Mjp1050

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

Recommended Posts

Test Pilot Review: @SpacePigeon's - Pigeon Aerospace: Rapid 1-100 & 1-200

aZTxcEH.png

A Rapid 1-100 in flight over the KSC peninsula.

OmkuxKr.png

Rapid 1-200 flying at mach speeds over the ocean. Notice the struts we added for safe testing.

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:29.101.000 (1-100) - 49.361.000 (1-200)
  • Fuel: 1200 - 3600kallons
  • Cruising speed: 6500m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 1000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.44 - 0.75kal/s
  • Range:  1700 - 3100km

Review Notes:

First of all I'd like to get something out of the way. The range estimates given for this plane are about the most wrong ones we've ever seen. 11000km range for the 1-100 and 55000 for the 1-200? That's off by a factor of 6 and 17 respectively. Anyways, now that that is cleared out, let's get stuck into some details. Both the 1-100 and the 1-200 are a rather rare breed of supersonic planes, actually supersonic ones. Most planes in the category seem to be more hypersonic. Also their cruising altitude is very low for a plane in their class at only 1000m. Both planes do an admirable job though, racing across the landscape at 650m/s without the afterburners running. Turn those on and you'll reach 1000m/s. Maneuverability on both planes is good, thanks to the vectoring power of the "Panther" engines and good use of control surfaces. The 1-100 takes of rather swiftly at around 60m/s. Tail striking is an issue though, so  taking care at takeoff is important. The 1-200 only manages to unstick at 90m/s. This is higher than the requirements is does pose an issue, it means that we can only fly this plane from the largest airports around. Talking about the 1-200, it does have a bit of an issue...(apart from suffering from tail strikes as well). It isn't safe, structurally. When facing high G forces, as it will, being a supersonic jet, the wings tend to snap off, leaving little chance for the passengers and crew to survive. Solving the issue is simple though, just add 2 struts to support the wings.

Comfort of both planes is okay. Cabin size is average, view out the windows is limited. The issue however is sound, and it's such a shame. It would be a silent and smooth ride if it wasn't for the engine strapped to the back of the plane. It seemed to us that this engine wasn't even needed to get the craft to cruising speed. As a result of this engine, noise was rather noticeable and vibrations were on the annoying end of the spectrum. The real issue however does come as a result of the low cruising altitude. Even the slightest maneuver here created massive G forces which could be unpleasant for the passengers (or even kill them in the case of the 40G turn I pulled). A small side note would be the huge amount of sound that these crafts would produce, allowing them to only fly over uninhabited areas at supersonic speeds.

Coming in at :funds: 29.101.000 the 1-100 hits below the average price of a supersonic jet, which does please us. Its part count is a lowly 33 which should make maintenance very easy. The 1-200 comes at a more average price of :funds:49.361.000 and a part count of 55. The low structural integrity does make us believe that a whole lot of maintenance will be required on this jet. Pilot training shouldn't be an issue as both planes are easy to fly.

The Verdict

We see the 1-100 and some sort of supersonic island hopper. Ferrying passengers between them at an incredibly high pace, allowing for a large volume of passengers to be shipped over a set time. Flying between islands should also prevent the noise issue to cause great issues since we'll only be flying over sea. The 1-200 is more difficult one. Its high takeoff speed and even higher noise production combined with general low safety makes it practically unusable, shame for a supersonic jet which can carry 56 passengers. We shall be buying 8 1-100 for high volume island hopping lines. We'll skip out on the 1-200 as a result of the aforementioned issues. Taking an option on 3 in case they are resolved though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @FleshJeb's FleshJeb Studios Klonkorde

8bYhBPp.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:68,710,000 (dry)
  • Fuel: 1,560 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 258 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6.7 km
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.2 kal/s
  • Range: 2,017 km
  • Passengers: 72

Review Notes:

 We will be honest, when we saw it we called them to check if the engine was supposed to be that big. We were surprised to hear our unit was not defective. At this point a certain test pilot saw it, and the huge engine, and we had a volunteer. (For reviewing some planes, we must force someone to volunteer.) This, main shock somewhat delayed our realization that it was far longer and far narrower than most planes.The designers at least get points for originality, and probably a test for drugs.

 It's takeoff speed caused some debate, because the front of the plane started flying way before the back part. There was considerable debate about this, with everyone choosing numbers between 67 and 85. At this point we noticed that it was a bit small for a medium regional jet, having only 72 passenger seats. It should really be classed as a small regional jet. But that is not a big issue. We don't really care. Also, it turns out the probe core included (why?) is a very powerful computer, and Jedediah's co-pilot spent the whole flight playing games with it.

