ABalazs

Agreed.

I tried some plane configurations, this one provided the best results so far. The X-155, originally a fighterbomber design, cancelled when somebody realized that there is no enemy present in Kerbin, because everybody went to the astronaut school. So KSC reused the plans, replaced the bomb bays with large LFO tanks and a passenger compartment squeezed in to make the plane as civil-looking as possible. RCS system and a docking port also present. Now the plane can reach 150 km orbit, but it could throw bombs as well, if necessary. http://imgur.com/a/cMa06 (Ehh, I'm suffering with picture embedding from Imgur, the old codes seems to be obsolete...)

I've played with this mission for a week or so. First I've tried it with bombs, failing multiple times, because BDArmory's bomb aiming feature does not work properly in 1.2.1. So my solution is a missile plane, a pretty simple precision attacker with one Maverick only, built from the cheapest components suitable to the task, the A-1002-A Lil Dart. A: 7:56 = 476s > (826/476)*50 = 86 B: 27494 heat > (27494/60209)*30 = 13 C: 12740 funds > (96617/12740)*20 = 151 A+B+C: 250 And this is the run I will try again with bombs - lots of them - when the bombing reticle fix happens in BDArmory.

I am not one of those ppl. There is data available about all of these engines, btw., mostly provided by allied tests made during and after WWII. German and Jap. technology was roughly equal to allied, the war won by supplies and strategy.

Strange, I never met this kind of stuff in KSP before, but "axis side" engines are way weaker then their "alliance side" counterparts. Is this some kind of accident, or really, the modmaker tries to implement some kind of "losing side had inferior tech" lie, like ex-soviet gamemakers used to lately? I mean DB-601 clone does 29 kN versus 40 kN M-105P clone? Really? IRL the Klimov engine was 1050-1100 PS vs. 1175-1350 of the DB-601 of the same time. And in this mod the 601 engine is barely stronger than a 150 PS Hispano 8V (25 kN)? Really? How? Why?

I could, but I will not. You publicly suspected me of cheating, and a picture like that couldn't wash my name clean. Maybe I just hyperedited that pod to orbit. I will probably fly the mission again some time, when I will be in a mood to make myself humiliated again. That time, I will present all the proofs needed, incuding the pod's fuel load, but I will not, ever, wear any of this challenge's badges in my sig, even the one i earned already. GG mate.

Ok, I checked the pod in the game, still on its orbit, and it is full. But if you request it, I can do the flight again.

I don't think so. If you observe it, you will see I used stage only view during the flight to check my fuel level. The plane contains 4x400 unit of LF in the wing root fuel tank system, and that is the only fuel the nuke engines are connected with. I will check at home, but I don't think there is any fuel route between the pod and the engines. And as you can see, I did not use fuel transfer during the flight. I have no intention to cheat here, you know.

I don't know if it counts as a real STS, it is not the usual piggyback config, but I post this anyways as per definition it does the trick. I accelerated the vid because the mission was 46 min originally, but all the necessary proofs are inside, at least I hope. Reached a 801 km orbit and placed the standard 42t fuel pod there, then landed on the runway in one piece. I used the little turbojets because I am a terrible pilot, and the craft tended to lose all of its speed several hundred meters short of the runway's end.

Thanks for the fast reply. I used KSP 1.05 Silent Patch (version 1.05.1028), that one has different water physics compared to pre-patch 1024. This is a possible cause of your liftoff problems. For me it lifts from the water easily after reaching 61 m/s.

I hope this counts as one: Just an amphibious SSTO.

This is my entry, the Very Pregnant Guppy, aka SSXX-04D. No album, sry, only the real time recording of the flight and the craft file. In this case I flew it with a 4,5 ton closed tank as cargo, so in theory it can carry something of the same tonnage or reach a higher orbit.

Squad changed something in the water drag model in the micropatch (1028), my designs now barely able to reach 80 m/s. If anybody wants to reach 1 mach+ in water, stick to the 1.05 pre-patch version(1024).

