Kerbin Circumnavigation Challenge - Reloaded [New Rules Once More]

[SpaceK531]

-snip-

you forgot to get a picture of the ground distance covered, which is the important bit.

[searlefm]

you forgot to get a picture of the ground distance covered, which is the important bit.

oh cock, well I'm not doing that agen today so err take me on my word and look at the pics kind of proving that i did it, and just assume I'm almost in the 1 hour club.. maby?

[corpsdog]

So, the plane doesn't have to be manned (Kerbaled)?

[Flixxbeatz]

well yes I am an idiot but the game has been pause in a tab in the background so I'm a Lucky idiot so hears there info needed

Alright, you're in!

So, the plane doesn't have to be manned (Kerbaled)?

Preferably yes.

[corpsdog]

Okay, well I completed it with the drone, but simple enough modification to make it carry a Kerbal (though I suppose I could just stick a seat on top of it ) and just another hour of playing...

I didn't get the two screenshots anyway, just the flight results. So, I would need to redo it, manned or not.

Edited August 12, 2013 by corpsdog
added info

[The Procrastinaut]

Oh I've missed these circumnavigation challenges.

Starscreamer 6 - Circumnavigator

Time: 42m 31s

Max Altitude: 24,934m

Max Speed: 2,041m/s

On the runway, pre take-off

In flight

Running on fumes here, KSC in the distance

Ran out of fuel mid-descent, thank Odin it glides well

Touchdown & final stats

not quite my record before the Purge (34m 50s) but I'm happy nonetheless With a better ascent, fewer intakes and flying closer to the altitude ceiling, I'd say this is doable in under 42 minutes, heck maybe even 41! But thats for another day

Edited August 12, 2013 by The Procrastinaut

[corpsdog]

Considering that I could do it under an hour with one engine, considerably less fuel (if I make out your design correctly) and averaging 1/3 throttle, you should be able to do it faster with 2. Again, if I'm making out your design correctly, I could see some optimization you could do. Primarily with the choice of fuel tanks and wings. I could definitely get you more lift for less weight. Now, you have me thinking of doing a different design in order to get a time goal (and perhaps speed goal) But, I want to submit first with my original design, minus piloting error on landing...

I don't mean this like "Well of course you SHOULD be able to do it faster." I kept thinking it sounds like that. Just, you have double the potential engine power, and it looks like you were operating at 100% throttle - about 3 times what I was - so there must be some aspect of your design that was slowing you down. I'm thinking wings and fuel tanks (though I need to check those, they may not be the tanks I think they are) and yes, your intake layout. Depending on how you make your initial climb, you could probably get by with 2 or 3. Definitely shouldn't need more than five, and might be a more weight efficient method of attaching them.

Edited August 12, 2013 by corpsdog
clarification

[corpsdog]

So, my first attempt with a Kerbaled plane was successful... right up to the catastrophic pilot error on "landing." Hint for those new to flying - most planes don't like to land upside down and backwards. One or the other might be okay, but both at the same time is not good.

But, hey, Jeb survived and was still smiling, so that's a Kerbal success, right?

[The Procrastinaut]

Considering that I could do it under an hour with one engine, considerably less fuel (if I make out your design correctly) and averaging 1/3 throttle, you should be able to do it faster with 2.

Agreed, however its a diminishing returns scenario when you add more engines; doubling the number of engines won't double your speed because air resistance is proportional to the square of your speed (or some rule like that, thats probably not the right one but it gets my point across), when I was competing in this challenge before the Purge I managed to pass 1950m/s with a single engine craft, and with a double engine craft it only just hit 2,100m/s, and when you double the engines you also have to double the fuel, which nearly doubles the weight etc etc.

I found that 2 engines worked best for me but thats because I designed my ship to run at full throttle and JUST have enough fuel left on touchdown, this was back before there was a height limit to the challenge so I was cruising at 28,300m with 4 intakes per engine (28,310 and the engines cut out). I retried this design with 3 intakes and it flies fine at 25k, so someone who fancies managing the throttle on their own aircraft instead of jamming it to full and holding on until the fuel runs out will probably get a pretty fast time!

Again, if I'm making out your design correctly, I could see some optimization you could do. Primarily with the choice of fuel tanks and wings. I could definitely get you more lift for less weight.

