Kerbin Circumnavigation 1.0.4/1.0.5 - Aviator Challenge Continuation

[Nefrums]

Bull-Poopy. You're only one second faster than me and I was doing 1722 m/s.

It's all about the take-off's and landings. THOSE you need to get faster and smoother on. Once you're in the air speed and altitude only count for 10% of your time.

I MAY have to come back.....

Yes. I think the problem is the decent. the ship gets torn to pieces if it turn to quickly. so slowing down is a big problem. And I have not figured out how to ad chutes or air bakes without them burning up on the way.

I wonder if even more engines is the solution..

[ExaltedDuck]

I wonder if even more engines is the solution..

Part of me wants to say yes.

Ok, most of me does.

Unfortunately, it's also the impetuous side which doesn't want to spend more than 3 minutes figuring out a proper weight/lift balancing scheme and ends up with his nose 8-10 degrees up in the wind at a shamefully inadequate supercruise velocity.

Edited August 29, 2015 by ExaltedDuck

[ValCab33]

So, today I was bored, so I started KSP and I thought "Hey, why not make a long-range plane ?", so I made something.

The Pegasus X is a long-range exploration and research plane. It has a lot of fuel and all the useful science thingies, twice. Yup, this plane is actually useful.

I did one circumnavigation in 1 hour, 13 minutes and 49 seconds. Not the fastest, but at least I did it.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(Sorry, no pic of the takeoff, I forgot...)

I was almost only using the Turbojets, the basic ones helping during take off, ascent and landing.

Oh, and it is fully stock, by the way.

That was totally random at the beginning, I wasn't actually planning to circumnavigate, but during testing I thought "Hey, let's see how far he goes" so yeah. It seems that he can go pretty much everywhere and come back.

So, um, Yay !

Edited August 30, 2015 by ValCab33

[Xannari Ferrows]

So, today I was bored, so I started KSP and I thought "Hey, why not make a long-range plane ?", so I made something.

The Pegasus X is a long-range exploration and research plane. It has a lot of fuel and all the useful science thingies, twice. Yup, this plane is actually useful.

I did one circumnavigation in 1 hour, 13 minutes and 49 seconds. Not the fastest, but at least I did it.

http://imgur.com/a/jwrSs

(Sorry, no pic of the takeoff, I forgot...)

I was almost only using the Turbojets, the basic ones helping during take off, ascent and landing.

Oh, and it is fully stock, by the way.

That was totally random at the beginning, I wasn't actually planning to circumnavigate, but during testing I thought "Hey, let's see how far he goes" so yeah. It seems that he can go pretty much everywhere and come back.

So, um, Yay !

Pretty much an exact copy of a plane I once built.

Another test flight making it around! You should join the club. It's weird how that end up happening, and it seems to happen to me a lot.

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

[GDJ]

Yes. I think the problem is the decent. the ship gets torn to pieces if it turn to quickly. so slowing down is a big problem. And I have not figured out how to ad chutes or air bakes without them burning up on the way.

I wonder if even more engines is the solution..

I had one RAPIER on my plane.

[lemon1324]

Muhahahahaha! So, a couple things about KSP Stock:

 

1. "Basic Jets" are configured not as turbofans, but as real-life turbojets. KSP turbojets are real-life turboramjets (think J58 on the SR-71). Note how in this plot I found, max thrust to weight happens near Mach 1.8 or so for basics.
2. The drag model is maybe a little overzealous about reducing drag after punching through the transonic regime.

 

I present...

Nike, flown by Val on a circumnavigation in 1hr 51m 24s on basics.

It was nontrivial to get through the transonic regime, but once supersonic, this was supercruising at Mach 2! And actually, the hardest part about this was finding a configuration that could even get past the transonic regime on just basics. I couldn't do it with the MkII system of parts, and even Nike requires a careful flight profile to do it.

Same disclaimers about mods as my last entry; recorded data, plots, and files can be found on my Dropbox.

Does this qualify as a velocity entry? It's about a factor of two slower than the slowest on that board, but also about a factor of two faster than the fastest circumnavigation on basics so far.

I'll note that this was very suboptimal--I had 340 fuel left at the end, and the descent was leisurely rather than aggressive, so there's definitely lots of room to beat this time, pretty easily. I'm less interested in maintaining this one than having the longest range on basics

(and of course, Nike is the Greek goddess of speed.... and victory )

Edited December 2, 2015 by lemon1324
Updating imgur embed

[Noname117]

Muhahahahaha! So, a couple things about KSP Stock:

1. "Basic Jets" are configured not as turbofans, but as real-life turbojets. KSP turbojets are real-life turboramjets (think J58 on the SR-71). Note how in this plot I found, max thrust to weight happens near Mach 1.8 or so for basics.
   
