Fastest Plane under 1.000m. [WE HAVE REACHED MACH 5!, Tidus Klein at 1,714 m/s]

[ihtoit]

Okay, does a vehicle that takes off vertically from the runway, pitches over and has no wings or rudders but a pile of SAS for stability count as a plane for the purposes of this challenge? It can land without any parachutes if you know what you are doing.

Basically, it is the following stack:

Intake.

Probe core.

Reaction wheel.

Reaction wheel.

Reaction wheel.

Reaction wheel.

Reaction wheel.

Liquid fuel tank with no Oxidizer.

Turbojet.

Anyhow, it can reach 1049 m/s under 1000 meters. I might post it later.

interesting stack, but it ain't a plane, it sounds more like a jet propelled missile (by the strict definition of an unguided, self-propelled munition). A plane uses flat or airfoil wing surfaces with movable control surfaces to achieve pitch authority, often (but not necessarily) a rudder for yaw authority, and either ailerons or main control surfaces for roll authority, and some form of thrust mechanism (propeller, jet or rocket) to gain and maintain forward momentum.

Edited January 29, 2014 by ihtoit

[NikkyD]

A plane should have wings, PERIOD.

That's what i say.

[Hejnfelt]

interesting stack, but it ain't a plane, it sounds more like a jet propelled missile (by the strict definition of an unguided, self-propelled munition). A plane uses flat or airfoil wing surfaces with movable control surfaces to achieve pitch authority, often (but not necessarily) a rudder for yaw authority, and either ailerons or main control surfaces for roll authority, and some form of thrust mechanism (propeller, jet or rocket) to gain and maintain forward momentum.

Hmm, this definition would disqualify even Sevant's entry for not having rudders or any other control surfaces.

A plane should have wings, PERIOD.

That's what i say.

The real question is whether the wing must be functional or not. As I understand, Sevant's design actually wouldn't be stable enough without the wings, but he obviously doesn't rely on wings or control surfaces to guide the vehicle and many ballistic rockets have winglets to guide them.

I like Sevant's entry as it gives me something to shoot for but I guess we need OP to come in and clarify the rules and definition of a plane.

Control surfaces produce tremendous drag and literally adding 1 or 2 of them decreases top speed by 100-150 m/s.

I suggest either disqualifying ballistic entries or splitting the categories into ballistic and non-ballistic.

1. Non-Ballistic being wing and control surface reliant for change of direction.

2. Ballistic relying on SAS and/or propulsion for change of direction.

TL;DR - planes can glide and significantly alter direction without thrust.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Hejnfelt

[fluffysnowcap]

Control surfaces produce tremendous drag and literally adding 1 or 2 of them decreases top speed by 100-150 m/s.

no wonder all my plains go so slow then i was using about 11 Control surfaces per entry

[ihtoit]

Hmm, this definition would disqualify even Servant's entry for not having rudders or any other control surfaces.

Are you on about his infiniglider? It disqualifies anyway because it's a game physics exploit.

The real question is whether the wing must be functional or not. As I understand, Servant's design actually wouldn't be stable enough without the wings, but he obviously doesn't rely on wings or control surfaces to guide the vehicle and many ballistic rockets have winglets to guide them.

I like Servant's entry as it gives me something to shoot for but I guess we need OP to come in and clarify the rules and definition of a plane.

Control surfaces produce tremendous drag and literally adding 1 or 2 of them decreases top speed by 100-150 m/s.

I suggest either disqualifying ballistic entries or splitting the categories into ballistic and non-ballistic.

1. Non-Ballistic being wing and control surface reliant for change of direction.

2. Ballistic relying on SAS and/or propulsion for change of direction.

TL;DR - planes can glide and significantly alter direction without thrust.

Now, that last bit I would say is the absolute definition of what is a legitimate non-ballistic KSP aircraft: A vessel which can carry a payload from point A to point B, landing in a different direction from that which it took off at point A; ergo, it *must* necessarily have active pitch, yaw and roll authority by way of airfoil control surfaces, an internal, air beathing powerplant capable of overcoming drag, and a fuel supply which is finite (limited to the size of the aircraft and its payload capacity).

