Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[Hotel26]

On 2017/10/21 at 1:49 AM, panzerknoef said:

Lassen-Supersonic-A

Very fine aircraft.  Maiden test flight.  Love it; love it.  Night landing at Baikerbanur...  I'm a little nervous as I know nothing about stall speed, etc...  I'm sure it will all work out(*).

Beautiful job!

* only 2 souls aboard

EDIT: beautiful.  got to love those speed brakes.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Hotel26

[Kebab Kerman]

On 11/17/2017 at 12:57 PM, panzerknoef said:

Test Pilot Review: @Bombstar10's The Space Company - Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 202.179.000
• Fuel: 2485kallons
• Cruising speed: 240m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.41kal/s
• Range:  1400km

Review Notes:

Boy oh boy, we thought the "Kerman Dove" was a deathtrap... In comparison to this plane it's a flight in first class. But more on that later, let's start with the design. It looks as if it was put together utterly randomly, and then the engineers forgot to actually make sure everything was bolted on properly. 

Then, performance... The only part where the plane actually more or less holds up. The UT-1B takes off at 50m/s, which is a good number for a plane of such size. The plane doesn't reach that speed extraordinarily fast or slow though. Once airborne the engines rather quickly propel the aircraft to its top speed of 240m/s. At cruising speed and altitude it manages an efficient 0.41kal/s. Combine this with the 2845 units of fuel and you get a rather short, even too short, range of around 1400km. The plane maneuvers okishly at all speeds, despite seeming very sluggish right after take-off.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. While the maneuvering is quite okay, it does cause some...unpleasantness. Turning hard at almost any speed will eventually lead to total and unrecoverable wing damage. This happens a lot, and when I say a lot, I mean A LOT! (in fact so often that trying to get an in flight shot resulted in wing failure...so that's the picture now) Trying to line up with the runway? woops wing failure.. you're dead. The brighter side though, after one wing shears off, the second one quickly follows, causing the plane to fall way faster than with one wing remaining. That way the passengers at least have to suffer a bit shorter. Apart from the wings which seem to've been made out of spaghetti, the plane is also ridiculously prone to tail strikes, and when that tail strikes... pretty much half of your plane goes with it, at least 24 fatalities. Maybe it's better when that happens because at least that's 72 less fatalities than when the plane does get airborne.

Moving on to comfort.The broad wings stop a lot of sound coming from the 4 large wing mounted engines, causing a fairly silent and soft flight. Sadly the silence of the airplane rather quickly gets undone by screams of death and terror as passengers notice a wing has come off...again. Not to mention there's usually a bit of the wing with a single engine remaining... And with very little of it left, it doesn't stop sound anymore. So if you were hoping to fall to your death solely accompanied by screaming, I'll have to disappoint you, as the ear shattering sound of a contraprop engine quickly floods the cabins and adds to the jolly good sound of your pending death. If that doesn't happen, well there's a 70% chance there was a tailstrike incident earlier. In which case the now open cabin once more allows the sounds of all 4 beastly engines to enter and burn right through your ears.

Last but not least, the price... 202.179.000 and 75 parts, but that doesn't matter since you won't be using those more than once, so no maintenance... woooo! All in all, we think it's a bit too expensive for a plane which is nothing more than a killing machine, I'd say take it to the military, but sadly it doesn't kill the other guys, it kills the people inside the plane.

The Verdict:

It does a FORMIDABLE job as death trap, but really nothing more. We really don't see how these would be any kind of positive addition to our fleet at all. Obviously we will not be buying one. However, if we do ever hear of a big group of criminals who've received the death sentence and they don't know how to complete it, we'll direct them your way.

I'm honestly tempted to make an even better death trap, but one that doesn't have really loud engines, but instead a detachable cabin, as well as the cockpit. I tried one in the past, but my engineers made a mistake and used the docking ports to connect the rudder and one of the main wings instead. It did have a drone core, though, so thankfully no lives should have been lost. Unfortunately, it detached above the tracking station at low altitude, causing it to crash into the empty but still destroyed R&D. The engineers were never seen again. I made sure they rode their own creation.

Jeb took care of that. Thankfully we attached a cabin on top to decouple, that had parachutes. It is now used for abandoning crashing cargo craft.

