Airliner Safety Challenge

[MustaKotka]

How about taking a square root or even cubic root (with appropriate multipliers to balance different aspects) of distance and passengers? That way you could spam all you want but with diminishing returns, forcing you to focus on a balanced design.

EDIT: So how about:
log(distance, km) × (passengers)^1/3 × 1/100(speed, m/s) + bonus

For example a 200-passenger plane capable of going 350 m/s and covering 1000km would give log(1000)×cubic rt(200)×0.35 + bonus = 3×5.85×3.5 + bonus = 61.425 + bonuses. Another example: 30 passengers, 1500m/s and 400km = log(400)×cbcrt(30)×15 + bonus = 121.28 + bonuses.

I just think that distance should be punished the most since it's relatively straightforward to add moar boosters - well, in this case more wings. Passengers are also easy to add but not as easy as distance, hence cubic root. Speed is only divided by a hundred because you've got two options: loads of kerbals going subsonic or fewer going supersonic. If you don't want to point your engines straight up you're also kind of limited by orbital velocity as in how not to get ejected out of atmosphere.

Mind you that in my examples any supersonic craft always runs the risk of disintegration or burning up so they lose out on the bonuses.

Edited March 23, 2017 by MustaKotka
math

[MustaKotka]

The Hypersonic Luxury Airlines

...definitely not inspired by the British Airways Concorde.

Score: 1736

Extreme luxury with mind bending speed! The spacious cabin offers safe flight for 112 kerbals at a cruising altitude of 25km.

Spoiler

The future is here! Six permanently afterburning Pratt & Whitney J58s propel the highly aerodynamic plane to Mach 3 cruising speed. Your safe journey is provided by two experienced pilots and a seasoned flight engineer - just like it was back in the day.

Spoiler

Regarding rules: I clipped a fuel tank into a fuel tank but removed all fuel from overlapping tank so that there's fuel only once at each point of the plane. The empty FAT main wing serves as structural fuselage and visuals.

Scoring:

Bonus points:

• Your plane cannot tailstrike no matter how hard you pull up on takeoff (20 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 50m/s (5 points) - It stalls at around 35-40 m/s although stalling it is really hard because the plane tries to level itself very aggressively.
• Your plane stalls at less than 30m/s (20 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 25m/s (30 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 20m/s (60 points)
• Your plane does not need SAS to fly stably (20 points)
• Your plane does not need trim adjustment to fly straight and level.  This only stacks with the non SAS points. (10 points) - For how long?
• Your plane has two engines and can fly on one (20 points)
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on two (5 points)
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on one (30 points)
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on two (20 points)
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on one (20 points)
• Your plane can belly land with all crew and passengers surviving (20 points) - Repeatability is draw of luck.
• Your plane can belly land without damage (40 points)
• Your plane has airbrakes (10 points)
• Your plane can ditch in the water with all crew surviving (10 points)
• Your plane can ditch in the water with no damage (20 points)
• Your plane is a seaplane (20 points)
• Your plane is an amphibious seaplane (10 points, stacks with above)
• Your plane can take off and immediately land back on the runway without turning around, and is heavy size or above (10 points for large 20 points for super-heavy)
• Your plane has a way to jettison fuel without speeding up (10 points)
• Your plane can fly on any two engines. (10 points)
• Simple fuel and air systems: your plane has all fuel tanks and air intakes in the same stack as an engine (10 points)

Point malus:

• Your plane can lose controllability due to fuel shift (-20 points)
• Your plane needs the end of the runway to take off (-20 points) - Full throttle and the front flaps deployed and SAS disabled it's actually a hands free liftoff before end of runway.
• Your plane can break up due to aerodynamic forces (-20 points) - Yes, below 5km at full throttle there are maneuvers that can break stuff but you'd have to fly stupidly. 
• Your plane can melt itself if left at full throttle. (Safety feature if both pilots fell asleep) (-10 points) - Yes, if at 20km+ @1000m/s, pitch down 10 degrees and leave on full throttle. Ascending or level flight, no.
• Your pilots do not have a clear view out the aircraft-I.E. windows are covered. (-10 points)
• Your plane solely relies on alternators on the main engines for power (-10 points)
• Your plane contains an RTG (passengers don't want radioactive death leaking) (-20 points)
• Your plane needs all of it's engines to fly (-20 points)

Base scoring (Subject to change):

Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points

1000 + 1500/10 + 112*5 + 2/2 + 25 = 1736

Edited March 23, 2017 by MustaKotka
added score to top & details

[Rath]

5 hours ago, notsodeadjeb said:

Can i make a Super heavy, that is powered by Nervs? 