You probably could, and you're welcome to, this was almost the exact same design that got me my 34m 50s run in the old challenge, so I simply stuck with a design that I knew would work, and didn't fiddle with it

Depending on how you make your initial climb, you could probably get by with 2 or 3 (Intakes). Definitely shouldn't need more than five, and might be a more weight efficient method of attaching them.

It didn't break sweat with 6 intakes on, so yeah it probably could do with some intake magic

EDIT: As regards to fuel, I worked out that an engine going full whack will take approximately 10 minutes to drain 150 units of fuel (one mk1 fuselage), so a 40 minute circumnavigation will take 4 tanks per engine at full power, this design had 7 tanks between 2 and fuel levels got a little hair-raising towards the end hahah

Edited August 12, 2013 by The Procrastinaut

[Flixxbeatz]

Oh I've missed these circumnavigation challenges.

Starscreamer 6 - Circumnavigator

Time: 42m 31s

Max Altitude: 24,934m

Max Speed: 2,041m/s

-snip-

Alright, welcome to the club!

[Troma3D]

Hi !

Here is my entry for a double circulonavigation, but unfortunatly, I crashed during the final approach

http://imgur.com/a/Hcruj#0

Edited August 14, 2013 by Troma3D

[corpsdog]

Agreed, however its a diminishing returns scenario when you add more engines; doubling the number of engines won't double your speed because air resistance is proportional to the square of your speed (or some rule like that, thats probably not the right one but it gets my point across), when I was competing in this challenge before the Purge I managed to pass 1950m/s with a single engine craft, and with a double engine craft it only just hit 2,100m/s, and when you double the engines you also have to double the fuel, which nearly doubles the weight etc etc.

Yeah, I was wondering about the air resistance, as it has an effect on rockets - especially during lower altitudes. I didn't think 2 engines would double the speed of 1, but I would think at full throttle you should get significantly faster than a single engine at 1/3. But, full throttle could be the issue - the diminishing returns, as well as guzzling fuel. I could almost drop one of the fuel tanks off of mine, as it was still about 3/4 full at arrival. Since that would reduce weight and probably drag, it might just be fine without it.

I just need to get the thing around and down successfully - first part isn't hard, but the last part takes a little piloting skill. I have a good design for simply accomplishing the task, then I can experiment to set personal bests.

Would you mind sharing your .craft file?

[Zeroignite]

I find that "less is more" is pretty much always true in KSP. Mass ratios are everything (even with planes), and Tsiolkovsky's Rocket Equation is unforgiving.

Back around v0.15, I decided to see how much I could take off my Mun lander and still have it functional. The thing just kept getting smaller and smaller to the point of being ludicrous --- and making my delta-v budget narrower and narrower made me a better pilot/navigator.

[The Procrastinaut]

I could almost drop one of the fuel tanks off of mine, as it was still about 3/4 full at arrival. Since that would reduce weight and probably drag, it might just be fine without it.

Thats exactly what happened to me when I was iterating on this design; it initially had 8 tanks and finished a circumnavigation with 3/4 of a tank to spare. I removed the 8th tank, did it again and still had half a tank spare with 7 Without a height limit, you can go up to about 40km with a single engine on about 10% thrust and circumnavigate on a single tank!

Anyway, I went back to my design and removed 2 air intakes, lost a set of landing gear (they weigh a literal ton!) and adjusted the centre of mass forward slightly. Combined with more aggressive ascent and descent profiles, and getting hair-raisingly close to the altitude ceiling, I knocked almost 4 minutes off my time!

Starscreamer 6.1 - Circumnavigator 2

Time: 38m 47s

Max Altitude: 24,994m

Max Speed: 2,047m/s

A Slightly...steeper...ascent profile than normal...

In flight

Again, a more aggressive descent than previous attempts

Slightly more comfortable with the fuel, although still running on fumes

Nailed it!

I found I was losing lots of time in the ascent and descent, the earlier you can get up to speed and the later you leave it to slow down really does make a large difference

Would you mind sharing your .craft file?

If you tell me how/where to upload it, I'd happily share

Edited August 13, 2013 by The Procrastinaut

[Heagar]

I don't know actually if this will be working. This is the first time ever i implement a visual source from an other origin. I hope the best.

Since i didn't know how to refer to an album, there are single pictures only.

It was already done in KSP Version 20.2 but now i have the time to post it:

A three times circumkerbin voage, with a totaly stock plane.

