Box of Stardust

That doesn't answer the question at all. But I guess the wording was a bit clunky, so I also made an edit.

Got a question on AI behavior. In a dogfight, how does the AI aim fixed guns? Does it try to specifically center an aim point / total averaged aim point of all guns on a craft, or does it just try to point the plane's aim itself regardless of where the aim point of the fixed guns? I'm essentially trying to wonder if an off-center, over-shoulder gun location like real jets have a negative effect on actual combat ability by messing with the AI's ability to fly properly.

Nope. A-503 is a medium jet entry for here. The aero is just designed properly.

They're pretty much on top of each other. That's why it has sensitive control authority/'relaxed stability' and really good cruise characteristics. However, it is still easy to control due to the distance of the control surfaces from the primary lift surfaces. The whole 'myth' of putting CoL behind CoM isn't really necessary. You just need proper placement of individual lift surfaces, rather than just looking at the CoL as a whole. In fact, go take a look at my A-503, and the CoL is actually ahead of the CoM, but it flies perfectly fine.

Continuing @53miner53's P-5a Flash series, it goes up against @ZLM-Master's X-Fighter Hunter, a drone similar in size, but heavier-hitting in all other ways. Can the P-5a's smaller size give it the edge? Battle: After Action Report:

Next set of battles. @ZLM-Master's Lure Target goes up against his X-Fighter Hunter. Battle: After Action Report: And now, for the next 'real' dogfight, we have @53miner53's P-5a 'Flash' going up against @ZLM-Master's Lure Target. Battle: After Action Report: Also, I have a new section in the leaderboard sheet called 'Aircraft Stats', where I take every aircraft and rate them according to a list of attributes after they battle. This should help illustrate the differences for each competing aircraft and help compare their performance.

We don't list reviews on the main post anymore. We've all been working on a Google Sheets spreadsheet that all the reviewers have access to, so that it's not up to one person to do do the updating. The spreadsheet just hasn't been released to the general public for viewing yet, but that's the eventual plan.

