Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[NightshineRecorralis]

8 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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

If that's the case, I suppose pilot error is the cause then, I had zero problems like that. It is more economical at 250m/s, but I don't understand why it would be slowing down if it can reach 274m/s as you stated. Perhaps it's just a conflict somewhere? I can upload the file again if you want.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

What graphics mods are you using?

Just stock visual enhancements. 

And a sunset.  

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's - BS - 24 Turbo and BS - 32 Turbo

Figures as Tested:

BS - 24 Turbo:

• Price: 15,523,000
• Fuel: 400 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 155m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 4,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.06 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1000km

BS - 32 Turbo:

• Price: 16,373,000
• Fuel: 400 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 155m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 4,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.06 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1000km

Review:

Both the BS-24 Turbo and BS-32 Turbo will be reviewed together, as the two aircraft are so similar, we could not tell the difference, short of taking out our fingers, and counting the windows.

The first thing that rushed to everyones mind when this plane arrived was "Is that plane pregnant?". On closer inspection though it became clear that it was instead just a clever bit of engineering. Having the fuel tank under the belly not only makes it easy to refuel, but also keeps the center of gravity put as the fuel gets burned. Both the pilots and the ground crew grew fond of this belly quite quickly.

So how does it fly? The takeoff speed is a little bit above average at 60m/s without flaps, and 57m/s with the flaps, not much improvement. We would have liked to the the takeoff speed at the class standard of 50m/s. Despite this though the takeoff run is not particularly long. In fact the rather powerful twin turboprops almost seem to throw the aircraft into the air. And once it is there it does not waste much time getting to cruising altitude and speed. The plane curies along at 1/2 throttle, though the aircraft requires almost 5 degrees of nose up attitude to maintain altitude. The efficiency of the aircraft might benefit from having the angle of incidence increased a little.

Now some of the pilots complained that the aircraft would pitch down every time they made an adjustment with the autopilot engaged. Well, the solution was simple, don't use the autopilot. The aircraft is very comfortable to fly manually, so this is not a big issue. Though we would like to see this trim built into the aircraft, to make it play nice with the autopilot as well. As advertised the controlsurfaces are limited for the comfort of the passengers, and although it features lesser control authority than much of it's competition, we think it has struck a good balance between comfort and maneuverability. 

Landing speed is only 50m/s, and with flaps thrust reversers and powerful wheel breaks, this aircraft stops exceptionally fast. The landing gear also seems be sturdily built, and takes bad landings with grace. The plane can also be ditched safely in water, though the impact is quite jarring to the passengers. We also found that the aircraft can both take of and land on just one engine, though it was practically impossible to fly in a straight line in this configuration, due to having the engines so far out on the wings.

With the engines mounted about mid wing, not too much of the vibrations and noise reach the cabins, and when engines are throttled down for cruising, it all just turns in to a mild hum. The test passengers reported that the rather sudden and abrupt pitch changes, caused by the autopilot, was a little bit disconcerting though. Also one of the test passengers reported that his coffee slid of the table because of the nose up attitude, however ground testing suggest that this was in fact impossible. More likely he got so hung up with the entertainment system that he straight out forgot that he had a coffee, and spilled it in his lap. Now the BL-stair cart was a bit of a mixed bag. It certainly made boarding easier, but the first step was a bit steep, and squeezing past the propellers was a little awkward as well. We are wondering why it was not mirrored.

As for the price of this aircraft, it is not class leading, but it definitively one of the more reasonable aircraft. Much the same can be said about the part count, and so maintenance should not be too bad. We found that the BL-stair cart was quite useful for maintenance as well, allowing easy assess to the top of the wings. We think the ground crew will quite enjoy working on this one. The fuel efficiency is also quite reasonable for a turboprop. With the price of the BS - 32 being only marginally higher, we think it is the more economical option for most uses though.

The verdict:
Over all we found this to be a well rounded aircraft, with some welcome innovations. We will be ordering  2 of the BS-24 for those airports where the BS-32 is simply to big, and 6 BS-32 for general use, with options for 4 more if the minor issues are sorted out.

Some additional images: https://imgur.com/a/s826R

Edited April 8, 2018 by neistridlar
fixed a typo

[Blasty McBlastblast]

@neistridlar thanks for the balanced review! I'm glad you liked the low-slung fuel tanks, and the sturdy construction, and right about now I'm slapping my forehead wondering "why did I never mirror the stair-cart?!" You have opened my eyes sir! 

