Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[hoioh]

49 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

What's the definition of 'ruining the challenge with TweakScale'?

I just want to enlarge control surfaces and the airliner wing to (scale-correct) sizes.

I'ts subjective, but if you're using it to make a plane look better, or function better on your computer that's perfectly fine. If you're using it to exploit characteristics of parts to achieve an insane range for example, that would be frowned upon. But it's all up to the judges in the end and they will simply tell you if they disagree with your use of tweakscale and ask you to improve your design, which is just as much fun as building it in the first place!

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

What's the definition of 'ruining the challenge with TweakScale'?

I just want to enlarge control surfaces and the airliner wing to (scale-correct) sizes.

There isn't really one, it's very subjective.

[KeranoKerman]

18 hours ago, Dawn of Science said:

 

This aircraft is designed to fit as many Kerbals as possible on a single plane for the least price. Lets look at some of the differences between this and the Colossus, its Super Jumbo competitor.

 

In my comparison, I totally forgot to talk about the other Super Jumbo, the Sky Titanic. Anyways, I will congratulate their designers for choosing a very descriptive name. (Not to insult the manufacturer)

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Dawn of Science said:

In my comparison, I totally forgot to talk about the other Super Jumbo, the Sky Titanic. Anyways, I will congratulate their designers for choosing a very descriptive name. (Not to insult the manufacturer)

Yeah, apt name for a thing so over-hyped and then suffers mechanical failure potentially resulting in hundreds of deaths. Turn out if you clip the end two segments of the wings it becomes cheaper and doesn'gt fall apart. When I entered it I actually didn't know that it fell apart, now that I have a larger PC I can test more easily.

I entered some Olympus liner a little while ago, basically the Sky Titanic but it isn't a deathtrap. Also cheaper.

 

Edit: Insult me if you want, I messed up and it was entirely my fault.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/172690-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot-continued/&do=findComment&comment=3339186

Edited April 9, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman's – WTC SST-1

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21,851,000
• Fuel:  1,200 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 600m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 7,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.17 Kallons/sec
• Range: 4,230km

Review:

How did they fit 40 passengers into that cute little thing? Well, they didn’t, it only holds 24 passengers. Still those high bypass turbofans ought to be quite efficient for a supersonic plane. The takeoff performance is quite disappointing though. The aircraft does not leave the runway until it reaches 157m/s, and despite quite good acceleration it takes a moderately long distance to reach that speed. We do think this could be improved by some tweaks to the landing gear though, because we were able to land as slow as 70m/s, so getting the takeoff speed bellow our 80m/s requirement should be achievable. In the air the aircraft handles beautifully though, and the engines are more than powerful enough for pure vertical flight up to its cruising altitude. Our test pilots also found great joy in buzzing the tower at 700m/s over and over and over. As promised the aircraft cruises along at 600m/s at 7km altitude. Now the landing run was about the same length as the takeoff run. This aircraft really is limited to larger airport operation. Though, we think if we could have used those thrust reversers things might have been different.

With three engines bolted straight to the fuselage, and the rear rows practically sitting inside the air intake. We don’t foresee many passengers making comments about how comfortable the ride was, quite the opposite in fact. The aircraft appears to be quite safe at least, being able to ditch safely in water, as well as operating with any two engines out. We are a little concerned about emergency landings on land though because of the long stopping distance and high landing speed.

So, with those high bypass turbofans this should be quite economical to run, right? Well it turns out that although one of these is quite efficient, when you put three of them on such a small plane as this, things don’t look so good anymore. The fuel efficiency is not spectacularly bad, it is just that most of the competition is better. Now it has quite a good range, but that is mostly down to carrying a whole lot of fuel. For a plane that is advertised as being good at medium range this seems like an odd choice. At 21 million for 24 seats it is not exactly cheap to buy either. And with three engines and 27 parts for such a small passenger capacity, maintenance is going to be quite costly as well.

