CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, tonimark said:

WHAT THE OTHER USER AGREED AND THE OTHER NO SO WHAT WILL END UP  I NEED A LIST WITH APPROVED MODS!!!

He thought you were referring to the wings with fuel with them, not the Fuel Wings mod. 

The approved mod list is in the main post. It's pretty much:

AirplanePlus

Tweakscale

 

And that's it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and also approve kax

i need help i have ground construction mod how to make material kits??!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tonimark said:

and also approve kax

i need help i have ground construction mod how to make material kits??!

Just check the first post of this thread for a comprehensive explanation and list of allowed mods.

Please consider: the judges need to have ALL these mods installed to be able to test ANY plane, even if each individual plane only uses a few or even none of the allowed mods. each added mod will stress their system and there's only so much we can afford. Therefore we cannot approve any new mods and you will have to get creative with the tools you have been given.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found out that Airplane Plus and BDArmory don't mix, so I'll have to do... *Shudder*... Completely stock aircraft. Which sucks, Airplane plus had some awesome wing pieces. Mabye I'll make another instance of KSP.

Edited by Kernel Kraken

Share this post


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

I just found out that Airplane Plus and BDArmory don't mix, so I'll have to do... *Shudder*... Completely stock aircraft. Whichsucks, Airplane plus had some awesome wing prices. Mabye I'll make another instance of KSP.

Like I've recommended others: just copy your KSP folder put only the right mods in there and use that copy instead. This will also protect you against failures due to updates at the risk of working with an outdated KSP version at some point (I'm still on 1.3.1)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kernel Kraken said:

I just found out that Airplane Plus and BDArmory don't mix, so I'll have to do... *Shudder*... Completely stock aircraft. Which sucks, Airplane plus had some awesome wing pieces. Mabye I'll make another instance of KSP.

Like @hoioh said. Multiple installs is a wonderful thing. I have no less than 5. 1.3.1* that is dedicated to reviewing with exactly the allowed mods, 1.3.1 for fooling around with FAR every once in a while. one with what ever is the newest version, and continuously changing mods. one for bug hunting and a striped down 1.4.2 for mod making.

*I will probably update that soon, since most submissions from before 1.4 is done, and new version of APP is out now (with my drag cube fixes, yay).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kernel Kraken said:

I just found out that Airplane Plus and BDArmory don't mix, so I'll have to do... *Shudder*... Completely stock aircraft. Which sucks, Airplane plus had some awesome wing pieces. Mabye I'll make another instance of KSP.

APP and BDA mix fine.

Source: I run the Air Superiority Competition.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

APP and BDA mix fine.

Source: I run the Air Superiority Competition.

Mabye it's just me but the weapons aren't firing through the weapon manager assingned keys with APP installed, but it worked for at least 5 minutes after removing it lol. I'll try to just make a stock + BDAc install when I get home.

EDIT: thanks for reminding me to put an entry to the Air Superiority Competition.

Edited by Kernel Kraken

Share this post


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

I just found out that Airplane Plus and BDArmory don't mix, so I'll have to do... *Shudder*... Completely stock aircraft. Which sucks, Airplane plus had some awesome wing pieces. Maybe I'll make another instance of KSP.

If it's connecting parts, just use Kerbal Editor Redux to AutoStrut everything! If it's BDArmory and Action Groups, only attach Prev. Weapon, Next Weapon, and Guard Mode to AGs. That will work a lot longer than 5 minutes, even if it's not as efficient. For wing pieces, if you're looking for large ones, just use Lack's Stock Extension. If it's smaller ones, try some MK.3 expansion packs. They have some thick wings. Seriously, they are at least 0.6 meters thick!

Anyway, I think I have just managed to fix KSP. I'm currently launching the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kebab Kerman said:

They have some thick wings. Seriously, they are at least 0.6 meters thick!

0.6m is so skinny xD. I checked the biggest piece of the modular wings I am working on. it 1.29m at the root!

Share this post


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

If it's connecting parts, just use Kerbal Editor Redux to AutoStrut everything!

*Editor Extensions Redux

Best mod ever, by the way. It makes constructing crafts 100x better. Easier and adds more functionalities. Especially multiple snap angles, from 1 degrees to 90 degrees. Everyone should use it, especially in a very construction-heavy challenge. 