I may take your advice too, and design any future shared craft with "no trim required" and "flight by SAS" in mind, even though I don't use it myself (usually my flights are undertaken by scientists) it seems to be the popular way to fly.

[Kebab Kerman]

Has anybody made a plane with folding wings yet? I would assume not...

[alekkat]

company name: AB Airplanes

Model Name: RJJ-1  (regional jumbo jet 1)

price: 328.630.000

recommended cruising speed: around 200-250 m/s

recommended cruising altitude: between 1000 and 3000 m

craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8scl1n34xzpaiyb/RJJ-1.craft?dl=0

This aircraft is very good because it can transport 168 passengers at long distances and at relatively high speeds it has over 70000 m/s of deltaV. The plane is very expensive but if you can transport 168 passengers, it will probaly be worth it.

 

custom action group 1: reverse trust.

(it has to use the bump at the end of the runway to get of the ground, can't get it from the ground before that I think it needs about 180 m/s to take of, it may be a bit hard to control at the start but it goes pretty good after a while) 

Edited February 22, 2018 by alekkat

[HamnavoePer]

Hmm, what page are you reviewers on now?

[neistridlar]

18 hours ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

@neistridlar thanks for the balanced review! I'm glad you liked the low-slung fuel tanks, and the sturdy construction, and right about now I'm slapping my forehead wondering "why did I never mirror the stair-cart?!" You have opened my eyes sir! 

I may take your advice too, and design any future shared craft with "no trim required" and "flight by SAS" in mind, even though I don't use it myself (usually my flights are undertaken by scientists) it seems to be the popular way to fly.

Glad you liked it. If you play a lot of career mode, I can see how you don't get to use the autopilot much. I still like to have my planes with built in trim for manual flight as well, it is nice to quickly be able to reset the trim to a setting that is actually useful, if you get what I mean. Out of curiosity I moved and rotated a few of the parts in the BS - 24 a little bit. It does not take much before that thing will lift of at 45m/s.

15 hours ago, alekkat said:

(it has to use the bump at the end of the runway to get of the ground, can't get it from the ground before that I think it needs about 180 m/s to take of, it may be a bit hard to control at the start but it goes pretty good after a while) 

180m/s is rather fast, and needing a cliff after the runway is going to limit where this plane can be used. I took your craft out for a quick spin, it turns out it can take of at 90m/s if you just shorten the rear landing gear.

 

10 minutes ago, HamnavoePer said:

Hmm, what page are you reviewers on now?

Looks like there are still a few stragglers left on pages 8 and 9, but otherwise it seems to be more like page 14 or there about.

[HamnavoePer]

3 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Looks like there are still a few stragglers left on pages 8 and 9, but otherwise it seems to be more like page 14 or there about.

Ok, that sounds about right. 

[Kebab Kerman]

I built a plane with wings that rotate up. Unfortunately, it didn't work and caused the ejection of Minmus, Tylo, Gilly, Bop, and Eeloo.

EDIT: And the sun somehow. The SUN! And that thing's immobile!

Edited February 23, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Pds314]

I may build an airliner using FAR and stock electric propellers. Not sure if it fits the challenge description though.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

I may build an airliner using FAR and stock electric propellers. Not sure if it fits the challenge description though.

It doesn't. You can test with FAR, if you want, but it's not a good idea, since the planes will be tested in stock aero. As for electric propellers? I don't think it's part of airplane plus, or tweakscale, which are the only mods allowed*.

*excluding mods that don't affect physics and don't add parts. You can make the plane with parts mods installed, but be careful not to let any of the wrong parts in on accident. (I have accidentally included several KAX parts)

[Pds314]

3 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

It doesn't. You can test with FAR, if you want, but it's not a good idea, since the planes will be tested in stock aero. As for electric propellers? I don't think it's part of airplane plus, or tweakscale, which are the only mods allowed*.

