Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, RedPandaz said:

Just like *scales a full passenger cabin to the size of a can of soda*?

I'm guessing that would get you disqualified in a heartbeat 

[Box of Stardust]

31 minutes ago, hoioh said:

I'm guessing that would get you disqualified in a heartbeat 

I should make one as a joke entry.

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, hoioh said:

I'm guessing that would get you disqualified in a heartbeat 

Unless you add three zeros to the end of the price tag... for the "Integrated Dimensional Compression Device".

[Box of Stardust]

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE

has a few updates to its lineup.

A-702-1A StratoLiner, revealed in the first announcement, has been released!

 

A-104-3B Aspen: Aspen Refined, in All Aspects

19,303,000 ; 165m/s @ 2300m = 2400km

The Block 3 A-104 Aspen is a refinement of Block 2, after Twin Crown Aerospace Military Application Division engineers realized that high-grade aircraft parts were probably not condusive to cost-saving measures. The expensive wings have been replaced by a single-piece wing using more commercial-grade material. Range is augmented by additional conformal fuel tanks underneath the wings. Engine nacelles have also been refined.

Low speed handling has been improved by the usage of a T-tail and split flaps for airbrakes, as well as aiding in short length takeoffs.

Only a 3B variant is offered at this time, carrying 32 passengers. A 3A variant is available upon special request.

 

A-105 AURORA (Airplane, Utility, for Rough Or Remote Areas): SO YA WANT TA BE A BUSH PILOT, EH?

1A: 27,273,000, 155m/s @ 1700m = 1400km

The aircraft seats up to 24 passengers. It carries its own embarkation ramp.

The A-105 AURORA (Aiplane, Utility, for Rough Or Remote Areas) is yet another design from Twin Crown Aerospace Military Application Division, feeling that small utility craft such as these are well within their jurisdiction to design. (They’re also quite fond of acronyms/backronyms.) It is a rugged amphibious aircraft, with every design element considered for survival in whatever bush this plane is sent to.

The engine control systems have been upgraded by TCA-MAD to produce increased, uprated power to improve water takeoff capability. (TCA is not responsible for reduced engine life due to constant operation at full throttle.)

Pontoons allow for water landings and takeoffs, though the takeoff acceleration is fairly slow. They can be jettisoned with AG8.

The high mounted wing and engines help the important flight components clear brush around runways or keep them above water.

Tail dragger landing gear allow for rugged main landing gear, and the simplicity of a tailwheel reduces critical component failures grounding an aircraft.

Mid-mounted embarkation ramp allows egress clear of the propellers, as well as separating the rear cabin, allowing the rear cabin to be configured more luxuriously or as storage area separate from the rest of the craft. As well, along with the T-tail, the mid-mounted ramp allows usage for skydiving (for those so inclined).

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

10 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Tin

-snip-

Perfect example of a seaplane not needing dedicated pontoons.

 

On 4/12/2018 at 6:46 AM, hoioh said:

That's clearly a mk1 cabin and holds 8 people according to the rules, so upsaling passenger cabins offers negative bonus. I would say that scaling (up or down) of passenger cabins is out of the question in all cases.

No! You are allowed to downscale cabins, but if you do then we will be only able to transport mice, which is not a very profitable activity.

[CrazyJebGuy]

@HamnavoePer Your Beluga.... I think we have to disqualify for it being practically a helicopter, and for the large reaction wheels module, reaction wheels is not allowed. Except cockpit SAS, because it has a negligible effect.

Edited April 13, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
Meant reaction wheels not SAS

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Stingy 24 & 32

Figures as Tested: Stingy 24

• Price: 8,986,000 wet
• Fuel: 480 kallons
• Cruising speed: 140 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2800 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.04 kal/s
• Range: 1,650 km

Review Notes: Stingy 24

The claim of this aircraft was that it was solely designed to please the economy department.. Looking at the price tag up front, we believe this. And they succeeded at not pleasing out pilots, because immediately none of them liked the look of such an underpowered thing, with just one Juno. On takeoff it takes it's time building up speed, and we wouldn't recommend taking off under 50m/s, because if you do, the plane may get into the air, and then start drifting down again slowly. But that's okay, you'll just go faster and get more lift. Except there might be enough drag that you are decelerating too. The safety department was not pleased; they also disliked the ease of tail-strikes.

