Jump to content

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)


Mjp1050

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Please include statistics of your craft. I downloaded it to see these stats, you didn't even include a range estimate. (It's really easy) I calculated that myself, and it comes to 2,660 km.

Look, to find range:

when you test fly, look in the resource panel. (Or right click on an engine) to see fuel consumption. (Resource panel is total, engine is just that engine)

Now you divide the amount of fuel (1200) by how much is burnt per second (0.23) to get how long it will fly (5200) in seconds. You then multiple by the speed (510) and divide by 1,000 to get the range in kilometers.

GPPM is a bit harder. You divide the fuel capacity by the passenger capacity, and then divide that by the range in miles. Your craft has a GPPM of 0.03, which is a little on the high side but fairly average.

Include stats. P.S. I had trouble getting the plane off the ground, the elevators didn't work. Just saying.
 

The canards do the pitch, just so you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still got exams ahead of me, and some group projects to deal with as well... Also playing some other games rn that are bit less... Intellectual. All that adds up to no reviews, sorry guys, I really hope I'll be able to pop something out again soon, but I can't make any promises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1

jvEfrdr.png

Cost: $23,000,000 dry, $24,440,000 wet

Range: 3,710 km @ 670mt/s @ 4,000mt altitude
Range: 2,642 km @ 694mt/s @ 2,500mt altitude

Action groups:
1. Toggle afterburners
2. Toggle Panther engines, toggle reverse Wheasly thrust (For braking)

This is a very good value plane. It has an amazing GPPM of 0.019, good by even subsonic standards! It has a lowish maintenance, at only 38 parts. Also it carries 40 passengers at a long range.

It can take off at 55mt/s, just pull up and it will unstick from the runway.

I'm finally ditching itch.io, now using KerbalX.

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/SST-Dublup-Mk-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Just a heads up: There have been some really good value supersonics, I wouldn't be sure your is good, especially since it goes only mach 1.5, mach 4 is pretty standard.

Did Mach 1.6 for 19.5 funds, so yeah, tight margins in budget supersonics.

Edited by Samwise Potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CrazyJebGuy since you have been critiquing entries recently, i thought it only fair to review your latest :) 

Firstly, on "GPPM" which is some kind of inverse "passenger miles per gallon", lower numbers are much better, meaning that the WTC SST-1 by @Joseph Kerman is (by your own math) pretty much the same as than the GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1, but why are we using gallons and miles anyhow? (and is it survey miles, nautical miles, or country miles?) time to switch to metric, along with the 99% of the rest of the world! ps: the Blasty Systems BS -40 Super has a GPPM of 0.006 :P

Onwards with the (unofficial) review! The craft entry division was unstated, but I'm assuming it goes into the supersonic division.

First impressions were that the massively overpowered control surfaces, cockpit reaction wheel, and thrust vectoring make it very easy to destroy the craft or kill passengers with G-force loads, but also allowed for pilot assisted level flight with minimal trim adjustments.

While in wet mode with 100% throttle set, cruising speed is vastly higher than stated (leading to dangerous engine overheating) cruising 4,000m @ 940m/s consumes 1.26 x 1,800LF for ~1,300km range (nearly half the range promised in the sales brochure!) However, toggling back to dry mode to reach the desired speed and altitude, cruising 4,000m @ 670m/s consumes 0.36 x 1,800LF for ~3,350km range. While still lower than advertised, this is does meet the requirements specified in the challenge, and raises the question “why did I spend extra for wet-mode?” (because dry mode wont get you supersonic...)

Landings are extremely tricky with no way to reduce speed other than thrust-reverse, however with a determined long-and-low approach at under 90m/s it can be achieved, emergency splashdowns should be avoided but are possible by stalling just above the water.

Some cons:

  • All control surfaces are unnecessarily set to all control directions (roll, pitch, & yaw)
  • Cockpit reaction wheels are enabled, contrary to rules
  • Main landing gear steering is enabled, leading to some wild taxiing and a change of pants
  • Cockpit lights have not been added to action groups, and so remain unlit
  • Monopropellant carried for no reason
  • Wing panels overlaps experience Z-fighting, and generally flex wildly in-flight with time acceleration

And some pros:

  • strong tail strike protection from extra landing gear!

Overall, while cheap to buy, this aircraft will crash more often and cost more to operate than comparable supersonic solutions, also it does not come with a stair cart... !

Edited by Blasty McBlastblast
typololos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

@CrazyJebGuy since you have been critiquing entries recently, i thought it only fair to review your latest :) 

Firstly, on "GPPM" which is some kind of inverse "passenger miles per gallon", lower numbers are much better, meaning that the WTC SST-1 by @Joseph Kerman is (by your own math) pretty much the same as than the GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1, but why are we using gallons and miles anyhow? (and is it survey miles, nautical miles, or country miles?) time to switch to metric, along with the 99% of the rest of the world! ps: the Blasty Systems BS -40 Super has a GPPM of 0.006 :P

Onwards with the (unofficial) review! The craft entry division was unstated, but I'm assuming it goes into the supersonic division.

