Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[KenjiKrafts]

Fae Aeronautics proudly presents the....... 
Fae Aeronautics - HSC "Fairie"!
The Fairie is a Hyper Sonic Cruiser type craft entering the Supersonic private plane sector.
IMPORTANT LINKS
https://gyazo.com/d37c6495afdd7972cb6fdca34b89d99d
https://gyazo.com/562c45f00c1004cd8e9f09d8de838bff
https://gyazo.com/77d670a447f47b71c78f6a8e7eff48e3
https://kerbalx.com/KenjiKrafts/Fae-Aeronautcics-HSC-Fairie

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 89,112,000
• Fuel: 2760 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1250m/s - 1450m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8000m - 15,000m (most comfortable at 10,000m however reaches peak fuel economy at 15,000m - 20,000m at the expense of speed)
• Fuel burn rate: 0.79kal/s - 6.67 kal/s (Dependant on chosen altitude)
• Range:  1000km
• Take-off: 40m/s - 50m/s (Dependant on whether you pitch up or not)
• Landing: 50m/s (However the lower the better to avoid tail strike)
• Overall Dimensions: 24.6m(H) x 27.9m(W) x 5.8m(H)
• Parts: 97
• Weight: 46.205t
• Max Capacity: 42 (Includes 2 Pilots) 

However the Fairie is more than meets the eye, featuring an all new "Fly-By-Wire" system* the fairie is capable of maxing out at a whopping 22,000m! Meaning you get the smoothest performance you'd expect from a Fae Jet, now lets say you don't get the best performance, you'll be glad to know that we also prioritise kerbal safety here at Fae.
We have took the Supersonic Jet back to square one and we asked the question; Why have 8 million credits spare, and not want to save the economy? So that's what we did, to minimise the effect on the next generation of Fae Engineers we recycled four previous "Whiplash" engines from a fighter jet, giving the Fairie a massive torque and thrust ratio**, ensuring you get there quickly, minimising the flight time saving carbon.

For young and enthusiastic pilots, I'd advise they don't fly the Fairie, as at high speeds even with F.B.W active, it may disintegrate due to overworking on the wings, so to avoid this use the A.R.E.O.B.R.A.K.E.S installed by Fae*** to slow down before manoeuvre, advised to drop to below 500m/s before attempting high intensity manoeuvres in excess of 15G's.****

The Fairie also can fly itself! 
Bold statement I know, however left unattended, the Fairie with F.B.W active can take-off and climb at a stable rate.
*literally just glorified RCS

**Fae takes no responsibility for death caused by high speed impacts

***Warranty void if any "aftermarket" parts are used 

****This isn't the max but the safest

Edited March 5, 2018 by KenjiKrafts
More things to void warranty, and disclaimers READ FINE PRINT & added a link

[neistridlar]

24 minutes ago, KenjiKrafts said:

Fae Aeronautics proudly presents the....... 
Fae Aeronautics - HSC "Fairie"!
The Fairie is a Hyper Sonic Cruiser type craft entering the Supersonic private plane sector.
https://gyazo.com/d37c6495afdd7972cb6fdca34b89d99d
https://gyazo.com/562c45f00c1004cd8e9f09d8de838bff
https://gyazo.com/77d670a447f47b71c78f6a8e7eff48e3

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 8,235,200
• Fuel: 2760 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1250m/s - 1450m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8000m - 15,000m (most comfortable at 10,000m however reaches peak fuel economy at 15,000m - 20,000m at the expense of speed)
• Fuel burn rate: 0.79kal/s - 6.67 kal/s (Dependant on chosen altitude)
• Range:  1000km
• Take-off: 40m/s - 50m/s (Dependant on whether you pitch up or not)
• Landing: 50m/s (However the lower the better to avoid tail strike)
• Overall Dimensions: 24.6m(H) x 27.9m(W) x 5.8m(H)
• Parts: 97
• Weight: 46.205t
• Max Capacity: 42 (Includes 2 Pilots) 

