Mjp1050

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

The fuel consumption rate is just in the fuel bar in the top right, that's all you need. 

 

That rate can vary pretty tremendously depending on altitude, speed, and throttle setting (particularly if you can throttle down as you burn fuel load).

Edited by foamyesque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

That rate can vary pretty tremendously depending on altitude, speed, and throttle setting (particularly if you can throttle down as you burn fuel load).

You don't have to explain that to me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, panzerknoef said:

You don't have to explain that to me 

 

Point is, you can't use that to get a reliable range estimate, because it shifts so much. Really, the only way to *know* a craft's range is to burn it 'til it's dry and see how far you get.

Share this post


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

 

Point is, you can't use that to get a reliable range estimate, because it shifts so much. Really, the only way to *know* a craft's range is to burn it 'til it's dry and see how far you get.

Yeah well, for times sake we went with a calculation to roughly figure out the range. Given that you fly at the same altitude and speed for most of the rest of the flight, that's a good enough estimate.for example, I don't think anyone would be too keen of flying a plane with a top speed of say 200m/s for its entire range of 5500km. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Neist Aircraft Company just recently heard that the Kerbal Express was looking for new aircraft, and decided they would make a few ranges of aircraft to compete for the contracts. Their first submission aims to please the economy department, and no one else. Behold the Stingy class aircraft! It has a 24 and a 32 seat variant. These should be applicable for the Turboprop class.

NA Stingy 24:

Price: 8,986,000

Cruising Altiude: 3000m

Cruising Speed: 185m/s

Recomended takeof speed: 50+m/s

Notes to pilot: This aircaft likes to fly fast, though it struggles to keep it's speed up. Avoid nose up attitude of more than 5degrees and airspeeds below 50m/s, as the aircraft is not able to maintain speed and altidude bellow this speed. Surpsrisingly the rate of climb is much better at higher speeds. Optimal rate of climb is achieved between 90m/s and 110m/s. Climb to cruising altitude is aproximately 10min.

Craftfile: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Stingy-24

D6y4Hm2.png

 

NA Stingy 32:

Price: 9,536,000

Cruising Altiude: 2600m

Cruising Speed: 140m/s

Recomended takeof speed: 50+m/s

Notes to pilot: Much the same as the stingy 24, except heavier. This aircraft does meet the specifications, and that is about the best that can be said about it.

Craftfile: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Stingy-32

DbkzBZC.png

 

Edited by neistridlar
switched to kerbal X

Share this post


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

 

Point is, you can't use that to get a reliable range estimate, because it shifts so much. Really, the only way to *know* a craft's range is to burn it 'til it's dry and see how far you get.

 

5 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Yeah well, for times sake we went with a calculation to roughly figure out the range. Given that you fly at the same altitude and speed for most of the rest of the flight, that's a good enough estimate.for example, I don't think anyone would be too keen of flying a plane with a top speed of say 200m/s for its entire range of 5500km. 

The way I do it is to take the average of the fuel consumption at the start of cruise and at the end of cruise (~5% fuel left). I use hyperedit to change the fuel amounts in flight, and I find that this method usually gives a pretty darned accurate estimate. Usually not much deviance for most larger aircraft provided that the amount of fuel burned is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super

dAQjKacl.jpgMchzbBQl.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:501,023,000
  • Fuel: 7425 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 230m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 1.01 kal/s
  • Range:  1600 km

Review Notes:

Ah, there’s nothing like sipping champagne while soaring through the clouds. The Koeing 747-100 Super is the definition of a luxury liner, with spacious Mk.3 cabins and a breathtaking view from most seats. We like how it looks and how it performs on paper, but flying this monstrosity in person is quite a pain, according to our pilots. Taking off is an emotional rollercoaster, as the abort marker passes before the plane is even able to get to half of its required speed for takeoff. Not to mention that this occurs on a large runway, under calm conditions. Performance is what we’d expect, though the range left a little to be desired. However, the 747-100 is built like an ocean liner, and at cruise, there’s nothing to suggest otherwise.

