jacobgong Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 It would be another seperatron wars if rockets were allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 It has to be atmospheric engines only ihtoit!Pds314, it's cool to use B9 mod, so you can show us your bulletplane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevant Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Silly friends, airplanes don't need engines.Here is a video of me reaching 737 m/s under 1,000 meters in vanilla KSP. No modded parts, no modded physics/aerodynamics. The catch: I exploited a physics anomaly which allows ultra-light aircraft with tons of lifting surface to experience extreme acceleration during atmospheric maneuvering...and I took off using a decoupler (but I could also have done it with a detachable jet engine)...and I landed with a parachute.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57nJKgTFdYE&feature=youtu.beSo yep, I don't technically think I broke any rules for this challenge, but that's only because they could be bent so very very far. I don't really expect you to put this on the leader board I don't know how to upload a craft file here, so, if you want to make it yourself, make it as follows:Body of Craft: OKTO2 probe casing with m16 parachute on top and PB-NUK thermoelectric generator on bottom (create vertically in SPH or VAB)Wings: 4 R8-Winglets, 4 Advanced Canards all placed around probe coreLaunch Mechanism:whatever gets you off the ground. I suggest powerful decoupler. Otherwise, any engine + fuel with a way to decouple it after launch. Connect to the generator.NOTE: This craft works in vanilla KSP version .23. I doubt it will work with modded aerodynamics.P.S. I just realized that it looks suspiciously like gravity is turned off in the video...it's not. I probably should have let the craft slow down a bit after launch to prove it, but I didn't think of it in time.PPS. This is a craft I had designed prior to seeing this challenge. Since I didn't spend any time optimizing it for speed, I'm sure a faster craft could be created on the same principle (the generator could be discarded for starters). Edited January 27, 2014 by Sevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Silly friends, airplanes don't need engines.This is basic infiglide stuff which every challenge that isn't specifically about infigliding disallows. You'll note the OP, though they didn't say no infiglide and really shouldn't have to, specified atmospheric engines. You have no engines. And yes, they'll go lots faster.Take the canards and any other 'control surfaces' off and you have a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 haha, yep, that infigliding is not allowed, as Fengist said, You need atleast 1 atmospheric engine Also, using a bug to get advantage is like cheating!, so not allowed at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) 381 m/s stock / B9 no FARVideo of earlier flight with only 379 m/s Edited January 27, 2014 by Hejnfelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autosave Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Nice Plane, so cool! @Hejnfelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevant Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Nice Plane, so cool! @Hejnfelt^^Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevant Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Take the canards and any other 'control surfaces' off and you have a rock.Having been politely accused of cheating for posting a fun-loving infiglide entry into this competition, I've installed the challenge's suggested mods and built a real entry. Here is the video of the mission plus a few bloopers at the end.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7dK5jU2Bc4&feature=youtu.beMaximum speed over land achieved was 870 m/s. Parts used from stock (version .23) and B9 aerospace. Ferram Aerospace Research (v0.12.5.2) installed, along with Procedural Fairings (which I don't seem to know how to use, so I don't think I did...I assume the nose-cones I used came from B9).Since I didn't feel like going to a clean install before installing the new mods, I also had MechJeb and Klockheed Martian installed during this challenge. To the best of my knowledge, I did not use any parts from either of them, and I don't believe they affected the flight in any way...let me know if there's something about them that I don't know such that they could have messed things up.If you want the craft file, let me know how to get it to you, and I will do my best. You can actually squeeze more than 870 m/s out of it (perhaps 880?), but it doesn't steer at that speed, so you're limited by how long it takes to slow down and avoid going above 1000 meters. Also, the thing is a nightmare to land (at least for me), so quite a few faster runs ended in catastrophic failure.P.S. Sorry for the irritatingly large text in the video and my failure to time-lapse the trip back to land...not my best work--too late at night to re-render it. Edited January 28, 2014 by Sevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Nice Plane, so cool! @Hejnfelt^^Totally agree.Thanks guys. I'm sure it could go even faster, but it's so ridiculously unstable at those speeds. I build a 5 engine version that for some reason would fly below 100 m/s and then drop like a stone and then fly again above 300 m/s, but it was impossible to get it back to KSP as turning above 300 m/s was impossible and throttling down made it drop into the ocean haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihtoit Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It would be another seperatron wars if rockets were allowed.hmmm... ok, Seperatrons are solid fuel and you can't turn them off once lit, they have extremely high TWR but short burn duration which is a decided advantage/disadvantage respectively, stacking them would be evil (and I wouldn't do that just to try and cheat a challenge). All that aside, I will have a play with some airbreathers, see what I can come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 very good entries, leaderboards updated, and new records from Sevant in the FAR list and from Hejnfeltin the NO FAR list :)It's getting hard to beat! (well, I cant at all ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) 879 m/s - Mach 2.593 (check video) - stock / B9 with FARI'd like to claim the FAR record as well In the F3 view screenshot you'll see tons of stuff that crashed. Check the video to confirm my "safe" landing.Video Screenshots Edited January 28, 2014 by Hejnfelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffysnowcap Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 i love that craft just what where you thinking when you made that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 i love that craft just what where you thinking when you made thatCraft? Thinking? I remember nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neotician Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Here we go No FAR, pure stock Javascript is disabled. View full album Edited January 28, 2014 by Neotician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) No FAR, pure stock That looks like an infiniglide submission like Sevant posted a few days ago, which was disqualified.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65788-Fastest-Plane-under-1-000m-able-to-go-back-and-land-in-the-runway-%28RECORD-870-6M-s%29?p=931576&viewfull=1#post931576 Edited February 8, 2014 by Hejnfelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neotician Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That looks like an infiniglide submission like Servant posted a few days ago, which was disqualified.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65788-Fastest-Plane-under-1-000m-able-to-go-back-and-land-in-the-runway-%28RECORD-870-6M-s%29?p=931576&viewfull=1#post931576Hmm, only rule i see broken is "must use atmospheric engines".Challenge accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Challenge accepted.That's more like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 haha!, nice one there Hejnfelt, i love the landing, that plane can flex!ill update leaderboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hejnfelt Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 haha!, nice one there Hejnfelt, i love the landing, that plane can flex!ill update leaderboard I think that landing qualifies as controlled crashing... This is the first time I use FAR and for some reason the landings seem ultra hard compared to vanilla KSP, my planes tend to drop like stones when landing with FAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neotician Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That's more like it 548 m/s seems to be my limit in pure stock it can go a bit faster, but the Gee Force will literally tear the plane apart.Javascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 come on, no infinigliding at all!, haha, man, everyone tryes to twist the rules to the limit! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevant Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) 879 m/s - Mach 2.593 (check video) - stock / B9 with FARLol, I love that plane Hejnfelt. Decoupling the extra engines was a nice touch Guess I'll have to post a 920 m/s second run now to get my record back...at which point you can obliterate it in less than a day again ---------Edit: Here's my latest run: 927 m/s, B9, FARhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLWHnE6RHc&feature=youtu.beVery similar to my first craft. Changes: Used engines with higher thrust, added air intake to accommodate bigger engines and balanced intakes top and bottom, installed engine decouplers as inspired by Hejnfelt's video (Couldn't land it without decoupling the engines--thanks Hejnfelt!).I crash-landed a lot of 940 to 960 m/s videos, so this will by no means be the fastest video of the challenge if people keep trying. Some one figure out how to break 1000 m/s!-----------Edit2: I had another go and got some more speed. See pictures below. NOTE: These screenshots do not relate to the mission flown in the video above!My wings fell off while I desperately tried to stay below 1000 m, so I ended up landing with no wings and only 1 wheel...predictably my lower air intake and engine exploded upon landing...not sure if that counts as successful or not. Edited January 29, 2014 by Sevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pds314 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Okay, does a vehicle that takes off vertically from the runway, pitches over and has no wings or rudders but a pile of SAS for stability count as a plane for the purposes of this challenge? It can land without any parachutes if you know what you are doing.Basically, it is the following stack:Intake.Probe core.Reaction wheel.Reaction wheel.Reaction wheel.Reaction wheel.Reaction wheel.Liquid fuel tank with no Oxidizer.Turbojet.Anyhow, it can reach 1049 m/s under 1000 meters. I might post it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts