Mathrilord

@QF9ESure it does. What: Lander Where: Armstrong memorial How: Smooth landing Style: Takeoff and baby probe. I'll update op with more detail.

The challenge, get on top of something. It can be anything, the VAB, a mountain, a rocket... What you get up there can be anything too. Do it the way you want. The only rule: be creative, no duplicate. Do it with STYLE! For each entry there is a What, Where, How and Style. e.g. For King Kong it would be: Gorilla, sky tower(idk name), climb and aircraft attack + taunt No duplicate: You can't submit an already used combination of what, where, how. If you were to use two elements already combined you must justify it with enough style(epic). Entry List

@chadgaskermanSure stratolaunchers count as reusable but not its fuel to launch AND land.

Plasma blackout... I forgot it's a stock option. Thanks

A 2g relay antenna on a satellite on 600km orbite isn't enough to connect with a probe 5k in the atmosphere?

Oh no! A powerful Kerbol flare knocked out all communication systems. Your mission: Kerbin: Provide us the cheapest solution to rapidly rebuild the satellite network around Kerbin. (full-surface coverage) Rules: Stock, dlc allowed Extra ground station disabled. Extra launch site disabled. CommNet difficulty, to be talked about likely normal. All kerbals must be brought back to the KSC To reuse a part, it must be brought back to the KSC Your cost must represent the full operation, you pay only once for something you use multiple time like a plane, ssto, recovered stage, etc What network configuration will you choose? Will you launch your satellites one by one or all at once? Cheap srbs, multipurpose ssto, reusable rockets? Maybe a tug to move your satellites or a boat to recover your booster? WIP I want your opinion to improve this challenge.

Update: Third engine make it slower Also getting many bugs Engine or blade losing or gaining power every 5s Strut + rotor = problem, lag in vab????? symmetric fairing + rotor remove from symmetry + strut = more laggy and part deleting themself when placed. sas going NAN don't want to stabilize etc

10t SSTO including 1.6t of cargo. The only problem with this craft is the landing gears. Takeoff speed way too fast at 150+ m/s and landing is hard.

If you really want an asymmetrical aircraft then I can provide one. While testing the Bicloud it broke apart but the remaining half was still flyable. Back to the hangar I reproduced the failure, adjusted the landing gear, rebalanced the fuel, added some control surface and voila. But before flying it I would recommend you to try the symmetrical one before. It fly like a dream, can land on water and can perform the softest landing in the galaxy. It will also teach you how to use an electric propeller with too many blades while being forgiving as it is easy to recover. asym: https://kerbalx.com/Mathrilord/BiCloud-asym regular: https://kerbalx.com/Mathrilord/LoRE-SP-DF-2-4-BiCloud All the instruction are in the craft description for the regular Bicloud. I would recommend right clicking on the blade of your engine and pinning the pop-up window to keep an eye on the blade angle (deployment angle). You change the angle with the up/down translation axis ("i" and "k" on your keyboard by default). Don't change the angle too fast, over angling provides no thrust and reducing the angle is enough to slow down the aircraft (thanks to too many blades reducing it alot can bring the plane to a full stop midair). For the asymmetrical one... sas is of great help but still not enough to fly perfectly straight maybe learn to use trim (alt+ wasd to set trim and alt+x to reset, I recommend the mod trimindicator). The craft is well balanced apart from the engine, for everything I'll let you discover it yourself . D'ONT FORGET to turn on the fuel cells. action group 5 (Wait they might be already on, I don't remember... Not my problem! You can look at them, they are in the cargobay) EDIT: Just saw your video and you saying you won't use instruction... Good luck

I've acheive 351 m/s by brute-force but I can't figure out how to shield engine from drag. An electric engine in a fairing won't spin. Each rotor have 16 blade R-25 and 2 EM-64, so a total of 4 EM-64 powered by 7 fuel cell array. As you can see rpm isn't at maxium so adding a third EM-64 will increase speed. My approach is that since rpm is limited, you can instead place the blade on a bigger part to increase their relative airspeed.

RIP ?

Result of the last two days(x5 the number of craft)... please someone stop me! note: second plane from the left, two mk2 cockpit facing each other in the back there is a blimp-like aircraft, fly... weirdly I'm trying to build a pushback (aircraft tug) @HyperDraco You can advertise a lower range if you want.

