daniel911t

You guys are amazing! I tried and tried and just couldn't control heat adequately. I need to watch your videos and learn... I'm still trying for the distance record... However, I think I was already pretty near the best possible performance with a wheesly. I've been experimenting with Goliath, but the drag is just shocking... can't seem to get consumption down to anything near Wheesly. I need to look and see if there's a modded category... I think I could really do something impressive with just procedural wings. (Keeper of the challenge? Thoughts on wings?)

When I've tried my speed run attempts I've actually seen some things that I thought were near impossible - like at 28Km and Mach 5.7 a RAPIER had a fuel consumption of 0.01/sec. I've never actually seen a jet engine run more efficiently.

Foxster, How are you getting air into your engine?

Oh my! That really changes the calculations! I can't believe I didn't think about the length of a day being different! Does that mean everyone's been miscalculating?

I've tried some of the solutions... -The inline heat shield delayed heat soak and destruction, but didn't eliminate it. -Having ablator onboard does help - although not much. I initially added 80 units, but discovered that it was being consumed at a very low rate. I reduced it to the 20 unit minimum and haven't run out before the explosion. -Position of the command pod helps. Moving it back delays heating, but it's still heat soaking and failing. The aircraft is also slower due to less optimized CG/CoL, Even with the wing moved aft to compensate. There is a pretty significant design benefit to having balanced fuel usage at both sides of the CG. -For much of the flight, the critical part is the intake, but very slowly heat builds in the command pod, at the rate of about 1 degree per second - eventually it becomes critical, then all I can do is watch as the temp slowly climbs to explosion - usually just as I'm passing the desert. (about 3/4 of the full lap) I'm still trying to work out the effects of altitude. The old rule of thumb I know is "when heat is a problem, climb". I've tried cruising everywhere from 21Km to 28Km, and the biggest difference I've noticed is a reduction in top speed as I climb beyond the optimal altitude (about 23Km I think), but the heat issue does not seem get better or worse with altitude changes, independent of speed changes. (within reason - if I descend to 15km I essentially spontaneously explode) Any other tricks, tips, or ideas?

I made a second attempt, this time going for distance! The new plane was built around the second most efficient engine, the little Wheesley. This aircraft required several step climbs, starting at about 8KM, ending at 13,750M. I really, really, really tried for 14KM, but every time I got there, speed started slowly bleeding off and it was clear I couldn't hold it. So... now I have to do the math in public and I'll let you decide what seems more accurate for the number of laps: Time traveled: 2 Days, 5 Hours, 11 minutes (53hrs, 11 min) or, ((53*60)+11)*60 = 191,460 seconds in flight Highest speed: 267m/s Approximate distance: 191,460 seconds * 267m/s = 51,119,820m Kerbin circumference: 3,769,911m Circumnavigations: 13.56 ... however, I landed back at KSC, and only overshot by a few Km. So a whole number would make sense. Let me publicly do the alternate: Ground distance traveled: 33,462,023 divided by 3,769,911 = 8.87 circumnavigations So... I think the 13 number is closer to truth. Anybody care to help me figure how far it really was? (especially in light of the correct answer being known to be a whole number!) EDIT: I'm kinda dense - while flying for two days, Kerbin would make two full rotations underneath me. Depending on how they calculate it, that could remove more than 2 revolutions from my total. That adds weight to the larger number.

I'm trying to complete the Kerbin Circumnavigation speed challenge and I'm having persistent problems with aircraft that heat up and explode about halfway around the world. The part that's overheating is always the command pod, which is strange because it's in the middle of the aircraft. The basic fuel tank in front and in back of it does't overheat. It always does this: I installed some small radiators - they typically register as the coolest part of the plane, but they don't seem to make much difference. I also adjusted the angle of incidence on the wings, which dramatically reduced fuselage heating, but for some reason the command pod still overheats, even when the rest of the craft is nominal. I've seen people get the sustained high speeds and not melt, but I just can't seem to manage it. What are the tricks and secrets?

Here's my go at the first level: Also, got 6 revolutions. Wings full of fuel. First time around the globe. HI KSC! *wave* After landing - honestly not sure how many times I made it around... I think 4 ish. I'll have to do the math. However, the endurance was remarkable: 49 hours and change. (with fuel left over) Edit -Calculator says 6.019 revolutions. I did overshoot and come back to land heading 270 - that's the .019 I assume. beauty shot Back to the drawing board for the speed run.

Martian, Great run! I see you were at about an hour on flight time too.

No SAS on mine! It isn't even installed. I set up the Atmosphere Autopilot for a (semi) constant rate of descent. I adjust to keep airspeed constant. So long as I'm in the -1 to -2m/s range and not accelerating, it was seeming to glide forever. With my method spelled out... I made no attempt to optimize my aircraft. Being a paper airplane challenge, I thought I should model a paper airplane. If the actual challenge was max glide with only 16 sepratrons, my aircraft would have looked much different.

Is it possible that engineers increase the efficiency of radiators too?

Yeah, but I was surprised to see that I had to - I initially thought they were passive.

If you look at my pics you'll see that the ISRU settled in at about 1100, even with the two large radiators. I'm frustrated that their cooling ability doesn't seem to be impacted by airflow. I would expect much, much greater cooling efficiency with fluid flow over the radiator and with a greater delta T. (it should be much cooler at 5000M than at the surface) Sadly, it doesn't seem that KSP works that way. I didn't notice any difference in cooling performance under any circumstances.

