Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.0.2 - Aviator Challenge

[imthebait]

I'm confused. The diameter of Kerbin is 3,769,911m. Your distance is showing 3,939,677. That distance is very consistent with one circumnavigation. Kerbin rotates in the direction you were travelling meaning, the distance would be even further than 3,700km. In 2 hours, it rotates 628km. So, somewhere around 4,300km would be a reasonable distance. I could buy the 3,900 if it were one, but how did you get two circumnavigations? I'm not saying you didn't mind you. I've already seen some strange numbers coming from these flights. It just doesn't make sense though. Now if you managed an average of say 1,100m/s over 2 hours that would be 7,900km which does make sense for 2 circumnavigations. I'm just curious why the F3 is showing something very different.

The time for the speed you were travelling, that sounds about right. That F3 screen has me breaking out the calculator tho. Did you perhaps F5/F9?

No quicksaves, im not sure where the error is coming from, while i topped out at 1238m/s flying, cruise speed was somewhere around 1200 or so, maybe it just has to do with how the distance is calculated, because if it just calculates furthest you were from starting point to staring point, then it would come out looking like 1 navigation. Idk

the one thing im not sure of is what award i get with this, to me it seems like its fast enough to compete with the speedsters as well as qualifying for the double navigation. Edit: i just read the rules, ill definately be passing on flying for two hours in a row again so im going with the grand navigator. besides, i think i can make a craft that does one navigation with turbos at 1300

Out of curiosity, does anyone want me to upload the craft?

- - - Updated - - -

Beautiful ship, and nicely done.

Sure, I'll answer your question of how I tilted the engines on my craft while they were attached to connecting points:

First, ensure that both your engines have been placed in symmetry mode and/or you have symmetry mode turned on. Symmetry mode can be turned on via the panel in the bottom left corner of your screen in the spaceplane hangar. The reason for this is that you want every little change you make to one side to be identical on the other. You may have already known this, but I mentioned it just in case. Also ensure that your angle snap mode, which is indicated right next to the symmetry mode, is set to either angle snap or smooth mode for your purposes. For fine tuned 5° or less angle changes, you'll want angle snap off and smooth mode on instead (indicated by a circle with a dot inside).

Second, you should know that the "1" key by default will put you into part Place mode, "2" into Offset mode, "3" into Rotate mode, and "4" into Root mode. Press "3" to go into rotate mode, or of course simply click that option which is displayed at the top left of your SPH view. Then, select either the engine itself, or whatever assembly it is attached to if you want to, for instance, like on my Sojourn 2, rotate both the engine and the precooler it is on. Now, you should see a brightly colored set of circles pop up which represents your axes of rotation. Carefully put your pointer directly on the axis indicator circle you want to rotate on, click and hold, and move your mouse to rotate it. Press "1" once you're done to go back into normal place mode. Now, sometimes shifting angles can cause gaps on one side of the connection. To remedy this, go into Offset mode ("2"). Select the corresponding axis to translate the part on, and drag it until everything looks right. If ever during this process, you change an angle or offset, and you don't like the results, you can press LCtrl + z to undo the action.

I'm guessing the trouble you were having with part rotation is that you were doing all your rotation in place mode using the Shift + letter keys, and as a result, those place mode-angled parts determined the angle of all the rest of the parts that got attached.

Here's a good link to quickly reference the VAB/SPH commands:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Key_bindings

Thanks for the help, i was away from KSP for about a year and a lot of stuff has changed, i made use of it in my prototype and im currently testing it to see if i can squeeze a bit more airflow, alt and speed out of it.

Edited May 11, 2015 by imthebait

[Deutherius]

I'm confused. The diameter of Kerbin is 3,769,911m. Your distance is showing 3,939,677. That distance is very consistent with one circumnavigation. Kerbin rotates in the direction you were travelling meaning, the distance would be even further than 3,700km. In 2 hours, it rotates 628km. So, somewhere around 4,300km would be a reasonable distance. I could buy the 3,900 if it were one, but how did you get two circumnavigations? I'm not saying you didn't mind you. I've already seen some strange numbers coming from these flights. It just doesn't make sense though. Now if you managed an average of say 1,100m/s over 2 hours that would be 7,900km which does make sense for 2 circumnavigations. I'm just curious why the F3 is showing something very different.

The time for the speed you were travelling, that sounds about right. That F3 screen has me breaking out the calculator tho. Did you perhaps F5/F9?

