Junoracer Challenge

[Wanderfound]

It's a real simple challenge: build a Juno-powered jet that flies as fast and/or as high as possible.

Rules:

1) Juno power only. You can have as many Junos as you like, but no other type of propulsion is allowed.

2) Conventional HOTOL single-stage aircraft. It must be able to make a rolling take off or landing from the runway; it cannot drop any parts.

3) Must be Kerballed. You can do this with a command chair if you want, but that's unlikely to be good for your aerodynamics.

4) Stock parts only. Minor part clipping (adjusting wings, stashing batteries in an empty fuel tank, etc.) is fine, but no stacking twenty engines onto a single node. Minor flight assistance mods (Kerbal Flight Data, Pilot Assistant's PID tuner, etc) are fine.

5) Scoreboards will be kept for both fastest and highest, in separate categories for stock aerodynamics and FAR.

6) Post screenshots of your highest and fastest moments, and a link to the craft file.

7) Using different planes for highest and fastest is fine.

8) Remember Wheaton's Law.

 

To get it started:

 

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/p68iml1ev3zhhcr/Junoracer.craft?dl=0

 

Scoreboard

 

Stock

Altitude

Nefrums, 33,115m

DoctorDavinci, 20,954m

Speed

Nefrums, 721.6m/s

DoctorDavinci, 646.5m/s

 

FAR

Altitude

DoctorDavinci, 26,622m

Wanderfound, 25,652m

 

Speed

DoctorDavinci, 633.7m/s

Wanderfound, 598.7m/s

ZalgoWaits, 530m/s

Edited January 18, 2016 by Wanderfound

[swjr-swis]

Do the entries from this challenge count:

Essentially the same thing.

[ZalgoWaits]

Does using TweakScale to resize stock parts count as making them not stock any more, or no? Should clear that up.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

13 minutes ago, ZalgoWaits said:

Does using TweakScale to resize stock parts count as making them not stock any more, or no? Should clear that up.

I think where it says alstock parts only is enough. Tweak scaling something means it's no longer a stick part; its scaled up or down version, likely with minor imbalances

[Wanderfound]

20 minutes ago, ZalgoWaits said:

Does using TweakScale to resize stock parts count as making them not stock any more, or no? Should clear that up.

Good point; no Tweakscale or other major performance-enhancing mods. Tweaking up a Juno would defeat the whole purpose.

 

33 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Do the entries from this challenge count:

Essentially the same thing.

Very similar, not quite identical (intake restriction). Jets for that would qualify for this, but not vice-versa. I hadn't seen that challenge before, but I don't see any major reason why they can't both run.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Wanderfound said:

Very similar, not quite identical (intake restriction). Jets for that would qualify for this, but not vice-versa. I hadn't seen that challenge before, but I don't see any major reason why they can't both run.

Ok, in that case I'll enter my pure stock TinyJet 13b - max recorded speed 488.5m/s, max recorded altitude 17151m:

 

It shows the potential of the Juno for really small planes, and that external command seats do not have to be that much of a disadvantage.

Craft file: TinyJet 13b

[Nefrums]

then I'll also add my entry from the other challenge:

speed 721,6 m/s. Altitude: 33,115 m

 

[Wanderfound]

25 minutes ago, Nefrums said:

then I'll also add my entry from the other challenge:

speed 721,6 m/s. Altitude: 33,115 m

 

 

Neatly done. Craft file?

Wouldn't the shock cone intakes disqualify that one from the other challenge?

[swjr-swis]

21 minutes ago, Wanderfound said:

Wouldn't the shock cone intakes disqualify that one from the other challenge?

Yes, it would. But the OP of the challenge hasn't been back to make any rulings.

His craft his however perfectly acceptable here. Whereas mine, I just noticed, is not, due to the not being a rolling start craft. Oh well.

[Nefrums]

I'll upload the craft file when I get home from work.

This ship proved the "mooore booosters!" concept.   86 engines  

And the intakes would not be allowed in the other challenge, that is true..  

[ZalgoWaits]

I seem to have been outclassed even while I was still working on my entry, but oh well, I'm posting it anyway because otherwise that's time wasted. Here's my FAR entry. Gets up to 530 m/sec in level flight. Didn't attempt to get its max dive speed because doing any kind of maneuvering in this thing is a bad idea.

Takes off on its own with zero player input at the speed shown. As long as SAS is on, it requires absolutely no player input at all until it starts wiggling at around 5-8k altitude. Velocity shown is the fastest I've been able to get it in level-ish flight. Do not under any circumstances attempt any kind of maneuvering without fine controls turned on, especially at or below wiggle altitude, or bad things will happen.

Craft file

_{MechJeb is there because I prefer its readouts over Kerbal Engineer's, even though I ended up not using them for this flight. No automatic controls were used in the making of this entry!}

[swjr-swis]

@Wanderfound It's nice to see my name on the scoreboard, but it doesn't deserve a place there: my entry does not comply with rule 2.

[Silavite]

14 hours ago, ZalgoWaits said:

I seem to have been outclassed even while I was still working on my entry, but oh well, I'm posting it anyway because otherwise that's time wasted. Here's my FAR entry. Gets up to 530 m/sec in level flight. Didn't attempt to get its max dive speed because doing any kind of maneuvering in this thing is a bad idea.

