CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

Habu Industries Presents:

the Queen of the skies it's not a 747 what are you talking about

FFFgnWpl.jpg

(The Queen, above)

and its sibling

MaYXIKsl.jpg

(The Queen Lite, on the runway)

V1cQcpTl.jpg4NjEq2Ml.jpg

f3ejUbFl.jpgeFvx1cLl.jpg

Let's talk specs:

The Habu Industries Queen is a luxury, first and business class only airliner, with a whopping 256 seats, of which 64 are first class on the top deck, and a 4000km+ range with whisper-quiet cruise at 4500m and 220m/s

AG1: Thrust Reversers; AG2/3: Flaps

Take-off speed: 60m/s

The Habu Industries Queen Lite is the natural extension of the Queen that caters to the masses. The top deck is preserved for business and first class travelers, but the bottom deck has been replaced with economy cabins, seating a total of 64+480 passengers for a total of 544 seats. Range had to be cut to accommodate the extra passengers, with a range of 2500km+

Take off speed: 70m/s

Cruise: 3000m @ 210m/s

For the low, low price of 147 million funds, you can get your own luxury liner of the decade. If you haven't won the lottery and want something more sensible, the Queen Lite is available for 100 million!

Get yours today! Only available for preorder on our website

mX8SBZn.jpg

Please buy it we crashed like 3 of them just trying to take the pictures >.<

 

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NightshineRecorralis Really nice plane, I have a more a380-like plane constructed in the same way.

Still, that will come a little bit later.

Kerbobulus Aerospace presents:

The KS-800

fxu5l5x.jpeg

Stats:

Category: Jumbo

Price: :funds:117,764,000 (Wet)

Range: 4,040km

Cruising Speed: 210m/s

Cruising Altitude: 8,000m

Use: Long transoceanic flights such as New Kerbin City to Lundin. This plane offers economy, comfort, and speed, ideal for passengers who want to cross the ocean, cheaply, safely, and quickly. It is recommended that the first two cabins have premium economy and/or business class and/or first class and the other five contain economy class.

You can acquire this plane at the following website:

http://kerbalx.com/crafts/49487

IMGUR ALBUM:

https://imgur.com/gallery/4Q7m2hW

 

 

Edited by Bottle Rocketeer 500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites R-Wing-80/96

Thanks for the great review Nightshine! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites R-Wing-112/128

JKw6cRNl.jpgqbQOcT8l.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: 41,356,000/42,456,000
  • Fuel: 1200 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 215m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 8500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.13/0.15kal/s
  • Range:  2000km Max, 1700km usually/1750km Max, 1500km usually

Review Notes:

 

As a stretch of the R-80/96 we liked, both the R-112 and the R-128 are on the large side of the R-wing series, and it shows. Will they be as loved as their smaller brethren? Let’s find out.

We decided to take the R-128 out for a spin, and our pilots immediately noticed the difference in handling, even when compared to the R-96 they flew yesterday. Like the others in the R-wing series, the R-112 and the R-128 are equipped with a single KP-12 “Bear” contrarotating turboprop, providing a maximum of 150kN of thrust, and a spare cockpit up front that has been stripped down and reconfigured for passenger entertainment purposes. The overall design has not changed, but it seems Skaled Komposites started to run into engine limitations with such a large craft when compared to the other end of the spectrum.

 

Overview:

The landing gear we praised last time has been preserved, and for a large turboprop aircraft such as this one, it certainly helps. Our pilots tested the brakes and suspension to its limits with hot and fast landings. The structural rigidity of the airframe also was not compromised with the stretch, and tailstrikes are still nigh on impossible. The ascent was slower than the smaller models, no doubt due to the aircraft reaching the upper limits on the KP-12. Cruise was achieved in 5 minutes in the R-112 and 6 minutes in the R-128. Both have meagre at best acceleration at takeoff, and both have a distinct nose up attitude at cruise.

