CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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

At least in the past it would...cause problems with CKAN? At least for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the K-380, Kerbus have updated the Kerbus K-230 seaplane to the K-230-200 standard. The new floating arrangement is much less draggy, resulting in much higher top speed -- 280m/s vs 240m/s, and improved fuel efficiency. The new design is also cheaper at 12,880,000 Kerbucks.

screenshot39.png

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-230-200

Eco. cruising speed: 200m/s @5300m Range: 1200km = 0.016 KPPM
Max. cruising speed: 280m/s @6100m

Notes:

Taking off from runway:
Deploy flaps (AG2) and tail fin (AG3). Start the engines. The plane automatically pulls up at 41m/s. Retract the landing gear, tail fin and flap.

Landing on runway:
The plane does not roll very well when the flaps are lowered. Therefore the pilot may use flaps for slowing down but for the final approach, deploy flaps only when the plane is flying a few meters and parallel to the runway.

Landing in water:
Descend to about 100m, deploy flaps (AG2) to reduce speed to 45m/s, then deploy tail-fins (AG3). Fly level at 35m/s at 70m. Lower the tail gear (AG4). Slowly adjust throttle so that the plane descends at less than 2m/s. Hit brake (which closes the air intake and avoid water entering the engines) when the tail gear touches the water surface.

Taking off from water:
Deploy flaps and retract tail-fins. Accelerate with full power. When the plane is going at 20m/s, lightly tape tap W to gently lift the tail out of water. The speed would increase to 40m/s. Then pullup.

 

 

Edited by TheFlyingKerman
Added link

Share this post


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

lightly tape W to gently lift the tail out of water.

Does the plane come with tape included? :sticktongue: I think I have to take a closer look on this one, so that I can rip it of come up with a better float plane of my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a bug with the Goliath engines, I've been trying to get my 304 passenger cheap jumbo working, and for some reason it keeps rotating. Only on the ground, and it doesn't matter if the engines are activated, or producing thrust. It just rotates randomly on the runway, I loaded it up, rotated quickly clockwise, reverted to launch, now it rotates slowly counter-clockwise. Very confused. Doesn't matter if landing gear is connected through engines or not.

I know it's the Goliath engines because when I take them off and leave everything else alone the issue stops.

Craft file for anyone interested: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK6-Konig

Share this post


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

I found a bug with the Goliath engines, I've been trying to get my 304 passenger cheap jumbo working, and for some reason it keeps rotating. Only on the ground, and it doesn't matter if the engines are activated, or producing thrust. It just rotates randomly on the runway, I loaded it up, rotated quickly clockwise, reverted to launch, now it rotates slowly counter-clockwise. Very confused. Doesn't matter if landing gear is connected through engines or not.

I know it's the Goliath engines because when I take them off and leave everything else alone the issue stops.

Craft file for anyone interested: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK6-Konig

I had a similar problem with my miniSlab, which you can find on my kerbalX. It does not use the Goliath at all though. I think it it more a problem of the game not quite knowing what to do when there are lots of parts and clipping going on, but I could be wrong. I have not been able to find a reliable solution other than changing stuff at random til it works, which is hardly a solution at all.

Share this post


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

I had a similar problem with my miniSlab, which you can find on my kerbalX. It does not use the Goliath at all though. I think it it more a problem of the game not quite knowing what to do when there are lots of parts and clipping going on, but I could be wrong. I have not been able to find a reliable solution other than changing stuff at random til it works, which is hardly a solution at all.

I'll just use Lotuses and eat the maintenance cost... I did try placing one Goliath on each wing, without using symmetry. Didn't work. Tried placing one on the forward wing instead, also didn't work. Wondering if I should stop running the engines on whiskey?

Share this post


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

I had a similar problem with my miniSlab, which you can find on my kerbalX. It does not use the Goliath at all though. I think it it more a problem of the game not quite knowing what to do when there are lots of parts and clipping going on, but I could be wrong. I have not been able to find a reliable solution other than changing stuff at random til it works, which is hardly a solution at all.

Yes, this bug must not be related to the Goliaths. I had a ship in the Biggest Plane with a Juno challenge (hence no Goliaths). It was a simple tubular hull, with 4-double gigantic wings. The wings were strutted at the very ends. It rotated clockwise without any engines on. Rotated about 90 degrees in an estimated 10-15 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Wanderfound's – Kerbodyne Kruiser

 obGCAi3.png

  • Price:  :funds:45,171,000
  • Fuel:  960 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 1350m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 18,550m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.29 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 4,500km

Review:

