Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Lego_Prodigy]

No what im worried about is OVERreliance on modded parts, which is bad for stock only challenges.

[SuicidalInsanity]

IA returns, once again pushing the bounds of orthodoxy.  Not quite sure if it's strictly speaking legal, but it complies with the rules as written, so here's the IA-240 Gyrodyne for the Turboprop category.

(Promotional Image may differ slightly from actual product)
The Gyrodyne is a flashy, high speed turboprop class Gyrocopter aircraft capable of shuttling executives or other VIPs to where they need to go in style. Sure, at 27,302,000 funds and 70 parts (stock props are part expensive) it may be a little more expensive than our competitors, but that's a small price to pay for an aircraft unlike anything they have to offer. Its innovative wingless design permits unobstructed view for all passengers, while also facilitating visits to smaller airports and hangers. Powered by a single Wheesley Turbofan, the Gyrodyne can take off and land at 45m/s, and possesses a top speed in excess of 200m/s at an optimum altitude of 5000m, while efficient fuel consumption and generous fuel capacity enable the Gyrodyne to service destinations up to 1000km away. Buy yours today from here.

 --Piloting notes: Due to elevon mass, the rotor exerts some amount of gyroscopic torque resulting in a tendency to roll right. The rotor will also add a constant vertical velocity component to flight vector. Pilots are advised to use Trim (Alt+WASDQE) in place of SAS. In case of engine failure, dive to maintain at least 40m/s airspeed. Despite looking like a helicopter, it cannot vertically hover. Action Group 1 toggles the thrust reverser.
 

Edited April 1, 2018 by SuicidalInsanity

[HolidayTheLeek]

3 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

IA returns, once again pushing the bounds of orthodoxy.  Not quite sure if it's strictly speaking legal, but it complies with the rules as written, so here's the IA-240 Gyrodyne for the Turboprop category.

(Promotional Image may differ slightly from actual product)
The Gyrodyne is a flashy, high speed turboprop class Gyrocopter aircraft capable of shuttling executives or other VIPs to where they need to go in style. Sure, at 27,302,000 funds and 70 parts (stock props are part expensive) it may be a little more expensive than our competitors, but that's a small price to pay for an aircraft unlike anything they have to offer. Its innovative wingless design permits unobstructed view for all passengers, while also facilitating visits to smaller airports and hangers. Powered by a single Wheesley Turbofan, the Gyrodyne can take off and land at 45m/s, and possesses a top speed in excess of 200m/s at an optimum altitude of 5000m, while efficient fuel consumption and generous fuel capacity enable the Gyrodyne to service destinations up to 1000km away. Buy yours today from here.

 --Piloting notes: Due to elevon mass, the rotor exerts some amount of gyroscopic torque resulting in a tendency to roll right. The rotor will also add a constant vertical velocity component to flight vector. Pilots are advised to use Trim (Alt+WASDQE) in place of SAS. In case of engine failure, dive to maintain at least 40m/s airspeed. Despite looking like a helicopter, it cannot vertically hover. Action Group 1 toggles the thrust reverser.
 

Wow! This cool! I was considering making a helicopter/autogyro, but I don't think I would've made something as cool as this!

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 minutes ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Wow! This cool! I was considering making a helicopter/autogyro, but I don't think I would've made something as cool as this!

Well unless it has rolling takeoff we have to disqualify it.... We're a plane company, and our license to operate does not extend to legal helicopters.

[HolidayTheLeek]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Well unless it has rolling takeoff we have to disqualify it.... We're a plane company, and our license to operate does not extend to legal helicopters.

Nah I haven't built one yet.

I am however working on a design that uses stock props. I've ditched the nuclear power idea (as it was too expensive) for one that uses fuel cells.

Hopefully I'll get it up later today.

[Lego_Prodigy]

You could use a Vertical Landing/short takeoff craft.

