Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.0.4/1.0.5 - Aviator Challenge Continuation

[Xannari Ferrows]

440 fuel is in it...what am I doing ???

Some crazy stuff. I packed in 1320 units of fuel and used most of it! You are going nuts over there.

[ExaltedDuck]

I've got a good ship but my ascent and decent need work. Any tips on the most efficient take off and landing?

don't climb too soon/fast to be able establish/maintain mach speeds. At the same time, climb fast enough that you don't melt in the lower atmosphere. Try to do most of your accelerating in the transitionary zone between thick/thin atmosphere (8000-12000m). Try to hit your top speed below 20000m then climb to cruising altitude. And to get down, when you're 50-100km out, just cut throttle and point prograde then make any glide adjustment you need once you're down to about mach 2.

Edited June 25, 2015 by ExaltedDuck
Android keyboard woes

[Triop]

Some crazy stuff. I packed in 1320 units of fuel and used most of it! You are going nuts over there.

You won't believe this....I RAN OUT OF FUEL !

Again

But it was fun and I learned a lot about high speed flying (and fuel consumption )

This baby can stand some heat !

Pushing it hard ! At the crater in 33 minutes going 1450 m/s !

3/4 done in 36 minutes

;.;;.;;.; So close...

Total distance traveled 94.665 ???? That must be a record

It's not the plane or the fuel, this plane can do a run under 50 minutes. its the pilot (jep. that's me).

For me, it's back to the drawingboard...

[ExaltedDuck]

Triop, on that drawing board, select the rotation tool, then your master part, then turn it 180 degrees (which should point the whole craft to 270 on the runway). I have a good feeling you'll not only make it but post a really killer time.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I like that design! I think I'll variate on it a bit...

Mission control to Valentina, you are clear for testing, over.

Sky Arrow Mk2 to Mission control, we are 46 seconds in and moving 1.3 Km/s. I'd say this will work.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Triop]

Testing RAPIER !

I could have gone faster but I did not wanna blow up

Will try this plane to circum-thingy tomorrow.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Triop

[FlipNascar]

So here's a botched and messy attempt, if I don't submit it then I'll never better it... I suppose technically it may infringe because a battery blew up. However, said battery which blew up (overheating of course) was in a cargo bay and thus supposed to be occluded. And because I was too busy checking instagram I flew right over the runway and added several extra minutes to this attempt. And also to prove that bigger is better.

I present the ATW-02 (4x Rapier engines) which claims a time of 49:19 (she'll go quicker). And interestingly enough this opens up the necessity for some aero testing. When fitted with 4 Rapiers and 4 Turbojets the craft went faster than with just 4 Rapiers - at an altitude where the turbojets had already flamed out. Anyhoos that's for another day when I've not had a gin and tonic or two.

Pics:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Triop]

Triop, on that drawing board, select the rotation tool, then your master part, then turn it 180 degrees (which should point the whole craft to 270 on the runway). I have a good feeling you'll not only make it but post a really killer time.

That could work, maybe I will try it.

But first I'm going to blow up some Kerbals testing the Rapier Engine.

[Xannari Ferrows]

So here's a botched and messy attempt, if I don't submit it then I'll never better it... I suppose technically it may infringe because a battery blew up. However, said battery which blew up (overheating of course) was in a cargo bay and thus supposed to be occluded. And because I was too busy checking instagram I flew right over the runway and added several extra minutes to this attempt. And also to prove that bigger is better.

I present the ATW-02 (4x Rapier engines) which claims a time of 49:19 (she'll go quicker). And interestingly enough this opens up the necessity for some aero testing. When fitted with 4 Rapiers and 4 Turbojets the craft went faster than with just 4 Rapiers - at an altitude where the turbojets had already flamed out. Anyhoos that's for another day when I've not had a gin and tonic or two.

Pics:

http://imgur.com/a/Z0P6T

A battery exploded in a cargo bay? How the **** does that work!?

I... suppppoooooose I can let this one slide. I'll chock it up to the game not properly modelling aerodynamic heating.

Now everyone, don't go doing this all the time. It happened now, and you know it will happen if you try it. So no batteries in cargo bays exploding.

Going bigger? I always tried to stay away from that since I'm not a fan of uneven engine burnouts. Nonetheless, you've got me stumped for sure! ...But you watch your spot!

In the meantime, enjoy your prize!

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/circumnavigator%20resized%20velocity.png

[Triop]

A battery exploded in a cargo bay? How the **** does that work!?

Cargo bay was open ?

[Xannari Ferrows]

Record time! The Sky Arrow Mk2 really showed her stuff! Here's the report, altitude and speed records sold separately.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Highest speed achieved: 1501 m/s

Highest altitude achieved: 22,156 m

I did quickload once.

[ExaltedDuck]

erm... My timing is impeccably poor. I'll just set this here and be on my way.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited June 26, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[Xannari Ferrows]

erm... My timing is impeccably poor. I'll just set this here and be on my way.

http://imgur.com/a/iOS5g

OoOoOoO perfect timing indeed! New record time!

[FlipNascar]

Cargo bay was open ?

The cargo bay was closed when the battery exploded. I added two empty cargo bays just to help with the CoM. And when I ran out of fuel on the first run I took off 4 turbojets and added emergency fuel in the cargo bay - and decided in a bid to reduce drag I'd put the airbrakes in the cargo bay as well. That's why towards the end you see the cargo bay open.

