Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[shdwlrd]

11 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @shdwlrd's – Monarc P4

   - SNIPPED -

I didn't think this would get reviewed. I honestly thought it would be lost on the other thread never to be found. Well, I almost forgot I submitted it.

11 hours ago, neistridlar said:

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.

This was the best part of the review.

12 hours ago, neistridlar said:

but the tape came loose, and the wings fell off.

Our warranty doesn't cover improper wing removal and attachment. Please use the procedures outlined in the maintenance manual to remove and reattach the wings. As safety and ease of maintenance is our goal at Latitude Aeronautics Group, we would of happily replaced any lost or missing manuals from our original submission package before the removal from your hangar and test flight.

Our engineers are offering these suggestions and explanations based on your test flight experience. The tested cruising speed is too high, the suggested cruising speed is 180-190 m/s. At 180-190 m/s cruising speed, you will see a 20-30% increase of fuel efficiency compared to a cruising speed of 225 m/s. When taking off with the plane, you must roll until you reach the recommended minimum takeoff speed of 65 m/s despite the low flight speeds. As you found out, trying to take off below the minimum takeoff speed can result in a tail strike that can damage or disable one or both the engines. Extreme maneuvers are not recommended with this plane. The control design was to make Jeb willing to fly such mundane flights but to keep within KSC's guidelines for a passenger plane. We recommend that the control authority to be turned down for most pilots after takeoff. The main gear spacing has been addressed since the initial submission. The planes ordered will be delivered with the main gear moved about one meter out from the craft that was submitted.

Thank you for your order.

Latitude Aeronautics Group.

[neistridlar]

10 hours ago, Steel Starling said:

, so I'm quite glad that fashion crimes are the only immediately noticeable issue you have with its design...

Actually the major issue was the atrocious economy. In the interest of better consistency between reviews I have started working on a spread sheet which will give an indication of how expensive the aircraft will be to run.

This is what it looks like so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d7sQ29krOUyyFNCWxbpo-jJK_16te12qtuQh52RbN4M/edit?usp=sharing

I think you will understand the issues I had when you look at that spread sheet.

8 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

This was the best part of the review.

Thank you very much.

8 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

The tested cruising speed is too high, the suggested cruising speed is 180-190 m/s. At 180-190 m/s cruising speed, you will see a 20-30% increase of fuel efficiency compared to a cruising speed of 225 m/s. When taking off with the plane, you must roll until you reach the recommended minimum takeoff speed of 65 m/s despite the low flight speeds

On 14/09/2017 at 7:13 AM, shdwlrd said:

The cruising speed is 225m/s @ 6000m.

I tested the cruising speed from the submission. I will retest later at 190m/s to see if it is better. As for the takeoff, I decided to give you a better score because it could take off at slower speeds, though if you want to avoid tail strikes, or limit the lower end of the take off speed, move the landing gear forward and backward til you reach the characteristics that you desire. Moving them back increases takeoff speed, and also shortens the tail, making tail strikes harder, moving them forward obviously has the opposite effect.

The results are inn, flying at 190m/s gives slightly less range, at 3770km

Edited April 5, 2018 by neistridlar

[CrazyJebGuy]

33 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Actually the major issue was the atrocious economy. In the interest of better consistency between reviews I have started working on a spread sheet which will give an indication of how expensive the aircraft will be to run.

This is what it looks like so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d7sQ29krOUyyFNCWxbpo-jJK_16te12qtuQh52RbN4M/edit?usp=sharing

I think you will understand the issues I had when you look at that spread sheet.

Thank you very much.

I tested the cruising speed from the submission. I will retest later at 190m/s to see if it is better. As for the takeoff, I decided to give you a better score because it could take off at slower speeds, though if you want to avoid tail strikes, or limit the lower end of the take off speed, move the landing gear forward and backward til you reach the characteristics that you desire. Moving them back increases takeoff speed, and also shortens the tail, making tail strikes harder, moving them forward obviously has the opposite effect.

I did some testing on your spreadsheet, if I change a balancing parameter it changes all planes to the right of it, but not left. And then I take issue with some assigned numbers.

You sure it's error free?