I managed to solve my oscillation problems. Max speed: 345 m/s. [imgur]I97ME[/imgur]

I used a spoiler, a simple wing surface with negative angle of attack, to push down the boat at high speeds. Or you can try to make a heavy craft and small underwater lifting surfaces - tweak the angle of those as needed - to reach the proper balance. Mk2 parts generate lift like wings, so count with that as well. Oscillation seems to be more serious problem for me, above 150-200 m/s it tends to break parts off from my crafts hovering centimeters from the water surface.

This is my hydrofoil: [imgur]220ko[/imgur] It reached 292 m/s. Dead stock KSP, ofc. One of the earlier versions reached 319, but that one destroyed itself when I tried to slow it down. But I will try again, its possible.

Interesting one, but you should show your own successful attempt to prove the challenge possible. (Check the submission guide please...)

I tried some ship designs today, but none of them goes faster then 67-68 m/s. I don't say the challenge is impossible - never say never - but OP should show us how to reach 100 m/s in water, according to challenge guidelines...

Hmm... I heavily doubt this challenge is doable with basic jet engines. Those simply cant reach more then 420 m/s in level flight, 430 in shallow dive. I tried it, built a plane with wave drag area of 0.47 and a single engine, and this was my best result. Any double engine build more then doubled the drag, so that was even slower, near 370 or so. Mach 2 seems unreachable. Turbojet is the only viable way, but what a way! One of my 1/3 thrust supercruse tests ended with slow but unstoppable acceleration - I lost my patience at about 700 m/s, after at least 10 minutes of wrestling with the damned FAR SAS wobble. No documentation yet, maybe later...

This is my heaviest successful design so far, with full RCS system, dual cabin, docking port, and 10 carrot-rocket, in cold war fighter style: Seems to be pretty doable for me, the limit of a single TJ is somewhere at 15t.

I found turbojet+NERVA LKO and back is absolute doable with just a small fighterish plane, 2x tj, 2xnuke and 900 fuel. I suffered a bit with the new aero model, but accelerating from 10km heading at least 25-30 deg angle up do the trick. High TWR with turbojets is a must here to reach 1000 m/s at 20km, and stay angled upwards. Sadly I did not documented the flight - maybe I will try it again later to produce the necessary proof.

One particular advantage of those large wings is their rigidity. Strutting big wings together for heavy planes was painful and ineffective, so im really happy with the new parts. But if these were modular or even procedural, that would be real joy.

Let me present the XB-64E Pancake Bomber. This is a cheap alternative to all those gigabombers, a prototype designed by Jeb's Scrapyard, all parts salvaged from failed SSTO-s and scrapped rockets. It can carry 18 bombs internally and to deal with early balance problems, 4 externally. It has some rigidity problems to solve, but it is pretty scary, at least for a military force with no enemy at all. Points list: More BOOM: +12pts per extra bomb stored internally, +5pts per extra bomb stored externally. 12x12+4x5=164 pts Swift payback: +0.1pts per m/s top speed at an altitude of 3 km 143 m/s-> 14,3 pts Engine maintenance: -2pts per basic jet engine, -4pts per turbojet, -10pts per RAPIER engine. Rockets carry no penalty but, remember, they may not be used for takeoff. 4x2+4x4=-20 pts Part maintenance: -0.02pts per part (bombs included) (calculate at end of construction for simplicity, example bomber has 400 parts which thus equals -8pts). 316 parts -> -6.32 pts Gentle giant: +20pts if the Bomber with full payload, at cruising speed and an altitude of 3 km, can maintain a prograde velocity vector within 5° of its level indicator. Its somewhere between 3-4 deg, +20 pts Service ceiling: +15pts if the Bomber can sustain level flight at an altitude of 12 km. It can. +15 pts Total: 186.98 pts The mission was completed in 42 min. I am not good with large structures, so I did not even try to compete with the top of the field. In fact I made several simpler bomber designs and I think Kerbal Air Command could use an even lighter design with 9-12 bombs but less expense and maintenance need.

Thanks mate.

Sadly regex's mod is not available for download, aparently from today. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96654-0-25-PID-Tune-0-1-SAS-tweaking-%2810-12-2014%29 If someone could send me a copy, I'd be extremely greatful. I tweaked control surface deflections, but the bouncing did not eliminated. I need some control btw, if I dumb down deflections below a certain level, the planes become totally inresponsible at high altitude.