Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 hours ago, Zapo147 said:

As a side note, AtmosphereAutopilot by Boris-Barboris is a god-tier mod which has a fly-by-wire that makes very unstable aircraft fly smooth as butter. I should probably tighten up my stability if the judges aren't using it.

haha, that sounds like a kerbal thing to do, though I personally prefer pilot assistant. IMO it's just a little easier to set up and use.

[CrazyJebGuy]

4 hours ago, Zapo147 said:

Has nobody submitted a proper jumbo? If not I'll make one. I've made one before.

Yeas, several. There are 16 waiting, including some fricking huge ones. (In passenger count: 384, 800, 1152, 1488)

[GDJ]

Almost there!




Not sure how to classify this plane. It's a 168 passenger 3 crew supersonic Jumbo Jet!?

Edited February 19, 2018 by GDJ

[GDJ]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Yeas, several. There are 16 waiting, including some fricking huge ones. (In passenger count: 384, 800, 1152, 1488)

Jeepers. Those are big.

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, GDJ said:

Jeepers. Those are big.

They deserve a category of their own, you can see the 1488 one I built back on page 27, after building so big, suddenly anything less than 500 is tiny.

Your craft would be classed as a Jumbo BTW, highest class it fits in. (Like some flying boats aren't in the seaplane category, they are big enough to be regional jets)

[Zapo147]

Biggie Airlines would like to submit the jumbo airliner the 'Maui' for consideration.

Maui

Cost: $169,871,000

Expect 180 m/s at 9000 m 10 mins after takeoff. Final cruise is 200 m/s at 10000 m. 

Features flap, spoiler, and thrust control. This puppy flies like a dream. Seats 240 passengers.

[neistridlar]

So this I think is quite a hilarious aircraft, much in the same way a snail race is hilarious. That is, the idea is funny, but it is so slow it stops being amusing long before it is over. Nevertheless here it is.

Flavourtext:

After seeing the slinky 72 fly, some one at management made a joke about how the engineers would probably just stretch it out even further to make it a jumbo as well. One of the engineers, which had overheard the conversation, decided it would for a good practical joke. So he drew up an extended slinky, to meet the jumbo specifications, and handed it to one of the apprentices in the building department. The apprentice promptly brought it to the chief builder, which by now had grown wise to these engineers. No way he was going to let them tell him "we told you so" twice, and ordered the plane to be built. A few days later the plane was rolled out on to the runway. A lot of jaws had to be scraped up from the floor that day. Well, the plane had been built, and so the test pilots were rather keen to see if it they could actually coax this thing into the air. Much to every ones surprise the plane lifted of just moments before the end of the runway and took to the sky.

 

Neist Air presents the NA Slinky 152. With just one single Wheesly engine this thing takes almost the entire runway to accelerate up to 82m/s, at which speed it is able to lift off, almost scraping the tail off the ground. It then proceeds with all the speed of a glacier  to accelerate to 150-170m/s and climbing with a ~5degree nose up attitude. After about 5 minutes it will have reached it's cruising altitude of 1500m. At this point it will level of, and spend the next 5 minutes accelerating to it's top speed/cruise speed of 220m/s. Range estimate is 4000km at this speed and altitude. The aircraft is also capable of both turning and landing, however everything about this thing is slow.

Craftfile: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Slinky-152

Stats:

Take off speed: 82m/s

Optimal climb speed: 170m/s

Cruising speed/top speed: 220m/s @ 0.15u/s of fuel

Cruising altitude: 1500m

Range estimate: 4100km

Service ceiling: 3500m (yes this aircraft is incapable of maintaining altitude above 3.5km, and it takes 30min to get there)

Price: 30,458,000. (I doubt anyone will beat this one by much, if anything)

Part count: 55

Fuel capacity: 2,950

Action group 1: toggle thrustreverser

Edited March 22, 2018 by neistridlar
Transitioned to kerbalx

[1Revenger1]

Hey guys, I might end up having time to review something this week, yay! Part of First Robotics Competition where we have to build a robot in 6 weeks and program it. We finish building tomorrow, which means much more team to do stuff like this

[Kernel Kraken]

Ok, I have finished some concept craft and should have a submission in by Sunday! If I don't procrastinate!

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 hours ago, 1Revenger1 said:

Hey guys, I might end up having time to review something this week, yay! Part of First Robotics Competition where we have to build a robot in 6 weeks and program it. We finish building tomorrow, which means much more team to do stuff like this

Ooh, what team? We might compete haha

 

[Zapo147]

Biggie Airlines is bigly proud to present: The Skytrain Orca

This elegant jumbo jet carries 168 passengers around the globe at mach 3.5 for the low price of $194,449,000. Expect 21000 m and 1200 m/s after 5 mins. To achieve supercruise, keep throttle at maximum and climb to 22000 m over the next 20-30 mins. Keep speed at 1200 m/s to avoid overheat. Using supercruise, the Skytrain Orca has been proven to be able to circumnavigate Kerbin and land with 7200 units of fuel remaining. It may even be possible to circumnavigate Kerbin twice, although this is untested.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Zapo147

[Zapo147]

Biggie Airlines presents its magnum opus: The Skytrain Humpback

This magnificent aircraft carries 408 passengers over 5000 km at speeds over Mach 3. Price is set at $316,771,000 each. Climb at 160 m/s after takeoff, expect 20000 m and 1130 m/s after 5 mins. Stay at full throttle and climb SLOWLY (~35 mins) to 22000 m as fuel drains, keeping speed no less than 1100 m/s and no greater than 1200 m/s. Range of greater than 5000 km has been proven using these guidelines. Steady cruise is not recommended, as it will yield less range. She's a delight to fly and lands like a feather floating down onto a pillow. 

[RedPandaz]

On 2/15/2018 at 3:02 PM, NightshineRecorralis said:

How would you maintain this fleet of 15 or 20 planes? Again, supersonic flight is dictated by maintaining said fleet, which ultimately costs more than the planes bought. Cost per passenger mile is less of an issue since fuel cost will be much higher anyway. Let me remind you that there is no big supersonic jet in the fleet, at least not one that would cut into this plane's profits, in which case please correct me if I'm wrong. Also. Turn around time is not dependent on the passenger, only the flight. So, I don't understand what you mean by that 

I'm working on a supersonic plane. Should be great. Delta Flight approved

[1Revenger1]

Alright guys, gonna work on a review tonight/tomorrow. We just got our stuff done tonight for the most part. Also @NightshineRecorralis, we're team 2046, based near Seattle

[NightshineRecorralis]

51 minutes ago, 1Revenger1 said:

Alright guys, gonna work on a review tonight/tomorrow. We just got our stuff done tonight for the most part. Also @NightshineRecorralis, we're team 2046, based near Seattle

Cool, I'm a mentor for team 5000, from Boston.

[CrazyJebGuy]

On 2/18/2018 at 8:29 PM, neistridlar said:

Yeah, it seems the submissions keep coming in about as fast as you can churn out the reviews. I have been reading a lot of them, and they are quite enjoyable to read. I could probably do a few my self, if someone wants to give me few to review. Also your comment sparked some ideas for some rather novel designs that might be worth posting.

Yeah, I would appreciate that. If you want one to practice on, you can review a GAI Turbo XL, I posted it a while back, and it is already reviewed, but it is good practice, since it flies ok, but is odd enough. It's link is here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3199416

Or you can just review some. BS-24 and BS-32 Turbo are on page 21, I would review them myself but I don't want an entire line of planes reviewed by one guy. (I am the only reviewer doing anything page 20 or later. I think)

Currently the backlog stretches back to page 8 or 9, but those were mega-pages, good news is pages 10 to 20 have hardly any submissions. Probably less than page 8, if you put all those pages together. PM me or panzerknoef if you need a link to the judging sheet.