Thankfully, the engine remains quiet at altitude, though it is noticeably louder than the smaller R-wings. Fuel consumption was also worse, as expected with a larger craft with the same engine. While the R-80/96 were perfectly capable with the “Bear”, a “Lotus” would be really appreciated on a larger airframe. These planes both manage the recommended range for a medium regional airliner, but only just. A long range airliner this is not. Not that it matters, anyway. It is clear that these crafts cater to short fat routes between cities, and for that purpose, they perform excellently.

For our praise and criticisms, they remain identical to the R-80/96. The engine choice is questionable, but for the lower perceived cabin noise, it might be worth it. Cabin comfort is above average and gets better the further forward the seat is. Maintenance is simplified by the use of the same parts across the series, with good engine placement but okay propellor clearance. If anything, the R-112/128 are more efficient than the smaller R-wings, at the cost of a slower ascent, higher operating noise, and longer takeoff run. In return, you get a good performing aircraft with great relative cost per seat, and most passengers won’t even notice the difference.

 

The Verdict:

The R-112/128 are great aircraft provided you can fill the seats, and in conjunction with the R-80/96, the high end of the R-wing series suddenly makes a lot of sense for those high density inter-city routes. Tourists will be happy at the lower price these planes enable us to offer, and business travelers will be happy of the great cabin experience they receive. Given the only major cost is the initial purchase price, it will be negated by the reliability and easy maintenance over service. Placing an order for 12 each, plus an updated order of 20 R-80/96s to accompany them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's Andetch Industries ADX-WFTWT

emfsmo6.jpg

(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:78,970,000
  • Fuel: 1780 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 280/750m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 2500/5900m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.28/1.5ishkal/s
  • Range: 1500/900km

Review Notes:

Let's keep it short, shall we? 

In theory, what Andetch Industries has done makes sense... to a point. Less wings equals less drag, right? But also less room for fuel, more emphasis on lifting bodies, etc.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Did you hear that? That was the sound the pilots and passengers were making as they flew by. For good reason, too. The roll controls are super overpowered compared to the pitch and yaw was practically non-functional. Takeoff was hard - trying to yank the stick back resulted in the loss of both engines and the bottom set of rear stabilizers. Waiting too long earns you a dramatic loss of control as the shocks decide they don't want to live on this planet anymore. 115m/s was the sweet spot, we found.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Oh, here they come again, hope they can land that thing. It's hard, but not impossible. Touchdown was generally survivable around 105m/s. Anything less than 90 leaves no speed for control, and anything above 120 generally means no room for stopping. Still, in order to land, you gotta fly first. In flight, the cabins are pretty comfortable, minus the screaming. Actually, if the pilots do absolutely everything right, there's very little of that. That occurs about once every 50 flights or so, according to our simulator.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Was that a loop? Anyway, the high price of the aircraft means high ticket prices, and if our test pilots have shown us anything, it's that they gotta be super expensive to cover all that insurance, plane, and potentially infrastructure. At least maintenance won't be an issue.

Not recommended - 7/7 passengers tell us they'd like a winged aircraft instead. And maybe one that can actually make it to the destination.

 

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there go my plans for the weekend :)

Anyway, if anyone reading this would like to judge planes, y'all can feel free to jump in! It's fun (for the first couple, at least XD) and not that much pressure - it doesn't have to be serious or silly, just do what feels right!

If you think this is interesting and something you want to do, read a couple of reviews from different judges and try a plane that has been reviewed before. See how it feels and give your opinion!

Also we need help holy crap there's a ton of planes to go through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Slab 2592

JzJoHTql.jpgigwuEJnl.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: 1,481,208,000
  • Fuel: 75,600 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 215m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6,400m
  • Fuel burn rate: 1.4kal/s
  • Range:  11500km Max, 10500km usually

Review Notes:

Boy oh boy were we excited when we saw the giant box show up at our doorstep. Noting the “This Side Up” and “Fragile” stickers, we unboxed the mammoth plane with due care. Once we maneuvered the thing into our hangar, we started going over preflight checks immediately, as our pilots could hardly keep themselves contained. The Slab is powered by 8 J-90 “Goliath” engines, each producing a maximum of 360kN of thrust for a total of 2880kN for the whole craft. The Slab seat 2592 is its standard configuration, but contrary to its name, it appears quite box-like. We admired the giant dual rows of landing gear as well as the mass of struts holding the whole thing together.

We started with low level flight, wanting to see how the plane would handle the tight maneuvers required by many airports. Liftoff was sprightly at 45m/s at around the administration complex, under what was advertised, and thanks to the many control surfaces, the aircraft handled like a champ, more like a business jet than a super-jumbo. The advertiser’s recommendation of 5Gs seems to be selling the plane short, as we were are to push 7Gs easily in loops.

Climbing up to altitude, we found that the aircraft had sluggish climb performance, no doubt due to the high takeoff mass. In fact, at a 7 degree climb (about 20m/s), the plane never was able to exceed 160m/s. We’d like Neist Air’s support in figuring out how to get the most speed during climb out of the Slab. As the plane climbs, it loses quite a bit of speed, and so that all has to be regained once it reaches altitude. Cruise altitude was reached after 9 minutes, but cruising speed took another 8 minutes. The nose starts out quite level, and as flight continues it dips beneath the horizon. With an average fuel consumption of 1.4kal/s at cruise, coupled with the massive fuel load, means the Slab has a very respectable or even somewhat ludicrous range of over 10000km. We feel that converting the Slab to a premium long-distance workhorse seems plausible. Our patrons will certainly appreciate arriving at their destinations refreshed.

In terms of cabin comfort, the noise generated by the Goliaths are quite noticeable as they are worked to their full potential carrying this huge plane. The engines are fairly close to the fuselage, though the noise and vibrations are dampened significantly by the supports and the inclusion of fuel tanks as a mass damper. Engine outages shouldn’t be a major issue either, as the Slab can fly on only 4 engines, provided there isn’t more than 2 Goliaths’ difference between either side. The landing performance is inline with the takeoff - short, which is great for airport compatibility. The safety of the Slab has to be emphasized, too, as not only can it handle losing half its engines, but it can also survive a ditching with no significant damage to speak of. We confirmed this both in our simulator and (don’t tell our investors this) the sample aircraft Neist Air provided us!

We were thoroughly impressed by the Slab’s performance, but where it compromises is in price. At an eye-watering 1.5 billion funds, that’s no small sum to pay for this plane. Add to that the maintenance costs are no small fee either, but all in all, the majority of the costs associated with the Slab is with its purchase price. Though, to be fair, it has great efficiency, and a great performer in all of our tests. It also has no real competition, and we’re sure we can find a way to consolidate some of the busiest flights we have into a fewer number of flights (See here), while providing an even better experience than its competitors.

The Verdict:

To assess viability in high volume high density air routes, we will lease 2 in a hopefully not futile attempt to convince our passengers that they do want to go to a random city just for fun. The large fuel load may allow for quicker turnaround times at the gate, and even allows the Slab to act as a tanker when fuel prices rise!

Edited by NightshineRecorralis
Formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bottle Rocketeer 500

Great! @neistridlar probably has more info about this than I do, but here's the gist (I guess) for your trial review. Go find a plane that has already been reviewed and one that you know your system can run (For example, if you're on an ultrabook, don't grab a 500+ part plane) and go test it out!

Useful characteristics that are objective would be takeoff speed and distance, stall speed, landing speed (kinda hard to test but a ballpark is usually enough), cruising altitude and speed (supplied with manual, or just find one that seems reasonable), and more! There are some objective categories like engine noise and cabin comfort, but the general idea is this: The higher the relative cost of a cabin, the better it is, the further away from a cabin an engine is, the better, the lower the power setting of the engine(s) in flight, the better. Bearable to least bearable (from my own experience and TOTALLY BIASED): Turboprops, piston engines, jet engines (bigger diameter = better, turbofan better than turbojet), turboshafts (we don't use these), afterburning turbofans/jets, rocket engines. If you go supersonic sound doesn't matter unless the exhaust of the engine is in front of any or all cabins (see Concorde vs Tu-144 - turbojet vs afterburning turbojet).

