Jump to content

The MachingBird Challenge!

TheHengeProphet
 Share

Recommended Posts

nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted

here is my simple entry with only 19 ram intakes. it got to 2222 m/s over ground, but i think i can get over 2300 m/s if i fly it better.

the only reason i had whack-a-kerbal open is because i wanted to smash the plane so that i could get the results faster (otherwise i would have had to go all the way to the ground i think).

no mods or debug console used (except to open whack-a-kerbal, which didnt help me go faster in any way).

on the runway:

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/screenshot0.png?_subject_uid=354010425&w=AACFoQhcWgJdSpcg_sTqGw9vMfMw0n_afuU2APwi2vnv0g

liftoff!

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/screenshot1.png?_subject_uid=354010425&w=AAAuRcSYmZqOcoXCS8XNNgL6EdMocOIqULZFmnA6s-zgTQ

1k/s:

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/screenshot2.png?_subject_uid=354010425&w=AAAwEkgG35LOSy0gmdEi4_xElH4KhI8HqQGP6g1Fw1KzNQ

2k/s, almost max speed:

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/screenshot3.png?_subject_uid=354010425&w=AACaauIXGzjCCa222-HUXf8MCCY75259JYyJMsLeMbj7tQ

flight results (whack-a-kerbal is open, but i did not cheat! promise! i just wanted the flight results fast.)

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/screenshot4.png?_subject_uid=354010425&w=AAAhQsqyaqzlqDMTQCX1SPreTDeQQpJBl2qg5BErm4xt5Q

i think i can break 2300 m/s though with the same plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted

well anyway, i mamaged to beat my old personal best by 1 m/s with the stock manned "decimator 1"

on the runway:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79359

at speed:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79357

flight results (i crashed the plane HORRIBLY):

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79358

sorry about the pictures being mostly nighttime...

i think i can eek out a few more m/s though if i strap some intakes to the wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted (edited)

THE GODDAMN MISSION LOG TELLS LIES!!!

it said i went 2352 m/s in the flight log... but my surface velocity went up to 2358! GAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i went either 2352 or 2358 m/s in my stock manned "slurpaholic 1". it has close to 180 ram intakes, and i could squeeze on probably 3x as much on. but my computer hates me for doing things like that, it literally shut down from overheating.....

anyway, on the runway:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79405

a close-up of those horribly clipped (without dev console) intakes:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79406

up, up, and away!

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79407

pitching up (for the first 10 k i go strait vertical):

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79408

me on the way up:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79409

peak speed (2356 m/s):

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79410

flight results:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79411

Edited by nicky4096
my extremely small brain causing me to ctrl-v twice and not notice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted

so, my staging plane:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79955

the carrier is called the "staging decimator 3", and the record-breaker is "opa knack" (donald duck reference).

liftoff:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79956

ejecting the wheels:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79957

dropping the probe that will break my record:

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79958

at speed (i actually did 2 suborbital hops):

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79959

flight results (2356 m/s!):

http://www.pasteall.org/pic/79960

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderfound

Wanderfound

Posted
Posted
THE GODDAMN MISSION LOG TELLS LIES!!!

it said i went 2352 m/s in the flight log... but my surface velocity went up to 2358!

Surface velocity is speed through the air (i.e. √(horizontal velocity squared plus vertical velocity squared)); flight log is speed over ground (horizontal velocity only).

At peak surface velocity, you were diving for about 300m/s vertical velocity; your speed over ground at the time of that screenshot was substantially less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted
Surface velocity is speed through the air (i.e. √(horizontal velocity squared plus vertical velocity squared)); flight log is speed over ground (horizontal velocity only).

At peak surface velocity, you were diving for about 300m/s vertical velocity; your speed over ground at the time of that screenshot was substantially less.

ahhh thanks for explainingn wanderfound!

EDIT: but then what is orbit velocity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
numerobis

numerobis

Posted
Posted

Orbit velocity is your speed relative to the center of Kerbin. Surface velocity is relative to the point on the surface directly below you. The surface is spinning around, so the two numbers aren't the same. You can break it down into vertical speed and horizontal speed. Vertical speed is the same whether relative to the center of Kerbin or relative to its surface. Horizontal speed is what differs.

Air speed in KSP is the surface speed. So your jets and intakes care about surface speed, whereas whether you're in orbit depends on orbit speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted
Orbit velocity is your speed relative to the center of Kerbin. Surface velocity is relative to the point on the surface directly below you. The surface is spinning around, so the two numbers aren't the same. You can break it down into vertical speed and horizontal speed. Vertical speed is the same whether relative to the center of Kerbin or relative to its surface. Horizontal speed is what differs.