 Now as we get to the bit about the flying, this plane handles pretty well. It's a bit nose heavy, but it's not a big issue. We then made standard measurements, range, speed, etc. But the range turned out to almost be the exact number of years since Kesus was borne, and we took it as a sign we should fly really high near Heaven. It didn't work very well, so we decided that was how Kesus told us we had the right height.

 Comfort inside the cabins were commendable, even though the engine is huge it sits well back of most cabins and is not overly annoying, and the cabins have good views. On landing, we found that it could slow right down pretty quick, although takes a long runway to take off. It can water ditch safely and without harm.

With 50 parts, maintainance is middling, but not too bad. The main thing is the high up front costs, which make it hard to justify.

We liked the landing gear design, the raised ones at the back to prevent tail strikes show the thought put into making this plane. It can be a taildragger or a tricycle, and not an easy tail striker. This is good.

We feel we should mention our range calculation might be a little low, when testing it had gone 450km and burned two thirteenths of it's fuel, so that calculation says the range is closer to 3000km.

The Verdict:

Great plane, but not great for our wallet. It can do nearly Mach 1 at surface though, so we're buying 4 for medium range luxury flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's - Skaled Komposites: SkiKull

DLNtCoY.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:31.191.000
  • Fuel: 660kallons
  • Cruising speed: 115m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 8000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.05kal/s
  • Range:  1500km

Review Notes:

When we first got our hands on the SkiKull we were actually surprised about the size of the aircraft. Somehow we all thought it was a lot smaller. The design reminded us of early 20th century float-planes, which is probably what it was influenced by. The SkiKull looks good though, the pontoons hold the wheels as well and they are nicely designed. The entire hull of the aircraft has a very slick feel to it. Taking off happened at a lowly speed of 35m/s, but it has to be said that it took some time to get up to this speed, undoing the effect of the low takeoff speed in terms of runway length. Maneuverability is sub par for an aircraft in this category. Roll control is awful, it feels like turning a beached whale. Oddly, yaw and pitch control is quite good, leading to a some very weird maneuvering. The huge top wing does also bend quite a lot when maneuvering, thankfully stays attached at all times, but it's a bit of a weird look. Fuel efficiency is very nice at 0.05 kal/s at cruising altitude. Has to be said that it takes some time for the plane to get there, since the engine isn't the most powerful one around. Range is great at 1500km.

Comfort on this aircraft is very nice. The cabins are spacious and luxurious. The placement of the engine is rather interesting, right above the cabins, it does make for a rather lot of noise making it into the cabins, but the mk2 cabins offer extra sound protection in their package, allowing for a rather silent flight after all.. Vibrations are minimal, once again thanks to the engine placement.  Thanks to the high wing, views of the outside world are great, we expect people to get up and stare through the large windows in flight.

Maintenance shouldn't be too much of a hassle, sure the part count is above average, but the single engine design offsets most of this, we don't expect exceptional expenses when operating this plane. Pilot training would cost us extra though, thanks to the weird traits this plane has when flying.

The Verdict:

The SkiKull has great range, efficiency and comfort, countered by a slow cruising speed and below average maneuverability. The price of :funds:31.191.000 does put it at a fairly average spot for seaplanes. We expect to use the plane as a luxurious hopper between hard-to-reach seaside towns. Thanks to its maneuverability we can't use this plane to reach lakeside areas in the mountains as we're afraid we'd lose an aircraft.  We'd like to order 5 for use in popular vacation areas, to fly rich kerbals between fancy seaside resorts. 

Edited by panzerknoef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Spudmeist3r said:

Can you make a badge for like how many you "bought" or something like that? idk...

How many we buy can be any random number pretty much. This means that we'd have to make a near infinite amount of badges to comply. I'm afraid you'll have only your pride as prize for this challenge. 

And @CrazyJebGuy, in your earlier review you said that 72 passengers was low for a medium regional jet, but the class requirements clearly say that 72 classifies as a medium regional jet. No need to classify that Klonkorde as a small regional jet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Spudmeist3r said:

Can you make a badge for like how many you "bought" or something like that? idk...

What do you mean?

1 minute ago, panzerknoef said:

 And @CrazyJebGuy, in your earlier review you said that 72 passengers was low for a medium regional jet, but the class requirements clearly say that 72 classifies as a medium regional jet. No need to classify that Klonkorde as a small regional jet. 

Ah, whoops. Somehow I got it in my head that the cut off was 96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

What do you mean?

You know those pictures/badges that show up underneath peoples posts? Of course, I have no idea how to do those, but like a picture that is like bronze, silver, etc., of how many you bought. So like bronze is 5 bought or silver is 10 bought or something like that. If I’m not being too pacific, please say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, panzerknoef said:

How many we buy can be any random number pretty much. This means that we'd have to make a near infinite amount of badges to comply. I'm afraid you'll have only your pride as prize for this challenge. 

