Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

4 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

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).

KPPM is in the spread sheet. But the formula is fuelcpacity/(passengercount*range*0.621)*. And as for the spread sheet, I have contemplated implementing a "ticket price" and "reliability rating" as well, based on comfort and likelihood of damage to the air frame, to get an over all profitability rating.

*originally coined by CrazyJebGuy as (fuelcapacity/passengercount)/(range*0.621), but it is mathematically equivalent, and takes slightly fewer key presses.

[hoioh]

I feel I should probably pitch in a couple reviews as well, since I'm also responsible for about 10 planes on the queue. I'll just pick the oldest plane on the list that's not marked as being reviewed and isn't mine

[kingstevenrules]

What is this spreadsheet you guys are talking about? Can I have a look at it please?

[hoioh]

@neistridlar See the PM I've sent with a test review of the KB-90

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, kingstevenrules said:

What is this spreadsheet you guys are talking about? Can I have a look at it please?

I will send you the links. Just forgot. And I am reading @hoioh

[Mathrilord]

There might be a more accurate way to math range. Maybe with deltaV.

Reasonning: We suppose that during cruise flight the plane (1)to keep the same speed, altitude and heading (implies throttle(to keep same speed as the craft is getting ligther twr augment and drag value change(see pitch management)) and pitch management(to keep same altitude as the craft is getting ligther less lift force is needed). Or (2)from a starting speed and a constant altitude fix throttle (implies pitch mangement). Or (3)from a starting altitude constant speed fix pitch (implies throttle management). Or (4)from a starting speed and altitude fix throttle and pitch (max throttle, 0 degree pitch with angled wings is the best in my opinion). Or (5) step cruise naaaaaaaa won't get in that.

 so steps, flight event

one time only(fix value): takeoff at full tank(-fuel),  reheading(is that a word?) 180 degree turn(-fuel)(+range), landing and final approach worst scenario(-fuel)(+range)

one or more time in any order(context value semi efficient): ascent(-fuel)(+range), descent(or glide)(-fuel)(+range), acceleration(-fuel)(+range), decceleration(-fuel)(+range)

then with the remainning fuel minus a security % we calculate the cruise range using a mathematic expression(see below) and we add the other range. finish

a possible mathematic expression or alternative: ''''going to sleep I'll add my idea tomorrow''''

[neistridlar]

40 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

There might be a more accurate way to math range. Maybe with deltaV.

Reasonning: We suppose that during cruise flight the plane (1)to keep the same speed, altitude and heading (implies throttle(to keep same speed as the craft is getting ligther twr augment and drag value change(see pitch management)) and pitch management(to keep same altitude as the craft is getting ligther less lift force is needed). Or (2)from a starting speed and a constant altitude fix throttle (implies pitch mangement). Or (3)from a starting altitude constant speed fix pitch (implies throttle management). Or (4)from a starting speed and altitude fix throttle and pitch (max throttle, 0 degree pitch with angled wings is the best in my opinion). Or (5) step cruise naaaaaaaa won't get in that.

 so steps, flight event

one time only(fix value): takeoff at full tank(-fuel),  reheading(is that a word?) 180 degree turn(-fuel)(+range), landing and final approach worst scenario(-fuel)(+range)

one or more time in any order(context value semi efficient): ascent(-fuel)(+range), descent(or glide)(-fuel)(+range), acceleration(-fuel)(+range), decceleration(-fuel)(+range)

then with the remainning fuel minus a security % we calculate the cruise range using a mathematic expression(see below) and we add the other range. finish

a possible mathematic expression or alternative: ''''going to sleep I'll add my idea tomorrow''''

There are definitively more accurate ways to calculate the range. The best way is of course to actually measure it by flying the entire fuel load. The current method is used because it is fast and simple to do, and good enough for this challenge. And deltaV is completely irrelevant to range calculations, as it does not take into account the drag, which varies wildly between designs. IIRC I have seen aircraft with 90km/s of deltaV and range of 2000km, as well as aircraft with only 8km/s of deltaV with 4000km range. Also range measurements tend to vary quite a lot depending on pilot skill and paitience. 20% discrepancies is not uncommon, even when using the same methods. And besides it kind of does not matter too much if the ranges are a little off, since we are not actually using those numbers for anything other than comparing planes. 

Now the current way of estimating range does give an advantage to fuel efficient planes, as they have a lower fuel to mass ratio, which in turn means that they remain closer to their empty weight at all times, and thus are closer to optimum fuel efficiency from the start of the flight. With inefficient designs on the other hand the creators tend to compensate simply by adding more fuel, and thus more engines to keep it in the air, and thus they get high fuel to mass ratios. When you reach a certain threshold this does lead to some oddities in the range calculations, such as with the Luxo744, which got a longer range estimate with less fuel on board. This of course is not really the case, since you would eventually reach the lower fuel load when taking of with the full fuel load, and you wold have traveled some distance before doing so. However the problem is first and foremost inherently bad design, so I don't feel like this is a major issue.

Edited May 24, 2018 by neistridlar

[hoioh]

Test pilot review: @Agent Awesome's Unlimited Aerospace KB-90 "Slipstream"

Figures as tested:

• Price: 49,735,000
• Fuel: 1680 Kallons
• Cruise altitude: 18,000m
• Cruise speed: 1200 m/s
• Fuel burn rate: .55 K/s
• Cruising range: 3665km

Test pilot notes:

Another day, another testing agency running the backlog for KEA. At Skaled Komposites testing laboratories we only employ the finest of Kerbal test pilots and using their extreme flying skills we try to squeeze each test plane to the max. We put it through it's paces and then see what's needed to get it to perform adversely and see what's needed to stabilize the plane and not crash it. Sometimes we get rewarded with a pretty explosion!

In the case of the KB-90 though, we did not get rewarded with any explosions whatsoever unfortunately, we could have forced it by flying into a building ofcourse, but where's the fun in that? Besides, it would be very unprofessional to crash such a beautiful plane that has been so expertly put together! The KB-90 is every pilots dream to fly. With a take off speed of a mere 60m/s and a stall speed of just 50m/s (which is hard to manage in a plane this fast) it just wants to fly! In order to preserve passenger comfort the pitch, roll and yaw authority have been a limited a bit so as to reduce the G-forces on the passengers and te result is a very comfortable ride.

According to the supplied brochure the plane flies best at a reasonably slow speed and rather low ceiling altitude for a supersonic jet, but when the engineers saw the positively MASSIVE RAM engine mounted to the back of the fuselage they figured they could squeeze a little extra out of it. In comes Jebediah, coolly smoking his vaper, with his visor down to block out the sun, wearing his leather pilots jacket. Leasurely strolling towards the plane he notices that there is not 1, not 2, but 3 engines on this aircraft! He quickly turns around and returns in his flight suit, vaper safely stored in his locker and ready to go!

While warned about the loud engine noise on the RAM, Jeb punches it to full throttle on the runway anyway. The engineers, prepared for this where safely hiding in the bunker and wearing ear protection, but we will have to change a couple windows on the SPH and the control tower. After a short run up the plane tilts skyward and Jeb hits the afterburners on the panthers for good measure. Pitching up to 80 degrees, Jeb pretty much takes the plane straight to the skies. At about 11km up the plane starts to decelerate and Jeb turns it forwards into cruise direction. The plane quickly builds up speed and after a while the pathers give in to the raw power of the RAM and shut down on their own. At the recommended cruise altitude and speed a little 5 degree pitch up is required and all three engines are on at about half throttle, this did not satisfy Jeb so he had to try something else.