*excluding mods that don't affect physics and don't add parts. You can make the plane with parts mods installed, but be careful not to let any of the wrong parts in on accident. (I have accidentally included several KAX parts)

Oh. I meant (and said) stock electric propellers. I.E. reaction wheels + electrical power source + bearing + angled control surfaces + the ability to detach from the parent craft and spin up to generate thrust.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Pds314

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - GAI Skots Mouse C

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 104,193,000
• Fuel: 9160 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 190m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 2,500m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.47 Kallons/sec
• Range: 3700km

Review:

Big square wings, lots of engines and taildragger landing gear, yup this is unmistakably a GAI airplane.  Somehow it manages to make the impression of a good old sailing ship, though with the 5 after burning jet engines, we are quite positive that it is indeed a plane. Further confirmation was found when the plane lifted of from the ground at a mere 50m/s. Quite impressive for a plane with a passenger capacity of 208. The takeoff run was not terribly long either, being shorter than some turboprops. Once in the air, though it started feeling a little like a ship again, with it's somewhat weak pitch authority, and large size makes it respond fairly slowly to pitch input. The roll and yaw control is a little slow to, but it is still comfortable to fly. The aircraft also has some adverse yaw when rolling. Presumably this is because the rudders also respond to roll input. The issue can be circumvented by using yaw and roll in equal amounts.

The instructions called for the middle engines to be turned off during cruising, though there was no switch in the cockpit to turn these off. After seeing one of the pilots trying to walk across the wings to get into the side pods to turn them off, one of the engineers got a brilliant idea. Using a intricate contraption consisting of two pieces of string, stretched from the window in the cockpit and back to the side pods. This worked brilliantly. The range was found to be less than advertised though, coming in at only 3700km flying at 2,5km, below this altitude range was even worse, even taking into account the fuel spent climbing. This is slightly bellow the requirements, though it is still almost enough to circumnavigate Kerbin, so we are not too concerned about this. The plane otherwise performed much as advertised. We do feel that 190m/s is a on the slow side though for such a long range craft, and we found that we had to divert to get around mountains, making the journey even longer.

Upon landing we found that the aircraft glides quite well, so well in fact that initial landing attempts had to be aborted, as the plane glided all the way across the runway, loosing only 30m/s. The landing gear also proved to be remarkably robust, simply bouncing gracefully away from certain death. We think this will be able to land almost anywhere. Water ditching is also possible. Having so many engines provides good safety for long flights, as the aircraft is able to fly with any two engines. As for passenger comfort, it is all over the place. In the front of the main fuselage things are quite pleasant, but in the tail and under wing cabins things are rather loud and shaky. It was reported from the side pods that it was quite hard to keep the coffee and tea from jumping out of the cups when the plane rolled. We don't think passengers will be willing to pay much to sit in the side pods for hours on end, as this craft lumbers it's way across the skies at a measly 190m/s. 

104mill. is quite a reasonable price for a plane of this caliber, and the fuel economy is alright as well. The part count of 123 and the 5 engines, are about average for planes of this size. We think this plane is perfect for long distance mass transport to and from areas with bad, or no runways at all. The side pods will have to be reserved for economy seating though.

The verdict:

Buying one for long range relocation of remote villages, and one for everlasting daylight flights.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by neistridlar
wrong economy assumptions.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, Pds314 said:

Oh. I meant (and said) stock electric propellers. I.E. reaction wheels + electrical power source + bearing + angled control surfaces + the ability to detach from the parent craft and spin up to generate thrust.

Sorry, I misread.

[Pds314]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Sorry, I misread.

The big reason for FAR is because it eliminates a lot of tedium in flying them because there's an option for control surfaces to track angle of attack that can be used to make props of more--or-less constant RPM over a wide range of speeds.

[CrazyJebGuy]

4 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

-snip-

Your review did make me laugh, I liked the bit about sailing ships, but the range should be calculated with total fuel capacity IMO, for a few reasons:

1. It's the official method
2. Accounting for climbing, is cancelled out a bit by the fact that as the plane flies, it gets lighter, and thus needs less fuel.
3. Climbing can be done differently, makes the range estimate too fudge-able.

I mean, so mention it if the plane uses a third of the fuel just getting to altitude, but you can't be precise with it.

It's approx, and even if it is wrong, it is fair, since everyone uses it. I mean, do account for climbing if it is some ludicrous amount like 40% of the tank as what happened a while back.

Vibrations also fall off a quite a bit on inline mounts after a distance, the cabins near the engines? Absolutely, shake your teeth out. But near the front it would not be so noticeable.

4 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

The big reason for FAR is because it eliminates a lot of tedium in flying them because there's an option for control surfaces to track angle of attack that can be used to make props of more--or-less constant RPM over a wide range of speeds.

I am still not entirely sure if stock props are legit, It would seriously muck up the range calculations, I'd say yes though, provided the sole power source was fuel cells.

Also, I don't know why people don't design planes more like I do, it works. Square wings, lots of power and taildragger gear are effective, and square wings are pretty simple to produce too.

