Adelaar

Propellors are to my knowledge unsuitable for supersonic flight, they can hog close to the sound barrier, but cannot cross it, this is due to the fact that the propellors at a speed close to or beyond the sound barrier travel at supersonic speeds, which give all kinds of unwanted aerodynamical problems with airflow and prop-blade oscillation. Also, turbo props are more efficient than even modern day jets. Lastly, the fastest aircraft of WWII wasn't a jet fighter like the Me-262, but instead a propellorplane with a pull-push configuration (essentially a counter-rotating propellor set-up, that goes by the name of Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil". You might want to read in on that

@Van Disaster, what? Really? Twice as efficient? You're right in that case, the efficiency-gain IRL isn't THAT great. Which mod is that anyway? Might try them out on my aircraft... KAX is too flawed to use IMHO.

Actually, turboprops and especially counter-rotating turboprops are more fuel efficient than turbo-jets. The reason why they are less in use nowadays are mostly due to noise-production (especially at high speeds, the tip of the blades on the Tu-95 go faster than the speed of sound, which makes it hella loud), and complexity.

Well, that wasn't too hard. I've taken on the hard variant, with the link to the imgur album here. Some screenshots of the flight: Leaving the atmosphere: In orbit, science station: Orbit displayed in upper left corner, approx orbit: 125 km Undocked: Looking good on the descent to KSC: Well that's going to be a tricky recovery location, but home is home...

I'll be preparing the ISC2 for the arrival of one of my SSTO's for departure to Minmus and Mun soon Also, I already have in place a refueling structure orbiting Kerbin and Minmus, I believe that you can use them as they fall under "mining camps" but just to be sure: Am I allowed to use them? (My SSTO's are a bit fuel guzzling in nature...)

There are lots of people who want a good multiplayer to be included in the game, not because you can race and combat eachother, but because it offers a wildly more interesting world to construct space-objects. I have two friends who play KSP, and we would absolutely love to build up a universe of our own. I really don't understand the negativity in some of the responses here. Maybe you're confusing KSP with a game like CoD, which doesn't really have any off-line value. KSP wouldn't go that way, because it's not built like that. But anyway, the discussion is pointless, Squad is (thank god) committed to adding multiplayer, and will do it when they think it's time to. And if all that didn't convince you and you're still foaming with rage because @SQUAD is "wasting energy", consider this: Offline singleplayer is there, alive and kicking, in depth and flawed (and will forever be to some extent). Those who enjoy a good singleplayer (like me) feast on what it is. But that doesn't mean we should be withholding added functionality which will entertain other people, or at least appeal to a broader public. It is a smart thing to do in terms, but it also serves us, the community.

What do you regard as a light SSTO @Firemetal? In my opinion, it shouldn't be buffed, or at least it shouldn't be made any heavier than it already is.. Mostly because of what Codraroll said earlier, that it is an early atmospheric cockpit, and would disturb gameplay for atmospheric use.

I tried to keep overheating between 98% and 99%, which, I admit, didn't go right the first time, second, or even third

Alright! Meanwhile, I've done a new attempt at the rescue mission, by retro-fitting one of my SSTO's (the S5 Arrow) into a rescue aircraft. I removed all the oxidizer, so it should be according to the rulebook! Total time for the mission was 26:46 Take-off, with fuel load displayed @ Polar Airport Take-off with Hayne on board And landed

@Pine, I've noticed you updated the scoreboard with Meskin's entry in it. However, his score is based on a single trip only, not a return. His imgur album shows 42,36 fuel left out of 480 units total. Meaning a total fuel usage of 437,46 units, devided by 6 passengers is 72,94. Multiplied by 0,8 for fuel costs, leads to a total score of 58,35 Please adjust the scores accordingly!

There are a lot of good suggestions already posted here, that I second. Large RAPIERS for example, or hinges (Infernal Robotics- properly working - in stock please). But what I miss most (apart from steerable large and huge gears) are wider than MK3 parts, widebodied parts that make for even bigger spaceplanes, but would especially mean that you can actually utilize the cargo bay's ramp, which now only fits the thinnest of craft. Other than that, some 0,5 m long parts would be nice, like 0,5 x 1,25 fueltanks, 0,5 m mk2 parts, et cetera. Of course, mods (partially) fill this gap. But I find many custom spaceplane parts to be a bit "meh" designwise.

Damn, good time on the passengerflight @DrDonut. Guess it's time to improve my score...

@Van Disaster, I am absolutely amazed at the difference in size and fuel consumption between FAR and Stock aero. No wonder all those circumnavigations were won by FAR users... And a good thing there are seperate leaderboards

The roverwheels are absolutely terrible at the moment. Any clipping that takes place or can take place (due to turning or spring action) leads to blockage. I try to build craft with the most possible clearance for the wheels (as in, build a framework first) and then alter the design, often testing to check for problems. In the cargorun I've attached wheels to the I-bar piece, which gave me enough clearance and was the only setup that was small enough for the cargo bay. If you keep having problems I can always send you the craft file

Since nobody is taking on the cargo mission at the moment, I'll be the one to start it off The Imgur album is here, but the preview doesn't work. I'll post a few seperate pictures and the album at the bottom. I've used my C4 Constellation to haul a total of 50,835 kg of cargo to the Polar airport. In total, I've used 4488 units of fuel to do so. This gives me a fuel consumption of 88,3 units per tonne, and thus 70,6 points. Prepped for take-off: In flight Weight (bottom left corner) and fuel prior to unloading cargo Unloading Weight (bottom left corner) after unloading cargo (cargo weight displayed in imgur album) Back @ KSC, stationary (with fuel read-out) The rest of the album, once it works again... Sorry about the long post. Imgur is annoying :/

@Van Disaster, holy... that thing would never get off the ground in stock Aero. What's it called? Kairbus A4000?

Had a go at the rescue mission using my B4 Falcon, took me 32:50. Could've been a minute faster, if it weren't for the wheel friction to cause the aircraft to slide away from Hayne, meaning I had to repeatedly attempt to grab the ladder. Oh well.

Alright, just completed the passenger ferry. I had 50 kerbals (of which 4 crew) aboard the C1 Stratos, which burned through 2984 units of fuel to make the round trip. This leads to a fuel consumption of 59,68 units per kerbal, and 64,8 units per passenger.

Well, they appear to be all very happy to be underway... EDIT: And it appears they were right to be scared, I seemed to have made a bit of a kerbal landing and blew off my engines. And then, many things happened. Now I have to start all over again

Also, can we make seperate categories for those who use FAR and those who don't, as aerodynamics are vastly different between the two... EDIT: Do I have to leave the kerbals aboard the passengerplane at the polar airport?

Oh I like this Challenge. Must try them all!

Ahw yiss please. But only if there is an altitude dependency, when I'm flying at 1200 m/s @ 18000 m I do not want to see that trail.. I haven't het tested the mod but it should at least accommodate for that.

Guys, it is a KSP challenge. Kerbals are bonkers, if they want to fight with Whiplash equiped fighters, then they will. Regardless of how effective these engines are. I'll be the first to make an entry, with the A6 Eagle VTOL MKII. It struggled a bit to get to 20 km (I usually fly it at 18-19 km), but it got there eventually. Max speed and altitude: 1051 @ 20017 m It is also heavier than necessary, since I have other uses for this aircraft other than purely for this challenge. So this aircraft should be beatable. Edit: I might lighten it up and adapt it for this challenge later on, should this aircraft be challenged.

Alright. I just landed on KSC's runway with 4.24 units of fuel to spare (butt clenching moments). I have covered a total distance of 13,084,591 m, and a total ground distance of 13,094,509 m with a flight time of 1:55:16.

If that was the case, you should've added a multiplier for scoring, so (time * distance / fixed numeric to make the scoring make sense). At this moment, it's just two categories, either distance or time. Not the combination of both. I don't plan on flying the longest. Just far.