Kerbal Airliner Around The Globe! Challenge

[Kingtj44]

Kerbals spend so much time in space that they have forgotten to establish their own air transportation! Kerbals are left stranded on the ground, driving for 15 hours by rover to their friend's houses while rockets are flying from the launchpad every other day. Kerbals across continents have absolutely no hope of ever seeing each other until boats are invented... You must fix this!

Challenge: Create a fast and efficient "airliner" capable of carrying multiple kerbals around the globe and landing.

Rules:

1. Your aircraft must have only air-breathing engines.

2. Your aircraft must be manned by at least 1 kerbal with at least 1 passenger (Not including pilots)

3. Your aircraft must include at least 1 air-breathing engine (This is to prevent infigliders)

4. Your aircraft must be only 1 stage, and cannot lose/jettison any pieces during flight (You never see airliners using rocket boosters to take off in real life)

5. Your aircraft must circumnavigate Kerbin and land back (near) at KSC runway in one piece.

6. Your aircraft must be 100% reusable, thus, it must have at least 1 docking port on it for refueling at KSC runway if needed.

7. Your aircraft can not go above 40,000 meters during its flight. Otherwise, your poor kerbal passengers would likely lose consciousness due to lack of oxygen...

8. Use of god mods (Hyperedit) or the debug console is not allowed

9. Exploitation of bugs/glitches is not allowed

10. Must provide the following screenshots: Your aircraft at the runway + all kerbal passengers/pilots standing by it for proof of kerbal count, your aircraft in flight, and your aircraft landed + the flight log. Please show your resource menu in each shot for proof that you have no oxidizer, and for extra points after you land.

11. Runway landing is not required. Just land near KSC if you can not aim well enough for the runway.

12. Your aircraft can not exceed 200 parts (No flying lag machines with 100 kerbals)

13. Any mods not listed are not allowed

14. Have fun!

Mods allowed: B9 Aerospace pack, Firespitter mod, Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR), Mechjeb

Mods that will not affect your points: Kerbal alarm clock, Kerbal engineer

Base points:

Pilot +15 points each

Passenger +30 points each (Not including pilots)

FAR mod + 40 points (Makes it harder to make/fly planes)

B9 Aerospace mod -90 points

Mechjeb -30 points

Firespitter mod - 90 points

Fuel left +10 points per 100 fuel units remaining after landing (Round)

Max speed over surface +50 points per Mach number (Max speed divided by 340 m/s) (Round mach number)

Extra challenge points:

Penny pincher: Use under 100 parts (+100 points)

Engine shortage: Use only 1 engine (+100 points)

Low rider: Do not fly over 20,000 m (+100 points)

Risk taker: Have max height be between 39,900 m and 39,999 m (+75 points)

The Concorde mk2: Have a max speed greater than 2000 m/s (+75 points)

Umm...where are we?: Land on the island runway near KSC (+75 points)

Perfectionist: Land on the runway (+50 points)

Blackout: Have no lights on your aircraft. Do not use your landing gear lights. (+25 points)

Top 20 "Airline CEO's":

1. Hodo - 2445

2. Darren9 - 1380

3. Northstar1989 - 1285

4. Hodo - 1235

5. Adammada - 750

6. BigFatStupidHead - 650

7. Localsol - 565

8. FellipeC - 445

Edited November 25, 2013 by Kingtj44

[Highlad]

This seems to be quite similar to this:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25884-Kerbin-Circumnavigation-Challenge-Reloaded-New-Rules-Once-More

None the less, It looks cool, Might give it a shot! I have gone round the globe before but I wouldn't mind trying it with some limitations.

[The Error]

I see it as a slightly more difficult Circumnavigation.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Give me a few hours, will post attempt here.

@Kingtj44: You should probably post an attempt. While circumnavigation is definitely possible, there are quite a few nit-pickers on the forums

[BigFatStupidHead]

I've been experimenting with high altitude craft recently, so I slapped an extra pod on one, and did this challenge.

Around the world in 40 minutes. Plus crash landing. So, rather than spend another 40 minutes of careful micromanagement, let's just pretend I didn't crash at the last moment. There's quite a rise from the shoreline to the bottom of that runway!

Pilot (+15)

Passenger (+30)

Max speed 2172 m/s = Mach 6.3 (+300 points)

Penny pincher: (+100 points)

Engine shortage: (+100 points)

The Concorde mk2: (+75 points)

Blackout: (+25 points)

15+30+300+100+100+75+25= 645 points.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 29, 2013 by BigFatStupidHead

[Hodo]

And here is my entry...

The C-10 passenger liner.

