Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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

Maybe it is a bit harsh, but here is my inspiration for it:

Quote form wikipedia about the B25 mitchel, which has a similar engine configurationto that of this aircraft:

The only significant complaint about the B-25 was the extremely high noise level produced by its engines; as a result, many pilots eventually suffered from varying degrees of hearing loss.

Regardless I it is very expensive compared to the competition, and with a KPPM of ~0.06, depending on variant it is very expensive to fly too, considering fuel cost is one of the biggest factors in the life time cost of modern airliners. With those kinds of costs it better be luxurious to justify it self.

[Andetch]

10 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

If you can cheat a ship into orbit then there is no challenge whatsoever. Anyone can strap together a load of tanks and engines, then cheat it into orbit. Making something that can survive the stresses of launch is a major part of any craft development!

[Andetch]

4 hours ago, neistridlar said:

not as extreme as the Andetch Dayfury,

Oi! You reviewed the prototype version and not the fly-able version!! Leave off! :-P

The Dayfury is actually a very reliable, and maneuverable electrical generation unit, that as a bonus flies and carries passengers! (And yeah, I could probably make it more flyable by restricting the control sensitivity, but I was hoping KEA pilots wouldn't try and throw it around - my fault for making it look like a Night Fury!) 

And also, to go with my above post - designing a heavy airliner, like a jumbo, that can survive the stresses of landing with a full fuel load is also very hard! Mostly, when full they are too sluggish to fly a slow speed and land!

Edited April 3, 2018 by Andetch

[neistridlar]

24 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Oi! You reviewed the prototype version and not the fly-able version!! Leave off! :-P

The Dayfury is actually a very reliable, and maneuverable electrical generation unit, that as a bonus flies and carries passengers! (And yeah, I could probably make it more flyable by restricting the control sensitivity, but I was hoping KEA pilots wouldn't try and throw it around - my fault for making it look like a Night Fury!) 

And also, to go with my above post - designing a heavy airliner, like a jumbo, that can survive the stresses of landing with a full fuel load is also very hard! Mostly, when full they are too sluggish to fly a slow speed and land!

By throwing it around I am assuming you are referring to the gentle turn to the left? Also you might want to have a look at the NA Slab 2592 as well as the Habu industries Colossus. I think you will find their takeoff and landing performance quite puzzling .

[Andetch]

By throwing it around I mean taking it's heading anywhere other than 90 degree's* with a pitch angle anywhere other than 0 - 5 degrees.

I did look at the colossus - if memory serves me correct it got over the issues by having loads of wings all over it, right?

*unless you have changed the direction it is pointing in the SPH before launch.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Andetch

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Andetch said:

By throwing it around I mean taking it's heading anywhere other than 90 degree's* with a pitch angle anywhere other than 0 - 5 degrees.

I did look at the colossus - if memory serves me correct it got over the issues by having loads of wings all over it, right?

*unless you have changed the direction it is pointing in the SPH before launch.

The NA slab has a ridiculous amount of wings, not at all aesthetically pleasing. The colossus looks quite nice though. Here is the review if you need to freshen up you memory: 

 

[Andetch]

Yeah, I remember Colossus - very nice looking bird.

However, again it isn't stock. I know the challenge allows tweakscale (a mod I haven't used yet) and the airplane parts.... I am sure some of the mod parts give performance advantages over pure stock, and not knowing how tweakscale works, I can only guess that it increases the lift produced by a wing when you upscale it (does it also increase weight and fuel stored in the wing?) ..... I guess I need to start using these mods, and because you like winding me up about the Day Fury, I will take that airframe and make it fly!

5 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

The NA slab has a ridiculous amount of wings, not at all aesthetically pleasing. The colossus looks quite nice though. Here is the review if you need to freshen up you memory: 

 

 

[hoioh]

3 minutes ago, Andetch said:

I can only guess that it increases the lift produced by a wing when you upscale it (does it also increase weight and fuel stored in the wing?