You can, but I'm gonna stick nervs in point maluses up the wazoo (no passenger wants to fly in a nuclear rocket plane).  (Actually I'm just gonna add it to the RTG malus and calll it a day)

[notsodeadjeb]

Oh ok

[NotAnAimbot]

I thought about it for a while, and here's my suggestion.

First, have a Security Factor (nicknamed SecF). Its default value is 100, and is modified by the current bonuses.

Second, have the Optimal K$/100km cost (OK$). Suppose a plane needs 1% of its SPH cost to fly for 100km (Maintenance). Then, divide 100 km by the maximum speed to obtain the time needed for flying that distance. Multiply that value (In seconds) by the optimal cruise level fuel consumption, and suppose each unit of fuel costs 2$ (Current Jet-A1 price nerfed by a hundred times). This way, efficient planes are at an advantage. Whether you achieve that by going slow and consuming less or going fast and burning more is your choice.

 

So, for the OK$ for a plane costing 100 000 dollars flying at 200m/s using 1 fuel unit per second:

(SPH cost)/100) + (1000000 m/200m/s) x 2$) = 100000/100 + 10 000 = 11 000 $/100km

We get this, and divide it by passenger number, multiplying the result by 1.1 (10% profit) for Ticket cost per passenger

Say we got 100 of them

(11 000/100) x 1.1 = 110$/Passenger

 

The Score will be the SecF divided by the Ticket cost.

For the example, let's say it has no bonuses.

100/110 = 0.91

Thus, plane which have low operating cost per passenger are favorized as they are irl. However, security is also important, and impacts the final score so we can also favorize safe planes. This is my idea to balance out passenger tubes.

So, final equation:

(SPH cost/100) + ((1 000 000/Cruise speed) x 2$) = OK$

(OK$/Passenger) x 1.1 = Ticket cost

SecF/Ticket cost = score

 

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by NotAnAimbot

[Rath]

@NotAnAimbot, that sounds good, but my bad-at-math mind cannot comprehend about half of what you said.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

18 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

<snip>

(SPH cost/100) + ((1 000 000/Cruise speed) x 2$) = OK$

(OK$/Passenger) x 1.1 = Ticket cost

SecF/Ticket cost = score

I like this idea, but there should be some kind of provision for range points. Otherwise, someone could make a plane that has like 5 minutes of fuel and performs excellent in terms of efficiency, safety, and whatever else, but can't even really go 100km. However, this should be limited. Once you can go halfway around Kerbin with say 50km of divert fuel + 20 or so minutes of emergency reserves, adding more fuel would simply be a "fire hazard."

Or did I just completely miss some range provision that was in there?

Edited March 23, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[NotAnAimbot]

9 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Or did I just completely miss some range provision that was in there?

There was none, and I was still thinking about a way to include it in. However, it involved calculating number of take-off and landings needed.

Maybe sort planes by range instead of mass? Then we could replace 100 km by the target range plus some excess kilometers for security factors.

[NotAnAimbot]

5 hours ago, MustaKotka said:

For example a 200-passenger plane capable of going 350 m/s and covering 1000km would give log(1000)×cubic rt(200)×0.35 + bonus = 3×5.85×3.5 + bonus = 61.425 + bonuses. Another example: 30 passengers, 1500m/s and 400km = log(400)×cbcrt(30)×15 + bonus = 121.28 + bonuses

I dunno, the first one seems more reasonable and less costly than the second one for a passenger plane, but ends up getting only half the points. It's simpler than mine though, so that's a good point. imo, speed and passenger are fine, it's just distance that needs to be buffed.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

While I would hardly call it an airliner, this Kerbal Cessna I had lying around technically does meet the light specifications of two passengers.

Passengers: 2

Range: ~1000km

Speed: 190m/s (I hadn't quite reached cruise in the pic)

Can tail strike?: My tail is supposed to be on the ground. +10pts

Stalls at less than 30m/s. +20pts.

Can fly without SAS, and fly level without trim. +30pts

Belly landing? Gear do not retract! +40pts

Can ditch without damage. +20pts

Simple engine/fuel/intake: +10pts? 

Has no backup engine. -20pts

Relies on main engine alternator. -10pts

 

190 + (1000/10) + (2*5) + (0/2) + 10 + 20 + 30 + 10 +40 + 20 - 20 - 10 = 190 + 100 + 10 +10 + 90 = 300pts

Heck, I have a few other light planes that would beat this handily, but I thought it would be fun to enter it anyways.

Edited March 24, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Tetragon213]

So, I ended up creating a very close copy of Concorde. I tried to be as accurate as a could.

So, this is what the Konkorde that I made looks like:

So, without further ado, let's have a look at score!

Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points

For the Bonus points, I'll offer some explanation with them

• Your plane cannot tailstrike no matter how hard you pull up on takeoff (20 points) I couldn't get her to tailstrike. Probably because the Elevons only generate enough of a moment to rotate the plane when you're above 100 m/s, at which point you're capable of getting airborne.
• Your plane stalls at less than 50m/s (5 points) She stalled much higher. I never got a chance to fully push it, but suffice to say, she struggled at speeds below 100 m/s
• Your plane stalls at less than 30m/s (20 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 25m/s (30 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 20m/s (60 points)
• Your plane does not need SAS to fly stably (20 points) It managed this, amazingly enough. Needed some trim though.
• Your plane does not need trim adjustment to fly straight and level.  This only stacks with the non SAS points. (10 points) Lol nope. She started nosediving without trim
• Your plane has two engines and can fly on one (20 points) N/A
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on two (5 points) N/A
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on one (30 points) N/A
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on two (20 points) I could just barely gain altitude and airspeed on 2 engines, although it took the whole length of the runway for takeoff.
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on one (20 points) One engine wasn't enough to support the sheer weight of the plane
• Your plane can belly land with all crew and passengers surviving (20 points) Nope
• Your plane can belly land without damage (40 points) Big Nope
• Your plane has airbrakes (10 points) Depends on what you classify as airbrakes. The elevons can extend in such a way (linked to Action Group 1) to act like airbrakes. Tentative no to this one for now
• Your plane can ditch in the water with all crew surviving (10 points) It can survive. The engines usually get torn off, however.
• Your plane can ditch in the water with no damage (20 points) No. The entire engine units, and sometimes parts of the wings, would be destroyed on impact
• Your plane is a seaplane (20 points) Absolutely not.
• Your plane is an amphibious seaplane (10 points, stacks with above) See above.
• Your plane can take off and immediately land back on the runway without turning around, and is heavy size or above (10 points for large 20 points for super-heavy) There wasn't enough runway left after lifting off.
• Your plane has a way to jettison fuel without speeding up (10 points) Couldn't find a way to do it.
• Your plane can fly on any two engines If the 2 engines were not symmetrically aligned (i.e. not engines 1&4 or 2&3), the plane would not be able to fly.
• Simple fuel and air systems: your plane has all fuel tanks and air intakes in the same stack as an engine (10 points) There is no fuel in the fuselage. It is all in the engine units.

Point malus:

• Your plane can lose controllability due to fuel shift (-20 points) I flew it all the way till the tanks ran dry, and noticed no ill effects from it.
• Your plane needs the end of the runway to take off (-20 points) It takes off well before the end if all 4 engines are running.
• Your plane can break up due to aerodynamic forces (-20 points) I couldn't break it, partly because the elevons don't produce enough of a moment to tear the plane apart
• Your plane can melt itself if left at full throttle. (Saftey feature if both pilots fell asleep) (-10 points) Most of my test journey was flown in the region of 1300 m/s at full throttle and, while warning bars showed up, my plane didn't take any permanent damage. Nothing melted or blew up.
• Your pilots do not have a clear view out the aircraft-I.E. windows are covered. (-10 points) The windows are clear.
• Your plane solely relies on alternators on the main engines for power (-10 points) In the back, where the ramp is, there are 2 battery packs. However, there is no way to recharge the batteries outside of the alternators. I'll need some clarification on this.
• Your plane contains an RTG (passengers don't want radioactive death leaking) (-20 points) No RTG's installed
• Your plane needs all of it's engines to fly (-20 points) It just about flew on 2 engines.

So, adding it all up...

1361 + (906/10) + ((96*5)*(1+2/2)) + 80 = 2491 points.

[Delay]

I present to you: a recreation of the DC-10! (Ignore the arrows, Steam uses F12 for screenshots)

• It can't tailstrike. (+20 points)
• It can land without turning around if you cut throttle before takeoff. (+0 points)
• It can't fly in a straight line without SAS/trim when flying with full tanks, it becomes more stable as the tanks get empty. (0 points)
• It can fly on the two wing engines (I won't add these bonus points, since it'd be cheating, +0 points)
• It has airbrakes (+10 points)
• It can land on the water with all crew surviving. (+10 points)
• It has all engines and intakes in the same stack. (+10 points)

 

Information:

• Passengers: 80 (Superheavy)
• Cruise speed: 278 m/s at 3000m
• Max speed: 319.2m/s at 1600m
• Max distance: 2115.48km (over 50% of Kerbin)
• Number of engines: 3
• AOA: 3-5°, lowers with fuel level

Score: 1381 points

Note: There should be a malus for angle of attack. An airplane at 45° AOA should not scoreas good as one with 1 or 2°. Please?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

4 hours ago, Delay said:

An airplane at 45° AOA should not scoreas good as one with 1 or 2°. Please?

