Hands-free flying challenge.

[Klapaucius]

What KSP version are you on? I managed to get it off the ground SAS off twice.  However, it immediately nosed up looped and crashed.

After that I tweaked the landing gear .  I set friction to zero on the front, 100% on the back. Turned off steering on all wheels and put up the dampering. That solved most of the issues.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Vanamonde]

The latest: 1.7.3. I won't be mad if you disqualify it for using SAS, though. I knew the terms of the challenge.

[BlockGaming06]

GET COFFEE NOT TEA

[Pds314]

What do you mean no FBW? Can I use BreakingGround KAL-1000s?

[Klapaucius]

FBW?

[Pds314]

7 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

FBW?

Fly by wire

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, Pds314 said:

Fly by wire

Yes, none of that. No using the CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire Avionics Hub.

 

The challenge is essentially: build a plane that is stable enough that it does not need any additional input. Even better, not even SAS.  KAL1000s go against that, because they assume you are altering trim or control after powering up.

[esmenard]

Here is my entry, without SAS, crashing 735 km away from KSC after 18 minutes of flight

[splatn't™]

I'm assuming that retracting landing gears is forbidden, correct?

[Klapaucius]

29 minutes ago, splatn't™ said:

I'm assuming that retracting landing gears is forbidden, correct?

You may retract gear. 

[splatn't™]

9 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

You may retract gear. 

laughs in zero drag

[Scarecrow]

There seems to be an anomaly in the distance covered when comparing information provided by Waypoint manager or the F3 information window.  At the point of comparing them on my current attempt, Waypoint manager is saying I am 200.7km from the Space Centre, whereas the F3 panel is saying I have covered 300km over the ground.  And that was flying east continuously - no circling.  That's quite a difference, and could influence the results table, depending on which method people use when submitting their entry. 

As an example, look at esmenard's entry.  Waypoint manager has him landing 735km from KSC, which is the distance he submitted, but his F3 window data shows him as covering 1312km over the ground.  Given that this was achieved without SAS, that is a really impressive effort when compared to Vanamonde's, which was done with SAS.

The other problem I can see is becoming evident as I monitor my own flight, which is currently still airbourne.  With less than a 1/4 of the available fuel used, I am approximmately 1/3 of the way around Kerbin.  If I reach the half way point, my distance to the KSC is going to start reducing, so the distance over ground travelled will be the only meaningful figure that I will be able to enter.  Having said that, my craft has developed a small left wing down attitude, so I may end up going round in circles after all.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Scarecrow

[swjr-swis]

5 hours ago, Scarecrow said:

the F3 information window

The F3 window has always been very inaccurate when it comes to speed/distances recorded. Additionally, it will sometimes wildly overestimate the values at apparent random, which means there's no easy consistent way to recalculate what the accurate numbers should be. This has been a known issue for many many versions now, if not always.

There's been a number of challenges where the ultimately winning entry so vastly surpasses even almost identical craft, that one can safely assume the F3 randomness to have played a major part, but it is what it is... in stock we have no other information to work with.

[Scarecrow]

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

The F3 window has always been very inaccurate when it comes to speed/distances recorded. Additionally, it will sometimes wildly overestimate the values at apparent random, which means there's no easy consistent way to recalculate what the accurate numbers should be. This has been a known issue for many many versions now, if not always.

There's been a number of challenges where the ultimately winning entry so vastly surpasses even almost identical craft, that one can safely assume the F3 randomness to have played a major part, but it is what it is... in stock we have no other information to work with.

That's interesting to note.  My own submission is below, but as you will see I circumnavigated Kerbin twice, and actually landed in the sea to the east of the space centre.  As a result the actual distance between the take off point and landing site isn't very great, but actual distance flown is vastly greater.  I will submit the entry with the distance shown in the F3 window, but another measurement would be circumnavigation x 2 plus 102.4km.  Waypoint Manager showed my distance from KSC when 1/2 way round as 1880.5km.  Therefore, the total distance I flew based on those figures would be 7,624km

 

20 secs after launch

 

Just under 1/4 fuel used - looking good

 

1/2 way round the globe for the first time - max distance from KSC at this point is 1,880.5km as measured using Waypoint Manager

 

Flying in to a sunrise is always a nice feeling

 

Passing the desert airfield for the first time

 

1/2 fuel used.  Interesting that this is not yet a complete circumnavigation.  Obviously fuel consumption improves as the fuel load goes down.

 

Passing KSC on completion of the first circumnavigation.