Yes on all counts, @Andetch

It doesn't merely increase the size, but it also proportionally increases all of it's values, though not all values increase equally with size. but if it's a choice between 1000 pieces of wing and 1 bigger wing (and no loss of performance on the PC-hardware side of things) I think that's an easy choice to make

 

[Kebab Kerman]

1 minute ago, hoioh said:

Yes on all counts, @Andetch

It doesn't merely increase the size, but it also proportionally increases all of it's values, though not all values increase equally with size. but if it's a choice between 1000 pieces of wing and 1 bigger wing (and no loss of performance on the PC-hardware side of things) I think that's an easy choice to make

 

If you still want to use multiple wing parts without lag or FPS annihilation, UbioZur Welding LTD. is the mod you need. Absolutely amazing!

[Andetch]

So, I definitely wanna start using tweakscale then!

I don't tend to get so many issues from having loads of parts (well, some issues, but not as many as you would expect for my specs) and I put it all down to using the linux build!  My machine is under spec for KSP, yet I can handle some very big builds!

[hoioh]

2 minutes ago, Kebab Kerman said:

If you still want to use multiple wing parts without lag or FPS annihilation, UbioZur Welding LTD. is the mod you need. Absolutely amazing!

Yes it is! used in the past, but it's not easy to use for a challenge like this because you will lack the custom parts unless you provide them with the craft file. I used it in a girandola challenge once upon a time: 

 

[Kebab Kerman]

Just now, hoioh said:

Yes it is! used in the past, but it's not easy to use for a challenge like this because you will lack the custom parts unless you provide them with the craft file. I used it in a girandola challenge once upon a time: 

 

Thats amazing! Anyway, I've decided to make a plane so large you can launch smaller planes from it's wings that don't have enough fuel to get to most places, then release them when airports are in range.

[neistridlar]

25 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Yeah, I remember Colossus - very nice looking bird.

However, again it isn't stock. I know the challenge allows tweakscale (a mod I haven't used yet) and the airplane parts.... I am sure some of the mod parts give performance advantages over pure stock, and not knowing how tweakscale works, I can only guess that it increases the lift produced by a wing when you upscale it (does it also increase weight and fuel stored in the wing?) ..... I guess I need to start using these mods, and because you like winding me up about the Day Fury, I will take that airframe and make it fly!

 

There are some parts in APP that have a slight edge in some aspects, and some that are just plain better. The size 2 crew cabin is only twice the weight of the mk1, but 3 times the capacity. It is quite draggy though, so you need to make a long slender fuselage to take advantage of it. And then there is the Nose Cone Mk1, which is lighter cheaper and has lower drag than anything else that size IIRC. So yes there is a slight advantage. Maybe I need to make a fully stock super jumbo, just to make sure it can be done.

[Andetch]

Well, Mr Tiddles is about as big as I wanna risk going stock....

[Andetch]

2 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Thats amazing! Anyway, I've decided to make a plane so large you can launch smaller planes from it's wings that don't have enough fuel to get to most places, then release them when airports are in range.

Then you will need the mods that allow control of multiple vehicles in the atmosphere, as in general KSP wont let you fly two vehicles at once inside the atmosphere. That was always my issue trying to recover the 1st stage of a rocket....

[TaRebelSheep]

I don't think you can call the challenge submission list "Way out of date" anymore.

[CrazyJebGuy]

I've updated the Skots VIII Squirrel, I discovered (after I messed with the physics timing setting and got m,y game to run at 3/4 speed instead of 1/3 with this plane) that the pitch is wildly over-powered. My PC was too laggy to see before, but the pitch was easily able to spin the thing 90 degrees from pro grade. Also, it didn't turn overly quickly, it's just that cause of the square cubed law thing, it has so much extra bulk (thus momentum) compared to area that whereas a small plane would have easily changed the trajectory with that turn, this one simply can't. So I reduced the pitch, and I recommend to be careful on landing because it pitches up slowly then, but you could enable pitch in the ailerons.

Link for convenience sake: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3288434

7 hours ago, TaRebelSheep said:

I don't think you can call the challenge submission list "Way out of date" anymore.

That's out of date.

[Eivuii]

Quote

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I've updated the Skots VIII Squirrel, I discovered (after I messed with the physics timing setting and got m,y game to run at 3/4 speed instead of 1/3 with this plane) that the pitch is wildly over-powered. My PC was too laggy to see before, but the pitch was easily able to spin the thing 90 degrees from pro grade. Also, it didn't turn overly quickly, it's just that cause of the square cubed law thing, it has so much extra bulk (thus momentum) compared to area that whereas a small plane would have easily changed the trajectory with that turn, this one simply can't. So I reduced the pitch, and I recommend to be careful on landing because it pitches up slowly then, but you could enable pitch in the ailerons.

Link for convenience sake: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3288434

7 hours ago, TaRebelSheep said:

I don't think you can call the challenge submission list "Way out of date" anymore.

That's out of date.

 

 

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want to work in engineering and to have an impact that's global, come work in the aerospace sector.

-Dennis Muilenburg
 

CrazyJebGuy, have you ever thought about making a budget airliner? As in high capacity-low cost options?

 

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @shdwlrd's – Monarc P4

 

Figures as Tested:

• Price:41,270,000
• Fuel: 2580 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 225m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 6,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.15 Kallons/sec
• Range: 3870km

Review:

Oh, boy. This one has been sitting in the cue so long that during the last remodel, someone managed to build a wall that made it impossible to get the aircraft out of the hangar. Our engineers came up with an ingenious and elegant solution though. They simply cut of the wings, moved it all outside, and taped them carefully back on. The takeoff run is a little below average for a turboprop, and can lift of as low as 45m/s, despite the brochure stating 65m/s. Lifting off at such low speeds did prove to be a little bit risky though, as it was easy to get a tail strike, or to stall the plane out right after liftoff. Nothing a bit of pilot training cannot handle though. In the air the plane climbs steadily to its cruising altitude, and cruises along at a little below full throttle. Our test pilots were relieved to finally fly a plane with dedicated control surfaces. The control authority was found to be plentiful. Though during the landing tests, it was found that heavy handed maneuvering could cause the plane to enter a spin, which was sometimes irrecoverable. When done over water however it proved to not be fatal, but the tape came loose, and the wings fell off. With such a narrow engine spacing the aircraft handles engine failure quite fine in the air, however engine failure during takeoff proved to be quite dangerous, in part due to the very narrow stance of the landing gear.

With the engines attached to the fuselage through the rather big fuel tanks, there are some vibrations to be felt, but they are not too severe. Sitting in the back of the plane is on the noisy side though, due to the proximity to the engines. Otherwise the passengers appreciated the roomy cabins and a good view out the windows.

The airplane is a certainly a pricey one, and not particularly fuel efficient either, though we have seen worse. Now despite the bad fuel efficiency it somehow manages to get an enormous range for a turboprop, so we should be able to operate for an entire day on a single fueling. With a little bit of planning we could probably keep the fuel cost down a bit by only refueling where the fuel is the cheapest. At two engines and 38 parts we expect the maintenance to be just a little above average. Considering the sturdy construction of the cabins we do expect this plane to last a good long while though.

The verdict:
We will be ordering 2 of these for long thin routes, and hope to make back the money on in the long run by only offering first class tickets.

[neistridlar]

On 03/04/2018 at 2:36 PM, Eivuii said:

How far is my craft to review, the Kalibu?

