Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'regional'.
Found 1 result
CrazyJebGuy posted a topic in Challenges & Mission ideasOriginal challenge by @keptin First thread of this challenge by @Mjp1050 Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. The Rules: KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus + Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated) Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone. 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 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. Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells. 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. 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 category What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category: For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. Seaplane Must be able to land on and take off from water and land Range of at least 600km Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s 16+ Passengers Turboprop Range of at least 800km Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s 24+ Passengers Small Regional Jet Range of at least 1000km Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s 40+ Passengers Small Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s 56+ Passengers See 'Hopper Information' below. Medium Regional Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s 72+ Passengers Supersonic Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s 40+ Passengers Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s 104+ Passengers Jumbo Jet Range of at least 4000km 152+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Super Jumbo Range of at least 4000km 800+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Hopper information: Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers. Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred Passenger comfort How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================== The Judges: @panzerknoef @neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy @NightshineRecorralis @no_intelligence (Judge of last thread) @1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread) @Mjp1050 (OP of last thread) Challenge Submissions Seaplane @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane. @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit. @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range. @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride. @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water. @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant. @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper. @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement. @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy. @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Long - It's just a Skots Medium but we told you it can land on water. That's the only difference. Turboprop @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface. @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range. @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop. @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way. @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes. @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210. @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?" @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km! @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km. @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty. @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often. @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range. @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled. @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap. @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material. @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport - Mediocre turboprop, but it can do stunts! Small Regional Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet. @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort. @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive. @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet. @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame! @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet. @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range. @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit." @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago. @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price, but let down by poor handling. @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend. @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range. @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Kalcing - Capable of going up to 322m/s with a great range saves this from being just another mediocre SRJ. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper - Outdated, but there is one model which can produce it's own fuel. @shdwlrd's Monarc P4 - Expensive but classy with a very long range. Medium Regional Jet @SuicidalInsanity's IA-720 - Offers an innovative design at a reasonable price. The IA-720 has all the qualities that we're looking for in a medium regional jet. @logman's Kerman Dove - Unreliable and very unsafe: it's not uncommon for the rear cabins to be destroyed on landing. Avoid this plane. @logman's Kerman Stingray - Very solidly built, reliable, and handles wonderfully. Hampered only by its large price tag. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-62 - Sturdy and reliable, but suffers from a large price tag and low fuel efficiency. Its exterior is reminiscent of designs from 50 years ago, too. @Bombstar10's Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B) - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-72 Medium - A bit expensive, but powerful fast and comfortable. @Gaarst's Kerbalespace C-1K - An expensive, but reliable and luxurious passenger liner. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-20 - It's comfortable, but it's slow, and it's quite cheap. Would recommend. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Medium - Uncomfortable, but turns well and has a long range. Expensive though. @FleshJeb's Klonkorde - It's a pretty good plane, very long and sleek, but it's not extremely cheap. It is though, very pleasant to fly in. @panzerknoef's Lassen - A pretty standard medium regional, it can take off from small runways and flies pretty well. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 100 Series - Nice looking, well built aircraft, but it comes at a steep price. @sdj64's Goosewing 80 - A modern looking design, a dream to fly, but it's not so good at passenger comfort. @no_intelligence's Kombardier 200 - Cheap to maintain, long range and good fuel economy are nice, but don't outweigh the fact flying it is a suicide mission. Supersonic Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet. @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs. @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort. @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption. @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it. @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though. @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended. @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel. @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero. @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design. @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort. @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas. @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner. @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it! @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK! @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable. @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it. @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse. @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies. @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control. @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles. @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what. @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames. @no_intelligence's Kupolev KU-100 - Decent plane, comfortable but a bit slower than most of its supersonic competition. @Magzimum's MAD TF-3a Swift - It's cheap, has spectacular range and great mileage. @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4 - Expensive to buy and operate, but comfy safe and fast. Only worth considering for 1st class flights. Jumbo Jet @Andetch's Day Fury - It's very fast an maneuverable, but with a range that is easily exceeded by seaplanes, and it takes off at very high speed. @NightshineRecorralis's Challenger Seaplane - A bit lacking at everything except being a HUGE FLYING BOAT. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Skots Mouse - Somebody added wings and a few jet engines to a ship, and it's cheap. @NildimensionalString's Winter Tech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner - It's expensive, slow, short ranged, will probably explode and it's obvious why the original company who designed it went bankrupt. @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II - It has very long range, and is generally pretty good, but it comes with a steep price tag. @Cols's A797 - It's slow, handles poorly, it climbs slowly and has a very short range, but it's dirt cheap, so we bought 3. @AeroGav's Screehcraft Grande Dumbo - A wonderful plane, it's luxurious, flies like a dream, but it's expensive. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI GP-1a - This jumbo carries cargo too - apart from that it just looks odd and is otherwise fairly normal. @Andetch's X Series Night Fury - It's a really big fighter jet with passenger cabins, and a short range by Jumbo standards. @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super - Hard to fly, very short range and expensive, but with comfort and luxury straight out of the golden age of air travel. @Not sure's B-1337 Swift Moon - A very unpleasant, loud airplane. It costs a lot of money. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 250 - A fat version of the 100, carries more passengers but with a shorter range and it can tail-strike if you aren't careful. @macktruck6666's L-1011 Jumbo Jet - It's very expensive and doesn't perform well, but it does have luxury seating! @Kneves's WH-04 - A short ranged, very hard to fly thing, it needs a tremendously big runway too and we will not buy any. @Bombstar10's Grizzly ST - 3 Civilian - It costs an arm, leg 4 fingers and a left toe, for a plane that is guaranteed to explode, it is slow and uncomfortable and is absolutely, undoubtedly the worst plane we have tested. So far. Yours could beat it and be King Krap. @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics C5 "RePurpose" - Only 140 seats, but there's a lot of space in the cargo bay to pull a Skots Economy, so it's a jumbo anyway. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Ratt - It's slow, but fairly good at all the other stuff, except price. Super Jumbo @NightshineRecorralis's Colossus - It's flipping massive, 1152 passengers, gets off the runway like a turbo-prop, flies like a cruise ship. @CrazyJebGuy's Sky Titanic - A wonderful idea on paper, but in turns the wings fall off and everybody dies. Other @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Cool Corporate Jet - Not sure to have a meeting or an air show? Now you can have both at once! Wunderwaffe* @qzgy's Kramer Starmachine - No windows, supersonic jumbo and passenger cabins are upside down. Please someone review that plane I made by super-gluing one of Niestridlar's jets to one of my own. It's the very epitome of this section. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper Scout - It can produce it's own fuel. Isn't that nifty? *Not really but this is for special planes that remind me of some of the mad German stuff; this section is for weird and wonderful things that may or may not work. How your Plane will be judged This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers. We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear) To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities: -Be cheap, at least per passenger -Fly well -Be reasonably fast -Have a long range -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later) -Be reasonably fuel efficient -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue. Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review. This thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome.