk1 (mentioned here) was not listed in any category. I'm fine if that one not come in contest at all, I have builded this just to help with FAR categories that doesn't have enough planes.

I didn't read each latest post here, so it could be that some post is buried between other non-entry posts here.

EDIT:

And C-47 Globemaster IV from Jimbimbibble require part "ENGINEER 7500", that one is from EngineerRedux mod I belive, but it is not mentioned.

EDIT2:

@Hodo, your craft looks nice as we can see from pictures, but I could not find link for craft file to test it.

EDIT3:

Waderfound link for Tartaglia craft links to photobucket albun, not to craft file, fortunately, copy-paste to another browser window works, just not when you click on link.

Edited November 14, 2014 by kcs123

[Alshain]

kcs123, I've been unable to get your Mk2 V9 to load. I tried loading from the runway and the game locks up, so I tried the SPH and I got half the plane (without any warning of missing parts). Are you sure that's the only mod dependencies?

EDIT: Nevermind. Install went corrupt, I can't load any planes.

EDIT 2: Nope, not every plane, just the ones that use PWing. Must be a Pwing Bug.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Alshain

[kcs123]

kcs123, I've been unable to get your Mk2 V9 to load. I tried loading from the runway and the game locks up, so I tried the SPH and I got half the plane (without any warning of missing parts). Are you sure that's the only mod dependencies?

EDIT: Nevermind. Install went corrupt, I can't load any planes.

I think that I listed all mod dependencies, but just in case that I have overlooked something I have provided screenshoot of all installed mods(with mod version numbers). I'm sorry to hear that your install went corrupt. I hope that you will be able to reinstall and test and I'm glad that it is not my fault that I didn't provide enough info about my crafts.

I'm just downloaded all available crafts in FAR category and removed advanced jet engine mod (it nerfs jet engines a lot more) for fair test judgments.

[Wanderfound]

BTW, a few of my recent entries were put up in a hurry, without action group instructions etc. I'll fix that today.

[Alshain]

I think that I listed all mod dependencies, but just in case that I have overlooked something I have provided screenshoot of all installed mods(with mod version numbers). I'm sorry to hear that your install went corrupt. I hope that you will be able to reinstall and test and I'm glad that it is not my fault that I didn't provide enough info about my crafts.

I'm just downloaded all available crafts in FAR category and removed advanced jet engine mod (it nerfs jet engines a lot more) for fair test judgments.

Yeah it's a bug with Procedural Wings apparently. I had to use a patch from NathanKell just to get the game to load with it installed in the first place but it would seem that isn't a total fix. Basically any plane with PWings aren't loading symmetry. I'm not sure I can fix this, I don't use it myself so I have no idea what I'm doing here.

[Batz_10K]

Well, I've made a start to the judging -

This is the Stock Aero, light cargo spaceplane category, a quick jaunt around the KSC and a run to the island to test the atmospheric handling

From left to right

Wasp-2.1, Titan Hunter Mk5 SSTO, Space Goose VTOL and Serpens-C

[Alshain]

Are we posting our judging and critiques in this thread?

[Wanderfound]

Are we posting our judging and critiques in this thread?

Yup, as with Sirine's previous contest. Pics and polite criticism good, but keep to the guidelines re: spoiler tags and image sizes. Convert to JPEG if possible.

[Alshain]

Yup, as with Sirine's previous contest. Pics and polite criticism good, but keep to the guidelines re: spoiler tags and image sizes. Convert to JPEG if possible.

OK, well I may make a single post for critiques tomorrow but I'm going to reserve making selections in the hopes PWing gets fixed before the deadline. I'd hate to have to pass on all of those planes. I'll use the same post for all and just update it so you can track it.

[Wanderfound]

BTW: I'm also doing a last-minute run through my designs looking for symmetry-induced action group bugs and the like. I've already found a couple; I'll replace the downloads with the corrected versions once I'm done in an hour or so.

[Rakaydos]

As new as I am to spaceplanes, I look foreward to your critiques to the Manticore.

[Wanderfound]

BTW: if possible, try to accompany each review with at least one screenshot, so that readers can more easily keep track of which plane you're discussing without having to flick back and forth. If you're at all like me, I find it a lot easier to recall images than names.

And, keep in mind that the critique is directed at the plane, not the designer. Try not to take it too personally when people criticise your babies.

