Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Wait, did you use tweak scale on the passenger-cabins? I'm pretty sure it has been agreed that is against the rules (should probably be added to the OP @CrazyJebGuy). Otherwise it looks good.

 I just did it so you can actually IVA inside the plane it does not affect the flying ability I just took the PP-5 and double it and added the 3 cargo bays with IVA

5 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Wait, did you use tweak scale on the passenger-cabins? I'm pretty sure it has been agreed that is against the rules (should probably be added to the OP @CrazyJebGuy). Otherwise it looks good.

It still meets the criteria even if it still counts as 8 for a mk 2 cabin I (40 for Pp-5) I just said 89 because it's twice as big

Why would it be against the rules 

[sturmhauke]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:34 PM, sturmhauke said:

2. Why is it miles instead of kilometers? The game is built around metric after all.

 

22 hours ago, hoioh said:

2. Don't know, it just is (guess one of the americans came up with it)

 

16 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

I think it's because 'gallons per passenger mile' is an actual industry term, but we actually use the range in kilometers. 

It's a little obtuse, but yeah. 

So I went and looked up aircraft fuel efficiency and found this Wikipedia article. It uses a few different units, but I think the relevant one here is passenger-kilometers per liter, or pax-km/L. I also saw another site that mentioned the equivalent "seat miles per gallon". Both are essentially the reciprocal of our KPPM unit, and I think a bit easier to grasp at a glance. We could call our version PK/K (or PKK? PKPK? Pika-pika? I dunno.), because who wants to type out pax-km/kal all the time? It's calculated as passengers * range (km) / kallons. Or, since range is already a derived stat, it can also be calculated directly as passengers * cruising speed / kallons per second / 1000. 

 

 

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

 

 

So I went and looked up aircraft fuel efficiency and found this Wikipedia article. It uses a few different units, but I think the relevant one here is passenger-kilometers per liter, or pax-km/L. I also saw another site that mentioned the equivalent "seat miles per gallon". Both are essentially the reciprocal of our KPPM unit, and I think a bit easier to grasp at a glance. We could call our version PK/K (or PKK? PKPK? Pika-pika? I dunno.), because who wants to type out pax-km/kal all the time? It's calculated as passengers * range (km) / kallons. Or, since range is already a derived stat, it can also be calculated directly as passengers * cruising speed / kallons per second / 1000. 

 

 

Difference is basically KM vs Miles, the important thing is that we measure everything by the same standard.

Instead of just leaving a number we're in the process of giving it a rating by comparison to all previously submitted planes, it doesn't matter if its miles or KM that way, the comparison and therefore the rating will always be the same.

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

 

 

So I went and looked up aircraft fuel efficiency and found this Wikipedia article. It uses a few different units, but I think the relevant one here is passenger-kilometers per liter, or pax-km/L. I also saw another site that mentioned the equivalent "seat miles per gallon". Both are essentially the reciprocal of our KPPM unit, and I think a bit easier to grasp at a glance. We could call our version PK/K (or PKK? PKPK? Pika-pika? I dunno.), because who wants to type out pax-km/kal all the time? It's calculated as passengers * range (km) / kallons. Or, since range is already a derived stat, it can also be calculated directly as passengers * cruising speed / kallons per second / 1000. 

 

 

You do present some good arguments. My argument for sticking with KPPMs is that it has a long history for this challenge in particular, and those of us who has been around for a long time has developed a feel for KPPM. Replacing it with a different stat, which conveys essentially the same information, seems at this point like the more cumbersome option.

[sturmhauke]

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

You do present some good arguments. My argument for sticking with KPPMs is that it has a long history for this challenge in particular, and those of us who has been around for a long time has developed a feel for KPPM. Replacing it with a different stat, which conveys essentially the same information, seems at this point like the more cumbersome option.

Fair enough.

[CrazyJebGuy]

17 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

-snip-

 

15 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Wait, did you use tweak scale on the passenger-cabins? I'm pretty sure it has been agreed that is against the rules (should probably be added to the OP @CrazyJebGuy). Otherwise it looks good.

Yes, it's definitely not allowed to tweak-scale passenger carrying parts.

