Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[Wanderfound]

1. Kerbodyne Kruiser, Supersonic category

2. 

 

3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/puhtfrleage1v29/Kerbodyne Kruiser.craft?dl=0

4. 45,171,000

5. 18,500m, 1,358m/s

6. Express passenger jet

Action groups:

1: Toggle engine.

Brakes: spoilers.

Range:

Fuel capacity 960 / burn rate 0.29 * 1358.5m/s / 1000 = 4,497

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @Kneves's WH-04

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 370,382,000
• Fuel: 35,400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 235 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 1.46 kal/s
• Range:  2100 km

Review Notes:

Wow... Just wow. We probably spent more on therapy for our pilots than actually paying for the airplane. It's big and looks good, but boy, we could handle this thing at all. Its poor ground handling restricts it to large airports with powerful enough tugs and plenty of space, and pilot training will likely be close to impossible.

Our pilots tell us that the craft is very unstable. With the tanks fully loaded, the plane is prone to tipping onto its tail, and if the tanks are more than 70% drained, the plane cannot pull up at all. We recommend to any future fliers to limit their minimums to around 50%. This limits the realistic range to about 2100km. The controls of this plane are untuned, and the relatively little vertical stabilizer area allows the craft to sideslip a lot. At cruise, the plane exhibits a constant nose up attitude, resulting in lots of drag and noise from the engines combating this. The WH-04 is quite responsive along the roll axis, but not along any others, this makes for a difficult and terrifying landing sequence, especially for airports that don't have a completely straight landing approach. If you manage to line up your descent, the WH-04 still struggles to stop on even the longest of runways despite the thrust reversing from the engines.

It was difficult to find anything positive about this craft. It's pricey, doesn't carry many passengers, and is a massive pain. At 88 parts, maintenance won't cost much, but considering how easy it is to cause tailstrikes on take off, damage may come too easily.

The Verdict:

If we could sum it up in one word it'd be this: No. To put it plainly, we don't like this aircraft. It's hard to fly, not cost effective, and is hard to fit into existing routes. Not to mention the few airports that can support this plane. Unless major changes are made, Kerbal Express won't be purchasing WH-04s anytime soon.

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis

[RedPandaz]

Would anyone want to test-fly my aircraft to get like the target speed and cruising altitude? I'm busy with school, and not the best pilot either. Anyone who does this I will credit

[NightshineRecorralis]

7 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

Would anyone want to test-fly my aircraft to get like the target speed and cruising altitude? I'm busy with school, and not the best pilot either. Anyone who does this I will credit

Which plane?

[NildimensionalString]

 

"Humpback" Superheavy Passenger Airliner by WinterTech Labs

The first entry of WinterTech Laboratories in the Jumbo Jet industry

 

• Price: 308.827.000
• Fuel: 49.300 kallons
• Cruising speed: 200 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4500 m
• Fuel burn rate: 1.55 kal/s
• Range:  6500 km

Download: https://kerbalx.com/NildimensionalString/Humpback-Superheavy-Passenger-Airliner

After failing to design a heavy passenger airplane for a third party contract, the heads of WinterTech discovered that they owned a patent of a heavy cargo plane from a bankrupt startup they had purchased. After "accidentally" installing seats on the cargo bays and presenting it as brand new, it became a huge sensation in the industry. Reports of traces of glue found near the edges of the fuselages are exaggerated according to WinderTech’s CEO.

Spoiler

Truly a behemoth of its own kind, the Humpback is one of the few airliners utilizing a complete second fuselage design, as well as a secondary cockpit. Eight Nine of the most efficient turbofans provide generous thrust at low altitudes and speeds. Despite its humongous mass it can takeoff really easily by starting yaw control at 70m/s and it can climb up at angles as steep as 30 degrees. It cruises well at a speed of 200m/s and an altitude of 4,5km, but it can rise up to 6km when at the final third of its fuel. With its fuel tanks filled to the brim, it can easily circumnavigate the entire globe without refueling with an acceptable TWR, but the fuel levels should be adjusted for shorter journeys. It has a capacity of 134 Kerbals or 192 "Kerbal Passengers" according to the rules of the challenge.

Spoiler

Its passenger capacity could easily be increased to ~220 with no more than 50.000 extra, but this would ruin the beautiful symmetric appearance of the plane 

It is true that the price tag of the aircraft is pretty high, mostly as a result of tension between C7 and WinterTech causing an increase in the price of the C7 Mk3 passenger bays (30k? Really?). Only a fraction of the cost is the fuel, so an investment in this plane will pay off quickly. We hope that better diplomacy and cooperation between the companies will result in the price being reduced in the future. 