The KB-90 can do an impressive 1200m/s at an altitude of 18km at full throttle, we did find that the tail wire starts buzzing a bit, which can be a little unnerving to the passengers in the back, if there were any, because the back end is all fuel for the RAM. So you don't really notice that you're travelling at near warp speed to your destination. The testers in the back mentioned a lack of outdoor views, but lots of fun with the onboard wifi (sharing pictures of Valentina, no doubt). In the front three cabins the opinions ranged from "wow! what a view!" to "THE PLANE IS ON FIRE!!!!" Turns out that isn't the plane so much as the air surrounding it that's on fire, at these speeds the world literally turns pink for those in the front of this craft, so we are seriously considering using it to get to certain honeymoon destinations for those who can't wait to get there.

The engines are mounted a nice way away from the cabins so there is minimal noise inside the plane, no matter what they say on the ground, we couldn't hear or feel a thing. Unfortunately that also means maintaining 3 engines and a whopping 74 parts. The three engine configuration was advertised as a safety feature, but we found that the plane flies just fine without any throttle and considering the speed and braking capabilities we're certain we could cruise it to any airport in the event of total engine failure. It sure is safe to the  point of overkill almost. But what's worth more than Kerbal life? This plane as it turns out, considering the small amount of seats for the price tag. Even though it's not extremely fuel efficient with a KPPM just above the mid range, the lifetime cost per seat mile is somehow very reasonable, so we believe the financial side of things will balance out over time

The verdict:

An impressive, beautiful plane that flies anywhere fast on fumes if it has to and that handles beautifully. To put a cherry on top: it is very hard to crash, takes off and lands at low speeds using a short amount of runway (also without the RAM on full throttle). Skaled Komposites recommends KEA buys at least 10 of these, which they will have to use for a while to earn back the purchase price.

Edited May 24, 2018 by hoioh

[Agent Awesome]

1 hour ago, hoioh said:

Test pilot review: @Agent Awesome's Unlimited Aerospace KB-90 "Slipstream"

Figures as tested:

• Price: 49,735,000
• Fuel: 1680 Kallons
• Cruise altitude: 18,000m
• Cruise speed: 1200 m/s
• Fuel burn rate: .55 K/s
• Cruising range: 3665km

Test pilot notes:

Another day, another testing agency running the backlog for KEA. At Skaled Komposites testing laboratories we only employ the finest of Kerbal test pilots and using their extreme flying skills we try to squeeze each test plane to the max. We put it through it's paces and then see what's needed to get it to perform adversely and see what's needed to stabilize the plane and not crash it. Sometimes we get rewarded with a pretty explosion!

In the case of the KB-90 though, we did not get rewarded with any explosions whatsoever unfortunately, we could have forced it by flying into a building ofcourse, but where's the fun in that? Besides, it would be very unprofessional to crash such a beautiful plane that has been so expertly put together! The KB-90 is every pilots dream to fly. With a take off speed of a mere 60m/s and a stall speed of just 50m/s (which is hard to manage in a plane this fast) it just wants to fly! In order to preserve passenger comfort the pitch, roll and yaw authority have been a limited a bit so as to reduce the G-forces on the passengers and te result is a very comfortable ride.

According to the supplied brochure the plane flies best at a reasonably slow speed and rather low ceiling altitude for a supersonic jet, but when the engineers saw the positively MASSIVE RAM engine mounted to the back of the fuselage they figured they could squeeze a little extra out of it. In comes Jebediah, coolly smoking his vaper, with his visor down to block out the sun, wearing his leather pilots jacket. Leasurely strolling towards the plane he notices that there is not 1, not 2, but 3 engines on this aircraft! He quickly turns around and returns in his flight suit, vaper safely stored in his locker and ready to go!

