Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Box of Stardust]

You all will get a narrative, because my writing skills are spooling up again.

---

Test Pilot Review: @Andiron's Seps A & B

The only photo ever to be taken with the Seps A and B together...

Figures as Tested (Seps A, 40 passengers max):

• Price: 22,418,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 1,100 kallons
• Cruising speed: 240m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8,000m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.09kal/s
• Range: 2,800km (as calculated)

Figures as Tested (Seps B, 56 passengers max):

• Price: 24,726,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 1,300 kallons
• Cruising speed: 250m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8,000m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.13kal/s
• Range:  2,400km (as calculated)

Review Notes:

We at Twin Crown Aerospace Industries, the company KEA has outsourced its test flights to, have decently strict standards when it comes to inspecting aircraft designs, as we are upheld to maintaining high standards of operational capability and a dedication to kerbal safety. With that outlined, let's start with our engineers' initial impressions of the aircraft as they sat on the tarmac this one sunny afternoon.

Pizio & Hartmann Co. have designed an interesting airframe that looks very suitable to cruising at altitude... and not much else. The narrow track for the main gear was great cause for concern in terms of ground handling, combined with the very wide wingspan. The engines mounted far out on the wings would not help either, as they were a significant amount of mass that would further the risk of tipping the aircraft. As well, the long, thin wing showed a lot of flex. While not necessarily a problem in flight, it exacerbated risk of hitting the ground with the wings either during turns or while landing. Engineers did note that the distanced engines meant that the cabins were likely to be fairly quiet, away from engine noise. Also, the wide engine layout made for a great deal of concern when thinking about engine failure scenarios...

Our test pilots Samantha and Kirrim, both combat veterans, boarded their aircraft to do initial testing.

Concerns of the wide wingspan and narrow track were confirmed when taking a hard turn above 8m/s, which caused the wingtip vertical surfaces and even the outer wing to hit the ground and be torn off. TCA engineers quickly went to work to make the airframes airworthy again.

The brake programming did not play very well when paired with engine thrust reversers, which could find them stuck in the wrong position if the brakes were toggled too quickly. The flaps being programmed to the brakes were also a curious decision, as applying brakes would then de-activate the flaps when released, even if they were initially deployed by action group. The engine thrust reversers were definitely the larger concern though.

Still, we didn't want these negative impressions to affect the rest of the flight test, so we tried to maintain a clear and open mind as testing proceeded.

But for the short version: It's The Little Things.

Seps B Testing

The Seps B was chosen to fly off first. Pitch control was more sensitive than expected and resulted in a tail strike that destroyed the rear portion of the aircraft, which cascaded into complete airframe failure along the runway. Despite a wheel being back there to help prevent damage due to tail striking. Yes, it was that severe.

... Fortunately, prototypes are made in multiples, so our test pilot Kirrim was put in the second Seps B, with the new knowledge that more care needed to be taken when lifting off.

Wheels-up was achieved at ~40-45m/s as stated after a short takeoff run, with the two Wheesleys providing more than sufficient power. Climbing to cruise altitude at the recommended 20 degrees was quick, taking no more than 3 minutes.

Cruising altitude was reached with little trouble. Sort of. Attempts to activate SAS for stability would lead to a cascading failure of roll overcorrection by the computer. We believe this is due to the wing flex affecting the aerodynamics and the effects of the ailerons mounted far on the ends of the flexing wings. Since the Seps proved to be a stable aircraft in straight flight though, the SAS was simply turned off and the aircraft was left to manual flight.

Testing began on the cruise parameters outlined by P&H Co. To our surprise, we managed a lower fuel burn rate than stated at the cruising speed and altitude, for a conservative fuel capacity estimated range of 2,400km, more than the 2,200km stated by P&H. Trimming the aircraft was also fairly easy, and it flew with a very neutral pitch.

Happy with this result, we moved on to safety testing.

We simulated an engine failure on the starboard engine. The wide engine layout meant that the remaining port engine exerted a great deal of torque on the aircraft, and roll was required to counteract it, as the yaw authority was simply not enough. For a while, this felt fine, but we wanted to push it to see if we could get somewhat level flight out of the aircraft. It required throttling down of the engine, which reduced torque enough for the aircraft's rudder to keep it somewhat stable.

Then Kirrim tried increasing throttle again slowly.

This proved to be an disagreeable course of action for the aircraft.

