Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Andetch]

8 minutes ago, Eivuii said:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

just asking, what's the average time between the posting of aircraft and review?

3 - 6 months I think... Thread is super popular... Hence why it SO needs more judges. Like, every member of the forum needs to be a judge. 

[neistridlar]

7 minutes ago, Eivuii said:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

just asking, what's the average time between the posting of aircraft and review?

The oldest submissions tend to stay around 5 months old. Just cleared all the 2017 reviews. So 2,5 months is probably a decent estimate.

 

41 minutes ago, Artienia said:

Well when i first submitted my plane one very kind reviewer review it instantly, so i will do the same to the people. The  first three planes i will review (without names) are the

• P-4
• 787-10
• GRJ-001

Please put your name in the "being reviewed" column in the KEA judging sheet when you start the reviews.

[Eivuii]

so my craft will be reviewed in June, then! 

[blackheart612]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Oops, typo, it was 23km, barely. And yes getting up there was difficult, which is why I mentioned it both in the flight characteristics and economics, and hinted at it in the comfort sections as well. Don't know how I should have made it more clear.

I have submitted a fix for it. @blackheart612 has not acknowledged it yet. From what I understand he/she has not been able to work much on the mod lately due to real life stuff. I have posted the fix in the APP thread, so you can play with it if you like, but until it becomes part of an official release I don't think we should use it for this challenge.

On a more serious note though, with the coffee. Some angle of incidence would do wonders, and with fixed drag cubes I recon it would improve the cruising speed and fuel efficiency as well.

It's just a config file, people are free to use it. Besides, why would I prevent a fix for a problem I can't fix yet.  

[neistridlar]

2 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

It's just a config file, people are free to use it. Besides, why would I prevent a fix for a problem I can't fix yet.  

Yeah, everyone can use it as they please. Just for making the rules and stuff simpler for this challenge in particular it seems best to me to just use the latest official release. If you find the time you could of course install my fix, see if you like it, and either publish it as a minor version, or just as a "community hot fix" in the OP . Then I think we could use it here. Up to you to do what you want with it though.

[Kernel Kraken]

16 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @Kernel Kraken's Krakentech AKP-10 Jumbo Jet

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 480,853,000
• Fuel: 19,375 kallons
• Cruising speed: 214m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4700 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.88 kal/s
• Range: 4,711 km

Review Notes:

Given the hype about colossally over-sized planes coming from Krakentech, we were a little surprised to find this jumbo was only moderately big, seating 240. We were more surprised at the construction on it, with the absolutely colossal vertical stabilizer, the odd observation post up front and the V shaped wings on top, this plane will not be infringing anybody's copyright. Adding to that, it's not fully symmetrical. It comes close, but we found the tail-plane to flex in manuevers, but only the  starboard side one. The port side tailplane is quite rigid.

 Takeoff is pretty quick, the engines are a good fit and accelerate well enough. It can pitch up on the back wheels very easily, since they are so very close to the centre of mass. So close, in fact, that like some Neist Air designs it can sit, nose in the air, on the tail. It's a good thing most of our air-strips are not angled, so it would probably tip backwards a lot.

Regardless of that, the top speed is not very impressive, nor the time taken to achieve it, and climb is a bit on the slow side. Range is decent, and the plane handles nicely. We wrote that before we actually did pull any high G turns at cruise speed and altitude, and while it is technically true it won't do it for long, since we found the build quality lacking. We tried rolling first, and it has an impressive rate of roll, and the outer engines produced impressive explosions too.

 Next off the flying fail bus was the starboard tail-plane, followed by the port side V wing on top, apparently it got dizzy in the flat spin this other stuff induced. Other dizzy departees included the starboard fuel tank's rear nose cone and the starboard V wing end tip. (also the rear one) Genedock Kerman did manage to get the remainder of the plane out of the spin, and flew a very damaged plane back.

Safety, with a skilled pilot two engines is sufficient and it can fly with only half a tail-plane, so that's kind of good, but sort of un-done by the fact it can easily tear those things off. By the way we meant to say this earlier but it can take off at 40m/s in a very short run, would be decent for a turboprop.

