CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kingstevenrules said:

also would someone help me out with all the calculations? like lip10, kppm, range... please? 

Just use the calculation sheet, merely explaining LIP10 is hard enough, doing the calculations by hand is nigh on impossible

Neistridlar has posted a link to the sheet in the message-thread for judges

Share this post


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

Just use the calculation sheet, merely explaining LIP10 is hard enough, doing the calculations by hand is nigh on impossible

Neistridlar has posted a link to the sheet in the message-thread for judges

oh, well then. my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a spreadsheet somewhere to at least see if our submissions are in line to be judged? I posted mine about a year ago, if I remember correctly.

Share this post


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

Is there a spreadsheet somewhere to at least see if our submissions are in line to be judged? I posted mine about a year ago, if I remember correctly.

Not a year, but quite a while, yes. The judges have just started on reviewing submissions in this thread (the old thread is as good as done now) and yours is on page 16, so it'll be a while longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean by 1.3/1.4 compatible? 1.6 seems like it will fix a ton of the memory issues that kept people from adopting 1.5, so could I potentially send in a 1.6 creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, somepersondunno said:

What does this mean by 1.3/1.4 compatible? 1.6 seems like it will fix a ton of the memory issues that kept people from adopting 1.5, so could I potentially send in a 1.6 creation?

Yeah, but due to the submission dates not all versions where available at that time and the modders need to update their mods and sometimes parts get taken out of mods, so you need an older version that matches your install and the time the plans was built. So there's a bit of version management going on.

My KEA judging install is 1.3.1 with mods of the time, so I need to create a new 1.4.something install in order to review any newer planes that were made in that version and so on and so forth.

But I won't be judging for a while I think, there's a realistic chance I can buy a plot to build a new house on, in which case I need to (learn a lot of things regarding mortgages, laws, local authority, etc) buy that, sell the current home and then find a good way to finance the new build etc. Etc. Etc. Lot's of work, but very exciting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 12:14 PM, hoioh said:

Not a year, but quite a while, yes. The judges have just started on reviewing submissions in this thread (the old thread is as good as done now) and yours is on page 16, so it'll be a while longer

Thanks for the info, appreciate the update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird, one of my plane has been added to the spread sheet a while ago but hasn't been reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

It's weird, one of my plane has been added to the spread sheet a while ago but hasn't been reviewed.

Which one? And on which tab?

There's the queue and there's the 'has been reviewed' tabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 1:22 PM, AwkwardNoah said:

Is there a way to check if your submission is being looked at?

You mean, when your lane has been reviewed? If so, you'll be mentioned. And you'll get a notification on your bell. Be sure to check your Notification Settings to adjust your preference.

But if you mean whether your plane has been claimed or not, they say check the spreadsheet. But uhh...

On 1/4/2019 at 6:20 PM, hoioh said:

Which one? And on which tab?

There's the queue and there's the 'has been reviewed' tabs

May I know where's the queue? I didn't seem to successfully locate it. I can only see the "Reviewed" ones at the OP.

Share this post


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

You mean, when your lane has been reviewed? If so, you'll be mentioned. And you'll get a notification on your bell. Be sure to check your Notification Settings to adjust your preference.

But if you mean whether your plane has been claimed or not, they say check the spreadsheet. But uhh...

May I know where's the queue? I didn't seem to successfully locate it. I can only see the "Reviewed" ones at the OP.

We've been pretty open so far, but I'm unsure the sheet is protected against rogue editing, so I can't post it here. Because there was a claim that queue was seen by someone I thought this person has access, but your reference to the list on the OP clarifies that you don't.

You'll have to ask @CrazyJebGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FahmiRBLXian@AwkwardNoah@KingDominoIII Here is a snapshot of the current state of the Judges spread sheet as of today 06.01.2019: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AsGLPHtKfp_Lnwi28ZioTn1kSyO9yyPBxFBNmLfbf8w/edit?usp=sharing 

As @hoioh said, the actual sheet is not protected, so It would not be wise to share it with everyone (though the KSP forums is probably not the worst place to do so). Also do note that some things are not perfectly accurate or up to date at all times, which is an other reason not to have it open to the public (though if someone would volunteer their time and fix up the missing/wrong bits, that would be nice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 6:09 AM, NightshineRecorralis said:

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.

