"Fastest" Juno-powered Airplane

[Laie]

A while ago, we had this:

This favored bundles of Junos, "aircraft" only in the sense that they were moving through the air. I'd like to give it a reboot that prefers  something I'd call "actual planes".

Rules:

• stock vessels, no part mods, nothing that changes the physics
• flight has to take place on stock Kerbin
• only Juno engines
• plane must not rely on launch clamps or parachutes.

Score:

• airspeed achieved in level flight, multiplied with (vessel mass / number of Junos)
• where mass is the mass in tons, at the time when airspeed has been reached.
• Hint: At some point, fuel consumption starts to outpace acceleration. You will have your best score a little before you reach your highest velocity.

Submission:

• please, no more than three pictures or so.
• it must be possible to determine vessel mass from the submitted pictures. That's easy with data display mods, or if your KSP version has the delta-V readout, just click the stage to show current mass (not very precise, but sufficient so far). In the worst case, we need vessel mass from SPH, fuel levels at take off, and fuel levels at the time of measured airspeed.
• do your own math: your submission post must state airspeed, mass, engine count, and the score you get from it. I may check your data (probably will), but don't just drop pictures in my lap and leave it to me to piece things together myself.
• if anyone asks you for your craft file, you must deliver.

Example:
545m/s, 6 engines, 15 tons -> 545 * (15 / 6) -> 545 * 2.5 -> a score of 1362

 

Leaderboards
(please note that the clickable links will take you to the respective entries / posts)

Variable Incidence Wings:
2432 - Laie, 600m/s at over 4t/engine
2346 - swjr-swis (648m/s on variable-incidence wings)
2275 - swjr-swis - A Mk3 stub going 630m/s, 3.5t/engine
1184 - Lisias - 600ms on 2t/e with an actual passenger airplane. Look Ma, no ore ballast!

Supersonic:

1362 - Laie (posted above)
1281 - Zeiss Ikon - barely supersonic at 3.6t/engine
1257 - Zeiss Ikon (503m/s on 2.5t / engine)
1183 - Aetharan - with a a pre-existing passenger airliner
683 - Klapaucius with an unburdened Ultralight

Subsonic:

3570 - swjr-swis -  a flying wing flounder kind of thing that seems to come from a SF movie
2370 - Laie
2024 - purpleivan  fixed wing ore carrier
1840 - purpleivan the very first entry to this challenge
1575 - Lisias - fixed wing ore carrier
788 - Mars-Bound Hokie  scratching the sound barrier
637 - Zeiss Ikon

Missing your entry? I'm not updating this all that often, and may have simply missed your entry. Poke me if you think you should be up here but ain't.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Laie

[RealKerbal3x]

Hey! A revival of my challenge that might actually produce things that resemble a plane!

Thanks for reviving this @Laie. Good to see that you've implemented an actual scoring system - my challenge was a bit lazy in that respect. I'll give it a try if my increasingly-limited KSP time permits

Edited January 15, 2020 by RealKerbal3x

[Klapaucius]

On 1/16/2020 at 7:54 AM, Laie said:

How do you people think of infinite fuel? A plane isn't really in a stable situation as long as it constantly loses mass. Mine keeps climbing and accelerating slowly. I took the screenshot at 15t because it's nice round number, but would have gotten a better score had I made the picture a little before.

Great to see this rebooted!  As for infiinite fuel--I don't like it. The whole idea of your challenge is to build a real plane. And real planes drink fuel; that is part of the design challenge.

[purpleivan]

Thought I'd have a crack at the challenge this morning, so here's the travels of Long Juno.

Val's ready to go.

Spoiler

This thing takes almost the entire length of the runway to get airbourne, even after holding it on the brakes while spining up the Juno. The nose goes up at 70-75m/s.

Pretty pathetic speed at this point, but it's slow building.

Spoiler

Ok... time for the speed run. In previous test I was getting the best performance at about 1500m, so I climbed to that and then started to build speed again.