However the Fairie is more than meets the eye, featuring an all new "Fly-By-Wire" system* the fairie is capable of maxing out at a whopping 22,000km! Meaning you get the smoothest performance you'd expect from a Fae Jet, now lets say you don't get the best performance, you'll be glad to know that we also prioritise kerbal safety here at Fae.
We have took the Supersonic Jet back to square one and we asked the question; Why have 8 million credits spare, and not want to save the economy? So that's what we did, to minimise the effect on the next generation of Fae Engineers we recycled four previous "Whiplash" engines from a fighter jet, giving the Fairie a massive torque and thrust ratio, ensuring you get there quickly, minimising the flight time saving carbon.

For young and enthusiastic pilots, I'd advise they don't fly the Fairie, as at high speeds even with F.B.W active, it may disintegrate due to overworking on the wings, so to avoid this use the A.R.E.O.B.R.A.K.E.S installed by Fae* to slow down before manoeuvre, advised to drop to below 500m/s before attempting high intensity manoeuvres in excess of 15G's.**

The Fairie also can fly itself! 
Bold statement I know, however left unattended, the Fairie with F.B.W active can take-off and climb at a stable rate.
*Fae takes no responsibility for death caused by high speed impacts

**Warranty void if any "aftermarket" parts are used 
***This isn't the max but the safest

I can not find a link to the craft file, and it looks like your price should be 82,352,000 (you are supposed to multiply by 1000). Also it would be nice if you picked the single altitude/speed combo that you think will give you the best fuel economy as a cruising speed and altitude. Otherwise it looks like a nice submission. 

[KenjiKrafts]

Just now, neistridlar said:

I can not find a link to the craft file, and it looks like your price should be 82,352,000 (you are supposed to multiply by 1000). Also it would be nice if you picked the single altitude/speed combo that you think will give you the best fuel economy as a cruising speed and altitude. Otherwise it looks like a nice submission. 

Working on that now

[KenjiKrafts]

@neistridlar Done 

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's The X-Series "Night Fury"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 153,611,000
• Fuel: 6,140 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1400m/s
• Cruising altitude: 14000m
• Fuel burn rate: ~3.1 kal/s
• Range:  ~2700km

Review Notes:

Are you sure this one is for us? It looks so aggressive and military like. Well, it seems to have space for passengers at least. Let’s take it out for a spin. With all those engines at the back we kind of expected this thing to practically leap in to the air, and although it was not particularly lacking in acceleration, it certainly did not leap in to the air either. In fact it took most of the runway to get up to the enormous take off speed of 150m/s. The landings were not much better, though we were able to land as slow as 100m/s, which is still quite fast, the only means of breaking while on the ground is the wheel breaks, and although they are fairly powerful breaks, they are not exactly abundant, so it took the better part of the runway to slow down as well. This thing really needs a big runway to be able to operate safely.

In the air though, the airplane does not feel nearly as big and heavy as it does on the ground. In fact it is rather agile, a little bit too agile actually. Some of the test pilots took the term “turn on a dime” a little too literally, and quickly found themselves flying backwards. Much to their surprise though, the airplane flies backwards almost as well as it does forwards. If only there had been some backwards mounted engines. It kind of feels like this aircraft is just an upscaled fighter aircraft that has had its weapons bays replaced by passenger cabins. And that feeling is only strengthened by the blazing cruising speed of 1400m/s. We were a little disappointed by the short range however, being quite a lot shorter than our requirements.

We were surprised that we were unable to safely ditch in the water. Combining this with the high landing speed and ease with which this aircraft throws itself tumbling out of the air, we are not overly excited about the safety of this aircraft. The multitude of engines and twin pilots do help a bit though. Now those engines being bolted straight to the passenger cabins at the back, makes for quite a deafening experience in the back. Further forward the ride is quite comfortable though. We are not entirely sure why, but the windows at the lower front are at foot level. It makes for a very good view of the ground though.