Crew 2

Passengers 20

Top speed Mach 4.2

Cruise speed Mach 3.5

So my score should work out as...

2 pilots = 30pts

20 passengers= 600pts

speed mach 1327m/s or Mach 3.9 =150pts (or 200 if rounded up, 195 is the exact)

Less than 100 parts= 100pts

FAR mod=40pts

B9= -90

Fuel left 2845 = 285 (284.5)

Landed on KSC runway = 50

No lights = 25

Total 1235.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Hodo

[Kingtj44]

Thanks for the flights guys! I will be doing my own challenge, and I have an airliner in the works, but life is busy and I have not had time to fix its cruising-speed flight stability issues yet. Excellent job you two! Hodo, your score was actually 1235, which is still really good.

Pilots: 2 x 15

Passengers: 20 x 30

Mach number: round to 4. So, 4 x 50

Fuel left: round to 2800. So, 2800/10

B9: -90

FAR: + 40

Penny pincher: +100

Perfectionist: +50

Blackout: +25

= 1235

Edited October 30, 2013 by Kingtj44

[Hodo]

Thanks for the flights guys! I will be doing my own challenge, and I have an airliner in the works, but life is busy and I have not had time to fix its cruising-speed flight stability issues yet. Excellent job you two! Hodo, your score was actually 1235, which is still really good.

Yeah miscalculated the fuel points.

[Keloooe_Pest]

Hmmmmmmm... I should edit my tiny plane to see if a Kerbal can fit on the top

[Darren9]

I'm just going to say it's fast and efficient transport I took the first screnie with them loaded because it's easier to count, I got 1 pilot and 29 passengers, no mods except MechJeb, 5 mach's, penny pincher, engine shortage, perfectionist and blackout. Could be 1405 points.

[whistlehead]

That has got to be the most Kerbal plane in existence...

[Kingtj44]

Very nice Darren. I calculated 1380 twice but I could be wrong. However, that still puts you at the new #1 position. Good job!

[El_Gato_Bandito]

Yall are getting a Globerunner variant... let me get a little bit to stop working on my current project.

[Xeldrak]

Hm, my plane from the challenge next door is capable of this. Maybe I'll give it a try.

[localSol]

Fun challenge! I spent some hours on this. Kerbal crew manifest couldn't detect the 28 external command seats inside my mk2 b9 cargo bay, so I just flew with two pilots. I used VOID for latitude longitude info, plane needed heading correction about every 15 minutes. Wouldn't make much of a difference flying without it, with less accurate heading on the b9 plane because it had so much fuel and the B9 F199 Turbofan is way more efficient than the stock TurboJet, but the F119 limits me to under Mach 3 in this plane. Not using VOID may have prevented the disqualified stock+FAR plane I built from getting to KSC, but not this one.

Pilots : 15 x 2 = 30, Passengers : Theoretical capacity 28.. = ??, FAR 40 (subtotal 70), B9 -90 (subtotal -20), Fuel left : 2109 = 21 x 10 = 210 (subtotal 190), Mach 2(So close to 3!) x 50 = 100 (subtotal 390), Penny Pincher : 83 parts (subtotal 490), Perfectionist 50 (sub 540), Blackout 25 (sub 565)..Total 565..

Screenshots :

Runway before takeoff . I flew before adding ladders but they add practically nothing in terms of mass or drag (esp. compared to so many tons of fuel), . :

In-Flight 1 : Cruising aka trim-flying : http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521335388718/7FE1062C43EACD4ED1E8E5E638FDF9B53AA554AD/

In-Flight 2 : Very twitchy-sensitive supersonic roll to change latitude in a hurry. Didn't expect that to work, just go very very slowly : http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521335389610/7703006AD4BA2F25D607C1E04A3EBB42C3477E35/

Almost landed, Turning off engine gimbal helped a little with twitchy pitching : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521335392712/9BC3FFDA4BC5F1D79816FC2CEACD7C2EA5AB3015/

Landed and Flight log : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521335395818/172DAD09E0C9316EA4EF781DC55DB359AA65F005/

Other pictures :

Halfway around the world - the Kethane popup co-ordinates, not the pod symbol : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521354439857/AA46326321BAA8F709F6081A9856C40C4667795E/

Far-stock plane that crashed, 10.5 dry tons, 75 parts, no passengers yet (can carry 2 in 2 lander cans), capable of staying under 20km but the flight is much longer and fuel consumption slightly higher than flying above 20km. : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521332239670/8BAEDE4471BE40A29775A098392C1D1219510F20/

I also tried a stock-and-FAR-only-jet that I posted pictures of above that made it just to the KSC and ran out of fuel. 35+ minutes of 2x time flying around mach 2 and a huge crash, so it didn't meet requirements, but it's probably/nearly capable..just uncomfortable and I put it here just for fun. Maybe a fun challenge next time based on this would be a flight to the halfway point on the other side of the planet, land for saved-game-edit refueling, or something else, maybe involving a premade saved game with a tanker on the ground and using KAS to refuel, and then continue on to KSC or somewhere else..Kethane co-ordinates would be about 0, 73.4W, not far south from a lake on the east side of a huge continent. IIRC VOID Edit :uses different co-ordinates, I don't know the difference, maybe a different center...