 

I would also take some issue with some of the assumptions, namely that all planes will not crash, last for exactly the same length, that all parts excluding engines contribute equally to part count, that fuel is $40/kallon, and that all fuel is used on each flight.

Like the idea of it, but it has issues. Also past a certain point the figures become irrelevant, because we simply can't measure planes to be exactly the right amount. Range I reckon could easily differ 10% from different reviewers, due to precision of altitude, how long they wait for it to accelerate to maximum speed, if they take fuel readings from engines directly or from resource menu, etc...

Hell, I heard nightshinerecollars (Spelt wrong - but don't want to ping) uses something different entirely, takes multiple measurements of it flying different fuel levels over the KSC using trig to see how far he goes, but doesn't account for the curvature of kerbin. (Not significant - but small changes like this, and whether using full fuel tank or tank minus takeoff fuel, or flying the test on half tanks or something make differences)

 

====================================================

 

Meanwhile I have been considering making a computer game, like railroad tycoon but for planes, and then use the planes submitted here. Think it could be really interesting. I can make the game engine fine, but maps and those files are hard.

Edited April 5, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[neistridlar]

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I did some testing on your spreadsheet, if I change a balancing parameter it changes all planes to the right of it, but not left. And then I take issue with some assigned numbers.

You sure it's error free?

 

I would also take some issue with some of the assumptions, namely that all planes will not crash, last for exactly the same length, that all parts excluding engines contribute equally to part count, that fuel is $40/kallon, and that all fuel is used on each flight.

Like the idea of it, but it has issues. Also past a certain point the figures become irrelevant, because we simply can't measure planes to be exactly the right amount. Range I reckon could easily differ 10% from different reviewers, due to precision of altitude, how long they wait for it to accelerate to maximum speed, if they take fuel readings from engines directly or from resource menu, etc...

Hell, I heard nightshinerecollars (Spelt wrong - but don't want to ping) uses something different entirely, takes multiple measurements of it flying different fuel levels over the KSC using trig to see how far he goes, but doesn't account for the curvature of kerbin. (Not significant - but small changes like this, and whether using full fuel tank or tank minus takeoff fuel, or flying the test on half tanks or something make differences)

I agree with all of the above. I made it so that the balancing parameters could be changed on an individual basis, but for convenience I made them all copy the one to the left, so I could change them all quickly. And yes, assuming every plane always empties their fuel reserve is a bad assumption, however I could not think of a better way to do it. the 40/kallon seems quite high to me, but it is the in game price of fuel. I reduced the number of flights to make the fuel cost not completely dominate everything else. And for part count thing, yes, something needs to be done there, but I am not sure how to make it better. Suggestions are welcome.

And yes 10% variation between reviewers is probably realistic, and difficult to account for, but 10% difference is not that much when you see that the difference between the best and worst example in the spreadsheet is over 10,000%. I only intended it as a rough guide, so a plane with lifetime cost per passenger mile that is twice as high as an other plane will not be considered cheap, while the more reasonably priced plane would be considered expensive, which seem to be the case, especially with some of the earlier reviews. So in the interest of making reviews more consistent across reviewers, as well as for the future, I think it would be a good idea to develop tools like this, as well as more standardized testing procedures. I don't think they should be considered hard rules however, and there is just no good way of avoiding the subjective nature of this challenge, but we can at least mitigate it somewhat.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I agree with all of the above. I made it so that the balancing parameters could be changed on an individual basis, but for convenience I made them all copy the one to the left, so I could change them all quickly. And yes, assuming every plane always empties their fuel reserve is a bad assumption, however I could not think of a better way to do it. the 40/kallon seems quite high to me, but it is the in game price of fuel. I reduced the number of flights to make the fuel cost not completely dominate everything else. And for part count thing, yes, something needs to be done there, but I am not sure how to make it better. Suggestions are welcome.

And yes 10% variation between reviewers is probably realistic, and difficult to account for, but 10% difference is not that much when you see that the difference between the best and worst example in the spreadsheet is over 10,000%. I only intended it as a rough guide, so a plane with lifetime cost per passenger mile that is twice as high as an other plane will not be considered cheap, while the more reasonably priced plane would be considered expensive, which seem to be the case, especially with some of the earlier reviews. So in the interest of making reviews more consistent across reviewers, as well as for the future, I think it would be a good idea to develop tools like this, as well as more standardized testing procedures. I don't think they should be considered hard rules however, and there is just no good way of avoiding the subjective nature of this challenge, but we can at least mitigate it somewhat.