Not logged in for ages..... been super busy IRL... but... loving the quick review, thanks mate :)

Actually this entry was a very tongue in cheek craft and I wasn't even expecting any pilot to ever review it, so even more kudos for that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I review a plane made in ex. 1.4.5 with ksp 1.6 ? I want to help with review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

Can I review a plane made in ex. 1.4.5 with ksp 1.6 ? I want to help with review. 

That should not be much of a problem. If you have the hard drive space for it, I'd recommend a separate install with exactly the allowed mods, and apropriate ksp version only for judging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can delete my entries. I think I have a seaplane back there. I've since built much better planes so not worth reviewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review @Box of Stardust's A-701 StratoLiner

NpRG5vz.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:82,677,000
  • Fuel: 3460 kallons 
  • Cruising speed: 1,000 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 20,000 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 1.11 kal/s
  • Range: 2700 km


Review Notes:

The StratoLiner is not a bad aircraft, but there's room for improvement. As delivered, it has a passenger capacity of 104 kerbals. The brochure states that "the ‘hump’ is a reconfigurable place for classy business meetings or luxury dining or sleeping quarters with a spectacular view of space." At the cruising altitude of 20 km, the views certainly are spectacular.

However, getting the StratoLiner up there is a bit of a chore. It takes off at a reasonable speed of 75 m/s, but the slow acceleration with full fuel load means that it needs a lot of runway and a long, slow climb. The sparse flight manual did not have any details about an optimum flight profile. Jeb says it flies like a supersonic bomber, which makes sense given Twin Crown's military experience. Anyway, he recommends a climb at 10 degrees pitch to give the 4 Whiplash engines time to get fully up to speed. Speaking of which, the Whiplashes make the plane a bit tail heavy, and they gulp fuel on the initial climb, but they're also far enough back from the cabins that the noise isn't too bad.

Where the StratoLiner definitely falls short is on landing. It doesn't like to slow down, and the supplied speedbrakes aren't really adequate. It also comes with a drogue chute to be deployed on touchdown, but that's not enough help either. Jeb ran off the end of the runway on his first test flight, and crashed it on the second. More pilot training will be required, and possibly some braking upgrades.

Another area of concern is at high speeds. While it can take a while to get going, once the Stratoliner hits around Mach 2 and 10 km altitude it really starts to scream. Jeb pushed it to its absolute limits - at Mach 4.5 and 15 km, it was on the verge of melting. Granted, this is way past the recommended specs, but the point is that the plane will tend to go dangerously fast if the pilot isn't careful.

850QmAn.png


The Verdict:

The StratoLiner is a bit of a niche aircraft, and is likely best suited for wealthy kerbals seeking a luxury flight with some thrill on the side. We will buy three now, with an option for more if Twin Crown offers an improved version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @roboslacker's WWYT Floater

S3JVMwB.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: 31.810.000
  • Fuel: 1600kallons
  • Cruising speed: 200m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.2kal/s
  • Range:  1600km

Review Notes:

The design of this craft is quite peculiar. It does remind us of some spacecraft, but we don't know Y. The engines have been placed far from the hull and then some interesting framework was mounted on them. To this date we're still trying to figure out if there's an actual use to it or not. The other weird thing is the actual hull, it just... Ends. Out of nowhere the hull just stops, no pretty aesthetic end, no, just an abrupt stop. This weird end does serve as an extra way for passengers to enter and leave the aircraft, a trait which was appreciated by cabin crew trying to get the passengers to get out. 

Moving on to the performance. The plane handles reasonably well. Roll control is a bit on the sluggish side perhaps, which was surprising given the size of the aircraft. Yaw did what it was supposed to do, not much more and not much less has to be said about that. Pitch performance is worth talking about though. It both is and isn't good. When you're flying at a descent speed it behaves well, but it gives so much drag that you bleed off a lot of speed very quickly. The thing is, pitch doesn't behave when you're flying slow... Fair enough, one would never do maneuvers in which this actually becomes a problem, but in some emergencies it could be a problem. Taking off and landing is problem-free. Sure, it doesn't take off very fast at 70m/s, but at least it's impossible to break the plane during takeoff. It also lands on water pretty fine, that's good news in case an emergency landing is needed. The Floater's speed was indeed the 200m/s that was mentioned in the brochure, but it could only just make it up to this speed. 200m/s is both the cruising speed and the top speed of this craft, it will literally not go faster, not even a bit. Ranger is lower than described, but still well above average! We were told it would be 1800km, but our own testing lowered this to 1600km. As I said, still excellent.

Passenger comfort aboard the WWYT Floater is absolutely amazing. The mk2 cabins make for a very quiet and soft flight, on top of that they also boast a lot of space, something you don't see a lot these days. The great qualities of the mk2 cabins are further enhanced by the engine placement. Far off from the cabin, making sure that as little noise and vibrations as possible make it in to the cabin. View from the windows is perhaps the only thing we can say anything about. The plane flies too low to actually make the upward facing windows attractive as you can't see stars yet. 

As is to be expected from what is in fact a luxury liner, it's reasonably expensive for a turboprop. Coming in at 31.810.000 the price is well above average. A part count of 36 and only 2 engines do make for affordable maintenance costs. The plane is also pretty straightforward to fly so pilot retraining is gonna be a very modest cost.

The Verdict:

The WWYT is definitely a niche aircraft, serving the rich of the Kerbin, but we do think that the craft is very good at this job. It has a long range, good speed for its class and absolutely fantastic comfort. The only reason why our purchase will still be limited is because the market segment which this craft will service just isn't big enough for large orders. Anyway, we'd like to order 5 planes of this type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's - Neist Air: Spear 40P & 40R

kPrBFFw.png

A spear 40P in flight

c1uXudS.png

Spear 40R right after takeoff

Figures as Tested:

Spear 40P:

  • Price: 13,921,000
  • Fuel: 400 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 610m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 11000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.05kal/s
  • Range:  4900km

Spear 40R: 

  • Price: 21,772,000
  • Fuel: 400 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 1500m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 26000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.12kal/s
  • Range:  5000km

Review Notes:

I'm gonna do a single review for both these planes since they are pretty much the same, save a few features here and there. Design is something else, this craft breaks some of the unwritten rules that we're pretty much used to in plane building. Most importantly, the cockpit placement. It's all the way at the back. A very curious way to place a cockpit, but it does function as a buffer for both noise and vibrations from the engine. The comparably small wings on the Spears are also a feature which we don't see very often. All the elements make for a bit of a weird looking craft.

After having checked a few times to make sure that there's absolutely no explosives left in the craft, we crammed Jeb into the cockpit and quietly watched as the plane whizzed over the runway and into the sky. Once airborne it was time to do the typical control tests. Pitch and yaw both are properly responsive, making for very easy controls when moving over these axes. Roll is a bit on the sensitive side, but that's really all we can say about it. Neist Air has once again managed to build a plane that flies like a dream. Takeoff and landing are an absolute piece of cake! Landings are literal butter 80% of the time, something our passengers absolutely enjoyed! Thanks to the airbrakes on both versions of the plane, coming to stop is quite easy as well. Cruising speed was a bit lower than described on both planes, but not by much. The 40P managed to hit cruise speed just 15m/s under the described value, the 40R on the other hand went 150m/s under the promised value. We're not sure if our flying was a part of that or not, but on multiple flights we never managed to go far over 1500m/s. Range is pretty interesting, the 40P hits 100km under the expected value (but still hits 4900km, which is an abundance of range regardless), but more curiously, the 40R managed to fly 400km further than expected during our testing, and that while both our cruising speed and fuel consumption were worse than expected. I did the math real quick and given the values from the sales pitch, I calculated a range over 9000km, rather than the 4600km which is mentioned. 

Passenger comfort on either of these jets is far from amazing, but as much was to be expected given their very limited price. Even though dampened by the cockpit, rattling and vibrations from the engine are still quite noticeable in the cabin. The fact that the air intake is mounted up front, ahead of all the cabins, doesn't make that any better, rather the opposite. However, passengers have an amazing view out of their windows (or should I say LCD screens) thanks to the sheer size of them, but also because there's almost no wings to obstruct the view. 

Price for both aircraft is just wow... Far below the average for this class, and that for aircraft with very decent performance. A part count of respectively 23 and 25 only 1 of which an engine makes for cheap maintenance as well. The craft also flies to easily that pilots need little to no retraining from different planes.

