The MachingBird Challenge!

[Spartwo]

Something has definitely changed.

Sorry about the lack of nav-ball,they're going to be cropped into F2ish images.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Spartwo

[mdosogne]

Something has definitely changed.

I could be mistaken, but I recall one of the developers saying (during Kerbal Kon?) that 0.23 contains an overhaul of the whole-vessel resource type (monopropellant, electric charge, intake air) such that every last bit of the resource is available for consumption (previously if there were three parts each with half the required resource, nothing would happen - now there is 1.5x the resource available). That means that with multiple intakes you can fly higher than in 0.22

[mdosogne]

[duplicate post retracted]

sorry for the multiple posts; I was getting network errors, and am now unable to delete them :S

Edited December 21, 2013 by mdosogne
accideltal re-post - network error

[mdosogne]

[duplicate post retracted]

Edited December 21, 2013 by mdosogne
why can't i delete this?

[TheHengeProphet]

Mine was .22, Hengeprophet.

Alright, you've been added! I just hadn't added it yet because I didn't know where to put it. That is a beautifully crafted plane, by the way.

Something has definitely changed.

http://i.imgur.com/70flTLZ.png

http://i.imgur.com/V5nngzt.png

http://i.imgur.com/EqF9Ib2.png

http://i.imgur.com/4DPJPV2.png

Sorry about the lack of nav-ball,they're going to be cropped into F2ish images.

This would be a valid entry if the resource tab was open... I'm guessing you were just using it as an example.

Alright, so... after the Xmassening, I'm thinking I will move all .22 and prior records to the second post, and start with a fresh board for the .23 entries. I'm going to need to add a couple rules detailing the use of tweakables and oxidiser, simply because if someone has a tank that can hold oxidiser that they have tweaked to not have it, it will prevent me from determining whether or not they have used any...

Opinions on this?

[Spartwo]

Alright, you've been added! I just hadn't added it yet because I didn't know where to put it. That is a beautifully crafted plane, by the way.

This would be a valid entry if the resource tab was open... I'm guessing you were just using it as an example.

Alright, so... after the Xmassening, I'm thinking I will move all .22 and prior records to the second post, and start with a fresh board for the .23 entries. I'm going to need to add a couple rules detailing the use of tweakables and oxidiser, simply because if someone has a tank that can hold oxidiser that they have tweaked to not have it, it will prevent me from determining whether or not they have used any...

Opinions on this?

Here's a .craft it uses no oxidizer and all three engines are jets.Seeing how it's an identical craft to my last entry(apart from the front canards)

http://www./view/k4989o4c7m1d4pw/Arrow.craft

[mdosogne]

I'm going to need to add a couple rules detailing the use of tweakables and oxidiser, simply because if someone has a tank that can hold oxidiser that they have tweaked to not have it, it will prevent me from determining whether or not they have used any...

Opinions on this?

If there is no oxidizer on the runway, there won't be any used in flight. I don't think this rule is necessary, but showing the resource tab on the runway scene is important.

A question about the rules, specifically 'use of Engineer disqualifies entry as STOCK'. If I have mods installed which do not alter physics/aerodynamics but none are used for the flight, does it count as stock? I've been playing with Alarm Clock, Persistent Trails, Engineer (not used during flight) and Clouds (not the city lights).

I've flown my craft in .23 with and without engineer installed; here are the photos without engineer: http://imgur.com/a/aZxoa

There is some part clipping, but I solemnly swear it's legit - I did not use the debug menu (just zooming way in). There are only 6 intakes for the three engines, and there's no monopropellant or oxidizer aboard. I hit 2304m/sec around 40km altitude, with all 6 intakes funneled into a single engine. I had to fly retrograde to reach this ground speed without going into orbit (first prograde attempt had me out at 150+ km).

Is there any extra flair for flying with an aerodynamically unstable craft? I.e. COM at or behind center of lift?

Edited December 21, 2013 by mdosogne
Added link to album.

[pigletx2]

I may need to go and create a stock install of ksp real quick and build a hyperjet(hypersonic jetplane,realy hard to manage, as if you pitch a bit too high up, your going to space) design, now that I am doing a career mode file with FAR and DR. Will pot here when done. Hoping to get 2k m/s or so.

[barrenwaste]

thanks for the compliments, Henge!

[TheHengeProphet]

Here's a .craft it uses no oxidizer and all three engines are jets.Seeing how it's an identical craft to my last entry(apart from the front canards)

http://www./view/k4989o4c7m1d4pw/Arrow.craft

I'll have a look.

If there is no oxidizer on the runway, there won't be any used in flight. I don't think this rule is necessary, but showing the resource tab on the runway scene is important.

