Juno Speed record

[IronCretin]

Juno speed challenge!

Challenge: Take a kerbal to the fastest speed possible, using only the "Juno" jet engine.

Rules: 

1. No engines or other means of propulsion besides the Juno.
2. Stock (Informational and assist mods are allowed).
   • If enough people are interested, I can add a separate FAR leaderboard.
3. Please specify your game version (aero was changed in 1.2, but not everyone is on the prerelease)
4. No cheats. (aero gui and overlays are okay)
5. You must have at least one kerbal on your craft. (Optional)
6. Scoring is determined by surface velocity. Dives and other maneuvers are allowed
7. Give a screenshot of the craft and the f3 screen with max velocity 
8. Repeat entries are allowed.

Leaderboards:

1.2:

1. @swjr-swis: 801 m/s
2. @Justintime505: 796 m/s
3. @swjr-swis: 757 m/s
4. @IronCretin: 755 m/s

 

1.1:

1.  

FAR:

1. @Van Disaster: 720 m/s

Uncrewed 1.2:

1. @Justintime505: 796 m/s
2. @Thomas H.: 777 m/s

My entry, in 1.2, made it up to 755 m/s:

Spoiler

http://imgur.com/a/mqeWX

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by IronCretin
Updated leaderboard

[Justintime505]

Here's what I came up with using version 1.2 prerelease.

 

Top speed was 796m/s as seen on the end of flight screenshot. I took a slightly different approach than the OP. My entry is unmanned and launches at an angle from the launchpad rather than taking off from the runway.It uses a single reaction wheel and a tailplane/rudder for stability plus 32 Juno's. The launch profile is 45 degrees until engine flame out then following the pro-grade vector all the way down to the water. Just before impact was 796 m/s at my best run. I think the OP has me beat on looks though.

 

EDIT: I have revised the design to comply with the clarified rules of requiring at least one kerbal. I did not have to change the basic design. I simply replaced the central structural fuselage with a crew cabin and lo and behold I actually improved over the unmanned design by 16m/s.

the rest of the screens:

Spoiler

Edited September 26, 2016 by Justintime505

[Van Disaster]

I'd be interested if 1) I can use Pilot Assistant to hold course coz my hands won't dance on WASD that long, and 2) FAR ( which means 1.1.3 ). I guess I could do 1.2 stock but I don't understand stock aero anymore

Is this in level flight? because "straight down" would seem something of an option... perhaps an altitude limit? Also, manned?

Edited September 25, 2016 by Van Disaster

[IronCretin]

Thanks for your questions. I guess pilot assistant would be fine, as it's an engineering challenge. FAR is fine, I'll make a separate leaderboard. As for dives, i did one, but it didn't really help me that much, as all those junos are pretty draggy, so I'd say go for it. I'm gonna say you need a kerbal, because that sort of sets a lower bound on mass. You don't need to land or recover the kerbal, though.

[Van Disaster]

FAR has a hell of a brick wall around Mach 2 - huge diminishing returns adding more engines. I will come back to this, but for now, 720m/s / FAR.

I presume we're looking at Highest Speed Over Land? you've got Justintime505 beat considerably then, ignoring the lack of Kerbal...

[IronCretin]

We're looking at surface speed, and Justintime505 made his entry before I clarified the rule about Kerbals.

[Justintime505]

I have revised my design to comply with the clarified rules on kerbals. Turns out that the extra weight of .9 tons actually improved my design although it looks quite the same. Originally I actually tried a plane but since the challenge didn't specify a flight path I found that a parabolic arc was giving me better results.  

14 hours ago, Van Disaster said:

FAR has a hell of a brick wall around Mach 2 - huge diminishing returns adding more engines. I will come back to this, but for now, 720m/s / FAR.

I presume we're looking at Highest Speed Over Land? you've got Justintime505 beat considerably then, ignoring the lack of Kerbal...

I love the SR-71 look you got with this plane. so cool

[swjr-swis]

@IronCretin, an entry for the stock 1.2 board: JunoSpeeder-1h, 757m/s survived top speed with only 9x Junos. I wanted to see how low I could go on the engine count and still get a reasonably competitive entry.

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/JunoSpeeder-1h

Spoiler

 

 

[Thomas H.]

Using the Juno is about small ships/planes/drones, well at least for me it is. So I did not put a Kerbal  in my vessel. And reached a final speed of 777m/s with only 5 junos.

 

Here is my attempt: https://youtu.be/J211d_mRJdw

The missing Kerbal should disqualify this as valid entry. But it is too cute not to share it…

 

[swjr-swis]

@IronCretin, an entry for the current top of the board: JupitersBolt, pure stock, 1.2.0p, 43x Juno, 801m/s record speed. Talk about diminishing returns! I may be able to squeeze a bit more out of it, I packed way more fuel than it needed for the suicide record run; but for now it serves for a first spot.

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/JupitersBolt

Pics:

Spoiler

 

[IronCretin]

4 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

@IronCretin, an entry for the current top of the board: JupitersBolt, pure stock, 1.2.0p, 43x Juno, 801m/s record speed. Talk about diminishing returns! I may be able to squeeze a bit more out of it, I packed way more fuel than it needed for the suicide record run; but for now it serves for a first spot.

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/JupitersBolt

Pics:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

2

That is exactly the sort of craft I pictured when I made the challenge! Nice job!