Highest Altitude Achieved - Jet Engines Only

[tseitsei89]

http://imgur.com/a/tddDm

pure altitude entry

280,890.3m apoapsis

horizontal takeoff and landing. I lost almost all the parts but the kerbal survived

[swjr-swis]

28 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

280,890.3m apoapsis

The screenshots only show 240827m (or 240890.3m if we take KER's word for it, which is a bit fuzzy at the moment). A typo perhaps, or have you uploaded the wrong pics?

 

 

 

[tseitsei89]

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

The screenshots only show 240827m (or 240890.3m if we take KER's word for it, which is a bit fuzzy at the moment). A typo perhaps, or have you uploaded the wrong pics?

 

 

 

Yes sorry 240890.3 was from KER but the real number is actually 240827m which is still #1 on the leaderboard

[swjr-swis]

5 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

which is still #1 on the leaderboard

It is indeed.

If you're feeling up to it, would you be willing to do another try, but this time keep an 80 degree pitch on the way up? I'm curious to see if it holds for very different designs that a slightly angled path can get just a smidge more altitude out of the run than a pure vertical 90. You will end up way out in the middle of the ocean with a long way to make it to land, but a water landing likely destroys less parts than the landing you recorded with this one, so win win.

 

[TheEpicSquared]

@tseitsei89 I'll add you to the leaderboard when I get home from school.

[TheEpicSquared]

@tseitsei89 You're on the leaderboard!

[TheEpicSquared]

@Eidahlil Thanks for recomputing the scores!

[tseitsei89]

14 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

It is indeed.

If you're feeling up to it, would you be willing to do another try, but this time keep an 80 degree pitch on the way up? I'm curious to see if it holds for very different designs that a slightly angled path can get just a smidge more altitude out of the run than a pure vertical 90. You will end up way out in the middle of the ocean with a long way to make it to land, but a water landing likely destroys less parts than the landing you recorded with this one, so win win.

 

Already did that actually but was unable to land it on water...

 

I got 241xyz km ap that way so it is slightly more effective with my design also but as I said earlier I needed to get back to land in order to get the kerbal back alive

[Eidahlil]

On 10/27/2016 at 10:00 PM, TheEpicSquared said:

@Eidahlil Thanks for recomputing the scores!

You're welcome! I think on the second leaderboard the fifth place should be taken by swjr-swis with 205056m / 2E * 1K = 102528 points. Not 100% sure, there are a lot of entries with scores slightly above 100k.

Meanwhile, while looking at @tseitsei89's entry, I realized that those "wings" are actually just really aerodynamic airbrakes, and are completely superfluous to a good design. After failing to land for the fifth time, a somewhat similar epiphany was reached in regards to wheels - if they are going to explode anyway, they might as well explode on the way up.

Thus an altitude of 242 336 m was reached, with only minor bruising on our brave pilot. Used pretty much the same plane as previously, just leaner and meaner.

P.S. I think it would be only fair to be limited to one entry per leaderboard, and, if this score is accepted, I request the removal of my old one.

EDIT: This is a pure altitude entry.

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Eidahlil

[tseitsei89]

18 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

You're welcome! I think on the second leaderboard the fifth place should be taken by swjr-swis with 205056m / 2E * 1K = 102528 points. Not 100% sure, there are a lot of entries with scores slightly above 100k.

Meanwhile, while looking at @tseitsei89's entry, I realized that those "wings" are actually just really aerodynamic airbrakes, and are completely superfluous to a good design. After failing to land for the fifth time, a somewhat similar epiphany was reached in regards to wheels - if they are going to explode anyway, they might as well explode on the way up.

Thus an altitude of 242 336 m was reached, with only minor bruising on our brave pilot. Used pretty much the same plane as previously, just leaner and meaner.

P.S. I think it would be only fair to be limited to one entry per leaderboard, and, if this score is accepted, I request the removal of my old one.

 

Oh, we can use chutes to land? In that case I think I can still improve my result

[Eidahlil]

25 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

Oh, we can use chutes to land? In that case I think I can still improve my result

Actually, I'm not sure if we can use chutes, but since the "pure altitude" category threw out the penalty for dead parts and kerbals, you can just crash straight into the ground if you want, as far as I understand, so long as you reached your altitude. Maybe @TheEpicSquared can clarify that point for us though.

The rule regarding chutes is:

9. CHUTES FOR SLOWING DOWN ON THE GROUND ARE OK, BUT THEY CANNOT BE USED SOLELY FOR LANDING - Basically, you can use drogue chutes to slow you down once you're on the ground, but you can't use them to land like a space capsule.

I thought that since I was flying low and parallel to the water the chute was OK, but now that you mention, it probably is not by a strict interpretation of the rules. (It only slowed me down to about 35m/s though, about as much as a drogue would be expected to). I'm fairly sure I could have survived without the chute, water landings are remarkably forgiving, might have taken a few tries though.

[tseitsei89]

2 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

Actually, I'm not sure if we can use chutes, but since the "pure altitude" category threw out the penalty for dead parts and kerbals, you can just crash straight into the ground if you want, as far as I understand, so long as you reached your altitude. Maybe @TheEpicSquared can clarify that point for us though.

The rule regarding chutes is:

9. CHUTES FOR SLOWING DOWN ON THE GROUND ARE OK, BUT THEY CANNOT BE USED SOLELY FOR LANDING - Basically, you can use drogue chutes to slow you down once you're on the ground, but you can't use them to land like a space capsule.

I thought that since I was flying low and parallel to the water the chute was OK, but now that you mention, it probably is not by a strict interpretation of the rules. (It only slowed me down to about 35m/s though, about as much as a drogue would be expected to). I'm fairly sure I could have survived without the chute, water landings are remarkably forgiving, might have taken a few tries though.

Yeah but IMO the pure altitude category should have only 2 rules (or maybe even just one):

1. Jet engines only

2. (optinally) Kerbal(s) must survive

[TheEpicSquared]

I'll change it tomorrow, I'm going to sleep now 

[DoctorDavinci]

I took another crack at this and here's what I came up with ..... 2 Rapiers (air breathing mode), 8 Kerbals and an altitude of 122 800m

8 Kerbals / 2 Rapiers = 4

4 x 122 800 = 491 200

 

[tseitsei89]

http://imgur.com/a/jQlOq

 

Not really a serious or in any way optimized entry for category 2. Just a proof of concept to show you guys that going big is by far the best solution here (mainly because the mk3 passanger module can habit 16 kerbals and only weighs 6.5t). 

Just slapped together a mk3 plane with 2 passanger modules (2x16=32) kerbals and a cockpit (4 more kerbals) and 4 rapiers. got it to 80,957m ap on the very first try and landed it safely giving me a whopping 80,957*(36/4) = 728,613 points which is a very clear number 1 spot on the leaderboard but I don't expect it to last long now that I have told you about the wonders of the mk3 passanger module

 

EDIT: also I can reach 243,7xy m ap for the altitude category but I am unable to find away to make the kerbal survive the "landing" from that

Edited October 30, 2016 by tseitsei89

[TheEpicSquared]

Rules have been updated - the kerbal(s) must survive the entire flight. And everyone's entries have been put on the leaderboard.  

[Oqt1]

Hello..

7 Men 2 Engines and the theme of Airwolf!

[splatn't™]

Yall buncha noobs:

I know this is not really for the challenge but it is a proof of concept.

Edited October 25, 2019 by splatn't™