While warned about the loud engine noise on the RAM, Jeb punches it to full throttle on the runway anyway. The engineers, prepared for this where safely hiding in the bunker and wearing ear protection, but we will have to change a couple windows on the SPH and the control tower. After a short run up the plane tilts skyward and Jeb hits the afterburners on the panthers for good measure. Pitching up to 80 degrees, Jeb pretty much takes the plane straight to the skies. At about 11km up the plane starts to decelerate and Jeb turns it forwards into cruise direction. The plane quickly builds up speed and after a while the pathers give in to the raw power of the RAM and shut down on their own. At the recommended cruise altitude and speed a little 5 degree pitch up is required and all three engines are on at about half throttle, this did not satisfy Jeb so he had to try something else.

The KB-90 can do an impressive 1200m/s at an altitude of 18km at full throttle, we did find that the tail wire starts buzzing a bit, which can be a little unnerving to the passengers in the back, if there were any, because the back end is all fuel for the RAM. So you don't really notice that you're travelling at near warp speed to your destination. The testers in the back mentioned a lack of outdoor views, but lots of fun with the onboard wifi (sharing pictures of Valentina, no doubt). In the front three cabins the opinions ranged from "wow! what a view!" to "THE PLANE IS ON FIRE!!!!" Turns out that isn't the plane so much as the air surrounding it that's on fire, at these speeds the world literally turns pink for those in the front of this craft, so we are seriously considering using it to get to certain honeymoon destinations for those who can't wait to get there.

The engines are mounted a nice way away from the cabins so there is minimal noise inside the plane, no matter what they say on the ground, we couldn't hear or feel a thing. Unfortunately that also means maintaining 3 engines and a whopping 74 parts. The three engine configuration was advertised as a safety feature, but we found that the plane flies just fine without any throttle and considering the speed and braking capabilities we're certain we could cruise it to any airport in the event of total engine failure. It sure is safe to the  point of overkill almost. But what's worth more than Kerbal life? This plane as it turns out, considering the small amount of seats for the price tag. Even though it's not extremely fuel efficient with a KPPM just above the mid range, the lifetime cost per seat mile is somehow very reasonable, so we believe the financial side of things will balance out over time

The verdict:

An impressive, beautiful plane that flies anywhere fast on fumes if it has to and that handles beautifully. To put a cherry on top: it is very hard to crash, takes off and lands at low speeds using a short amount of runway (also without the RAM on full throttle). Skaled Komposites recommends KEA buys at least 10 of these, which they will have to use for a while to earn back the purchase price.

Thanks for the Review @hoioh

I’m glad to hear that you like the plane

In my experience, it’s the best flying craft I’ve ever made

If you have any feedback I could use to improve it, that’d be lovely.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Agent Awesome
...

[Andetch]

@hoioh how did you get your signature to hold all the badges?  Ican't seem to fit any more on mine

(I know off topic - sorry!)

 

[neistridlar]

4 hours ago, Agent Awesome said:

Thanks for the Review @hoioh

I’m glad to hear that you like the plane

In my experience, it’s the best flying craft I’ve ever made

If you have any feedback I could use to improve it, that’d be lovely.

Just looking at the pictures I have a few thing to improve fuel economy. Change the angle of incidence of the wings so that the fuselage is level in cruise. In KSP stock aero this is most efficient, since the fuselage does not provide lift (mk2 is an exception). Angeling the wing often improves the take off and landing speed as well.

Second is those radial intakes and precoolers. The radial ramp intakes are pretty much just worse than all other intakes. The precoolers add a lot of drag. If you don't need the cooling, I would drop them. A fuel tank or structural fuselage is much less draggy.

Mixing whiplashes and panthers is not the best idea either, because they have very different optimal cruise parameters. (Panthers dry: 620m/s @ 11km. Panther wet 800m/s @18km (have not tested this much.) Whiplash: 1400m/s @ 23km, all are approximate values).