For a supersonic plane with 448 passengers this is quite a reasonably priced aircraft. The fuel economy is quite good too, however considering how much fuel it burns to reach its cruising speed and altitude, this really only comes into play when it uses its full range. That combined with the requirement for very large runways, puts quite strict restrictions on where this plane can be used efficiently. Pilot training will probably be quite expensive considering the somewhat temperamental flight characteristics and long landings, leaving little room for error.

The Verdict:

We have some concerns about safety and range, as well as flexibility. However we think there might be a market for it, so we will be leasing a pair to service high traffic routes between big airports. If our concerns prove to not be an issue we will probably buy that pair.

Edited March 20, 2018 by neistridlar

[KenjiKrafts]

9 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's The X-Series "Night Fury"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 153,611,000
• Fuel: 6,140 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1400m/s
• Cruising altitude: 14000m
• Fuel burn rate: ~3.1 kal/s
• Range:  ~2700km

Review Notes:

Are you sure this one is for us? It looks so aggressive and military like. Well, it seems to have space for passengers at least. Let’s take it out for a spin. With all those engines at the back we kind of expected this thing to practically leap in to the air, and although it was not particularly lacking in acceleration, it certainly did not leap in to the air either. In fact it took most of the runway to get up to the enormous take off speed of 150m/s. The landings were not much better, though we were able to land as slow as 100m/s, which is still quite fast, the only means of breaking while on the ground is the wheel breaks, and although they are fairly powerful breaks, they are not exactly abundant, so it took the better part of the runway to slow down as well. This thing really needs a big runway to be able to operate safely.

In the air though, the airplane does not feel nearly as big and heavy as it does on the ground. In fact it is rather agile, a little bit too agile actually. Some of the test pilots took the term “turn on a dime” a little too literally, and quickly found themselves flying backwards. Much to their surprise though, the airplane flies backwards almost as well as it does forwards. If only there had been some backwards mounted engines. It kind of feels like this aircraft is just an upscaled fighter aircraft that has had its weapons bays replaced by passenger cabins. And that feeling is only strengthened by the blazing cruising speed of 1400m/s. We were a little disappointed by the short range however, being quite a lot shorter than our requirements.

We were surprised that we were unable to safely ditch in the water. Combining this with the high landing speed and ease with which this aircraft throws itself tumbling out of the air, we are not overly excited about the safety of this aircraft. The multitude of engines and twin pilots do help a bit though. Now those engines being bolted straight to the passenger cabins at the back, makes for quite a deafening experience in the back. Further forward the ride is quite comfortable though. We are not entirely sure why, but the windows at the lower front are at foot level. It makes for a very good view of the ground though.

For a supersonic plane with 448 passengers this is quite a reasonably priced aircraft. The fuel economy is quite good too, however considering how much fuel it burns to reach its cruising speed and altitude, this really only comes into play when it uses its full range. That combined with the requirement for very large runways, puts quite strict restrictions on where this plane can be used efficiently. Pilot training will probably be quite expensive considering the somewhat temperamental flight characteristics and long landings, leaving little room for error.

The Verdict:

We have some concerns about safety and range, as well as flexibility. However we think there might be a market for it, so we will be leasing a pair to service high traffic routes between big airports. If our concerns prove to not be an issue we will probably buy that pair.

Reading that I have very little faith in mine...... 

[TaRebelSheep]

New update shouldn't break any vehicles I hope, what with the new version of Unity and the added parts. Texturereplacer becoming stock is cool though.

[CrazyJebGuy]

33 minutes ago, TaRebelSheep said:

New update shouldn't break any vehicles I hope, what with the new version of Unity and the added parts. Texturereplacer becoming stock is cool though.

I flipping hate the new textures.

I don't know, am I just some stick in the mud? I hate so many "new" things.

[KenjiKrafts]

@CrazyJebGuy 1.2.2 4 lyf 

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, TaRebelSheep said:

New update shouldn't break any vehicles I hope, what with the new version of Unity and the added parts. Texturereplacer becoming stock is cool though.

I will be keeping an install of 1.3 just in case.

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I will be keeping an install of 1.3 just in case.