Comfort, when not spinning about, is very good. Engine noise and vibrations are distant and largely negligible for most all passengers, and the views from the luxurious cabins are nothing to complain over.

The Verdict:

It's another luxury jumbo, but it has the disadvantage of being quite able to cause damage to itself in flight. It's nothing special in other regards like speed, as compared to a Grande Dumbo or something, and that has the advantage of being a bit cheaper, and not having bits fall off mid-flight. The maintenance may also cost a fair little bit, with 178 parts it's just the nail in the coffin for this thing. A reinforced, cheaper version might do better though.

Reinforced, cheaper version? I'm on it.

im surprised you left out the tendency of the wings to snap off in maneuvers of over 3 G's :p

[TheTripleAce3]

I wonder if there is a thread like this for sub-orbital stuff

[Box of Stardust]

I'm feeling a little diligent. One of the current judges throw me an aircraft somewhere in the queue to review, and I'll do it some time tomorrow.

[Andetch]

17 hours ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

I wonder if there is a thread like this for sub-orbital stuff

I made a Karman Crossing challenge  (go sub-orbital on air breathing engines alone), but couldn't figure out the scoring system correctly, and it got busted pretty quick and sort of petered out, especially after @neistridlar kept breaking my maths... and unfortunately I don't have time to do the subjective style reviews that they do here at KEA.... Although, there was some very helpful guys trying to figure out a good way of scoring, it just seemed that whatever happened, a simple command pod with a little bit of fuel and an engine would always score the best. 

15 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'm feeling a little diligent. One of the current judges throw me an aircraft somewhere in the queue to review, and I'll do it some time tomorrow.

Review the ADX-WTFWT? haha

 

[kingstevenrules]

Test Pilot Review: Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52 (Floatplane)

***Old plane that has already been reviewed***

***Training Mode Enabled***

Figures as Tested:

    Price: 19.97 Million
    Fuel: 800 Kallons
    As tested at recommended 1/3 power:
    Cruising speed: 145 m/s
    Cruising altitude: 2500 m
    Fuel burn rate: 0.05 Kal/s
    Range: 2320 km
    As tested at full power:
    Cruising speed: 260 m/s
    Cruising altitude: 7000 m
    Fuel burn rate: 0.09 Kal/s
    Range: 2311.1 km

Review Notes:
When GAI delivered the K-38/52, we thought it was supposed to be a fighter... until we saw the passenger cabins below the wings. And then a few of us facepalmed. So I personally took over as flight tester, which in Phase Aviation's opinion helped out a lot.

I took a look around the plane, noting its features such as the hydroplane steps between the passenger compartments and the fuselage, and the intake being positioned right behind the canopy. I also took a moment to look at the EAS-4 Struts supporting the wings, and wondered if those were truly necessary. As such, I experimented with them being taken off. Right off the bat I attempted a high-g turn, only to have the wings flex... like bats. I quickly reverted back to SPH, and put the struts back on. Thank goodness I didn't save it. I also noticed at 4x physics warp, you can rock the joystick back and forth to create an effect where the wings flap... even with struts. Continuing with physical stress testing, I accidentally tail-struck the plane while flying very low over the water. Somehow, I managed to get enough altitude to bail out safely before I lost control due to no vertical stabilizers.

After realizing that the K-38 isn't a fighter, I quickly moved onto actual flight testing.... Now I understand why the engineers thought it was a fighter. It performs incredibly well, even if roll is a little slow. At the recommended altitude, I noticed that it performed well in all categories, range included. This range increased as I throttled the engine down to 1/3 power, because of course, I was burning less fuel. However, I felt that it might be better at higher altitudes. At first I tried 2000 meters, and I have to say, the results were great. The K-38 handled just fine, and minimal input was required. Then I tried 7000 meters, and there the plane had a few downfalls.
At 7000 meters, the constant drop of the port wing for some reason gets annoying, and if not corrected can send you off course. However, the slightest input sends you carrening off to who knows where, so even finer input is required. Precise Input mode is even too much. You have to use the trim, accessible via the Alt-WASD keys, to control the plane smoothly.
After altitude and range testing, I tested the landing capabilities of the K-38, both on land, and on sea. While on descent, I was flying about 500 meters ASL, and found that at full power, this plane can fly at Mach 0.90. Interesting. With enough practice, one could softly land this on water. Taking off is easy too, as the hydroplane steps are a really big help. This plane lands and takes off at about 45 m/s on water, whereas on land it is capable of landing at 40 m/s and taking off at 50 m/s (82 m/s with no input).

