Mjp1050

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

By the way, you are by no means restricted to aircraft at a specific page to review, you can go review from any page you please.

Quick other thing: maintenance is about ratios primarily, and a lot of parts were struts. A typical turboprop will have 24/32 passengers, and 30-45 parts, a part-passenger ratio of roughly 3:2, but jumbo jets usually have much better ratios, in my planes case 3:5 (or there abouts) which is about 2.5 times better.

The official method is fuel / burn rate * speed / 1000. Fuel economy does change drastically, even on the same planes at varying levels of tank fullness. (Especially some jumbos) And when you say descent, do you mean gliding? I would think that is a bit dangerous, because overshooting the runway would be very dangerous.

With all the different methods, no wonder people keep getting estimates off by 10 or 15 percent, I was very sure the Skots Mouse had over 4,000km. And if we want real accuracy, the only real way is just to fly it unit it runs out of fuel. For time reasons, I don't think anybody would do this. Especially since some aircraft can fly for 6+ hours. (I have built ones that can do that, I forget which ones exactly though)

If that's the case, I suppose leaving the game running overnight with a screen capture might be needed then. I find that my method seems to be rather accurate within about 2-5%, and no, descent does not mean gliding. Descent means descent.

Share this post


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

If that's the case, I suppose leaving the game running overnight with a screen capture might be needed then. I find that my method seems to be rather accurate within about 2-5%, and no, descent does not mean gliding. Descent means descent.

If I understand correctly, what you are doing is, load up full fuel tanks and get to cruise speed/altitude, use F3 to check your ground distance covered, then take the remaining fuel - 5%, and use the formula bellow to calculate the remaining range?

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

The official method is fuel / burn rate * speed / 1000

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the right way to do it would be like this: take off with full tanks, get to cruising altitude and speed, note the fuel consumption. Revert to SPH, set the fuel to 5%, take off, get the second fuel drain speed similarly. Then calculate the range using the average of two numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Alright, I will have to take a look at the other jumbo submissions to get a better sense off what should be considered average for a jumbo.

Just, you still need to consider in absolutes, a lot of jumbos have an insane price to passenger ratio, and so when a moderate jumbo comes round it seems to be really cheap per seat, until you compare to smaller planes. I think the reason is that people just use the larger cabins, which cost more for the passenger capacity. I would not have thought intakes would be noisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Cols's Fantastic Designs A797

3oiSbxX.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:317,447,000 (fully fueled)
  • Fuel: 4800 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 149 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.34 kal/s
  • Range: 2100 km

Review Notes:

  This was an odd plane to receive.... There are so many puzzling design choices, why is there a 2 foot gap between the intakes and fueselage? Why the tails at the back? Why two cockpits? Why the cabins at the back abruptly end? We can say though, that in our testing it was common for someone to try and walk through the door to "get to the next cabin", even in flight, despite warnings. We are also curious as to why there are two different kinds of intakes, and why the tiny ailerons? This thing rolls extremely slowly. The pilot can probably turn faster using only the rudder than a standard elevator turn, simply due to how long the plane takes to roll.

 On takeoff it, takes it's time. It did not unstick until we were going at 136m/s and the runway started going downhill. Using the built in button the middle landing gear retract, and this doesn't help. It still needs the runway to dip away before it can get off the ground. Even the afterburner means it can go quickly on the ground, but it still won't unstick until the runway drops away, and this offsets the crazy cheap price, because we will have to modify our airfeilds, and likely build a whole new landing strip.

In the air, it's slow to climb. Using teh afterburner, we got a 10 degree climb at 126m/s, this plane's recommended cruising is at 4,000m. We wonder why they put on supersonic intakes, this plane is slow. It can just cruise at 149m/s, and it's scratching to maintain that speed. (Without afterburners BTW) and considering nearly every, if not all competing planes, can beat that easily, we aren't impressed. What is also not impressive is.... the range. It's on par, with some high end floatplanes. But this isn't a flying boat, this is a Jumbo, and we expect better.

We also did not expect it to include 15 kallons of Mono-propellant free, I mean, thanks! It's a nice gift.