First impressions were that the massively overpowered control surfaces, cockpit reaction wheel, and thrust vectoring make it very easy to destroy the craft or kill passengers with G-force loads, but also allowed for pilot assisted level flight with minimal trim adjustments.

While in wet mode with 100% throttle set, cruising speed is vastly higher than stated (leading to dangerous engine overheating) cruising 4,000m @ 940m/s consumes 1.26 x 1,800LF for ~1,300km range (nearly half the range promised in the sales brochure!) However, toggling back to dry mode to reach the desired speed and altitude, cruising 4,000m @ 670m/s consumes 0.36 x 1,800LF for ~3,350km range. While still lower than advertised, this is does meet the requirements specified in the challenge, and raises the question “why did I spend extra for wet-mode?” (because dry mode wont get you supersonic...)

Landings are extremely tricky with no way to reduce speed other than thrust-reverse, however with a determined long-and-low approach at under 90m/s it can be achieved, emergency splashdowns should be avoided but are possible by stalling just above the water.

Some cons:

  • All control surfaces are unnecessarily set to all control directions (roll, pitch, & yaw)
  • Cockpit reaction wheels are enabled, contrary to rules
  • Main landing gear steering is enabled, leading to some wild taxiing and a change of pants
  • Cockpit lights have not been added to action groups, and so remain unlit
  • Monopropellant carried for no reason
  • Wing panels overlaps experience Z-fighting, and generally flex wildly in-flight with time acceleration

And some pros:

  • strong tail strike protection from extra landing gear!

Overall, while cheap to buy, this aircraft will crash more often and cost more to operate than comparable supersonic solutions, also it does not come with a stair cart... !

GPPM Gallons Per Passenger Mile

I just pretend that 1 Liquid fuel is a gallon. (As far as I know, theoretically, it could be - but I'll conceed they probably use liters)

Let's make it Kallons per passenger mile, to erase confusion. I specifically said divide fuel capacity, not fuel capacity in gallons. Fuel capacity could be in any unit remember.

And with which mile? Of course, a normal mile. (You know, stock-standard 5280 ft) Also, a nautical mile on kerbin (one minute angle of movement on the surface) is 174.533m

Correcting for this the Blasty Super thing has a KPPM of 0.01 (Rounded)

Edit: I just noticed, the plane gets this at 23,000m. Somehow that seems like it takes ages to get up there, and wastes a lot of fuel in the process.

Edit2: I just flew it, it was fast admittedly, but it did use up 15% of it's fuel just getting there, and once up there it cannot pitch down due to it's already bad pitch at low altitude being made completely useless by the thin air. My plane at least can pitch at it's cruising altitude. I also wonder how comfortable it is to be ascending at 60 degrees? (No climb instructions, but if you do a lower angle, it uses even more fuel.)

 

With your review, the "massively overpowered control surfaces" make the plane more capable. Any plane that is more capable is easier to crash, it is pilot error. I can fly it just fine, because I don't spend the whole time trying to yank the control stick out of it's socket. It can also reduce accidents, because the plane can dodge oncoming planes, or buildings, and it lets the plane lift off far sooner than it otherwise would, letting it go on smaller airfields.

The cockpit reaction wheels are enabled because it's not possible to disable them. The monoprop was there because I messed up, and I have made the controls ignore other inputs.

You take issue with the taxing? Really? I had a go myself to see if it was as bad as you say, spoiler: It wasn't. User error again.

"Cockpit lights have not been added to action groups, and so remain unlit" How petty must you be to doc it marks for THIS?

Yeah, wings flex in time warp. That's irrelevant. It's not meant to fly in time warp, is it? The reviews are done at standard speed.

 

Also, Metric is worse than Imperial. I grew up on Metric, I taught myself Imperial. One massive advantage to Imperial is all the names are shorter. Some Metric units can be abbreviated, but there isn't a real abbreviation to millimeter, centimeter, milligram, and some other common units. Another is, a third of a meter is a recurring decimal. A third of a foot isn't. I could use fractions true, but my calculator can't. Metric's only advantage is it has powers of ten conversion ratios, in Imperial the units are also usually closer to what you are measuring, so you don't have numbers like 750, numbers like 9 or 6 most often. Those big numbers take longer to say and use more space on paper.

Also, converting units in Imperial is slightly harder, enough so I have to pay attention (and not make silly mistakes like I did in Metric) but not hard enough that I make mistakes. I can go on.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

-snip-

Holy crap, chill.