 

Towards the end of the flight,  Waypoint Manager is saying I am 16:09 mins away from KSC, and Engineer is saying I have 15:54 mins fuel left.  Should make it from this altitude as long it glides well.

 

 

KSC the second time around

 

Out of fuel at 4h 19m 23s

 

Seconds before splashdown

 

Final flight stats, and Jebediah survived despite a bit of damage to the craft.

 

 

Competition submission :-

SAS was turned on

Flight distance (according to F3 window) - 14,694km

Flight Distance (calculated using measurements provided by Waypoint Manager) - 7,624km

Flight Time - 4h 26m 41s

Edited October 15, 2019 by Scarecrow

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

The F3 window has always been very inaccurate when it comes to speed/distances recorded. Additionally, it will sometimes wildly overestimate the values at apparent random, which means there's no easy consistent way to recalculate what the accurate numbers should be. This has been a known issue for many many versions now, if not always.

There's been a number of challenges where the ultimately winning entry so vastly surpasses even almost identical craft, that one can safely assume the F3 randomness to have played a major part, but it is what it is... in stock we have no other information to work with.

The best way to do this is install the Waypoint Manager mod. I thought I had mentioned that, but in rereading my original post I see I neglected to add it. So I have updated it.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Pds314]

Quote

 

You may retract landing gear.

 

Hmm.... how to control a plane by only retracting landing gears...

[Pds314]

In all seriousness, my current attempt should be in the air for... oh... wow... 5-6 hours or more depending on climb rate? Unless the Goliath engine explodes due to overheating or the 2 small radial intakes powering it can't airhog enough. Then who knows what happens. It could even stall the engine and crash.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Pds314

[Scarecrow]

Looks like the OP has abadoned this challenge.  No leaderboard uodates for a while.

[Klapaucius]

36 minutes ago, Scarecrow said:

Looks like the OP has abadoned this challenge.  No leaderboard uodates for a while.

Sorry guys. Life in the way. Will try to update everything soon.

[Klapaucius]

On 10/16/2019 at 6:09 AM, Scarecrow said:

That's interesting to note.  My own submission is below, but as you will see I circumnavigated Kerbin twice, and actually landed in the sea to the east of the space centre.  As a result the actual distance between the take off point and landing site isn't very great, but actual distance flown is vastly greater.  I will submit the entry with the distance shown in the F3 window, but another measurement would be circumnavigation x 2 plus 102.4km.  Waypoint Manager showed my distance from KSC when 1/2 way round as 1880.5km.  Therefore, the total distance I flew based on those figures would be 7,624km

 

Competition submission :-

SAS was turned on

Flight distance (according to F3 window) - 14,694km

Flight Distance (calculated using measurements provided by Waypoint Manager) - 7,624km

Flight Time - 4h 26m 41s

Nice job. Part of the problem, honestly, is I caved and allowed SAS after worrying no one would do the challenge. Originally, the idea was not SAS and likely we would not be having issues of such long flights.

[Pds314]

6 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Nice job. Part of the problem, honestly, is I caved and allowed SAS after worrying no one would do the challenge. Originally, the idea was not SAS and likely we would not be having issues of such long flights.

Eh. Mine had no SAS and no KAL and if I let it run indefinitely it probably would've made a 2000 km (not F3 menu, actual) circumference circle 3-4 times. That's a 6000-8000 km range before getting another ~120 as a glider. And I could easily add extra fuel tanks to the design too, or possibly mess with its cruising altitude for better efficiency.

 

I find that if a plane survives the initial phugoid oscillations it will usually enter a stable cruise flight at some altitude and the oscillation damps out to nothing. And in my case that started at 6000 meters and then climbed to about 8000 at about half a meter a second stable climb rate after over an hour as it went south.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Pds314

[Scarecrow]

I did try to modify my design to fly without SAS, but I couldn't even get it to leave the runway.

[Nippur]

I've played so long with Ferram Aerospace that I don't know if I'm able to design a plane for stock aerodynamics. So, would you accept a FAR submission? Or a FAR mod category? Ferram Aerospace it's considered a hindrance or a benefit when compared to stock aerodynamics?

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, Nippur said:

I've played so long with Ferram Aerospace that I don't know if I'm able to design a plane for stock aerodynamics. So, would you accept a FAR submission? Or a FAR mod category? Ferram Aerospace it's considered a hindrance or a benefit when compared to stock aerodynamics?

Go for it. Whether in FAR or stock, the challenge is in getting a stable design.