Couldn't wait to share with you this beauty! WIP

@HyperDracoDo I need to remember you this? 1700+ m/s LoRE HST-3-8 Missile Rapier max speed is just under 1750 m/s edit: panther max speed (can go faster by flying lower) dry: 696.3 m/s @ 11000 m wet: 906.5 m/s @ 15000 m Whiplash 1503.5 m/s @ 21000 m (btw at this speed and altitude mk2 cockpit will melt, inline too) 1492.0 m/s @ 21500 m (safe for mk2 inline only) 1478.4 m/s @ 22000 m 1443.9 m/s @ 23000 m 1396.0 m/s @ 24000 m (still not safe for mk2, over 1400k in internal temp.) 1364.7 m/s @ 24500 m (safe for mk2 but it's limit, 1396k) around 1336 m/s (couldn't maintain speed) @ 25000 m max altitude above 26000 m interestingly flying lower with reduce throttle is more efficient for my test craft so with mk2 stay below 1350 m/s btw inline cockpit are NOT better thermally speaking. inline cockpit will heat as much as a "nose" cockpit which is dumb. edit2: inline coclpit are the same for external temp. but are around 100-200k colder for internal temp. so you would be fine with a mk2 inline higher= lower max speed lower= higher max speed edit3: @Darkuss At 22000m your Daedalus cockpit will burn at 1352 m/s and is fine at 1349 m/s (if you are flying level) I wouldn't go above 1345 edit4: 1350 m/s @ 22000 m = 1400.7 k int. temp. and still rising(VERY slowly) 1349 m/s = 1399.8 k edit5: 1349 = 1400.4 after 1 hour and 24 minutes of flight

And an other family picture!

@TerminatorC800 Sound good to me. Wanna team up?

I wonder what is the most time consumming part of reviewing, flying the craft or writting the review? Because for flying the things and giving my feedback I can help, but for writting I'm pretty bad (and SLOW).

Propfan is a pain (fake propfan) using ec produce by jet engine to power ecProp= need to balance speed, altitude, throttle, rotor torque, rotor rpm, blades angle, ec usage, etc

Drag rudders seem impossible in ksp (what control yaw on flying wing, like airbrakes that actually works...)

@FahmiRBLXian Its french, I'm from Quebec. My XL Fan have 24 blades. I don't know much about the stock turboshaft engine, I skip it because it wasn't powerful enough for my needs. Also using rotor and fuel cell cost more but seems more efficient. (rotor is more draggy too) For Jet vs eProp yes eProp provide better acceleration for a lower top speed and generally lower optimal altitude but also better speed control as prop are very good airbrakes. For the number of blades... (Need to experiment a bit more) More blades means better performance BUT more instability. The mk3 noodle above can't go faster than 115 m/s with four engine because they are at front of the plane. Look at the thrust direction of the prop here: This means that if your prop is at the front it will amplify your angle of attack (difference between your orientation and air flow direction). It's like high wing and low wing. Prop at the front= less stable, prop at the rear= more stable, and more your prop have blades more the effect can be wild. I haven't encounter this situation yet but too many blades might be possible. edit:Also you need two counter-rotating prop if you want to use SAS I do have a plane with 4 electric prop which go above 300m/s but that's the maximum. edit2: while ergol isn't wrong, in french we say for liquid fuel, essence or carburant edit3: the v2 of the mk3 noodle have only 2 engine and fly faster

It works?!?!!!!!!!!!!!! First try! Takeoff, flight and landing! I didn't use goliath because it wouldn't go pass 8 m/s. 30 mk3 passenger modules. length: 125.3m cost 1,101,305,000 weight 251.211t seats: 3 pilots, 720 passengers (720, 0, 0) fuel: 720 lf 880 ox cruise 101.3 m/s @ 500m 0.04kal/s lf 0.04-5 kal/s ox range 1800 km edit: look at Jebediah face XD edit2: fly quite well, one thing special with it is that you can only turn with yaw. Land well too. edit3: can land and takeoff from water!

I'll keep doing this in my submission, sharing "A piece of knowledge". The HST was about surviving long hypersonic flight. BiCloud is about using electric prop engine efficiently. What will the next one be about... Wing angle of incidence and engine offset with a concorde-like craft. Building trick for structural integrity of very long fuselage with my srb airliner. (well I just spoiled the astuce XD) Prop configuration if I decide to experiment more with them. ...any idea? I won't go in jet efficiency because my conclusion will always be go supersonic+++ wheesley 600m/s+(goliath the same but too much drag), panther 800m/s+(900? I'm not good with this engine), whiplash 1400m/s+, rapier 1700m/s+ and as high as possible.

