CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

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

-Snip-

Ok, I'll be sure to try and change that for the next review. Again, thanks for the feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@neistridlar I did angle the wings on the Konig SR, it has about 3070km range now, ~300km more, but the biggest effect was the takeoff run. No longer does it need all the way to the VAB to lift off, it can do it, at about the flagpole! It now has a takeoff typical of a turboprop! Takes off now at ~63m/s whereas before it would be ~95m/s.

By the way, what time is it where you are? Here it's half past nine in the morning.

Share this post


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

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.

Nope, incidence works wonders if tuned for cruise conditions.

(It also tends to make passengers happier if you balance the floor at cruise...)

Share this post


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

@neistridlar I did angle the wings on the Konig SR, it has about 3070km range now, ~300km more, but the biggest effect was the takeoff run. No longer does it need all the way to the VAB to lift off, it can do it, at about the flagpole! It now has a takeoff typical of a turboprop! Takes off now at ~63m/s whereas before it would be ~95m/s.

By the way, what time is it where you are? Here it's half past nine in the morning.

I'm on CET, so it was around 2 at night when I posted. Also, since in stock aero only the mk2 fuselages provide any lift at all, having them perfectly level minimizes drag. The only thing that determines the lift is the AoA of the lifting surfaces, and since the required lift is dependent only on the weight (and orbital velocity), the wings end up flying at the same AoA when you angle them, and thus produce the same drag.

@Bob_Saget54 The review was great. CrazyJebGuy already pointed out the minor formating issues. It would be nice if you included a link to the submission in the review. I usually make the title of the plane into the link, think that looks rather sleek. Also a minor nit pick, proffits is usually what ever is left over of the earnings after all the costs have been accounted for, so the last sentence before the verdict kind of does not make a lot of sense. The point still comes across nicely though.

Edited by neistridlar
Added comment for Bob_Saget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1

9JwN4T3.png

  • Price: :funds:24,440,000
  • Fuel:  1800 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 670m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 4,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.34 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 3,500km

Review:

A proper supersonic plane with swept wings? Have the engineers over at GAI finally gone sane? Nah, surely it cannot be. With the three engines at the back the aircraft shoots to the sky much like you would expect a rocket to do. The aircraft has very little in the ways of bad tendencies in the air, though pitch authority is quite tremendous. During testing, our pilots reported that at supersonic speeds they were able to turn the plane backwards for a short while. Now when the aircraft went subsonic again it quickly recovered, and with the powerful engines, the maneuver proved to be surprisingly safe, even at lower altitudes. We don’t expect to actually be using this maneuver with passengers on board though, the 54Gs just seem a touch excessive. Still, the military might be interested. Imagine pulling this maneuver with a bogey on your tail.

The engineering department were quite surprised when they heard that the recommended cruising altitude was only 4km. At those altitudes the neighbors will surely be annoyed by the sonic booms, So the aircraft will have to be limited to oceanic crossings. It has plenty of range for that purpose though. The mid mounted cockpit makes for quite poor visibility during landing, however our pilots did not seem to have any problem with it. When we asked them how they could see the runway, they simply said, they didn’t, they just lined up the plane so that they could not see the runway, that way they were guaranteed to hit it every time. And with a landing speed of only 40m/s the stopping distance was quite short as well, and that is without the thrust reversers. This aircraft should be quite suitable for short field operations. The aircraft is however quite long and wide, so it cannot operate from cramped airports.

How was the ride for the passengers then? Well, the front is about as good as it gets in such a small fuselage, with just a faint vibration from the engines at the back reminding you that you are on a plane. The passengers reported that seeing the landscape whizzing by at this kind of speed and altitude was quite mesmerizing as well. In the rear things are a little bit worse, but not at all bad. The view is not as nice because of the big wings, and the vibrations from the engines are quite a bit more pronounced. Now the Dublup is priced fairly reasonably, but what it offers in low price it makes up for in fuel consumption. With its 38 parts and 3 engines the maintenance cost should be pretty average. Over all the expenses should be pretty much average.

The verdict:
With business class in front and economy in the back and the low cruising altitude we think there should be some short to medium range oceanic routes where this one makes sense as a commuter’s plane. After all the grass is always greener on the other side of the pond, so why not cross it twice a day? We will be buying 4 of these as a pilot project, but we will keep our options open for more if it proves to be a popular choice.

Edited by neistridlar
fixed title

Share this post


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

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1

9JwN4T3.png

  • Price: :funds:24,440,000
  • Fuel:  1800 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 670m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 4,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.34 Kallons/sec
  • Range: 3,500km

Review:

A proper supersonic plane with swept wings? Have the engineers over at GAI finally gone sane? Nah, surely it cannot be. With the three engines at the back the aircraft shoots to the sky much like you would expect a rocket to do. The aircraft has very little in the ways of bad tendencies in the air, though pitch authority is quite tremendous. During testing, our pilots reported that at supersonic speeds they were able to turn the plane backwards for a short while. Now when the aircraft went subsonic again it quickly recovered, and with the powerful engines, the maneuver proved to be surprisingly safe, even at lower altitudes. We don’t expect to actually be using this maneuver with passengers on board though, the 54Gs just seem a touch excessive. Still, the military might be interested. Imagine pulling this maneuver with a bogey on your tail.