I prefer Rigid Attach for everything though. Less potential weirdness with ghost forces, at least so I'm told (though Rigid Attach has its own peculiarities with wings). I only use Autostrut in the most severe cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tonimark said:

also well done @AwkwardNoah you did the dc-3 better than me

the trick to getting them to look good is mainly the wings. If you look at the craft you can see that the front sweep is actually a line of wing pieces rotated backward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tonimark said:

WHAT THE OTHER USER AGREED AND THE OTHER NO SO WHAT WILL END UP  I NEED A LIST WITH APPROVED MODS!!!

Caps much?

 

Also, check the very first post for all the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE

WAVE 2 AMENDMENT

FLEET SALES EDITION

Twin Crown Aerospace Industries had a quick reconsideration of their lineup and forgot the persuasion boosting edition of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform... from which we also figured out another really good product for even more fleet sales.

 

9Dxnphch.png

 

Order pages and numerical details will be linked on the original Wave 2 announcement.

Also, as part of TCA's 'large contractor' agreement with KEA, TCA has agreed to sign onto at least two more outsourced aircraft inspections.

 

A-301: From Luxo-Liner to Utilitarian Hauler

IQcPfWxl.png

Fleet sales is the goal! To help promote fleet sales of the expensive A-403 luxury liner, TCA is offering a stripped-out version suitable for light freight duties, designated the A-301. It has downwards opening cargo bay doors at the rear to assist pallet loading from the ground. For heavier-equipped airports, top-opening cargo bay doors line the length of the aircraft for any long cargo that may be transported (such as rockets for a space program…).

The A-301 is intended for light freight duties, primarily filling roles of mail carriers and such, with an average payload weight of 10-15 tons with fully loaded fuel tanks.

 

A-502: True Economy Wide Body

MXecogKl.png

Determined to make the most out of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform TCA has developed, TCA engineers had an epiphany after finishing the design of the A-403 Cargo/A-301: why not use the space for economy seating and create an economy wide body airliner? This decision has been regarded as ‘promotion-worthy’, as soon as TCA executives can figure out whose idea it was. But regardless of who the pay raise goes to, everyone at TCA agrees that this is one good-looking economy liner, carrying 112 passengers, slotting it between the 104-passenger mixed-class A-501 and the 120-passenger A-503 ‘econo-liner’. The A-502’s major selling point is that it costs just half of either of TCA’s other two current offerings, made possible by using economy cabin hardware, mated to the Mk2 platform through... ingenious methods. Which also help improve passenger luggage space!

To keep the production line as streamlined as possible, as well as maintain commonality between all aircraft built on the TCAI Mk2 commercial platform, TCA executives have decided to keep the Lotus engines with known operation parameters, despite being unable to meet the 240m/s cruising speed requirement for medium regional jets. Apparently their belief in the rest of the A-502’s merits are enough for KEA to disregard the lower cruise speed. Retaining the Lotus engines also mean that the flight characteristics of the A-502 are extremely similar to the A-403, allowing easy transfer of pilots.

In the case of wanting higher speed, however, the Block 2 A-502 has been prepared to receive Wheesley engines for propulsion in a tri-jet configuration as on the A-501.

 

A-703-1B CREST: More For a Little More

WXYRQLKl.png

The -B variant of the A-703 CREST with an additional cabin segment has been confirmed for production. Most clients are encouraged to buy the -B variant, but the 40-passenger -A variant remains available, should they choose to cheap out by 550,000, or feel that the slightly higher range and various other qualities due to slightly smaller size are more beneficial.

Edited by Box of Stardust
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the inherent comfort rating of a RAPIER be. The SABREs haven't been tested irl so is it really possible to tell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

What would the inherent comfort rating of a RAPIER be. The SABREs haven't been tested irl so is it really possible to tell?

Quite frankly, for the purposes of this challenge, I kind of think an engine is an engine is an engine. Maybe smaller ones are slightly less noisy, and after burners are more noisy. But for passenger comfort, I at least treat them all more or less the same.

Share this post


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

Quite frankly, for the purposes of this challenge, I kind of think an engine is an engine is an engine. Maybe smaller ones are slightly less noisy, and after burners are more noisy. But for passenger comfort, I at least treat them all more or less the same.

Makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

What would the inherent comfort rating of a RAPIER be. The SABREs haven't been tested irl so is it really possible to tell?

I'd be worried less about the comfort than the expense in maintaining a hybrid engine with a rocket mode, even if it isn't being used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'd be worried less about the comfort than the expense in maintaining a hybrid engine with a rocket mode, even if it isn't being used. 

Especially if the hybrid mode isn't used. I'd use the rapier bc it works at higher altitudes than Whiplash and gets to higher thrust in most of my designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Especially if the hybrid mode isn't used. I'd use the rapier bc it works at higher altitudes than Whiplash and gets to higher thrust in most of my designs

Well, yeah, the RAPIER has the best thrust curve out of all air-breathing engines. It is pretty much the best aircraft engine to use for going fast in a straight line. 