Maybe multiple strut count by 0.04? And engines by 2.5. In-game price of fuel is 0.8 per kallon, I'm pretty sure.

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Maybe multiple strut count by 0.04? And engines by 2.5. In-game price of fuel is 0.8 per kallon, I'm pretty sure.

I just checked the fuel price, and your are correct. I made a wrong assumption when I checked it. Your suggestion for part count would be basically subtract 0.96* strut count, and add 1.5*engine count, that could be doable.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, neistridlar said:

I just checked the fuel price, and your are correct. I made a wrong assumption when I checked it. Your suggestion for part count would be basically subtract 0.96* strut count, and add 1.5*engine count, that could be doable.

No, it would be 0.04 * strutcount and 2.5 * engines.

I've done some estimates. How often is a plane likely to fly? Once, possibly twice per day. Let's say 1.7, although we should vary it by flight endurance. (We can add that later) So again lets assume it flies 330 days per year (some days taken off for maintenance and other stuff), we are at 561 flights per year, a typical liner might run for 20-30 years, maybe even 40 or 50 for a well maintained one. (Which you know, a plane that has a very high upfront cost is going to be maintained better)

   So a typical (25 year) liner will make 14,052 flights. Let's round to 14000.

By the way, what do you think of my idea to make a tycoon style game from it? Mathematically it eliminates much of the issues your spreadsheet has, it would be possible to know the length of a route specifically, so the assumption of full range goes away, and it can more account for other factors.

[neistridlar]

7 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

No, it would be 0.04 * strutcount and 2.5 * engines.

I've done some estimates. How often is a plane likely to fly? Once, possibly twice per day. Let's say 1.7, although we should vary it by flight endurance. (We can add that later) So again lets assume it flies 330 days per year (some days taken off for maintenance and other stuff), we are at 561 flights per year, a typical liner might run for 20-30 years, maybe even 40 or 50 for a well maintained one. (Which you know, a plane that has a very high upfront cost is going to be maintained better)

   So a typical (25 year) liner will make 14,052 flights. Let's round to 14000.

14000 absolutely seems like a more reasonable number of flights for an air frame, in the spread sheet I was purely using it as an arbitrary balancing parameter. From what I have heard, and my understanding of materials and stuff like that (I study mechanical engineering, so hopefully I have at least some clue of what I am talking about here), the lifetime of an air frame is mostly determined by fatigue, and fatigue of the air frame is mostly affected by the load/unload cycle of take off and landing. Therefore planes of the same build quality should last for roughly the same number of flights. Maybe there should be a table of how many flights the different types of fuselages should be expected to last, based on how much they cost (per seat) and weigh. 

22 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

0.96* strut count, and add 1.5*engine count,

just to clarify, what I meant by this was have the part count that is used for the maintenance calculations be: total part count - 0.94* strut count + 1.5 times engine count. That would make engines have a "wheight" of 2.5, and struts have a "wheight" of 0.04 for their contribution to the part count. So struts hardly count as anything, while engines count much more than other parts.

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

just to clarify, what I meant by this was have the part count that is used for the maintenance calculations be: total part count - 0.94* strut count + 1.5 times engine count. That would make engines have a "wheight" of 2.5, and struts have a "wheight" of 0.04 for their contribution to the part count. So struts hardly count as anything, while engines count much more than other parts.

Oh sorry, I didn't see the add and subtract signs there. Did not know you study mechanical engineering, I don't but I am interested; I know a little bit. (Been messing with trying to design mechanical stuff since I could draw, most of when I was younger was absolutely terrible, like at four I designed a car that drove, by the driver pushing the accelerator pedal in and out, and it's transmission consisted of this pedal whacking other pedals  which pivoted and continued, until it got to the wheels.)

[hoioh]

5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

and that all fuel is used on each flight

@neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy

Just jutting in a little on this one: if you want to be able to account for fuel consumption per flight you can use the KPPM combined with the "average trip length per class" namely the flight distances as communicated in the brief and the number of kerbals it transports. If you use these numbers you will be comparing apples to apples across the board.

