CrazyJebGuy
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by CrazyJebGuy
-
I suggest putting structural hulls inline with the other stuff, they add floatation and it is cheaper than dedicated pontoons. -
Fixed.
-
But how many passengers does it seat? It's really important for these planes, and it also gets harder to count. Although on KerbalX it is easier since it tells you how many of each type of part there are.
-
It was very funny, I got three notifications before, read the review above it and went and did something else. A while later I remembered, scrolled down a bit and saw the picture, kept laughing until I got to the last paragraph or so, great review! I'm surprised it only has one like. Yeah it takes a while, sorry about that. Knew you were talking about my style of building that could have come out of 1934. I did reuse one design, although a lot of my designs are based off of other designs. As for the size wars, I could but I'd either have to rip off your design so much I would feel guilty to enter it, or continue my over-complicated tactic and have the game's performance be measured in frames per day. (And my CPU is an i7 2600 - BTW buying them used is great bang for buck.)
-
Knew it would really bomb, but I thought the review would be hilarious, so I didn't withdraw it from the competition. Seriously though with my innovation, who held the record for largest airliner twice? (Thrice I think, but that includes the Skots Ratt, which probably held it - not entirely sure) Although @neistridlar I saw what you put on KerbalX, so I'd like to officially surrender at the size wars. I will not be able to beat that anytime soon.
-
Yeah, apt name for a thing so over-hyped and then suffers mechanical failure potentially resulting in hundreds of deaths. Turn out if you clip the end two segments of the wings it becomes cheaper and doesn'gt fall apart. When I entered it I actually didn't know that it fell apart, now that I have a larger PC I can test more easily. I entered some Olympus liner a little while ago, basically the Sky Titanic but it isn't a deathtrap. Also cheaper. Edit: Insult me if you want, I messed up and it was entirely my fault. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/172690-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot-continued/&do=findComment&comment=3339186
-
There isn't really one, it's very subjective.
-
I don't like to review hypersonic planes for exactly this reason.
-
Thought I'd share the spreadsheet, but I'm scared people are going to mess it up. So I made a copy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit#gid=566807625 Ignore the first page, we don't use it.
-
If so, we would suggest renting it as a few apartments. A jet engine has to make a good heater.
-
Did some flying of it myself, 93m/s at 3km, range of 620km. Which is still a very bad range, a typical jet might have 1000km. A rare few even get stupendous numbers, I think the longest ranged entry has been 9,000km? Some terrible supersonic I made. Terrible except at long range and speed. Would really suggest increasing range and speed, if it's going 90m/s that doesn't even meet the requirements for seaplanes.
-
It will still be judged as one due to passenger count. Also if it's range is 2-300km, that is very short. It will do badly.
-
There kids, see what a difference a few minor modifications can make? And for quite literally no cost. Other than the electricity my PC used. I'd think the extra performance might have been just testing it again, it seems well within the margin of error. I'll go test it too, see how far different answers I get. Meanwhile.... Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Slinky 40 Figures as Tested: Price: 18,211,000 Fuel: 1350 kallons Cruising speed: 254m/s Cruising altitude: 7 km Fuel burn rate: 0.074 kal/s Range: 4,630 km Review Notes: The first thing we noticed, how large the landing gear is for such a relatively small plane. There have been Jumbos with smaller landing gears! It also seems to have the rear one right as far forward as possible, which lets the craft pivot on it okay, but it's so far forward the plane may decide to sit on the engine, and have the front wheels hanging in space. And it does have huge wings for such a plane, which we think might have the extra space, not to be wings, but fuel tanks. Speedy climb and acceleration, is a thing we wouldn't describe this aircraft as. The lone wheesly engine can take quite a while to get it up to altitude and cruising speed. It's efficient, but not very powerful. The efficiency gives it a very impressive range though, such a range is easily longer than most, possibly all, small regional jets. (EDIT: Kerbair K-200 has a couple thousand more km range) This gives it a GPPM of 0.012, which is definitely far better than average, but there are a fair few planes that can claim to beat that. Comfort in the air is important, and on this plane, variable. The first cabin, has a quiet, vibration free flight, and impeccable views. The two cabins following, have slightly more vibrations and noise, and their view is obscured by the large wings. The rear 16 seats have a significant amount of vibrations, and noise; although their view is quite good. The plane flies, with the large wings, pretty well. The ailerons are about what we'd like in a plane, and the pitch axis is nice, and if we really need to we can extend the elevators more and turn faster, just for those 'OH #&^$!' moments. The water ditching test had us notice that with the engine in reverse at low speeds that it does not like pitching up, pitch full up and the plane's course is steady. Reversing the engine then should be done only on low throttle. It can be bought fairly cheaply, and it has a part count of just eighteen! That and the rest of the Slinky line are very standardized, and they look fairly solid designs, so we will be buying some of them mean this plane is very good at being cheap to maintain. And the fact that it is fairly fuel efficient make for a pretty cheap aircraft. The Verdict: It's a fairly typical (excluding the phenomenal range) regional jet. But it does that with such low part count and while being a reasonable cost to purchase, that we can't pass it up for economy routes, and it has 8 seats at the front practically begging to be business class. So a long ranged cheap regional jet, is something we are interested enough in to order 24. With 48 passengers, that should really be a small regional jet.
