CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

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.

I can definitely see that argument, but I'd argue the craft isn't strictly mine or yours, although if singular ownership had to be enforced it would probably go to me, since I was the one who stuck them together, and my share of it is physically larger. Regardless I think if somebody wants a practice review, or a review that no-body takes too seriously this is a golden opportunity. Unless you object, I mean it is kind of your plane too.

Share this post


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

I can definitely see that argument, but I'd argue the craft isn't strictly mine or yours, although if singular ownership had to be enforced it would probably go to me, since I was the one who stuck them together, and my share of it is physically larger. Regardless I think if somebody wants a practice review, or a review that no-body takes too seriously this is a golden opportunity. Unless you object, I mean it is kind of your plane too.

I have no objections to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@neistridlar Can I land my craft on an aircraft carrier to show its STOL abilities?

Share this post


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

<snip> Which reminds me <snip to reduce pings> @EpicSpaceTroll139 You guys still interested in making reviews? <snip>

I've been a bit busy over the past couple days, but when I get home from class today I plan to look at a few of the previously-reviewed craft to get a better feel for the judging process. I think I'll be ready then! :) 

Share this post


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

@neistridlar Can I land my craft on an aircraft carrier to show its STOL abilities?

Are you asking for permission? Of course you can do anything you want to impress the judges. Now whether or not you are actually able to do it, that you have to figure out for your self.

4 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I've been a bit busy over the past couple days, but when I get home from class today I plan to look at a few of the previously-reviewed craft to get a better feel for the judging process. I think I'll be ready then! :) 

Looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question:

Range = Fuel / Burn rate * speed /1000m for range in KM.

1390 /4 * 6 *1200 (which is lower than actual top speed) /1000 = 2,502KM.

My fuel capacity is 1390, burn rate is between 4 and 6 (chose 6 intentionally to lower my range, could go all the way to 8 if I piled on the low alt thrust) with my high-alt cruising speed of 1200m/s (tempted to redo with 1100 but 1200 yields more consistent results w/ game) and then since that was in meters I divided by 1000 to get range in KM.

Did I get this correct or am I wrong?

For reference: My craft uses 2 Whiplash engines and 1 Juno APU.

(another thing, the flight that I did only used about 66.7% fuel, hence the discrepancy)

ZS1wbkq.jpg

Share this post


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

Quick question:

Range = Fuel / Burn rate * speed /1000m for range in KM.

1390 /4 * 6 *1200 (which is lower than actual top speed) /1000 = 2,502KM.

My fuel capacity is 1390, burn rate is between 4 and 6 (chose 6 intentionally to lower my range, could go all the way to 8 if I piled on the low alt thrust) with my high-alt cruising speed of 1200m/s (tempted to redo with 1100 but 1200 yields more consistent results w/ game) and then since that was in meters I divided by 1000 to get range in KM.

Did I get this correct or am I wrong?

For reference: My craft uses 2 Whiplash engines and 1 Juno APU.

(another thing, the flight that I did only used about 66.7% fuel, hence the discrepancy)

 

The readout in the F3 menu reads roughly double the actual distance, I don't know why, but it has been like that for a long time. As for your math I am pretty sure you got it wrong. This is how it should be (1390/6)*(1200/1000) = 417km if your fuel burn rate is 6 and speed is 1200m/s. Just to be clear the number in parenthesis in the liquid fuel bar top right is your fuel burn rate. I suspect your fuel burn rate is wrong though, I checked and it seems none of the reviewed planes have fuel burn rates of more than 2.3 during cruise, and some of those have like 8 whiplashes going at full throttle. 0.6 sounds more likely for your setup, in which case you would have 4,170km. What altitude were you flying at? If you were flying at like 12km or something that might explain why you get such high fuel burn rate. For whiplash and rapier based planes it is best to fly as high as possible, typically around 20km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been determining range by using a MechJeb unit slapped onto a bulkhead and monitoring "Stage time at throttle" while at cruise conditions, then multiplying that time by my speed to get range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executive Transport presents: Ultra-class Liason Mk. 2 (W/APU)!

 

LINK TO CRAFT: https://kerbalx.com/TheTripleAce3/Ultra-class-Liason-Mk-2-W-APU

o76t4bJ.jpgZS3x27m.jpg

 

Category: Supersonic Liason

A design made for speed and survivability more than comfort (not to say it lacks the latter), it features dual transponders and 2 snack containers inside of a service bay should they be needed, as well as a state-of-the-art autopilot system just behind the service compartment, allowing the pilot to rest for a few minutes should he need to. It features an auxiliary Juno engine atop the tail section and detaching mechanisms inside of the wing pylons to allow for emergency detachment if needed. 

SxZz3dT.jpg

It is a deluxe flying platform that will climb very quickly and, once at altitude (18km-21km), it will have a cruising speed of at least 1100m/s and a fuel consumption rate of 0.67 on average between the two Whiplash engines. These factors combined give it a quite conservative estimated range of 2,000 km 

While not the easiest to maintain, with three engines and multiple intakes, it is easier than quite a few regional jets to maintain and very well suited to long range flight, it is of worth noting its custom thickened leading edge to the delta wing to augment its glide slope on landing, as well as the 10 drogue chutes for quick landings.