[1Revenger1]

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's - Night Fury HSKT / HSKT - EL / HSKT - ELX

HSKT:

• Price: 89,507,000
• Fuel: 1380 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.65 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1900km

HSKT - EL:

• Price: 91,157,000
• Fuel: 1780 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.72 Kallons/sec
• Range: 2250km

HSKT - ELX:

• Price: 248,777,000
• Fuel: 2840 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1150m/s (Full load)
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.74 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1200km

Review:

We aren’t exactly sure where to begin. We almost counted the Night Fury ELX as a separate aircraft due to the large hull changes. We reasoned though that they were similar enough, with the extensions being replicas of what was already there.

Anyways, onto the review. Overall, we enjoyed flying the stock and EL version of the Night Fury, both being very similar. We found it odd at first having only 3 engines on a small design like this, but we found it increased efficiency and were required to reach the specified performance. Both aircraft had excellent pitch authority, were well balanced with all loads, and generally wasn’t that difficult to land and takeoff; especially with the Night Fury’s high tolerance of hard landings. Yaw though ended up being a little weak, and the aircraft took off at a very high speed – closer to 100m/s at times. While the aircraft accelerated quickly, it still took at least a medium length runway due to it’s high takeoff speed and time on the runway.

We honestly disliked the ELX. While it tried to retain many of the aspects of the stock Night Fury, we believed that it should have been developed on it’s own. Due to it’s large size, the wings were small and had 5 engines. While this wouldn’t be a big problem, the aircraft already used a lot of runway. Not only that, but it’s range was abysmally small compared to the other two variants. It also tended to pitch up, making it sometimes hard to fly, especially when compared to the other two variants.

Comfort wise, it’s a mixed bag. The engines in the back definitely send a lot of noise and vibrations into the back half of the cabin, with the front generally being pretty quick when compared to the front. Those in the center get a nice view of the other cabin, making the aircraft act somewhat like a twin aisle aircraft, with a couple walls in between for privacy or noise separation – Depends on how you look at it. Those on the outside do get a nice view though outside of the aircraft.

Overview:

We will order 5 of the Night Fury EL, they were not that much more expensive compared to the stock version, had a larger range, and carried more passengers. The ELX we found to be uneconomical, and overall did not seem as well polished compared to the other 2 aircraft.

Afternotes: We had a few issues at our center for plane testing, making it so that we could not test planes out unfortunately. We had to rebuild from the ground up due to the mass floods

Spoiler

Edit: Oh hey, that actually worked. Didn't look like the message actually got sent

Edit 2: Oh wait, it got sent twice in the same message...woops

Edited February 21, 2018 by 1Revenger1

[neistridlar]

On 5.2.2018 at 5:57 AM, Overlonder said:

(Not exactly sure on the calculations, would like if it if anyone double checked.
LJ31MR: 1500/ (.17 x 250) /1000

LJ31: 350/.10 x 173 /1000)

I don't see that anyone has answered this one. Your calculations are not quite right. for the LJ31MR it should be (1500/0.17)*250/1000) = 2200. How the formula works is you take the amount of fuel and divide by burn rate, this gives you how many seconds you can fly. Then multiplying that by your speed converts that to distance. Finally divide by 1000 to convert from meters to km. As a side note I find it easier to just divide the fuel capacity by 1000 in my head and type in this in the calculator: 1.5*250/.17, saves a little bit of time, but gives the same result.

[neistridlar]

Practice review of the already reviewed GAI* Turbo-XL Classic:

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - GAI* Turbo-XL Classic

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21,454,000
• Fuel: 1300 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 210m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.09 Kallons/sec
• Range: 3000km

 

Review:

Looking at this aircraft it seems some of the people over at GAI are of the opinion that things were better in the old days, sporting both a piston engine up front, taildragger landing gear and large square wings. Don't be fooled by the looks however, as in the midst of it all resides a pair of modern jet engines. This odd combination provides some interesting characteristics. The piston engine provides the brunt of the power on takeoff and climbing, while the jets takes care of the cruising. In fact the piston engine automatically turns of when cruising speed is reached. Clearly this aircrafts looks can be deceiving, this is a level of technology we did not expect. As for the take off it is disappointingly long despite the help from the piston engine, as the take off speed is 65m/s. This seems to be an artifact of the low slung taildragger configuration, as in testing the aircraft was actually capable of flying much slower. The take offs are very easy though, just engage the autopilot throttle up and relax as the plane does all the work.

