Kerbin Circumnavigation Challenge - Reloaded [New Rules Once More]

[Flixxbeatz]

Here's my entry, the Global Flier 2.

A simple and lightweight aircraft right there. Well done!

EDIT: Just noticed that it was your first post. Welcome aboard!

This sounded fun until the no plugins part. I'm all up for the challenge of designing a plane that can circumnavigate kerbin, but not for the tediousness of actually flying it the whole way around by hand. It could take hours.

That was actually one of the real challenges here: Do you have the patience to manually fly an aircraft for a few hours around Kerbin, and the determination to try for another attempt in case something else happens during your attempt (like accidentally going past the altitude limit and messing up the landing)?

[Goozeman]

A simple and lightweight aircraft right there. Well done!

EDIT: Just noticed that it was your first post. Welcome aboard!

That was actually one of the real challenges here: Do you have the patience to manually fly an aircraft for a few hours around Kerbin, and the determination to try for another attempt in case something else happens during your attempt (like accidentally going past the altitude limit and messing up the landing)?

Thanks! I've been playing for a while, but lurking in the forums. I'm an aerospace engineer, so the first thought is to complete the requirements. Everything else is just wasted. I actually could have dropped the central tank and still had enough fuel to go around, but only just.

[Colonel_Panic]

That was actually one of the real challenges here: Do you have the patience to manually fly an aircraft for a few hours around Kerbin, and the determination to try for another attempt in case something else happens during your attempt (like accidentally going past the altitude limit and messing up the landing)?

and the simple answer to that is no

I like my autopilot for exactly what it was designed for: removing the tediousness of lengthy, repetitive tasks so I can focus on the more exciting aspects of the game, like fudging up the landing for the fifth time in a row.

[Torham234]

Thanks! I've been playing for a while, but lurking in the forums. I'm an aerospace engineer, so the first thought is to complete the requirements. Everything else is just wasted. I actually could have dropped the central tank and still had enough fuel to go around, but only just.

Oh my an expert! I have so many questions for you, I don't know where to start.

- What is the optimal position for air intake, does it have an effect if there are more below or above COM ( I was assuming that intakes below COM would make the plane pitch down) .

- Is there benefit in horizontally angled wings? Recently I have been experimenting with 5° pitch on all the wing surfaces to help reduce the profile at high altitudes, but it does not work as well as I hoped...

- Is there any benefit to having COL above COM? I can easily lift the COL with extra winglets on the tail, but I am not sure what that does to the flight capabilities of the plane.

Just some, If you would care to share your knowledge...

[Flixxbeatz]

Thanks! I've been playing for a while, but lurking in the forums. I'm an aerospace engineer, so the first thought is to complete the requirements. Everything else is just wasted. I actually could have dropped the central tank and still had enough fuel to go around, but only just.

and now I know why you've made a thing that small yet managed to get it around the planet

and the simple answer to that is no

I like my autopilot for exactly what it was designed for: removing the tediousness of lengthy, repetitive tasks so I can focus on the more exciting aspects of the game, like fudging up the landing for the fifth time in a row.

That's fine. Everyone has their own preferences and style of playing

[Goozeman]

Oh my an expert! I have so many questions for you, I don't know where to start.

- What is the optimal position for air intake, does it have an effect if there are more below or above COM ( I was assuming that intakes below COM would make the plane pitch down) .

- Is there benefit in horizontally angled wings? Recently I have been experimenting with 5° pitch on all the wing surfaces to help reduce the profile at high altitudes, but it does not work as well as I hoped...

- Is there any benefit to having COL above COM? I can easily lift the COL with extra winglets on the tail, but I am not sure what that does to the flight capabilities of the plane.

Just some, If you would care to share your knowledge...

Do remember that the KSP aero model is incredibly... primitive? It doesn't really mimic what happens in real life. The Farram Aerospace Research mod does a very good job of implementing a realistic aerodynamics model. That said, take the following info with a grain of salt for KSP.

Air intakes do cause a modicum of drag. It is usually insignificant compared to the amount of force applied by the control surfaces, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is more important that you line the thrust vector up such that the CoG lies on said vector. A little one way or the other isn't that bad, but the further off, the more torque it applies.

I'm not sure what you're talking about for "horizontally angled wings." There are three angles that can be applied to a wing: incidence, dihedral, and sweep. Incidence is how far tipped up the leading edge is compared to the trailing edge. Dihedral is how far the tip is angled up from the root. Sweep is how far back the tip is from the root. An aircraft that needs severe nose up trim can benefit from some positive incidence. Positive dihedral can help an aircraft maintain its heading when disturbed from zero roll. KSP implements these affects decently well. However, sweep doesn't seem to affect handling all that much except to move the CoL (or Neutral Point in true aero speak) about.

I'm not sure how KSP determines the vertical position of the CoL. The only effect that I can imagine it having is to return the aircraft to level flight. This isn't entirely realistic, but it works for the sake of the game.

Finally, use the avionics part. It makes the aircraft fly much more realistically.