Not sure how you would achieve that

[SuicidalInsanity]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Well unless it has rolling takeoff we have to disqualify it.... We're a plane company, and our license to operate does not extend to legal helicopters.

It's an autogyro/gyrocopter, so a rolling start is absolutely required; in this case, about 45m/s takeoff speed; landing speed is a minimum of ~40m/s.

[NightshineRecorralis]

Hey yall, I'm ready to get back into things in the following weeks now that all the testing before the school years ends is over, though I probably will be limited to 1-2 per week due to the ramp up in sports now. If there's a specific order to review I'll follow it, but I'm sticking to the Review spreadsheet if no one objects.

@neistridlarBecause reasons

@hoioh I love the work you've been putting into those logos! They look stunning!

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Hey yall, I'm ready to get back into things in the following weeks now that all the testing before the school years ends is over, though I probably will be limited to 1-2 per week due to the ramp up in sports now. If there's a specific order to review I'll follow it, but I'm sticking to the Review spreadsheet if no one objects.

@neistridlarBecause reasons

@hoioh I love the work you've been putting into those logos! They look stunning!

The review spreadsheet is where it is at, mostly the to be reviewed sheet. I found out that many of the entries had not had page numbers assigned to them, and it turned out many of them were quite old, so I'm focusing on getting those out of the way, but other than that there is no specific order. Nice to hear that someone else might be joining in with the reviews again, I'm starting to feel kind of lonely .

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

The review spreadsheet is where it is at, mostly the to be reviewed sheet. I found out that many of the entries had not had page numbers assigned to them, and it turned out many of them were quite old, so I'm focusing on getting those out of the way, but other than that there is no specific order. Nice to hear that someone else might be joining in with the reviews again, I'm starting to feel kind of lonely .

No problem! You've really been spearheading the effort, so I must applaud you for doing so. Maybe we could set up a standardized test suite and then have reviewers append independent tests? I feel like this would establish the best "inter-compatibility" and comparability between reviews but still retain the style that everyone is known for.

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

No problem! You've really been spearheading the effort, so I must applaud you for doing so. Maybe we could set up a standardized test suite and then have reviewers append independent tests? I feel like this would establish the best "inter-compatibility" and comparability between reviews but still retain the style that everyone is known for.

I would be down for that. I have been thinking maybe there need to be some kind of guidelines for what should be considered expensive, efficient, etc. as well. As I have been doing these reviews I have been referencing old reviews, and they are at the best of times almost consistent.... Having a bit of a reference for those factors that are hard numbers at least should help a little bit with that at least.

[Andetch]

21 hours ago, Lego_Prodigy said:

You could use a Vertical Landing/short takeoff craft.

Not sure how you would achieve that

The issue with that is fuel load and changing centre of mass and I doubt that the judges have time to drain a craft with a few thousand km range!

[RedPandaz]

 

I feel there should be something like this but for space transports, I feel that would be fun

[Dark Lion]

30 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

I feel there should be something like this but for space transports, I feel that would be fun

I can't imagine reviewing any one of the planes on this thread is a quick and painless endeavor (every time)-- and it never leaves atmosphere. Can you imagine each review taking the time (and pilot/navigation skill!) to reach Eeloo and return?? That'd be some seriously Jeb commitment we're talkin' about...

[RedPandaz]

2 minutes ago, Dark Lion said:

I can't imagine reviewing any one of the planes on this thread is a quick and painless endeavor (every time)-- and it never leaves atmosphere. Can you imagine each review taking the time (and pilot/navigation skill!) to reach Eeloo and return?? That'd be some seriously Jeb commitment we're talkin' about...

You could just review a trip between a mun orbit to a minmus orbit or to a kerbin orbit, and you might need some more reviewers, but wouldn't it be awesome? Also you wouldn't have to figure in drag and stuff, so fuel calculations should be easier

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

I'm finally doing a review again... BTW, your plane had some ix-gear or something, the tail wheel gear was not in the allowed mods. So I opened the file in notepad and text file edited it out. (I know text file editing is not allowed, but in this case I am just removing something, and replacing it in game. And I'm now OP, it's allowed here for such a minor thing)

Oddly enough in KerbalX it says it only uses AP+ and Stock, not sure what happened.

