Slowest plane in ksp

[rockets-don't-make-toast]

This is a challenge about having the slowest plane. Rules in the video.

+stock, no cheats. post your scores in the comments (forum equivalent)

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by rockets-don't-make-toast

[Piatzin]

I have a couple of planes that can glide well at ~40 m/s, but I'm assuming we have to have the engines burning?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I seem to remember doing a challenge a lot like this before?

Might have been lowest take off speed though.

[rockets-don't-make-toast]

6 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

I have a couple of planes that can glide well at ~40 m/s, but I'm assuming we have to have the engines burning?

at it's 1,000m at 100m/s cut engines and glide. My plane glided between 15 and 20 km.

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by rockets-don't-make-toast

[DualDesertEagle]

9 hours ago, rockets-don't-make-toast said:

at it's 1,000m at 100m/s cut engines and glide. My plane glided between 15 and 20 km.

 

Damn, I was about to link to this old post in another thread, where I seem to have set a record that still stands today...

On 28.5.2016 at 4:59 PM, DualDesertEagle said:

KILLED IT! 5.8 m/s take off speed!

I think I've really pushed the limit tho, and this might aswell be disqualified since I'm taking off with well over 50% throttle and at an angle of 30 degrees.

But should this still count, ur gonna have a hard time beating it!

I've really started splitting hair to make it this far! I've taken off really EVERYTHING that wasn't ABSOLUTELY VITAL to make the plane take off, I've switched to an engine that was a whopping 10 grams lighter than the old one, I've joined the wings together in the middle and swapped the retractable gears to non-retracts of the same weight but with streamline housings to improve the aerodynamics, I've increased the dyhedral to have the plane sit on the ground at a higher angle, I've made absolutely sure that the wheels are mouted straight to minimize friction and I've taken half of the fuel out of the tank! This thing probably has the best lift to weight ratio that can be achieved and it's really just designed to take off, then run out of fuel soon after and fall back to the ground. U can't control anything but the throttle and the in this case absolutely useless thrust vectoring.

 

 

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Damn, I was about to link to this old post in another thread, where I seem to have set a record that still stands today...

<snip>

In my view, having a thrust vector that intersects the ground at all doesn't really count...otherwise you could build a plane with larger engine, TWR>1, and take off at an arbitrarily low forward speed.

The rule ought to be "lowest speed in level flight", so you are staying aloft solely with aerodynamic lift and not with angled thrust.

[DualDesertEagle]

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

In my view, having a thrust vector that intersects the ground at all doesn't really count...otherwise you could build a plane with larger engine, TWR>1, and take off at an arbitrarily low forward speed.

The rule ought to be "lowest speed in level flight", so you are staying aloft solely with aerodynamic lift and not with angled thrust.

As stated and demonstrated by according graphics in the other thread, the downward thrust portion is negligible.

[Kulebron]

I'd suggest making the challenge to actually travel some distance, like to the island airport and back, and somehow measure fuel (or fuel mass percentage), to make it more practical and avoid semi-vtol designs.

[rockets-don't-make-toast]

making vtol designs would most likely be under the "intentionally misinterpreting the rules" So I could just disqualify people for that.

Edited January 23, 2018 by rockets-don't-make-toast

[Rocket In My Pocket]

5 minutes ago, rockets-don't-make-toast said:

making vtol designs would most likely be under the "intentionally misinterpreting the rules" So I could just disqualify people for that.

You could also just set a maximum take-off attack angle of like 5 or 10 degrees.

The plane pictured above is at a 30 degree angle, which is pretty extreme and is bordering on "half a VTOL" in my opinion.

(Not to take anything away from @DualDesertEagle it's still very impressive, outside the scope of this challenge.)

Edited January 23, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[rockets-don't-make-toast]

As long as it's not obvious that the engines are a large contributor to the takeoff, it's fine.

[Kulebron]

Actually, this is doable with aero GUI panel (with total lift and total gravity forces visible).

[Pds314]

Hmm...

Can Autorotations work in KSP?

I think they should work if the blade pitch is correct and/or gets adjusted automatically...

I think I shall make a vehicle capable of vertical takeoff (through wing lift, not thrust) and vertical gliding.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Pds314

[vyznev]

2 hours ago, Pds314 said:

I think I shall make a vehicle capable of vertical takeoff (through wing lift, not thrust) and vertical gliding.

If that counts, I suppose something like this is pretty much unbeatable in the first two categories:

Further improvements are pretty much up to piloting skill. With careful flying (and tweaking the blade pitch), this thing can take off, hover and land at arbitrarily low speeds (as measured from the center of mass, at least). Feels kind of cheaty, though. 

(Of course, this won't win the "longest gliding range" contest, at least not without some seriously cheesy "a reaction wheel isn't an engine" rules lawyering.)

Edited February 27, 2018 by vyznev
expand, note that this doesn't really glide too well

[MinimalMinmus]

I've already seen the glitch in the video, but with rovers. I call it the "landmine kraken".