[Torham234]

I'm not sure what you're talking about for "horizontally angled wings." There are three angles that can be applied to a wing: incidence, dihedral, and sweep. Incidence is how far tipped up the leading edge is compared to the trailing edge. Dihedral is how far the tip is angled up from the root. Sweep is how far back the tip is from the root. An aircraft that needs severe nose up trim can benefit from some positive incidence. Positive dihedral can help an aircraft maintain its heading when disturbed from zero roll. KSP implements these affects decently well. However, sweep doesn't seem to affect handling all that much except to move the CoL (or Neutral Point in true aero speak) about.

Oh sorry, I meant this

basically, if the plane is heavy, rather than stack more wings, I was trying to increase the natural vector of attack on the wings. Sorry for my weird made up definitions, I have no previous experience in this area. I am a civil engineer, so I tent to think in horizontals and verticals ....

I think that would be the incidence.

Thanks for the info!.

PS: Sorry, Captain Kalawang , I will try not to derail this thread any longer, I promise .

Edited May 31, 2013 by Torham234

[Goozeman]

Oh sorry, I meant this

basically, if the plane is heavy, rather than stack more wings, I was trying to increase the natural vector of attack on the wings. Sorry for my weird made up definitions, I have no previous experience in this area. I am a civil engineer, so I tent to think in horizontals and verticals ....

I think that would be the incidence.

Thanks for the info!.

PS: Sorry, Captain Kalawang , I will try not to derail this thread any longer, I promise .

That will allow your aircraft to fly with the engine more level, and thus pick up a small speed bonus, but will not provide any additional lift. Additionally, if you find that the nose wants to pitch down, tip the canard up more relative to the wing.

[Flixxbeatz]

Bumping for further entries.

[Tiron]

and the simple answer to that is no

I like my autopilot for exactly what it was designed for: removing the tediousness of lengthy, repetitive tasks so I can focus on the more exciting aspects of the game, like fudging up the landing for the fifth time in a row.

Agreedo. I've got a plane that I *have* already circumnavigated in (In less than 50 minutes despite overshooting KSP and having to come back), but I let mechjeb handle most of the flight.

Manually nannying a plane that I already know can make it and land (and still have quite a bit of fuel left) for 47+ minutes isn't my idea of a good time. Especially not to fulfill some arbitrary restrictions for the sake of a glorified sticker.

That aside, I wouldn't uninstall KAS, ISA Mapsat, or Kethane for this either. None of them affects the difficulty of the challenge.

For that matter, Mechjeb2 doesn't particularly either. Its altitude hold mode on the spaceplane guidance is terrible, porpoising you up and down, and the flameout protection isn't particularly any better, only able to handle VERY slow climbs without losing an engine. The end result is you end up setting it lower than you actually could fly so that when it overshoots upwards, it doesn't go high enough that it flames out. On a two-engine design like mine it's particularly problematic, as even a momentary flameout spins you. When I circumnavigated it on the initial test flight, I actually went too far because I spun it multiple times pushing the altitude, and ended up a fair ways north of KSP as a result.

So yeah. Some seriously bad restrictions on this. If someone else doesn't mind them so much, I posted a fully stock version of the craft in question (which merely removed the Mechjeb, ISA, and Sunbeams from the original) months ago.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/ravenspear-mk3-d-manta-stock/

[Flixxbeatz]

It's not for the sticker. It's all for the challenge

But yea, the plugin ban and altitude limit are there for the added difficulty. You don't need to uninstall the plugins, just don't use it and hide it in plain sight. Actually the original altitude cap was 30,000m, but I've lowered it down to 25km because of some people taking advantage of it (and given that I didn't touched the 25km mark on my attempt). Test of patience, skill, and determination right here...

[Tiron]

It's not for the sticker. It's all for the challenge

But yea, the plugin ban and altitude limit are there for the added difficulty. You don't need to uninstall the plugins, just don't use it and hide it in plain sight. Actually the original altitude cap was 30,000m, but I've lowered it down to 25km because of some people taking advantage of it (and given that I didn't touched the 25km mark on my attempt). Test of patience, skill, and determination right here...

Given that I already know my design works, and works well, and I've got my joystick set up in KSP...it wouldn't be much of a challenge really. I already KNOW I can do it, I just haven't done it fully manually. It'd be little more than a formality at this point, or I might try it.

As for plugins, most of the ones I use are there for utility purposes and wouldn't be anything except extra weight on such a flight anyway: KAS is a winch-and-cable attachment system, although I grant the possibility is there to use it to refuel a plane on the ground...I only put it on orbital designs though, because a connector port's a lot lighter than a docking port, and smaller too (The winch you need on the other end to actually CONNECT to that port more than makes up for the weight, especially if you include hooks). Similarly with a kethane scanner, although if you added a drill, a refinery, and some serious power generation you could again potentially land and refuel.

ISA Mapsat On the other hand is just a mapping plugin, and almost completely harmless. I frequently include an ISA GPS Unit on suborbital designs, so I can pull up its smaller map to see where the heck I'm at without having to go out to the full map. Unless you're counting finding KSC while flying manually without losing control as part of the challenge.