Side note to manufacturer: I recommend that the entire wing be set to grandparent auto-strut, as this will keep the wing from flexing.

The Verdict:
It's an excellent plane, but I feel like its aerodynamics are too effective for a passenger plane. However, I'm not kicking this plane out just because of that. As a matter of fact, I would like to purchase about 5 of these for our fleet, as a medium range floatplane, so that we may service our areas which are inaccessible to other larger craft. And I'd like one as a personal plane.

Edited May 22, 2018 by kingstevenrules
Wait, why'd it put the quote in my review!?!

[kingstevenrules]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'm feeling a little diligent. One of the current judges throw me an aircraft somewhere in the queue to review, and I'll do it some time tomorrow.

Could always test mine.

Edited May 22, 2018 by kingstevenrules

[CrazyJebGuy]

39 minutes ago, kingstevenrules said:

Test Pilot Review: Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52 (Floatplane)

***Old plane that has already been reviewed***

***Training Mode Enabled***

Figures as Tested:

    Price: 19.97 Million
    Fuel: 800 Kallons
    As tested at recommended 1/3 power:
    Cruising speed: 145 m/s
    Cruising altitude: 2500 m
    Fuel burn rate: 0.05 Kal/s
    Range: 2320 km
    As tested at full power:
    Cruising speed: 260 m/s
    Cruising altitude: 7000 m
    Fuel burn rate: 0.09 Kal/s
    Range: 2311.1 km

Review Notes:
When GAI delivered the K-38/52, we thought it was supposed to be a fighter... until we saw the passenger cabins below the wings. And then a few of us facepalmed. So I personally took over as flight tester, which in Phase Aviation's opinion helped out a lot.

I took a look around the plane, noting its features such as the hydroplane steps between the passenger compartments and the fuselage, and the intake being positioned right behind the canopy. I also took a moment to look at the EAS-4 Struts supporting the wings, and wondered if those were truly necessary. As such, I experimented with them being taken off. Right off the bat I attempted a high-g turn, only to have the wings flex... like bats. I quickly reverted back to SPH, and put the struts back on. Thank goodness I didn't save it. I also noticed at 4x physics warp, you can rock the joystick back and forth to create an effect where the wings flap... even with struts. Continuing with physical stress testing, I accidentally tail-struck the plane while flying very low over the water. Somehow, I managed to get enough altitude to bail out safely before I lost control due to no vertical stabilizers.

After realizing that the K-38 isn't a fighter, I quickly moved onto actual flight testing.... Now I understand why the engineers thought it was a fighter. It performs incredibly well, even if roll is a little slow. At the recommended altitude, I noticed that it performed well in all categories, range included. This range increased as I throttled the engine down to 1/3 power, because of course, I was burning less fuel. However, I felt that it might be better at higher altitudes. At first I tried 2000 meters, and I have to say, the results were great. The K-38 handled just fine, and minimal input was required. Then I tried 7000 meters, and there the plane had a few downfalls.
At 7000 meters, the constant drop of the port wing for some reason gets annoying, and if not corrected can send you off course. However, the slightest input sends you carrening off to who knows where, so even finer input is required. Precise Input mode is even too much. You have to use the trim, accessible via the Alt-WASD keys, to control the plane smoothly.
After altitude and range testing, I tested the landing capabilities of the K-38, both on land, and on sea. While on descent, I was flying about 500 meters ASL, and found that at full power, this plane can fly at Mach 0.90. Interesting. With enough practice, one could softly land this on water. Taking off is easy too, as the hydroplane steps are a really big help. This plane lands and takes off at about 45 m/s on water, whereas on land it is capable of landing at 40 m/s and taking off at 50 m/s (82 m/s with no input).

