Jump to content

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Slinky 24 & 32

-snip-

and the rudder has a fair bit of adverse roll.

-snip-

 However on landing it has a nasty tendency for reverse thrust to cause it to pitch down, on full throttle this can be stronger than the elevator's pitch up, and so we really wouldn't recommend using any throttle above 1/3, although to it's credit we crashed it face first into the sea at 91m/s and it was perfectly fine. The people in it need never be told to wear seat belts again. The plane also needed to be towed back to shore, as it can almost take off from water. Key word is almost, it just bumps up and down quite fast.

-snip-

 It seems really good, but we're concerned about the landing gear, if it's fixed we'll buy 18, but in it's current state we don't want to risk of more than 3.

We will look into the landing gear issue, during our testing we only had this tipping issue under very rare circumstances. A new version will be made available as soon as the cause is identified, and eliminated. On the pitch down issue during reverse thrust, we will advise all buyers not to use reverse thrust in the air on any slinky series planes, as it seems to be an inherent flaw in the tail design.

Now prepare for a little schooling in aircraft handling and terminology. It seems you have picked up on me using the term adverse yaw in my reviews. Adverse yaw refers to the tendency of an aircraft to yaw in the opposite direction of the roll applied. This is usually caused by the deflection of the outer aileron causing more drag than the inner aileron. Therefore it is common to have to apply rudder and aileron together to maintain coordinated flight. Coordinated flight being when the nose is not pointing to either side of the incoming air stream, which in turn makes the passengers and pilot of the aircraft only experience up/down forces, not side to side forces, like you would in a car during a turn. I have never heard of any design having adverse roll, I don't even know that it is a term that is used. What you are probably referring to is the roll-yaw coupling, which causes the aircraft to roll in the same direction as the rudder that is applied. This is a very common, and desirable feature in real aircraft, and is usually achieved by a combination of any amount of sweep, dihedral and high mounted wing. The effect of these three is that they turn side slipping, which is what rudder causes/corrects, and turns it into roll in the direction which will reduce the side slipping, helping restore coordinated flight, which makes for a more comfortable and more efficient ride. Now you may not like this effect, that is up to you to decide, but now you know what it is called, and why it is there (it is very much an intentional design decision in all of my planes, except the slab series).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Now prepare for a little schooling in aircraft handling and terminology. It seems you have picked up on me using the term adverse yaw in my reviews. Adverse yaw refers to the tendency of an aircraft to yaw in the opposite direction of the roll applied. This is usually caused by the deflection of the outer aileron causing more drag than the inner aileron. Therefore it is common to have to apply rudder and aileron together to maintain coordinated flight. Coordinated flight being when the nose is not pointing to either side of the incoming air stream, which in turn makes the passengers and pilot of the aircraft only experience up/down forces, not side to side forces, like you would in a car during a turn. I have never heard of any design having adverse roll, I don't even know that it is a term that is used. What you are probably referring to is the roll-yaw coupling, which causes the aircraft to roll in the same direction as the rudder that is applied. This is a very common, and desirable feature in real aircraft, and is usually achieved by a combination of any amount of sweep, dihedral and high mounted wing. The effect of these three is that they turn side slipping, which is what rudder causes/corrects, and turns it into roll in the direction which will reduce the side slipping, helping restore coordinated flight, which makes for a more comfortable and more efficient ride. Now you may not like this effect, that is up to you to decide, but now you know what it is called, and why it is there (it is very much an intentional design decision in all of my planes, except the slab series).

Yep, whoops, I did indeed mean roll-yaw coupling, which, yes, I am not much of a fan of, because if I wanted to roll an aircraft, why shouldn't I just use the ailerons? This is why in some of my designs, if it has two rudders I lowered them, so they only affect yaw.

 

Anyway, since price per seat wise the Stingy 152 is about twice as good as the next best planes, I decided to give it a competitor.

s15oLO3.png

It is influenced by the slinky, but making a passenger noodle seems a common enough idea I don't think you could patent it. Instead of structural beams and stuff over the cabins, I thought, hey, why not put more cabins there? Structurally it works and it means it seats 304, instead of 152.

It is actually quite comparable I think to the Slinky, at least on paper. The slinky is slightly better at price per seat, KPPM is about 4/5 of mine, and I haven't tested the range on this well, but it's probably  more or less the same. It goes 20m/s faster, and has a slightly slower takeoff speed; mine has 79 parts, compared to Slinky's 55, remember mine seats twice as many.

Haven't flown them, but from what you wrote of the Slinky, it seems a bit underpowered, mine might be more normal. Ignore the engineer redux saying it has 0.96 TWR, the engines rarely achieve that much power, it has a much more typical TWR.