The engineering department were quite surprised when they heard that the recommended cruising altitude was only 4km. At those altitudes the neighbors will surely be annoyed by the sonic booms, So the aircraft will have to be limited to oceanic crossings. It has plenty of range for that purpose though. The mid mounted cockpit makes for quite poor visibility during landing, however our pilots did not seem to have any problem with it. When we asked them how they could see the runway, they simply said, they didn’t, they just lined up the plane so that they could not see the runway, that way they were guaranteed to hit it every time. And with a landing speed of only 40m/s the stopping distance was quite short as well, and that is without the thrust reversers. This aircraft should be quite suitable for short field operations. The aircraft is however quite long and wide, so it cannot operate from cramped airports.

How was the ride for the passengers then? Well, the front is about as good as it gets in such a small fuselage, with just a faint vibration from the engines at the back reminding you that you are on a plane. The passengers reported that seeing the landscape whizzing by at this kind of speed and altitude was quite mesmerizing as well. In the rear things are a little bit worse, but not at all bad. The view is not as nice because of the big wings, and the vibrations from the engines are quite a bit more pronounced. Now the Dublup is priced fairly reasonably, but what it offers in low price it makes up for in fuel consumption. With its 38 parts and 3 engines the maintenance cost should be pretty average. Over all the expenses should be pretty much average.

The verdict:
With business class in front and economy in the back and the low cruising altitude we think there should be some short to medium range oceanic routes where this one makes sense as a commuter’s plane. After all the grass is always greener on the other side of the pond, so why not cross it twice a day? We will be buying 4 of these as a pilot project, but we will keep our options open for more if it proves to be a popular choice.

The bad formatting is contagious! I should not have submitted the Konig in Comic Sans....

But seriously, where on Kerbin was that photo taken? I want to go there.

Share this post


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

The bad formatting is contagious! I should not have submitted the Konig in Comic Sans....

But seriously, where on Kerbin was that photo taken? I want to go there.

Ah, the title is not done propperly, will fix asap. The location is a mountain range along the coast north of KSC. approximately near the first bay after the one next to KSC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone overboard... 

I built a 40 passenger jet that takes off at less than thirty meters per second.

And it's powered by two weasleys.

I love biplanes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

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.

 

 

Great review dude, it's well written and you can tell you've been thinking whilst doing it, not just throwing words together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bob_Saget54 your name isn't inspired by Homeworlds Karen Saget is it?

God darn phone

Edited by KenjiKrafts
Phones not the best for posting stuff

Share this post


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

@Bob_Saget54 your name isn't inspired by Homeworlds Karen Saget is it?

God darn phone

Actually no, it was inspired by the famed "Tourettes Guy", who I was a huge fan of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

I've gone overboard... 

I built a 40 passenger jet that takes off at less than thirty meters per second.

And it's powered by two weasleys.

I love biplanes now.

Glad somebody finally agrees with me. Biplanes are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If y’all need more judges, I think I can review a few planes. Not sure how my computer will handle the downloads, but otherwise I can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kerbus K-250 is the ideal turboprop, for tapping into low volume routes, that would be infeasible with other planes. It is cheap, at 10,841,000. The Weasley engine makes the plane extremely fuel efficient, at 0.0069 KPPM. At 22 parts maintenance is also low. In addition, it has thrust reverser (activated by AG1), which enables the plane to land on smaller airfields.

screenshot35.png

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-250

Eco. cruising speed: 200 m/s @6200m range: 1200km
Max. cruising speed: 320m/s @8800m

Notes:
The plane is a little underpowered below 60m/s. For taking off, do not use flaps. Pull up gently (about 5 degrees nose up) at 48m/s. Retract the landing gear when the speed reaches 60m/s, in case the plane drops back to the runway. The pilot may then pitch up further.

Share this post


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

If y’all need more judges, I think I can review a few planes. Not sure how my computer will handle the downloads, but otherwise I can do it.

I'm sure we could do with a few more, the cue is currently ~90 submissions long. I see you have submitted a 68 part plane, most of the planes are less than this, so I would not worry about computer performance. I will tel you like I have done others. Read a bunch of the previous reviews, so you get a feel of how to score the planes. Also download and try out several of the planes, and see if you come to more or less the same conclusions as previous reviews. It might be a good Idea to skim through the thread(s) to see what has been discussed before about the judging. Once you feel that you are ready to do some reviews just send a PM to any of the active judges, they should be able to give you all you need.

Share this post


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

Glad somebody finally agrees with me. Biplanes are good.

Only problem is the price, it's :funds:35,875,000.

