qzgy

What is this and how do you do it?

Over engineering and sloppy piloting. I did a direct ascent as well, no loitering in orbit.

Finished! Quickly put up a module as I have school later this week. Not really an interesting module, a copula with a lab and some solar panels.

For me, the best way is to make all the aerodynamic surfaces on the body, and adjust with the offset tool or add more lift surfaces if needed so that the CoL is near CoM

Its not much more thrust....

So, I modified the previous design to create the Gamma E. Got about twice as far and flies 19m/s faster! Probably the same in bonuses, but with the addition of its probably possible to belly land without damage and it now has solar panels! Also, why should the pilots fall asleep? It jumps at 1300 m/s to near space, then falls down again to repeat the process! 1428 + (7425.506 /10)+ (2*5) + 20 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 40 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 - (10 + 15) = 2,305.5506 So a "light" passenger plane can go toe-to-toe with a reasonable super heavy plane

Like, for most planes? CoL behind CoM, or on it, depending on want of maneuverability. Farther back, harder it is to fly. I saw also this really nice guide on how to make planes. Link to forum thread:

So.... I made a light aircraft ... powered by a whiplash. (there's nothing against it) It's called the Gamma. It's not against the rules, but the flight plan does kinda involve Silbervogeling inside the atmosphere. Imgur gallery for pictures (It works somehow) Scoring: Bonus points: Your plane cannot tailstrike no matter how hard you pull up on takeoff (20 points) - The TWR is so high, one it begins to lift, you can go vertically, but by then, you're well clear of the ground Your plane stalls at less than 50m/s (5 points) Your plane stalls at less than 30m/s (20 points) Your plane stalls at less than 25m/s (30 points) Your plane stalls at less than 20m/s (60 points) Your plane does not need SAS to fly stably (20 points) Your plane does not need trim adjustment to fly straight and level. This only stacks with the non SAS points. (10 points) - At high speed flight, yes, so ... 5 points? Your plane has two engines and can fly on one (20 points) Your plane has three engines and can fly on two (5 points) Your plane has three engines and can fly on one (30 points) Your plane has four engines and can fly on two (20 points) Your plane has four engines and can fly on one (20 points) Your plane can belly land with all crew and passengers surviving (20 points) Your plane can belly land without damage (40 points) Your plane has airbrakes (10 points) Your plane can ditch in the water with all crew surviving (10 points) Your plane can ditch in the water with no damage (20 points) - Mostly, Two fins Broke. They only help in low speed flight, so 10 points? Your plane is a seaplane (20 points) Your plane is an amphibious seaplane (10 points, stacks with above) Your plane can take off and immediately land back on the runway without turning around, and is heavy size or above (10 points for large 20 points for super-heavy) Your plane has a way to jettison fuel without speeding up (10 points) Your plane can fly on any two engines. Simple fuel and air systems: your plane has all fuel tanks and air intakes in the same stack as an engine (10 points) Point malus: Your plane can lose controllability due to fuel shift (-20 points) Your plane needs the end of the runway to take off (-20 points) Your plane can break up due to aerodynamic forces (-20 points) Your plane can melt itself if left at full throttle. (Saftey feature if both pilots fell asleep) (-10 points) - Unfortunately, if diving from high altitude. Your pilots do not have a clear view out the aircraft-I.E. windows are covered. (-10 points)' Your plane solely relies on alternators on the main engines for power (-10 points) Your plane contains an RTG (passengers don't want radioactive death leaking) (-20 points) Your plane needs all of it's engines to fly (-20 points) - Well, yes, but the flight plan involves the engines cutting off, so -15 points? Base scoring (Subject to change): Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points 1409 + (3 591.467 km/10)+ (2*5) + 20 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 - (10 + 10 + 15) = 1,853.1467 Edit: So distance is in km, not m. Changing score to reflect that.

To be honest, I'm not upset. If I have time later on the weekend or so, I might give this another go

So... I made a really tiny and super maneuverable fighter. In one on one tests it was able to shoot the sample fighter down effectively. Only problem is that on takeoff, the wheels can bounce and cause the entire thing to flip and crash https://kerbalx.com/qzgy/Tiny-Fighter

I finally managed to fly under the bridge! Probably with the stupidest thing ever. Works really well though, especially with 10 wings clipped into the command pod

That should be fine. It complies with the rules

8 wings means 8 continuous lifting surfaces. That means a wing can consists of multiple structural panels and control surfaces. If there is a vertical stabilizer, that also counts as a lifting surface.

NEW INSIGHT TO SpaceK EXPLOSION AND FUTURE PLANS of SpaceK As all of us now, there was a large explosion during a routine launch of SpaceK's Kestrel9 launch vehicle. One bystander remarked that "the explosion was very pretty. I wished more happened". Many theories have persisted about what happened, with most people claiming that "the Kraken did it" and engineers pointing fingers at each other saying "You're the one who found that crap on the road!". An internal review board from SpaceK released an official statement saying that "While it is possible that the Kraken was involved, it seems that the cause of the explosion was that somebody forgot to check the staging and ignited the Sepatrons in the upper stage." Elon Kusk, the CEO and head bean-counter of SpaceK remarked in response to the elementary screw up "Oops. I guess we will have to do mreo checks before launch". In a press statement, Elon Kusk also laid out plans for a contract to bring two unnamed "friends" on a Munar flyby with an as of now, untested launch vehicle and crew module by the end of next month. "The joy is in the terror!" he remarked in response to questioning about the slightly-dubious nature of such a launch. This timeline goes head to head with the Kerbal Air and Space Administration (KASA) own plans of a Munar rendevous mission with their own Spaaaaaaaaaaace Launch System and Korion capsule, a part of the cut Konstellation project that is able to bring more snacks for traveling kerbonauts. Earlier ground tests of the Korion capsule have been stated and things look like they are turning out well. One kerbonaut remarked "The seats are really comfy!". These are exciting times to be in. - Head of Space reporting and ex(-ish) astronaut, Bill Kerman

Wait, what happened to the nose cone in that last pic? I tried building a one rapier ssto with a fairing in the middle as a cargo bay for a tiny probe. Also did this

Star scout, should probably get to work on advancing to life soon.

I noticed there are lots of requests. Sorry for adding another.

I'll miss this when this is done. I quite liked it. All good things must come to an end, I suppose.

I did send hima plane the other day. Hasn't been on in a while though...

Eta on a match or anything?

Name? 4 letter string that is... uncommon. Profile Pic - Some bad photoshop attempt at a killer rabbit (And no, I wasnt born in 1958 or whatever. I was born post 2000). Location and member title go along with it.

That would be nice. Also, thanks for the clarification.

Can you clarify what stock means? I didn't use part mods, but mods like EEX, KER, and PreciseManeuver. Would that be stock?

What's your attempt?

"No, we totally didn't use duct tape in the construction of vital things."