Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[no_intelligence]

Test Pilot Review: @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Factory No.653 Ka-62

Figures as tested:

• Price: 88,038,000
• Fuel: 7046 kal
• Cruising Speed: 285 m/s
• Altitude: 6000 m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0,72 kal/s
• Range: 2789 km

Review Notes:

Somehow, some older koviet members here at KEA just shouted: "When we were young, there already was a plane shaped like this!" at Factory No.653's newest design. We do not know why they did so, which krugs they consumed, because we were just showing them a Ka-62...

Anyway, after we assured ourselfs, that the test pilots are in a healthy mental state, we handed it over to them and here is what they have come up with.

The Ka-62 is comparibly large for a medium regional jet, but despite that very maneuverable. We were able to get it airbourne at a very slow 55 m/s, despite the plane lacking any kinda flaps. Once in air, we felt the enormous power of the for engines at the back, fastly climbing towards the desired cruising altitude. Once reached we nearly needed full throttle to keep up to the recommended cruising speed, which resulted in an unpleasent noise and vibration throughout the whole aircraft. Also we couldnt trust our eyes, when we looked over to the fuel consumption screen. Those four heavy fans really suck in quite a lot to keep the Ka-62 in air and at speed. Compared to some other planes of the medium range category, more than the double amount!

But, to stop talking about modern and economical interesting things like noise and fuel consumption, we should get back to the basics of flying. That is really what the Ka-62 seems to be build for. As our pilots said, it is just a pleasure in the air, according the some old members "just like all koviet aircraft designs". The Ka-62 turns easily, likes even extremely high G-Loads and aerobatics, and is as easy to land like some small Kessna's, which we did not expect of such a large plane at all. We managed to do a slow approach of just 80-100 m/s and touching it down at 60. No matter how unexperienced pilots flew it and how hard it was smashed back down to earth and even at high AoA's, it did not break apart. Also smashing it into the ocean did not cause any fatalities or damage. Once in the water, it also makes a great Ekranoplan!

The Ka-62 also can travel way more than we required it to do and despite it having four engines the part count is low, just 47 parts will make maintenance costs low, as we will only need engine mechanics thanks to Ka-62's very sturdy body and wing construction. But all ups also got downs, and in the Ka-62's case it is again its price tag: selling at over 88 million funds, we could also buy two IA-720's and would have enough money to spare for at least one year of maintenance and fuel.

The Verdict:

Factory No.653's Ka-62 is an overall interesting and really a "pilot's" plane, with great handling abilities, as you can see, a sturdy and safe built structure, but price and fuel efficiency seem to be from a past time. Maybe our oldest are actually right and the Ka-62 does not only look like an old koviet airplane, but actually got built using the same parts...

Anyway, KEA will lease, if possible, 1 for a period of at least one year to celebrate anniversary and do some nostalgic special flights around Kerbin with the Ka-62. If tickets sell better than expected, KAE will convert the leasing into a buy, to constantly have a flying museum in it's fleet, because as our old staff here keeps saying: "Everything was better before."

Edited November 15, 2017 by no_intelligence

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @GDJ's AVRO Aerospace -- AVRO Prop-Star

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 17,904,000
• Fuel:300 kallons
• Cruising speed:150/160 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000/5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.03 kal/s
• Range: 1450/1550 km

Review Notes:

The AVRO Prop-Star looks like your typical turboprop, with a low wing, standard landing gear, and a T-tail. Looks can be deceptive, and the Prop-Star fails to impress. In a crowded market, there isn't much about this aircraft that makes it stand out. Performance is great, as is maneuverability, but there isn't much more to offer. With a price more than double that of the Dusty Turboprop, can the Prop-Star's extra range make up for its lower speed and cruising altitude? We're not sure.

Bog standard design gets you the following: Dual turboprops, a low capacity wet-wing, and a cabin that seats 24. We were surprised that the Prop-Star has doubled up main landing gear, seeing that a single set should be enough to support the airframe, but as it was designed for rural airfields, we appreciate the extra sturdiness. The tailplane appears to be an all moving control surface, but it appears that AVRO has disabled the forward portion. We reenabled this portion and maneuverability was much improved. The way that the flaps were bound to the gear was also quite annoying to our resident pilots, seeing that it was custom to deploy flaps long before the gear came down in most aircraft. The placement of the flaps does need some adjustment since it is far aft of the CoL, leading to our pilots fighting the plane's tendency to nose down despite the tailplane countering some of this tendency, even to the point where the plane starts to pitch up. Takeoff performance was average, as the Prop-Star doesn't hit V₁ until around 30m/s, and the main gear doesn't unstick till around 45m/s.