The Seps B entered a flat spin, and even after throttling the engines down, the Seps B proved difficult to recover from the spin which soon became a complete stall. Eventually, the aircraft was recovered from the stall, after dropping from 7,000m to just about 3,000m.

Kirrim felt like giving single-engine testing another go, so TCA ground controllers gave the okay. Maybe she just did something wrong?

After the first spin, it was identified that low to medium throttle was the limit for single engine operation. This went along fine again, until some maneuvering was attempted. This, again, proved to be disagreeable with the aircraft.

And that was the end of Seps B Prototype #2, with our test pilot bailing out under 300m above sea level. Later picked up by recovery crews, she was still in shock reflecting on the near-death experience.

 

Seps A Testing

The mishaps with the Seps B marred our perception of the Seps aircraft, but we were obligated to test both aircraft due to differences in aerodynamics. Maybe it'll be different this time? Seps A is shorter by two fuselage lengths and carries 200 kallons less of fuel, which is fairly significant.

Either because of increased caution, or just better design, we found the Seps A harder to damage with a tail strike, with the bumper wheel working fine to save the tail from damage before the aircraft lifts off. Takeoff was again quick and short, as was reaching cruise altitude.

Like the Seps B, our testing found that it cruised at recommended altitude and speed with a lower burn rate than stated, attaining a calculated range of 2,800km, a significant improvement over the stated 2,200km, even with our more conservative fuel capacity standards.

We told test pilot Samantha to head back to the testing site for general maneuverability testing. We already knew that pitch control was sensitive. We discovered that roll control was decent, and yaw control was... passable at best. However, it was noted to have problems with yaw stability, probably due to the vertical surfaces on the ends of the wings imparting unnecessary force far ahead of where vertical surfaces would be optimal. The aircraft was prone to sideslipping before finally managing to stabilize, and the consequences of this would be realized shortly.

The aircraft was directed to land. Initial concern was over the narrow landing gear track, but it soon became clear that there was a bigger problem: landing in the first place.

Poor yaw stability meant that minor corrections were difficult to make.

With one Seps A prototype remaining, Samantha took to the air again, with TCA's engineers opting to monitor the situation from the ground. We did a complete engine failure test. The Seps... fared decently enough, but maneuverability and control was poor at the speed it glided at, which was fairly low. It spun out again when it stalled out, but the Seps A proved somewhat easier to recover from a loss of control than the Seps B.

Next was water landing. This test was performed with no airframe damage, which was finally some good news.

After picking the aircraft out of the water, it took the the air again for more maneuverability tests, focusing on low-speed maneuvers. It... did not fare well. Control was found to be poor at low speeds, and the yaw instability was more noticeable, with risks of loss of control clear. We weren't even looking for acrobatic capabilities or anything (though it did do vertical loops well), just stable maneuvering. Feeling that enough data was gathered, Samantha was told to try and land again.

And that's how we lost all of the Seps prototypes.

The Verdict:

The Seps A & B are very good at doing their intended design mission- comfortably cruising fast and far at high altitude. Better than advertised by the manufacturer in fact.

Unfortunately, it does everything else... averagely or poorly. Ground performance did not make good impressions other than its short takeoff run. Low speed maneuverability was poor. Its handling of any emergencies was poor, with both poor single-engine capability as well as poor spin recovery.

And we weren't even able to keep even a single one out of four aircraft intact.

Projected maintenance costs were either average or high. It was powered by two Wheesleys, which is average maintenance. However, a high part count over 70 meant a lot of things to watch over, but we noted that most of the failures would probably be from welds between major components, like fuel tank sections or wing sections.

As it is, we cannot recommend this aircraft to Kerbal Express Airlines due to poor safety in the event of a variety of emergencies, as well as generally being difficult to fly.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, hoioh said:

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 buildin

I am curious how you came to this conclusion, as the LIP10 score is just barely above the 16% worst in class. for LIP10 higher numbers are better. Also how did you come up with the 20% number?

[hoioh]

10 hours ago, neistridlar said:

I am curious how you came to this conclusion, as the LIP10 score is just barely above the 16% worst in class. for LIP10 higher numbers are better. Also how did you come up with the 20% number?

Yeah that' why I blamed it on the Kerbal from the admin building because it didn't seem right, but the LIP10 measure is a higher = better measure, but most others are lower = better, so I messed that up didn't I? I made a correction at the bottom of the review

[TheTripleAce3]

For a second I thought the Seps A/B were S&R (search and rescue) aircraft.

 

Hmm.... Ideas....

