Kerbal Long-Haul Airliner Design Challenge! [FAR]

[Robet.G]

[FONT=Verdana]FAR is recommended but a separate stock leader board will be maintained.[/FONT]

[B]Objective:
[/B]
[FONT=Verdana]Design, build and fly the most awesome airliner that flies a circumnavigation route. Take off from KSC, go around the planet and land back at KSC.[/FONT]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dSVwKJr.jpg[/IMG]
[B]
Scoring:

[/B][FONT=Verdana]Awesomeness = 100 /time of trip * / Fuel economy**[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]*Time is measured in # of minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]**Fuel economy is measured in unit fuel per kilometer per kerbal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]**All resources you used must be accounted for, in # of units, excluding electric charge / intake air.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]**Solid fuel and Mono is worth 1/2 actual amount.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Example for pictured aircraft above:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]1305 Units LF / 3768 km / 67 kerbals = 0.0052 Units/km/Kerbal[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]100 / 224 minutes / 0.0052 Units/km/Kerbal ~[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] 86 Awesomeness[/FONT]


[B]Rules:[/B]

[FONT=Verdana]-Kerbals don't care, going into space / use of rocket boosters is allowed! (you cannot circle the planet more than once if you do either of this)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-Staging / ditching parts is also allowed![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-Vertical take off, or even launching from the rocket launch pad is allowed![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-Parachute / powered landing is also allowed, but you have to land on the paved runway. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-The craft must be designed and landed in such a way that Karbals can get out of the vehicle.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]-FAR or 1.0.5 stock physics, with all settings in default.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-No Chairs / ladders. proper seating is required.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-No modded air-breathing engines. Moded cockpits/crew cabins/fuel tanks/wings/rockets must have similar performance as stock parts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-No non-stock resources like atmo-intake, uranium, LH2 etc...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]-No cheats / hyper edit.[/FONT]

[B]Advice:

[/B][FONT=Verdana]I did the math and going into space seems to be a balanced solution because of the penalty from fuel economy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Going subsonic and ultra efficient is also potentially viable.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Most potent solution seems to be a large supersonic plane.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Use the pilot assit mod if you have a slow design and don't waste your time controlling it by hand.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]This actually gets a similar score as the one above.[/FONT]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XmE1aIE.jpg[/IMG]

[SIZE=5][FONT=Verdana]FAR Leader Board
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][SIZE=2]
[FONT=verdana]1. [B]Subsonic[/B] [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=5][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=verdana]Van Disaster [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=#3E3E3E]~ 348 Awesomeness w/ really really big airliner[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=5][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
2. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][B]Subsonic [/B][SIZE=5][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Robet. G ~ 86 Awesomeness w/ generic looking modern airliner[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE] Edited November 21, 2015 by Robet.G

[NQMT]

I may enter this. Are TweakScaled parts (in this case scaled-up wings) allowed?

[Robet.G]

[quote name='Kyrian']I may enter this. Are TweakScaled parts (in this case scaled-up wings) allowed?[/QUOTE]
I intend to make the challenge as open as possible to encourage creative solutions instead of locking everything up as to only allow incremental improvements on the same design over and over again.

the problem with tweak scale is it uses simple scaling that sometimes produce significantly overpowered or underpowered parts. Scaling down engines for example, make them superior to smaller engines. So I am going to allow only scaled wings, structure, fuel tanks and aero parts. No scaled engines or cockpits/crew compartments.

[Graveworks]

Not doubting your score of 86 Awesomeness points, they both look pretty awesome to me, but can we see how you scored them, i.e., what was the fuel consumption, mission timing, passenger load?

[Robet.G]

[quote name='Graveworks']Not doubting your score of 86 Awesomeness points, they both look pretty awesome to me, but can we see how you scored them, i.e., what was the fuel consumption, mission timing, passenger load?[/QUOTE]

[FONT=Verdana]Example for pictured aircraft above:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]1305 Units LF / 3768 km / 67 kerbals = 0.0052 Units/km/Kerbal[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]100 / 224 minutes / 0.0052 Units/km/Kerbal ~[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] 86 Awesomeness

This is an example run, I didn't actually fly the whole journey but I did get the actual fuel economy of this plane.[/FONT]

[GDJ]

Quick question pertaining to rules and parts:

If I submit a plane with rescaled FAT-455 wings would that be allowed (they are 85% larger than the standard FAT-455's. I called them the FAT-1000's. These are my creations based on the stock SQUAD parts).
Also would a non-stock 3.5m command pod/cockpit with 4 seats be allowed (this would be the MK3 mini-expansion pack that's available on Kerbalstuff).