Still, the Prop-Star is quite capable, especially when you consider the fact that it edges out many competitors in range and comfort. We were a little confused as to why the manufacturer recommended altitude is not the most efficient altitude, as we discovered that the craft performs better at 5000m. For island hopping or city sprints, this plane will still do remarkably well at lower altitudes. With plenty of fuel for strenuous routes or quick turnarounds, we expect this plane to require minimal top offs during the day. The Prop-Star doesn't suffer from noise or vibration troubles, as the plane cruises at 150m/s at mere 15% throttle. The engines easily fall into the "background noise" category, but when we tried to push the airframe more, to 160m/s, the turboprops jump noticeably to 50% throttle. Surprisingly, the Prop-Star can fly further in this configuration, at the expense of some passenger comfort. Thanks to some good design, tail strikes are hard to achieve, but not impossible, add in the fact that the plane ditches comfortably, and you get an incredibly safe aircraft. In fact, we were stunned by how the Prop-Star flew on just one engine. It could maintain altitude and still fly at cruising speed, a testimony to the great designers behind this effort.

In terms of serviceability, with 39 parts, the Prop-Star will undoubtedly require some, but not a lot of, cash to keep her flying, especially considering how low the engines are to the ground, not to mention the harder serviceability of wet-wings. On the other hand, a robust landing gear and fuselage will help longevity, of course. 

 

The Verdict:

The AVRO Prop-Star boasts great performance and maneuverability, combined with a standard but hardy airframe that won't take much to get used to. If the flap issue is resolved, we may put this craft into service to hard to serve airfields. In the meantime, we will purchase 10 to act as feeders and off-hour transports, with options for up to 15 more with better flaps. It is simply too unpredictable, and in harsher conditions or narrower locations, we cannot risk anything.

Edited November 15, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis
Forgot to enter fuel consumption. :P

[Samwise Potato]

3 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

We would've liked the inclusion of flaps for low-speed flight [...]

[...]the close proximity of the engines and high throttle mean that the cabin does experience louder than expected drone and more vibrations.

Another gripe we had was the artificially low operational ceiling. At a mere 3 kilometers, the Lupin will be subject to all sorts of low level weather and obstacles. We hope that the operational ceiling can be raised to an altitude closer to the service ceiling, as there is no measurable penalty in fuel economy or sound level.

However, in terms of landing on water, we dutifully followed given instructions, but results were unsatisfactory. [...] A careless ditching is likely to result in flooded engines.

@NightshineRecorralis

Greetings from Spud Flight, makers of the Lupin! https://kerbalx.com/SamwisePotato/SF-A232-Lupin-II

Once our engineers were done muttering dire imprecations about the marital status of your test pilot's parents, we sat down and had a go at fixing the main issues you raised:

- We added flaps! No additional cost, no extra parts, just a little re-arranging of our wing structure.

- As a bonus, the re-arranging solve the sound problem too! The engines have been moved away from the cabin for increase passenger comfort.

- Fly it at any altitude you like, it's ridiculously efficient anywhere up to the service ceiling. The rules for this test specified that we were to submit the altitude/speed that gave maximum performance, so we did. You could easily cruise this plane at 7km if you wanted to instead, you'd just lose ~10m/s off the top speed.

- The landing instructions might not have been entirely clear, we'll take the blame for that. We're not talking about the airframe at all, but rather the Angle of Attack on the landing. The smaller the AoA, the smoother the landing. Ideally, your direction of travel would be almost completely flat. However, we lowered the pontoons and raised the engines to make it even easier to land the Lupin without flooding the engines, and frankly, the prop blades shouldn't even get wet if it's done right. Finally, we made your test pilots a training video to help them understand our landing instructions:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Samwise Potato

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @AeroGav's Screechcraft Corporation - Screechcraft Starcraft NEO

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 33.881.000
• Fuel: 700 kallons (can be filled to 2050)
• Cruising speed: 235m/s
• Cruising altitude: 10000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.06kal/s
• Range:  2700km

