Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[Agent Awesome]

I believe my company’s aircraft was skipped

[CrazyJebGuy]

5 minutes ago, Agent Awesome said:

I believe my company’s aircraft was skipped

Your KB-90 Slipstream?

No, it's not forgotten. We just have a huge backlog, some stretches back to page 9.

[Agent Awesome]

13 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Your KB-90 Slipstream?

No, it's not forgotten. We just have a huge backlog, some stretches back to page 9.

Do you have different lists?

because someone said the reviews were up to page 30

Edited March 16, 2018 by Agent Awesome

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Agent Awesome said:

Do you have different lists?

Which plane else? We may have missed it. The KB-90 is the only one on our list.

[Agent Awesome]

I’m confused 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Agent Awesome said:

I’m confused 

me too - please, which plane did you think we forgot?

[Agent Awesome]

I only have one craft submitted 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Agent Awesome said:

I only have one craft submitted 

Is it the KB-90 slipstream? If so, we have that on our records and it will be reviewed eventually.

[Zapo147]

9 hours ago, neistridlar said:

We are cannot help but be impressed by how little was accomplished by so much.

hahahaha gottem

[Agent Awesome]

Ok

I am planning to submit another soon 

[Zapo147]

On 3/4/2018 at 5:07 PM, 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).

Damn. I was very confident in my Skytrain Humpback until I saw this...It's a real shame that using mk1 cabins seems to be a must to keep the cost down. I'm a fan of elegant designs with low part counts. Well, hats off, you got me beat.

[HamnavoePer]

On 14/03/2018 at 11:30 PM, CrazyJebGuy said:

But you've waited a while, so if you submit a plane it'll be reviewed ASAP.

Edit: If he doesn't do it in a fortnight I'll assume he wont ever, so I'll review it myself.

Oh, alright. Thanks

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Perbro Aerospace Zoomer

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 29,580,000 fueled
• Fuel: 1800 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1,042 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 20,000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s
• Range: 7,900 km

Review Notes:

This plane is a very old entry, it is the third oldest entry still not reviewed, and the first oldest isn't even a proper aircraft, and the second is just a Skots Small fitted with tiny wing pontoons and called a seaplane. When we flew it, the first thing we noticed was it's incredible acceleration, the massive engines can propell this thing to 8 thousand meters climbing at 880m/s in well under 50 seconds.

 It's top speed is reached on pretty low throttle, we couldn't get it down to the claimed 1/6, but we could get to 3/15 with slightly slower speed, but it is still impressive. It claims it is the company's first plane that can circumnavigate Kerbin, we our calculations say this is wrong, it can do it twice without refueling. Which, is very, very good! In the last review I had just sung the praises to an aircraft with 2,000km shorter. And this aeroplane does it at over 4 times the speed.

Up at 20km, it manuevers terribly, but so does every other plane. For pretty simple reasons, to turn 90 degrees you need a much larger change of velocity at 1000mph* than at 100, and up there the air is very thin, so you need to whack a lot more of it to change velocity. In other words, you need to do more turning, and your worse at it. So we give it a pass here. At lower altitudes, it doesn't have that excuse, but it doesn't need it. Except on the yaw axis, that's very weak. But pitch and roll are strong, roll a bit too strong even, some pilots had trouble adjusting to such a powerful roll.

It's not great on comfort however, as the engines are mounted inline and very close to the cabins, vibrations are an issue, but the side cabins have some built in suspension and drinks, so it's okay, since in flight the engines are on low throttle, so it isn't a big issue, except on takeoff and whenever the pilot really needs speed.

We do think highly of the lowly cost, being under 30 million for a supersonic like this, it's quite good, how the engineers did so much with so little. It can even land on water, and take off again! It can't do it normally, it has to build up some speed, duck under the water and then come out at a crazy angle so the engines can just brute power the thing away. We like the maintenance costs of merely 29 parts, it's very cheap.

At this point, I will just say that the Island hopper is exactly the same plane but they added air-brakes and parachutes. The maintenance is a bit higher and it costs 32,040,000. We like the additional stopping power.