Battery explodedinexplicably spontaneously combusted at about the halfway mark.

[ExaltedDuck]

Battery explodedinexplicably spontaneously combusted at about the halfway mark.

"Bob! Hey Bob! Look what I found out behind the Dreamliner plant. Totally good batteries someone tossed out. Never heard of this of this brand, though... NFG? They were just sitting there by the dumpster. But they test out just fine, like new."

Edited June 26, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[Xannari Ferrows]

I swear I will be the fastest! Presenting: The Sky Arrow Mk3! [Literally a slightly modified Mk2; RAPIER and moved wings]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

No loads this time.

[t3hJimmer]

40 mins! WOW!!!!!!

You're setting the bar pretty high on that one Xannari Ferrows!

[FlipNascar]

"Bob! Hey Bob! Look what I found out behind the Dreamliner plant. Totally good batteries someone tossed out. Never heard of this of this brand, though... NFG? They were just sitting there by the dumpster. But they test out just fine, like new."

I may have spat some tea everywhere when I read this and then pictured engineers at Boeing actually using KSP parts....

[t3hJimmer]

Ohh man. New personal record of 43:31.

Upgraded the SR-72 Whitebird used in my last attempt. Swapped out the turbojets for rapiers and added a 400 L fuel tank inside the cargo bay. Flew retrograde at about 23000 m and 1650 m/s.

I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board to beat Xannari Ferrows' time

I recorded the entire flight, the F3 menu is at the 44 minute mark.

Aircraft Specs:

name: SR-72 Whitebird

mass:30.5

parts:45

length:16.9 m

wingspan:17.8 m

[ExaltedDuck]

I swear I will be the fastest! Presenting: The Sky Arrow Mk3! [Literally a slightly modified Mk2; RAPIER and moved wings]

That is some crazy good fuel economy. It looks like it still took an oscar b or round 8 tucked away somewhere to make it home, though, judging by the parts count and before-and-after weights. Not complaining, just observing. I've seen some diagrams of military jets' fuel systems and it's impressive how they'll tuck away fuel anywhere they have a few gallons worth of void space in the airframe. It seems a totally valid approach in that regard.

If I really wanted to be "that guy" I'd point out your runway parts count is greater than your landed part count. (but honestly, that doesn't bother me, either. I resorted to a nearly identical method while developing my high speed single engine entry when I ran into some landing gear instability before briefly setting it vertically on the runway for take off to preserve parts count. But landing problems led me to finally just fixing the rear gear to where a traditional take-off was only difficult rather than impossible.)

The lack of resource display is a little more troubling, but the visible times and weights suggest a lack of any funny business.

My only real complaint is that I'll be out of town until Sunday and won't get a chance until then to defend my title. Good job!

Edited June 26, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[Sharpy]

I am soooo tempted to pick the endurance challenge by making a no-cheat almost-infiniglider out of an asteroid, a couple ISRU and a bunch of jet engines attached to the sides. VTOL, liquid fuel only, very slow but with about infinite fuel.

Nah. My computer couldn't handle this kind of load.

In the meantime, let me keep pondering the design based on lots and lots of ore tanks. They DO have a higher energy density than any liquid fuel tank.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Sharpy

[nicky4096]

ore tanks having the highest density is an interesting point.

i could image a design with 1 liquid fuel tank, lots of ore tanks, and just enough ISRU to keep the liquid fuel tank full.

however, I think this would have to be a massive glider design because the ISRU weighs a lot and produces liq.fuel quite slowly.

your first idea is actually a really cool idea, to use the asteroid as basically a MASSIVE fuel tank. but why not just make a normal(ish) plane with 1 ISRU, and some drills? you go however far you can using maybe 1000 fuel, then land, refuel, repeat.

however if someone tries this (i will soon), it should probably be a different category, since it would basically come down to who has the most patience to fly forever an keep refueling.

[Xannari Ferrows]

The lack of resource display is a little more troubling, but the visible times and weights suggest a lack of any funny business.

Well, considering it takes about 28 units of fuel on average to get to cruising altitude, then an additional .16 U/s average, that equates to 52.45 minutes of potential flight time.

- - - Updated - - -

your first idea is actually a really cool idea, to use the asteroid as basically a MASSIVE fuel tank. but why not just make a normal(ish) plane with 1 ISRU, and some drills? you go however far you can using maybe 1000 fuel, then land, refuel, repeat.

however if someone tries this (i will soon), it should probably be a different category, since it would basically come down to who has the most patience to fly forever an keep refueling.

Maybe that can be arranged sometime in the future. Too lazy to edit the rules right now [somehow]

[nicky4096]

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

was well on my way with a double circumnavigation. so close to done.

then ksp crashed.

[ExaltedDuck]

Well, considering it takes about 28 units of fuel on average to get to cruising altitude, then an additional .16 U/s average, that equates to 52.45 minutes of potential flight time.

Yeah, if there were any oxider in the mix you would have burnt way more fuel. Weights before and after suggest total usage just over 470 for an average rate of a little less than .2 and usage between minutes 8 and 30 looks to have been at a rate of about 0.17. Doesn't look like any funny business. Like I said, my only real complaint is that I'll be away for a couple days and unable to try again until I'm back.