CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

rxipL1f.png

Original challenge by @keptin

First thread of this challenge  by @Mjp1050

Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job?

 

Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes.

The Rules:

  • KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible
  • Stock parts + Airplane PlusKerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated)
  • Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone.
  • TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it.
  • The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers
  • Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers
  • Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots.
  • Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them.
  • No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only.
    • You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories.
    • Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells.
  • Minor clipping is allowed, within reason.
  • A rolling runway takeoff is required.
  • Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water.
  • Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.]
  • Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered.
  • 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category
    • Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere
  • Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet category

What is a variant?

To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission.

What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category:

For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude.

Seaplane

  • Must be able to land on and take off from water and land
  • Range of at least 600km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s
  • 16+ Passengers

Turboprop 

  • Range of at least 800km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s
  • 24+ Passengers

Small Regional Jet

  • Range of at least 1000km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s
  • 40+ Passengers

Small Hopper

  • Range of at least 400km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s
  • 56+ Passengers
  • See 'Hopper Information' below.

Medium Regional Jet

  • Range of at least 1500km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s
  • 72+ Passengers

Supersonic Jet

  • Range of at least 1500km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s
  • 40+ Passengers

Hopper

  • Range of at least 400km
  • Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s
  • 104+ Passengers

Jumbo Jet

  • Range of at least 4000km
  • 152+ Passengers
  • Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s

Super Jumbo

  • Range of at least 4000km
  • 800+ Passengers
  • Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s

Hopper information:

 Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers.

Judging Criteria:

Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later)

  • How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements
  • Cost of Aircraft
  • Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude
  • Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred
  • Passenger comfort

How to Submit. Your post must include the following:

  1. The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in.
  2. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours.
  3. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me.
  4. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.)
  5. The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging.
  6. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional).

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

The Judges:

@panzerknoef

@neistridlar

@CrazyJebGuy

@NightshineRecorralis

@no_intelligence  (Judge of last thread)

@1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread)
 
@Mjp1050 (OP of last thread)

Spoiler

Test Pilot Review:

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:
  • Fuel: kallons
  • Cruising speed: m/s
  • Cruising altitude: m
  • Fuel burn rate: kal/s
  • Range:  km

Review Notes:

 

The Verdict:

 

Challenge Submissions

Seaplane

  • @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane.
  • @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane.
  • NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD:
  • @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit.
  • @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride.
  • @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water.
  • @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water.
  • @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong.
  • @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant.
  • @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and  it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper.
  • @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement.
  • @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy.
  • @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune.

Turboprop

  • @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done.
  • @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced.
  • @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface.
  • @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range.
  • @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop.
  • @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit.
  • NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD:
  • @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way.
  • @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable.
  • @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210.
  • @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?"
  • @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km!
  • @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km.
  • @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow.
  • @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty.
  • @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often.
  • @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range.
  • @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled.
  • @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop.
  • @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap.
  • @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material.

Small Regional Jet

  • @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet.
  • @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet.
  • @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics.
  • @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort.
  • @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive.
  • @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet.
  • @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet.
  • @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces.
  • NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD:
  • @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea.
  • @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame!
  • @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet.
  • @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range.
  • @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit."
  • @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago.
  • @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey.
  • @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price,  but let down by poor handling.
  • @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend.
  • @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range.
  • @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow.

Medium Regional Jet

Supersonic Jet

  • @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet.
  • @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs.
  • @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort.
  • @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption.
  • @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it.
  • @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though.
  • @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended.
  • @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet.
  • NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD:
  • @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel.
  • @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero.
  • @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these.
  • @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design.
  • @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort.
  • @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas.
  • @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner.
  • @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it!
  • @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK!
  • @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable.
  • @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane.
  • @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it.
  • @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse.
  • @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies.
  • @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control.
  • @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles.
  • @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what.
  • @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames.

Jumbo Jet

Super Jumbo

Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome.

 

A new thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. We also get to allow KAX.

How your Plane will be judged

  This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers.

We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear)

To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities:

 -Be cheap, at least per passenger
 -Fly well
 -Be reasonably fast
 -Have a long range
 -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later)
 -Be reasonably fuel efficient
 -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing
 -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something

With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue.

Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review.

Pro tip: If your plane does this, we won't buy it: https://youtu.be/jCULG2b6248

(I was trying to develop a 1300 passenger super-jumbo)

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! new thread! Could you, I'm not sure any records have been kept, update the board with all the reviews since the last update by MJP? If no records have been kept, I'll just look up my own to get on the board :wink: and anyone else who would so whish to would have to look up their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hoioh said:

Yay! new thread! Could you, I'm not sure any records have been kept, update the board with all the reviews since the last update by MJP? If no records have been kept, I'll just look up my own to get on the board :wink: and anyone else who would so whish to would have to look up their own

I will, but I am quite busy ATM. Will start on it tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CrazyJebGuy I can offer a hand in some reviews, I have spoken to @neistridlar whom suggested that I read up on how you guys style and write a review. So I'd like to do some if you'd be so kind, I'll even do a trial one if you send me a craft :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have to repost our submissions to this thread?

Share this post


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

Do we have to repost our submissions to this thread?

I think if it has not been reviewed yet, then yes. Just to get it fresh in our heads again.

Share this post


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

Do we have to repost our submissions to this thread?

No, we'll still review them if they are in the previous thread.

If anyone wants a practice aeroplane to review, the Turbo XL is a fairly good one for practice. It's already reviewed, twice. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3199416

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm seem to be missing mine. Not sure if that was cause it was in the backlog....

A ha - nope here's the one review

This one seems to have been in the backlog though. Or missed. IDK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest the OP contain a submission template? It would be nice if new submissions were organized in a similar manner, and it would make it easier for submitter to see what should be included in the submission. This is how I have been doing mine, and, not surprisingly, I think it is a good way to do them:

Spoiler

Introduction:

[Must contain the name of your company and the name of the model(s) being submitted. This is your sales pitch, it does not have to be factual, but it is nice if it is funny. Should also contain any backstory or special features of the aircraft, or whatever you want to highlight. Also clarify what category you are submitting for, in case it is not obvious.]

[picture(s) of the submission(s)] 

Craft file: [download link to your craft file]

Technical data:

  • Price: [price in game * 1000  *required]
  • Cruising speed: [choose one specific speed that you want your craft to be tested at  *required]
  • Cruising altitude: [choose one specific speed that you want your craft to be tested at  *required]
  • Fuel capacity: [recommended maximum fuel load at launch, your craft should  *recommended, but not required]
  • Fuel burn rate: [radout in the resource panel, or right click the engine for a more digits if required (two or three significant digits should be sufficient) *recommended, but not required]
  • Range estimate: [(fuel capacity / burn rate) * (speed / 1000m) ) *recommended, but not required]
  • [Any other specification you would like to add, like take off speed, recommended climb speed KPPM e.t.c.]

Pilot notes:

[This is  where you put any warnings or instructions about how to fly the aircraft. This would be a good place to put action group information, and their recommended uses]

Of course the template would not be mandatory, and may be edited by the submitter at their discretion, and many will probably not even read the OP thoroughly enough to even realize that it exists. Nevertheless I think it would be good to encourage some standardization, and would probably help expedite the review process. 

6 hours ago, KenjiKrafts said:

@CrazyJebGuy I can offer a hand in some reviews, I have spoken to @neistridlar whom suggested that I read up on how you guys style and write a review. So I'd like to do some if you'd be so kind, I'll even do a trial one if you send me a craft :)

If you are already reading through the old reviews, maybe you could start compiling a list of submissions for the OP, when you are at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

May I suggest the OP contain a submission template? It would be nice if new submissions were organized in a similar manner, and it would make it easier for submitter to see what should be included in the submission. This is how I have been doing mine, and, not surprisingly, I think it is a good way to do them:

  Reveal hidden contents

Introduction:

[Must contain the name of your company and the name of the model(s) being submitted. This is your sales pitch, it does not have to be factual, but it is nice if it is funny. Should also contain any backstory or special features of the aircraft, or whatever you want to highlight. Also clarify what category you are submitting for, in case it is not obvious.]

[picture(s) of the submission(s)] 

Craft file: [download link to your craft file]

Technical data:

  • Price: [price in game * 1000  *required]
  • Cruising speed: [choose one specific speed that you want your craft to be tested at  *required]
  • Cruising altitude: [choose one specific speed that you want your craft to be tested at  *required]
  • Fuel capacity: [recommended maximum fuel load at launch, your craft should  *recommended, but not required]
  • Fuel burn rate: [radout in the resource panel, or right click the engine for a more digits if required (two or three significant digits should be sufficient) *recommended, but not required]
  • Range estimate: [(fuel capacity / burn rate) * (speed / 1000m) ) *recommended, but not required]
  • [Any other specification you would like to add, like take off speed, recommended climb speed KPPM e.t.c.]

Pilot notes:

[This is  where you put any warnings or instructions about how to fly the aircraft. This would be a good place to put action group information, and their recommended uses]

Of course the template would not be mandatory, and may be edited by the submitter at their discretion, and many will probably not even read the OP thoroughly enough to even realize that it exists. Nevertheless I think it would be good to encourage some standardization, and would probably help expedite the review process. 

If you are already reading through the old reviews, maybe you could start compiling a list of submissions for the OP, when you are at it.

I will after :Pwork 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's - BS - 40 regional

 3QI7ogk.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:19,883,000
  • Fuel: 900 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 255m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 7,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.11 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 2080km

Review:

This one screams Blasty Systems all the way, with the underslung fuel tank, short landing gear and twin engines. And powerful engines they are. As expected the aircraft leaps in to the air like nobody’s business. As usual the takeoff speed is a little higher than most of the competition, at 58m/s, but it does not really matter, as the acceleration is so tremendous it still manages to have one of the shortest takeoff runs in the class. The aircraft gets up to its cruising altitude of 7km in just over 90 seconds, which is quite exceptional. In cruising it has the same trim/autopilot issues as its smaller siblings, though it is somewhat less pronounced in this model. The recommended cruise speed of 300m/s is exceptionally high for a regional jet, which is nice, we got a fuel burn rate of 0.18kallons/s and a speed of 304m/s at full throttle, which is slightly better than advertised. This gives a range of 1520km which is well within the requirements. 300m/s is quite close to Mach 1 at 7km altitude though, which usually is the least efficient speed to fly at, so we throttled back the engine about one third, which gave us a speed of 255m/s and fuel burn rate of 0.11, and a range of 2080km, which is significantly better, and 255m/s is still quite a decent cruising speed for a regional jet. We would probably use the lower speed for normal operations, and use the faster speed to recover from delays when necessary. Now the aircraft cruises with almost a 5 degree nose up attitude, we think the aircraft could have its cruising performance greatly increased by putting this angle in the wings, minimizing the drag from the fuselage. It would also help reduce the takeoff and landing speed.

The aircraft comes equipped with flaps, however we did not find them to be useful for anything other than slowing down, and they change the trim of the aircraft quite significantly, which is not so desirable. Upon landing we discovered that although very similar to the BS-24 Turbo and BS-32 Turbo, the landing gear on this model is not quite as sturdy, we suspect it is due to the increased weight of the aircraft. It is still well within the acceptable range. On one particularly sloppy landing however we did somehow manage to lose both engines as they slammed into the ground. Now this was mostly bad piloting, and not so much bad design, however we like to think that the difference between a good design and a great one is that it makes even bad pilots look good. Like it’s siblings the aircraft stops almost as quickly as it takes off, so it should be ideal for short runway operations.

Twin engines usually comes with added safety through redundancy, however in this case we are not entirely sure the twin engines actually offer any benefit at all. At high speeds it is possible to maintain a small degree of control with only one engine, however at lower speed the aircraft is very keen to make its best impression of a flying saucer, yawing with rapidly increasing speed, and recovery requires a tremendous amount of altitude if the spin is allowed to develop. We would argue that it is less safe in this case, though with quick reactions from the pilot it is not much worse than engine failure in a single engine aircraft.

The test passengers reported that they had not really noticed much of anything during the flight, as they had been to occupied checking out the entertainment system. We take this as a good sign. For what this aircraft offers the purchase price is quite acceptable. The part count of 40 is a little above average, but we don’t think this is going to be a major problem. The engines being located so close to the ground has proven to be a bit of a double-edged sword though. It sure makes the maintenance easier, but it also makes the engines more susceptible to damage, and thus needing more maintenance, so we feel these two cancel each other out. At the recommended cruising speed the fuel economy is a little lackluster, however with the lowered cruising speed it falls within the average. With the excellent comfort and entertainment system we think we can charge a premium price for the tickets thigh, so we expect this craft to be quite profitable.

The verdict:
Another well rounded craft from Blasty Systems. The high speed will be useful for recovering delays. We will be ordering 10 of these for general use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will after :Pwork 

No, I have this sorted. I am just going through the thread, updating the craft folder and also summarizing reviews as I see them, and it's not really something that other people can help with, because most of the work is just clicking and coping links and so on....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! Finally gonna get updated leader boards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, neistridlar said:

...ordering 10 of these...

Why only ten and not 40 or 50? I mean, come on! It's an amazing plane, buy more!

 

EDIT: I have a thread for the size war people :wink:

 

Edited by Kebab Kerman

Share this post


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

Why only ten and not 40 or 50? I mean, come on! It's an amazing plane, buy more!

You think it is that amazing? I know CrasyJebGuy likes to buy tons of aircraft when they are somewhat good, but I think my buying habits is more in line with the rest of the reviewers. Also I bought roughly the same amount of the BS turboprops, which are equally good, and nobody complained then. Though if you can find a review from a judge that is not CrasyJebGuy that has reviewed a similarly good plane and bought more, I will have to reassess my decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 3:07 PM, 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.

Download Link:

https://kerbalx.com/TheMadKraken2297/Horizons-AKP-10

 

I am re-posting this, as @neistridlar has notified me that my old post did not contain any sort of download link. I quoted it. It's back! 

Sadly I have had to reset my PC and my KSP was lost, so I'll be slower trying to get more planes for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on the continuation of the challenge! Great to see you're (re-)organizing yourselves. Compliments on all the work. I just wanna say hi -  as I still lurk around here almost every day, reading the reviews and hoping you are getting close to page 20 of the old thread, where the "MAD TF-3a Swift" was posted (my only contribution so far).

The MAD bureau has a new submission called the MAD PAPA-1b Duckling, but it's delayed until we get some feedback on the previous tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

I am re-posting this, as @neistridlar has notified me that my old post did not contain any sort of download link. I quoted it. It's back! 

Sadly I have had to reset my PC and my KSP was lost, so I'll be slower trying to get more planes for this. 

How curious. It is still missing from the original post. Anyways the new old post looks good.

 

1 hour ago, Magzimum said:

The MAD bureau has a new submission called the MAD PAPA-1b Duckling, but it's delayed until we get some feedback on the previous tender.

It's time to start building the hype, as we have just barely started nibbling away at page 20. Though I did some tidying up in the judging spread sheet today, and it looks like we still have some unfinished business going as far back as page 3!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

How curious. It is still missing from the original post. Anyways the new old post looks good.

The new old post was meant to be the main submission, if you were wondering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You think it is that amazing? I know CrasyJebGuy likes to buy tons of aircraft when they are somewhat good, but I think my buying habits is more in line with the rest of the reviewers. Also I bought roughly the same amount of the BS turboprops, which are equally good, and nobody complained then. Though if you can find a review from a judge that is not CrasyJebGuy that has reviewed a similarly good plane and bought more, I will have to reassess my decisions.

My reasoning, is most aircraft have a niche, so usually a small order of 3 to 12 can be justified.

In the cases where I buy bulk (such as a Kerbus K-350) that happens when I think it's a good workhorse, (So, just generally very good, no major flaws) or it has a very large niche, for example the Kerbus K-220, which I said would be an ideal aeroplane to keep a stock of, and then reassign them to different routes as needed, so if a route becomes very busy for a week you might deploy a few to that route.

