Tsevion

Yeah, you can't do it anymore, you get to -250m and then you just explode. I've tried quite a bit.

After tiring of Eve returns, I decided to try a different challenge... returning a Kerbal from the "Surface" of Jool... in this case I got down to 2500m, and then got him home.

Uh... nowhere in the scoring or even in the rules at all do you specify this. If this is your goal either part count or weight should probably be subtracted from your score.

The problem is that this is because control surfaces are just broken, not because they're "smart". It's essentially infiniglide. I made a video describing the issue a ways backs. Now if you're trying to build the most effective rotor in the current aerodynamics system, warts and all, then you are correct... really the entire rotor should be made of control surfaces, you probably won't need an engine for it at all. But since this competition is trying to invent rotors powered by turbo-shafts, having a large portion of the power coming from the rotor blades seems out of contest scope.

Well, after looking at your stats, I decided that wasn't good enough... so I built a new engine. Now I get some pretty extreme performance. The Spreadwing V-c Using 2 Tsevion Enterprises Quadrobine IIc Engines. Climb Speed: 20 m/s Horizontal Speed: 40 m/s Max Altitude: 7 km Max Lift capacity: 120t (yes, it can lift twice its own weight) Weighs in at 308 parts and 60.2t She's a bit of a beast.

Can't say I agree with this... maybe true vs. something like an SAS powered spinner, but a proper wheel-powered electric helicopter is much harder. Jet engines are an easy source of power compared to wheels, much less finicky and much more powerful. But I can respect wanting to investigate turboshafts more... they're pretty fun to build and fly. So here's one I built for you. It's maneuverable, relatively easy to fly, can go 4 m/s vertical and 24 m/s horizontal, and can get up to 4km given its current fuel supply, then fall back down safely unpowered. It's also pretty easy to land on the VAB roof... all while still having enough power to spare to lift a full orange tank (36t). The Spreadwing IIIc - powered by 2 Tsevion Enterprises Hexa-turbine IIIc.

Man, it may be time to update my Electric Helicopter... I was planning on revising it when 1.0 came out to see if was still possible in the new aerodynamics. I may need to start early. But I think I'd win your scoring: Fuel Consumption: 0, Endurance: Forever = All the points. Side note on your challenge, you may want to actually define what constitutes a helicopter (most notably VTOL, no engines angled down at all, rotation of some sort, and possibly a non-rotating body?). Depending on your definition some of my WhirlyGigs from early helicopter design might qualify. Or if specifically needs to be based on your design of turbo-shaft you should call that out.

+500 challenge completion +250 cargo drop +25 Kerbal drop +7.15 cargo weight +200 video evidence so 982.15 pts.

Yeah, my attachment order is rocket then jet, then I used the offset tool to move the jet up to matching positions.

This isn't exactly a proper entry, but I do quite similar things in this video. Loading cargo into a cargo plane, air-dropping it in the mountains, and air dropping kerbals onto the VAB. Air dropping Kerbals starts at 2:07 Air dropping vehicle in the mountains is at 3:45

I went and did a different challenge to make the lightest Mun SSTO possible... and it turns out it's a big winner for this challenge as well. Tech level 7. Cost: 18,377 Recovered: 17,953 Net Cost: 424 Stock other than Kerbal Engineer.

Alrighty, I went and tried to come up independently with the most efficient vehicle for this possible... what I came up with ended up being very similar to numerobis, although slightly better at only 7019kg. Main savings were using a smaller tank and less fuel for the jet stage, and only using 4 intakes instead of 6. Totally different layout and fuel-tank choice, but the same engines, and the same amount of fuel for the rocket engine. I did a somewhat useless second pass with the jets (mostly to burn off extra jet fuel), that could likely be eliminated, and less fuel could be brought in a possible smaller tank for the jet, grabbing a small amount of additional savings. Obviously an unmanned mission could be done cheaper and smaller, but already lugging the weight of the Jet engine around is likely the most expensive part.

Owing to the Oberth Effect you want to burn as much as possible against (to slow down) or in (to speed up) the current direction of travel. The most efficient landing profile on a vacuum body is pretty much the exact opposite of the most efficient launch. As you probably are aware, the most efficient launch on a body in a vacuum is as much horizontal and as little vertical burn as possible. The most efficient landing is exactly that in reverse. You want to get your periapsis as close to the ground as possible. Then when nearing the ground, start burning horizontal. Burn just enough vertically to keep your vertical velocity at or near 0, as you slow down, you'll need to burn increasingly more vertically. When your horizontal velocity is gone, if you aimed close enough to the ground you should be not moving, and only slightly above the ground.

I haven't played around much with this in a while. But I had some success with it about a year ago. This is the design evolution of an electric helicopter... which was mostly bearing design: And here's a paddle boat: The actual bearings were relatively easy, but applying power with wheels was tricky.

I did this a few months ago... Gross cost: 5201, it's tech level 6 (decouplers oddly enough are the top tech needed). The returning pod is worth 1659 totally empty. No idea on the actual recovery value I would've gotten as the actual mission was run in a Creative save. So net cost is somewhere between 3542 and 5201, depending on recovery percentage. It's pretty hard to beat me on gross cost though