Same here. Most mods will need a new version to go with the unity update and maybe textures. I'm staying on 1.3 until my library of mods are all up to date.

[RedPandaz]

On 3/3/2018 at 7:34 AM, Kebab Kerman said:

Here's an image!

0_o

[HamnavoePer]

Wait, Kerbin City is still a thing? I thought that was ditched long ago, back in the 0.90 days!

[KenjiKrafts]

1 hour ago, HamnavoePer said:

Wait, Kerbin City is still a thing? I thought that was ditched long ago, back in the 0.90 days!

Yeah it's still around, I'm sure it's featured in The Fall Of Kerbin series!

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

Presenting: the Hawk 1a (goes in Turboprop category).

STATS:

(*1000) 22,780,000

RANGE: 853.333 km

Cruising stats: 250 m/s @ 5000m

24 passengers

Backstory:

One day, the Kerbobulus Aerospace boss decided to create a safer aircraft. This is the result. Features a small wheel on the tail to prevent tailstrikes from occurring.

LINK:
https://kerbalx.com/BottleRocketeer500/Hawk-1a

NOTES: Feels much heavier than actually is, especially when taking off and landing.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Bottle Rocketeer 500

[DunnoAnyThing]

Umm, could I know when my craft will be tested?

I'm really looking forward to it since this is my very second challenge entry ever.

[Andetch]

On 27/01/2018 at 2:44 PM, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's KAT Chalduro

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 
• Fuel: 1040 kallons
• Cruising speed: 206 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6500 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s
• Range:  3400 km

Review Notes:

 When we opened the box to this plane, the engineers watching stared for a minute or two, and then started debating which end was the front. When we took it off the runway (after concluding the lengthy debate with offers of snacks) the engineers were amazed that it lifted off the runway so easily, with such a small wing area. It took off at under 50m/s! Which is pretty good for newer pilots.

What isn't great for newer pilots is the handling. Aside from being very nose-heavy, it spins very easily and once in a spin, tend to start flying backwards. And down. It can take a lot of altitude to pull out of the spin, and it turns poorly. This is not particularly good for safety, or pilot training costs.

We tested the range, and it came out at about 3400km, considerably less than the 4500km promised. It is still impressive though, and for a price so low. For comfort, the vibrations are significant, but the view is good. We would have liked the ability to open windows, we would have saved on barf bags. The plane is fairly fast though, and fuel efficient.

Now the economics of it. Mileage? It has a KPPM of 0.02, which is quite good for a small craft, it has a very reasonable cost of 19,934,000 (dry) and a medium-high maintenance with 32 parts. This is though, offset, due to the extensive training pilots need to fly it. And 24 passengers is a bit on the low side.

The Verdict:

We think it is really only viable for long, unpopular, economy routes, with little turning involved. We are buying 3 for that purpose with options for 14 more if the handling is fixed.

(Finally fixed my computer! I can KSP again!)

Here at Andetch we are surprised that you found this one so hard to control. Our test pilots love this plane - especially the landing backwards aspect - just use the reverse thrust and fly it like a tail dragger! It can kiss the VAB roof no problem, and take off from being pushed down a medium size cliff. We also found it capable of pulling out of induced spins safely at any height above 600 metres. Maybe your pilot was holding to joystick upside down?

We will work on a way of putting opening windows on the plane, but we have an issue with cabin pressure and things getting sucked out of the open window - perhaps we can solve with with some nice lace window nets?

We can offer your pilots additional training at the Andetch facility while we will also see if we can recreate these handling issues, and add extra range.

On 21/02/2018 at 7:43 AM, 1Revenger1 said:

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's - Night Fury HSKT / HSKT - EL / HSKT - ELX

HSKT:

• Price: 89,507,000
• Fuel: 1380 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.65 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1900km

HSKT - EL:

• Price: 91,157,000
• Fuel: 1780 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.72 Kallons/sec
• Range: 2250km

HSKT - ELX:

• Price: 248,777,000
• Fuel: 2840 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1150m/s (Full load)
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.74 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1200km

Review:

We aren’t exactly sure where to begin. We almost counted the Night Fury ELX as a separate aircraft due to the large hull changes. We reasoned though that they were similar enough, with the extensions being replicas of what was already there.

