ralanboyle

Welp, I'll take it as a bad sign that @Dakota didn't post Challenge #55 today.

Maybe, it depends on personality. I've certainly been a part of projects that ended early and felt relieved. But most of the time, I feel like I've given a part of my life to something only to see it gone forever. It feels like a big waste. I hate that feeling when it happens to me.

Man, I am overly attached to this game... I will say that there is a good chance a small studio will pick it up to continue development, and probably offer positions to some of the core developers. Private Division would probably accept a very low offer for it but who knows about the developers. They are people who need jobs and can't just hang around waiting for some indi-studio to offer them something. That said, as a business owner myself, I can't overlook the fact that this project is massively over schedule and assumedly over budget! With the mostly negative reviews at this point it's hard to make a strong monetary case for continued development of KSP2 without a fundamental overhaul of priorities and staff.

I wanted to push into the sub 1 minute time and I got there with this new little flier. I'm consistently surprised to find that simplicity is almost always the key to speed! I did two runs, both in the video and they each ended up at 58 seconds.

Respect, @astrobond for the arch landing and KSC return in under 10T. I stripped mine down and did not attempt either of those milestones but I got the challenge done in 6.85T. Anybody want to try the further destinations?

Ohhh buddy, I have some answers! First, I will preface with the fact that I am a massive aero nerd that is currently drunk in a hotel room (which is where I live most of my life and where I play most of my Kerbal.) So I ask that you overlook any errors I make in this explanation. 1. A "Canard" wing is a small forward wing. In front of the main wing. Think of the Write Brother's airplane, or the modern RAF Typhoon or even the Concord. That little wing at the front is a Canard style stabilizer with a control surface. Now, a "Stabilator" is a a combination of a control surface and it's stabilizer. So normally, you have a part that does not move in front of the part that does move. So when the control surface moves, it's trailing edge goes up or down and changes the cord line relative to the leading edge of the stabilizing, non-moving part. However, a stabilator combines these parts, so the whole thing moves. So you get much more affect from any movement. Some examples IRL are all modern American Fighters and a few American General Aviation airplanes like the Piper Cherokee and it's offspring. In KSP2 you can find them under "Control Surfaces." I used the MCPS 500. These are all examples of a stabilator in the back (empennage) of the plane. To my knowledge there has never been a production airplane with a canard stabilator, because it would be horrifyingly sensitive! Hold, let me google... okay wikipedia has something about a XP-55 which never made it out of the testing stage in the 1940s... 2. I slowed my video down to 0.1 speed in order to show the finish time. Sorry, I should have put a graphic onscreen. 3. Yes, it takes much less control authority to fly in the air than it does to get out of the water. So our planes have huge control surfaces in order to get up an away, but that causes the SAS to freak out and over correct in flight. I solved this by disabling SAS almost immediately after take off. You're probably just gonna have to fly her yourself instead of letting the SAS do it. If your airplanes do this in KSP2, just make their control surfaces smaller. Aircraft design is a balance between controllability and aero forces. The faster you go, the less control is required to make directional change. So slow planes need big control surfaces and fast planes need little ones. Also computers (like SAS) are helpful but they will always get schooled by a good pilot! Leave me alone and I'll control a smoother landing than a computer landing system on a windy day, every time! EDIT: Also yes, you should be able to just turn your canard off with an action group. I tried but it does not seem to work.

Alright here is a 92 second run. I realized that a canard style stabilator was another way to get the nose high enough to give the wings lift.

Kerbal Space Center hosts an annual Seaplane race to raise funds for science! This year, the money will go toward fixing the ice-cream machine in the break room. Your Seaplane will launch from the Boat Launch, fly under the R&D bridge, around the VAB, around the Training Center, then under the Crane to a water landing. See below for image and example video. There are two categories: Traditional- Your plane will be powered only by jet engines. It must take off and land horizontally. Using wings for lift. It must not discard any parts. It must be fully reusable after landing. Unlimited- There are no limits on engine type. VTOLs are acceptable. Your craft can discard stages but must land in a controlled way without breaking. Scoring: The Mission Timer is used and your time stops when your aircraft is in the water moving less than 5m/s. @Goddchen - I am specifically calling you out! Can you beat my time?!

@Goddchen, looks good. Thanks for the shout out.

I decided I needed to go big, I ended up with something that I imagine as a military cargo float plane... It is fairly hard to fly due to adverse pitch while commanding roll, but she stalls super slow so spot landings are fun!

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. You worded better...

Here is my more conventional Sea Plane, I imagine it being what Icon Aircraft would make if they made a twin jet. It is not useful but its fun and easy to fly. @Goddchen A note on what you are calling Dippedidip. This move you are doing is giving your wing a positive angle of attack. When you take off from a runway, your elevator causes the tail to go down, which creates a positive angle of attack on your main wing. Since these planes are in the water, the tail cannot go down so you have to go underwater and then pitch up in order to get the tail down. In real life, sea planes use flaps to overcome this, but since flaps aren't available in KSP, you can just angle the whole wing up a little bit. I could nerd out for awhile talking about how various shapes create lift but I'll leave it at this for now.

Yep, stall speed is directly connected to wing loading. So if you want to be able to fly slower, increase your wing area relative to total weight.

Alrighty, after fighting several glitches I got my Float SSTO working. Now that Val is out of the way I'll try something a little more traditional.

Two Questions: 1. In order to simplify the circumnavigation, Can we do the equator instead of the monument? Keeping a straight line will be tough on that inclination. 2. You say we can use a hopper as long at it stays below 100m... how big can these hops be? Let's say each hop is half an orbit, is this acceptable as long as I can fly below 100m? If the answer to these questions is "yes," I will probably give this a go but I don't really want to spend hours driving in arced lines chasing the monument.