Edited December 25, 2017 by NildimensionalString
Spelling errors...

[sh1pman]

My tiny and minimalistic Jumbo Jet submission!

Albatross II by Keladi Corporation.

Link to the craft: https://kerbalx.com/sh1pman/Albatross

Price: 321,683,000

Takeoff speed: 70 m/s

Recommended cruising speed: 300 m/s 

Altitude: 6,000 m

Passenger capacity: 168

Fuel usage: variable

Range: 7,500 km

Video: 

Action groups: AG-1 - Reverse thrust. Brakes - toggle airbrakes.

Easily takes off at 70 m/s. Fascinating view for the rearmost passengers guaranteed. Warranty void if overspeeding. Engines may or may not explode upon breaking the sound barrier.

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by sh1pman

[RedPandaz]

On 12/25/2017 at 7:34 AM, NightshineRecorralis said:

Which plane?

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse-S 

[NightshineRecorralis]

46 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse-S 

Delta Impulse: 6000m @ 270m/s - 1690km range , 8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range (Afterburner)

Delta Impulse S: 5000m @ 200m/s - 1235km range, 8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range (afterburner)

[CrazyJebGuy]

44 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Delta Impulse: 6000m @ 270m/s - 1690km range , 8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range (Afterburner)

Delta Impulse S: 5000m @ 200m/s - 1235km range, 8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range (afterburner)

Why so high? Not any of planes do more than 4km, most fly flat on the deck even.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Why so high? Not any of planes do more than 4km, most fly flat on the deck even.

Drag is the primary concern. Then there's potential obstructions. The highest place on kerbin is no higher than 8km, and most lands are under 5km.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Drag is the primary concern. Then there's potential obstructions. The highest place on kerbin is no higher than 8km, and most lands are under 5km.

I know drag is, but when I do test at different altitudes I sometimes see my planes do worse - and then there is the consideration of the time it takes to climb, and that it maneuvers worse at altitude, I don't bother usually.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I know drag is, but when I do test at different altitudes I sometimes see my planes do worse - and then there is the consideration of the time it takes to climb, and that it maneuvers worse at altitude, I don't bother usually.

Even in real life, shorter flights climb to lower altitudes. This is also reflected in most of the submissions. Depending on the design, most planes are still more efficient at higher altitudes. Yours may not be, and that's okay.

[1Revenger1]

Test Pilot Review: @Samwise Potato Spud Flight: SF-S240 "Marigold"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 31,094,000
• Fuel: 1600 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1110 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 20,250 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s
• Range: 6330 km

Review Notes:

We enjoyed this plane quite a bit, due to it's small size and nimble controls. Our test pilots were easily able to handle the plane with no training or practice, finding the handling very similar to some of our own planes that we had developed. The Marigold took off very quickly thanks to its two Whiplashes, rivaling the takeoff distance of smaller turboprops as well. Although the rudder was a little lackluster, the plane was still easy enough to fly.

Passenger comfort was good as well. The two whiplashes are far away from the cabin, reducing vibrations and noise; although no matter what, the Whiplashes will be noisy in places like takeoff and climb. It flies very smoothly though, especially at cruise, allowing passengers to walk around as needed during the flight with little risk of being effected by turbulence or other factors because of the high cruising altitude. Maintenance would also be cheap due to it's low part count and having two Whiplash engines total. It's durable, and we've been able to smash it into the ground with no damage done.

Overall, we have no complaints about the aircraft except for one thing, it's small passenger load. We would've liked it if maybe one or two more cabins could've been fitted to help increase the payload we could put on board. It has the engine power and range to support it, so we would think it would be a minor change.

The Verdict:

We don't have much to say about this aircraft really. It flies well, has great performance, and is good at even smaller airports. We will buy 30 of them for use on business class flights and low-usage routes mainly over the ocean. This plane would also be good for charters due to it being able to get pretty much anywhere.

[RedPandaz]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:41 PM, NightshineRecorralis said:

Delta Impulse: 6000m @ 270m/s - 1690km range , 8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range (Afterburner)

Delta Impulse S: 5000m @ 200m/s - 1235km range, 8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range (afterburner)

Thank you

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

I know I'm not an official reviewer, but I want to get the thread going again....

Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K32

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 43,490 (dry)
• Fuel: 3200 kallons (Although 4400 fully loaded)
• Cruising speed: 230m/s
• Cruising altitude: ~3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.18kal/s
• Range:  4,100km ( ~2500mi )

Review Notes:

 When the prototype arrived the engineers were a bit surprised by the wing mounted rudders and the relatively small elevator, and were concerned about tail-strikes. But tail-strikes weren't a big problem. Taxiing out to the runway was very smooth, but as an airplane it was very nose-heavy, and on takeoff the elevators had to be fully engaged for a bit, or else the K32 would fall back onto the runway and bounce. We were able to get it off at a bit under 60m/s, which is fairly good.