-
Well crap! I'd hate to think I can walk farther in 40 minutes than my plane can fly! Seriously though I kind of forgot it, but it seems promising. I'll fix up a few things, and while I'm at it I may as well move the engines to the mid wing, improve comfort a bit. I won't actually change anything that would impact the range or speed enough to test it again, just enough to make it more flyable. Same cost and part count. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-4-Skat
-
Oh sorry, I didn't see the add and subtract signs there. Did not know you study mechanical engineering, I don't but I am interested; I know a little bit. (Been messing with trying to design mechanical stuff since I could draw, most of when I was younger was absolutely terrible, like at four I designed a car that drove, by the driver pushing the accelerator pedal in and out, and it's transmission consisted of this pedal whacking other pedals which pivoted and continued, until it got to the wheels.)
-
No, it would be 0.04 * strutcount and 2.5 * engines. I've done some estimates. How often is a plane likely to fly? Once, possibly twice per day. Let's say 1.7, although we should vary it by flight endurance. (We can add that later) So again lets assume it flies 330 days per year (some days taken off for maintenance and other stuff), we are at 561 flights per year, a typical liner might run for 20-30 years, maybe even 40 or 50 for a well maintained one. (Which you know, a plane that has a very high upfront cost is going to be maintained better) So a typical (25 year) liner will make 14,052 flights. Let's round to 14000. By the way, what do you think of my idea to make a tycoon style game from it? Mathematically it eliminates much of the issues your spreadsheet has, it would be possible to know the length of a route specifically, so the assumption of full range goes away, and it can more account for other factors.
-
Maybe multiple strut count by 0.04? And engines by 2.5. In-game price of fuel is 0.8 per kallon, I'm pretty sure.
-
I did some testing on your spreadsheet, if I change a balancing parameter it changes all planes to the right of it, but not left. And then I take issue with some assigned numbers. You sure it's error free? I would also take some issue with some of the assumptions, namely that all planes will not crash, last for exactly the same length, that all parts excluding engines contribute equally to part count, that fuel is $40/kallon, and that all fuel is used on each flight. Like the idea of it, but it has issues. Also past a certain point the figures become irrelevant, because we simply can't measure planes to be exactly the right amount. Range I reckon could easily differ 10% from different reviewers, due to precision of altitude, how long they wait for it to accelerate to maximum speed, if they take fuel readings from engines directly or from resource menu, etc... Hell, I heard nightshinerecollars (Spelt wrong - but don't want to ping) uses something different entirely, takes multiple measurements of it flying different fuel levels over the KSC using trig to see how far he goes, but doesn't account for the curvature of kerbin. (Not significant - but small changes like this, and whether using full fuel tank or tank minus takeoff fuel, or flying the test on half tanks or something make differences) ==================================================== Meanwhile I have been considering making a computer game, like railroad tycoon but for planes, and then use the planes submitted here. Think it could be really interesting. I can make the game engine fine, but maps and those files are hard.
-
I like this, good job to TaRebelSheep! I also like this because my Tupolev is basically a bigger version of that (Not me copying, I got the idea from a Soviet Concorde like thing) and I think I did a bit better on the economy front.