Understandable, have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJ-30-100
UIIn05T.jpg?1
Cruise speed: 175m/s
Cruising altitude: 5500m
350/17.3(.10x175)/1000
Range: 2023 km
v1(takeoff) speed: 48m/s
v2(minimum turning speed): 80m/s
Passenger cap: 32
Price: 29,545,000
----------------------------------------Pitch----------------------------------------
Lorings Aerospace is proud to present the new LJ-30 small regional jet family!
The first of the LJ-30 family is the LJ-30-100(LJ31). It is a regional trijet that has a slow speed but in exchange for fantastic maneuverability, fuel efficiency, and range. It is more suited towards small short flights but can do trans-continental flights as well. It also sports an advanced fly-by-wire system, with multiple redundancies, so you never have to worry about the autopilot breaking down midflight. The wing design is innovative, aerodynamic, and light. The 3 engines that power the LJ31, are J-20 Junos, providing excellent fuel efficiency and low noise pollution. All of these unique features make the LJ-30 family step ahead of the competition and abide by the K.A.A regulations perfectly. 
All this for a low price of 29mil!
 
(A CRJ is like 24mil btw, so it's kinda cheap.
Also sorry for poor image quality.)
 
LJ-30-100MR
1Bc6fbG.jpg
Cruise speed: 250m/s
Cruising altitude: 7,500m
1500/42.5/1000
Range: 2200km
V1: 48m/s
V2: 80m/s
Passenger cap: 40
Price: 35,545,000
(Note: the picture above is outdated, it had a reaction wheel.)
----------------------------------------Pitch----------------------------------------
Introducing the next member of the LJ-30 family and LJ31 series, the LJ31MR.
Equipped with more fuel, and powerful J-33 Wheesley engines, allows this variant of the LJ31 to carry more passengers, go further with an increased range of 3529km, and comfortably with innovative noise insulation built in the fuselage. This has shown once again, why Lorings will always be an innovator, and ahead of the competition, and this is all for 35mil.

 

(Not exactly sure on the calculations, would like if it if anyone double checked.
LJ31MR: 1500/ (.17 x 250) /1000
LJ31: 350/.10 x 173 /1000)
EDIT: Thanks to neistridlar, the correct range for the LJ31MR is 2200km.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LJ-40-100(date: 2/5/18; after LJ30s)
FKFLo8K.jpg
Cruise speed: 235m/s
Cruising altitude: 2500-3500m
100/23.5/1000
Range: 4255km (I don't think that's right...)
V1: 60m/s
V2: 90m/s
Passenger cap: 32
Price: 14,015,000
----------------------------------------Pitch----------------------------------------
Introducing the all new LJ40 series by Lorings aerospace!
Developed from the existing LJ30s, it is designed for low altitude hop flights, and to contend against some of the existing turboprops and SRJs on the market.
Its design is simplified and lighter, making it easy on maintenance and reasonable for short flights, all while carrying more passengers than some of the competitors on the market.
Its price point of just 14mil makes it even more affordable than some turboprops!
Now, you may be thinking that the engines must be noisy and inefficient, or that it'll break inflight, but the engines used are actually the same quiet and efficient engines that are on the LJ30s, 2 J-20s. Again, it carries most of the design in the LJ30, making it stable and strong, so buy it!
Edited by Overlonder
Calculation correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Overlonder said:

-snip-

 
btw is it okay to be under one requirement?
 

Yeah, your plane will be marked down a bit, but we'll still review it. Although some things can affect category, a plane will go into the highest category it fits into. For instance a plane with 32 passengers is a turbo-prop, but if it can exceed the sound barrier it gets bumped up to be a supersonic jet. If we do change the category, we'll mark it as that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's - Habu Industries: Pegasus

p8cZqs5.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:44.812.000
  • Fuel: 1320kallons
  • Cruising speed: 400m/s - 1100m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 9000m - 18000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.75kal/s - 0.61kal/s
  • Range:  700km - 2300km

Review Notes:

Reviewing this plane was odd. The cruise speed and altitude make absolutely no sense at all! Description has it as 400m/s at 9000m, with a fuel burn rate of 0.75 (which I can confirm from testing) but do this and you get an absolutely appalling range of 700km. That doesn't even come close to the requirements. I didn't stop here though, knowing how this kind of engine worked, I decided to take the aircraft to a higher altitude and fly at full power (Jeb liked this order). The plane quite easily made it up to 1100m/s at this altitude, not only is that about 2.75 times as fast as the prescribed cruising speed, it also used less fuel while doing so, at 0.61kal/s.