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Stout 168 & 216 A clear day for this deja vu... except these aren't really small but instead really big... Figures as Tested (Stout 168, 168 passengers max): Price: 97,730,000 (empty) Fuel: 2,400 kallons Cruising speed: 218m/s Cruising altitude: 6,500m Fuel burn rate: 0.10kal/s Range: 5,100km (as calculated) Figures as Tested (Stout 216, 216 passengers max): Price: 118,730,000 (empty) Fuel: 2,400 kallons Cruising speed: 215m/s Cruising altitude: 6,500m Fuel burn rate: 0.12kal/s Range: 4,200km (as calculated) Review Notes: It's another pair of Neist Aircraft Company planes for Twin Crown Aerospace to look at, with some case of deja vu to go along with it. Tubular fuselage with delta-like wings at the front and winglets at the wingtips. Seems like we've been here before. Except instead of being on the bottom end of aircraft size, these are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Initial inspections resulted in judgements in line with expectations for NAC aircraft. Some concern was had over the very small tail controls, but we figured NAC knew what they were doing and decided they should be no cause of concern until proven otherwise. These were two very minimalist aircraft, with only the necessities to function present. Reasonable lengthy planes, before NAC jumped into their odd era of building really long skytrains. With nothing else to really do except fly them, our test pilot got into the Stout 168 and put it on the runway. We expected everything to go by-the-book as outlined by NAC. Takeoff was exactly that. Our test pilot pitched up as hard as possible to attempt a tail strike, but while the tail gets dangerously close to the ground, the Stout lifts off just before the tail actually hits. Wheels-up was achieved under 50m/s after a short takeoff run. On the way up to cruise altitude, we conducted general maneuverability tests. This general flight dynamics test quickly revealed almost everything we needed to know about the Stout 168's flight dynamics. Stability is good, though we find that standard procedure is to fly with SAS turned on, as it has fairly relaxed stability, with sensitive control authority in all axes. Not that it's hard to fly without SAS, but just that it's easier to fly with SAS. Cruise altitude was achieved in a reasonable amount of time, about 3-4 minutes. We attempted to attain cruise conditions through trimming the aircraft, but without SAS, the Stout was just too sensitive to hold solidly stable flight. With SAS, the Stout remained very firmly in cruising conditions. Cruise characteristics were as corroborated to be as outlined, resulting in the values presented in the quick specifications sheet. With cruise testing over with, procedure led to engine failure testing. It passed the starboard engine failure test, remaining safely in control, though it is noticeably affected by the asymmetric thrust. Next was full engine failure. Control authority in all axes remains strong. In fact, our daring test pilot, during this no-power state, decided to test the extreme control authority of the aircraft by pulling the aircraft into a vertical loop after a short, shallow dive, pulling up on the yoke with a speed under 200m/s. So that happened. But for the primary test condition, yes, the aircraft does glide well and retain speed well. These excellent low-speed and no-power characteristics meant that it also passed the emergency water landing test excellently. The mid-speed and low-speed tests were done without SAS turned on. All these tests did were reaffirm everything we knew about its flight characteristics, with no fault found in them. Landing, of course, was incredibly easy. Touchdown was made at ~44m/s, which we figure could be done at an even lower speed, and was a great end to an overall pleasant flight. The Stout 216 was up next for testing. Like the Swirlygig, the longer Stout variant is a little heavier and sluggish on the pitch authority, but not significantly so. Everything, again, went as expected and as outlined in the instructions, so we won't reiterate them. Control authority after complete loss of power was tested again. Our test pilot, a military combat veteran, was a bit disappointed with the lack of post-stall maneuverability, but ground control reminded that they were in a 40t jumbo airliner, especially one with the engines currently shut down, then said nothing else. Anyways, the test pilot was so excited with ground control giving them clearance to do dumb things with the engines shut down, that they tried doing a barrel roll (yes, not just an aileron roll) after pulling out of a 230m/s dive at 1000m. Daring, but just not quite enough altitude, so the Stout 216 prototype hit the water at ~100m/s, at about a 10 degree angle of impact. So we guess it's got a really good safety margin. No matter, we figure Neist Aircraft will make back the money put into it through sales of the aircraft anyways. With the second Stout 216 prototype (because of course prototypes come in multiples), we did the standard mid- and low-speed flight dynamics testing and found no new noteworthy data to report. Landing was again achieved at a very comfortable low speed of 40m/s with a shallow glide angle. The last thing we really considered testing was ground handling, which is good with a remarkably small turning circle, and with the added benefit of a small wingspan to help it navigate tighter airports. For logistics, the Stouts are simple aircraft with a part count on the low end for jumbo jets. They also have only two engines, which reduces maintenance time greatly, and keeps operating costs per-aircraft low. Range is fair to good, and they certainly get very good use out of their fuel load. Criticisms? Well, there is one we could make. Like the Jupiter SST we've inspected, the Stout has a bit of oddness with its passenger amenities, though not critically compromising like it was in the Jupiter SST. But if we assume first/business class to be in the forward cabins, well, they're actually the ones with compromised downward views due to the wing design. And that's pretty much the only thing we could think of, if that's really a concern at all. Oh, and we suppose that, like the previously inspected HC-2 Country Hopper, some airbrakes might be a decent idea, though having working thrust reversers alleviates this issue as long as the engines are functional. The Verdict: Neist Aircraft Company's Stout series are excellent with no operational faults at all. The only thing we could comment on was regarding minor passenger amenities. Otherwise, they're easy to fly, easy to maintain, very safe, and on the lower end for initial buy-in cost. They're not fast, but, well, that's the Lotus engine that airliners should be familiarizing themselves with these days, until a faster alternative can be found with similar thrust and fuel efficiency. The Stouts will make excellent mainstay fleet aircraft.