Side note to manufacturer: I recommend that the entire wing be set to grandparent auto-strut, as this will keep the wing from flexing.

The Verdict:
It's an excellent plane, but I feel like its aerodynamics are too effective for a passenger plane. However, I'm not kicking this plane out just because of that. As a matter of fact, I would like to purchase about 5 of these for our fleet, as a medium range floatplane, so that we may service our areas which are inaccessible to other larger craft. And I'd like one as a personal plane.

Formatting wise I thought I would say, it should look like this: (There is a template to copy-paste from the original post, it's in an expandable box below the list of official judges)

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 19,970,000
• Fuel: 800  kallons
• Cruising speed: 148 - 260 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2500 - 7000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05 - 0.09 kal/s
• Range:  2320 - 2310 km

Review Notes:

When GAI delivered the K-38/52, we thought it was supposed to be a fighter... until we saw the passenger cabins below the wings. And then a few of us facepalmed. So I personally took over as flight tester, which in Phase Aviation's opinion helped out a lot.

I took a look around the plane, noting its features such as the hydroplane steps between the passenger compartments and the fuselage, and the intake being positioned right behind the canopy. I also took a moment to look at the EAS-4 Struts supporting the wings, and wondered if those were truly necessary. As such, I experimented with them being taken off. Right off the bat I attempted a high-g turn, only to have the wings flex... like bats. I quickly reverted back to SPH, and put the struts back on. Thank goodness I didn't save it. I also noticed at 4x physics warp, you can rock the joystick back and forth to create an effect where the wings flap... even with struts. Continuing with physical stress testing, I accidentally tail-struck the plane while flying very low over the water. Somehow, I managed to get enough altitude to bail out safely before I lost control due to no vertical stabilizers.

After realizing that the K-38 isn't a fighter, I quickly moved onto actual flight testing.... Now I understand why the engineers thought it was a fighter. It performs incredibly well, even if roll is a little slow. At the recommended altitude, I noticed that it performed well in all categories, range included. This range increased as I throttled the engine down to 1/3 power, because of course, I was burning less fuel. However, I felt that it might be better at higher altitudes. At first I tried 2000 meters, and I have to say, the results were great. The K-38 handled just fine, and minimal input was required. Then I tried 7000 meters, and there the plane had a few downfalls.
At 7000 meters, the constant drop of the port wing for some reason gets annoying, and if not corrected can send you off course. However, the slightest input sends you carrening off to who knows where, so even finer input is required. Precise Input mode is even too much. You have to use the trim, accessible via the Alt-WASD keys, to control the plane smoothly.
After altitude and range testing, I tested the landing capabilities of the K-38, both on land, and on sea. While on descent, I was flying about 500 meters ASL, and found that at full power, this plane can fly at Mach 0.90. Interesting. With enough practice, one could softly land this on water. Taking off is easy too, as the hydroplane steps are a really big help. This plane lands and takes off at about 45 m/s on water, whereas on land it is capable of landing at 40 m/s and taking off at 50 m/s (82 m/s with no input).

Side note to manufacturer: I recommend that the entire wing be set to grandparent auto-strut, as this will keep the wing from flexing.

The Verdict:
It's an excellent plane, but I feel like its aerodynamics are too effective for a passenger plane. However, I'm not kicking this plane out just because of that. As a matter of fact, I would like to purchase about 5 of these for our fleet, as a medium range floatplane, so that we may service our areas which are inaccessible to other larger craft. And I'd like one as a personal plane

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--

Note that I added an @CrazyJebGuy tag, this will notify the maker of the aeroplane that their plane has actually been reviewed.

Panzerknoef has reviewed this plane before, he had  nothing bad to say about it. You didn't comment on a couple of things in the review, and these can be important, one is passenger comfort (quite good on this design with excellent views) and the other is economy, you didn't mention if it was expensive or how much maintenance was likely to cost.

