CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Just saying, I would order more than 10 if it's a workhorse.

With the issues resolved the orders would add up to 10. Also it is a fairly big plane, so I kind of figured we would not need quite as many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more medium regional jets... I'll build one when I get home in about three hours.

Share this post


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

We need more medium regional jets... I'll build one when I get home in about three hours.

Lol, there is only 11 submissions waiting in the cue :confused:.

Share this post


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

Lol, there is only 11 submissions waiting in the cue :confused:.

Really? Huh, thats less than I expected... I feel like we need a speed war thread too. Eh, I'll just shove it into the size war thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce myself.  My name is Ozelui, and I'm the CEO of the Ozelui Aerospace Ltd. company.  During the last years we've been involved in the space shuttle development but only recently our company has started working in the commercial aircraft business, so you probably didn't hear from us until now.  I come to you today to share our new series of passenger aircrafts with you, we hope you enjoy the presentation:

Small regional jet submission:  O.A. Model 221 "Bronco"

hxaqih7.png

What a better aircraft to start this new adventure than this one?  The Bronco is a small regional jet, designed to be an every-day workhorse.  Sure, it's not as oppulent as other models, but it gets the job done, no matter what.  Ill maintained runways? The Bronco can cope with it.  No runway? No problem, just be sure to take the cows away from the landing field.  The Bronco will take you where you want to go.  Despite being a spartan design, we did not forget about comfort.  Recent surveys point at the noise as the main cause of discomfort on modern planes.  With this in mind, our engineers decided to take the lousy engine away from the fusselages where the passengers are located.  Another of our focuses was security.  With two pilots we ensure the plane is in control even if one of them is incapacitated.  The shape of the aircraft, while antiquated to our modern eyes, enables the Bronco to glide safely in the case of an engine failure or running out of fuel.

Specifications:

Crew: 2
Passengers: 48
Weight: 14.676 t  (dry: 12.226 t )
Lenght: 14.5 m, Width: 13.3 m, Height: 3.8 m
Fuel capacity: 490 l
Fuel consumption: 0.10 l/s ( suggested cruise at 5.500 m, full throotle )
Cruise speed: 230+ m/s
Range: 1.127 Km
Cost: 17.482.000 
:funds:
Parts: 32
Engines: One J-33 "Wheesley" turbofan
Take off speed: According to our test pilots, it can take off at 62 m/s, probably less if taking off from a bumpy runway.

Aditional notes:
The Bronco doesn't have any aerobrake, it uses instead the wheesley's reverse thrust mode to brake both in ground or air (action group 1). 
Ladders! (action group 2)
The forward landing gears can be unlocked to improve the ground turn rate (action group 3).
The test pilots recommended climbing softly with an AoA around ~10 degrees, and once near the cruise altitude reduce it gradually to ~2 degrees for level flight.

Edited by Ozelui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, now that I have finally broken even on submissions vs. reviews it is finally time to release some of the aircraft that I have been working on for the last few weeks.

Introduction:
The engineers at Neist Air had for a long time discarded turboprop engines as a method of propulsion. However due to recent industrial espionage signs from above, it was decided to investigate closer what could actually be done with turboprop engines. The results were quite surprising. 

Neist Air presents the NA Swirlygig series. The series consist of two turboprops, optimized for minimal fuel consumption, featuring a fuel burn rate no other turboprop can even come close to matching. The engineers say the secret lies in the winglets, which like on the Stout series help minimize vortex drag. 

Both aircraft are also exceptionally stable and easy to fly. Coupled with the twin seat cockpit it makes for an ideal advanced trainer. The engineers also claim that twin pilots will reduce accidents caused by inopportunely timed spontaneous snack time during final approach by at least 15%.

6PwjIpu.png

More images: https://imgur.com/a/YU7gG

NA Swirlygig 24:
Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Swirlygig-24
⦁    Price: :funds:13,725,000
⦁    Cruising speed: 152m/s (1/3 throttle)
⦁    Cruising altitude: 5,500m
⦁    Fuel capacity: 210 kallons
⦁    Fuel burn rate: 0.0165 kallons/s
⦁    Range estimate: 1900km
⦁    Take off speed: 37m/s
⦁    Recommended climb speed: 140m/s
⦁    KPPM: 0.0074

NA Swirlygig 32:
Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Swirlygig-32
⦁    Price: :funds:14,275,000
⦁    Cruising speed: 152m/s (1/3+ throttle)
⦁    Cruising altitude: 5,500m
⦁    Fuel capacity: 210 kallons
⦁    Fuel burn rate: 0.019 kallons/s
⦁    Range estimate: 1700km
⦁    Take off speed: 42m/s
⦁    Recommended climb speed: 140m/s
⦁    KPPM: 0.0062