The verdict:
This is very much a pilot’s plane, and not so much anyone else’s plane. We’d like to take 1 for taking passengers on joyrides on airshows, and general-purpose PR stunts. We do think that with some more time spent on optimizing the design it might have potential as an economy short range supersonic.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Skots Economy

More images

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 41,141,000
• Fuel:  3,560 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 250m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 2,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.38 Kallons/sec
• Range: 2,340km

Review:

Boarding complete, cross check and report. Uhm, yeah, we seem to be missing a few seats here. 40 of them to be exact. Ok, well start with passenger comfort this time. First all the good things. *Awkward silence*. Ok, now with all the good things out of the way, let’s get to the bad stuff. The rear seats have and engine stuck straight to the back of it, the seats make a very good impression of a jackhammer. Then for the front seats, well, GAI seem to have come up with a rather innovative seating solution, or rather no seating solution at all. There is space for 40 kerbals with helmets on, and the helmets are absolutely mandatory, as will become apparent later in the review. The complete lack of any passenger retaining device is also rather disconcerting. At least the engineers over at GAI have a sense of humor, as the fasten seat belt signs are plentiful. From inside that is the only interesting thing to look at however, as there are no windows at all.

Ok, before testing out this innovative seating solution it was decided to test the plane without passengers on board. The plane takes off in a short distance at 50m/s. The controls are a little weaker than we are used to seeing from GAI, but still sufficient for normal flight. GAI did not provide any information on cruise speed and altitude, so we made a guess, and said 250m/s at 2km altitude. It gets a decent range this way, however that is not because of the good fuel economy, but rather the large fuel capacity. The aircraft was proven to ditch comfortably in water, and was able to land as slow as 30m/s. The pilots noted that the aircraft is fitted with two parachutes, which annoyingly was set up to deploy upon engine ignition. We are not entirely sure what they were thinking about when they made that decision, as the aircraft is unable to take off with the parachutes deployed. We know because our test pilots tried multiple times, by accident. Anyways the plane seemed safe enough to try with passengers on board.

All aboard the crazy plane! That’s how that song goes right? Well it seemed fitting anyways. As advertised the plane has just enough space for 40 passengers in the forward compartment. There is plenty of head space though, so we suspect we might be able to cram in 80 of them if we stack them vertically. Ready for takeoff, please fasten seat belts. As the plane started moving, the passengers at the back of the front compartment quickly started complaining that they were being crushed by all the other passengers losing their balance. Shortly after liftoff however, it became apparent how bad of an idea it had been to lift off. With 40 passengers in the back the plane became rather tail heavy. As usual with aircraft the heavy part always wants to be in front, which is not so good when the heavy part is in the back. The entire flight became shorter than the takeoff run of many aircraft. Much to everyone’s surprise though almost everyone survived! Well, that’s where the helmets come in. So in a sense one could argue that the aircraft is quite safe, well if you ignore the bit where it is guaranteed to crash immediately after takeoff that is.

While all this was going on some of our engineers had been trying to figure out a solution to the kerbal retaining issue, and had concluded that filling the remaining space in the plane with a 3/5 ration of letters and barf bags should do the trick. Estimates showed that boarding times would be increased by approximately 130% by using this method however. As long as the letters and bar bags could be reused though, it should not be significant increase in cost at least. Given the short practical range of the plane though, they also came to the conclusion that it was probably not worth it to invest in bar bags stocks quite yet.

The verdict:
Whoosh, AAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhh, boom. Although we have previously accused GAI of not being very innovative, they certainly delivered with this one. However, they seem to have forgotten about working the bugs out of the system. This is as close to being a death trap you can get while still not being one. We will not be buying any of these any time soon.

[TaRebelSheep]

Is a Tweakscale Compatibility Patch allowed? all it does is let me tweakscale AP+ parts.

Edited April 9, 2018 by TaRebelSheep
Spelling Fix

[Eivuii]

1 minute ago, TaRebelSheep said:

Is a Tweakscale Compatability Patch allowed? all is does is let me tweakscale AP+ parts.

I think as it is a patch, not a mod, it should be allowed. neistridlar, what is your thought about this?

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, TaRebelSheep said:

Is a Tweakscale Compatability Patch allowed? all is does is let me tweakscale AP+ parts.

 

Just now, Eivuii said:

I think as it is a patch, not a mod, it should be allowed. neistridlar, what is your thought about this?

