m1sz Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 well, this goes a little far beyond the rules. Using fairings to hide stuff behind is fine, somehow, but using them to hide stuff wich isnt behind them doesn't have any sense!You all could try with this method, just for the sake of it, but wont be on the current leaderboards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunait Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) well, this goes a little far beyond the rules. Using fairings to hide stuff behind is fine, somehow, but using them to hide stuff wich isnt behind them doesn't have any sense!You all could try with this method, just for the sake of it, but wont be on the current leaderboards!Well, I can understand the reasoning behind that. The reason why I said "technically it's within the rules" is because I anticipated some disagreement (but, technically it is, since it does have wings)If you change your mind, here's 2154 m/s. (using FAR, B9, fairings and KSPX)Javascript is disabled. View full album Edited February 23, 2014 by lunait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visari Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I don't know if anyone's using this trick specifically with wings yetThrowing a wing directly onto a fairing will negate its drag aswell, as can be seen with my previous proof of concept (huge fairing with big wings).But like throwing intakes under fairings, I would see this as breaking the rules.Otherwise, this is getting closer to the ideal craft design.Few points to be improved upon: weight reduction (unmanned, smaller fuel tank?), more engine to dead weight/drag ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 It's anyone up to try to go under the bridge with one of these speed beasts in this challenge?http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70844-Zippy-de-Doodah-Redux-Kerbal-Dynamics-Light-Aircraft-Test-Pilot-RecruitmentI might try it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihtoit Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 that... would be insane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambisinister Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) *fumbles to create account*Oh dear, hello~!I've seen the comments on the thread, some complaining about "jet-powered rockets" others "remove the control surfaces, you get a rock"But when I saw the challenge and opened up KSP... Oops where'd my two hours go.This entry isn't valid because I couldn't land it but I thought I should thank the OP for the fun challenge c:EDIT:"Oh Look, I Put Wings On An Engine" V2 @ 426m/s. End flight log says 429, not sure when that happened (No FAR)Javascript is disabled. View full album45~48 more m/s, 60% more ugly and 30% the parts of Hejnfelt's pretty nice looking planeSuspiciously good handling for a rock.EDIT #2: I just remembered I have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement installed, though I doubt it'll matter with such a tiny thing. Edited March 4, 2014 by Ambisinister Competition attempt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1sz Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sorry guys, I've been busy the last weeks, I'll upload the leaderboard really soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidus Klein Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Wow I thought that some one would have been able to beat my speed by now.....PS you guys do know that the turbos in FAR are borked right? as in they produce 200 kn well past 2400, as in infinity. look it up..... and here is the fix1 go in to the far module manager file and change the 4th key in the turbo jets velocity curve to (key 4 = ..............)feram goffed and made it @key 4 = when the stock jet has no fourth key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCAsomm Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 hey if i suck at landing what do i do? i build a plane goin over 400m/s but i suck so i dont think it will be admissible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambisinister Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Post it anyway! While you may not be entered on the (now apparently abandoned) leaderboards, the spirit of competing isn't lost. Perhaps inspire others to try out the challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihtoit Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 tail chute rig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunait Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I return! I accidentally built a plane with 100% stock parts, capable of Mach >2 under 1 km (689 m/s, using FAR, but no fairings). I didn't have speed in mind when I built it, I was just looking to build a nice-looking two-seater plane, but hey, I'm not complaining! Here's some pictures.Javascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 All stock, no mods, not the fastest...Great fun to do, nice challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainEngie Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Question Question!Is Realchute and Adjustible Land Gear and Ven's Stock Revamp allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 This thread is from before the aero revision, and therefore, current planes are not comparable to previous challenge entries. Someone could start a new such challenge, if there's interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts