Eidahlil

Supersonic Jet AAA074 Potato by Abstract Aerodynamics Our marketing department is currently on vacation, so we got one of our engineers to write a pitch/description: She may not look like much, but she's a good plane. Cheap, but the landing gear holds up real well, we used a double layer of duct tape everywhere it matters. The control surfaces are crazy expensive, so we tried to use as little as possible by minding the wing design. Which you can see from the way she handles - we use the same surfaces for both pitch and roll controls, she gently takes off with SAS on at 65, but you can force her off the ground at 45 if there's a cat on the runway or something. Land at, well, less than 65, because you'll just take off again if you go faster. I think she stalls at about 22 or so with full tank, but don't worry about it too much, we bounced her aplenty of times and she's just fine. For cruise, just point her straight when about 20 km up, and let nature take over, which will be 23 700 / 24 500 high going 1 235 / 1 200, while slurping 0.09 / 0.08 fuels per second. That's with full / empty tank respectively. That's a range of 10 500 km if you start midair, but starting on the ground it'll be more like 8 500 km. We don't say you have to go that far, it's more that we know some countries charge a cow and a half for fuel, and it'd be weird to bring cows to pay for fuel, so you can go there and back on a full tank. Uhh, yeah, you can fit 40 passengers inside, she masses 10 837 kilos dry, and the tanks can hold 800 fuels for another 4 000 kilos. We were thinking where to put the fuel, and Herman said let's put it in the middle so the mass doesn't shift around, but that would be weird, fuel in the middle of the cabin, and then Mort from accounting came and said "Guys, are you doing anything with the discount wings left over from the abandoned jumbo jet programme?" and we were, like, "Yeah, yeah we are." We were not sure if the airplane grade aluminum foil would hold up at Mach 4. Wait, should I say that? Anyway, so we flew her around the world to test. Our guys loved the timelapse, so maybe you'll like it too? So we were thinking it would sell for 15 999 999 of which 640 000 is fuel, but now management says do a discount, so she's going for 15 861 000. Pick her up while she's hot, cause I think management is gonna do a limited run to do market piercing, and then start selling something expensive instead, and everyone will want to fly supersonic by then, so you're gonna have to buy that or roll over and go out of business. Order here: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Potato.craft Variants: Well, she already flies 4 times further than the longest range variant, so, I guess you could fill her up with only 200 fuels for a range of 1 500 km, and 240 for 2 000 km.

There and back again in 3:42. Reached an altitude of 556.4 km, while going 1986 m/s at 60 km on the way up, and 2171 m/s at 44 km on the way down. The whole thing masses 77.88 t wet, so really not going for lightweight here. EDIT: Also flew some amount of km for an endurance run - all the way to the other side of Kerbin, the F3 screen says 4 631 km (in the video), but that's more than the circumference of Kerbin, so I don't know. And did a scary rolling bouncing landing in the mountains during the night with no lights.

Thinking back to the last challenge, I'd also suggest rebalancing the passenger capacity of the cabins. With the current numbers there is absolutely no reason to use the Mk2 cabin (same capacity as Mk1, but heavier and more expensive), and the 2.5m cabin is also lighter and cheaper than the Mk3, while seating the same number (the only reason to use it is if you don't want to install mods). Further evidenced by the number of entries resorting to (what I'd call) wacky designs to use the cheaper Mk1 cabins. My personal suggestion would be something like: Mk1 - 8 passengers, $68 750/passenger, 500kg/kerbal, Mk2 - 16 passengers, $262 500/passenger, 500kg/kerbal 2.5m - 24 passengers, $416 667/passenger, 83.3kg/kerbal Mk3 - 72 passengers, $416 667/passenger, 90.3kg/kerbal Reasoning: Additionally, since the capacity of the Mk1 is unchanged, the change would not affect any of the entries up until this post.