Pilot notes:
[AG1] Thrustreversers, [AG2] Flaps.
The aircraft is designed to be stable and easy to fly, and so not much training should be required. The flaps are first and foremost intended as air breaks, and do not aid in lowering the take off or landing speed. 
Recommended takeoff and climbing procedure: rotate as the speed exceeds 35m/s, after lifting off flatten out the trajectory and accelerate to climbing speed, pitch for climbing speed (~25 degrees), and gradually level off once you reach 4.5km. Once the aircraft has reached stable cruise the autopilot may be set to prograde for easy cruising. It is recommended take a direct reading from the engine for fuel consumption, as the global one is not accurate enough for such efficient engines.

Edited by neistridlar
added link with more images
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully I'll have a few of my turboprops tweaked for 1.4, and I'll post 'em here. :wink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was not sure if my range calculation was correct, it seemed too low, so I took my plane for a spin... surprisingly the real range almost doubled the one calculated with the formula:

Spoiler

wUhX7Rd.png

Val landed in the artic circle with 10% of the fuel still left and after flying for more than 2.000 km.

My numbers:

Fuel capacity: 490 fuel units
Fuel consumption: 0.10 fuel units/second ( suggested cruise at 5.500 m, full throotle )
Cruise speed: 230 m/s

Please, correct me if I'm wrong:  ((490 fuel units / 0.1 fuel units per second)  *  230 meters per second) / 1000 meters = 1.127 Km --> Range: 1.127 Km  ( The range I already had )

Part of the difference has to be the suggested speed, that 230 m/s & 0.10 fuel/s figure is correct at full throotle just after reaching the cruise altitude, but, as the fuel burns, the aircraft becomes lighter and flies faster, reaching ~270 m/s with half the fuel, and approximately 275 m/s with ~10% of the fuel remaining ( I'm guessing that is an aerodynamic limit because of the wing angle ).   Fuel consumption also went up to 0.11 units/s, and just near the end of the test flight, it went up to 0.12 units/s.  Taking the speed and fuel comsumption at half fuel:

((490 fuel units / 0.11 fuel units per second)  *  270 meters per second) / 1000 meters = 1.202 Km ( still 800 km below the real range )

Spoiler

czbtr3R.png

qAFoR56.png

So... what am I doing wrong? What speed should be used for the calculation? Is the formula intended to give a result different to the "real" KSP range?

 

Edited by Ozelui

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, I made a concept vehicle for KEA - not actually an aircraft, but if I get it right KEA will want 100 or more!

I've noticed in some reviews things like ground handling, taxi etc were addressed - and in many cases there were difficulties encountered. Andetch is proud to bring you the concept vehicle, aptly named Tow Truck 1, designed to tow in those un-taxi-able airliners. It can also be used to bring aircraft to and from the runway in populated areas where noise can be an issue.

Getting it to lock properly was a pain - not helped by the fact I forgot to engage the parking brake on Mr Tiddles, hence the skewered angle... but when it works properly, it will be a useful support vehicle for any airline :wink:

Hope you don't mind taking a look at the concept - I had to find a use for the stock motor i've made! haha

yNJ34wx.pngfvjdjgq.png

Edited by Andetch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems interesting, can it rotate on the joint so larger planes can be turned in tight circles? Also a download link, if you want to share the craft file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arm with the grabbers on rotates (all the reaction wheels are on a free spinning axle) so it can either be stowed onto the truck (don't go though a spawn without it attached) or swung around to grab larger (and possibly smaller) planes to assist with ground moving, like turning as you say. It could do with an IR docking washer on each on the grabbers, which is why I haven't done the craft file yet - wanna get it working well before release!

7 minutes ago, TaRebelSheep said:

Seems interesting, can it rotate on the joint so larger planes can be turned in tight circles? Also a download link, if you want to share the craft file.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it doesn't call upon the Kraken, it sounds interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Elluvon Avionics Presents: 

The ET-25 "Lark" Turboprop

16 Passenger Variant

This aircraft is only the TEST variant for the "Lark" Series. If the buyer decides they like the design and features, another aircraft can be made to fit the needs of the company. 

After one of the KSC engineers decided that turbofans made good cooling systems, the aircraft development team decided to create an aircraft based off of the engine the KT6A "Kitty," which could NOT be used as an air conditioner.
 

