Kerbal Charter Challenge!

[Van Disaster]

Target it from map view & make sure you have labels on (F4 key by default).

Edited July 27, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Van Disaster]

Wasn't terribly satisfied with the last plane, so I did another run with a stretched one.

Pretty much at the limit of two engines, it didn't so much take off as stagger into the air ( acceleration was terrible ) and you might notice it'd burned 90 units of fuel already by this point...  rather over MTOW, I feel.

Spoiler

Still, once settled at a rather low cruise height the fuel burn wasn't much higher than the previous run. 264t plus 400 units of fuel at this point.

Spoiler

Mass before unloading:

Same as last time, kneel the plane & just tip the cargo out. Cargo this time 207.41t

Spoiler

With that extra wing area it just leapt into the sky empty

Spoiler

Got to cruise height before it was out of sight of the polar base

Spoiler

Took a nice gentle glide from about 250km out, didn't have to play with the flaps or use any more fuel, & got a really rather nice approach out of it. Just flared slightly after this shot, the plane landed itself nice & featherlike -

Spoiler

and stopped itself just by the runway exit.

Cargo mass: 207.41t
Fuel used: 1520-530 = 990
Fuel cost: 792
Score: 3.82

So about 20% better than the last one, I'll take that.
 

[Van Disaster]

Hmph - so I thought I'd do the rescue challenge... plane felt good, flight was pretty good if hair-raising, was on track for overall lead & then the Kerbal being rescued refused to get off the ladder for several minutes.

Here we go...

Kapow, 2g acceleration and rising.

Spoiler

Took a mad dive through some hills because I didn't have time to steer around

Spoiler

You! yes you! why can't you use a ladder!

Running for home - that took far too long

Spoiler

This is what flat out looks like

Spoiler

And this is what stupidly powerful airbrakes looks like - 3.5g deceleration, took a few test runs to stop bits falling off...

Spoiler

Finals was pretty interesting.

Spoiler

But in the end down & stopped at 29:10. It was stopped, it just wasn't very good at sitting still...

[Adelaar]

@Pine, I've noticed you updated the scoreboard with Meskin's entry in it. However, his score is based on a single trip only, not a return. His imgur album shows 42,36 fuel left out of 480 units total. Meaning a total fuel usage of 437,46 units, devided by 6 passengers is 72,94. Multiplied by 0,8 for fuel costs, leads to a total score of 58,35 Please adjust the scores accordingly!

[HazelPine]

@Van Disaster, great work on both of your attempts! Pretty cool how you managed to improve the cargo attempt, and it really makes me happy that you'd do this challenge again!

 

@Adelaar, afraid you're right. I'll be sure to correct it ASAP! Thanks for bringing it up!

 

As soon as I get back to my computer I'll update and fix the leaderboards, as my wee old first-gen iPad crashes when I try to edit it.

[Adelaar]

Alright!

Meanwhile, I've done a new attempt at the rescue mission, by retro-fitting one of my SSTO's (the S5 Arrow) into a rescue aircraft. I removed all the oxidizer, so it should be according to the rulebook!

Total time for the mission was 26:46

Take-off, with fuel load displayed

@ Polar Airport

Take-off with Hayne on board

And landed

[HazelPine]

@Adelaar, awesome idea! It makes sense too, since SSTOs are meant to go fast and stuff. I can tell from the last picture that you went extremely fast (imgur won't load 11 images on mobile, so I'm looking at the images here until I get on the pc), since it's still with the overheating bar! I'll be sure to put you in the leaderboard.

[Adelaar]

5 minutes ago, Pine said:

@Adelaar, awesome idea! It makes sense too, since SSTOs are meant to go fast and stuff. I can tell from the last picture that you went extremely fast (imgur won't load 11 images on mobile, so I'm looking at the images here until I get on the pc), since it's still with the overheating bar! I'll be sure to put you in the leaderboard.

I tried to keep overheating between 98% and 99%, which, I admit, didn't go right the first time, second, or even third

[HazelPine]

Alright, OP is now updated with all the correct point counts and updated entries!

[Maverick_aus]

Hi guys, Finally got around to doing this challenge. Great idea, @Pine . 
Here's the whole gallery. 
http://imgur.com/a/guEsj
Preview in the spoiler below...

Spoiler

Not sure if I've got the calculation right, but the fuel I used was (1862LF x 0.8)/68 Kerbals = 21.9

Edited July 31, 2016 by Maverick_aus

[HazelPine]

@Maverick_aus, awesome flight! First entry to use props as well! Just a little thing though: Scores are based off of passengers and not total kerbal count, as the crew get a free pass for piloting the plane. So your score is: (1862 * 0.8) * 64 = 23.275

Which is pretty good.

