Kerbal Charter Challenge!

[Van Disaster]

I mean ferry people from the resort in a light plane & stick them in a bigger one at KSC, do the trip, and then do the reverse.

11.6 units is about 17 US gal of avgas, so that's about 3.5gal/hr in the air - each way to the pole was about 2 and a half hrs on cruise power - which is somewhat better than a real engine of that size can do, although people were talking about 4.5gal/hr for engines it's meant to represent. Meanwhile it's got a maximum thrust of about two Ants ( 5kN, but you'll never see that in the air ). This is the joy of not flying in goo

[Azimech]

Here's an idea for an expansion: using stock turboprops.

[HazelPine]

@Van Disaster, didn't think that little engine was so efficient! You can certainly take them to a bigger plane, as long as you don't forget to calculate fuel usage for both aircraft!

[Van Disaster]

1 hour ago, Pine said:

@Van Disaster, didn't think that little engine was so efficient! You can certainly take them to a bigger plane, as long as you don't forget to calculate fuel usage for both aircraft!

I did a bunch of number-crunching - one unit of fuel is ~1.833 US gal of avgas, that engine is meant to burn 7.5 units/hr at full throttle which would be 13.75 gal/hr. I certainly didn't get anywhere near that and if that's the engine I think it is meant to be, neither do any real pilots ( and I did everything but climb at part throttle ) so I poked a bit more, and I think I see why it's a bit too efficient; piston engines will only change fuel use with altitude unless they're turbocharged, but this one changes with speed too - thrust drops with speed, but the work the engine does shouldn't. Unfortunately I think that is/was linked to KSP's engine module and it'll probably be the same for most prop engines. Either way, I'm not changing anything when someone else can use it! also, well, it's anaemic.

Edit: it's also reasonable consumption for a little aero diesel engine, amazingly enough.

*ponders how long it'd take to fly 640 kerbals to KSC with a 6 seat plane*

Edited September 6, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Koolkei]

45 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

*ponders how long it'd take to fly 640 kerbals to KSC with a 6 seat plane*

yeah. don't torture yourself like that. i tried it with a biplane. it flies wonderfully, the fuel economy is very acceptable. but is nearly impossible to take off or land. even needs parachutes to land safely. and the speed is herrendous

Edited September 6, 2016 by Koolkei

[Azimech]

I might create an entry soon with a modified Azi13 but with my own rules. Stock turboprops are hard enough and stock KSP drag means the difference between needing 40 or 400 blowers, 40 already killing FPS (improves a lot with 1.2). I'm curious if anyone would be prepared to come out of his comfort zone to take up this challenge.

Okay I'll tease you guys:

"Real men don't just build planes, they build engines too!"

[Koolkei]

okay. here's my sea rescue attempt

attempt #1

that one didn't actually finish the challenge........ so here's attempt #2 and #3 in the same video.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Koolkei

[zolotiyeruki]

12 hours ago, Van Disaster said:

I mean ferry people from the resort in a light plane & stick them in a bigger one at KSC, do the trip, and then do the reverse.

11.6 units is about 17 US gal of avgas, so that's about 3.5gal/hr in the air - each way to the pole was about 2 and a half hrs on cruise power - which is somewhat better than a real engine of that size can do, although people were talking about 4.5gal/hr for engines it's meant to represent. Meanwhile it's got a maximum thrust of about two Ants ( 5kN, but you'll never see that in the air ). This is the joy of not flying in goo

3.5gal/hour is pretty impressive fuel economy.  That's like a 100-125HP piston engine at 75% throttle!

[Van Disaster]

5 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

3.5gal/hour is pretty impressive fuel economy.  That's like a 100-125HP piston engine at 75% throttle!

A diesel burning imperial gallons of jet fuel perhaps... it was more like 4gal/hr when I worked it out again allowing for gliding but that is still an engine I'd want to fly! either way the tiny SXT engine is not terribly outside the bounds of sense. I just wish there were some modular fuselages like the 6 seater SXT one - I've been messing around with making some but that doesn't help *now*

[HazelPine]

Quick update! Updated the Op with the new entries, and I must say, there's a lot more variety in the bush charter missions in terms of craft design! In a day or two I'll get my own entry in, but for now my propellers aren't even animated.