*true of any speed unit - mph is there because it's nice to say

The Verdict:

It's a great supersonic plane, a bit uncomfy, but otherwise very good, and such a huge range means we can't turn it down, especially for the price. We'll buy 32 normal planes, and 17 of the Island Hopper variant.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3205406

Edited March 16, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[HamnavoePer]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Perbro Aerospace Zoomer

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 29,580,000 fueled
• Fuel: 1800 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1,042 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 20,000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s
• Range: 7,900 km

Review Notes:

This plane is a very old entry, it is the third oldest entry still not reviewed, and the first oldest isn't even a proper aircraft, and the second is just a Skots Small fitted with tiny wing pontoons and called a seaplane. When we flew it, the first thing we noticed was it's incredible acceleration, the massive engines can propell this thing to 8 thousand meters climbing at 880m/s in well under 50 seconds.

 It's top speed is reached on pretty low throttle, we couldn't get it down to the claimed 1/6, but we could get to 3/15 with slightly slower speed, but it is still impressive. It claims it is the company's first plane that can circumnavigate Kerbin, we our calculations say this is wrong, it can do it twice without refueling. Which, is very, very good! In the last review I had just sung the praises to an aircraft with 2,000km shorter. And this aeroplane does it at over 4 times the speed.

Up at 20km, it manuevers terribly, but so does every other plane. For pretty simple reasons, to turn 90 degrees you need a much larger change of velocity at 1000mph* than at 100, and up there the air is very thin, so you need to whack a lot more of it to change velocity. In other words, you need to do more turning, and your worse at it. So we give it a pass here. At lower altitudes, it doesn't have that excuse, but it doesn't need it. Except on the yaw axis, that's very weak. But pitch and roll are strong, roll a bit too strong even, some pilots had trouble adjusting to such a powerful roll.

It's not great on comfort however, as the engines are mounted inline and very close to the cabins, vibrations are an issue, but the side cabins have some built in suspension and drinks, so it's okay, since in flight the engines are on low throttle, so it isn't a big issue, except on takeoff and whenever the pilot really needs speed.

We do think highly of the lowly cost, being under 30 million for a supersonic like this, it's quite good, how the engineers did so much with so little. It can even land on water, and take off again! It can't do it normally, it has to build up some speed, duck under the water and then come out at a crazy angle so the engines can just brute power the thing away. We like the maintenance costs of merely 29 parts, it's very cheap.

At this point, I will just say that the Island hopper is exactly the same plane but they added air-brakes and parachutes. The maintenance is a bit higher and it costs 32,040,000. We like the additional stopping power.

*true of any speed unit - mph is there because it's nice to say

The Verdict:

It's a great supersonic plane, a bit uncomfy, but otherwise very good, and such a huge range means we can't turn it down, especially for the price. We'll buy 32 normal planes, and 17 of the Island Hopper variant.

I hope you like my 1.8 second review.

 

Oh wow, that was quick! How the f**k did you get it round Kerbin twice??? And I only tested landing on water, I didn't know it could get off again. 1/6 throttle can be reached at 15km altitude by using a higher throttle to get up to speed then reducing it so that you are holding your speed, but only just.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, HamnavoePer said:

Oh wow, that was quick! How the f**k did you get it round Kerbin twice??? And I only tested landing on water, I didn't know it could get off again. 1/6 throttle can be reached at 15km altitude by using a higher throttle to get up to speed then reducing it so that you are holding your speed, but only just.

I did it so quick because I was already doing it when you posted the other thing. I ddin't get it around Kerbin twice, I just calculated the range and that's enough to get it around Kerbin twice. There are tricks to getting off of water.

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I have been thinking, in reviews we should link to the original post, and we should always state the part count in the review.

Agreed. I have already started making the title a link to the original post. It's so frustrating when you read a review and want to try it, but it is buried somewhere 20 pages back.

[CrazyJebGuy]

5 hours ago, Zapo147 said:

Damn. I was very confident in my Skytrain Humpback until I saw this...It's a real shame that using mk1 cabins seems to be a must to keep the cost down. I'm a fan of elegant designs with low part counts. Well, hats off, you got me beat.

Tried to review your Maui, but every time I spawn it on the runway it blows up. Could you fix it please?

[HolidayTheLeek]

Are stock propeller aircraft allowed? I haven't had the time to search the whole thread for one, but it doesn't say in the rules that I'm not allowed.