I don't think that a plane cruising at that kind of AoA would be viable in the first place. That's way into stall territory. Heck, flying at all like that would be pretty hard outside of fighter jets.

Anyways, high alpha cruise is probably already punished by increased drag and thus reduced range, but I suppose it's up to Rath.

[Delay]

21 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I don't think that a plane cruising at that kind of AoA would be viable in the first place. That's way into stall territory.

Of course I know, it was an exaggeration to get my point across better. If it looks like the airplane could stall at any minute (basically FSX' default 747), then there should be a malus.

[qzgy]

So.... I made a light aircraft ... powered by a whiplash. (there's nothing against it) It's called the Gamma. It's not against the rules, but the flight plan does kinda involve Silbervogeling inside the atmosphere.

Imgur gallery for pictures (It works somehow)

Scoring:

Bonus points:

• Your plane cannot tailstrike no matter how hard you pull up on takeoff (20 points) - The TWR is so high, one it begins to lift, you can go vertically, but by then, you're well clear of the ground
• Your plane stalls at less than 50m/s (5 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 30m/s (20 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 25m/s (30 points)
• Your plane stalls at less than 20m/s (60 points)
• Your plane does not need SAS to fly stably (20 points)
• Your plane does not need trim adjustment to fly straight and level.  This only stacks with the non SAS points. (10 points) - At high speed flight, yes, so ... 5 points?
• Your plane has two engines and can fly on one (20 points)
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on two (5 points)
• Your plane has three engines and can fly on one (30 points)
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on two (20 points)
• Your plane has four engines and can fly on one (20 points)
• Your plane can belly land with all crew and passengers surviving (20 points)
• Your plane can belly land without damage (40 points)
• Your plane has airbrakes (10 points)
• Your plane can ditch in the water with all crew surviving (10 points)
• Your plane can ditch in the water with no damage (20 points) - Mostly, Two fins Broke. They only help in low speed flight, so 10 points?
• Your plane is a seaplane (20 points)
• Your plane is an amphibious seaplane (10 points, stacks with above)
• Your plane can take off and immediately land back on the runway without turning around, and is heavy size or above (10 points for large 20 points for super-heavy)
• Your plane has a way to jettison fuel without speeding up (10 points)
• Your plane can fly on any two engines.
• Simple fuel and air systems: your plane has all fuel tanks and air intakes in the same stack as an engine (10 points)

Point malus:

• Your plane can lose controllability due to fuel shift (-20 points)
• Your plane needs the end of the runway to take off (-20 points)
• Your plane can break up due to aerodynamic forces (-20 points)
• Your plane can melt itself if left at full throttle. (Saftey feature if both pilots fell asleep) (-10 points) - Unfortunately, if diving from high altitude.
• Your pilots do not have a clear view out the aircraft-I.E. windows are covered. (-10 points)'
• Your plane solely relies on alternators on the main engines for power (-10 points)
• Your plane contains an RTG (passengers don't want radioactive death leaking) (-20 points)
• Your plane needs all of it's engines to fly (-20 points) - Well, yes, but the flight plan involves the engines cutting off, so -15 points?

Base scoring (Subject to change):

Max speed+(max distance/10)+((Max passengers*5)*1+(number of flight attendants/2))+Bonus points

1409 + (3 591.467 km/10)+ (2*5) + 20 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 - (10 + 10 + 15) = 1,853.1467

Edit: So distance is in km, not m. Changing score to reflect that.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by qzgy

[qzgy]

So, I modified the previous design to create the Gamma E. Got about twice as far and flies 19m/s faster! Probably the same in bonuses, but with the addition of its probably possible to belly land without damage and it now has solar panels! Also, why should the pilots fall asleep? It jumps at 1300 m/s to near space, then falls down again to repeat the process!

