Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[panzerknoef]

4 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

-snip-

Glad to have you back! Looking forward to your reviews already. Remember that there's no need to rush this though, you do it if you can, no obligations. 

@1Revenger1 glad to see you again as well! Same goes for you ofc. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by panzerknoef

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aerospace: P.AT. Postman & Stubs express

The P.A.T Stubs

The P.A.T Postman

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 12.249.000
• Fuel: 800kallons
• Cruising speed: 320 or 185m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1000m or 2500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.17 or 0.05kal/s
• Range:  1500 or 2900km

Review Notes:

We're not sure since when we started acquiring a fleet of cargo plane, but apparently it's a thing now, so might as well go with it. So, the P.A.T. series aircraft, they're identical apart from 3 parts. 2 of those are cargo bays, and one is a parachute which got mounted to the top of the Stubs. Since they're so alike I'll describe them as one. Maneuverability on the P.A.T. is very nice. It accelerates rapidly thanks to the big engine, the wide wings also mean that the plane can turn very well. Takeoff speed is rather disappointing at 75m/s, but we suspect this is more down to the placement of the rear wheels than to lift provided by the aircraft. Roll controls are sensitive, but not overly sensitive, they feel just about right. Yaw control is exceptionally functional though. I usually don't expect much of yaw, but the 2 large tailfins do a very good job. Pitch control is good as well. We're not sure what to classify the P.A.T. Stubs as, but the range of maximum 2900km is very nice for a plane of its size and price.

Comfort in the P.A.T isn't anything to write home about. The engine  is mounted directly to the back of the cabins, making for a lot of noise and vibrations, but for the amount of funds this plane costs, we weren't exactly expecting a luxury liner anyway so. View of Kerbin are excellent thanks to the unobstructed windows, especially since the cruising altitude is so low. 

Both price and part count are very nice at 12.249.000 and 24-25. Making for a very low initial fee, and low maintenance costs afterwards. Keeping these planes aloft won't be a burden to our wallet. 

The Verdict:

The P.A.T series aircraft are very nice. They're fast (if you want to be fast), got decent range and maneuverability, but most of all, they're cheap! very cheap. However, we're just not sure what to do with the P.A.T Stubs, since it doesn't actually fit into any of the categories. it comes closest to the seaplane category, but since it can't land on water, I can't put it in that category, and it's too small to be a turboprop. We'll take it as a one off (But I would like to stress that I'm not a fan of planes out of the categories like this, and I would recommend to you all that you just keep building them on par with the rules). We'll buy 5 P.A.T Postman's for our brand new cargo fleet, capable of delivering packages fast and efficiently. On top of that we'd like to order 5 Stub's for very low volume economy routes, preferably between large airports.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Industries: K-61/a

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 16.131.000
• Fuel: 800kallons
• Cruising speed: 320m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.16kal/s
• Range:  1600km

Review Notes:

The K-61/a is very close to the K-38/57 when it comes to... Well, pretty much everything. The K-61/a just takes the very good plane that is the K-38/57 and makes it cheaper. One of the things that were changed is the landing gears, the tow back retractable ones were replaced by non-retractable ones. These are seemingly closer to the ground, but also further back. Resulting in a lower ground takeoff speed of ~60m/s. Behavior on water remained pretty much identical. Range is still excellent at 1600km while flying 320m/s. Though we think you can probably fly further if you go a bit slower, but where's the fun in that? Maneuverability is still as excellent and enjoyable as on the K-38/57. It was very hard to get Jeb out of the cockpit, but luring him with some snacks did eventually pay off. 

Comfort was one of the best things about the K-38/57, and we were a bit sad to see that exactly that is where most sacrifices to justify the lower price were made.  A new cabin was installed in the center hull, allowing 8 more passengers to fly along. Sadly this cabin was installed right in front of the engine, as expected, a very noticeable amount of noise and vibrations made it into the cabin. There's also 0 view out of the windows in this cabin. So if you fly in one of these, make sure you're not seated in the center. Comfort in the side cabins has also decreased, since they were moved back. They're now behind the main engine, meaning you can hear it quite easily. Noise levels are still acceptable though. Moving them backwards did allow the wing to be mounted lower without obstructing the view, we think this is the reason behind the move. 

At 16.131.000 (roughly 4mil cheaper than the 38/57) the price is very reasonable for a seaplane. It's even one of, if not the, best in class when it comes to price. Part count of 32 is pretty reasonable as well, engineering needs of this craft should be in line with the others. In total the 61/a is a very affordable craft.

The Verdict:

I like to see this as an economy variant of the 38/57, offering a lower price at the cost of comfort. The plane still has good range, speed, maneuverability and part count, all things the 38/57 does as well, but obviously, it costs less. We think these are a great extension for our already existing fleet of 38/57's, filling the same niche, but capable of making a low-cost version of the lines the 38/57 does now, allowing less wealthy kerbals to visit the same remote areas as the others already could. We'd like to order 20 K-61/a's.

[CrazyJebGuy]

4 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

7 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@NightshineRecorralis Hey, mind you do you personal opinion on my current fleet? Just really don't feel good that a user and a semi-official judged my fleet.

Am I perhaps not official enough? I'm literally in the challenge description as official judge. 

By user and semi-official I think he means TaRebelSheep as user, and I as the semi-official. I think by this point I would be official if OP hadn't vanished.

I do really try to put the effort into reviews, somebody put their time and effort in creating the thing, I'll put mine in to reviewing it.

[panzerknoef]

40 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

By user and semi-official I think he means TaRebelSheep as user, and I as the semi-official. I think by this point I would be official if OP hadn't vanished.

I do really try to put the effort into reviews, somebody put their time and effort in creating the thing, I'll put mine in to reviewing it.

Yeah I know he did mean that, but I've been here all along and he hasn't asked me instead to do that review, despite the fact that I'm 100% official. On that other matter, yes you'd surely be official if MJ hadn't just disappeared. Even if you don't have the mention in the original post, you've got access to all the judge stuff. As far as I'm concerned, you're just as official as I am. 

[HamnavoePer]

On 14/11/2017 at 7:34 AM, panzerknoef said:

Zoomer (Island Hopper)

Has this been reviewed yet? Just wondering...

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57A  Tern

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 20,359,000 dry
• Fuel: 390 kallons
• Cruising speed: 300 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.1 kal/s
• Range: 1170 km

Review Notes:

 Due to the absurdly long company name, we will refer to it as Roley & Ferburs, so we do not go broke buying ink. The plane also takes off in a shorter space than the company name can be written, it accelerates decently and lifts off at 46m/s. It can ditch, but not take off. We tested this thoroughly, having confused it for it's seaplane K-57D variant. In the air, it handles nicely, but for some reason every maneuver involving pitch always rolls it a little bit to the right, we have no clue why.

The wing design greatly interested the engineers, and we had difficulty getting the plane away from them. On comfort, an inline engine mounted without much space between it and the cabins will produce vibrations and some noise, but the views are very nice. In the air the reverse thruster lets it stop quickly, and landings are no big issue. The range is on the low end for this type, but is by no means bad, and travelling at such a speed makes up for it. We're sure we could squeeze out extra miles if we really wanted too.

 The battery was appreciated by some passengers, and the plane's cockpit has a very good view. The maintenance is medium highish, with 38 parts. The cost is slightly above average for a plane like this, but it is well within the normal range.

The Verdict:

A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit. But we still like it enough that we'll buy 14, with options for 7 more.

[panzerknoef]

53 minutes ago, HamnavoePer said:

Has this been reviewed yet? Just wondering...

Not yet, but it's on page 9 and we've just about finished up page 8 (which was extraordinarily large for some reason) so I should get to it one of the next few days

[NightshineRecorralis]

9 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@NightshineRecorralis Hey, mind you do you personal opinion on my current fleet? Just really don't feel good that a user and a semi-official judged my fleet.

