Plane under a ton

[hempa2]

Planes in KSP usually weight a lot. Sadly the Kerbal goverment noticed that runways started to break due to the immense weight of the planes. He called up Wernher von Kerman and asked him to come up with a solution. The president expected a reinforcement method for the runways. He was wrong though and Wernher proposed new guidelines for aircraft. The president looked through them and was satisfied, making it a law.

The guidelines (rules for the challenge) were:

• A plane must weigh under a ton without kerbals & fuel.
• A plane must be able to carry atleast 2 kerbals.
• A plane may only be powered by jet engines to not waste precious oxidizer.
• A plane is not allowed to use custom parts (modded parts) and must stick with them provided by the Kerbal Space Center (stock parts)
• A plane shall be flying with lift and not be a metal tube with a couple of chairs and an engine.
• A plane shall be able to fly to the Old Airfield.
• A plane shall not be using any mad tricks (Alt + F12 cheats)

To calculate score:

1000*  Number of Kerbals aboard / (Weight in tonnes * Time from take-off to land on the Old Airfield Runway in seconds) 

 

Scoreboard:

1. @foamyesque Score: 16.7

2. @Cunjo Carl Score: 12.80

3. @zolotiyeruki Score: 11.44

4. @Jetski Score: 10.75

5. @Panel Score: 7.74

(By the way, should I make a badge for this?)

Edited July 27, 2016 by hempa2
revising scoring system

[Gman_builder]

I'm interested

 

[Gman_builder]

Here is my entry. It weighs 0.971 tons even with full fuel load. It was built in FAR and has some, uh, strange flight characteristics. It also has a 700 kilometer range. It is completely capable of landing on the other airfield but because of the strange stall profile it tends to come short every time I try to land there. I have however landed successfully at the main runway.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Gman_builder

[hempa2]

3 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Here is my entry. It weighs 0.971 tons even with full fuel load. It was built in FAR and has some, uh, strange flight characteristics. It also has a 500 kilometer range. It is completely capable of landing on the other airfield but because of the strange stall profile it tends to come short every time I try to land there. I have however landed successfully at the main runway.

That plane is so cute! :3

You need a time from take-off to Old Airfield runway landing to get a score though.

[Gman_builder]

3 hours ago, hempa2 said:

That plane is so cute! :3

You need a time from take-off to Old Airfield runway landing to get a score though.

Alright, will get specs

[Cunjo Carl]

    My silly-caption-generator is apparently off tonight, so writing that Imgur album was tough! Oh well, I had a blast getting these two poor Kerbals out to the old airfeild. I managed to fit in 2 Junos, so the plane pushes at a TWR of 4! To boot, it weighs in at only .95 tons because I thought fuel needed to be included in the 1 ton limit. It has an Elevon 4 for its primary pitch control, and uses a tiny reaction wheel for its yaw and roll control. To reduce torque, I put the little Kerbals right over the COM, which unfortunately makes the craft highly "maneuverable" at speed (explosively so, in fact). The plane is designed to run out of fuel just before it reaches the island, so it can be maneuvered to glide in for its final descent. It launches VTOL and lands with creative crashing, my favorite way. Oh, and last up I wound up using FAR, because I had it on for another challenge. I present, the:

Tarmac-Friendly Tarnation

 

This was a fun challenge, thanks for hosting it, @hempa2! The score system is a bit confusing though... Time is in the denominator, so a high score is good. However, weight is in the numerator, so then a high weight is good? Instead, maybe this formula would be a good choice: Score = 1000*numKerbals/(Weight*time)  . This way, players are encouraged to design for many Kerbals, low weight and fast.

Example for this case: 12.80 = 1000*2/(.953*164)

Oh, here's the plane close up- I wouldn't suggest this design if you're aiming for score (in any system), but hoh-boy I love the 2 engine style!