2. The drag model is maybe a little overzealous about reducing drag after punching through the transonic regime.
   

I present...

Nike, flown by Val on a circumnavigation in 1hr 51m 24s on basics.

http://imgur.com/a/xCsSu

It was nontrivial to get through the transonic regime, but once supersonic, this was supercruising at Mach 2! And actually, the hardest part about this was finding a configuration that could even get past the transonic regime on just basics. I couldn't do it with the MkII system of parts, and even Nike requires a careful flight profile to do it.

Same disclaimers about mods as my last entry; recorded data, plots, and files can be found on my Dropbox.

Does this qualify as a velocity entry? It's about a factor of two slower than the slowest on that board, but also about a factor of two faster than the fastest circumnavigation on basics so far.

I'll note that this was very suboptimal--I had 340 fuel left at the end, and the descent was leisurely rather than aggressive, so there's definitely lots of room to beat this time, pretty easily. I'm less interested in maintaining this one than having the longest range on basics

(and of course, Nike is the Greek goddess of speed.... and victory )

Very nicely done! I was kind of wondering how fast basic jet circumnavigations could be, and I'm honestly surprised with this result! Now I'm just wondering how low one can go with basic jets; I might have to try a run designed specifically to be as low as possible. It may be the only record I can hang on to.

[lemon1324]

I was kind of wondering how fast basic jet circumnavigations could be

I'm pretty sure Mach 2 cruise with a more optimal descent is about as fast as it gets. Of course someone could always prove me wrong, but Mach 2 is already faster than the most efficient cruise speed, and I wasn't able to get anything with enough fuel to go much faster.

[ValCab33]

Pretty much an exact copy of a plane I once built.

Another test flight making it around! You should join the club. It's weird how that end up happening, and it seems to happen to me a lot.

Hehe. I remember in 0.90, I was test-flying my multi-purpose fighter jet, and it ended up circumnavigating.

Edited August 30, 2015 by ValCab33

[ExaltedDuck]

That was totally random at the beginning, I wasn't actually planning to circumnavigate, but during testing I thought "Hey, let's see how far he goes" so yeah. It seems that he can go pretty much everywhere and come back.

So, um, Yay !

I wouldn't be surprised if it could make it around multiple times. An aggressive ascent, slightly higher cruising altitude, mid-flight weight balancing, and maybe an autopilot to limit control input, and it might be good for an expedition badge.

- - - Updated - - -

1hr 51m 24s on basics. )

Impressive, young Skywalker.

[Arktos]

Arktos here. Just came down from a trip round Kerbin in just below an hour.

But I managed to land.

Yeah, I lost two nuclear generators in two separate explotions whitch both startled me. (Don't dip below 15 km when flying at 1300 m/s)

But I came in at 55 minutes. And in one piece. I am content.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Arktos here. Just came down from a trip round Kerbin in just below an hour.

Away we go!

I had to make a hard left in the last minute, since flying in the dark made me miss the space center...

But I managed to land.

Yeah, I lost two nuclear generators in two separate explotions whitch both startled me. (Don't dip below 15 km when flying at 1300 m/s)

But I came in at 55 minutes. And in one piece. I am content.

This is an interesting design, but...

I can't pass this because of those two lost parts. Rule 16 states that no parts may be lost during flight.

The engine has an alternator. Are they necessary in the first place?

[Arktos]

This is an interesting design, but...

I can't pass this because of those two lost parts. Rule 16 states that no parts may be lost during flight.

The engine has an alternator. Are they necessary in the first place?

Thanks.

No they aren't necessary at all. So I guess I'll have to do it over without those two generators.

I'll keep you posted.

[MunGazer]

Hope you don't mind me sharing this xan, it's not 100% relevant to the thread because it's not an official entry. I was just playing around with kOS to see if I could accomplish an automated circumnav, and I finally did it. It's just an automated version of my SOD entry. I learned a lot about coding in kOS through the process, and also lemon1324 helped me out greatly with advising me how to use the :heading field of a user defined geoposition. I wanted to share my code with you guys so that maybe you could also partake in the joy of coding in kOS a little. What I've learned here is already carrying over into my bd armory attack helicopter vertical speed manager script. Anyway, this script allows me to type "copy mylaunch2a from 0. run mylaunch2a." and watch hands free as the plane does a 36 minute plus SOD circumnav, landing safely back at KSC entirely on its own.