I could, just it wouldn't be an official review, considering others have reviewed already 

[HamnavoePer]

3 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Not yet, but it's on page 9 and we've just about finished up page 8 (which was extraordinarily large for some reason) so I should get to it one of the next few days

Alright. Thanks for a quick response!

[Spudmeist3r]

After finding that the reader of the instructions for this challenge was dyslexic, we transferred him to Human Resources so he could do no more harm

Spudnik Space Aero Division Presents: The SSBJ-1111 "Ferret"

https://kerbalx.com/crafts/39791/undefined

We have fixed many of the problems surrounding the SSBJ-1001. This plane has many features including but not limited to: the impossibility of a turboprop jet, oxidizer tanks filled with extra snacks, and more! While it is a short range plane, it will definitely get the job done! And for cheaper than other aircraft in its class!

Price: just under 30 million

Speed: at 7 km, 240 m/s

Passengers: 24

Notes: While it can take off at lower speeds, take off at 40 m/s or faster to avoid tail strikes; ignore floppy parts, they won't fall off.

By all means, tell me what to improve. We need ideas for the SSBJ-1112/2002

Edited February 12, 2018 by Spudmeist3r

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Spudmeist3r said:

-snip-

By all means, tell me what to improve. We need ideas for the SSRJ-1112/2002

Here is a few tips: (Saying them because I didn't know them)

-Try to only use the Mk.1 cabins, because they are much, much cheaper per passenger

-Make sure the landing gear won't harm the plane, so, try and have some clearance between the plane and the ground, and make it hard to whack the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing

[Spudmeist3r]

41 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Here is a few tips: (Saying them because I didn't know them)

-Try to only use the Mk.1 cabins, because they are much, much cheaper per passenger

-Make sure the landing gear won't harm the plane, so, try and have some clearance between the plane and the ground, and make it hard to whack the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing

I was kinda referring to improvements on the weasel, but thanks anyway!

[Cantdesignrockets]

THE LUXO744

A submission for the "Jumbo Jet" class

Features

"Advanced Autopilot"*, Seating for 226, "Budget Friendly 4.03 Million Dollar Price", Reliable, "Time Warp Friendly"**, Easily Adjustable Range 

Cruse 155

Cruse ALT 3000-3700 m

V1 85

Landing 145

Weight 132.5 Tons

Action Groups 1 Flaps, 2 Slats, 3 Spoilers, 4 Reversers

*With mod insallation

**Up to 2x

Uses 

Stock, Airplane plus

Album https://imgur.com/a/MEZ3a will appear when post is submitted

 

Craft

 

[RedPandaz]

@NightshineRecorralis What's the most expensive plane so far? My "Project Giganto" Might be close, but it is a ridiculously large cargo plane that flies well

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57B Tern

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 23,369,000
• Fuel: 490 kallons
• Cruising speed: 302 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.11 kal/s
• Range: 1345 km

Review Notes:

This is essentially a larger version of the A just reviewed, and they included a probe core, we don't quite know the purpose, but at least one engineer has been caught using it to mine crypto currencies. Anyway, it takes off at a good speed of just 47m/s, and maneuvers quite well. Actually the probe core does let it fly completely autonomously, but for legal reasons we can't, and we had to disable it for fear of it being hacked.

 It does not accelerate very fast, but it does top out at an impressive 302m/s at 5000m, and the range can be increased to 1708 km by flying on two thirds throttle, at 244m/s. This is quite good, and we have not a single complaint about performance. The comfort, there are some vibrations caused by an inline engines, but these are only an issue at the back. The views are good all round and on landing the reverse engine and flaps can slow it rapidly it has two sets of deploy-able flaps by the way, on the theta wing design there is a set on the front and a set on the back.

