TheHengeProphet

I am curious. Is there a particular reason the turbojets are restricted to 50% thrust? [edit]Turns out a singular TurboJet has 130 kN of thrust, and the singular F-16 engine has 131.2 kN of thrust. Forcing half throttle here is hardly a good way to display a 5th Gen fighter when its engines can't compete with a 4th Gen. Thoughts? [/edit] Edit: More questions. Edit: More data to back up the questions. Is there a particular reason droptanks are requested for bonus points? Is it simply because it's easier to dump fuel for a fight that way? My current plane iteration has an internal capacity of 1610 (8050kg) units of fuel on board, but it's unreasonable to load it with more than 630 (3150kg) for "local" work. [edit] In contrast, an F16 carries 2685kg of fuel internally. [/edit] Is there a reason you ask for an operational time versus an operational range? [edit] I believe most fighters are measured in operational range rather than time... [/edit] Sorry for the question bombardment, but I'm just trying to figure out if the jet I made while just goofing about qualifies. That and the operational range is more useful for a multi-role fighter than an operational time. [edit] Another reason for this question bombardment is that I really do want to enter this, as the contest here quite interests me. [/edit]

I think there is a minor graphical glitch with the new cockpit. It seems there is a small ring of un-textured area around the glass. Might just be me. Will endeavor to post screenshots when I can; however, seeing as it is only about a pixel wide, it would require several to do.

Looks like the M2X_AtomicJet is causing my client to seize on load. Any ideas on how to remedy this without deleting it? [edit]Nevermind, looks like it required the community resource pack, which the readme did not state was required.[/edit]

There are the two cockpits and the probe core in the command modules tab. Most of the fuselage pieces are in the propulsion tab, due to them having fuel. I believe the cargo bays are under the utility tab, but I'm too lazy to start the game and find out. Yup, it's been constantly in the 90s here, meaning that in my room it's normally up about 2-3 from the outside temp.

Thank you starwaster. It is uncommon for me to make such a common spelling mistake, so... I'll blame heatstroke! Because that's at least a SEMI-legitimate claim.

If possible, please ensure both the tops and bottoms of the parts are evened, as I have been having the same placement issue with dorsal rudders. Also, placement of objects (most apparent in wings) on the sides of your parts, when not near the centre, an unwanted rotation of the part to be placed occurrs. Will attatch screenshots at another time if requested.

The option I would vote for does not exist. I don't want the new parts balanced to the old ones, I want the old parts balanced to the new parts.

This, except I also had four 2.5m RCS tanks and a space tug with three LV-Ns, seeing as I was using them to make a grand tour ship in orbit, so... I'd venture to say maybe 90 tonnes. Converting my old lifter to ARM parts has made things slightly more efficient, but less controllable. Just last night, though, I swapped out the double oranges for a single 14400, and that flew with much greater stability.

I used to use two orange tanks as my lifting standard. If I can get those (plus their peripherals, which meant each was accompanied by a 2.5m RCS tank) to orbit, full, I can get essentially whatever I'll need to launch to orbit. Now knowing that the mass of the new largest tanks might actually approximate that mass, I may just start using that as my new lifting standard. However, despite the potential change in lifting standard, I will still remember it in "Orange Tank" values, because that's what sticks...

Alright, Lesbiotic, you have been added. Sorry for the delay. Which of these flights would you like me to log? There are several in here, and I'm not sure they're in chronological order...

Wow, I'm surprised to see a new entry! Now... While the design seems a bit sketchy, I'll admit it is possible to finagle the construction to do such, so I'll accept that. The problem comes in that I can not reasonably consider the second screenshot to be "flight". Do you have or can you get a screenshot that isn't the craft on impending oceanic collision?

If you're relying on them for service coverage, there is a "too few", but as far as "too many" goes... A: Does the quantity of them interfere with launches? If no, see B. If yes, see C. B: Does the quantity of them interfere with framerate performance? If no, see A. If yes, see C. C: You have too many satellites.

