CrazyJebGuy

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GK-6 Konig This is a very cheap plane, per seat. So cheap, it's like you hired a graphic designer bad enough to use this font, in fact, we had to, to get the costs down enough. We spared every expense, almost. We have, in fact, two variants. An SR (Short/Small Range) and an ER (Extra/Extended Range) edition. Both are near identical, except the ER has 1600 kallons of fuel extra, which gives it a longer range, but impedes performance slightly, so it has a worse KPPM, 0.0078 compared to the SR's 0.0069. We made a good few sacrifices for budget sakes in these, but passenger comfort not really. We didn't put in much luxury, I mean for goodness sakes the cup-holders are attached with a stapler, not even a good stapler, but most passengers have nice views, a few have the view of a wing joint, but most have a nice view, and the engines are placed fairly far out, meaning noise and vibrations are very minor. By the way, we cheaped out on nose cones! And if you expect the tail to not just be an abrupt, blunt end, what the hell do you expect? And this here is the SR version... Costa per seat are very low, beaten only by the Stingy 152, the SR and ER both seat 304 passengers. The ER costs 55,870,000, which is $183,783 per seat, which (I think) narrowly beats the Slinky 152 (Konig, Slinky 152 and the Stingy 152 are basically the only planes under 300k/seat) while the SR costs slightly less, $53,670,000, or $176,546 per seat. Which is beaten significantly by the Stingy 152, which from memory has something like $156,000/seat, however it and the Slinky are snails compared to the Konig. The Neist Airline Company is beat on performance, the Stingy and Slinky go 210 and 220 meters per second respectively, the Konig goes 230. The Konig also can climb much higher, after half an hour the Stingy struggles to break 3500m, according to @neistridlar. (Don't doubt him, just saying I haven't checked myself) Compare that to the Konig SR, which in 5 minutes exactly managed 7,000m exactly, and further climbed to 9,200m as the clock ticked by 9:03. It is innefficent up here though, so we recommend flying 3000-4500m on full throttle. The Konig SR will go about 230m/s with range of 3,060km, and the ER variant will travel at 227m/s, and have a range of 3,800km. Having competition of Slinky 152 and Stingy 152, which plane is best is debatable. The Slinky and Stingy planes have arguably slightly worse comfort, having an inline engine mounted on the back, but it's effect does not permeate forward much. Flightwise the Konig has worse fuel economy, but I suspect if you were to fly slower that might not be so. It can takeoff before the end of the SPH, which I doubt a Slinky can do. (Although I may well be wrong, never flown one - just guessing it takes a big runway due to the low power) Of all the under 300k/seat club, this is the only one not hopelessly underpowered. This is the future, and has been here since I posted this. Download of Konig SR: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-6-Konig-ER Download of Konig ER: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-6-Konig-SR

It won't be reviewed if nobody has a powerful enough computer to do it.

What's that?

Just submit whatever. The categories are less rules, as guidelines. Some people submitted cargo planes for heavens sakes. If you do though, it will probably get thrown in the turboprop category. Also would advise you that your liason plane better be pretty comfy to fly in, cause a plane with a passenger capacity so low will not be scoring well at all unless it is good, because it will not be low priced. Just consider that engines shake around, and are noisy, and maybe views as well, that's basically the comfort test done.

This is my entry, fished up a plane I made for a passenger jet challenge, it's gone 1420m/s at 12.5km, but that only scores 113.6, and i can do better. Here it is, going 690m/s at 102 meters, 690 / 0.102 = 6764 points. Only used air-breathing jets, later I went and landed. Note: It does have a couple of modded parts, from Airplane Plus, but they don't actually do much, 2.5m cabin and passenger compartment, all the engines, wings, landing gear and flaps are all stock, I'm pretty sure. Built this a few months ago. By the way it seats 22, but only had two on board this flight. It would probably actually go faster if I removed the modded cockpit and went again, but I can't be bothered. Understandable if this disqualifies me. Might suggest nerfing the payout for lower altitudes. Maybe square root of altitude.

Think you meant m/s there.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RQT_0z3AaOhjmTYRYrsLpw36bCEYPL_iz1bxZLBG6Hw/edit#gid=0

I'll just use Lotuses and eat the maintenance cost... I did try placing one Goliath on each wing, without using symmetry. Didn't work. Tried placing one on the forward wing instead, also didn't work. Wondering if I should stop running the engines on whiskey?

I found a bug with the Goliath engines, I've been trying to get my 304 passenger cheap jumbo working, and for some reason it keeps rotating. Only on the ground, and it doesn't matter if the engines are activated, or producing thrust. It just rotates randomly on the runway, I loaded it up, rotated quickly clockwise, reverted to launch, now it rotates slowly counter-clockwise. Very confused. Doesn't matter if landing gear is connected through engines or not. I know it's the Goliath engines because when I take them off and leave everything else alone the issue stops. Craft file for anyone interested: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK6-Konig

Why wouldn't you add it out of CKAN? I'm not even sure it is updated for 1.3.1, but it seems to work fine for me.