Dusty turboprop - AAC431 A simple plane for transporting passengers or livestock to the next town over, the Dusty line by Abstract Aerodynamics is just perfect for the airline on a budget. With the base 24 passenger model available at the low low price of 8 121 000 and still boasting great features such as seats and interior lamps, you just know the offer cannot be beat. We also offer an elongated variant of the Dusty for those lucrative crowded routes, so you can use those same spare parts for all your planes. Dusty turboprob - AAC431-1 (baseline) Gallery: Price: 8 121 000 dry, 8 241 000 wet Order link: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Dusty.craft Part count: 16; Weight empty: 6.91t; Capacity: 24 passengers + 1 pilot; Fuel tank size: 150 units Recommended cruising parameters: 280 m/s cruising speed at an altitude of 11.2 km. Estimated range of 840 km with a typical fuel consumption rate at cruise of a bit less than 0.05 units/second. Example cruise: Recommended landing and takeoff speed is 50 m/s. The landing gear was, like all parts, made by the lowest bidder, and is rather flimsy. It will cheerfully break if a landing is attempted at a lower airspeed (higher vertical velocity). No airbrakes are included, however we believe the reverse thrust function (action group 1) will cover all your airspeed reduction needs. We are just as surprised as you are with the high cruising speed, the original design was planned for only 160 m/s. However, as mandated by all applicable laws and regulations, we thoroughly tested at speeds up to 320 m/s and detected no structural weaknesses. So go ahead, throttle up all the way. Dusty XL AAC431-2 variant: The Dusty XL variant features an elongated hull with an increased passenger capacity. To accommodate the higher mass, the wings were slightly extended. Obviously the higher mass also reduced the range, which fell below the requirements for this category. This can be remedied with a bolt-on fuel tank capable of storing an additional 50 units of fuel, however this tank is entirely optional, and can be rotated in and out by two engineers using typical service equipment in under 15 minutes. The effects of the bolt-on tank are included with a plus sign where relevant. Price: 9 391 000 (8 871 000 + 520 000) dry, 9 551 000 wet Order link: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Dusty-XL.craft Part count: 19+3; Weight empty: 8.011t + 45kg; Capacity: 32 passengers + 1 pilot; Fuel tank size: 150+50 units Recommended cruising parameters: 245 m/s cruising speed at an altitude of 11.0 km. Estimated range of 720+230 km with a typical fuel consumption rate at cruise of about 0.05 units/second. Note: If a capability to land on grass fields and poorly maintained airports is required, sturdier landing gear can be fitted for an estimated additional cost of 1 450 000 for both variants.

A few rules questions: 1. Can we use indestructible buildings? With heavier craft, the slightest bump causes VAB to collapse (not used in the attempts below). 2. When is the 45 pitch rule calculated? Can the plane do a loop before landing (like below)? Can it do a cobra right before landing? Aerobatic attempt - 8.46 t x 1.00 km/s = 8.46 points: Low wing loading attempt - 13.69 t x 0.95 km/s = 13.01 points (craft download http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Bigfrid-Civilian.craft )

I second the rules question, can we have laser turrets? Also, the PLFP is scary, but I'd still like to enter into the stock+BDA category, if we're boosting competition here. http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Cessna-680.craft

2700 units of ore. I don't want to fly that rocket again. Here's my craft file, I hope it's similar enough: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Untitled-Space-Craft.craft

Gunfrid would like to upgrade to Gunfriddda, now armed with those deadly sticks where radiation comes out of one end, and fire comes out of the other. https://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Gunfridda Let's see if Morgan decides to put countermeasures back on. Also, since this could be considered a pretty major change, and not just a tweak of AI settings, I'm willing to fight all the way up the ladder again. By the way, @goduranus, is the gun range = 2000 rule still in, or is it officially not enforced? (because I totally didn't notice it when making Gunfrid (really really sorry) and set the range to max, but I see Morgan D forgot about it too)