 Over at maintenance, it is fairly high with 45 parts, but it won't break the bank. The initial cost is reasonable too, but we think it could be reduced significantly by the removal of the probe core.

The Verdict:

 It's a good plane. Fast and manueverable, reasonably cheap and with reasonable comfort, we see no reason not to buy some. We'll buy 10, for medium range general purpose routes.

[ZLM-Master]

Hi everyone , i try to build something for the challenge .

The Green Airline Companie ( GAC ) is happy to show you there last medium regional jet .

It "s optimised to have a descent among of passengers with the comfort of a large range travel .

Her's some technical stats ;

- Up to 72 Passengers  + ( 2 Pilots )

- Cruise ALT 8400 / 8800 m

- Cruise SPD 250m/s

- Fuel Rate 0.31 l/s

- Tank 5260 L

- Take off SPD 76 m/s

- Landing SPD 71 m/s

- Mass 53 Tons

- Range ≈ 9000

- Cost 69.064.000

You have to use Flaps to take off & landing , especially with full fuel mass . Climb up betwin 20° to 30° . Action group below .

- AG 1 - Reverse Thrust
- AG 2 - Flaps
- AG 0 - Navigation lights ( Defaut ON )

KerbalX https://kerbalx.com/ZLM-Master/Passenger-M38

Hope i made all in a good way ^^ Nice day on Kerbin !

[Thor Wotansen]

@CrazyJebGuy don't you mean krypto kurrencies?

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @MostExcellent's: K2707

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 30.630.000
• Fuel: 880kallons
• Cruising speed: 840m/s
• Cruising altitude: 13000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.4kal/s
• Range:  1800km

Review Notes:

The K2707 is a slick looking and fairly small supersonic aircraft. The 2 large engine pods mounted beneath the wings did remind our engineers of the Konkorde. First thing we noticed upon seeing it was the positioning of the wheels. The front one is a lot lower than the rear ones, meaning that the planes points down when on the ground. We thought maybe it had something to do with making the landings easier, or possibly something as simple as keeping the engines off the ground. Regardless of this, the plane accelerated rapidly on the runway, and was capable of taking to the air at about 60m/s, pretty fast for a supersonic aircraft. We think this plane is capable of taking off from small airports, which is very useful. Landings are fairly easy as well, and stopping can be done easily thanks to the airbrakes. Maneuverability is a bit of a negative point. Pitch control is fairly unresponsive, you can't make fast and tight turns in this aircraft. That might be a good thing as well though, since we weren't capable of producing a G-force above 4.2, quite nice for the passengers. Roll control on the other hand is extremely responsive and should be used with a lot of care. It took us a few barrel rolls before we got it under control. Yaw is average. We haven't actually seen that many supersonic planes with panther engines, but with these burning only 0.4kal/s with an 840m/s cruising speed, we kinda wonder why.

Comfort on the K2707 is excellent. Both engines are mounted beneath the wings, limiting vibrations to a minimum. Thanks to the wing being below the windows, sound from the engines is nearly completely reflected downwards, making for a very quiet flight. The huge size of the wing also prevents the noise from sneaking around it somewhere and polluting the cabins with noise regardless. Only the very last part of the very last cabin is capable of catching some noise. Views are limited thanks to this huge wing, but that's a small negative to take for so many positives that this design brings.

Costing 30.630.000 it's a fairly cheap plane as well, especially when you consider what it offers for this price. The part count of 36 also isn't excessively large, neither is the amount of 2 engines. We don't expect to have a lot of maintenance work on this aircraft.