1428 + (7425.506 /10)+ (2*5) + 20 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 40 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 - (10 + 15) = 2,305.5506

So a "light" passenger plane can go toe-to-toe with a reasonable super heavy plane

Edited March 26, 2017 by qzgy

[Pro100kerbonaut]

The Ugly Duckling,light category

Plane stalls at less than 30m/s (20 points)

Plane can ditch in the water with all crew surviving (10 points)

Plane can ditch in the water with no damage (20 points)

Plane can belly land with all crew and passengers surviving (20 points)

 

After belly landing

Plane has three engines and can fly on two (5 points)

Plane has three engines and can fly on one (30 points)

Plane can fly on any two engines.

Simple fuel and air systems: your plane has all fuel tanks and air intakes in the same stack as an engine (10 points)

Plane does not need SAS to fly stably (20 points)

Plane cannot tailstrike no matter how hard you pull up on takeoff (20 points)

1426+(9570/10)+((2*5)*1+0/2)+155=2538 points!

P.S. 4x  timewarp broke the plane

 

P.P.S.

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Ok, I'll be presenting a new Super-heavy entry: the PassTranz K2.

Spoiler

Takes off only a couple hundred meters before the end of the runway, and is slow on initial climb-out. Definitely can't land back on the runway immediately. 

But once the 16 whiplash turboramjet engines get into their powerband...

 

The engines pods will get ripped off on ditching, but everything else survives, most importantly the passenger cabin. +20pts.

 

An accident on a near-production prototype (the only difference was a slight change in gear arrangement) demonstrated that she can take off, fly, and even land with any 4 engines out. In fact, it was probably because of the old gear arrangement that this happened.

Edit: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I just realized that I did this with my brakes on... no wonder the plane was so squirrely.

+30pts?* It's a bit hard to control though. I might have gone around and tried to actually land on the runway, but I had been fighting it for a while at this point and really just wanted to put it down.

It can tailstrike on takeoff, unfortunately. It was either that or have excessively tall landing gear that makes steering on the ground impossible (now that I think about it, shouldn't steering during taxi be a requirement?).

I'm not entirely sure on bellylanding yet. The runway tends to go boom, which ruins the smooth surface. I need to test it on the grass. I know the engine pods will go boom, unless I decide to add skids, but that might reduce top speed.

It relies on the alternators currently. -10pts

So far I haven't managed to melt it or break it from aerodynamic forces.

Inspired by the Reaction Engines Limited A2 concept, this slippery looking monster holds 448 passengers and can travel at 1292m/s (close to mach 4, I forgot to check exactly), sometimes slightly faster, for a range of 2600km. It currently has no flight attendants, but there is plenty of spare room in the fuselage to add seating for them, and possibly even more passengers.

 

Anyways:

1292 + (2600/10) + (448*5) + (0/2) + 20 + 30* - 10 = 3832pts

Side note: I'm currently working on a PassTranz 106-SP for the Heavy category.

Edited March 26, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139
LOL

[Delay]

2 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Ok, I'll be presenting a new Super-heavy entry: the PassTranz K2.

You do know you can go too far, right?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 hour ago, Delay said:

You do know you can go too far, right?

Sure, but where do you draw the line? I mean, it has 100 fewer passengers than DoctorDavinci's 548-10-4.

I just added MOAR BOOSTERZ TURBORAMJETZ and improved aerodynamics to go very fast.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139
OCD

[NotAnAimbot]

2 hours ago, Delay said:

You do know you can go too far, right?

Where's the line? Going this far will only expose some potential weaknesses in the rules, so it's more constructive than anything else. Plus, his plane is actually better (performance wise) than Davinci's, with increased range and speed for a minimal loss in passengers.

[NotAnAimbot]

 

 

Also, about going too far...

 

MDL C-380, an A-380 """"""""replica"""""""" that actually has 800 passengers. Its 1400 parts lag my laptop to near death, so I couldn't do much tests for the bonuses. It could technically fly with a few engines off, but I didn't bother trying.

Estimated range is 342 km

So 320 + (342/10) + (800 x 5) + (2/2) - 50 (Runway to take off, alternator and needs all its engines)= 4305.2

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kkuyvnx7fdlyd0s/MDL C-380.craft?dl=0 

If anyone is doubting it, you can go test it.

Edited March 26, 2017 by NotAnAimbot

[Rath]

You definitely don't need all those struts.

[NotAnAimbot]

14 hours ago, Rath said:

You definitely don't need all those struts.

The fuselage was bending heavily when I placed the it without wings or landing gear on the runway, so I added about 500 struts to try to keep it straight in flight. The problem turned out to not be as serious in the air, but I'm worrying that I'd remove some of the struts I need if I go cleaning the plane.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

53 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

The fuselage was bending heavily when I placed the it without wings or landing gear on the runway, so I added about 500 struts...

Have you tried autostruts and rigid attachment?