Wanderfound

Bugger aerodynamics. Moar engines! Top speed 598.7m/s, maximum altitude 25,652m. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7aceucdm3qv1v8w/Junoracer%20III.craft?dl=0

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.

Managed a Juno SSTO yet?

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

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.

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

Neatly done. Craft file? Wouldn't the shock cone intakes disqualify that one from the other challenge?

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

A challenge that should test your transonic drag tuning abilities: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129749-junoracer-challenge/

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

I'd be a bit worried about the structural shock on parachute deployment if you couldn't manage to get the lander spun retrograde during the descent. But that's a solvable problem...

It's just occured to me that heatshields under the engines won't work if you're using the Eve lander engines to get it to LKO. Two options: either an extra set of boosters on the lander (to get it to LKO without using its own engines; again, use the lander fuel to power them and refuel in LKO) or a big heatshield mounted on a Klaw (launch separately, attach it to the lander in LKO). In either case, the shield is just for descent, not aerobraking. Use the tug to put it into a nice low Eve orbit before you touch the atmosphere.

Eve ships don't have to be huge. Asparagus staging, in multiple layers. Try this: a small lander can on top of an FL-T200 and Twitch, with a quartet of asparagus-staged (i.e. dropping in pairs, fuel lines from droptank->droptank->core) Oscar-B drop tanks. Make the drop tanks from three or four Oscar-B's per decoupler, small nosecones on top and below. That's more than 4,000m/s ΔV right there. Under that, a decoupler and a pair of FL-T800's on top of a Vector. Surrounding it, a quartet of asparagus-staged radial boosters, each made from a pair of FL-T800's and an Aerospike. Lightly strut where appropriate; make sure to base the struts from the outside in (to lose their mass when decoupling). All up, that should give you sufficient Eve launch TWR and about 9,000m/s ΔV. To get it down, put decouplers and heatshields under all five launch engines. Put large parachutes on top and landing legs on the bottom of the boosters, and something aerodynamic (nosecone, parachute, shielded docking port) on top of the lander can. Squeeze a few more ΔV out of it and you can afford to carry a Science Jr and a service bay stuffed full of science gear. Don't forget the ladders if you're planning on getting out, and stick a probe core in the service bay if you want a scientist to fly it. Getting it to Kerbin orbit isn't hard; just don't drop the boosters, and refuel it in orbit. Getting it to Eve will require a tug; nuke if you're patient, KR-2L and/or Vector if you're not. It's often easier to pull than to push; just be sure to disable gimbal on the tug engines and take care that the exhaust doesn't hit the cargo. Vectors or Nukes mounted on hardpoints or structural pylons are good for this.

I didn't even think about solar distance. And I normally use fuel cells, too, because most of my miners are spaceplanes. But this time I went for solar, because the miner isn't designed for atmospheric flight. Dangit.

Not quite. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/f14vl0mtkwh0f5q/Kerbohover.craft?dl=0

Nuke and conventional rockets working well in combo... Made the burn in a single not-too-painful push, dumping all of the drop tanks along the way. Didn't even have to start too high; just barely grazed the atmosphere at periapsis, despite beginning the burn pointed almost straight down.

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/vodso08yeykhkcw/Kerbodyne%20Polaris.craft?dl=0

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/f14vl0mtkwh0f5q/Kerbohover.craft?dl=0

Juno-powered SSTO: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7p8b3cmue12ed1/Kerbodrone.craft?dl=0

Juno-powered SSTO spaceplane: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7p8b3cmue12ed1/Kerbodrone.craft?dl=0

Kerbodrone Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7p8b3cmue12ed1/Kerbodrone.craft?dl=0 Leave 20 units of LF tank empty if you want to give it a bit more orbital fuel margin.

Kerbodrone Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7p8b3cmue12ed1/Kerbodrone.craft?dl=0

Jet engines (including RAPIERs in closed cycle mode) draw evenly from all unlocked tanks, regardless of placement. Other engines will need fuel hoses to draw from wingtip tanks etc. Creative use of the offset tools makes it possible to hide fuel lines within wings.

This is a FAR build, but something similar should work in stock. Don't forget to switch the elevators to pitch only, ailerons to roll only and rudder to yaw only (right-click on the control surfaces). Craft at https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlh3xh4hy197xx5/Kerbodyne%20Demo%201.craft?dl=0 The major early pointers for stock aircraft are: * CoL just behind CoM. Think about how CoM will move as fuel drains. * Rear landing gear just behind CoM if it's tricycle gear (i.e. not a Spitfire-style taildragger). Beware tailstrike.

Part 1 of however many it takes; launch and orbital assembly.