Land and takeoff again from SPH roof

[Klapaucius]

Simple. Land your aircraft on the SPH roof. Then, take off again.  All successful pilots will get bonus snacks.  The team that manages to put the heaviest aircraft on the roof and takeoff again will be the overall winner.

In short, this is an STOL (short takeoff and landing) challenge.

 

LEADERBOARD SPH (by weight):

1.  @ralanboyle 426

2.  @ralanboyle 100

3.  @JcoolTheShipbuilder 41 (SSTO)

4.  @jimmymcgoochie 32.81

5.  @RoninFrog 18.18

6.  @Klapaucius 16.086

7.  @Pds314 9.663

8.  @dnbattley 8.500

9.  @jimmymcgoochie 3.4 (Electric Prop)

 

LEADERBOARD for Multiple Landings No Quicksaves (see scoring rules below)

1. @jimmymcgoochie 3.4 (Electric Prop)  25 points

2.  @Pds314 9.663  14 points

3. @jimmymcgoochie 3.4 (Electric Prop)  7 points

 

 

LEADERBOARD for Multiple Landings (quicksaves and/or different planes allowed)

1.  @ralanboyle10 tonnes 41 points (plus amazing Control Tower landing)

 

 

RULES:

1. No VTOL or angled engines.

2. No parachutes or drag chutes.

3. The plane must remain intact.

4. Must have a pilot.

5. Separate leaderboards for using or not using reverse thrust. (rule update)

6. You must come to a complete stop on the roof.

7. Leaderboard for heaviest aircraft.

8. No physics altering mods.

9. You may use any stock or dlc engine. Jet, rocket or DLC props.  Depending on how this plays out, I may separate the leaderboard for prop planes.  TBD.

10. Include the mass of your craft in your submission. You must takeoff with that mass. You may not drain fuel after measuring your mass--though you may start with any amount you wish.

10. As with all my challenges, don't go looking for loopholes. Keep to the spirit of the competition. I cannot anticipate everything. If in doubt, ask.

BONUS: After leaving SPH, land on any other roof at KSC. Separate leaderboard for most landings and takeoffs. Must be all within the same flight.  You will get credit for every successful landing on a different building up to and until you crash. (The lower roof on the side of the VAB counts as a separate landing surface from the top).  Note from OP: I have not pulled this off yet, though I have spent a lot of time trying. But I know there are folks who can :-)

 

BONUS: QUICKSAVE VARIANT:  Simply land on as many buildings as possible.  Quicksaves/ multiple launches and different aircraft allowed.  Scoring is the same.

 

BONUS ROUND SCORING:

3 points for each successful landing (defined as plane intact and upright).

3 points for each successful takeoff (the initial takeoff from the runway does not count).  The plane must fly.  A plummet off the side of the building resulting in an unrecoverable nosedive into the ground or another rooftop does not count.

2 points for any landing where you break something but the plane is still flyable (an intact plane on its back that cannot be righted does not count--a plane that can, does). 

2 points for any successful takeoff that loses parts.

1 point for a landing where your Kerbal survives and at least most of the pieces are on the targeted rooftop. 

0 points for missing completely and crashing.

0 points for any takeoffs from the ground.

 

NOTES: 

A landing is defined as coming to a complete stop.

You only get credit for each landing and takeoff once.  You cannot go back and try to improve that one.

If you break something on your first landing, as long as you don't break anything more on subsequent landings, you will get full credit for the subsequent landings.

If you land on the control tower, take a bow! 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Klapaucius
Leaderboard

[Turf]

Looking forward to doing this challenge!
Also, why not just measure mass after landing down?
And how about landing on SPH vertically with a plane?

[vyznev]

6 hours ago, Turf said:

Also, why not just measure mass after landing down?
And how about landing on SPH vertically with a plane?

Is there a convenient way to see a vessel's mass in stock KSP outside the VAB/SPH without mods? (Of course it's easy if you have KER.) I know the Alt+F12 aero GUI can show the gravitational force on the vessel, and as long as you're reasonably close to sea level you can divide that by Kerbin's surface gravity of 9.81 m/s² to calculate the mass, but that's kind of awkward.

I would guess that "no VTOL" includes no vertical landing — that's what the L in VTOL stands for, after all.

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

5 minutes ago, vyznev said:

Is there a convenient way to see a vessel's mass in stock KSP outside the VAB/SPH without mods? (Of course it's easy if you have KER.) I know the Alt+F12 aero GUI can show the gravitational force on the vessel, and as long as you're reasonably close to sea level you can divide that by Kerbin's surface gravity of 9.81 m/s² to calculate the mass, but that's kind of awkward.

I would guess that "no VTOL" includes no vertical landing — that's what the L in VTOL stands for, after all.

if you go into map view, and click on the info tab, or just go and click on the stock delta V thing, it will show the current mass i think

 

also, what about using an ornithopter?

Edited October 12, 2020 by JcoolTheShipbuilder

[Klapaucius]

@Turf Thanks for the interest!