[Box of Stardust]

18 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

For a second I thought the Seps A/B were S&R (search and rescue) aircraft.

 

Hmm.... Ideas....

Well, I had to pick my pilot up with an SAR aircraft, lol. 

[TheTripleAce3]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

Well, I had to pick my pilot up with an SAR aircraft, lol. 

Maybe I could modify an Ultra for SAR for you >.>

[CrazyJebGuy]

A floatplane Search and Rescue Aircraft: The GAI K-38\52s

This is admittedly the exact same plane we submitted as a very successful float plane design, but we think it is the ideal search and rescue machine. It can land and take off from water, it has reverse thrust in case you overshoot the water landing.

But none of that matters if you can't find the guy you're trying to rescue. Which is where this plane suddenly becomes a true marvel, since it has very good visibility, both from the cabin, and from the side cabins, which have completely unobstructed views downwards. On top of that it can fly slowly (98m/s) for extra time to spot at less than 100m altitude. And if it's a long search, you might need a good flight endurance, which is good because at such a speed this can cruise about for 6 and 3/4 hours. At 70m/s it can stay airborne for 7 and 4/5 hours, with a smaller yet still quite good range of 2,000km, compared to the 2,340km at 98m/s.

 So you can find the guy, and pick him up, but suppose he's injured? Maybe he needs urgent medical attention to survive? Well use this plane. It can accelerate to the top speed of 300m/s quickly, and you can rush the patient home with minimal vibration of noise in the cabin. (Had a broken leg once, ambulance ride was trippy cause I used the painkiller puffer too much, remember seeing dragons, then found myself in an ambulance going under a bridge - I was going to make some point about how not rattling a broken bone is a good thing)

What if you're rescuing a family or group? No problem, this thing has 16 bunks for passengers, chances are you'll be fine. This is the ideal search and rescue operations plane, and on our KEA test pilot review contracts, GAI uses them (very successfully) in this role.

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-K-3852

 

Unrelated but @neistridlar, I get your point about range varying fue to pilot patience and skill, and I am not very patient usually, which I know is not optimal, but there needs to be a safety margin on these things.

[TheTripleAce3]

@CrazyJebGuy just redo the burn rate for impatience factor.

And maybe the speed.

Edited May 26, 2018 by TheTripleAce3

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries Comet 1b/2a

Figures as Tested: Comet 1b

• Price: 31,891,000
• Fuel: 2140 kallons
• Cruising speed: 216m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3500m
• Fuel burn rate: .11 kal/s
• Range: 4050km

Figures as Tested: Comet 2a

• Price: 34,911,000
• Fuel: 2220 kallons
• Cruising speed: 268m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4500m
• Fuel burn rate: .21 kal/s
• Range: 2500km

Review Notes:

Oh boy! Were we excited to get our hands on one of the new planes promised from GAI. First impressions were good, as we didn't need an airport tug that tended to break our shiny new planes. After getting the pilots to stop doing donuts in the taxiway, they set out to push the Comets to their limits. Both the 1b and the 2a took off fairly quickly at 68m/s, and initial low speed and stall testing revealed excellent handling characteristics thanks to the swiveling engines. The Comets both provide great views from their cabin windows, though the pilots would like to get in on that, and unfortunately, the taildragging landing gear that GAI just loves has simply put down yet another fantastic aircraft.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. The wings have no incidence, which makes for a slight nose up attitude in flight. This combined with the taildragger landing gear and measly viewing angles from the cockpit make for interesting landings, as the pilots are essentially blind without their instrumentation. This is a minor gripe, but we would like to see tricycle gear on the next iteration. Speaking of which, GAI has curiously not removed the supply of monopropellent from the cockpit, presumably as an in-flight drink to us? Another minor issue is the way the plane is built. There is a lot a fuel, giving plenty of range to both the 1b and the 2a, but it seems that GAI has merely repurposed a tanker by strapping passenger cabins to the dorsal and ventral sides. Not that we're complaining, but the complicated ducting required on the lower deck does make us wonder how we're going to service these planes.

The good thing about the design is the excellent passenger experience. Apart from the mild vibrations from the engines, the whine isn't overwhelming in the rear cabin, and any sound that does get through will most likely be overshadowed by the view of the surrounding space. With both models performing best at relatively low altitudes, these planes make the daily commute much more bearable. The excellent maneuverability and excessive fuel reserves make this a possibility. For longer range flights, these planes prove to be reliable workhorses, as an engine failure will not result in any emergency action needed. In the event that both engines fail, the landing gear is strong enough to withstand field landings and the airframe is sturdy enough for ditchings. Not to mention the parachute included with the 2a.