Anyways. The plane took off surprisingly late at 71m/s, requiring pretty long runways to take-off from. It also has to be noted that there's a weird pull to the left when taking off, requiring heavy correcting or you'll end up besides the runway. Low speed maneuverability is indeed very good, an absolute joy to fly around. Same goes for high speed performance, it was very easy to make even very small corrections in flight. It however absolutely doesn't have excellent climb performance. The single engine has some serious issues pushing the craft up to the desired cruising altitude, and trying to ascend at 2/3 throttle is something I wouldn't recommend. Even at altitude it took the plane surprisingly long to start building up speed, we wondered if there was some mysterious part causing a lot of drag. Once it started to pick up speed it did do so very well. Going from 400m/s to 1100 in a very short time frame. 

Comfort is good on the Pegasus. The mk2 cabins are, as usual, very luxurious, quiet and spacious. The single engine is very far back as well, meaning that most of its sound was drowned out my the mass between it and the cabin. Being an inline engine, it did cause vibrations, but it was only a single engine so nothing big. The large windows are unobstructed, but the large wing does prevent passengers from looking down at the surface. However, cruising at 18000m, they can be used for stargazing quite properly, and the view in that direction is completely unobstructed.

It only counts 28 parts, one of which is an engine, which means that our engineers won't have a lot of work at all on maintaining this plane. That's good, cuz the :funds:44.812.000 price tag is pretty average on its own, but with the low maintenance this initial cost is the only big expense we'll ever have on it.

The Verdict:

The Pegasus. When flown at recommended settings... absolute crap and we wouldn't even think about buying it. BUT when flown higher and faster, it suddenly becomes a whole lot better. It's fast, luxurious, quiet and has a very nice range. Combine this with low maintenance costs and you got a plane that's excellent for use on any kind of long range route (between large airports though). We'd like to order 4 for use on long haul routes between major passenger hubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo Lassen Series

E5cVqYQ.png

Figures as Tested: Lassen

  • Price: :funds:28,788,000 (dry)
  • Fuel: 2,180 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 285 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5,600 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.2 kal/s
  • Range: 3,106 km
  • Passengers: 80

Review Notes: Lassen

 With all the tail-strikes we have had lately, our engineers look very quickly to see potential tail strikers. In this case, they were concerned, until they spotted the steel beams mounted underneath the plane. We think it is a very clever solution, very cheap, and effective.

In the sky it handles nicely, it is not too strong nor too weak on any control but roll, roll is a little over-powered, but still quite usable. It can water ditch safely. On cruise we found the range to be greater than advertised, by 400km.

It can lift off at 60m/s fairly smoothly, and land pretty smoothly. This is over-all, a fairly easy aircraft to fly, despite not being so standard construction. The air brakes and reverse thrusters mean it can slow quickly. We like that pilot training will be very cheap, after all some of our pilots really need it.

Comfort wise it is a bit of a mixed bag, some seats have no view due to the wings, and a couple have a jet engine right behind them. The forward seats have it very good.

In terms of maintenance, we think the 45 parts is pretty reasonable, none of them are particularly high maintenance either. The 80 passengers makes up for this very well, and the fairly low price tag bodes well for it.

JXE7krc.png

2r63oJh.png

Figures as Tested: Lassen Supersonic B

  • Price: :funds:31,588,000 (dry)
  • Fuel: 2,180 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 1160 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 18 km
  • Fuel burn rate: 2/3 kal/s
  • Range: 3,500 km
  • Passengers: 80

Review Notes Lassen Supersonic B

 Next up is the supersonic variant, some-one at KnoefCo thought "Hey, why not bolt two large jets onto the back?" and some-one else said "That's a stupid idea!". But they were wrong, because it was a great idea. At low altitudes, it behaves pretty much like the base model, but faster.

It takes a little while to get up to height and speed, but once in cruising at 1160m/s, it has an impressive range of 3500 km, carrying 80 passengers, with a KPPM of 0.013, which is quite good.

The main difference apart from this is that it needs a longer runway to land, seeing as the supersonic variant has non-reversible engines.

xcEmQ5r.png

Review Notes Lassen Supersonic A

 In their own words, the A variant  is the one where they "decided to just grab a chainsaw and start removing parts of the B variant planes until we got closer to the demands", and they did very clean cuts with the chainsaw. It is slightly cheaper, but not much, while having slightly more than half the passenger capacity. It performs very similarly to the Lassen-B, so much so in fact we won't bother saying how much it differs. It is just the B, but someone pulled off some stuff and it's a little cheaper.

