ExaltedDuck

I think it would have to be something like fuel / # of engines / # of circumnavigations. But then that might skew it toward more engines and would definitely skew it toward more laps. But not making it per number of engines would almost certainly force selection of single engine craft, probably only rapiers.

That previous one was more just to have fun and look good. I expected it would be too draggy to really be a contender. All said, though, it handled so well that it posted a pretty respectable time. Really a joy to fly, with the only rough spot being that the parachutes pitch back hard (intentionally, but a bad idea) I've been experimenting the last couple of weeks with three-engine models after Helmut and Xan really proved the might of that concept. I had a really fast one but after 4-5 revisions I still just couldn't get it to handle smoothly. Too much pitch authority, sudden control inversions, airbrakes causing what I'll call snap oversteer (15-20 degree sudden bumps in yaw. scary)... it was fast but a mess. So the 5 engine thing was more just a distraction to re-energize my mind. And did it ever. I present: [edit: messed up imgur title. time was 38:44. didn't log in to imgur to upload; can't fix. I'm a derp] Bonus images: Hopped in my Ground Utility Tug and put the Pequod to rest with predecessors in my Gallery of Champions.

I wouldn't be so garish as to claim that danger is my middle name. It's my prefix. - - - Updated - - - Joking aside, If we assume about 35 minutes of top speed cruising at 1723 m/s, that's 3616200 m covered. Going that same distance at 1740 would take 23 seconds less. So our starts and finishes are probably actually pretty similar.

So... here's my latest results. New PB, but not WR. =\ I know this plane is capable of at least 10-15 seconds better. I managed one at 38:59 last night in it, only realizing after closing the F3 screen that my front gear had slightly... er... fallen off. The successful landing seems to be a razor thin line between flaming death and skipping off the runway and back up into the air just high enough to kill a good time and -- more often than not -- the pilot and command pod and only the pilot and command pod. It's almost amusing. Anyway, given those troubles, I'll take this as the "as good as my patience will reach for now" time. Clocked in a 39:01.

I disagree. You can gut up to about 1000m/s almost anywhere above 5000m. Between 10000 and 16000m, take the altitude, divide by 10, and that's your speed target. I've had flights where I've hit 1700+ at around 18000-19000m in about 75-80 seconds. From there, it's a slow-to-moderate climb to cruising altitude which should be determined by heat and fuel concerns. I haven't made a formal entry of it, but I've had a single engine with a flight of 39:25. Multi-engines, I have yet to break 39:17. If you get heating effects too low, the choices are climb faster, lower throttle, use airbrakes, and/or high g maneuvers. Done right, you could be near terminal heating at about 10000-11000 m, but use the need to nose down and level out to prevent additional acceleration until your altitude is adequate to bear it.

nicky- After your previous posts about single engine jets and topspeeds and times, I figured I'd give it a try. Seeing those large square wing surfaces and yout 17-teens top speed made me think a significant improvement could be found through less overall lift (since, in a sense, lift and drag are closely related). I'm not flying it right because the best I've gotten has been about a 39:27 but I see my top speed is just a percent or so higher than yours. (this is in level flight. When set to prograde/full throttle from 21600, it'll get to around 1735 befor ethe atmosphere below 20000 starts slowing it down.) If you want to play around with it, here's the craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/51x21s973odivnw/Retribution%20MkII.craft?dl=0 The way I like to do it is ignite at full throttle, let the engines spool up to 80+ kN, release the docking clamp, get off the runway at 150-ish, start climbing at 250-ish. I think my biggest time loss is that I'd go really steep climb (65-70 degrees) to allow full throttle all the way up. This lets me start nosing down at 8000m and use the wing's G forces to stay below mach 3 until I level off around 14-15 km. And the 39:27 I hit with it was a night time landing with too early a descent. I've set it up with drogue chutes. They're good up to about 550 m/s but I'd recommend not popping them until the runway is less than 10-15m below. [edit to add: I also recommend setting the forward "canard" elevons to pitch only, the rearmost elevons to roll only, and the elevon "wings" to no control reaction. In pilot assistant, it also helps if the vertical speed scalar is bumped up a little (1.3-ish). I was seeing some slight oscillations at 4x accel otherwise.] The difference in top speed might buy you another 3-4 seconds, all other things being equal. My personal best is in a 3 engined craft cruising at 1727. I set it down safely in 39:17 but by that point, the 39 barrier had been broken. And because it's really unstable (too much pitch authority) I haven't been inspired to try it too much more.

WhenWhen you nose up initially, don't whip it up. Gently (use caps lock and tap w repeatedly for gentler input) nose up to 35-45 degrees so that you keep accelerating. Then start nosing down gently around 8000 to try to get down to around 10-15 degrees by 12000. Then only climb as heating requires. Getting past 1000m/s between 12 and 13 km is aggressive but safe. If your altitude is less than 10 times your speed, you should be ok. Once up to 15000-16000 let it keep rising about 50-100 vertcal m/s until you're up to around 21000. Mach 2-3 below 2000 really chews through fuel but Mach 4+ above 22000 barely sips it. 0.1 per second per rapier at 1700+m/s over 20000m altitude is what the 40 minute planes have been doing. For as much wing area as you have, mid 1600's should be attainable. Above 24000-ish you're going to lose a lot of speed and below 20000, you'll lose a little and suffer excessive compression heating.

[Edited to add] Good job Helmut! [Original message] My best with my previously record holding craft has been a 39:25. I've tried a few newer prototypes but I'm running into severe heat issues below about 23000m. They'll go fast enogh to win at 22500 but tend to fall apart after about 25-30 minutes. I had one that I think might have been capable of sub 39 but I needed about 3 more minutes of fuel and my attempted fixes put me so high to avoid heating that my speeds suffered.

That's weird. That splash down must mean the launch clamp loaded before the terrain or under it. Either way, clear grounds for a DQ. (kidding )

[h=3]etopsirhc[/h]Nice plane. I've been starting to think along the same lines (more power) since most of the velocity competitors are now so similar. Hopefully I'll be able to set a new record with my existing craft before then though. I'm close, just have to get the landing sorted out.

Aww, man. I was on a big winning streak in FTL yesterday. I have a Zoltan cruiser with a Blast Laser II, two Halberd beams, and a couple of Mantis crew members I freed from slavers. The rebellion doesn't know what's been hitting them. But it sounds like I'm needed on planet Kerbin tonight.

One time I clicked EVA instead of IVA on Jeb while at around mach 5 in the stratosphere. Had to revert the flight. His untimely demise wouldn't have fit my narrative.

You had to make up for the monopropellant weight somehow. Don't worry. I'll send a jeep.

I'llI'll be in the Aviators' Lounge, sipping a pina colada. Let me know when you're about 200 km out. First round's on me.

On my 39:59, I made the decision to leave parachutes off and rely on airbrakes (I wanted to keep drag as low as possible, and hadn't really put much thought into just how much shorter chutes make the landing). I also had two tails on that plane... just because it was the obvious and easy way to maintain symmetry. The less obvious way was to centrally mount a tail plane on the MkII-2x1.25 connector and translate it back and down to fit in the gap between my intakes. I also tried some experimentation with pitching the wings slightly to try to keep the nose as straight as possible to minimize drag from the fuselage. That didn't work all, cutting my cruising speed down to about 1680. So, after all those lesson learned, I put this together which I'll call the Mark IV version of my Hotknife craft. There's probably a *little* room for improvement (for instance an easy second off my time if I hadn't forgotten to change the navball from target to surface after selecting my runway beacon flag until after I'd landed) but this has to be getting pretty close to some kind of limit. Anyway, here's my current best: 39:34. - - - Updated - - - Also, you have some pretty cool stuff on you youtube channel, HelmutK.

Nice time. Can't wait to beat it. In the meantime, I've been messing around with wheesleys. I decided if it's not going to go much more than mach 1.2 or so, who really needs a canopy? Might as well enjoy the breeze. I think Jeb appreciates the decision.

SOOOOO close. I'll be honest, I've completed 4 or 5 circumnavs in my record plane, and that time is better than all but my fastest two. And that glowy pic is my favorite in the thread so far.

Nice run. If I could give you another rep point I would. Ascents are tricky and even more so with shock cones. Good acceleration is a rather narrow window between fatal heating and loss of thrust. In my experience, between about 9000 and 16000m altitude, reaching speeds more than tenth of the altitude (forgive the unit mismatch) seems to promote rapid disassembly but getting past 16000 without being up to about 1300 means it'll take far longer to reach 1700, maybe even requiring a dive. If your plane is able to hold 1700+, it's probably able to beat 40. My top time involved quite a few reversions to launch until I was in cruise within about T+2min.

Two words: harpoon winch. You're welcome.

Those are some solid times and an intriguing design. Try a later and steeper descent (nose down around the mountains, or when it'll require about a 40-45 degree angle under horizon). You'll want to cut throttle and might require s turns and/or airbrakes to slow down fast enough, but it might get you under 40.

And here's the .craft in case anyone wants to play around with it. I think it could use some bigger canards to better balance the lift (although that would likely have a negative impact on topspeed since more lift = more drag). With a little luck and patience, I think it *might* be capable of 1750 on the navball as-is. I saw as high as 1748.3, but failed to land on that run.

Ask an ye shall receive (and sorry, xan. I actually hadn't intended to post one to the rapier category and probably wouldn't have, had it not been requested) Here's the ship, Mister Whiskers, with its intrepid if not slightly hot-footed pilot, Jebediah. And the mission stats: And I went ahead and just vidcapped it to not have to worry about the printscreen key jamming my control input.

That's a very relevant question with a complicated answer. The short and skinny is, "It depends." Every craft will be a little different. They will all produce more thrust with higher intake pressure (lower altitude/higher speed) but they will all experience less drag at higher altitudes. Since top speed is where drag equals thrust, it's hard to say with precision where that altitude will be without test flights. What I've been noticing in performing prograde speed dives for your single engine speed challenge is that there does seem to be a point somewhere around 18000-20000m while descending where the speed actually starts decreasing (I use it as a signal to pull up. Waiting to see the temperature gauge rise is often too late) For circumnavigation, it gets even more complicated since you have to be mindful of fuel economy. The lower you fly, the more you're going to have to burn, and flying low enough to maximize your speed versus drag heating, you might find that you end up going slower on account of having more weight and more drag from added fuel capacity. On my expedition flight, I had to climb by about 3000 m to make it around the last lap. That made me lose about 3-5% of my speed but improve the fuel consumption rate by about 8-10%. I'd have gone dry otherwise. Most of my velocity flights have ended up at about 20000-21000m but this is more to avoid excessive heating than anything else. But I have also been limiting my intakes to just enough for continued operation. More intakes means drastically more drag, and a higher altitude and very likely lower surface speed to run with very high fuel efficiency.

well I can say without a doubt that a single rapier is capable of at least 1746. But a plane with low enough drag to get there can be a real bear to land.

And I'll take +2 rambling points. I really should try to be more straight to the point.