I'm intrigued by the idea. Ultimately I think @CrazyJebGuy should take the final decision, since he is now the OP. The reason for not allowing a whole bunch of mods is so that people don't have to install all kinds of mods to be able to review/try the submissions. Does the reviewers also need to have this patch installed, or does it somehow get embedded in the craft file? Also is it well balanced? That is does it offer any unfair advantages, other than being able to make your wings and stuff "just right"? Do you have a link to where I can try this out for my self?

[TaRebelSheep]

Here's the download link, for anyone who doesn't want to go to the thread: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g45l0djvbmypl3e/AABZ033reYyTd_6xV17txTR3a?dl=0

It's the Airplanes Plus one. Just stick the .cfg in your gamedata folder

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Skots Economy

-snip-

Knew it would really bomb, but I thought the review would be hilarious, so I didn't withdraw it from the competition.

Seriously though with my innovation, who held the record for largest airliner twice? (Thrice I think, but that includes the Skots Ratt, which probably held it - not entirely sure) Although @neistridlar I saw what you put on KerbalX, so I'd like to officially surrender at the size wars. I will not be able to beat that anytime soon.

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, TaRebelSheep said:

-snip-

It's the Airplanes Plus one. Just stick the .cfg in your gamedata folder

Gave it a quick test. It seems whoever is to use the craft that has been made with this patch also has to have the patch installed, otherwise things get quite wonky. Some things work other things don't.

3 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Knew it would really bomb, but I thought the review would be hilarious, so I didn't withdraw it from the competition.

Seriously though with my innovation, who held the record for largest airliner twice? (Thrice I think, but that includes the Skots Ratt, which probably held it - not entirely sure) Although @neistridlar I saw what you put on KerbalX, so I'd like to officially surrender at the size wars. I will not be able to beat that anytime soon.

Hope the review came out as hilarious as you hoped. Loading all those kerbals took longer than I had expected. I was quite disappointed when I discovered the craft came without fuel, and had to do it all over again xD. And with the innovations I was mostly hinting at the old school looks of most of your submissions, and reuse of older designs. I was really hoping someone would beat me in the seize wars though .

[CrazyJebGuy]

14 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Hope the review came out as hilarious as you hoped. Loading all those kerbals took longer than I had expected. I was quite disappointed when I discovered the craft came without fuel, and had to do it all over again xD. And with the innovations I was mostly hinting at the old school looks of most of your submissions, and reuse of older designs. I was really hoping someone would beat me in the seize wars though .

It was very funny, I got three notifications before, read the review above it and went and did something else. A while later I remembered, scrolled down a bit and saw the picture, kept laughing until I got to the last paragraph or so, great review! I'm surprised it only has one like.

Yeah it takes a while, sorry about that. Knew you were talking about my style of building that could have come out of 1934. I did reuse one design, although a lot of my designs are based off of other designs.

As for the size wars, I could but I'd either have to rip off your design so much I would feel guilty to enter it, or continue my over-complicated tactic and have the game's performance be measured in frames per day.  (And my CPU is an i7 2600 - BTW buying them used is great bang for buck.)

[neistridlar]

Played around a little more with the tweak scale patch for APP to see if I could make something better than I could without it. The answer seems to be no. But it looks nice.

Craftfile: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/TweakScaleAPPpatchTestCraft

Those are 1/2 scale lotus engines, and 56% FAT-T3R wings.

Price: 10,661,000

Range: 2000km

Fuelcapacity: 211kallons

Cruise: 228m/s @ 4km

Fuelburn rate: 0.024kallons/s

KPPM: 0.0053

I have a new stingy series small regional that does not use this, but has similar stats. Only advantage of this one seems to be the looks.

Edited April 9, 2018 by neistridlar
small regional jets are not medium regional jets

[hoioh]

Skaled Komposites presents: the gigantor 1104r

Having booked some noticeable successes with the previous series we at Skaled Komposites decided that we could go bigger and since we had not yet entered anything into the super jumbo cathegory we might try our hand at it and see what we can come up with. The result, not surprisingly is quite a nible super jumbo with a lot of window space. The engines have traditionally been removed from the cabins quite a bit to prevent the 12 goliath engines from messing with the pleasure of cruising at high altitude in what can only be described as a cruise ship. Entrances have been created in the front and back of the plane and most of the fuel is accounted for in the absolutely massive wing structure (the rest is flung underneath the economy seats at the bottom). Directly behind the cockpit ample first class seating has been installed and the remainder of the passenger cabins can be split into 3 classes of their own: economy at the bottom (no views) mid class seating in the mid-deck, which has been made extra wide so there is good room for movig around, as well as the option to have entertainment in the middle aisle, or extra seating for those companies that want to provide nothing other than a "schoolbus to destination" experience. The top deck can be used for either more first class seating, providing the best views, or can be used as a regular+ class with some extra leg room for example.

