Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[TheTripleAce3]

If I was half of the writer that you guys are then I'd make the reviews

I definitely have the computer for most of the craft, just not the mods (I'm a noobish one, ya see)

Also happy 500th reply to this thread

Edited May 4, 2018 by TheTripleAce3
Happy 500

[CrazyJebGuy]

4 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

They have a pretty long backlog to sift through, but I don't think they necessarily do reviews in chronological order.

No, we absolutely do not. We give priority to older submissions, but absolutely not chronological.

[Andetch]

ADX - CJG

Because we care.........

We had some advice from @CrazyJebGuy who seemed insistent that our G-Type Seaplane needed to have the passenger cabins closer to the ground, and it didn't take off at a high enough speed..... Or at least that's what we thought he said? We are not really sure, it was the Kat's birthday and we were all on the Ol' Kerbal Janx Tonic and Pan Kerbalatic Garble Blasters...... But we tried really hard to make something to those specs... So here it is...

Performance wise we are not so sure about anything, we think it could meet the turbo-prop cat for range, and as CJG said the takeoff speed wasn't fast enough on the G-Type we made sure this one won't lift off until at least 150 m/s, and the passenger cabins are a close to the floor as we could get.

As far as it goes for cruise altitude, our pilots found that once airborne, and pointed in the right direction - it was best not to mess about with the controls trying to get it to a set altitude, so we didn't test. We're sure CJG will agree - once up it doesn't matter?

We recommend only terminally ill, mentally unstable or suicidal kerbals fly in this thing, but what the hell?

https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/ADX-CJG

Edited May 4, 2018 by Andetch

[TheTripleAce3]

@Andetch Just wondering, why is the cockpit mounted so high? The pilot must be scared to death not being able to see downwards past those engines.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 hours ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

@Andetch Just wondering, why is the cockpit mounted so high? The pilot must be scared to death not being able to see downwards past those engines.

I think that's the point.

[Andetch]

Not really sure.... Ask Crazy Jeb Guy, he was the one who mentioned something about pilots, and restricted views on some other designs.... We figured there are instruments in the cockpit, and pilots are trained to fly on instruments alone in case of poor visibility like dense fog - so why does the pilot need to see out at all? Surely that's what was meant? There is an intercom so the pilot can hear cabin noise and make flight judgements based on the volume of screaming from the passenger cabins so really we don't think visibility is an issue with this one.

Again, we're on the Ol' Janx and Garble Blasters, so our interpretation of the design specs might change once sober.... (yeah right, who wants to be sober while playing ksp?)

We're also gonna work on some more wingless designs of this concept as we're sure removing wings will save the airlines money!

Edited May 7, 2018 by Andetch

[CrazyJebGuy]

19 minutes ago, Andetch said:

We're also gonna work on some more wingless designs of this concept as we're sure removing wings will save the airlines money!

I tried removing the seats, turns out the airlines don't want a bunch of people all bouncing about in a metal box!

[Andetch]

I saw that... I remember reading the weight of all the kerbals bouncing around really messed with the handling too! 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Andetch said:

I saw that... I remember reading the weight of all the kerbals bouncing around really messed with the handling too! 

Yes it did, but a liberal amount of control authority can keep the plane level.

Remember, this is uber-economy, it doesn't even matter if the plane is constantly pulling 2.5g turns, so far as comfort is concerned.

[Kernel Kraken]

6 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Yes it did, but a liberal amount of control authority can keep the plane level.

Remember, this is uber-economy, it doesn't even matter if the plane is constantly pulling 2.5g turns, so far as comfort is concerned.

Uber economy? I have an idea...

And no, purposeful endangerment of Kerbals is not illegal.

[Artienia]

Janet's Sima Jaguar 40 Regional Jet
Janet's first plane on the market!

 

Janet (Just another non-existing termal) is the newest airplane company on Kerbin! With us, you can travel safe and comfortably!
pls buy us


Company name: Janet
Series: Sima
Model: Jaguar
Variant: 40
Type: Small Regional Jet

Tested Altitude: 1300-1200
Fuel Consumption: 0.17
Speed: 310m/s
Range: 1229km

Cost: 16 652 000
Fuel Capacity: 674 Kallons
Part Count: 18

This plane is cheap, low-maintance, has a good speed and range and also very comfy. What else do you need? It can also tilt and turn easily, the only thing to look out is to never get your turning speed below 70 as this plane will spiral out of controll, but we belive all planes are like it, so not it's a huge thing.
Although it is hard to take off, but just below 80 (78-79m/s) it, while won't float can be tilted to lift off. You must be very carefull
as the end of the plane could be exploded, but this has not happened to us. This Small Regional Jet (SRJ) can carry 40 passangers in a relatively high comfort. The Engine is not that loud, the view is not obstructed and it is overall cool.

If you are interested in ordering The Jaguar 40, please do this at Our Home Page
 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Artienia

[CrazyJebGuy]

 Eh, who cares about chronological order. I'll review this plane now.

Test Pilot Review: @Artienia's Janet Sima Jaguar 40

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 16,646,000
• Fuel: 674 kallons
• Cruising speed: 327 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1200 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.15 kal/s
• Range: 1,469 km

Review Notes:

 Janet is the newest airline company, a title all airline companies once held, just not all of them for long. And this is their newest design. It is so new, in fact, that we found an engineer's coffee in it, still warm. Expensive mug though, we'll mail it back. Luckily Shepdin put his name on it.

 Anyway, the plane itself has some interesting design going on, seeming to decide rudders and tail-fins are for the birds. And two very expensive supersonic intakes, this plane isn't that fast surely?

What makes the choice of intake more unusual is that on takeoff, the engine gets almost no air. The cockpit's inbuilt guage reads only 12% for a while until the plane builds up some speed. Even at takeoff speed, 80m/s, the engine is only supplied enough air for half power, and it takes a fair chunk of runway to get up to that speed. And it can tailstrike, not very easily but pilots should pay attention.

At cruise speed it can just go supersonic, although we dialed off the throttle a bit and got it to stabilize at 327m/s, just 3m/s below the speed limit for small regional jets. This one is as fast as they come. 1200m is a very low altitude to cruise at, and the views there are spectacular, but we didn't think it was very fuel efficient. So we took it up to 4,500m, even though the range is fairly good at 1200m.

Well, we tried. We got it up to 4500m, but when we tried to level off it sort of started spinning, we think maybe for the reason that it has no vertical stabilizer, since during turn down the plane had changed course a few degrees south, we turned it a bit north. But due to the lack of any rudder, we had to do a full elevator turn. Which didn't work, because then the nose sort of swung about and we ended up descending vertically at 60m/s, rotating. For purposes of getting out of a spin and not crashing and destroying the prototype, we would have liked a rudder, or at least a vertical stabilizer. This in combination with the huge flaps seems quite dangerous to us.

Anyway after we had fished Genedock Kerman out of the sea, he told us it was a fairly comfortable plane, with good views and few vibrations, and generally quiet; the rear cabins are an exception to this rule though, since the engine is so close behind them they are suited only for 3rd class seating.

Maintenance wise we believe Janet that it is cheap, 18 parts and as a bonus we don't need to do any maintenance if it crashes.

The Verdict:

We think it could be easily improved, but as it is we simply aren't interested. It's a dangerous plane and requires a large, expensive runway.

[TheTripleAce3]

That was quick for a review O_o

[CrazyJebGuy]

50 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

That was quick for a review O_o

I'm going to do another one, and time myself. Always wondered how much time it takes.

[CrazyJebGuy]

This took me about an hour.