-
I've updated the Skots VIII Squirrel, I discovered (after I messed with the physics timing setting and got m,y game to run at 3/4 speed instead of 1/3 with this plane) that the pitch is wildly over-powered. My PC was too laggy to see before, but the pitch was easily able to spin the thing 90 degrees from pro grade. Also, it didn't turn overly quickly, it's just that cause of the square cubed law thing, it has so much extra bulk (thus momentum) compared to area that whereas a small plane would have easily changed the trajectory with that turn, this one simply can't. So I reduced the pitch, and I recommend to be careful on landing because it pitches up slowly then, but you could enable pitch in the ailerons. Link for convenience sake: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3288434 That's out of date.
-
Karman Crossing Challenge (Stock or mod)
CrazyJebGuy replied to Andetch's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Here's my entry, just designed a rocket type thingy and launched it into the sky! Then it sort of came down too vertical and was too fast to deploy chutes and was too unstable to fire the engines in reverse.... -
I wouldn't have been that harsh in the noise department, a radial piston engine is roughly as noisy as a jet.
-
What operating system are you using?
-
I'm finally doing a review again... BTW, your plane had some ix-gear or something, the tail wheel gear was not in the allowed mods. So I opened the file in notepad and text file edited it out. (I know text file editing is not allowed, but in this case I am just removing something, and replacing it in game. And I'm now OP, it's allowed here for such a minor thing) Oddly enough in KerbalX it says it only uses AP+ and Stock, not sure what happened. Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport Figures as Tested: Price: 15,425,000 wet Fuel: 300 Kallons Cruising Speed: 145.6 m/s Cruising Altitude: 8 km Fuel Burn Rate: 0.03 Kallons/sec Range: 1,450 km Review: This plane looks pretty normal, but in fashion with other Perbro Aerospace designs, those Junos? No. Those aren't Junos, those are air intakes. We would like to know why though, because the engines themselves have built in intakes, and since they face backwards they hardly have any airflow. Well, there is probably a reason we don;'t know about so we'll just start flying now. And boy, we were impressed. It accelerates very quickly, and it lifts off after a short run at 43m/s. (Note: Our DIY tail wheel might be affecting this) Again, with powerful engines it can climb very well, and manuevers quite nicely. It's not the best at this, but it could with a skilled pilot do nicely at an airshow, being able to climb vertically! But if you do get it vertically, it doesn't want to stay vertical. It pitches naturally, more than SAS can handle. But unlike most planes, it noses up, not down. Now, here is a complaint, it's slow. The engines performance drops off radically at speeds past 150m/s, and we were only able to get up to 145m/s at the manufacturer recommended height. It does accelerate to the top speed extremely quickly, but the top speed is quite low. In a vertical dive we got it to 280m/s, but the engines cut out long before then due to the high speed, they simply couldn't handle it. When we pulled out they only turned on again once we slowed to 175. Now, 8km up is recommended for maximum efficiency. On our return route, after the dive, we found at 1200m it could go 166m/s and have a range of 1150km, 300km less than at 8km. Is it worth it? Yes, we will probably do this on short routes where the smaller range isn't a problem. The range, even with this though, is not bad. And at 8km up, it's pretty good. On landing it can land lower than 35m/s with flaps, in a shorter distance than takeoff. We liked the reverse thrust on engines, it slows the plane down very quickly. And the maintenance is a bit on the high side, 37 parts, two engines, but it's still affordable. Inside can be a bit noisy, but the nice views are well, nice. It's fine for 3rd class seating. The verdict: It's a cheap, if high maintenance, turboprop. It's got a decent range, but it's a bit slow. However it flies very nicely; we would like to buy 10. Go ahead, I think it should have it's own thread. Start it yourself, be the OP, I might join in. But I can't be the OP, this thread can get tiring. But please, do, it seems like a really nice idea. What would make it interesting is the craft must stay intact rule, SSTOs with passengers that can go to the Mun suddenly become a whole different beast. Judging would be totally different, and there would be completely different standards. You know what I would enter? I'd stick rocket engines on my Skots Small. That would be fun.