Air speed in KSP is the surface speed. So your jets and intakes care about surface speed, whereas whether you're in orbit depends on orbit speed.

thanks for explaning numerobis! i thought surface speed was the same as speed over land previously. silly me :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted (edited)

AHA! 2362 m/s:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

hopefully i got the imgur tags right?

i think some of the pics are out of order, but it should have all the necessary screenshots.

stock (except for steam gauges, i love it and it shouldn't change performance), unmanned, staging, and i called it donald 3

Edited by nicky4096
trying to get the imgur tags right
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted

HAHAHAHAHA! 2370 m/s! :D

after something like 20 orbits, i have done it!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

stock manned (apart from steam guages, which counts as stock i think)

128 intakes, used some pinalallo spamming.

the runway moving pic is at the end because i forgot to take it in the beginning.

i soooooooooooo want 2400 m/s!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted (edited)

faster is challenging :wink:

HOWEVER i managed a 412 km apoaps, and a 55 km periaps, which i think is a record on this thread!

2372 m/s, stock (again except for steam gauges), manned, and again 128 intakes (but better flight profile, less weight and drag too).

i present CF-1:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

i tried a version with 256 intakes (the CF-2) but that blew up on the runway :huh:

maybe i can beat 2375 with a droptank and more intakes... :D

PS i have no idea why the flight says jeb was killed, because bill was the pilot :confused:

EDIT: the last couple pics are from a different attempt - i just noticed now i can't figure out how to delete an image from imgur! sorry:blush:

EDIT: nvm, should be fixed now

Edited by nicky4096
fixed up the imgur album
Link to comment
Share on other sites
numerobis

numerobis

Posted
Posted

Ditch the monopropellant!

Use the lighter inline cockpit, at 1t with 0.08 drag it's a lot better than 1.25t with 0.1 drag.

Stage off the wings and the big tank for your final run; use just an Oscar tank.

Don't bother dumping the gear on liftoff, it's massless anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
capi3101

capi3101

Posted
Posted
While Nicky4096 your attempts are great, this challenge has been dead since March.

Really? That's a damn shame...I just discovered the challenge the other day, and I have an unmanned craft that would've took second place in the stock unmanned category. Might post it anyways just for the hell of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicky4096

nicky4096

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hodo - i don't really mind :wink:

lesbiotic - alright maybe not :)

numerobis - i ditched the gear because i had to them mount on XL girders because there are intakes on the bottom. :) but eventually i will try the lighter cockpit, or even the lander can (0.66 tons i think, although it has more drag. i am working on a new version that should end up as a block of intakes and an engine :wink:

capi3101 - go ahead :D

Edited by nicky4096
i messed up capi3101's name earlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites
numerobis

numerobis

Posted
Posted

Drag is linearly related to mass and the drag coefficient. Multiply them together to compare drag between options; you'll see the small inline cockpit is by far the least-drag cockpit or capsule. The external seat is even lower, and a Kerbal on a ladder is perfectly massless (at least in some circumstances), but it's tricky to keep a Kerbal on a ladder from falling off.

The lander can is 0.6t, the extra 60kg is the 15 units of monopropellant. Mass is drag in the KSP stock aerodynamics, so take out the monopropellant. No, it doesn't make sense that a solid tank has more drag if it's full than if it's empty, but sense isn't the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skyhawk

Skyhawk

Posted
Posted

You know guys, as much as I loved the machingbird challenge and participated in it (Pushing the bounds of infiniglide since .22!), I do believe it's about time to let this post die. It's run its course, and at 48 pages and a year in length, its pretty much done. There is no hope of getting back on the leaderboard, as the OP doesn't touch it anymore, so I think its time we say goodbye to the machingbird challenge for good. R.I.P., we knew ye well... ;.;

This is not to say, however, that we need to give up on speed records. I believe it's ripe for a new challenge, a back to basics challenge about pushing our aircraft to higher and higher points. Its been multiple updates, rebalances, and new parts added, so I believe to keep up with the times we need to start a new post. I can do that, or someone else can, but machingbird has run its course; we need a new name.

So I propose that we come up with a new name for the system, and start a new thread, so we don't have to necro long-dead giants.

I'd like it if anyone left could help come up with a name, so we can stop beating a dead crow and get this thread on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...