I decided to try again - this time with more wing and only a pilot. fuselage is the same as my first attempt, but the wings and heatsinks were changed. It took a while to start making enough fuel, and I had to actually plot a graph to find the absolute bottom of my power curve 60 m/s -13.6 kn thrust required 65 m/s - 13.3 kn 68 m/s - 13.2 kn 70 m/s - 12.8 kn 75 m/s - 12.6 kn 77 m/s - 12.3 kn 80 m/s - 12.6 kn 85 m/s - 12.7 kn As soon as the numbers started climbing again I knew there was no point going any faster - form drag (drag created by the airframe) goes up with the square of the speed, so as soon as power required started to tick up, I knew I was getting away from max efficiency. When going slow, induced drag is dominant (drag from making lift), as you speed up, less AOA is required to make the same lift, therefore less induced drag, until form drag comes up and takes over. The magic spot where the curves for form drag and induced drag meet is the most efficient. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but if you go slower than that magic spot, it actually requires more power the slower you fly. For this airplane that magic point is just about 77m/s. This thing flies forever. I got over an hour of flight time out of just the round 8 and ore. Right before finally running out of fuel. Super fun challenge! I'm thinking multi engine next. I have serious doubts about SSTO, I just don't think the power's there, unless you can use a larger holding LFO tank...

My initial plane looked a bit like yours and was flown by a pilot - the problem that became immediately obvious was that I needed excessive throttle (about 1/4) to maintain level flight. That level of power was just the tiniest amount negative and the round 8 was draining at a rate of 0.01, sometimes. I tried again with more wing area and was able to achieve cruising flight at about 2KM at a speed of 100m/s with a positive fuel production rate. Wing area was more important than lightness, in my experience. I understood the Liliquidch was essentially a normal ramjet engine that was fueled by coal powder. If the fuel goes away, there's no more power. The reason a locomotive continues to go after fuel is exhausted is the enormous amount of heat stored in the boiler, a jet of any type doesn't store any energy. A steam locomotive will continue to have power available as long as the boiler is above 100C - and even as it decreases below that there may be some residual pressure. (Incidentally, this is the same on a nuclear powered ship!) Any jet, (except for a thermal nuclear jet) will stop producing thrust as soon as fuel isn't being injected into the combustion chamber. In the '80s Chrysler even tested one of their turbine cars with a coal fuel source. http://jalopnik.com/gm-once-built-these-fascinating-coal-powered-turbine-ca-1791842557 I like your plane!

Yeah... I just landed - 31 minutes and there was still some fuel left.

*Note* I am an automation addict. I shamelessly used Atmosphere Autopilot. *Note2* I found a cheat (stock!) that made this excessively easy. Got one: Finally got to a cruise: This was fuel state before setting off the ISRU This is my cheat: (An Engineer has some large bonus to running the ISRU I couldn't get it to stay in the air with a pilot - but with an engineer I was never hurting for fuel and was actually worried about running out of ORE!) Note the time and fuel state: Still in the process of flying back home... Tons of fun! Thanks for the challenge! (it would be better if you banned engineers - or made it required that there be at least 1 pilot onboard)

I may have misread something... For ultimate, are you supposed to get your Kerbal back to the surface of Kerbin alive? I built a ship that could do the ultimate challenge, but had no provisions for re-entry. I honestly couldn't even figure out how to get a parachute onboard. (unmodified - if I had mods and could use kerbal parachutes, that may be different) I was able to do LEGEND with a little mass, and 600DV to spare... So... are those people completing ultimate actually returning a live kerbal to the surface without mods?

I know I'm totally resurrecting an old thread... but I was looking for a challenge and this looked like fun! I took the name literally and made my favorite type of paper plane out of stock parts. My max was not near the record. I got 29.9Km. *NOTE* I am a shameless user of automation. Atmosphere Autopilot was very useful in keeping a max stability glide.

I managed to complete the Legend level! Took a bunch of tries, but it was a lot of fun. Thanks a lot for the suggestion by the OP. My big breakthrough was when I realized that I could get a Mk1 lander can with a single ion engine to have a greater than 1:1 TWR on the moon. That was a super light experimental craft that lacked heatshields or parachutes, but it proved the concept. With all the survival gear I was able to get a good TWR with 4 ion engines. I got to orbit with plenty of leftover delta V. The Jets are way more efficient than SRB's from ground to about 25K. Decided to go to the Mun first. Took much more delta V than I had calculated, but I had a big reserve too. After departing the Mun I put myself in an elliptical orbit outside the Mun. The transfer window to Minmus ended up being the long way around - glad life support isn't a part of the equation. Should really have taken this screen cap on the mun too... forgive me. Then I had so much delta V leftover that I decided to settle back into a nice low energy orbit around Kerbin before re-entry. Even then I melted my solar panels - but I was done with them anyway. Overall I loved this challenge! It really pushed me to think light and to design differently. Thanks so much for coming up with it!

Kramer, I know you've run out of time or will to continue this project, but I just want to thank you for making it in the first place. It's one of my top 5 mods to keep me sane while playing. Thanks so much for the work you put in in the first place, and for sharing it with us. -Dan

Linuxgurugamer, Thank you so much for picking up the torch on my favorite mod. I'll be happy to help with testing and any aviation related questions you have. (I'm a professional pilot IRL) Thanks Again! -Dan

First, I want to thank you for making this amazing and useful tool! Your time is much appreciated. Suggestion: I'd like to have an override button that will allow installation of mods that haven't been specifically updated to the latest KSP. Reason: The best atmospheric autopilot I've found is the Kramax autopilot. It is in CKAN, but is only available for 1.0.4. I believe the original mod author has lost interest as his last update was from November 2015, but his mod still works flawlessly. I'm sure this has come up before, and will come up again - where authors do not keep their mod administratively updated, and it would be nice to be able to have a CKAN workaround. I try to mod using CKAN wherever possible, but I'd use CKAN for 100% if there was an override button. Thanks for all your hard work, and I hope this is a useful suggestion.

MeCripp, Thanks so much, this worked perfectly for me.