That's because, as far as I recall, the F3 screen can only be trusted with mission time, max altitude and max speed over land. If you look at my submission, the F3 screen says I have traveled only 1,099,219 m ground distance, and I can assure you and prove that I went the whole way. There are problems with the distance traveled measurements everywhere, here, for example, the OP had to completely change the rules and wipe the scoreboard because of it.

Also, I think you meant circumference, not diameter

[Fengist]

No quicksaves, im not sure where the error is coming from, while i topped out at 1238m/s flying, cruise speed was somewhere around 1200 or so, maybe it just has to do with how the distance is calculated, because if it just calculates furthest you were from starting point to staring point, then it would come out looking like 1 navigation. Idk

the one thing im not sure of is what award i get with this, to me it seems like its fast enough to compete with the speedsters as well as qualifying for the double navigation. Edit: i just read the rules, ill definately be passing on flying for two hours in a row again so im going with the grand navigator. besides, i think i can make a craft that does one navigation with turbos at 1300

Out of curiosity, does anyone want me to upload the craft?

Well, I had no doubts you did it. Everything except the F3 looked right and if you say you did, that's good enough. And Deuth in the post above confirms there's problems. I'll have to review the rules. As for which badge, you picked the right one. I'll only list people under velocity for a single pass since your second pass would be theoretically faster as you're descending, not climbing.

Well done. I made a couple attempts at double circumnavigations and couldn't quite get the fuel/mass/speed worked out. I knew it could be done, just takes some effort.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think you meant circumference, not diameter

You can tell that mathematics was never my strong suit. Thanks. I shall correct it.

New rule added. Thanks for confirming that I hadn't lost what's left of my mind.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Fengist

[imthebait]

To be honest, I was faster on the way up, but I'm not complaining, I'm gonna try and make a craft capable of 3 circumnavigations based off of the falcon. Because I got so close to having enough fuel to do so.

Plus the craft in working on for the solo speed run is showing lots of promise, my main issue is preventing it from either overheating in the low atmosphere or breaking as I try and steer it away from high angle climbs at speeds positive of mach 4.

[Fengist]

Ok, labels for the expedition and velocity badge codes were reversed. I see some of you figured that out already. Thanks to Mun for pointing it out. The html code should match the correct badge now. Did I just sound like a programmer doing a bug patch???

- - - Updated - - -

I'm gonna try and make a craft capable of 3 circumnavigations based off of the falcon.

Well, good luck on 3+. I'm having issues making 2. As for speed, the best advice I can give you is... just above 27km, heating seems to vanish. Rapiers still run at that altitude, albeit they're just producing fumes.

[imthebait]

Well, good luck on 3+. I'm having issues making 2. As for speed, the best advice I can give you is... just above 27km, heating seems to vanish. Rapiers still run at that altitude, albeit they're just producing fumes.

All of my builds will be turbos, because of the fact that I'm doing it in career, also I have a hunch that I can get faster than rapiers due to less required fuel and there for less mass. If not then I'll just be cruising at stupidly high speeds hoping not to explode

[MunGazer]

All of my builds will be turbos, because of the fact that I'm doing it in career, also I have a hunch that I can get faster than rapiers due to less required fuel and there for less mass. If not then I'll just be cruising at stupidly high speeds hoping not to explode

There's definitely something to be said for finding ways to make the most of the turbojets' strengths. On that note, there is a deeper technical aspect of all this that I haven't been able to find knowledge on with a modest amount of searching. That is, a technique for optimizing ascent profile in the context of maximizing circumnavigation speed (disregarding fuel consumption) without using mods - I think it would be fun and interesting to learn an objective, systematic approach to it. Now, if it involves second order differential equations, I'm toast and I'll go back to my Ricky Bobby method of trial and error. Anyway, even if the solution is a very fine tuned curve, I could extrapolate from points along that to serve as a general guide to manually fly to my sub 30 km cruising altitude.

Descent is also a consideration when flying manually. My gut tells me this would be a lot more simple, sort of like late braking in race car driving. However, it could use a systematic approach also - again, focusing purely on speed toward mission completion.

I'm making a wild guess here that it will be based on desired cruising altitude, thrust, mass, and... coefficient of drag? Add in heat, and it gets even more complex.

Does anyone have any good links or suggestions regarding this? If not, I just might do my own scientific experiments to give at least place holder solutions and post my results here on my findings as long as that's ok with Fengist.