[m1sz]

Nice one sevant, ill update it tonight.

I like the idea of no control surfaces, and a lot of reaction wheels, it maybe too much of a twist, but meanwhile you have, atleast, a pair of wings, even if they are small, I think its fine!

Pds314, I think that would be an atmospheric rocket, give it a pair of wings, and the capabilities of landing back at the runway, and its ok! (I guess!)

Now that I thinkg about it, the VTOL thing is dangerous, one of the main challenges here is to land it back, if you can do it verticaly, it's a lot easier!, tell me what do you think, so we can decide what to do. Maybe another leaderboard for VTOL planes, I dont know!...

[Hejnfelt]

Are you on about his infiniglider? It disqualifies anyway because it's a game physics exploit.

No, I was referring to this entry:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65788-Fastest-Plane-under-1-000m-able-to-go-back-and-land-in-the-runway-%28RECORD-870-6M-s%29?p=935025&viewfull=1#post935025

[Sevant]

Now that I think about it, the VTOL thing is dangerous, one of the main challenges here is to land it back, if you can do it vertically, it's a lot easier!, tell me what do you think, so we can decide what to do. Maybe another leaderboard for VTOL planes, I don't know!...

I like Hejnfelt's ballistic idea with a small modification. I don't think dedicated control surfaces should be required for non-ballistic entries. Here's why: I use my entire wing as a control surface by pitching and tilting the plane using my SAS. My wings actually do help me turn, glide, climb, dive etc. Granted, it's not a very acrobatic or stable plane, but it's designed for going Mach 2.7.

For example, when my wings fell off during the mission shown in my last posted pictures, while the SAS allowed the craft to be flown fairly steadily (after I ejected my engines anyway), I had to fly it like a rocket, not a plane. It did not glide, and I could not turn it with anything other than brute thrust. When my wings stay on, it flies like a plane...just with a relatively high stall speed.

On the other hand, if the OP decides I need a plane with control surfaces as my primary means of stability (simplest way to solve this would be to simply ban SAS modules on planes except those which come built in to the single allowed "control from here" module [i.e. cockpit, probe core, or remote guidance unit]), then I accept the challenge...though I'm not going to have any time to work on it until next week sometime. If you didn't want SAS even on the "control from here" module, you could require that the reaction wheels be turned off in flight.

[m1sz]

No no, Sevant I think using SAS modules is a brilliant idea, and your explanation is brilliant aswell. The diference is about landing.., if you can land verticaly, its a lot easier.., im willing to allow vertical take off, just as a bonus that ill note in the leaderboard, and even if it can land back verticaly, you have to do it horizontaly. I don't know if im making any sense ^^

[Hejnfelt]

I don't know if im making any sense ^^

Yes it makes sense and I agree with Sevant that the delta wings actually provide a tremendous amount of pitch authority. I tested similar designs and the control difference is enormous. Without thrust, the plane is still able to change direction significantly exactly as Servant wrote, basically acting as one large control surface.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Hejnfelt

[Hejnfelt]

1,029 m/s - MACH 3.034 - stock / B9 with FAR

Sticking to my own design I decided to go down the path of optimization and switch out the engines like Sevant did it. I had huge issues actually braking once landing and decided to add air-brakes which actually didn't help much as they pitched the plane upwards when braking. Watch the video for the wheelie landing

Top speed @ 1:30

Landing @ 7:50

Sorry for the long videos, don't have a good editing program. Any suggestions?

Video

Screenshots

Edited January 29, 2014 by Hejnfelt

[Sevant]

...even if it can land back verticaly, you have to do it horizontaly. I don't know if im making any sense ^^

Makes perfect sense to me. A nice simple way of requiring us to use wheels and have some way of controlling low-speed horizontal flight

One question, for VTOL planes, is it allowed to have the VTOL engines engaged at all during landing? The loophole I see is to do what is essentially a vertical landing with a minimal amount of forward momentum to make it look horizontal. (i.e. You could essentially float your plane on your VTOL engines during your "horizontal" landing.)

