Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[TheTripleAce3]

1 minute ago, hoioh said:

Confused mk2 with size 2 there, the mk2 cabins are heavy for their passenger count, so I don't use them much

And have no view

Just now, neistridlar said:

Most of the GAI fleet have straight wings. Also IRL pretty much only fighters have forward swept wings. Because of how the wings bend, they can turn slightly better, but at the expense of stability.

A few gliders have it

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Forward sweep is more common in GAI I thought?

No, I don't think any of my planes have it. Some have backwards sweep though, did you get confused about that?

Although if I make a very maneuverable plane I might, reason swept-forward is more manueverable I think is because as the plane pitches, AoA increases, and a wing sweeping back will get more lift, and also leverage pushing against the direction of pitch. But if it is further forward,  the increased AoA will start having a force helping the pitch.

But I suspect that may just be a fallacy, since the centre of lift will have to be the same, so a forward swept wing will be put further back, cancelling out the effect before. Might be wrong but if this is the reason the wing shape won't matter, it will have the same centre of lift. (or else the plane will flip out of the sky)

[TheTripleAce3]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

No, I don't think any of my planes have it. Some have backwards sweep though, did you get confused about that?

Although if I make a very maneuverable plane I might, reason swept-forward is more manueverable I think is because as the plane pitches, AoA increases, and a wing sweeping back will get more lift, and also leverage pushing against the direction of pitch. But if it is further forward,  the increased AoA will start having a force helping the pitch.

But I suspect that may just be a fallacy, since the centre of lift will have to be the same, so a forward swept wing will be put further back, cancelling out the effect before. Might be wrong but if this is the reason the wing shape won't matter, it will have the same centre of lift. (or else the plane will flip out of the sky)

I meant to say GA as in "General Aviation"

I guess reading GAI so much has given me the Tetris Effect. Dangit, perfect ksp forum threads....

[NightshineRecorralis]

Be Scared.

Be Frightened

Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

[Box of Stardust]

49 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Be Scared.

Be Frightened

Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

I like how it's pretty much a 747.

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Be Scared.

Be Frightened

Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

o.O

 

 

Why? Just... why?

[Andetch]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

-SNIP-

Although if I make a very maneuverable plane I might, reason swept-forward is more manueverable I think is because as the plane pitches

-SNIP-

If you want maneuverable you need to make the design aerodynamically unstable, then balance it, much like the Chalduro. I found with piloting it that (I may have made it slightly too unstable, and this can be rectified by moving the wings a few nano-metres towards the tail - this is the less pointy end where you can find the engine) because it is unstable but balanced you can throw it around loads, and yes it spins but also recovers.. Wing shape helps with this, but COM/COL alignment is more important. 

56 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

o.O

 

 

Why? Just... why?

It's getting to be a "mine is bigger than yours" competition here.

About the plane though, I have no idea.

[TheFlyingKerman]

On 5/30/2018 at 5:38 AM, NightshineRecorralis said:

We will certainly purchase more if the manufacturer could fix the very slight issues with the current airframe.

Seeing some airlines plan to operate planes from canals, Kerbus offers the K-230-300 seaplane, a variant of the K-230-200 with an additional set of control surfaces added to the wingtip for improved low speed maneuverability.

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-230-300

Its performance is pretty much the same as the K-230-200 (but note the higher cruising altitude due to bigger wings)

Eco. cruising speed: 200m/s @5900m Range: 1200km
Max. cruising speed: 280m/s @6700m

It does costs more, at 13,673,000 Kerbucks each. Still cheaper than pretty much all seaplane competitors though.

Notes:

Taking off from runway:
Deploy flaps (AG2) and tail fin (AG3). Start the engines. The plane automatically pulls up at 41m/s. Retract the landing gear, tail fin and flap.

Landing in water:
Descend to about 100m, deploy flaps (AG2) to reduce speed to 45m/s, then deploy tail-fins (AG3). Fly level at 35m/s at 70m. Lower the tail gear (AG4). Slowly adjust throttle so that the plane descends at less than 2m/s. Hit brake (which closes the air intake and avoid water entering the engines) when the tail gear touches the water surface.

Taking off from water:
Deploy flaps and retract tail-fins. Accelerate with full power. When the plane is going at 20m/s, lightly tape W to gently lift the tail out of water. The speed would increase to 39m/s. Then pullup.

