Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

On 5/26/2020 at 9:22 PM, HolidayTheLeek said:

Test Pilot Review: @AVeryNiceSpacePenguin's Doug-Glass SBD Dauntless


I don't expect someone would sent a WW2 - era warplane for an airliner challenge :0.0:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nantares said:

I don't expect someone would sent a WW2 - era warplane for an airliner challenge :0.0:

And that's why they've banned WW2 any-war fighters now. Aesthetics have been taken too far IMO.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I've meant with aesthetics taken too far is, ya know, the demilitarized-warbird-airliners.

i've got something more for you, another war-bird. are you happy?

Presenting the MB-533 Wyvern.
(heavy long range)

SBMF Civil Branch is bringing out its best deal for the TKA bid, a proven aircraft with a long history in the hands of state operators for a nation that no longer requires it. As a result of this situation SMBF Civil branch can now offer a converted variant of this long range, heavy aircraft at a whopping 50% discount


We present to TKA, the glorious MB-533 Wyvern.
An aircraft based off of a "delivery aircraft" designed to ferry 312 passengers over a long distance, it's array of "4" engines offers the greatest safety of aircraft in its class, and all air-frames are proven and test driven for an extensive period of time. Based off of the specifications this aircraft is equipped with an APU, A spacious front cockpit with full VFR certification and a rear observation deck complete with pointers for entertainment, a large frontal "weather" radar, an extensive electronics suite allowing any feature to plug into the selected pylons.
Alongside this the SBMF Civil Branch MB-533 Wyvern Conversion is optimised for quick launches, with the aircraft being operational, with required equiptment, within 1 minute of the scramble dispatch order First cleaning service is free.


All aircraft are on a 50% discount.

Air-frame orders limited to 50, we are not responsible for any aircraft losses based on the aircraft sharing a radar cross section, emissions profile or a partial resemblance to a heavy bomber, all air-frames are sold as is and it is on the user to maintain and certify airworthiness. These aircraft are used and as a result the seller is not required to report unknown damages or any reports to the history of the airframe. SBMF Civil shares no correlation with the now defunct South Belka Munitions Factory.



Crusing speed: 265m/s
Crusing altitude: 2900m
Passenger count: 312
Price: 532,866,000 266,433,000 (used airframe)
Fuel capacity: 20900 kallons
Range calculation info
20900(265/1.82)/1000 = 3043km (probably a bit off)

Flight advice:


Rotates at 80m/s
Takes off at 100m/s
Do not yaw at low speeds, you are responsible for what happens
Do not drop below 100m/s in flight
Cruise at 2900m for best results

Totally not based off of the bm-335 lindwurm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fledgling 1N-00

A brand new company, the Kessler Microplane Aerosyndrome, has just put its first plane on the production line!  The Fledgling 1N-00 is a Supersonic, Low Capacity, Long-Haul Airliner, capable of taking a dozen passengers anywhere on Kerbin.


Some other pics:


Flying by the VAB:


Landed at dusk at the Island Airfield:



  • Passengers: 12
  • Cost: 8,088,000
  • Takeoff speed: 75 m/s
  • Stall speed: 40 m/s
  • Cruising speed: 580 m/s
  • Cruising Altitude: 10km
  • Range: 7700 km

Picture of cruising stats:



(400 LF Capacity / 0.03 LF/s burn rate) * (580 m/s cruising speed / 1000m per km) = Range of 7733 km

This plane does not take very many passengers, but it is cheap.  At merely 8 million per plane, you could buy a dozen of them and still be under 100 million.  Even though it is a weensy little thing, it still competes with the gargantuan jetliners for price per kerbal, meaning TKA could buy a whole swarms of them instead of buying a gigantic, unwieldy beast as is common in the High Capacity category.

The Fledgling 1N-00 is primarily designed for new air-travel entrepreneurships.  It is really cheap, affordable for young airport networks.  It can circumnavigate Kerbin twice without refueling, so it would do well in an airport network with only a few airports scattered across Kerbin.  The long range also means it doesn't always need to refuel between stops, so it has access to remote, rudimentary airports that don't have the equipment to refuel the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JacobTheFoxx said:

Quick question, for the range calculations, are we meant to use fuel weight or fuel units? When I use fuel units I get an incredibly short range which I know is incorrect having flown a further distance than it gives me?


As you burn fuel, your aircraft become lighter, reducing lift needed to maintain same altitude. Reduce in lift means reduce in drag which means less thrust for same speed and less thrust means less fuel consumption. Or you go faster and higher and your engine get more efficient(jet).