After returning from therapy and the ICU, our pilots all agreed that this plane was not easy to tame. Not only are the controls unoptimised and feel like ol’ cable controls, but the plane, when fully loaded, cannot take off under 130m/s. This, combined with the roar of 6 huge engines, make for a very difficult takeoff and climb. In the air, the Koeing performs more like a keluga whale, having a large turning radius and a tendency to sideslip. The price is also rather steep for a plane with a capacity of 312 passengers. At 500 million funds, we couldn’t help but wonder if there was a better alternative for the price, and with the routes this thing can do, there are plenty.

On the other hand, we cannot fault the engineers for giving us a design straight out of the golden age of air travel. The 747-100 has a very smooth and gentle ride, provided it survives take off, and is very stable and easy to fly outside of takeoff and landing. While maneuverability was not high on the list of priorities for a jumbo jet, the Koeing does what can be described as “adequate”. The good views provided for most of the cabin coupled with the lower range may make this aircraft a good sightseeing plane, if not for the sky high price tag. Despite its poor take off characteristics, the 747 manages a decent landing run, able to touch down at just below 90m/s.
 

The Verdict:

We have decided that this plane really doesn’t fit into any specific route. It can’t make long flights, and isn’t efficient enough for short, high density routes either. With 71 parts, general maintenance isn't bad, but long term costs over engines may push this aircraft into the red. Still, we like the aesthetics and the feel, and so will be purchasing 2 for luxury vacation routes between large cities.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engineers at the Neist Air Company has been hard at work today and is ready to announce it's second line of aircraft. This time a sea plane. Meet the Seezik 16 and Seezik 16L. The two aircraft are identical except for the pontoons. The regular model provides a good view for the passengers, however the engineers were concerned that the craft may be a little lacking in range for some potential uses, and so they created the L model with increased fuel capacity, at the expense of the view for the passengers. The Seezik is an incredibly versatile craft considering it's short takeoff and landing, as well as water landing capabilities, with a low takeoff and landing speed in the low 30m/s range, it can go almost anywhere. The high angle of incidence of the wing also allows reasonable visibility for the pilot when landing, which comes in handy in less civilized parts of the world. Note also the all wheel steering, which allows the craft to pivot around its wing tips when taxiing, making it able to maneuver in highly confined spaces. It also has a surprisingly high service ceiling at 11500m, and can fly quite efficiently up there. However getting up there does take some time, hence the engineers deemed 5500m a more suitable cruising altitude. For optimal rate of climb stay above 100m/s during the climb, as the little jets don't seem to like the slower speeds all that much.

Seezik 16

Intended for short range operation like sightseeing and island hopping. Only the rear compartment of the pontoons is intended to be used as fuel tanks, the forward compartments are for flotation. They can however be used for land only operations, though the craft becomes a little nose heavy when fueled. 

Cost: 14,465,000

Cruising speed: 180m/s

Cruising altitude: 5500m

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Seezik-16

fYeUNGX.png

 

Seezik 16L

The go anywhere, and back version. The craft should not be operated from water with more than half full pontoon tanks, as the craft becomes too heavy to lift off. For long range flights however it is possible to take of from land with full tanks, as long as the fuel level is sufficiently low when the craft lands on water, thus enabling service to remote areas where no airport is available. Note though that the larger pontoons cause significant drag, and so this version of the craft is a fair bit slower than it's sibling, and not quite as nippy in the handling.

cost: 14,705,000

Cruising speed: 150m/s

Cruising altitude: 5500m

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Seezik-16L

zhQ349c.png

Edited by neistridlar
Moved to Kerbal X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lorings Aerospace Presents

The LJ-80 Family

(As a Narrow-body medium range passenger jet)

 