Share this post


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

Only problem is the price, it's :funds:35,875,000.

but the control is amazing

Share this post


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

I'm sure we could do with a few more, the cue is currently ~90 submissions long. I see you have submitted a 68 part plane, most of the planes are less than this, so I would not worry about computer performance. I will tel you like I have done others. Read a bunch of the previous reviews, so you get a feel of how to score the planes. Also download and try out several of the planes, and see if you come to more or less the same conclusions as previous reviews. It might be a good Idea to skim through the thread(s) to see what has been discussed before about the judging. Once you feel that you are ready to do some reviews just send a PM to any of the active judges, they should be able to give you all you need.

Thanks! Will do.

Share this post


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

but the control is amazing

It rolls over slower than a tipped cow trying to get back up...

But the pitch control is rediculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent testing of our Supersonic Jumbo has been... Eventful.

0D69E5004CFC2079D0FC184C6D11C3FA3EE5F9F7

Note: the giant segment of wing flying towards the camera has totally not injured the cameraman.

Edited by Kernel Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @ItCameFromDuna's J4NK37-A5S

hSFmd2r.png

  • Price: :funds:18,220,000
  • Fuel:  1160 Kallons
  • Cruising Speed: 320m/s*
  • Cruising Altitude: 2,000-3,000m*
  • Fuel Burn Rate: 0.16 Kallons/sec*
  • Range:  2,300km*

Review:

The first things the engineers noticed when they were giving this aircraft the once-over were the large intakes on the wingtips. They surmised this must mean the aircraft was designed for high altitude where the air is thin, however the flight manual suggested otherwise. There were apparently no controls in the cockpit for the thrust reverser and engine shutoff, so a couple struts were re-purposed as makeshift control linkages.

During preflight checks, the test pilot grumbled a bit about the trend of linking all control surfaces to all inputs, but otherwise these went well. Takeoff performance was good, and in the air, the J4NK flew nicely for the most part. The large wingtip fuel tanks give it a rather high moment of inertia in the roll axis, so while roll rate is good, one has to plan in advance. Maneuverability was otherwise good.

*The plane did perform as specified at the cruising altitudes found in the manual, however the pilot had a suspicion that the aircraft might be more fuel efficient at a higher altitude. So donned his oxygen mask, opened the depressurization valves (he was unsure what pressure differential the hull was rated for), and began to climb. Eventually he found the aircraft could cruise nicely at 6.4km at a speed of 274m/s. While this is significantly slower than the rated cruise speed, it cut the fuel burn rate in half, increasing the range by a little over 1000km. The pilot was later informed that the hull was quite strong and there was no need to depressurize for flight at those altitudes. KEA's engineers suspect the range could be improved even further by virtue of drag reduction if the wings were given an angle of incidence of about 3 degrees or so relative to the fuselage and the wingtip pods were given aerodynamic trailing edge fairings.

Landing may require a little pilot training as the wingtip fuel tanks make it easy set up a pilot-induced roll oscillation, however as the gear are also located at the wingtips, this is only an issue of passenger comfort and not of risk to the aircraft.

All this being said, the aircraft is already very economical. The 32 parts and single engine are easy on the maintenance front, and fuel costs are average despite the high cruise speed. On a test flight with passengers, a few in the rear compartment complained some noise and vibration (albeit dampened) coming through the fuel tank into the cabin, however they stated it was not at all bad for the prices displayed on sample tickets.

The verdict:

KEA sees much potential in this aircraft for low cost operation between small to moderately sized airports with solid runways as a commuter's plane. It will order 7 and keep options open for more if it proves popular, and if the wing's angle of incidence can be optimized.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

374831C631E3E523AD5C85082DA87FFC483970B7

It's not very cheap, but I think when I get home I'll put it here. Two Juno's for fuel efficiency, and it's a biplane...

Ill call it the B-40-24 (Biplane, 40 passengers, takeoff speed- sub 24 meters per second).

I also made a small personal transport triplane, say, for getting a pilot to the airport. It's also very, very maneuverable... So it could be used for publicity stunts. The extended range variant can also make it to the Antarctic:

9542B338BC151B3CD7283709EFBE384FAAA2A342 but I forgot to set thrust reversers to action groups. Jeb is now stranded.

 

Edited by Kernel Kraken

Share this post


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

-snip-

But Juno engines don't have thrust reversers?

Share this post


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

But Juno engines don't have thrust reversers?

The triplane has a Wheasley mounted on the front, so it's automatically set to be reversed. I forgot to set an action group for the "OH $%^# THE WINGS FELL OFF AND WE'RE PLUMMETING INTO A VOLCANO AT FOUR THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR!" brakes.

Edited by Kernel Kraken

Share this post


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

The triplane has a Wheasley mounted on the front, so it's automatically set to be reversed. I forgot to set an action group though.

That's not called a thrust reverser, although usually done with Whiplashes, that's called the "OH $%^# THE WINGS FELL OFF AND WE'RE PLUMMETING INTO A VOLCANO AT FOUR THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR!" brakes, to use the technical term.

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.