The Verdict:

 We like the series, we question why we would buy the A variant, it having a massive reduction in capacity while only a minor reduction in price, so we won't buy any of them. We decided that since the stock Lassen is better on shorter runways, that we will guy 9, and of the supersonic we will buy 30, because for only a little bit more we can get an 80 passenger high performance supersonic jet with a long range and good fuel economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman'S WCT IH-1

jmSw41L.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:18,435,000 (dry)
  • Fuel: 200 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 126 m/s (185)
  • Cruising altitude: 1300 m (1500)
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.08 kal/s (0.33)
  • Range:  286 km (114)

Review Notes:

 This thing flies wonderfully, we couldn't be happier with it's handling. We may or may not have flown until it ran out of fuel... which happens far too soon. With only 200 kallons and some thirsty engines, the taste of pilot's heaven doesn't last. It can lift off at an impressive 35m/s on a tiny amount of runway.

Unfortunately it has a spectacularly bad range. We managed to get it to 286km on very low throttle, but at a speed of only 126m/s. The very powerful engines and low take off speed togetyhor mean that not only can it ditch in water, but it can take off from it far better than most seaplanes can.

On landings it can kill speed very fast due to very good acceleration and reverse thrust. It can climb straight up into the air, 90 degrees. The views are good but the sound is not. Tail-strikes are very hard to achieve, and overall it's a safe aeroplane.

It has 37 parts, so high maintenance, oddly all the tail control surfaces are doubled up, two rudders look like one slightly longer one. But it is cheap.

The Verdict:

 It simply has too short of a range to buy in bulk. We'll buy 8, with options of 27 more if the range is increased. Not including Jebediah's personal one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman'S WCT IH-1

jmSw41L.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:18,435,000 (dry)
  • Fuel: 200 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 126 m/s (185)
  • Cruising altitude: 1300 m (1500)
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.08 kal/s (0.33)
  • Range:  286 km (114)

Review Notes:

 This thing flies wonderfully, we couldn't be happier with it's handling. We may or may not have flown until it ran out of fuel... which happens far too soon. With only 200 kallons and some thirsty engines, the taste of pilot's heaven doesn't last. It can lift off at an impressive 35m/s on a tiny amount of runway.

Unfortunately it has a spectacularly bad range. We managed to get it to 286km on very low throttle, but at a speed of only 126m/s. The very powerful engines and low take off speed togetyhor mean that not only can it ditch in water, but it can take off from it far better than most seaplanes can.

On landings it can kill speed very fast due to very good acceleration and reverse thrust. It can climb straight up into the air, 90 degrees. The views are good but the sound is not. Tail-strikes are very hard to achieve, and overall it's a safe aeroplane.

It has 37 parts, so high maintenance, oddly all the tail control surfaces are doubled up, two rudders look like one slightly longer one. But it is cheap.

The Verdict:

 It simply has too short of a range to buy in bulk. We'll buy 8, with options of 27 more if the range is increased. Not including Jebediah's personal one.

It's called "Island Hopper" for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's - Habu Industries: Olympus 100

wETl3yz.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:84.049.000
  • Fuel: 4640kallons
  • Cruising speed: 280m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.42kal/s
  • Range:  3000km

Review Notes:

When you think of a commercial airliner, the image of the Olympus 100 is pretty much exactly what comes to mind. Wide body, engines mounted below the wings and so on. The design of the Olympus 100 is absolutely spot on. This is a very pretty aircraft. Maneuverability of the craft is a bit sub par though, the roll and yaw is good, but pitch control is very slow, no surprise for a plane of this size, but still... It takes off at around 70m/s which is rather average for a plane of this class. The 4 engines does help boost the plane to takeoff speed rather quickly, meaning that a medium to slightly below medium sized runway should be enough to take off from. Same goes for landing since the thrust-reversers help stop the plane rather fast. Noteworthy is that there's a few flaps and spoilers that have all controls disabled and aren't placed in an action group either. Maybe they've been forgotten? If not, they might as well be taken off to cut the cost.

Comfort is what you'd expect for a plane like this. The 4 engines being mounted right next to the cabin do cause a rather lot of noise, making the seats directly besides the engines a rather unpleasant place to be during flight. Ear protection is recommended. The seats all the way at the front are a pleasure to be in though, minimal sound is present here. Vibrations are kept at an absolute minimal, thanks to the high wing design and wing mounted engines. Views of the world could hardly be better, an unobstructed sight down to the surface from every window in the plane. 

Now, the most critical point about this plane and any plane in its class... The price. It costs :funds:84.048.000. That is a very very steep price for a medium regional jet, no matter how pretty and well built it is. Having 74 parts, 4 of which engines, does make for a whole lot of maintenance as well. These planes will be a rather large burden to our wallet.

Habu Industries: Olympus 120

yTDp4AH.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:94.049.000
  • Fuel: 4640kallons
  • Cruising speed: 250m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.42kal/s
  • Range:  2700km

Review Notes:

Pretty much the same as the Olympus 100, only this one costs more thanks to an extra cabin. Pushing the capacity up to 120 kerbals. It also takes off a bit slower at 75m/s. The added mass does make for a slower acceleration, meaning that a large runway is needed to operate this plane from. Maneuverability is understandably less than the 100 as well, once again thanks to the added mass. The same mysterious control surfaces are present. Comfort is identical as the Olympus 100, only the stretched cabin means that there's a lower percentage of passengers having to deal with high noise levels on this one. Bang for buck is better on the 120 in comparison with the 100.

Habu Industries: Olympus 150

s8FJH5Q.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:104.649.000
  • Fuel: 4640kallons
  • Cruising speed: 250m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.42kal/s
  • Range:  2700km

Review Notes:

 Once more the Olympus body was stretched out to add yet another cabin. This is a point which in our opinion changes the planes design from "nice" to "weirdly long". It does manage to retain all the characteristics of the 120, which is great considering how that one was worse in flight than its predecessor. It has to be said that the takeoff speed of the Oympus 150 is high... very high. We couldn't manage to take off before 95m/s, 15m/s over the requirement. This means that only the largest of airports will be capable of servicing this aircraft. Carrying 144 passengers is great though, and it once again means that it offers a higher bang for buck than the previous 2 models. For this it sacrifices quite a lot though.

The Verdict: 

 Choosing between these 3 planes was a surprisingly hard decision to make. The 100 offers the best flying characteristics, more range, more speed and easier to fly. The 150 on the other hand is a lot more sluggish but carries a lot more passengers, justifying the high cost more than the 100 does, while still having decent range. The 120 forms a middle path, taking some of the best (and worst) of both and mixing it together in a single aircraft.  All 3 of them do offer an excellent quality product, capable of transporting an above-class-average amount of passengers over a fairly long range. All 3 of them will cost us a lot of money, and ultimately its this factor that crafted the decision. We shall buy 1 Olympus 100 and 2 Olympus 150's. The 100 shall be used on long range, high volume routes between medium sized airports, whereas the 150 shall be used on very high volume lines between Kerbin's largest airports. 

Habu Industries: Olympus 250

pQAJMHF.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:121.784.000
  • Fuel: 4640kallons
  • Cruising speed: 230m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.45kal/s
  • Range:  2300km

Review Notes:

 Get an Olympus 100 to eat a truckload of ice cream and the result is this, the 100's fat cousin. The Olympus 250. Does it look good? No... no it does not. Does it fly well? Yes, yes it does. The Olympus 250 flies surprisingly well for a plane of its ridiculous size, I expected to be flying a whale, but it felt a whole lot more like a dolphin, an overweight dolphin, but still a dolphin. Maneuverability is better than that of the 120 and 150 and seems to be somewhat on par with the Olympus 100. It also takes off faster than the Olympus 150 at 70m/s, but it has a massive drawback. It's very prone to tailstrikes, and when it does, it's not just the tail that gets damaged, somehow the cockpit gets destroyed, resulting in an explosion of all the remaining parts soon after. In short, you better be careful when taking off. The plane doesn't lose any parts when turning though, unlike some other jumbo jets. Range is about half of what we're looking for though, at only 2300km.

Comfort really does depend on where you are seated in the plane. The top cabins have an extraordinarily fine experience, silent with little vibrations, but you're not guaranteed on a good view since the wing does prevent a few passengers from looking down. The lower cabins on the other hand have all got great views, but the bloody huge engine causes chaos and havoc in this cabin, noise levels are very high, making flying here a rather unpleasant experience, unless you have noise cancelling headphones or ear protection. In which case you'll be wondering why all the other passengers are holding their hands over their ears all the time.

The price of :funds:121.784.000 is actually not extraordinary for a jumbo jet class aircraft. Combine this with a part count of 70 (lower than both the Olympus 100, 120 and 150) and we realized that it will be rather average when it comes to maintenance and as such as a burden to our wallet in general.

