CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

 

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:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

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.

Depends on the niche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think about using the making history expansion parts for this challenge. There are a few that might be interesting, like the tube parts, which are basically just short structural fuselages, but in all sizes, as well as possibly the new structural panels and engine plates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What do people think about using the making history expansion parts for this challenge. There are a few that might be interesting, like the tube parts, which are basically just short structural fuselages, but in all sizes, as well as possibly the new structural panels and engine plates.

Not everyone can freely have acces to those parts, though it it may be hard for those that do to distinguish them from the rest at some point. Personally, I'm all for allowing in more parts, but I would suggest adding parts everyone can have acces to so the playing field remains level, or making a separate category for the folks that want to use these parts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What do people think about using the making history expansion parts for this challenge. There are a few that might be interesting, like the tube parts, which are basically just short structural fuselages, but in all sizes, as well as possibly the new structural panels and engine plates.

No. Because a lot of people can't access it freely.

And because of the problem of setting precedents for mods. I only added KAX because it provides parts I miss, in the stock game. Not parts that "hey, that might be cool" and if we let all these things in this thread will become stupidly complex and ridiculous, and it will disadvantage older entries because they were not allowed to get some of these parts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All!

I have made a challenge inspired by this one, but with an emphasis on Stock Propellers.

Military aircraft are also a thing for this challenge.

Sorry about advertising.

Any rules and suggestions to improve my challenge are greatly appreciated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's – Kombardier 200

 IV2ceiw.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:52,096,000
  • Fuel: 2560 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 250m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 5,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.15 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 4260km

Review:

During the biannual hangar clean out we discovered a few planes that had been there so long, they had been buried in empty snack bags. This is one of them. The Kombardier 200 looks like a modern fast airliner, and it promises a good speed and fuel economy. Our pilots were quite eager to try this one out, however their excitement was quite quickly replaced by fear. The aircraft swerves right and left on the runway, whichever way it goes seems to be the exact direction it does not want to go. After a few attempts the pilots managed to get into a kind of rhythm, keeping the aircraft on the runway. The aircraft was advertised as taking of at 60m/s, however we were not able to lift off until 90m/s, which is over the requirement. The takeoff run is also a little on the long side, though not unacceptable. Once in the air the swerving mode switches from yaw to pitch. Maintaining stable flight is practically impossible. Draining the fuel from the tail tank helped a little bit with stability. There is also a strong nose down tendency. Flying inverted it pitches away from the ground, so it is not a nose heavy issue. After wrangling the aircraft up to its cruising altitude, the aircraft calmed down a little, and we were able to confirm the cruising speed and fuel burn rate.

By this time whoever the coffee and tea had already served itself, as a result of the rough ride up there. Needless to say, the test passengers were not impressed. On the plus side though, the cabin crew reported that no one needed to be convinced to keep their seat belts on. Now as for the landings, they proved to be impossible. Now it was not that it was impossible to get down to the ground, the plane was quite happy to do so, just that it was so happy to do so that it was impossible to do it at a reasonable vertical speed.

Now if we ignore the obvious issue of not being able to land in any meaningful way, this aircraft would be quite a cheap aircraft to operate. It provides one of the best fuel economies in class, and with only 19 parts and one engine maintenance should be quite cheap as well. The purchase price is a little higher than many of its competitors, but not by a lot, so we think the lower operating cost would outweigh this.

The verdict:
We suspect the aircraft may not have done so well in storage. If Kombardier could provide a new sample, with better flight characteristics and ground handling, we would be interested in giving this aircraft a second chance. However in its current state it is a Deathtrap! For obvious reasons we will not be buying any. Also we are now hiring! New test personnel wanted!

 

Edited by neistridlar
Added link to submission
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's – Kupolev KU-100

 WSepFGO.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:32,425,000
  • Fuel: 1080 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 1000m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 15,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.30 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 3600km

Review:

During the hangar clean out this one was also found buried next to the Kombardier 200. This aircraft too looks quite fast with its heavily swept wings, vertical stabilizer and pointy ends in the front. Seeing as how the Kombardier 200 had performed however, our pilots were less than eager to get into this thing. Though we got the engineers to do quite a thorough check of the entire plane, and they concluded that it looks pretty good, so in the pilots went. Little did the pilots know that the engineers were just commenting on the aesthetics of the plane. Anyways their fears quickly proved to be almost entirely unfounded. With the two whiplashes this plane takes to the sky like a bullet. The takeoff speed was recorded to be 75m/s, as stated in the brochure, and although it is in the high end, that is not really much of an issue, as the takeoff run is still fairly short. The climb performance is rather good, climbing to its cruising altitude of 15km in less than 1 minute 30 seconds. Cruising at 1000m/s the engines are almost running at idle, and so although there are two of them they don’t use a whole lot of fuel, and are quite quiet. We were not able to get quite the advertised range though. Still 3600km is well above the requirements, and still quite long.