 On landing it tends to bump, but it can land on an impressively short runway. In the sky however the Kerbair K32 will pitch down 5 to 10 degrees for every roll adjustment, of which is very sensitive. It does climb quickly though, but a full turn takes about a mile to do - which is barely acceptable.

On comfort though it is hard to fault it, discounting the pitch, the landing gear have very good springs and all the seats except a few have great views, the wing-mounted engines make for a comfortable (if slightly loud, the engines are very loud) flight.

The cost is a a bit high for a Small Regional Jet, but at only 23 parts, long-term, maintenance brings it down a bit. The range also is very impressive, enough to circumnavigate Kerbin, and with average milage, 0.025 kallons per passenger mile (KPPM). Safety wise, it's pretty solid. Water ditching is uncomfortable, but doable and even at very high speeds the passengers are likely to survive.

The Verdict:

The plane is actually fairly good, except for the terrible handling, which really lets it down on some routes. Buying 4 with options for 8 more, to service long distance low demand routes, and across oceans.

 

Edit: I wanted to say we could fit some mail and luggage in the back cargo ramp.

Edited January 1, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[kerbinorbiter]

5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I know I'm not an official reviewer, but I want to get the thread going again....

Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K32

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 43,490 (dry)
• Fuel: 3200 kallons (Although 4400 fully loaded)
• Cruising speed: 230m/s
• Cruising altitude: ~3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.18kal/s
• Range:  4,100km ( ~2500mi )

Review Notes:

 When the prototype arrived the engineers were a bit surprised by the wing mounted rudders and the relatively small elevator, and were concerned about tail-strikes. But tail-strikes weren't a big problem. Taxiing out to the runway was very smooth, but as an airplane it was very nose-heavy, and on takeoff the elevators had to be fully engaged for a bit, or else the K32 would fall back onto the runway and bounce. We were able to get it off at a bit under 60m/s, which is fairly good.

 On landing it tends to bump, but it can land on an impressively short runway. In the sky however the Kerbair K32 will pitch down 5 to 10 degrees for every roll adjustment, of which is very sensitive. It does climb quickly though, but a full turn takes about a mile to do - which is barely acceptable.

On comfort though it is hard to fault it, discounting the pitch, the landing gear have very good springs and all the seats except a few have great views, the wing-mounted engines make for a comfortable (if slightly loud, the engines are very loud) flight.

The cost is a a bit high for a Small Regional Jet, but at only 23 parts, long-term, maintenance brings it down a bit. The range also is very impressive, enough to circumnavigate Kerbin, and with average milage, 0.025 kallons per passenger mile (KPPM). Safety wise, it's pretty solid. Water ditching is uncomfortable, but doable and even at very high speeds the passengers are likely to survive.

The Verdict:

The plane is actually fairly good, except for the terrible handling, which really lets it down on some routes. Buying 4 with options for 8 more, to service long distance low demand routes, and across oceans.

 

Edit: I wanted to say we could fit some mail and luggage in the back cargo ramp.

yeah i know the take off is an issue should be fixed in the K33 and the K34 (i hope) im really basing this upon real aircraft this one was bassed on the A318 

[TaRebelSheep]

New submission, here we go! (it's a strange one, hope it doesn't get disqualified)

The Trifekta Aeronautics AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer, or just AEG-5s, is the brain child of one of our most inspired (and amphetamine dependent) aircraft designers. Completely asymmetrical, the AEG-5s somehow manages to maintain stable flight, despite wing parts placed seemingly at random and 2 panther engines in seemingly random places. A small regional jet, the AEG-5s is good for novelty short distance flights.

Specs:

• Parts: 31
• Passenger capacity: 12 (IK a bit low but the AEG-5s wasn't designed for this competition, a friend asked me to submit it)
• Range:  1900L / 0.18 * 330m/s / 1000m = 3483km, not bad for a "small" craft
• Price: 22,071,000

https://kerbalx.com/TaRebelSheep/AEG-5s-Asymmetrical-Flyer

https://imgur.com/a/oLzhH

Edited January 2, 2018 by TaRebelSheep
added images

[TheFlyingKerman]

@CrazyJebGuy You should apply to be an official judge. There are too many entries.

[CrazyJebGuy]

39 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

@CrazyJebGuy You should apply to be an official judge. There are too many entries.