 

In the air the plane has very few bad tendencies, it simply does what it is told. We were not quite able to find the quoted cruising speed of 214m/s, however we did find 210m/s at right bellow 3km altitude. With the piston engine off, cruising at this speed and altitude we were quite surprised however to find that the 1400km range was quite a gross underestimate, with a tested range of 3000km. As for the landings, they are much like the take off, long but easy. Ditching in the water is also quite easy. The plane is however unable to take off again. As advertised the plane is able to maintain flight even with two engine failures,  it can even take off with just the piston engine.

 

As for passenger comfort we do have some concerns. All of the engines seem to be mounted directly to the fuselage, transferring all available vibrations. An There certainly is no shortage of vibrations from the piston engine. Luckily there is a few fuel tanks between it and the passengers, and it is not running when cruising. Never the less, with all engines mounted up in front of the passengers, the exhaust also makes for a great deal of noise. We are not entirely convinced the passengers will be all to happy to deal with this for 3000km, though it might be acceptable for shorter routes.

 

For a plane of these capabilities the price is quite all right, and so is the fuel economy. Though the part count of 41 is a little higher than the competition, and together with the piston engine, this one might prove to be a little on the expensive side to maintain. And the long take of and landings makes this a bit of a niche plane.

 

The verdict:

We will be ordering 2 for long term evaluation of passenger opinion, as well as reliability of the piston engine. Also we would like to see a shorter range version with taller main gear, for shorter takeoffs, as we think this might be a real hit for short range economy routes.

 

note: I suspect that I might have a newer version of Airplane Plus, which has the prop engines balanced slightly differently, and caused the prop engine to shut down.

As suggested I will start looking at the BS-24 and BS-32 Turbo. I will send a PM after they are done, if I feel like doing more. Oh, and don't be afraid to tell me if you think I should change something about the style, I do enjoy a good critique.

Edited February 21, 2018 by neistridlar
Fixed typo

[CrazyJebGuy]

15 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

-snip-

That was qiite good! A few small critiques, I think you meant taildragger, not tricycle. Also, I'd suggest putting only 1 empty line between paragraphs, but there are different styles to reviews, if there's some reason you do it, that's fine. The last one, I think in the picture you should crop out the UI, makes it look a bit better, you can just go print screen, then paste right into MS Paint. (Assuming you're on Windows)

 

Edit: The reason it got a longer range was because I tested at lower altitudes, I'll bet.

Edited February 21, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Habu Ind. Challenger Seaplane

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 253,104,000 (wet)
• Fuel: 7315.2 kallons
• Cruising speed: 274 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3900 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.83kal/s
• Range: 2,415 km
• Passengers: 384

Review Notes:

 With the heavy flooding going on at the KSC, we decided now was a great time to test a seaplane! Specifically this, very large seaplane! It lifts off like a very much smaller aircraft, at only 51m/s! On water too it can land, and it can takeoff after a longish run. We then took off again, and climbed to the recommended altitude, where we got a speed of 274m/s, 24m/s higher than advertised, but a range of only 2415 km, which is below our requirements for Jumbo jets by 1,585 km, we are not impressed by this.

 It turns well enough by Jumbo standards, especially with flaps extended, it rolls fairly well and has good yaw authority. It's slow to bleed speed on landing, (we think due to the sheer mass of it compared to the brakes) but it can make an approach at very low speeds, so it is usable on smaller airfields. The pilots have very good views, if though high, so we don't expect landings to be dangerous.

With comfort, two very large engines near the cabins do not improve it, they cause some noise at the rear ones, a few vibrations, except right at the back, where it is shake-shakey-Mc-this-must-be-some-kind-of-dance-town back there, with a massive engine bolted directly to the cabins. It is also not terribly economical, costing so much and having 126 parts, some of which have been modified to nonstandard size, making maintenance a bit complex.