 

Hope to see more cool entries in the next couple days, amazed by the ones so far!

 

Also, @Van Disaster and @Koolkei, you're both first in every new attempt you posted for the bush missions! But then again, you're both the firsts, so don't celebrate yet!

[Van Disaster]

First regional stopper run - and it shows! the plane is as unwieldy as hell at slow speeds and needs a lot of refining, & I had to go around at the island ( and some of the other approaches need reconsidering ). Very glad it's so robust...
 anyway:

Air Trauma Flight 002

Spoiler

 

Pax: 160
Fuel: 645 - 400 = 245
Score: 245 * 0.8 / 160 = 1.225

Now to try the same run with a light aircraft.

--

Or not. Cargo testing!
 

Spoiler

 

 

If anyone wants a subassembly for one of those ore rover pods, shout. 3t->18t depending on ore amount. Remind me to remove the proc parts first.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Koolkei]

my entry. far inferior to @Van Disaster's plane.

 

started with 461 (wayyyyy too many, and became a dead weight) ended on 407

fuel 461-407 = 54

score 54*0.8 / 6 = 7.2

 

could be MUCH better

Edited September 7, 2016 by Koolkei

[Van Disaster]

All my runs are done in FAR unless I state otherwise, it does make a reasonable difference.

Especially for seaplanes - FAR water is *really* different. Anyone got any ideas for stopping? I'm having a hell of a time with the rescue, especially when I grab the pod & lose control of the plane ( seems to happen every time ) - takes me a couple of minutes to come to enough of a stop that I can switch away from the craft & back. I got down to 6:33 inc. pod bonus but it's really frustrating. Also frustrating losing control in the first place, I guess claw-grabbing a pod isn't a great idea.

Cargo run: cargo in t or kg?

[Koolkei]

2 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

All my runs are done in FAR unless I state otherwise, it does make a reasonable difference.

Especially for seaplanes - FAR water is *really* different. Anyone got any ideas for stopping? I'm having a hell of a time with the rescue, especially when I grab the pod & lose control of the plane ( seems to happen every time ) - takes me a couple of minutes to come to enough of a stop that I can switch away from the craft & back. I got down to 6:33 inc. pod bonus but it's really frustrating. Also frustrating losing control in the first place, I guess claw-grabbing a pod isn't a great idea.

Cargo run: cargo in t or kg?

tried my method yet?

but maybe in FAR modify it a little to a 2 stage.

touchdown on water -> deploy drogue chute -> slows down enough - > deploy radial chute

[Van Disaster]

Parachutes sorta work, but no good for scrubbing the last few m/s off - use one underwater in FAR & it'll instantly shred, and it's too slow to be useful in the atmosphere.

BTW you can use airbrakes for steering in the water, if you stick them below the waterline. ( Also take the monoprop out of your cockpits! )

Edited September 7, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Koolkei]

i'll need to test out in FAR again

 

[Van Disaster]

I abandoned the recovery again due to continual control issues frustrating me, will revisit later ( and I keep ramming the capsule ). And now I keep crashing my light aircraft on landing because I have pogo-sticks for gear

The 1.25 crew cabins are insanely heavy, I modified my single engine light plane to take 4 more pax & look what I had to do:

Looks cool & goes pretty fast, but 2 more engines for four more pax is *not* economical also look how far back the wing is!

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Adelaar]

Well, I've done the rescue mission by just hauling the complete pod back to KSC... I've used the C3 Halcyon for this, but it's usually used on land, not on water... so that required some improvising. The pod was dropped at KSC at 09:06, (unfortunatly, a screenshot only exists of 09:09...) The aircraft itself was landed at 09:56. Due to that the podcrew got their R&R at 09:06, minus two minutes for the pod recovery, means a total time of 07:06.

imgur album here

Edited September 7, 2016 by Adelaar

[Koolkei]

@Pine

what's the score/price for oxidizer?

i managed to build a hybrid plane. a competitive one, even with FAR.

it's an electric plane, but the electricity is fed by a fuel cell array. and fuel cell arrays takes both liquid fuel and oxidizer.