 It's very good for that, because it's very cheap, and because it's very versatile. The thing could even act as a sea-plane, it will void our warranty though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know the page number the Kerbus K-350 is on? I would like to know this because my company would like to completely rip off the design buy one for.. uh.... 'scientific experiments' involving optimal flight pattern and wing placement. 

(I'm not gonna rip it off, I just wanna see how it's built. I have a hunch.)

Edited by TheMadKraken2297
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does anyone know the page number the Kerbus K-350 is on? I would like to know this because my company would like to completely rip off the design buy one for.. uh.... 'scientific experiments' involving optimal flight pattern and wing placement. 

(I'm not gonna rip it off, I just wanna see how it's built. I have a hunch.)

Page 17

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

My reasoning, is most aircraft have a niche, so usually a small order of 3 to 12 can be justified.

In the cases where I buy bulk (such as a Kerbus K-350) that happens when I think it's a good workhorse, (So, just generally very good, no major flaws) or it has a very large niche, for example the Kerbus K-220, which I said would be an ideal aeroplane to keep a stock of, and then reassign them to different routes as needed, so if a route becomes very busy for a week you might deploy a few to that route.

 It's very good for that, because it's very cheap, and because it's very versatile. The thing could even act as a sea-plane, it will void our warranty though.

 

8 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Why only ten and not 40 or 50? I mean, come on! It's an amazing plane, buy more!

There is the difference though, In my mind 1-4 is the appropriate number for a niche aircraft based on everyone except CrazyJebGuy. Here are some examples:

Spoiler

 

 

None of these got more than 10 orders, despite some having significant better fuel economy and some are better priced and have lower part counts. And I just realized that it is practically just panzerknoef and CrazyJebGuy that have reviewed small regional jets.

Edited by neistridlar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies is proud to present you with their first commercially-available model, the Delta Impulse! The available variants are the standard Delta Impulse and the Delta Impulse S.

 

Delta Impulse: https://i.imgur.com/eMk4qbc.png -

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse

 

Delta Impulse S: -

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse-S

 

The Delta Impulse is a completely stock regional passenger jet, designed with the intent to do everything the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow" does, but better, and is a bargin, at just 16,056,000 funds! .

This beautiful plane takes off at just below 50 m/s, and in the air, is as agile as a jet fighter, thanks to its vectoring engine.

We found that the original design of flaps along the back wing was redundant, as the Panther engine, along with the two remaining flaps provides all the maneuverability that any passenger plane will ever need

[Although Kerbal Express Airlines certainly can request that earlier variant, the flaps push the price above that of the Arrow]

We recommend flying at 270m/s [1690km range @ 6000m], although under afterburners this plane can easily go supersonic with no loss in maneuverability or strength [8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range] . Pushing past Mach, however, does lower the range of this airplane, and as Delta Flight is developing a dedicated supersonic plane, we do advise waiting

The sole engine, being separated from the cabin by the fuel tank, does little to affect passenger comfort, so passengers can enjoy their flight in peace and quiet. At only 25 parts and one engine, maintenance should be a breeze.

Easy to fly, this plane should require little to no extra training for your pilots to fly. It’s agility, combined with the intuitive cockpit and controls, make training pilots for this aircraft a breeze

Finally, as for passenger comfort, there are two roomy bathrooms in the back, along with storage for an airline to store snacks.

 

The Delta Impulse S is a regional passenger seaplane, designed with the intent to provide the convenience of the Delta Impulse to seaside routes. Like it’s sibling, this craft is cheap, at just 22,042,600 funds, and needs little mainainance with only 39 parts.

This beautiful plane takes off at just 44 m/s like its sibling, and like its sibling, is as agile as a jet fighter, thanks to its vectoring engine.  

We recommend flying at 200m/s [1235km range @ 5000m ], although under afterburners this plane can easily keep pace with the Delta Impulse with no loss in maneuverability or strength [8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range ] The sole engine, being separated from the cabin by the fuel tank, does little to affect passenger comfort, so passengers can enjoy their flight in peace and quiet while watching scenic views of the sea

Finally, as for passenger comfort, there are two roomy bathrooms in the back, along with storage for an airline to store snacks.

 

Special thanks to NightshineRecorralis for testing our airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now