One of the most valuable lessons I learned was to not use too many when - then triggers, and not to put too much stuff in them especially when they're preserved for constant execution. This overloads the "IPU" (?). When I fully understood what my problem was, I had to go back and re-write all my code as being mostly "if" statements within a giant 10 time per second "until" loop. Here's the code:

// initialize variables

set runmode to 0.

set kscrunway to ship:geoposition.

set kscapproach to latlng(kscrunway:lat, kscrunway:lng - 1).

// begin takeoff sequence

sas on.

stage.

lock throttle to 1.

when surfacespeed > 150 then {

sas off.

lock steering to heading(90, 10).

}

// takeoff sequence complete

// execute a point to point climb

when alt:radar > 10 then {

gear off.

}

when surfacespeed > 200 then {

lock steering to heading(90, 20).

}

when surfacespeed > 300 then {

lock steering to heading(90, 30).

}

// level off for a bit to continue developing speed without tapping oxidizer reserves too early

when altitude > 10000 then {

lock steering to heading(90,0).

}

// when enough speed is developed at air breathing altitude, yank the stick back again.

when altitude > 10000 and surfacespeed > 1100 then {

lock steering to heading(90, 30).

}

// pointing the nose at the horizon here is just a matter of timing; it will continue to climb.

when altitude > 20000 then {

lock steering to heading(90, 0).

}

when altitude > 25000 then {

lock steering to heading(90, 5).

}

// now, almost ready for cruising

when altitude > 30500 and runmode = 0 then {

set runmode to 1.

print "runmode 1 active".

}

wait until runmode = 1.

// takeoff and climb sequence complete. Let the massive until loop begin to maintain alt and vel.

until AG8 = true {

if verticalspeed > 5 and runmode = 1 {

lock steering to heading(90, -5).

}

if verticalspeed <= 0 and runmode = 1 {

lock steering to heading(90, 0).

set runmode to 2.

print "runmode 2 active".

}

if verticalspeed > 1 and runmode = 2 {

lock steering to heading(90, -0.5).

}

if verticalspeed < -1 and runmode = 2 {

lock steering to heading(90,2).

}

if ((surfacespeed < 2130 and surfacespeed > 2000) and altitude > 25000) and runmode <= 2 {

lock throttle to 0.15.

}

if (surfacespeed > 2140 and altitude > 25000) and runmode <= 2 {

lock throttle to 0.0125.

}

// the fuel transfer is necessary because at this point in the flight

// the center of gravity is literally behind the center of lift,

// so most of the remaining fuel is sent to the furthest forward part of the aircraft

// which remedies the problem.

if (longitude > -103 and longitude < -102) and runmode = 2 {

set runmode to 3.

print "runmode 3 active".

lock throttle to 0.

lock steering to prograde.

brakes on.

set sourceparts to ship:partsdubbed("mk2Fuselage").

set destinationparts to ship:partsdubbed("mk2SpacePlaneAdapter").

set foo to transferall("liquidfuel", sourceparts, destinationparts).

set foo:active to true.

}

// thanks to lemon1324's advice, I have kscapproach:heading. When I simply used

// "lock steering to kscapproach", it would do it, but turned the aircraft on its

// side because it disregards the more high level concept of "up".

if surfacespeed < 600 and runmode = 3 {

brakes off.

toggle ag1.

lock steering to heading(kscapproach:heading, -30).

set runmode to 4.

print "runmode 4 active".

}

if alt:radar < 800 and runmode = 4 {

gear on.

lock steering to heading(kscrunway:heading, 0).

set runmode to 5.

print "runmode 5 active".

}

if surfacespeed < 100 and runmode = 5 {

lock throttle to 0.3.

}

if surfacespeed > 120 and runmode = 5 {

lock throttle to 0.1.

}

if longitude > (kscrunway:lng - 0.3) and (runmode = 5 and kscrunway:lng < -0.1) {

lock steering to heading(kscrunway:heading, -5).

}

if longitude > (kscrunway:lng - 0.1) and runmode = 5 {

set runmode to 6.

print "runmode 6 active".

lock steering to heading(90, 0).

lock throttle to 0.

brakes on.

}

wait 0.1.

}

[nicky4096]

that's pretty awesome mun.

[MunGazer]

thanks nick. This is just the first version that I could get to work soundly; the code itself could probably use some refinement and the method in general as far as the way it is flown could use a lot of optimization.

[RandomRyan]

ill give it a try tomorrow. its 11 p.m here.and yes. i am sleepy.

seriously,i will do it tomorro........(dozes off).

