The "no-engined" flyer challenge!

[A Fat Pokemon]

I feel like my craft is not eligible for this.. A bit too good of a 'flyer' if you'll call it that.

Edited August 9, 2013 by A Fat Pokemon

[SpaceK531]

Can I get an honorable mention?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Coneshot]

My entry: 105.76T * 65.9 m/s* 131 kerbals.. 913015.504?.. anyway here are the pics..

[botse]

Can I get an honorable mention?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

You sir have just made my day:D

[Themohawkninja]

Can I get an honorable mention?

Fair enough. I do believe that your craft, and my example craft were the only really stable ones.

[Tw1]

Fair enough. I do believe that your craft, and my example craft were the only really stable ones.

My big IG 3.3 flies alright when it doesn't have kerbals falling off into its wings.

But that's mostly due to pod torque, as slight instability is what keeps SAS making constant corrections, and thus providing constant thrust.

Maybe I'll make use of it like a real plane someday.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Tw1

[A Fat Pokemon]

Ahh why not... It's not exactly an airplane (Could call it one maybe), but it follows all of the rules!

Also a side-effect on the kerbals:

I still don't think it counts though.. Hehe.

Edited August 10, 2013 by A Fat Pokemon

[Themohawkninja]

The idea of this challenge is exploiting the aerodynamics engine, not bugging out the physics engine.

Nice (or should I say nightmarish?) picture of a Kerbal though.

[Coneshot]

Go home physics, you're drunk!- Danny2462

I think this quote applies here...

[Scott_H]

Well, suddenly all bets are off, Not 2mil, 3 mil, not even just 4mil, I present "i dunno"...

Speed: 185.2 m/s

Mass: 134.8 t

Kerbals: 184

185.2*134.9*(184+1) = 4,621,943.8

And for the proof:

Speed: I could probably go faster with it but I didn't like the wobble, I might make a more stable one in the future

Weight: info screen while on the runway

Kerbals: 15 containers (and one extra on the front) *4 kerbals each, and 3 rows, gives a total of 184 kerbals

I think given that it took me a few hours to get all the canards roughly in the same exact spot, I don't think that it is worth going further with it either, took ages to get off the ground, but I suppose it still works, though I do think a smaller one could be stable if I lowered it to around 6 containers per row.

[Respawn]

Fair enough. I do believe that your craft, and my example craft were the only really stable ones.

Hehe..! #inspired

After checking out SpaceK531s images I just had to make this video and post it here.

(Not a challenge entry)

[SpaceK531]

Hehe..! #inspired

After checking out SpaceK531s images I just had to make this video and post it here.

Nice airplane! Yours behaves a lot differently than mine. With the SAS on, it flies straight (no overcorrections), so in order to get it to go you have to "set it off" by rapidly pitching up and down between 500 and 7000 meters. Also, when you flew it off the spaceplane hangar roof, it reminded me of a little deer jumping.

Nice job! It certainly was a lot faster than mine.

[Tw1]

Well, suddenly all bets are off, Not 2mil, 3 mil, not even just 4mil, I present "i dunno"...

And the Scoreboard makes another huge jump!

That is very impresive. I don't think the re-hash of the IG plane I was considering would make near that. Unless there is a way to uniformly boost all three scoring factors, we may be seeing the limits of this challenge.

Hehe..! #inspired

After checking out SpaceK531s images I just had to make this video and post it here.

That is a neat little plane. But the speed and height it got up to makes me wonder if with a few bonus wings, and rockets, you could have a little flapping-wing SSTO.

Maybe that could be the a new infiniglider challenge. That, or maybe most Kerbals around the world with no engines...

[Themohawkninja]

Well... the scoreboard got updated. I think to win this challenge has gone from breaking physics to try and not break your computer.

[Scott_H]

Well I think as opposed to having the challenge change from breaking physics to trying to overwork your computer, that we should add more categories to the challenge itself.

An example would be different size classes, where the plane needs to be below certain pert thresholds to fit as different classes of planes, so we could have, say, 5 different classes where the highest one is unlimited, so it still lets people that don't have as good computers aim for the classes that they can handle on their computers. This would then let them be able to compete in the challenge instead of being turned off by having to be able to handle such massive crafts, this would also be really fun as the smaller they are they faster they would go so while only being in their own class the scores would scale as everyone is imposed under the same limits.

That and I think that having some cooler groups that have really unique limits on them would be fun, because there s a ton of stuff that you can do with infigliders

[SpaceK531]

Well I think as opposed to having the challenge change from breaking physics to trying to overwork your computer, that we should add more categories to the challenge itself.

An example would be different size classes, where the plane needs to be below certain pert thresholds to fit as different classes of planes, so we could have, say, 5 different classes where the highest one is unlimited, so it still lets people that don't have as good computers aim for the classes that they can handle on their computers. This would then let them be able to compete in the challenge instead of being turned off by having to be able to handle such massive crafts, this would also be really fun as the smaller they are they faster they would go so while only being in their own class the scores would scale as everyone is imposed under the same limits.

