The MachingBird Challenge!

[allmhuran]

Was that with radial intakes? I may be tempted to try again

[numerobis]

It wasn't; radial intakes get you a full unit each, so they'd be a lot more efficient. It was just with a stupidly high periapsis, so that I needed very little to get to orbit.

[Nao]

Two minutes of engine run time on canned air ... crazy! Nice job numerobis .

Oh and on the note of radial intekes that i also mentioned earlier, in current patch there are some shenanigans going with them.

Just having a closed radial intake will prevent engine working with ram intakes from flaming out, instead fuel flow and i think thrust (not sure) is going down while staying at 100% throttle. Even thou there is no air in the radial intake left, blocking the air there will flameout the engine.

More testing revealed that open radial intakes don't actually give any air in high altitudes. Also when flown lower (~30km) they actually can give boost to speed (at speeds 2200+), which is strange since normally they give more drag (and at super high speeds the air they give is not enough for engine to overcome this drag). I wasn't able to get this effects with intake spam (200+) but on small ships with 6-8 intakes total it is noticeable.

I don't have much time for testing now, but if someone wants to mess around, adding closed radial intakes to the design could give some performance increase or at least help control flameouts.

[Hodo]

I wonder if he will update the list this week?

[TheHengeProphet]

[EDIT]

Alrighty, Hodo, the list has been updated.

To answer your question, no, B9 parts are not allowed. As awesome as those parts are, lest they become integrated into the base game, I don't think I could reasonably allow them. The idea behind this being that I don't want any parts to be part of the challenge that have differing power and/or aerodynamic properties from stock parts, as they could be better or worse. In that vein, B9 parts tend to be much easier to work with, and the engines are extremely powerful.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TheHengeProphet

[Shrike42]

The Interceptor Mk 3: Simple, agile, and ... currently out of gas on approach to the south pole, having gone roughly 2/3 around the planet in 24 minutes.

Liftoff! Even though there's just two flaps, it can easily take off on half throttle, and climb to 10km before I go to 100%.

First attempt at the run on descent from 68km apoapsis. managed 2303.5 m/s or something.

That's the Interceptor Mk 2, which has roughly half the Intake Air. It ran out of gas and landed in the mountains. In the dark. ... Any landing you can walk away from!

Final speed at time of running out of gas: 2306 m/s.

Excuse me while I try to land it. The front-loading of intakes seemed to make it harder to steer (kept trying to nose up more viciously than the Mark 2, because I didn't mirror the intakes on the underside), but as has been shown by other brave pilots, I could certainly go faster if I'd done more intakespamming, probably getting up to 2320ish.

Mechjeb probably could've gotten it closer to the limit, not suffered a few minor flameouts, been better able to push as hard as possible at each intake air level... But this is still satisfying. Oddly, this was easier than the .17 version, because of the reaction wheels and better ASAS. Not to mention the experience I got from that run played heavily into my design and flightplan.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Shrike42
Tried to use an Imgur album at first. It just didn't work out.

[Hodo]

[EDIT]

Alrighty, Hodo, the list has been updated.

To answer your question, no, B9 parts are not allowed. As awesome as those parts are, lest they become integrated into the base game, I don't think I could reasonably allow them. The idea behind this being that I don't want any parts to be part of the challenge that have differing power and/or aerodynamic properties from stock parts, as they could be better or worse. In that vein, B9 parts tend to be much easier to work with, and the engines are extremely powerful.

Cool thanks, I may work on another this week, just to see if I can go faster. But I am working on another project currently.... SSTO VTOL without lifting surfaces but takes off from the runway, not a rocket more like a shuttle in that newer movie "Elysium".

[Shrike42]

And as I'm looking at it... Seriously, I have the unhappiest pilot.

Derden Kerman: The fastest Kerbal who didn't want to be there!

I'm gliding in for a landing, in daylight, south pole, haven't touched the controls for over 10km of altitude, and he's still

This is my best landing ever! Show some joy in your work, or at least your survival!