Review Notes:
The Screechcraft Starcraft NEO is a really futuristic looking plane, it's absolutely unique in its looks among small regional jet competitors. Thanks to the many wing surfaces, the plane provides a large amount of lift which makes for easy flying.
The S-NEO took off at 30-35m/s, very low speeds indeed, and to make it even better, it reached this speed in absolutely no time at all! This trait is exceptionally useful on very short runways. The plane also glides very well, as result the landings are a walk in the park. Added benefit of using a wheesly is that it has the ability to reverse thrust, shortening the stopping distance drastically.
Reaching the cruise speed and altitude did take a while though, and was hardly possible without the Juno's assisting along the way, but as soon as the conditions were reached, the plane could hold it on just the main engine. Thanks to the 3 engined design the craft can stay flying upon main engine failure, and if needed it can be ditched in the water fairly easily. The engine nacelle in the front does have the tendency of being destroyed, though.
As far as maneuverabilty goes it's a good news bad news situation. While pitch authority is excellent, even capable of pulling some serious G's, roll authority is quite bad and requires some getting used to. Yaw is on par with other competitors. The upwards angled wings did occasionally cause extreme pitching up of the plane, but once this was mastered we were capable of keeping the nose pointed at the horizon.
Rangewise, fantastic! 2700km is a very high number, a lot more than what was required. With the ability to fill the plane up even further, the Screechcraft Starcraft NEO continues the trend of the standard Screechcraft Starcraft, being the exceptional range.
On the topic of comfort we had a harder time judging. The main engine is rear mounted, which is good and bad. The noise isn't too bad, but it does mean that there's a considerable amount of vibrations in the cabins. When the wing mounted engines are running, noise levels in the rear part of the cabin are considered to be elevated background noise.
A part count of 46 is a bit on the high side, but nothing disasturous, she'll require a fairly average amount of maintenance. As far as pilot training goes, we are estimating the training to be fairly average. Some aspects will have to receive special attention, some will hardly have to receive attention at all.
The price tag of 33.881.000 is a bit high, but for a plane of said capabilities we are willing to make some investments.
 

The Verdict:
A well built, solid and sleek looking aircraft. The Screechcraft Starcraft NEO is an excellent platform for long range trans-oceanic flights, and thanks to excellent take-off and landing speeds, we can even connect distant small airports. We think that the highish price is more than covered by the excellent performance of the plane, the fact that it carries 40 Kerbals is yet another bonus justifying the price. Ordering 4 for low demand, trans-oceanic routes.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, Samwise Potato said:

 

Greetings from Spud Flight, makers of the Lupin! https://kerbalx.com/SamwisePotato/SF-A232-Lupin-II

 

I'll check this out as soon as I can, and I'll post it as a variant of the original. By the way, that landing was pretty much what I had eventually figured out. I must commend you for the great design.

[GDJ]

RE: Prop-Star review

Thank you for the review. Sorry some things weren't more favourable, but we're glad you are considering ordering 10.

As a response to some of the questionable items in the review:

-Autoflaps: Yeah, that was a risk. Some of our pilots preferred them, some didn't. We won't include that in the future.
-Disabled tail fin leading edge:  We found that the rear tail fin design gave us lower drag, but with both surfaces working the G forces during maneuvers might make passengers....barf. Also keeping the leading edge locked in position provided some dampening.
-Wet Wings:  We stand by them. They may be more expensive, but with the CG not shifting around it was better for consistent performance from full tanks to empty. Better for passenger comfort.
-Greater range at 160m/s verses 150 m/s: That might be due to aerodynamic tuning. We tuned the aircraft at 3000 metres, at 160 m/s and at that speed the fuselage angle of attack was near or very close to zero degrees, which means drag was at it's lowest. Travelling at a slower speed would increase the fuselage angle of attack, and drag would increase.
-Altitude ratings:  Safer to stay at a lower altitude than go extreme. Basically we sandbagged the ratings to give a greater cushion for safety.
-Doubled up landing gear:  Sturdier, but longer lasting over the average life of a well maintained aircraft (20+ years)

In closing, any issue you may have, we shall fix it. We have high hopes you'll buy more.
 

