keptin

Class 8 - 94 fuel tanks

So far my experience with high-aspect wings in KSP has been a good one, especially with the altitude challenge. They have 1.6lift/0.05mass=32lift/1mass. Deltas have 27lift/1mass. The downside [in the game] is that high-aspect wings suffer from increased drag, so that gave me the idea to decrease my speed and take advantage of the high lift. There aren\'t any rules against it up top, so I don\'t see why it wouldn\'t qualify as long as it\'s not benefiting from the control surface thrust glitch.

Gave it another go with 8 engines and a boat load of tanks. Class 8 - 48 fuel tanks Class 8 - 58 fuel tanks

Avan, that plane looks frickin\' awesome and the fact that it\'s powered by glitching components makes it one of the coolest things I\'ve ever seen made in this game. Any plans on sharing it in the near future?

No worries, I\'m over it. High-aspect wings are the way to go for ultra-high altitude flying. I was able to manage 38,008m with this design: Inspired by the U-2 and Global Hawk, In this design, yeah probably. I agree that the conventional jet part is useless and think the part.cfg for jets and turbojets should be tweaked a bit so jets work fine at reasonable altitudes like a commercial plane would fly at and the turbojets at least breath air above 16000m. U-2 spyplanes fly at around 80000ft (~25000m) on air breathing turbojet engines, so it makes sense for the game\'s turbojet to be adjusted or a vanilla 'high-altitude engine' to be made. It would be fun if we had to use conventional jet engines in our designs because the turbojets could barely function at low altitude, SR-71 style. Thanks, glad to hear someone enjoyed it.

488kg I gave this a shot. 2x225kg Mk3 tanks and 1x150kg Mk2-3, just as antbin, with the exception of going for high-aspect wings over a low-aspect delta and U-2 style landing gear to shed some weight. the Helios IV, run 2: *edit*, did it in roughly 488kg of fuel...awww yeah. 8) The trick was changing my flight plan to low and slow--12500m going ~350m/s at a hair less than 1/3rd throttle led to incredible fuel savings. Given how much fuel I had left over, I could probably ditch the weight of the 150kg tank and do it with 450kg clean. It took over an hour, so like hell I\'m going through that again...unless someone can best 488kg Flight Profile 2, 488kg: https://imgur.com/a/En6Kf#0

Let\'s get started! Class 4 - 24 fuel tanks Class 8 - 35 fuel tanks

Cargo Jet Challenge! How much cargo can you pack onto a plane and still manage to takeoff? Rules: -Three competition classes: Class 4 - maximum of 4 engines Class 8 - maximum of 8 engines Class Unlimited - unlimited number of engines -Must only use KSP v0.15 Vanilla parts -Jets and Turbojets only. You may use solid rocket boosters for assisted takeoff, but only for takeoff. Don\'t be lame and boost yourself the whole way. -You must use the Mk1-Fuselage Jet Fuel part as the cargo. -Your aircraft must reach at least 3000 meters altitude -Post your screenshot with the competition class and number of fuel tanks ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

However the game calculates lift, I think wings help. I tried to pop the wings off and push up in a capsule in a few tests, but it wasn\'t as successful as using wings and having 100-200m/s forward speed at a 70-80 degree angle. Even in that thin air up there they\'re generating lift. Weight is definitely an issue, including the ejectable connectors. I shed all non-essentials right on takeoff except for the Adv SAS, which I might be able to exclude. *edit* Yep, removing the Adv SAS helped. Tricky to control, but it took off 0.8 mass. Turbojet - 38,008m

Dropped some weight in SpaceScraper II, 38,008m and it has wings + can glide land! Updated my post above w/ pic.

All of three seconds...so precious. Imperial isn\'t better, it\'s confusing as hell. I\'m not changing it because I received a bunch of snotty replies on a post I was just trying to share for fun. On that note, good night lovely Kerbal community.

ICAO standards mean that a French pilot flying into a German airport is counting his altitude in hundreds of feet and speaking in English. Flight level is counted in feet, internationally, except for Russia and countries it is/was affiliated with. I\'m used to using feet when referencing altitude. I get it, you\'re no pilot, but there\'s no need to be rude about it. Converting units is pretty effortless; in a fraction of time it took you to write a whiny reply, you could have Googled '1m to ft'.

I know what you\'re complaining about, but I don\'t know why you care enough to--whiny internet peeps with nothing better to do. There\'s about 3 feet to a meter; pat yourself on the back for learning something today.

I mean feet, as in, I roughly converted meters to feet in my mind, then tossed those numbers up. Don\'t see why it even matters enough to comment on it. Everyone\'s getting their panties in a twist. Moving on, a modification of this design currently holds the turbojet altitude record in this thread, http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=12572.0

High-aspect baby; riding the edge of space here. All v0.15 vanilla parts. The SpaceScraper, discarding its landing gear on takeoff Turbojet (Unlimited) - 38,008m SpaceScraper I Lite SpaceScraper II Jet (Unlimited) - 13,516m Turbojet (Single) - 26,178m Jet (Single) - 12,114m *edit* added single and unlimited classes for number of engines used

Because when it comes to aircraft, I use feet and miles.

The AtmoScraper -All vanilla parts, simple construction -Capable of 120,000ft, crossing the ocean and landing on the next continent. 1. 1st Stage, start main ascent engines, maximum thrust 2. Takeoff and climb with Adv SAS locked to 25 degrees. 3. 30,000ft, reduce climb to 15 degrees, 2nd Stage, start aerospike, maximum thrust 4. 45,000ft, 3rd stage, drop main engines 5. 50,000ft, increase climb to 30 degrees, climb until aerospike runs out of fuel 6. Coast across ocean, reducing altitude. At 15,000 ft, 4th stage, start conventional turbine 7. Land on two wheels on nearby landmass, approx 1/4th across the planet. Download http://dl.dropbox.com/u/66999462/AtmoScraper5.craft

The game uses vector rotation in x, y, z. I still have difficulty wrapping my head around it and would also appreciate someone explaining it.

To my knowledge, there\'s no solid limit. Though, fewer than 1000 tris per part is a good target for models. The collider should be as few as possible, i.e., a simple cylinder or cube is ideal.

Thanks, I\'ll give it a shot!

Eww, you had to register to download? Removing it now. *edit* replaced with dropbox link

That\'d be awesome! I\'m not sure if I\'m an experienced enough programmer to make that happen, but maybe I can trade my modeling and texturing skills for some programming work. PM me if there are any takers.

In all this talk of necroing an old thread and asking around for people with the mod, I still never received a PM. I check KSP daily, just not this mod in quite a while. Reuped the link in the first post. If it goes down again, please PM me. I\'ve got some available time coming up and I\'m bumping this thread to see if there\'s interest in updating the mod to 0.14--give a holler if you want more brick parts!

By all means, go ahead. Though, there will be an official BrickMod SAS module coming soon. It doesn\'t change the original pod in any way; it makes BrickPod the default *start* pod and is easy to revert. You would have seen it in the readme if you had read it. :\ The OP isn\'t for technical details, just wowee zowee images and feature set. Otherwise the OP turns into a mess.

Is 600Kb too much to download? Get the pack and add only the parts you want from it; they\'re easily separated by individual folders.