Why I submit plane for TKA? Because I got triggered:

@FahmiRBLXian Don't worry I passed first because he likes speed! XD edit: Probably, the guy who pick your submission still want to do it. edit2: I love your bug

Blind/Bored Aircraft Facilities Lord's Rogue Engineers and Sea Proof are here to show you the ultimate subsonic airliner. The LoRE-SP DF-2-4 BiCloud, long-haul, high capacity, flying boat Can go everywhere! Stat Cruise: 251 m/s @ 4000m Fuel consumption: - 0.05 kal/s lf and 0.06 kal/s ox Range: 14400 km Takeoff speed: 59 m/s on land and 85 m/s on water Landing speed: 46 m/s Cost: 400,834,000 dry + 2,938,000 for fuel Weight: full 163.720t and empty 131.720t Fuel: lf: 2880 kal 14.4t ,ox: 3520 kal 17.6t Seat: 2 pilots, 344 passengers (192, 40, 112) Download Variants: Here are some extreme exemple of possible variation allowed by the catamaran design. We should warn you that above 200t water takeoff is still possible but to be avoided as it can lead to dangerous situation.(Above 200t you need to pitch down and up to bounce on water and pitching down too much can break the aircraft) This give you 34t to spend on whatever upgrade you may want to fit under the central section as long as it doesn't shift the center of mass too much and is solidly fix in place. The following are just exemple, you could simply add 56 seats for 15t and 8,400,000 with 14 mk1 crew cabin and still be Sea Proof! Flight manual Details for each version included in their description. Throttle is only use to turn on/off the engine. Speed is controled by changing the angle of propellers blades with up/down translation axis. I highly recommend pinning the action-menu of one prop blade to easily see its angle like shown in DF-2-4c picture. !!!!!!!!!DO NOT FORGET TO TURN ON THE POWER PACK WITH ACTION GROUP 5!!!!!!!!! In engine out operation, manually setting the inoperative engine at an angle of 0 will reduce its drag. At around +90 you can reverse, do not attempt in flight To slow down on the runway set prop to -90 You can use action group 1 and 4 to toggle brake on engine to turn faster on the ground and on water. If you never flew with a true prop engine and don't know how to manage the blades angle, then the best way to learn is to try Normally this kind of aircraft would have been done by those guys from S.I.C. but they struggle to get funds after the flop of their latest "Inverted Concept". What were they thinking, replacing fuel pod by crew cabins pod, of course there would be concerns for safety. Meanwhile we still managed to sell a plane that fly fast enough to melt aluminium... The BiCloud pronounce be-cloud handle well, not fast, at all speed. The c.o.m. could have been closer to the c.o.l. but it induce reaction from the plane that require more complex management of the engine and with Jebediah Kerman as a valid test pilot our engineers decided to stay away from these potential trouble. It won't stop you from reliably pulling the softest landing in the galaxy. A piece of knowledge: Based on my observation. In ksp rotor's torque is constant regardless of the rpm (perfect motor), but electric consumption depends on both torque and rpm (torque x rpm = ec = work). For every propeller design there is, for a given altitude and speed, an ideal configuration of blade pitch and rpm(get very high) to get maximum thrust and minimum torque (opposed to the engine).The problem is that even if your propeller opposed less resistance than the torque of your rotor, it won't spin faster than the 460 hard limit (unless you use some exploit). The thing is that the torque produce by the rotor won't reduce to match what it needs, wasting lot of electric charge. I'll take the DF-2-4 as an exmple: at 4000m its maximum speed of 256.something m/s is achieve with prop-45 and the maxium fuel consumption of 0.07&0.09 (range: 10,000 km). At a lower angle(like -50 because negative number) speed decrease but fuel consumption stay the same (less efficient). At higher angle speed decrease and fuel consumption decrease too but much faster (better efficiency) the maximum angle to sustain flight being around -38 -37. This is like a transfer window, it disappear above 5000m and below 2000m(not sure for this one). It range depends on your craft. I have one that extend above 7000m and another one that doesn't have this "efficiency window" DF-2-4c at 300t. Luckily, fuel cells does scale their fuel consumption with you ec usage. Gallery