At 44 parts and 52 parts respectively, and with 2 engines and many shared components, we don't expect the Comet to bankrupt us for maintenance. However, the intricate ducting required for the intake does require a little more work than most other jets, but that's not really a problem considering how high off the ground it is. What can we say? The price isn't the best out there, but it is fair for an aircraft that operates economically and provides creature comforts like the Comet. We liked it , and we believe our passengers will too.

The Verdict:

With an interesting design that does not implicate any of its performance, the Comet is well suited for business travelers or commuters that wish to have some peace aboard their daily commute. With the ability to turnaround very speedily, we'll purchase 17 Comet 1b's as daily shuttles between major hubs, with an option for 5 more, and 9 Comet 2a's for the heavier routes to complement our current arsenal of small/medium jetliners, with an option for 3 more.

[Dark Lion]

L.I.O.N PRESENTS

     Here at the Long-range and Interplanetry Observation Network headquarters, we stand by a firm belief that every single mission must go horribly wrong before it goes as planned. Soarcerer's Apprentice (<--KERBAL X LINK) is no different in that regard. We didn't even put airbrakes on it! In fact, it stands to reason that no one was reasoning while this craft was conceptualized. Fairly spoken, Noewan Kerman cares anyway. Here are the keys. Tell your guinea pigs to wear their brown pants, because stalling is exciting! If you really need to, you could tear off some of the soundproofing materials from the rear section of the outboard crew quarters to clean up any coffee spills. Anyway! Enough about the important things... let's get to the monotonous details Noewan bothered to quantify until the last second.

MTOW - 14.25 Tonnes
Max Fuel - 880 kallons
Stall Speed <45m/s

Recommended cruise
325m/s @ 7.5km
Range - approx. 1588km

THE BILL - 33,841,000

NOTES FOR THE TEST PILOTS:
Go easy on the EC, would ya? Mr. Musk still hasn't sourced a good enough battery for us yet, so we couldn't spare any on the plane...
Press 1 for flaps
Press Abort (BACKSPACE) to toggle engines on/off.
*This plane is not intended for use with afterburners. For the sake of continuity, let's say the afterburner assemblies were removed and that mass and space are now filled with soundproof foam and padding to supress noise and vibrations from the outboard engines to their corresponding crew compartments.*
WARNING - L.I.O.N. assumes no responsibility for anything ever done, unless it was awesome. Then, Dark Lion was personally responsible for any and all choreographed stunts and demonstrations.

NOTES FOR THE JUDGES:
Writers among you... I welcome your creativity.
Please note the above note for pilots, regarding afterburners removal and soundproofing.
WARNING - L.I.O.N. assumes no responsibility for anything ever done, unless it was awesome. Or Mortimer Kerman decides whatever blasphemy, lies, and/or malevolent libel discovered is promptly disposed of as if it was your fault the craft is terrible within tolerances.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

 -snip-

unfortunately, the taildragging landing gear that GAI just loves has simply put down yet another fantastic aircraft.

 -snip-

In the event that both engines fail, the landing gear is strong enough to withstand field landings and the airframe is sturdy enough for ditchings. Not to mention the parachute included with the 2a.

 -snip-

This is why I choose a taildragger set-up so often, it will not break. It just won't. These planes were built for durability, and to prove it, go and fly the 2a. Go to some height like 3000m or something, over the grass planes of Kerbin. Cut the engines, deploy landing gear and chutes, rudder airbrakes (AG 4), and don't touch the controls. The plane will descend slowly at ~30m/s before hitting the ground, when it does, if you're lucky there will be no damage whatsoever to the aircraft, if you are unlucky some minor damage may be incurred, but all passengers and crew will be perfectly fine, if they were wearing their seat-belts. This simulates simultaneous control and engine failure, and you can see the plane handled admirably.

Alternatively, do that but apply trim to the elevator, full pitch up and do not touch the controls. The plane will (depending on the speed) do some loop the loops, maybe stall, but it will recover from this without pilot assistance, and will descend to the ground. Most likely the plane will be right way up, no injuries sustained by passengers or crew, and depending on terrain bumps and so on, there is a good chance the plane will be completely unharmed by the impact.