[mythic_fci]

Currently giving my new jet a go at this challenge! It's codenamed: "Blue", and although it won't be a record-setter, it'll be good experience for a future, faster jet. Do note that this is only a TEST run for me to determine performance and tweak the jet. Props to anyone who gets the name reference!

EDIT: Flight is halfway done, and I'm nervous I'll run out of fuel. I originally intended to cruise at 28km, but after numerous flameouts, I stuck to 18-21km as my margin. Fuel consumption is ranging from 0.4/s to 0.9/s. I have about 980km to go...

EDIT2: I swear, I can see KSC's mountain ranges... 1100m/s, 200 LF left, and 600km to go...

EDIT3: Nailed it! 1:06:52. Do note that this was a test flight, and NOT an official entry. I'll be tweaking her ascent pattern with a few test flights and lowering her weight before the big run.

Edited September 5, 2015 by FCISuperGuy

[ExaltedDuck]

I don't see any pics.

Your altitude ceiling suggests rapiers but top speed suggests whiplashes. Not knowing more of your design, I'll offer some general tips:

Excess air intake and weight/lift balance issues can drastically reduce cruising speeds by increasing drag. Lift too far behind COM results in a nose-up attitude in cruising which de-occludes your mid/rear-ship parts.

Jets at high altitude can generally be fed by one inline intake like a precooler or half of a terminal intake like a shock cone. They have to be flown hard and fast to get enough air up there so pushing it close to melting between about 15000-20000 m is critical. With whiplashes, best speeds are usually found around 19500-21500. They will usually not operate over 22000 at full throttle (and offer too little thrust to be worthwhile higher anyway). Rapiers can run a little higher, often reaching the highest thrust to drag ratio between 21500 and 23500. Higher altitudes might be necessary to improve fuel economy, but a slow and measured climb is necessary to avoid losing speed.

Getting the weight balance right to minimize AOA does a lot to ensure intake efficiency and line up thrust in line with the forward flight vector making everything a lot more efficient (and therefore faster)

- - - Updated - - -

Also, based on the numbers I'd guess you're running a somewhat fuel heavy 4 engine design. Best case scenario, youll need about 300-400 fuel per engine for a full circumnavigation and maybe an extra 200-300 for climbing. At 0.4 consumption, an hour of flight burns 900 LF and 0.9 consumption burns 3240 And initial ascent can easily cost 30-50% of the fuel you carry into a single circumnavigation flight (that is, the 30-50 minute cruising portion sips equal to double the amount that the first 3-10 minutes gulps down.)

[mythic_fci]

I don't see any pics.

Your altitude ceiling suggests rapiers but top speed suggests whiplashes. Not knowing more of your design, I'll offer some general tips:

Excess air intake and weight/lift balance issues can drastically reduce cruising speeds by increasing drag. Lift too far behind COM results in a nose-up attitude in cruising which de-occludes your mid/rear-ship parts.

Jets at high altitude can generally be fed by one inline intake like a precooler or half of a terminal intake like a shock cone. They have to be flown hard and fast to get enough air up there so pushing it close to melting between about 15000-20000 m is critical. With whiplashes, best speeds are usually found around 19500-21500. They will usually not operate over 22000 at full throttle (and offer too little thrust to be worthwhile higher anyway). Rapiers can run a little higher, often reaching the highest thrust to drag ratio between 21500 and 23500. Higher altitudes might be necessary to improve fuel economy, but a slow and measured climb is necessary to avoid losing speed.

Getting the weight balance right to minimize AOA does a lot to ensure intake efficiency and line up thrust in line with the forward flight vector making everything a lot more efficient (and therefore faster)

- - - Updated - - -

Also, based on the numbers I'd guess you're running a somewhat fuel heavy 4 engine design. Best case scenario, youll need about 300-400 fuel per engine for a full circumnavigation and maybe an extra 200-300 for climbing. At 0.4 consumption, an hour of flight burns 900 LF and 0.9 consumption burns 3240 And initial ascent can easily cost 30-50% of the fuel you carry into a single circumnavigation flight (that is, the 30-50 minute cruising portion sips equal to double the amount that the first 3-10 minutes gulps down.)

Since it was a test run, I didn't post any pics. The plane uses 3 Whiplashes as propulsion; I found that this actually consumed less fuel and was easier to control than a 2-engine configuration. Thanks for the cruising alt tips - since I'll be attempting the run soon, I'll be sure to cruise between 19500-21500.

EDIT: I've redesigned it to use a 2-engine config. I'm doing the run now.