I grabbed a sequence of images to show that the speed (184m/s) was maintained even in a very shallow climb. Mass was a little over 10 tons.

Spoiler

Spoiler

The "speed" run done it was time for Val to head home.

Spoiler

Long Juno doesn't have the best manouvering characteristics, but it lands quite well.

Spoiler

Wheels down and it even made it onto the runway.

Val's quitely satisfied with the flight.

Spoiler

My first attempt at building a plane for this, was Little Juno, which although faster (293m/s) was less than 1/3 the mass, so would do worse in the points calculation.

After that I decided that probably the best bet was to make something fairly heavy, but long and thin and still running on the single Juno.

In the end the points came to speed 184 * (10/1) = 1840

Edited January 18, 2020 by purpleivan

[michaelbezos1]

Super cool I will try to join as fast as i can but i am workoholic so i need to have hobbies, chat with girls and work as well so i may have some delays. 

 

Much love :>

Keeps the things together. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by michaelbezos1
adding info

[Laie]

1 hour ago, purpleivan said:

My first attempt at building a plane for this, was Little Juno, which although faster (293m/s) was less than 1/3 the mass, so would do worse in the points calculation.

Many thanks for taking part in this challenge. After a few days without replay I was afraid that it was stillborn. However, for completeness' sake, was the vessel mass exactly ten tons at the time you made 184m/s? There's nothing about mass in any of your pictures. As you have KER, it would be easiest if you just opened the display or added a line to your HUD.

However... I didn't think of subsonic planes when I made this challenge.

So while I congratulate you for you impressive score, I'm sorry to say that the leaderboard will be split between subsonic and supersonic entries. Please don't take this as a cheap trick to protect my score-- I honestly believe this distinction to be both meaningful and necessary.

1 hour ago, purpleivan said:

fairly heavy, but long and thin and still running on the single Juno.

Hmm, flying at high loads / low speed requires wings more than anything else, I'd say. Hold on...

Acceleration is slow, and climb rate is nothing to write home about. It looks as if it might work better at higher altitudes, but I got bored waiting for it to get there.

That would be 202m/s with 10.77t, for a score of 2175.

Also, mandatory hat tip to cupcake whenever I do anything with flying wings

6 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

As for infiinite fuel--I don't like it. The whole idea of your challenge is to build a real plane. And real planes drink fuel; that is part of the design challenge.

Good point.

Hmmm. I haven't mentioned staging, either. Guess it will also go into a separate category, when and if it happens.

[Laie]

Another five tons of payload, taking off with any more than that would require a longer runway. Again, it looks as i it will do better at altitude, but has barely enough power to climb. Right now it's 151m/s @ 15.695t -> 2370 and score is still rising.

I wonder if I could submit it to @Kernel Kraken's Bomber Procurement Challenge...

Building the heaviest plane off a single Juno seems to be an interesting challenge as well, but is not quite what I had in mind. It definitely needs to be it's own category (and preferably it's own challenge, but i won't run two of them).

[michaelbezos1]

• stock vessels, no part mods, nothing that changes the physics
• flight has to take place on stock Kerbin
• only Juno engines
• plane must not rely on launch clamps or parachutes.

Anyway i missed the dates of the challenge as i read lais the challenge is off but was not that easy as the above mentioned rules and more of them pushes brain to use it not only the simplest job. 

Please help with the advanced construsction refillink the tank. 

 

 

Much love:> 

Edited January 18, 2020 by michaelbezos1
add the tank

[purpleivan]

1 hour ago, Laie said:

Many thanks for taking part in this challenge. After a few days without replay I was afraid that it was stillborn. However, for completeness' sake, was the vessel mass exactly ten tons at the time you made 184m/s? There's nothing about mass in any of your pictures. As you have KER, it would be easiest if you just opened the display or added a line to your HUD.

 

The KER displaying the mass was in the images in my post. It's at the bottom of the display to the left of the altimeter, showing 10,098kg

[Laie]

Just now, purpleivan said:

It's at the bottom of the display to the left of the altimeter

Ooops, I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

[michaelbezos1]

Guys please help me refilling the tanks at the advanced construction training. 