The current final formula instead uses the the "lifetime fuel costs (B27)" which could adjusted in the following manner:
"KPPM * "#brief class-miles-per-flight" * "#numofpassengers" * "cost per Kallon"

This will multiply the desired number of miles by the fuel consumption per mile according to the specified distance in the brief and the cost per Kallon at the KSC.

You can then award players that can make multiple (more than twice the desired distance) flights on a single fueling in the stories that you write, as a "can fuel at the cheapest spot" or maybe even give them a slight "fuel cost bonus" because they "can tank at cheaper locations"

Forgot something: got to multiply by the lifetime number of flights obviously...

Edited April 5, 2018 by hoioh

[neistridlar]

27 minutes ago, hoioh said:

@neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy

Just jutting in a little on this one: if you want to be able to account for fuel consumption per flight you can use the KPPM combined with the "average trip length per class" namely the flight distances as communicated in the brief and the number of kerbals it transports. If you use these numbers you will be comparing apples to apples across the board.

The current final formula instead uses the the "lifetime fuel costs (B27)" which could adjusted in the following manner:
"KPPM * "#brief class-miles-per-flight" * "#numofpassengers" * "cost per Kallon"

This will multiply the desired number of miles by the fuel consumption per mile according to the specified distance in the brief and the cost per Kallon at the KSC.

You can then award players that can make multiple (more than twice the desired distance) flights on a single fueling in the stories that you write, as a "can fuel at the cheapest spot" or maybe even give them a slight "fuel cost bonus" because they "can tank at cheaper locations"

I elaborated a little bit on  that idea, and extended it to the lifetime flight time, and thus engine maintenance as well. Comparing the different results is quite interesting (one would think KPPM would be very important, but it seems to be only a small part of the score). This scoring does have the disadvantage that it rewards aircraft with bellow spec range though. I am thinking of ways to work the actual range in to the equation somehow, probably using min(class range, range estimate) to weed out the under performers, and maybe do a weighted average between that and range estimate would be a good cost calculation range, seeing as long range planes are often assigned to long range routes, despite their class requirements.

[hoioh]

7 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I elaborated a little bit on  that idea, and extended it to the lifetime flight time, and thus engine maintenance as well. Comparing the different results is quite interesting (one would think KPPM would be very important, but it seems to be only a small part of the score). This scoring does have the disadvantage that it rewards aircraft with bellow spec range though. I am thinking of ways to work the actual range in to the equation somehow, probably using min(class range, range estimate) to weed out the under performers, and maybe do a weighted average between that and range estimate would be a good cost calculation range, seeing as long range planes are often assigned to long range routes, despite their class requirements.

You can charge them extra for the use of "high octane fuel" in order to "bridge the gap in performance"

The KPPM is less important because you're factoring out the number of kerbals in this equation, it's plainly the "cost per mile" 

by the way: check the spelling in A7, A14 and A32 please, especially A7 looks like something nasty 

I like how you factored in the flight time, but I think it is too influential in the current calculation, making slower planes way more expensive, while in real life slower planes actualy require far less maintenance, especially when compared to supersonic crafts. This is to do with the speed being a deciding factor in the level of severity of any kind of failure in flight.

You might actualy need to apply this value in reverse, the slower it goes, the lower the maintenance costs

Edited April 5, 2018 by hoioh

[hoioh]

(Thanks for the changes to those cells, I couldn't stop looking at it )

[neistridlar]

14 minutes ago, hoioh said:

You can charge them extra for the use of "high octane fuel" in order to "bridge the gap in performance"

The KPPM is less important because you're factoring out the number of kerbals in this equation, it's plainly the "cost per mile" 

by the way: check the spelling in A7, A14 and A32 please, especially A7 looks like something nasty 

I'm factoring the passenger count back in again in the last calculation though. Compare the colossus, stingy 152 and spear 40 (both) as well as GAI kalcing, swirlygig (both).

 

4 minutes ago, hoioh said:

(Thanks for the changes to those cells, I couldn't stop looking at it )

ninja'ed, was going to make a funny comment about how it all looked good to me .

Edited April 5, 2018 by neistridlar

[hoioh]

For the engine maintenance cost formula, this produces good results: =((B10^B14)*B13+B39)*B3

Factors in the cruise speed and the flight time in realistic proportions by using one as a multiplier and the other as an addition to balance the weight of speed versus flight time

[neistridlar]

5 minutes ago, hoioh said:

For the engine maintenance cost formula, this produces good results: =((B10^B14)*B13+B39)*B3

Factors in the cruise speed and the flight time in realistic proportions by using one as a multiplier and the other as an addition to balance the weight of speed versus flight time

Are you sure that the engine maintenance cost should be a constant that is added to the flight time? it makes more sense to me if it was  =(B10^B14)*B13*B39*B3, but then the cost is dependent on distance traveled in stead. I do wonder though, how the cruise speed really affects the maintenance schedule. I would think it would depend more on how much thrust the engine was producing, and for how long.

[hoioh]

A second option to make the cruising speed a LOT more influential resulting in radically more maintenance cost for supersonic engines vs subsonic engines: =(B10^B14)*B13*B3*B12/1000+10*B39

 

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

Are you sure that the engine maintenance cost should be a constant that is added to the flight time? it makes more sense to me if it was  =(B10^B14)*B13*B39*B3, but then the cost is dependent on distance traveled in stead. I do wonder though, how the cruise speed really affects the maintenance schedule. I would think it would depend more on how much thrust the engine was producing, and for how long.

Don't rightly know about that, I do know a concorde required so much maintenance it was VERY expensive to fly and the speed also reduced it's lifetime number of fights significantly requiring maintenance after each and every flight. Which is opposed to say, a 747, which cruises subsonic and doesn't require the same maintenance schedule and is therefore far cheaper to fly. There's a very good reason just about all passenger jets cruise at speeds close to, but not exceeding the sound barrier: it's more fuel efficient and it's a lot less dangerous requiring less rigourous maintenance.

this might make more sense: =(B10^B14)*B13*B3*B12/1000+B39*B12/1000

[hoioh]

doesn't actualy make sense either because it factors out the lifetime of the craft out of the final calculation...

Replaced it with this: =((B10^B14)*B13*B3+B39)*10

But had to multiply by 10 to achieve a realistic number...

Added this in for the fuel cost difference to award additional range: =IF(B21/B37>2,IF(B21/B37>3, 0.65,0.7),0.8)

[neistridlar]

6 minutes ago, hoioh said:

A second option to make the cruising speed a LOT more influential resulting in radically more maintenance cost for supersonic engines vs subsonic engines: =(B10^B14)*B13*B3*B12/1000+10*B39

 

Don't rightly know about that, I do know a concorde required so much maintenance it was VERY expensive to fly and the speed also reduced it's lifetime number of fights significantly requiring maintenance after each and every flight. Which is opposed to say, a 747, which cruises subsonic and doesn't require the same maintenance schedule and is therefore far cheaper to fly. There's a very good reason just about all passenger jets cruise at speeds close to, but not exceeding the sound barrier: it's more fuel efficient and it's a lot less dangerous requiring less rigourous maintenance.

The Concorde used after burning turbojets, the 747 uses turbofans, so there is a big difference, and higher thrust is required to stay supersonic. There are lots of other thing that increase the need for maintenance as well with supersonic flight, so that should probably be factored in one way or an other. Maybe multiplying all maintenance costs by the mach number above mach 1 makes sense?

[hoioh]

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

The Concorde used after burning turbojets, the 747 uses turbofans, so there is a big difference, and higher thrust is required to stay supersonic. There are lots of other thing that increase the need for maintenance as well with supersonic flight, so that should probably be factored in one way or an other. Maybe multiplying all maintenance costs by the mach number above mach 1 makes sense?

I was thinking the same thing: =B3/370*250 for the engine maintenance calculation has more influence than any other adjustment I tried to make

I would also suggest to reduce the lifetime number of flights by half for supersonic planes because all that maintenance takes a lot of time

[shdwlrd]

14 hours ago, neistridlar said:

I tested the cruising speed from the submission. I will retest later at 190m/s to see if it is better. As for the takeoff, I decided to give you a better score because it could take off at slower speeds, though if you want to avoid tail strikes, or limit the lower end of the take off speed, move the landing gear forward and backward til you reach the characteristics that you desire. Moving them back increases takeoff speed, and also shortens the tail, making tail strikes harder, moving them forward obviously has the opposite effect.

