Kerbin Eco Challenge: How far on 100 fuel?

[Nefrums]

Here you go:  

 

[Aetharan]

Ouch.  I was just uploading pics when I saw that you'd posted.  I've improved, but not quite by enough: Max altitude: 13,899m. Ground Distance Covered: 5,110,835m.  Score: 5,249.825.

Imgur Album

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Kermunmus]

Awwww, now I have to get rid of the 4 4's plus your 4 bonus points for going 4 times . I'll be updating the leader board as soon as I get home from school.

Edit: Done!

Edited June 1, 2017 by LazySoUseHyperedit

[overkill13]

Did you know a Juno can go supersonic?  I sure as hell didn't until I tried this.

Altitude: 10,735m

Ground Distance: 6,104,600m

Score: 6,211

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by overkill13

[Nefrums]

nice one!   the trust chart for the juno on the wiki looks to be very outdated.

But how did you manage to get that far when you had only 5 units of fuel left after passing ksc?  I had 25 units left and I did not get as far as you did.

[Aetharan]

Something's a bit odd with the readouts, given that I'm showing similar numbers for half a circumnavigation retrograde to what you guys are for more than a full one prograde.  I might need to see what the readout looks like for a flight east with the same plane after I finish my current west flight.

Edit:  As of this edit (9:30 AM CST), my current iteration has covered 2,507,029m ground distance retrograde, is at 168º 50' 30" E, and has 50 units of fuel left with MechJeb reporting another 1h 00m 33.1s burn time.  After this one's landed, I'll run prograde with the same plane and see how different things are.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Aetharan

[overkill13]

1 hour ago, Nefrums said:

nice one!   the trust chart for the juno on the wiki looks to be very outdated.

But how did you manage to get that far when you had only 5 units of fuel left after passing ksc?  I had 25 units left and I did not get as far as you did.

I don't really know, I just flew it.  Well, I hardly flew it, the autopilot did, including the glide.  Consumption is around 0.011 with the Juno.  Here's a couple quick tests I did flying west to the coast, turning around and doing my best to emulate the fuel over KSC again (with Hyperedit).

There are no parts on the plane clipped inside.  2 fuel tanks, 1 intake, 1 Juno, 1 pod, 1 1.25-0.6 adapter, 2 small wing, 2 small control surfaces, 1 radial parachute.  Small wings are angled 5 degrees up for better AoA at cruising speed.  Fuel burns out of the front first.  

Launch gets squirrely around 45m/s.  Abort button decouples the craft and applies the brakes on the cart.  Climb at 10-20m/s until speed is 350ish then climb at 40 until speed is 450, then climb as fast as you want to about 9400m maintaining 500+m/s groundspeed.  Climb slowly into the 10km range. hold 10700ish until out of fuel.  Glide at 5-7 degrees down angle.  It'll glide nearly the entire width of that peninsula on it's own.  If you get instability in flight, turn off the yaw control on the control surfaces around 250m/s, then turn it back on while gliding once you are subsonic.

Craft File:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9bTL0WKpN4IenRzZER2NDdQSGc

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by overkill13

[Nefrums]

I highly recommend the time control mod for long flights. I made mine at x20 time warp, with 100% physics accuracy. But the speed you get is highly dependant on CPU and part count

[Kermunmus]

I'm back, and I find controversy over the recent addition. I went over it and it seems to check out, @Nefrums your range was probably worse because you turned north while traveling ~600 m/s, losing speed and burning more fuel, and the slower speed decreases your glide range, just a guess

I'll add @overkill13 to the leaderboard

[Aetharan]

Okay, so I tried both retrograde and prograde flights.  The prograde flew a few m/s slower, a few hundred meters higher, and (subsequently) more efficiently (cruising with a burn rate of 0.01224 liquid fuel per second), but didn't show a significant difference in the apparent ground distance covered vs. degrees around the great circle I traveled, so I don't know what's going on with that.  Since I flubbed the second flight's water landing, the first (and less awesome) will have to suffice for this plane's report.  Highest Altitude: 15,253m. Ground Distance Covered: 6,604,773m.  Score: 6,757.303.

Imgur Album

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Kermunmus]

50 minutes ago, Aetharan said:

Okay, so I tried both retrograde and prograde flights.  The prograde flew a few m/s slower, a few hundred meters higher, and (subsequently) more efficiently (cruising with a burn rate of 0.01224 liquid fuel per second), but didn't show a significant difference in the apparent ground distance covered vs. degrees around the great circle I traveled, so I don't know what's going on with that. 

You used less fuel, however you were travelling more slowly so it equaled out

[Aetharan]

2 minutes ago, LazySoUseHyperedit said:

You used less fuel, however you were travelling more slowly so it equaled out

What has me confused isn't the apparent lack of difference between my flights.  It's the fact that the others are passing over KSC and reporting similar total distances traveled to my own, when I'm not even making a full circumnavigation.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Aetharan

[Kermunmus]

18 minutes ago, Aetharan said:

What has me confused isn't the apparent lack of difference between my flights.  It's the fact that the others are passing over KSC and reporting similar total distances traveled to my own, when I'm not even making a full circumnavigation.

Either way? Kerbin rotates so if you went against kerbin's rotation you should cover less ground distance, however "total distance" would be the same

[Aetharan]

Well, I've made another pass at it, and this time successfully circumnavigated!  I also figured out what was confusing me:  A difference of even a few hundred meters in cruising altitude is going to make the great circle you need to fly that much longer-- simple math, after all.  The bigger the radius, the bigger the circumference.  Highest altitude achieved: 15,107m. (Highest in stable flight: 14,695m).  Ground Distance Covered: 7,787,611m.  Score: 7,934.561 (using stable flight number.)

Imgur Album

This success does leave me thinking that it might not be so impossible to achieve a scouter-crushing score.  (I also wouldn't be even half-surprised if @Nefrums beat me to it.)

Edited December 24, 2017 by Aetharan
Fixing Imgur links.

[Kermunmus]

Nice job @Aetharan, you're really determined to be on top of this leaderboard, aren't you?

[Aetharan]

Maybe.  

[Kermunmus]

Since this is now on page 2, I will be using my "one time revive" (this post)

If no one has an entry by the time this moves to the second page again, or in a week, I'll end the challenge

(Also someone who has already submitted doesn't count )

[Sivonen]

Hold it a bit, if you will. I'm working on my entry. Currently at 6000km range.

[rkarmark]

@LazySoUseHyperedit

i am lazy so can i use hyperedit?

 

Spoiler

Sorry bad joke could not resist

 

[Kermunmus]

I'm afraid there are no exceptions, even for people who make SPECTACULAR, ORIGINAL jokes 

[Sivonen]

Update without screenshots; 6500km. I'm determined to win this. Or (Jeb will) die trying.

[Kermunmus]

I don't think Jeb would want to go out trying to conserve fuel, that is too tame for him. Think about the poor guy . Maybe you should use Bill or Bob instead

[Sivonen]

He is best at dying though.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Sivonen

[Aetharan]

Don't think of it as dying in an attempt to conserve fuel.  Think of it as dying in an attempt to get the absolute most out of a specific engine.

[Sivonen]

I'm struggling. With mk1 pod based craft, I can get my drag down to 5.0 when accelerated to cruise speed, 90 fuel left. Pod produces about 1kN drag. Best result is about 6600km.

 

With mk1.inline pod I can't go below 8 drag, and the pod itself produces 2.6kN of drag. Resulting a lousy 5000ish km.

 

I see Aetharan is using the inline pod with success... What is it I'm not understanding here...?