Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.0.4/1.0.5 - Aviator Challenge Continuation

[Xannari Ferrows]

Well, I doubt he got his fried chicken if he didn't land at KS(F)C.

Oh god yes. This is that joke from before, right?

[nicky4096]

zolo, pretty sure the conical shape doesn't interfere with drag. it's always been an improvement in my tests.

it might actually have less drag, since the inline dome pokes out a fair bit.

[zolotiyeruki]

zolo, pretty sure the conical shape doesn't interfere with drag. it's always been an improvement in my tests.

it might actually have less drag, since the inline dome pokes out a fair bit.

Good point--the cross-sectional area of the bubble canopy is something I hadn't considered.

I'm imagining my craft with the Mk1 Pod on front, with a shock cone intake on the front of that. So much for "looks good -> flies good", eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my entry for the velocity circumnavigators challenge:

Time to circumnavigate: 38 min 58 seconds

Top Speed: 1739 m/s

http://imgur.com/a/KgIwu

I ran out of fuel as I entered the airspace of the KSC-continent... So I had to coast across the mountains for a half a minute... But I made it.

I don't know why it's stated I reached an altitude of 31km, because I don't recall doing so (it would cause way to much flame out time!). Anywho...If my entry is disqualified due to the highest altitude reading, I will do a reattempt later on. It was a nice challenge!

My understanding is that you have to land it, too. I like the look, though! If you're looking for optimizations, here's a couple things I've found that have helped a great deal:

1) figure out an average angle of attack during your flight, and angle your "wings" up by that amount in the SPH. That way, your cockpit, fuel tank, engine, etc will be more occluded by the air intake, and you'll have less drag. For my craft (which is admittedly probably 2.5 times the length of yours), my 5 degree AoA was causing my tail end to drop below the front by nearly a full diameter, effectively doubling my fuselage drag.

2) do you really need the inline reaction wheel? Is it lighter than a third landing gear wheel? I assume you have it to keep your plane balanced.

[xendelaar]

Good point--the cross-sectional area of the bubble canopy is something I hadn't considered.

My understanding is that you have to land it, too. I like the look, though! If you're looking for optimizations, here's a couple things I've found that have helped a great deal:

1) figure out an average angle of attack during your flight, and angle your "wings" up by that amount in the SPH. That way, your cockpit, fuel tank, engine, etc will be more occluded by the air intake, and you'll have less drag. For my craft (which is admittedly probably 2.5 times the length of yours), my 5 degree AoA was causing my tail end to drop below the front by nearly a full diameter, effectively doubling my fuselage drag.

2) do you really need the inline reaction wheel? Is it lighter than a third landing gear wheel? I assume you have it to keep your plane balanced.

Yeah.. I misread that part... sorry.. Landing is possible with only two gears, but it's a real pain in the behind without proper wings.. the reaction wheel is required for landing. One less landing gear doesn't make a difference at all though. It was just a small experiment . thanks for the tips lotyeruki. I will upload my next attempt tomorrow.

Edited October 12, 2015 by xendelaar

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm back at it. Replaced the vertical stabilizer with a small elevon and refined my ascent. I need to squeeze out an extra 28 units of fuel. So far, I'm up 17 units, and my efficiency is higher. I think this airplane gets better each time I fly it.

[The_Rocketeer]

I don't know why it's stated I reached an altitude of 31km, because I don't recall doing so (it would cause way to much flame out time!).

Check your actual altitude in your last screenshot with the F3 screen. My guess is u left SAS on while coasting after you ran out of fuel.

[zolotiyeruki]

And here it is. 8 times around. And what is probably the least interesting imgur album ever. I think I even got the screenshots right!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I think I've about had my fill of this, but I'm sure it's possible to do a more efficient ascent. But for anyone who wants to try, here's the craft file: Lawn dart

Here's how to fly it: (you'll need Pilot Assistant)

--SAS on, throttle up and stage

--at about 100m/s, pitch up to 25% and retract gear

--set pilot assistant to 25 degree pitch and 90 degree direction

--at about 16km, pitch down to 20 degrees

--wait a few seconds, pitch down to 15

--pitch down to 10

--pitch down to 5

--pitch down to 0, and your altitude should peak around 22-24km

--set a 5-hour timer and go do something else

--come back. When you're at about 110-120 degrees west, kill the engine (keep pitched at 0 degrees)

--when crossing the shore on to the KSC's continent, pitch down 5-10 degrees, depending on altitude

--land.