(everything cool so far, just getting in with some preemptive diplomacy before the bulk of the reviews show up)

[Alshain]

BTW: if possible, try to accompany each review with at least one screenshot, so that readers can more easily keep track of which plane you're discussing without having to flick back and forth. If you're at all like me, I find it a lot easier to recall images than names.

And, keep in mind that the critique is directed at the plane, not the designer. Try not to take it too personally when people criticise your babies.

(everything cool so far, just getting in with some preemptive diplomacy before the bulk of the reviews show up)

Would it be ok to just use the creator's picture?

[Wanderfound]

Would it be ok to just use the creator's picture?

Doesn't bother me; I don't see any reason why not.

[Hodo]

I am an ID10-T for forgetting to add the craft file..lol.

I added it to my post, been really busy the past few days just finished moving last week and still getting things settled around the house.

[Rakaydos]

Well since your here and I have that one finished...

http://i.imgur.com/LxEdqi2.png"]http://i.imgur.com/LxEdqi2.png

Takeoff: Lifts very well, I was able to lift much sooner than the flight instructions indicated.

Flight: Not long after lift off the plane begins to side slip, even with SAS turned on. Roll control seems to make it worse. Inevitably the plane tears itself apart before getting too far away from the KSC.

Agility: Unable to perform due to flight failures.

Landing: Unable to perform due to flight failures.

Other Comments:

• My suggestions to the creator would be to take a look at the control surfaces. They are active for all 3 controls on every control surface. Learn the differences between Yaw, Roll, and Pitch, where they are typically placed, and set your control surfaces accordingly in their tweakables menu (including canards and winglets). I believe this may have contributed to the inability to fly.
  
• Strut your wings so they do not flex as much, this biplane style with large wings appeared to flex in the lower wings which may have caused instability. Take cues from real bi-planes, they too strut their wings.
  
• Try flying without MechJeb as it can often mask design issues. SAS can do this as well, but to a lesser degree.
  

What altitude, inclination and speed did it lose control for you? While it can be tempermental, I've gotten it to orbit with quicksaves, and I noted the most problematic parts for me.

Mechjeb is used for information, not flight, though I also sometimes use it for docking. I' not sure what you mean by it masking issues.

[Alshain]

What altitude, inclination and speed did it lose control for you? While it can be tempermental, I've gotten it to orbit with quicksaves, and I noted the most problematic parts for me.

Mechjeb is used for information, not flight, though I also sometimes use it for docking. I' not sure what you mean by it masking issues.

Around 1000m. Just off the runway.

[Wanderfound]

Some other review response tips:

* Wait for a few reviews to come in. An issue reported by one reviewer may not exist for another, clarifying whether the problem was piloting-related or not. Quite often, the reviewers will differ in their opinions, and that's okay.

* Feel free to point at screenshots demonstrating the capabilities of the craft. For example:

(did you have the SAS on? The wingtip mounted landing gear leads to a bit of wingflex-induced steering, which the SAS can correct for)

* If you feel that piloting style is negatively impacting your reviews, try clarifying your flight instructions.

* Try to resist the temptation to dispute the reviews too much. Remember firstly that the reviewers are also the voters, so you don't want to get them offside; and secondly, we're all doing this for fun (and maybe to learn a bit about spaceplane design).

Edited November 15, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Rakaydos]

Revising my flight instructions slightly.

[Wanderfound]

Okay; Wanderfound's [1] review post:

It's decent looking little thing; the aesthetics are a touch Star Wars for my taste, but that's just a personal thing. The anhedral main wing is a slightly curious choice; it's balanced by the dihedral tailplane, but a level wing would improve roll stability and give more runway clearance on landing.

Easy rotation, effortless takeoff. Minor tailstrike hazard, but easily avoided.

No problem in the climb...

...although it does need to flatten out fairly soon to maintain speed. The thrust available is perfectly adequate for the job, but there isn't a huge amount of surplus.

The airframe is stable enough for substantial time acceleration, although this does reveal a hint of roll instability and an occasional minor pitch-up tendency. Both issues are easily dealt with at normal time, and not serious enough to prevent time accelerated cruising; they're very minor.

It does require quite a large AoA to maintain level flight. As with the thrust, there is enough lift to do the job, but not a lot more.

Gets up to speed easily enough.

...and has a pleasing silhouette. Nice short circularisation burn, too.

Plenty of fuel still in the tanks.

...and I hadn't even realised it was carrying a payload. Nice.

A laptop crash stopped me there; I'll take it through reentry and landing later if I have the time.