But for the purposes of this challenge, the RAPIER has complex rocket engine bits that might add in to the maintenance consideration of the plane. 

 

Related, I've been considering toying with the engine thrust limiters and giving some engine, say, 200% thrust limit for double the thrust output. Mainly for Lotus engines, to see what that does, since they're almost always ran at full at 220m/s cruise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Related, I've been considering toying with the engine thrust limiters and giving some engine, say, 200% thrust limit for double the thrust output. Mainly for Lotus engines, to see what that does, since they're almost always ran at full at 220m/s cruise.

The reason the lotus engines does this is because the thrust curve practically cuts off at around mach 0.7. You can fly 250m/s ish at sea level, but as altitude increases the speed of sound decreases, so speed goes down. Double of no thrust is still no thrust.

48 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

But for the purposes of this challenge, the RAPIER has complex rocket engine bits that might add in to the maintenance consideration of the plane. 

Nah, just stuff it with empty snack bags, it will be totally fine ;). On a more serious note though, to encourage varied designs I think we should not assume it has higher maintenance then the other engines. It is already really hard to make an economic plane with it, since it is the most expensive and least efficient one (ISP wise). Now that is not to say it can't be done*, my spear 40R is decent in many ways, but there is a reason the RAPIER is very unpopular. 

* for those that want to know the secret, basically you have to have a very low drag air-frame with high AOI wings so that you can fly at 26-27km altitude at 1600m/s+ with nose perfectly level. The hardest part is quite frankly to find a way to not burn up while doing so. I don't think there are other ways to make it economical, but I am always happy to be proven wrong on these things.

Share this post


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

The reason the lotus engines does this is because the thrust curve practically cuts off at around mach 0.7. You can fly 250m/s ish at sea level, but as altitude increases the speed of sound decreases, so speed goes down. Double of no thrust is still no thrust.

Nah, just stuff it with empty snack bags, it will be totally fine ;). On a more serious note though, to encourage varied designs I think we should not assume it has higher maintenance then the other engines. It is already really hard to make an economic plane with it, since it is the most expensive and least efficient one (ISP wise). Now that is not to say it can't be done*, my spear 40R is decent in many ways, but there is a reason the RAPIER is very unpopular. 

* for those that want to know the secret, basically you have to have a very low drag air-frame with high AOI wings so that you can fly at 26-27km altitude at 1600m/s+ with nose perfectly level. The hardest part is quite frankly to find a way to not burn up while doing so. I don't think there are other ways to make it economical, but I am always happy to be proven wrong on these things.

Hmm, is this a challenge for efficiency I smell? And Neist Air isn’t pursuing it? What world is this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @HolidayTheLeek's AC HC-2 Country Hopper

LNpOCMQ.png

Ready to soar...

Figures as Tested (AC HC-2, 72 passengers max):

  • Price: 32,834,000 (empty)
  • Fuel: 2,380 kallons
  • Cruising speed: measured at 245m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 7,500m
  • Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.14kal/s
  • Range:  4,000km (as calculated)

Review Notes:

Twin Crown Aerospace has decided to quickly honor its outsourced inspection contract with KEA as to remain on good standing after increasing their inspection backlog...

Uncle Carlos Aerospace (henceforth referred to as 'UCA') has designed a medium regional jet that, after initial walkarounds by TCA engineers, seems fairly conventional for the most part, but with some oddities in between. The AC HC-2 Country Hopper has a sort of double-hull design, with the second hull underneath the passenger cabins. Some of this space was used for fuel tanks, while the rest were simply empty; presumably, these could be used as additional space for passenger luggage. Aside from the double-hull, the other things that stuck out were the very wide landing gear stance and the broad wings. Lastly, there was a tailwheel in the back, so any tail strikes were protected against. All this said, it's a fairly plain aircraft in appearance, with very little to comment on. Pre-flight inspections showed a center of lift and center of mass relationship within expectations, so we figured that this aircraft would, at the least, cruise well.

Our test pilot got into the aircraft, and the first apparent thing was that there was no copilot seat. This is probably excusable for a prototype, but would not pass in commercial usage due to a requirement for a copilot for aircraft of this size. After this quick note, pre-flight inspections were done. Notably, there was no control to activate the engine thrust reversers, but this was the only problem we found.