Edited August 3, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
I just wanted to say I hoped it would auto-merge my posts, instead of this annoying double-post rubbish. Also I just realized this first one is pointless since it's pretty clear that it's not allowed if you read the next post.

[CrazyJebGuy]

The main reason GPPM/KPPM was picked instead of KPPKM is because KPPKM sounds stupid to say, it's a bit longer and frankly I like the Imperial system. I was the one who picked it by the way, I just included the statistic in my planes and it caught on. (I probably shouldn't have, my planes didn't do that well at it) Renamed it to KPPM because Gallons were not meant to be converted, Kallons are more clear.

15 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Why would it be against the rules

Several reasons, a large one being balance, one of the rules on the OP being don't ruin the challenge with Tweakscale. I quite like that the smaller (and thus harder to design with for bigger planes) cabins are cheaper per seat, you don't want that upscaled. Another one is that of you can scale an engine. But it's not really scaling if you add more seats, it is scaling and modifying. Down-scaling is completely out of the question.

Mathematically in any case doubling makes little sense, assuming you are increasing everything by 2 fold. If you double the height, width and depth of a barrel you don't get a barrel with 2x the capacity, you get a barrel with 2^3 (8) times the capacity. This is just a bit of a nitpick with me though.

But by far the main reason: here at KEA, we have standards. We demand that all passengers be no further than 2 seats from a window, 3 if the seats are small. We will not compromise this element of passenger comfort! ( the GAI Skots Economy had no seats, thus no windows were needed! )

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

The main reason GPPM/KPPM was picked instead of KPPKM is because KPPKM sounds stupid to say, it's a bit longer and frankly I like the Imperial system. I was the one who picked it by the way, I just included the statistic in my planes and it caught on. (I probably shouldn't have, my planes didn't do that well at it) Renamed it to KPPM because Gallons were not meant to be converted, Kallons are more clear.

Several reasons, a large one being balance, one of the rules on the OP being don't ruin the challenge with Tweakscale. I quite like that the smaller (and thus harder to design with for bigger planes) cabins are cheaper per seat, you don't want that upscaled. Another one is that of you can scale an engine. But it's not really scaling if you add more seats, it is scaling and modifying. Down-scaling is completely out of the question.

Mathematically in any case doubling makes little sense, assuming you are increasing everything by 2 fold. If you double the height, width and depth of a barrel you don't get a barrel with 2x the capacity, you get a barrel with 2^3 (8) times the capacity. This is just a bit of a nitpick with me though.

But by far the main reason: here at KEA, we have standards. We demand that all passengers be no further than 2 seats from a window, 3 if the seats are small. We will not compromise this element of passenger comfort! ( the GAI Skots Economy had no seats, thus no windows were needed! )

Ok then like I said It still has 40 seats the can image the extra space in cargo space 

That would make the plane much more economical

3 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

 

Yes, it's definitely not allowed to tweak-scale passenger carrying parts.

Ok? I only did it for the PP-10 so the dining area can actually be used and not just a cramps little room load my craft you will see what I mean. Then compare it to my PP-5 everything is just times two. The 40 seat capacity is still their

It's fine if the PP-10 does not mean the criteria but the PP-5 (the stock scaled) does

[sturmhauke]

For my sample review, I found an old entry from the original thread and decided to give it a try. Original review here.

Test Pilot Review: @qzgy's Kramer 150-100 Baltimore

Figures as Tested:

• Price: $116,015,000
• Passengers: 96
• Parts: 53
• Mass: 51 t
• Fuel: 3120 kallons
• Takeoff speed: 55 m/s on land, 84 m/s on water
• Landing speed: 60 m/s on land and water
• Cruising speed: 262 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3030 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.31 kal/s
• Range: 2637 km
• KPPM: 0.020 

Review Notes:

In light of recent changes in the game engine and mods manufacturing and maintenance procedures, Kerbal Express has decided to review an older aircraft in the medium regional category, the Kramer 150-100 Baltimore. Unfortunately, while it has some nice features, it is also expensive, overpowered, inefficient, and very unsafe to land - except, oddly, on water.