Think mine counts. Edit: Also, just right click "view image" and it link to that, shows only the relevant gif. Like this: Never-mind, it inserts it for me.

KEA does need planes that don't do that, we have loads of pilots, sooner or later one will mess up and it will be a massive PR disaster. A typical plane might make 14,000 flights. Highly rated pilots, are very expensive, both in training and wages. The airfields sometimes are in bad shape. I don't think it's that much to ask that the cabins are moved up a little bit, because even moving them up a few inches, is enough to completely stop the issue. We haven't bought any more because KEA only wants designs from engineers that can do such basic things. We didn't know we needed to "child proof" our pilots from your engineers.

Your seaplane was a flop because when I landed it on the runway one of the cabins hit the deck and blew up, and I was making a pretty reasonable landing otherwise. I know there were other reasons, but I can't remember them from when I wrote the review. Yes, I do agree seaplanes that do it are silly, piston or yet, but we'd like to be at least consistent with prior reviews, I think the only judge who increased maintenance for it was @neistridlar, I think absolutely it would increase maintenance costs, because a partially submerged engine, it gets quite hot, and then one half cools off very quickly in the sea. Even worse, only the skin of that half does, so it would lead to cracks in the metal. But somehow Kerbal engineers did it so that never happens or something.

Yes but your airline company is compensated by the fish it will catch in there. Salmon fetches a high price you know. And you save on cleaning costs.

I was unaware that there was such a thing as the stingy 152. I have no idea how a single juno could make the stingy 40 a thing, let alone the 152. (I realize it doesn't use a Juno) EDIT: I just went and saw what the stingy 152 was, that thing is hilarious.

Yep, whoops, I did indeed mean roll-yaw coupling, which, yes, I am not much of a fan of, because if I wanted to roll an aircraft, why shouldn't I just use the ailerons? This is why in some of my designs, if it has two rudders I lowered them, so they only affect yaw. Anyway, since price per seat wise the Stingy 152 is about twice as good as the next best planes, I decided to give it a competitor. It is influenced by the slinky, but making a passenger noodle seems a common enough idea I don't think you could patent it. Instead of structural beams and stuff over the cabins, I thought, hey, why not put more cabins there? Structurally it works and it means it seats 304, instead of 152. It is actually quite comparable I think to the Slinky, at least on paper. The slinky is slightly better at price per seat, KPPM is about 4/5 of mine, and I haven't tested the range on this well, but it's probably more or less the same. It goes 20m/s faster, and has a slightly slower takeoff speed; mine has 79 parts, compared to Slinky's 55, remember mine seats twice as many. Haven't flown them, but from what you wrote of the Slinky, it seems a bit underpowered, mine might be more normal. Ignore the engineer redux saying it has 0.96 TWR, the engines rarely achieve that much power, it has a much more typical TWR. It's not finished yet, I have yet to add ailerons, the front elevons seem to work for some reason despite being so tiny.

If I join in, do I need making history expansion?

??? On a much more relevant note, today I rode a bicycle.

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Slinky 24 & 32 Figures as Tested: Price: 17,111,000 - 17,661,000 (Wet) Fuel:1350 kallons Cruising speed: 263 m/s Cruising altitude: 7 km Fuel burn rate: 0.0626 kal/s Range: 5700 km Review Notes: Our pilots were relieved to see an actual engine on the new Neist Air planes, after 'flying' the Stingy 32. They later noted the small Slinkies had the sort of features you might expect from aeroplanes several times it's size, such as the landing gear which would not turn heads on a jumbo, and the name doesn't really fit, as the small aircraft can be better described as stubby. In typical tricycle landing gear fashion, it tail-strikes. But here it's a much smaller issue, because it does it when it's still, and so nothing much is hurt. It's annoying to get the stair cart to, but it doesn't matter much apart. We should mention that this only happened after we filled up the fuel tanks, as it came with only 10% of capacity used, which was so low we thought it was a mistake, and we topped it up. On takeoff it will lift the tail off the ground and then take off normally. In the air, it maneuvers nicely, except it has a fair bit of roll inertia, once the pilot pushes on the controls it keeps spinning for a bit after releasing the controls, and there is a fair bit of roll-yaw coupling, which I do not like much. On cruising, the paper stats could hardly be better for a turboprop, it's nice and fast, has a stupendous range, and is not very thirsty on the fuel. However on landing it has a nasty tendency for reverse thrust to cause it to pitch down, on full throttle this can be stronger than the elevator's pitch up, and so we really wouldn't recommend using any throttle above 1/3, although to it's credit we crashed it face first into the sea at 91m/s and it was perfectly fine. The people in it need never be told to wear seat belts again. The plane also needed to be towed back to shore, as it can almost take off from water. Key word is almost, it just bumps up and down quite fast. That nasty tendency with reverse thrust? Further tests show that it means at low altitude even a slight pitch down can quickly get out of hand and cause a crash, so pilots should be careful. Meanwhile the passengers are having a nice time, except the ones at the back, with engine noise and vibrations, although the front ones don't have that great of a view with such a big wing. Maintenance should be very easy, having only 16 / 17 parts on both models. Though note: when it sits, it takes a bit of speed to stand up again, and we have seen a couple times (pitching fully) the engine scraping itself to death on the ground, so it might increase maintenance. The Verdict: It seems really good, but we're concerned about the landing gear, if it's fixed we'll buy 18, but in it's current state we don't want to risk of more than 3.