 

[Mathrilord]

7 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Be Scared.

Be Frightened

Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

Gonna have to build F variant for my Megalovania2 (F: seventh (third of it) deck +240 seats). E variant(first release) also have 3888 seats without cockpit. This monster is supersonic  600 m/s

If you wonder what happened to Megalovania1

Spoiler

Original design for Megalovania was fantastic, a beauty, a clever design... on paper.

Reality is that gravity seems to want to destroy everything that has a hole.

Did fly once but it's end there.

For more teasing

Spoiler

Should upload and submit Friday

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Mathrilord

[neistridlar]

9 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Be Scared.

Be Frightened

Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

Hm, maybe I have to submit my Slab 4320 now :p. 

[Kebab Kerman]

Planning on submitting an SST later today. It should be compatible with the challenge. Luckily, I had it built before my game got into the "LABD Coma (Loading Asset Bundle Definitions). It carries few passengers, but makes up for that with speed, which has topped out between 800 m/s and 1200 m/s. It even comes with snacks in the tail! The range and KPPM haven't been identified, but service ceiling is around 20,000m. Recommended cruising altitudes are between 14,000m  and 17,000m. I think it also seats... Uuuuhhhhh... Ok, I don't remember, but I think it was around... 80? 96? Something like that... It can also glide very well, so range may be well over what was calculated, or it may not be, depending on how high you are and how fast you are going. Made of the toughest paper around that has been compressed back into wood! (Yes, you can actually do this in real life with a hydralic press. Try it! It works!) Picture also coming when I get home. Uses Mk.1 parts for the fuselage and Mk.0 parts for the tanks and wing mounts. Other than that (and the DoomSpiral that can happen with planes like these) there's nothing to worry about. The wings are also curved downwards at the edges! It also comes with WiFi.

 

Anyway, if you have some oversized cargo, I have a transport aircraft that could transport it for ya.

https://kerbalx.com/KebabKerman/LA-67

Nice and cute. Single Mk3 cargobay and cargo ramps at the front and back. Two small turbofan engines, a rudder, elevators, and wings. Thats it. Thats basically it. Works for transporting parts, too. It even has navigation lights! It has, at most, 25 parts. Seriously. Small cargo plane for transporting parts. Game went into coma before I could take a picture, though... 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Andetch]

1 hour ago, Kebab Kerman said:

It should be compatible with the challenge, and if it isn't, go ahead and strip off the parts that are and replace them with better ones if possible,

Dude, you're kinda missing the point of the challenge. I know I am not a judge on this thread, but I know that they will not modify your plane in any way (except maybe to add fuel sometimes if you have sent it with dry tanks), so when you submit and entry you gotta make sure you are only using parts from the authorized list of mods or you're just wasting your own time

And for variant like you mentioned (by adding more fuel tanks) again you need to do that yourself and upload another one to KerbalX, as in;

LA-67

LA-67-ER

LA-67-EL

etc. etc. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Andetch

[Kebab Kerman]

2 hours ago, Andetch said:

Dude, you're kinda missing the point of the challenge. I know I am not a judge on this thread, but I know that they will not modify your plane in any way (except maybe to add fuel sometimes if you have sent it with dry tanks), so when you submit and entry you gotta make sure you are only using parts from the authorized list of mods or you're just wasting your own time

Fixed it

EDIT: Oh boy, it looks like another size war is starting again!

EDIT #2: That download link isn't the SST, it's the cargo plane. I submitted it because it worked with the rules. The actual SST is being submitted later today. I'm not home yet, so I kinda can't

Edited May 31, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[MaverickSawyer]

Yes it does. I plan on camping out alongside the runway and salvaging useable parts from the wreckage of failed landings. What better way to keep costs down (and the environmentalists happy) than by recycling?

[RedPandaz]

16 hours ago, neistridlar said:

 

 

Test Pilot Review: @RedPandaz's The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies Delta Impulse (-S)

 

 
Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse

• Price: 16,056,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 270m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.060 kal/s
• Range: 1,800km

Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse-S

• Price: 22,043,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 200m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.073 kal/s
• Range: 1,100km

 
Review Notes:
Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. And with its forward swept anhedral wings it certainly looks agressive. During take off the pilots noted that the engine seemed to be starved of air, and the initial acceleration was surprisingly slow, gradually picking up as the plane gathered speed. Our engineers were somewhat puzzled by the choice of intake geometry, using an intake optimized for supersonic flight seemed a little out of place on a plane intended for subsonic operations, and recommended other options be investigated.
 