Also... no no I won't say anything until it's been a week...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USAC A7-1100P "ASTRAL PLANE" (Long-haul, low-capacity airliner)


The "Astral Plane", a new generation airliner, designed by the union of Kairbine, Kerbolair and Jebedastar, under the name of USAC (United Sarionan Aircraft Corporation), for the Regional Jet Challenge 2. Manufactured with a custom pressurized cabin without windows to avoid dizziness; winglets, high-bypass turbofan engines, flaps, APU, communication antennas, and an advanced remote control system in case the pilot dies, the "Astral Plane" proved to be quite safe, efficient and customizable to build cargo and AWACS versions.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh nice, been wanting to get back into Kerbal; I loved building airliners to contest standards and I'm glad to see that there's(Another) Continuation for this.

Edited by Lapis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 11:41 AM, Nantares said:

I don't expect someone would sent a WW2 - era warplane for an airliner challenge :0.0:

Yeah, but the review was a hoot to read. :D


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2020 at 8:18 PM, RoninFrog said:

Question, does the plane have to make a 1000 km range to enter?  I have one that I'm really proud of but it only goes 500 km, and I'm wondering if it would count.

It doesn't need 1000 km, it's a category. At the same time, most plane aircraft submitted have high range...


1.10 is out. Can we submit 1.10 aircraft? 
I'm waiting my addons to be updated. (1-2 months I guess)


It's been a week since last... mine is next... Your pilot love speed so much he keeps asking one more flight before giving its comments?

I'm just excited to have feedback on my craft. :)

Also when does the exams ends? So I can submit new aircrafts.

Edit: Will we get an excel sheet to compare everyone craft?

Edit2: Can we use parachute for landing?

Edited by Mathrilord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

Edit2: Can we use parachute for landing?

The general rule on using a parachute on military aircraft is that "you shouldn't need it but it is good for short landings and emergencies", If you need it to land on the runway at the KSC, no. But if you are using it to land on the island runway that makes more sense. At a large airport it is a pain to repack a parachute for 5 mins and have the runway being unusable. But at a small airport it could be 30 minutes between landings, so it is acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

1.10 is out. Can we submit 1.10 aircraft? 

Not a judge but considering the fact that you're gonna submit a fully-stock craft, but with liveries, right? It's a pain in the ayy to make individual cheatline (i.e the stripes), not to mention special elements even in the In-House livery (i.e manufacturer livery) (take Boeing's wavy pattern on the bottom & the tail livery on Airbus's prior to the A320neo for example). Though you can still just slap in your logo & model number, Soviet-style In-house livery.

EDIT: But we'll see your livery design if you ever come up with. There's also lots of blank airliner templates available online for you to start messing with.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Dammit autocorrect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:


liveries??? NeuronalTranslator.exe has stopped working.

You mean abusing custom flags to repaint our craft? Naaaaan I'm not getting into that, way too time consuming. I'm busy creating more aircraft:


Most of them still need works... and there are 5 more waiting to be converted from cargo to crew.

If someone wants to do some works on my Plesiosaurus rex (the big one on the left) as some kind of collaboration, I can upload it on kerbalX because he's lagging my computer.

Actual stat: 415 parts, 718t(refuse to slow down on the runway), 1120 seats, cost 1,118,300,000$, 51,320 kallons of fuel, 225m/s @ 4500m for 2,5kal/s range 4618km and takeoff at 95m/s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mathrilord said:


If someone wants to do some works on my Plesiosaurus rex (the big one on the left) as some kind of collaboration, I can upload it on kerbalX because he's lagging my computer.

Actual stat: 415 parts, ...

If yours can barely handle that, my laptop (which can only handle like my L-50-30 at maximum) it's gonna hate that tho.

But all I can see is that the Flight scene in my 1.9.1 install is a lot lighter than my previous installs, so this might work. I'm thinking of changing the tail fin to the one exactly on my L-50.

Anyway @Mathrilord what's your company name?

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

I'm still searching for a good one.

Tips, try not to give hints to, or simply 'Kerbalizing' the name of a real-life manufacturer. I've come up with Frontinco anyway, and it should be 100% original.

Examples of names to avoid:

  • Koeing
  • Kerbus
  • Kombardier
  • Kantonov

And et cetera...

Other than that, single, 'perfect'-word names sounds good, while you can always have people call your company on its abbreviation. Example (although it's a siren manufacturer, not an aircraft manufacturer), ATI which stands for "Acoustics Technology, Incorporated". However, as you can see, abbreviated names are good if the 'long name' stands for words that exist as a legit English word (or a word kmown by the 'general' public), so yours may be, if adhering both aforementioned conditions:

  •  Mass Commercial Aircraft Production, Limited (MCAP Ltd.)