The Baltimore had to be tweaked a bit before its test flight. Perhaps the maintenance crew was sloppy when they put it in storage. In any case, there was some monoprop in the tanks, and the two-slot flaps were not programmed to extend fully. After correcting those issues, Jeb took it out for a spin.

The four turboprops are certainly loud, as noted in the previous review. And with four of them, it makes for an unpleasant ride, especially for the wing seats. However, they are powerful enough to let the Baltimore take off at only 55 m/s with the first flap setting. They can even do a vertical climb! The plane is also capable of some impressive maneuvers. We found that its cruising altitude was a bit lower than advertised (mostly due to trouble maintaining level flight at higher altitudes), while its speed was a bit higher.

Spoiler

Not bad...

OK now that's just excessive. We're gonna need some airsickness containment units.

This is all very surprising, as the sales brochure described it as "big and slow." Maybe a bored mechanic was doing some unsanctioned upgrades on a mothballed aircraft, who knows. Honestly though, this kind of performance is overkill for a civilian airliner. It would be more appropriate for military use, or perhaps skydiving.

Landing is unacceptably dangerous. While it is possible to land at 60 m/s with full flaps, this is close to the Baltimore's stall speed, making it difficult to control. And if the approach is not absolutely flat and level, the plane has a bad habit of exploding. Our engineers think that the landing gear it ships with are just not sturdy enough.

Spoiler

Boring, safe, not nearly common enough.

The much more frequent "fun" landing.

Strangely, the plane can handle much rougher landings on water. It was tested at speeds of up to 75 m/s with no ill effects, other than yawing sharply and making Jeb a bit sick. The turboprop blades seem to be converted from ship propellers, since they apparently worked just as well in the water as in air. Despite not being advertised as a seaplane, or built like one, the Baltimore was even able to take off again at 84 m/s, although with some difficulty.

Spoiler

I'm a boat!

Just kidding, I'm still an airplane!

Finally, the price tag is substantially higher than other offerings in the medium regional category, while the fuel efficiency, range, and maintenance costs are lower than average. The Baltimore does meet some criteria of some other categories, but it's just not a focused design.

The Verdict:
The Baltimore isn't good at the things it was designed for, and excels at a few things it wasn't designed for. It also seems to have wheels made of explodium. We will not be purchasing any for our fleet. However, with a few modifications, the Baltimore may find a home with the Kerbal Air Force or extreme sports enthusiasts.
 

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

For my sample review, I found an old entry from the original thread and decided to give it a try. Original review here.

Test Pilot Review: @qzgy's Kramer 150-100 Baltimore

Figures as Tested:

• Price: $116,015,000
• Passengers: 96
• Parts: 53
• Mass: 51 t
• Fuel: 3120 kallons
• Takeoff speed: 55 m/s on land, 84 m/s on water
• Landing speed: 60 m/s on land and water
• Cruising speed: 262 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3030 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.31 kal/s
• Range: 2637 km
• KPPM: 0.020 

-snip-
 

Very nice review. I have only one thing to pick on. You have listed much more in the Figures as Tested, than is the norm:

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

Have you gotten a PM with further information?

[sturmhauke]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

Very nice review. I have only one thing to pick on. You have listed much more in the Figures as Tested, than is the norm:

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

Right, sorry. Got a little carried away.

Quote

Have you gotten a PM with further information?

Not yet, no.

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

Not yet, no.

Will fix ASAP

[Cheif Operations Director]

What happens after submitting (I already did)

[neistridlar]

5 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What happens after submitting (I already did)

You wait for ~5 months and suddenly someone reviews your plane (yes it is a long time, there is a very long queue, and not enough judges).

[Cheif Operations Director]

8 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

You wait for ~5 months and suddenly someone reviews your plane (yes it is a long time, there is a very long queue, and not enough judges).

Can I help (assuming the files are on steam)?

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Can I help (assuming the files are on steam)?

Jup, you can help become a judge if you want. Some of the recent submissions are on steam, but most of them are on kerbalX, and a few of them on dropbox. You could probably just download them, and upload them to your own steam account or something like that if you have to go through steam.