The Verdict:

The Spear 40P and 40R are just too amazing not to buy. They're supersonic, meet all demands and they do it at a bargain price. Only negative is passenger comfort, but because of their supersonic speeds, the passengers won't have to suffer (a harsh word, it's not actually that bad, just sub-par) very long. We'd like to buy 20 Spear 40Ps and 15 40Rs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @SuicidalInsanity's  IA-240 Gyrodyne

E5nb2rH.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: 27.302.000
  • Fuel: 600kallons
  • Cruising speed: 200m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.1kal/s
  • Range:  1200km

Review Notes:

Now this, this is something else! Something we've never seen before. When we first got our hands on this, we just didn't know what to do with it, it looks so vastly different (super cool, that is) from what we're used to . Surprisingly enough though, it doesn't actually behave very different from a standard aircraft. You fly it in pretty much the exact same way, though it's not quite as relaxed as it would be to cruise along with a standard jet. The Gyrodyne needs constant input to keep it going in a straight line. Remove your hands from the stick and you'll roll and pitch up. The higher you go though, the less this effect becomes noticeable. Up at its cruising altitude of 5000m it's just minor tweaking to fix it. It's control are pretty slow in all directions though, the Gyrodyne requires a bit more thinking ahead than your standard aircraft. Cruise speed, takeoff and landing speed and range pretty much all are the same as described in the brochure. What wasn't mentioned though, is how hard it is to land this thing. Getting a craft on the ground which bleeds speed like nothing else, which pitches up, rotates and translates (only happens when the engine is off) is quite a challenge. Pilot training for this one won't be a piece of cake, that's for sure!

Passenger comfort is pretty decent. Honestly, it could probably be the worst comfort in the world and the passengers still wouldn't care because they're too amazed at the weird and unique contraption they're in. But since we're ought to be objective, I'll just go over it real quick. An air intake and engine right above your head really doesn't do much good when it comes to sound and vibrations. Sure, vibrations are a bit better than a purely inline engine, but it's still there. Those vibrations from a big rotating thing don't help much either. There's almost no wing though, so passengers can absolutely enjoy all the views outside, or they can look at the rotor and wonder how that piece of machinery works (magic surely, right?)

At 70 parts it's quite a  pricey craft to service, the fact that we have to completely educate our engineers on how it works as another added cost. Only one engine though, so at least they'll be over that fairly quickly. The overall price of 27.302.000 is quite expensive for the category, yes, but usually oddities like this one come at a higher price (nuclear powered plane, I'm looking at you).

The Verdict:

Unique, pretty versatile and surprisingly decent. Has some serious drawbacks when it comes to maneuverability and maintenance costs, but overall a decent enough package. We'd like to acquire 7, mostly for promotional purposes (surely not because there's 7 judges and we all want to fly the most extravagant craft out there, no!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Nuclear powered plane, I'm looking at you.

We'll build one at least, if the Airline allows for excessive heat radiation, radioactive contamination risk on passengers, The Great Mushroom Cloud (Though IIRC only BDA(C) (Addon Packs?) have Nukes to play with), etc.

... through collaboration with other manufacturers, if I say this via a realistic perspective. *Adjusts glasses*

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


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

We'll build one at least, if the Airline allows for excessive heat radiation, radioactive contamination risk on passengers, The Great Mushroom Cloud (Though IIRC only BDA(C) (Addon Packs?) have Nukes to play with), etc.

... through collaboration with other manufacturers, if I say this via a realistic perspective. *Adjusts glasses*

I was actually referring to this plane. Though if you think you can do better, be my guest! If you do, you're gonna have to be inventive since BDA and stuff aren't gonna be a part of the challenge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

This plane. Though if you think you can do better, be my guest! If you do, you're gonna have to be inventive since BDA and stuff aren't gonna be a part of the challenge 

I'll give it a try. KAX eProps!!!

 

5L0CGqo.png

Frontinco Aircraft & Spacecraft Corporation,

A Subsidiary Under Frontinco Group Of Companies

Hey there! I'm @FahmiRBLXian, would like to announce our next development and launching of more Aircraft into our Liner line of airliners. This will include Turboprop-Powered and Jet-Powered Rough-Field Airliners, Prepared Runway Airliners, Business Jet-Scale Airliners and Electric Airliners.

However, due to Non-Enviromental Friendly regulations ask for Kerosene-to-Electric powered aircraft, we'll launch two variants; partially electric and fully electric, just in case the Global Warming issues on Kerbin continue to develop.

 

Check the spoiler below for extra message.

Spoiler

Anyways, checked the spreadsheet and didn't found my plane in the To Be Reviewed tab.

 

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.