Fighter Jet Speed Test

[Eidahlil]

10 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

My gosh I just watched the video, and HOW THE ACTUAL (Censored) DID YOU NOT DIE THERE?????

The part not hitting the water was mostly dumb luck while trying to stabilize the roll, and the off center airbrake giving some extra force pitching up.

The part hitting the water was just how ditching in water works, I suppose. I hit it at about 42 m/s vertical velocity (you can almost see it in the KER readout just under the MechJeb tab pullout), but the precooler went in first and must have slowed me down enough that the cockpit's 40 m/s tolerance was enough to survive. (If this part does not match your experience, I have this rocket car made for a different test. Just launch it at full throttle on the runway, it will hit the water at 120-220 m/s, and you'll see most of the Mk2 parts survive).

In all honesty, I was not expecting it to survive when it hit, and when it emerged intact from the splash I had the same reaction. it was just a test flight to see how the airbrake behaves, but I got lucky, I suppose.

7 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

@Eidahlil I don't mean to be "that guy", but at 0:41 in the video, shouldn't the engines have exploded? The heat bar on the left was full.

Honestly, I do not have a proper answer to that question. They could have been 10 degrees away from exploding and it looked like full, but I do not know for sure, I was not monitoring their temperature. During prior flights I've had different parts fail first. Sometimes it's the nose cones, sometimes it's the cockpit, I think I had the engine explode first once too. The nosecones exploding are probably the easiest to recover from, though.

If you look at the log at the end of the video, you can see the parts exploded at significantly more than their failure temperature. One of the tail connectors exploded at 692 degrees over it's limit. So, I suppose, they can survive for a few frames while over the temperature limit.

Also, I'm not even sure how I could prevent them from exploding while over the limit. You can see the ignore max temperature cheat is off, and other parts exploded just fine. And if I edited the .cfg to increase the max temp, or reduced air drag, or changed the thermodynamic ratios, or I don't know what else, they would still explode when the bar was full, it would just fill up slower.

Probably the only answer/defense I can provide, is that the speed was not a fluke, and if you download the craft, and fly it horizontally close to the water, about 1 in 3 tries should have it exceed 1800 m/s before something fails. Recovery is something else though.

[HafCoJoe]

Hm, I'm thinking of ways that I could get it up past mach 2 and it doesn't sound impossible. Currently it has a ludicrously high fuel capacity (880) because of the 8 shuttle strakes it uses as a body  They're also curved up about 10 degrees front to back which is creating additional drag. If I removed half of the strakes and placed them flat to the rest of the plane it would look awful spindly, but it would probably get going up to mach 2 if it doesn't already.

[DarkOwl57]

47 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Limited to 75 parts? Hmm... I might have to enter the Volta if I can get it up to speed:

It reaches mach 1 under 2k but I haven't tested it high up enough to see if it reaches mach 2. It's by far the most maneuverable plane I've built. I only had a picture of the VTOL variant handy but there's a sleeker jet variant with downward tilted wings, dual tail fins and only the two engines.

Twitch highlight of the VTOL Volta

VTOL's are good; allows them to takeoff from aircraft carriers.....

I might just add a VTOL category if I feel like it........

[HafCoJoe]

2 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

VTOL's are good; allows them to takeoff from aircraft carriers.....

I might just add a VTOL category if I feel like it........

 Hm, I doubt VTOLs could get up to mach 2 though - the extra engines are just too bulky to allow for insane high speeds. Maybe a mach 1 VTOL category though?

[DarkOwl57]

35 minutes ago, Eidahlil said:

The part not hitting the water was mostly dumb luck while trying to stabilize the roll, and the off center airbrake giving some extra force pitching up.

In all honesty, I was not expecting it to survive when it hit, and when it emerged intact from the splash I had the same reaction. it was just a test flight to see how the airbrake behaves, but I got lucky, I suppose.

 

When you started rolling I thought 'Well, he dead.' But after you pulled out of the dive my face went from :/ to :0

9 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

 Hm, I doubt VTOLs could get up to mach 2 though - the extra engines are just too bulky to allow for insane high speeds. Maybe a mach 1 VTOL category though?

If you used the 'Radial connector' or something like that in the "Structure" Tab, you could put a RAPIER and offset it inline with the fuel tank with the nozzle just off of the tank to keep it from exploding. For the no cheats, the Oxidizer could create problems, but if your plane is light enough you might just make it.

11 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

 Hm, I doubt VTOLs could get up to mach 2 though - the extra engines are just too bulky to allow for insane high speeds. Maybe a mach 1 VTOL category though?

And I just got rid of the Mach 2 rule and changed it to Mach 1 to make it a tad easier.

Edited October 25, 2016 by DarkOwl57

[HafCoJoe]

8 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

And I just got rid of the Mach 2 rule and changed it to Mach 1 to make it a tad easier.