LJ-80-100

prXWjCQ.jpg

LJ81 Craft File

Cruise speed: 220m/s
Cruising altitude: 5000m
1560/35.2/1000
Range: 3181km 
V1: 74m/s
V2: 110m/s
Passenger cap: 74
Price: 63,418,000
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The LJ-80-100 (LJ81) is designed for medium/short low demand routes. It has very good fuel efficiency and range, which is over 3000km. It is powered by two Lotus engines mounted onto the wings and an advanced autopilot to keep the plane stable. It is a narrow-body aircraft, which means it has a single aisle; but that doesn't mean its low on space, as it has hidden coat hangers and wide enough to have spacious overhead cabins. It is also low on maintenance with its 40 part count. This is obviously a better deal than some of the other medium jet offers, especially since it allows for airlines to make upgrades, such as adding winglets and using the rear fuel tank. Buy it now.
(By order of the KAA every airline must order at least 3 planes)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LJ-80-100ER
15SmLyu.jpg
Cruise speed: 203m/s
Cruising altitude: 5000m
2560/44.66/1000
Range: 5732km 
V1: 78m/s
V2: 110m/s
Passenger cap: 74
Price: 70,268,000
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A variant of the LJ31 with enhanced range. The LJ31 can now support long, low demand routes with its range of 5732km. It features everything that makes the LJ31 great, its ability to be easily customized, autopilot, and cabin space. All with a few new upgrades.

----------------------------------------------------------

We also sell a cargo variant.

nmG9Yxy.jpg

LJ81F Craft File

Price: 40,460,000

Probably the same performance with a regular LJ80.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 200+m/s rule is kind unrealistic, especially for medium and some jumbo jets. This is because 220m/s is 427 Knots. The only plane I know that can go that fast is an MD-82, not a 737 (which this is based on). A normal passenger jet usually doesn't go above 300 knots, otherwise you'll overspeed and probably break the plane.

Unless we're going by "Its ksp".

(2/14/18 - Will post photos tomorrow.)

 

 

Edited by Overlonder
images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM KPE:

On some SSP-2 models, you may need to turn braking all the way up, otherwise sufficient braking may not be achieved on especially short runways. This is our recommended setting anyways. If you decide that full braking on all three gears is to much, you may lower it from that if your airline so wishes to. Thank you for your time.

Note: With the settings above, we have about 1/3rd of the island runway landing with touchdown occurring about 65m/s

Edited by 1Revenger1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo Aerospace Dotsero

IE61qc0.png

 

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:22,658,800
  • Fuel: 1,960 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 1,090 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 20 km
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.28 kal/s
  • Range: 7,630 km

Review Notes:

 Straight away, we noticed that the Dotsero is connected with top and bottom, by a bi coupler on it's side. An interesting choice, they also put a solid steel beam at the bottom to absorb the force of any tailstrikes, it is a cheap and simple solution, and on top they mounted an airbrake. Although the beam is not always reliable, it is still easy to score a tailstrike, and buy just pulling up on takeoff continuously, it is almost guaranteed. It does not especially impress us, and we really think the beam should have been mounted further back, or the gear, and it might have prevented many tailstrikes destroying the big expensive engine. Although if it does, the plane, to it's credit, can glide very well and can make a safe landing easily.

It takes off at a fairly average 52m/s, and accelerates a bit slowly too, even though the engine is powerful, the plane is heavy. In the sky, if it climbs to the proper altitude and arrives at less than about 700-800m/s it needs too high of an AoA, and it cannot accelerate. And also, we pulled a hard turn at speed, it didn't work well. The plane turns, badly, at full speed and height, and bleeds speed and altitude rapidly, and it can't get back to level flight until it has fallen really quite a long way.

 Although for planes of the category, that sort of thing is hardly unique, and it generally is irrelevant, as the planes turn to the correct direction while accelerating. This plane does though, take longer to accelerate, but we can't really complain if it is priced at just 22 million. With such a low price point, we are well willing to forgive it some vices. The comfort, being not especially good, and not especially bad. The views are, well some people love it and some people don't. But the vibrations? There are a fair few, although hardly any noise.

And last, the maintenance. 34 parts, fairly low for a supersonic.