EDIT 2: Two questions: are East-West circumnavigations allowed? As far as I can see, all the circumnavigations here have been West-East. Also, can we do 2 circumnavigations with different jets? I'm thinking of trying out for the Endurance category, but I also want to keep my regular circumnavigation badge.

Edited September 6, 2015 by FCISuperGuy

[mythic_fci]

Here's my attempt, with the homemade HSP - Macaw! (1. Props if you get the reference, 2. HSP stands for High Speed Plane)

NOTE: The only mods used that changed the flight in any way were:

1. RasterPropMonitor (Fancy IVAs)

2. Pilot Assistant (Controlling the Jet)

3. KerbinSide (Some bases, slightly fancier KSC)

FINAL TIME: 1:03:07 (Originally 1:03:06 but I was slow on the F1 and F3 buttons...)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 6, 2015 by FCISuperGuy
Added relevant mods and time to post

[ExaltedDuck]

EDIT 2: Two questions: are East-West circumnavigations allowed? As far as I can see, all the circumnavigations here have been West-East. Also, can we do 2 circumnavigations with different jets? I'm thinking of trying out for the Endurance category, but I also want to keep my regular circumnavigation badge.

Any cardinal direction is acceptable. Not many have chosen the polar route since the runway is oriented E/W and a fly-over of the poles is disorienting. I've noticed flying east burns less fuel and allows higher speeds but flying west offers a shorter ground track to cover. I think the entire cross-section of the atmosphere rotates along with the planet, so effectively the times are equal in either direction. Most participants have put up multiple entries, both to improve over previous runs and to compete in multiple categories. I think the rule is that only the best individual performance will be listed. Prior runs get wiped when you post an improvement. Welcome aboard, and have fun!

[Haruspex]

...It seems that I accidentally a sub-orbital entry because I went to get coffee and failed at monitoring altitude.

Aircraft name: Mirax

Aircraft mass on launch: 93.5 t

Crew: 14 (all kerbals in my campaign save who weren't off planet decided to go on this sightseeing tour)

Flight time: 1:05:33

Circumnavigations: 1 (Suborbital, broke max alt condition with 30813 m)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

...Unlike many people here I don't build racing rockets. Instead, the planes I run around Kerbin are practical: ether heavy or superheavy transports, or SSTO prototypes. This one is the latter - with 16 kerbal capacity, the largest mk3 cargo bay and two docking ports, it is powered by eight RAPIERs. Unfortunately, this test went just a little more SSTOish than planned.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Here's my attempt, with the homemade HSP - Macaw! (1. Props if you get the reference, 2. HSP stands for High Speed Plane)

NOTE: The only mods used that changed the flight in any way were:

1. RasterPropMonitor (Fancy IVAs)

2. Pilot Assistant (Controlling the Jet)

3. KerbinSide (Some bases, slightly fancier KSC)

FINAL TIME: 1:03:07 (Originally 1:03:06 but I was slow on the F1 and F3 buttons...)

http://imgur.com/a/Muclp

Break out the roasted duck!

Are you sure this wasn't a test flight? This really looks like a velocity contender, but just didn't make the final cut. Oh well, guess that's how the world works.

This is also how:

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

- - - Updated - - -

...It seems that I accidentally a sub-orbital entry because I went to get coffee and failed at monitoring altitude.

Aircraft name: Mirax

Aircraft mass on launch: 93.5 t

Crew: 14 (all kerbals in my campaign save who weren't off planet decided to go on this sightseeing tour)

Flight time: 1:05:33

Circumnavigations: 1 (Suborbital, broke max alt condition with 30813 m)

http://imgur.com/a/YdV16

...Unlike many people here I don't build racing rockets. Instead, the planes I run around Kerbin are practical: ether heavy or superheavy transports, or SSTO prototypes. This one is the latter - with 16 kerbal capacity, the largest mk3 cargo bay and two docking ports, it is powered by eight RAPIERs. Unfortunately, this test went just a little more SSTOish than planned.

I see what you mean. Good lord

Is 14 crew necessary? I suppose if they were in a luxury airliner, but this went a little too high to be considered safe in my books...

Just never let me fly with you [still no official badge choice yet due to lack of votes]

http://www./convkey/6ac2/dow9yzc6kanz96zzg.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Fnc3J9Z.png

[mythic_fci]

Are you sure this wasn't a test flight? This really looks like a velocity contender, but just didn't make the final cut.

It indeed was (and still is) a velocity contender, but I've still got to work through some overheating issues and make her go FESTER.