I thought it was in KAX, which is an approved mod.

Report post The Rules: KSP version 1.3 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus (optional) TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it. The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots. Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them. No reaction wheels. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories. Minor clipping is allowed, within reason. A rolling runway takeoff is required. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water. Action Groups must be listed in the Ship Description. Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.] Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered. 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet catrgory

Sorry, meant reaction wheels.

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Stingy 24 & 32 Figures as Tested: Stingy 24 Price: 8,986,000 wet Fuel: 480 kallons Cruising speed: 140 m/s Cruising altitude: 2800 m Fuel burn rate: 0.04 kal/s Range: 1,650 km Review Notes: Stingy 24 The claim of this aircraft was that it was solely designed to please the economy department.. Looking at the price tag up front, we believe this. And they succeeded at not pleasing out pilots, because immediately none of them liked the look of such an underpowered thing, with just one Juno. On takeoff it takes it's time building up speed, and we wouldn't recommend taking off under 50m/s, because if you do, the plane may get into the air, and then start drifting down again slowly. But that's okay, you'll just go faster and get more lift. Except there might be enough drag that you are decelerating too. The safety department was not pleased; they also disliked the ease of tail-strikes. And togethor that doesn't much please the construction department, due top it needing a long takeoff run, the sort of length as you might expect on a jumbo. And then that jumbo will outperform it. Easily. Our pilots were glad of the low cruising altitude, because this thing climbs very slowly. I've been writing the review from inside the cockpit, 5 minutes in and we're only up to 90m/s and 1800m altitude. The cockpit views are good, and since SAS is working pretty well, I'll be right back. Okay, I just took a walk along the plane, the cabins have pretty nice views too. Static, but nice. The rear ones are a bit noisy and shake a little bit by the inline engine, but since it's such a small engine it is not a big problem. Hey, nearly 7 minutes into the flight, up to altitude! Finally! I've been told this thing tops out at 140, which it accelerates too reasonably quickly once at altitude. In turns, it's very fast and quite nice to maneuver, but it bleeds speed very speedily. The rudder also does not turn, it is there for stability reasons. It has no yaw authority. We still like the maneuverability, ignoring the speed bleed. Even with only 2 elevons, it works well. When we water ditched it, that went well, and it can slow down very quickly for landings by doing fishtails, but it can't take off water. Which is exactly what we expected, and we aren't bothered either. Landing can be a bit bumpy though. The range is very nice for a plane so cheap, and it's fuel efficient. Continuing the economy vibe, with only 16 parts, one of which is an engine, maintenance is about as cheap as it gets, and we see no difficulty in keeping these planes and getting them to last. Figures as Tested: Stingy 32 Price: 9,536,000 wet Fuel: 480 kallons Cruising speed: 136 m/s Cruising altitude: 2800 m Fuel burn rate: 0.05 kal/s Range: 1,300 km Review Notes: Stingy 32 Having flown it's little brother, I'm concerned about the performance, most planes are fine adding a ton or so extra, but with one already so grossly underpowered, we aren't sure it will work well. Taking off, the problems on the 24 only worse. The run now could easily be a contender to the longest turboprop takeoff run, getting into the sort of some we might applaud a super-jumbo for, except this isn't a 500 ton super-jumbo. This is a turboprop, we expect better. The problem of just getting airborne exists on both, where you might lift off, but you are now slowing down, but if you put the nose down to accelerate, you will fall back onto the runway, and possibly destroy the back half of the plane. So we wouldn't recommend takeoff under 55m/s. Even then, be careful not to try to climb before building up some speed. Or turn. Those things are deadly. If you thought the climb rate on the 24 was bad, this is exactly what I feared after flying it. The bit of extra weight is so significant, and we were really struggling to get past 2000m high, that king of ceiling altitude would have been embarrassing a century ago, today it's pathetic. We did eventually manage 2600m, barely, after 12 minutes and 30 seconds. And then we levelled out to accelerate to the top speed of slow. It's slower than it's little brother, it takes flipping ages to climb and simply cannot deal with mountains. Nor can it's little brother, but it can at least go over hills and chimneys. The Verdict: They achieved the goal. Nobody likes the stingy planes, except our chief financial officer, and even he thought the stingy 32 was unacceptably slow. Stingy planes are very cheap and economic, but with the safety issues, long takeoff runs and the fact they cannot go over mountains, we've decided to buy 5 stingy 24s, options for 9 more, and the stingy 32 is so chronically underpowered, we won't buy any.

@HamnavoePer Your Beluga.... I think we have to disqualify for it being practically a helicopter, and for the large reaction wheels module, reaction wheels is not allowed. Except cockpit SAS, because it has a negligible effect.

Perfect example of a seaplane not needing dedicated pontoons. No! You are allowed to downscale cabins, but if you do then we will be only able to transport mice, which is not a very profitable activity.