The Verdict:

It's a decent supersonic craft, at a fair price, and a spectacular range. We would like to purchase 20, with options of 12 more, for high speed very long distance routes.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I actually copied this plane a bit to make the Comet, except I didn't remember quite right and so mine is a larger, upside down version with totally different wings. Sorry for also taking so long to review stuff lately, life has been getting in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that there is still a gap in economic seaplanes, Kerbus is offering the Kerbus K-230

screenshot291.png

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-230

  • Cruising (= max.) speed: 240m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5000m
  • Takeoff speed (runway takeoff): 42m/s
  • Cost: 13,743,000
  • Passengers:24

The jetliner is designed to takeoff from and land in water, without damaging the engines.

To land in water: Descend to about 200m, deploy flaps (AG2) to reduce speed to 50m/s, then deploy tail-fins (AG3), keep the nose pointing 5deg above horizontal, and adjust throttle to keep descend speed below 5m/s (about 38-39m/s total speed). This should avoid the engine form submerging. In addition the intake is closed whenever the brake is engaged, keeping water spray out.

To takeoff from water: Deploy flaps and retract tail-fins. Accelerate with full power to 39.5m/s. Then pullup hard.

 

Edited by TheFlyingKerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submission for: Kerbal Express Airlines

Submission from: Habu Industries

Following: Sea Dragon 2nd Generation

Type: Medium Regional Jet/Seaplane

ayCRa74.jpgmasqHmI.jpg

Top Left to Right: Sea Dragon 2100, Sea Dragon 2000, Sea Dragon 2100 X

Bottom: Sea Dragon 1100

Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 1100

Cost of Purchase: $58,677,000

Estimated Range: 1300km (800 kallons)

Suggested Operation: 1000m @ 150m/s

  • Keep flaps down at speeds less than 50 m/s
  • V1: 35m/s

 

Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 2100

Cost of Purchase: $69,437,000

Estimated Range: 1300km (800 kallons)

Suggested Operation: 1000m @ 150m/s

  • Keep flaps down at speeds less than 50 m/s
  • V1: 40m/s

After taking some notes after our previous submission, we have tweaked the original Sea Dragon to perform in two distinct sectors, rather than being a jack of all trades. The first sector being amphibious sightseeing, which the non  X variants are designed for. The following are high performance, long range variants more suitable for point to point transit.

Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 2100 X

Cost of Purchase: $80,599,000

Estimated Range: 2950km max in ER mode (2800 kallons), 2700km max in balanced mode (2440 kallons), 1850km max in STOL mode (1600 kallons)

Suggested Operation: 5000m @ 250m/s or 5000m @ 280m/s

  • Keep flaps down at speeds less than 75 m/s
  • V1: 40-65m/s
  • Flying at 280m/s will incur a slight range penalty compared to 250m/s of about 100km

In short, we tried to make the Sea Dragon into the perfect amphibious aircraft for any market, boasting better than ever efficiencies, aerodynamics, and usability while retaining the classic look, feel, and controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Not Sure’s ASEI B-1337 “Swift Moon”

2I4Mo40.jpg

SxXjdwX.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:278,427,000

  • Fuel: 6000 kallons

  • Cruising speed: 1200 m/s

  • Cruising altitude: 20,000m

  • Fuel burn rate: 2.12 kal/s

  • Range:  2900 km

Review Notes:

 

For a plane that's supposed to fly fast and fly far, the Swift Moon does pretty well. However, the less than advertised range and relatively slow climb to cruise makes this aircraft difficult on our fuel stores. The two deck layout makes it easy for us to price seats according to comfort and the outside view. However, a large number of engines this close to the cabin forced us to provide ear protection for all our test pilots, and we expect the same for all our passengers, especially those in the rear cabin.

There are a few gripes, but none of them are more damning than the noise. Vibrations are somewhat acceptable considering this thing flies pretty fast, but the roar of the Whiplashes in flight is enough to permanently damage ears, as our first pilots discovered. Apart from that, this plane is average. Average takeoff and landing performance, average maneuverability, average fuel consumption. That last part might not have been true. We were told to expect a range of >4000km, yet the plane struggles to reach 3000km consistently. Even then, 3000km is quite impressive, but we don't appreciate the false advertising getting out hopes up. Apart from that, the Swift Moon is a good buy for the money, given its characteristics.