There are many things I take into account but not all of it makes it into the final review as I personally aim for a primarily objective viewpoint that explains the pros and cons of each aircraft.

Also, supersonic jets and really large planes are really hard to test as their performance varies a lot across different flight plans. :)

Hope this quick rundown helps, if you have any questions PM me or the other judges! Remember: We're here to have fun, so no pressure, you'll get better the more you write!

Share this post


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

You won't see rocket engines, those aren't allowed except for cosmetic purposes i guess?

 

I was just dissing the RAPIER - just an inside joke i guess?

But yes, purely cosmetic for pure rockets, Rapier is iffy :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

. In fact, at a 7 degree climb (about 20m/s), the plane never was able to exceed 160m/s. We’d like Neist Air’s support in figuring out how to get the most speed during climb out of the Slab.

So, I just finished running a test of my own, climbing at 170m/s +/- 2m/s, then leveling off at 6km, and accelerating to 215m/s after 13minutes (because I had a bit of a brain fart), then climbing the remainder at 200m/s ish, and accelerating to 215m/s again in a total of 18.5minutes. The climb started out at 5 degrees and gradually tapered off to ~2.5 degrees. Climb rate started out at a whoping 22.8m/s, and gradually tapered off to more like 12m/s in the end. The aircraft has a low power-loading, so it will climb slowly.

The reason for the low power-loading is simply to maximize fuel efficiency. During development the aircraft was tested with 12 engines initially, but It was decided that with the low drag of the airframe 12 engines were rather excessive for cruising, and 8 engines gave better fuel economy. Not that this aircraft really needed better fuel economy, but why not? And besides the outer engines were subject to FOD during last minute banking before landing.

Share this post


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

So, I just finished running a test of my own, climbing at 170m/s +/- 2m/s, then leveling off at 6km, and accelerating to 215m/s after 13minutes (because I had a bit of a brain fart), then climbing the remainder at 200m/s ish, and accelerating to 215m/s again in a total of 18.5minutes. The climb started out at 5 degrees and gradually tapered off to ~2.5 degrees. Climb rate started out at a whoping 22.8m/s, and gradually tapered off to more like 12m/s in the end. The aircraft has a low power-loading, so it will climb slowly.

The reason for the low power-loading is simply to maximize fuel efficiency. During development the aircraft was tested with 12 engines initially, but It was decided that with the low drag of the airframe 12 engines were rather excessive for cruising, and 8 engines gave better fuel economy. Not that this aircraft really needed better fuel economy, but why not? And besides the outer engines were subject to FOD during last minute banking before landing.

Huh, So I still did the ascent somewhat quicker - that's interesting. I wonder which one is more fuel efficient though, even if it probably doesn't matter for a plane with such a long range :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites 787-10 Dreamliner

OmUSODe.jpeg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: 88,364,000
  • Fuel: 5440 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 250 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6500 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.30 kal/s
  • Range: 4533.3 km

Review Notes:

When we found this plane lying around in our hangar, we were surprised. Jeb even had to open and close his eyes to make sure that he was looking at the plane he was going to fly. Why, you may ask? It is because it looked just like an airplane that comes with Human Space Program called the Boeing 787-10 (pictured below, with maximum graphics settings, parked at the gate.)

Boeing_787-10_test_aircraft_(35598123175

The next morning, after a good night's sleep, Jeb and Bill climbed into the cockpit. The sky was clear that day and the weather at the KSC was good. Jeb took off at 50 m/s, but it is recommended by us to take off at 75-80 m/s. It took off at the SPH, but if you do take off at 75-80 m/s, it will take off soon after you pass the VAB. We started by simulating an engine failure (just before clearing the end of the runway, at about 250m). The plane fell straight out of the sky due to the unbalanced thrust. Next, we simulated a failure of both engines from about the same place and a water landing. We started by retracting all flaps. Then, we glided down to the ocean, not applying any pitch until the last few seconds. Jeb landed with about 5g and no damage to the plane whatsoever. Then, for fun, Jeb tried to take off from the water, but it did not work. Still, we were able to swim around on the water fairly successfully and when KEA gets tired of flying these planes, they can use them as cruise ships. Finally, we tried landing the plane. We were able to land at speeds of 55 m/s, but poor Jeb had to sit there holding the yoke up next to his chest all the time. For a less physically taxing landing, you can land at 100 m/s.

