Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[CrazyJebGuy]

9 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Oh. Darn, because it's nostalgic for older players. I know I loved and still love it. I think Lack's Stock Expansion and/or some Mk.3 Expansion packs would be nice otherwise, as they add some airliner cockpits and some larger wing parts. Helpful for planes that just don't have large enough wings.

 

BTW, I dare you to make a bigger Jumbo than everyone else, number of passengers to beat is 1,488.

[Kebab Kerman]

15 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

BTW, I dare you to make a bigger Jumbo than everyone else, number of passengers to beat is 1,488.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

 

EDIT: Who had 1,488 again?

EDIT #2: Would extending this count:

EDIT #3: I might make a plane with four levels! FOUR!

Edited March 1, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[neistridlar]

Ok, I don't think I can do better now, though I will hold on to it for a little while more, in case I think of something better. 

It's not pretty, it does not handle very nicely in the air, but it is entirely flyable, landable, takes off at 55m/s, cruises at 210m/s @ 6.3km sipping 0.08u/s of fuel. with 1,600 units of fuel that makes for 4200km range. That should give it a GPPM of 0.004. I think if anyone is going to beat this it is going to have to be hypersonic.

[NightshineRecorralis]

4 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Ok, I don't think I can do better now, though I will hold on to it for a little while more, in case I think of something better. 

It's not pretty, it does not handle very nicely in the air, but it is entirely flyable, landable, takes off at 55m/s, cruises at 210m/s @ 6.3km sipping 0.08u/s of fuel. with 1,600 units of fuel that makes for 4200km range. That should give it a GPPM of 0.004. I think if anyone is going to beat this it is going to have to be hypersonic.

Cool! Can't wait to see the review of that (I'll be posting one tonight), how did you calculate that GPPM though? Speaking of hypersonic, I think I have something that can be potentially better but probably not considering it has 4 whiplashes.

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Cool! Can't wait to see the review of that (I'll be posting one tonight), how did you calculate that GPPM though? Speaking of hypersonic, I think I have something that can be potentially better but probably not considering it has 4 whiplashes.

CrayzyJebs formula from somewhere in this thread. (fuel capacity/passenger count)/(range*0.621) = GPPM. the range is simply estimated using cruising speed and fuel consumption and full fuel capacity. Now if you are going to use 4 whiplashes to beat me, I don't think you will have any spare cash for wings and fuel xD. I did test with just a single whiplash on an earlier version of this craft, and although it took forever and most of the fuel to get up to altitude, I was able to get it supersonic, and quite efficiently even, despite not being optimized for that.

[NightshineRecorralis]

ok, let's try this

(3100/176)/(8000*0.621) = 0.003545 GPPM

Though you are correct, the cost is quite steep at $98mil.

Edited March 1, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's international space exploration airplanes: Kerbair K20

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 34,150,000
• Fuel: 3200 kallons
• Cruising speed: 220m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.40 kal/s
• Range:  1700km

Review Notes:

The Kerbair K20 does not look like a conventional passenger jet of the olden days. Instead, it utilizes a 2x2 cabin layout within its bounds. The design certainly caught our eye, though not necessarily in a good way. However, we were willing to throw our pilots at a problem like this. We weren't sure why a tail boom was left out, but we aren't going to get into another fight with our engineers. Overall looks are good after you get past the nonexistent tail, ad passenger comfort is quite good. The same can't be said about performance, though, but it could be forgiven in lieu of the view from the cabins.

The 2x2 layout makes the K20 very compact for a jet that can carry 96 passengers, and the engines placed under the wing and far from the cabin helps both with cabin noise and the view. In flight, the engines maintain a noticeable but not intrusive drone, making ear protection unnecessary but still recommended. Pilots all said that they liked the way the plane cruised, as the altitude of 1500m is achievable very quickly. The high landing gear relative to the engine mounts allow for plenty of last minute adjustments. We would have like to see thrust reversers bound to the main control panel, as our pilots all had to activate them manually. The view from the cabin is great, and with a low flying aircraft, no pressurization is needed, potentially increasing the lifespan of the aircraft.