Anyways, onto the review. Overall, we enjoyed flying the stock and EL version of the Night Fury, both being very similar. We found it odd at first having only 3 engines on a small design like this, but we found it increased efficiency and were required to reach the specified performance. Both aircraft had excellent pitch authority, were well balanced with all loads, and generally wasn’t that difficult to land and takeoff; especially with the Night Fury’s high tolerance of hard landings. Yaw though ended up being a little weak, and the aircraft took off at a very high speed – closer to 100m/s at times. While the aircraft accelerated quickly, it still took at least a medium length runway due to it’s high takeoff speed and time on the runway.

We honestly disliked the ELX. While it tried to retain many of the aspects of the stock Night Fury, we believed that it should have been developed on it’s own. Due to it’s large size, the wings were small and had 5 engines. While this wouldn’t be a big problem, the aircraft already used a lot of runway. Not only that, but it’s range was abysmally small compared to the other two variants. It also tended to pitch up, making it sometimes hard to fly, especially when compared to the other two variants.

Comfort wise, it’s a mixed bag. The engines in the back definitely send a lot of noise and vibrations into the back half of the cabin, with the front generally being pretty quick when compared to the front. Those in the center get a nice view of the other cabin, making the aircraft act somewhat like a twin aisle aircraft, with a couple walls in between for privacy or noise separation – Depends on how you look at it. Those on the outside do get a nice view though outside of the aircraft.

Overview:

We will order 5 of the Night Fury EL, they were not that much more expensive compared to the stock version, had a larger range, and carried more passengers. The ELX we found to be uneconomical, and overall did not seem as well polished compared to the other 2 aircraft.

Afternotes: We had a few issues at our center for plane testing, making it so that we could not test planes out unfortunately. We had to rebuild from the ground up due to the mass floods

  Reveal hidden contents

Edit: Oh hey, that actually worked. Didn't look like the message actually got sent

Edit 2: Oh wait, it got sent twice in the same message...woops

We are sorry you did not like the ELX version, but are pleased you have decided to purchase some of the HSKT range nonetheless.

As far as the higher than anticipated takeoff speeds are concerned, please confirm if you were full throttle, yanking the stick back as far as it will from the word go or were you taking off in some other less aggressive way? We find that if you yank back hard enough, you can get the wheels off. However, we will go back and test to see if we can get a better result. We are also looking at introducing noise buffers on the engines.

Thank you.

[Andetch]

On 05/03/2018 at 10:15 PM, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's The X-Series "Night Fury"

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 153,611,000
• Fuel: 6,140 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1400m/s
• Cruising altitude: 14000m
• Fuel burn rate: ~3.1 kal/s
• Range:  ~2700km

Review Notes:

Are you sure this one is for us? It looks so aggressive and military like. Well, it seems to have space for passengers at least. Let’s take it out for a spin. With all those engines at the back we kind of expected this thing to practically leap in to the air, and although it was not particularly lacking in acceleration, it certainly did not leap in to the air either. In fact it took most of the runway to get up to the enormous take off speed of 150m/s. The landings were not much better, though we were able to land as slow as 100m/s, which is still quite fast, the only means of breaking while on the ground is the wheel breaks, and although they are fairly powerful breaks, they are not exactly abundant, so it took the better part of the runway to slow down as well. This thing really needs a big runway to be able to operate safely.

In the air though, the airplane does not feel nearly as big and heavy as it does on the ground. In fact it is rather agile, a little bit too agile actually. Some of the test pilots took the term “turn on a dime” a little too literally, and quickly found themselves flying backwards. Much to their surprise though, the airplane flies backwards almost as well as it does forwards. If only there had been some backwards mounted engines. It kind of feels like this aircraft is just an upscaled fighter aircraft that has had its weapons bays replaced by passenger cabins. And that feeling is only strengthened by the blazing cruising speed of 1400m/s. We were a little disappointed by the short range however, being quite a lot shorter than our requirements.

