ExaltedDuck

YOU CANNOT UNSEE!!! [imgur]ZjJhp[/imgur] It almost worked, too. Maybe a little trickery with some deploying control surfaces would make it flyable. Although in which direction, the world may never know... [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/as170iktov8myxt/yeah%20thatll%20work.craft?dl=0"].craft if you want to try[/URL]

I didn't like windows 8. So I installed Mint. I like Mint.

i5 2500K here, also with a 750 Ti and more RAM than a single 32 bit app can address, let alone use. Also all SSD. No platters. Game loads really fast, usually runs smoothly. Loading in crafts I've parked at KSP cause low fps spikes and high parts counts cause noticeable slow down, especially in atmospheric maneuvers. But it's usually totally playable.

I know I'm not the first one to implement or document a craft of this nature, but this was my very first thought upon seeing the new parts a day or two before the update came out, and has proven fun enough to have built a few hours of flight time. unfortunately, at the speed limits imposed by the various part temp limits, it only has about half the fuel it would need for its intended purpose of circumnavigation. But as a both a novelty and stunt plane, it's actually really good. Here's the .craft

I would say it does. And if you'd like to try it out, you're more than welcome. https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rj945rszmktplb/Goliath%20Jr_.craft?dl=0 It's like a kerbal continuation of my love of muscle cars. A whole lot of engine, very little chassis, and WAY more fun than than I could ever express.

I made this. yeah, kinda simplesque next to the last few things people have posted in this thread but it does fly really well for whatever that's worth.

They said I was mad... They shouldn't have doubted themselves. I unveil my latest prototype, the Goliath... junior! TIL: high bypass turbfans lose thrust quickly over 10000m and (along with command seats and airplane tails used as wings) rapidly lose the ability to exist past about 300 m/s. So, I need a few slight adjustments of parts to improve the notexplodability of the design, and roughly double or maybe triple the fuel load. Not a problem, I say. FWIW, it actually handles pretty well and is really fun to fly.

I wonder how tiny a circumnavigator can be made with Goliaths. Edited to add: Actually, that gives my evening purpose. Can't wait to be done with and home from work now. Ugh. 7-8 hours to go.

I don't know. Maybe. Some of us have used launch clamps when raw thrust has been enough to put a craft spooling against its brakes up on its nose. So perhaps, as long as it's just for launching, Xan might approve.

These new parts are a lot of fun. I want to see a tiny personal jet like the one Scott Manley was playing with in his 1.0.5 first look videos. Too bad it can't be flown without ditching from a host craft.

I am really frustrated right now. I've come up with a craft capable of cruinsing at 1740 but the MET automatically starts during loading. If I'm really fast, I can get ignition at t+1 or 2 seconds but my previous velocity contenders would not start ticking the MET until my first stage activation (and it's happening with and without launch clamps). Then, up in the air, I'm running into a strange heating glitch where I have to yaw back and forth to preserve the fuel tanks serving as outboard engine nacelles. If I don't, they'll explode about 8 minutes in. But when I do, the temp goes from bright red, almost dead to brownish-green and flickers for a few seconds, then stabilizes at the lower temp. With these problems, I'm within a second of my personal best. But if everything were working correctly, I think I might be in the running for the top seat again. =\

hmm. thought I had a good idea. Turns out I did if one's definition of good is smoothly accelerating to mach 3 then spinning spectularly out of control and disintegrating. revisions to the idea making the craft a little more traditional let me get up to 1700 m/s at 20000m in about 78 seconds, but from there it ran out out of steam at about 1715 m/s. And I couldn't find a way to spool up power before starting the mission clock. It would load in and start counting whether I hit ignition or not. Back to the drawing board.

nice work, Helmut. You may have just inspired me to break my hiatus.

I was 2 seconds off Helmut's time and cruised a 270 hdg around 1730-1735 most of the flight, with an excursion to nearly 1750 on the powered initial portion of my descent. correction: 90 hdg. went out to sea eastward on take off. better fuel efficiency that way,and in my experience times end up the same regardless of 90 or 270 heading.

And that ruling is also why the top velocity times have not been beaten for the last couple of months (and might never be)

that might work well. I used elevons as canards on quite a few designs in this thread and even as primary lifting surface on a few. They can be a bit finicky, though, lending *too much* control authority in many cases. (Basically no caps lock mode can equal instant death and landing chutes become less about stopping fast and more about not becoming a flaming mass of debris. Then again they are rather tough and can survive some rather severe g loads... Well beyond what would necessitate removal of the pilot from the cockpit via garden hose and shop vac.)

Nice run. Congrats.

That said, I use the 90 heading since I can get away with a smaller fuel load.