Seriously though, he's a madman. That guy flies like a badass, but gets everyone killed in the process. Which is why I let him fly it.

 

He did it over the KSC too, unaware that we wanted to keep the VAB.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Kebab Kerman]

The largest passenger aircraft I have ever built, but not the largest plane I have ever built. Can hold 1,440 passengers. No download yet, but there will be one soon. However, it may just need a bit more landing gear. Maybe on the edges of the wings, as well as flaps on them. Thrust reversers and snacks not included, unfortunately.

EDIT: Checking cost, name, and cruising altitude. Cruising speed and settings generally have the engines closest to the fuselage off, with full throttle on the other four.

Recommended landing pitch: 0 Degrees, as it seems to pitch down a bit on it's own.

Notable Features: Bar, saloon, 20 bathrooms, a few snack cabinets in the nose, and luggage storage in the tail. The entire tail. Because who wouldn't want to fit 20 tons of luggage? It can also be extended.

Note: The runway at KSC is not long enough for the plane to take off. You need a longer runway, as the KSC runway is only 2.5 km long. It's engines don't get it up to speed fast enough. Either that or it needs more wing area.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

On 1/10/2018 at 5:40 AM, Kebab Kerman said:

-snip-

If it needs that long of a takeoff, the review will definitely dock some points.  Just saying. BTW, @Mjp1050 Can you send me the spreadsheet of planes, and make me an official reviewer? I am just reviewing and hoping it's not already reviewed. EDIT: This one is. Oops.

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 59,677,000
• Fuel: 2340 kallons (~1555 standard)
• Cruising speed: 200m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.13kal/s
• Range:  2470km

Review Notes:

 On receiving the shipment our engineers were a little bit baffled by the strange machine they saw emerge from the box. Immediatley they began to wonder if some bits were really nessecary

 After takeing off without incident, it was noted that on landing, and getting out to strtch our pilot's legs that he should have turned the engines off. He was safe luckily but a bit worried. Range was 2470 after loading with 1600 kallons of fuel. A little less than promised, but still quite good.

In flight it was a little bit hard to control, especially at rolling, but it is a decent flyer discounting that. The pilot's view is good, except for his view forward, but it does sheild the plane to some degree from water spray. The plane itself feels very sensitive to controls, and engine power makes the plane pitch a bit hard to control on occasion. Comfort is acceptable, being good apart from the noise and vibrations caused by the engines. (And the bumping from instability)

In many regards it actually fairly average, speed, landing, not handling, and comfort. On maintenance it has 34 parts, but 2 are high maintenance engines.

The Verdict:

Long range, expensive, a bit unstable in flight, and medium everything else. But with a passenger count of just 24, especially with a price tag of nearly sixty million, we really can't justify buying more than 2 for long range sea-plane operations. The range is the only thing really keeping it competitive with other designs.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[Kebab Kerman]

On 1/12/2018 at 6:29 AM, CrazyJebGuy said:

If it needs that long of a takeoff, the review will definitely dock some points.

I can probably add another engine or two, or increase wing area by upscaling the wings, and using mods that add more runways like Kerbin-Side usually helps with this problem. I can try to make another, smaller three-level plane, or shorten this one, but it will take a while. At the moment, I am at school, so I will probably reply when I have some more free time. I do have some cargo planes, though, so if you want, I can put them on KerbalX for testing. Just be warned, a certain one acts more like a fighter instead of a giant flying 18-wheeler. Incredible maneuverability.

EDIT: I can't see Imgur images from school, unfortunately, so I can't see the beautiful images. Using steam screenshots and dragging the image into the reply seems to work though. Thats what I did.

Anyway, I'm working on a plane built for pure safety in mind, pretty much ignoring everything else exept costs, by detaching the cabin and deploying parachutes on it. It's a good concept, so I will try it when I get home. Unfortunately, the cockpit is a different problem. In which case, there will be a Mk1 crew cabin and a drone core, maybe instead a small cockpit with two seats, in the rear cargo bay, where the pilots will detach the cabin. The cabin can be reattached to another plane, as it uses docking ports to make things easier. It may or may not violate rules, but technically it doesn't, as you (hopefully) won't need to detach the cabin. It will have the landing gear and some pontoons, in case of emergency over water. I tried this before, and it worked amazingly well. It will be the ultimate safety solution, as there is almost no chance of death, unless you forget to deploy the parachutes or transfer the pilots. Don't forget, Jeb shouldn't fly this alone, because he will need to transfer if it crashes. I don't care what he says, DO NOT LET HIM FLY THE PLANE ALONE! Scratch that, don't let him fly any of my planes, period. Seriously, he doesn''t need to get himself killed trying to perform a stunt. Never ditch over or within one kilometer of populated areas. Or the space center. Or near other planes. It might work when taking off, if you use the brakes when you detach the cabin.

