Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

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.

Will do!

Depending on the graphics card, enabling either eyefinity or surround ought to do the trick  

[Andetch]

@Box of Stardust I really enjoyed reading your reviews! I might have to design a new plane and get it in the queue for you

ADX - DustyStarBox* anyone? (Gotta think up the design quirk for it though...And find time to build it inbetween real life and all the other map things I am meant to be doing, lol... #KSP-issues)

*Brown paper bag filled with cash under co-pilot's  seat

Edited May 28, 2018 by Andetch
Fighting Auto-Correct

[NightshineRecorralis]

On 4/3/2018 at 12:07 PM, neistridlar said:

By throwing it around I am assuming you are referring to the gentle turn to the left? Also you might want to have a look at the NA Slab 2592 as well as the Habu industries Colossus. I think you will find their takeoff and landing performance quite puzzling .

Ok, I know this was an old post but I wasn't around at the time. What exactly was puzzling about the Colossus? I'm building a version 2.0 and I'd like to iron out some kinks from the original design  

[Andetch]

57 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Ok, I know this was an old post but I wasn't around at the time. What exactly was puzzling about the Colossus? I'm building a version 2.0 and I'd like to iron out some kinks from the original design  

That comment was directed at me....

I think the puzzling aspect of the Colossus was that it worked whereas the day fury didn't work so well as an airliner as it did as an electricity generation station. I focus too much on looks and too little on fly-ability!

[neistridlar]

5 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Ok, I know this was an old post but I wasn't around at the time. What exactly was puzzling about the Colossus? I'm building a version 2.0 and I'd like to iron out some kinks from the original design  

Yeah, the puzzling thing was how well it worked. The comment was meant to show Andetch that it was actually possible to do a super jumbo with good flight characteristics. 

[Andetch]

26 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

..... do a super jumbo with good flight characteristics. 

Which I think I achieved in the end with Mister Tiddles. Although, I am sure to be able to improve, as it still didn't handle as well as Colossus!

[Dark Lion]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:06 PM, NightshineRecorralis said:

On 5/27/2018 at 5:42 PM, 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  

@ the reviewers of these craft:
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THE KRAKEN CRASH MY PLANE! 
~...Ahem~
 

Spoiler

Gently though! 

Sorry... uh. Caps Lock. Yeah, that's what happened.
 

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, Andetch said:

Which I think I achieved in the end with Mister Tiddles. Although, I am sure to be able to improve, as it still didn't handle as well as Colossus!

As the guy who reviewed Mr Tiddles, you did indeed do that well. All mine feel like whales to control, except one which lagged my PC so much I did not realize just how powerful it's controls are until I set physics timing higher and discovered it will spin itself in <3 seconds. (I have since updated it, new model cannot do that)

[Andetch]

10 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

As the guy who reviewed Mr Tiddles, you did indeed do that well. All mine feel like whales to control, except one which lagged my PC so much I did not realize just how powerful it's controls are until I set physics timing higher and discovered it will spin itself in <3 seconds. (I have since updated it, new model cannot do that)

Thank you for your kind words.

Kind of pins everyone into their seats on take-off though with it's acceleration rate. Definitely needs those big "fasten seat belts" signs. 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Andetch said:

Kind of pins everyone into their seats on take-off though with it's acceleration rate. Definitely needs those big "fasten seat belts" signs. 

How is that a bad thing? They gotta learn sometime!

[Andetch]

It can make it uncomfortable if you have been eating something like curry or mexican food the night before......

[Mathrilord]

I'm mad, all my big aircraft(my 2 super jumbo and my mega jumbo) have the same problem; lag induced explosion. They can pull 15g turn for the 5 first minutes(from when I start the game) without problem then it start lagging and any part that get more than 4g explode aka wings, fins, flaps, airbreaks and more. Someone have an idea to counter the problem?

Edited May 29, 2018 by Mathrilord

[Kerbolitto]

Small Regional Aircraft : Flying Soupline - BolittoAirlines

 

My first entry to this challenge :

 

This plane is a little regional jet, carrying 64 people (8 mk1 crew cabin).

 

Take off speed is around 65m/s and service ceiling 7200meters at 280m/s, at this altitude it consumes around 0.19Lf per second which gives it a range of approx. 2400kilometers (fully fuelled : 1600Lf) !

53 parts, 24.628.340$

 

I tried something unusual (for a plane, not for ksp :p) with a twin boom passenger's cabins and two engine nacelles closer to the cockpit. Maneuvrability is quite good imho but it lacks a bit of yaw authority, after all this is not a jet fighter ! Take off and landing are easy, pitch authority is quite strong and it can bleed off a lot of speed during the final approach if the need arises. It is also capable of spending a night on battery, providing lights and heat to the passengers when engines are broken shut down. There is also a little antenna to call rescue services receive weather forecast.

 

https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/Flying-Soupline--ADzEkv0MHEYnAdUB3tiIa~dPAQ-UkeIVAS5kWHW2lNJ1w16x

This is the first spacecraft I upload on Dropbox, it should work. Probably.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[kingstevenrules]

Dropbox? For a side note, use KerbalX. It's still easy to use, and makes more sense imho. 