The Verdict:

So, with supersonic aircraft on the rise, we liked the general plane itself. For the price, it'll be a sound investment, or so we think. With new planes on the rise, this plane may not be as profitable as we like with its fuel consumption and being limited to larger airports. Still, we'll be ordering 4 for those routes that businesspeople will pay anything for to get to their destinations fast.

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

-snip-

four of them? four? This seems a bit much to me, especially considering the price tag, and the fact that other jets do go faster, and with a longer range, and do it for a fraction of the cost. I've tested one such plane, I forget which one, but I do know my own Skots Speedmaster does about 1400m/s, and can circle kerbin twice over, all while not making people need sign language to communicate.

Share this post


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

four of them? four? This seems a bit much to me, especially considering the price tag, and the fact that other jets do go faster, and with a longer range, and do it for a fraction of the cost. I've tested one such plane, I forget which one, but I do know my own Skots Speedmaster does about 1400m/s, and can circle kerbin twice over, all while not making people need sign language to communicate.

The Dassault Mercure got 12 (i think) orders. If that niche plane got 12 orders, I think I can justify ordering 4 of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightshineRecorralis said:

The Dassault Mercure got 12 (i think) orders. If that niche plane got 12 orders, I think I can justify ordering 4 of these.

But other planes do what you bought that one to do, cheaper, faster, and more comfortably. It's a billion funds! We could easily get 20 smaller planes for that! Smaller planes, yeah you can buy a few for a neiche and no-body cares too much, but we could buy a small nation for the amount you just spent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

But other planes do what you bought that one to do, cheaper, faster, and more comfortably. It's a billion funds! We could easily get 20 smaller planes for that! Smaller planes, yeah you can buy a few for a neiche and no-body cares too much, but we could buy a small nation for the amount you just spent!

It's a big plane, it's a niche plane, long thin routes with frequent business travelers benefit from this aircraft. The last plane i reviewed got 2 orders, which cost more than these 4 combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightshineRecorralis said:

It's a big plane, it's a niche plane, long thin routes with frequent business travelers benefit from this aircraft. The last plane i reviewed got 2 orders, which cost more than these 4 combined.

I was a bit worried about the last plane being ordered two, but given it is so luxurious, even if it costs a crazy amount, I can see the logic behind that, and I kind of agree. But this one getting 4? That is madness, as there are plenty of faster planes, all with a comparatively miniscule price tag. When I decide how many to buy (maybe know thid if you are designing) I at least consider "is it better than most other planes?" if it's sort of average, or worse but has a neiche feature, I'll buy a few. But if it gets a bit better, it suddenly gets a lot more buys.

Buying 4 of them for a role like that is silly, when we could have bought dozens of smaller planes that all do that role better.

Share this post


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

I was a bit worried about the last plane being ordered two, but given it is so luxurious, even if it costs a crazy amount, I can see the logic behind that, and I kind of agree. But this one getting 4? That is madness, as there are plenty of faster planes, all with a comparatively miniscule price tag. When I decide how many to buy (maybe know thid if you are designing) I at least consider "is it better than most other planes?" if it's sort of average, or worse but has a neiche feature, I'll buy a few. But if it gets a bit better, it suddenly gets a lot more buys.

Buying 4 of them for a role like that is silly, when we could have bought dozens of smaller planes that all do that role better.