This is a good point. Maybe I'll just have to rulemonger on that point specifically...

A question about the rules, specifically 'use of Engineer disqualifies entry as STOCK'. If I have mods installed which do not alter physics/aerodynamics but none are used for the flight, does it count as stock? I've been playing with Alarm Clock, Persistent Trails, Engineer (not used during flight) and Clouds (not the city lights).

I've flown my craft in .23 with and without engineer installed; here are the photos without engineer: http://imgur.com/a/aZxoa

There is some part clipping, but I solemnly swear it's legit - I did not use the debug menu (just zooming way in). There are only 6 intakes for the three engines, and there's no monopropellant or oxidizer aboard. I hit 2304m/sec around 40km altitude, with all 6 intakes funneled into a single engine. I had to fly retrograde to reach this ground speed without going into orbit (first prograde attempt had me out at 150+ km).

Is there any extra flair for flying with an aerodynamically unstable craft? I.e. COM at or behind center of lift?

If you don't use your engineer on the plane, then no... I don't think I'd count it as a corruption of stock status. Also, all of those other mods listed just make things pretty and don't affect craft performance in any way, so I don't see why it should interfere.

Uh, I don't know why it'd be so special to do that, lest the CoD/CoL is obscenely far forward, and it'd really only be yet another thing I'd need to check for.

[Spartwo]

I'll have a look.

Thanks.If I manage to push past the max speed I'll make sure to keep the resources open.

[barrenwaste]

From my experience it is best to clip a small aileron into the cockpit when building planes with cod's that are far forward. This helps the plane get off the ground without adding much in the way of lift.

[m1xte]

Here is my 2344m/s craft if somebody wants to test if it goes faster in .23

http://www62.zippyshare.com/v/2110083/file.html

[Pds314]

NEW FAR record!

Very small and simple manned FAR craft that got into (partially atmospheric) orbit under jet-only power.

Oh yeah, craft weighs 3.04 tonnes on launch. I therefore deem it the Nanojet!

OK, second launch went weird, tried to see how high I could take it, turns out it can continue operation until it cuts off at 69000 meters (vacuum).

Ap is 111.5 km, Pe is 51.3 km.

I got it to 2191.4 m/s in at around 50 km.

Engine was only fired during atmospheric flight, never outside.

It actually went multiple orbits after running out of fuel.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Intakes: 1 ram, 4 radial.

Engines: 1 turbojet.

Fuel: 90-unit tank of liquid fuel (FL-T200 sans oxidizer)

Take-off distance: smaller than most planes' wingspans.

Mass 3.04 tonnes.

Fuel mass: 450 kg.

Service ceiling: 69,000 m.

Hypothetical Kerbal jetpack fuel to stabilize orbit: ~4.6 (Did not consume any during test run, Kerbal never went on EVA)

Edited December 28, 2013 by Pds314

[Kasuha]

Time to post my attempt too. Originally I made this craft for a different challenge but it didn't work well. There's a lot of part clipping on intakes but I swear I did not use the debug menu. I didn't exit the atmosphere but my engine did flameout once when I got above 45 km height. I achieved 2320 m/s before that and 2341 m/s after I returned back to thicker air. Even landed the craft in the end, it went halfway around the globe.

Plane:

Name: Mach Much

Manned: Yes

Stock: Yes

MechJeb: No

FAR: No

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[numerobis]

I improved my jets scripts, so they now predict much more accurate speeds. Namely, 256 intakes and 1 turbojet should get you to 2336 m/s according to my scripts now, which is what m1xte's manned ship got. Adding huge numbers of intakes can get you to 2337 m/s. The extra few m/s that get reported are probably partly from inaccuracy in my model, and partly by not flying level: if you set up the periapsis at 40-50km or so, and maintain your top speed up to the edge of space, on the way back down you'll be going faster than what you can maintain.

Example:

jets.machingbird( (jets.turbojet, (jets.ramAirIntake, 256)), 1.2 + 256*0.01)

Says your jet with a turbojet and 256 ram air intakes, whose mass is entirely just those, will reach 2335.78 m/s in level flight at a circular "orbit" of 49652m altitude and 91.4 degree inclination.

PS: anybody know the algorithm by which Unity computes the tangents for an AnimationCurve? With that information I could compute the precise curves for Isp and thrust.

Edited December 28, 2013 by numerobis

[Hodo]

NEW FAR record!

Very small and simple manned FAR craft that got into (partially atmospheric) orbit under jet-only power.

Oh yeah, craft weighs 3.04 tonnes on launch. I therefore deem it the Nanojet!

OK, second launch went weird, tried to see how high I could take it, turns out it can continue operation until it cuts off at 69000 meters (vacuum).