Per your questions: No VTOL, so no landing on your tail or coming down in any controlled and powered (or parachuted) manner vertically. It is a STOL, not a  VTOL, challenge. 

Having said that, you can use all the reverse thrust you want, and you can put your landing gear anywhere. VTOL is not permitted, but scary landings at silly angles are, as are stalling the plane and dropping onto the SPH.

If you have something really cool that is outside those parameters, we can make a special non competitive "exhibition" category.  @JcoolTheShipbuilderThis might be a good place for an ornithopter as well.  I'm really looking forward to seeing that!

I think what I may do is make a separate leaderboard for planes that use or do not use reverse thrust.  That opens it up to two very different methods of building but keeps it fair.

 

As for mass: initial mass is easiest.  Everyone can do that without even Kerbal Engineer.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Klapaucius

[Pds314]

Alright. I have landed an aircraft I call "High Alpha MaNeuverability Demonstrator" or "HAMND" on the SPH and taken off again.

It uses a generous amount of Thrust vectoring but no reversers. The biggest problem by far is that it likes to land at a 45 degree stall which will mess up the tail, so you need to nose down right before landing.

Launch mass is 9663 kg.

[Pds314]

Hmm... it's definitely hard to stop without breaking the landing gear for larger planes.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Pds314

[dnbattley]

@Klapaucius I hope this does not come across as looking for a loophole, but is there any rule against allowing engines to dynamically be moved vertically on the airframe (while strictly maintaining their direction to be directly rearwards at all times)? The ability to raise or lower the thrust relative to the CoL/M may permit some more interesting STOL flexibility.

[Klapaucius]

Just now, dnbattley said:

@Klapaucius I hope this does not come across as looking for a loophole, but is there any rule against allowing engines to dynamically be moved vertically on the airframe (while strictly maintaining their direction to be directly rearwards at all times)? The ability to raise or lower the thrust relative to the CoL/M may permit some more interesting STOL flexibility.

If nothing else, we can put it in the exhibition category. This sounds really cool, and I would love to see it!

[dnbattley]

3 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

If nothing else, we can put it in the exhibition category. This sounds really cool, and I would love to see it!

Well... sadly my design efforts there came to nothing, as the result was barely controllable.

However, I had more success with... this 8.5T oddity (4.5 min unedited video follows):

Designed primarily with rapid take off, extreme manoeuvrability and good survivability in mind, it mocks some more traditional aircraft design practices...

 

EDITED TO ADD: Noticing the record stood at 9.6T, I strapped a few more fuel tanks and wings on and tried again, with success, now at 9.8T: https://imgur.com/a/qoItfcn

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by dnbattley

[Mikenike]

On 10/12/2020 at 1:29 PM, vyznev said:

I would guess that "no VTOL" includes no vertical landing — that's what the L in VTOL stands for, after all.

Don't you mean the V(ertical), not the L(anding)?

On 10/12/2020 at 2:12 PM, Klapaucius said:

@Turf Thanks for the interest!

Per your questions: No VTOL, so no landing on your tail or coming down in any controlled and powered (or parachuted) manner vertically. It is a STOL, not a  VTOL, challenge. 

Having said that, you can use all the reverse thrust you want, and you can put your landing gear anywhere. VTOL is not permitted, but scary landings at silly angles are, as are stalling the plane and dropping onto the SPH.

If you have something really cool that is outside those parameters, we can make a special non competitive "exhibition" category.  @JcoolTheShipbuilderThis might be a good place for an ornithopter as well.  I'm really looking forward to seeing that!

I think what I may do is make a separate leaderboard for planes that use or do not use reverse thrust.  That opens it up to two very different methods of building but keeps it fair.

 

As for mass: initial mass is easiest.  Everyone can do that without even Kerbal Engineer.

 

 

I will use a semi cheat method, and use SRBs to slow me. I will have to figure out the amount of SF needed, but thats not hard.

[Pds314]

52 minutes ago, dnbattley said:

Well... sadly my design efforts there came to nothing, as the result was barely controllable.

However, I had more success with... this 8.5T oddity (4.5 min unedited video follows):

Designed primarily with rapid take off, extreme manoeuvrability and good survivability in mind, it mocks some more traditional aircraft design practices...

 

EDITED TO ADD: Noticing the record stood at 9.6T, I strapped a few more fuel tanks and wings on and tried again, with success, now at 9.8T: https://imgur.com/a/qoItfcn

 

9.8 tonne... Maybe tomorrow I'll make a huge monstrosity. Adding 21 tonnes of ore to a 9 tonne prop plane mostly resulted in explosions or overruns but I'm convinced that we're not near the limits here.

[dnbattley]

Just now, Pds314 said:

9.8 tonne... Maybe tomorrow I'll make a huge monstrosity. Adding 21 tonnes of ore to a 9 tonne prop plane mostly resulted in explosions or overruns but I'm convinced that we're not near the limits here.