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's  "Kombardier" Aeroplane Ltd - Kombardier 400 & 401

(Komardier 400)

(Kombardier 401)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 20.086.000 & 20.636.00
• Fuel: 1500 kallons
• Cruising speed: 240m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.09kal/s & 0.08kal/s
• Range:  4500km & 4000km

Review Notes:

Our test pilots were a bit confused at the start of testing, they thought we gave them a bunch of early 50's era planes and not the brand new prototypes. After a while we got them convinced that these were in fact the right planes, and they quickly got to it. Both planes are identical in behavior so I'll just write it up as if there's only one. Take-off speed was described as 60-70m/s which is indeed when the aircraft takes to the skies without assistance, when using the flaps we could take off around 50m/s. Immediately it was clear that the plane had excellent maneuverability. Pitch controls are very nice, during some acrobatics we even managed to pull 50G's (not that it matters because any present passengers would be reduced to a boneless pudding at said G's). Roll controls are standard, and yaw was found to be surprisingly responsive. Landings weren't quite as easy as expected, though. The taildragger design does indeed make for good maneuverability on the tarmac, it makes for very weird behavior on landing. Even upon the softest of landings the plane had the tendency of starting to bounce up and down uncontrollably. As a result it usually took a few bounces before the plane finally stuck to the ground. Thanks to the thrust reversers on the engines we could bring the speed down fast though, which shortened bouncing with enough power to send the plane back into the sky. Apart from the bouncing, the plane is easy to land and stops quite quickly. As far as range goes, we're not quite sure how you cam to the estimate of 5700km for the Kombardier 400, but we have some doubts about its credibility.  Our best mathletes were at it and we got a range of 4500km max, still more than sufficient though, with the 401 version still having a more than respectable 4000km range.

Kerbal comfort isn't bad either, but we've definitely had a lot better. The wing mounted engines are positioned above the wings, which makes that the wing itself doesn't stop any sound from getting into the cabin at all. To make matters worse, the engines are put quite close to the cabins, causing even more noise, and in the end making for a slightly uncomfortable experience. At least the vibrations weren't bad since the engine wasn't mounted to the hull. If one flies in the front cabins (which we presume is 1st class) none of these issues are present though, it's a very pleasant flight indeed up there.

Prices are very reasonable for crafts of their ability and category, so is part count (at 22 & 23 respectively), allowing for cheap maintenance.

The Verdict:

A pretty cheap and very capable aircraft, outdoing the requirements on several points. Sadly quite weird on the landings, and it does sacrifice some Kerbal comfort with the engine placement. Since the 401 carries 8 more passengers and still has an extreme range of 4000km, and this at only  550.000 more than the 400, we don't quite think it's worth buying 400's at all.

We'll order 8 401's for use on long routes between smaller places, and hope the passengers will have good earplugs.

[TaRebelSheep]

Trifekta Aeronautics is presenting a NEW aircraft, the F45T-W4. A high capacity Supersonic Jet, the F45T can seat 96 passengers and 3 crew, and reach an amazing speed of 1100 m/s, or mach 3.2.  with a range of about 1500 km flying at the recommended 15,000-20,000 meters, it fits within the category requirements.

https://imgur.com/a/JTBDS for images, it looks like the Concorde.

The F45T-W4 is equipped with air-brakes for a faster stop from supersonic speeds, and its high wing area means that it can take off at just 45 m/s, and it reaches that speed quickly, good for short runways (Just pull up at 45 m/s). it's a bit tough to handle on the ground, but most large airports, there the F45T will be stored, have tugs anyways.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ijdojbw2g6azlq7/Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4.craft?dl=0 for the craft, which uses tweakscale and airplanes plus.

the F45T has a part count of 125, it isn't the cheapest plane to maintain, but it has a large passenger capacity and speed, and it's very hard to stall, the delta wing is quite stable. that's it, I think? Ok buy now!

Edit: this Model is guaranteed to combust less often than its predecessor, as long as you fly it right. Don't worry about the wings shearing off at higher speeds, it hasn't happened to me before. Watch the gee-forces, don't let your passengers turn into red splats on the walls.

Edited November 17, 2017 by TaRebelSheep
height limit change

[CrazyJebGuy]

Gawain Aircraft Presents: a turboprop, the GAI Kalcing (Name comes from the calculators embedded in the walls)

Example Wall Calculator: (Karuida KK)

Spoiler

How could I not include a calculator with this many Ks? Karuida KK-800a

Range: 2300km @ 1000m, 322m/s, full throttle        OR        3640km @ 2000m, 142m/s, 322m/s

 Should it turn out to be profitable to haul 40 mathematicians at 322m/s for 2300 km, or anyone really, this is the plane for you. With 40 calculators total, it has a theoretical maximum 193 square root calculations per second.