The flight controls are responsive enough for most flight regimes, however because it has the engines mounted so far out on the wings it makes for quite a high moment of inertia. This makes landings a little awkward. The plane rolls plenty fast, but it takes a long time to get going, and a long time to stop, and the same is true for yawing. This means adjustments must be either big or slow, small and fast is not possible. With a little bit of extra training however this is not a major issue. A second minor issue is that the CG shifts forward quite a bit as the fuel drains, and so more and more elevator is required to keep the plane in level flight, which means the landing speed actually increases a little bit as the fuel is drained. Regardless the landing speed is not too high, at 50-55m/s, and the plane stops quite readily. The airbrakes are also very helpful both during the decent, and while landing. Ditching the plane in water revealed no issues at all.

With the engines placed so far out and back on the wings, they provide very little in terms of noise and vibrations for the passengers. The large wings block a little bit of the view for many of the passengers, but flying in this aircraft is overall quite a pleasant experience. When it comes to the economics, this craft is pretty much average everything. Though there will be some additional cost to the pilot training, due to the somewhat awkward low speed handling.

The verdict:
It’s a pretty average plane with good comfort. We will be ordering 9 of these.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@CrazyJebGuy So... I'm preparing an entry... and... my aviation company would like to know: Why are Supersonic and Jumbo Jets required to have the range to circumnavigate Kerbin and then a little more?  On even a route to an antipodal airport, carrying such an enormous amount of extra fuel over and above what's needed for holding patterns and diversion to alternate airports would be a safety hazard and also decrease fuel efficiency, and fully circling the planet in one flight would seem to be an unprofitable venture for any airline.

Edited by EpicSpaceTroll139
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

@CrazyJebGuy So... I'm preparing an entry... and... my aviation company would like to know: Why are Supersonic and Jumbo Jets required to have the range to circumnavigate Kerbin and then a little more?  On even a route to an antipodal airport, carrying such an enormous amount of extra fuel over and above what's needed for holding patterns and diversion to alternate airports would be a safety hazard and also decrease fuel efficiency, and fully circling the planet in one flight would seem to be an unprofitable venture for any airline.

Because challenge. I know ranges above 1800km are moot, but 1800km is such a low bar I have acheived it plenty of times on accident, because it is too easy.

In the interests of making stuff more interesting, we're pretending Kerbin is roughly earth sized. (Any range over 18000 km is moot)

 

By the way, sorry for no reviews but commenting on the aircraft performance is very time consuming. To do it, I have to find each review, read it, come up with some comment or summary, click on the copy link thingy, switch tabs and put in a link, wondering if I forgot to copy the link or how to spell the aircraft's name, or the players name. It's a pain. By the way, it's not in any sort of order.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 20.3.2018 at 5:02 AM, qzgy said:

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

It is in the list, but it was not properly labeled (not your fault). I will be reviewing this one next.

9 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

@CrazyJebGuy So... I'm preparing an entry... and... my aviation company would like to know: Why are Supersonic and Jumbo Jets required to have the range to circumnavigate Kerbin and then a little more?  On even a route to an antipodal airport, carrying such an enormous amount of extra fuel over and above what's needed for holding patterns and diversion to alternate airports would be a safety hazard and also decrease fuel efficiency, and fully circling the planet in one flight would seem to be an unprofitable venture for any airline.

It's so that we can fly around the iron kurtain of course. The koviet union is a no fly zone for KEA:confused:.

Edited by neistridlar

Share this post


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

It's so that we can fly around the iron kurtain of course. The koviet union is a no fly zone for KEA:confused:.

Why would you label it as a no fly zone? Get more money!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as this thread is gaining traction again, I may address some of the reviewer issues in my offerings... But I was wondering a few things. Firstly, I seem to get better take-off speeds, spin recovery and lower landing speeds than the judges. 

For example, I can get my jumbo entry touching down at around 50 - 60 m/s yet the reviewer claimed higher. 

With my Chalduro design, I can recover a flat spin within 600 metres, and it only spins if you force it anyway.

Lot's of other little things... So anyway, if I wrote out detailed instructions, or made instruction videos, would it help?