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's ADX - CJG

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 26,326,000
• Fuel: 2000 kallons
• Cruising altitude: probably this number starts with an eight m
• Range: 4,866 km
• Cruising speed: 572 m/s
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s

Review Notes:

In them spirit of the creators company, this review will be done without full mental capacity. So starting off, it looks kinda wierd. But that's okay, cause nobody will [please pretend i thought up a reason - there is one i swear i just can't write it]. And so then we went and tried to fly it, but then we said it looks awesome with huge engines, but still weird.

By the way there is little wheels in the wing-tips, and they were put on backwards, so the pilot thought the plane had a reverse gear, and he took off backwards. But then he scored a nose-strike, and the plane sort of tumbled about and the wings and stuff fell off, so for takeoff this plane scores a backwards C, since it looks kinda like a G, that stands for 'Good'.

So then we fixed it and told him not to try reverse gear, and it took off at 155m/s, which is really fast and probably unsafe, but it has seat-belts so it's fine.

Oh and it takes a big airport, but who actually cares about the tiny towns and so on which don't even have a big airport?

In the sky it's really fast and at 2km up it goes 567m/s with a range of 1,410 km according to the maths i did on pen and paper. It could go faster but the engines were getting really hot and would probably blow up so we went higher. But than we went lower again because the wings caught fire and fell off.

Then it hit the sea and all the passenger compartments survived hitting the water at 69m/s, those are some fine seat belts. So this plane gets an A+ for safeness because what other plane can crash land in the sea with no wings?

The Andetch Ltd Company has said the altitude doesn't even matter, and didn't put in an altimeter. And we kind of agree, so all the altitudes here could be wrong by up to an error bar of 100%. We also like how it flies, it's a bit slow to turn but it doesn't spin or anything and it's an passenger plane anyway it won't need to do acrobatics, but it would be fun.

Way up at high altitude, it's quite zippy and has a very long range and is fuel efficient, and the passengers are comfortable because of the very stable plane, the good, unobstructed views and lack of noise or vibrations. And then one stupid passenger complained his coffee cup was the wrong colour and got really annoyed at the (I forgot what they are called but one of those ladies on planes who serves drinks and such) over a stupid reason and so the sky waitress drank it herself to annoy him even more.

Oh yeah it flies very well up there, and it has a stupendous range! It could circle-navigate Kerbin if it weren't flat!

And it lands nicely. We accidentally slowed it down to ~50m/s with the thrust reversers before landing, and it stopped in a really short space easily and that was great. It's also cheap to maintain, having only thirty parts, and although it's a bit on the expensive side, we think it will long term work pretty well.

The Verdict:

Ww=How do I backspace? U,,mm oh,, andyway, we really like it and since KEA needs a nbunch of planes we'd like to buy about 18, cause it's good. And about 18, any number between 20 and 16.5 is good.

As a bonus because the passengers are so close to the ground we save money on ladders.

Edited May 6, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
I forgot to write the price.

[neistridlar]

@CrazyJebGuy Wait, what?! Are we doing reverse chronological order now?

[CrazyJebGuy]

7 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

@CrazyJebGuy Wait, what?! Are we doing reverse chronological order now?

I am. But I won't stick to that order, I just sort of so whatever. I've been doing that for a while. You do whatever order you like.

[TaRebelSheep]

C'mon guys let's keep it sane and sensible.

 

[Artienia]

Scroll a little further to get my new plane

Edited May 6, 2018 by Artienia

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, Artienia said:

Now, Out of character, I tried to change the elevons, intakes, fuel tanks, gears and more. Almost every time it couldn't take off below 80m/s, only this version worked. The take off method is the same, just below 80m/s The range is slightly better, but in the previous one i claimed 1229 and in the test pilot review it came out as 1469km so i have no idea how accurute it is.

Did you try moving the landing gear? I would expect an aircraft with that big wings be able to take off as slow as 40-50m/s. Things to try. Move the main gear forward until the aircraft starts to tip backwards on it's own, then move it back till it sops tipping. Also make sure that the wings are angled upwards slightly while on the ground, so you don't have to fight the down force from the wings to rotate.

