Jump to content

Trans-Kerbin Airways - Regional Jet Challenge 2: Electric Boogaloo

Recommended Posts

Test Pilot Review: @espartanlast1's Spartan Industries SRJ-10SP/SRJ-15SP


Figures as Tested: SRJ-10SP

  • Price: :funds:40,487,000 from factory; :funds:40,478,000 as tested
  • Fuel: 2300 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 280m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.17kal/s
  • Passengers Carried: 0/0/40
  • Range:  3400+km

Figures as Tested: SRJ-15SP

  • Price: :funds:43,871,000 from factory; :funds:43,862,000 as tested
  • Fuel: 2700 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 280m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.21kal/s
  • Passengers Carried: 0/0/60
  • Range:  3300+km

Review Notes:

After a short chat with TKA higher ups we at Habu Industries received a new lineup of passenger jets to review. Today we picked up a new family of small jets from an unknown company: Spartan Industries. They debuted with the SRJ-10SP and SRJ-15SP which we are reviewing today, and we were excited to see what this new competitor could offer. Initial impressions on the ground were mixed between the two variants, with the 10SP looking like a typical T-tailed commuter jet and the 15SP looking oddly long. Apart from that the two aircraft are identical with the 15SP being a simple stretch of the smaller 10SP. They both utilize twin Wheesly turbofans mounted to the rear and a standard tricycle landing gear. Oddly enough, both also were shipped to us with monopropellant still present.

Ground handling of both jets were subpar for their size, with both having a turn radius more akin to a much larger airliner. With the baggage hold down low to the ground it’s nice to see something made for regional airports that may not have facilities larger airports do. We only wished that the aircraft would turn better, as that would make them more suited for smaller airports. Our pilots were intrigued by the advertised “short field performance upgrade,” which appeared to be flaps along the leading edge of the wing, and wanted to see how they would perform in upcoming tests. The narrow main gear did provoke some concern about crosswind landings and other less than ideal ground conditions, but this would also have to be tested in flight.

Takeoff on both aircraft were fairly straightforward. The 10SP was able to lift off at 60m/s with an impressively short length of less than 500m, while the 15SP relatively chugged, taking off at 72m/s with a longer runway length of approximately 800m required. In both cases we found the extra flaps to be very useful, but were puzzled by Spartan Industries’ decision to have them simultaneously bound to both an action group and the main controls. In fact, none of the control surfaces had been configured, resulting an a very wild ride on the first flight as the roll control overpowered everything else on the plane. Our pilots and engineers agreed that this is something that must be fixed in production aircraft.

In terms of actual performance, the 10SP flies well once the controls were tuned. It has a good climb rate on initial ascent, plenty of control surfaces in all 3 axes, and overall was an excellent machine in the hands of our pilots regarding various emergency situations. It was able to handle engine-out operations in any situation and water landings were rather simple to execute. There was some concern about how low the baggage hold was to the ground in the event of a rough landing and the narrowness of the gear might lead to wingstrikes in worsened conditions. We believe both of these concerns can be easily addressed, and neither really detract from the overall build of the 10SP.

The 15SP was a mixed bag for us. As it’s simply a stretch of the 10SP, performance is understandably and noticeably worse. However, it is bad to the point that the 15SP cannot handle engine-out operations with the same grace the 10SP did, so much so that should anything happen to either engine on takeoff or climb a catastrophic crash is very likely if a diversion is not possible. The 15SP is heavy enough that if cannot maintain altitude on a single engine with high fuel loads, so we’d like to see a fix to address this if at all possible. Pitch control was also more sluggish and the aircraft could not match the 10SP in climb performance, resulting in a much longer duration to reach cruise.

Landing performance of both were excellent as they came equipped with strong brakes. Almost too strong, in fact, as the airframe was subjected consistently to 3Gs of force once they were applied. We are worried about how passengers and the aircraft may react to this sort of force, and recommend that the brakes be loosened a touch should this aircraft be placed into service. In flight, passengers should expect what are standard economy conditions and amenities. The proximity of the twin turbofans to the rear of the cabin does mean it is louder behind the wing, but the planes themselves are constructed well in spite of their relative thinness and in no case did we find excessive vibrations present in flight.