And... of course, he only smiles once he's at a complete stop. Derden, you are the worst Kerbanaut.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Shrike42

[TheHengeProphet]

Very nice flight, Shrike42! The visage of your craft amuses me greatly. It looks ridiculous! XD

Perhaps I should make a special commendation for those who exceed 2300 m/s. That would include about a third of the entries, and would provide another level that doesn't expect someone to reach mach 7...

[g00bd0g]

What do you guys think about adding a "realistic" category? I understand there is a no-dev-console rule, but obviously people have figured out how to exploit the builds pretty heavily in spite of that. I think it would be much more interesting to have a "stock parts, no clipping, must take-off and land" category. "No clipping" defined as no parts visually intruding into each other. This makes for more "realistic" planes, at least in the kerbal universe. I also believe it makes for a more interesting challenge, as it is no longer just about spamming the most air-intakes and using exploity construction techniques, and becomes more about "realistic" plane designs and proper flight profiles and execution. I also think landing gear and a successful landing should be required. Otherwise it's really just a 1 way trip and that puts it more into the "air-breathing" rocket category IMHO.

I have several designs capable of >=2200m/s that fit this description.

Just my 2 cents....

[Shrike42]

numerobis did a similar challenge to that before the great forum kablooie, and it is more difficult. Really up to hengeprophet if he wants to alter the leaderboard, but it would be a minimal effort on his part to add the category and to judge it.

I do take a bit of exception to describing these runs as somehow 'less' because we're taking the in-game rules to the limit, and my flight profile is VERY carefully controlled, thank you very much!

Seriously, even if you're intake spamming, squeezing that last 0.1 m/s out of your engine(s) takes careful attention to altitude, fuel, attack angle, intake air, drag, center of mass, flight characteristics, geography (navball turning during the poles can be disorienting and lead to a flameout). It's just as hard to keep yourself under control when 'airhogging' as it is when you're playing 'realistically'. Not to mention that any flameout or loss of control can easily make you lose 50-100 m/s and push you past the apoapsis, meaning you have to work harder to catch up and level out/climb back to your sweet spot, running out of fuel the whole time, not to mention the psychological impact of getting SO CLOSE then losing it.

Heh.

The landing part would add a significant challenge, given that for my flights, I'd have to make sure to be able to circumnavigate and get a line-up, much harder since I take a polar route so that my surface speed isn't artificially inflated by Kerbin's rotation. Easy enough to go east, but it's also easier to wind up on a sub-orbital hop, if I remember correctly.

[Hodo]

I know that using FAR it really doesn't matter what mod parts I use from the B9 pack I am lucky to break mach 4 while below 36km. And I personally don't break my 3:1 intake to jet ratio.

[g00bd0g]

Heh, sorry Shrike42, I didn't mean to impune your skills or invalidate the way you to choose to enjoy the game. Actually, you seem like a good guy to ask, why go polar orbit?

Beyond that, I just want to see "realistic" looking craft, as in "real in the kerbal universe", but none of this space-bending part-clipping nonsense. Just because you can fool the VAB into letting your spam intakes and other parts inside of each other in ways that clearly not-intended to be allowed by the VAB or "realistic" within the kerbalverse, doesn't mean it's not "gamey". Just my opinion. I think we should have a class that does not violate the obvious intention of the developers and "spirit" of the game. At least as I choose to perceive it ;p

[Kingtj44]

Is this challenge too old to still post entries? I have a craft that goes up to 2269 m/s

[numerobis]

Heh, sorry Shrike42, I didn't mean to impune your skills or invalidate the way you to choose to enjoy the game. Actually, you seem like a good guy to ask, why go polar orbit?

To orbit Kerbin at a steady 40km, you need to go 2350 m/s.