KERBOLDE SUPERSONIC JET - AAA072-1 Gallery: For the connected world of today Abstract Aerodynamics presents a jet to get you there faster. The Kerbolde is sleeker, more stylish, and much more high-tech than what you are flying now. It also features modern features such as protective black paint on leading edges, slender delta wings and USB charge ports for every seat. Cutting edge engine technology offers performance unrivaled by contemporary designs, and while we are uncertain what are its actual performance limits, the restrictions imposed by laws, regulations and manufacturer's warranty will leave you satisfied. Trust us. Price: $22 999 999 Order link: https://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Kerbolde Specifications: Part count: 22; Wingspan: 10 m; Length: 15.2 m; Height: 4.5 m; Weight empty: 12 t Capacity: 8 32 passengers; Crew: 1 pilot and 2 automated drones to serve sandwiches. Recommended cruising parameters: speed - 970 m/s, altitude 15 000 m Average parameters at recommended cruise: fuel consumption: 0.18 kallons/second, pitch: 0 degrees; cruise time: 40 minutes; range: something like 2300 km, if you really save that fuel; example cruise below: Estimated fuel to achieve cruise: 120 kallons Takeoff speed: 60 m/s; Touchdown speed: 35 - 120 m/s Features: Ladder - no; Landing lights - yes; On board espresso machine - no; Pressurized interior - yes; Wing flaps - no; Air brakes - yes. Flight on one engine: yes (at half power, can maintain altitude, but requires angling the plane) Maximum allowed speed: 1 000 m/s (exceeding voids manufacturer's warranty, but our test pilot had something like 1430 m/s and survived) Recommended fuel load on takeoff: 600 kallons or 3 metric tons (another 400 can be loaded into the engine enclosures, but our engineers say superimposing aka clipping loaded fuel tanks is dangerous, scientifically implausible and generally frowned upon. Don't do it.) Variants: Here at Abstract Aerodynamics we believe that everyone who chooses to fly Kerbolde should get the full Kerbolde experience and thus offer only the one true Kerbolde model. Also we tried making it longer, but the truth is it just does not look as good.

Interesting idea with the numbers advantage. Let's try it out. (Also no need for melee planes, you can use bombs! ) http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Gunfrid Also, is there a leaderboard? I lost track of which is the coolest plane now.

I called it "Tankor", did not think I'd end up making a submission with it . I'll think about retrying it, though I'm more tempted to fly next time. Thanks!

My cunning plan of scooping up the scientists with an open cargo ramp did not quite work out, but perhaps what's left of it will be considered worthy of the alternate leaderboard? 3:06 I am unsure if I qualify for the Backpack bonus, or a Reverse Michael Bay bonus.

I really like that there's nothing about normal landing in the bonuses/penalties. Very Kerbal . With that out of the way, I present a deathtrap plane from HDAY airlines: HDAY 1. Proven to be "technically capable of landing", you can tell it's safe because the nose is painted in safety orange. (How Desperate Are You airlines) Score: 1704+679/10+4*5*1+2/2-70= 1723 (Light aircraft) Also, @Rath, based on your example calculation looks like there's a misplaced parenthesis in the score formula? Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*(1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points

http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Ioligator-2 Here's a big slow target for you to shoot at. Show us what you've got. I tested it against the sample craft (4v4), and it won. Though, granted, after 15 minutes of shooting, Jeb realized the guns don't actually do anything, and rammed three planes, two of them fatally. The third one was a friend, so, I suppose, all is well that ends well? Also, @panzer1b, is the BDA Browning M2 also 15 points, or is it disallowed?

What about the Kerbin aviator circumnavigation challenge? I tried to find how far back it goes, but I'm not sure

I'm guessing no shipping kerbals in a cargo bay, with or without lawn chairs? Also, probably no staging (e.g. drop tanks), or staged parts are included in cost? Since I, personally, find Mk2 and Mk3 parts to produce disproportionate amounts of drag (especially the adapters), here's an attempt with two 1.25m noodles strutted together. http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/DoubleNoodle Started with 1080 fuel, finished with 19, while having the capacity for 48 passengers (+2 pilots). That would make the ticket cost 17.68333333... .