Sorry if I seem dumb, I'm new to this thread, and I'm curious on what I could possibly submit

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Are stock propeller aircraft allowed? I haven't had the time to search the whole thread for one, but it doesn't say in the rules that I'm not allowed.

Sorry if I seem dumb, I'm new to this thread, and I'm curious on what I could possibly submit

I am pretty sure they would be allowed. I would love to see it if you can make it work.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 minutes ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Are stock propeller aircraft allowed? I haven't had the time to search the whole thread for one, but it doesn't say in the rules that I'm not allowed.

Sorry if I seem dumb, I'm new to this thread, and I'm curious on what I could possibly submit

It's allowed, I wouldn't recommend it though, high part counts cost a lot in maintenance. If you want propellers I suggest getting airplane plus. And try to keep engines away from passengers, it is more comfortable for them, and we like that in an aircraft.

[HolidayTheLeek]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

It's allowed, I wouldn't recommend it though, high part counts cost a lot in maintenance. If you want propellers I suggest getting airplane plus. And try to keep engines away from passengers, it is more comfortable for them, and we like that in an aircraft.

Ah cool! But I like to build crafts without mods, so I will give myself the challenge of building a small airliner, that meets the requirements, with only stock propellers. The only requirement I'm worried about is the minimum speed of 130m/s.

Wish me luck!

[CrazyJebGuy]

10 hours ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Ah cool! But I like to build crafts without mods, so I will give myself the challenge of building a small airliner, that meets the requirements, with only stock propellers. The only requirement I'm worried about is the minimum speed of 130m/s.

Wish me luck!

To be honest the requirements are not that important, you can submit a thing with under the requirements, it will get points off for that, but even in requirements, some things can be marked down simply because a typical plane of that type does it way better.

[CrazyJebGuy]

I didn't review a plane, instead I tried to land on Minmus in my career game. No problem, I've done this loads before. I suddenly realized halfway through the transfer burn, I wanted to go to Minmus not the Mun. Oops.

First KEA space routes are not going well.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @valens's Kyasish'ev EK-4 Teal, EK-4e Teal

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 19,493,000, 20,043,000 respectively.
• Fuel: 880 kallons
• Cruising speed: 246.7m/s
• Cruising altitude: 10 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.096 kal/s
• Range: 2,260 km

Review Notes:

 This was a converted "science plane", although what they used it to study is unclear. Their plane flies at 10 km up, a rare altitude for a plane to fly at, which for us as an airline just means it takes less attention to not bump into another plane, since most other planes either fly below that or only pass through climbing. Which, incidentally, this plane is quick at. The thing is fairly light, and has two fairly powerful engines.

 It cruises fairly fast, 246m/s is not bad, but not spectacular either. It's range, 2260km, is achieved with an impressively low fuel amount, of just 880. It's very efficient. We can certainly respect the engineers for this, or maybe oil prices were just high when this thing was designed. It's probably different in their country, where they make companies with such un-spellable names.

The front passengers said they had a nice time, the back ones complained of a bit of noise, and the ones in the middle complained of small vibrations from the engines. The comfort on this plane is fairly good, the complaints were fairly off-hand. The pilots complained about the very slow pitch, a typical jumbo has a more powerful pitch control.

We like that they added a rear tail wheel to prevent tail strikes. It takes off and lands in a pretty normal way. With 37/38 parts, the maintenance is a bit high. The price is low though, so it balances out. Note that the only difference between the EK-4 and EK-4e was that the 'e' variant had another 8 passenger seats and the flaps extend the wrong way. Apart from that they are identical, that's why in this review we refer to them as the same aircraft.

The Verdict:

 We really don't see the point of the smaller version, it's nearly identical in ever way, except it has a 20% worse passenger count (thus income) and a very slightly (3%) reduced price. So we really only considered the EK-4e, which we would like to buy 21, seeing the long range and efficiency we think it will pay off.

Edited March 17, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[HolidayTheLeek]

I have developed two aircraft today; one using stock props and the other using standard jet engines (which is the more practical one).