The gigantor 1104r sports the following statistics:

• Price: 737,256,000 (includes a full load of fuel) 680,616,000 (dry)
• Fuel:  70,800 Kallons (there is some overcapacity in the cabin roofs which is deemed unsafe for use, do not fill.)
• Cruising Speed: 222m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 5,000m+ (cruising below this altitude and speed is not recommended and will void range warranty)
• Fuel Burn Rate: 2.78 Kallons/sec (using the autopilot system to set the specific 3 degree angle
• Range: 5,750km+ (depending on angle of pitch changing the altitude and speed, slower and higher = fly further)
• Passengers: 1104 (loaded and unloaded through the front and back of the plane through 3 different exits on either side)
• Part count: 225 (please make sure all parts have been counted prior to take-off!)
• KPPM: 0.0183

All control surfacea have their own purpose by design, please do not tamper with the settings before you've flown her.

Control setup:

1 = Front flaps

2 = Rear flaps + droop nose

3 = Thrust reverser (not always required, but handy for shorter runways or landing on rough terrain)

All other controls as expected

To take off please take note of the following:

The flaps that control the pitch up behaviour on the nose should be activated as well as the brakes prior to engine ignition.
Set throttle to full, ignite engines and wait for spool up.
Once the plane starts to move faster than 5m/s release the brakes
Use gentle nudges to make sure the Gigantor goes down the runway straight (it's big, don't hit the SPH on your way out!)
When a speed of 70m/s is reached pull back on the controls, release the front flaps (1) and you will find she stabilizes all of a sudden
She should take off anywhere between 80 and 90 m/s
Choose your direction and pitch up to 15 degrees until you reach about 4000m - 4500m
Change the pitch to 5 degrees and wait for the plane to reach desired cruise altitude, then pitch down until vertical velocity = 0

In flight:

The Gigantor 1104r is, as previously mentioned, pretty nimble, so go easy on the controls unless you are avoiding an in air collision.
To turn, simply bank the plane and use yaw and pitch control to turn the plane. It is not recommended to turn without banking
though you can turn the plane around mid flight with relative ease this will not improve the flight distance, so only change course when you really need to.

To land please be aware of:

When approaching the runway shut down the engines and activate all flaps, the plane will now have a tendency to pitch up and slow down
Pitch down aggressively and aim quite a bit ahead of the runway
When a suitably low altitude has been reached level out the plane so that vertical velocity is low, at this time you should pretty much be level with the runway and flying at about 100 m/s towards is, you will be losing speed fast at this point and will need to keep pitching up further as you approach.
You should hit the runway at a speed below 90m/s, but it's possible as low as 60m/s with a vertical velocity below 5m/s
Once you've hit the runway apply the brakes hard and if required use reverse thrust to come to a quick halt
 

We know the Gigantor is not the cheapest plane in it's group, we at Skaled Komposites bet it's the best handling one you've tried though!

Link to more pictures: https://imgur.com/a/3v1xC

Link to craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3p7ggp9rkaat6r5/Skaled Komposites Gigantor 1104.zip?dl=0 (includes all pictures)

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

5 hours ago, hoioh said:

Skaled Komposites presents: the gigantor 1104r

-snip-

But how many passengers does it seat? It's really important for these planes, and it also gets harder to count. Although on KerbalX it is easier since it tells you how many of each type of part there are.

[hoioh]

9 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

But how many passengers does it seat? It's really important for these planes, and it also gets harder to count. Although on KerbalX it is easier since it tells you how many of each type of part there are.

How does 1104 sound? It's actualy in the stats and the name (latter goed for all planes I've submitted), third row from the bottom.