At $18,670,000 ($19,630,000 wet) it is very affordable, and has a GPPM (gallons per passenger mile) of 0.013, which is very good.

In ditching tests, we found it was very safe. When we tries to see if it could take off again, we hit a sea mine (or something) because it suddenly blew up at 6m/s, the wings were gone and the fuselage was permanently bent. (But everyone survived)

 The forward mounted air intake also can divert air into cabins, keeping the passengers very cool.

And with a part count of 37, maintenance is cheap.

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Kalcing

Edited December 20, 2017 by CrazyJebGuy

[NightshineRecorralis]

On 11/10/2017 at 10:48 PM, Steel Starling said:

-snip-

 

Could you reupload the crafts? From the three different downloads I only got the Scout and the ER variants, not the base model

[1Revenger1]

On 9/19/2017 at 6:47 AM, sevenperforce said:

Ripoff Aerospace would like to submit two entrants to Kerbal Express Airlines, each a variant of the same craft, but for two separate categories.

  Reveal hidden contents

At just over $91 million, fully fueled, the Generous Spirit may not be the cheapest bird in Kerbal Express's hangar, but the stately transportation mode and luxurious cabins will make it a flagship for beyond-first-class passengers. Five streamlined turbofan engines make it both efficient and powerful, allowing up to three engine failures. 

Pitch-control surfaces at the front and rear of the aircraft ensure sufficient control authority, and the canards act as flaps for shorter takeoff and landing at low speeds. Pilots may wish to program an additional thrust-reverse function for even shorter landings.

The Generous Spirit takes off without control input just under 80 m/s on flaps alone. The vertical stabilizers and dual rudders help damp yaw, but well-trained pilots are recommended due to this plane's tendency to slip while banking.

The large wing area means that the Generous Spirit is best suited for lower-altitude cruising flight, giving the customers an excellent view. Seating 80 passengers without difficulty, it is an excellent addition to your fleet.

A cruising speed of 263 m/s allows a post-cruise range of around 1,700 km.

Craft file here.

Supersonic Jet: Transcendent Spirit

At first glance, the Transcendent Spirit may seem extremely similar to its slower cousin. However, there are several groundbreaking upgrades which make it the premiere supersonic passenger aircraft of Kerbin's skies. Three of the turbofan engines have been replaced with ridiculously powerful turboramjets, and several passenger cabins have been swapped out for additional fuel tanks to handle the increased fuel requirements of the larger engines.

  Hide contents

Despite the improvements, the price actually dropped considerably, to just under $79 million. The Transcendent Spirit retains two of the same turbofan engines as its slower cousin, enabling it to take off and land quietly from regional airports, preventing noise complaints. 

The Transcendent Spirit retains the same programmed flaps, but adds programming for activation of the ramjets. Removal of the vertical stabilizers and rudders makes this aircraft slightly more prone to yaw slippage, but gimbal authority on the ramjets helps damp this during high-powered flight.

Flaps are strongly recommended for low-speed takeoffs. The pair of turbofans takes much longer to get the aircraft up to takeoff speed; ramjets may be used for takeoff assist on short runways but this may violate local noise ordinances and anger birds.

The turbofan engines allow the aircraft to reach unpopulated areas before firing up the turboramjets.

Pilots will thrill at the power of these high-bypass turbocharged ramjet engines. They allow rapid climb to cruising altitudes. As the aircraft climbs in speed and altitude, the turbofan engines automatically shut off, routing their air intake to the ramjets.

The 48 passengers this supersonic jet can carry are well in front of the engines, enabling a fairly quiet ride.

Once Mach 1.5 is reached, the ramjets rapidly push the aircraft up to cruising speed.

Optimal cruise is reached at over 18.5 km of altitude and speeds in excess of Mach 2.8. The streamlined design allows low drag and the large fuel capacity provides a post-cruise range of over 2,300 km, vastly eclipsing the requirements of Kerbal Express extended-range variants. For shorter routes, even higher efficiency may be obtained by taking off with a lower fuel load. 

Our test passenger focus group reported that flying in the Transcendent Spirit reminded them of heaven. We did not ask whether this was due to proximity to outer space, the luxurious cabins, or the fear of impending death at seeing plasma heating at nearly half of orbital velocity. 

Craft file here.

 

Could you please reupload your craft files? They have expired, thus we can't judge it.