I understand that you fell strongly about this topic (it is your plane, after all), but there's no point in trying to shove your own viewpoint down another user's throat. I can see why you feel you are in the right, and how you've been wronged in some ways, but please, keep the tone level and not pointingly directed at someone else. 

Give the guy some credit, he's testing a plane that he has no idea in terms of controls and overall handling. I doubt you would be able to fly another user's craft as proficiently as the user themselves, in fact, I doubt anyone can. The fact that any of the judges can acclimate so quickly and turn around reviews is quite astonishing to me, so, please, on the premise of being an (unofficial) judge, I implore you both to keep this conversation civil and put niceties first. Don't let it develop any further and treat each other like equals. @Blasty McBlastblast That is all. Thanks for understanding.

On a completely irrelevant point, I'll post my next review sometime Friday. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

-snip-

Sorry about that. I do think however he is rich to criticize me for just having reverse thrust to slow down, when his plane doesn't even have that. On the other hand, I just confirmed it can safely freefall from 30,000m and water ditch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before i back away from this completely (criticisms were invited by @CrazyJebGuy a page ago), in the spirit of helping:

  • cockpit reaction wheels can be toggled on/off by right clicking the part > "toggle torque"
  • any lights can be added or removed to the light action group by going to actions > light
  • a third of anything is always going to be a recurring decimal
  • imperial units are still silly, and ironically are defined by metric standards anyhow! :P

i'm sure this will be quoted in it's entirety...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun fact: The Skots Speedmaster is 53% struts by part count. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Skots-Speedmaster-B

 

 

2 hours ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

Before i back away from this completely (criticisms were invited by @CrazyJebGuy a page ago), in the spirit of helping:

  • cockpit reaction wheels can be toggled on/off by right clicking the part > "toggle torque"
  • any lights can be added or removed to the light action group by going to actions > light
  • a third of anything is always going to be a recurring decimal
  • imperial units are still silly, and ironically are defined by metric standards anyhow! :P

i'm sure this will be quoted in it's entirety...

It will.

Imperial units defined off of Metric? They could just as easily have defined Imperial units based off of universal constants and based Metric off that. Not an argument.

Your first two points are correct, but I still think it's nitpicking.

A third of 1ft is 4 inches. 4 is not a recurring decimal. A third of three and quite a lot of numbers really is not a recurring decimal.

 

Edit: Yes - I did invite criticism. I am just criticizing your criticism because it was bad criticism. I'd also like to apologize for being so arguementative.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

imperial units are still silly, and ironically are defined by metric standards anyhow!

Nowadays. They used to be defined off of other things beforehand. For instance, the inch was from 3 dried round peppercorns or the width of a thumb, but a 1959 treaty standardized everything with the yard being 0.9144 m

Edited by qzgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Metric units used to be defined as Imperial units anyway. (Just saying - also, this was only in some places, e.g. the USA)

..... what no.... From Wikipedia " The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. "

I don;t think this would have changed....

Edited by qzgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2017 at 6:17 AM, Mjp1050 said:

How to Submit. Your post must include the following:

  1. 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.
  2. At least one screenshot of your designs.
  3. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me.
  4. 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.)
  5. 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.
  6. (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).

1. Kerbodyne Kerbski, Seaplane category

2. Album at https://imgur.com/a/j94XK

XrIHxRb.png

 

3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pi15e556w8son89/Kerbski.craft?dl=0

4. 26,912,000

5. On dry thrust, 308m/s and 3,200m. On afterburner, 523m/s and 7,500m.

6. A refined but uncomplicated amphibian flying boat. Equally capable of high efficiency ocean cruising and supersonic aerobatics.

Action groups:

1: Toggle engine.

2: Engine mode.

3: Toggle hydrofoils.

Brakes: spoilers.

Range:

Fuel capacity 530 / burn rate 0.14 * 308.8m/s / 1000 = 1169 on dry thrust

Fuel capacity 530 / burn rate 0.47 * 522.9m/s / 1000 = 589 on afterburner

 

 

Edited by Wanderfound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about the range calculation. When fully fueled, my plane is able to maintain 250 m/s cruise speed at most, but it slowly increases with time because fuel consumption leads to constant mass decrease. At ~50% fuel it manages to break the sound barrier, and shortly after that the engines start exploding due to overheating (after 4,500km distance traveled). If I fix the speed at, say, 250m/s in order to calculate th range, the result will be incorrect, because in this case fuel consumption will be continuously dropping during the flight. My calculus background says that I should define fuel consumption rate as a function of time, integrate it from t=0 to t=x, equate the result to total mass of fuel, and find x, which is flight time. Then, x*250m/s will be the true range. The question is, how do I define the fuel consumption rate?