To help you diagnose aero stuff I recommend turning on the two first check boxes in the aero debug menu. Helps you identify what causes most drag, an gives you AoA readout, which you want to get as close to 0 as possible ( I usually aim for less than +/- 0.2deg)

Edited May 24, 2018 by neistridlar
Autocorrect

[Box of Stardust]

8 hours ago, neistridlar said:

There are definitively more accurate ways to calculate the range. The best way is of course to actually measure it by flying the entire fuel load. The current method is used because it is fast and simple to do, and good enough for this challenge. And deltaV is completely irrelevant to range calculations, as it does not take into account the drag, which varies wildly between designs. IIRC I have seen aircraft with 90km/s of deltaV and range of 2000km, as well as aircraft with only 8km/s of deltaV with 4000km range. Also range measurements tend to vary quite a lot depending on pilot skill and paitience. 20% discrepancies is not uncommon, even when using the same methods. And besides it kind of does not matter too much if the ranges are a little off, since we are not actually using those numbers for anything other than comparing planes. 

Now the current way of estimating range does give an advantage to fuel efficient planes, as they have a lower fuel to mass ratio, which in turn means that they remain closer to their empty weight at all times, and thus are closer to optimum fuel efficiency from the start of the flight. With inefficient designs on the other hand the creators tend to compensate simply by adding more fuel, and thus more engines to keep it in the air, and thus they get high fuel to mass ratios. When you reach a certain threshold this does lead to some oddities in the range calculations, such as with the Luxo744, which got a longer range estimate with less fuel on board. This of course is not really the case, since you would eventually reach the lower fuel load when taking of with the full fuel load, and you wold have traveled some distance before doing so. However the problem is first and foremost inherently bad design, so I don't feel like this is a major issue.

There's also the method that @MaverickSawyer said, which is to use a KER or MechJeb dV readout for time for stage at cruise conditions, and multiply that by cruise speed. 

[neistridlar]

58 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

There's also the method that @MaverickSawyer said, which is to use a KER or MechJeb dV readout for time for stage at cruise conditions, and multiply that by cruise speed. 

That is mathematically equivalent to the current method, so yes that works too.

[Box of Stardust]

46 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

That is mathematically equivalent to the current method, so yes that works too.

KER/MJ stage time readouts actually calculate for fuel mass too, though. 

So while most aircraft here will reach the range calculated by the current method, some might reach further than other in actuality.

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

KER/MJ stage time readouts actually calculate for fuel mass too, though. 

So while most aircraft here will reach the range calculated by the current method, some might reach further than other in actuality.

Does it calculate how you have to throttle down to compensate for the reduced drag from the chanel in angle of attack and reduced induced drag because of the lesser lift reqired? I highly doubt that, the math would be way too complex. I thought the burn time was just how long it takes to burn the current amount of fuel at the current fuel burn rate, which has nothing at all to do with mass, an is exactly the same as taking fuel/fuel burn rate.

[hoioh]

7 hours ago, Andetch said:

@hoioh how did you get your signature to hold all the badges?  Ican't seem to fit any more on mine

(I know off topic - sorry!)

 

I made them smaller in photoshop and uploaded them as 1 image to imgur 

11 hours ago, Agent Awesome said:

Thanks for the Review @hoioh

I’m glad to hear that you like the plane

In my experience, it’s the best flying craft I’ve ever made

If you have any feedback I could use to improve it, that’d be lovely.

What @neistridlar said I found very useful in my own designs. To get to the menu he refers to just hit Alt+F12 and click earo in the menu. These readouts give you exact measurements.

The wings you've made are composite, so they will be a little more work to change around to get a good angle on them. For precise measurements I recommend using the part-angle-display mod because it gives you values when you change the angles on parts. So what he means is that you angle the wing so that it faces the airstream a little, lift the tip basically. That way they don't add much drag, but they will produce lift even when just going forwards.

Also, your current COL/COM (center of lift/center of mass) balance is in favor of tipping the plane forwards at low speeds, you might want to try getting them a little closer together by putting the wings a little bit forward to enable level flight at even lower speeds and may give you a better take-off speed as well combined with the angle of incidence on the wings. Though you want to keep the rear gear in exactly the same location seeing how close it is to hitting the ground at low speed liftoff already, but that's something to just tinker with once you've got the wing setup tuned to perfection.