 

a sustainable mach 1 speed on FAR and sustainable electric charge only consuming a puny amount of fuel.

 

i'm still flight testing right now, but this seems to be super competitive

 

 

@Van Disaster question. do you know if propeller rotation torque is also emulated/simulated on FAR? my plane seems to like to roll to the left randomly, although slowly

Edited September 7, 2016 by Koolkei

[Baybrawler]

The most effective way to stop in water that I know of is using max thrust reversers. Even the SXT props have them idk why or how though. 

[Mycroft]

Can we ignore max temperature for stock aerodynamics? I have a plane that can go Mach 6 without it, but the cockpit overheats. It can go faster if it can ignore the temperature. So my question is can we ignore the maximum temperatures?

I understand the intent of the 'no cheat menu' rule, but I think this is a problem with the stock aerodynamics. Or am I crazy?

If @Pine says no, then I'll accept that. Just wanted to clarify that.

[Adelaar]

44 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

Can we ignore max temperature for stock aerodynamics? I have a plane that can go Mach 6 without it, but the cockpit overheats. It can go faster if it can ignore the temperature. So my question is can we ignore the maximum temperatures?

I understand the intent of the 'no cheat menu' rule, but I think this is a problem with the stock aerodynamics. Or am I crazy?

If @Pine says no, then I'll accept that. Just wanted to clarify that.

You're not crazy, but max heat is a constraint, just like not being allowed to bring a gattlinggun to a riflecontest is a constraint. It limits your options, so to shave off time you have to get creative, like the current number 1 on the rescue list.

[max_creative]

1 hour ago, Mycroft said:

Can we ignore max temperature for stock aerodynamics? I have a plane that can go Mach 6 without it, but the cockpit overheats. It can go faster if it can ignore the temperature. So my question is can we ignore the maximum temperatures?

I understand the intent of the 'no cheat menu' rule, but I think this is a problem with the stock aerodynamics. Or am I crazy?

If @Pine says no, then I'll accept that. Just wanted to clarify that.

Idea: Put the engines on pods on the wings, and make the main fuselage made out of Structural Fuselage parts crammed full of radiators! Or use a mk1 inline with a fairing nose cone! Plus you could use ore tanks in the nose as weights to adjust the center of mass for better flight!

[HazelPine]

Updated the OP with some new entries!

 

Time to answer some questions that came up!

@Van Disaster, the cargo mass score is in kg, but if you know how many metric tons it weights (KSP's ship info uses metric tons) you should just have to multiply that by 1000.

@Koolkei, it should be fine if you're using oxidizer to power generators, since the rule simply is to only use jets or propellers. As long as you can prove that you have no hidden rockets (mostly just to be safe, I trust you ). The cost of oxidizer according to the wiki is 0.18 Funds per liter, but I'm not sure it that is accurate. I'll check later how much it costs in the game files, though. For now just use that value!

@Mycroft, to keep a level playing field, I'm gonna have to make you keep heating at 100%. I agree that it isn't exactly perfect, so you're gonna have to get creative to cool your plane down, just like @Adelaar said.

 

On some unrelated news, I'm thinking of a new drawing to replace the pictures in the OP just under the challenge name. Something like all the entries so far in the air in a really sketchy look! I'll keep y'all posted if I go through with this!

 

[Van Disaster]

6 hours ago, Koolkei said:

@Van Disaster question. do you know if propeller rotation torque is also emulated/simulated on FAR? my plane seems to like to roll to the left randomly, although slowly

Nah, torque effects are outside of FAR's remit ( AJE might do it though, no idea ) - should actually be very simple to model, but it'd work just as well in stock. Any wandering off course is due to structural issues ( try KJR/ the odd strut ) & the SPH not being precisely symmetric when it's doing symmetry. Might also be some wierdness with joint bending in flight & symmetry also - my polar freighters bend the outer wing panels into a Y shape & the aero does go a bit odd.

@Pine my test run had an average cargo mass of 30t, that's going to be a rather silly score at 30,000kg

Got fed up enough to start on a modular light aircraft fuselage, I seem to have forgotten an awful lot of modelling again...

Spoiler