EDIT: Tested the plane.

It, uhhh... It- it didn't work. It rolled on the runway.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra-P

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 15,905,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 500 kallons (600 max)
• Cruising speed: 245m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.13kal/s
• Range:  900km

Review Notes:

On receiving what looked a fairly ordinary plane, we took it for a test spin and got it into the air, and noticed very quickly that this plane loves pitching down. So much so that the built in autopilot can't keep the plane level, meaning it has to be done manually. But that's ok - we don't pay our pilots for sleeping, after all.

But that, combined with the kite's somewhat weak pitch and yaw authority, means pitching up is very slow. The fact that the plane is so eager to get into a dive, and so slow to pull out is not terribly reassuring about safety. Roll is very disconcerting, because the thing can spin 180 in about a second. (In our mind, not a very safe combination.)

It doesn't have any form of air-brakes, but on the ground the light mass means the wheel brakes stop it reasonably quickly. To it's credit, it can water ditch though, and run on two engines, even if the faulty engine is a side one, it doesn't have enough leverage to affect the plane much.

The pitch never gave us a number for range, but we expected it to be higher when it said the plane was ideal for long range low traffic routes. Our calculations put the range at a not impressive 900km. Still, the plane itself is cheap, but maintainance is not. Having over double the part count of some other designs (it has 50!) do not make for cheap operation.

The Verdict:

 The Canberra-P has no serious faults, but it does have enough minor faults and problems to outweigh the good mileage, cheap cost of purchase and small size. (Saves a bit on hangar space) We are afraid the bad handling, range and very high maintenance are a bit too bad.

EXCEPT: An intern has rushed this up right before sending, apparently the  insides are very good, we forgot to test them. He spent half an hour solving rubics cubes or something in it, and he says the view would be good if we hadn't parked it near some portaloos. Apparently the seats are very comfortable too, so we have decided to buy 3, (with options for 8 more) after all, as luxury transports. The Canberra-P is very cheap for a plane of that type..

Edited January 13, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
Forgot to add a picture.

[Agent Awesome]

Unlimited Aerospace Presents the KB-90 "Slipstream" Supersonic Passenger Plane

The folks here at Unlimited Aerospace are proud to present their brand new state-of-the-art supersonic passenger jet to the board of KEA.

After extensive testing, we feel that our aircraft is up to the strict standards imposed by your airline.

Lets look at the facts,

Part count: 74

Mass: 24t

Price: 49,735,000

Recommended Cruising Altitude: 15,000 to 15,500m

Recommended Cruising Speed: 500 to 550 m/s

Fuel Burn Rate During Cruise: 0.48k/s

Estimated Cruising Range: ~1925km

Passenger Capacity

40 Seats

 

This aircraft was designed with the sole purpose of combining speed, maneuverability, comfort, ease of maintenance and safety into one plane.

In terms of speed, the two Panther engines provide enough thrust to get it most places and the powerful J-X4 Whiplash engine is capable of sending the craft through the sound barrier to settle in its super-cruise. Unfortunately, An independent review by the Kerbin Aviation Management Society has requested that the Whiplash engine must not be used under 7,500 m over land after a low altitude test flight resulted in many Kerbals losing their hearing.

With the After-Burners activated, this plane turns on a dime, and we were so confident that it could we drafted in the KSC's top test pilot, Jebediah Kerman, to fly the plane through the treacherous Kerbin mountain range. The jet came back with not even a scratch, according to Jeb he was flying the plane below the mountaintops between 200 and 300 m/s.