Edited November 1, 2013 by localSol
wording, typos...confusion about co-ordinates, one img, more notes

[localSol]

I wanted to try a smaller plane to see what happened.

before launch :

in flight - http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521358478007/71D191B86161128A6540624D90F802A457D2FD8A/

landing - http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521358475191/C3C57FB458DEAC73B93417592B2B1DD23654E896/

landed and flight log - http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521358476120/C0B23B1692D78EE1AA756DE89C0B6B1FD39B7C25/

The SPH tends not to remember crew settings between test-reverts, and neither do I , so I ended up flying only with the pilot. Supports 1 passenger in the lander can though. Ladders added afterward, negligible mass/drag. Made me wish you could build rope ladders, inflatable ones, some kind of procedural ladder to drop over the wings though.

Pilot (15), + Passenger (subtotal 45), + FAR (sub 85), - B9 (sub -5), + Mach 3.89 1,323m/s (295), Penny Pincher 395, Engine Shortage 495, Perfectionist 545, Blackout 565, total 565 again? All right!

[Northstar1989]

Ok, so, first of all, my airliner. Bit of a ungainly albatross of a plane, but she has great lift, good stability (I've pulled out of many tailspins with her on test flights) and I'm very proud of her incredible fuel-efficiency...

The plane has:

850 fuel capacity

2 pilots

34 passenger capacity (in Firespitter passenger fuselages)

1 turbojet engine (from B9 Aerospace)

And, I went for an extra bit of challenge, and made this in my newest Career mode game, with limited technology (hence the biplane wheels and the reason for the multiple-fuselage design in the first place, instead of just another giant cargo bat filled with command seats). So NO, I'm not going to hire 27 additional Kerbals (I have 9 in active rotation- I only used 4 on this mission) just so I can fill it up- and be stuck with all of them afterwards. I filled both pilot seats, and one of the passenger modules (I took a screenshot before liftoff of the crew hatch screen for it, but I'm not sure what happened to it...) You'll just have to trust me on this, those 17 things with the windows and the yellow stickers are all indeed passenger modules, and can hold 2 Kerbals each...

Second, an in-flight picture:

And finally, my attempt at landing on the island runway. I massively overshot the KSC because I got so focused on maintaining level flight and cruising altitude (no MechJeb for me) that I didn't realize I was past the KSC until I was already halfway across the ocean to the east of it. As a result, I performed a steep dive down, and turned towards the island runway, as it was closer (and worth more points)...

This should have been relatively easy- but lately my computer has been acting up, and it slowed down to about 12-16 frames per minute- so I couldn't control turning well if my life depended on it. As a result, my approach angle was way off, and I crashed, lightly (no parts were destroyed, no Kerbals killed, and the G-forces didn't even exceed my peak of 3.2 when I was performing a rapid dive towards the end of my flight)- right into the air controllers' tower.

So, first of all, the last of my three flyby's, thanks to lag making accurate line-up near impossible (the plane has under 100 parts, by the way)

As you can see, I had 371 fuel in this screenshot.

After that, I just got fed up with it, and attempted to land at a terrible angle- straight towards the control tower. I knew from experience my plane could stop very quickly once it touched down- so I figured I could stop short of it. I probably could have. However, I forgot that the tower's collision box goes way beyond the actual tower, thanks to all the debris scattered in front of it- so I didn't have to hit the actual tower for my plane to break apart first (and then skid to the resting spots shown here)

As you can see here, the fuel got broken into multiple pieces, so it's impossible to get an accurate count in just one image:

The landing was a FAIL. However I did manage to carry a 34-Kerbal payload around Kerbin, *PAST* the KSC, circle around to the island runway and make no fewer than THREE flyby's before attempting landing on the fourth, and finally, land without killing anyone (even if the plane had been full- no parts were destroyed), all with 369 fuel left over (I did my last approach, where I crashed, mostly on glide mode- as it was costing me about 10 fuel/flyby when powered, even on minimal throttle- due to very-low atmosphere inefficient Isp and high drag). For the record, I could have done it on far less than half my fuel- I had 450/850 left when I realized I had massively overshot the KSC, and decided to turn around...