Edited May 12, 2015 by MunGazer

[imthebait]

I haven't looked too hard for anything, and I'm away from home for a day, but if I find anything I'll let you know, the biggest challenge I've been having is I hit 1000 m/s on the way up at around 10k but if I don't take off the throttle a bit, I'll cruise straight into the stratosphere past 40k alt or more

[Xeldrak]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

My entry

I have been trying to finish a circumnavigation for some time now. Turns out my plane is probably able to do two rounds around the planet.

Well, I dont have a picture of my plane on the other side of the globe, but you can clearly make out the big crater in one of the pictures.

One Circumnavigation, Time 01:28

[turkwinif]

QQ: In the rules, does "Jeb" stand for "MechJeb"? I'm coming from the old circumnavigation thread which, if I remember correctly, banned nearly all plugins. I'm interested in participating in this thread, but I'd like to know beforehand if MechJeb is fine to use, since keeping any plane at a constant altitude for a long time can test one's patience. It's especially important when you're nearing the 30,000m mark.

[waterlubber]

Is there any way to stop your plane from violently exploding due to temperature at relatively low speeds? Honestly, 700m/s is not enough to explode squat. I don't even think shock heating happens IRL at that temperature. I am playing in 1.0, though...

[MunGazer]

Is there any way to stop your plane from violently exploding due to temperature at relatively low speeds? Honestly, 700m/s is not enough to explode squat. I don't even think shock heating happens IRL at that temperature. I am playing in 1.0, though...

I'm not by any means an "expert" on the subject matter, but I've carefully considered your question and I'll try to at least throw you a bone here.

"Aerodynamic heating is greatest at high speed and in the lower atmosphere where the density is greater."

That's from a wikipedia article on aerodynamic heating. Generally, this effect seems to be somewhat reflected in ksp's physics. However, the scale at which it occurs is probably significantly different than irl. So, basically in ksp you can count on much higher heat going 700 m/s at 1,000 meters altitude than going 700 m/s at 10,000 meters altitude with the other variables being practically the same.

And if I'm not mistaken, the rate at which you slow down the air flowing over your craft due to its shape will have a significant effect on how much energy, and thus heat, is transferred to your craft. In other words, slip a very low drag object through the air (such as a patriot missile) and it will generate much less heat at the leading edges than, say, a one meter wide potato shaped rock, or, more relevantly, a craft with a very bluntly shaped nose cone, like a candy corn. You can verify this with high speed test rockets using extremely long, pointy procedural nose cone fairings versus ones that are very short and more steeply angled. Sometimes that alone can mean the difference between exploding or not.

Other than that, considering other limitations, it's just about controlling your airspeed and knowing your limits at any given altitude. You often can't just punch the throttle to max and expect to be ok at lower altitudes with even the pointiest low drag aircraft. Watching your aerodynamic FX in external view is a handy way to keep a guage of the situation in the stock game. For mach 2+ you'll want to get some pretty high altitude to be heat safe (of course there are exceptions).

Edited May 14, 2015 by MunGazer

[Fengist]

QQ: In the rules, does "Jeb" stand for "MechJeb"? I'm coming from the old circumnavigation thread which, if I remember correctly, banned nearly all plugins. I'm interested in participating in this thread, but I'd like to know beforehand if MechJeb is fine to use, since keeping any plane at a constant altitude for a long time can test one's patience. It's especially important when you're nearing the 30,000m mark.

Yes, Jeb is allowed as it doesn't change game physics. My basic theory is this. On challenges that require piloting skills, I typically don't allow mods that act as an AI. On challenges where tedium is a factor, they're handy to have though I personally still do it the old fashioned way... I crash a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

http://imgur.com/a/QqLXR

My entry

I have been trying to finish a circumnavigation for some time now. Turns out my plane is probably able to do two rounds around the planet.

Well, I dont have a picture of my plane on the other side of the globe, but you can clearly make out the big crater in one of the pictures.

One Circumnavigation, Time 01:28

Well done Xeldrak. It does appear you have enough for another go-around. Just hope it's not like mine in the old challenge. I made my second pass and ran out of fuel over the mountains behind KSC. I managed to glide the rest of the way in.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any way to stop your plane from violently exploding due to temperature at relatively low speeds? Honestly, 700m/s is not enough to explode squat. I don't even think shock heating happens IRL at that temperature. I am playing in 1.0, though...

To confirm what Mun was saying and to perhaps simply (no offense Mun)...