Both the 10SP and the 15SP are marketed towards long thin routes. Seating 40 and 60 respectively they both possess the ability to fly between any two points on Kerbin, which is a feat for a small airliner. Their high speed subsonic cruise makes them more attractive for longer flights due to the shortened flight time and we’re sure that plenty would like the cheaper ticket pricing these planes allow. We found the 10SP to be capable of flight just over 3400km, a hair under the advertised range, while the 15SP can fly over 3300km, right on target according to the manual. With this amount of range and with speed comparable or faster than larger airliners, we have reason to believe that either would excel at long distance low demand routes.

The Verdict:

The cost of flying the Spartan Industries SRJs is low. Both come with a low list price and maintenance costs are kept under control with the twin turbofans and simple construction. The only parts that would need regular upkeep are the many control surfaces, a favorable tradeoff for the excellent performance of the aircraft. While these may not become the workhorse of the airline as Spartan Industries may have expected them to, they certainly have carved a niche for themselves, being capable both as a feederliner or in point-to-point service. Provided that the controls are properly tuned, TKA will order 12 10SPs with an option for 12 more to provide service between distant smaller airports that would not be profitable with a larger jet and to act as feeders on our high density routes. We’d like to see fixes implemented on the 15SP before any firm orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of (hopefully) many submissions from Bumba Aerospace
The BA-1-100, a 6 engine behemoth optimised for hub to hub flights

Picture of a development prototype, therefore lacks features present on actual aircraft.

Price: 512 290 000 Starbucks

Fuel: 20415 liters of Jet A1

Cruising Altitude: 4500 meters ASL

Cruising Speed: Built for 245 m/s, capable of 280 m/s in optimal conditions

Cruise Fuel Burn: 1.53 liters per second

Range: 3269 kilometers (calculated with a 245 m/s cruise)

Passenger Capacity: 312 Kerbals in an all economy layout


Built for the classic hub-and-spoke model, the BA-1 works excellently for the high demand long range flights. It may be more thirsty than the competitors, and may even have a shorter range and lower capacity. What it lacks in all of these categories it makes up for in speed. With a TWR of 0.86 (in optimal conditions) it is a speed demon. Think about why we fly instead of simply driving? One big reason, speed. Why opt for a slower offering when something like this exists? The wingspan is almost excessive and the plane is easily able to be stretched for a higher capacity, or perhaps remove a pair of engines for an ultra-long-range aircraft. This plane is filled with opportunites just waiting to be harnessed! Maintenance costs will be a breeze (for the size) due to the low mounting of the engines. Not to mention the prefitted APU able to generate power if ground power is unavailable. 


Piloting Instructions
Rotate as early as possible while still avoiding a tailstrike. Be careful with roll controls as you will lose a lot of pitch authority (for some reason) aswell as altitude. Be ready to compensate for roll on takeoff. If the plane decides to be noseheavy, press the button 1 for trim. Landing is a challenge, to say the least.


Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/hempa2/BA-1-100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For review, are you using an autopilot to maintain altitude and speed? For KEA I was using AtmoshpereAutopilot but since this one is stock only I've made an effort to use karmax instead. (I'm missing you AA) 

I ask this because my fisrt submission will be an hypersonic plane and without autopilot fuel consumption double. Also it kinda break the 20km altitude rule by 4km.

How many submission per week is allowed? I already have 6 planes ready without those I didn't submit to KEA(200+/40ish stock) +variant and those are not trash.

Enough blah blah, let's build more plane.

edit: How fast does it have to reach cruise speed?

Edited by Mathrilord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Sorry, but I have to ask: What was the rationale for the title of this challenge?   Boogaloo is a pretty loaded term right now.

