Maximum Distance Jet Aircraft [FAR][stock]

[keptin]

Design a manned jet aircraft with the longest range using a maximum of 4 air-intakes (of any kind) and Ferram Aerospace Research mod.

Rules:

-Manned, only use jets for propulsion

-Must use Ferram Aerospace Research mod (FAR)

-Maximum of 4 air-intakes, any type, no weird cheaty-stacking

-MechJeb is allowed

-No droptanks, all fuel must be carried on board

-Stock parts, no mods except FAR & MechJeb

-Post a screenshot of your aircraft on the runway and the end flight results with total distance traveled.

Leaderboard:

Keptin / Griffon-Type6, 19,891,207m

localSol / Rangererer version 2, 3,845,150m

Edited May 21, 2013 by keptin

[Rhino1998]

I would suggest that you add more specific rules,as currently this fills all the criteria and is capable of infinite range:

Picture removed for lack of reason for continuing existance

Though the necessary screenshots are not provided, as this is not a challenge entry because I do not feel like flying this infinitely.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Rhino1998

[keptin]

-Stock parts, no mods except FAR & MechJeb

The ultimate goal here is to build a relatively realistic and non-cheaty long range aircraft, hence FAR, no infini-glide glitch and improved drag model. Because the flights will be potentially lengthy, MechJeb allows you to set it and go, similar to the circumnavigate the world challenges. I think the best strategy is light and high-altitude, but I've seen good results from slow, low altitude designs.

The tricky part is finding a balance between fuel, thrust, and lift. Adding more fuel will increase range, but at the cost of additional weight. You can compensate by adding more engines, but that increases rate of fuel burn and requires more intake air. Adding wings adds additional lift, but also drag. Small changes in design can lead to dramatically different results over a long flight.

Edited May 19, 2013 by keptin

[tavert]

Do ion gliders work in FAR? Or pod-torque propellers?

Edit: oops sorry if I missed the "must use jets" rule, or did you edit that in after I asked?

Edited May 19, 2013 by tavert

[keptin]

-must use jets for propulsion

To clarify, the goal is to design a plausibly realistic aircraft. No ion engines, spinning torque things, or duodecuple stacked intakes. Build something using jets, fuel tanks, wings, and whatever other ancillary parts you deem necessary (e.g. landing gear) within the rules above. If it seems cheaty, it probably is.

Edited May 19, 2013 by keptin

[Climberfx]

I would suggest that you add more specific rules,as currently this fills all the criteria and is capable of infinite range:

Though the necessary screenshots are not provided, as this is not a challenge entry because I do not feel like flying this infinitely.

Specific? Rhino, those are not Stock parts!

[Tex_NL]

I can't enter my favorite, infinite distance, light weight plane.

Electric Firespitter push-prop powered by a large array of PB-NUK's hidden inside the otherwise empty tail fuselage.

[keptin]

Dang, this challenge isn't for the faint of heart. That was a long trip! 7,981,405m traveled

Echo-1A

Taking off

Stuck the landing

Flight data

Edited May 20, 2013 by keptin

[SunJumper]

Do we have to land in one piece?

And in the "proper" way?

[keptin]

You don't have to land in one piece, but if the numbers look fishy, I may ask you to upload your craft file or post more pics. In fact, bonus points to any who post their craft file so others can experiment and play with the design.

[Rhino1998]

Climberfx, I posted that before it was made stock parts only, it originally did not specify that, hence my post

Edited May 20, 2013 by Rhino1998

[keptin]

Griffon - type4, Distance Traveled: 5,175,978m

Craft File: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66999462/Griffon-type4.craft

Went for a two-engine design this time with twice the fuel. It definitely made testing easier since it ran out of fuel faster, but the Griffon 4 wasn't quite as min-maxed as the Echo before it.

Takeoff

Rough landing

flight data

[keptin]

Griffon - Type 6, Total Distance: 19,891,207m

Successful new design with additional intakes, a whole ton of fuel, and revised flight pattern. There's still a lot more distance to get out of it if I were to take a higher altitude approach up to around 40,000m. On this flight I topped out around 36km.

Takeoff

Cruise

Landed

Flight Data

Edited May 20, 2013 by keptin

[localSol]

All right, A FAR challenge! I've been looking for one of these.

(available in 720p):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxiJ-NTlv-8

The first craft test was with basic jet engines and fewer control surfaces. I thought the basic jets were much more fuel efficient, and I

honestly haven't used them very much but it seemed like they might have given me 1/3 of the range at most, compared to the craft I used next.

"The Rangererer version 2" - Same plane with nacelles, turboramjets and control surfaces I forgot before.

But what bad luck! I circumnavigated, turned off time compression as I got close to KSC (in distance on the right side) and I got some kind of '1

FPS bug'..I waited it out for 8 minutes or so but it didn't go away.

Fun learning experience though and I managed to fly farther than I had ever before, or wanted to! Boldly going Kirk-style with 3,845,150 meters.

The griffon type 6, that's a cool and unusual plane. Are those inverted mk2 fuselage? Why upside down, different aerodynamics?

[keptin]

Ah, very cool design for the Rangererer v2! Interesting choice for basic jets, I'll have to give those a shot. Bummer about the lag, but I'll still add your score to the chart--no rules about landing

Inverting the mk2 "bathtub" fuselage lowered the center of mass and prevented the rudder from stalling at high angles of attack. It also makes a nice upward slant at the rear for clearance when nosing up on takeoff.

[localSol]

[...] I'll still add your score to the chart--no rules about landing

Inverting the mk2 "bathtub" fuselage lowered the center of mass and prevented the rudder from stalling at high angles of attack. It also makes a nice upward slant at the rear for clearance when nosing up on takeoff.

Thanks, and I see now about the mk2, that's a good trick.