At this point we get to economy stuff, and here is where the bad new stops, it is the cheapest Jumbo we have ever seen. It carries the bare minimum of passengers to be a jumbo, but it's a Jumbo, and it's cheap. Now the bad news starts again, and at 124 parts and only 152 passengers, maintenance is high by jumbo standards.

For comfort, the engines are all mounted on hulls that have only fuel, so there are very few vibrations, but a good deal of noise due to the engines proximity, and there is no view to speak of for half the passengers, and even then you can't see ground for the giant view-obstructing wing.

The Verdict:

 It's a bad plane in all but price.It has a short range, it gets there very slowly, it maneuvers slowly and climbs badly. The only real plus is that it's half the price of a normal Jumbo, really impressed with that, and for that reason alone we'll buy 3, to help on short distance, ultra-economy routes with convenient ramps near the airfeilds.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @AeroGav's Screechcraft Corp. Grande Dumbo

e7yFQik.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:293,920,000
  • Fuel: 5620 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 230 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6500 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.48 kal/s
  • Range: 2,750 km

Review Notes:

 Since the reviews have a huge backlog, this was submitted back when several deathtraps were reviewed in a row, and this was designed to be safe. On receiving it, it looked safe. Unlike some deathtraps, we were able to board without adding another location to the list of radioactive fallout areas, and then we looked at the construction of the wings, and became very confused. But it proved this was, indeed, a Screechcraft plane, so we had the right one delivered.

It lifts off, at a respectable, and explosion free, 60m/s. Which, is pretty good for a Jumbo, and means we can take off small runways, so far, we're fans. In the sky, it handles well and goes at 233m/s, a respectable speed. The plane's range is below the requirements for Jumbos, but it is by no means a deal breaker, and a lot of Jumbos have low range, it is still, lower than required.

 It gets it's name 'Dumbo' after an elephant, which had huge ears, and the rudder's resemblance to said ears. The very big rudders, while deaf as a post, are very powerful rudders, and the plane has good yaw authority, good pitch and roll too, and is definitely a great flyer, especially by Jumbo standards, Heck, it can out-do some turbo-props!

The Grande Dumbo can do this all in, mostly, comfort. The engines vibrate the back cabin or so, but infront of those it is quiet, smooth and with good views, although the cabins that have the wing always have an interesting view, thanks simply to the wing construction. The front cabins are spacious, fancy, and overall pretty first class. We can definitely see this being used as a luxury liner.

We like the little extra wheel at the back, it prevents tail strikes; the Grande Dumbo can stop quickly, and does it by using it's massive ears, putting them togethor, it also has brakes and reverse thrust, but it does that. The result is a plane that can stop very quickly, and it's very nice and easy to land.

Where it is let down, is the price. It is very costly, although has a very low maintenance, having only 60 parts.

The Verdict:

It's a wonderful plane, let down by a high initial cost. It's offset though by low maintenance, and it seems to be built to last, so we can buy more, they won't pay off quickly though. We plan to sell the front cabins as luxury, and use 11 as general purpose luxury liners.

 

Edit: to everybody to whom this is not clear, I this is a perfectly safe plane. I was making jokes about the deathtraps reviewed when the plane was submitted.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really starting to wonder if people have forgotten about my little supersonic Zoomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ca't believe it took me so long, but I finally made a practical plane! The KrakenTech(tm) corperation proudly presents... (drumroll).....

THE KRAKENTECH AKP- 10 JUMBO JET!

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1313717373 (the screenshot should embed, not working for some reason. maybe steam changed it, I don't know.)

This little (haha, yeah right) plane is our flagship and pinnacle of design.

Specifications: 

Passenger Capacity: 240 (10 Mk3 passenger Cabins) plus three pilots.

Cost: :funds:480,853,000 

Takeoff speed: 42 If you can pilot 

Part Count: 178

Fuel: 19375 

Range will be in soon, haven't had time to test it yet. (I fly the aircraft at the farthest it will go to find the range instead of doing the math)

Yes, we FINALLY got around to doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

I ca't believe it took me so long, but I finally made a practical plane! The KrakenTech(tm) corperation proudly presents... (drumroll).....