It's already a great plane, it's a real joy to fly, but it could be even better with some minor tweaks

Edited May 24, 2018 by hoioh

[kingstevenrules]

Just curious, but... Is it possible to use the current range formula to estimate remaining fuel? I've done it before by replacing total fuel with current.

Formula with modifications for current should look like this:

Current Fuel / Current Fuel Consumption * Current Speed / 1000

Right?

[Box of Stardust]

4 minutes ago, kingstevenrules said:

Just curious, but... Is it possible to use the current range formula to estimate remaining fuel? I've done it before by replacing total fuel with current.

Formula with modifications for current should look like this:

Current Fuel / Current Fuel Consumption * Current Speed / 1000

Right?

You mean remaining range? Because that just gets you your approximate remaining range under current conditions (and is how I stated the ranges of my aircraft). 

[neistridlar]

31 minutes ago, kingstevenrules said:

Just curious, but... Is it possible to use the current range formula to estimate remaining fuel? I've done it before by replacing total fuel with current.

Formula with modifications for current should look like this:

Current Fuel / Current Fuel Consumption * Current Speed / 1000

Right?

You could do that yes. Distance*1000*Fuel burn rate/speed = fuel consumed. Just simple algebra.

[TheTripleAce3]

50 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

You could do that yes. Distance*1000*Fuel burn rate/speed = fuel consumed. Just simple algebra.

Or just divide ground covered by 2 on the f3 screen. 

[neistridlar]

2 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Or just divide ground covered by 2 on the f3 screen. 

That says nothing about how much fuel you are going to use if you go a certain distance . For estimating the range of an aircraft it is not too bad though. Assuming it does not take several hours to empty the tanks that is...

[TheTripleAce3]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

That says nothing about how much fuel you are going to use if you go a certain distance . For estimating the range of an aircraft it is not too bad though. Assuming it does not take several hours to empty the tanks that is...

Which, considering that I actually used a polar circumnavigation for one of my planes, is the case...

[hoioh]

Test pilot review: @Overlonder's Lorings Aerospace LJ-30-100

The figures as tested:

• Passenger cap: 28
• Part count: 47
• Price: 29,545,000

Measured at recommended altitude and speed:

• Cruise altitude: 5500 m
• Cruise speed: 175 m/s
• Fuel capacity: 350 Kallons
• Fuel burn rate: 0.08919 K/s
• Range: 350/.08919*175/1000 = 687km
• Takeoff speed: 40 m/s

Measured at ceiling altitude and pitch 0 degrees, full throttle:

• Ceiling altitude: 7875 m
• Ceiling speed: 202.8 m/s
• Fuel capacity: 350 Kallons
• Fuel burn rate: 0.08724 K/s
• Max range: 350/.08724*202.8/1000 = 814km

Test pilot notes:
To Jeb's delight when you put the LJ-30-100 on the tarmac and fuel it up, the mid-plane gear happens to be positioned just a little too far forwards. Resulting in the plane tipping over backwards in rest position. This will be an issue for KEA as that means you cannot fuel the plane prior to boarding. It also means that the plane needs to be under some acceleration at all times (again to Jeb's relentless entertainment) once boarded and fueled up in order to keep the nose wheel on the ground. This may cause a severe problem for the (not Jebediah) pilots KEA employs. It does make for an awesome take-off run though as Jeb just SAS-fixed the nose at 10 degrees into the air and hit full throttle untill the rear wheels also came off the runway at a measely 38m/s, it truly is a sight to behold (much like a Jackass movie). Meanwhile the passengers will be screaming their lungs out, because it feels like being launched on a rollercoaster ride more than an airplane which is very disconcerting! It also makes landing without a tail strike next to impossible.

