1.02 Kollier Trophy (reset for the updates)

[jake9039]

can things go boom?

[mielgato]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Kazuya went and did something...

Highest altitude achieved : 28,214m but I went ballistic so the highest altitude achieved the flight record will show is 45,969m

Highest speed over land : 1685m/s

Highest G's endured : 6.4g

i'll do it again for the iron man, I totally could have landed it at KSC !

edit : I did it !!!! totally nailed it !!! and my engine on the runway while landing... try again

Edited April 29, 2015 by mielgato

[Lesbiotic]

Well I have topped 1900 m/s with a manned craft. And I reached top speed in under 30 seconds.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

craft name is Marpesia

Edited April 29, 2015 by Lesbiotic

[MunGazer]

Well I have topped 1900 m/s with a manned craft. And I reached top speed in under 30 seconds.

http://imgur.com/a/siUOl

craft name is Marpesia

Wow you hit 1900 m/s plus at less than 500 meters above sea level without exploding/overheating? That's crazy. Is there any reason you did it at night, does that help with the temperatures? lol

Edited April 29, 2015 by MunGazer
*at

[Lesbiotic]

Wow you hit 1900 m/s plus at less than 500 meters above sea level without exploding/overheating? That's crazy. Is there any reason you did it at night, does that help with the temperatures? lol

It feels a lot like black magic how it doesn't explode, everything else I tried attaching, even with my many attempts at shielded heatsinks would fail around 1600 m/s and yet this configuration did not. I did not pick night time specifically to do my runs, my save just loads in at night, but it might have an impact on temps. I am not sure.

There probably is a way to get heatsinks to work better, I almost had one working perfectly using heatshields but it just barely didn't last as long as I needed it to. The struts holding the shields would have the heat transferred to them and then explode but it did buy several seconds. I might play with it more as improved aerodynamics should allow for faster speeds.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Well, here goes my first ever challenge entry!

My SP-1C HyperStreak (as opposed to the -1A SkyStreak and -1B SuperStreak...) reached a max altitude of 28,901 meters ASL.

It was flown by Jeb and Val, and returned safely to the KSC runway, as well.

It's a bit of a beefier craft than most of the ones here, but it works for me

The only issue might be the minor clipping: the two intakes are attached to clipped tail connectors. Not sure whether that's allowed or not.

(There are only two shock cone intakes, no funky intake spam going on.)

And here's the album:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited April 29, 2015 by AngusJimiKeith
fixing album...

[Snakedoctor15]

Here's my submission, Mini Speedster (Ironically not fast). Max altitude of 36,256 meters, max speed was only about 280 m/s. Landed safly back at the KSC Runway.

Album:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[MunGazer]

Well, here goes my first ever challenge entry!

My SP-1C HyperStreak (as opposed to the -1A SkyStreak and -1B SuperStreak...) reached a max altitude of 28,901 meters ASL.

It was flown by Jeb and Val, and returned safely to the KSC runway, as well.

It's a bit of a beefier craft than most of the ones here, but it works for me

The only issue might be the minor clipping: the two intakes are attached to clipped tail connectors. Not sure whether that's allowed or not.

(There are only two shock cone intakes, no funky intake spam going on.)

And here's the album:

http://imgur.com/a/TRQiF

Hey, not sure if you intentionally had oxidizer on board or not, but if you removed the 220 oxidizer from that bicoupler and had only liquidfuel in it, that would reduce your craft's mass by about 1.1 tons, which might be roughly 9% of your overall mass at 12k kilograms. There are so many different types of "tons" (short ton, long ton, metric ton (I would hope that kerbal uses metric tons, metric is the truth and the way)) so no exact figures there from me but you get the idea. I realize it could be you're aware of that and you're just showing that you didn't use any of the oxidizer on board but so far no one has had to present much proof so I'd say don't worry about it and see if you can maybe hit an even better altitude.

Edited April 29, 2015 by MunGazer

[Fengist]

Well this sucks, Les beat me to the punch. I just finished my testing and saw his post. So that you don't think I stole my idea from you Les, I got it from a guy over on general who was saying that if you put pointy things out front, they reduce drag for those things behind them. So ummm.. Well... Either you believe me or not but here's what I got.

I did lose a landing gear 21 secs into this but I hit 1930.3.

It's 3 rapiers with coolers and 2 with engine pods. Out front is the heat shield, a small girder and a pocket i-beam in front of that to act as shockwave generators.

