Air Altitude Record - Basic Jet Engines

[Pds314]

The air altitude record is presently somewhere in deep space, but basic jets are supposedly restricted to low speed and altitude. Let's change that.

Your challenge is to use Basic Jet Engines to propel an airplane to level flight at as high an altitude as possible.

Rules:

• Must post a pic of plane at high altitude, highest altitude above sea level is insufficient, because you could've made a suborbital hop.
  
• 
  
• The only engine you may use is the basic jet engine. Note to AJE users: You do not have this engine, and are automatically disqualified.
  
• 
  
• RSS altitudes will be reduced to the appropriate Kerbin altitudes via division by 1.7. This is approximately accurate by air density.
  
• 
  
• You may not make excessive use of infiniglide. If you appear to be abusing it, I may ask you to lock some control surfaces and redo your flight, or to give me the .craft for validation. You also may not carry the Kerbal on a ladder during the flight.
  
• 
  
• Please state whether you use FAR, NEAR, or stock aero and whether you use parts mods.
  
• 
  
• Your craft must carry a Kerbal onboard. Lawn chairs are okay, but they certainly aren't aerodynamic...
  

Achievements:

• Airliner: Carry a minimum of 12 Kerbals inside the craft (either in payload bays or in cockpits/cabins)
  
• Maching Fly: At your posted high altitude, achieve Mach 1. (340.3 m/s)
  
• The Wind in Your Hair: Fly using the External command seat, or the biplane cockpit from Firespitter.
  
• Gnat: Fly with a craft weighing under 4 tonnes (on the ground).
  
• Quetzalco- what'll who?: Fly with a craft weighing over 100 tonnes (At altitude).
  
• Budget cuts: Use only one engine, and make the craft cost under $7500.
  
• Russian dolls: Drop a stage containing wings, control surfaces, an air intake, fuel tanks, and a basic jet engine.
  
• "Budget cuts": Design your craft in such a way that it has no method of landing safely.
  
• Cargo plane: Do your flight in such a way that at least 1/3rd of your takeoff mass is useless cargo.
  
• Microgement: Fly multiple craft in formation to the altitude in your screenshot. All must fall within the rules.
  
• Texting while flying: Make KOS, Mechjeb, etc assist you in the mission.
  
• Sleeping while flying: Make KOS, Mechjeb, etc do the entire thing from take off to your screenshot.
  
• Stickler: Have at most 0.012 intake area per engine. Put this intake area in such a place that it does not need to go through the wings, cockpit, payload bay, or any other area in which it wouldn't easily be able to go.
  

Leaderboard - FAR:

1. Pds314 in the Altimax Basic A (Stickler) - 20768 meters!
   
2. 
   
3. ---
   
4. 
   
5. ---
   

Leaderboard - NEAR:

1. ---
   
2. 
   
3. ---
   
4. 
   
5. ---
   

Leaderboard - Stock aero:

1. nicky4096 in the 180-intake machingbird challenger maching fly - 26521 meters
   
2. 
   
3. ---
   
4. 
   
5. ---
   

My attempt:

It's very light on intakes, which should mean that it will get beat relatively quickly. Only award is the Sticker For having an intake Area / engine ratio of a mere 0.005. Altitude: 20768 meters.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Pds314

[nicky4096]

just you wait till i strip down my 180-intake machingbird challenger and stick on a basic jet.... heheheheheheheh....

sound like a great challenge though!

[nicky4096]

26,521 meters altitude with only 1 basic jet and 13 intake air. pretty sure i can get to 30,000+ with more engines.

will work on that soon (and ditch the monoprop next time)

pics:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

im not sure i get "russian dolls" achievment, but i get maching fly at least

now to try with MOAH POAWAH!

Edited November 23, 2014 by nicky4096
fixed the imgur link

[GoSlash27]

26,595M.

All stock and no control surfaces. 20 structural intakes. 1.98 tonnes.

Achievements:

MachingFly, Wind in my hair, and Gnat.

There's room for improvement here, so I'm gonna tinker with it a bit.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited November 23, 2014 by GoSlash27

[GoSlash27]

Run#2:

35,763M. 1 elevator, 12 intakes. Same achievements as above.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Last run for me.

38,156M

I ditched the remote guidance unit and put on a couple rudders and ailerons. It didn't much care for that and became difficult to fly even in fine control mode.

39 parts, 2.11 tonnes, √21,148.

Same achievements as above.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited November 23, 2014 by GoSlash27

[nicky4096]

i plan on getting every achievment eventually.

so far ive done airliner, gnat, maching fly, the quez-thingy, stickler, and wind in my hair.