With forward thinking design comes forward facing aircraft, or so we thought. The K20 lifts off at 80m/s, higher if you don't pull back at the right time. We attributed this to its distinct lack of dedicated elevators, relying instead on elevons. Its pitch authority was sorely lacking, yaw could be checked off as acceptable or good, and the roll was quite touchy. We would like to see dedicated control surfaces next time around. The K20 also performed worse compared to its competition in terms of fuel economy. With 3200 kallons in its standard configuration, the craft was only able to fly 1700km with 96 passengers. This relatively limited range, coupled with poor economy and long takeoff/landing runs, mean that the K20 can only operate out of medium or large airports. Smaller airports with longer runways will also be serviceable, but we won;t be sending this plane anywhere remote.

At 34 parts and with a price tag of 34 million, the K20 remains quite attractive, being near the middle of the road relative to the competition. However, we really don't know if a slow flying aircraft with relatively poor controls is a desirable addition to our fleet. The plane itself is built sturdily, though the poor pitch control may result in handling accidents even after pilots come out of the simulator.

The Verdict:

With great passenger comfort, the K20 will likely shine on business routes. Unfortunately, it was also one of the slowest planes we've tested as a medium regional jet. We will lease 3 for a few years to see if they are up to the task, but we don't think we'll be needing the K20 in such a crowded market.

 

[neistridlar]

35 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

ok, let's try this

(3100/176)/(8000*0.621) = 0.003545 GPPM

Though you are correct, the cost is quite steep at $98mil.

That's quite good GPPM, it seems most subissions in this thread is more like 0.01 or worse. It seems you have twice as much fuel as you need though, so you have plenty of room to get the cost down still.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 hours ago, neistridlar said:

CrayzyJebs formula from somewhere in this thread. (fuel capacity/passenger count)/(range*0.621) = GPPM. the range is simply estimated using cruising speed and fuel consumption and full fuel capacity. Now if you are going to use 4 whiplashes to beat me, I don't think you will have any spare cash for wings and fuel xD. I did test with just a single whiplash on an earlier version of this craft, and although it took forever and most of the fuel to get up to altitude, I was able to get it supersonic, and quite efficiently even, despite not being optimized for that.

Gallons per passenger mile, (note: DO NOT divide by 3.7 for gallons! I now say KPPM, K for kallon, to remliove confusion) you got it right. KPPM is GPPM, I think that KSP uses US gallons, not litres, since if liquid fuel is some form of oil based substance, it probably has a dord of about 0.7-0.8 that of water, in ksp it's 5kg per unit, so US gallons work out to have about 0.75 density of water, right about where you would expect for petroleum based fuels.

I would have thought liters (everything else is metric), but gallons fit better by density.

14 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

 

EDIT: Who had 1,488 again?

EDIT #2: Would extending this count?

1: Me, page 27, right near the top.

2. If it's your base plane, absolutely. My own 1488 plane is an extension built on a 384 built from a 208 extended off a 96 extended off of a 40.

Oh and while the last review mentioned it, a human can breath up to around ~22,000ft. (I know from old biggles books about flying aces in ww1) which is more or less 6km, so any craft lower than 6km doesn't need pressurization.

[DunnoAnyThing]

3 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Oh and while the last review mentioned it, a human can breath up to around ~22,000ft. (I know from old biggles books about flying aces in ww1) which is more or less 6km, so any craft lower than 6km doesn't need pressurization.

Kerbin's sized smaller, so maybe some scaling should be applied, maybe???

[CrazyJebGuy]

31 minutes ago, DunnoAnyThing said:

Kerbin's sized smaller, so maybe some scaling should be applied, maybe???

OK, kerbal chests are smaller, so maybe they can only breath to 12,000ft. (4,000m)

[Kebab Kerman]

11 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Gallons per passenger mile, (note: DO NOT divide by 3.7 for gallons! I now say KPPM, K for kallon, to remliove confusion) you got it right. KPPM is GPPM, I think that KSP uses US gallons, not litres, since if liquid fuel is some form of oil based substance, it probably has a dord of about 0.7-0.8 that of water, in ksp it's 5kg per unit, so US gallons work out to have about 0.75 density of water, right about where you would expect for petroleum based fuels.

I would have thought liters (everything else is metric), but gallons fit better by density.

1: Me, page 27, right near the top.

2. If it's your base plane, absolutely. My own 1488 plane is an extension built on a 384 built from a 208 extended off a 96 extended off of a 40.