 And togethor that doesn't much please the construction department, due top it needing a long takeoff run, the sort of length as you might expect on a jumbo. And then that jumbo will outperform it. Easily. Our pilots were glad of the low cruising altitude, because this thing climbs very slowly. I've been writing the review from inside the cockpit, 5 minutes in and we're only up to 90m/s and 1800m altitude. The cockpit views are good, and since SAS is working pretty well, I'll be right back.

 Okay, I just took a walk along the plane, the cabins have pretty nice views too. Static, but nice. The rear ones are a bit noisy and shake a little bit by the inline engine, but since it's such a small engine it is not a big problem. Hey, nearly 7 minutes into the flight, up to altitude! Finally! I've been told this thing tops out at 140, which it accelerates too reasonably quickly once at altitude.

In turns, it's very fast and quite nice to maneuver, but it bleeds speed very speedily. The rudder also does not turn, it is there for stability reasons. It has no yaw authority. We still like the maneuverability, ignoring the speed bleed. Even with only 2 elevons, it works well.

When we water ditched it, that went well, and it can slow down very quickly for landings by doing fishtails, but it can't take off water. Which is exactly what we expected, and we aren't bothered either. Landing can be a bit bumpy though.

The range is very nice for a plane so cheap, and it's fuel efficient. Continuing the economy vibe, with only 16 parts, one of which is an engine, maintenance is about as cheap as it gets, and we see no difficulty in keeping these planes and getting them to last.

Figures as Tested: Stingy 32

• Price:  9,536,000 wet
• Fuel: 480 kallons
• Cruising speed: 136 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2800 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05 kal/s
• Range: 1,300 km

Review Notes: Stingy 32

Having flown it's little brother, I'm concerned about the performance, most planes are fine adding a ton or so extra, but with one already so grossly underpowered, we aren't sure it will work well.

Taking off, the problems on the 24 only worse. The run now could easily be a contender to the longest turboprop takeoff run, getting into the sort of some we might applaud a super-jumbo for, except this isn't a 500 ton super-jumbo. This is a turboprop, we expect better. The problem of just getting airborne exists on both, where you might lift off, but you are now slowing down, but if you put the nose down to accelerate, you will fall back onto the runway, and possibly destroy the back half of the plane. So we wouldn't recommend takeoff under 55m/s. Even then, be careful not to try to climb before building up some speed. Or turn. Those things are deadly.

If you thought the climb rate on the 24 was bad, this is exactly what I feared after flying it. The bit of extra weight is so significant, and we were really struggling to get past 2000m high, that king of ceiling altitude would have been embarrassing a century ago, today it's pathetic. We did eventually manage 2600m, barely, after 12 minutes and 30 seconds. And then we levelled out to accelerate to the top speed of slow.

It's slower than it's little brother, it takes flipping ages to climb and simply cannot deal with mountains. Nor can it's little brother, but it can at least go over hills and chimneys.

The Verdict:

They achieved the goal. Nobody likes the stingy planes, except our chief financial officer, and even he thought the stingy 32 was unacceptably slow. Stingy planes are very cheap and economic, but with the safety issues, long takeoff runs and the fact they cannot go over mountains, we've decided to buy 5 stingy 24s, options for 9 more, and the stingy 32 is so chronically underpowered, we won't buy any.

[qzgy]

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

SAS is not allowed

Wait since when was that a rule?

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, qzgy said:

Wait since when was that a rule?

Sorry, meant reaction wheels.

[qzgy]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

Sorry, meant reaction wheels.

Ok...  still. I don't remember that being disqualified....

[CrazyJebGuy]

23 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Ok...  still. I don't remember that being disqualified....

•  

• Report post
•  

The Rules:

• KSP version 1.3 compatible
• Stock parts + Airplane Plus (optional)
• TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it.
• The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers
• Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers
• Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots.
• Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them.
• No reaction wheels.
• No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only.
  • You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories.
• Minor clipping is allowed, within reason.
• A rolling runway takeoff is required.
• Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water.
• Action Groups must be listed in the Ship Description.
• Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.]
• Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered.
• 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category
  • Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere
• Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet catrgory

[qzgy]

Ok, it seems I misremembered. My bad.

[Kebab Kerman]

At the moment I'm designing a plane with docking ports instead of engines. Because the engines use the docking ports to attach. I'm trying to get around the "No reaction wheels on the plane" rule by making the engines and plane seperate crafts, because I'm using stock propellers, which means reaction wheels are needed to keep the engine from acting like a gyroscope. I'm planning to make it solar powered, because we can't use the FS Electric Propellers, and really, we don't have many craft made for the scenic route. Might make them look like a turbofan intake, then use wheesleys for the thrust. I did it once, but that wasn't stock. It uses IR Rotatrons to spin the fan blades, with reaction wheels for stability.