I guess I'm not really opposed to VTOL assisted landings , so I'll be happy no matter what you pick. Though I do understand the concern about strapping a bunch of engines to a fuel tank, putting a token tail fin on it and then vertically taking off and landing like a rocket/lunar lander.

[m1sz]

1,029 m/s - MACH 3.034 - stock / B9 with FAR

Sticking to my own design I decided to go down the path of optimization and switch out the engines like Sevant did it. I had huge issues actually braking once landing and decided to add air-brakes which actually didn't help much as they pitched the plane upwards when braking. Watch the video for the wheelie landing

Top speed @ 1:30

Landing @ 7:50

Sorry for the long videos, don't have a good editing program. Any suggestions?

Video

Screenshots

http://i.imgur.com/2L1g6tf.png

i FEEL useless..., And i though i could be up in the leaderboard, mach 3 under 1.000m, that's awesome!, congratulations!

[m1sz]

Makes perfect sense to me. A nice simple way of requiring us to use wheels and have some way of controlling low-speed horizontal flight

One question, for VTOL planes, is it allowed to have the VTOL engines engaged at all during landing? The loophole I see is to do what is essentially a vertical landing with a minimal amount of forward momentum to make it look horizontal. (i.e. You could essentially float your plane on your VTOL engines during your "horizontal" landing.)

I guess I'm not really opposed to VTOL assisted landings , so I'll be happy no matter what you pick. Though I do understand the concern about strapping a bunch of engines to a fuel tank, putting a token tail fin on it and then vertically taking off and landing like a rocket/lunar lander.

What you say there..., yep, you found a loophole!

the main goal is that it has to be a plane speed record at sealevel, vtol assisted landings may be some kind of avoiding method of having a plane that can actualy glide, on the other hand, the only engine I know that could help that, is the B9 VTOL engine, wich can be useful during flight. With the others, you dont want the weight just for the landing, it would be useless. So we have this problem, I'm not sure what to say, please, say what you think and after hearing some of you ill make a choice!, At the moment, im more at the side of no vtol assistance, it makes the challenge harder

About the balistic or not balistic stuff, always though this challenge would become quite ballistic, but the rules say: atmospheric engine, atleast 2 wings, and landing horizontaly (rewrote some of the rules to be clearer), that said, if you follow all these rules, you could make a pretty ballistic thing that is still a plane. You cant reach mach 3 without a ballistic plane in fact!

[Sevant]

1,029 m/s - MACH 3.034 - stock / B9 with FAR

Congrats on beating the 1 km/s mark! I built a new plane and, improbably enough, I tied you at 1,030 km/s...without landing. The crown is yours, Sir. I shall perhaps seek it again sometime next week. I'd keep trying now, but I have a rather important interview which I shouldn't throw for the sake of this challenge...

[NikkyD]

is it allowed to drop something from the plane ????

[plainawesome]

- Isn't it the Highest Speed Achieved that we should be looking at? Not the Highest Speed Over Land?

No, highest speed achived is your orbital speed while highest speed over land is your surface speed.

[Visari]

You speed devils seem to forget the true essence of an airplane;

An airplane is capable of flying with a TWR of <1.

As it is, challenge winners are people who stack engines on top of each other and add wings.

Especially with the allowance to drop parts.

A real challenge of engineering perfection would be to set a record for planes with a dynamic TWR of <1.

Although I understand this can be fairly hard to track, there are tools for it.

At that point it becomes a challenge even to break the sound barrier.

Just my 2 cents.

[Sevant]

You speed devils seem to forget the true essence of an airplane;

An airplane is capable of flying with a TWR of <1.

Just because I don't limit my planes to a TWR of <1 doesn't mean they can't fly that way...I thrust limited the engines on the plane I did my last speed entry in until it had a TWR of .95. I had no trouble taking off while fully fueled. Even real fighter planes don't always have TWR's of less than 1...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio#Jet_and_rocket_engines

[ihtoit]

No, I was referring to this entry:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65788-Fastest-Plane-under-1-000m-able-to-go-back-and-land-in-the-runway-%28RECORD-870-6M-s%29?p=935025&viewfull=1#post935025

ah, yes... apologies Sevant, I didn't see that one... and you know what they say, "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing."