BTW awesome run slashy! but prepare to be beaten!

pics for the airliner run: plane name airlinery

Javascript is disabled. View full album

pics for the gnat run: plane name gnatty

Javascript is disabled. View full album

pics for the quez-something run (damn that plane was heavy, two kerbodyne tanks are actually a fair bit over 100t): plane name quezzy

Javascript is disabled. View full album

pics for the stickler run (just a souped up ravenspear with the central fuel drained): plane name sticky

Javascript is disabled. View full album

and finally pics for the wind in my hair run: plane name windy

Javascript is disabled. View full album

now to get the rest of the achievments, and THEN beat slashy

i do believe the quez-something run gets the cargo achievment too, since something like 90% of the takeoff weight is useless.

EDIT: Pds314, you are slightly off in the name, because it doesnt really have a name (sorry), and it doesnt even have close to 180 ram intakes. i think i'll call that plane the machy. sorry for the confusion

Edited November 23, 2014 by nicky4096

[Wanderfound]

Can we add an achievement for doing it IVA?

Do passenger cabins countas "useless cargo"?

[nicky4096]

passenger cabins should count as useless cargo, unless you are using them for something useful. that seems logical right?

however, if you did want an achievment for IVA, then you'd probably have to film the whole trip to prove that you didnt just pop into IVA occasionally.

[Pecan]

KISS 1, 2 crew, stock aerodynamics, vertical-launch straight up at full throttle. 56,246m

Achievements: The wind in your hair, Gnat (once its 2-man cockpit is detached prior to liftoff), Budget Cuts, "Budget Cuts" (in can possibly land, but has hardly any fuel left and no 'chutes, so I doubt it), (Stickler? I have no idea what the intake area of a shock cone is, I forgot to look!), (maching fly? It's doing vertical speeds > 600m/s not long before Ap)

Edit: DOH! I didn't read "to level flight"! Self-disqualification :-(

[nicky4096]

45,850m

i call it the matryoshka, because it gets the "russian dolls" achievment.

it also gets maching fly too! as well as texting while flying.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

i had quite a bit of vertical velocity at the top, but beyond that point the engine would have flame out so it wouldnt exactly be "level" flight

but im quite happy to beat both slashy and the 40km mark!

stock aero.

[GloriousWater]

25615m, in NEAR with two of those intake fuselage sections and 8 structural intakes. Otherwise a pretty normal looking plane.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Mass is 4.16t on the runway, and the thing's nearly impossible to land safely unless you intentionally stall it right over the runway (and then it still doesn't land in one piece).

[nicky4096]

im impressed with how much that looks like a plane. nice job

your plane being impossible to land is a good thing, because that gets you "Budget Cuts" achievment. so, your record counts!

however, everybody is using stuctural intakes, which have an intake area of only 0.0025 sq. meters.

ram intakes have 0.01 intake area, so they are 4x better. i can see that you would not use ram intakes because to get a lot of them you have to stick them on a cubic strut, etc.

however, the XM-G50 has an intake area of 0.006 sq. meters. so youre actually better off using XM-G50s, unless i am missing something.

[tekzilla]

26900M

<a href="http://imgur.com/Pje5P28"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Pje5P28l.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

I have serious budget cuts on this one, one engine and no landing gear. (I ejected them)

Also serious maching at over 900 m/s

[GoSlash27]

im impressed with how much that looks like a plane. nice job

your plane being impossible to land is a good thing, because that gets you "Budget Cuts" achievment. so, your record counts!

however, everybody is using stuctural intakes, which have an intake area of only 0.0025 sq. meters.

ram intakes have 0.01 intake area, so they are 4x better. i can see that you would not use ram intakes because to get a lot of them you have to stick them on a cubic strut, etc.

however, the XM-G50 has an intake area of 0.006 sq. meters. so youre actually better off using XM-G50s, unless i am missing something.

There's a point where the performance will plateau. The additional intake area stops providing additional performance, while the additional mass and drag hinders you.

After sorting out how much intake area you need, you want to look at how much mass and drag each intake type is costing you per square meter of intake area. Those little structural intakes are pretty darn good!

Best,

-Slashy

[gm537]

KISS 1, 2 crew, stock aerodynamics, vertical-launch straight up at full throttle. 56,246m

Edit: DOH! I didn't read "to level flight"! Self-disqualification :-(

Glad I saw your post since I had a similar design idea. I used more intakes so I ended up getting to 62,000m but I would agree that we would be disqualified on the "level flight" grounds. Probably be good to add that to the rules section just so it is clear.

[Wanderfound]

"Level Flight" does need to be defined. Even in a fully committed zoom climb, there's still a moment of level flight at the top of the arc.