@TheFlyingKerman Of course it's better than Wheesleys! Even the uprated Wheesley was better than the standard Wheeseley! I'm an innovator! The airline market demands better performance for better cost-efficiency! There's a fun story behind the name, actually. Like how we have the RAPIER for the SABRE in real life, I figured this new magic engine needed a good analogue too. Since the J-56 'Lotus' is based on the CFM56, I essentially decided to come up with the equivalent of its successor, the CFM LEAP. Which apparently has technology from the GEnx engine, which itself was developed from the GE90, which here is the J-90 'Goliath'! And that's how I gave a smaller, very good performance Goliath a meaningful name. @neistridlar You're right on the cost though, I forgot about that. Would be nice if I could figure out a way to bump up that price. It'd be way more acceptable if it cost more than a Lotus. Also, I'll do the numbers if we can finally figure out that judging sheet.

So. I may have just created the best engine in terms of all-around stats. Just for testing purposes for now. I got a bit tired of the Lotus's 220m/s cruise speed limit (darn thrust curves...), so I decided to look into... making alternatives again. First, I tried Wheesleys, edited with 140% thrust limiters to bring them closer to Lotus thrust levels, since their stock thrust is kind of anemic compared to the Lotus, and wouldn't work as a replacement otherwise. It worked okay, actually. But I wanted better, both aesthetically and also in part count. So I thought back to @neistridlar's 1.25m scale Goliaths. Except those output an incredibly pathetic 60kN of thrust. But since I've resorted to editing thrust limiters, that's a non-issue now, and I bumped it up to 270%, giving me a 162kN nominal thrust turbofan. Still lower than the 180kN of the Lotus... but I was feeling somewhat reasonable. Hey, if the Lotus of the same physical size puts out some crazy 180kN, then 160kN should be believable. The aircraft pictured is an AX-502 Block 3 Variant B, weighing in at ~42t fully fueled on the runway and has about 2,400 kallons; it's identical in all ways to the A-502-1B except for the engines. But unlike the Block 1 A-502s (which will remain as TCAI Wave 2 entries) which don't meet the medium regional jet speed of 240m/s, this experimental Block 3 cruises at 250m/s at 7,400m at ~0.15 burn, keeping the same 4,000km range as the Block 1, but now fast enough to meet the class specification while running at ~85% throttle. I call the engine the STRIDE; Scaled Thrust Range with Improved Dimensions and Efficiency. And I think it might be just fair, 'within the spirit of the challenge'. Apparently, in a game where we get to go to space and get fancy high-thrust, high-speed, high-tech engines, all I want to do right now is build really good commercial airliners.