THE KRAKENTECH AKP- 10 JUMBO JET!

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1313717373 (the screenshot should embed, not working for some reason. maybe steam changed it, I don't know.)

This little (haha, yeah right) plane is our flagship and pinnacle of design.

Specifications: 

Passenger Capacity: 240 (10 Mk3 passenger Cabins) plus three pilots.

Cost: :funds:480,853,000 

Takeoff speed: 42 If you can pilot 

Part Count: 178

Fuel: 19375 

Range will be in soon, haven't had time to test it yet. (I fly the aircraft at the farthest it will go to find the range instead of doing the math)

Yes, we FINALLY got around to doing it.

ooooooh

Share this post


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

Just, you still need to consider in absolutes, a lot of jumbos have an insane price to passenger ratio, and so when a moderate jumbo comes round it seems to be really cheap per seat, until you compare to smaller planes. I think the reason is that people just use the larger cabins, which cost more for the passenger capacity. I would not have thought intakes would be noisy.

Yeah, I have taken a look at many of the other jumbo submissions now, and made a more serious one my self as well, which I will submit soon (and it turned out to be a killer in maintenance cost and fuel economy, and even somewhat reasonably priced). I see yours is actually quite reasonable price wise, and the part count is about average I would say, I think I will have to update the economy part of the review at least to reflect that. As to the noise of intakes, I am pretty sure I read some other review commenting about that, though I certainly would not think they are as noisy as engines, maybe just annoying to those that sit right up next to them. After all most of the exhaust gasses from jet engines come in through the intake, at least in real life, no idea how they work in KSP xD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2018 at 8:35 AM, CrazyJebGuy said:

 

Also, I don't know why people don't design planes more like I do, it works. Square wings, lots of power and taildragger gear are effective, and square wings are pretty simple to produce too.

'cause we ain't copycats. This is a challenge about KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM. Have you ever seen a non rediculous plane? (Sorry, just triggered by that bit of narcissism)

EDIT: There's ways a way to improve. If it works, make it work better.

Edited by TheMadKraken2297

Share this post


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

I'm really starting to wonder if people have forgotten about my little supersonic Zoomer

No, it is being reviewed by panzerknoef. He's been taking his time, I don't know why. (There is a "Being reviwed by" tab on the spreadsheet, his name is next to the Zoomer)

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

Yeah, I have taken a look at many of the other jumbo submissions now, and made a more serious one my self as well, which I will submit soon (and it turned out to be a killer in maintenance cost and fuel economy, and even somewhat reasonably priced). I see yours is actually quite reasonable price wise, and the part count is about average I would say, I think I will have to update the economy part of the review at least to reflect that. As to the noise of intakes, I am pretty sure I read some other review commenting about that, though I certainly would not think they are as noisy as engines, maybe just annoying to those that sit right up next to them. After all most of the exhaust gasses from jet engines come in through the intake, at least in real life, no idea how they work in KSP xD.

By reasonably priced, I hope you don't mean it uses lots of Mk 3 cabins, they cost an insane amount, the Grande Dumbo, would have been to expensive to justify buying it it was even just a bit worse. Using Mk 3s should not be the standard, remember, the main reason for Jumbos to exist outside of the luxury ones, is to be cheaper, price per seat wise. If it's build with similar cabins to smaller turboprops and RJs, it absolutely does that.

And there is no way to make a plane cost less per passenger, than the cabin cost / passenger capacity, or even on par with that, so in this regard I can either make a Jumbo, and use Mk 3s, or I can make the same jumbo with something cheaper, and have millions spare to spend on more engines, or something. That actually sounds like a great idea though.

51 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

'cause we ain't copycats. This is a challenge about KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM. Have you ever seen a non rediculous plane? (Sorry, just triggered by that bit of narcissism)

Yep, and evidently fishing up old WW1 designs and adding more stuff until it's awesome, works!

 BTW, does your Jumbo have something to stop the tail whacking into the runway? It's a common problem, and there have been aircraft I reviewed, which were not bought, because of the problem.