I'd also like to say that in a review you shouldn't speak in first person, you're speaking for the KEA review team after all. Modification of aeroplanes also is a big nope, except for things that do absolutely nothing (struts not actually connected, navigation lights, that sort of thing) and action groups. Also images in a review are quite nice, without an image a reader of your review would need to know already what it looked like. It's a very good first try, a few simple things and it's actually quite a good review. Also note that range does not need to be so precise, to within 40km is fine, mostly because it's very difficult to measure range to the nessecary accuracy. (Some planes get measured multiple times by official judges, and vary often by a hundred kilometers or more)

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
Accidental triple-post

[kingstevenrules]

24 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Formatting wise I thought I would say, it should look like this: (There is a template to copy-paste from the original post, it's in an expandable box below the list of official judges)

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 19,970,000
• Fuel: 800  kallons
• Cruising speed: 148 - 260 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2500 - 7000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05 - 0.09 kal/s
• Range:  2320 - 2310 km

Review Notes:

When GAI delivered the K-38/52, we thought it was supposed to be a fighter... until we saw the passenger cabins below the wings. And then a few of us facepalmed. So I personally took over as flight tester, which in Phase Aviation's opinion helped out a lot.

I took a look around the plane, noting its features such as the hydroplane steps between the passenger compartments and the fuselage, and the intake being positioned right behind the canopy. I also took a moment to look at the EAS-4 Struts supporting the wings, and wondered if those were truly necessary. As such, I experimented with them being taken off. Right off the bat I attempted a high-g turn, only to have the wings flex... like bats. I quickly reverted back to SPH, and put the struts back on. Thank goodness I didn't save it. I also noticed at 4x physics warp, you can rock the joystick back and forth to create an effect where the wings flap... even with struts. Continuing with physical stress testing, I accidentally tail-struck the plane while flying very low over the water. Somehow, I managed to get enough altitude to bail out safely before I lost control due to no vertical stabilizers.

After realizing that the K-38 isn't a fighter, I quickly moved onto actual flight testing.... Now I understand why the engineers thought it was a fighter. It performs incredibly well, even if roll is a little slow. At the recommended altitude, I noticed that it performed well in all categories, range included. This range increased as I throttled the engine down to 1/3 power, because of course, I was burning less fuel. However, I felt that it might be better at higher altitudes. At first I tried 2000 meters, and I have to say, the results were great. The K-38 handled just fine, and minimal input was required. Then I tried 7000 meters, and there the plane had a few downfalls.
At 7000 meters, the constant drop of the port wing for some reason gets annoying, and if not corrected can send you off course. However, the slightest input sends you carrening off to who knows where, so even finer input is required. Precise Input mode is even too much. You have to use the trim, accessible via the Alt-WASD keys, to control the plane smoothly.
After altitude and range testing, I tested the landing capabilities of the K-38, both on land, and on sea. While on descent, I was flying about 500 meters ASL, and found that at full power, this plane can fly at Mach 0.90. Interesting. With enough practice, one could softly land this on water. Taking off is easy too, as the hydroplane steps are a really big help. This plane lands and takes off at about 45 m/s on water, whereas on land it is capable of landing at 40 m/s and taking off at 50 m/s (82 m/s with no input).

Side note to manufacturer: I recommend that the entire wing be set to grandparent auto-strut, as this will keep the wing from flexing.

The Verdict:
It's an excellent plane, but I feel like its aerodynamics are too effective for a passenger plane. However, I'm not kicking this plane out just because of that. As a matter of fact, I would like to purchase about 5 of these for our fleet, as a medium range floatplane, so that we may service our areas which are inaccessible to other larger craft. And I'd like one as a personal plane

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--

Note that I added an @CrazyJebGuy tag, this will notify the maker of the aeroplane that their plane has actually been reviewed.

Panzerknoef has reviewed this plane before, he had  nothing bad to say about it. You didn't comment on a couple of things in the review, and these can be important, one is passenger comfort (quite good on this design with excellent views) and the other is economy, you didn't mention if it was expensive or how much maintenance was likely to cost.