One thing of note: the wing strengths are all set at default (1). It works fine as is, but winding that down to 0.4 or so would make it a lot faster and more nimble, while still retaining a generous amount of strength. However, it was designed for NEAR rather than FAR; I'm not actually sure if NEAR allows adjustment of wing strength or not.

It also appears that the spoilers are non-functional. I think they're set to the same control surfaces as the flaps? If so, that would be why; they don't work if set both ways.

Resuming test:

Comes through reentry easy enough if you keep an eye on the AoA. However, the pitch-up tendency does make it a touch tricky; too much AoA and you'll find yourself in a longitudinal flip. The airframe is tough enough to recover from this if caught in time, however.

Glides comfortably enough, unfussed by high dynamic pressure.

Troubles set in on landing approach, however. The pitch-up tendency is aggravated in the dive; even with full negative trim, it simply refuses to keep the nose down unless constantly held, and pitches up sharply any time a roll correction is applied. This makes it rather difficult to maintain low-altitude level flight while adjusting bearing. Extending or retracting flaps did not solve the problem.

Although you can force it down, it is difficult to do this while still keeping the sink rate at safe levels. I bounced off the runway a few times before getting it down.

I did eventually manage to get it down and hold it there...

...but not in time to have enough room for braking. Still, any landing you walk away from etc.

An imposing beastie on the ground.

And not short of power. There doesn't appear to be an action group set to toggle the RAPIERs on and off, however.

It rotates easily enough; the gear are placed correctly. But as mentioned in the entry post, it does require the entire runway to lift off. A lot of this is due to the fact that it is heavily oversupplied with wings, and all of those wings are still set to full default strength and weight. As above, cutting this down to 0.5 or lower would save a huge amount of weight, while not overly impacting the airframe durability. You don't need full strength wings unless you're planning on high-g aerobatics at low altitude.

Despite the max-strength wings, there is still a huge amount of wing flex. Partly this is due to the high weight of the craft; partly it's due to the rather excessive wing area. You could deal with it via strutting, but you'd probably be better off just going for smaller wings and reducing the overall weight of the ship.

Unfortunately, I also had a lot of trouble getting this one to fly successfully. The airframe has substantial handling flaws...

The major handling issue is related to yaw control; the plane has a huge amount of yaw authority, but very little yaw stability. It has a tendency to drift off line, and it is difficult to counteract this without over-correction. The extreme dihedral on the vertical stabilisers (AKA tailfins) robs them of much of their power, and the X-wing pattern canard rudders near the nose actually reduce stability rather than increase it.

As a general rule, stability and manoeuvrability are opposite sides of the same coin: helping one usually hurts the other. As another general rule, rear-set aerodynamic surfaces are good for stability, forward-set aerodynamic surfaces are good for manoeuvrability. Think about the position of the feathers on a dart or arrow. When the plane goes off line, rear surfaces pull it straight again, but forward surfaces pull it further off line.

The other main concern with this craft is the biplane design. We don't see a lot of modern biplanes, and there is a reason for that. The downsides of a biplane are extra weight and drag compared to a monoplane with equivalent lift. The main upsides of a biplane were reduced wing loading (important when wings were made of cloth and wood, less so these days) and the ability to tolerate extremely low speed (i.e. 50mph) aerobatics. Neither of these things are major priorities for a high-tech spaceplane.

It's possible to make a biplane spaceplane work, but there isn't much reason to; you'd always be better off with a monoplane instead. Layered wings work well in stock aerodynamics, but not so much in FAR/NEAR.

Still an imposing visual presence, albeit a touch more conventional than V1. Previous wing-flex issues are now entirely non-existent.

Takeoff behaviour much improved. It does require a bit of speed, but given that speed it both rotates and lifts off easily.

No trouble pulling into the climb, either. Much improved aerodynamics; no instability problems at all.

...even under time acceleration. Excellent stability.

No difficulty getting up to speed. The requirement to keep at least four engines running at all times does rather limit the jet-powered flight ceiling, however.

A bit of an overheating tendency in rocketry mode, but easily controlled by easing the throttle a touch.

Easily makes orbit.

And a decent cargo capacity, albeit somewhat impaired by the intruding RCS tanks. The quantity of RCS storage does seem highly excessive; there's enough here for a dedicated RCS tanker. This is particularly odd given that the extreme levels of torque available from the numerous SAS units means that the only time that RCS would be required is during docking.