Spoiler

The plane launches from the two defunct cockpits under its wings, which provide the Kerbals. Before takeoff, we wind up its engines on half throttle for a few seconds, then release and go full throttle to launch vertical and fast.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Cunjo Carl

[hempa2]

4 hours ago, Cunjo Carl said:

    My silly-caption-generator is apparently off tonight, so writing that Imgur album was tough! Oh well, I had a blast getting these two poor Kerbals out to the old airfeild. I managed to fit in 2 Junos, so the plane pushes at a TWR of 4! To boot, it weighs in at only .95 tons because I thought fuel needed to be included in the 1 ton limit. It has an Elevon 4 for its primary pitch control, and uses a tiny reaction wheel for its yaw and roll control. To reduce torque, I put the little Kerbals right over the COM, which unfortunately makes the craft highly "maneuverable" at speed (explosively so, in fact). The plane is designed to run out of fuel just before it reaches the island, so it can be maneuvered to glide in for its final descent. It launches VTOL and lands with creative crashing, my favorite way. Oh, and last up I wound up using FAR, because I had it on for another challenge. I present, the:

Tarmac-Friendly Tarnation

 

This was a fun challenge, thanks for hosting it, @hempa2! The score system is a bit confusing though... Time is in the denominator, so a high score is good. However, weight is in the numerator, so then a high weight is good? Instead, maybe this formula would be a good choice: Score = 1000*numKerbals/(Weight*time)  . This way, players are encouraged to design for many Kerbals, low weight and fast.

Example for this case: 12.80 = 1000*2/(.953*164)

Oh, here's the plane close up- I wouldn't suggest this design if you're aiming for score (in any system), but hoh-boy I love the 2 engine style!

  Reveal hidden contents

The plane launches from the two defunct cockpits under its wings, which provide the Kerbals. Before takeoff, we wind up its engines on half throttle for a few seconds, then release and go full throttle to launch vertical and fast.

That is true, I am currently switching it up to your format. Thanks for the feedback!

[Gman_builder]

Time to island landing = 4 minutes 9 seconds. Plus the plane is under a ton with full fuel load, it was built successfully in FAR, and it has a 700 kilometer range.     #rekt

I like this challenge but I am kind of confused on how the scoring works. If I did the calculation correct I should have 233 points which doesn't seem right. I suggest having 2 categories. One for lowest weight and one for fastest travel time.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Gman_builder

[hempa2]

On 2016-07-05 at 5:29 PM, Gman_builder said:

Time to island landing = 4 minutes 9 seconds. Plus the plane is under a ton with full fuel load, it was built successfully in FAR, and it has a 700 kilometer range.     #rekt

I like this challenge but I am kind of confused on how the scoring works. If I did the calculation correct I should have 233 points which doesn't seem right. I suggest having 2 categories. One for lowest weight and one for fastest travel time.

That would make sense however the amount of people doing the challenge will be too little to have 2 leaderboards. This is my first challenge though so the rules & score system might not be that good.

[Gman_builder]

1 hour ago, hempa2 said:

That would make sense however the amount of people doing the challenge will be too little to have 2 leaderboards. This is my first challenge though so the rules & score system might not be that good.

In my challenges the same person can win both challenges. Like, one person can win both parts in the same flight.

[Toonu]

You can expect my entry soon, just need load the game.

 

Uuups, my plane is modded, but have 0.63 ton  so it s a problem...

Edited July 7, 2016 by Toonu

[GraviTykillz]

My take.

stats with fuel. under a ton.

Loading up

Final time

[Jetski]

5 Kerbals to airfield.  Exactly 1 ton, 9 mins to landing.  1000*5 kerbals/(1000kg*540secs) = 0.0092.  I think it's safe to say this scoring method favors a fast light run.  Not ideal to maximize Kerbal passenger capacity I guess.  But hey, I made it!

Edit: OP is meant to read weight in tons, not kg.  THis gives me 9.2, more in line with @Cunjo Carl entry.

 

Here's another, 1 kerbal, going for speed.

1000*1 kerbals/(.712t*226 secs) = 6.214 I guess.  