Takes off on its own with zero player input at the speed shown. As long as SAS is on, it requires absolutely no player input at all until it starts wiggling at around 5-8k altitude. Velocity shown is the fastest I've been able to get it in level-ish flight. Do not under any circumstances attempt any kind of maneuvering without fine controls turned on, especially at or below wiggle altitude, or bad things will happen.

Craft file

_{MechJeb is there because I prefer its readouts over Kerbal Engineer's, even though I ended up not using them for this flight. No automatic controls were used in the making of this entry!}

Reminds me a bit of the F7U Cutlass.

I've tried numerous times to get something that can go fast, but the best I've gotten is a measly 380 m/s! I'd blame it on FAR, but I'm pretty sure that the problem lies with me.

[Wanderfound]

4 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

@Wanderfound It's nice to see my name on the scoreboard, but it doesn't deserve a place there: my entry does not comply with rule 2.

Corrected.

Stick some wheels on that thing and have a go...

[ZalgoWaits]

1 hour ago, Silavite said:

Reminds me a bit of the F7U Cutlass.

I've tried numerous times to get something that can go fast, but the best I've gotten is a measly 380 m/s! I'd blame it on FAR, but I'm pretty sure that the problem lies with me.

You know, I can definitely see the resemblance. It even crashed at about the same rate!

[Wanderfound]

1 hour ago, Silavite said:

I've tried numerous times to get something that can go fast, but the best I've gotten is a measly 380 m/s! I'd blame it on FAR, but I'm pretty sure that the problem lies with me.

Minimise weight (wing strength down as low as you dare, minimal fuel, no unnecessary gadgets), stack on as many engines as will fit (although style points for doing it with less) and try to get the wave drag down below 1m² (lots of fine-tuning of part positions gets this done; wiggle everything that's radially attached back and forwards a bit and watch what it does to the wave drag).

If you're going for altitude as well as speed, a decent amount of wing helps. If you're just after speed, trim the wings to the minimum.

Flight profile wise...the higher you are, the less drag. However, the higher you are, the less thrust (and the higher the AoA required for level flight, which increases drag). Exactly what altitude is best is going to depend on the idiosyncrasies of each plane, but the best speed for each is probably going to be found by getting up to speed at moderate altitude, throwing it into a high-as-possible zoom climb, then keeping the nose on prograde as you dive until the thickening air halts your acceleration.

OTOH, some planes may get better results with a shallow dive to stay in the low drag air for longer. And I'm unsure whether you'll get maximum altitude from a more gradual ascent or a high-speed low-altitude zoom climb. Figuring out what works best is half of the fun of this, though.

[DoctorDavinci]

So here's my first attempt at this .. Stock with 28 Juno's

20 954m with a top speed of 646.5m/s

 

[Wanderfound]

Let's see what a few more engines can do for me...

 

 

572.1m/s, 23,101m.

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/viiblvl7kc0ybdf/Junoracer%20II.craft?dl=0

[Nefrums]

I'we found that i get to the hugest attitudes if I go straight up from low attitude.

 

[swjr-swis]

7 hours ago, Wanderfound said:

Stick some wheels on that thing and have a go...

I did. Top speed and altitude suffered a lot, and it became uncontrollable. I lost the fun in trying before I found any kind of acceptable balance. I'm sure I'll revisit it one day to tinker more, but it's not worth a submission here.

That's ok, it served for the purpose of the other challenge and as a proof of concept. I've been having a grand time since 1.0.5 came out creating all sorts of Juno-based contraptions. A whole new side to KSP I didn't even know I'd enjoy.

[Wanderfound]

14 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

That's ok, it served for the purpose of the other challenge and as a proof of concept. I've been having a grand time since 1.0.5 came out creating all sorts of Juno-based contraptions. A whole new side to KSP I didn't even know I'd enjoy. 

 

 

Managed a Juno SSTO yet?

Edited January 13, 2016 by Wanderfound

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Wanderfound said:

Managed a Juno SSTO yet?

Nice, I haven't tried yet no. I did strap an Oscar-sized LFO booster array to my Juno TIE fighthers and put them in orbit that way, but the boosters were decoupled semi-asparagus style, so not SSTO.

I gave yours a test ride. The main fuselage flexes too much for me, I can't control it smoothly enough to get up there, too much loss in wobble-drag. I'm calling it the Wanderfound Wasp, cause every pitch up action it wants to sting me with the Juno . Are you using KJR, or a couple hidden struts, to keep this rigid?

 

 

[Nefrums]

craft file for my ship:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kua70rgxqovrz10/plane%202.craft?dl=0

[Wanderfound]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Nice, I haven't tried yet no. I did strap an Oscar-sized LFO booster array to my Juno TIE fighthers and put them in orbit that way, but the boosters were decoupled semi-asparagus style, so not SSTO.

I gave yours a test ride. The main fuselage flexes too much for me, I can't control it smoothly enough to get up there, too much loss in wobble-drag. I'm calling it the Wanderfound Wasp, cause every pitch up action it wants to sting me with the Juno . Are you using KJR, or a couple hidden struts, to keep this rigid?

 

 

There are a pair of struts up the back, holding the rear fuselage to the wings (the wings are mounted to the forward fuselage), hidden in the trailing edge of the wing. The strut mounting tends to break whenever you move a part in the SPH, though.

Kerbal Pilot Assistant's PID tuner gets rid of SAS pitch wobble.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Wanderfound

[DoctorDavinci]

Here's my FAR entry

19 218m with a top speed of 572.8m/s