[Laie]

46 minutes ago, michaelbezos1 said:

Guys please help me refilling the tanks at the advanced construction training. 

I admit that I don't even understand the problem. I suggest you ask in Gameplay Questions.

[purpleivan]

49 minutes ago, michaelbezos1 said:

Guys please help me refilling the tanks at the advanced construction training. 

As Laie said, the best place for getting help on playing the game is here.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/16-gameplay-questions-and-tutorials/

Just go there, click the green "Ask a question" button, which will create a post in that section of the forum. It's a much better place to ask questions, as more people will see it there.

Best of luck.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

Can I edit the craft files?

If not, you might want to edit the rules...

 

 

Editing the craft files as in engine thrust, etc

[Zeiss Ikon]

Hmm.  This is interesting.  Just opened my stock 1.8.1/MH/BG install and started a sandbox (didn't have one yet), now heading back to top of thread to fine-read the rules...

[Klapaucius]

I don't know if you are okay with probe cores or not. I took my original little runabout (named Roald after Roald Dahl).

 

The Kerbals produce a lot of drag, so I redid the plane as  a remote control.  Here it is in a climb. The best I could to was just over 600.  It is really difficult to keep this plane level, so it is either a bit of a climb or a dive.  At 6400, you lose power due to the air thinning.

Top speed 605.5.  Mass at time 554 kg.

 

The only problem is that tricycle gear is horrendous. The plane is too light to alleviate the terrible bouncing, so landing is not often very successful.

 

 

[Zeiss Ikon]

On 1/15/2020 at 1:54 PM, Laie said:

Rules:

• stock vessels, no part mods, nothing that changes the physics
• flight has to take place on stock Kerbin
• only Juno engines
• plane must not rely on launch clamps or parachutes.

Score:

• airspeed achieved in level flight, multiplied with (vessel mass / number of Junos)
• where mass is the mass in tons, at the time when airspeed has been reached.
• Hint: At some point, fuel consumption starts to outpace acceleration. You will have your best score a little before you reach your highest velocity.

Submission:

• pictures showing all details necessary to rate the plane (vessel mass, number of engines, airspeed achieved).
• with data display mods, it's possible to have that all in one picture. Though a second to see the plane from another angle won't hurt. But please don't swamp us with pictures, a small selection will be enough.
• do your own math: your submission post must state airspeed, mass, engine count, and the score you get from it. I may check your data, but don't just drop pictures in my lap and leave it to me to piece things together myself.
• if anyone asks you for your craft file, you must deliver.

Okay, this craft (I call it Fleetfoot B, third version, though the first was about the same speed) is 100% stock, 1.8.1 with no BG or MH parts.  It masses 2.7 T at takeoff; it'd be 2.4 T with empty tanks.  Single Juno, takes off from the runway.  I haven't tried landing it, because I suck at landing in game.

I got 245 m/s in level flight, so I calculate that as 245 * 2.6 (with mostly full tanks)/1 = 637 -- not spectacular, even for the subsonic class.  I may need to work at this a bit...

 

 

[Klapaucius]

672.6 M/S

3 junos

Mass: 2768 kg

 

[Laie]

9 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

I took my original little runabout

That's super purty! I hope you don't mind if I don't add it to the scoreboard, though. Nothing wrong with the vessel as such, I'm fine with probe cores: it's just a bit of an underachiever, that's all.

Regarding your next one, I see that you're still climbing fast. Are on some kind of ballistic trajectory? Will the plane be just as fast in level flight? I'm willing to take your word for it, but feel that I have to ask.

 

10 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I calculate that as 245 * 2.6 (with mostly full tanks)/1 = 637

Added to the board. Looks sharp! Makes me wonder if it could be made to go supersonic...

[Zeiss Ikon]

1 hour ago, Laie said:

Makes me wonder if it could be made to go supersonic...