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Jetski

[Jetski]

OK, I think I have the hang of the scoring.  Here's an improved version with 3 kerbals.  (1000 * 3 Kerbals) / (.762t * 366 secs) = 10.75

More research is clearly needed.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Jetski

[hempa2]

5 hours ago, Jetski said:

5 Kerbals to airfield.  Exactly 1 ton, 9 mins to landing.  1000*5 kerbals/(1000kg*540secs) = 0.0092.  I think it's safe to say this scoring method favors a fast light run.  Not ideal to maximize Kerbal passenger capacity I guess.  But hey, I made it!

Edit: OP is meant to read weight in tons, not kg.  THis gives me 9.2, more in line with @Cunjo Carl entry.

 

Here's another, 1 kerbal, going for speed.

1000*1 kerbals/(.712t*226 secs) = 6.214 I guess.  

 

I just noticed the problem, it should be fixed by now.

[zolotiyeruki]

Cunjo Carl, how did you get the nose cones on those engines?  I can only node-attach them, and then I can't stick a nose cone on the front of them.

[zolotiyeruki]

Here's my entry for now.  2 kerbals, 857kg dry/empty, 3:34 at touchdown. The cloud of smoke is from one of the wings collapsing.

 

Didn't launch until 0:10, so 1000 * 2 / (.857 * 204) = 11.44  Spent way too much time at the end floating down under the chute.

I had a time of just over 3 minutes on another attempt, but the craft crashed (although the kerbals survived!)

[Cunjo Carl]

On 7/12/2016 at 4:50 PM, zolotiyeruki said:

Cunjo Carl, how did you get the nose cones on those engines?  I can only node-attach them, and then I can't stick a nose cone on the front of them.

Ah, that's an odd one, and it involves some gentle clipping. Because of how KSP handles drag, it doesn't actually improve aerodynamics much, infact it may be a detriment! It looks good though, so I did it :).

1. Place a cubic strut on the back of your fuselage. You can use symmetry to put in however many struts->engines you'd like. Use the rotate tool to twist it out a bit.
2. Place an engine on the bottom node of this cubic strut, and a nose cone on the top.
3. Wiggle things around using the rotate and translate tools until they look good. It's handy to know that turning off angle snap also lets you rotate/translate more precisely.

Here's a picture where I opened up the assembly so you can see the pieces. If you have additional questions, I'm happy to help. Have fun flinging kerbals at the island!

[Cunjo Carl]

@hempa2  I'm noticing that most people are landing their planes legit (wheels, chutes), while I deposited my Kerbals through 'creative crashing.' If you feel like promoting controlled landings, feel free to toss an asterisk next to my spot on the leader board! Not a suggestion, just a thought. I'm happy to see the challenge getting a lot of entries!

Edited July 14, 2016 by Cunjo Carl

[foamyesque]

Creative crashing, you say?

 

 

My plane is 750kg w/o fuel or Kerbals (999kg with fuel :v), and it carried six Kerbals to the island in ~8 minutes (exact time not known due to not getting a screenshot on craft disintegration ).

 

 

Rough score: 16.7, assuming the weight in the calculation is the dry one; 12.5 if you use wet but exclude Kerbs.

 

In principle, I should be able to land it, but I'm too tired to bother trying :v

[zolotiyeruki]

I love how all the kerbonauts are standing around with nothing but a bunch of command seats littering the ground.

[Panel]

Here is my entry. Despite, or perhaps because, it's a deathtrap, it manages to go 109 m/s in level flight. I guess that's why they wear space suits. If I calculate correctly, my score is 5.54.

EDIT:

Here's an improved entry, with a slightly better score of 7.74.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Panel

[foamyesque]

@hempa2: There's a discrepancy in my score-- what's the difference?

Edited July 27, 2016 by foamyesque

[hempa2]

@foamyesque I messed up bigtime, sorry.

Edited July 27, 2016 by hempa2

[CanOmer]

Do I have to load kerbals on the plane?

Edited August 3, 2016 by CanOmer