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 15,425,000 wet
• Fuel: 300 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 145.6 m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 8 km
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.03 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1,450 km

Review:

 This plane looks pretty normal, but in fashion with other Perbro Aerospace designs, those Junos? No. Those aren't Junos, those are air intakes. We would like to know why though, because the engines themselves have built in intakes, and since they face backwards they hardly have any airflow. Well, there is probably a reason we don;'t know about so we'll just start flying now.

 And boy, we were impressed. It accelerates very quickly, and it lifts off after a short run at 43m/s. (Note: Our DIY tail wheel might be affecting this) Again, with powerful engines it can climb very well, and manuevers quite nicely. It's not the best at this, but it could  with a skilled pilot do nicely at an airshow, being able to climb vertically!

But if you do get it vertically, it doesn't want to stay vertical. It pitches naturally, more than SAS can handle. But unlike most planes, it noses up, not down. Now, here is a complaint, it's slow. The engines performance drops off radically at speeds past 150m/s, and we were only able to get up to 145m/s at the manufacturer recommended height. It does accelerate to the top speed extremely quickly, but the top speed is quite low.

In a vertical dive we got it to 280m/s, but the engines cut out long before then due to the high speed, they simply couldn't handle it. When we pulled out they only turned on again once we slowed to 175. Now, 8km up is recommended for maximum efficiency. On our return route, after the dive, we found at 1200m it could go 166m/s and have a range of 1150km, 300km less than at 8km. Is it worth it? Yes, we will probably do this on short routes where the smaller range isn't a problem. The range, even with this though, is not bad. And at 8km up, it's pretty good.

 On landing it can land lower than 35m/s with flaps, in a shorter distance than takeoff. We liked the reverse thrust on engines, it slows the plane down very quickly. And the maintenance is a bit on the high side, 37 parts, two engines, but it's still affordable.

Inside can be a bit noisy, but the nice views are well, nice. It's fine for 3rd class seating.

The verdict:

It's a cheap, if high maintenance, turboprop. It's got a decent range, but it's a bit slow. However it flies very nicely; we would like to buy 10.

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

 

I feel there should be something like this but for space transports, I feel that would be fun

Go ahead, I think it should have it's own thread. Start it yourself, be the OP, I might join in. But I can't be the OP, this thread can get tiring. But please, do, it seems like a really nice idea. What would make it interesting is the craft must stay intact rule, SSTOs with passengers that can go to the Mun suddenly become a whole different beast.

 Judging would be totally different, and there would be completely different standards.

You know what I would enter? I'd stick rocket engines on my Skots Small. That would be fun.

Edited April 3, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[RedPandaz]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

 

 

Go ahead, I think it should have it's own thread. Start it yourself, be the OP, I might join in. But I can't be the OP, this thread can get tiring. But please, do, it seems like a really nice idea. What would make it interesting is the craft must stay intact rule, SSTOs with passengers that can go to the Mun suddenly become a whole different beast.

 Judging would be totally different, and there would be completely different standards.

You know what I would enter? I'd stick rocket engines on my Skots Small. That would be fun.

1

It would just be orbit-orbit craft, you would be allowed to cheat your ship into orbit. However, if you could make a competitive SSTO, kudos to you

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

It would just be orbit-orbit craft, you would be allowed to cheat your ship into orbit. However, if you could make a competitive SSTO, kudos to you

Would it not be interesting to find the best solutions for getting Kerbals into orbit and back though? Call it the Kerbal Express Orbiter challenge! It even has a practical purpose in game, to service space stations and stuff like that. For an orbit-orbit craft what do you envision being the judging criteria?