How do you guys actually fly these things? Do you have a set of flight maneuvers that you attempt? (Subsonic loop, supersonic low altitude/high altitude loop*, immelman turn, high G bank, deliberate stall/prop hang, etc etc etc)

 

Share this post


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

Seeing as this thread is gaining traction again, I may address some of the reviewer issues in my offerings... But I was wondering a few things. Firstly, I seem to get better take-off speeds, spin recovery and lower landing speeds than the judges. 

For example, I can get my jumbo entry touching down at around 50 - 60 m/s yet the reviewer claimed higher. 

With my Chalduro design, I can recover a flat spin within 600 metres, and it only spins if you force it anyway.

Lot's of other little things... So anyway, if I wrote out detailed instructions, or made instruction videos, would it help?

How do you guys actually fly these things? Do you have a set of flight maneuvers that you attempt? (Subsonic loop, supersonic low altitude/high altitude loop*, immelman turn, high G bank, deliberate stall/prop hang, etc etc etc)

 

Detailed instructions and training videos will certainly help, and saves time for the reviewers as they don't have to figure out everything on their own. There are no standardized testing procedures as far as I know. I usually do a few takeoffs to determine the lowest possible speed and distance for the take off, then climb to cruising altitude and try to get as stable of a flight as possible at the specified cruising parameters, and take note of fuel consumption and attitude. Then I revert the flight, and do more takeoffs, usually flying in a tear drop shape to turn around and line up with the runway again to test the landing characteristics. If the results are unsatisfactory (too high speed, broke the plane/runway etc.) until I either get a satisfactory result, or give up, there is only so much time I am willing to spend trying to test out all possible different ways of landing. If the plane inspires such behavior I might take it into some aerobatics as well, or endlessly buzz the tower. I take note of any notable flight characteristics along the way, as they pop up, keeping in mind that this is supposed to be a passenger jet, not a fighter or aerobatics air craft.

If you post instructions retroactively there have been several cases where reviewers have gone back and updated the reviews after the fact. Though keep in mind that aircraft that require special training or are especially difficult to fly may get negative remarks in the review as the pilot training cost will be higher than normal. The two of your submissions that I reviewed would fall into that category. The best is of course if the plane just handles intuitively, and is impossible to get in to bad situations. An example of this would be the BS-24 Turbo for instance, which you can find here:

They too have some minor issues that makes them not as comfortable to fly as they possibly could have been, but are generally very forgiving to fly. In fact I was trying quite hard to get it into a spin, but all I could manage was for it to stall, and immediately recover regardless what I threw at it.  Your submissions on the other hand I had to constantly pay attention to not get in to a spin.

The bottom line though is that this is all subjective, different judges may come to different conclusions, the only guide lines we have is the precedence set by previous reviews.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks for the advice.

I appreciate that some of my planes were not the easiest to fly, as I do like them to be "interesting" also....

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ok, thanks for the advice.

I appreciate that some of my planes were not the easiest to fly, as I do like them to be "interesting" also....

I think you certainly managed to strike the interesting part right on the head. Makes for a easy review to write, and a fun one to read. Quite frankly I think that is almost as important as making a plane that is actually suitable for use as an airliner, it just will not necessarily give you any sales.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @qzgy's – Kramer SSTP-2000 Starmachine

7KimWqW.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:172,874,000
  • Fuel:  12,560 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 1380m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 17,800m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 2.32 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 7,470km

Review:
How we managed to miss this behemoth for so long is quite puzzling. Maybe it was the complete lack of external windows that threw us off. In many ways it more resembles a supersized military drone than a passenger jet. Underneath the protective skin though, it has plenty of room for passengers. The brochure claimed the aircraft would hold 284 passengers, however we were able to fit 312, 28 more than advertised. Now despite it's large size and high cruising speed this aircraft takes off quickly and easily at a mere 51m/s. It also lands just as easy at the same speed, and with the drogue chutes it comes to a halt in a rather short distance, making this aircraft capable of operating from most runways. However it does lack the ability to steer while on the ground, which is a bit of an issue when taxiing. 

In the air it responds much like you would expect from an aircraft of this size, it does not respond overly quickly to control inputs, but it is nice and stable during all normal flight conditions and has sufficient control authority in all axis. With it's cruise speed of 1380m/s this is a really fast jumbo, with it's closest competition being the Andetch X-series Nightfury, which is only marginally faster. The Starmachine however has much better range, and is far safer to fly. It can even ditch quite safely in water, something the Nightfury could not.