EDIT: Ok, I *really* have to stop obsessing over this. I'm looking at part .cfg files, and I found that my favorite AV-R8 winglets are aerodynamically *terrible* compared to an Elevon 4 (the small one). 2.5x the mass, twice the drag coefficient, 5% less control surface area, and less deflection. Also higher angular drag, although I don't know what exactly that is. Makes me wonder what would happen if I replaced my two winglets on the front with a pair of Elevon 4's...

Edited October 13, 2015 by zolotiyeruki

[nicky4096]

well... not much to say

[Xannari Ferrows]

And here it is. 8 times around. And what is probably the least interesting imgur album ever. I think I even got the screenshots right!

http://imgur.com/a/kIpCm

I think I've about had my fill of this, but I'm sure it's possible to do a more efficient ascent. But for anyone who wants to try, here's the craft file: Lawn dart

Here's how to fly it: (you'll need Pilot Assistant)

--SAS on, throttle up and stage

--at about 100m/s, pitch up to 25% and retract gear

--set pilot assistant to 25 degree pitch and 90 degree direction

--at about 16km, pitch down to 20 degrees

--wait a few seconds, pitch down to 15

--pitch down to 10

--pitch down to 5

--pitch down to 0, and your altitude should peak around 22-24km

--set a 5-hour timer and go do something else

--come back. When you're at about 110-120 degrees west, kill the engine (keep pitched at 0 degrees)

--when crossing the shore on to the KSC's continent, pitch down 5-10 degrees, depending on altitude

--land.

EDIT: Ok, I *really* have to stop obsessing over this. I'm looking at part .cfg files, and I found that my favorite AV-R8 winglets are aerodynamically *terrible* compared to an Elevon 4 (the small one). 2.5x the mass, twice the drag coefficient, 5% less control surface area, and less deflection. Also higher angular drag, although I don't know what exactly that is. Makes me wonder what would happen if I replaced my two winglets on the front with a pair of Elevon 4's...

I don't think there are any words.

No words

To describe

My subtle thoughts

That you have

No life

This crazy feat down.

[ExaltedDuck]

I found that my favorite AV-R8 winglets are aerodynamically *terrible* compared to an Elevon 4 (the small one). 2.5x the mass, twice the drag coefficient, 5% less control surface area, and less deflection. Also higher angular drag, although I don't know what exactly that is. Makes me wonder what would happen if I replaced my two winglets on the front with a pair of Elevon 4's...

that might work well. I used elevons as canards on quite a few designs in this thread and even as primary lifting surface on a few. They can be a bit finicky, though, lending *too much* control authority in many cases. (Basically no caps lock mode can equal instant death and landing chutes become less about stopping fast and more about not becoming a flaming mass of debris. Then again they are rather tough and can survive some rather severe g loads... Well beyond what would necessitate removal of the pilot from the cockpit via garden hose and shop vac.) Edited October 13, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[Andi8P]

I will try it.

Ready to take off!

[BenG]

After many failed attempts (most of which were perfect right up until the point I tried to land ), here is my entry for Velocity Circumnavigator. Actually much easier than I thought (apart from the landing bit, obviously... )

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[zolotiyeruki]

Oh, my, I just discovered this thread. An inverted shock cone on the front, plus a shock cone on the back end of the rapier, then offset to avoid burning up in the exhaust...this might drag me back in.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Oh, my, I just discovered this thread. An inverted shock cone on the front, plus a shock cone on the back end of the rapier, then offset to avoid burning up in the exhaust...this might drag me back in.