Thanks in advance!

[Van Disaster]

I have something using B9 pWings ( and the HL cockpit & tail which aren't a problem - the cockpit is Mk3 equivalent with less crew & the tail seems OK ), is that reasonable? trying the ultra-efficient subsonic route, and the stock wings just aren't any good. Edited November 20, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Robet.G]

[quote name='GDJ']Quick question pertaining to rules and parts:

If I submit a plane with rescaled FAT-455 wings would that be allowed (they are 85% larger than the standard FAT-455's. I called them the FAT-1000's. These are my creations based on the stock SQUAD parts).
Also would a non-stock 3.5m command pod/cockpit with 4 seats be allowed (this would be the MK3 mini-expansion pack that's available on Kerbalstuff).

Thanks in advance![/QUOTE]

As long as it's not a superior part to stock equivalent and you're trying to stack a lot of those to maximize capacity.

[QUOTE][COLOR=#333333]I have something using B9 pWings ( and the HL cockpit & tail which aren't a problem - the cockpit is Mk3 equivalent with less crew & the tail seems OK ), is that reasonable? trying the ultra-efficient subsonic route, and the stock wings just aren't any good.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

yes

[GDJ]

[quote name='Robet.G']As long as it's not a superior part to stock equivalent and you're trying to stack a lot of those to maximize capacity.
[/QUOTE]

Superior? Noo...but I would say the FAT-1000 set would be the proper size for a 140 tonne aircraft that's 50 metres long, 55 metres wide.

Say Antonov class weight.

For example, the pic of the 3.5m class plane in your opening post? Double the length, and the main wings can accommodate 3 Goliath engines comfortably, 4 if they are spaced a little on the tight side. Edited November 20, 2015 by GDJ

[Azimech]

I have something. They're called the BUFF1 and BUFF2. Built in 1.0.4 with FAR, in that version they can circumnavigate Kerbin [B]12 times[/B] on their internal tanks. Easily expandable for passenger use, whole buses can drive in and out. Stock parts only.

[imgur]C4b2O[/imgur]

[imgur]3XDYj[/imgur]

Download links:
[url]http://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-BUFF1-FAR-11[/url]
[url]http://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-BUFF2-FAR-10[/url]

The BUFF3 is on it's way, I have a stock version waiting to be converted to FAR. It's my first seaplane and built in 1.0.5.

[imgur]1IaVJ[/imgur] Edited November 21, 2015 by Azimech

[Van Disaster]

Just to get something on the FAR board; I ended up flying my test craft the full length ( and very nearly crashed it landing, it's PA profile is atrocious ).

[url=https://flic.kr/p/Bg3jzY][img]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5802/23142687066_c5c1225fe2_c.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/AkNMgh][img]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5826/22540270954_dbd35b3856_c.jpg[/img][/url]

Economy: 2744 LF/5877 km/419 Kerbals = 0.001114
Awesomeness: 100 / 258 / <Economy> = [b]348 Awesomes![/b]

B9 cockpit & tailpiece, B9 pWings, Baha's adjustable landing gear, the rest stock.

[ostrich]

Are the kax propellers allowed?

[Robet.G]

[quote name='ostrich']Are the kax propellers allowed?[/QUOTE]
no

Looks like the subsonic route may be too strong here, I'll make a separate leader board for super sonic and sub sonic. Edited November 21, 2015 by Robet.G

[Van Disaster]

Hypersonics should get bonus style points...

[url=https://flic.kr/p/Ao8GKT][img]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/563/22566595913_759d80d9ae_c.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/Ao1nff][img]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/590/22565164494_13dd24db1a_c.jpg[/img][/url]

because the fuel burn is absolutely hideous.