\:O/ Awesome! Are you still going to have a mach 2 leaderboard though? I like that concept

[DarkOwl57]

Just now, Avera9eJoe said:

\:O/ Awesome! Are you still going to have a mach 2 leaderboard though? I like that concept

Heck, why not?

[NotAnAimbot]

Maneuverable fighters, you say?

Around 98 parts, so a bit over limit. I've pulled 30 (!) G turns with it in one flight, and I'm working on comparing the ramjet and afterburning jet engines. I'll score it when I get home.

Do I need a video or can I use some images? My lagtop is pretty bas when it comes to recording.

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by NotAnAimbot

[DarkOwl57]

16 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Maneuverable fighters, you say?

Around 98 parts, so a bit over limit. I've pulled 30 (!) G turns with it in one flight, and I'm working on comparing the ramjet and afterburning jet engines. I'll score it when I get home.

Do I need a video or can I use some images? My lagtop is pretty bas when it comes to recording.

 

If you do a video, Make sure to show the F12 menu, your full flight, and the F3 screen after you finish testing. If you do Images, show the engineer report in the SPH, the cheat menu, and the F3 screen after your test. (You can also put some highlights from the flight. 

20 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Maneuverable fighters, you say?

Around 98 parts, so a bit over limit. I've pulled 30 (!) G turns with it in one flight, and I'm working on comparing the ramjet and afterburning jet engines. I'll score it when I get home.

Do I need a video or can I use some images? My lagtop is pretty bas when it comes to recording.

 

Oh and also, Not sure how the site's going to react to this statement, but that plane looks sexy af.

[NotAnAimbot]

1400 + 5 + 27.9 - 15 = 1427.9 score. Not that much, but at least it looks good. I also learned the hard way 1.2 hates time warp, since it destroyed the plane each time. Video coming as soon as it's uploaded. The nosecone is from BDA, but doesn't do much.

I'll get up a new design soon.

Edited October 25, 2016 by NotAnAimbot

[HafCoJoe]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 8:18 AM, DarkOwl57 said:

in VTOL category, which is allowed 3 engines.

Guess I can't enter the Volta then no way I'm getting it up to 343 m/s with only one engine in back. Might see about squeezing one engine in the middle and removing the two side pods but I don't think it could lift itself.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[DarkOwl57]

16 hours ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Guess I can't enter the Volta then no way I'm getting it up to 343 m/s with only one engine in back. Might see about squeezing one engine in the middle and removing the two side pods but I don't think it could lift itself.

Idk, the whiplash is pretty op.

[HafCoJoe]

I was able to optimize the Voltas aerodynamics and got it up to 989m/s at around 1170 meters above sea level before running out of fuel. I could probably get it up to mach 3 at 1032 if I went higher...

[Torquimedes]

I interpreted "Mk 1 parts only" to mean "no parts labelled Mk2 or Mk3".  Please clarify if that is incorrect.

 

I started simply: cockpit, two jet engines, fuel tank, aerodynamic control, wheels.  Pure stock, no cheats at all.  

 

Since it reminded me of the Gee Bee...

Here’s the BeeGeez 100 Technology Demonstrator (15 parts, 8 tons):

 

Spoiler

First test flight, a speed of ~1700 m/s reached at minimal altitude just before crossing the RUD milestone.

 

Second test, achieved a speed of 1589 m/s accelerating in a zoom climb before the lower intake exploded...

 

...but the plane continued right up to 155 km altitude before coming down again.

It was able to reenter and fly to a continent, but without wheels it crash landed.

 

This craft reached 1589 m/s and 15.2 G with no cheats.  But, since it is unable to land after supersonic operation, I don’t consider it a viable candidate for this competition.  Development continues.

 

Anyone know how to remove chutes from the staging sequence so they are only opened via action group?

Edited October 26, 2016 by Torquimedes

[DarkOwl57]

20 minutes ago, Torquimedes said:

I interpreted "Mk 1 parts only" to mean "no parts labelled Mk2 or Mk3".  Please clarify if that is incorrect.

 

I started simply: cockpit, two jet engines, fuel tank, aerodynamic control, wheels.  Pure stock, no cheats at all.  

 

Since it reminded me of the Gee Bee...

Here’s the BeeGeez 100 Technology Demonstrator (15 parts, 8 tons):
 

  Hide contents

 

 

First test flight, a speed of ~1700 m/s reached at minimal altitude just before crossing the RUD milestone.

 

Second test, achieved a speed of 1589 m/s accelerating in a zoom climb before the lower intake exploded...

 

...but the plane continued right up to 155 km altitude before coming down again.

It was able to reenter and fly to a continent, but without wheels it crash landed.