[neistridlar]

4 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Your review did make me laugh, I liked the bit about sailing ships, but the range should be calculated with total fuel capacity IMO, for a few reasons:

1. It's the official method
2. Accounting for climbing, is cancelled out a bit by the fact that as the plane flies, it gets lighter, and thus needs less fuel.
3. Climbing can be done differently, makes the range estimate too fudge-able.

I mean, so mention it if the plane uses a third of the fuel just getting to altitude, but you can't be precise with it.

It's approx, and even if it is wrong, it is fair, since everyone uses it. I mean, do account for climbing if it is some ludicrous amount like 40% of the tank as what happened a while back.

Vibrations also fall off a quite a bit on inline mounts after a distance, the cabins near the engines? Absolutely, shake your teeth out. But near the front it would not be so noticeable.

I am still not entirely sure if stock props are legit, It would seriously muck up the range calculations, I'd say yes though, provided the sole power source was fuel cells.

Fair enough, I edited the review to use full fuel amount for range estimate, it is still only 3700km though. My point of mentioning the climbing part was that, despite the submission saying you should stay at low altitude (I'm interpreting this as bellow 1km), because of the fuel spent climbing, it was actually better to climb, and not much fuel was wasted at all. 

[Pds314]

9 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Also, I don't know why people don't design planes more like I do, it works. Square wings, lots of power and taildragger gear are effective, and square wings are pretty simple to produce too.

I like taildraggers for little prop planes that take off at freeway speeds in a tiny fraction of the runway and land at those same speeds.

The problem with the design is that it prevents landing on all three wheels at above takeoff speed. That's why most of my jets and larger prop planes have a nosewheel and two main wheels mounted just behind CoG. Taildraggers tend to bounce along the runway if they land at more than stall speed unless you can brake on two wheels, which works fine in war thunder (except when it doesn't) but KSP brakes are just a bit twitchy and I'm pretty sure most of my planes are more flippy than that.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Pds314

[NightshineRecorralis]

11 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Your review did make me laugh, I liked the bit about sailing ships, but the range should be calculated with total fuel capacity IMO, for a few reasons:

1. It's the official method
2. Accounting for climbing, is cancelled out a bit by the fact that as the plane flies, it gets lighter, and thus needs less fuel.
3. Climbing can be done differently, makes the range estimate too fudge-able.

I mean, so mention it if the plane uses a third of the fuel just getting to altitude, but you can't be precise with it.

It's approx, and even if it is wrong, it is fair, since everyone uses it. I mean, do account for climbing if it is some ludicrous amount like 40% of the tank as what happened a while back.

Vibrations also fall off a quite a bit on inline mounts after a distance, the cabins near the engines? Absolutely, shake your teeth out. But near the front it would not be so noticeable.

I am still not entirely sure if stock props are legit, It would seriously muck up the range calculations, I'd say yes though, provided the sole power source was fuel cells.

Also, I don't know why people don't design planes more like I do, it works. Square wings, lots of power and taildragger gear are effective, and square wings are pretty simple to produce too.

What's the official method of calculating range though? The way you described isn't really applicable since fuel economy changes drastically from airframe to airframe especially with large aircraft or supersonic aircraft. I try to keep my measurements as accurate as possible by calculating range at cruise with the fuel load at cruise, then adding the distance covered during climb and descent. I leave ~5% fuel in the tank since no airliner is supposed to run dry.

 

I do like your designs though, quite stylish in the kernel sense. I personally want that blend of realism and kerbalism, so part count isn't a concern for me. I'll take the maintenance penalty if it looks better/has more features.

Edited February 24, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[CrazyJebGuy]

7 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Fair enough, I edited the review to use full fuel amount for range estimate, it is still only 3700km though. My point of mentioning the climbing part was that, despite the submission saying you should stay at low altitude (I'm interpreting this as bellow 1km), because of the fuel spent climbing, it was actually better to climb, and not much fuel was wasted at all. 

By the way, you are by no means restricted to aircraft at a specific page to review, you can go review from any page you please.

Quick other thing: maintenance is about ratios primarily, and a lot of parts were struts. A typical turboprop will have 24/32 passengers, and 30-45 parts, a part-passenger ratio of roughly 3:2, but jumbo jets usually have much better ratios, in my planes case 3:5 (or there abouts) which is about 2.5 times better.