Now for the passenger comfort. The engines are mounted on the wing, and quite far back, though some are fairly close to the passenger compartment in the rear, which makes for some noise in the back, but it is not terrible at all. The protective shell also helps cut down a little bit on the noise. The view however is rather non existent, but this is in large made up for with the UHD TVs. It is not quite on par with the Blasty Systems entertainment system though, with it's wireless capabilities. Some of the passengers complained that the selection was not quite to their taste. And then there is the big elephant in the room, the roof mounted passenger seats. For what ever reason Kramer has decided that the ceiling is a perfectly acceptable place for the seats. Now it does make for quite large floor space so it is easy to get around in the plane, but that is completely offset by the rather awkward process of getting in to the seat whenever the seat belt sign is switched on. And then there is the fact that you are upside down. We think the two upper decks will have to be reserved for economy and ultra economy seating.

Then there is the economy. Despite having a smaller passenger capacity the purchase price for the Starmachine is actually higher than the X-series Nightfury, presumably all those UHD TVs cost a fair bit. Though considering how much easier this plane is to fly we think this extra cost will be largely offset by the requited pilot training, and lesser likelihood of accidents. The fuel economy is quite good on the Starmachine too, but the Nightfury has a slight edge here as well. The additional range and better take off and landing performance makes the Starmachine much more versatile however, so we can employ it on more routes.

The verdict:
An easy to fly hyper-sonic jumbo with good fuel economy and long range, but poor comfort on the upper deck. We will buy 4 for ultra economy long distance routes. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.... But what if there were anti- gravioli generators to make it comfortable? It seems like that'd only add like 2000 funds to the cost...

I'll have to keep this in mind.

Share this post


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

Hmm.... But what if there were anti- gravioli generators to make it comfortable? It seems like that'd only add like 2000 funds to the cost...

I'll have to keep this in mind.

PATENTED.

by me of course :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

PATENTED.

by me of course :P

.... Can I start calling you Thomas Edison?

I'm also liscensing the triple-cabin-in-a-box plane design idea. TeeHee. But it'll be a Sextuple-cabin-in-a-mason-jar.

Edited by TheMadKraken2297
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Because challenge. I know ranges above 1800km are moot, but 1800km is such a low bar I have acheived it plenty of times on accident, because it is too easy.

In the interests of making stuff more interesting, we're pretending Kerbin is roughly earth sized. (Any range over 18000 km is moot)

<snip>

True, but if we're looking at a planet the size of earth, then one should note that the balances of parts are thrown off. Parts in KSP tend to have worse mass ratios than their equivalents in real life, having been designed for a much smaller planet. The exception being jet engines, which tend to have greater TWR than their real life counterparts. Perhaps a planet somewhere in-between, such as half the size of Earth would be reasonable.

However, our engineers are up to the challenge, even if they think it is a bit silly and makes Jumbos hard to do without such things as fuel tanks in-between the crew and passengers. :P:) 

Edited by EpicSpaceTroll139

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

True, but if we're looking at a planet the size of earth, then one should note that the balances of parts are thrown off. Parts in KSP tend to have worse mass ratios than their equivalents in real life, having been designed for a much smaller planet. The exception being jet engines, which tend to have greater TWR than their real life counterparts. Perhaps a planet somewhere in-between, such as half the size of Earth would be reasonable.

However, our engineers are up to the challenge, even if they think it is a bit silly and makes Jumbos hard to do without such things as fuel tanks in-between the crew and passengers. :P:) 

Yeah okay, 10km is achievable but difficult enough to be interesting.

Why put tanks between passengers by the way? Just put them at the front and back, the CoM doesn't move much and there is a bunch of fuel tanks between the aft passengers and the engines, so it's more comfortable.

 

I've been trying to make a bigger jumbo than @neistridlar , but my PC is just not up to the task. Or maybe I should stop my current, massively over-complex way of making Jumbo jets. Anyone know how to speed up KSP?

Share this post


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

Yeah okay, 10km is achievable but difficult enough to be interesting.

Why put tanks between passengers by the way? Just put them at the front and back, the CoM doesn't move much and there is a bunch of fuel tanks between the aft passengers and the engines, so it's more comfortable.

 

I've been trying to make a bigger jumbo than @neistridlar , but my PC is just not up to the task. Or maybe I should stop my current, massively over-complex way of making Jumbo jets. Anyone know how to speed up KSP?

I wasn't planning to put them between passengers, but assuming the cockpit is at the front, putting fuel tanks at the front and back of the aircraft results in a fuel tank sandwiched between the pilots and the passengers, which would imply a tunnel passing through the tank. Such a tunnel would be hazardous, providing a possible route for fuel to leak into the cabin, especially problematic in the event of an accident. Not to mention it presents an easy target to those pesky terrorists.