 

It's not finished yet, I have yet to add ailerons, the front elevons seem to work for some reason despite being so tiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Yep, whoops, I did indeed mean roll-yaw coupling, which, yes, I am not much of a fan of, because if I wanted to roll an aircraft, why shouldn't I just use the ailerons? This is why in some of my designs, if it has two rudders I lowered them, so they only affect yaw.

Anyway, since price per seat wise the Stingy 152 is about twice as good as the next best planes, I decided to give it a competitor.

 

It is influenced by the slinky, but making a passenger noodle seems a common enough idea I don't think you could patent it. Instead of structural beams and stuff over the cabins, I thought, hey, why not put more cabins there? Structurally it works and it means it seats 304, instead of 152.

It is actually quite comparable I think to the Slinky, at least on paper. The slinky is slightly better at price per seat, KPPM is about 4/5 of mine, and I haven't tested the range on this well, but it's probably  more or less the same. It goes 20m/s faster, and has a slightly slower takeoff speed; mine has 79 parts, compared to Slinky's 55, remember mine seats twice as many.

Haven't flown them, but from what you wrote of the Slinky, it seems a bit underpowered, mine might be more normal. Ignore the engineer redux saying it has 0.96 TWR, the engines rarely achieve that much power, it has a much more typical TWR.

 

It's not finished yet, I have yet to add ailerons, the front elevons seem to work for some reason despite being so tiny.

It seems you might be confusing the slinky 152 and the stingy 152. Understandably, the two are very similar. The slinky has 50 something parts indeed, but it is the stingy that is super cheap, but it has 80 something parts, and a much more reasonable engine. Using an other set of passenger cabins as a stiffener seems like a very good idea. I would suggest you test with a nosecone on the top though, you might make that money back by saving on fuel tanks. Fuel efficiency was a key part in making the stingy as cheap as it is. And by the way, you should really request edit access to the KEA Lifetime Cost spread sheet. There should be a view only button, which you can press to request access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

It seems you might be confusing the slinky 152 and the stingy 152. Understandably, the two are very similar. The slinky has 50 something parts indeed, but it is the stingy that is super cheap, but it has 80 something parts, and a much more reasonable engine. Using an other set of passenger cabins as a stiffener seems like a very good idea. I would suggest you test with a nosecone on the top though, you might make that money back by saving on fuel tanks. Fuel efficiency was a key part in making the stingy as cheap as it is. And by the way, you should really request edit access to the KEA Lifetime Cost spread sheet. There should be a view only button, which you can press to request access. 

I was unaware that there was such a thing as the stingy 152. I have no idea how a single juno could make the stingy 40 a thing, let alone the 152. (I realize it doesn't use a Juno)

EDIT: I just went and saw what the stingy 152 was, that thing is hilarious.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I feel like there should be a fairly hefty hit to the maintenance portion for sinking an engine in water.

Yes but your airline company is compensated by the fish it will catch in there. Salmon fetches a high price you know.

And you save on cleaning costs.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Yes but your airline company is compensated by the fish it will catch in there. Salmon fetches a high price you know.

And you save on cleaning costs.

Wouldn't it add cleaning costs? I'm not a professional jet engine mechanic, but I would guess the seeing as bird strike isn't good, fish strike can't be good either?

Edited by Andetch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Andetch said:

I'm not a professional het engine mechanic, but I would guess the seeing as bird strike isn't good, fish strike can't be good either?

So long as the engine isn't rotating when the fish strikes, no big deal. Fish are slow.
Seaplanes that take off with the engine partially submerged are silly though. IRL you'd never be able start an engine that is full of water, and if somehow you did, that dense and incompressible water would do horrible things to the compressor.

Also, awesome thread. I'd enter something, but I've been running with FAR too long to go back to stock aero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

So long as the engine isn't rotating when the fish strikes, no big deal. Fish are slow.
Seaplanes that take off with the engine partially submerged are silly though. IRL you'd never be able start an engine that is full of water, and if somehow you did, that dense and incompressible water would do horrible things to the compressor.

Also, awesome thread. I'd enter something, but I've been running with FAR too long to go back to stock aero.

Yeah, I hear that! My seaplane entry (a flop because whoever tested it didn't know how to fly it or bother to learn) had engines mounted high for this reason. 

I've also made jet powered boats that have a submerged jet engine to power them, and then chastised myself for the blantant disregard for reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

And you save on cleaning costs.

Seawater and lakes and stuff are actually pretty dirty with all sorts of stuff lol. Seaweed and other water plants and flora and stuff that float up to the surface  

You know, things that you generally don't want in your turbine blades. And look dirty on the hull.

13 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Also, awesome thread. I'd enter something, but I've been running with FAR too long to go back to stock aero.

I mean, I run two different installs of KSP. My serious career one (where I actually go to space, haha) has FAR, but my second one (which I'm sure I've spent far more time in by now) for challenges and stuff are stock.