We were surprised that we were unable to safely ditch in the water. Combining this with the high landing speed and ease with which this aircraft throws itself tumbling out of the air, we are not overly excited about the safety of this aircraft. The multitude of engines and twin pilots do help a bit though. Now those engines being bolted straight to the passenger cabins at the back, makes for quite a deafening experience in the back. Further forward the ride is quite comfortable though. We are not entirely sure why, but the windows at the lower front are at foot level. It makes for a very good view of the ground though.

For a supersonic plane with 448 passengers this is quite a reasonably priced aircraft. The fuel economy is quite good too, however considering how much fuel it burns to reach its cruising speed and altitude, this really only comes into play when it uses its full range. That combined with the requirement for very large runways, puts quite strict restrictions on where this plane can be used efficiently. Pilot training will probably be quite expensive considering the somewhat temperamental flight characteristics and long landings, leaving little room for error.

The Verdict:

We have some concerns about safety and range, as well as flexibility. However we think there might be a market for it, so we will be leasing a pair to service high traffic routes between big airports. If our concerns prove to not be an issue we will probably buy that pair.

You were surprised you couldn't ditch in the water?

We were surprised this thing ever flew!

You are right to feel it is a massively scaled up "fighter', as it is a massively scaled up version of our previous HSKT design

We also agree that this can be a challenge to fly, which is why we would offer all pilots extensive training at our HQ.

Our engineers are going to address your issues with range, probably by releasing an even longerer version with extra fuel. 

 

Thank you to the judges for testing my designs

Edited March 9, 2018 by Andetch

[CrazyJebGuy]

10 hours ago, DunnoAnyThing said:

Umm, could I know when my craft will be tested?

I'm really looking forward to it since this is my very second challenge entry ever.

no strict time scale, but expect a while, there is a huge backlog in this thread.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Wanderfound's Kerbodyne Kerbski

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 26,912,000 (wet)
• Fuel: 530 kallons
• Cruising speed: 309 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3500 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.14 kal/s
• Range: 1180 km

Review Notes:

It's a flying boat with a very powerful jet engine. We expected it to take off very quickly, and we were right, although the landing gear means the nose points down fairly steeply. Getting in was no issue due to the included ladders.

Landing on water is, (as it should be, this is a seaplane!) easy and safe, taking off is also easy, except that at low speed the plane is very nose heavy, so on one occasion our pilot forgot to pull up immediately and caused the plane to double as a submarine, it was interesting, and mostly safe. It flipped the plane upside down though, and we had to send a rescue team. Still pilot error, we can't blame the plane.

In the air, it's a very speedy plane, and can even go supersonic, although we don't think we'll do this often, since the range when it does this is very short. But in normal operation, it has a nice range.

When we asked the passengers what they thought, they said "Half past Two". It was a bit loud, and a bit skakey due to huge engine right near them, although at top speed the sound is less of an issue. The views were very good though.

It can slow down in flight quickly, and we liked the underwing "hydrofoils".

It has 33 parts, so maintenance will be okay, although it is slightly on the costly side.

The Verdict:

It is undoubtedly a good plane, but at a bit of a high cost. We will buy 8 of them, for high speed flights between coastal villages.

Original post on page 22

Edited March 10, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
fixing a typo

[CrazyJebGuy]

I had a lot of fun writing this review.

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics Kessna T-140

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 8,609,000 wet
• Fuel: 100 kallons
• Cruising speed: 162.5 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2800 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.0157 kal/s
• Range: 1030 km

Review Notes:

 We are still not entirely sure this is the right plane, in the advertisement it said Kessna T-140, we were shipped a Cessna T-170, which in the manual was called a Cessna K-170, and basically we are confused. So we will just review the aeroplane we got shipped, and we'll call it Dave, to prevent even more confusion should this turn put to actually be something else entirely.

