Faster than sound at low altitude

[BoobyTrapGaming]

So I have been working for a long time now to try and achieve speeds over 320 m/s(speed of sound) in level flight below 500 meters. I never got past about 220 m/s. So here's a challenge: build something that can go faster than 320 m/s below 500 meters!

Rules:

- No mods, other than visual and information mods. you may use FAR, but you will have to state that in your post. you will be put in a different scoreboard.

- Do not go higher than 500 meters above sea level(duh).

- Do not use rocket engines. only airbreathing engines are allowed because they are so efficient.

- NO use of glitches like infiniglide or flapping with lots of control surfaces. if any such glitches/exploits are used, you are no longer allowed to post any submissions on this thread and all your posts will be deleted immediately.

- The entire flight must take place below 500 meters, and you may not use a dive to increase speed. remember, this is about straight flight.

There will be a leaderboard; the fastest person is the winner!

​Good luck!

Leaderboards:

Stock KSP:

1. Norup with 365 m/s

2. GoSlash27 with 362 m/s

3. Van Disaster and n.b.z. with 361 m/s

4. Deutherius with 332 m/s

5. BoobyTrapGaming with 331m/s

With FAR:

Coming soon!

Edited March 26, 2015 by BoobyTrapGaming

[kStrout]

I highly doubt that it will be difficult to exceed mach 1 below 500m even with only jet engines, the question is... how fast CAN you go?

[GoSlash27]

I'll post an entry on this one.

You should specify no infinigliding, because it's easy to break Mach 1 that way at low level.

Best,

-Slashy

[HoloYolo]

I can attach an SRB to a probe and complete this challenge easily.

[GoSlash27]

First entry on the boards, and it's supersonic. Barely...

All stock, no infinigliding (or other physics exploits), and manned.

Edited March 22, 2015 by GoSlash27

[BoobyTrapGaming]

wow! I never really thought of making something that uses an external command seat... I always just put huge cockpits and fuel tanks on!

[Wanderfound]

You might want to clarify whether "don't go above 500m" means to stay below that altitude for the whole flight, or if it's just that the speed must be measured below 500.

I ran it both ways just to be sure...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

So: 482.6m/s (Mach 1.41 at that altitude) without ever exceeding 500m, or 563.1m/s (Mach 1.66) with a diving approach.

FAR was in operation, including aerodynamic failures.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Wanderfound

[Tweety]

I'm using 2 installs, 1 stock aero and 1 FAR (only been using it for a few days now) but I can easily say in FAR over mach 1 flight is a cakewalk in comparison to stock, which I have yet to achieve....challenge accepted will post entries later today.

Tweety

[Wanderfound]

The challenge in FAR isn't getting up to speed, it's doing it without tearing your wings off...

[GoSlash27]

As long as we've got this much thrust/ weight, why even bother with wings?

326 m/sec.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

wow! I never really thought of making something that uses an external command seat... I always just put huge cockpits and fuel tanks on!

In stock KSP, mass is drag. Your fuel tanks even get aerodynamically cleaner as they drain!

Since streamlining doesn't exist, your best bet is to put as little mass as possible into the aircraft.

Best,

-Slashy

[Tweety]

Just done my stock aero run...JUST scraped in above the benchmark 320m/s I will happily admit to cheating though. 320.6m/s in a dive (not able to recover either) at a fraction below 500m.

Meanwhile in FAR...

More to come

More turned up in about 3 more minutes of messing about.

I'm sure most people could beat these speeds but I found it fun to mess about for my 1 hour timeslot tonight

Tweety

Edited March 23, 2015 by Tweety
added another pic.

[Vashts]

first run.

[Deutherius]

your best bet is to put as little mass as possible into the aircraft.

That. And more power. You can always add more power.

Not claiming that it's stable or usable, but it goes fast.

Top speed 332 m/s.

Doesn't have a kerbal, but there's no rule against probe vehicles. Besides, I'm not as cruel as to force a kerbal on that thing (unless he deserves it). It flipped out of control near the end, hence why it's pointing 90° vertical. Also managed to summon the Kraken a few times. An all around fun vehicle.

I can surely beat this with a better design, but for now I'm too tired. I might cook something up tommorow.

You guys ever managed to overheat jet engines? They produce no effective thrust, but it sure looks pretty.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Deutherius

[Vashts]

Probably the most kerbal thing ive built

[Commander Jebidiah]

This sounds like a fun challenge ill try it tomorrow.

[GoSlash27]

No Kerbals?!? We can beat that >

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, this is about the end of the line for me. Things are starting to undergo rapid unscheduled disassembly.

349 m/ sec oughtta hold a spot on the board for a while...

Best,

-Slashy

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Test run: (with FAR, AJE and stock revamp)

Using this plane: (It's the Zephyr http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113242-Zephyr)

And speed:

673m/s!

Which of those mods are allowed?

[n.b.z.]

349 m/ sec oughtta hold a spot on the board for a while...

That depends on your definition of "while"...

355 m/s, stock.

[GoSlash27]

n.b.z.,

Kudos and well- done!

Best,

-Slashy

[n.b.z.]

n.b.z.,

Kudos and well- done!

Thank you.

But I should have tried harder before posting... now at 361 m/s. Maybe this contraption can go 1 or 2 m/s faster when flying closer to the 500m limit, but after I removed the larger reaction wheel, this thing is hard to fly more precise.

At these speeds, slight changes in pitch act on your vertical speed like a catapult...

[Wanderfound]

Another run:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

696.7m/s, FAR.

[Van Disaster]

In 0.25, I spent a fair while trying to break 1000m/s at sea level, but never quite managed it. Seems a suitable time to reattempt that, I feel.

Edit: quick run later, apparently 868m/s is this one's limit at the moment.

FAR and Ven's stock graphics revamp thing which doesn't change any physics.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Van Disaster]

And after some serious drag reduction:

Been sat at 960.2m/s for a while, so that appears to be that. FAR & Ven's graphics again.

Edit: I think this possibly counts as a glitch - I removed Ven's pack just in case it was interfering and no, this is actually something that happens. If it does get called "glitch" then ignore it, I'm pretty happy with the plane above

Edited March 24, 2015 by Van Disaster

[BoobyTrapGaming]

You might want to clarify whether "don't go above 500m" means to stay below that altitude for the whole flight, or if it's just that the speed must be measured below 500.

I updated the rules a bit. but it's about STRAIGHT flight, so no diving please.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks everyone for your submissions! I will make a scoreboard wednesday.

Edited March 24, 2015 by BoobyTrapGaming

[Van Disaster]

On the assumption that making the fuselage from nacelles is fine ( what does that do in stock? ), a final one. If it isn't, ignore it & be amused anyway because it's very silly

FAR once again.