Noname117

I meant the Cubic Octagonal Strut. Sorry, so many pieces have similar names and uses that sometimes it is hard to communicate the piece you are talking about correctly.

Then dissalow my last entry, it had to use that so the entire second stage didn't wobble itself to inappropriate oblivion. On the other hand, how did the 65km entry stay stable? That makes me wonder. Just figured it out. Attaching the struts to the engines was brilliant, and should be adapted into my craft

Alright: One question: Can I add a structural pylon inside a monopropellent tank for structural support purposes only? It shields it from atmospheric heating, but I do not believe it shields it from atmospheric drag. The amount of added weight is next to nothing.

Also, a word of advice for newcomers: Do NOT take the full-on seperatron route. Just tried it, reached only about 40,000m in 30 seconds whilst lagging my computer horrible for the first 25. It doesn't work as nicely as you would expect it would.

I would say "Yay" for O-10s. The more stuff you have to work with, the better. I hate it when challenges get so restrictive that being clever may not be an option. Also, the fuel tank would not occlude the seperatrons, because radially mounted objects are not occluded in the current aero model (from my understanding). But even if they were occluded, I could still make the argument that the fuel tank is being used just as a strut and a fairing. There isn't any fuel inside, so I would not be packing large amounts of fuel into a smaller area, rather just making a rocket more aerodynamic or be able to have thrust in an area where it realistically should but couldn't because of the rules. Also, the main reason for me asking was that I had mounted seperatrons in all the other ways around the tank, and it would be far simpler to stick a few more in the center too for more thrust. As you can tell, I'm working on an entirely seperatron entry.

I'm curious, would it be OK to have seperatrons clipped into a small fuel tank if there is absolutely no fuel in the tank and its only use is to provide an anchoring point for the seperatrons?

8/10 pretty good quote but lacking in pretty colors of any kind.

Alright, I'm having trouble developing this thing to surpass the current record. For now I'll just post the current highest altitude I've gotten and work on this thing a little later. It's good enough to get me in second place though. All required pictures, along with pictures of each staging event, were posted. The NOLAPR (Noname's Overly Large And Pointless Rocket)-A1 reached a final altitude of 61,353m in 30 seconds. Not quite as good as I was hoping, but it is still quite good. I'll see what I can do to improve that shortly.

Building an entry largely inspired by the current record holder (the original versions were not, but it evolved that way). Made it past 60,000 already, but I'm not ready to post an official test until I can beat the current record holder.

1.0.2 Update! NAFA-5-E2, XNAFA-31, NAFA-17-E2, NAFA-4-H2 Since 1.0 came out I've been messing around with some of my NAFA aircraft; trying to get them to fly decently again in the new version. I feel like the new NAFA-4(-H2), NAFA-5(-D5,-E2), and NAFA-17(-E2,-F1) variants are ready to be posted. You can find the new variants, along with some new pictures, under their appropriate tabs, I also just threw together a new plane fairly quickly, the XNAFA-31, and it most certainly shows some promise right now. I've decided to post the download for the experimental aircraft, and I want some name suggestions for it too. -Happy flying!

Should we expect to see the Su-7, Su-9/11, Su-15, Su-17/20/22, and Su-24?

66 now. too much ninja-ing

66 maybe he did. looks like he didn't

65 stop going up. I want to edit this so badly

I do have Hyperedit and the DMP client installed, so is it possible that one of them is conflicting with the mod, creating the bug I previously described? Or could it be that my aircraft use rover seats rather than proper cockpits? If you need me to, I can try to replicate it again several times.

47 lets make this less confusing by going down a bit

Umm... a bit of a possible bug report here. (love your mod BTW, and this new update looks really nice) Was trying out the new aircraft AI by using one of my NAFA-4s against an AI NAFA-17. I got behind the NAFA-17's tail and fired a missile (AIM-9 sidewinder) at it, scoring a hit and causing the remaining airframe to break-up in midair. For some reason, once the missile hit the NAFA-17 my NAFA-4 suddenly went into a death spiral, pitching up and rolling to the left. The undamaged aircraft would, for some reason, not respond to my inputs, and wound up crashing into a building in the science center. I still don't know how both pilots survived. A similar situation happened to me the kill before this, where my NAFA-4 went unresponsive after I had switched to the broken-up NAFA-17 to eject the pilot, and then switched back to the NAFA-4. However, it regained control after a little while (right around the time debris from the NAFA-17 was hitting the ground) I think for some reason that when the AI is not destroyed but the plane it is mounted on becomes unflyable, it is locking up the player's aircraft too until it either crashes into the ground or becomes unmarked as a target (which would coincide with both cases).

lets bring it down to 75

A pick-up is a very small minikit. It was the last explosive vegetable to be a refrigerator. Its refrigerator is sadly carrot-shaped and, again with its smell, it took a long stick to recover since half the time it was not where Kerbals expected to find a kraken. Due to its nature of refridgerating the potato parts of forums. This tragic tragedy was tragically labeled as not to be trusted by the tragic blenders.

Could I have parts explode if I fully intend on them exploding? If the only purpose of those parts is to explode? Also, why is the roadrunner 2 on the finalist list then? Parts of it incinerated in flight

NAX-1 Ironman run Final top speed: 1482 m/s according to F3 Final top altitude: 24,259 m The flight went pretty much as planned, except for a few wings exploding once I got up to speed. It still landed perfectly fine without the missing wings after some fuel re-balancing. Brooke Kerman survived the entire journey, and probably now holds the record for the fastest a kerbal has ever been propelled by airbreathing engines.

Mine should fit into the ironman division then. It achieved 1481 (F3 says 1482) m/s and then landed successfully at the KSC. I'll get the imgur album set up shortly, but for now a teaser pic:

We should have a category for unmanned aircraft and a category for manned aircraft. Just hit 1480-ish with a pilot. I'll be posting that attempt soon

6/10 seen you around here before.

4 hours