The Paper Airplane Challenge

[herbal space program]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 7:14 AM, greydragon70 said:

 

Current Leader Board: 

Moarmau5 - 44.5 Km

sebi9960 - 38.2 Km

The Optimist - 38.2 Km

Xenro66 - 24.6 Km
Jolly Roger Aerospace - 20.8 Km
Billy Winn - 12.9 Km

 

 

*cough* Ahem?.....

[greydragon70]

11 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

*cough* Ahem?.....

Yeah sorry. Fixed.

[herbal space program]

4 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

Yeah sorry. Fixed.

Thanks!  I believe this is the first time I've ever actually been on top of the leaderboard in one of these. I've also been trying for a while, but I have not yet been able to beat that run.

Edited July 10, 2016 by herbal space program

[greydragon70]

Vaos From YouTube is live streaming his attempts at my challenge right now. 8:39pm

[foamyesque]

On 2016-07-08 at 2:33 PM, greydragon70 said:

Yeah, I use a small I-beam myself, then connect the chair and wings to it. I'm up to 32km and I think I can get a bit more. The Take Command mod helps with this and someone just posted an updated version for 1.1.3 at the end of the original post.

 

I stick a command pod on a spar on a launch stabilizer, and EVA-teleportboard to get into the seat.

 

My most recent run was 44.1km, though, just shy of Herbal's. Next time.

[foamyesque]

Alrighty then:

 

 

46.1km. I could probably get another few hundred meters by cheesing it up with a VAB-height launch clamp, but that'd be lame.

Edited July 10, 2016 by foamyesque

[herbal space program]

17 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

46.1km. I could probably get another few hundred meters by cheesing it up with a VAB-height launch clamp, but that'd be lame.

Well, that didn't last long. Well done!  

You clearly confirm one thing I suspected was true but didn't really act on -- that boosting straight up from the pad is the thing to do. The less air you have to push through to gain altitude  in the boost phase the better. Now I feel like I should try to recalibrate my ascent with the ship I posted before and see if I can edge you out...

Edited July 10, 2016 by herbal space program

[luizopiloto]

I don't know if I'm doing it the right way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyLJvZwIq-o

 

[greydragon70]

3 hours ago, foamyesque said:

Alrighty then:

46.1km. I could probably get another few hundred meters by cheesing it up with a VAB-height launch clamp, but that'd be lame.

Height of the launch clamps can be no more than 105 m tall. If your plane is touching the roof of the SPH it's too high.

Edited July 10, 2016 by greydragon70

[maceemiller]

What a great challenge!  Imma start building tonight however planes are not my thing so maybe wont be that good at it but loving the idea!

[Moarmau5]

On 7/10/2016 at 2:45 AM, greydragon70 said:

Height of the launch clamps can be no more than 105 m tall. If your plane is touching the roof of the SPH it's too high.

Thank you for clarifying that. I've been trying to tweak my plane for a new run, and have been fighting the urge just to stretch the launch clamp as far as I could, but it just felt wrong lol.

Also one more thing I need clarification on. Do all the separatrons need to be fired in one stage, or are you allowed to fire multiple groups in different stages? Haven't been able to test anything lately, so I'm not sure if this would be of any benefit.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Moarmau5

[herbal space program]

3 hours ago, Moarmau5 said:

Also one more thing I need clarification on. Do all the separatrons need to be fired in one stage, or are you allowed to fire multiple groups in different stages? Haven't been able to test anything lately, so I'm not sure if this would be of any benefit.

I think staging the sepratrons is definitely of significant benefit, because your inertia is so low with this sort of craft that any excessive speeds will be dissipated in drag if you go too fast, so the longer you can burn to maintain roughly terminal velocity (~110m/s?) going more or less straight up, the better. Also, you're so light that losing the mass of those spent sepratrons and the extra launch clamp mid-burn helps significantly. Anyway, I hope that's allowed, because that's what I did...