Test Pilot Review: @HolidayTheLeek's AC HC-2 Country Hopper Ready to soar... Figures as Tested (AC HC-2, 72 passengers max): Price: 32,834,000 (empty) Fuel: 2,380 kallons Cruising speed: measured at 245m/s Cruising altitude: 7,500m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.14kal/s Range: 4,000km (as calculated) Review Notes: Twin Crown Aerospace has decided to quickly honor its outsourced inspection contract with KEA as to remain on good standing after increasing their inspection backlog... Uncle Carlos Aerospace (henceforth referred to as 'UCA') has designed a medium regional jet that, after initial walkarounds by TCA engineers, seems fairly conventional for the most part, but with some oddities in between. The AC HC-2 Country Hopper has a sort of double-hull design, with the second hull underneath the passenger cabins. Some of this space was used for fuel tanks, while the rest were simply empty; presumably, these could be used as additional space for passenger luggage. Aside from the double-hull, the other things that stuck out were the very wide landing gear stance and the broad wings. Lastly, there was a tailwheel in the back, so any tail strikes were protected against. All this said, it's a fairly plain aircraft in appearance, with very little to comment on. Pre-flight inspections showed a center of lift and center of mass relationship within expectations, so we figured that this aircraft would, at the least, cruise well. Our test pilot got into the aircraft, and the first apparent thing was that there was no copilot seat. This is probably excusable for a prototype, but would not pass in commercial usage due to a requirement for a copilot for aircraft of this size. After this quick note, pre-flight inspections were done. Notably, there was no control to activate the engine thrust reversers, but this was the only problem we found. The HC-2 was cleared for takeoff. Pitch authority was good once the aircraft got up to speed, with rotation possible at or under 40m/s. It was, in fact, strong enough to push the tail of the aircraft all the way down, making the fairly heavy-duty tailwheel very useful to prevent damage. As this possibility was designed into the aircraft, we do not find it an issue. Wheels-up was achieved after a fairly short takeoff distance and under 50m/s, giving it excellent takeoff performance. General maneuverability tests were done on the way up to the recommended cruise altitude. The stability. Ah yes, the stability. The HC-2 has handling so rigid you'd think you were flying with SAS on. When rolling the aircraft, after zeroing input, it's like the aircraft has zero angular momentum. It just... stops rolling. Except with SAS, the computer will have minor overcorrections when roll input is stopped, so we could tell when SAS was turned on. Same goes for pitch. It's... kind of impressive, actually, how neutral it handles. So, all of these flight tests were done with SAS turned off, since it was apparently already very stable. The general maneuverability tests this stability was discovered during also hinted at potentially sluggish roll. More on this later. Cruising altitude was reached after about 5 minutes, which is on the longer end of the spectrum, but still fairly reasonable. Cruise conditions were stated at 'around 230m/s', which, in their words, was a 'fast speed'... except that Kerbal Express Airlines has outlined a speed of 240m/s for medium regional jets. No matter, though, as TCA knows the thrust characteristics of the Wheesley engine and figured that it could attain a higher cruise speed anyways. After a quick bit of figuring out good cruise characteristics using the 7,500m guideline by UCA, values were recorded at 245m/s, higher than UCA's stated cruise speed, at a burn rate of 0.14kal/s, lower than UCA's stated cruise burn rate. Pretty good results, actually, amounting to a 4,000km range under TCA's conservative fuel calculation. Attaining cruising conditions was easy as well, with the neutral-handling aircraft being very easy to trim. After establishing the HC-2's cruising characteristics, we moved onto engine failure testing. As usual, we simulated a starboard engine failure, which it passed with the aircraft easily remaining in control and flyable, though not at normal cruise conditions, but that's acceptable. It remains very safe to fly on one engine, until an emergency landing can be made. We then tested a complete engine failure. Plane glides well and remains responsive. Extra emphasis on 'glides well'. After returning over the airfield, we conducted the flight dynamics test. First was mid-speed handling, 90-150m/s. Roll authority is determined to be adequate at best, but it does feel sluggish at times. Pitch and yaw authority are good. Stability is excellent. Low-speed handling, under 90m/s. Roll authority issues exacerbated. Still 'adequate', but just. Stability remains good, but the sluggish roll control does have a bit of trouble keeping up at this speed, and the HC-2 starts to show its rotational momentum in a roll. Landing performance is good, touching down under 50m/s, and was an easy ordeal, especially with the wide main gear layout. In fact, it's here that we have our second biggest gripe with the aircraft. We prefer that the brakes were set up better with more braking force for faster stops. Also would have liked to have the engine thrust reversers were wired to a control, which would especially help in general deceleration. Again, the plane is very good at gliding, and it doesn't like to lose speed. So it would be nice if it had a way to lose speed on command without resorting to something like inducing drag through sideslip. Ground performance is good. Though, while the wide wheelbase is good for stability, we think it might be a little too wide, and could be made to be narrower. For the water landing test, its low speed flight characteristics proved to be valuable in landing safely in water, with no structural damage. As for passenger experience, the economy cabins are economy cabins. Visibility out of windows is good for most of the aircraft. The engine placement allows for comfort on par with well-designed modern contemporary airliners, with the wings shielding from exhaust noise and the engines spaced away from the fuselage to reduce vibrations. Overall, the aircraft has fair passenger comfort for an economy jet. For maintenance, despite a 101 part count, much of the projected maintenance would be checking over wing section welds. The aircraft isn't very complicated, and there are only two engines to service, in easily accessible under-wing pods. The buy-in cost is about average or lower than average for the most economic of medium regional jet liners. The Verdict: The AC HC-2 Country Hopper is a simple, effective aircraft with not much to say except that it does what it's supposed to: be an economy medium regional jet liner. It has... zero evident inherent flaws in its design. The issues we found are all very minor and non-critical and pretty easy to fix for production-run versions of the aircraft. Maintenance doesn't appear to be that bad, despite the part count. And it's a very safe aircraft. From an operational point of view, the HC-2 has a specific role and will perform it well. We can see this aircraft operating very well on long routes to even remote locations, just like how the manufacturer designed it to be.

Well, yeah, the RAPIER has the best thrust curve out of all air-breathing engines. It is pretty much the best aircraft engine to use for going fast in a straight line. But for the purposes of this challenge, the RAPIER has complex rocket engine bits that might add in to the maintenance consideration of the plane. Related, I've been considering toying with the engine thrust limiters and giving some engine, say, 200% thrust limit for double the thrust output. Mainly for Lotus engines, to see what that does, since they're almost always ran at full at 220m/s cruise.

I'd be worried less about the comfort than the expense in maintaining a hybrid engine with a rocket mode, even if it isn't being used.

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE WAVE 2 AMENDMENT FLEET SALES EDITION Twin Crown Aerospace Industries had a quick reconsideration of their lineup and forgot the persuasion boosting edition of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform... from which we also figured out another really good product for even more fleet sales. Order pages and numerical details will be linked on the original Wave 2 announcement. Also, as part of TCA's 'large contractor' agreement with KEA, TCA has agreed to sign onto at least two more outsourced aircraft inspections. A-301: From Luxo-Liner to Utilitarian Hauler Fleet sales is the goal! To help promote fleet sales of the expensive A-403 luxury liner, TCA is offering a stripped-out version suitable for light freight duties, designated the A-301. It has downwards opening cargo bay doors at the rear to assist pallet loading from the ground. For heavier-equipped airports, top-opening cargo bay doors line the length of the aircraft for any long cargo that may be transported (such as rockets for a space program…). The A-301 is intended for light freight duties, primarily filling roles of mail carriers and such, with an average payload weight of 10-15 tons with fully loaded fuel tanks. A-502: True Economy Wide Body Determined to make the most out of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform TCA has developed, TCA engineers had an epiphany after finishing the design of the A-403 Cargo/A-301: why not use the space for economy seating and create an economy wide body airliner? This decision has been regarded as ‘promotion-worthy’, as soon as TCA executives can figure out whose idea it was. But regardless of who the pay raise goes to, everyone at TCA agrees that this is one good-looking economy liner, carrying 112 passengers, slotting it between the 104-passenger mixed-class A-501 and the 120-passenger A-503 ‘econo-liner’. The A-502’s major selling point is that it costs just half of either of TCA’s other two current offerings, made possible by using economy cabin hardware, mated to the Mk2 platform through... ingenious methods. Which also help improve passenger luggage space! To keep the production line as streamlined as possible, as well as maintain commonality between all aircraft built on the TCAI Mk2 commercial platform, TCA executives have decided to keep the Lotus engines with known operation parameters, despite being unable to meet the 240m/s cruising speed requirement for medium regional jets. Apparently their belief in the rest of the A-502’s merits are enough for KEA to disregard the lower cruise speed. Retaining the Lotus engines also mean that the flight characteristics of the A-502 are extremely similar to the A-403, allowing easy transfer of pilots. In the case of wanting higher speed, however, the Block 2 A-502 has been prepared to receive Wheesley engines for propulsion in a tri-jet configuration as on the A-501. A-703-1B CREST: More For a Little More The -B variant of the A-703 CREST with an additional cabin segment has been confirmed for production. Most clients are encouraged to buy the -B variant, but the 40-passenger -A variant remains available, should they choose to cheap out by 550,000, or feel that the slightly higher range and various other qualities due to slightly smaller size are more beneficial.

*Editor Extensions Redux Best mod ever, by the way. It makes constructing crafts 100x better. Easier and adds more functionalities. Especially multiple snap angles, from 1 degrees to 90 degrees. Everyone should use it, especially in a very construction-heavy challenge. I prefer Rigid Attach for everything though. Less potential weirdness with ghost forces, at least so I'm told (though Rigid Attach has its own peculiarities with wings). I only use Autostrut in the most severe cases.

APP and BDA mix fine. Source: I run the Air Superiority Competition.

He thought you were referring to the wings with fuel with them, not the Fuel Wings mod. The approved mod list is in the main post. It's pretty much: AirplanePlus Tweakscale And that's it.

Fuel Wings the mod itself is not allowed, as it is not in the approved mod list. Seems to work for the Proteus, which has little stagger between wing height. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus

I think KK might just be using more computing resources, so BDA has less to work with. There's also the part that the KSC-Island setup has an altitude difference compared to the raised starting runways I have with KK, so that might have something to do with it too; battles are lower to the ocean without KK, which means we can't do any special high-altitude stuff if we want too. I'll keep doing tests with different aircraft and see if having KK installed or not is significantly different.

So I ran the battles again without KerbalKonstruct. The guns did get better, and there was maybe less friendly fire, and the X-Fighter was able to get some control over the battle more often. PEGASys still won every battle 2-1 though, before fuel and/or ammo ran out.

Season won't fully start yet, at least in terms of frequency of battles, but I'd figure I'd at least get the queue start to roll. So first up, the first plane submitted for BDA 1.4 was... @dundun92's HogMaster. A joke of a flying brick with lots of GAU-8s. And the second plane submitted was @ZLM-Master's X-Fighter Hunter, a small drone that's got all of ASC's usual things. Battle: After Action Report: Okay, that was... a pretty lame start to the new ASC series. Everyone's here for dogfighting, so I ran the next plane that was listed on the queue: PEGASys-D6. (I reserved that spot a while ago since I had the plane made, but was just tuning it right before I released it...) It goes on offense against @ZLM-Master's X-Fighter Hunter. Oh, and note: these battles were sped up to 170% of original recorded speed. New BDA... makes some battles last really long. Battle: After Action Report:

Welp. Time to actually invest in setting up a controller for my PC.

It's an Asus ROG GL702VS, a gaming laptop (since I carry it around for to use for my classes as well, and the specs are relevant for what I do). i7 7700HQ, GTX 1070 So the multi-aircraft battles run 'reasonably well', probably around 15-25 FPS, but I used to play games on a laptop with only integrated graphics, so I'm used to low FPS. The game runs at about 0.75 - 0.5 real time due to the physics slow down, but it still runs smoothly otherwise. I will tell you this straight-up right now: as of your current design, I will dock you lots of points for (lack of) ground handling. Planes still have to steer on the ground!

To think of it, I might be one of the most qualified to judge Super Jumbos since my system can handle these craft no problem... I mean, a 400 part plane is probably nothing conpared to six to ten 70+ part aircraft flying around and shooting each other within an extended physics range of about a 5km radius.

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE WAVE 2 Twin Crown Aerospace Industries presents new contract bids for Kerbal Express Airlines, now finalized and polished after finding the time to so so, once those outsourced aircraft tests were finished. As with all TCA aircraft, they feature excellent ground performance, with all aircraft able to get wheels up by around 60m/s (generally lower) and fairly short takeoff and landing distances. They're also still unassuming in appearance (most of them, at least). Wave 2 features the 'Econo-Liner Series', a roster of aircraft with an extreme focus on economic operations and transport, but compromising minimally in all critical aspects. The only compromise made on Econo-Liner aircraft is the comfort, which can be deemed 'average at best'. You may be able to fit in-flight entertainment systems, but those seat sizes aren't getting any bigger in the most economic of configurations. They also declined to chase down the title of 'lowest buy-in cost', due to the pursuit of the ideal combination between efficient operations and being a functional aircraft. There's also a few specialized aircraft featured in Wave 2 not part of the Econo-Liner series, focusing on the complete opposite: passenger experience. Styles featured are: executive, luxury+business, and... well, whatever the wacky one is, it's somewhere between relaxing and thrilling. (Meta note: these were created with the intention of being graded on the upgraded judging sheet with proposed 'passenger experience' modifier rating; we should get back to discussing this.) As always, price displayed is empty of fuel. AG 1 will always toggle engines. AG 4 will toggle alternate engine modes on most aircraft, though some thrust reversers are linked to AG 2. AG 2 will toggle flaps if applicable. A-104-4B Aspen Empress: The Executive Aspen 23,036,000 ; 24 passengers max (executive layout) ; 167m/s (0.07 burn) @ 1600m = 2800km An executive version of the Aspen airplane, with upgraded airframe features. Features a sectioned off rear cabin. Seats up to 24, due to cabin reconfiguration. Those Military Application Division guys really like this plane. Contract bids to everyone! A-203-2A Flying Trimaran: The Vacation Starts Here 61,816,000 ; 40 passengers (?) ; 200m/s @ 1500m = 1300km (as fueled) When asked how this aircraft fit into ‘military application’, the Twin Crown Aerospace Military Applications Division spokeskerbal said ‘Profits are military-applicable!’ and refused to give further comment on the matter. On the A-203 Flying Trimaran, your vacation getaway starts as soon as you make it out to be! Enjoy the spectacular views from the open deck, or have a drink at the Lift Bar at the back! (TCA recommends use of tethers if mid-flight.) I figured if the Ikaros worked as a weird, unique, fascinating party plane for the rich and to impress investors, there was a place for a luxo-barge with great accomodations for enjoying the tropical regions. Okay, I know the rule was ‘make a cabin around command seats’, but rules are meant to be broken, as long as they’re broken creatively, and that was the motivator behind this design. A ‘how can I use command seats in an actually reasonable manner on a plane’ kind of thought. Didn’t really have a plan for the deck plan except place a bar ‘somewhere’, so I went with what seemed right. Passenger capacity is however you want to count it. 40 according to cabins, but unfortunately the amount of drag on the plane means it can’t hit that 220m/s speed for a small regional airliner. But it was intended for the seaplane class anyways A-402: The Flagship Econo-Liner, a Small Economy Jet for the Masses 1A: 15,620,000 ; 40 passengers ; 220m/s @ 5600m = 4700km 1C: 16,720,000 ; 56 passengers ; 222m/s (0.05 - 0.06 burn) @ 5500m = 5100km - 6000km Executives at TCA realized that buy-in cost might be a small expense in the life of an aircraft, so unlike our competitors, TCA didn't try to design this aircraft to be the ultimate cheaply buyable aircraft. Instead it was designed with industry-leading operating efficiency. The A-402s do not have an ultimately cheap unit price as other competitors, but for a very slightly higher price, TCA has produced an aircraft that does not compromise in any critical performance category to achieve unequaled, industry-leading, maybe even industry-breaking, operating efficiency. The -C variant has an even lower entry cost than the A-401-1A with equal passenger seating, at the compromise of not meeting ETOPS standards. Engine failure and it’s going down! A-403: Class-Straddling Luxo-Liner 1A:58,192,000 ; 64 passengers ; 220m/s (0.12 burn) @ 5600m = 4100km It's not an economy liner in cost, but it's just as long-legged. Just 8 seats short of medium regional jet standards, A-403 was developed from the same prototype that led to the A-501. After much consideration and design tweaking, as well as the release of the 401 and 402 economy jets, TCA felt that the release of a relatively expensive small luxury airliner was finally reasonable, as opposed to when it was originally designed before becoming the A-501 