Oh and while the last review mentioned it, a human can breath up to around ~22,000ft. (I know from old biggles books about flying aces in ww1) which is more or less 6km, so any craft lower than 6km doesn't need pressurization.

Weeell... I don't need to extend it...

I made a plane that can carry 2,160 passengers...

It uses Tweakscale, AirplanePlus, and Lack's Stock Expansion (for the wings). Unfortunately, I'm at school at the moment, so I can't post an image. It's ugly, though, I can tell you that much.

[neistridlar]

Flavourtext:

At Neist air there were rumors going around that maybe some other companies were going to offer a cheaper jumbo then the Stout recently released, and so management decided it was time to start working cheaper jumbo. They asked the engineers if they could take the good parts from the Stout series, but cut down the cost to Stingy series levels. Well, it was not easy, but after days of hard work and testing they managed to build something truly cheap, and surprisingly fuel efficient that would satisfy the jumbo criteria. 

Neist air presents the Stingy 152, a jumbo so cheap one could be forgiven for mistaking it for a turboprop. Every expense has been spared on this one, the batteries even come free of charge to save on cost. The ailerons have been positioned in such a way that they twist the wing to aid in rolling, so that a smaller, cheaper aileron could be fitted (this is in fact the case, having the ailerons in the usual trailing edge actually caused the wings to twist just enough to make them completely noneffective). The aircraft has been fitted with a handheld rear view mirror to help prevent tail strikes on take off and landing, just stick it out the cockpit window when you need it.

-update- The craft has been updated to carry two pilots, as well as some other minor tweaks. The aircraft is no longer prone to tail strikes, and updated cruising parameters offer slightly better fuel economy and range. The new NA Stingy 152-2 is slightly more expensive but still cheapest in class, and many of the planes in the classes bellow it. 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/NA-Stingy-152

Flight characteristics:

Price: 26,024,000 

Cruising speed: 213m/s (full throttle)

Cruising altitude: 5.900m

Range estimate: 4500km

Fuel burn rate: 0.075 kallons/second

Fuel capacity: 1600 kallons

KPPM: 0.0038

Optimal climb speed: 150m/s

Takeoff speed: 50m/s

AG1: thrust reversers

AG2: flapperons (use for slowing down only)

Notes to pilots:

At speeds bellow 60m/s the torque from the low slung engine may overpower the elevators, fly with care. Upon landing, make sure you have ample room to slow down, because this thing glides very well, and does not like to stick to the ground above 60m/s. Warranty void if hard landings are detected. It is recommended to accelerate to 150m/s before climbing, and maintain speed at 150m/s throughout the climb. once stable cruise has been achieved, autopilot can be set to prograde to maintain cruise, though roll must still be adjusted periodically. Flapperons turn the ailerons into yaw spoilers, use them only as air brakes, or in yaw related emergencies.

Edited June 11, 2018 by neistridlar
Updated craft to comply with challenge rules

[CrazyJebGuy]

7 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Weeell... I don't need to extend it...

I made a plane that can carry 2,160 passengers...

It uses Tweakscale, AirplanePlus, and Lack's Stock Expansion (for the wings). Unfortunately, I'm at school at the moment, so I can't post an image. It's ugly, though, I can tell you that much.

Ok, now It's my turn!

[Kebab Kerman]

Here's an image!

[KenjiKrafts]

@Mjp1050 say my regional supersonic jet, has a range of 1000km as opposed to 1500km but has the ability to move at Mach 4.1 at roughly 15,000km give or take 5,000km, could that be pardoned the range factor? 

 

[neistridlar]

7 minutes ago, KenjiKrafts said:

@Mjp1050 say my regional supersonic jet, has a range of 1000km as opposed to 1500km but has the ability to move at Mach 4.1 at roughly 15,000km give or take 5,000km, could that be pardoned the range factor? 

 

If your aircraft does not meed the range requirement it will just be a negative remark in the review, but it will not disqualify you. It sounds like your aircraft would qualify for the supersonic category though, so it would be judged as such.

[KenjiKrafts]

27 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

If your aircraft does not meed the range requirement it will just be a negative remark in the review, but it will not disqualify you. It sounds like your aircraft would qualify for the supersonic category though, so it would be judged as such.