Here is the first aircraft:

The AC HC-1 Island Hopper

DISCLAIMER:

Spoiler

Unfortunately, stock props are a bit more expensive than I anticipated. I built a plane that cost 473,374,000... which, if you ask me is a tad expensive!  

That aside, here's the sales pitch!

(more images in the spoiler)

A contender for the 'Turboprop' category:

Download (HERE)

Spoiler

Uncle Carlos Aerospace presents the HC-1 Island Hopper! 

The Island Hopper is perfect for traveling from island to island, or even long regional flights. Unlike most aircraft, it uses an electric propeller which is being powered by 10 RTGs (4 in each engine, and 2 to provide electricity for the cabin). As a result, the aircraft flies with little noise and vibration for comfort of the 32 passengers it can carry (however at a slower speed than most competitors: 101m/s). The high cost of the aircraft may be unappealing, but because of the method used to power the aircraft, the aircraft essentially has an infinite range and never needs to refuel. The RTGs only needing to be replaced every 10-15 years.Because of the near infinite range, the aircraft can be used to traverse longer routes, albeit more slowly.

Maintenance is also easy with the under-slung engines being closer to the ground. This keeps the engine in reach of the maintenance kerbals. Also, the engine has a removable fairing which can make replacing the engines to update the aircraft relatively easily. On the ground, the Island Hopper has a wide-set tricycle landing gear. This makes taxiing, taking off, and landing the aircraft very easy. The aircraft is easy to fly and is decently manoueverable as well as having a very low takeoff speed and landing speed which further makes things easier. The only problems would be training pilots on how to activate the unusual engines as they don't respond to the normal throttle.

As a result of all of the positive traits this aircraft has, it makes it a good (ish) contender for the 'Turboprop' category for the Kerbal Express Airlines.

• Cost: 473,374,000
• Fuel: None, in runs on electricity.
• Cruising Speed: 101m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 1500m (this can be raised if needing to go over mountains)
• Fuel Burn Rate: N/A
• Range: It depends how patient the pilot is.
• Part count: 159

Instructions:

1: Decouple the propellers from the main craft
2: Activate SAS and the brakes on the main craft.
3: Switch to the propellers using the [ ] keys
4: Hold down alt + q to max (for the propeller on the right)
5: Hold down alt + e to max (for the propeller on the left)
6: Deactivate the brakes.
7: When the aircraft reaches 40m/s, pull up.

I’d recommend not climbing more than 10 degrees; 5 is more than enough, and other angles don’t really increase the climb rate.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The AC HC-2 Country Hopper

A contender for the ''Medium Regional Jet" category:

Download (HERE)

(More images in the Spoiler)

Spoiler

Uncle Carlos Aerospace presents the HC-2 Country Hopper.

The Country Hopper is perfect for mid-long range regional flights. It carries 72 passengers and cruises at a fast speed of 230m/s. The Country Hopper is a heavily modified Island Hopper with the original fuselage lengthened more than double the amount; it has completely new wings, a new tail and new engines. Because of how lightweight the Country Hopper is for it's size, the swept wings, and aerodynamically clean design makes the aircraft efficient with it's fuel usage. Due to the fact it uses the same cockpit and layout as the previous Island Hopper it makes pilots transitioning to the aircraft fairly easy. Another thing it shares with the Island Hopper is the wide set landing gear along with a tailwheel to prevent damaging the tail on takeoff. This makes the aircraft easier to taxi, takeoff and land. The aircraft also has a big wing area; this means more lift is made which results in a very slow takeoff speed of 50m/s (only 10m/s more than the Island Hopper) This also means it's easier to land since it's possible to land the aircraft at these speeds. This makes it very good to use on short, unpaved runways that the type may find itself landing on.

The Country Hopper also has under-slung podded engines which make it easier for ground crew to maintain or even replace to update the craft in the future. Because of the fact the engines are underneath the wing, noise from the engines is reduced as the wing acts as a noise barrier to quieten the aircraft from the cabin.

Because of all these reasons, the Country Hopper is a good contender for the "Medium Regional Jet" category for the Kerbal Express Airlines!

• Cost: 34,738,000.
• Fuel: 2380 Units
• Cruising Speed: Around 230m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 7500m
• Fuel Burn Rate: According to the game, 0.16? I don't know how to calculate this.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by HolidayTheLeek