I'm sort of doing that. I'm just reviewing and hoping I'll become official, and thus all my reviews become official retroactively. I'm hoping my standards as a reviewer are close to the other reviewers.

 

But anyway.... (Reviewing another plane now)

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer

Figures as Tested: (Note the aircraft did not come with recommended height and cruising suggestions - we took 2 guesses)

• Price: 22,071,000
• Fuel: 1900 kallons
• Cruising speed: 321m/s (Alternatively 288m/s)
• Cruising altitude: 800m (Alternatively 3500m/s)
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s (Alternatively 0.15kal/s)
• Range:  2547km (Alternatively 3648km)

Review Notes:

 The aircraft's extremely unusual nature makes it arguably legal, and it gives it unusual flight characteristics. It also carries 24 passengers, double what was advertised. While not impressive, it is okay. It also unsticks from the runway a bit over the requirement of 80m/s, and has a tendency to roll immediately afterwards. In-fact it has a tendency to roll a bit whenever the pitch is altered, meaning it is good for being a jet powered roller-coaster.

 Once cruising however, it is quite fast. The views from the rear cockpits are good, however the forward one? Not so much. The pilot's seat has a very good view, with nothing obstructing on the front, and next to nothing blocking his view sideways. One engine is nice and far from the seats, and vibrates it very little. The other however is a bit closer, but the vibrations (unlike the sound) are dampened. It's very long range is a plus.

A thing that is not a plus is that the craft has no air-brakes, but by pitching wildly it can bleed speed very fast. It still can take off and land from medium-smallish runways, and it can land on water, but not take off. When we tried to power it up it nosed down and sank.... Maintainance is middling though, at 31 parts. Even more so, considering all the mechanics will need new training. The thing bends a little bit, but it isn't serious and the thing seems pretty sturdy apart from that. The up front cost though is not very high.

The Verdict:

We'll buy 1 as an airborne roller-coaster, and 2 more for long range high speed low traffic routes, and low traffic cross-oceanic routes.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer

Figures as Tested: (Note the aircraft did not come with recommended height and cruising suggestions - we took 2 guesses)

• Price: 22,071,000
• Fuel: 1900 kallons
• Cruising speed: 321m/s (Alternatively 288m/s)
• Cruising altitude: 800m (Alternatively 3500m/s)
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s (Alternatively 0.15kal/s)
• Range:  2547km (Alternatively 3648km)

Review Notes:

 The aircraft's extremely unusual nature makes it arguably legal, and it gives it unusual flight characteristics. It also carries 24 passengers, double what was advertised. While not impressive, it is okay. It also unsticks from the runway a bit over the requirement of 80m/s, and has a tendency to roll immediately afterwards. In-fact it has a tendency to roll a bit whenever the pitch is altered, meaning it is good for being a jet powered roller-coaster.

 Once cruising however, it is quite fast. The views from the rear cockpits are good, however the forward one? Not so much. The pilot's seat has a very good view, with nothing obstructing on the front, and next to nothing blocking his view sideways. One engine is nice and far from the seats, and vibrates it very little. The other however is a bit closer, but the vibrations (unlike the sound) are dampened. It's very long range is a plus.

A thing that is not a plus is that the craft has no air-brakes, but by pitching wildly it can bleed speed very fast. It still can take off and land from medium-smallish runways, and it can land on water, but not take off. When we tried to power it up it nosed down and sank.... Maintainance is middling though, at 31 parts. Even more so, considering all the mechanics will need new training. The thing bends a little bit, but it isn't serious and the thing seems pretty sturdy apart from that. The up front cost though is not very high.

The Verdict:

We'll buy 1 as an airborne roller-coaster, and 2 more for long range high speed low traffic routes, and low traffic cross-oceanic routes.

Quick question, what are the throttle settings that you test with?

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Quick question, what are the throttle settings that you test with?

Whatever I think it was reasonable that the creator did. In this case, I guessed and went for a bit over 2 thirds.

[kerbinorbiter]

KERBAIR K-32-200

WAIT WHERE ARE THE ENGINES?

here because we have took on the advice of the test pilot and created a more comfortable, faster, safer and more manuverable plane than before

Essensialy same stats as before

Cost is 58,010,000 more expensive but same effeciency and same crusing altitude

https://kerbalx.com/Kerbalorbiter/Kerbair-K32-200 

[Joseph Kerman]

Wut about WCT, @Mjp1050?

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Joseph Kerman said:

Wut about WCT, @Mjp1050?

There is a huge backlog, and I seem to be the only active judge. (And I'm not even official yet)

Hope some others do stuff over the weekend.