Fastest Atmospheric Plane

[Iskierka]

Perhaps; the problem is that my runs can cover twenty or thirty kilometres, which is just a -tad-* more than KSC\'s greatest dimension.

* Traditional British understatement, for those who may not realise.

[Omnivore]

You might try a B-52/X-15 approach - use a larger high fuel load moderate thrust nice and stable first stage that allows you to take off and maneuver into position for the start of a run.

Something like:

[Tosh]

You might try a B-52/X-15 approach - use a larger high fuel load moderate thrust nice and stable first stage that allows you to take off and maneuver into position for the start of a run.

Whoa. And did it help?

[Omnivore]

Whoa. And did it help?

Yes, to a point at least.

It doesn\'t help directly with top speed, since that, at least with non-RCS based designs, comes from the last few seconds of burn as I\'m sure you\'re aware. What it does help with is lining up for runs in both direction and altitude, also gives you a bit of extra time to set up anticipated camera angles and the like.

There is a problem though, at KX-19 and larger \'payload\' sizes the B-52 starts getting more and more difficult to stabilize and the available ASAS modules start being more and more destructive. I\'ve actually had a B-52 stage shake the X-15 stage apart due to ASAS instability - was kinda funny like a terrier shaking a rat to pieces.

[Iskierka]

Like I said, the problem is knowing where; I already have a boost tank + engine which gets me as far as I want plus an extra 150-200 m/s start. But those aren\'t useful in passing condition #2 unless I know where those need to take me to.

Snaps from the last, experimental run (Warning, quite a few images):

I\'m quite entertained by the speeds in those two.

Last definitely over KSC.

Probably still over KSC

Mission stats said this was extremely close to burnout. Might still be over KSC, but no way of confirming, unless someone wants to make a VTOL, try get the exact same location, and verify. Not fast enough for a run anyway, needs more design tweaks.

In for landing

Close ...

Bam.

Off go the wings. (In the distance, just visible.)

Yeeaaaaah.

I did try snap earlier stages, but I mis-set mode on my joystick and failed to take.

EDIT: scratch comment about forum refusing post. Very abruptly the problem has resolved itself, despite persisting previously for more than 18 hours.

[C7Studios]

Wow, I just found this thread and read the entire thing. Very amusing to say the least Great designs everyone. I don\'t think there\'s a place to jam any more engines on those things! Now I want to make a super fast plane.... Haha if I make new engines they\'ll count as c7 parts right? (joking)

[Damonjay]

Wow, I just found this thread and read the entire thing. Very amusing to say the least Great designs everyone. I don\'t think there\'s a place to jam any more engines on those things! Now I want to make a super fast plane.... Haha if I make new engines they\'ll count as c7 parts right? (joking)

haha very funny

well i have lost interest in this challenge it seems that 1165 is the limit. although i did enjoy this challenge and i liked being one of the major contributors

on a note to C7.

i was thinking maybe working a new pair of smaller wheels which can fit under a smaller a body

the wheels would actually be two but would count as only one part with a mesh which looks like this

___________

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

/_________________\

wheels at the bottom obviously

also maybe a Coupler part which allows Radially attached engines without the whole Decoupler thing

just an idea

[Asmosdeus]

I just looked at the leader board, I\'m the slowest with my little single engine bugger

[C7Studios]

I find a reverse pyramid is more likely to survive landing. But that is just me. I\'d be interested to see how it works out for you. Some alternative gear would be grand! It took a huge amount of time to get the gear I have working as well as it does. Maybe someone else can take a whack at the problem and get some fresh ideas.

[Nooblet68]

Does it have to be over the Kerbal Space Station?

I\'ve managed a craft that can reach 300 M/S but I suck at piloting it properly.

[Damonjay]

is it below 1000m?

it needs to be above the KSC terrain

[Nooblet68]

Yes, I\'ve managed that speed under 1000M before. Thanks for clearing that up.

I\'ll be having a go today or tomorrow.

[Hitperson]

i forsee someone creating a rocket with so many engines that when they hit space all there you see is a puff of smoke and all the fuel is gone.

[Nooblet68]

i forsee someone creating a rocket with so many engines that when they hit space all there you see is a puff of smoke and all the fuel is gone.

I think you may be right

[cardgame]

Yeah, quite silly... but interesting. I just wonder what goes next: SRBs?

Challenge Accepted.