Though you may need to drop the "Commercial" if you're gonna make military & experimental aircraft as well.

In real life many companies tend to use the founder's name (or part thereof) as their brand name. Mine, Frontinco (actually includes "... Aerospace Corporation") has part of my username (although I didn't have the "F" standing for my username in the first place). So yours may be:

  • Mathrilord Commercial Airplanes

I'll leave it to you to decide your own. I'm just giving some suggestion & idea.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I found names that sound good in french but not in english.

Two years ago, for Kerbal Express Airlines, I went with Bored/Blind Aircraft Facilities (BAF) which is an industrial complex made of smaller company like SpaceUp (SUp) for space related things, Repurposed Military Cargo aircraft (RMCa) for military looking planes, Grand Airliner Production (GAP) for more standard design, Some Inverted Concept (SIC) for weird or unusual stuff, Sea Proof (SP) when water related, for my first submission for TKA; Lords Rogue Engineers (LoRE) for the most extreme stuff and some more I've forget.

While I want to clean that mess, I don't want to throw away the background, like Sea Proof having been bought by RMCa.

Also the way I name my aircraft for TKA follow this logic: ex. HST-3-8, project(HST for High Speed Transport)-aircraft proposal(3rd proposal)-development variation(8th iteration)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late review chaps.

Test Pilot Review: [@Commodoregamer118's DDR ISSRJ1]    Medium Haul, Low Capacity


(Pictured: The ISSRJ1 in flight)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:62 186 000
  • Fuel:  2320kal
  • Cruising speed: 180m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s
  • Range: 1750km

Review Notes:

The plane's cabin layout caught our eye immediately. The upper cabin's windows were facing up and the lower cabin's downwards, which allowed for a blinding view both ways. This was quite the interesting design choice.

During takeoff, our pilots noted that it had a pretty high acceleration, reaching its rotation speed of 60m/s quickly. It should also be noted that this was actually 10m/s higher than the stated rotation speed, but it was found that any slower a rotation would prevent the plane from accelerating any further. It was also able to take off in 850m, which was admittedly high for planes of its size. The wings also did not provide a lot of lift, and required high angles of attack to remain climbing.

Upon its takeoff, our pilots also took note of the plane's incredible pitch and roll capabilities, which were very powerful. In fact, they think it might be too powerful. The extreme deflections and size of the control surfaces almost spun them out of control. Furthermore, because both pitch and roll were bound to the same control surfaces, they hindered each other's actions and led to a more 'rocky' recovery.

The aforementioned weak lift also meant that the plane was unable to reach its stated cruising altitude of 5000m, and instead managed 4000m. To the plane's credit, it was able to cruise at a higher speed of 180m/s instead of the stated 120m/s, and also had lower fuel consumption. However, it was at this point that our flight engineer noticed a discrepancy in the manual. It stated that the plane could travel 5000km, but a quick run through the calculator found a range of only 1750km. This was far below the stated number, and frankly quite disappointing.

Finally, it was time for landing. The plane touched down at 65m/s and our pilots applied the brakes and reversers. At least, they think they did, because the plane decelerated…not at all. Rather, the plane stopped in 1km. This was rather appalling to us. After inspecting the brakes, we found that they were not set at full braking power, and the thrust reversers were deflecting off the V-tail.

The plane was also tested in emergency situations. The plane was able to take off with one operational engine, but the power of the pitch and roll meant that it was quite difficult to handle at the low speeds. In fact, our pilots accidentally impacted the left wingtip, shaving a few centimetres off the tips and a few years off their lives. In a double engine failure, the plane's weak lift means it has unimpressive gliding performance. In a ditching, it also means that the plane has to land at higher speeds, although this did not hinder the plane as it was able to landing in one piece.

The Verdict:

It could be quite a good regional jet. It's pretty cheap and can carry a decent amount of passengers. However, its performance is both too good and bad at the same time. Not to mention, the poor landing performance is really quite unfavourable.

Maintenance-wise, the plane isn't all that bad. The only major issue would be the application of the reversers, as the cold stream would deflect straight into the V-tail which could damage it.

In order to fix the plane's grievous flaws, we recommend, firstly, making the wings bigger and limiting the control authority and allocation. Secondly, the plane's brakes need to be adjusted to a higher braking force. Thirdly, the engines should be placed in a position where their reversers do not deflect straight into any critical components.

If the flaws are fixed, TKA will consider buying 3.

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...