The personnel here at Unlimited Aerospace are confident that our aircraft will fit in the ranks of KEA's supersonic division and might even double as a mid-range regional jet

Action Groups

1:Toggle Main Engines

2:Toggle Afterburners 

3:Toggle Ramjet

Thankyou

https://kerbalx.com/Mitch-Mash/KB-90-Slipstream

Edited April 13, 2018 by Agent Awesome
Link update

[TaRebelSheep]

I'm submitting a plane that doesn't really fit many requirements, but it's cute and multitasks well so I'm going to submit it anyway.

The Trifekta Aeronautics Kessna -K170 is a (very) light aircraft capable of carrying nine (9) passengers, one MK-1 crew cabin and a spare seat in the cockpit for those extra paying passengers. It takes off at, well any speed you like really as long as it's over 30 m/s and is very manoeuvrable in the air and on the ground. The stock model Kessna doesn't carry a lot of fuel, but it runs extremely efficiently on its one experimental super-adapting turboprop engine, which changes its thrust output depending on the demand being placed on the aircraft (seriously the engine actually does that).

The special thing about the Kessna though, is that it is a SEAPLANE. That's right, this small one engine'd cute little thing can land and take off from water almost as easily as if it were land! Just floor the throttle and pull up until you're up!

Action groups: press 5 to toggle spoilers, which are the inner wing flaps. they're very effective at bleeding speed fast, so don't overuse them.

Usage: fly the plane at half throttle, fly it at full throttle, the Kessna doesn't care! The very low mileage does fluctuate a lot if you're doing sick stunts all the time though, try to fly as smoothly as possible to conserve maximum fuel and get the most out of your 100 units of LF. Don't pull up too hard when taking off on land or you'll strike the tail and lose the back half of the plane, but if you do just give the remaining flaps pitch control and keep flying! who needs the back half of the plane anyways? when cruising, fly at about 2500 m. You should notice the engine doing about 7 kn, this is normal and is just the engine minimizing fuel usage. Feel free to do sick turns, the engine will compensate but your mileage will suffer. Max speed is about 165 m/s, any more and the engine stalls.

Taking off/ landing on water: floor the gas, pull the stick way back and hold it there until the plane unsticks from the water at about 40 m/s. Landings should be made at 40 m/s or less, use those spoilers.

Range: 100 / 0.02 (average) * 165 / 1000 gives a range of 825 km. I have no Idea what that is as a percentage of Kerbin's circumference but during an endurance flight the Kessna ran out of fuel at about a quarter of the way around.

Download: https://kerbalx.com/TaRebelSheep/Cessna-K-170

More images: https://imgur.com/a/W8mx5

Edited March 10, 2018 by TaRebelSheep

[TheFlyingKerman]

No more reviews???

I updated my Kerbus K-350 entry, with some fine tuning. It now flies slightly higher, at 11400m (was 11000m) and has even better fuel economy.  At 0.0044 Kallons per passenger mile it is probably the most economic plane out there.

https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/36834

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 hours ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

No more reviews???

I updated my Kerbus K-350 entry, with some fine tuning. It now flies slightly higher, at 11400m (was 11000m) and has even better fuel economy.  At 0.0044 Kallons per passenger mile it is probably the most economic plane out there.

https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/36834

There is a really huge backlog. I am not even official technically, and I kind of wish that another judge would send me the list of planes and which are reviewed, I am pretty much reviewing at random and I am just hoping my review isn't a review of a plane already reviewed.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's KAT Chalduro

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 
• Fuel: 1040 kallons
• Cruising speed: 206 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6500 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s
• Range:  3400 km

Review Notes:

 When we opened the box to this plane, the engineers watching stared for a minute or two, and then started debating which end was the front. When we took it off the runway (after concluding the lengthy debate with offers of snacks) the engineers were amazed that it lifted off the runway so easily, with such a small wing area. It took off at under 50m/s! Which is pretty good for newer pilots.

What isn't great for newer pilots is the handling. Aside from being very nose-heavy, it spins very easily and once in a spin, tend to start flying backwards. And down. It can take a lot of altitude to pull out of the spin, and it turns poorly. This is not particularly good for safety, or pilot training costs.

We tested the range, and it came out at about 3400km, considerably less than the 4500km promised. It is still impressive though, and for a price so low. For comfort, the vibrations are significant, but the view is good. We would have liked the ability to open windows, we would have saved on barf bags. The plane is fairly fast though, and fuel efficient.