No. I've already been down that road before. It's an exploit [and one many people seem to not understand. It's because they are two objects that it is considered one]

[ExaltedDuck]

And that ruling is also why the top velocity times have not been beaten for the last couple of months (and might never be)

[zolotiyeruki]

No. I've already been down that road before. It's an exploit [and one many people seem to not understand. It's because they are two objects that it is considered one]

Ah, I missed that "no attaching things to the back of engines" rule. Thanks for setting me straight. That seems like a bit of an inadequacy in the game code, then--drag off the rear should be affected by how much thrust (and therefore exhaust) your engine is emitting.

[nicky4096]

what does everyone think of a complete reset of the velocity board?

infinite rep to the person who beats 38:24 without a rapierspike...

my heaven would be a 'exploity' division and a 'real' division. who knows :-)

will it happen?

[cikho]

hello everyone!

i'm quite new to the forums... so for my first challenge i've decided to give this one a try...

cruiser mk2 on the runway

halfway, but fuel situation doesn't look that good..

ouch no fuel.. almost done!!!

time to quick save!!!

KSC my love.. but.. oh wait.. i forgot tailfins :| cannot fly straight, dammit!

mmh.. first attempt.. bad crash..

i think this does not qualify..

but i have my quick save, so i should be able to give it a few tries before restarting with fins

in the end, the total time is quite good

keep you posted

[SpaceplaneAddict]

How many m/s was HelmutK traveling at during his 1st place velocity run?

[zolotiyeruki]

Just out of curiosity, I took my 8x plane, swapped the inline cockpit for a capsule, used delta deluxe winglets on the front, and did the exploity thing with the intakes on front and back. And right off the bat, it's at least 25%-30% more efficient. That means a 10x run, and maybe an 11x run, might be possible with those exploits. Wow.

No, I'm not going to do it.

[nicky4096]

spaceplaneaddict, i was doing 1740 m/s.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Retrograde or prograde?

[ExaltedDuck]

I was 2 seconds off Helmut's time and cruised a 270 hdg around 1730-1735 most of the flight, with an excursion to nearly 1750 on the powered initial portion of my descent.

correction: 90 hdg. went out to sea eastward on take off. better fuel efficiency that way,and in my experience times end up the same regardless of 90 or 270 heading.

Edited October 25, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[cikho]

after several landing attempts, i understood my aft gears were not aligned :/ also tail fin and poor battery made the plane quite uncontrollable right after touch down..

so, i decided a cruiser MK3 was needed

added sharp tail fin with elevon, radial battery and nose intake (tail intake removed).

also moved the wings to the bottom of the fuselage and placed the gears in the proper way..

this time i flight tested it a few times

JEB ready for take off

halfway and plenty of fuel this time! (probes on bottom right of kerbin are the landing beacons/light @ KSC runway

safely landed @ KSC!!

also, i've landed with a lot of fuel: 101 units..

means a consumption of 299/400, i'd probably start another try with a not fully loaded tank and see if i can decrease the total time a little bit

Edited October 19, 2015 by cikho
typo

[Xannari Ferrows]

after several landing attempts, i understood my aft gears were not aligned :/ also tail fin and poor battery made the plane quite uncontrollable right after touch down..

so, i decided a cruiser MK3 was needed

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/386540406523626826/0E3D9D8E21695A21AFF155C144B0C85CDE78CD0C/

added sharp tail fin with elevon, radial battery and nose intake (tail intake removed).

also moved the wings to the bottom of the fuselage and placed the gears in the proper way..

this time i flight tested it a few times

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/386540406523627470/CAD4CADB8E5245480E395D9AC01AC4BCC2560C34/

JEB ready for take off

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/386540406523628029/9E907399E5D929936B22478BAA53C4888A70B4B8/

halfway and plenty of fuel this time! (probes on bottom right of kerbin are the landing beacons/light @ KSC runway

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/386540406523628729/8B817F0D0E88620E471D14390648A7D205688950/

safely landed @ KSC!!

also, i've landed with a lot of fuel: 101 units..

means a consumption of 299/400, i'd probably start another try with a not fully loaded tank and see if i can decrease the total time a little bit

With the kind of average speed you've been achieving, I'm surprised you only got 55 minutes.

But hey, who am I to judge? It's always the little guys that do good as well. Seems to be the running trend.

Looks at G-force

Oh... That's why...

​

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