The phrase is much older than that and is actually from a famously bad movie, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo. Nothing sinister about it, in this instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2020 at 7:45 AM, Mathrilord said:

For review, are you using an autopilot to maintain altitude and speed? For KEA I was using AtmoshpereAutopilot but since this one is stock only I've made an effort to use karmax instead. (I'm missing you AA) 

I ask this because my fisrt submission will be an hypersonic plane and without autopilot fuel consumption double. Also it kinda break the 20km altitude rule by 4km.

How many submission per week is allowed? I already have 6 planes ready without those I didn't submit to KEA(200+/40ish stock) +variant and those are not trash.

Enough blah blah, let's build more plane.

edit: How fast does it have to reach cruise speed?

We don't use any autopilots for cruising purposes as the judges are mostly stock players. Cruise speed is whatever you feel the aircraft works best at - if it's found that cruise speed is higher or lower than expected, it will be stated in the review.

EDIT: There is no limit to submissions, however, it's best if you restrict them to your best ones only. Less is more :)

Edited by HolidayTheLeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't do it then... without autopilot my plane loses 50 to 300 m/s every time you press w or s ,more than that, going 20 m/s faster or 200 m (which is nothing at 1700m/s) lower and the cockit explode from overheat. Going higher (24500 m) you'll have to pitch up leading to overheat or heavy slow down. Going 50 m/s slower you can't hold altitude with level flight and double fuel consumption.


Edit: my question about cruise speed is to know if it's fine that the plane take 3 minutes at the correct altitude to reach speed

Edited by Mathrilord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

It won't do it then... without autopilot my plane loses 50 to 300 m/s every time you press w or s ,more than that, going 20 m/s faster or 200 m (which is nothing at 1700m/s) lower and the cockit explode from overheat. Going higher (24500 m) you'll have to pitch up leading to overheat or heavy slow down. Going 50 m/s slower you can't hold altitude with level flight and double fuel consumption.


Edit: my question about cruise speed is to know if it's fine that the plane take 3 minutes at the correct altitude to reach speed

Yeah, thats fine - planes need to accelerate (even if it takes 3 minutes) and we'll take that into account when testing.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to get a good flight profile (even with fluctuating speeds) without autopilot. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

AirTrain 737 


This is the AirTrain 737, built by AirTrain, a long-haul medium-capacity airliner with a recommended cruising altitude at 7700 m and travelling at 200 m/s with a cost of $400 729 000. The fuel capacity is 14485 Kallons with a burn rate of 0.69. 

Takeoff speed is around 60-80 m/s and with those powerful engines, it reaches that speed very easily. Having a capacity for 144 passengers to travel in comfort even though the wings block some of the sights, an on-board entertainment system is installed, making sure everyone can have a good time while they cruise in luxury.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mathrilord I find that with some practice I can fly a plane as well as with an autopilot once it's trimmed out properly, and with SSTs you kinda have to fly on trim anyway so that's not a big deal. If you were to submit an SST I can review it, no problem. I also have Pilot assistant installed for my giant planes and when the games runs at single digit FPS so I can use that as well, though it's a very rudimentary system and I consider it an add-on to SAS rather than a true autopilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here I come...

NANTARES NA-AT 1011A "Tobi-Ume"

The supersonic airliner by N.A.N.I Inc.




cost : just 376,240,000 /$ (not so expensive right?)

it got a design from a cancelled supersonic bomber project of N.A.N.I whitch built for Eastern Honko Air Force,

but we finally build them for civillian use by replace bomb bay with luxury passenger cabin 


how to fly...

1.taking off at 80 m/s

2. spinning about 550 m/s in low altitute then climb up

3. keep flying between 15 km. and 24 km. , it will reach cruising speed about 930 m/s  to 1,030 m/s



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revolution from Spartan Industries.

The S240-600 & S240-500 are the upcoming Long Range and Ultra Long Range aircraft, capable of delivering up to 380 passangers to anywhere in the world.

The S220 & S221 are the medium capacity workhorse, designed to operate in any airport and capable of long range travel.