I fully agree that one should mention the passenger count on any plane, some of these planes mix different cabin sizes, or pop a mk1 in a tiny spot somewhere where you can't see it in the provided pictures, etc.

There's 4 hulls, each is 11 size2 cabins long and then there's 2 extra in the front on the bottom fuselage: 4*11*24+2*24 = 1104

[Agent Awesome]

On 08/04/2018 at 9:23 AM, CrazyJebGuy said:

Thought I'd share the spreadsheet, but I'm scared people are going to mess it up. So I made a copy:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit#gid=566807625

Ignore the first page, we don't use it.

I can’t get access to this

[CrazyJebGuy]

16 minutes ago, Agent Awesome said:

I can’t get access to this

Fixed.

[neistridlar]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Fixed.

It is already out of date though. If we want every one to be able to see it I think the better solution would be to set the one we use to view only for the link, and have all of the reviewers request access to edit. Looking at it, it seems anyone has the power to do that. That is how I set up the lifetime cost spread sheet, which me and hoioh have been working hard on for the last few days. I think it is probably ready to use now, but it would be nice if a lot of people took a look at it to see if they agree with the results. Currently there are 3 competing models for estimating lifetime cost. One assumes all planes fly 14000 flights with their full range, and calculates lifetime cost per seat mile based on that. the next one assumes 25 years of service life for supersonic, and 30 years for every other plane. Then makes the assumption that the plane will always use all of it's range if it is under the requirement, and otherwise use it's max range 10% of the time, and the rest of the time it will fly at the requirement range. Planes that have ranges multiple times the requirement also get discounted fuel, to simulate tankering. The last model assumes that all planes cover the same distance during it's life time, this seemed to correspond well with real world data that we found. It uses the same range and fuel calculations as the previous models.

Last is the polderen score, which is just the sum of all the others, so that the strengths and weaknesses of the different models gets averaged out. I think this should be the main score to look at. There is also some more math applied to the polderen score to make it easier to read. with the log(inverse polderen)*10 (or LIPTEN for short), where 10 points better is 10 times as good, 3 points better is twice as good, and 0.4 points better is 10% better. On the bottom of the page there are also some statistical predictions, that is the average, as well as the limit where 16% of entries are expected to either fall above or bellow. This assumes that the entries have a normal distribution about the average in log space. You don't have to understand the math, but the actually above and actually below seem to confirm that the this is close to the truth, though by no means set en stone perfectly accurate. 

I think this spread sheet should at least help the reviewers be more consistent in their judging of the hard cold facts that are the running costs of the planes. Though the scoring models are by no means perfect, so there still has to be some subjective part to the judgement. Also judges that want to have edit access, you can request access, and I will grant it to you. It is probably best if as many of us as possible have access, so that it does not get locked if a few of us disappear for what ever reason.

[hoioh]

Skaled Komposites presents: the upgraded Ski-Kull

With all the advances in technology and the new experience by our design team we've decided that the Ski-Kull waterplane, which previously did not receive such glowing remarks required an update!

https://imgur.com/a/WLASe

Fly to your holliday destination in style!

The new Ski-Kull sports sturdyer wings that also double as a fuel tank radically extending the range and even making it suitable for polar trips where refueling at the destination is not possible.

As a standard we recommend fueling to about 800 kallons for a range of 2500km, but this can be extended to beyond 4000 when all tanks are fully fueled. If you want some luggage space we recommend not fueling the rear tank and using that as luggage room instead.

The new specifications for the Ski-Kull:

• Price: 31,748,000 (includes 800 kallons of fuel) 31,103,000 (dry)
• Fuel:  800 Kallons (up to 1860 Kallons)
• Cruising Speed: 122m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 6,000m+
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.034 Kallons/sec (using the autopilot system to set the specific 0 degree pitch)
• Range: 2,500km+ (depending on fuel, can be extended up to 4000km+)
• Passengers: 16
• Part count: 34
• KPPM: 0.0289

Link to craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y0de8s2l3rx991/Ski-Kull upgraded.zip?dl=0

We hope your test pilots enjoy this version better!