Here's the problem with the routes this plane is designed for: small planes don't do well when it comes to supersonic flight. It's simple economics, really. the more passengers, the better, as the planes fly so fast that turn around time is your limiting factor here, followed by range. The only real competition this thing has is the X-Series Night Fury (from what I've seen so far). That thing, on the other hand, will be a nightmare to maintain. This is a piece of cake in comparison. The price tag also doesn't look ridiculous either given it's only about 2x the Night Fury. With supersonic aircraft, maintenance is the highest cost over the airframe's lifespan (20-30yrs, maybe more). There are many factors that weigh into my decisions and feel free to disagree, but please, at least back up your arguments to let me know you care, and I'll probably change my review if I feel you have a point. Right now, you're just attacking my review because you disagree. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Here's the problem with the routes this plane is designed for: small planes don't do well when it comes to supersonic flight. It's simple economics, really. the more passengers, the better, as the planes fly so fast that turn around time is your limiting factor here, followed by range. The only real competition this thing has is the X-Series Night Fury (from what I've seen so far). That thing, on the other hand, will be a nightmare to maintain. This is a piece of cake in comparison. The price tag also doesn't look ridiculous either given it's only about 2x the Night Fury. With supersonic aircraft, maintenance is the highest cost over the airframe's lifespan (20-30yrs, maybe more). There are many factors that weigh into my decisions and feel free to disagree, but please, at least back up your arguments to let me know you care, and I'll probably change my review if I feel you have a point. Right now, you're just attacking my review because you disagree. That's it.

I do see your point about turnaround time, but smaller planes can be more flexibly allocated, and yeah, maybe maintenance is the main cost for a 30mill jet, but this one has a price tag relatively higher than it's part count, again, just the nature of larger planes. The maintenance is about ratios.

My central point still remains though: why buy this one? Why buy 4 of it? I can see a few reasons now, and I'd agree to buying 2-3 if it would last 30-40 years, because it has a high initial price tag, and comparatively few passengers. (BTW, what is the passenger count? I have been guessing ~100.) That said, it can make a lot of trips. A plane that costs 300k per seat will, all else being equal, pay off 4 times faster than a plane that is 1.2m per seat, and so we can afford more, since they pay off sooner. It's still a massive amount of money to part with, and I'm skeptical given we already have a significant fleet of this sort of plane that there isn't one going on the route the hurried businessman would fly, but I suppose we could rent them out to large corporations, and even then, turnaround time is not important to hurried businessmen, since a lot of that will be cleaning off the seats and so on. Our hypothetical businessman, only cares about how fast it goes, how long it takes to load, and how long it takes to off-load. He doesn't care if the time between flights is an hour or a month.

Econmomics dictate we can have multiple smaller ones, for each smaller one normally we could afford just initially, because the price per seat is better, they have less of an initial financial hole relative their revenue. (Passenger count) So we could have 10 of plane X, based on up front cost, but hypothetical plane X has half the cost per seat, so we can afford 15 or 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2018 at 3:38 PM, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57D Tern

BNfv7ff.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:27,959,000 dry
  • Fuel: 390 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 205 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6000 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.1 kal/s
  • Range: 800 km

Review Notes:

 Since the previous Tern versions were well enough liked, we thought we'd have a look at this sea-plane. As a common theme, the inclusion of unusual things, this time a solar panel and a probe core. We discovered the deplorable solar panel doesn't work very well in flight, and when not in flight, electricity usually isn't a problem on planes. It takes off fine, and can land on water and take off fine, but the engine is a but underpowered, as it now has to lift the equivalent of a Tern, with pontoons strapped to the bottom. It lacks much fuel, and it cruises a good deal slower than the other Tern lineup.

In the air it is much slower than previous Tern planes, and has a greatly reduced range of just 800km. The maneuverability is still good, but the performance is noticeably worse.

On landing, the flaps and reversible engine mean it can land very quickly, which we like. Again with comfort, it's very much like the original versions, vibrations, some noise, and great views.

With maintenance, at 57 parts it is very high for a plane with only 32 passengers.

The Verdict:

While we liked previous Tern planes, this one is a bit of a let-down. It's a bit costly to buy, very costly to maintain, and now it is slower and has a low range. In short, it sacrificed everything that made previous Terns good, for the ability to take off from water. It is a bit disappointing, and considering that there are far better floatplanes available, we won't be buying any.

While Roley and Ferbur are on another daring mission to sample mint icecream study cryovolcanism on Minmus, the company's engineers attempted to "optimize" the Model D, mainly by hacking away all the redundant parts. The result was the Model E, which you can see here.