The result is a very pretty aircraft suiting mainly for private/corporate use. It is affordable for civilians, but the military has shown interest in making a few "Larks" anti-submarine aircraft for coastal patrol. Pilots love the maneuverability of the ET-25, mostly the ability to take off/land at small regional airports.  
It is also rumored that Gene himself uses an ET-25 for his personal transport, as it is speedy and can make the Old Landing Strip in seven minutes flat. 

yjBhiq8.jpg

The Lark can take off on a runway half the size of KSC's, which means it is good for regional and private airports.

z8yL3C1.jpg

The aircraft is unbelievably maneuverable, assisted with elevators situated in front of the cockpit. The aircraft is equipped with Wi-Fi and SCAN-Sat technology. 

HCBKdqe.jpg

As shown in this image, the aircraft is quite small, capable of very tight turns, with massive flaps that help to increase drag and slow the incredibly fast craft. 

NOTE TO PILOT: DO NOT BANK THIS AIRCRAFT PAST 85 DEGREES! 

F21mIzK.jpg

Recommended cruising altitude/speed:

5,500 Meters at 150 M/s with throttle at full.

 

Price::funds:27,090,000
Mass: 7.864 Metric Tons.
Fuel Efficiency: 0.07/sec at altitude.
Fuel: 300 Kallons

 

CREW:

Pilot
First Officer
One Flight Attendant (Seated in the passenger door area)

 

CHECK KERBALX FILE FOR ACTION GROUPS

Edited by Lo Var Lachland
Missing quotation marks :3
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I was not sure if my range 

-snip-

  Reveal hidden contents

wUhX7Rd.png

Val landed in the artic circle with 10% of the fuel still left and after flying for more than 2.000 km.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

czbtr3R.png

qAFoR56.png

 

 

The formula usually underestimates because as you pointed out the fuel efficiency gets better as the craft gets lighter. However the F3 menu is not a reliable range measurement. It reads roughly double the actual value. If you flew from KSC directly north and landed on the pole you flew 1/4 kerbin diameter, which is 940km.

The reason we use the formula is that it is fast and easy, and accurate enough.

Edited by neistridlar
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm working on doing a range test right now guys.

 

Edited by Lo Var Lachland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

ET-25 "Lark" Range test results:

66GpvVX.jpg

Pilot Jebediah Kerman and First Officer Bill Kerman took off from runway 27 at the KSC and proceeded south-west on heading 250 before running out of fuel over a small island. Landing the aircraft, Jebediah noted that there was 40 Kallons of fuel left in the tanks of the aircraft, and that the landing gear had sustained minor damage due to landing on a rough surface.

The whole time, the Lark flew at a rough speed of 150 m/s at 5500 meters, but Jebediah did do a altitude test, and found that the aircraft's max cruising altitude is almost 9000 meters, but it has problems with lift at this altitude. 

 

The entire flight took 1 hour 20 minutes. 

Edited by Lo Var Lachland

Share this post


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

Elluvon Industries Presents: 

The ET-25 "Lark Turboprop

16 Passenger Variant

This aircraft is only the TEST variant for the "Lark" Series. If the buyer decides they like the design and features, another aircraft can be made to fit the needs of the company. 

After one of the KSC engineers decided that the turbofans made good cooling systems, the aircraft development team decided to create an aircraft based off of the engine the KT6A "Kitty," which could NOT be used as an air conditioner.

 

The Lark can take off on a runway half the size of KSC's, which means it is good for regional and private airports.

 

The aircraft is unbelievably maneuverable, assisted with elevators situated in front of the cockpit. The aircraft is equipped with Wi-Fi and SCAN-Sat technology. 

 

As shown in this image, the aircraft is quite small, capable of very tight turns, with massive flaps that help to increase drag and slow the incredibly fast craft. 

NOTE TO PILOT: DO NOT BANK THIS AIRCRAFT PAST 85 DEGREES! 

Recommended cruising altitude/speed:

4,5000 Meters at 200 M/s with throttle at half.

 

Price::funds:302,290,000
Mass: 7.864 Metric Tons.
Fuel Efficiency: 0.156/sec at altitude.
Fuel: 300 Kallons

 

CREW:

Pilot
First Officer
One Flight Attendant 

 

CHECK KERBALX FILE FOR ACTION GROUPS

How on earth did you manage to make it so expensive? That is like 10-20 times what I would expect for such a small aircraft! 