Now the economics of it. Mileage? It has a KPPM of 0.02, which is quite good for a small craft, it has a very reasonable cost of 19,934,000 (dry) and a medium-high maintenance with 32 parts. This is though, offset, due to the extensive training pilots need to fly it. And 24 passengers is a bit on the low side.

The Verdict:

We think it is really only viable for long, unpopular, economy routes, with little turning involved. We are buying 3 for that purpose with options for 14 more if the handling is fixed.

[Joseph Kerman]

When are WCT's craft gonna be evaluated? The employees are kinda getting impatient.

[Cols]

Fantastic Designs Presents! The A797, the plane to knock all other Jumbo Jets out of the sky! Inspired in part by the twin mustang, it holds 152+ passengers in utter comfort, this multi-hulled flying Jumbo Jet does. Comes already set for different flight classes!  Solar Panel so you can run the AC at the gate and not waste fuel! Specially designed gear so that you can take off angled upwards, and land flat! An afterburning engine to really push it into the air! Burns at a rate of .35 at best altitude. Part count 124, and weighing only 60.74 tons! And it's a trijet too! All of this for only $51,342,000!

Catagory is Jumbo Jet. 

Cruising speed at 140 k/s, at an altitude of 4000m. 

Album https://imgur.com/gallery/9CuDF will appear when post is submitted

https://imgur.com/gallery/9CuDF

https://kerbalx.com/Cols/A797

Edited January 27, 2018 by Cols
gallery

[CrazyJebGuy]

7 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

When are WCT's craft gonna be evaluated? The employees are kinda getting impatient.

Possibly never. The waiting list only grows, and it is already very long. Also, I don't kno9w exactly how long or what planes are already reviewed, so I am just guessing.

All 5 of the official judges are not here, so if some-one else thinks they can, they are welcome to. (Don't bother asking for permission)

If @Mjp1050 sees this, I think he should put some sort of deadline on it, because the list is growing to infinity.

Edited January 27, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @macktruck6666's Lackheed L-1011 Jumbo Jet

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 321,395,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 14670 kallons
• Cruising speed: m/s
• Cruising altitude: m
• Fuel burn rate: kal/s
• Range: 3,800 km
• Passengers: 192

Review Notes:

 Our engineers were a bit surprised by some interesting design choices. And a bit surprised because the intake on the top of the fuselage? That's actually an engine. But it can't thrust backwards, so it doesn't move the plane. It does though, make for a very powerful air conditioner.

The pilots were eager to fly in it. So we took it out to the runway and it took off at 78m/s. Considering it weights 185 tons, we were impressed. Off to a flying start. (Apologies for the pun)

Once in the air, the plane behaved better than we expected. It water landed safely, and was stable in the water. It is a bit slow on the yaw, but it flies well apart from. On landing, it can land with a small amount of runway considering it's size and bulk. Although the wings do flex a bit more than is normal, it isn't serious.

As for comfort, it sucks. But only near the rear of the plane. The further forward you go the nicer it is. The air conditioner is superb however, so this plane would be well suited for tropical regions.

But what really lets this plane down, is the price. We could buy quite a lot of smaller planes for the price. It is hard to justify an expense this big, with a passenger count of merely 192. It's KPPM, too, is 0.032, which is average for small planes. But jumbo jets of this size frequently sip only half that amount, or less. The part count of 132 is, pretty cheap compared to the rest of it. It's still on the high end though.

The Verdict:

 An impressive plane with an impressive price. It's good in all ways, except for one important one. We'll rent one, and if it turns out to be profitable we'll buy it, maybe some more. For long range routes. We'll sell luxury at the front, economy seating at the rear. But the air conditioner is wonderful.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Im The One's TOHC SST-1

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 35,280,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 1200 kallons
• Cruising speed: 656 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7200 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.29 kal/s
• Range: 2,714 km

Review Notes:

 After unpacking this, it made us hungry so we went and had pancakes. After snacks, the engineers came out and immediately wondering if flies. The pilots were less keen. But after some persuasion, they agreed and we sent it out to the runway. The pilot started it up, and voom. Up in the air in 3 seconds. This thing takes off at a very low 40m/s, (although we almost scored a tailstrike) and it is pretty stable in flight.