Aww, and I just updated the Karnazh with 10 guns. Might as well post it for posterity then: http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Karnazh-S I'm kidding, of course. I'm guessing even with two GAU-8 a lot of the one on one fights will be decided in the initial joust. As far as I understand that is the main reason why a lot of BDA challenges use a 3 vs 3 configuration.

Oh, searching the thread I see it, but I completely missed it, since it's not among the rules in the first post, maybe it'd be good to update it? Pretty sure the craft actually has 13 guns, so it has too many and is not valid.

Well, I'm no less confused for that answer. Pretty sure some of the asked questions contradict each other. Maybe it'd be clearer for the silly clueless me with an example. How many wings does the plane in the image have? 2? 4? 5? 8? 14? 17? 20? 22? Thanks!

All evidence points in that direction, true. I didn't think of it myself, though, so kudos. Reviewing my flights, the westward flight had to use a pitch of about 3.3 degrees above horizontal to maintain altitude, eastward maintained the same altitude with a pitch of 1.7 degrees above horizontal. The speed is roughly the same, the craft the same, and the fuel level is roughly the same. Both readings were taken on the night side. As far as I know, it does. The air pressure changes slightly depending on the temperature, which changes depending on the time of day. The effects should be very minor. I think the discussion ultimately pointed to this thread, for reference:

I tested it out, and got similar results. Well spotted. Does not look like there is any significant advantage to going west, however. My craft reaches about 1748 m/s going west, so I loaded it with a bit more fuel, and crashed into the runway at 37:55. Half a minute for a proper landing seems a reasonable estimate, which puts it at the same time as my 38:35 eastward circumnavigation. So, I suppose, just go east.

Why the youtube requirement? What's the difference where the video is? I decided to stick to the runway for now - 707 m/s. All stock with default settings.

429.78 tons to a 100x100 orbit, at the cost of 85.8595 funds per ton (used 39431 * 0.8 LF and 29755 * 0.18 OX, for a total cost of 36900.7). That makes the payload fraction 46%. 159 parts without the payload. Name is Minetoug Tres. Pretty sure it could also transport a fairing balloon with whatever is in it, but the score is probably better with fuel. Also, empty it glides forever, so I got bored of trying to hit the runway, and landed on the grass.

Whee, a rocket race! Races are awfully popular lately. (That's not a bad thing.) Is mechjeb autopilot a gameplay mod? Is quickloading OK (F3 screen gets messed up)? (Neither were used in this attempt.) I managed to do it in 24:52 for a first attempt (after ~37 tries). It can definitely be done better though.

I'd say define a scenario (not necessarily publicly), why the specific parameters are wanted, and go from there what the scoring/penalties should be. Low TWR is bad because it takes a long time to perform an ejection burn (and you don't want to split the node)? Calculate the losses from that and use it as a penalty. I'm not sure what exactly the formula is, but I'd guess something like 1+cos(16.5/Initial TWR) (TWR lower than 0.092 getting a zero, obviously) as the multiplier would be a start (to very roughly estimate losses from burning off prograde). A quick google indicates it's a bit tricky to calculate precisely though. Low TWR is bad because landing somewhere is more expensive? Pretty sure that's easier to calculate (in vacuum). Something like 1/(1+0.46/(Initial TWR+Final TWR)) as a very rough multiplier perhaps. Low TWR is bad because long burns are boring? Take your dream hourly salary, convert to IMF SDR, raise to the power of 3.1416, and, ehhh, not sure where I'm going with this. Don't forget to factor in the time warp, but I can make up formulas all day. Generally probably try to avoid having too many categories though. But don't worry, I think it was all good. Even if I did not manage to beat @tseitsei89's heavy spaceplane entry. I'll be waiting for the next challenge. I would actually disagree. So long as the rules are fairly and transparently applied, there's nothing wrong with hosts entering their own challenges. This is not a lottery, the host has no unfair advantage.