The somewhat unusual landing gear configuration of these aircraft, being a sort of odd hybrid of taildragger and tricycle, with the low, far back main gear and tall nose gear had caused some concerns for the take off stability. Some had speculated that the main gear would lift off first, leaving only the nose gear on the ground before liftoff, like a wheelbarrow. Not exactly the thing you would want to drive down a runway at umpteen miles per hour. Luckily the designers of this aircraft seemed to know what they were doing, and the Delta Impulse simply lifted off at 40m/s, without any input from the pilot. The Delta Impulse-S needed a little convincing with the elevators to get off the ground though, but still an easy takeoff. Though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension bottomed out in the process, giving them a good and proper jolt. Now despite the impressively low lift off speed, the aircraft still used a fair bit of runway reaching that speed, which made the takeoff distance about average.
 
Once in the air both planes handled very similarly. Our pilots noted that the roll rate was just barely adequate for normal flight. Not to surprising, seeing as all of the control surfaces are mounted so close to the fuselage. It did not help that all control surfaces were set to respond to everything, so the roll authority had to share with the pitch authority. Our engineers suggest that that a dedicated pair of ailerons be placed near the wing tips for extra roll authority. Now partially thanks to the thrust vectoring on the engine, the aircraft had enough yaw and pitch control for at least 3 aircraft at once. The aircraft are easily able to flip themselves 180 degrees in the air both in pitch and yaw. The pilots reported having flashbacks from certain other fighter looking planes. Though were happy to report that the air frame was sufficiently stable to recover quickly on its own, without much pilot intervention.
 
At low speeds however the combination of weak roll authority and somewhat weak yaw stability proved to be very dangerous to pilots trained in aircraft with dihedral. As turns were performed near stall speed the aircraft quickly took on a large amount of sideslip, the already anemic ailerons became practically ineffective, and so did the elevator. Our pilots being used to a strong roll yaw coupling instinctively stepped on the rudders to supplement the ailerons, and roll out of the turn. The aircraft does however have practically no roll yaw coupling at all, and so the maneuver proved ineffective, and just worsened the situation, with the aircraft continuing to sideslip towards the ground. In the last possible moment, they decided if this was not working, maybe they should try the opposite, and yaw towards the ground in stead. Much to their relief, this procedure proved very effective, as it canceled out the sideslip, and made the elevators effective again. The test pilots concluded that significant conversion training would be required for pilots used to flying aircraft with strong roll yaw coupling. 
 
Despite all the flaws, the aircraft proved to be very easy to fly, as long as it was kept within typical passenger jet operation limits. And even during the violent maneuvering the wings stayed reassuringly straight, and did not really seem to mind pulling 15Gs at all. We believe this is due to the lower semi wing bracing the upper wing in a very rigid triangle shape.
 
Landing the aircraft offered a bit of a surprise for our pilots though. They approached the runway on a shallow glide slope at 100m/s as usual, but even after cutting the throttle, the aircraft just seemed to float on and on down the runway. Having glided the entire length of the runway at KSC they finally set it down just at the end having reached 30m/s. That is impressively low, and consequently the stopping distance was hardly anything at all.
 
With such low landing speeds it should come as no surprise that the Delta Impulse is quite capable of safe ditching in water. With the air starved engine it was found to be completely unable to take of again. It probably did not help that the air consisted mostly of water. The Impulse-S however, being a seaplane design handled beautifully on the water. Nice and steady, no nose diving tendencies, no tipping over, and with both engines and intakes well clear of the water. Take off performance was even better than on land, lifting off at only 35m/s!. 
 
As for cruising, our pilots reported that the aircraft handled well both with and without the autopilot, though the strong pitch authority and slow reactions of the engines did make it somewhat difficult to maintain a steady cruise. The aircraft cruises with slight nose up attitudes, it is should not be detrimental, though we recommend that RET do research the effects of increasing the angle of incidence on their wings for increased fuel efficiency. 
 
With that short and sweet description of the flight characteristics out of the way, let’s get on with the passenger comfort. Well. The passengers were not impressed at all with the maneuverability of the aircraft, and reported that it was quite challenging aiming at the sick bags with the plane alternating between 15G turns, flat spins, stalls and recoveries, all within the span of a few seconds. Some also reported having lost a few centimeters of height during the flight. During the calmer parts of the flight though, they did manage to report some vibrations with a bit of noise in the back. Not unlike many other planes in these categories. 
 
As for the economics. The brochure said it was intended to be a better cheaper alternative to the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow". Well, it is cheaper, but not by much. And considering the Delta Impulse family only carries 24 passengers the “Arrow” is actually cheaper per seat with its 32 passenger capacity.The fuel economy and maintenance is better though, with only 25 parts for the Delta Impulse, and 39 for the Delta Impulse-S, which is good for a seaplane like this. On fuel economy there is almost no difference between the Impulse and the “Arrow” as well, though both have decent fuel economy, both being better than average. In the end it turns out the Delta Impulse accomplished what it set out to do, just barely.
 
The Verdict:
The turboprop marked is very crowded, and the competition is stiff, but with its good range and high top cruising speed we think there might be a place for a Dlata Impulse on long thin routes. As a trial we will be leasing a pair, to see how the conversion training goes. If RET can offer an improved version with better roll rate and generally less sensitive pitch and roll we would like to order a few more. As for the Delta Impulse-S, despite its handling shortcomings in the air we do believe it to be a good long lasting seaplane, and will be buying two, with options for 6 more if the handling issues can be sorted out.
 

Ok, I can work on a Delta Impulse B, should fix the problems. It was *incredibly* maneuverable before I took off the control surfaces off to reduce cost. Not sure about limiting control surfaces, I don't do that on any of my planes so far because I'm not quite sure how it would help and what would lack. Offering to subcontract the dev out with another manufacturer. Will also stretch the fuselage, might switch out the Panther for a rapier, will test

16 hours ago, neistridlar said:

 

 

Test Pilot Review: @RedPandaz's The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies Delta Impulse (-S)

 

 
Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse

• Price: 16,056,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 270m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.060 kal/s
• Range: 1,800km

Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse-S

• Price: 22,043,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 200m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.073 kal/s
• Range: 1,100km

 
Review Notes:
Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. And with its forward swept anhedral wings it certainly looks agressive. During take off the pilots noted that the engine seemed to be starved of air, and the initial acceleration was surprisingly slow, gradually picking up as the plane gathered speed. Our engineers were somewhat puzzled by the choice of intake geometry, using an intake optimized for supersonic flight seemed a little out of place on a plane intended for subsonic operations, and recommended other options be investigated.
 
The somewhat unusual landing gear configuration of these aircraft, being a sort of odd hybrid of taildragger and tricycle, with the low, far back main gear and tall nose gear had caused some concerns for the take off stability. Some had speculated that the main gear would lift off first, leaving only the nose gear on the ground before liftoff, like a wheelbarrow. Not exactly the thing you would want to drive down a runway at umpteen miles per hour. Luckily the designers of this aircraft seemed to know what they were doing, and the Delta Impulse simply lifted off at 40m/s, without any input from the pilot. The Delta Impulse-S needed a little convincing with the elevators to get off the ground though, but still an easy takeoff. Though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension bottomed out in the process, giving them a good and proper jolt. Now despite the impressively low lift off speed, the aircraft still used a fair bit of runway reaching that speed, which made the takeoff distance about average.
 
Once in the air both planes handled very similarly. Our pilots noted that the roll rate was just barely adequate for normal flight. Not to surprising, seeing as all of the control surfaces are mounted so close to the fuselage. It did not help that all control surfaces were set to respond to everything, so the roll authority had to share with the pitch authority. Our engineers suggest that that a dedicated pair of ailerons be placed near the wing tips for extra roll authority. Now partially thanks to the thrust vectoring on the engine, the aircraft had enough yaw and pitch control for at least 3 aircraft at once. The aircraft are easily able to flip themselves 180 degrees in the air both in pitch and yaw. The pilots reported having flashbacks from certain other fighter looking planes. Though were happy to report that the air frame was sufficiently stable to recover quickly on its own, without much pilot intervention.
 