If you go with the rotation of Kerbin, your 2300 m/s surface speed becomes 2475 m/s orbit speed, so you are going too fast and you pop out of the atmosphere. If you go against, you have to fight gravity. Polar is just about right -- actually, inclination just under 90 degrees is what you'll want for that altitude, otherwise you'll have to pitch up a tiny bit.

[Kingtj44]

I Present to you my best plane yet: Celerrimus V

The plane is 100% stock. No mods installed, no mechjeb, kerbal engineer. Nothing. Yes, it is also manned by the brave Bob Kerman. It's worth noting I built this in CAREER mode with limited parts...very hard to do. Not only did it go up to 2,303 m/s, but I managed to keep the design sleek and sexy too. Did I mention I also circumnavigated Kerbin during this challenge (The accidental 20 second orbit helped)?

At the runway, looking stylish as ever:

ZOOM! Into the air in about 1 second... Bob does not look too happy.

Getting up to speed and cruising altitude. Unfortunately the speed makes it hard to stay in the atmosphere. In fact, I accidentally slipped into orbit for about 20 seconds during this trip...whoops.

Finally ran out of fuel and plummeted into the ocean. Poor Bob.

Well, such a beautiful craft was smashed into the cold waters of Kerbin's oceans, as you can see by the damage report. This was actually my first run with this edition of the Celerrimus, so with practice I suspect its true max speed lies near 2,310 m/s or so. If I did some intake spam and sacrificed the epic looks of my plane for ram intakes, I likely would have gone faster. However I did mash quite a few intakes into the side bits that you can see in the pictures. Most are hidden by designed wing connectors which makes it look more like a real intake rather then spammed black intake things everywhere (Rams on wings look hideous) which helped me get to a high altitude, but I did not ever use any cheats. Just to recap:

[sTOCK ONLY] [MANNED] [NO CHEATS/MODS] [MAX SPEED OF 2,303 m/s]

Edited October 25, 2013 by Kingtj44

[g00bd0g]

And here's Spunky 9 Aero. Only 25 parts, 9 intakes, stock parts, no dev-console, minimal clipping. Flies awesome, enough fuel to go around Kerbin at least twice, and land nice and slow. What more could you want? Oh yeah, she'll do over 2250m/s in the right hands.

Spunky 9 .craft

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4zLBUio4kIndEk0WTZzdEFoWFE/edit?usp=sharing

Just started rolling.

Going vertical!

Just over 3 mins to over 2000m/s and 30k!

Gulping air and still accelerating

I know she'll do 2250m/s in the right hands ;p

[TheCosmicOwl]

Using stock parts and only one turbo jet engine

[palker]

Using Taverio's pizza and aerospace + FAR not sure if acceptable entry but it sure is the most difficult/realistic way of designing planes. 1872 m/s was my top speed, since regular jets have 0 thrust at about 1200 m/s i used single ramjet to get to this speed.

[Hodo]

Using Taverio's pizza and aerospace + FAR not sure if acceptable entry but it sure is the most difficult/realistic way of designing planes. 1872 m/s was my top speed, since regular jets have 0 thrust at about 1200 m/s i used single ramjet to get to this speed.

The only problem is you are using B9 and TPA parts. They told me that is a no-go for this challenge, otherwise I would have built a SABRE powered monster. Because the complete loss of power of jet engines in FAR at any speed past Mach 4.0.

[Hodo]

Just to show it is possible to go hypersonic in KSP with FAR. And I know this is not a valid entry but I just through this together using stock KSP turbojets and B9 body parts.

[Hodo]

Now for a second official entry. Manned FAR.

XF-142

Topped out, well flew apart... at 2,171m/s

[Naten]

Is there any way to get faster than 2,400 m/s with jets only? This guy did, apparently. (I call hax.)

Warning: he swears in the beginning. In case you care.

[theattackcorgi]

Now this is my kind of challenge!

[Hodo]

I don't even know if he is updating this challenge.

The first post hasn't been updated since the 15th of October.