Edited by Box of Stardust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I mean, I run two different installs of KSP.

I don't like stock aero, I don't want stock aero, and as much as I like this thread, it's not enough to motivate me to relearn all the unrealistic design habits stock aero encourages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steve_v said:

I don't like stock aero, I don't want stock aero, and as much as I like this thread, it's not enough to motivate me to relearn all the unrealistic design habits stock aero encourages.

To be honest, I've found this challenge to be one that doesn't require that much messing around with stock aero quirks, but to each their own I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, steve_v said:

I don't like stock aero, I don't want stock aero, and as much as I like this thread, it's not enough to motivate me to relearn all the unrealistic design habits stock aero encourages.

Time to start a sister challenge to this one. The Ferram express airlines challenge. Judging by the amount of requests for FAR in this challenge I would say that it would not be nearly as popular, but I'm sure there are enough FAR players to warrant it. I would probably install FAR just to make an entry. And as to stock aero quirks, there are plenty of them to navigate if you aim for the best possible fuel efficiency, but just to get something that works, you really don't have to think about them.

 

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

I feel like there should be a fairly hefty hit to the maintenance portion for sinking an engine in water.

If I made the rules I would say that engines and intakes that get submerged would instantly stop functioning and require a major overhaul, or possibly complete replacement. Though in the interest of being consistent with previous reviews I just pretended it would add a bit to maintenance cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

If I made the rules I would say that engines and intakes that get submerged would instantly stop functioning and require a major overhaul, or possibly complete replacement. Though in the interest of being consistent with previous reviews I just pretended it would add a bit to maintenance cost.

I would prefer flooded engines to be a failure for an aircraft, but I completely accept 'increased maintenance' because KSP's water physics and the parts we have in this challenge aren't exactly easy to make aircraft float with (though it did turn out that fairings do make incredibly good flotation devices).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE EXPERIMENTAL SUPERSONIC POWERJET

I present you a very fast supersonic jet that allows 40 kerbals to be at their destination in 10 minute+ (n icon request an external account)

this supersonic has cruise altitude of 15000+ meters with a cruise speed of 800 m/s link and screenshot here:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ngs8496vooapbtv/AAAbujWDyE4SC21x1X5e0u43a?dl=0

details  NOTES:1. the manoeuvre is strong so do little moves (up-down) this thing can run out of control easily I used TweakScale 2.if you attempt to take off retract the gear before take off (back wheel bounces for some reason)

cost: :funds:113872 

liquid fuel amount: 1756.8 (8784 kg)

length:18.4 m

cruise speed :800 m/s+

cruise altitude:15000m+

fuel burn rate: unknow plz test

range: I can't measure but my takeoff coordinates were 1 0 40 s 74 1 32 w my landing coordinates were 16 21 36 N 61 51  35 W I will also send a screenshot from the map between ksc and my correct plane

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andetch said:

Yeah, I hear that! My seaplane entry (a flop because whoever tested it didn't know how to fly it or bother to learn) had engines mounted high for this reason.

Your seaplane was a flop because when I landed it on the runway one of the cabins hit the deck and blew up, and I was making a pretty reasonable landing otherwise. I know there were other reasons, but I can't remember them from when I wrote the review.

 

8 hours ago, steve_v said:

So long as the engine isn't rotating when the fish strikes, no big deal. Fish are slow.
Seaplanes that take off with the engine partially submerged are silly though. IRL you'd never be able start an engine that is full of water, and if somehow you did, that dense and incompressible water would do horrible things to the compressor.

Yes, I do agree seaplanes that do it are silly, piston or yet, but we'd like to be at least consistent with prior reviews, I think the only judge who increased maintenance for it was @neistridlar, I think absolutely it would increase maintenance costs, because a partially submerged engine, it gets quite hot, and then one half cools off very quickly in the sea. Even worse, only the skin of that half does, so it would lead to cracks in the metal.

But somehow Kerbal engineers did it so that never happens or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE ROYAL C6-168-S “TRIAD” JUMBO JET

Album OWwAVQP will appear when post is submitted

Royal has jumped onto the airliner scene with its new jumbo jet: the C6-168-S “Triad.” Royal’s debut is safe, cheap, efficient, and comfortable, and we are sure it will fit your every need.

The Triad runs off of two J-33 Wheesley turbofans and two J-90 Goliath turbofans. These produce excellent thrust allowing all 63 tons of plane to take off at around 70 meters per second. The cruising altitude of the Triad sits at roughly four kilometers, although it can be adjusted based on your speed preferences. At this altitude, the plane cruses at 350 meters per second at an angle of attack of less than five degrees. While gliding, the plane can pass 400 meters per second. The plane can go 15050 kilometers without refueling.