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, Kebab Kerman said:

, because we can't use the FS Electric Propellers

since when?

[MaverickSawyer]

Not an approved mod pack. Plugin, yes. Parts, no, not on the approved list.

[CrazyJebGuy]

6 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Not an approved mod pack. Plugin, yes. Parts, no, not on the approved list.

I thought it was in KAX, which is an approved mod.

[MaverickSawyer]

... oh, I see. I thought he was asking about the parts pack, not the plugin.

Yeah, I guess that, since the Solar Impulse lookalike is a part of KAX, it's fair game. It's at a distinct disadvantage in terms of cost, though.

[RedPandaz]

On 4/12/2018 at 1:14 PM, Box of Stardust said:

I should make one as a joke entry.

I found the catch. TweakScale won't let you put people in if they're too small

[RedPandaz]

What's the cheapest plane so far?

per passenger?

[neistridlar]

6 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

What's the cheapest plane so far?

per passenger?

You can check for your self here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d7sQ29krOUyyFNCWxbpo-jJK_16te12qtuQh52RbN4M/edit#gid=1546473743

But I think it is the stingy 152, which I made, but it has not been reviewed yet.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Slinky 24 & 32

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 17,111,000 - 17,661,000 (Wet)
• Fuel:1350 kallons
• Cruising speed: 263 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.0626 kal/s
• Range: 5700 km

Review Notes:

 Our pilots were relieved to see an actual engine on the new Neist Air planes, after 'flying' the Stingy 32. They later noted the small Slinkies had the sort of features you might expect from aeroplanes several times it's size, such as the landing gear which would not turn heads on a jumbo, and the name doesn't really fit, as the small aircraft can be better described as stubby.

 In typical tricycle landing gear fashion, it tail-strikes. But here it's a much smaller issue, because it does it when it's still, and so nothing much is hurt. It's annoying to get the stair cart to, but it doesn't matter much apart. We should mention that this only happened after we filled up the fuel tanks, as it came with only 10% of capacity used, which was so low we thought it was a mistake, and we topped it up.

 On takeoff it will lift the tail off the ground and then take off normally. In the air, it maneuvers nicely, except it has a fair bit of roll inertia, once the pilot pushes on the controls it keeps spinning for a bit after releasing the controls, and there is a fair bit of roll-yaw coupling, which I do not like much. On cruising, the paper stats could hardly be better for a turboprop, it's nice and fast, has a stupendous range, and is not very thirsty on the fuel.

 However on landing it has a nasty tendency for reverse thrust to cause it to pitch down, on full throttle this can be stronger than the elevator's pitch up, and so we really wouldn't recommend using any throttle above 1/3, although to it's credit we crashed it face first into the sea at 91m/s and it was perfectly fine. The people in it need never be told to wear seat belts again. The plane also needed to be towed back to shore, as it can almost take off from water. Key word is almost, it just bumps up and down quite fast.

 That nasty tendency with reverse thrust? Further tests show that it means at low altitude even a slight pitch down can quickly get out of hand and cause a crash, so pilots should be careful. Meanwhile the passengers are having a nice time, except the ones at the back, with engine noise and vibrations, although the front ones don't have that great of a view with such a big wing.

Maintenance should be very easy, having only 16 / 17 parts on both models. Though note: when it sits, it takes a bit of speed to stand up again, and we have seen a couple times (pitching fully) the engine scraping itself to death on the ground, so it might increase maintenance.

The Verdict:

 It seems really good, but we're concerned about the landing gear, if it's fixed we'll buy 18, but in it's current state we don't want to risk of more than 3.

Edited April 14, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[Eivuii]

BANANAS.

[CrazyJebGuy]

13 minutes ago, Eivuii said:

BANANAS.

???

 

On a much more relevant note, today I rode a bicycle.

[Eivuii]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

???

 

On a much more relevant note, today I rode a bicycle.

ksure

[Hotel26]

On 2018/04/13 at 7:46 AM, Box of Stardust said:

A-105 AURORA (Airplane, Utility, for Rough Or Remote Areas): SO YA WANT TA BE A BUSH PILOT, EH?

1A: 27,273,000, 155m/s @ 1700m = 1400km

Naturally, "All passengers and crew are required to wear Mae-Wests throughout the duration of the flight."  In case of a water landing, ya know...