 

(by the way, the remark about the old fashioned look was a surprise to us! This aircraft is modelled to resembled the latest creation of Burt Rutan no less! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_SkiGull )

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's – BS – 168 Jumbo

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 110,145,000
• Fuel:  5,600 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 245m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 8,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.34 Kallons/sec
• Range: 4,000km

Review:

The biggest belly we have seen yet. Does that mean we get two for the price of one? On the runway this one is not quite as zippy as the other aircraft in the BS series. That does not mean it is bad, just that it is a little zippier than average, not a lot more. It does not take off before reaching 70m/s, with or without flaps does not seem to make much difference. All that makes for a medium takeoff run, not bad. For the landings we were surprised to find that we could land the aircraft slower without flaps, at 58m/s. Presumably because the flaps act as nose down trim. The aircraft stops in a about the same distance as it takes off, even without the thrust reversers.

In the air we found the control authority to be a little bit lacking. Now it is sufficient for normal operations, however for emergencies we would have liked to have a little more roll authority at least. We were pleased to find that the aircraft was trimmed out from the factory for cruising. It made for a very easy and smooth flight. The aircraft cruises with a 5 degree nose up attitude, which is not too good for fuel economy, though the passengers enjoyed the reclined seating position. We suspect that the fuel efficiency could be improved by at least 15% if the 5 degrees were built in to the wings instead. At 245m/s it is one of the faster subsonic jumbo entries.

With the BL-Stair cart boarding the aircraft is fast and efficient, though the step from the card and down into the aircraft is a little steep. With under wing engines the upper deck is nice and comfortable, and the entertainment system makes the flight quite enjoyable. On the lower deck there is a little bit of noise from the engines, though it is not at all bad. We could probably do business class on the entire upper deck, and economy on the lower deck. We expect this aircraft to very popular among travelers. The flight attendants complained that they were constantly walking up hill though, we expect they will be calling for a premium salary to offset the extra work.

Safety wise the aircraft is fairly good, ditching very easily in water, an

Luckily the aircraft has good fuel economy, and with only 42 parts and two engines, as well as the easy access for the ground personnel. This aircraft should be quite cheap to operate. Combined with the high comfort and relatively high cruising speed, we expect this aircraft to be both profitable and in high demand. With the low maintenance and reasonable purchase price for a jumbo we think fuel cost will be the biggest driver of ticket prices for this one.

The verdict:
Probably one of the most profitable aircraft in the BS family. We would like to order 8 of these, with options for 4 more if the fuel efficiency can be significantly improved.

[neistridlar]

On 09/04/2018 at 12:11 AM, Box of Stardust said:

What's the definition of 'ruining the challenge with TweakScale'?

I just want to enlarge control surfaces and the airliner wing to (scale-correct) sizes.

In the interest of giving this question a proper answer I decided to try build something that would break the tweak scale rule. This is what I came up with. As you can see it is insanely cheap at 6,114,000. Also with its mere 100kallons fuel capacity it has a range of 1250km, and cruises at 235m/s @ 4400m with a fuel burn rate of 0.0185 kallons/s. The KPPM comes out to be 0.0053. The things about this one that I would probably consider in bad spirit is the down scaling of the landing gear, engine, intake and adapter, which is simply cheaper, lighter and better than the equivalently sized parts. Now part of the reason for the good performance is that I have shaved everything down to the minimum. That means for instance that it takes 12 minutes to reach cruise. Also, I started out with basically the same design, but without tweak scale. It cost ~8,800,000, and was only able to get 910km range out of the same fuel. It did climb and accelerate much better though. 

I would like to hear from others though, if they agree that this one should be against the rules. Though in general what I found from playing around with this, there seems to be very few advantages with regards to economy by up scaling parts, as the resultant parts are generally more expensive and heavier than building with non scaled parts, so you only save on part count. Unless someone can come up with a design that uses uppscaling of parts in an exploitative manner I would say that should be completely ok.

[Box of Stardust]

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE

 

presents its contract bids for Kerbal Express Airlines, with a prominent theme of: conventional, unassuming, effective, and flyable just adjusting trim settings. Also excellent ground performance, with all aircraft able to get wheels up by 60m/s and fairly short landing distances.

 

Control notes (generally; special cases exist):

AG 1 toggles engines.

AG4 toggles engine mode (thrust reverser in most cases).

AG2 and 3 are usually flaps.