The Verdict:

It's a little pricey, got a short range and not too great comfort, but we can excuse that and the high maintenance bills for the fact that it's big and can take off and land from water, it's a bit of a PR boost and it will service certain places well, like big mountainous cities with large lakes nearby. We'll buy 3, and we asked the army too, they think it'd make a great amphibious troop transport for organizing sea-board invasions, they plan to buy between 6 and 24. We don't really know though, because it's classified. (We suspect 12)

[Guest]

I'm submitting the Brikoleur Aerospace Combine (BAC) Long Umpire, in the Seaplane category. Full stock.

Craft is here: https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/Long-Umpire-P

• Take-off speed from land under full* fuel load: ca 65 m/s
• Ditching speed in water under full* fuel load: ca 70 m/s 
• Take-off speed from water under full fuel load: ca 80 m/s
• Passenger capacity: 32 + pilot
• Cargo capacity: small Mk 3 bay with ramp, tonnage not measured but should take a reasonable payload that fits in it
• Action groups: none
• Cruise haven't optimised because the range is bonkers as it is, but about 8000 m at full throttle feels about right, it'll go at around 280 m/s 
• Range: over 3000 km

*Full means as in the craft file. Some of the tanks must remain empty for buoyancy.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Guest

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

That was qiite good! A few small critiques, I think you meant taildragger, not tricycle. Also, I'd suggest putting only 1 empty line between paragraphs, but there are different styles to reviews, if there's some reason you do it, that's fine. The last one, I think in the picture you should crop out the UI, makes it look a bit better, you can just go print screen, then paste right into MS Paint. (Assuming you're on Windows)

 

Edit: The reason it got a longer range was because I tested at lower altitudes, I'll bet.

Thanks. Fixed the typo, and will remove the UI from the screenshots from now on. Don't even need MS Paint, just press the F2 key to toggle the UI.

[NightshineRecorralis]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Habu Ind. Challenger Seaplane

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 253,104,000 (wet)
• Fuel: 7315.2 kallons
• Cruising speed: 274 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3900 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.83kal/s
• Range: 2,415 km
• Passengers: 384

Review Notes:

 With the heavy flooding going on at the KSC, we decided now was a great time to test a seaplane! Specifically this, very large seaplane! It lifts off like a very much smaller aircraft, at only 51m/s! On water too it can land, and it can takeoff after a longish run. We then took off again, and climbed to the recommended altitude, where we got a speed of 274m/s, 24m/s higher than advertised, but a range of only 2415 km, which is below our requirements for Jumbo jets by 1,585 km, we are not impressed by this.

 It turns well enough by Jumbo standards, especially with flaps extended, it rolls fairly well and has good yaw authority. It's slow to bleed speed on landing, (we think due to the sheer mass of it compared to the brakes) but it can make an approach at very low speeds, so it is usable on smaller airfields. The pilots have very good views, if though high, so we don't expect landings to be dangerous.

With comfort, two very large engines near the cabins do not improve it, they cause some noise at the rear ones, a few vibrations, except right at the back, where it is shake-shakey-Mc-this-must-be-some-kind-of-dance-town back there, with a massive engine bolted directly to the cabins. It is also not terribly economical, costing so much and having 126 parts, some of which have been modified to nonstandard size, making maintenance a bit complex.

The Verdict:

It's a little pricey, got a short range and not too great comfort, but we can excuse that and the high maintenance bills for the fact that it's big and can take off and land from water, it's a bit of a PR boost and it will service certain places well, like big mountainous cities with large lakes nearby. We'll buy 3, and we asked the army too, they think it'd make a great amphibious troop transport for organizing sea-board invasions, they plan to buy between 6 and 24. We don't really know though, because it's classified. (We suspect 12)

Did you fly the thing at a higher throttle to get 274m/s? If so, it isn't flying at its peak efficiency and I suspect that is why the range is so low.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Did you fly the thing at a higher throttle to get 274m/s? If so, it isn't flying at its peak efficiency and I suspect that is why the range is so low.

I tried flying a bit slower but at 250, it was at about 90% throttle and slowing down.

6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

What graphics mods are you using?