Is it flying flounder feast today? If so we have a giant one on the runway ready to go. Well, it may be flat, but it does not seem Kerbodyne were overly concerned about the price when they designed this one, with those spacious luxury cabins, and heat resistant wings. Is a single engine enough to push all of that to supersonic speeds though?  Well, it takes off just fine, though with a takeoff speed of 72m/s and a less than average acceleration, it has a longer takeoff run than many of its competitors. Still well within reason though. During the landing test our pilots made a remark that the spoilers made it very easy to control the speed, though they also remarked that it was easy to get a tail strike if landings were performed bellow 65m/s. Still the stopping distance was found to be about the same as the takeoff run when landing at this speed, so we don’t foresee this being a major issue. The ground handling though. It is somewhat unusual, with its all wheel steering it can turn incredibly tightly, but at speed it whips the tail around like an overly happy dog. One of the passengers had not finished his tea before landing, and quickly found himself sharing it with the entire seat row, as the pilots got adjusted to the ground handling.

In the air the aircraft handles very nicely. As one might expect though, the rate of climb and acceleration on this aircraft is not of the spectacular persuasion. Nonetheless it gets the job done in a reasonable fashion. Reaching cruise takes approximately 10 minutes, and at no point were the passengers subject to excessive G-forces. At 1350m/s this certainly is one of the fastest supersonics out there, and manages to be one of the more fuel efficient as well, a very nice combination. The passengers were over all quite happy with the ride, smooth and easy they said. The ones in the back remarked that they could probably have slept through it all, had it not been for that engine in the back. The view is a bit hampered by the big wing though. Most of the passengers can only see up, and seeing as the aircraft flies at over 18km altitude, there really is not much up there to see.

Though the aircraft is not the cheapest to buy, it certainly is one of the cheaper ones to run. With only 22 parts and a single engine, maintenance will be a breeze. And with the easy handling, at least in the air, pilot training should not be much of an issue either. It does take a considerable amount of fuel to get up to cruise though, so we will only be able to make use of the good fuel economy on longer routes, luckily it has plenty of range. With the luxurious interior we expect to be making a good profit of the flights, though we don’t expect the market to be overly big.

The verdict:
Expensive to buy, cheap to fly. Over all a solid aircraft, but with a somewhat limited customer base. We will be buying 6 for long range luxury flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Out of curiosity, is there a public listing of designs awaiting review?

CrazyJebGuy posted a copy of the spread sheet a few pages back. It is already outdated, but it should at least give you some Idea of what is going on.

Share this post


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

CrazyJebGuy posted a copy of the spread sheet a few pages back. It is already outdated, but it should at least give you some Idea of what is going on.

Can't seem to find it in this thread. Perhaps it's in a previous one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to toss one more design out there for now... I've got two others cooking right now, but they'll hold until the backlog gets somewhat cleared.

 

Maverick AeroSpace Technologies is proud to present their fastest, highest, and furthest flying (and also our largest!) design yet:

 

MAST SSJ-1

mki2BrI.png

 

Designed to fulfill long haul, high speed, point to point routes, the SSJ-1 seats a total of 96 kerbals in its cabin in moderate comfort. (Comfort largely depends on the nature of your seat neighbors.)

 

Features:

Powerful, efficient engines: Powered by a pair of Whiplash turboramjets, the SSJ-1 is well-equipped in the thrust department, allowing for short takeoff runs and steep climb-outs, reducing the noise footprint and minimizing complaints from neighbors.

rnUfj0L.png

 

Excellent visibility: The drooping nose, though more mechanically complex than a fixed nose, provides both excellent forward and downward visibility while at low speeds in the traffic pattern, as well as a sleek-streamlined profile while at higher speeds.

uMUXrv3.png

 

Tailstrike Protection: Observations of competitor's designs in this class revealed a disturbing tendency towards tail strikes with inexperienced pilots. MAST's engineers have included a dedicated "tailwheel" to help reduce the chances of catastrophic damage should a tailstrike occur on takeoff.

C8UfPbl.png

 

Powerful airbrakes: These dedicated airbrakes help slow down this sleek and powerful aircraft in coordination with the flaps, allowing you to perform power-on approaches.

ZGcnFPN.png

 

Class-leading reliability and maintainability: MAST's engineers all started their careers as mechanics, pilots, and ground support personnel, and their experiences have led to a robust, reliable, and service-friendly aircraft. After all, a plane that's sitting on the tarmac being worked on isn't making your airline any money.

tllKWhY.png

 

SPECS:

Range: 6500 km + reserves for a full-power go-around

Cruise: 900 m/s @ 16 km. 2 hours endurance.

Service ceiling: Unlimited.

Vne (Velocity never exceed): 1500 m/s. 2

Approach speed: 80 m/s until 1 km out, then reduce to 60 m/s before crossing threshold.

Takeoff speed: Rotate at 45 m/s, break ground at 50-55 m/s.

Crew: 2

Passengers: 96

MTOW: 35,050 kg

Parts: 33

Cost: $80,729,000

 

Get yours today!