A reasonably easily accessible docking port; no risk of tailfin collisions. I wouldn't want to try docking two of them together, however; the landing gear are likely to get in the way.

Plenty of juice in reserve.

Handles a DRE reentry with no hassles at all. Very user friendly.

Again, the inability to deactivate the RAPIERs and fly on Turbojet alone is a weakness. As well as sounding nicer, the Turbojets are more fuel efficient.

Able to tolerate a bit of rough handling; no problem with moderately high dynamic pressure and g-forces.

Easy atmospheric flight handling; neither too much nor too little control authority. Not an aerobatics plane, but not intended to be.

Easy landing and approach behaviour, although a surprisingly high stall speed given the large wing area. A consequence of the high weight of the ship.

Down safe. However, it wasn't until I'd hit the strip that I realised that (a) the steering on the front gear was still locked, and ( the brakes on the front gear were still enabled. Neither of these things are as they should be; an inexperienced pilot would be at substantial risk of runway disasters.

Overall: vastly improved. What we have now is a perfectly functional spaceplane that is pleasant to fly and gets the job done.

However, there is a general theme in the design that all problems have been overcome by the strategy of "more" rather than "better". More wings, more engines, more SAS, more RCS, etc. It works, but the consequence is a spacecraft that is much bigger, heavier and more expensive than it needs to be.

Still: not bad. You're getting the functional basics down; the next step is to start working out how to get the functional effect while also invoking efficiency and elegance.

[1] Wanderfound should probably resist this habit he's recently acquired of referring to himself in the third person.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Rakaydos]

Hmm, perhaps I have an older version of FAR- I cant adjust wing strengths. 12.5.2? Does that even work anymore?

[Wanderfound]

Hmm, perhaps I have an older version of FAR- I cant adjust wing strengths. 12.5.2? Does that even work anymore?

Grab the latest version of FAR (14.3.2: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-25-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-14-3-2-10-21-14): the first few post-.25 releases of FAR were heavily buggy, and the wing strength adjustment didn't come in until after a few bugfixes happened.

This is probably the explanation for a lot of the trouble; in response to endless complaints about overly fragile wings, when KSP.25 was released Ferram massively increased both the strength and weight of his wings (and then introduced the tweakable when people started complaining about excessive weight...).

If you're flying it under old-FAR, and Alshain and I are flying under new FAR/NEAR, we're not really flying the same planes. Your version has glider wings, our version has fighter jet wings. Ye olde FAR wings are equivalent to new-FAR wings with the mass/strength tweakable wound down to about 0.25 (but I'd actually recommend you go for 0.4 or higher; the old wings were​ overly fragile).

[kcs123]

@Alshain, are you using NEAR ? It seems that only NEAR users have trouble with PW mod. I didn't bothered to try craft with NEAR and didn't expirienced problems with PW that people describes in PW thread. I have noticed symetry problem in SPH editor sometimes - when CoL is not in symethry. I corected those by attaching a wing and grabing other one on oposite side of plane and attached them again on the same place, but from oposite side of plane.

Didn't have issues in flight after I once placed wings properly on hull.

I will try to reproduce bug and update craft file just for NEAR compatibility, hopefully I could do that by the end of contest. If it is not against rules. Even if it is, I will try to make it compatible out of contest, just for curious people if someone want to try it after contest is finished.

[Wanderfound]

Try to avoid wholesale redesigns, but minor revisions are fine, especially if you get 'em done quick so they don't delay the judging. The idea is to find the best designs, not to punish people for failing to notice a symmetry bug or somesuch.

[Alshain]

@Alshain, are you using NEAR ? It seems that only NEAR users have trouble with PW mod. I didn't bothered to try craft with NEAR and didn't expirienced problems with PW that people describes in PW thread. I have noticed symetry problem in SPH editor sometimes - when CoL is not in symethry. I corected those by attaching a wing and grabing other one on oposite side of plane and attached them again on the same place, but from oposite side of plane.

Didn't have issues in flight after I once placed wings properly on hull.

I will try to reproduce bug and update craft file just for NEAR compatibility, hopefully I could do that by the end of contest. If it is not against rules. Even if it is, I will try to make it compatible out of contest, just for curious people if someone want to try it after contest is finished.

I can use FAR if that works, I just thought NEAR would make the judging go a little faster. That's really strange though, NEAR and FAR are so close to the same thing I wouldn't expect them to be that different.

I'd be cautious about changing anything, it's difficult to hit a moving target.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Alshain