Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[NightshineRecorralis]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

I got confused and thought some of the passenger compartments were upscaled.

They're not, only the wings.

[RedPandaz]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I got confused and thought some of the passenger compartments were upscaled.

They're not ^^

And even so, why would they be?

[Kernel Kraken]

Because that's what tweakscale does.

[RedPandaz]

6 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Because that's what tweakscale does.

But why would you make parts on a plane larger?

[Kernel Kraken]

'CUZ THATS WHAT TWEAKSCALE DOES. IT MAKES STUFF THE SIZE OF TEXAS!

 

and probably something about cheaty engines and MOAR boosters and stuff... I was actually kinda disappointed to find out that cabins weren't up scaled (in stats).

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by TheMadKraken2297
Autocorrect turned cheaty into chesty

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

But why would you make parts on a plane larger?

Wings. Fuel tanks. Engines. Bigger or smaller, that's why.

Just sayin'

Just now, TheMadKraken2297 said:

'CUZ THATS WHAT TWEAKSCALE DOES. IT MAKES STUFF THE SIZE OF TEXAS!

Also this

[macktruck6666]

1 hour ago, RedPandaz said:

But why would you make parts on a plane larger?

Because if you tried to make that large of wing with stock parts, it would take dozens if not hundreds of parts and most likely fall apart at one of part's attachment point.

[RedPandaz]

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Wings. Fuel tanks. Engines. Bigger or smaller, that's why.

Just sayin'

Also this

But tweakscale doesn't add more passengers on cabins so it wouldn't be worth it

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

But tweakscale doesn't add more passengers on cabins so it wouldn't be worth it

I don't need any more passengers. 1200 is kinda a lot.

[RedPandaz]

Just now, NightshineRecorralis said:

I don't need any more passengers. 1200 is kinda a lot.

Yeah, which is why I'm saying you didn't use tweakscale

[1Revenger1]

Would it be worth it though to decrease the size of the cabin... (Not that we would allow it though (probably))

[NightshineRecorralis]

Just now, 1Revenger1 said:

Would it be worth it though to decrease the size of the cabin... (Not that we would allow it though (probably))

That'd be actual cheating, most likely. Would be an interesting concept to pursue in the future though!

[RedPandaz]

2 minutes ago, 1Revenger1 said:

Would it be worth it though to decrease the size of the cabin... (Not that we would allow it though (probably))

Yes, but not to increase it

[Kernel Kraken]

59 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

But tweakscale doesn't add more passengers on cabins so it wouldn't be worth it

It's mostly for asthetics. If I wanted a 747 and I needed a larger bottom piece I could upscale it to give it a better look instead of putting 2 mk3's beside each other.

Edited November 21, 2017 by TheMadKraken2297
Spelling.

[RedPandaz]

1 minute ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

It's mostly for asthetics. If I wanted a 747 and I needed a larger bottom piece I could upscale it to give it a better look instead of putting 2 mk3's beside each other.

Well, yea, or you could fill in the space with part-clipped fuel tanks. Looks as nice if you do it correctly and is more useful

[Kernel Kraken]

1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

Well, yea, or you could fill in the space with part-clipped fuel tanks. Looks as nice if you do it correctly and is more useful

Or that. IMHO it looks nicer if it's just one piece and not a Frankenstein but that's just my opinion. It is up to personal preference.

[RedPandaz]

1 minute ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Or that. IMHO it looks nicer if it's just one piece and not a Frankenstein but that's just my opinion. It is up to personal preference.

Some times I'll put two mk1s together with a fuel tank in the center

 

[1Revenger1]

3 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

Some times I'll put two mk1s together with a fuel tank in the center

 

Thing is with planes like the 747, the bottom half is actually bigger than the top half. It's very noticible if you look at the cross section of one.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech - CAL-4

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 24.385.000
• Fuel: 1180 kallons
• Cruising speed: 210m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.2kal/s
• Range:  1200km

Review Notes:

Let's start off with the obvious, the design... It looks like someone took a normal jet and then bolted fuel and cabins to the bottom of it, the result is a plane which looks a bit... clumsy. The fat and flat nose doesn't appear to be very streamlined either. Which leads me to the next point: the maneuverability. Despite being powered by two wheesley engines, the plane doesn't perform accordingly. The CAL-4 is a rather slow and lumbering airplane, despite its limited size. Turn radius is somewhere around 2.5km which is also quite sizable for a plane in this category. While the smallish wing might look pretty, it definitely doesn't make for the best possible flight, we'd even dare say that the plane doesn't provide enough lift to keep itself airborne properly. The CAL-4 only takes off at 70m/s, a very high number for a plane this size, landing it isn't a joy either, the plane doesn't glide below 90m/s, which means pilots have a very hard time touching down softly as the plane just enters a controlled stall beyond that. The small lift also means we had to point the plane up at all times to keep ourselves from descending, even at high speeds we were still obliged to point the nose at least 5 degrees above the horizon to keep the altitude stable. This rather high pitch angle means a lot of drag too, resulting in a low cruise altitude to keep the cruise speed easily reachable, and maintainable. Once at this cruising mode, the plane can indeed cruise at half throttle and keep 210m/s (once again slower than required speed), if you encounter mountains though, easier to fly around than over them. Range of the plane is roughly 1200km, which is a very good number for a small regional jet. 