Share this post


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

No, it is being reviewed by panzerknoef. He's been taking his time, I don't know why. (There is a "Being reviwed by" tab on the spreadsheet, his name is next to the Zoomer)

By reasonably priced, I hope you don't mean it uses lots of Mk 3 cabins, they cost an insane amount, the Grande Dumbo, would have been to expensive to justify buying it it was even just a bit worse. Using Mk 3s should not be the standard, remember, the main reason for Jumbos to exist outside of the luxury ones, is to be cheaper, price per seat wise. If it's build with similar cabins to smaller turboprops and RJs, it absolutely does that.

And there is no way to make a plane cost less per passenger, than the cabin cost / passenger capacity, or even on par with that, so in this regard I can either make a Jumbo, and use Mk 3s, or I can make the same jumbo with something cheaper, and have millions spare to spend on more engines, or something. That actually sounds like a great idea though.

Yeah, that is basically the Slinky 152. A jumbo that cost just 35mill, Or what ever it was. Dirt cheap. My new submission is based on size 2 cabins, which are not quite as bad price wise as the mk3s. It is around the 100mill. mark for 168 passenger plane. Maybe we will have to start a race to the bottom on jumbo prices ;).

Share this post


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

Yeah, that is basically the Slinky 152. A jumbo that cost just 35mill, Or what ever it was. Dirt cheap. My new submission is based on size 2 cabins, which are not quite as bad price wise as the mk3s. It is around the 100mill. mark for 168 passenger plane. Maybe we will have to start a race to the bottom on jumbo prices ;).

 I've got a good one just going at 66 mill, it's fast, easy to fly, and comfortable. I reckon it's a tough one to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the rather unexpected successful flight of the slinky 152, management at Neist Air decided that maybe they should get the engineers to see if they could actually make a practical fuel efficient jumbo for a reasonable price. The performance of the Slinky 152 was after all marginal at best, but it sure was cheap. Imagine what they can accomplish if they actually try t make it work they said to each other. Well, after a few days of work the engineers were happy to say, they had indeed made a pair of very fuel efficient, easy to maintain aircraft. Somehow they managed to make an aircraft with greater passenger capacity, with the same range, yet smaller fuel capacity. Some may argue that the increased purchase price would make up for it though.

Neist Air presents the NA Stout 168 and NA Stout 216. These aircraft have unparalleled fuel economy in the jumbo class, boasting a GPPM of 0.0046 and 0.0042 respectively, and part counts of 39 and 43 respectively. The secret behind this ground breaking development is the wiglets at the wing tips, which drastically reduces the vortex drag, allowing these planes to circumnavigate kerbin with just 2400 units of fuel.

nP1g2HS.png
NA Stout 216 to the left and NA Stout 168 to the right.

NA Stout 168: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Stout-168

Price: 99, 650, 000:funds:

Part count: 39

Cruise Speed: 218m/s

Cruise Altitude: 6.5km

Range estimate: 5000km

Fuel capacity: 2400u

Fuel burn rate at cruise: ~0.11

Optimal climbing speed: 160m/s

Takeoff/landing speed: 48m/s

AG1: Thrust reversers

NA Stout 216: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Stout-216

Price: 120, 650, 000:funds:

Part count: 43

Cruise Speed: 215m/s

Cruise Altitude: 6.5km

Range estimate: 4300km

Fuel capacity: 2400u

Fuel burn rate at cruise: ~0.12

Optimal climbing speed: 160m/s

Takeoff/landing speed: 50m/s

AG1: Thrust reversers

Edited by neistridlar
Realized I had messed up my GPPM calculations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 8:42 AM, neistridlar said:

If I understand correctly, what you are doing is, load up full fuel tanks and get to cruise speed/altitude, use F3 to check your ground distance covered, then take the remaining fuel - 5%, and use the formula bellow to calculate the remaining range?