[Kerbolitto]

I've never used a mod before and I don't know why but it doesn't want to work properly, the interface is all f*ed up O_o

[kingstevenrules]

Can always copy the craft file from (ksp folder)/saves/(save name)/sph and paste it to KerbalX. That's what I do. 

Why is there a little line under sph...

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-230-200 Seaplane

Figures as Tested:

 

• Price: 12,880,000
• Fuel: 316 kallons
• Cruising speed: 200m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5300m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.045kal/s
• Range:  1300km

 

Review Notes:

Small and sprightly, the K-232 is a fine airplane and a joy to both pilot and passenger. Despite the limited control authority on the roll axis, the plane flies beautifully, as is the view from both the cabin and the cockpit. Everything about this plane is good or pretty good, including the handling characteristics, performance, range, and cost.

The takeoff performance is pretty hit or miss, as we could get it up at the advertised 41m/s in some cases, but in others, it’ll take a bit more runway or speed at around 44 to 45m/s. Negligible in the long run, and still perfectly fine for a turboprop class craft. Landing is a breeze, as long as the plane is somewhat lined up. We wish the flaps wouldn’t interfere with the roll capability of this plane, as when they are deployed, the roll response goes from adequate to cruise ship levels of maneuverability. There just isn’t much to complain about this plane otherwise though. The new pontoons provide a lot of stability in the water, and it makes ditching easy to accomplish without too much screaming. The natural tilt towards the back is eliminated in flight, since the wings are incidenced properly from the factory. 

With the stiff competition in the turboprop market, the K-232 fails to really stand out, it has a decent price, with not too many parts or complicated engines, and is build to a high standard of robustness. However, in the growing seaplane market, the K-232 is a high performing craft that is much better than the competition. We liked how we could put this plane down in any condition and it would take it like a champ. We’re sure this will incur some penalties for longevity, but we’d be hard pressed to find a similar plane with similar bush performance. The plane provides surprising fuel efficiency and ease of use thanks to its relatively long range and ability to act as a small commuter jet on longer, less popular routes, or for seaside destinations that are hard to get to.

 

The Verdict:

This is a hard decision to make, seeing that the market is overflowing with small jets, and the K-232 is not the star of the pack. What it is, however, is a sturdy, versatile seaplane with plenty of potential. While we do not see this aircraft acting as a major hauler in our fleet, we'd like to buy 2 and lease 10 for feederliner and bush use in our most remote destinations. We will certainly purchase more if the manufacturer could fix the very slight issues with the current airframe.

Edited May 30, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[neistridlar]

5 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-230-200 Seaplane

-snip-

 

Two things. Please make the title off the plane a link to the submission, so that it easy for readers to find it. Second, was this not supposed to be a sea plane? Not a turboprop? Judging by the looks of it at least I think it should be capable of water landings and take offs. By the numbers, this one has really good economics for a sea plane.

[TheTripleAce3]

4 hours ago, Kerbolitto said:

 

I wish I had the ability to design like that

[NightshineRecorralis]

5 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Two things. Please make the title off the plane a link to the submission, so that it easy for readers to find it. Second, was this not supposed to be a sea plane? Not a turboprop? Judging by the looks of it at least I think it should be capable of water landings and take offs. By the numbers, this one has really good economics for a sea plane.

Will do!

I think it's more of a turboprop than a seaplane, but of course you may disagree. It really fits either quite well. I decided to go with turboprop and that was my decision, I think it doesn't detract from the performance at all either way?

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Will do!

I think it's more of a turboprop than a seaplane, but of course you may disagree. It really fits either quite well. I decided to go with turboprop and that was my decision, I think it doesn't detract from the performance at all either way?

Being a sea plane does not detract from the performance by it self, but you need a whole bunch of additional stuff, so part count and drag generally go up significantly, and then you also need higher TWR, so you end up with a more expensive, and less efficient plane over all. compare the turboprops and seaplanes from the KEA Lifetime cost sheet, you will see sea planes are in general terrible for economy. The fact that it is a reasonable performer in the turboprop class is quite a feat really.

[NightshineRecorralis]

11 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Being a sea plane does not detract from the performance by it self, but you need a whole bunch of additional stuff, so part count and drag generally go up significantly, and then you also need higher TWR, so you end up with a more expensive, and less efficient plane over all. compare the turboprops and seaplanes from the KEA Lifetime cost sheet, you will see sea planes are in general terrible for economy. The fact that it is a reasonable performer in the turboprop class is quite a feat really.

I see, is there anything specific you want me to change? 

[SiriusRocketry]

I might submit a plane or two- are the cockpits and props from SXT allowed?

 

[Box of Stardust]

8 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said:

I might submit a plane or two- are the cockpits and props from SXT allowed?

 

The mod list in this challenge is firm, according to the last time other mods were asked. So no.

[neistridlar]

9 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said:

I might submit a plane or two- are the cockpits and props from SXT allowed?

 

The allowed mods are clearly stated in the OP. SXT is not one of them.

19 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

I see, is there anything specific you want me to change? 

I would like to see an evaluation of the water operation (take off and landing). Also compare the economic to other seaworthy planes as well. I think it is OK to keep the current stuff, evaluating it as a turboprop as well, since it is actually an OK turboprop as well. Would probably make a good feeder plane for island residents.

Edited May 29, 2018 by neistridlar
Phone