The results are inn, flying at 190m/s gives slightly less range, at 3770km

I was basing the fuel economy off of the DV run time from KER in the response. But since KER can lie when it comes to jet engines, cest la vie.

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I was basing the fuel economy off of the DV run time from KER in the response. But since KER can lie when it comes to jet engines, cest la vie.

Because of drag form the atmosphere DV is largely irrelevant, so is the run time, since planes change their angle of attack depending on speed and altitude, which changes the drag constant. There just is no easy way to calculate it without actually testing it.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Skat

Figures as Tested:

• Price:13,425,000
• Fuel: 500 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 262m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 1,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.11 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1190km

Review:

Cheap and fast the brochure said, and that is exactly what this thing is. It’s probably down to the long slender fuselage and the high aspect ratio wings. Take off performance was a little disappointing though. With a takeoff speed of 67m/s, and a takeoff run well above average for a turboprop. We think a taller main gear should be able to bring it down to average levels though, as we were quite capable of landing as slow as 40m/s without much issues. In the air the aircraft has all the control authority you ever wanted. In fact, we would say it has enough for the rest of the family as well. This means the aircraft is quite proficient at turning tall passengers into short passengers. Last time we checked being short was not very desirable though, so we don’t think we can use it for marketing purposes. Pulling too hard on the elevators is a bit like pulling the hand brake in a turn, it’s both fun and alarming at the same time, and probably not very safe. The plane comes to a stop very quickly when you do though. In danger of repeating our self though we will only deliver the next complaint in key word form: control surfaces, trendy, everything, everything. We would have loved to see how this plane handled with every control surface doing only one job, because this sample is nearly impossible to do a nice coordinated turn in, much to the passenger’s dismay.

We were pleased to find that the aircraft can operate just fine on a single engine though. And it ditches safely in water. The long wings and short landing gear meant we got a few scratches on the wing tips however. At the front of the plane we find the first-class seats. They are quite nice, good view, and just a little bit of noise and vibrations. Being separated from the back is nice as well. The back is not quite as nice though. First of all, there is the issue of actually getting in to the back, through the center fuel tank, then there is the proximity to the engines and the exhaust. It’s not very good, but we have seen worse, at least the view is nice.

As promised the aircraft is fairly cheap, not best in class, but certainly one of the cheaper ones. With 29 parts and two engines, the story is much the same. The fuel economy is a little disappointing, though not terrible. With the controls being challenging to fly in a comfortable manner we expect pilot training to be higher than normal. In total we expect it all to come out to a more or less average cost.

The verdict:

We will buy 4 for high speed transport between bigger airports, with options for 4 more if the control issues and takeoff performance can be sorted out.

Edited April 6, 2018 by neistridlar

[CrazyJebGuy]

9 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Skat

• Range: 1190m

Well crap! I'd hate to think I can walk farther in 40 minutes than my plane can fly!

Seriously though I kind of forgot it, but it seems promising. I'll fix up a few things, and while I'm at it I may as well move the engines to the mid wing, improve comfort a bit. I won't actually change anything that would impact the range or speed enough to test it again, just enough to make it more flyable.

Same cost and part count. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-4-Skat

[neistridlar]

28 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Well crap! I'd hate to think I can walk farther in 40 minutes than my plane can fly!

Seriously though I kind of forgot it, but it seems promising. I'll fix up a few things, and while I'm at it I may as well move the engines to the mid wing, improve comfort a bit. I won't actually change anything that would impact the range or speed enough to test it again, just enough to make it more flyable.

Same cost and part count. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-4-Skat

I will take a look at it, and append it to the review, once I am done with the one I am working on now. Check out the spread sheet again by the way. hoioh made his own proposal for scoring, which seems kind of sensible, though I think the fuel cost becomes to insignificant in its current form. Also I added a bunch more aircraft so there is now at least four of each class.