Jump to content

EvermoreAlpaca

Members
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EvermoreAlpaca

  1. Let me start off by disqualifying myself from the official record.  This plane doesn't have landing gear for one, but that isn't the real problem.  I could add landing gear, but this would still be a practice in absurdity.  I dug out the copiously part clipped prop plane I used for a top speed attempt, took it up to over 1 km/s, then pulled up into a climb.  I lacked enough wing area to pull up with as much G force as would be optimal, but still shot to over 23 km.  A novelty at least!

    https://imgur.com/Wg7jZQT

    The original video of the top speed attempt: https://youtu.be/J7oc1FLnWlY

     

  2. On 4/22/2019 at 4:12 AM, chargan said:

    I like it. Naming this The Polar Bear Express. Added 50% more powah and fiddled with the prop angle in-flight. Managed 7:23

    https://imgur.com/a/HoVvRbX

    Prop angle is absolutely critical in maximizing the thrust from props.  I put together this chart using the plane featured in my video linked by pds314 above.  This data was generated by flying the "river racing" prop plane featured at the end of the video as level as I could at 100 meters.  The data demonstrates dramatic consequences from small changes in the angle of the propeller blade.
    https://imgur.com/sMl3EYZ
    https://youtu.be/J7oc1FLnWlY?t=689

    Forward velocity reduces the angle of attack of your propellers.  As a result, as your velocity increases, the optimal propeller blade angle increases (see my data above!).  Below is the picture I used in my video for demonstration.
    https://imgur.com/sISIQWf

  3. Just now, GRS said:

    Nobody :

    @EvermoreAlpaca : *Does something Bewilderly Incomprehensively Insane*

    Also how much time you took for that thing ???

    This mission was born on a notepad and pencil last summer when I was away from my rig.  I made the first flight in September, but due to the error I mentioned in the video, ending up having to bail on it.  I gave it a ground-up redesign in February, and finally got around to flying it starting a week ago.

  4.  It is important to note that the level of aerodynamic trickery employed greatly impacts the level of challenge here.  With full abuse of fairing occlusion, a chemical rocket single stage from sea level is more than possible.  I mostly refrained from this with my propeller assisted single stage from sea level, but still used fairing occlusion for the chemical engines specifically.  A craft that can do single stage from sea level without the use of ANY abusive fairing occlusion would merit a new and distinct achievement.

  5. I'm a bit rusty, but I am a huge fan of RTS games, especially Starcraft and League of Legends.  Before shifting my much of my attention to KSP I played League, and then Starcraft 2 competitively, having some minor success at the tournament scene before getting burned out.

    I also play and teach chess, feel free to hit me up sometime if you want to play!  I also still occasionally play starcraft 2 if thats your style.

  6. By the way, the Jool 5 mission I was almost done with and hinted at awhile back has been indefinitely postponed because I brought an old, unfinished version of one of the landers, so I need to refly the whole thing.  Very frustrating due to the huge number of gravity assists...  The sad thing is the working lander is actually a few kilograms lighter, so the whole thing should have worked.

  7. 58 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

    I would love to see a 1.25m ion engine with higher thrust to avoid the part count problem. Maybe 10x the mass and thrust with a slight efficiency bump?

    Agreed, a larger scale ion engine with the same stats relative to size and mass would be very helpful.  This would have the same performance as a cluster of the current ion engines, but would be far kinder on our PCs as a result of lower part count/engine count.

  8.  

    3 hours ago, qzgy said:

    OTOH - do you think it could be done without wolfhounds?

    @EvermoreAlpaca, I think you might have an interesting response to this question.

    The wolfhound resulted in a ton of gained dV.  I suspect it is possible without the wolfhound, but it would require one to land and takeoff from Tylo at even higher speed, and possibly further optimize the Kerbin ascent as well.  One could throw in an additional Mun assist to save some ion fuel, but that is extremely minimal savings.   That being said, all of these things are doable.  The landing gear on this thing could probably take as much as 120 m/s on a different landing zone that was less rugged.

    I would say that this is most likely possible, but it would require landing at absurd speeds.

×
×
  • Create New...