 

Notes:

1: Although there is not a designed service ceiling, we have yet to fully explore performance beyond 18 km altitude. Use caution if you exceed the posted cruising altitude.

2: 1500 m/s is the structural limit of the airframe. Thermal limits can vary depending on airspeed, altitude, and time spent at those speeds.

Edited by MaverickSawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can there be a liason category? 

4 passengers @200 m/s minimum for 700km? I have TONS of planes that would perfectly fit this category and have amphibian capability.

 

 

... Not that I could post them since my PC internet is KIA...

Edited by TheTripleAce3

Share this post


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

Can there be a liason category? 

4 passengers @200 m/s minimum for 700km? I have TONS of planes that would perfectly fit this category and have amphibian capability.

 

 

... Not that I could post them since my PC internet is KIA...

Just submit whatever. The categories are less rules, as guidelines. Some people submitted cargo planes for heavens sakes. If you do though, it will probably get thrown in the turboprop category. Also would advise you that your liason plane better be pretty comfy to fly in, cause a plane with a passenger capacity so low will not be scoring well at all unless it is good, because it will not be low priced. Just consider that engines shake around, and are noisy, and maybe views as well, that's basically the comfort test done.

Share this post


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

Just submit whatever. The categories are less rules, as guidelines. Some people submitted cargo planes for heavens sakes. If you do though, it will probably get thrown in the turboprop category. Also would advise you that your liason plane better be pretty comfy to fly in, cause a plane with a passenger capacity so low will not be scoring well at all unless it is good, because it will not be low priced. Just consider that engines shake around, and are noisy, and maybe views as well, that's basically the comfort test done.

Should I toss in the Giganto II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

Should I toss in the Giganto II?

What's that?

Share this post


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

What's that?

a 13kilaton cargo plane. It actually takes off, but turning isn't easy. I might fix that in the Giganto III, but the review would be interesting

Share this post


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

a 13kilaton cargo plane. It actually takes off, but turning isn't easy. I might fix that in the Giganto III, but the review would be interesting

It won't be reviewed if nobody has a powerful enough computer to do it.

Share this post


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

It won't be reviewed if nobody has a powerful enough computer to do it.

It uses tweakscale, so it only uses 150 parts

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Giganto-II

I had to clip the wings because it turns out longer wings were Kraken bait. they'd just start shaking and then blast off at light speed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GK-6 Konig

This is a very cheap plane, per seat. So cheap, it's like you hired a graphic designer bad enough to use this font, in fact, we had to, to get the costs down enough. We spared every expense, almost. We have, in fact, two variants. An SR (Short/Small Range) and an ER (Extra/Extended Range) edition. Both are near identical, except the ER has 1600 kallons of fuel extra, which gives it a longer range, but impedes performance slightly, so it has a worse KPPM, 0.0078 compared to the SR's 0.0069.

 We made a good few sacrifices for budget sakes in these, but passenger comfort not really. We didn't put in much luxury, I mean for goodness sakes the cup-holders are attached with a stapler, not even a good stapler, but most passengers have nice views, a few have the view of a wing joint, but most have a nice view, and the engines are placed fairly far out, meaning noise and vibrations are very minor.

yfvH7UV.png

By the way, we cheaped out on nose cones! And if you expect the tail to not just be an abrupt, blunt end, what the hell do you expect?

FYPQzbZ.png

And this here is the SR version...

yfvH7UV.png

Costa per seat are very low, beaten only by the Stingy 152, the SR and ER both seat 304 passengers. The ER costs 55,870,000, which is $183,783 per seat, which (I think) narrowly beats the Slinky 152 (Konig, Slinky 152 and the Stingy 152 are basically the only planes under 300k/seat) while the SR costs slightly less, $53,670,000, or $176,546 per seat. Which is beaten significantly by the Stingy 152, which from memory has something like $156,000/seat, however it and the Slinky are snails compared to the Konig.

 The Neist Airline Company is beat on performance, the Stingy and Slinky go 210 and 220 meters per second respectively, the Konig goes 230. The Konig also can climb much higher, after half an hour the Stingy struggles to break 3500m, according to @neistridlar. (Don't doubt him, just saying I haven't checked myself) Compare that to the Konig SR, which in 5 minutes exactly managed 7,000m exactly, and further climbed to 9,200m as the clock ticked by 9:03.

 It is innefficent up here though, so we recommend flying 3000-4500m on full throttle. The Konig SR will go about 230m/s with range of 3,060km, and the ER variant will travel at 227m/s, and have a range of 3,800km.

Having competition of Slinky 152 and Stingy 152, which plane is best is debatable. The Slinky and Stingy planes have arguably slightly worse comfort, having an inline engine mounted on the back, but it's effect does not permeate forward much. Flightwise the Konig has worse fuel economy, but I suspect if you were to fly slower that might not be so. It can takeoff before the end of the SPH, which I doubt a Slinky can do. (Although I may well be wrong, never flown one - just guessing it takes a big runway due to the low power)

 Of all the under 300k/seat club, this is the only one not hopelessly underpowered. This is the future, and has been here since I posted this.