Ap is 111.5 km, Pe is 51.3 km.

I got it to 2191.4 m/s in at around 50 km.

Engine was only fired during atmospheric flight, never outside.

It actually went multiple orbits after running out of fuel.

http://imgur.com/a/8Eaqj

Intakes: 1 ram, 4 radial.

Engines: 1 turbojet.

Fuel: 90-unit tank of liquid fuel (FL-T200 sans oxidizer)

Take-off distance: smaller than most planes' wingspans.

Mass 3.04 tonnes.

Fuel mass: 450 kg.

Service ceiling: 69,000 m.

Hypothetical Kerbal jetpack fuel to stabilize orbit: ~4.6 (Did not consume any during test run, Kerbal never went on EVA)

Great job on that. Congrats on the record. When I have time I will pass it.

[Hodo]

And because I like the great Yeager can't stand to be number 2....

XF-143A

Top speed 2200m/s in FAR

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[barrenwaste]

Dunno if another entry is acceptable or not, but it beats the pants of my old record so thought I'd try. Still can't seem to keep the plane in atmo but was able to kick up a decent turn of speed over land, 2326m/s. I'm pretty sure that's hair on fire and boiling eyeballs fast. Oh, it doesn't have a name in the pics, this was it's test run, heh, but I'm a name it the KC-53 Hedgehog if it's accepted as an entry. It's stock, manned, and no cheats were used for clipping and suchlike. If it makes any difference this was done in .23 unlike my last entry.

Edited December 29, 2013 by barrenwaste

[XDFreakLP]

Remotetech allowed? i hope so xD

Plane name: X125

manned.

here's the flight pic: http://puu.sh/6cQaE.JPG (with console for proof )

On the runway (moving) http://puu.sh/6cQqG.JPG

Log: http://puu.sh/6cQsj.JPG

[RandomJeb]

Made a few attempts at this, got so close to mach 7, might have to revisit this later.

The plane is called Machingbird Challenger 4b

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited January 7, 2014 by RandomJeb

[LaMulaVerde]

My entry. Manned flight.

Modded with Kerbal Engineer Redux( At no point did I actually use kerbal engineer. Not to build my plane, or during flight.)

Top Speed = 2349 m/s

My ship is called ~ The Light Bringer ~

Manned flight - Modded ( or unmodded depending on the rules.)

2349 m/s

LaMulaVerde

Edited January 8, 2014 by LaMulaVerde
Forgot to name ship

[LaMulaVerde]

I changed a few things and was able to better my time KSP .23

My ship is called ~ The One ~

Manned Flight - Modded ( Kerbal Engineer - not used )

Top Speed 2359 m/s

Rolling down runway

Separation of landing gear

Mid flight

Flight results

Top Speed = 2359 m/s

LaMulaVerde

[ninjaweasel]

Without changing the variables from the install, does DREC change atmospheric densities? I've looked at the config file for the engines, and they're as per stock (i.e. should put out 0 thrust at 2400m/s), but I'm getting... ridiculous... speeds. I have a 4 x Turbojet aircraft with 4 x intakes with a TWR of 7.37 at takeoff and I can get it to over 3200m/s speed over ground without leaving the atmosphere. If I flew it right, I may be able to do better on a dive trajectory from 14Mm. And this is with FAR (updated today), which I understand makes this theoretically harder...?! I've accidentally put this craft on escape trajectories while running engines at roughly 25-30km altitude.

I don't want to do a submission for this challenge until I confirm that I'm not accidentally exploiting something, which it appears I must be.

PS: Periapsis above 70km on a jet only vessel = bad.

[ninjaweasel]

Without changing the variables from the install, does DREC change atmospheric densities? I've looked at the config file for the engines, and they're as per stock (i.e. should put out 0 thrust at 2400m/s), but I'm getting... ridiculous... speeds. I have a 4 x Turbojet aircraft with 4 x intakes with a TWR of 7.37 at takeoff and I can get it to over 3200m/s speed over ground without leaving the atmosphere. If I flew it right, I may be able to do better on a dive trajectory from 14Mm. And this is with FAR (updated today), which I understand makes this theoretically harder...?! I've accidentally put this craft on escape trajectories while running engines at roughly 25-30km altitude.

I don't want to do a submission for this challenge until I confirm that I'm not accidentally exploiting something, which it appears I must be.

PS: Periapsis above 70km on a jet only vessel = bad.

Nevermind. It seems that if you install KSP on a different drive from your OS and don't give it admin rights, some things behave very oddly. On a fresh install, the same vessel is now limited to 1900m/s @ 20km altitude before it rips itself apart.