[sevenperforce]

54 minutes ago, 1Revenger1 said:

Could you please reupload your craft files? They have expired, thus we can't judge it.

Here's the Generous Spirit: https://ufile.io/8c56t

Here's the Transcendent Spirit: https://ufile.io/orje2

[1Revenger1]

20 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Here's the Generous Spirit: https://ufile.io/8c56t

Here's the Transcendent Spirit: https://ufile.io/orje2

Awesome, thanks.

Edit: New review!

Test Pilot Review: @Laie's Sonic

Figures as tested

• Price: 99,053,000
• Fuel: 2540 kallons
• Cruising Speed: 600m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 9000-10000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.98 kallons/minute
• Range: 1600km as tested (Probably could be bigger with better flying)

My Notes:

The engineers dragging the plane out I think had about as much fun as the pilots. The plane could be seen speeding all around the KSC, with some really upbeat music playing (Something about "Gas Gas Gas"?...). Either way, the plane was seen with the engineers pretending to drift all around. After about a day after giving them the plane, we had to tell them to stop so that the pilots could actually fly the aircraft instead of drifting it around everywhere.

Once the pilots got a hold of it, flight testing actually began. Takeoffs were solid. We did find that we could takeoff about 20 knots slower than suggested, meaning that the plane easily got off at around 60m/s without the flaps. The gear configuration was an oddity though, with the tall front gear and shorter back gear. Not only did this make taxing somewhat difficult (although fun), but made it somewhat easy for us to strike the back Whiplash and 'Whiplash' it off. Although, the configuration was such that the plane easily took off without any pilot input, which is nice (Even if Jeb was dissapointed...). The engines that turn on at first are great for getting the aircraft up to around 8km, although after that point, it was required that the whiplash be turned, and one set of two engines have their mode switched in order to get past the sound barrier. Although, once near cruising speed, the modes could be switched back, with the whiplash severely being limited to help control speed. Pilots had some fun micromanaging the engine, although it certainly isn't for those who just want to kick back and relax. Although rolling was a bit sluggish, all the other controls worked fine. Landing was difficult for us, most likely just due to practice being needed. We more often than not ended up taking off the back engine, and we found the suggested 8 degrees of pitch to be a bit excessive, generally causing the plane to float and then get dumped down.

Passenger Comfort is pretty good though, especially once the plane is in the air. On the ground and at lower speeds, the high pitch could be uncomfortable, especially when trying to board the plane on the ground, but levels out once in the air at a decent speed. The engines are all relatively far away from the cabin, so vibrations from them are going to be minimal. Maintenance wise, this plane would be quite expensive to maintain. It has a lot of parts (78 to be exact) and has a high risk of being dumped and having tail strikes. While the plane is quite sturdy, a plane can only be dumped so many times. Although the lower than average speed of around 600m/s certainly helps keep the plane from taking less heat damage compared to other supersonic aircraft.

The Verdict

We most likely will order 2-3, although we still need to consort with the admins to be sure. This plane could work well as a business class plane, especially due to the large cabin, although maintenance costs would likely be high and would require high skill in order to fly. Overall, we did enjoy the aircraft, although handling on the ground is somewhat weird, and would make maneuvering around difficult without proper training to. The price to is also a little excessive, most likely due to the large numbers of engines.

Addendum 11/17/2017

After a word with the manufacturer, we took the plane out again based on their recommendations and found that knowing what stuff does actually helps a lot with flying this plane. While it was described that the bay should open and close based on the gear, we didn't find that this worked, but know when it should be opened did help us a lot and allowed us to use the cargo bay effectively. We found landing to be better this time around, although there still is some risk of the back engine being taken off. While this doesn't change our verdict, this was important information we felt should be given out. It is magnificent to fly and especially once we figured out how to close the cargo bay (Bob had to go in the back and close it manually), preformed slightly better than tested.

Spoiler

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by 1Revenger1

[Laie]

@1Revenger1: hey, thanks for tanking the time. I noticed too late that the 15km ceiling for supersonic had been lifted -- as it is, this plane was obsolete before it's first flight. I didn't expect it to be considered at all.

The tall front wheel was copied from the Concorde (and is tame in comparison). On the screenshot, I notice you're flying with the cargo bay open, which probably explains some of the issues you've had. It holds a few control surfaces, toggles with landing gear, and is supposed to have the same effect as deployable canards would have. If you review other planes, check the craft description before rollout -- OP demanded such things to be noted there, which I have.