Download of Konig SR: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-6-Konig-ER

Download of Konig ER: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-6-Konig-SR

Edited by CrazyJebGuy

Share this post


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

, the Stingy and Slinky go 170 and 210 meters per second respectively

Get your facts straight! The stated cruise speed for the Slinky 152 is clearly 220m/s, still beat by the Konig, but not by much. 170m/s is the optimal climb speed. The stingy cruises at 210m/s.

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Slinky and Stingy struggle to break 3500m,

This is only true for the Slinky, the stingy cruises at 6300m, which it reaches in ~10min IIRC, and the service ceiling is more than 8.5km IRRC, never tested any higher than that though.

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

having an inline engine mounted on the back,

This is only true for the Slinky. The stingy has a single under slung Lotus in the center of the fuselage. Which is worse for comfort is of course highly debatable.

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

It can takeoff before the end of the SPH, which I doubt a Slinky can do

Yup, I am pretty confident that the Slinky has the longest take off run of any plane that does not require the drop at the end of the runway to take off. The Stingy I seem to recall taking off around the SPH somewhere.

And just to be clear, the Slinky was mostly meant as an elaborate joke, it just happens that it turned out to be kind of not terrible at everything. The Stingy on the other hand is a very serious plane, and one that I think has actual practical value, though it certainly has its flaws as well (I suspect pilot training cost may be the dominating cost on this one).

Share this post


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

-snip-

Apologies for the wrong stuff, I've corrected it now. Since my Konig's basic idea is a Slinky 152 glued to the bottom of another one, (heavily modified - I think past the basic structure they are quite different) I kind of hope to see somebody make a Thing 604, by bolting a Konig to a Konig. In fact, that makes me curious, what happens if I bolt a Slinky to a Konig? It might work, so I'll be off seeing what happens. I'll post if it's interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@neistridlar I went and did exactly that, took an unmodified Konig SR and put an unmodified* Slinky 152 on top with struts, I was a little bit surprised to find out the Slinky was quite a bit longer than the Konig, here's a picture, the back is positioned level on both planes. (Not including Slinky's rear engine)

MOUot0r.png

*I had to re-root parts and pull off the rudder to attach it again so it would attachfqfz9To.png

In the air it takes off about a quarter way along the crawlerway. Climbs and flies much like the unmodified Konig, guess that's to be expected since the Konig is roughly 2/3 of it. At 4000m up it does 224m/s and consumes 0.47 kallons per second, range of 3,300. Curiously it's about the average of plane's ranges.

It's also got a fairly strong roll-yaw coupling, which I didn't expect given the Konig by itself has hardly any, I would have thought the Slinkies would be reduced more. (Still haven't flown the slinky by itself though - I'm just guessing it has similar roll yaw coupling to other Slinky planes I have flown)

The actual design seems to work really well, which is surprising especially since when I connected them I gave no thought to balancing center of mass and lift or anything. Except the little tail wheel I added on the Konig to stop tailstrikes, the added weight of a Slinky is too much for it, it got crushed when I took off. If I was serious I'd just add another. Takes off at 100m/s exact, and by the way the center of lift is ahead of the center of mass, but there seems to be no ill effects.

The issue of pitch down with reverse thrust, it's not there.

The Gawain-Neist Slonig 456 seems costs $80,397,000, $176,309 per seat. I'm not officially entering it, but there is a download here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Gawain-Neist-Slonig-456

If I were entering it, who would be allowed to judge? I'm curious, and who would the reviewer ping in the title? Probably both of us to the second question, but the first one is more complex.

 

Quick update: I found in the water it can make elevator turns! It's quite effective!

TkFhnja.png

Share this post


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

 I went and did exactly that, took an unmodified Konig SR and put an unmodified* Slinky 152 on top with struts

-snip-

Glorious! Yes, the roll yaw coupling should be the same on all slink series planes as the wings and tail are exactly the same. The center of lift being in front of the center of mass might be an artifact of the angle of incidence on the wings of the slinky. When you start playing round with that the CoL vs. CoM becomes a trim indicator rather than a stability indicator. I would expect the aircraft to have a tendency to pitch up at high very high speeds, or maybe not, since the Koning should be more draggy, without the nose/tail cones. 

I think none of us would be allowed to judge it, and both would get pinged. Which in effect probably means it would not get judged, unless some more people start judging. Which reminds me @KenjiKrafts @Bob_Saget54 @EpicSpaceTroll139 You guys still interested in making reviews? Or any one else for that matter. I think it would be nice to have more active judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.