The S210LR designed to replace the old SRJ Family, but with lower consumption, longer range, higher passanger capacity and shorter takeoff run.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind/Bored Aircraft Facilities


Lord's Rogue Engineers are here to show you their most extreme contraption.

edit craft renamed: LoRE HST-3-8 Missile


Cruise at a whopping 1700 m/s more than half orbital velocity!


Cruise: + 1700 m/s (mach 5.62)* @ 24500m
Fuel consumption: - 0.07 kal/s*
Range: 8000 km
Rotation: 75 m/s
Cost: 21.292 mil dry + 0.352 for fuel
Weight: 7.395 tons empty
Fuel: 440 kal (2.2 tons)
Seat: 1 pilot, 16 passengers, 1 auxiliary
(can be an second pilot, a passenger, a flight attendant or anything else)


You reach cruise speed and altitude with around 250 kal remaining and 1500 km traveled. (actually more like 240 kal and 1700 km manual, 260 kal and 1200 km auto)
You glide for more than around 1250 km

Manual flight: Speed above 1700 m/s with fuel consumption of less than 0.072 kal/s
Autopilot flight: ex: Speed at 1700 m/s fuel con. less than 0.056 kal/s. Can go faster with same fuel consumption.

1700*240*0.001/0.072 = 5666.66 km + 1250 + 1700 = 8616 km
1700*260*0.001/0.056 = 7892.85 km + 1250 + 1200 = 10342 km

You will get better fuel consumption than 0.072 and glide further etc, plus safety margin= 8000km
With autopilot we did get just above 12000 km with a very bad ascent (230kal @ 1900km).



*EDIT: Previous number are valid only on equatorial flight following kerbin's rotation.


Aircraft flight manual

  1. Press the abort button, it make sure your navball isn't set on the wrong command seat.
  2. Throttle at 50% and start engine. DO NOT OPEN FAIRING
  3. Start pulling up at 70 m/s, rotation at 75 m/s
  4. Take off, throttle at 66%, head towards your destination
  5. Throttle at 100% climb at 25 degrees, 20 @ 8000m, 15 @ 12000m, 10 @ 15000m, 5 @ 18000m, 0 @ 20500m. Your inertia should get you above 25000m.
  6. Cruise between 24500 and 25500 m with speed above 1700 m/s. (eventually you will get to 1700 m/s if your flight is stable enough, minimal vertical speed)
  7. For descent take into account that you can glide from 1700 m/s at 24500 m for around 1250 km
  8. For landing do as you wish, good handling at low speed, you can use airbrake
  • RCS: aibrakes
  • custom 1: Toggle engine
  • custom 2: Toggle engine gimbal (lock by default) stay lock at high speed, you can unlock at low altitude for extra agility...why?

When I fly manually I aim for 1710 m/s @ 24750-800m but with an autopilot I set it to 1700 m/s @ 24500 m. You can go faster and higher to get better fuel efficiency but try to stay as level as possible and engine cut at around 1750 m/s. If you follow instruction, overheat should not be a problem but just in case keep an eye on nosecone int. temp. when climbing. (alt+f12, physics-thermal, first option) You need to go slower at lower altitude to avoid disintegration. Avoid time warp(overheat stuff).

Of course use SAS if you need it.

For night time your battery will provide you a bit more than 3 hours of lights. (Flight won't exceed 2 hours) Don't spend it all taxiing.

IN and OUT Use backwards seat to board, forwards to exit.

Download on KerbalX


Lord's Rogue Engineers, who are those guys. Do you remember the Megalovania2e from BAF first catalogue (Kerbal Express Airlines)? We told you they built their massive aircraft without permission and for that they had to sell it to keep their jobb. Well it ended up no one buy it, or that's what they were told, but for legal reason BAF could not dismiss them so they start their own branch. When they saw a new company looking for aircraft to fill their fleet, the first thought they had was: we gotta go fast, and fast they went but not without problem. 

The first problem they met, was the cockpit Mk1 that would melt above 1200 m/s. They tried different thing. An inline cockpit would hold longer but ended up melting at the same speed. A mk1 command pod, it can do reentry then it should be fine, we lost our data on this one but on the long run it didn't do much better than previous attempt. Put a 1.25m nosecone in front of the command pod, did not improve speed. Use a spiky fairing, too much drag and it redirect its heat at the part behind it wich end up overheating. Then they found the solution, a command seat in a fairing with a 1.25 m nosecone in front, add a camera, a tv and some batteries and you are done.

The second problem was to find a way to get the passenger in and out of the plane. We'll just say the struggle was real. The solution was to use the pilot seat as your way out and a second seat as your way in and some space to make available the front hatch of the mk1 crew cabin, if only there was a hatch on top of the cabin.

Then here we are, the HST mk8 Missile. Two other aircrafts design had lead to this one, the speedyone and the fasterthree. Don't minds the name, they are only engineers, they even named a plane Xex... The Missile is not the biggest nor the most comfortable but it will get you anywhere on kerbin in less than half an hour. It doesn't cost that much, doesn't burn a ridiculous amount of fuel and it fly well. It fly very well, if you want to you can pull a high amount of g at your passenger displeasure. In terms of maintenance cost [the rest of the text has been censored]

Side note, we can produce variant if asked for, but you'll have to make the investment first. Our engineers are perfectionists and fine tuning those machine is time consuming.





speedyone did a 16000+ km flight (forget the game was running XD)



fasterthree wanna roll (too much)



Remember this guy and its controversial engines?



Side view of the internals featuring: RCS Port as the camera, solar panel as the tv, the fuel cell that got replaced by two batteries, Jeb as Jeb, Bill as Bill and nosecone wich became darker.



Xex 1................



I can post speedyone and fasterthree (with a better name) for review if asked but not Xex... no way.


This one is small so the next one will be huge. Its already built, moslty, but I'm stuck on front part wich looks ugly.


Edit: Translation :3

Edited by Mathrilord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2020 at 3:18 AM, TheGoldenSoldier said:

My range is over Long-Haul but the cruising speed is in short haul. What should I classify it as?


The requirements are moreso suggestions rather than strict requirements. If your cruising speed is lower than expected, it will still fit in long-haul because of range.


Also, on another note: lads, apologies for letting the backlog grow! A lot of us (most of us aren't from the U.S) are on exams right now and would appreciate it if submissions are kept to a minimum while we're busy so it's not as much of a pain to clear up the backlog.

Thanks for understanding!

(some more coming from me later today or tomorrow)

Edited by HolidayTheLeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Saturn SST from Habu Industries (Long Range Medium Capacity)


(Saturn SST in flight approaching 1200m/s)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:107,642,000
  • Fuel: 3420 units
  • Cruising speed: 1229.3m/s (1164 at 22km)
  • Cruising altitude: 21-22km
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.66 kal/s (0.48 at 22km)
  • Passengers Carried: 112 
  • Range:  4071km (5578km at 22km at speed of 1164m/s)

Review Notes:

The Saturn SST was a rapid departure from the previously vintage airliners UCA was contracted to test. Sporting large, forward swept wings and four turbo-ramjet engines, this aircraft looked more at home in a sci-fi movie than an airline. The Saturn SST also boasted 112 passenger seats - while not as large as existing airliners like the Firebird (160) - was still fairly impressive. Unusually, instead of a singular cabin, the Saturn SST opted to seat economy passengers were in cabins bundled in groups of two and four like a double-bubble fuselage but sideways. Business passengers were placed both at the front and at the back of the aircraft though, there were some noise concerns regarding the engine placement right behind the business cabins. Landing gear was fairly standard with its tricycle layout allowing for easy taxiing on the runway.