The first thing our test kerbals noticed is that allthough this plane is advertised as having 32 seats, the back half of the rearmost compartment is obstructed by a fuel tank. This meant we had to hold back some angry and very dissapointed test passengers at first, but after watching take-off they were much relieved. Since it means KEA can't sell seating in half of this cabin we will consider this a 28 seat plane instead. This causes the price per seat to be significatly higher than many competitor's aircraft.

Climbing is slow and cumbersome; at first a 15 degree pitch is managable, but at just 2km up the pitch needs to be reduced to 10 degrees in order to maintain some acceleration and at 4km up this needs to be reduced a further 5 degrees to maintain speed and lift. At the recommended cruise altitude some speed can be gained after which a further climb up to the ceiling altitude can be achieved at 5 degrees of pitch where the plane will need some time to obtain enough speed for level flight. Jeb was not very amused by this and to his dismay he didn't bring his vape with him because we do not allow smoking of ANY kind on ANY airplane, even the test samples.

When attempting to fly at the altitude and speed specified by the manufacturer Jeb found that even with reduced throttle to maintain the recommended speed the plane still wants to climb at pitch 0 and and needs to be pitched down almost a full degree to maintain its recommended cruising altitude. When keeping the specified speed he found the range to be a bit lackluster at a mere 690km and because the plane still wanted to climb we decided to see how high it would go. Just getting to the recommended altitude for cruise flight takes almost 6 minutes. It takes a LOT more time to get to ceiling altitude (on the lines of 15 minutes from take-off), but when it stops gaining altitude with pitch at 0, a little under 8km up with the tanks still half full, it does not prove to be fuel efficient either, but is quite fast for its class requirement. At ceiling altitude the plane tops out at 202.8m/s at an altitude of 7875m. Not very efficient still, also per passenger-mile, but the lifetime cost per seat mile proves to be reasonably competitive and is in the bottom 20% cheapest planes to fly over time, or so we are told by Mortimer Kerman at the admin building.

The LJ-30-100 barely fits the bill for a turboprop range at just over 800km, but fits the bill nevertheless. Because of the low climb speed though, this range is hard to manage, not to mention we are pushing the plane beyond the limits specified by the manufacturer to get these results.

Much to Jeb's entertainment we found that the steering wheel has a lot of redundancy built in, as promised by the manufacturer. In this case that means that any input will move all deflectors at all times. This gives the plane some awesome stunt flight capabilities, but considering the high advised turn speed, not for very long. It also makes the passengers experience newly found levels of motion sickness and can cause dangerous spins, especially when flying at high altitudes. These spins are fairly easy to recover from though because of the good authority on the control surfaces. The whole experience from take-off to landing is very akin to a rollercoaster ride with a side of DEATH TERRIFYNG.

The verdict:
Overall we find this plane is actualy rather expensive and though we trust Mortimer with our finances, there is just so much more in the market that outperforms the LJ-30-100 at lower investment, with more efficiency and fever caveats. We do not recommend KEA buys any of these and get some more stingy's instead. Jeb wants to keep the prototype though, if that's okay? He is so fond of doing wheelies with it that we've had to move it to the island runway to get him out of the way for normal operations.

 

Correction:

Due to a misunderstanding of Mortimer's explanation, I mean, admin, right? We messed up something. This plane is not economical either, it's not in the top 20% performers, it's in the top 20% most costly to fly! Lucky we didn't advise to buy any...

Edited May 25, 2018 by hoioh

[Agent Awesome]

@neistridlar

I’m using the precoolers and radiators bc the panthers always overheated when run for too long with the burners activated 

and I didn’t want “spontaneous engine failure” to be a possibility.

and as @hoioh said I built the craft with plenty of redundancy. The plane was built to be really easy to fly, safe and reliable.

[kingstevenrules]

Okay. I'm either planning on a new plane from Phase Aviation, or reviewing an existing plane from someone else. Expect something though.