In my experience, times are the same regardless of 270 or 90 headings. Surface speeds are higher on a 90 heading, and the flight is more fuel efficient. I've taken this to mean that the entire atmosphere must be fixed to the surface and rotates as a block with the planet. Basically it's like a headwind in the 270 direction and tailwind in 90, with scale of each being equal to the rate of planetary rotation and exactly balancing the difference in surface track length... At least that's my intuitive perception. It would be interesting to see if the math confirms it.

I usually descend rather late... Habit from the velocity runs. IIRC I was around 27 or 27.5 km up and started a prograde dive between the west coast and KSC mountains, and a steeper dive over the mountains. I would have to have made 120-140 degrees unpowered without the extra fuel in the strakes, though. My gut feeling is that I would have had enough to go another 1/3 of revolution, so maybe 100 units or so. Looking back, I may have been able to improve efficiency by moving the COL forward a little. I put it far enough back to make any possible fuel transfer fool-proof since I intended to fly in 4x time and tend be rather accident prone.

That's way more effort than I put into it. I took off, set a lock on heading just after retracting the gear, manually flew up to speed/altitude, locked ascent rate to near zero, then used changes in speed to dictate when/how to climb/dive. I knew roughly what my mean fuel consumption rate would have to be and I just let the calculus run mostly subconsciously. I never aimed for a record pace or purely optimized flight plan. Just tried to do what I could to reach my mean consumption rate by the halfway mark, then kept doing it for the homestretch. There might be room for an extra lap with your more scientific approach. I'll be interested to see your results. Also, my second-to-last prototype didn't have any wing strakes. But it ran out of gas just before the fifth desert flyover. I went with the strakes partially for aesthetics and partially to keep the extra fuel close to COM. An additional fuselage tank would have been considerably more difficult to deal with, and I only needed about 80-100 more fuel anyway. I did fill them up completely, though. Filled everything up completely, in fact. That last several hundred km didn't need that much fuel on its own, but carrying that much fuel with the extra drag meant through the previous 10000 meant that I still used most of it. I'll have to look back at my album; I don't remember explicitly noting how much remained. I was just relieved to have made it safely down without needing a reload (really didn't want the odometer reset by F9) and like I said in the original post, in a little bit of shocked state after the roll-over scare.

Well too late to fix that one. Lol. I should know better than to submit a post typed on Android keyboard without thorough proofreading. Gads.

Simplicity is key. Try a mk-I pit with a nose mounted intake, rear mounted liquid fuel tank and pushed by a rapier. Then canards, delta wings (with or without elevons), a tail, gear, and either drogues or air brakes. Alternatively, the pointy mk-ii with a fuel tank, bicoupler, two preschoolers, and a couple of rapiers can also make a pretty good sausage. On take off, hold the brakes and spool up your motors. With a high thrust to weight ratio, you might somersault if you hold it too long. If you want to hold it long, launch clamps are required. The single engine outputting 40kN or the the twin engines each at 30 kN will provide a nice brisk launch. But if you let them get up to 80+, you'll be through the sound barrier before you pass the tower. I like to to get up to 300+ m/s relatively level then ease up to 45 deg. If I get heating effects below 10000m, I throttle down. Getting past 800-900m/s at this phase can be deadly. Ease the nose down to be able to reinitiate full throttle at 10-12 km alt. Then use pitch controls to accelerate as much as possible while keeping speed in m/s less than 1/10 the altitude in m. (That is, getting above 1300m/s below 13000m for example is dangerous). Over about 16000m it doesn't matter so much anymore. Optimal cruising is usually around 21-24 km for rapiers. Coming home, stay high and fast until ksp is on the horizon. Set SAS prograde and when altitude is around 20km, cut engines either set SAS to hold attitude or off.if you have airbrakes, use them. If not, lower your gear. Goal is similar to ascent, keep speed below 1/10 altitude. Below 10000mm, 1000m/s is safe down to sea level. If you've timed things well, you should be in about a 45 deg dive to the landing strip. Line up and get ready for a very dicey landing. Hold as much speed as you can as long as you can. Use pitch controls or airbrakes below 1000 m to slow to around 400. Try to flare down to 200-300 a few meters off the strip and airbrake and or deploy chutes when you're low and level enough for them and hopefully you to survive. If you have any piloting sense, you will not get used to landing this way. . I guarantee a simple single engine rapier craft can do this in the 38:20's.

I've been messing with some prototypes but I've been having problems with wheels. I really want to make something faster than the 60m/s that will destroy rover wheels and that means jet or rocket propulsion and fuel limitations. If I make anything big enough to refuel itself, it has severe problems handling turns and every attempt I've made at a wider track has result in almost immediate destruction of the wheels. But... I'm not out of ideas just yet!