The Saturn SST boasted takeoff performance rivalling subsonic airliners and some turboprops with a takeoff speed at roughly 62m/s. This was possible owing to the aircraft's large wings and powerful flaps. Low speed handling was excellent with a stall speed lower than 46m/s. The aircraft climbed well only requiring just over three minutes to reach cruising altitude of 21km though, accelerated slower when reaching cruising speed. While it took longer than expected to reach cruise speed, the aircraft was still easy to control at high speeds. The aircraft was technically capable of a higher top speed, though, this was not tested as temperature warnings began to appear when the aircraft was pushed to go faster. Calculated range was found to be 4071km. It was found, though, that range could be significantly increased when cruised at a slower speed of roughly 1164m/s at a slightly higher altitude (22km). Flying this way increased range from 4071km to an impressive 5578km. Engine-out tests were conducted and it was found that the aircraft was capable of flying and taking off with two engines missing. Strong yaw control allowed the aircraft to fly well even with engines knocked out in an asymmetrical layout (for example, only engines on the right-hand side working). The aircraft's extremely low stall speed allows it to perform ditches in water with relative ease. Landing was also incredibly easy owing to its powerful flaps and low stall speed.

However, the aircraft had some issues regarding comfort with its rear business class seats. As engines were bolted on to a fuselage piece directly behind the business class cabins, vibrations were severe and the cabin was loud. The engines in the centre of the plane were fed by intakes that were extremely far forward relative to the engines themselves. They required long intake ducts bypassing through passenger cabins to function - this increased maintenance costs substantially. Furthermore, the quad-passenger cabins for the economy class proved difficult to maintain due to structural complexity. 

The Verdict:

The Saturn SST looked to be competing with TKA's existing fleet of TACo Firebirds roughly matching it both in speed and capacity. The Saturn SST,  however is much faster (1164m/s vs 1080m/s), had a longer range (5578km vs 2590km) but carried fewer passengers (112 vs 160). Maintenance for both types is projected to be around the same as both employed similarly long intake ducts and had the same amount and type of engines. The Saturn SST also cost around the same only being ever so slightly cheaper than the Firebird.

Despite similarities in role and overall costs, the Saturn SST performed much better and was proven to be much safer than the competing Firebird. We advise TKA to retire their fleet of Firebirds in exchange for eight Saturn SSTs for use in long-range supersonic routes.

Edited by HolidayTheLeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @MR_somebody's Class 47 Ekranoplan (Flying Boat)


Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:139,684,000
  • Fuel: 2960 units
  • Cruising speed: 153m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 100m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.73 k/s
  • Passengers Carried: 72
  • Range:  620km

Review Notes:

The Class 47 Ekranoplan is an oddity in that it's not an aeroplane but a ground-effect vehicle. This means that unlike regular aircraft that can fly on wing lift alone, it relies on the cushion of air formed when flying at low altitudes to lift off the ground, which, explains the disproportionately small wings relative to the size of the craft. The aircraft also has engines mounted above the wings to help keep them out of the water. The aircraft has a few more design oddities in that it utilised a dual-cockpit layout typically found in fighter-jet trainers and enough struts on its elevators to make the P-26 proud. Instead of draggy pontoons or more complex retractable pontoons, the Ekranoplan's wings doubled as flotation devices. The wings were also thick enough to carry some fuel, though, the majority was stored in the fuselage. The Ekranoplan could also land and takeoff both from land and water increasing its somewhat limited role.

The Class 47 Ekranoplan taxied easily both in water and out of water and was just as easy to takeoff in both. The Ekranoplan could also reach cruise speed relatively quickly, though could not reach the advertised 166m/s but was not much slower at 153m/s. Climb performance is irrelevant as it pretty much flies straight as soon as it takes off. The Ekranoplan surprisingly glided well and could land both at high and low speeds on water. Thrust reversers were especially useful on landing approach as it helped slow the aircraft down in water. With four engines and ample rudder, the Ekranoplan responded well to engine outages. As a craft capable of landing on water, it was much safer than conventional airliners when it came to emergency ditching.