I'd also like to say that in a review you shouldn't speak in first person, you're speaking for the KEA review team after all. Modification of aeroplanes also is a big nope, except for things that do absolutely nothing (struts not actually connected, navigation lights, that sort of thing) and action groups. Also images in a review are quite nice, without an image a reader of your review would need to know already what it looked like. It's a very good first try, a few simple things and it's actually quite a good review. Also note that range does not need to be so precise, to within 40km is fine, mostly because it's very difficult to measure range to the nessecary accuracy. (Some planes get measured multiple times by official judges, and vary often by a hundred kilometers or more)

 

Ah, okay. Thanks much for the feedback. I'll start using this as soon as I review my next plane.

[Andetch]

YAY! More judges!

[kingstevenrules]

Woot!

[neistridlar]

6 hours ago, kingstevenrules said:

Test Pilot Review: Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52 (Floatplane)

***Old plane that has already been reviewed***

***Training Mode Enabled***

-snip-

Fully agree with that CrazyJebGuy said. Also I think it would be better if you kind of pretended that what you did during the review was actual kerbals from KEA doing the stuff, so they can for instance not revert to the space plane hangar. Also if you test multiple cruising parameters, just pick the most suitable one when you list the figures as tested. You can mention other ones in the text if you like.

Before reviewing more planes I recommend you read a few more reviews, and try to pick up the stuff that gets mentioned in the reviews. Try to get a feel for how much emphasis is put on the different things. Try some of the planes that you read the reviews for as well, to get a better feel for it.

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'm feeling a little diligent. One of the current judges throw me an aircraft somewhere in the queue to review, and I'll do it some time tomorrow.

Are you sure you don't want to do a dry run first? If not I will PM you with the information that you need.

[Box of Stardust]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

Fully agree with that CrazyJebGuy said. Also I think it would be better if you kind of pretended that what you did during the review was actual kerbals from KEA doing the stuff, so they can for instance not revert to the space plane hangar. Also if you test multiple cruising parameters, just pick the most suitable one when you list the figures as tested. You can mention other ones in the text if you like.

Before reviewing more planes I recommend you read a few more reviews, and try to pick up the stuff that gets mentioned in the reviews. Try to get a feel for how much emphasis is put on the different things. Try some of the planes that you read the reviews for as well, to get a better feel for it.

Are you sure you don't want to do a dry run first? If not I will PM you with the information that you need.

Yeah, I can go straight into the real run.

[TheTripleAce3]

Executive Transport's 2nd aircraft is ready for purchase!

https://kerbalx.com/TheTripleAce3/Project-65A

The Project 65A is a Supersonic Liason (16 passengers) with a cruise speed of 1300m/s at an altitude of 20km. All that our engineers would say is that they found it shortly after the Ultra-class fleet hidden in an old bunker. This would seem to be why they have such redundant survivability features.

Range: 10,746KM

Cruise Speed: 1300m/s (can go higher)

Cruise Altitude: 20KM

Fuel Capacity: 2480 Kallons

Price: 103,270,000 (if multiplied by 1000 still, 10,327,000 if multiplied by 100....)

This rather crude piece of equipment was found in a fleet of 5 aircraft, all of which powered with Whiplash engines and most of which are still being rebuilt as they were deconstructed when their former owners were displaced. Due to the nature of the aircraft, it has a rather large amount of survivability features for botched landings or emergencies. These include 18 parachutes, 3 airbrakes, 2 snack containers, the state-of-the-art Ultra-class autopilot, 2 emergency transponders and 6 medium sized landing gear. The craft also comes with flaps preset for judges to use (1).

This craft departs from the Ultras through its wing design and engine placement The engines are a part of the wings themselves with the main wings pertruding from the central fuselage, leading to the engines and outboard fuel tanks, then with a delta wing coming from the outboard tanks.

It flies fairly standard compared to the ultras, albeit more clumsily as well as with less authority, so lift off and land slightly faster than before.

Unfortunately, maintenance will be a problem. The parts used to manufacture the craft were new at the time of its first use, so the engineering is probably lacking in max-G maneuvering and are known to cause minor vibrations until reaching medium altitudes. Therefore,n order of 4 aircraft of this type will result in a 5th package of complete repair parts.