After takeoff

http://imgur.com/YFra4Uv

First pass of KSC: look at the eclipse!

http://imgur.com/ukIttgK

second pass over KSC

http://imgur.com/jwIVo1W

stats after landing

http://imgur.com/7B617aT

Remaining fuel after touchdown

http://imgur.com/KEuqNV4

Edited August 13, 2013 by Heagar

[rasheed]

errrr...

Please allow Pwingz, its boss.

This is my current craft.

The Aeris 1A top speed is around 1,400 m/s and max height is around 21k metres.

In only about 12 minutes from KSC, it reaches the outer fringes of the north pole. So i estimate ill take aprox 48 minutes to do world trip. I dont think the fuel will last.

In the pic the plane will land at this island.

To place an Launch site to save fuel on polar orbiting satellite. Can anyone help me think of a pad for that launch site.

Sorry for going Off topic a bit

[Flixxbeatz]

I don't know actually if this will be working. This is the first time ever i implement a visual source from an other origin. I hope the best.

Since i didn't know how to refer to an album, there are single pictures only.

-snip-

Alright, welcome to the club!

Please allow Pwingz, its boss.

The rules didn't mention PWings, and will not be allowing it.

Entry invalid.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Flixxbeatz

[Fengist]

23 part count unintended double

I NEVER planned this. I wish I could say that I had but in all honesty, I'd never flown a high altitude, high-performance jet before and I built this just to learn how the intakes would work, how efficient they were and whether I could even get to 20k altitude. I wanted to learn about them so I could enter this challenge. I only intended for this plane to take off, never land. I didn't even know if it could. But, fly it did and land... well it glides well. Here's the results.

Oh, and it's completely stock. No Jeb, cheats, part clipping, etc. What you see is it (which, to me is even more surprising).

And thanks for a fun challenge. I learned a lot and had a blast. Especially the last 5 minutes when I was sweating bullets.

Leaving KSC

The obligatory, 'I'm on fire' shot

Flying over KSC after the first lap. It's the lil lights by the navball. Got fuel, let's go for lap 2

Cruisin during lap 2

Lap 2 -KSC is just over those hills and 11 fuel left. Oh crap.

Glide baby, gliiiiide.

Wow, it made it.

I still don't believe this.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Fengist

[Irtanib]

-snip -

2. Over-correction. The farther away from the body of your plane your control surfaces are, the greater the roll. You can keep your control surfaces in nice and tight against your hull for more precise rolling left and right. However, if you want to have alot of manuverability, keep them closer to the tips of the wings. it's a sacrifice. So, if you want less over correction when rolling, move your ailerons inward.

3. Bigger is not better. just like full throttle is not better.

Thank you Kerbies_are_my_Minions, great advice! I was all spun up about getting enough fuel tanks, but getting up to 24K and killing the throttle to minimal steerageway (sry if wrong term, I'm a sailor) was enough to make the one fuel tank last long enough.

9 parts (14 if you count symmetry)

Carl's Can and Capsule Construction Company for all your vegetable canning needs. now delivers via orbital drop or skytruck!

[Flixxbeatz]

Sorry for lack of attentiveness for the past days, was busy doing something. Just saw the 2 new entries. Welcome to the club!

[WafflesToo]

Is it alright if I used my spaceplane for this if the aerospike is disabled prior to take-off?

[Flixxbeatz]

Is it alright if I used my spaceplane for this if the aerospike is disabled prior to take-off?

As long as you won't really use it.

Or better yet, create a new aircraft specifically made for this.

[WafflesToo]

Thanks. I was going to dump the oxidizer before taking off.

This is just one of those plane's. Been tinkering with it since 17 and pretty well have it perfected. Set the trim and I can fly it just by feathering the throttle.

[WafflesToo]

*snip*

Or better yet, create a new aircraft specifically made for this.

Well, sort of took your advice here. I did some test-flights and the Piper is too heavy and doesn't like low-throttle, so I added a second fuel-tank onto my little 'Cub' practice plane and went for it

Made this short video, only about five minutes (or you can just skip to the end for the Mission Report if you'd prefer).

(oh Windows Movie Maker... why do you hate my efforts at sound editing?!)

Edited September 29, 2013 by WafflesToo

[Flixxbeatz]

Well, sort of took your advice here. I did some test-flights and the Piper is too heavy and doesn't like low-throttle, so I added a second fuel-tank onto my little 'Cub' practice plane and went for it

Made this short video, only about five minutes (or you can just skip to the end for the Mission Report if you'd prefer).

-snip-

That's some nice attempt and documentation right there, welcome to the club!