Unfortunately, the engines mounted above the wings could be heard very clearly in the passenger cabins which, severely reduced passenger comfort. Maintenance was high due to  fact there were four engines and that they were mounted very close to the water. Flexibility was also an issue as the Ekranoplan was limited to only seafaring routes and could not flying over rough oceans or bad weather. The low cruising altitude also proved problematic when it came to noise as four turbofans were at full blast flying at only 20-100m. The Ekranoplan was also unusually expensive costing more than most top-of-the-line supersonic airliners.

The Verdict:

The aircraft is extremely expensive and has the problem of being inflexible limiting it to only a few select routes. Both range and speed aren't good either despite having four turbofans running at full blast. 

Unfortunately, the Class 47 Ekranoplan is simply too expensive and limited to be of use to TKA. We suggest TKA doesn't order any at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @KingDominoIII's C6-168-S “TRIAD” JUMBO JET from Royal (Low Capacity Medium Range)


Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:64,016,000
  • Fuel: 5160 units
  • Cruising speed: 348m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4-5km
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.84 k/s 
  • Passengers Carried: 84
  • Range: 2137km

Review Notes:

It's a weird aircraft with two cockpits, four engines (but two different types), cabins arranged like pencils grouped together and bodywork like scales(?). It's also called a 'jumbo jet' for some reason yet is comparatively tiny... Admittedly, we weren't expecting much from this design but it proved to be full of surprises. 

For one, we were surprised by the lack of steering on the main gear. Taxiing was rather difficult, though, toggling the engines manually helped it turn. Takeoff was surprisingly long and high speed, though, once it got into the air, it practically rocketed to its cruising altitude of 4km. With a cruising speed of 348m/s (mach 1.02), the Triad actually qualifies as a supersonic jet - albeit a slow one. Cruise speed was attained quite quickly and the aircraft was fairly pleasant to fly despite its looks. Landing proved fairly easy with the strong landing gear and powerful engines allowing for good control over speed for landing. The high speed combined with the comparatively low cost (compared to other supersonics anyway) made the aircraft seem attractive at first, however, maintenance costs looked to be quite high with two different types of engines needing to be maintained (four in total). The engines being high-bypass turbofans were optimised for low speeds, meaning that continuous flight at supersonic speeds (even if the aircraft is perfectly capable) could damage engines severely in the long run. The aircraft also had a fairly short range for how much fuel it carries.

The Verdict:

While cheap to buy, the aircraft looks to be a maintenance hog as its supersonic but its engines were clearly designed NOT to be supersonic.

It is inefficient compared even compared to other supersonic aircraft and the slight increase in speed doesn't really set it too far apart from far more efficient subsonic airliners.

It's an odd aircraft designed for an odd role with a few design flaws. We advise TKA not to order any.

Edited by HolidayTheLeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites





The DDR company realised that its only aircraft is not succesful at all, so they decided to make an entire family of aircraft!

The new DDR-ISSRJ1 ( Super Special Regional Jet ) is aimed for connection flights, since the other regional jets transport an small quantity of passesgers, the ISSRJ1 carries probably the double or triple of passengers without adding more engines!

Cruise: 120 m/s @ 5000m
Fuel consumption: - 0.39 kal/s
Range: 5000 km
Rotation: 50 m/s
Cost: 62,186,000 with fuel
Weight: 36.08 tons with fuel
Fuel: 2320 kallons
Seat: 2 pilots, 40 passengers in mk2 cabins and 16 on mk1 cabins, Total= 56 passengers

The aircraft has a lot of manuveability while keeping stability, if you want the aircraft can do an extremly pitch up, it will dont last long because of the engines, in case of an emergency the aircraft can easily land on water, the damages would be small and its able to be repaired cheaply, tailstrikes while taking off are unavoidable cuz of the long tail and CoM position, then, there is a tail wheel that can handle the tailstrikes very well, a drone core is included since the pilots need to take a rest, or if they pass out.

The aircraft is avaible in any payment form and we deliever worldwide.


-The DDR Company


Edited by Commodoregamer118
Fixed image
Link to comment
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.

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.


  • Create New...