As for comfort, the flight engineers seemed distracted enough by the view to ignore the vibrations, which we considered to mean "good enough".

Edited May 23, 2018 by TheTripleAce3

[Darth C3P0]

Challenge

Accepted.

[Box of Stardust]

Consider this both an official review (taken from un-reviewed queue) and a test run (reviewed a judge's first).

---

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Swirlygig 24 & 32

Taken on a fairly foggy day at the site...

Figures as Tested (NA Swg. 24):

• Price: 13,577,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 210 kallons
• Cruising speed: 152m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5,500m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.0167 kal/s
• Range: 1800km (conservative estimate)

Figures as Tested (NA Swg. 32):

• Price: 14,107,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 210 kallons
• Cruising speed: 152m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5,500m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.02 kal/s
• Range:  1500km (conservative estimate)

Review Notes:

KEA has finally found another company to outsource some of its testing to. A relief, since KEA has figured there's still more untested planes out there that would be a great buy to add to their fleet numbers. This particularly company believes in slightly stricter standards for aircraft testing results, in the name of safety... and stuff.

Neist Air has designed a slightly-less-than conventional-looking, slightly fish-like turboprop in the form of the Swirlygig 24 and 32, citing the design for aerodynamics. And it does work fairly well.

The single Kitty turboprop mounted right on the front of an aircraft is a very basic, logical way to create a single-engine aircraft, and normally this might be cause for concern for noise and vibrations with a direct connection to the fuselage, but onboard engineers even in the front cabin found that such problems were minimized by the low throttle setting during cruising, and pilots were busy listening to music in their headsets.

Passenger comfort is satisfactory at best in the most economic configuration. Outside views were hampered by the large wing area for most of the passenger compartments. The cabins in the rear for both aircraft were found to be the most luxurious, both away from the engine and with views downwards at the earth.

The aircraft was advertised as very easy to fly with little pilot training, and we can corroborate that statement for the Swirlygig 24. The 32 is not much harder to fly, but is a little quirkier.

Noted takeoff procedure was by-the-numbers for the Swg. 24, with rotation at 35m/s and wheels-up at 40m/s. The takeoff run with a single engine felt a little sluggish, though that may just be the pilots and engineers being used to slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratios. Takeoff length was satisfactory, though probably nearing the far end of preferable for a turboprop. Tailstrikes were impossible, as the Swg. 24 just didn't produce enough lift at its takeoff speed to rotate the aircraft far back enough to hit the rear. Some care had to be taken in flying its somewhat low-power from the one turboprop, but it was not noted to be a real problem of any sort. Maneuverability in the air isn't winning it any acrobatic awards, but that's perfectly fine. The roll control was noted to be very good, while the pitch control was adequate at best (but that's a passing grade). Landing was very easy, and the aircraft was compliant as a whole, with the airbrakes assisting in ease of landing at a shallow angle, touching down at ~40m/s. It proved difficult to do wrong to this aircraft, with our pilots only succeeding at causing damage by stalling the aircraft on a landing approach, at which point it fell to the ground fairly hard and destroying the tail assembly (but the rest of the fuselage and cabins were fine).

Cruising with SAS on prograde was found to somewhat work. Crusing with SAS for stability was found to be more compliant, and Neist Air's stated values for the cruise portion were corroborated. However, our engineers used the fuel load at that time at cruise altitude to calculate a more probable range and came up reaching around 1800km at cruise. However, the advertised 1900km would probably be reached due to fuel weight being burned off during the flight.

The Swg. 32 is a Swg. 24 with a lengthened fuselage and nothing more. However, this addition has made it a fair bit more sluggish than the Swg. 24. Rotation was only achieved at ~40m/s, and wheels-up at ~45m/s. After wheels up, pilots found that a shallow climb angle had to be maintained until close to ~100m/s, instead of trying to pitch up to 25 degrees right away, or else the aircraft would stall out. Pitch control felt more sluggish than the Swg. 24 by a decent margin, and was rated 'sufficient at best'. Roll control was unaffected by the lengthened fuselage. Landing was also affected, with the aircraft feeling less compliant than the Swg. 24, but not significantly so.