The Verdict: 

Whereas the aforementioned price of :funds:121.784.00 is indeed alright for a jumbo jet, it's what was done with this money that's a bit disappointing. Yes it carries and impressive 192 passengers, but it quite simply doesn't manage to carry them far enough to really be worth investing in. Comfort on this plane is so much of a mixed bag that we would just feel bad for the passengers in the lower cabins as they'd have such a massive difference in comfort compared to the higher deck. Last but not least, the tailstriking scares us, especially since we're talking about the lives of 192 passengers. "Being careful" just isn't enough protection for them. Therefor we have decided not to buy Olympus 250 class aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I get home, I'll start work on a jumbo jet, probably an actual wide-body, with (maybe) two decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aeroplane Industries: K-38\52

KpmUaMT.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:19.970
  • Fuel: 800kallons
  • Cruising speed: 160m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 750m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.06kal/s
  • Range:  2100km

Review Notes:

The K-38/52 has a bit  of an unusual design. We're not used to seeing a three hull plane, and as it was different, it was looked at with some skepticism. After some conviction we did manage to get someone in the cockpit. First thing that was noticed was the excellent visibility from this cockpit. Flying from there, you were gonna have good eyes on most things. The plane took off around 40m/s, which was probably down to the landing gear being placed so far back, as we think it could've took off way earlier. The single engine was more than powerful enough for the little craft, easily pushing it up to cruising speed and altitude where we throttled down to 1/3 as recommended. We measured a very nice efficiency of 0.06kal/s at 750m, making for a more than impressive 2100km range! At full power we were able to push the craft up to speeds of 300m/s, with an efficiency of 0.18, still having a range of 1300km. Maneuverability of this craft... How do I put it? It was a dream! An absolute dream. Roll controls are exactly sensitive enough to be able to roll fast, but also allow you to make minor adjustments. Yaw was surprisingly responsive and then there's pitch. It's incredible how great pitch control is. Sensitivity is on point, not only that, but it can turn on a dime. This plane has the shortest turning circle I've ever seen. This plane is incredibly easy to fly, inexperienced pilots should have no issues doing standard flights with it. The more experienced ones should be able to fly and land this plane to and from pretty much every little space that has a runway or some water. Talking about water, landings and takeoffs from it were incredibly easy.

Comfort on this plane is very good. The cabins are in the side hulls, meaning that there's no issues with vibrations from the inline mounted engine. The high mounted wing allows for good views, and flying at only 750m, those views are nice indeed. The engine is actually mounted behind the cabins, meaning that most noise doesn't make it to the cabins. Making for a silent and smooth flight. There's really not much bad I can say about it. 

G9g8YS3.png

The price of :funds:19.970 is below average when it comes to floatplanes. Because somehow the planes with the lowest requirements have a high average price... Anyways, I'm off topic, back to the matter at hand. Low cost, and with 43 parts, only 1 of which is an engine, we don't expect an excessive amount of maintenance on these planes. Besides, they seem solidly built as our model held together perfectly fine even when we put it through a 30G turn. 

The Verdict:

The K-38/52 might not be the prettiest plane around, but that is literally the only bad thing there is to say about it. It flies wonderfully, has great range, is very comfortable and its price is very decent for what you get. We're looking to buy 20 with an option for 10 more. We intend to use them on all kinds of low volume routes to small and hard to reach places all over the globe.

Edited by panzerknoef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

It's called "Island Hopper" for a reason.

Yeah, but an increased range would be nice. I would suggest getting rid of the empty box between the cokcpit and cabins, you could put fuel there and double the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aeroplane Industries: K-38\52

-snip-

I don't see how I can improve the looks  all that much, I personally think it looks great. I will still have a look, try to improve a couple things though. If you want to see great handling though, try @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1, that thing manuevers like a dream. Better than my own thing, and it can act as a seaplane too. Only bad thing is the range, I think he should submit a better one.

Currently I am trying to get the huge plane thing going again, I have been trying for a while to build something really big, and I ahve been failing. But I have a scret weapon: I will extend the Skots Ratt! So far I'm up to 1,272 passengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having fought with the maker of the plane, before I make the review I feel obliged to add this disclaimer: I am treating his plane fairly, having forgotten our quarrel. I kind of expect it to be a good plane.

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's Blasty Systems Fleet BS-16 Splashy

BZ2gK46.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:15,853,000
  • Fuel: 280 kallons (400 max)
  • Cruising speed: 155 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.09 kal/s
  • Range:  482 km (688km)

Review Notes:

 We got this plane, not entirely sure what to expect, it looked well engineered and it showed promise, so we wasted no time getting it tested.

 The first test was, the plane being a seaplane, if it could land and take off from water. It absolutely can. It takes off quickly, and the reversible engines mean it can land just as quickly. It unsticks at 56m/s and climbs reasonably well into the sky. In the air, it pitches slowly, rolls slowly, and yaws slowly. It maneuvers safely, but does it slowly.

 The engines, being very near the cabins, cause a good deal of vibration and noise, the view can hardly be faulted, and it has very good wireless. It's a safe plane, a little on the slow side, but it's safe. We also can't pull high G turns, so the passengers might thank us for that.