[nicky4096]

"Level Flight" does need to be defined. Even in a fully committed zoom climb, there's still a moment of level flight at the top of the arc.

good point, maybe we should make it so that you have to sustain more than -5 m/s vertical velocity for, say, 1 in-game second (that would fix zoom climbing, because i believe the "level flight" moment is infinitely short.

slashy, thanks for pointing that out. i guess i am too used to flying so high that drag doesnt really matter

[GoSlash27]

Raising the bar.

44,728M @820M/sec orbital. MachingFly, Wind in my hair, and Gnat.

-Slashy

[numerobis]

There's a point where the performance will plateau. The additional intake area stops providing additional performance, while the additional mass and drag hinders you.

After sorting out how much intake area you need, you want to look at how much mass and drag each intake type is costing you per square meter of intake area. Those little structural intakes are pretty darn good!

Best,

-Slashy

Interesting. I'm used to dealing with high speeds, where the drag coefficient is 2.2 for both intakes, so area/mass is all that matters, and the radial scoop is better than the structural intake at that.

But at lower speeds, the structural intake has lower drag. The break-even point is about 630 m/s; slower than that, the structural intake has less drag, faster than that, the radial scoop is better.

Using the KSP-scripts:

import jets
def dragPerArea(intake, v):
     return intake.dragCoeff(v) * intake.mass / intake._area

dragPerArea(jets.structuralIntake, 630)
3.6639999999999997
dragPerArea(jets.radialIntake, 630)
3.666666666666667

[GoSlash27]

Interesting. I'm used to dealing with high speeds, where the drag coefficient is 2.2 for both intakes, so area/mass is all that matters, and the radial scoop is better than the structural intake at that.

But at lower speeds, the structural intake has lower drag. The break-even point is about 630 m/s; slower than that, the structural intake has less drag, faster than that, the radial scoop is better.

Using the KSP-scripts:

import jets
def dragPerArea(intake, v):
     return intake.dragCoeff(v) * intake.mass / intake._area

dragPerArea(jets.structuralIntake, 630)
3.6639999999999997
dragPerArea(jets.radialIntake, 630)
3.666666666666667

After looking at it the same way, I came to the same conclusion and went to the radial scoops instead.

The problem is that this challenge doesn't require much fuel, so efficiency during the flight isn't important. You just want enough scoops to keep the engines lit until the wings give out, and as little drag as possible. Even though the structural intakes are better for most of the flight, the radial scoops are better for the critical phase.

Best,

-Slashy

[nicky4096]

im guessing the ideal plane will be like this:

LOTS of engines

TONS of intakes (probably shock cones, they are even better than ram intakes)

tiny bit of fuel + droptanks, maybe even a round-8 or oscar-b for the last part of the run

and a seat.

the ascent profile would be interesting, im guessing the person would have to throttle down actually for the first bit to stay under the 1000 m/s limit of basic jets.

BTW nice plane slashy, but still not above 45km! but a good run

Edited November 30, 2014 by nicky4096

[nicky4096]

got above 45 km without staging =), 45,447m

looely based on the lockheed U-2.

maybe there should be categories for staging and non-staging planes, because planes like this and like slashy's are more realistic / more challenging than planes like matryoshka.

machingfly, stock aero.

flies beautifuly =)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

EDIT: almost forgot, i called it the U2

Edited November 30, 2014 by nicky4096

[nicky4096]

50,101m with the U3! just a shortened U2

the limiting factor now is the basic jets limit of 1000 m/s - throttle down, and you cant reach max alt, throttle up, you hit the velocity limit.

but im happy with 50km nontheless.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GoSlash27]

50,101m with the U3! just a shortened U2

the limiting factor now is the basic jets limit of 1000 m/s - throttle down, and you cant reach max alt, throttle up, you hit the velocity limit.

but im happy with 50km nontheless.

http://imgur.com/a/uBE1U

I think you're on the right track with this approach, though the intakes probably aren't helping. You need lots and lots of wings for this challenge, because your top speed is fixed by the engine. The higher your lift coefficient, the higher you can fly at 1KM/ sec.

You really only need enough intake to keep the jet running at altitude. Any more than that is a mass and drag penalty.

I won't be participating in this one anymore, as it's essentially a wing- spamming exercise, but I'll pass on a couple suggestions that should help your effort:

#1 You don't need all that gas. It's just dead weight and drag. Probably 2 Oscar 2 cans with the O2 drained are adequate for this job.

#2 Try the strakes as wings. They have the best lift/ drag.

Good luck!

-Slashy

Best,

-Slashy

Edited November 30, 2014 by GoSlash27