Now, for the flight characteristics of this plane. First of all, we must say that at cruising altitude, this plane is efficient, sipping only 0.30 kallons of fuel per second. This is about how much a plane of the same type with two Lotuses would use. The SK 787-10 handles nicely, like one would expect a plane of this size to behave. Still, when you are landing with little or no throttle/at low speeds, the handling is far worse than usual, forcing Jeb to sit there holding the yoke up next to his chest all the time when landing at speeds of less than 100m/s. Another problem, which caused Jeb to cut the throttle when he started his approach to the island airfield, is that there is no way of slowing down except for doing S-turns, which the passengers would probably not appreciate, or setting the throttle to about 20%. This also results in trans-sonic speeds during descent with full throttle and the lower part of the inboard flaps and the outboard flaps deployed.

Finally, let's look at comfort. The sound generated by the engines is OK, a little bit louder than usual, but still a little bit annoying on long flights, which this plane is obviously designed for. The vibrations were pretty severe near the engines because they are so massive and so close to the cabin. Still, the views are pretty good, even though that doesn't really matter on long flights over the ocean. To counter those problems, we will give the passengers inflight entertainment, noise-cancelling headphones (reusable ones, of course, with anti-theft systems) and install shock absorbers under their seats. The maintenance is fairly low, having just 42 parts. The engines are also huge, which reduces the risk of ground crew not seeing them and bumping into them.

In conclusion, this is a good plane. It is pretty fuel efficient and is pretty maneuverable. What is not so amazing is the price, comfort, and safety -- the maneuverability at low speeds is not amazing, there are no ways to slow down in the air without setting the throttle to idle or doing S-turns, and that performance with only one engine is terrible. This plane costs quite a fortune: :funds:88,364,000. For about :funds:10,000,000 more, you can buy 3 IA-E720s! The only major positive difference is that this offers a longer range, but what flights require you to fly so far with only 96 kerbals?

The Verdict:

We will buy 3 with options for 6 more if different engines, such as the lotuses, are used and not placed so close to the fuselage. Also, it must have spoilers and/or other devices to slow the plane down in the air. We will also lease one to complete a circumnavigation of Kerbin for PR purposes.

Edited by Bottle Rocketeer 500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

Also, it must have spoilers and/or other devices to slow the plane down in the air

It does, but I forgot to add instructions. You can try to apply the brakes in the air, if that doesn't work it's under one of the actions groups 1-5

Those control surfaces close to the body can slow the plane down really quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites 787-10 Dreamliner

-snip-

Good first review! I do have some minor nits to pick though. For the range we usually round to 2-3 significant digits, since the measurements simply are not that accurate. Also it would be better to take the picture when the sun is up, so we can more easily see the plane. Also as far as fuel efficiency goes, if you look at the KPPM it is really just about average for it's size. And it has been decided that downscaling engines falls in the breaking the spirit of the challenge category, so no 1.875m engines are currently allowed (though the lotuses are very close to that in performance).

Share this post


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

It does, but I forgot to add instructions. You can try to apply the brakes in the air, if that doesn't work it's under one of the actions groups 1-5

Those control surfaces close to the body can slow the plane down really quickly

No, I checked all the action groups, none of them deploy spoilers. I checked the part list on KerbalX and it didn't include spoilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

No, I checked all the action groups, none of them deploy spoilers. I checked the part list on KerbalX and it didn't include spoilers.

That's odd, because there on it for specifically this purpose, I'll recheck when I get home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, epicman81 said:

~~Still no review for my plane~~

Relax.

Well, we just have to wait. My Fr-30 is also not yet reviewed (Brochure updates, perhaps?). There's hundreds (Or at least near hundred) planes in line (If possible, I'll make that an artwork).

BTW the brochure is long ready for viewing.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

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.