Oh, and at 25 G's... we mopped Jeb out of the cockpit.

I have hit 1,945 once but I didn't get a shot of the complete craft, only the F3 stats after is splattered.

I also did some high altitude testing. The best I have a screenshot of is 27,808. There is going to be a ceiling somewhere just above 28km. At that point, rapiers at least, flame out no matter how much air you have. Reminds me of the Kethane jets. Man those were a nightmare.

And god I couldn't keep tail fins on to save my life. So I gave up trying. I just used them to take off and said, done with that.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Fengist

[MunGazer]

Here's my submission, Mini Speedster (Ironically not fast). Max altitude of 36,256 meters, max speed was only about 280 m/s. Landed safly back at the KSC Runway.

Album:

http://imgur.com/a/UZrNk

Excellent altitude, although I think that might be sort of a new category since you've got virtually 0 intake air - I can only assume your engine has been shut down for quite some time at that point 36km and it may be more like the apex of a ballistic trajectory than "level flight". However I could be wrong and ultimately Slashy will dictate lol.

Aside from that, if your airspeed is peaking at 280 m/s, you may be able to do away with the heat shield ablator altogether. I'd think your craft could sustain significantly higher speeds at any altitude without overheating, but maybe that ablator is making your craft more stable somehow for all I know lol.

[fluffysnowcap]

Hear is my best attempt at getting past the 2,000 M/s barrier thow i got close i ultimately failed as i ran out of power.

I had to do away with landing gear as thay kept blowing up and totaling the craft

Airspeed Record: 1994.5 m/s

Altitude Record: 384 m

G-Force Record: 27.2 G's

Craft link

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited April 29, 2015 by fluffysnowcap

[MunGazer]

Well this sucks, Les beat me to the punch. I just finished my testing and saw his post. So that you don't think I stole my idea from you Les, I got it from a guy over on general who was saying that if you put pointy things out front, they reduce drag for those things behind them. So ummm.. Well... Either you believe me or not but here's what I got.

I did lose a landing gear 21 secs into this but I hit 1930.3.

It's 3 rapiers with coolers and 2 with engine pods. Out front is the heat shield, a small girder and a pocket i-beam in front of that to act as shockwave generators.

Oh, and at 25 G's... we mopped Jeb out of the cockpit.

I have hit 1,945 once but I didn't get a shot of the complete craft, only the F3 stats after is splattered.

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/10speed5.jpg

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/10speed6.jpg

I also did some high altitude testing. The best I have a screenshot of is 27,808. There is going to be a ceiling somewhere just above 28km. At that point, rapiers at least, flame out no matter how much air you have. Reminds me of the Kethane jets. Man those were a nightmare.

And god I couldn't keep tail fins on to save my life. So I gave up trying. I just used them to take off and said, done with that.

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/10speed3.jpg

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/10speed4.jpg

Wow nice work. I think now is that aha moment where I understand the new aerodynamics system better - specifically with regard to shock waves and high speed atmospheric flight. Hey Lesbiotic, that black magic you were speaking of.... perhaps the shock wave created by the front of your craft is what distinguishes it from the others and allowed it to hit 1900 m/s and not blow apart vs the 1600 m/s of the other ones. This is the great thing about this competition from slashy, we can all learn so many things from it.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Hey, not sure if you intentionally had oxidizer on board or not, but if you removed the 220 oxidizer from that bicoupler and had only liquidfuel in it, that would reduce your craft's mass by about 1.1 tons, which might be roughly 9% of your overall mass at 12k kilograms. There are so many different types of "tons" (short ton, long ton, metric ton (I would hope that kerbal uses metric tons, metric is the truth and the way)) so no exact figures there from me but you get the idea. I realize it could be you're aware of that and you're just showing that you didn't use any of the oxidizer on board but so far no one has had to present much proof so I'd say don't worry about it and see if you can maybe hit an even better altitude.

It was...sort of intentional. I already had (most of) this plane built, and honestly didn't feel like re-balancing it without the oxidizer. I also used only half my fuel on this run. I'll probably make another run at it without the oxidizer and with less fuel in the front tank to see if I can keep the CoM/CoP in the right places. This particular design is extremely maneuverable and the slightest mass balance tweaks throw it pretty close to instability :/

And yeah, I was showing proof. Better safe than sorry. (Also, it was a sanity check for me, since I'm using Rapiers.) I should see how close this can get to orbit...