It was also less compliant during the cruise portion, with pilots finally resorting to simply manually adjusting the trim settings to find the most stable flight configuration, at which point the engineers calculated away once more and came up with the values presented in the test results. Again, under more conservative standards.

The most notable point this entire time was skepticism of the single-engine configuration, as an engine failure means full loss of propulsion. Testing this scenario, however, revealed that the Swirlygigs responded quite well to this emergency. Gliding ability was very good, and was very stable. Water landings were tested and the aircraft was found to be quite robust, surviving a ~40m/s crash into the water completely intact.

The main gear were allowed to steer in the set configuration, which made the plane quite squirrely at speed (read: trying to adjust steering on takeoff or landing). However, this attribute does make it good for taxiing on the ground, combined with its short wingspan, making it great for moving around tight spaces. Braking distance during landing could probably be improved by increasing brake force, though stopping distance for landings is also satisfactory as-is.

Our test pilots and crew also found it difficult to enter and exit the aircraft as the wing was built blocking the only visible entrance to the interior. We suspect this was due to using off-the-shelf parts and would probably be fixed in production...

28 and 29 parts put the Swirlygigs in an average range for maintenance, but only having to maintain one engine per plane reduces maintenance costs per aircraft quite well.

The Verdict:

The Swirlygig is an effective, economic turboprop, and would be suitable for short to short-mid-range hops to and from smaller airports around more populated areas. It's cheap to buy and maintain, and maintenance is simplified with only one engine, but we wouldn't want to risk sending this aircraft out on more remote routes that would spell trouble for an engine failure. Passenger luxuries aren't significant, but it's also not uncomfortable, and it's packed in a modern-looking package, so it's fine for moving around the average commuter or traveler over short distances. Also, it needs a good method for passenger egress.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

Consider this both an official review (taken from un-reviewed queue) and a test run (reviewed a judge's first).

---

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Swirlygig 24 & 32

-snip-

Great first review. Though, I can not see that you decided on a number to buy? Also a little disappointed that you did not mention how ridiculously fuel efficient the swirlygigs are, with KPPM numbers twice as good as the next best in class, and over 3 times better than the average for the 32, and not much worse for the 24.

[TheFlyingKerman]

38 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

you did not mention how ridiculously fuel efficient the swirlygigs are, with KPPM numbers twice as good as the next best in class, and over 3 times better than the average for the 32, and not much worse for the 24. 

Emm.. the Kerbus K-250 is more fuel efficient than the swirlygig 24 and both carry 24 passengers.

[neistridlar]

9 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Emm.. the Kerbus K-250 is more fuel efficient than the swirlygig 24 and both carry 24 passengers.

I stand corrected. The K-250 has not been added to the spread sheets yet, which is why I missed it. Now I have to make a better one xD. B.T.W. I have developed a super efficient jumbo that beats you latest in KPPMs. I will submit it soon I think. Trying to get to a 2:1 ratio of reviewed craft to submitted craft ratio.

[Agent Awesome]

On 5/21/2018 at 7:18 PM, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's – BS-40 Super

-snip-

Looks like my jet

just without the gull-wings

[Box of Stardust]

4 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Great first review. Though, I can not see that you decided on a number to buy? Also a little disappointed that you did not mention how ridiculously fuel efficient the swirlygigs are, with KPPM numbers twice as good as the next best in class, and over 3 times better than the average for the 32, and not much worse for the 24.

I kind of bundled that in with the 'effective, economic' at the end. 

Also, I was super tired when I did the review and just wanted to get it done.

Did you include the KPPM or is that something that has to be calculated? I forget what the calculation for KPPM is. 

As for the buying number, I find that number so arbitrary and subjective that I didn't feel like specifying a number. 

Speaking of 'aircraft score', I always figured you guys could take the numerical calculations a little further in that other spreadsheet. Maintenance modifier on an engine-count basis (don' t remember if included). Maybe find a way to quantify passenger comfort (could start with a relatively simple base value per cabin part, splitting between 'economy' and 'luxury' cabins, e.g., Mk1 cabin vs Mk2 cabin).