The Verdict:

It's fast, has good range, offers great comfort and it does all that at a fairly low price and part count, what's not to like? We can run this plane on pretty much every conceivable route and it would do fine. We'd like to start with an order of 10 K2707's, with an option of 20 more. They shall be used on various routes all over Kerbin.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57D Tern

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 27,959,000 dry
• Fuel: 390 kallons
• Cruising speed: 205 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.1 kal/s
• Range: 800 km

Review Notes:

 Since the previous Tern versions were well enough liked, we thought we'd have a look at this sea-plane. As a common theme, the inclusion of unusual things, this time a solar panel and a probe core. We discovered the deplorable solar panel doesn't work very well in flight, and when not in flight, electricity usually isn't a problem on planes. It takes off fine, and can land on water and take off fine, but the engine is a but underpowered, as it now has to lift the equivalent of a Tern, with pontoons strapped to the bottom. It lacks much fuel, and it cruises a good deal slower than the other Tern lineup.

In the air it is much slower than previous Tern planes, and has a greatly reduced range of just 800km. The maneuverability is still good, but the performance is noticeably worse.

On landing, the flaps and reversible engine mean it can land very quickly, which we like. Again with comfort, it's very much like the original versions, vibrations, some noise, and great views.

With maintenance, at 57 parts it is very high for a plane with only 32 passengers.

The Verdict:

While we liked previous Tern planes, this one is a bit of a let-down. It's a bit costly to buy, very costly to maintain, and now it is slower and has a low range. In short, it sacrificed everything that made previous Terns good, for the ability to take off from water. It is a bit disappointing, and considering that there are far better floatplanes available, we won't be buying any.

[Kebab Kerman]

So apparently the massive 1440 passenger plane I we have built is prone to fuselage ruptures on the top level when exposed to over 5 g's of force. When this happens, multiple tank ruptures were also observed, and sparks caused it to ignite 8km of crashing awesomely later.

EDIT: This was observed on a routine test flight. Actions will be made to fix these issues. Personally, I don't recommend this model. Very prone to passenger discharge and immenent death.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

After seeing the success of our old floatplane designs, we went away for a while and designed this masterpiece! The GAI K-64/83 is a new, innovative design, trying to repeat everything that made earlier models great, and then add some neat stuff. Like a passenger count of 65! Assuming one can sit next to the pilot, if you do that we have an easy switch to disable the co-pilot controls. Or you could be normal, and have a co-pilot instead.

But by far, the most innovative, new thing this plane has, is a frontal wheesly! One engine would provide insufficient thrust, and so we had the idea of mounting one backwards, on the front, and simply running it backwards. It throws a lot of exhausty steam stuff out the front like it's pushing in the other direction, and it does this.... um... to, err..... I don't know! I work in marketing! Ask an engineer!

As for flying, it's a plane so apparently that is important, yeah it can fly. The engineers told me to put this in:

Recommended modes of operation:

-3300m, 2/3 throttle at 215m/s gives a range of 2200km
-700m, full throttle, gives a range of 1400km at 315m/s

Price: $28,494,000 dry, that's right, all this for sub 30 million.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's - Trifekta Aeronautics: B-3 "Lance"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 28.345.000
• Fuel: 1680kallons
• Cruising speed: 280m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.20kal/s
• Range:  2300km

Review Notes:

The first thing we noticed about the B-3 is (obviously), its weird design. Featuring a 2 floor passenger hull, and engines mounted at the very furthest edge of the sizable wings. This design comes with its pros and cons, and the review will point out. First up: maneuverability. The B-3 has pretty average maneuverability. One of the first cons of the design is the reason behind this. Placing the engines and nacelles that far away from the center off mass greatly limits the planes capability of turning around its axis. Which means the plane kinda rolls like a whale, or a bit better than that. Pitch control on the other hand is fairly good. Yaw control is a bit underwhelming, but nothing more than that. The plane accelerates at an average pace and takes to the sky at a similarly average 50m/s. Medium sized or larger airports would be recommended for this aircraft. Landing is quite easy, reason for this is the huge wings, resulting in an excellent glide, allowing you to approach the runway at nice and slow speeds. Cruising speed is a bit lower than described at 280m/s, this is still more than sufficient though. The range on the other hand is far above what the brochure said, 2300km vs 1100km, that's a difference of 1200km! 2300km is an amazing range, means that this plane can reach pretty much every airstrip on Kerbin from anywhere else on Kerbin.