I loved the picture with all the kerbals climbing around the plane, made me laugh a bit!

 

Updating leaderboards!

 

Edit: turns out you made first place! Good job! Let's see if you can hold it!

Edited July 31, 2016 by Pine

[Maverick_aus]

24 minutes ago, Pine said:

@Maverick_aus, awesome flight! First entry to use props as well! Just a little thing though: Scores are based off of passengers and not total kerbal count, as the crew get a free pass for piloting the plane. So your score is: (1862 * 0.8) * 64 = 23.275

Oops. Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification. 

24 minutes ago, Pine said:

Which is pretty good.

I loved the picture with all the kerbals climbing around the plane, made me laugh a bit!

Thanks. It's fun to conceptualise how the Kerbals would think. Given most of them had emotions ranging from bored to scared witless (only one or two BadSes on-board), perhaps they'd be scared off the last minute and stay in the plane! But the ones who got out had a jolly good time throwing around and rolling in the snow. Hayne was a little disappointed. Buy the time she realised they were there, and climbed down that mammoth tower, she was all lonely again... :( Something tells me she might need company soon thought...

24 minutes ago, Pine said:

Updating leaderboards!

Edit: turns out you made first place! Good job! Let's see if you can hold it!

Huzzah! Perhaps. I didn't work very hard to make it fuel efficient. I was surprised to be be winning at the moment. I think the Bear 21,600 ISP turbo props from SXT pack (thanks @Lack for an excellent mod BTW) did most of the work. I'm pretty sure someone more dedicated will get ahead soon. Didn't do it for that though. 
It's a fun challenge. Thanks for developing and running it. Also the scoring system seems well designed. I've seen challenges which had an engaging concept but suffered from people's attempts to game it, as a result of imbalanced rules. The end result was lots of entries which cut right across the grain of the spirit of the original concept. 
Anyhoo, thanks again for the concept and execution of this challenge. And say...since you're clearly a talented artist and all...sig badge?

[HazelPine]

A sig badge? Now that you mention it, I might make one. I didn't realize this challege was going to have this many entries or interest, so I never thought about it. I'll try some basic sketches and depending on how that goes I'll make some badges once I'm done with another thing I'm doing behind the scenes for someone else.  

[Maverick_aus]

16 hours ago, Pine said:

A sig badge? Now that you mention it, I might make one. I didn't realize this challege was going to have this many entries or interest, so I never thought about it. I'll try some basic sketches and depending on how that goes I'll make some badges once I'm done with another thing I'm doing behind the scenes for someone else.  

Cool.

[Van Disaster]

Hmm, turboprops eh... need to fix the sound up I think, and I'm not terribly convinced those engines are *that* efficient IRL but still, level playing field & all:
Swapped the two turbofans off my large passenger craft & added some wing so it will land at a sensible speed:


 

Spoiler

 

And despite dropping some power it lifted off in time.

No crazy climb rates with this one, but I did notice fuel consumption dropped a massive amount getting near Mach 1 ( around this plane's critical mach, coincidentally ).

I forgot any airbrakes, and... did this thing not want to shed speed or what...

Had to take a really big gliding loop to lose enough speed to pop the flaps, or I'd have probably lost the wings.

 

Brakes weren't spectacular & dodging all my freighter cargo with no steerable gear was "fun"... but we arrived.


 

Spoiler

 

Off we go again. Wierd mix of Boeing 377 & Tu-114 ( which must have been *horribly* loud to travel on ), if only there was a double deck cockpit around...

Took a pre-emptively wide loop on the way back, still had trouble shedding speed.

But some playing with the flaps made it all work out. Had to be a bit careful about flare or the tail would get wiped off.

 

Back again, just about enough runway to stop.

So, stats:

Fuel used = 1080 - 324 = 756
Fuel cost = 756 * 0.8 = 604.8
Pax = 30 * 16 = 480

Score ( FAR category ): 604.8/480 = 1.26

[Adelaar]

28 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

Hmm, turboprops eh... need to fix the sound up I think, and I'm not terribly convinced those engines are *that* efficient IRL

 

Actually, turboprops and especially counter-rotating turboprops are more fuel efficient than turbo-jets. The reason why they are less in use nowadays are mostly due to noise-production (especially at high speeds, the tip of the blades on the Tu-95 go faster than the speed of sound, which makes it hella loud), and complexity.