Jebediah may or may not have crashed the prototype after getting it into a spin when doing aerial acrobatics. But after fixing the broken plane refueling it, we went on another test flight, this time with passengers. The view from the ceiling windows is remarkably blue. The view from the bottom is interesting, and somewhat scary to a couple of the passengers. (But 2 out of 40 being scared is pretty good) Speaking of the passengers, they complained of noise and vibrations, and oddly this stopped when we turn the engines off.

 We also tested the range and speed, and found both to be significantly higher than advertized. At 7200 meters, we found it topped out at about 656m/s, and had a range of 2,714 km. Somewhat unusually, this plane pitches up on it's own, not down, like most planes, up. Still, a top speed of 650 is not impressive compared to most other supersonic planes, some do double this. On landing, it can land in a fairly short space.

On price however it is average, with 40 passengers it isn't bad, but it's not anything to write home about. 29 parts, with 3 big shaking jet engines is not cheap, although at mileage it gets a KPPM of 0.017, which is rather impressive.

The Verdict:

It's not comfortable, the views, while novel, get old pretty fast, and it's generally expensive, except has good mileage. It also spins a bit, but mostly it is easy to recover from. We are going to buy 1 for airshows and occasional passenger runs. The comfort stops us putting it into service much, being a supersonic tickets are not usually cheap, and people expect better if they pay for supersonic. It is also slow, by supersonic standards.

[CrazyJebGuy]

23 hours ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

No more reviews???

I updated my Kerbus K-350 entry, with some fine tuning. It now flies slightly higher, at 11400m (was 11000m) and has even better fuel economy.  At 0.0044 Kallons per passenger mile it is probably the most economic plane out there.

-snip-

https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/36834

What page is the original review on?

[Spudmeist3r]

Spudnik Space Aero Division Presents: The SSRJ-1001

The SSRJ-1001 is a small and cheap turboprop jet. It flies best at the standard 7 km and goes a speedy 290 m/s. It also sells for the low low price of 16,111,000. Its many features include:

-The ability for passengers (and the pilot) to bail out when you indefinitely crash

-Only 14 parts (or something like that)

-The impossibility of a jet-powered turboprop plane

https://kerbalx.com/Spudmeist3r/SSRJ-1001

Edited January 28, 2018 by Spudmeist3r

[Spudmeist3r]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 12:02 AM, TaRebelSheep said:

 I have no Idea what that is as a percentage of Kerbin's circumference but during an endurance flight the Kessna ran out of fuel at about a quarter of the way around.

Kerbin's circumference is about 4000 km. This and other info can be found on the wiki. Hope I helped in some way!

[CrazyJebGuy]

On 11/24/2017 at 4:10 PM, TheFlyingKerman said:

The Kerbus Aerospace Division's K-350 is a plain, good, workhorse supersonic regional jet that transports passengers from one city to another, efficiently and economically.

It takes off at 70m/s. With a little help from the afterburner to push it above the sound barrier, it is capable of cruising at 640m/s at 11400m, in dry mode.
At cruising speed, fuel use is extremely low -- about 0.08 units/s, and the K-350 can fly 3000+ km with 506 units of fuel carried on-board.

The K-350 is one of the first commercial airliner with space-grade autopilot technology integrated. The prograde lock function is enough to keep the plane cruising at the above speed and altitude mentioned above. The advanced probe core can even fly the plane by itself, without a pilot!

Safety features of the K-350 includes a space-grade parachute.

Last but not the least, the cost. The low parts count of 29 and reliable Panther engines makes maintenance easy. For all the good things the asking price for a K-350 is just 18,987,000 Kerbucks. Even for a small regional jet, it is a bargain, let alone a supersonic one!



https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/36834

Note: 1) AG1 = afterburner on/off, AG2 = deploy flaps

=====================================================================================================================

What airliner can you buy for 10,000,000 Kerbucks?