No need to re-review this plane, though: As I said, it was built to meet requirements which have long been abandoned, and  can't possibly compete with hypersonic cruisers zooming around at 30km.

3 hours ago, 1Revenger1 said:

Pilots had some fun micromanaging the engine,

*giggles madly*  -- don't I know it...

[CrazyJebGuy]

Gawain Aircraft Industries Presents: The Skots Economy

16 rear seats, everybody else sits in the Cargo Hold! It's not comfy, but barf bags are cheap!

Costs: $38,293,000 (dry)

Can seat potentially up to 80 passengers in the cargo hold, but that's only if you get creative. We recommend no more than 40. In total, it has a 56 capacity and is pretty much the Skots Small in everything else.

We added parachutes to help with landing, the plane can get very unbalanced if none of the passengers are strapped down.

Bonus: You can load it with other stuff, like letters. (But why would you want to do that? It's [current year], use telegrams!) You could load it with books. Or you could not. It's your choice.

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Skots-Economy

Edited December 20, 2017 by CrazyJebGuy

[AeroGav]

On 15/11/2017 at 10:42 PM, panzerknoef said:

As far as maneuverabilty goes it's a good news bad news situation. While pitch authority is excellent, even capable of pulling some serious G's, roll authority is quite bad and requires some getting used to. Yaw is on par with other competitors. The upwards angled wings did occasionally cause extreme pitching up of the plane, but once this was mastered we were capable of keeping the nose pointed at the horizon.

Same thing was said about the original craft.     Most of my aircraft are spaceplanes so i guess that's why i set them up with relatively insensitive ailerons so that it's easy to make single digit heading changes on the way to orbit.   You will notice I dialled the "authority limit" way down on the ailerons.   It was also done to minimise the secondary yaw effect that comes with aileron use.    By contrast, I wanted enough pitch authority to make a good amount of lift and enable low speed flight.    I tend to fly on keyboard because i can't get a good response with analog controller in this game - funnily enough my attempts with one always end up way over sensitive in roll..

[panzerknoef]

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.

[1Revenger1]

17 hours ago, Laie said:

@1Revenger1: hey, thanks for tanking the time. I noticed too late that the 15km ceiling for supersonic had been lifted -- as it is, this plane was obsolete before it's first flight. I didn't expect it to be considered at all.

The tall front wheel was copied from the Concorde (and is tame in comparison). On the screenshot, I notice you're flying with the cargo bay open, which probably explains some of the issues you've had. It holds a few control surfaces, toggles with landing gear, and is supposed to have the same effect as deployable canards would have. If you review other planes, check the craft description before rollout -- OP demanded such things to be noted there, which I have.

No need to re-review this plane, though: As I said, it was built to meet requirements which have long been abandoned, and  can't possibly compete with hypersonic cruisers zooming around at 30km.

*giggles madly*  -- don't I know it...

I'll take a look at it. I'm curious about how it would preform using it properly. I'll update the review if there are some pretty big differences.

Test Pilot Review: @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit

Figures as tested:

• Cost:  78,810,000
• Fuel: 6300 Kallons as from the factory (6480 max)
• Cruising Speed: 850-950m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 18500m
• Fuel Burn Rate: ~1.98 Kallons / Min
• Range: 3000km

Notes:

We had a difficult time with this plane. First off, these stupid songs won't get out of my head (Apparently the music is used in a popular anime or something). The engineers again decided it was field day and that aircraft are to be used for drifting. They did discover one issue though rather quickly, the plane tends to explode on bumps and ledges at speeds excess of 15m/s; this includes the drop on the runway.

Anyways, after wrestling the planes from the engineers, we were able to conduct flight testing. Overall, the pilots didn't have a great time with this plane. With the lack of rudders, it was difficult to control the plane and we found that the thrust vectoring from the engines were not really enough to counteract this. On top of that, the roll authority on the plane is low, making it difficult to make turns and precise corrections. Elevator control was also really weird. We found we were able to make changes relatively quickly with it, but the stability assistant systems didn't really know what to do with it, and continued pitching the plane further off course. This issue was somewhat resolved though when fuel started emptying the tanks. We also had another big issue, and that was not being able to land the plane. As with the first issue we mentioned, anytime we touch down, even as slowly as possible, the whole plane would blow up, making it a death trap. It seemed like the joint between the main wing and the fuselage needs to be heavily reinforced, as that was always the first part to fail under analysis.