 

This craft reached 1589 m/s and 15.2 G with no cheats.  But, since it is unable to land after supersonic operation, I don’t consider it a viable candidate for this competition.  Development continues.

 

Anyone know how to remove chutes from the staging sequence so they are only opened via action group?

OMG That looks soon cuuuttteeee!!!!!

21 minutes ago, Torquimedes said:

But, since it is unable to land after supersonic operation, I don’t consider it a viable candidate for this competition.  Development continues.

 

Anyone know how to remove chutes from the staging sequence so they are only opened via action group?

For the not losing landing gear, you could add retractable gear.

And for the parachutes....... I have no idea.

17 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

1400 + 5 + 27.9 - 15 = 1427.9 score. Not that much, but at least it looks good. I also learned the hard way 1.2 hates time warp, since it destroyed the plane each time. Video coming as soon as it's uploaded. The nosecone is from BDA, but doesn't do much.

I'll get up a new design soon.

I personally think the BDA nosecone is the best, 1) because it just looks good, and 2) when in combat, the radar-guided missiles will hit 9.9/10 times.

[Torquimedes]

This is my single-engine entry.  Pure stock, no cheats.  I extended the fuselage, added wings, and replaced the upper intake with an air-to-air refuelling dock due to its short range.  Then I replaced the lower engine with ordnance, since this is a military aircraft competition, and I've never tried that before.

BeeGeez model A300 ($23k, less than 9 tons, 25 parts) loaded with two "stinger" bombs under the engine nacelle:

The BGA300 is a single-engine, supersonic attack plane, capable of 480 m/s level ASL and 12.4 Gs fully loaded, en route to target.

 

^ That right there is the first ordnance I’ve ever (intentionally) dropped in KSP, and it hit the island runway!

There was a problem with bombs detonating early during supersonic strikes.  (Let’s not call it a problem, let’s call it an “airburst fuse”.)

Practice-bombing near KSC, buzzing the Admin building and tower:

  

Demonstration supersonic bombing run:

 

This aircraft is highly unstable (er, make the brochure say "exciting and maneuverable") and rather prone to flat spins after dropping its bombs, so it also features landing chutes which were extensively tested.  And it has a short supersonic range, which will require aerial refuellings, but I’m sure nothing will go wrong there.

Don’t forget, with a budget of 75 parts, you can afford three of them!

[DarkOwl57]

3 minutes ago, Torquimedes said:

This is my single-engine entry.  Pure stock, no cheats.  I extended the fuselage, added wings, and replaced the upper intake with an air-to-air refuelling dock due to its short range.  Then I replaced the lower engine with ordnance, since this is a military aircraft competition, and I've never tried that before.

BeeGeez model A300 ($23k, less than 9 tons, 25 parts) loaded with two "stinger" bombs under the engine nacelle:

The BGA300 is a single-engine, supersonic attack plane, capable of 480 m/s level ASL and 12.4 Gs fully loaded, en route to target.

 

^ That right there is the first ordnance I’ve ever (intentionally) dropped in KSP, and it hit the island runway!

There was a problem with bombs detonating early during supersonic strikes.  (Let’s not call it a problem, let’s call it an “airburst fuse”.)

Practice-bombing near KSC, buzzing the Admin building and tower:

  

Demonstration supersonic bombing run:

 

This aircraft is highly unstable (er, make the brochure say "exciting and maneuverable") and rather prone to flat spins after dropping its bombs, so it also features landing chutes which were extensively tested.  And it has a short supersonic range, which will require aerial refuellings, but I’m sure nothing will go wrong there.

Don’t forget, with a budget of 75 parts, you can afford three of them!

This sounds like a commercial lol.

Everyone's rushing to bomb their friends, so don't miss out. AND, don't forget about our super-exclusive deal! 3 ships for the low low price of only $399,999.99! Hurry, this deal ends soon. Contact Torquimedes or any of our sales reps at 995-423-3925 today!

[niic]

860 score just two panthers and all mk1 highest g's 8.8.8highest speed 852m/s still needs work two attempts

Edited October 28, 2016 by niic

[DarkOwl57]

10 hours ago, niic said:

834 score just two panthers and all mk1 highest g's 7.1 highest speed 822 m/s still needs work

What's the name?

[niic]

 

24 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

What's the name?

Speedy MC Speeds

[DarkOwl57]

I need parts count and wether you used cheats or not.

[niic]

NO CHEATS AND PART COUNT IS 19 WITHOUT BOMB AND 21 WITH BOMB

4 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

I need parts count and wether you used cheats or not.

---

---

[DarkOwl57]

10 minutes ago, niic said:

NO CHEATS AND PART COUNT IS 19 WITHOUT BOMB AND 21 WITH BOMB

---

---

k

Sheez bombs? noice

[niic]

I have video

[niic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa4CLWb1RhA this is me doing it