airliner. It strategically sits at 64 maximum seats as to not be hampered by the 220m/s limit of the Lotus engines and the minimum 240m/s cruise speed of medium regional jets... A-301: From Luxo-Liner to Utilitarian Hauler 1A:27,174,000 ; 15t maximum recommended payload / 20t do not exceed payload ; 200 - 220m/s @ 5600m = ??? Fleet sales is the goal! To help promote fleet sales of the expensive A-403 luxury liner, TCA is offering a stripped-out version suitable for light freight duties, designated the A-301. It has downwards opening cargo bay doors at the rear to assist pallet loading from the ground. For heavier-equipped airports, top-opening cargo bay doors line the length of the aircraft for any long cargo that may be transported (such as rockets for a space program…). The A-301 is intended for light freight duties, primarily filling roles of mail carriers and such, with an average payload weight of 10-15 tons with fully loaded fuel tanks. A-503: Medium Economy Airliner 1A:76,712,000 ; 120 passengers ; 260m/s (0.18 burn) @ 7100m = 4100km / 270m/s (0.20 burn) @ 6600m = 3900km Medium regional jet liner of TCA’s new ‘Econo-Liner’ series of aircraft. An aircraft so good, we even impressed ourselves. Especially since the development process for this aircraft's peculiar propulsion arrangement caused some difficulties. Not bad for the design that originally caused TCA’s multi-prototype-destroying hangar fire. A-502: True Economy Wide Body 1A:36,285,000 ; 112 passengers ; 220m/s (0.13 burn) @ 5500m = 4000km 1B: 48,415,000 ; 96 passengers ; 220m/s (0.13 burn) @ 5600m = 4000km Determined to make the most out of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform TCA has developed, TCA engineers had an epiphany after finishing the design of the A-403 Cargo/A-301: why not use the space for economy seating and create an economy wide body airliner? This decision has been regarded as ‘promotion-worthy’, as soon as TCA executives can figure out whose idea it was. But regardless of who the pay raise goes to, everyone at TCA agrees that this is one good-looking economy liner, carrying 112 passengers, slotting it between the 104-passenger mixed-class A-501 and the 120-passenger A-503 ‘econo-liner’. The A-502’s major selling point is that it costs just half of either of TCA’s other two current offerings, made possible by using economy cabin hardware, mated to the Mk2 platform through... ingenious methods. Which also help improve passenger luggage space! To keep the production line as streamlined as possible, as well as maintain commonality between all aircraft built on the TCAI Mk2 commercial platform, TCA executives have decided to keep the Lotus engines with known operation parameters, despite being unable to meet the 240m/s cruising speed requirement for medium regional jets. Apparently their belief in the rest of the A-502’s merits are enough for KEA to disregard the lower cruise speed. Retaining the Lotus engines also mean that the flight characteristics of the A-502 are extremely similar to the A-403, allowing easy transfer of pilots. The -A variant is a full economy coach layout, while the -B variant has 32 first/luxury/business-class seats in the forward cabins, separated from the 64 economy seats in the rear by a bulkhead (presumably where a flight attendant station and washrooms can be placed). In the case of wanting higher speed, however, the Block 2 A-502 has been prepared to receive Wheesley engines for propulsion in a tri-jet configuration as on the A-501 or a quad-jet configuration (to be determined if such a need arises). A-609: Twin-Powered Jumbo 1A:166,377,000 ; 288 passengers ; 264m/s (0.44 burn) @ 6000m = 4000km While not as much as an overachiever for long range as the rest of TCA's aircraft, the A-609 does meet the minimum range requirement flying at a decent speed of 264m/s, as opposed to the A-606's 220m/s cruise speed. It's also very economic overall, flying on only two Goliath engines for less individual engine unit maintenance, while hauling 288 passengers. A-703 CREST (Commercial Rate Economic Supersonic Transport): Exactly What It Says It Is 1A:29,439,000 ; 40 passengers ; 800m/s (0.37 burn) @ 13500m = 3500km 1B:29,989,000 ; 48 passengers ; 800m/s (0.39 burn) @ 13000m = 3300km Designed by the acronym/backronym-loving Twin Crown Aerospace Military Applications Division, the CREST is exactly what it says it is. It’s not too expensive, not flashy or fancy, goes far, goes fast, and generally does its job well. A -B variant with 48 seats is in consideration. The -B variant of the A-703 CREST with an additional cabin segment has been confirmed for production. Most clients are encouraged to buy the -B variant, but the 40-passenger -A variant remains available, should they choose to cheap out by 550,000, or feel that the slightly higher range and various other qualities due to slightly smaller size are more beneficial. Hey, I paid my dues. Also, again, the quirkier ones pertaining to special passenger accommodations are ideal tests for a 'special factor' on the upgraded judging sheet. We should get back to discussing that specific point, I think.