 

F3 isn't accurate enough, planting a flag at the end of the runway and trigonometry is more accurate as long as you don't fly too far and thus have to account for the curvature of Kerbin (20km ish)

I'll fly the plane up to cruise as described or whichever I find to be most efficient, do it five times and find the average distance covered and fuel at start of cruise. Then hyperedit once the plane is at cruise back to the specs at the start of cruise and take measurement, then change fuel to 50% and take measurement, then again at 5%. Fuel economy should increase linearly and I just find the average fuel consumption. I use this fuel consumption with the cruising fuel load in the calculation, leaving out about 5% fuel and adding the distance covered up to cruise. It's long and tedious, but it's the most accurate way that is still time efficient, since these tests usually don't last more than 1.5 hrs, and I'd rather do this than fly a jet for 6-10 hrs or maybe even more.

Share this post


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

!

 BTW, does your Jumbo have something to stop the tail whacking into the runway? It's a common problem, and there have been aircraft I reviewed, which were not bought, because of the problem.

There's nothing stopping it, but after several tailstrikes, nothing gets destroyed, and it's the actual preferred method of taking off. Get to 42 M/s, then pull up until the tail pops you off the ground skateboard style! The MK3 tail adapter must have one heck of an impact resistance. Oh: don't try any menouvres (I can't spell) over about 1.5 g's, the wings will explode. It turns fine (realistically) using the yaw controls.  

Share this post


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

F3 isn't accurate enough, planting a flag at the end of the runway and trigonometry is more accurate as long as you don't fly too far and thus have to account for the curvature of Kerbin (20km ish)

I'll fly the plane up to cruise as described or whichever I find to be most efficient, do it five times and find the average distance covered and fuel at start of cruise. Then hyperedit once the plane is at cruise back to the specs at the start of cruise and take measurement, then change fuel to 50% and take measurement, then again at 5%. Fuel economy should increase linearly and I just find the average fuel consumption. I use this fuel consumption with the cruising fuel load in the calculation, leaving out about 5% fuel and adding the distance covered up to cruise. It's long and tedious, but it's the most accurate way that is still time efficient, since these tests usually don't last more than 1.5 hrs, and I'd rather do this than fly a jet for 6-10 hrs or maybe even more.

That certainly seems like it would be rather fair and accurate. F3 certainly is not accurate, seems to read a little above double of actual distance I've found. I'll have to see if I can figure out how do your method, never used hyper edit before.

Share this post


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

F3 isn't accurate enough, planting a flag at the end of the runway and trigonometry is more accurate as long as you don't fly too far and thus have to account for the curvature of Kerbin (20km ish)

I'll fly the plane up to cruise as described or whichever I find to be most efficient, do it five times and find the average distance covered and fuel at start of cruise. Then hyperedit once the plane is at cruise back to the specs at the start of cruise and take measurement, then change fuel to 50% and take measurement, then again at 5%. Fuel economy should increase linearly and I just find the average fuel consumption. I use this fuel consumption with the cruising fuel load in the calculation, leaving out about 5% fuel and adding the distance covered up to cruise. It's long and tedious, but it's the most accurate way that is still time efficient, since these tests usually don't last more than 1.5 hrs, and I'd rather do this than fly a jet for 6-10 hrs or maybe even more.

I dislike this method of calculating fuel effeciency, I dislike that seemingly everybody measures it differently, at this point we should just say range: somewhere between 6 and 9,754,233 km.

I think we should just take it up to cruising altitude, on half fuel, and do the standard method, it averages the fuel amount and is fair. This current mess we have perfectly explains why range estimates frequently vary by 20 or more percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing recent jumbo jet submissions where the planes are carrying in excess of 500 people, the engineers at SAI were tasked with constructing something new, revolutionary, earth shattering...

Apparently they didn't get the message that the "earth shattering" part of the description was not to be taken literally.

INTRODUCING THE SAI BEHEMOTH MK. II AUSF. C

2rWvEXV.png

3imeQzA.png

 

This staggeringly large aircraft is well deserving of its name, as it weighs in at 373 tons! Despite the weight, however, the aircraft can take off at a very reasonable 55 m/s with the help of flaps, faster than most, if not all, of the competition!