The Comet 2a is one of, if not the, single safest aircraft on the market. It can land and take off on small, neglected airfeilds, without risk of damage to the under-carriage due to the landing gear. The landing gear are also in a good position to taxi as well. As for engine failure, it has a bonus in that the aircraft is entirely capable, using afterburners (which we strongly recommend for takeoff even on an undamaged plane) of taking off and flying to a destination, on only one engine. That means it could be flown to an airfield with good repair facilities, even earning money by taking passengers on the route. Makes maintenance a fair bit cheaper.

Also the ducts are very simple, it just has a pipe funnel all the air through the 'tanker' part of the plane. And by the way, this is not a converted tanker. It was meant to be a bit of a copy of panzerknoef's Dotsero, I just remembered all wrong what the Dotsero was and ended up with this unique thing.

Pretty proud of this aircraft.

[TheTripleAce3]

2 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

L.I.O.N PRESENTS

Circular wing sections....

Prepare for birdification.

[NightshineRecorralis]

5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

This is why I choose a taildragger set-up so often, it will not break. It just won't. These planes were built for durability, and to prove it, go and fly the 2a. Go to some height like 3000m or something, over the grass planes of Kerbin. Cut the engines, deploy landing gear and chutes, rudder airbrakes (AG 4), and don't touch the controls. The plane will descend slowly at ~30m/s before hitting the ground, when it does, if you're lucky there will be no damage whatsoever to the aircraft, if you are unlucky some minor damage may be incurred, but all passengers and crew will be perfectly fine, if they were wearing their seat-belts. This simulates simultaneous control and engine failure, and you can see the plane handled admirably.

Alternatively, do that but apply trim to the elevator, full pitch up and do not touch the controls. The plane will (depending on the speed) do some loop the loops, maybe stall, but it will recover from this without pilot assistance, and will descend to the ground. Most likely the plane will be right way up, no injuries sustained by passengers or crew, and depending on terrain bumps and so on, there is a good chance the plane will be completely unharmed by the impact.

The Comet 2a is one of, if not the, single safest aircraft on the market. It can land and take off on small, neglected airfeilds, without risk of damage to the under-carriage due to the landing gear. The landing gear are also in a good position to taxi as well. As for engine failure, it has a bonus in that the aircraft is entirely capable, using afterburners (which we strongly recommend for takeoff even on an undamaged plane) of taking off and flying to a destination, on only one engine. That means it could be flown to an airfield with good repair facilities, even earning money by taking passengers on the route. Makes maintenance a fair bit cheaper.

Also the ducts are very simple, it just has a pipe funnel all the air through the 'tanker' part of the plane. And by the way, this is not a converted tanker. It was meant to be a bit of a copy of panzerknoef's Dotsero, I just remembered all wrong what the Dotsero was and ended up with this unique thing.

Pretty proud of this aircraft.

I agree! It was a joy to fly. I don't think having the duct described like that is realistic since all the fuel tanks were full, which presumable does not leave room for any ducting. I have to say, I am rather disappointed that none of the planes I've tested have done a  gear up landing without lives lost though, perhaps you'd be the first if a new Comet was made. I know I can do that with my Jupiter, but that is currently the only aircraft (that I know of, vtols not included) that can do that. I would like to be proved wrong for passengers' safety sake  

[Box of Stardust]

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

I have to say, I am rather disappointed that none of the planes I've tested have done a  gear up landing without lives lost though

To be fair, impacts in KSP are a lot harsher in a way than they would be in real life. Since parts don't deform (unless we use Kerbal Krash System), they can't really absorb impacts, and just explode instead. 

[kingstevenrules]

Kerbal... Krash System? how have i never heard of this before

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

To be fair, impacts in KSP are a lot harsher in a way than they would be in real life. Since parts don't deform (unless we use Kerbal Krash System), they can't really absorb impacts, and just explode instead. 

True, but it shouldn't be too difficult for a semi-decent pilot, especially if the plane was designed to have that in mind. It would make reviews a lot more interesting  

[TheTripleAce3]

Ways to do belly landings:

1. Pray.

2. Spend time designing craft to do it.

3. Parachutes.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Ways to do belly landings:

1. Pray.

2. Spend time designing craft to do it.

3. Parachutes.

Well the way my Comet does it is a nose landing, just comes down and bonks the nose, and tips backward. Wasn't even too hard of a bonk, I looked in F3 and it says hardest gforce endured was 10.1, which might have been a hard turn.

[Mathrilord]

Just teasing my 3600 seats mega jumbo plane

[Box of Stardust]

Test Pilot Review: @Ozelui's O.A. Model 221 'Bronco'

Carfrey standing on the tarmac hoping for a carefree flight...