You get a Kerbus Aerospace Division K-210. A fully featured truboprop, carrying 24 passengers. The K-210 is equipped with a full set of control surfaces, strong retractable main landing gears, and combined with <40m/s stalling speed, makes it easy to land even in small airfields. Thanks to the optimization by Kerbus engineers, the two small Juno engines is enough for the streamlined plane to cruise at 290m/s at 6000m, with a >900km range. For 10,173 Kerbucks including fuel, what more can you ask for?



https://kerbalx.com/download/craft/36833

Notes: 1) AG2 = deploy flaps, AG3 = deploy tailfins
2) always use flaps when taking off. This ensures the plane taking off before the tail hitting the ground.
3) for emergency landing set the tailfins to 100% and glide down.

Can you fix the download link? I get 404 errors when I click on either link.

[TheFlyingKerman]

5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Can you fix the download link? I get 404 errors when I click on either link.

 

I am not familiar with KerbalX. Do the links work now?

Kerbus K-350

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-350

Kerbus K-210

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-210

[CrazyJebGuy]

18 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

-snip-

yes

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 18,539,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 560 kallons (880 max)
• Cruising speed: 685 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.23 kal/s
• Range: 1667 km (2620 with full fuel)
• Passengers: 40

Review Notes:

 Immediately we knew it would be a fast plane, with the powerful jet  The parachute gave the pilots no inhibitions on flying it, so we quickly took off at 60m/s. And not quickly reached the cruising altitude of 11.4km. Because at that height this plane really wants to go down, so much so that we had to pull up fairly hard continuously, and this bled speed, and so it could not even reach half of the promised 640m/s. The onboard AI fared even worse.

 But this plane looked to have a lot of potential, it had a lot of passengers,  so we gave it another try, but at 5km this time, where it performed much better. At this height, we managed to get it to go faster than the advertised speed, at 685m/s. It has a range of 1,667 km. Not bad, but not good. Fully fuelled it ups that to 2620km, which is much better. On landing, the flaps slow it very little and it bleeds speed slowly. But it has a parachute, which slows it much faster, but slow enough to not discomfort the passengers too much.

 Later we went up again, and we simulated an engine failure. We deployed the parachute, and glided for a bit as it opened, and then we descended vertically to a somewhat hard, but safe landing, nothing broke and this earns it a much higher safety and reliability score. We would have performed additional tests at this point, but some pilots spent an hour mucking about with the parachute.

 After the delay, we noted the plane's mostly good views, and lack of vibrations in the cabin. The rear ones can be a little bit noisy, but as we go faster this issue goes away. And then we looked at the price, and it is shockingly low! We were very impressed. The part count of 29 makes for middling maintenance, and a KPPM of 0.013, which is very impressive. We would expect this kind of mileage from jumbo jets going a third the speed of this thing!

The Verdict:

 It's cheap, comfortable, fast, (not by supersonic standards, but it still is fast!) gets good mileage, and is safe and reliable. How can we pass this up? To quote the sales pitch:

"Even for a small regional jet, it is a bargain, let alone a supersonic one!"

We agree! We'll be buying 35, and we'll keep the business card, in case we want to buy more in future.

 

Addendum:

We recently found the manual, and it recommends to get to high speeds that you should engage the afterburners to accelerate. We had not tried this, but gave it a go and it worked brilliantly! We got the plane flying at 11,500m at 646m/s sipping just 0.07 kallons each second. In this mode, it has a range of a whopping 8,100 km / 5000 miles! Enough to circle Kerbin twice! And at a KPPM of 0.0044, which is absurdly good! Armed with this, we would like to order 13 more for long range supersonic flights! We think we will be able to get very good profit margins.

Edited January 31, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[TheFlyingKerman]

17 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

 

And not quickly reached the cruising altitude of 11.4km. Because at that height this plane really wants to go down, so much so that we had to pull up fairly hard continuously, and this bled speed, and so it could not even reach half of the promised 640m/s.

 

 

 

I guess the problem is the plane never reaches the required speed? As a result it does not generate enough lift flying prograde, which further increases drag. Using the afterburners until you are flying level at 640m/s should fix the problem.

... Unless things change from 1.2.x to 1.3.x

Edited January 30, 2018 by TheFlyingKerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

I guess the problem is the plane never reaches the required speed? As a result it does not generate enough lift flying prograde, which further increases drag. Using the afterburners until you are flying level at 640m/s should fix the problem.

... Unless things change from 1.2.x to 1.3.x

 Your inital post says it does that in dry mode, do you have an mods installed that might mess with it? I wondered if you had FAR installed or something...