EpicSpaceTroll139

Members
  • Content count

    508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

642 Excellent

5 Followers

About EpicSpaceTroll139

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Profile Information

  • Location 'Merica
  • Interests Aerospace Engineering, Science, Insanity

Recent Profile Visitors

1831 profile views
  1. Sure, but where do you draw the line? I mean, it has 100 fewer passengers than DoctorDavinci's 548-10-4. I just added MOAR BOOSTERZ TURBORAMJETZ and improved aerodynamics to go very fast.
  2. Ok, I'll be presenting a new Super-heavy entry: the PassTranz K2. Inspired by the Reaction Engines Limited A2 concept, this slippery looking monster holds 448 passengers and can travel at 1292m/s (close to mach 4, I forgot to check exactly), sometimes slightly faster, for a range of 2600km. It currently has no flight attendants, but there is plenty of spare room in the fuselage to add seating for them, and possibly even more passengers. Anyways: 1292 + (2600/10) + (448*5) + (0/2) + 20 + 30* - 10 = 3832pts Side note: I'm currently working on a PassTranz 106-SP for the Heavy category.
  3. I don't think that a plane cruising at that kind of AoA would be viable in the first place. That's way into stall territory. Heck, flying at all like that would be pretty hard outside of fighter jets. Anyways, high alpha cruise is probably already punished by increased drag and thus reduced range, but I suppose it's up to Rath.
  4. Except you would get used to having to double tap when staging, and so even in this situation you would double tap, and it would be too late. Ehh, whatever this is a silly argument. I'll move on now.
  5. I fail to see how this would help in this situation. It sounds like he staged intentionally staged, but had it set up wrong so it detached his pod. Double tapping wouldn't change that. Anyways, my fails of the past week or two: This is why we test things. "Whoever was assigned to riveting on the starboard wing, you're fired!" Dank Kerman does not have a dank plane. He keeps his cool while crashing though. That's how he got his name. High speed helicopters are tough.
  6. It turns out my S-IVB is highly volatile and may explode at any moment. I think it might be some kind of bug with the fairings and how they interact with rigid attachment and/or autostruts, because it didn't explode until I tried to fix some sagging that I noticed after launching the first time.
  7. While I would hardly call it an airliner, this Kerbal Cessna I had lying around technically does meet the light specifications of two passengers. Passengers: 2 Range: ~1000km Speed: 190m/s (I hadn't quite reached cruise in the pic) Can tail strike?: My tail is supposed to be on the ground. +10pts Stalls at less than 30m/s. +20pts. Can fly without SAS, and fly level without trim. +30pts Belly landing? Gear do not retract! +40pts Can ditch without damage. +20pts Simple engine/fuel/intake: +10pts? Has no backup engine. -20pts Relies on main engine alternator. -10pts 190 + (1000/10) + (2*5) + (0/2) + 10 + 20 + 30 + 10 +40 + 20 - 20 - 10 = 190 + 100 + 10 +10 + 90 = 300pts Heck, I have a few other light planes that would beat this handily, but I thought it would be fun to enter it anyways.
  8. I like this idea, but there should be some kind of provision for range points. Otherwise, someone could make a plane that has like 5 minutes of fuel and performs excellent in terms of efficiency, safety, and whatever else, but can't even really go 100km. However, this should be limited. Once you can go halfway around Kerbin with say 50km of divert fuel + 20 or so minutes of emergency reserves, adding more fuel would simply be a "fire hazard." Or did I just completely miss some range provision that was in there?
  9. I can imagine it being able to get a pretty absurd score if you fly it how I think... Not sure if it would be fair for the challenge, but I would love to see it. Anyways, this is the OP's decision.
  10. Ok I'll be entering the Super-heavy category with the PassTranz 106. So that gives 176 + (3200/10) + (16*8*5) + (2/2) + (10+20+20+40+20 +20 +10 +10 +5) = 1458pts That's 3rd place! Edit: I goofed up. I got 1302 points. Sorry people! The math on the original example in the challenge is messed up too though.
  11. I have to second this. With the current rules I could haul this ugly and very unsafe monster out of my hanger and get 1600x5 = 8000 points just from the passengers. At which point it becomes "Computer Melter Danger Challenge" which isn't quite as fun. I don't particularly want to do that, but I could. Anyways, I have a question: can I enter into more than one category? I've just about finished a plane which can be either heavy or superheavy depending on the number of fuselage sections installed (might even be able to chop off sections and get medium too, but it would look weird and stubby). Got it Edit: @Rath2 more questions: 1: do batteries count as an alternative power source? I added 4k in extra batteries, which is definitely enough to power it until landing if the engines go out. 2: what kind of engine out fly-ability bonuses would apply to an aircraft with say, 6 engines? My plane can fly on any 3 engines. Is this equivalent to a 4 engine plane flying on 2? Edit2: ugh: that belly-land-without-damage bonus is almost within my grasp! The little glitch ridges between runway sections keep messing me up!
  12. What kind of blade angles are you using for your helis? I've gotten the best results from angles of 5 deg, sometimes less. Beyond that the blades start to stall. Anyways, I've been working on the S-IVB stage for my Saturn V. Annoyingly the J-2 engine was about halfway in-between the size of a Mainsail and a Rhino, so neither of those looked right. I was able to get the shape and size right with a fairing, but gosh the white engine bell looks awful.
  13. Hmm, maybe there were parts rubbing together other than the hinge? I've never had torque problems with the electric prop planes I've made, though I must admit, most of the ones I made were much smaller. I see shielded docking ports in there, what are those for?
  14. Actually, with the case of a reaction wheel powered prop, you won't get anything more than the friction of the bearing in that regard. This is because the propshaft is spinning itself, unlike with a turboprop which spins the propshaft using blowers mounted on the fuselage. The only thing contrarotating reaction wheel props might help with is gyroscopic effects during maneuvers, however unless the propshaft has a really high moment of inertia, this probably isn't a problem in the first place. @MiffedStarfish the antennas are not clipped inside cubic struts, but rather into a tube of 8 thermometers.
  15. Roller coasters and/or rocket sleds anyone?