Comfort, this really is a good point for the craft. The two decks makes it easy to install economy and business/first class separately, while also making for an interesting design, inviting passengers to come aboard and explore the craft from the inside. Engine mounting is also very nice, besides the main body and behind the cabins, sound is minimal throughout the cabins, which makes for a enjoyable and calm flight. The small wings do have their upside, being that it doesn't block a lot of view, and with a 3000m cruising altitude, the view is certainly one that can be stared down at in awe. The fuel tank that's mounted all the way in the front does make for some ducting to go through the lower cabins, and a bit of a sloshing sound being hearable when the tanks run empty.

At   24.385.000 the price is slightly above competition average, but still well within bounds. Consisting of 51 parts, it does mean a lot of maintenance will be needed to keep this aircraft airborne and safe.

The Verdict:

The CAL-4 is a bit of an odd bird, but it's the comfort that bought us over. Training the pilots surely will take some time given the weird flight characteristics, but once it has been mastered, passengers will surely enjoy flying in the CAL-4. The special design will also be beneficial as publicity stunt, since passengers will surely want to fly aboard the CAL-4. We'll purchase 3 for luxurious, short lines.

[RedPandaz]

Hey can we make the Size 2 cabins and the Mk3 cabins the same price? Because if they carry the same amount of people, why is one 3 times more expensive?

[panzerknoef]

1 hour ago, RedPandaz said:

Hey can we make the Size 2 cabins and the Mk3 cabins the same price? Because if they carry the same amount of people, why is one 3 times more expensive?

No. It's a style choice, mk2 and mk1 cabins also have a different price despite carrying the same amount of passengers... 

[RedPandaz]

Just now, panzerknoef said:

No. It's a style choice, mk2 and mk1 cabins also have a different price despite carrying the same amount of passengers... 

Ok

 

[SpacePigeon]

On 14/11/2017 at 6:34 PM, panzerknoef said:

Fingers crossed for him yeah, hopefully he's alright! 

How do we know which ones are the best though, selecting like that is inevitably subjective I'm afraid... 

Yeah absolutely, it would take ages, but with renewed activity on this thread we might be able to pull in new people. More people=more reviews, and that means we'd be through faster. 

 

I'll check out just how many planes there still are later today. 

EDIT: 

There's 88 planes up for testing. I already left some out since they lack a download link but there's a chance I've missed some. Out of those 88, 9 are seaplanes, 9 turboprops, 19 small regional jets, 15 medium regional jets, 27 supersonic jets and 9 jumbo jets.

Here's the list:

Seaplane: (9)

Boatee (download link seems to be nonfunctional)
Some Random Seaplane 100
Kerijew 100
SF-A116 "Tulip"
SkiKull
PBY Katalina
K-38\52
K-61\a
Isometric I (Bush)

Turboprop: (9)

Fulmar
Kombardier 300 and 301
SF-A232 "Lupin" (goes on water)
AVRO Prop-Star
Canberra-P
GAI* Turbo-XL Classic
Bx-1 "Shoebox"
Bx-2 "Sturdy Shoebox"
SI-R-1 "Puddlejumper" (scout)

Small regional jet: (19)

CPS C-1 "Alice"
Screechcraft Starship  NEO
The Monarc P4
K-57 "Tern"
Kombardier 400 and 401
Cathiogac 2
CAL-4
IS2J-32B
Bluejay 32
SF-J240 "Daisy"
The FF-Shockcone
Skots Small (goes on water)
Sea Dragon 1000(goes on water)
Sea Newt(goes on water)
Sea Newt X(goes on water)
K-57D "Tern"(goes on water)
Skots Long(goes on water)
B-3 "Lance"
CRNE-458

Medium regional jet: (15)

Kerman Dove
Ka-62
Kerman Stingray
Kombardier 200
Generous Spirit
Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B)
Goosewing 80
Olympus 100
Olympus 120
Olympus 150
Skots Medium (goes on water)
Lassen
Sea Dragon 2000(goes on water)
Sea Dragon 3000(goes on water)
Klonkorde

Supersonic: (27)

SAI Concorde Mk. II
ISSJ-40
Hope series airframe
Kavro 730 Supersonic
Transcendent Spirit
SSP-1a/b Phoenix
Sonic
AAA074 Potato
SF-J240 "Daisy" (double duty)
SF-S240 "Marigold"
Kupolew Ku-100 SSJ
Kramer SSTP-34 Benirschke
The FF-Shockcone (double duty)
Kramer SSTP-2000 Starmachine
Daxworks Lightning Cruiser
Arenal
PBY Katalina (double duty)
Pegasus(only 32 passengers)
Skots Speedmaster
Lassen-Supersonic-A
Lassen-Supersonic-B
SST-1
Delta II
Zoomer (Island Hopper)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"
Dotsero
Dotsero-EC

Jumbo jet: (9)

The "Grizzly" Super Transport Civilian (ST-3 Civilian)
Koeing 747-100 Super
WH-04
Olympus 250
Skots Mouse
C5 "RePurpose" (only 2000km range)
Skots Ratt (only 3000km range)
Challenger Seaplane(goes on water)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"(double duty)

 

If everyone agrees, I would like to start judging the SAI Concorde Mk. II and the ISSJ-40.