[RedPandaz]

Just now, neistridlar said:

Would it not be interesting to find the best solutions for getting Kerbals into orbit and back though? Call it the Kerbal Express Orbiter challenge! It even has a practical purpose in game, to service space stations and stuff like that. For an orbit-orbit craft what do you envision being the judging criteria?

Passenger count, fuel, comfort, eas of flying, etc. For example, a ring to rotate and generate gravity

 

[stubbonjeb]

plz halp

 

[RedPandaz]

Just now, stubbonjeb said:

plz halp

 

This is not the place for this

[CrazyJebGuy]

36 minutes ago, stubbonjeb said:

plz halp

 

Please do not post here, this thread is about making jet powered kites.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Steel Starling's – SI-R-1 “Puddlejumper” with variants

 

Figures as Tested:

SI-R-1 “Puddlejumper”:

• Price: 32,111,000
• Fuel: 1600 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 147m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,180m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.20 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1176km

SI-R-1a “Puddlejumper Scout”:

• Price: 35,103,500
• Fuel: 1200 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 130m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,180m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.15 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1040km

SI-R-1b “Puddlejumper Extended Range”:

• Price: 32,225,000
• Fuel: 2200 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 116m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,180m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.15 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1700km

Review:

Are those radial engines? Didn’t those go out of style like 5 decades ago? How long have we had these planes in the review cue? Too long that is for sure. Anyways the three SI-R-1 variants are so similar that we will be treating them as one when it comes to flight characteristics and comfort. Despite the two big radial engines the acceleration is less than impressive, but it does get the job done. The tail wheel is very welcome, and makes the takeoff much easier, though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension was a bit stiff. After a medium long takeoff run the aircraft lifts off at 45m/s, or 47m/s for the Extended Range variant, which is fairly good. It was found however that leveling off immediately after liftoff was necessary to keep the airplane from stalling out, and falling back down. The control authority is rather excessive. It’s not as extreme as the Andetch Dayfury, but it certainly gives it a run for its money. The end result is an aircraft that is quite capable of putting itself in to a spin at any moment, but also recover fairly easily.

The aircraft cruises at less than half throttle, though the cruising speed is not at all impressive, and we were not able to get quite the advertised range. Still the range is long enough on all models for our purposes. Now the configuration of the control surfaces of this plane is quite in line with the hippest trends nowadays, with everything responding to everything. This makes for some award handling during turns and landings, but with the excessive control authority it is still manageable. And speaking of landings, we were able to land as slow as 35m/s! Though the passengers complained that the touchdown was quite hard when we did so. Still it made for an impressive stopping distance. Much to our delight we also found that the aircraft was quite capable of operating on only one engine, though takeoff on a single engine proved quite challenging.

With the passenger door up front, the extra storage space in the back and wing mounted engines, one would think this aircraft would be quite comfortable to fly in. Well, you would not be wrong, if you were deaf. With the big propellers, and short exhaust from the two big radial engines right up in front this aircraft is surprisingly loud, it is not too bad though when the engines are throttled back for cruise though. At least they are not mounted to the fuselage.

Now for the economics. Although the rest of the aircraft is not at all terrible, the same cannot be said for the economics. At prices in excess of 32 million, twice that of most of its competitors, part count of 47 and up, and a pair of old and very thirsty engines, these aircraft have nothing going for them as far as economy goes.

The verdict:
These would probably have been all the range 5 decades ago, but in today’s market it simply does not have what it takes to be a good passenger airliner. We will not be ordering any of these. Though the Scout variant, with it's ability to produce it's own fuel, might be interesting for long-term research missions in hard to reach places.

Edited April 3, 2018 by neistridlar
Changed noise assessment.

[CrazyJebGuy]

21 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

-snip-

I wouldn't have been that harsh in the noise department, a radial piston engine is roughly as noisy as a jet.

[Eivuii]

How far is my craft to review, the Kalibu?