When parts are connected in a linear fashion, one behind the other, the forward part receives the bulk of the friction/heat. Parts connected radially will generate a lot of heat, even if you clip them inside another part. For all practical purposes, they're deflecting air just as much as the forward linear part.

Therefore, any any part you have sticking out front better be pointy or be able to take and deflect a lot of heat. Try this for a test. Make a plane with the Mk2 pod and no nose cone. Fly it and see when it blows up. Then, put a cone on it.

If you want to get crazy and try some of the things I did, stick an I-beam out the front of your aircraft or, a pointy antenna that's extended and compare results. I've hit over 2,000m/s at sea level and back to landing without blowing up.

[GROOV3ST3R]

I'm having an issue where a single engine isn't getting me up to speed quick enough - I'm trying to compensate by adding lots of lift to improve my angle of attack but it's still painfully slow :S But it is a one-of-a-kind craft (more on that later). Any ideas on what I should do to increase the speed without having to add another engine and upset my somewhat messy weight distribution?

[MunGazer]

I'm having an issue where a single engine isn't getting me up to speed quick enough - I'm trying to compensate by adding lots of lift to improve my angle of attack but it's still painfully slow :S But it is a one-of-a-kind craft (more on that later). Any ideas on what I should do to increase the speed without having to add another engine and upset my somewhat messy weight distribution?

It's tough to give advice from my end without actually looking at the craft. However, keep in mind that sometimes getting rid of extra drag is better than adding more lift. With that approach, the idea is that since your thrust to drag ratio is better, you'll go faster, and going faster generally tends to create more lift at some point despite less overall lifting surface.

Edited May 15, 2015 by MunGazer

[GDJ]

This looks like fun! I'll get busy.

[GROOV3ST3R]

It's tough to give advice from my end without actually looking at the craft. However, keep in mind that sometimes getting rid of extra drag is better than adding more lift. With that approach, the idea is that since your thrust to drag ratio is better, you'll go faster, and going faster generally tends to create more lift at some point despite less overall lifting surface.

You're right, in principle. It would make more sense to have less drag. However I added more lift in hopes of leveling out my angle of attack and thus reducing drag this way AND placing my intakes at a more horizontal angle. I already angled my nacelles down by a notch :S The problem is I am using the ram air intakes which don't seem to be functioning at their best at lower altitudes and speeds. I keep struggling past 260m/s but inevitably hit a wall and start slowing down AND losing altitude. I fear my craft got too complicated for it's own good and I might need to redesign with less of everything.

Weight it a huge compromising issue - it carries a lot of fuel, several passengers and stowed away engines that are used for vertical take off (landing doesn't work quite as well though).

[Fengist]

I fear my craft got too complicated for it's own good and I might need to redesign with less of everything.

<- *nods sagely*

[GDJ]

Well, First attempt was a fail, but I made it 7/8 around Kerbin on a polar flight, but ran out of fuel with 100 km to go.

I shall try again.

[MunGazer]

You're right, in principle. It would make more sense to have less drag. However I added more lift in hopes of leveling out my angle of attack and thus reducing drag this way AND placing my intakes at a more horizontal angle. I already angled my nacelles down by a notch :S The problem is I am using the ram air intakes which don't seem to be functioning at their best at lower altitudes and speeds. I keep struggling past 260m/s but inevitably hit a wall and start slowing down AND losing altitude. I fear my craft got too complicated for it's own good and I might need to redesign with less of everything.

Weight it a huge compromising issue - it carries a lot of fuel, several passengers and stowed away engines that are used for vertical take off (landing doesn't work quite as well though).

https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/11020515_938855299468104_8200893310675606959_o.jpg

https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/11255851_938855332801434_5505110100812162153_o.jpg

At any rate that's a really cool concept. I love the cargo bay mounted vertical take off engine that's really cool.

Getting more information about your plane and looking at the pictures, I'll offer some suggestions. In the worst case scenario, a major re-design could be in order. However, you could retain the core concepts and envisioned capabilities. Some ideas:

1. How much fuel do you really need for a circumnav in that? You can estimate this by taking your fuel consumption rate shown in the resource panel (i.e. 0.40), which is how much liquidfuel per second you're burning, multiply it by (kerbin ' s circumference in meters / average speed in m/s). So, if your fuel consumption at cruising alt was 0.20, and you knew it would take you roughly 4,800 seconds at 800 m/s, then 4800x0.20 = 960 fuel.