[Kernel Kraken]

Just now, neistridlar said:

Did you try moving the landing gear? I would expect an aircraft with that big wings be able to take off as slow as 40-50m/s. Things to try. Move the main gear forward until the aircraft starts to tip backwards on it's own, then move it back till it sops tipping. Also make sure that the wings are angled upwards slightly while on the ground, so you don't have to fight the down force from the wings to rotate.

If you can get wing and landing gear placement right you can get relatively massive planes to take off at around 40M/S, or you could not and have your relatively large plane explode on loading...

 

 

 

[Artienia]

2 minutes ago, Kernel Kraken said:

If you can get wing and landing gear placement right you can get relatively massive planes to take off at around 40M/S, or you could not and have your relatively large plane explode on loading...

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Did you try moving the landing gear? I would expect an aircraft with that big wings be able to take off as slow as 40-50m/s. Things to try. Move the main gear forward until the aircraft starts to tip backwards on it's own, then move it back till it sops tipping. Also make sure that the wings are angled upwards slightly while on the ground, so you don't have to fight the down force from the wings to rotate.

I tried that but not much happened. If you download the plane and try to place a gear on the wing, you see the original was moved.

[neistridlar]

27 minutes ago, Artienia said:

 

I tried that but not much happened. If you download the plane and try to place a gear on the wing, you see the original was moved.

I downloaded the latest model, and played around with it a little. Moved the nose gear forward a little, because it already had more than enough nose up. Moved the main gear forward til it was just a tad behind the CoL, also moved them more inboard, so they would still be under the wing. Also moved them down a little, and moved the entire wing down a little as well, to gain more tail clearance. With a little bit of expert piloting I was able to take off at 50m/s, though waiting for 60m/s would probably be advisable, as the aircraft did struggle to climb at that speed. Anyhow, it is doable.

[Artienia]

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I downloaded the latest model, and played around with it a little. Moved the nose gear forward a little, because it already had more than enough nose up. Moved the main gear forward til it was just a tad behind the CoL, also moved them more inboard, so they would still be under the wing. Also moved them down a little, and moved the entire wing down a little as well, to gain more tail clearance. With a little bit of expert piloting I was able to take off at 50m/s, though waiting for 60m/s would probably be advisable, as the aircraft did struggle to climb at that speed. Anyhow, it is doable.

Little wonky but it works! Time to make a third variant with your name on it....

[Artienia]

Janet's Sima Jaguar 40b Regional Jet
Janet's newest plane on the market!

 

Better than ever!
now it can actually take off

Because we here at Janet tried multiple altitudes, we are; instead of writing down will show you a chart

Janet's Newest plane, the Sima Jaguar 40b (Small Regional) tries to smooth out all the flaws of 40a while keeping all the good stuff. The view, crew and fuel capacity is the same and speed has been slightly improved. We added Rudders and removed the expensive air intake and added a cheaper and better intake. We reduced the noise with a noise-absorbant wall. Also we would like to thank Shepdin for autogramming our pilot's new mug.
Now, Out of character, I tried to change the elevons, intakes, fuel tanks, gears and more. Almost every time it couldn't take off below 80m/s, only this version worked.
Thanks to @neistridlar the plane can now take off below 80! Originally with the large flaps it could lift at 30m/s, and take off at around 60-65m/s. Now i reduced the flapsize (thus cost). Due to this it can take off at 70m/s, but that is still pretty good. The range is slightly better, but in the previous one i claimed 1229km and in the test pilot review it came out as 1469km so i have no idea how accurute it is. Also I don't reccomend the 4th tier, the 8k one as it is so slow and pithes down due to it being slow.

If you are interested in ordering The Jaguar 40b, please do this at Our Home Page

Edited May 6, 2018 by Artienia