Our engineers are currently working on Large Wings TM to avoid this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Superjumbo Entry

Andetch is pleased to offer you the latest in aggressively styled supersonic super-jumbo Kerbal transporters. Featuring a private berth for the inflight crew to recharge and change-over during long haul flights, plenty of power for all those in flight entertainment systems and a really, really, pointy nose the ADXL promises to be the Super-jumbo to set the standard. Even the rear cabins should be quiet and vibration free using our patent pending, "put a load of tanks in-between" methodology.

Fully laden this beast is almost 300 tons!

We would also like to thank Kerbal Express Airlines for their continued custom, and are pleased to inform them that we have listened to their concerns regarding previous purchases and are working on revised designs.

Name: ADXL "Mister Tiddles"* https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/ADXL-Mister-Tiddles

Price: K 382,348,000 fully fuelled.

Seating: 800, plus additional 8 berth cabin for in flight crew.

Range:  2,500 KM + **

Cruise: 800 m/s + at 20,000 +

Max Turn Angle: 45 degree

Lift-off Speed: 80m/s - 90 m/s

Pilot Notes: After getting airborne immediately level off as the wheels come up and allow the speed to reach 130 m/s. After 140 m/s you can commence some turns at no more than a 45 degree bank angle. Once you are pointed towards the destination airport, commence the climb to cruise phase. Speed minimum 160 m/s climb at 25 degree nose angle to 6000. Climb and accelerate  at 15 degrees nose angle to desired cruise altitude and speed.

Spins are very possible from being excessively violent with the yaw and roll control. Be warned.

* It was named after the design engineers pet kat. The front reminded him of whiskers....

**Cruising a few KM higher than 20KM increases range substantially!

8FD8IsC.pngSpqGZwc.png

 

 

Edited by Andetch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

without such things as fuel tanks in-between the crew and passengers.

I do this all the time and call it a security feature.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since nobody in the first KEA Thread actually tested or ranked my aircraft, I will just put this here.....

 

After much anticipation, Starling Industries brings you the SI-R-1 "Puddlejumper" series of Twin Engine Turboprop aircraft.

 

SI-R-1 "Puddlejumper"

https://imgur.com/J0Dm0M8

With a price starting at 32,861,000 funds per aircraft, the Puddlejumper is a Twin Turboprop aircraft, carrying up to 32 passengers with a small cargo section for extra storage space. The R-1 is an easy aircraft to control, able to take off and accelerate rapidly. The R-1, along with the rest of its series also features a retractable wheel attached to the tail connector used to prevent an accidental tail collision on takeoff and landing. The R-1 also has the ability to perform deadstick landings, allowing for extra flight time in an emergency. Some variations come with extra fuel in back cargo section to be used in an emergency (not factored into range calculations).

Range: ~1465km at optimal speed and altitude

Cruising Altitude: 3180m

Cruising Speed: 146-147m/s

Link: http://bit.ly/2idoEgx

 

SI-R-1a "Puddlejumper Scout"

https://imgur.com/x4X4UKP

Built for trips through the Desert and the Tundra, the Puddlejumper Scout an aircraft for short-range treks over dangerous terrain. With a price starting at 35,853,500 funds per aircraft, the R-1a is designed especially for flights to the outer frontiers of the Kerbin world. Able to land on any terrain, the R-1a can service any airport, and, despite its shorter range, the Scout comes equipped with a mining drill, converter, and more tanks, allowing for the creation of extra fuel when and where none is available, extending the theoretical range of the aircraft almost infinitely. The aircraft also has an emergency beacon and transmitter, along with fuel cells and solar panels, allowing for precious extra power in an emergency.

Range: ~1120km at optimal speed and altitude (Mining Pack extends indefinitely)

Cruising Altitude: 3180m

Cruising Speed: 130-131m/s

Link: http://bit.ly/2iUEw7f

 

SI-R-1b "Puddlejumper Extended Range"

https://imgur.com/8aHCJTR

While much slower and less maneuverable, the Puddlejumper Extended Range makes up for this by allowing for long-range treks. With a price starting at 32,975,000 funds per aircraft, the R-1b is designed especially for long-distance flights, with a maximum range roughly equivalent to half of Kerbin's equatorial circumference. The R-1b also has no extra storage capacity, as it is fully loaded with fuel.

Range: ~1822km at optimal speed and altitude

Cruising Altitude: 3180m

Cruising Speed: 116m/s

Link: http://bit.ly/2zExBsY

  • Like 3

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