2. What's your center of mass to center of lift relationship? Perhaps the potential overall lift you're making can't quite do its thing because you simply don't have the pitch authority to pick the nose up and create more lift (and of course more drag, which could be problematic) during your ascent phase in lower atmosphere. Generally, moving your center of lift closer toward the front of your craft and/or your center of mass will help you when it comes to picking your nose up. Often, you can adjust this simply by playing around with fuel levels in the hangar and fuel location. Be careful with canards. While they help pick the nose up, they also produce a lot of drag when fully deflected, so it's a catch 22. That's why I ended up using small delta wings with small control surfaces on my craft in lieu of canards.

Edited May 15, 2015 by MunGazer

[imthebait]

I'm back, now I know this is breaking the rules which is why I'm asking, but is it possible that we could use robotics on this? The aircraft I'm trying to create varies in pitch by about five degrees throughout its flight and I'm trying to find ways to adjust the angle of engines mid flight, anyways I just started work so I'll be working more on this in a day or two

[Vaisman]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This is my attempt. I dont have map view screenshot, but during the flight, I took several pictures of the surface.

Thunderbird Mk I, 1h 37m 34s, one time around Kerbin

[Fengist]

I know this is breaking the rules which is why I'm asking

If you can somehow make them from stock parts. Sure.

- - - Updated - - -

http://imgur.com/a/S8oIq

This is my attempt. I dont have map view screenshot, but during the flight, I took several pictures of the surface.

Thunderbird Mk I, 1h 37m 34s, one time around Kerbin

Well done Vaisman. One of these days I'll upgrade my computer so I can use RSS and have those nice atmospheric shots.

[GROOV3ST3R]

At any rate that's a really cool concept. I love the cargo bay mounted vertical take off engine that's really cool.

Getting more information about your plane and looking at the pictures, I'll offer some suggestions. In the worst case scenario, a major re-design could be in order. However, you could retain the core concepts and envisioned capabilities. Some ideas:

1. How much fuel do you really need for a circumnav in that? You can estimate this by taking your fuel consumption rate shown in the resource panel (i.e. 0.40), which is how much liquidfuel per second you're burning, multiply it by (kerbin ' s circumference in meters / average speed in m/s). So, if your fuel consumption at cruising alt was 0.20, and you knew it would take you roughly 4,800 seconds at 800 m/s, then 4800x0.20 = 960 fuel.

2. What's your center of mass to center of lift relationship? Perhaps the potential overall lift you're making can't quite do its thing because you simply don't have the pitch authority to pick the nose up and create more lift (and of course more drag, which could be problematic) during your ascent phase in lower atmosphere. Generally, moving your center of lift closer toward the front of your craft and/or your center of mass will help you when it comes to picking your nose up. Often, you can adjust this simply by playing around with fuel levels in the hangar and fuel location. Be careful with canards. While they help pick the nose up, they also produce a lot of drag when fully deflected, so it's a catch 22. That's why I ended up using small delta wings with small control surfaces on my craft in lieu of canards.

Thanks mate

I did actually run into issues just with realizing the VTOL concept itself - I made it fairly long, with a passenger bay so that I can also carry a few extra kerbals along. This, coupled with the MK2-to-engine connector at the back, presented a bit of a dilemma - bay with the vertical engines wasn't perfectly centred in the craft and so centre of gravity has an annoying tendency to shift as it depletes. Interestingly enough, running on the main engine the craft uses fuel from one tank at a time and using supports, it uses all fuel tanks simultaneously (because of ''radial'' mounts as opposed to a stack). I did however had to extend the craft with 2 extra cores for that little bit extra reaction wheel power to control it when hovering. Their weight alone helped balance it a bit.

I also placed 4 strategic RCS tanks in the bay and decided to use it as ballast - with the tail of the plane being filled constantly with RCS fuel and middle tanks always being 50% empty for minute corrections to my COG.

And to shift all of that mass, I had to use 4 engines in the bay, 2 mounted to the bay and 2 mounted to the inside walls of the bay and then ''offset'' to merge with the original engines. This allowed me to have 4 engines in a space of two without any no-clip hacks - think of it as a ''turbo-turbo engine''

HOWEVER.... as I was building up my wings - the sweeping straight lines you can see cutting across the delta are the original wings as they were with no extensions - I noticed my COG was very high on the craft. I can only assume it was to do with my engines and the relatively low mounted wings.