The range with the recommended fuel load was found to be lacking, and with a full fuel load it barely makes the requirement, and then it struggles to take off of water, we were unable to get it off. We could not build up any serious speed due to the pontoons on the wing ends taking turns to splash into the water and impede the plane's progress, while also turning it violently.

On the economy of it, for 16 passengers it is a little on the expensive side, with two piston engines and a part count of 39, the purchase cost is fairly low though. We don't expect an excessive amount of maintenance, but it still will not be cheap, especially compared to it's passenger count.

The Verdict:

 This whole plane has one, very consistent theme: one of not good, but not bad. Nothing in particular can be especially faulted, and likewise there is nothing especially to recommend it. With the exception of range, and price, the range is bad, the price is good. With so many alternatives available, some of which beat it on nearly every requirement for only a little more, we simply can't justify buying any, even for a niche route, because this plane has no singular good quality to make itself appeal to any particular route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I don't see how I can improve the looks  all that much, I personally think it looks great. I will still have a look, try to improve a couple things though. If you want to see great handling though, try @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1, that thing manuevers like a dream. Better than my own thing, and it can act as a seaplane too. Only bad thing is the range, I think he should submit a better one.

Currently I am trying to get the huge plane thing going again, I have been trying for a while to build something really big, and I ahve been failing. But I have a scret weapon: I will extend the Skots Ratt! So far I'm up to 1,272 passengers.

Ah well, judging looks is a matter of personal preference anyway. No need to send it a new plane is this one was already pretty damn amazing! 

Yeah I've been working on larger planes as well, problem is that they get so damn expensive so fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Ah well, judging looks is a matter of personal preference anyway. No need to send it a new plane is this one was already pretty damn amazing! 

Yeah I've been working on larger planes as well, problem is that they get so damn expensive so fast

But the price per seat becomes steadily as you have a higher cabin to other parts ratio, so if a cabin is expensive per passenger (like the Mk3, it is about 1.25mil/head) you cannot get lower than that in cost per seat using it. The best are the 1.25m ones, at 68,750 per head, I use them mainly (makes designing it a massive headache, the little things bend like there is no tomorrow) and when I compare my planes against say, NightShine's, (on some page there is a post I did of a 384, Night then posted a 384, and they offered roughly the same, except mine was half the cost, but higher part count for the same reason.

Basically if designing: littler cabins are better value, (save the Mk2) but add more maintenance and need cleverer design to hold a large plane Oglethorpe.

 

Yes I meant together, I misspell it and i accidentally clicked the wrong spell check recommendation. Decided to leave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

But the price per seat becomes steadily as you have a higher cabin to other parts ratio, so if a cabin is expensive per passenger (like the Mk3, it is about 1.25mil/head) you cannot get lower than that in cost per seat using it. The best are the 1.25m ones, at 68,750 per head, I use them mainly (makes designing it a massive headache, the little things bend like there is no tomorrow) and when I compare my planes against say, NightShine's, (on some page there is a post I did of a 384, Night then posted a 384, and they offered roughly the same, except mine was half the cost, but higher part count for the same reason.

Basically if designing: littler cabins are better value, (save the Mk2) but add more maintenance and need cleverer design to hold a large plane Oglethorpe.

 

Yes I meant together, I misspell it and i accidentally clicked the wrong spell check recommendation. Decided to leave it.

Yeah I know, using the mk1 cabins is by far the most efficient cost-wise but indeed designing it is a mess. I've got the idea that they make a lot more drag too, requireing more engines to keep the thing at a proper airspeed. I do think I've got like an 85mil jumbo jet, but I'm just not satisfied at how it flies. Or how it looks... Needs a lot of struts to keep the thing from falling apart. 

Besides that, I've got quite a large bunch of planes that's more than suitable for release, but I don't want to make the queue any longer than it already is, especially since I'm already a judge and other people should have more chances to upload and get their planes tested first

Edited by panzerknoef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, panzerknoef said:

Yeah I know, using the mk1 cabins is by far the most efficient cost-wise but indeed designing it is a mess. I've got the idea that they make a lot more drag too, requireing more engines to keep the thing at a proper airspeed. I do think I've got like an 85mil jumbo jet, but I'm just not satisfied at how it flies. Or how it looks... Needs a lot of struts to keep the thing from falling apart. 

I thought they basically copied FAR when they went from 0.90 to 1.0? I figured the drag was irrelevant, they just calculated the aircraft's drag as a whole. I know it would have happened 0.90 or earlier though.

Edit: With developing my monster plane, so far I am at 612 tonnes, 643 parts, 1488 passengers. Anyone's guess where it'll stop, I'm currently just adding stuff until it's great.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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