Figures as Tested (O.A. Model 221, 48 passengers max):

• Price: 17,090,000 (empty
• Fuel: 490 kallons
• Cruising speed: ~230m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5,500m
• Fuel burn rate: tested at 0.10kal/s
• Range:  ~1,100km (max, as calculated)
• KPPM: 0.0149

Review Notes:

Ozelui Aerospace has designed a quite simple aircraft, though with a somewhat unconventional design that gives the aircraft an overall small form factor.

Our engineers took a walk around  the Model 221 and after some notes, gave their first impressions. The largest concern on this aircraft was foreseen to be poor lift; not a lot of wing surface to help keep the Bronco in the air at lower speeds, and the fairly extreme dihedral on the main outer wings wouldn't help in that department either. But it would probably be fine once it got up to speed. Also, passing through a fuel tank bulkhead that separated the crew compartments and entrance, from the passenger compartments, was thought to be somewhat of a hassle for embarkation and debarkation. Other than these though, there didn't seem to be much other things that raised suspicion.

So, we moved onto the flight test. O.A. stated takeoff at 62m/s on a paved runway, but we found that wheels-up was achieved around 55-60m/s after a short to average length takeoff run. A hard pull on the stick for takeoff, though, did cause a tailstrike that destroyed the rear section of the aircraft. Therefore, this aircraft, while a taildragger, is not immune from tail strikes, but it also requires significant pitch input at takeoff. The remainder of the aircraft was able to be recovered.

We pulled the second prototype out while the first one was in repairs, and took to the skies again, this time with a gentler takeoff. We noticed that none of the control surfaces were setup for specific actuations, so we took a guess and quickly set each set of control surfaces to only actuate for single inputs. Doing this, roll control was somewhat sluggish, but probably sufficient, and would probably be fine if the ailerons were moved farther outward and were boosted in deflection. Alternatively, activating roll control on the elevators to make them double as tailerons made roll control responsive, though at the sacrifice of a little more complicated pitch stability.

Cruise altitude was reached with a reasonable time of 3-4 minutes. Speeding up to cruise speed also took a bit of time. At cruise, we were able to corroborate the fairly short range stated by the manufacturer, barely 1,000km under our own conservative fuel reserves standard. However, we estimate that a maximum range of 1,100 is probable, as fuel consumption did not increase at cruise altitude despite the aircraft continuing to accelerate (though slowly). We are unsure what the maximum speed of the aircraft would be. Trimming the aircraft was fairly easy, and it flew in a very stable manner.

The manufacturer has stated the design to improve passenger comfort by spacing away the engine from the passenger compartments. Onboard engineers on later test flights would note that noise was still moderate due to size and direct passage of sounds from the exhaust to the cabins, but bearable.

Finished with testing the standard flight portions, we headed back over the test site for the various other flight tests.

Simulating an engine failure, we found that the Bronco was still a stable flyer, but was a mediocre glider. It bleeds speed fairly quickly, finding a relatively stable speed around 100-90m/s. Pushing this test revealed what was originally assumed about the design- the poor lift letting the aircraft down. Under 70m/s, the aircraft's state slowly cascades into worse and worse, almost dropping like a rock. It struggles to pull level, and continues descending at a high rate.

We restarted the engine and began testing other maneuverability parameters. We conclude that its mid-speed maneuverability and stability is fine, but again, would prefer some sort of official solution to the somewhat sluggish-feeling roll rate if using a basic control surface setup, with the solution either being aileron adjustment or retaining taileron functionality. The other conclusion reached was that maneuverability suffers at low speeds, with the possibility of losing more altitude than preferred in a turn, but it was an otherwise stable aircraft, under power or not, as long as airspeed was kept above 70m/s.

Finally, we went in for a landing. For this portion, everything went mostly fine, but we feel that a minimum landing speed of 60-70m/s is too high, especially for an aircraft of this size. Further landing tests revealed difficulty at landing at speeds 50m/s or below, as the aircraft is severely stalling out by that speed.

We performed some taxiing tests, and the enhanced ground maneuverability mode proved very useful. Combined with the fairly small overall size of the aircraft, and it would be suitable for small or tight airfields.

We also did water landing tests. The aircraft with its high stall speed did not fare very well in this test, breaking up upon water impact. However, we do note that the airframe failed along the wing connections to the fuselage, and all components remained otherwise intact.