TL;DR: fuel burn rate drops from 1.25/s to 0.58/s over the course of the flight. Should I just use the average to calculate range?

Edited by sh1pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

TL;DR: fuel burn rate drops from 1.25/s to 0.58/s over the course of the flight. Should I just use the average to calculate range?

I would just take the highest. Better to under promise and overdeliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

But the difference is quite significant. 5125km vs 7001km. And the latter number is much closer to actually tested range.

Yeah, then maybe the average is best. Call it 6000 km?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, qzgy said:

Yeah, then maybe the average is best. Call it 6000 km?

Max and min fuel rates give 5k and 11k km ranges, both of which are far from real range. If I use the averaged fuel burn rate, (1.25+0.58)/2 = 0.915, then the range is 7001km. In a test flight I got slightly less than 7k km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sh1pman said:

I have a question about the range calculation. When fully fueled, my plane is able to maintain 250 m/s cruise speed at most, but it slowly increases with time because fuel consumption leads to constant mass decrease. At ~50% fuel it manages to break the sound barrier, and shortly after that the engines start exploding due to overheating (after 4,500km distance traveled). If I fix the speed at, say, 250m/s in order to calculate th range, the result will be incorrect, because in this case fuel consumption will be continuously dropping during the flight. My calculus background says that I should define fuel consumption rate as a function of time, integrate it from t=0 to t=x, equate the result to total mass of fuel, and find x, which is flight time. Then, x*250m/s will be the true range. The question is, how do I define the fuel consumption rate?

TL;DR: fuel burn rate drops from 1.25/s to 0.58/s over the course of the flight. Should I just use the average to calculate range?

In much testin, I take the average of the start of cruise and end of cruise, calculated with the amount of fuel at the time when the aircraft reaches cruise. I leave a few units of fuel left as emergency supply but that doesn't impact range too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

In much testin, I take the average of the start of cruise and end of cruise, calculated with the amount of fuel at the time when the aircraft reaches cruise. I leave a few units of fuel left as emergency supply but that doesn't impact range too much.

Ok, I'll use the average number then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyasish'ev EK-4/EK-4e "Teal" small regional jet plane

The EK-4 family is heavily based on Kyasish'ev's highly experimental SK-2 "Harfang" science plane. Although the requirements for a commercial airplane were highly different from a scientific plane, the "Teal" shares the same general shape and principles, such as high cambered wings with a slight angle of incidence, T-shaped stabilisators as well as a rear wheel to prevent tail strikes. In order to meet the requirements for a commercial version, the main wing was re-designed without leading edge slats, but with an overall larger lifting coefficient, leading to increased reliability and decreased costs while retaining the performances of the versatile SK-2. The motorisation was also simplified, and the high-maintenance inline air intakes were replaced with a more classical engine setup. This allowed also the use of the whole fuselage for passengers, making the EK-4 a very compact plane.

Spoiler

8icG08H.png

left to right: SK-2 "Harfang", EK-4 and EK-4e "Teal"

Technical specifications:

 

Plane EK-4 EK-4e
Dimensions (l/w) 12.8m/13.8m 14.7m/13.8m
Weight (wet/dry) 15.4t/11.0t 16.4/12.0t
Pricing 19,493,000 20,043,000
Parts 37 38

Flight characteristics:

The wing allows for relatively low-speed take-off (60 to 65m/s), especially when the flaps (AG3) are used. The EK-4's ideal flight envelope lies at altitudes of 8000 to 11000m, with speeds of 450 to 500kn (230 to 255m/s). This brings the range of both planes to 1600km, well over the requirements for small regional planes (1600km is KSC-Baikerbanur-KSC on one tank).

Although the EK-4 are able to fly past Mach 1 at 5000m, it is strongly recommanded that pilots avoid such tomfoolery, as it will put unneeded strain on the airframe, possibly resulting in voided guarantees and permanent damage.

Action Groups:

AG1 Toggle engines
AG2 Toggle reverse thrust
AG3 Toggle flaps
AG9 Cut chute
AG0 Toggle ladder
RCS Toggle reaction wheels
ABORT Deploy chute

Download links:

Kyasish'ev EK-4 "Teal" on KerbalX

Kyasish'ev EK-4e "Teal" on KerbalX

Spoiler

xBGBrCB.png

Take-off.

0hm4SvA.png

EK-4 over the shores.

hmR9aXN.png

Ready for maintainance.

gh25BYq.png

Low altitude.

ze6Xt9H.png

Emergency landing

 

Edited by valens
New pictures
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number you quote as range doesn't matter too much. They will still review your craft, the reviewers might just say though that it has a far better range than advertised. (Happened to one of my planes)

It still is good though to know the range when you are making it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...