[ihtoit]

Just because I don't limit my planes to a TWR of <1 doesn't mean they can't fly that way...I thrust limited the engines on the plane I did my last speed entry in until it had a TWR of .95. I had no trouble taking off while fully fueled. Even real fighter planes don't always have TWR's of less than 1...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio#Jet_and_rocket_engines

funny you should say that... I've tried flying those giant B9 swept wings, I can't even make takeoff speed with a vaguely airliner shaped craft with a TWR of less than 2.95! Almost everything I've built so far using those things has required rocket assist!

[Hejnfelt]

You speed devils seem to forget the true essence of an airplane;

An airplane is capable of flying with a TWR of <1.

As it is, challenge winners are people who stack engines on top of each other and add wings.

Especially with the allowance to drop parts.

A real challenge of engineering perfection would be to set a record for planes with a dynamic TWR of <1.

Although I understand this can be fairly hard to track, there are tools for it.

At that point it becomes a challenge even to break the sound barrier.

Is that aimed at my planes too? If you watch my videos, you'll see that I fly the return part of the missions under only 1 engine that's sometimes not even fully throttled up - essentially with TWR <1 and below Mach 1.

That huge turn I make? That's because the plane is built for super stability with a center of gravity very far ahead of the center of lift. That's also why the wings are swept back like that. My plane is practically impossible to stall when flying with only 1 engine, even when it's fully throttled up.

I drop engines as they've served their purpose, that doesn't mean my plane can't fly with them. I drop them to not log the weight around so I can make it back to base with the fuel I have left. Stability wise it flies just fine with them.

My design is built as a plane through and through.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Hejnfelt

[autosave]

1,029 m/s - MACH 3.034 - stock / B9 with FAR

OMG, this plane is just amazing! Very well done!! Love it

[ihtoit]

1,029 m/s - MACH 3.034 - stock / B9 with FAR

Sticking to my own design I decided to go down the path of optimization and switch out the engines like Sevant did it. I had huge issues actually braking once landing and decided to add air-brakes which actually didn't help much as they pitched the plane upwards when braking. Watch the video for the wheelie landing

Top speed @ 1:30

Landing @ 7:50

Sorry for the long videos, don't have a good editing program. Any suggestions?

{snip}

ooh, packaging. Regardless of what capture software you use, as long as it can output a compatible stream for VirtualDub* (which is totally free and unencumbered), you're golden. Now, because you don't need soundtrack (really you can drop it, who needs to hear an hour of grey noise anyway?? We're here for the pretty pictures!), you can take your raw stream, pick every nth frame (I use every 25th frame so 60 minutes of footage is compressed into 3600 frames, or 144 seconds of time-compressed stream) and save the result as a new stream. Throw it at Windows Movie Maker (comes with Windows), add soundtrack (post commentary or music, whichever, just remember to credit the music or Youtube'll get pissy!), and upload!

HTH.

*Basically, you're talking raw .avi, .xvid or .divx, at native window resolution, which ANY computer built after 1995 should be able to do - certainly any computer capable of running KSP can run Camstudio or whatever and output a raw uncompressed video stream!

[Visari]

The problem with this challenge is as with most atmospheric speed challenges, intakeair.

Once you go fast enough, you require fewer intakes to power x amount of engines.

Intakes produce huge amounts of drag, even when thrown behind procedural fairings.

As it is, with current requirements, you need as many engines as you can get to compensate for the minimum of 1 intake, 3 wheels and 2 wings, however small, 3 if you need lateral stability.

This means many engines = win.

As a quick demonstration, not as a contest entry; crafts like these can easily reach speeds high enough for DREC to fry them.

this is because procedural fairings can remove drag on all components behind its shield, except intakes.

Essentially the ultimate winner of this contest would be someone who built a sleek plane that could land, build smooth fairings around it, add a ton of engines with more fairings and see speeds that will kill their planes if they had DREC.

I guess the record velocity will be around 2km/s, if jets still die at ~2.3km/s.