Finally, the flight log:

As you'll notice, I cleared Mach 3 (even huge planes with tons of wings like mine can reach very high speeds when flying at 27,000-30,000 meters). I flew for over 2 hours and 15 minutes. I traveled a ground distance of over 4,284,000 meters (for reference, Kerbin circumference is 3,769,911 meters). And I had enough fuel left upon (crash) landing that I could have done it again without refueling (remember, it took me 400 fuel from a full 850 to *massively* overshoot the KSC.) I would normally complain that the fuel-scoring system favors big, heavy planes that waste lots of fuel (50% of an 850-fuel plane's fuel is still a LOT less than 25% of a 8400-fuel craft's fuel). IMHO it should be based on PERCENTAGE of fuel left at landing. But I did crash at the end, so I'll be happy if I'm just given the points for the fuel I had left...

In finale, the score:

Pilots 2 x 15 = 30 pts

Passengers 34 x 30 = 1020 pts

Fuel 4 x 10 (rounded up to 400) = 40 pts

Speed 3 x 50 = 150 pts

Penny Pincher = 100 pts

Blackout = 25 pts

Engine shortage = 100 pts

B9 Aerospace Mod = -90 pts

Firespitter Mod - -90 pts

Total = 1285 pts

Could've had 50-85 more pts if not for my darn overshoot of the KSC, and that lag-induced crash landing, but oh well- it wouldn't have changed anything. I still place in 2nd either way.

Coming NEXT, if I ever get the willpower to fly for that long: my heavy all-electric model (it's a bit smaller- but still with three fuselages), just for kicks (and to be a "Green" CEO). It doesn't travel that fast (it hits a high of a bit under Mach 1 in a very steep high-altitude dive- and could sustain around 200 m/s in level flight in an earlier version I made, before I stripped off 6 of its 9 engines to reduce lag- which is still very impressive for an electric plane... I haven't tested the newer, weaker version, much yet), its altitude ceiling isn't all that high (16,000 meters with the 9 electric propellers), though once again, impressive for an electric; and it's solar-powered, so it has to fly WEST from the KSC, leaving around late afternoon (it flies faster than Kerbin rotates), to circumnavigate the globe successfully.

On last though: I originally designed the electric model as a heavier derivative of a mid-sized plane I designed for the "Flying Duna AGAIN" Challenge, inspired by the Kethane Traveling Circus... Unfortunately, I still wasn't impressed enough with its altitude ceiling to justify the enormous effort in launching it on a SABRE engine stage (from B9 Aerospace) or spaceplane, to get to Duna (17,200 meters on Kerbin, with 5 propellers, and a lot less mass)- so I decided to put off the challenge until I develop the Career Mode tech node for Structural Wings and Wingboards (which I plan to use to create an all-electric plane without fuselages beyond the cockpit). Still, the link if anybody's interested in attempting the Challenge themselves. It's not easy:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50619-Flying-Duna-AGAIN

[John.E]

Have just started a go at this but am worried that as I have 2 cockpits, 1 flight control, 1 for a single passenger I may be bending the rules? Does my second crew man count as a passenger in a second cockpit?

[theattackcorgi]

Il give this a shot. I have Hyperedit, but i don't need that for planes. I shall have screenshots and what not up shortly.

[Hodo]

And my latest attempt..

The C-11 Kairbus

On the red eye flight

82 parts= 100

Cruising speed 1760m/s= Mach 5.17 (Mach 5) 250

passengers 61= 1830

Crew 2 = 30

fuel left 2108= 210

Time around the world 45min 22sec.= doesn't matter it was just FAST!

B9= -90

FAR= 40

Landed on runway at KSC.= 50

Blackout=25

Total=2445

Edited November 2, 2013 by Hodo

[localSol]

And my latest attempt..

The C-11 Kairbus [...]

For plane building discussion: For all my trying I must be missing something about plane design in FAR just for one particular purpose. I think it may be small. I tried making a similar plane as this kairbus one after I saw it - but smaller, using regular and firespitter parts for crew modules (the K-12 Minivan...double pun..sort of intended!). It was fairly unstable though, not sure why, possibly asymmetric drag due to part mirroring..the bicouplers sticking out, causing weird drag? At that point I was using a few more struts that I wanted to have to, even with Joint Reinforcement mod, which is still good..But even then and only around 25-28 tons and also with four normal turbojet engines in the same way using bicouplers, I couldn't get it past about mach 3.2 . I was thinking less mass and higher TWR might make it easier to get to near that speed, but somehow it didn't work. Though four of these engines seems like plenty even for that massive 59.9 ton plane!(?)