Thanks very helpful

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries GP-1a

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 111,434,000
• Fuel: 5525 kallons
• Cruising speed: 115m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2000m
• Fuel burn rate: .28 kal/s
• Range:  2950km

Review Notes:

In the classic GAI fashion, the GP-1a redefines what large aircraft ought to look like. What it does not do is redefine how they ought to perform. With a distinct double decker design and plenty of horsepower under the hood, the GP-1a promised to be a sturdy workhorse in any fleet. With the airframe able to seat 152 passengers, it meets the criteria of a jumbo jet. Couple that with it's slow flying, and it is quite the puzzle.

We liked the flexibility of the wings, it reminds us of those ornithopters or whatever they were called that were a fad way back when. Fortunately for the GP-1a, its wings don't ultimately break and shatter into a million pieces. The taildragger design is unusual for a plane of this size, but given GAI's history, we can appreciate the throwback. Despite the inclusion of a pair of airbrakes, this plane does not like to slow down upon landing. We were able to land it at the island airfield, but only just barely, and also had to remove part of its fuel load. Speaking of which, we learned that flying this craft under 25% fueled was a bad idea, as it became aerodynamically unstable. Thankfully, it is tameable, but none of our resident pilots were willing to land it under 10% fueled.

There's still plenty to like, though. The plane allows for plenty of visibility out of the cabin windows, and the spacious cabin is perfect for long haul flights. The inclusion of a dedicated cargo bay is nice, though it is rather hard to access. We'd liked to have seen a kneeling feature on the front gear, or getting rid of the cargo bay altogether for another cabin. Despite the range being lacking, it is still respectable at nearly 3000km, but the instability is a big problem at the tail end of that range.

With 124 parts and a whole bunch of struts, maintenance costs are predicted to be high from what we’ve seen. The wings take plenty of stress through the flight, and while GAI promises they won’t break, it is possible that cracks will develop through the airframe’s lifespan. On the other hand, with four relatively easy to maintain engines, they won’t be costing us too much, not to mention the heavy duty landing gear has not failed us yet through all of our rigorous tests.

 

The Verdict:

At just over 100 million funds, the GP-1a is a pretty standard performer in terms of price. There aren’t many benefits we’d get from it, but we won’t be losing anything except for a slightly higher fuel cost. However, with the Skots Mouse being a similar aircraft and performing better for the same price, there seems to be no reason to buy the GP-1a. The only thing that makes up for it would be the view and the passenger comfort, but we wouldn’t purchase a jumbo like this for sightseeing only. Also, with such a slow cruise, a 5 hour flight will only get you to limited destinations. If anything, this will be relegated to short haul flights with fast turnarounds. We’ll lease a pair for high density, short haul flights, but we don’t expect to be operating these long term.
 

[NightshineRecorralis]

Habu Industries Presents:

The Jupiter SST

For under 100 million funds, you can get the best SST on the market, being able to operate in nearly any environment and  carry 176 kerbals anywhere and back (on Kerbin).

Cruising Speed and Altitude: 1200m/s @ 21000m

Takeoff at 60m/s, Landings at 50m/s

5000+km range (depending on ascent profile)

AG 2 & 3 for flaps

Has 6 “Stargazer” cabins for the best view of space at altitude.

Note: MechJeb Module is not included in final product

Edited March 4, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[GDJ]

18 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Habu Industries Presents:

The Jupiter SST

For under 100 million funds, you can get the best SST on the market, being able to operate in nearly any environment and  carry 176 kerbals anywhere and back (on Kerbin).

Cruising Speed and Altitude: 1200m/s @ 21000m

Takeoff at 60m/s, Landings at 50m/s

5000+km range (depending on ascent profile)

AG 2 & 3 for flaps

Note: MechJeb Module is not included in final product

Guess I better get my butt in gear and submit the competitor to your plane.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, GDJ said:

Guess I better get my butt in gear and submit the competitor to your plane.

Haha yeah, competition is nice, but I hope nobody minds the similarity of my design and some others.

[GDJ]

Just now, NightshineRecorralis said:

Haha yeah, competition is nice, but I hope nobody minds the similarity of my design and some others.

Imitation is a form of flattery.

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Haha yeah, competition is nice, but I hope nobody minds the similarity of my design and some others.

Nobody can accuse me of stealing their ideas!

[KenjiKrafts]

I'll post mine tonight, I expect a few negative comments, but that gives room for improvement I guess?