So now, my centre of lift sits in front and below the COG.. which coupled with fore and aft canards, makes the craft VERY pitch-happy - if you overdo it by just a tiny bit, you will be sent into an unrecoverable flatspin. You then HAVE to use the supporting engines and suddenly the craft flies PERFECTLY and even recovers on it's own....

That's about the thick of it.

To answer 1: 0.50 to 0.40 is my cruise consumption - once I get to a cruising speed and altitude. The problem is, a single engine doesn't have the power to push this jet very fast so the climb rate is usually always below 100m/s. I think I will need to convert to a dual jet just to improve my overall speed and climb. I am carrying something like 1900 units of fuel so I could probably afford to sacrifice some efficiency for another engine and double my thrust. My main concern was airflow - the more air there is to breathe, the more power a single jet can make. But I have yet to reach an operational ceiling with this craft

2: As I mentioned before, it's fairly high, with COL being in front and below. I managed to align it with rear canards so that it's directly under the COG but mass is still swinging my plane out of control if I'm not extremely careful. Angle of attack seems very reasonable though, I circumnavigated at 20 degrees before the new model was introduced, now it's almost flat - but the lack of speed kills it as I get higher and have to increase my drag to maintain altitude. This is why I wanted more wings, so I can carry my weight with me.

I could remove the front canards and tweak the rear ones to make my pitch less violent - as my canards are barely angled during a cruise. (problem is it cruises at 260m/s at 13km....) Ideally my COL and COG would be aligned on the central axis, with the lift a little in front but I'll take anything with this plane :3

I don't want to play with fuel levels anymore it's very complicated, especially with the weird way my plane uses fuel in the first place which makes it almost impossible to keep balanced in anything else other than 0 and 1.

Well, I'll make some tweaks to it, see if I can make it fly right. My main concern is and always was airflow - that was the biggest limiting factor of the previous meta.

EDIT:

Changes were made!

I retained my VTOL AND made it flyable with some fairly minor tweaks! I also kept relative balance of the craft while adding a 2nd engine. Overall, it worked out pretty well.

My 2 main issues were:

- lack of power

- violent pitch instability

Issue #1 was resolved by doubling up on my main engines. I initially thought this would spread the air between them pretty thing but that doesn't seem to be the case and my thrust is now double - which is perfectly adequate. It is however a little too thirsty right now.

Adding a 2nd engine meant the tail was now a lot heavier so I had to drop my oxidizer ballast. In addition to that, I brought the nacelles down a bit, rotated them towards the inside of the plane while I kept the intakes facing the right way with some minor offset work. Nacelles are no longer used to carry fuel around - which might change if I decide I need more fuel for the challenge. However that will require some more balance work :S

Issue #2 was brought to a manageable level with several smaller tweaks. Trailing edge of my wing was tilted down for extra lift in the old design - this was no longer necessary and I replaced it with a flatter and bigger piece.

After some testing, involving a metric ton of backflips and even some frontflips (!!), I added canards back in but mounted them dead level, with no trim preference. Doubled up canards at the back for even more force with less deflection.

The biggest issue here was that the nose of the plane had a tendency to rise no matter what I did. So to combat that, I mounted simple fins to the nose of the craft and angled them down so they create a little bit of drag and try to pull the nose down. This counter balanced the violent tendency to nose-up a lot but it wasn't perfect until I added more canards to manage my pitch better.

It's still a bit hit-and-miss however. It's a very difficult craft to fly - climb too quickly and you will get stuck at high altitude and low speed. Too flat and you waste fuel to excess drag at low altitudes. Too violent and you will lose 30%+ of your speed with a chance to flip and lose all control of the craft. Too high and too slow and your engines don't have enough air to breathe and thrust drops - and you have to get crazy angles of attack.

Get it JUST right and it will get close to 1000m/s - at which point you fry the fins that manage your passive stability and control becomes a lot more difficult than it was.

Lots of lift helps keep a flatter AoA while climbing and accelerating. Once at speed, it flies almost perfectly level and manages itself pretty well. But you don't want to try and correct your heading....

Finished craft:

So a few more tests, and I will be using the Kerbin Presidente Mk3 for my attempt :3

Edited May 17, 2015 by GROOV3ST3R

[Phearlock]

Just a quick attempt from me.

2x circumnavigations, mission time: 2 hours 34 mins.

http://imgur.com/a/HMXYt

Are there any plans for a FAR leaderboard as well? Stock aero is still kind of boring. =(