I used a small dihedral on the wings IIRC (and the ones below), though I don't think that had anything to do with the strange performance. Static analysis told me I would be able to get near mach 5.2/3...Maybe just a fluke of some kind or other oversight on my part . But argh, unfortunatly I don't have screenshots of the original, but I have some based on it, of the 'what if I add this instead', where it has a similar 'tri' fuselage :

more swept : http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521508795644/E11CF3D2E1E6E0128D5FFD7D1B1A80AABABA4221/

more wing area : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521508798575/4BF3BC3C48606E5CDA77E3E213EA510099BDFD53/

lowered tailplane, other adjustments , still can't break mach 3.5ish, fun though! : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521508797975/8A916962ED0C94F31F02009F98666AC8661AA99C/

something entirely different and crazyweirdfun - nuclear powered, rhomboid wing, electric prop with hydrogen plasma thrusters from near future mod (totally didn't get to orbit, in kerbin atmosphere anyway.. but was fun) 1 : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521508802875/70FBA3A3A04052E00016AF5C79812EF82B7D284C/

2 : http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/523835521508804107/57223A72394C90FE43C03757E9942925F7858242/

[Hodo]

For plane building discussion: For all my trying I must be missing something about plane design in FAR just for one particular purpose. I think it may be small. I tried making a similar plane as this kairbus one after I saw it - but smaller, using regular and firespitter parts for crew modules (the K-12 Minivan...double pun..sort of intended!). It was fairly unstable though, not sure why, possibly asymmetric drag due to part mirroring..the bicouplers sticking out, causing weird drag? At that point I was using a few more struts that I wanted to have to, even with Joint Reinforcement mod, which is still good..But even then and only around 25-28 tons and also with four normal turbojet engines in the same way using bicouplers, I couldn't get it past about mach 3.2 . I was thinking less mass and higher TWR might make it easier to get to near that speed, but somehow it didn't work. Though four of these engines seems like plenty even for that massive 59.9 ton plane!(?)

The issue I am seeing is simple. Altitude, for speeds higher than mach 4 you will need to be above 20km. You can do it lower but it requires a lot more power. Think of it like running in air vs running in water. Lower attitude the thicker the atmosphere, the higher the thinner and thus the less friction and drag. So you can go faster with less. To get higher, right now you have 2 intakes total on the aircraft, for 4 engines. I would add at least 2 more intakes to give you a 1:1 ratio on intake to engine. I personally never go above 3:1 unless I am proving a point. The C-11 has 10 intakes for 4 engines, or a 2.5:1 ratio. To many intakes in FAR and you create to much drag, to little and your plane can't reach altitudes needed for hypersonic flight.

And can I suggest Imageshack or imgur to post pics it would be so much easier to see them. I will post a pic of the Kairbus in the VAB so you can see the design.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 5, 2013 by Hodo

[localSol]

The issue I am seeing is simple. Altitude, for speeds higher than mach 4 you will need to be above 20km. You can do it lower but it requires a lot more power. [...] The C-11 has 10 intakes for 4 engines, or a 2.5:1 ratio. [...]

Thanks! I used up to eight diverterless supersonic intakes to four engines (2:1) on an earlier design, but will test more. Your tailplane is a little lower than a few I used, and the static analysis curves look similar to what I was getting so that's helpful too.

I forgot about imgur, I'll check it out thanks.

Edited November 6, 2013 by localSol
stuff i forgot

[Guest links123]

I used eight diverterless supersonic intakes to four engines.

[FellipeC]

Did this challenge

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

3 Pilots = 45

2 Pax = 60

MechJeb = -30

Fuel Left 226 = 20

Max Speed 1089 (Mach 3) = 150

Penny pincher = 100

Umm...where are we? = 75

Blackout = 25

Total = 445

[adammada]

Also did that challenge:

Pilot +15

Passenger +30 points

Mechjeb -30 points

Fuel left +10 points

6 mach = +300 points

Penny pincher: Use under 100 parts (+100 points)

Engine shortage: Use only 1 engine (+100 points)

Have max height be between 39,900 m and 39,999 m (+75 points)

Have a max speed greater than 2000 m/s (+75 points)

Land on the runway (+50 points)

Have no lights on your aircraft. Do not use your landing gear lights. (+25 points)

Stock Parts + Mechjeb

I wanted to be as fast as possible, so i went very close to 40 000 with "orbital" speeds.

Total time: 38:49

Javascript is disabled. View full album