Maintenance-wise, the aircraft are fairly simple, and with only one engine to maintain, projected costs are quite low. Two separate cockpits may be cause for slightly increased maintenance in that department though. The aircraft as a whole has a fairly low to average part count of 32, which is a noted positive.

The Verdict:

A novel yet simple aircraft, the Model 221 'Bronco' shows potential as a short-range workhorse. However, we do have the one significant problem with it in its current form, and that is its poor lift. From this stems most of the problems found during testing. Relatively high stall speed and landing speed on an aircraft of this size don't make for an entirely comfortable aircraft to fly when on approach, but it's not like the aircraft isn't flyable. We'd also like the control surface setup situation to be sorted out. Other concerns are the fairly short range (possibly not a major concern), ease of passenger movement due to fuel tank bulkhead (potential significant concern), and a little better tail strike immunity.

We recommend KEA not place orders on this aircraft in its current form, but be open to options should its flaws be remedied.

 

---

 

By the way, can the other reviews be added into the KPPM scoring sheet?

Edited May 28, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

By the way, can the other reviews be added into the KPPM scoring sheet?

Yes. I don't recall if you have requested edit access yet, but, if you have, you should be able to add any review you like. It is just the 8 first parameters that need to be filled in, and the sheet will do the rest.

Edited May 28, 2018 by neistridlar

[TheTripleAce3]

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Test Pilot Review: @Ozelui's O.A. Model 221 'Bronco'

Interesting use of the 16-s and the LFO tanks for small tanks.

No exterior elevators?

Edited May 28, 2018 by TheTripleAce3

[NightshineRecorralis]

7 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Yes. I don't recall if you have requested edit access yet, but, if you have, you should be able to add any review you like. It is just the 8 first parameters that need to be filled in, and the sheet will do the rest.

Ooh, what is this spreadsheet and where can I find it?

Also, I got some more monitors and I can now take screenshots like this:

[neistridlar]

47 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Ooh, what is this spreadsheet and where can I find it?

Also, I got some more monitors and I can now take screenshots like this:

Oooh, Aah. Maybe I need to figure out how to run KSP on multiple monitors too .

The spread sheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d7sQ29krOUyyFNCWxbpo-jJK_16te12qtuQh52RbN4M/edit#gid=644549098

All judges are encouraged to request edit access, and use it as a guide line (but not a rule), when evaluating the expenses of aircraft for reviews, so that we get a little more consistent. I have added a readme tab to help explain how to use it.

[hoioh]

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

The figures as tested:
Passenger cap: 36
Part count: 64
Price: 36,295,000
Takeoff: NOT BELOW 60 m/s (severe tailstrike warning)

Measured at recommended altitude and speed:
Cruise 7500 m
Spd 250 m/s
Fuel 1500 K
Burn 0.11424 K/s
Range: 150/.11424*250/1000 = 3283 km

Measured at recommended speed and alt, after corrections:
ceiling: 7500 m
spd: 250 m/s
fuel 1500 K
Burn: 0.1097 K/s
Range: 1500/.1097*250/1000 = 3418 km (a slight improvement on an already good range)

What? Another LJ-30-100? Jeb sprints out of the vaping room at the control tower to go and check this one out! After the fun he had doing wheelies with it's predecessor he couldn't be more excited! The new prototype is rolled out, it looks a bit battered... The engines are a bit wonky pointing inward, the wing tips are tilted to face the airstream and the wings look a like they're held together with duct tape. But who cares? Wheelies on the runway, right?! Well no, this one sits pretty stable when fueled up. Too bad, Jeb!

It's a promising start for the plane's landing gear, so Jeb, not the must trusting person, brings Bill around to have a look under the hood. As expected the steering is fully wired up to everything again. So Jeb pulls Bill into the cockpit to come along for the ride, so Bill can fix the steering if it proves too dangerous. Taxiing to the runway proved exciting with 3-wheel steering enabled and Jeb drifts the plane into position at the far end of the runway, punches the throttle to full and shoots past the SPH. At about 40m/s the plane becomes really unstable and Jeb needs to correct it a little to keep going in a straight line. Adusting the friction on the rear wheels proved of some help, but it's not altogether stable still. This won't stop Jeb, so he pulls the stick back and with a loud, crashing sound completely destroys the tail and the rearmost passenger compartment. Luckily we weren't using that particular compartment because as with its predecessor there's a fuel tank obstructing half of the cabin. Slightly panicky Jeb pulls the brakes and manages to save himself and Bill, but looses most of the plane unfortunately. We will not be bringing any test-Kerbals on this thing untill it proves safe to fly.