I'll make a lighter weight run sometime after my exam on Friday (which is, coincidentally, about controlling unstable aerospace systems ).

[Fengist]

Hear is my best attempt at getting past the 2,000 M/s barrier thow i got close i ultimately failed as i ran out of power.

I had to do away with landing gear as thay kept blowing up and totaling the craft

Airspeed Record: 1994.5 m/s

Altitude Record: 384 m

G-Force Record: 27.2 G's

Craft link

http://imgur.com/a/BDhEP

I had the same problem with landing gear but I said the hell with it, I could handle one going pop, just not all 3. From what I understand, if anything is attached behind a part, it's protected from the heat. If it's attached radially, it generates drag and it'own heat. Which, is why they blow up. Also, joints generate heat. One trick I've read about is putting smaller parts inside of a cargo bay. They're protected there and don't generate drag or heat. I thot I'd get smart and put air scoops in the cargo bay. Ummm no. You open the bay, they work, you close the bay, you got no air. And even if you try to offset the gear or air scoops inside another part... doesn't work, they still generate heat.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Fengist

[Lesbiotic]

2,000 m/s status: broken

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GoSlash27]

A reminder to everyone:

Sorry, but I can't accept entries that have had failures (parts exploding/ breaking off) during the flight.

Also, I cannot accept SnakeDoctor's submission since it is the result of a ballistic trajectory rather than level flight.

Best,

-Slashy

[fluffysnowcap]

2,000 m/s status: broken

http://imgur.com/a/fD2yu

good man thats a insane speed and may i ask how you manidged to fly it?

[PCanas]

My entry: Speeder.

1707m/s max speed achieved. 30.625m maxim altitude achieved.

Pictures of F3 menu, and before (almost) everything exploded.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Nevermind, this entry is not valid because some parts exploded. I'll try again later.

Edited April 29, 2015 by PCanas

[Lesbiotic]

good man thats a insane speed and may i ask how you manidged to fly it?

I pretty much just did a straight shot at around 300 meters with very minor adjustments to optimize aerodynamics. After that run I did another with more fuel and with the minor adjustments to make sure it was perfectly streamlined was able to maintain around 2k m/s (topped out at 2004) until the engines began to overheat which took about a minute or so with my configuration. The extra weight didn't seem to matter at all. There doesn't seem a whole lot to it yet, there's probably ways to go even faster that I have yet to discover.

[Noname117]

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

[MunGazer]

I've been having a blast (often literally) experimenting with different prototypes and I feel as though I've found "the one", but right at that minute, alas, I had to leave for work >.< . In the meantime I thought it would be good to ask some technical questions relevant to the engineering of crafts specifically for the Kollier Trophy.

1. Does the angle of airflow relative to the front of an air intake of any kind affect its efficiency with regard to how much air it is able to capture for the engine? If so, I may angle them down a few degrees to better process air at high altitudes where there is precious little oxygen.

2. Does having objects "in front" of an air intake interfere with its air capturing capacity? By in front, I mean in such a way that the physical structure of the intake is at least partially shielded from drag as opposed to hitting fresh, unbroken air.

3. Is there any way to monitor the heat of external craft surfaces during flight? This would be valuable for slowly approaching temperature limits or knowing which parts are getting too hot.

4. Is there indeed some kind of Shockwave effect in the aerodynamics of ksp 1.0 for supersonic aircraft? Can a part that isn't directly behind another one, but slightly off to the side and to the rear be partially protected simply by being within the shock cone of, for instance, the nose of the craft?

5. What specific factors affect the heat of parts? I assume, at a minimum, the following: airspeed, angle of incidence with respect to the part in question, total surface area of the part exposed to the airstream. Is there anything I'm missing, or are any of those assumptions inaccurate?

That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance as I'm sure the knowledge will help out all the engineering efforts.

- - - Updated - - -

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

I get the impression that some of us thought that it was ok to have parts explode or break off after​ achieving a record in flight and pressing F3 for example to capture the airspeed and/or altitude for the record, but I also get the impression that is not allowed for official submissions. It is a clarification that many may want to have for both the iron man and non-iron man events. "During the run" and "during the flight" may get misinterpreted. Slashy?