 

14 minutes ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

ET-25 "Lark" Range test results:

Pilot Jebediah Kerman and First Officer Bill Kerman took off from runway 27 at the KSC and proceeded south-west on heading 250 before running out of fuel over a small island, landing the aircraft, Jebediah noted that there was 40 Kallons of fuel left in the tanks of the aircraft, and that the landing gear had sustained minor damage due to landing on a rough surface.

The whole time, the Lark flew at a rough speed of 150 m/s at 5500 meters, but Jebediah did do a altitude test, and found that the aircraft's max cruising altitude is almost 9000 feet, but it has problems with lift at this altitude. 

 

The entire flight took 1 hour 20 minutes. 

150m/s*(3600 seconds + 20*60 seconds) = 720km, but the calculated range from your quoted numbers only work out to 288km. I suspect you have quoted the wrong fuel burn rate, I would have expected it to be more like 0.07, which gives an estimated range of 640, which seems much more reasonable, given your test results.

Oh, and 9000 feet < 5500 meters, I suspect you meant 9000 meters, which would make more sense.

Edited by neistridlar
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How on earth did you manage to make it so expensive? That is like 10-20 times what I would expect for such a small aircraft! 

He got 12 RTG at 23,300,000 each

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy GAI Skots Ratt B

PBhN6jr.png  

Figures as Tested: 

  • Price: :funds:122,265,000 
  • Fuel: 9,160 Kallons 
  • Cruising Speed: 170m/s 
  • Cruising Altitude: 1,100m 
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.48 Kallons/sec 
  • Range: 3,260km 

Review: 

The big brother to the GAI Skots Mouse. Mostly it appears to be the same, just with much longer under wing pods, and slightly larger tail. With the higher weight comes a slightly higher take off speed of 55m/s, which is still quite acceptable. With the afterburners engaged the aircraft accelerates reasonably quickly as well. Handling in the air and during landing is mostly the same as its smaller brother. The cruise speed is even a little bit slower than the Mouse though, which is already a little on the slow side, and the range is a bit lacklustre by jumbo standards. The test pilots also noted that the aircraft gradually gets more and more tail heavy as the fuel drains, finally becoming unstable once it gets bellow 10% fuel capacity, so we don't expect to use the last 10% of the range. 

The experience in the tail and the rear of the wing pods is still quite a jarring experience. However due to the elongated wing pods only a relatively small fraction of the passengers gets to experience this. Rolling is still just as exciting for the coffee drinkers though. 

Where this aircraft is remarkably different is in the economy department however. Somehow it manages to almost double its passenger capacity, while barely increasing the purchase price and fuel burn rate. That makes this aircraft almost half the price of the Mouse per seat, both in operating cost and purchase price. Now we don't think the busy business men will be overly eager to fly in this aircraft due to the long flight times. However, with the cargo hold in the back and good economy we think it is going to be very popular amongst the price conscious tourists. 

The verdict: 
It is slow, but it makes up for it in price and comfort. We will be buying 5 of these for economy tourist routes. 

Edited by neistridlar
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The reason we use the formula is that it is fast and easy, and accurate enough.

Thanks for the explanation, I was utterly confused by the discrepancy between the two ranges.  With the range from the F3 summary being wrong ( something I did not know ), then everything makes sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@neistridlar

Craft file is updated, going to re do the cost. 

Edited by Lo Var Lachland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

@neistridlar

Don't test my plane I'll update the price. :wink: 

Don't worry. I'm working on getting the oldest reviews in the cue done, they are from late October. I there is anyone you should worry about reviewing newer submissions it is @CrazyJebGuy, but I don't think you need to worry about that either, as he is busy reviewing the reviews for the leader board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, neistridlar said:

Don't worry. I'm working on getting the oldest reviews in the cue done, they are from late October. I there is anyone you should worry about reviewing newer submissions it is @CrazyJebGuy, but I don't think you need to worry about that either, as he is busy reviewing the reviews for the leader board.

Ok. Thanks for the help. I still need to work out the range kinks. 

Share this post


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

How on earth did you manage to make it so expensive? That is like 10-20 times what I would expect for such a small aircraft! 

 

150m/s*(3600 seconds + 20*60 seconds) = 720km, but the calculated range from your quoted numbers only work out to 288km. I suspect you have quoted the wrong fuel burn rate, I would have expected it to be more like 0.07, which gives an estimated range of 640, which seems much more reasonable, given your test results.

Oh, and 9000 feet < 5500 meters, I suspect you meant 9000 meters, which would make more sense.

Nope, 5500 meters based off of KSPs altimeter. 

And all I did to calculate the fuel burn rate was take the expected engine fuel burn time. 

Edited by Lo Var Lachland

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