[Torham234]

I would say that the requirement for manual piloting is the main challenge here. If you know your way around KSP, designing the plane is not a really big challenge. Still, you can enter to the other similar challenge that permits autopilot and other mods, if you like.

[StormRanger]

This was frustrating for me as my first challenge, but i think i could fly just about any aerial vehicle at this point which is cool. But i spent about 12 hours on it. i learned a bunch and it was fun. Planes hitting 1200+ m/s are beautiful.

heres my plane

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1010952_539099592822253_871014089_n.jpg

my planes aura

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/970573_539098692822343_1383540532_n.jpg

and my flight results

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/998501_539098536155692_423275641_n.jpg

peace.

[StormRanger]

Well here are a few

I noticed you are using a rocket SAS, i would recommend switching to the avionics package, its a little more more forgiving.

[Xenonclave]

I'm actually pretty surprised I managed this. This was only the fourth proper plane I made (dubbed the Elcano III), and it managed the trip around the planet with fuel to spare.




I didn't break any rules, did I? I usually suck at space planes so I figure I probably cheated, heh.

[Torham234]

I really like the music in your video, its very cheery and comical

PS: AFAIK you didn't break any rules for this challenge, so you should qualify.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Torham234

[Xenonclave]

Heh, thanks!

And good to know. This is the first challenge I've entered, didn't know if I was doing things right.

[Flixxbeatz]

This was frustrating for me as my first challenge, but i think i could fly just about any aerial vehicle at this point which is cool. But i spent about 12 hours on it. i learned a bunch and it was fun. Planes hitting 1200+ m/s are beautiful.

-snip-

Because that's where the main challenge is Congratulations!

-snip-

I'm actually pretty surprised I managed this. This was only the fourth proper plane I made (dubbed the Elcano III), and it managed the trip around the planet with fuel to spare.

-snip-

I didn't break any rules, did I? I usually suck at space planes so I figure I probably cheated, heh.

Well since you've used all stock, flew the plane manually, and that I saw no plugins, pretty much sure you haven't broke any. Welcome to the club!

**OP Updated.

[Coneshot]

Under 9000!!!!??

here is my attempt: No mods, gimmicks, exploits, TIMEWARP debug, sleep, bathroom breaks, dinner, or anything else for this marathon 8 1/2 hour flight:

Take off:

2 Hour mark:

4 hour+ mark I estimate about halfway.. Did I mention no time warp?

6 hour mark progress report:

I made it 8 1/2 hours....

Landing on the other hand....

Technically, I "landed" (impacted) at KSC, nothing fell off before touchdown.. do I still get credit for this marathon?

Sorry for the pic heavy post..

(I have about a gazillion more screenshots from this trip but I cut it down to post.)

Thanks, Coneshot

[KillerQueen]

I used MechJeb and broke the height ceiling, so I know my entry doesn't work in this contest, but I wanted to show off my results. I was on track for a triple circumnavigation with fuel to spare, I could have gone around Kerbin another 2/3 but I pulled a stupid move and lost control and my wing was ripped off. :[

[StormRanger]

It was pretty hard to figure out, but eventually you get that more intakes/ more lift less weight mentality and go for a single engine.

I blew up alot of kerbals learning how to fly a plane. :/ i eventually assigned a ps3 controller to the axis' and now i can fly almost anything without the use of an sas.

[Doull]

My entry in this However, all the engines fell off on landing

All stock parts and no mods like mechjeb

Edited July 11, 2013 by Doull

[Flixxbeatz]

Under 9000!!!!??

here is my attempt: No mods, gimmicks, exploits, TIMEWARP debug, sleep, bathroom breaks, dinner, or anything else for this marathon 8 1/2 hour flight:

-snip-

Technically, I "landed" (impacted) at KSC, nothing fell off before touchdown.. do I still get credit for this marathon?

Sorry for the pic heavy post..

(I have about a gazillion more screenshots from this trip but I cut it down to post.)

Thanks, Coneshot

Well apparently void due to totally messed-up landing, but wow, talk about extreme tests of patience...

Definitely deserves a special mention for the Under 9000 run. Heck, it is even a whole new challenge in its own right!

I used MechJeb and broke the height ceiling, so I know my entry doesn't work in this contest, but I wanted to show off my results. I was on track for a triple circumnavigation with fuel to spare, I could have gone around Kerbin another 2/3 but I pulled a stupid move and lost control and my wing was ripped off. :[

-snip-

Try going for the manual run. Who knows, you might probably do it

My entry in this However, all the engines fell off on landing

-snip-

Hmm, I will consider that. Congratulations!

**OP updated.

[Kappa73]

Here's my entry, it's been a while since i did a proper circumnavigation, i think it was back in .17 i tried something like this =)

http://i.imgur.com/BBf1DXK.jpg"]

http://i.imgur.com/1tWsSCw.jpg"]

i missed the runway a bit, had to u-turn and come back for a landing. Other than that, it was pretty uneventful flight. I did break the 2 kilometers/second barrier tho, which was nice!

E: here's a link to the video i recorded on the flight

Edited July 11, 2013 by Kappa73
YT-link