Edited April 29, 2015 by MunGazer

[GoSlash27]

I get the impression that some of us thought that it was ok to have parts explode or break off after​ achieving a record in flight and press F3 for example to capture the airspeed and/or altitude for the record, but I also get the impression that is not allowed for official submissions. It is a clarification that many may want to have for both the iron man and non-iron man events. "During the run" and "during the flight" may get misinterpreted. Slashy?

Apologies, I'm still figuring this out as I go along

After review, I pulled the Roadrunner 2 for disintegrating during the record attempt. I also updated the leaderboard (if I missed anyone, give me a holler)

The rules for ironman are more strict than open.

Ironman class:

The aircraft must remain intact throughout the entire flight and recover safely at KSC.

Open class:

The aircraft must remain intact during the submitted run, but not necessarily the entire flight. That is; I will accept the record as valid so long as the submitted screen cap shows no destroyed parts at the time. After that, it's okay for the plane to go all explodey.

HTHs and sorry for the confusion!

-Slashy

[AngusJimiKeith]

I've been having a blast (often literally) experimenting with different prototypes and I feel as though I've found "the one", but right at that minute, alas, I had to leave for work >.< . In the meantime I thought it would be good to ask some technical questions relevant to the engineering of crafts specifically for the Kollier Trophy.

1. Does the angle of airflow relative to the front of an air intake of any kind affect its efficiency with regard to how much air it is able to capture for the engine? If so, I may angle them down a few degrees to better process air at high altitudes where there is precious little oxygen.

2. Does having objects "in front" of an air intake interfere with its air capturing capacity? By in front, I mean in such a way that the physical structure of the intake is at least partially shielded from drag as opposed to hitting fresh, unbroken air.

3. Is there any way to monitor the heat of external craft surfaces during flight? This would be valuable for slowly approaching temperature limits or knowing which parts are getting too hot.

4. Is there indeed some kind of Shockwave effect in the aerodynamics of ksp 1.0 for supersonic aircraft? Can a part that isn't directly behind another one, but slightly off to the side and to the rear be partially protected simply by being within the shock cone of, for instance, the nose of the craft?

5. What specific factors affect the heat of parts? I assume, at a minimum, the following: airspeed, angle of incidence with respect to the part in question, total surface area of the part exposed to the airstream. Is there anything I'm missing, or are any of those assumptions inaccurate?

That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance as I'm sure the knowledge will help out all the engineering efforts.

1. As far as I'm aware, yes, this happens in KSP. That's a good idea to mitigate it, too...

2. Nope, intakes behind solid structures still get air, at least as far as I'm aware.

3. The thermometer part actually does this now! Slap one on critical areas like the nose. Else, there's the debug menu, but that might violate the rules.

4. Not sure. Mach effects are a thing now, but I don't know how accurately they're modeled. I kind of doubt anything like this.

5. Each part has a few stats related to heat now, such as "thermal mass". Not entirely sure what they all do yet, but suffice to say that some parts heat up faster than others.

And now a question of my own: anyone having issues with asymmetrical thrust/flameouts? I've done the old place engine 1 -> place intake 1 -> place engine 2 -> place intake 2 method and I'm still having issues.

[MunGazer]

And now a question of my own: anyone having issues with asymmetrical thrust/flameouts? I've done the old place engine 1 -> place intake 1 -> place engine 2 -> place intake 2 method and I'm still having issues.

Thanks for the answers/advice it's greatly appreciated. I can't speak with a lot of authority in response to your question, but yes today I did get a glimpse of an asymmetrical flameout. I had more than one rapier mounted, but when I originally mounted them, I was not using symmetry mode. So as I edged up to a particular altitude slowly (about 10 m/s vertical speed), there suddenly wasn't enough total intake air to operate the engines. So one of the four shut down but the other 3 kept running. This was at about 26 km altitude. So in fumbling with that I eventually became quite unstable. I wonder if there is a way to tie the engines together so that if one shuts off, they all do. At least that way you could just coast until you regrouped instead of having to re do things.

[MunGazer]

pffffffffffffffffffff. This from the new physics thread:

• Night time air is less dense than day time air. Planes may be able to go Supersonic at night and perhaps not during the day.

No wonder all these pitch black midnight runs where you can barely see anything in the screen shots. "Oh I don't know why I did that" bahaha. Sure. Too funny. Anyway isn't that backwards? Shouldn't squad have made warmer air less dense where your speed runs have better odds during they day?