ViY4RAV.jpg

  https://kerbalx.com/haruspex/Tern-E

They removed all the quality of life modules, installed during the in-house use of the prototype, such as the probe core, the solar battery, the antenna and the retractable ladder. The long segmented fuel tank that ran under the passenger cabin was also removed; instead, the rear section of the cabin was converted to one big fuel tank. The pontoons were welded to the wings instead of structural pylons, despite warnings that the engine might get flooded with water with the new configuration.

 All this lowered the part count to 44 (from 57), unit cost with fuel to 23571000 (from 28271000 for Model D), cruising speed rose to 250 m/s at 6000 m and estimated range effectively doubled to 1600 km with 640 kallons of fuel - at the cost of 8 passenger seats. The comfort for the 24 remaining passengers improved, though, as there's now an extra fuel tank between them and the engine.

It would be probably wise to admit that the design of the Tern with its overly complex wings with advanced (and pricey) system of flaps just does not downscale well into the economy segment, where it is forced to compete with ugly, but effective duct-taped contraptions in 9-15 million price range. Model E would  probably stay where it belongs - ferrying the company executives to resort islands and back, or something. (That reminds me that I should put back the ladder, at least.)

...On the other hand, perhaps, we can weld a large booster or two to it and sell it as a supersonic luxury liner.... wait! That's a good idea!     

 

Edited by Haruspex

Share this post


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

I do see your point about turnaround time, but smaller planes can be more flexibly allocated, and yeah, maybe maintenance is the main cost for a 30mill jet, but this one has a price tag relatively higher than it's part count, again, just the nature of larger planes. The maintenance is about ratios.

My central point still remains though: why buy this one? Why buy 4 of it? I can see a few reasons now, and I'd agree to buying 2-3 if it would last 30-40 years, because it has a high initial price tag, and comparatively few passengers. (BTW, what is the passenger count? I have been guessing ~100.) That said, it can make a lot of trips. A plane that costs 300k per seat will, all else being equal, pay off 4 times faster than a plane that is 1.2m per seat, and so we can afford more, since they pay off sooner. It's still a massive amount of money to part with, and I'm skeptical given we already have a significant fleet of this sort of plane that there isn't one going on the route the hurried businessman would fly, but I suppose we could rent them out to large corporations, and even then, turnaround time is not important to hurried businessmen, since a lot of that will be cleaning off the seats and so on. Our hypothetical businessman, only cares about how fast it goes, how long it takes to load, and how long it takes to off-load. He doesn't care if the time between flights is an hour or a month.

Econmomics dictate we can have multiple smaller ones, for each smaller one normally we could afford just initially, because the price per seat is better, they have less of an initial financial hole relative their revenue. (Passenger count) So we could have 10 of plane X, based on up front cost, but hypothetical plane X has half the cost per seat, so we can afford 15 or 20.

How would you maintain this fleet of 15 or 20 planes? Again, supersonic flight is dictated by maintaining said fleet, which ultimately costs more than the planes bought. Cost per passenger mile is less of an issue since fuel cost will be much higher anyway. Let me remind you that there is no big supersonic jet in the fleet, at least not one that would cut into this plane's profits, in which case please correct me if I'm wrong. Also. Turn around time is not dependent on the passenger, only the flight. So, I don't understand what you mean by that 

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

How would you maintain this fleet of 15 or 20 planes? Again, supersonic flight is dictated by maintaining said fleet, which ultimately costs more than the planes bought. Cost per passenger mile is less of an issue since fuel cost will be much higher anyway. Let me remind you that there is no big supersonic jet in the fleet, at least not one that would cut into this plane's profits, in which case please correct me if I'm wrong. Also. Turn around time is not dependent on the passenger, only the flight. So, I don't understand what you mean by that 

Yes supersonic maintenance can cost mroe than a plane costs, but some planes have very different part count to cost rations, and with a very low one it becomes less important. I would maintain them by buying ones that are cheaper per seat, some fo the extra profit can be used to maintain them.

I thouyght by turn-around time you meant the time between when a plane lands from one trip and departs on another. Am I mistakjen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt y'all for a little announcement here. I'm currently not reviewing as I'm on holiday. Service will be resumed normally from on Monday. 

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.