Specifications:

Cruising Speed: 155 m/s

Cruising Altitude: 2200-2250 meters

Range: ~4700 km while burning 1.78 units of fuel

Fuel Capacity: 46,150 kallons

170 Parts

Capacity: 704 Passengers + 4 Pilots

Cost: 375,275,000 Kerbucks fueled

 

DOWNLOAD: https://kerbalx.com/Bob_Saget54/SAI-Behemoth-II-C

Action Groups: 1 - Toggle Flaps (Takeoff only), 2 - Thrust reversers

 

Edited by Bob_Saget54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2017 at 1:03 PM, Blasty McBlastblast said:

I'd like to make an entry; presenting the Blasty Systems Fleet!!

5HtMtAU.png

clockwise from bottom left:

All planes share common features and construction techniques (T tails, ground level engines, etc..) to the delight of mechanics and dismay of parking attendants everywhere!

Passengers comfort is enhanced by better in-flight entertainment (batteries and antenna), and a door (much better than climbing through the usual gaping holes found in the fuselage after landing).

Flight controls are standardised across the fleet (4 toggles flaps, 6 toggles thrust reverse) and limited for passenger comfort, although barrel rolls are still possible according to Jeb.

Some glory pics:

  Reveal hidden contents

pM1GoT8.png

ArOpm5m.png

KM3nFhL.png

pkCLcNu.png

PaC0dn1.png

RMlZEUn.png

RAz6zxg.png

pPrJ6K8.png

sorry to mobile users! 

 

 

I downloaded the BS-168, it has some part that is not AP+ or Tweakscale. I thik it's the tail part, size two tail or something. I sympathize, most of my planes accidentally had a KAX part in them.

24 minutes ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

After seeing recent jumbo jet submissions where the planes are carrying in excess of 500 people, the engineers at SAI were tasked with constructing something new, revolutionary, earth shattering...

Apparently they didn't get the message that the "earth shattering" part of the description was not to be taken literally.

INTRODUCING THE SAI BEHEMOTH MK. II AUSF. C

-snip-

There are some stupendous ones, but yours is no where near top. Some planes that beat it:

-GAI Sky Titanic (800 passengers)
-Habu Colossus (1152 passengers)
-Skots Squirrel (1488 passengers) on page 27, right near the top.

Please, build a bigger one. It's impractical this race to bankruptcy, but it is a lot of fun. I am still waiting for someone else t submit their 15,000 version. I am going to be trying for even bigger, but my CPU really struggles with the massive part counts. (And I have an i7!)

Share this post


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

Please, build a bigger one. It's impractical this race to bankruptcy, but it is a lot of fun. I am still waiting for someone else t submit their 15,000 version. I am going to be trying for even bigger, but my CPU really struggles with the massive part counts. (And I have an i7!)

The Behemoth was meant to try and create an impossibly large type of jumbo jet that will be somewhat practical, however, the engineers at SAI are already working on an even bigger project

(If your CPU is already melting over this, I'd hate to see what mine does XD)

Edited by Bob_Saget54

Share this post


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

I dislike this method of calculating fuel effeciency, I dislike that seemingly everybody measures it differently, at this point we should just say range: somewhere between 6 and 9,754,233 km.

I think we should just take it up to cruising altitude, on half fuel, and do the standard method, it averages the fuel amount and is fair. This current mess we have perfectly explains why range estimates frequently vary by 20 or more percent.

Why half fuel? Is there something I don't get behind the reasoning for this? My way is, as far as I know, the most accurate way without delving into nerd sniping territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More ultra efficient jumbo jets

screenshot292.png

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-380

Kerbus presents the Kusbus K-380, the jumbo jet of unprecedented economy.  It takes off at 60m/s. Like the Kerbus K-350, the plane uses the afterburners to climb and accelerate to the required speed and altitude, then switches back to dry mode and engage prograde lock for cruising. In this case, the K-380 cruises at 620m/s at 11000m. It can fly 6000km, carrying 152 passengers, and only uses 2000 units of fuel for the flight. A probe core and parachute comes as safety feature. Last but not the least, the great plane only costs 41,816,000 fully fuelled.

edit: this entry is replaced by the K-380-400

New craft file:

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-380-400

 

 

Edited by TheFlyingKerman

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.