All of these features, of course, come with the highest level of comfort. The Triad is ideal for a mostly buisness class plane with its double-wide top and great view. At the bottom, the view is slightly obstructed by the wings, but otherwise is the same. We at Royal have taken special care to provide buffer between the engines and the cabin; the ride is seamless. In addition, the Triad has a nose-mounted aerial providing wi-fi to the entire plane.

Piloting the Triad is a joy. The large landing gear, lowered take off and landing cockpit, and great canopy view allow for ease of piloting. 

Finally, the price is fair at only :funds:64,016,000. We’ve saved price by reducing extraneous cabin space, also allowing for ease of air filter usage.

We hope you consider Royal for your next jumbo jet purchase.

STATS:

Name: Royal C6-168-S “Triad”

Fuel capacity: 5160 kallons fully loaded, although the test plane has been fueled for the smoothest flight

Price: 64,016,000 Funds

Cruising altitude: 3.5-4 kilometers

Cruising speed: 320-350 meters per second

Range: 15050 kilometers

Download link: https://kerbalx.com/KingDomino/C6-168-S-Triad

 

Edited by KingDominoIII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I think the only judge who increased maintenance for it was @neistridlar,

I think I took that idea from other reviews of seaplanes that I have read, don't recall which. For the GAI Tin though, it did not make much of a difference, because everything about it is so cheap anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Your seaplane was a flop because when I landed it on the runway one of the cabins hit the deck and blew up, and I was making a pretty reasonable landing otherwise. I know there were other reasons, but I can't remember them from when I wrote the review.

 

You were obviously descending at too fast a rate. Yeah, I admit the cabins were close to the ground, but I found in design that if you didn't slam into the ground it was fine. Also, you did need to put the wheels down before landing. Not sure if you did that - wouldn't be surprised if that was a reason.

I was mistaken in thinking that you would treat the planes as airliners, not fighters! Of course, now I know that KEA needs "child proof" planes I haven't really released any more as Andetch planes are only for highly rated pilots.

Your review also complained about take-off speeds, which from the video I made can be proven completely erroneous. The angled engines helped it lift off quicker as they created downwards thrust, but hey you didn't allow the airflow to build enough to power the engines, hence the spinning you reported. 

But that aside, I only made it because I got the false information from the OP that there were no seaplanes, so it was a rush job to fill a market gap.... Then I find out OP was inactive for ages, hence there were seaplanes, jumbos etc etc. just not updated onto the front page. Which is why I didn't come back and demand someone who can fly to Andetch X standard review it. 

:P

 

Edited by Andetch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andetch said:

You were obviously descending at too fast a rate. Yeah, I admit the cabins were close to the ground, but I found in design that if you didn't slam into the ground it was fine. Also, you did need to put the wheels down before landing. Not sure if you did that - wouldn't be surprised if that was a reason.

I was mistaken in thinking that you would treat the planes as airliners, not fighters! Of course, now I know that KEA needs "child proof" planes I haven't really released any more as Andetch planes are only for highly rated pilots.

Your review also complained about take-off speeds, which from the video I made can be proven completely erroneous. The angled engines helped it lift off quicker as they created downwards thrust, but hey you didn't allow the airflow to build enough to power the engines, hence the spinning you reported.

KEA does need planes that don't do that, we have loads of pilots, sooner or later one will mess up and it will be a massive PR disaster. A typical plane might make 14,000 flights. Highly rated pilots, are very expensive, both in training and wages. The airfields sometimes are in bad shape.

I don't think it's that much to ask that the cabins are moved up a little bit, because even moving them up a few inches, is enough to completely stop the issue. We haven't bought any more because KEA only wants designs from engineers that can do such basic things. We didn't know we needed to "child proof" our pilots from your engineers.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
fixing a typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andetch said:

 

I was mistaken in thinking that you would treat the planes as airliners, not fighters! Of course, now I know that KEA needs "child proof" planes I haven't really released any more as Andetch planes are only for highly rated pilots.

https://giphy.com/gifs/transparent-jay-z-oh-snap-Ka6YsVjFNlFMQ

Edited by TheMadKraken2297
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

 

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I don't think it's that much to ask that the cabins are moved up a little bit, because even moving them up a few inches, is enough to completely stop the issue. We haven't bought any more because KEA only wants designs from engineers that can do such basic things. We didn't know we needed to "child proof" our pilots from your engineers.

Think mine counts.

Edit: Also, just right click "view image" and it link to that, shows only the relevant gif. Like this: Never-mind, it inserts it for me.

giphy.gif

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

Kax still isn't updated to 1.4, and I know well enough now not to mess with adding mods not in CKAN ^^ So I'll work on some smaller craft

Why wouldn't you add it out of CKAN? I'm not even sure it is updated for 1.3.1, but it seems to work fine for me.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...