Specs:

4 Passengers

$42,141,000

Cruising speed @17km: +1100m/s

Est. Range: 2,000km

Max alt: 25km, will have near-0 thrust.

Powerplant: Main: 2 Whiplash engines

Auxiliary: 1 Juno, doubles as taxiing engine.

Crew: 1 Pilot and 1 Attendant (Attendant optional, Pilot can handle most things w/ Autopilot active to cut on crew costs)

4 Landing gear , 3 mains and 1 tailwheel

Surprisingly clear views landscape from all crew compartments, and a lower amount of vibrations from the engines, being wing-mounted. We doubt you'll be hearing much of the engines seeing how far back they are.

As for takeoff speeds, our test pilots have gotten the takeoff speeds as low as 60m/s, which the craft will reach in no time at all.

Landing speeds are a sluggish 70m/s with flaps and airbrakes (normally unpowered, very flat trajectory) and can get as low as 40m/s on touchdown with chutes and airbrakes w/o flaps.

To take off: AG1 for flaps, Hold brakes and activate only the main engines until it reaches 2.3m/s with active brakes, then release. Plane will accelerate to 70m/s, upon which time you may start pulling up. Plane will lift up past 80m/s with or without flaps.

To land: come in very fast at first, over 200m/s. This is to keep a flatter trajectory, and have the juno engine preactivated with mains optional. Once at 1km from runway, activate airbrakes and flaps. This is also where gears will need to be deployed (structurally reinforced to resist high pressures). Once directly above the runway, you may choose to activate the drogue chutes or land solely on main gears. If you activate drogue chutes, you will not need to brake as hard. Flaring is standard for this craft, just don't go below 40m/s until on ground. With brakes only, land on the two aft mains first preferably and tap on the brakes to slowly set down the nose (this will require a slightly faster approach). Once all mains are on the ground, switch all engines (AG2 and 3) and hold brakes.

To taxi: All gears have steering enabled, however front steering only is an option (AG5 to disable aft gear). Use Juno APU to taxi.

To ditch: In the event a ditching must take place, get as close as you can to the water while maintaining lift, activate abort AG, and glide until at 20m above water. Have APU activate AS SOON AS pilot commits to ditching. activate flaps and manually set them to 150% authority (at own risk, 52 is normal.) and wait to slow down as much as possible before activating gears. This will create a deceleration force of 8G minimum so be careful. Flaring is the most important part of this procedure along with detaching main engines. Airbrakes have been helpful in all tests.

Edited by TheTripleAce3
Updated craft file

Share this post


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

I've been determining range by using a MechJeb unit slapped onto a bulkhead and monitoring "Stage time at throttle" while at cruise conditions, then multiplying that time by my speed to get range.

That seems like a much more accurate method as well as an easier one. 

Share this post


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

Le snip

I used burn rate at below 1000m by accident.

It's about 0.6 at cruising.

 

 

 

 

A lot of replies came in at once on my end, hope nobody scrolls over my submission, doubt they could though, I wrote a freaking book XD

Would be my luck though.

Edited by TheTripleAce3

Share this post


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

-snip- 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.

IF you give me 2.5 weeks to get to a proper desktop computer that can handle more than 50 parts of craft, I'd be glad to join as a judge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

IF you give me 2.5 weeks to get to a proper desktop computer that can handle more than 50 parts of craft, I'd be glad to join as a judge!

Great. Most of the turboprop submissions are less than 50 parts, typically between 20 and 30, so if that is what is holding you back you could even start today! I did a few reviews with my laptop, which was only running the game at 1/2 speed with 35 parts or something like that, so don't let that scare you away.

Share this post


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

Great. Most of the turboprop submissions are less than 50 parts, typically between 20 and 30, so if that is what is holding you back you could even start today! I did a few reviews with my laptop, which was only running the game at 1/2 speed with 35 parts or something like that, so don't let that scare you away.

Is there a folder or something with the submissions and stuff in them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

Is there a folder or something with the submissions and stuff in them?

Just sent you a PM with the information you need.

Share this post


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

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.

Sure, gives me some inspiration to play, I'm hella busy with my gmod community ATM so it'd be a breath of fresh air 

Share this post


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

Sure, gives me some inspiration to play, I'm hella busy with my gmod community ATM so it'd be a breath of fresh air 

Added you to the PM with Bob, you should find all you need there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@neistridlar That also gave me the idea to put together about the two silliest planes I could, they do completely opposite things. And since I had these already downloaded, I added a Skots Speedmaster (5 whiplash engines cruises at ~1400m/s and it's a biplane) to the top of a Slinky 152 (Horribly under-powered jet) and expected them to blow up.

No, what happened was it needed the drop at the runway to take off, but that was because the landing gear arrangement needed work, once in the air it actually went pretty well and I flew it south because I forgot if Kerbin has an ice-cap at the south pole.