So, if you want to help out with the judging, I recommend you read a bunch of the reviews already posted, and download a few of the craft and try them for your self, to get a feel for how the judging is done. Once you think you are ready I recommend you pick one of the previously reviewed craft and make a "practice review" and post it here.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

Jup, you can help become a judge if you want. Some of the recent submissions are on steam, but most of them are on kerbalX, and a few of them on dropbox. You could probably just download them, and upload them to your own steam account or something like that if you have to go through steam.

So, if you want to help out with the judging, I recommend you read a bunch of the reviews already posted, and download a few of the craft and try them for your self, to get a feel for how the judging is done. Once you think you are ready I recommend you pick one of the previously reviewed craft and make a "practice review" and post it here.

Ok I win do it tommorow it's late here

[epicman81]

I am working on the Vertech L-900 Jumbo jet so far I have gotten the passenger size and takeoff speed down and now I am just testing it's range and speed

[epicman81]

Vertech Industries Offers you the newest in Jumbo Jet Comfort with the L-900! Our Newest Widebody Jumbo Jet has the capacity to carry 240 kerbals in comfort as they go to there destination in style with State of the art bathrooms and for first class, showers and personal bathrooms in their suite. for people not riding first class, we offer large legroom with reclinable seats. You can Browse the internet with our complimentary wifi or watch movies with our free movie streaming service. Both of our aisles are wide enough to allow two-way traffic to prevent people having to wait for a food cart to pass by before using the bathroom. With it's Estimated range of more than 2000km at 6,000m at around 250m/s you can have this for 375,778,000 Funds

[CrazyJebGuy]

On 8/4/2018 at 5:07 PM, neistridlar said:

Very nice review. I have only one thing to pick on. You have listed much more in the Figures as Tested, than is the norm:

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

It is fine though, to modify this a bit. Often with large aircraft I will also include passenger capacity, because it can be harder to count passenger compartments with big planes. (I recommend this for anything 96+)

Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54

What the love I had an entire review done and then it bloody dissappears after I post it.

It just has this stupid title, it didn't even add in the name of the plane. I am disappointed, I put about an hours work into that.

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

What the love I had an entire review done and then it bloody dissappears after I post it.

This is why I don't write my reviews directly in the forum. 

[TheFlyingKerman]

On 8/18/2018 at 3:45 PM, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54

More reviews from @CrazyJebGuy. Great.

[CrazyJebGuy]

8 hours ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

More reviews from @CrazyJebGuy. Great.

Not likely soon, since I only had time for that one review which broke, and I'm leaving on a holiday today.

[SLAMOVNIK989]

Aerobus Industries Executive Board Public Announcement

It has come out to that multiple competitors are releasing multiple types of airplanes to market regularly and out of sudden. This seems kind of not thought about and does not show the best of the companies.

For this, Executive Board of Aerobus Industries is asking public, which 7 airplanes would public like from us to be released to market in following month and why they are needed.

We made this decision so make sure that in future, we will satisfy customers by having information on their airplane demand and what route they want to cover with them, so we can design planes for exactly purposes that customers want from our airplanes to meet.

If you already decided which plane and for what do you want from us, be sure to message CEO of Aerobus Industries, SLAMOVNIK989.

 

Sincerely, SLAMOVNIK989, CEO of Aerobus Industries.

[SLAMOVNIK989]

Aerobus Industries Announcement - New Super Jumbos in development

It has come to our attention that there have been 2 attempts to make Super Jumbo, at which both of them failed - economically and due to low fuel efficiency. We are coming to change that.

We are now designing first of the SJs, which will be long-range passenger plane, after that, focusing on hybrid super jumbo will begin.

Our goals for first Super Jumbo are: Fuel flow close or equal to medium regional airliners, 900 passengers, price under 550 million credits.

Due to documents in effect now, this is everything we can publish before airplanes will be ready for market release. I hope you will be excited to see those 2 giants. However, we do not want to be only ones to offer Super Jumbos to Kerbal Express Airlines.

 

Sincerely, SLAMOVNIK989, CEO of Aerobus Industries

Edited August 23, 2018 by SLAMOVNIK989