I noticed that just a moment ago... edited my post to be a more appropriate question.

Why are no mods such as B9 Aerospace, KW Rocketry, TV Pizza and Aerospace, and P-wings allowed? It'll be odd to make a reasonable two-man "fighter" in KSP without at least B9 parts, as once you get to the two-cockpit range, you get much too large for reasonable fightercraft. That is unless you're looking for a multi-role strike craft, which is what it sounds like, but those aren't really fighters like the F-15/F-16.

The boards have been updated! Well-done folks! Mr. Speed, your entry has been added to the <.22 board, as appropriate.

Thanks! Now I know how to use that feature. The use of the wing to slow down was completely unintentional, as I had to land with the front wheel brake enabled, causing instability. I was so glad when nothing broke, as this was the fourth recording... The first flight had the better landing, but the plane just sailed off the end of the runway after braking the entire length of it.

Here is my entry. It's not a winner, but it reaches Mach 2 and is (in my opinion) the best looking entry yet. I based this puppy on the F-19 Stealth Fighter, a fictional airplane from an eponymous game. Video! Final top speed: 692.8 m/s (Mach 2.045) Fastest speed is at 5:43 Notes I have found while testing this thing: Using stock landing gear instead of B9 landing gear gained me almost 20 m/s. The brakes on the default landing gear are pathetic. P-wings are hilariously robust. Allmoving P-Wings have remarkably little drag. If you want this challenge done without clipping, every entry in the challenge would be disqualified, as all parts "clip" due to collision meshes not being exactly what the visual entails. It's very hard to go fast at this altitude, and I think I did just about the best I could with an aerodynamically reasonable aircraft. I can't determine if FAR works on visual mesh or collision mesh...

The B9 landing gear on its own is quite robust. Its ability to connect to other parts, however, is quite feeble (without the fixes) and is quite prone to twisting in ways not condusive to travel.

So... is this a .22 entry, or a .23 entry?

This is true, but I'm not sure how the intake drag really factors in with FAR operating. I'll have to do some tests... The F119 has a very similar power curve to what FAR tries to modify the stock turbojet to have. There is an issue with his documentation that seems to screw things up for some people, but not others (apparently), so I just modified FAR to not modify engine power curves at all. I haven't been using the stock engines anyway...

This leads me to wonder if anything has been done (for anyone using FAR) to fix the poor entry in his code that causes the stock engines to have a peak velocity of 41800 m/s? Not saying yours isn't legit... I'm just saying that it's an issue that should probably be addressed for FAR users. If there is any question to why I ask this:

Congrats! You're on the board!

While I have been actively monitoring drag on all of my parts, I have made an observation that while the intakes have remarkable drag--so far as FAR goes--having them covered has made no noticable impact on my speed. I'm still trying to determine the appropriate craft shape that can net me Mach 2, while still looking like a reasonable plane. Eventually, I'll try to run the numbers on thrust efficiency at these altitudes, because the given engines seem to make a remarkable difference in performance (so far the F119s seem to be the best).

Query: Is the Procedural Dynamic Wings mod allowed? I figure it would fall under Procedural Dynamics. Also, is it allowable to climb above 1km after achieving maximum velocity to facilitate greater ease in landing?

This challenge is truely the philosophical opposite to the Maching Bird Challege... It's not about how much air you can force through you, but how much you can force yourself through the air! I've been trying my hand at this, and I have to say that it is quite difficult to get some decent speeds AND remain below 1000 meters. 854 m/s amounts to my best effort, and that was with wings literally made of Saber-S engines... I destroyed that craft file, because I don't want to look upon that horror ever again. As a result, I have found that a singular radial intake is enough to feed upwards of twelve engines of any aspirated variety, at this altitude. On another note, I have found that lifting bodies do function, with FAR, and it is possible to make a plane that uses them, but as such would violate your rules for not using "wings" in a more traditional sense. I must say that lifting bodies can be tricky to land, but it's possible.