Lucky prototypes come in multiples. To our surpirse the strange engine placement, bent wing tips and duct-tape wings turned out to be a feature and not caused by KEA's crammed hangar policy. It looks just like the first one, rear wheel steering included. Undaunted Jeb and Bill take the controls again for another go. This time Jeb speeds up to about 70m/s before pulling back on the stick, a little more gently this time, to find that it does take to the air when you're being careful. Flying directly east from the runway Jeb decides that since pitch control is managable he'll make some altitude prior to testing the steering abilities so they can parachute out if required. Turns out that was a good idea because the plane handles abysmally with all the controls strapped together like that. Bill has a quick look under the hood, clippes some random wires and before they can actually crash the plane Jeb gets it under control. Better to turn around and inspect the plane on the runway.

The plane proves to be VERY stable on descent with the controls sorted out and doesn't lose pitch control until the speed drops below 40m/s. You can't land at that speed because half of that will be your vertical velocity in negative numbers. Better speed up a bit Jeb! Landing at about 70 m/s with full flap deployment is something Jeb could handle, any slower and the vertical speed would run out of control, any faster and the runway would not be long enough. Jeb struck the tail though, so there goes prototype number 2...

Rolling out prototype number 3 Bill immediatly gets to work on the controls while Jeb rages at the mission director for having to fly another one of these. While he's at it Bill also fixes the steering, straightens out the engines and patches the wing tips so at least the whole thing is straight and under control. Jeb flies it very carefully over to the island runway and manages to pull a landing without damage, so far so good! Jeb and Bill take off again and head north to the mountains for some brochure shots and find that the plane is actualy really stable at high speed and altitude and reasonably efficient at the recommended settings. Its KPPM is a little below average it turns out according to Mortimer, which he confirms is good in big bold letters so as to avoid the previous mess up with the LJ-30-100.

After flying out to the mountains and back again Jeb and Bill perform a stall test, they point the nose 0 degrees and shut down the engines completely, then wait and see what happens while leaning back, hands on the eject seat controls. The plane slows down, completely level, all the way down to 45m/s before it starts to sideslip and tilt a little to the right, they almost come full circle before the plane decides to go the other way and actually stalls out at a mere 35m/s (half of which is downward velocity). A little jelp from Bill attends Jeb to get the plane back under control, so he fires up the engines and pulls out of the dive with ease. "Since we've already destroyed 2 prototypes we might as well ditch this one in the water next to KSC" Jeb pronounces to the horrified look on Bill's face. Jeb puts the plane into a dive, shuts down the engines and pulls the brakes, hard. With all of the spoilers extended the plane does not exceed 150m/s coming down steeply towards the monolith. Just before the end Jeb pulls it straight, heads down the coast a bit to bleed of some speed and ditches the plane sort of safely at about 50 m/s. Just like his first runway landing Jeb destroys the tail section and the rear-most passenger compartment. One of the wings is lost and it has an engine less than it was delivered with.

Mortimer decided to be on the resque crew so he could immediately confront Jeb with his next paycheck of roughly -120mln! "These things are expensive Jeb!" he yells as the reque chopper descends overhead. "I told Gene I didn't want to fly another one and you were right there Mort!" a p!ssed off Jeb yells back at him, "At least I didn't damage the runway and nobody died!" Other than the sound of the chopper everything turns silent as Bill is being hoisted out of the plane, he clearly lost his lunch and most of his consciousness. Jeb wipes the sweat off his forehead and clips on to the other line to be hoisted into the chopper as well. Mortimer tries to explain: "Look, they cost 37mln to make, then there's fuel use, the amount of passengers, the range you fly, the construction, the airframe, the parts, the engines and it all needs to be maintained. On a per seat basis this thing is among the most expesive planes we've ever tested and you just destroyed 3 of them on a single morning!" "Ah, well, if they're that expensive KEA isn't going to fly them anyway." Jeb replies. More silence ensues.

The Verdict:
We've been informed by KEA that we will not be paying for the three destroyed planes and neither will Jeb, becaue we wouldn't want him to have to break his vaping habit and live with the result of the rehab, he'll never be the same. Taking off and landing with the LJ-30-100MR is a hazard, if not just to the plane, the runway as well. In the air this plane flies pretty well after we sorted the controls. Cheaply it may fly, it is expensive to maintain and to purchase. As a cost saving measure we recommend KEA abstains from the buying of this craft to avoid all the other costs altogether.