36 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

What's the official method of calculating range though? The way you described isn't really applicable since fuel economy changes drastically from airframe to airframe especially with large aircraft or supersonic aircraft. I try to keep my measurements as accurate as possible by calculating range at cruise with the fuel load at cruise, then adding the distance covered during climb and descent. I leave ~5% fuel in the tank since no airliner is supposed to run dry.

The official method is fuel / burn rate * speed / 1000. Fuel economy does change drastically, even on the same planes at varying levels of tank fullness. (Especially some jumbos) And when you say descent, do you mean gliding? I would think that is a bit dangerous, because overshooting the runway would be very dangerous.

With all the different methods, no wonder people keep getting estimates off by 10 or 15 percent, I was very sure the Skots Mouse had over 4,000km. And if we want real accuracy, the only real way is just to fly it unit it runs out of fuel. For time reasons, I don't think anybody would do this. Especially since some aircraft can fly for 6+ hours. (I have built ones that can do that, I forget which ones exactly though)

[CrazyJebGuy]

Since there seems to be no such thing as an economical small Jumbo jet, it's all Mk 3 cabins and hundreds of millions of dollars, I made my own Jumbo, the Skots Horse, and kept costs down. It costs under 65 million, that's right! A jumbo for under 65 million! Bang for buck is very much the idea here, coming with quite a lot of passenger capacity, for very little buck, comparatively. It carries 192 lucky guys in comfort, especially considering the price! The engines are mounted quite far back, so the flight is quiet and almost vibration free, and on top of that, every cabin has a nice view, a couple with wings in it, but even then it's still a better view than many. The pilot's view is also completely unimpeded.

It goes at 257m/s at 5.8 km up, which gives it a range (assuming standard fuel load) of 3,990km. (But if needed extra fuel can be added easily)

The Skots Horse can be a fleet-wide workhorse! It has enough passengers to make pilot wages neglidgible in comparison, it travels quickly, and is reliable. The maintenance is low for a plane of this many passengers, 111 parts may be a few, but a lot of them are just structural, and require maintenance no more complex than can be handled by a 4 year old. Pilot training can be cheapened by cross training to fly other Skots class aeroplanes.

It has powerful engines at the back, on takeoff these spark a bit, but this does not harm them in any way, but it does look cool. The powerful engines are all reversible, so the plane can easily come to a halt. Takeoff is quick, it accelerates quickly and takes off at a nice 70m/s.

It can provide quick transportation cheaply, it would be very cost effective to use these on huge routes, like Kondon to New Kork, where if you get a bunch of these, they will take care of the route much cheaper than any other competing jumbo jets, and having a lot of them on the same high density route means maintenance workers can become very efficient. With a lot arriving and departing though, a high density route would have so many that at any time of day you can arrive and the delay before the next flight will be very short!

It handles well too, and it is very flexible in CoM, since the fuel can be moved around quite a lot to customize flight characteristics, by default it's tuned to fly well for the whole trip.

It's a cheap, comfortable, and speedy jet that can deal with smaller airfields, meaning you can have these go to nearly any airport. The possibilities are limitless, get a hundred or so and you could service entire continents cheaply, and in luxury, at high speeds. I'm not one for hyperbole, but it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Costs $65,933,000 fueled. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Skots-Horse

I use this as proof that my design style if effective. It may look straight out of WW1, but it works.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @NildimensionalString's Wintertech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 317,447,000 (fully fueled)
• Fuel: 9860 kallons
• Cruising speed: 190 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3700 m
• Fuel burn rate: 1.7 kal/s
• Range: 1400 km

Review Notes:

 Okay, where to start.... It's a very.... special, aircraft. It has two cockpits, we don't know why, and somehow we suspect the designers don't either, they didn't know it carries 196 passengers either. It comes with several things, 4 large engines, 2 cockpits, (???) 5 more smaller engines, a ladder, and an inverted pregnant fuselage. It also has reverse thrust, but no button built in, so we jerry rigged one using gaffa tape and plywood.

 We tried taking off, and when we went and pulled up, the back part sort of blew up. Then the rest of the back part, then the plane flipped backwards and the top part and the wings blew up, and then a couple cabins slid across some grass at 70mph. Our test pilot, Jebediah, thought this was hilarious, just like everyone who wasn't on the plane, and didn't know about the astronomical price tag.

You must be very careful not to cause a tailstrike, and on our next try, we didn't. But it can very close, and we couldn't pitch up, and after a while we got off the ground. It is worth noting that the advertizement claimed it had nearly 50,000 kallons of fuel, it has a fifth of that. In the air, it doesn't need much pitch trim. It does however, roll a lot unintendedly for some reason. We also were not able to get it to the advertized 200m/s speed, only 190, and we are a bit disappointed. With 9 jets, we expected a bit better.