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 7:49 PM, foamyesque said:

Alrighty then

 

46.1km. I could probably get another few hundred meters by cheesing it up with a VAB-height launch clamp, but that'd be lame.

Looking at your craft, I'm amazed you were able to get such a good glide slope with so little wing area. I tested designs like that and got them more or less as high as you did, but I never managed better than ~40km with any of them. You've clearly pared down the control surfaces to the absolute minimum, so perhaps that's what gave you the edge.

[foamyesque]

13 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

I think staging the sepratrons is definitely of significant benefit, because your inertia is so low with this sort of craft that any excessive speeds will be dissipated in drag if you go too fast, so the longer you can burn to maintain roughly terminal velocity (~110m/s?) going more or less straight up, the better. Also, you're so light that losing the mass of those spent sepratrons and the extra launch clamp mid-burn helps significantly. Anyway, I hope that's allowed, because that's what I did...

Looking at your craft, I'm amazed you were able to get such a good glide slope with so little wing area. I tested designs like that and got them more or less as high as you did, but I never managed better than ~40km with any of them. You've clearly pared down the control surfaces to the absolute minimum, so perhaps that's what gave you the edge.

 

I have exactly three parts that aren't wing: The seat, the inline stabilizer, and the battery, and the only reason I have the stabilizer and the battery is because I needed something to act as a root, and if I had it I may as well be able to use it.

 

It's also not actually that great a glide ratio; roughly 1:8 - 1:9. A 767 can beat that.

[herbal space program]

2 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

I have exactly three parts that aren't wing: The seat, the inline stabilizer, and the battery, and the only reason I have the stabilizer and the battery is because I needed something to act as a root, and if I had it I may as well be able to use it.

 

It's also not actually that great a glide ratio; roughly 1:8 - 1:9. A 767 can beat that.

Don't forget the Kerbal! He/she's almost 0.1 tons. Anyway, 1:8 or 1:9 may not be so good IRL, but in this game I think it's darn close to the optimal glide slope of perfectly balanced pure wing. My submission, which had a much higher wing area (and only reached 4km), had maybe a 10-11:1 glide slope. What I think your craft demonstrates is that the extra mass of shipping reaction wheels is offset by the necessary drag losses incurred by using control surfaces to set your attitude. I tried to avoid these by making my glider as balanced as I possibly could, but In the end I think the reaction wheels still win out. I think the need to weigh all these considerations makes this an especially interesting challenge.

Edited July 13, 2016 by herbal space program

[greydragon70]

8 hours ago, Moarmau5 said:

Also one more thing I need clarification on. Do all the separatrons need to be fired in one stage, or are you allowed to fire multiple groups in different stages? Haven't been able to test anything lately, so I'm not sure if this would be of any benefit.

Since I made the rules, Please, let me be the one to clarify them...

9- Thrust on the seperatrons must be above 75%. I tried to make the rules clear. I put no limit on staging because you can't reduce the seperatron thrust below 75% and you are only allowed 16. This sets some limit to the height you can go. 

I need to address the planes.... We are not looking like paper airplanes guys. This is a "Paper Airplane" challenge. The spirit of this challenge has been lost. I applaud all of you but we are getting away from what I intended. The seperatrons were only intended to act like you throwing the plane in the air and the plane itself is supposed to look like a paper airplane you played with as a child.

Do any of you remember having paper airplane contests with your friends or classmates as a kid? That's what I wanted here.

I will maintain this post for 2 more weeks, then the contest is over. Thank you!

Also from the Wiki...  Kerbals display no variance in height or weight. They stand roughly 0.75 meters tall (2'5½"). A Kerbal in an EVA suit has a mass of 93.75 kilograms (206.68 lb.), which is 0.09375 in-game Mass units.May 31, 2016

Edited July 13, 2016 by greydragon70

[herbal space program]

11 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

 

9- Thrust on the seperatrons must be above 75%. I tried to make the rules clear. I put no limit on staging because you can't reduce the seperatron thrust below 75% and you are only allowed 16. This sets some limit to the height you can go. 