I'd have to dive pretty steep and long to get this one supersonic.  Is there a drag reduction somewhere above 350 m/s?  If so, I might fly it again and try that.

Meanwhile, I've just been testing Fleetfoot II, a four-engine Mk. 2 that can get 340 m/s in level flight -- if I gain by getting supersonic, I'm confident this one can get there in a dive.  It's also around 3x as heavy, so should score better if I can get a bit more speed out of it.

And I've already got Fleetfoot III on my mental drawing board.

[Laie]

Just now, Zeiss Ikon said:

Is there a drag reduction somewhere above 350 m/s?  If so, I might fly it again and try that.

Yes. In my experience, it's hardest at about 360-370m/s. If you make it to 380, you're definitely through the worst.

The one I posted in the OP climbed to about 8km before diving to 5km, it took me several  attempts to get it *just right*. If altitude dropped under 5km before I made it to 370m/s, I wouldn't make it at all.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

Ladies and gentlekerbals

May I present 

The Artyom MK1.

Powered by A SINGLE Juno.

Score would be 1094 points.

281.2 m/s at highest, one Juno and lemme check on the mass...  3.892 T.

281.2*(3.892/1)

281.2 * 3.892= 1094.43 points.

 

Will probably be back...

Edited January 20, 2020 by έķ νίĻĻάίή

[Laie]

10 minutes ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

Will probably be back...

If you could please let us see the craft mass the next time around, and also write out the four numbers I'm asking for? "Your submission post must state airspeed, mass, engine count, and the score you get from it". I may (probably will) double-check in any event, but having it all in one place makes my life a little easier. Pretty please?

[Zeiss Ikon]

2 hours ago, Laie said:

Yes. In my experience, it's hardest at about 360-370m/s. If you make it to 380, you're definitely through the worst.

The one I posted in the OP climbed to about 8km before diving to 5km, it took me several  attempts to get it *just right*. If altitude dropped under 5km before I made it to 370m/s, I wouldn't make it at all.

Hmm.

Was just out testing Fleetfoot II.  A vertical dive from 10+ km let me get to around 360 at 4500 m -- but it was then time to start pulling out to avoid crashing into the sea, and the combination of pullout and thicker air brought the ship back down to 270 or so (it got back to 330, and will max out at 340, in level flight below 1 km).  Might need to try a shallower dive to give more time to accelerate before getting too low.

I'm thinking I'll just go ahead with Fleetfoot III rather than spend a lot of time trying to tweak Fleetfoot II any further.

[Zeiss Ikon]

1 hour ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I'm thinking I'll just go ahead with Fleetfoot III rather than spend a lot of time trying to tweak Fleetfoot II any further.

And I'm going to call that a good decision.

This is Fleetfoot III.

Fleetfoot III needs a bit higher speed to get off the runway than Fleetfoot II; at 10.7+ T and with not much more wing area than Fleetfoot B.  However, it's got significantly more thrust.  Five times as much as Fleetfoot A.  I accidentally got above 250 m/s before remembering to retract the landing gear!  Far from needing to dive to get past the Mach drag peak, it just powered right through in level flight.  I recall reading that the Shock Cone Inlet was the lowest drag part in the game, so I used it, along with lengthening the fuselage and doing the Kerbal thing: adding moar engines!

I haven't tried flying this without SAS, but it's as steady in Stability Assist as you could ever want; it'll fly for minutes with no attention, having only the slightest tendency to nose down over time.  I had to play with which tanks do and don't get fuel to get the CoM not to move too much, and even so, it'll lose some longitudinal stability as the tanks near empty -- but you can see it has pretty good duration for this kind of airplane; 2600+ seconds is over forty minutes of flight time with some reserve for landing.

And how does it perform, and score?  Let's see...

Fleetfoot III was actually still accelerating, slowly, but the rate had gotten so low I doubt it would ever have made 620 m/s.  So, let's see...

I get 600 m/s, times 10.2 T at the  time of this frame, over 5 engines, gives a score of 1224 in the supersonic class.  I'll call that good for today.