Comfort is great. This is where the pro of the design comes in. First of all, the engines are mounted on the wings, meaning that vibrations are mostly absorbed and not passed on to the cabins.But more importantly, the engines are so far away from the cabins that you can hardly even hear them inside. These two combined make for a quiet and silk smooth flight. The B-3 is an absolute joy to fly in. The two floors also make it fairly easy for us to divide the plane in economy and business/first class seating. Even in economy you'll have a fantastically comfortable flight though.

 We'd say that 28.345.000 is pretty much inline with most other planes in this category. Perhaps a bit above average, but the passenger capacity of 56 more than makes up for that. 43 parts does mean that it will be a reasonably high maintenance plane. 

The Verdict:

Offering good range, speed, price and capacity, while being held back a bit by maneuverability and part count. Overall we consider this plane to be more than good enough to join our fleet. We'd like to use them on medium volume, but long range routes between medium sized airports. We presume our passengers won't only like the looks of the aircraft, but they'll love flying with them as well. Ordering 10 right now, and taking an option on 15 more.

Edited February 13, 2018 by panzerknoef
Added review instead of placeholder message

[TaRebelSheep]

8 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's - Trifekta Aeronautics: B-3 "Lance"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 28.345.000
• Fuel: 1680kallons
• Cruising speed: 280m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.20kal/s
• Range:  2300km

Review Notes:

The first thing we noticed about the B-3 is (obviously), its weird design. Featuring a 2 floor passenger hull, and engines mounted at the very furthest edge of the sizable wings. This design comes with its pros and cons, and the review will point out. First up: maneuverability. The B-3 has pretty average maneuverability. One of the first cons of the design is the reason behind this. Placing the engines and nacelles that far away from the center off mass greatly limits the planes capability of turning around its axis. Which means the plane kinda rolls like a whale, or a bit better than that. Pitch control on the other hand is fairly good. Yaw control is a bit underwhelming, but nothing more than that. The plane accelerates at an average pace and takes to the sky at a similarly average 50m/s. Medium sized or larger airports would be recommended for this aircraft. Landing is quite easy, reason for this is the huge wings, resulting in an excellent glide, allowing you to approach the runway at nice and slow speeds. Cruising speed is a bit lower than described at 280m/s, this is still more than sufficient though. The range on the other hand is far above what the brochure said, 2300km vs 1100km, that's a difference of 1200km! 2300km is an amazing range, means that this plane can reach pretty much every airstrip on Kerbin from anywhere else on Kerbin.

Comfort is great. This is where the pro of the design comes in. First of all, the engines are mounted on the wings, meaning that vibrations are mostly absorbed and not passed on to the cabins.But more importantly, the engines are so far away from the cabins that you can hardly even hear them inside. These two combined make for a quiet and silk smooth flight. The B-3 is an absolute joy to fly in. The two floors also make it fairly easy for us to divide the plane in economy and business/first class seating. Even in economy you'll have a fantastically comfortable flight though.

 We'd say that 28.345.000 is pretty much inline with most other planes in this category. Perhaps a bit above average, but the passenger capacity of 56 more than makes up for that. 43 parts does mean that it will be a reasonably high maintenance plane. 

The Verdict:

Offering good range, speed, price and capacity, while being held back a bit by maneuverability and part count. Overall we consider this plane to be more than good enough to join our fleet. We'd like to use them on medium volume, but long range routes between medium sized airports. We presume our passengers won't only like the looks of the aircraft, but they'll love flying with them as well. Ordering 10 right now, and taking an option on 15 more.

Yeah I'm really bad at calculating range, I think i use fuel consumption estimates that are too high.

[panzerknoef]

45 minutes ago, TaRebelSheep said:

Yeah I'm really bad at calculating range, I think i use fuel consumption estimates that are too high.

The fuel consumption rate is just in the fuel bar in the top right, that's all you need.