Passenger comfort though is pretty great, looking past the death trap part of it. Passengers get lots of room and an excellent view outside, with there being limited noise and vibrations from the engines themselfs. We do however question the safety of the mostly sideways cabins, which could also possible make passengers somewhat motion sick. However, the safety point is moot anyways considering the plane blows up on any landing.

Verdict:

We will not be buying any. It is expensive, and a death trap, and fairly difficult to fly. While is a unique design that we were hoping wouldn't have many problems, we unfortunately have to skip by this. The plane does seem to be engineered well and looks great aesthetically, even if it is a death trap.

Edited November 18, 2017 by 1Revenger1

[Kernel Kraken]

4 hours ago, 1Revenger1 said:

death trap 

Isn't the proper way to say It "Jeb's fun rating on a scale of 1-10 is 10"? Lol, y'all really like the word death trap.

[CrazyJebGuy]

With all these death traps I am tamped to make a plane solely out of parachutes, struts, and steel girders.

[1Revenger1]

What's odd is that it's so many in a row, lol. Normally we don't have this many death traps. A lot of the larger aircrafts seem to be at a larger risk though.

Anyway, I got my own submission. I was planning on putting this in before I started judging for this, so I still feel like it's alright to put it in here.

Submission:

Here at KPE, we are proud to present our newest edition to the supersonic aircraft line up the...

KPE SSP - 2a/b/c "Dragon"

(SSP - 2b left, SSP - 2c center, SSP - 2a right)

Specifications(2a, 2b, 3c variants):

• Cost: 57,222,000, 63,282,000, 68,121,000
• Fuel (Kallons): 5160 ,5960, 5960
• Recommended Cruising Speed/Altitude: 18000-19000m, 1200m/s
• Range: 4500km, 5400km, 4500km
• Number of passengers held: 96, 128, 160(Jumbo Category capacity!)

The SSP - 2 family is a range of mid/long range Supersonic aircraft that extend off the ideas of the SSP - 1, including the attempt to keep the aircraft as basic as possible maintenance wise. These aircraft are sturdy, and all have been tested to have great short-field performance due to their extremely strong brakes and use of airbrakes. Taking off and landing in this is a breeze, especially due to the resilience of the aircraft. There are many times when we have smashed it down and the aircraft has been fine due to it's bending nature (Especially on the 2c). Flying this should feel very similar to the SSP - 1 as well, allowing for little training to be needed for direct transfer of pilots. It reaches it's recommended altitude very easily as well, granted you let the aircraft speed up to around 250m/s before trying to climb to 10000m. These aircraft include on board a snack room full of complimentary snacks, as well as 4 restrooms, as well as any other features on request. Engine noise should be at a minimum due to the engines being far away, although intake noise might be somewhat apparent in the back of the cabins.

Operation notes:

• You will most likely need to transfer fuel towards the back of the aircraft as the fuel is used. Do Not Change Oxidizer levels! This is used as ballast to help in the transfer of COM backwards. Transfer the Oxidizer back whenever needed to help trim out the plane.
• Action Group 1 Activates the airbrakes. DO NOT USE IT ON THE GROUND, we are not responsible for the damage done to the bottom 2 airbrakes if this is done.
• Brake action group activates the brakes as well as the top pair of speedbrakes. This is normal.
• Takeoff can be forced; but it is encouraged not to do so, especially on the 2a. Takeoff around 60-70m/s forced, or 80 normally.

Spoiler

Download Link: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am-Klu4h5TIdl4ZWBeMyslhrfdYFVA

Edited November 18, 2017 by 1Revenger1

[CrazyJebGuy]

A judge submits.

Can a submitter judge?

[1Revenger1]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

A judge submits.

Can a submitter judge?

If you want to, yes . If you actually want to judge, I can add you to our messaging group and give you access to our spreadsheet for keeping track of stuff.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, 1Revenger1 said:

If you want to, yes . If you actually want to judge, I can add you to our messaging group and give you access to our spreadsheet for keeping track of stuff.

Nah I'm not good enough at making up some of the sillier parts of the review, I'd rather somebody who could do it did it.

[panzerknoef]

Talking about those death traps again though... I just happen to be testing another craft again which is one yet again, loses a wing upon slight banking at cruise speed