If we do one review per day and do all the reviews in chronological order, roughly two months.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's – Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4

 

Figures as Tested:

• Price:114,566,000
• Fuel: 3800 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1100m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.02 Kallons/sec
• Range: 4100km

Review:

At 96 passengers, this one is an unusual size for a supersonic plane. We are not complaining though, we’re sure there is a place for it somewhere in our lineup. So, first of all, how does it take off? Very quickly. It manages to reach 60m/s before the wheels get to lift of the ground, but that is mostly because it accelerates so quickly id does not have the time to rotate enough before that. The aircraft climbs effortlessly to its cruising altitude, where it reaches cruise speed with slightly below full throttle. Now we were somewhat surprised that the plane constantly wanted to nose up during the climb and acceleration, though once we reach cruise, the aircraft appeared to be perfectly trimmed from the factory. It probably has to do with the very low mounted engines. Now while the pilots were happy the aircraft worked very well with the autopilot, they were not so happy with the rudders responding more to roll input than to yaw input, which made for some awkward handling. The aircraft proved to be stable enough that it did not cause any major issues however.

Apart from the awkward handling, the landings were quite easy, and touching down at 45m/s, the plane came to a stop reasonably fast. This was probably in part due to the air breaks, which made it much easier to control the speed on approach than just throttling the engines. The brochure mentioned something about how the ground handling was not so good, but we were unable to figure out why, as our ground testing concluded that it was excellent. Ditching the plane in water also proved to be quite safe. We were also able to confirm the manufactures claim that the aircraft can fly on just a single engine. With some difficulty we were even able to take off with both engines on one side turned off. The safety of this aircraft is quite impressive. So is the comfort in the passenger compartment. With the engines mounted low under the wing, and far back, it does not get a lot better than this as far as noise and vibrations are concerned. The view is nice, though the big wings do limit the downward visibility. Other than that, there really is not much to do on this aircraft.

Now for the economics. The closest competition to this aircraft would probably be the KnoefCo Lassen Supersonic B, with its 80 passengers. Now the F45T-W4 is three times the price and part count, and tice the engine count. The fuel economy of the Lassen Supersonic B is also slightly better. Why would we buy the F45T-W4 then? Well, it is a little more comfortable, and we think it is going to be very safe to fly.

The verdict:
Although there is little wrong with the aircraft, it does not quite live up to the competition in the economy department. We will be leasing 2 of these to try out as overnight express planes, seeing as the passengers might get some sleep on the plane, and that time would be wasted anyways. Hopefully the more successful business men of Kerbin will find that the higher ticket prices will be worth the extra day time they get from sleeping on the plane.

Edited April 5, 2018 by neistridlar
added k to meters

[Eivuii]

5 hours ago, neistridlar said:

If we do one review per day and do all the reviews in chronological order, roughly two months.

Darn.

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's – Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4

-snip-

I like this, good job to TaRebelSheep!

I also like this because my Tupolev is basically a bigger version of that (Not me copying, I got the idea from a Soviet Concorde like thing) and I think I did a bit better on the economy front.

[TaRebelSheep]

5 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's – Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4

 

Figures as Tested:

• Price:114,566,000
• Fuel: 3800 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1100m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 20,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.02 Kallons/sec
• Range: 4100m

Range: 4100m.

I think you mean km?

[Steel Starling]

On 4/3/2018 at 3:44 AM, neistridlar said:

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.

 

I mean, I was worried that the planes wouldn't take off due to the sheer mass of cobwebs that had been accruing on the landing gear, so I'm quite glad that fashion crimes are the only immediately noticeable issue you have with its design...

On 4/3/2018 at 3:44 AM, neistridlar said:

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.

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.

 

Well, if you like control authority, you should be excited to try the SI-XR-19 "HexWingMk2" the thing is a jumbo jet that can sustain a vertical climb and is incredibly responsive, but is still quite hard to stall when all of the engines are on. It's literally able to do barrel rolls (the actual kind, not just aileron rolls) while doing loops despite weighing about 157 tons. It's also much louder than the Puddlejumper. Like by a lot...

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Steel Starling