Agreed: I just couldn't resist after noticing how similar in weight my first attempt was to yours

[Klapaucius]

6 hours ago, Mikenike said:

Don't you mean the V(ertical), not the L(anding)?

I will use a semi cheat method, and use SRBs to slow me. I will have to figure out the amount of SF needed, but thats not hard.

Engines facing forward are allowed. That is considered reverse thrust.

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

hmm.... do i need destructable facilities on?

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

I noticed that the record was going to be ~30 tons, so i decided to beat it with a 41t SSTO
ok, i just did it with an SSTO
The ssto is 41t, and it landed at 40m/s with all brakes and no reverse thrust.

yep. and now... to take off again. also, the TWR shows that i could not have done a vertical landing lol, 0.80.

Took off,

i then proceeded to go into orbit


I then reentered and decided to land on the SPH again

When i landed it the second time after returning from orbit, the mass was now 26.4t

It stopped suprisingly fast, despite touching down at about 40m/s again lol...

took off, and then i went and landed on the runway
the taking off and landing took several tries

Edited October 16, 2020 by JcoolTheShipbuilder

[Mikenike]

16 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Engines facing forward are allowed. That is considered reverse thrust.

[RoninFrog]

I decided to land an SSTO on the SPH instead of runway today.

Spoiler

Eyeballing the SPH.

I can just tell this is gonna be rough.  I had to turn off SAS because it was getting confused at such low speeds.

This plane can take some really rough landings, so to land I basically stalled at 20 m/s and 10 meters right above the SPH and then nosedived straight into the roof.  *Kadunk kadunk*  Nothing broken!  Not even that flimsy fin on the bottom!  This landing was definitely more vertical then horizontal, but it used lithobraking instead of engines/parachutes.  Still valid?

The mass is 18.18 tons.

Takeoff again, huh?  Okay.  Arfield Kerman had to get out and manually push the plane around since it ran out of electricity.

Here goes nothing!

Nose up!  Nose up!

Up, up, and away!

18.18 tons, no reverse thrust, airbreathing engines only.

Edited October 18, 2020 by RoninFrog

[Turf]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:12 AM, Klapaucius said:

As for mass: initial mass is easiest.  Everyone can do that without even Kerbal Engineer.

You can actually see your craft mass by going to the map view and clicking on the craft info.... Only accurate up to 0.1 tons, though.

[Klapaucius]

4 hours ago, RoninFrog said:

 This landing was definitely more vertical then horizontal, but it used lithobraking instead of engines/parachutes.  Still valid?

Absolutely!

 

4 hours ago, RoninFrog said:

Takeoff again, huh?  Okay.  Arfield Kerman had to get out and manually push the plane around since it ran out of electricity.

Awesome!  That is the Kerbal way.

I'll try to get the leaderboard sorted out tomorrow.

[jimmymcgoochie]

Challenge accepted! I'm surprised nobody is using the stock planes; with a few minor modifications the Stratolauncher seems to work pretty well with a decent mass, low stall speed and short stopping distance with the brakes turned up to 200%.

 

After a few false starts

Spoiler

Slightly too low on approach:

Landed and then crashed on takeoff:

I finally did it:

I didn't get a shot as it lifted off from the SPH roof as I was too busy frantically bashing the keys to avoid crashing into the side of the VAB.

32.81 tons landed on the SPH roof, no reverse thrust required. Then I tried to land on the VAB roof, but that didn't go well...

All the images are here: https://imgur.com/a/pR6Me6O

I'll try again with something even bigger!

[jimmymcgoochie]

Made a few more attempts, going for maximum number of landings rather than maximum mass. Using a slightly modified version of the jet above I landed on SPH roof > VAB roof > SPH roof, then crashed when trying to land on a hangar at the Island Airfield.

With the stock(+DLC) Arrow-E electric plane, I managed 4 successful rooftop landings in a row (SPH > Tracking Station hub > VAB > Mission Control) before crashing on the helipad of the Administration Building. As it's electric, the mass was 3.45 tons throughout the flight (until it crashed).

On a completely unrelated note, the only other thing I've done with this particular save was throw a comet into Kerbin's atmosphere when 1.10 was newly released, which resulted in two dozen smaller comets orbiting Kerbin and causing the weird white sky in the images below.

Spoiler

A few more attempts (and crashes!) here: https://imgur.com/a/N3c5Hlg

 

[Klapaucius]

The leaderboard is updated.  I've also created a scoring system for the multiple roof challenge that I think is reasonably fair.  You get credit for each landing and takeoff and some partial credit for semi-successful landings.  You will see it spelled out at the bottom of the original post.

[ralanboyle]

Mmmmm, I've been playing MS Flight Sim for the past few weeks, but this challenge brought me out of retirement!. Here is a 100T airplane completing the challenge, twice. I don't see any reason that 500T is out of the question. 

 

[ralanboyle]

Boom, I had a few drinks and decided to throw down the gauntlet! 426 Tons @Klapaucius, You're welcome.