I'll keep this list updated, marking planes that have already been judged.

Oops...

Forgot the link. The Rapid 1-100 and -200 now have links.

Sorry for the inconvenience. 

[panzerknoef]

After all the judging I thought it was time for myself to add something to the competition again, and it's gonna be a set of turboprops, but worry not, we didn't tape them together this time! so...

KnoefCo Aerospace presents: the CL-2-RRE & CL-2-RRE-L

The CL-2-RRE

The CL-2-RRE-L

 

Both planes are powered by propeller engines, which is a first for our submissions. But instead of following regular design philosophy for turboprop craft, we took it differently. placing the engines facing backwards, and at the back of the craft, combined with a canard design. This design assures a very pleasant flight, as the sound of the engines doesn't make it into the cabins. Using propeller engines also made for a very fuel efficient craft. Both planes have 400 fuel, combine this with the 0.04 fuel usage the CL-2-RRE manages at its cruise speed and altitude of 160m/s and 2000m respectively, and you get an impressive range of 1500km. Though going at 160m/s, it's fair to say that you won't get there very fast. Take off speed for both planes is kinda high though, at 50-60m/s, but we can assure you that this speed is reached very fast so a long runway isn't needed. As far as maneuverability is concerned, Jeb is still buzzing around in the CL-2-RRE, so we presume it's very enjoyable to fly. The L variant is slightly less maneuverable, but still good. The standard CL-2 carries 24 passengers, and the L carries 32.

Both come at fairly reasonable prices, though definitely not the lowest out there. 

CL-2-RRE:  13.730.000, get yours here now: https://kerbalx.com/Panzerknoef/CL-2-RRE

CL-2-RRE-L:  14.530.000, get yours here now: https://kerbalx.com/Panzerknoef/CL-2-RRE-L

-------------

regardless of this, I'll be uploading another review in the near future, stay tuned!

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef 's KnoefCo Aerospace -- Arenal/Arenal ER

Figures as Tested: Arenal (Stock)

• Price: 62,727,000
• Fuel: 1160 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1100m/s
• Cruising altitude: 21000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.44kal/s
• Range: 2625km

Figures as Tested: Arenal (Wing Tanks Fueled)

• Price: 63,727,000
• Fuel: 2360 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1100m/s
• Cruising altitude: 21000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.465kal/s
• Range: 4500km

Figures as Tested: Arenal ER

• Price: 64,393,000
• Fuel: 2760 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1100m/s
• Cruising altitude: 21000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.53kal/s
• Range: 5330km

Review Notes:

Needless to say, the Arenal Family of aircraft are going to turn heads at airports and in the sky. First impressions with these planes were lovely, with performance and comfort to boot. However, the Arenals we received for testing appear to be rushed from the production line, with plenty of quirks and interesting decisions to entertain our test pilots. If these mishaps can be resolved, these airliners will be quite a treat to fly.

There are some things we'd like to state first. Perhaps these quirks can be attributed to the fact that our machines were pre-production, but none of the control surfaces were tuned for their respective jobs. The elevators on the wings were actuated in the opposite direction than required, and the untuned elevons and canards made handling much more difficult. After tuning from our in-house technicians, however, the Arenals flew like a dream. Despite all this tuning, the Arenals still experience issues in handling at high speeds. All variants had sideslip issues at higher speeds, causing maneuvering to be difficult, if not outright impossible in certain situations. The takeoffs we attempted all occurred long after when the Arenals could have taken off, and this is mainly attributed to the landing gear being located so far aft relative to the control surfaces.

There are a lot of things we liked, too. The maneuverability of the Arenals is very impressive, allowing for tight turns and ease of landing. Fuel economy was rather nice, but we had to fly higher than recommended to achieve the best efficiency. We were glad to have the built-in airbrakes, as this reduced the landing distance quite dramatically. The large wing area, surprisingly, doesn't seem to affect the Arenals' performance at cruise, but in the lower atmosphere and lower speeds, this allows stalls to be rare, and when they do happen, non-critical. The range of these aircrafts is the biggest selling point, we believe. Even with the shortest ranged variant, we can fly two long-distance routes before refueling, or 4 or 5 shorter routes. The ER variant bumps this up to 4 or 5 long-distance routes with ease. Passenger comfort is very nice, with the engines being far behind the passenger cabin and an incredibly smooth flight.

In terms of maintenance, with 53 and 54 parts, these planes will be fairly cost-effective with respect to their performance. Vital components are unlikely to suffer any damage, but storage will be quite costly with the planes having such a large footprint relative to their capacity.

The Verdict:

The Arenal Family provides an excellent balance between price, comfort, range, and performance. Able to ferry 40 passengers to any airport in the world, we'd like to purchase 6 dedicated to business travelers, but only if the control surfaces are tuned before shipping. If all goes well, we will have options for up to 5 more to service high demand routes.