 

A-104 Aspen: A Turboprop Scrapped Together By Engineers From The Wrong Department With The Wrong Engines

(Superseded by A-104 Block 3. But we've got a few Block 1 and 2s already manufactured, so maybe you'll want to take a look anyways?)

1A: 21,261,000 ; 24 passengers ; 225m/s @ 3100m = 2000km

1B: 22,131,000 ; 32 passengers ; 225m/s @ 3100m = 2000km

2A: 20,301,000 ; 24 passengers ; 160m/s @ 2800m = 2400km ; 165m/s @ 2500m = 2500km

2B: 21,171,000 ; 32 passengers ; 165m/s @ 1500m = 2300km

Okay, a bit of a lie about that pitch.
The KEA contract bid announcement was apparently accidentally sent to Twin Crown Aerospace’s Military Applications Division (TCA-MAD), whose engineers saw the top of the list of requirements and quickly decided to hack something together. Because profits. Mainly profits for extra pocket change to continue the drone program.

The MAD engineers took a few surplus PEGASys-D3s from the production line and pulled them apart for parts, creating the A-104, which they creatively named the Aspen. After the drone platform they pulled parts from. And the tree. Because the tree is pretty cool.

A-104 Block 1 is therefore powered by 4 Tiger engines, which makes it pretty fast for something in the turboprop class. In fact, one more cabin, and it would qualify as a small regional airliner.

A-104 Block 2 was produced after MAD engineers read the contract titles more clearly, and decided that using a turboprop for the turboprop class was probably a good idea. Efficiency, not speed!

Buy 3 A-104s and get a voucher for a free ASPEN-PEGASys drone! Warranty void if used for anything else other than spare parts.

 

A-202 Safari: Ridiculously Engineered Amphib By the Previous Guys

2A: 31,459,000 ; 32 passengers ; 200m/s @ 1500m = 1300km (as fueled)

The A-202 Safari is one more design from TCA-MAD. After quickly skimming through the mail, the MAD engineers realized they skipped past the contract for a seaplane. So, in the interest of efficiency, they took some ASPEN drones from the production line and dismantled them for parts. Hence why there's an ASPEN drone body on top of this plane. Also, they took the Tiger engines.

This aircraft can takeoff from water using its afterburners (Action Group 4). Takeoff from water is achieved at 50m/s.

It's called the Safari because adventure! And Tiger engines. It can fly really fast. And far. Especially if the wings are fueled up. (Has not been tested with full fuel load, fuel at own risk.)

When told that this was probably not what the contract was asking for, MAD engineers just scoffed and said that there's probably a market for these anyways, and they wouldn't have built them if they weren't sure of it.

 

A-401: Small and Well-Rounded

1A: 24,341,000 ; up to 56 passengers ; 220m/s @ 6300m = 3000km

1B: 24,141,000 ; up to 64 passengers ; 220m/s @ 6300m = 3000km ; 225m/s @ 5300m = 3150km (wait why is a door more expensive than a cabin)

A small regional jet design thrown together after failed attempts to downsize the A-501 economically. It turns out standard cabins are far cheaper than luxury cabins! Who would’a thunk it.

And for a ‘thrown together’ design, it’s possibly TCA’s best-flying airliner. Stable and safe. 56 passengers in the 1A with a ramp entry for remote airfields, and 64 passengers in the 1B for standard airports.

The Lotus engines are both a blessing and a curse. Their high altitude and speed performance is poor, giving the A-401 a top speed of only 220m/s, but are efficient enough to cruise at 6300m for a range of over 3000km.

Also, as payback to the Military Application Division guys for taking a swing at the first contracts, the designers of the A-401 stole the parts meant for ASPEN-platform combat drones and used them in their intended purpose as actual wing strakes.

 

A-501: Middling In All Aspects

2A: 62,676,000 ;  up to 104 passengers ; 265m @ 6000m = 2300km

A medium regional jet design used as TCA’s starting point for jet liner ventures. Features seating for up to 104 passengers. The wide main body allows for luxurious cabin configurations if so inclined.

The A-501 is powered by three Wheesleys, a fact that endlessly irritates TCA engineers, who much prefer the newer Lotus engine. However, to meet class requirements, namely speed, the Lotus could not be used due to its 220m/s cruising speed limitation. As such, the A-501 is among the shortest-legged of TCA’s offerings, with ‘only’ 2300km range.
 