That and I think that having some cooler groups that have really unique limits on them would be fun, because there s a ton of stuff that you can do with infigliders

I like that idea.

This could be the infiniglider challenge megathread.

We have the original challenge which a number of people have already completed,

Two circumnavigators,

Almost an SSTO (obviously since no propulsion in space it would have to come back down eventually),

There could be a challenge for ultralights, get the lightest flying craft possible,

I wonder, is it possible to gain enough velocity to make it into the atmosphere of duna or eve? That would be another impressive challenge,

[joppiesaus]

gone!

That looks Kerbal!

[Themohawkninja]

Well I think as opposed to having the challenge change from breaking physics to trying to overwork your computer, that we should add more categories to the challenge itself.

An example would be different size classes, where the plane needs to be below certain pert thresholds to fit as different classes of planes, so we could have, say, 5 different classes where the highest one is unlimited, so it still lets people that don't have as good computers aim for the classes that they can handle on their computers. This would then let them be able to compete in the challenge instead of being turned off by having to be able to handle such massive crafts, this would also be really fun as the smaller they are they faster they would go so while only being in their own class the scores would scale as everyone is imposed under the same limits.

That and I think that having some cooler groups that have really unique limits on them would be fun, because there s a ton of stuff that you can do with infigliders

Yeah, that's a good idea. My friend a few days a go mentioned that he disliked how I was letting multiple entries per user be put up on the scoreboard, because those with under-powered computers had no real chance of winning, so I'll try and go about re-formatting some categories to better accommodate such things.

[Themohawkninja]

SCORING SYSTEM HAS BEEN REFORMATTED: It is now sub-divided into part counts, and some of the submissions have unknown part counts, so if those users could report the part counts, I will update the scoreboard accordingly.

Have fun breaking physics everyone!

[Scott_H]

Almost an SSTO (obviously since no propulsion in space it would have to come back down eventually),

I wonder, is it possible to gain enough velocity to make it into the atmosphere of duna or eve? That would be another impressive challenge,

Both of those are possible, I have done a trip to duna, but I sadly had to do use 2 small radial engines to finish the job, I was only around 200 m/s off course, I would love to have a reason to try to do that again, it involves having a craft on the ground that I had to get up to speed before I got there, and I was to leave above it, and it would act like my maneuver node

[Designer225]

So I have an idea of using a ramp to launch a ship. I got to work and make a plane.

And it worked... but it didn't get far. Luckily no Kerbals are dead.

1. Before launching the ramp

I launch a ship with 2 pods, filled with crew, and no Jeb, Bill, or Bob. Though I should add space between the lower pod:

Still tumbling:

Everyone is ready:

2. Test Flight

Here is my plane, with a ramp: (Weighed about 1.8T without the ramp, and probably 14 parts)

This Kerbal seemed eager to fly the plane: (Now, originally I decided to have 6 Kerbals to go, but then I got bored getting Kerbals to seat, so I seated only 4.)

After filling 4, I launch my ship, let it go to the ramp, then take control, and... it didn't get far. Thank god that no Kerbals are killed.

Mission Log: (Managed to get to 175 m/s while going down, somewhat less than 170 m/s while flying.)

This Kerbal is eager to see that everyone is alive.

And now... More stuff to recover... (I've already recovered some, but then accidental keys got me to the ramp, so I have to get back...

So, not counting the ramp, the statistic would be:

14 parts,

4 Kerbals,

1.8 tons without crew, possibly 2.16 tons with crew,

Average speed 51.75 m/s,

Craft survived, with the loss of 1 wing...

So...

S=v*m*(k+1)

S=51.25*2.16*5 // If I quicksaved, I can test again. But I didn't. And I'm tired of doing it again.

S=553.5 // This is the score I get, without counting the ramps.

Not sure if it qualifies.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Designer225

[Themohawkninja]

If you do absolutely nothing, it says 175 m/s. I think it includes your orbital velocity, so you can't really use the log. Was the 170 reached via the in-game speedometer?

[Designer225]

Hold on, I don't think 170 is right. I need to recheck.

First, though, I need to figure out the average speed by dividing the distance over ground by 8 second.

[SteevyT]

438 parts, 203 Kerbals, fastest just after take-off was 46 m/s, in level-ish flight was 42 m/s, but I did hit 61.5 m/s just before nose diving into the ground.

Final score is 1,398,122.16 or 1,276,546.32 or 1,869,228.54 depending on which speed you take as the fastest.

[Themohawkninja]

438 parts, 203 Kerbals, fastest just after take-off was 46 m/s, in level-ish flight was 42 m/s, but I did hit 61.5 m/s just before nose diving into the ground.

Final score is 1,398,122.16 or 1,276,546.32 or 1,869,228.54 depending on which speed you take as the fastest.

It looks like your maximum speed before impact was 60.0 m/s, so I'll do the scoring off of that. Also, I do believe that your Kerbal multiplier is 204, since it is one plus the number of Kerbals on board.