The HC-2 was cleared for takeoff. Pitch authority was good once the aircraft got up to speed, with rotation possible at or under 40m/s. It was, in fact, strong enough to push the tail of the aircraft all the way down, making the fairly heavy-duty tailwheel very useful to prevent damage. As this possibility was designed into the aircraft, we do not find it an issue. Wheels-up was achieved after a fairly short takeoff distance and under 50m/s, giving it excellent takeoff performance.

General maneuverability tests were done on the way up to the recommended cruise altitude.

The stability. Ah yes, the stability. The HC-2 has handling so rigid you'd think you were flying with SAS on. When rolling the aircraft, after zeroing input, it's like the aircraft has zero angular momentum. It just... stops rolling. Except with SAS, the computer will have minor overcorrections when roll input is stopped, so we could tell when SAS was turned on. Same goes for pitch. It's... kind of impressive, actually, how neutral it handles.

So, all of these flight tests were done with SAS turned off, since it was apparently already very stable.

The general maneuverability tests this stability was discovered during also hinted at potentially sluggish roll. More on this later.

Cruising altitude was reached after about 5 minutes, which is on the longer end of the spectrum, but still fairly reasonable. Cruise conditions were stated at 'around 230m/s', which, in their words, was a 'fast speed'... except that Kerbal Express Airlines has outlined a speed of 240m/s for medium regional jets. No matter, though, as TCA knows the thrust characteristics of the Wheesley engine and figured that it could attain a higher cruise speed anyways. After a quick bit of figuring out good cruise characteristics using the 7,500m guideline by UCA, values were recorded at 245m/s, higher than UCA's stated cruise speed, at a burn rate of 0.14kal/s, lower than UCA's stated cruise burn rate. Pretty good results, actually, amounting to a 4,000km range under TCA's conservative fuel calculation. Attaining cruising conditions was easy as well, with the neutral-handling aircraft being very easy to trim.

After establishing the HC-2's cruising characteristics, we moved onto engine failure testing. As usual, we simulated a starboard engine failure, which it passed with the aircraft easily remaining in control and flyable, though not at normal cruise conditions, but that's acceptable. It remains very safe to fly on one engine, until an emergency landing can be made.

We then tested a complete engine failure. Plane glides well and remains responsive. Extra emphasis on 'glides well'.

After returning over the airfield, we conducted the flight dynamics test.

First was mid-speed handling, 90-150m/s. Roll authority is determined to be adequate at best, but it does feel sluggish at times. Pitch and yaw authority are good. Stability is excellent.

Low-speed handling, under 90m/s. Roll authority issues exacerbated. Still 'adequate', but just. Stability remains good, but the sluggish roll control does have a bit of trouble keeping up at this speed, and the HC-2 starts to show its rotational momentum in a roll.

Landing performance is good, touching down under 50m/s, and was an easy ordeal, especially with the wide main gear layout. In fact, it's here that we have our second biggest gripe with the aircraft. We prefer that the brakes were set up better with more braking force for faster stops. Also would have liked to have the engine thrust reversers were wired to a control, which would especially help in general deceleration. Again, the plane is very good at gliding, and it doesn't like to lose speed. So it would be nice if it had a way to lose speed on command without resorting to something like inducing drag through sideslip.

Ground performance is good. Though, while the wide wheelbase is good for stability, we think it might be a little too wide, and could be made to be narrower.

For the water landing test, its low speed flight characteristics proved to be valuable in landing safely in water, with no structural damage.

As for passenger experience, the economy cabins are economy cabins. Visibility out of windows is good for most of the aircraft. The engine placement allows for comfort on par with well-designed modern contemporary airliners, with the wings shielding from exhaust noise and the engines spaced away from the fuselage to reduce vibrations. Overall, the aircraft has fair passenger comfort for an economy jet.

For maintenance, despite a 101 part count, much of the projected maintenance would be checking over wing section welds. The aircraft isn't very complicated, and there are only two engines to service, in easily accessible under-wing pods. The buy-in cost is about average or lower than average for the most economic of medium regional jet liners.

The Verdict:

The AC HC-2 Country Hopper is a simple, effective aircraft with not much to say except that it does what it's supposed to: be an economy medium regional jet liner. It has... zero evident inherent flaws in its design. The issues we found are all very minor and non-critical and pretty easy to fix for production-run versions of the aircraft. Maintenance doesn't appear to be that bad, despite the part count. And it's a very safe aircraft.

From an operational point of view, the HC-2 has a specific role and will perform it well. We can see this aircraft operating very well on long routes to even remote locations, just like how the manufacturer designed it to be.

  • Like 4

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