[Van Disaster]

Just now, Adelaar said:

Actually, turboprops and especially counter-rotating turboprops are more fuel efficient than turbo-jets. The reason why they are less in use nowadays are mostly due to noise-production (especially at high speeds, the tip of the blades on the Tu-95 go faster than the speed of sound, which makes it hella loud), and complexity.

Yeah, but these are about twice as efficient as the efficient turbofans - and real life turboprops generally aren't *that* good I dont think - certainly not ones from the 50s with supersonic blades still, will run the numbers sometime.

[Adelaar]

@Van Disaster, what? Really? Twice as efficient? You're right in that case, the efficiency-gain IRL isn't THAT great. Which mod is that anyway? Might try them out on my aircraft... KAX is too flawed to use IMHO.

[Van Disaster]

SXT, which is 1.1-"compatible", needs a little tidying.

Propellors are highly efficient up to a given airspeed, but I don't know anything about supersonic ones ( quite an esoteric area! ). Those turboprops would be more efficient than 50s turbojets - I can't remember when the first production turbofan arrived - but I'm a bit dubious about modern high-bypass ones.

[Adelaar]

Propellors are to my knowledge unsuitable for supersonic flight, they can hog close to the sound barrier, but cannot cross it, this is due to the fact that the propellors at a speed close to or beyond the sound barrier travel at supersonic speeds, which give all kinds of unwanted aerodynamical problems with airflow and prop-blade oscillation.

Also, turbo props are more efficient than even modern day jets.

Lastly, the fastest aircraft of WWII wasn't a jet fighter like the Me-262, but instead a propellorplane with a pull-push configuration (essentially a counter-rotating propellor set-up, that goes by the name of Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil". You might want to read in on that

[Van Disaster]

I'm talking about *those particular* turboprops - the props themselves have supersonic blade tips ( not just propellors which don't work supersonic, jet compressors don't either - but they're effectively the same devices anyway ) which leads me to doubt their overall efficiency somewhat ( compared to more conventional propellors ), and the engine core is also 1950s tech. But, they were intended for higher speeds than turboprops are usually designed for, because the alternative was turbojets.

Not sure what you call "of WW2" but the Spiteful was quicker than the Pfiel, the Meteor F3 ( which was a wartime version ) hit 600mph, and the Me163 was faster than anything.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Adelaar]

I should've clarified a bit... it was the fastest German propeller aircraft of WWII, though I did know about the aircraft you mentioned, I somehow forgot...  

[Van Disaster]

The Spiteful is a rare thing, given it never made it to full production ( Spitfire with a laminar flow wing, if anyone's wondering ). The Hawker Fury/Sea Fury was about as good as piston engined got, but that was just post WW2.

I ran some back-of-envelope calcs based on thrust figures I got for the A400M engine/propellor, and the 21k ISP is apparently about right - for static thrust ( assuming the NK-12 prop is about 85% as efficient as the A400M one - I have doubts, 50 years of CFD is a lot ). Propellors don't exactly work the same as jet compressors though.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Van Disaster

[zolotiyeruki]

Here's my entry for the Emergency Rescue category.  25:56

I coulda done a bit better had I:
--left a beacon back at KSC to vector towards.  Spent a good minute or two going due west after a bad estimate of heading.
--tweaked the wings a bit, so I could fly a bit faster at a lower altitude

Let's see if I can figure out this images-in-spoiler-tags thing.

Boring picture of the first part of the flight:

Spoiler

Boring closer-in picture of the first part of the flight:

Spoiler

Landed at the base.  Rather than deal with ladders, i retracted the landing gear so the patient could climb aboard.

Spoiler

On the way back (another boring shot):

Spoiler

Final approach.  Came in hot, had to pitch up to stall and bleed off enough speed to land. This thing floats when it's low on fuel.

Spoiler

...and landed, just shy of 26 minutes.  Yes, it's pointed the wrong direction.  I'm still figuring out these newfangled slippery wheels.

Spoiler

 

[zolotiyeruki]

Here's a first pass at the passenger thing.  Is it ok if I don't actually fill the seats, but still have the capacity?  This is 4+ (16*9) = 148 kerbals, (5925 - 2582) = 3343 fuel used.  I overshot the runway back at KSC, so I used a tiny bit more fuel to get back on.

Total score = 0.8 * 3343 / 148 = 18.07.  Wait, did I do that right?  That seems awful low.

Sorry for the low number of pics--I keep forgetting to take screenshots along the way.

Landed at the polar base:

Spoiler

Departing polar base:

Spoiler

Trying to stop:

Spoiler

Overran the end of the runway, and got back on:

Spoiler

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by zolotiyeruki