Spoiler

It does.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've finished fleshing out my design for a midranged small- medium modular plane... 

I think it will work. It looks cool enough, it should go well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CrazyJebGuy Could not sleep tonight, but too tired to be productive still. So I decided to take a look at the GK-6. It does fly nicely. I was impressed by how rigid the fuselage was. I decided to see if I could improve the fuel efficiency. Starting out with a range of 2700km, I noted that the aircraft flew with a nose up attitude of 3.5 degrees, so I added those to the AoI of the main wings. Now for free that improved the range to 3100km. Adding 3 nose cones for practically nothing increased the range even further, to 3800km. I think you are leaving a lot on the table when it comes to fuel efficiency with that design. 

I'm using the aeroGUI from the debug menu to get an accurate readout for the AoA, and the "part angle display" mod to do accurate rotations in the SPH. Takes out most of the guesswork and makes it easy to get efficient quickly.

Share this post


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

@CrazyJebGuy Could not sleep tonight, but too tired to be productive still. So I decided to take a look at the GK-6. It does fly nicely. I was impressed by how rigid the fuselage was. I decided to see if I could improve the fuel efficiency. Starting out with a range of 2700km, I noted that the aircraft flew with a nose up attitude of 3.5 degrees, so I added those to the AoI of the main wings. Now for free that improved the range to 3100km. Adding 3 nose cones for practically nothing increased the range even further, to 3800km. I think you are leaving a lot on the table when it comes to fuel efficiency with that design. 

I'm using the aeroGUI from the debug menu to get an accurate readout for the AoA, and the "part angle display" mod to do accurate rotations in the SPH. Takes out most of the guesswork and makes it easy to get efficient quickly.

I would have thought AoA on the wings made no significant difference, by doing it I'm just pointing the fuselage down a bit and pointing the wings up a bit, still have the same drag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Bottle Rocketeer 500's Hawk 1a

iY7heOW.png

  • Price -:funds: 22,780,000
  • Fuel - 640 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed - 250 meters/second
  • Cruising Altitude - 5000 meters
  • Range - 1250 km

Review:

Excited to receive their first aircraft to review, the engineers at SAI tore open the shipping crate to reveal a sleek, speedy looking plane. The crew were impressed, and left scratching their heads at how the manufacturers managed to combine 3 engines into one, resulting in a maintenance nightmare to remove all the dust, creatures, and empty snack containers that accumulated during its prolonged storage. Rolling it out onto the runway and firing up the aircraft for the first time the test passengers couldn't help but notice how loud the combined system was during taxiing trials, with the combined noise of 6 Juno engines making their presence known through the noiseproof headsets the passengers were issued. Exactly like the manufacturer's sticky note on the dashboard said, the aircraft felt incredibly heavy on the ground, pitching up at ~55 m/s and gaining enough speed for level flight at ~90 m/s. Even Jebidiah was worried about the constant drop of the aircraft unless you had at least a 15 degree pitch.

In the air, there are a few issues that make themselves known. One is the excessive roll control and the lacking pitch control. We had many instances of the aircraft suddenly rolling >90 degrees with just one bump of the control stick, severely decreasing passenger comfort and the stability of the aircraft during flight. Another issue is the incredibly high landing speed. Compared with the takeoff speed of ~55-60 m/s, the minimum speed that you could keep the aircraft lined up for landing was tested to be around 72 m/s. Powerful brakes make sure that this aircraft is still viable for short runway landings, but they may not be able to take off due to the takeoff run of the plane. Something good that we found about the plane is that the range is over 1250 km. While this might not be good compared to some of its competitors, this extends the manufacturer's stated range by nearly 400km.

With 56 parts and 3 engines combined into one, this aircraft is a maintenance nightmare. When you combine the manpower required to keep the 6 Jumo jets running properly, along with the frequent wingstrikes due to the narrow landing gear, we believe that the costs of keeping this aircraft will outweigh any potential profits that it will bring.

Verdict:

We do not believe that we will be purchasing any of these aircraft for customer use due to the poor comfort due to oversensitive control surfaces and the steep maintenance costs associated with the engine setup.  The pilot school may purchase one for an advanced trainer in order to train pilots on how to handle aircraft with handling like it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

-snip-

Good review, but I take issue with the formatting. The OP has an expandable bit below the list of judges, on the old thread it is marked "reveal hidden contenct" and on the new it's "spoiler". Just copy paste that.

Share this post


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

Good review, but I take issue with the formatting. The OP has an expandable bit below the list of judges, on the old thread it is marked "reveal hidden contenct" and on the new it's "spoiler". Just copy paste that.

I appreciate the feedback, but could you please elaborate a small bit more? The only thing that I'm missing from the format layout in the original thread is the Fuel consumption rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

I appreciate the feedback, but could you please elaborate a small bit more? The only thing that I'm missing from the format layout in the original thread is the Fuel consumption rate.

Yes, but you've got an odd font, unusual font sizes. Here is the copy past thing we usually use:

Test Pilot Review:

[picture here]

Figures as Tested:

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

Review Notes:

Don't indent this text.

The Verdict:

 

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.