To kick off the actual review, Dave is a unique aeroplane. It is not really meant to fit any of our defined roles, it is sort of a go-anywhere seaplane tiny thing type deal, it was advertized as "a (very) light aircraft capable of carrying nine (9) passengers", to which end it weighs 4 tons, so we think it succeeded here. Where it didn't succeed, was the landing gear suspension. It makes it bounce when still on the runway to a ridiculous degree, it took us a long while to tweak it correctly.

Now we would have gone and took off, but right before we just read that "Don't pull up too hard when taking off on land or you'll strike the tail and lose the back half of the plane, but if you do just give the remaining flaps pitch control and keep flying! who needs the back half of the plane anyways?" aloud, and well, Jebediah was in the cockpit before we could stop him. Yes, you can fly with half the plane.

After adding the back half back on, we found that this plane can take off in an amazingly short distance, less than the length of most larger planes, and at speeds of sub 30m/s, which will make it wonderfully easy for new pilots! That combined with the cockpit that can seat two, and you have yourself a promising training aeroplane! We still have to test other things, but it looks to be very good at that.

In the advertisement it said the engine automatically adjusts power to the load! And we can confirm, it does indeed! At cruising, the throttle doesn't matter much, because the engine will just throttle itself back to producing about 0.7 tons of force, and in climbing it revvs itself right up! Practically the only time we need to adjust throttle is on landing, again, great features for a training plane. It also, has very nice handling, it requires little trim to stay level, and accelerates quickly to it's (albeit slow) top speed. All the control axis are responsive, except yaw, which we thought was pretty weak. Due to the thrust to weight ratio, it can climb very quickly as well.

 The range is a lot better than advertized, we think this is because the manufacturer measured fuel usage to the nearest 0.01 kallons/second, so do we usually, but this plane's was so low rounding has a big effect, so we measured the engine directly, and got a more accurate measurement of range.

Passenger comfort is not good, the view is spectacular, but it's mostly a bit loud and with a few vibrations, the engine is very clsoe to the cabins, but it is a small engine, so it cancels out a bit, still though, we have to recommend ear protection, and it won't fly in anything other than economy class. The pilot also have a good view.

Flying at such low altitude, no pressurization is needed. Mountains are a non-issue though, because Dave can climb at 45 degrees to high enough to get over any mountain.

We like the maintenance and cost of Dave, the up front cost is very low, although so is the passenger count, but with 23 parts the maintenance is nice and cheap.

The Verdict:

 It's an excellent plane for training, it's safe, very cheap, handles well and has a dual seat. On top of that it can land on water, the only real drawback is the passenger capacity of 8 or 9 (depending on if a co-pilot is present) and the passenger comfort.

We'll buy 53, as training aircraft that double as decent seaplanes when we don't need so many training planes. Edit: And 9 more to form a training school, if it goes well we will buy more.

Original link: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3278794

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[Samwise Potato]

I'm somewhat confused by the "seaplane" criteria. It's a drawback to have an engine barely touching the water, but having the engine go completely underwater is fine?

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Samwise Potato said:

I'm somewhat confused by the "seaplane" criteria. It's a drawback to have an engine barely touching the water, but having the engine go completely underwater is fine?

Inconsistency between reviewers. I'' bet if you were to only look at once guy's reviews they would be pretty consistent.

Same reason range estimates differ so much.

[neistridlar]

23 hours ago, DunnoAnyThing said:

Umm, could I know when my craft will be tested?

I'm really looking forward to it since this is my very second challenge entry ever.

I think I speak for most of the reviewers when I say this, we review planes only when both time and inspirations strikes at the same time, so the reviews are somewhat sporadic. If you look at when the recently reviewed planes were submitted, that should give you a rough estimate.

[Andetch]

On 09/03/2018 at 2:47 PM, DunnoAnyThing said:

Umm, could I know when my craft will be tested?

I'm really looking forward to it since this is my very second challenge entry ever.

Was circa 3 months for my entries. This is a really good challenge that is very popular, but the more popular a challenge becomes, the harder to run it and to write the reviews etc.

It's worth the wait though!