Oops. I overlooked that one, sorry. My thrust was below 75%, so you should remove me from the leaderboard.

Sorry I messed up your challenge. I really didn't mean to subvert your intent.

Edited July 13, 2016 by herbal space program

[greydragon70]

3 hours ago, herbal space program said:

Oops. I overlooked that one, sorry. My thrust was below 75%, so you should remove me from the leaderboard.

Sorry I messed up your challenge. I really didn't mean to subvert your intent.

I'm not mad at anyone for straying from the topic. lol What you all have been able to do under my restrictions is amazing.

We have two more weeks to work on this, So far I've only been able to go 33 Km. I want to beat that and come close to 40 Km.

Herbal Space Program, you didn't subvert my intent or mess up the challenge. You and the other top leaders kept me interested and working on this. Even I was drifting from the topic. I will leave you there as a recognition of your achievement. If you can, fix your thrust and try again.

Edited July 13, 2016 by greydragon70

[herbal space program]

5 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

Herbal Space Program, you didn't subvert my intent or mess up the challenge. You and the other top leaders kept me interested and working on this. Even I was drifting from the topic. I will leave you there as a recognition of your achievement. If you can, fix your thrust and try again.

Thank you for taking the time to make that reassuring reply. I will accordingly take the time to see what I can do with a fully compliant craft...

Edited July 14, 2016 by herbal space program

[foamyesque]

10 hours ago, herbal space program said:

Oops. I overlooked that one, sorry. My thrust was below 75%, so you should remove me from the leaderboard.

Sorry I messed up your challenge. I really didn't mean to subvert your intent.

 

I missed that rule as well. I'd almost swear it wasn't there when I first read things.

 

I'll try a compliant launch in a bit.

[tsoj]

i broke the 50km mark:

YouTube: KSP 1.2.0 Paper Airplane Challenge

Edited February 20, 2017 by tsoj

[Sivonen]

Sorry for replying to an old topic, but... 56.7km

 

It's good that Val goes both ways.

I mean sideways and face-forward.

 

https://goo.gl/photos/XoUGX4yMLEu3pfm2A

 

Seat and kerbal are clipped into parts.

First stage fires four rockets at 100%

Rest of the stages are fired two rockets at a time at 75.5%.

Only informational and time-modifying mods used.

I think this "plane" is able to go over 60km when piloted more carefully.. L/D ratio dropped to 7-8 multiple times when I wasn't payin attention. Also the flight path was curved.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Sivonen

[greydragon70]

11 hours ago, Sivonen said:

Sorry for replying to an old topic, but... 56.7km

 

Nice work. I didn't know people were still reading this thread. I have a new challenge coming up soon. A Rally X Race around the space center. 

[daniel911t]

I know I'm totally resurrecting an old thread... but I was looking for a challenge and this looked like fun!

I took the name literally and made my favorite type of paper plane out of stock parts. My max was not near the record.  I got 29.9Km.  

*NOTE* I am a shameless user of automation.  Atmosphere Autopilot was very useful in keeping a max stability glide.

Edited February 7, 2017 by daniel911t

[greydragon70]

Glad to see someone try it. Good looking plane.

[AeroGav]

Just an observation guys,  I reckon you're losing some glide distance by using SAS.   This holds a constant nose angle but not a constant AoA, and in the videos i'm seeing people make corrections with manual input (on keyboard).  

I say turn SAS off and fly it with pitch trim instead.    Bring up the aero data gui with alt F-12 so you can find the optimum AoA for best lift/drag ratio,  and add/remove pitch trim till you're getting the best numbers. 

Also you won't get the drag from the full control surface deflections that direct keyboard control brings, though you can probably ameliorate that by "limit authority" in the tweakables (nobody's doing any aerobatics are they..)