A-701 StratoLiner: A Supersonic Cruiser

1A: 79,909,000 ; about 100 passengers ; 1000m/s @ 20000m = 2700km

A supersonic transport that takes design cues from the Aerospace Division’s AS-3 project. Seats up to about 100 passengers, but the ‘hump’ is a reconfigurable place for classy business meetings or luxury dining or sleeping quarters with a spectacular view of space.

Range is a decent 2700km.

 

A-606: Minor Fun With TweakScale!

4A: 120,855,000 ; up to 192 passengers ; 220m/s @ 6000m = 5000km

4A-ER: 110,855,000 ; up to 168 passengers ; 215m/s @ 6000m = 7700km

The embodiment of ‘boring, conventional, functional’. The A606-4A is an upgrade to an old airframe, switching out the original powerful but inefficient six Wheesleys with four Lotuses. The result is a 192 passenger aircraft with 5000km range, or a 168 extended range variant with 7700km range.

 

 

It turns out, a good way to build effective airliners is… to build how airliners are.

Also, I’ve learned far more about the interaction of CoM, CoL, and most significantly, CoT in this challenge than I have in my past 1000+ hours of KSP. I mean, it should be pretty simple to understand the Co(x) vectors, but I’ve never messed with them in the configurations as these planes, and to make them fly very stable.

Lastly, I learned that, like real airliners, giant wings should be allowed to flex, so don’t turn on rigid attach or struts. Or else it may act like it got hit by an invisible SAM past some altitude or speed.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[MaverickSawyer]

I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring on this as well...

 

Maverick AeroSpace Technologies is proud to present their first design for sale:

 

MAST PJ-1 "Puddle Jumper"

 

Designed for the turboprop commuter and short-haul market, the PJ-1 carries 24 kerbals in relative comfort (comfort largely depends on the nature of your seat neighbors) on routes not suitable for larger aircraft.

Features:

Rough field capability: The PJ-1 is designed with long-travel undercarriage to accommodate uneven or unimproved runways and the high climb and sink rates needed for operations in and out of small airports.

 

Reliable, efficient engines: Using the industry standard KT-6A turboprop provides the PJ-1 with excellent fuel economy and trouble-free operations for hundreds of flight cycles. On the off chance that a problem should arise, the widespread use of this engine ensures that even the smallest of fields will have spare parts to get you up and running in no time. And should more intensive repairs be needed, the modular and mechanic-friendly nature of both the KT-6 itself and MAST's new Quick Engine Change package (QEC Pack) ensures that your Puddle Jumper is never grounded for long.

 

Integrated air stairs: Operating out of a remote field far from your hub? No worries: the engineers at MAST have you covered. The cabin door doubles as a set of air stairs to allow passengers to enter and exit the PJ-1 without outside assistance... or the pesky, accident-prone ladders of the competition's designs.

 

Class-leading reliability and maintainability: MAST's engineers all started their careers as mechanics, pilots, and ground support personnel, and their experiences have led to a robust, reliable, and service-friendly aircraft. After all, a plane that's sitting on the tarmac being worked on isn't making your airline any money.

 

SPECS:

Range: 1200 km + reserves for a missed approach.

Cruise: 160 m/s @3 km. 2 hours endurance.

Service ceiling: 6 km.

Vne (Velocity never exceed): 200 m/s

Approach speed: 70-80 m/s (flaps out, gear down)

Takeoff/landing speed: ~50 m/s (Haven't done enough detailed testing to be sure of an exact figure...)

Crew: 2

Passengers: 24

MTOW: 7987 kg

Parts: 46

Cost: $17,090,000

Get yours today!

 

 

Action groups:

1: Flaps

2: Reverse pitch

3: Engine start/stop, parking brakes release/set, landing lights on/off

4: Airstairs

Brake: Main gear brakes and air brakes.

Gear: Actuate landing gear (duh!) and auto-switch the landing lights.

 

Flight notes for the test pilot:

I have NOT tested this craft without the use of Atmospheric Autopilot, and cannot vouch for the stability of the craft under manual control. It seems to handle well enough, but use caution.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by MaverickSawyer