 We also expected a bit better range, it only has 1400km, which is low by Regional Jet standards, it is spectacularly bad by Jumbo standards. We think the designers messed up a bit here because they thought the plane has 5x it's actual fuel capacity.

Passenger comfort is good for some guys, who have wonderful views, a quiet and vibration free flight, but a few chaps have to settle for almost no views, a load of noise, and a few vibrations.

It also costs, well, a lot. And all that, for just 196 passengers? Bit of a tall ask. Maintenance however, is very cheap by Jumbo standards, 69 parts. Even less considering some bits will be missing after a tail strike.

The Verdict:

 It's slow, short ranged and costs an arm, leg, six toes and a finger, as well as being unsafe. We can see why the start-up the patent was purchased from went bankrupt, and we are scared if we have much to do with it we will be too.
 The low maintenance is countered a bit by the fact it will probably tail-strike and explode.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 320,933,000
• Fuel: 25,625 kallons
• Cruising speed: 300m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5999m
• Range:  7500 km
• Passengers: 168

Review Notes:

 This review is odd, and given the video evidence of range and so on, we'll just take the manufacturer's word. It has circumnavigated Kerbin twice, and has a mechjeb module. But I will let that last bit slide, it is very small, and does not affect much at all.

 The main purpose of testing it is to see how it handles, the performance can be gotten from video, but how it feels to fly can't really. It handles more or less like you'd expect, it's slow at turning, but it has huge reversible engines, so it can stop very quickly.

On comfort, we like that the engines are separated from the passengers by huge fuel tanks. We don't like that those fuel tanks completely block most passenger's view, but apart from that it is very nice.

The major winning part to this plane is the astonishing range, that is worth a lot.

On price, this is what really stops us buying these in bulk, 320 million is a bit steep for 168 passengers, although the maintenance is very affordable at 84 parts.

The Verdict:

We think it is too expensive to buy many of, but the on board entertainment and luxury is good, apart from views. With the prestige of having circumnavigated Kerbin twice though, we do think it's going to pay off long run, so we will buy 3, provided that prior to receiving them all have circumnavigated Kerbin twice.

 

 

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

By the way, you are by no means restricted to aircraft at a specific page to review, you can go review from any page you please.

Quick other thing: maintenance is about ratios primarily, and a lot of parts were struts. A typical turboprop will have 24/32 passengers, and 30-45 parts, a part-passenger ratio of roughly 3:2, but jumbo jets usually have much better ratios, in my planes case 3:5 (or there abouts) which is about 2.5 times better.

The official method is fuel / burn rate * speed / 1000. Fuel economy does change drastically, even on the same planes at varying levels of tank fullness. (Especially some jumbos) And when you say descent, do you mean gliding? I would think that is a bit dangerous, because overshooting the runway would be very dangerous.

With all the different methods, no wonder people keep getting estimates off by 10 or 15 percent, I was very sure the Skots Mouse had over 4,000km. And if we want real accuracy, the only real way is just to fly it unit it runs out of fuel. For time reasons, I don't think anybody would do this. Especially since some aircraft can fly for 6+ hours. (I have built ones that can do that, I forget which ones exactly though)

Alright, I will have to take a look at the other jumbo submissions to get a better sense off what should be considered average for a jumbo. I was comparing to my own designs, figuring that anything above double in part count and price would have to be considered above average. Take a look at my Slinky 152 submission. 51 parts and a single engine to move 152 kerbals 4000km with just over 3000 units of fuel and a price tag just above 30 mill. Now that one sacrifices a lot of other things to achieve this, but I have an other designs with ~60 parts using 40000 units of fuel to do the same thing for ~40 mill, and it flies and handles more or less like you would expect from a regional jet. I decided against submitting it though, because I did not want to flood the thread with submissions. Considering both of these uses solely 1.25m parts, I figured they would be in the higher part count regime.

I would be curious to hear how far you would consider different noise/vibrations to travel. I am thinking inline engines would have a significant effect for about 3 parts, intakes maybe 2 for noise. But general vibrations I would think would travel a bit farther, at least 5 parts. Which is why I did not think the pods on the Mouse would be a particularly pleasant ride. Add to that that the rear ones have the exhaust from the front ones right out side the window. I'll reconsider parts of the review if this seems too out of line.