At low speeds however the combination of weak roll authority and somewhat weak yaw stability proved to be very dangerous to pilots trained in aircraft with dihedral. As turns were performed near stall speed the aircraft quickly took on a large amount of sideslip, the already anemic ailerons became practically ineffective, and so did the elevator. Our pilots being used to a strong roll yaw coupling instinctively stepped on the rudders to supplement the ailerons, and roll out of the turn. The aircraft does however have practically no roll yaw coupling at all, and so the maneuver proved ineffective, and just worsened the situation, with the aircraft continuing to sideslip towards the ground. In the last possible moment, they decided if this was not working, maybe they should try the opposite, and yaw towards the ground in stead. Much to their relief, this procedure proved very effective, as it canceled out the sideslip, and made the elevators effective again. The test pilots concluded that significant conversion training would be required for pilots used to flying aircraft with strong roll yaw coupling. 
 
Despite all the flaws, the aircraft proved to be very easy to fly, as long as it was kept within typical passenger jet operation limits. And even during the violent maneuvering the wings stayed reassuringly straight, and did not really seem to mind pulling 15Gs at all. We believe this is due to the lower semi wing bracing the upper wing in a very rigid triangle shape.
 
Landing the aircraft offered a bit of a surprise for our pilots though. They approached the runway on a shallow glide slope at 100m/s as usual, but even after cutting the throttle, the aircraft just seemed to float on and on down the runway. Having glided the entire length of the runway at KSC they finally set it down just at the end having reached 30m/s. That is impressively low, and consequently the stopping distance was hardly anything at all.
 
With such low landing speeds it should come as no surprise that the Delta Impulse is quite capable of safe ditching in water. With the air starved engine it was found to be completely unable to take of again. It probably did not help that the air consisted mostly of water. The Impulse-S however, being a seaplane design handled beautifully on the water. Nice and steady, no nose diving tendencies, no tipping over, and with both engines and intakes well clear of the water. Take off performance was even better than on land, lifting off at only 35m/s!. 
 
As for cruising, our pilots reported that the aircraft handled well both with and without the autopilot, though the strong pitch authority and slow reactions of the engines did make it somewhat difficult to maintain a steady cruise. The aircraft cruises with slight nose up attitudes, it is should not be detrimental, though we recommend that RET do research the effects of increasing the angle of incidence on their wings for increased fuel efficiency. 
 
With that short and sweet description of the flight characteristics out of the way, let’s get on with the passenger comfort. Well. The passengers were not impressed at all with the maneuverability of the aircraft, and reported that it was quite challenging aiming at the sick bags with the plane alternating between 15G turns, flat spins, stalls and recoveries, all within the span of a few seconds. Some also reported having lost a few centimeters of height during the flight. During the calmer parts of the flight though, they did manage to report some vibrations with a bit of noise in the back. Not unlike many other planes in these categories. 
 
As for the economics. The brochure said it was intended to be a better cheaper alternative to the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow". Well, it is cheaper, but not by much. And considering the Delta Impulse family only carries 24 passengers the “Arrow” is actually cheaper per seat with its 32 passenger capacity.The fuel economy and maintenance is better though, with only 25 parts for the Delta Impulse, and 39 for the Delta Impulse-S, which is good for a seaplane like this. On fuel economy there is almost no difference between the Impulse and the “Arrow” as well, though both have decent fuel economy, both being better than average. In the end it turns out the Delta Impulse accomplished what it set out to do, just barely.
 
The Verdict:
The turboprop marked is very crowded, and the competition is stiff, but with its good range and high top cruising speed we think there might be a place for a Dlata Impulse on long thin routes. As a trial we will be leasing a pair, to see how the conversion training goes. If RET can offer an improved version with better roll rate and generally less sensitive pitch and roll we would like to order a few more. As for the Delta Impulse-S, despite its handling shortcomings in the air we do believe it to be a good long lasting seaplane, and will be buying two, with options for 6 more if the handling issues can be sorted out.
 

So I take it the Impulse S was a success? Still, might make an S-B model. Potenial Subcontractors wanted

[NightshineRecorralis]

46 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Yes it does. I plan on camping out alongside the runway and salvaging useable parts from the wreckage of failed landings. What better way to keep costs down (and the environmentalists happy) than by recycling?

 

If you've flown any of my bigger planes they shouldn't explode on landing haha

This is just the beginning. The winglets are 100% scale FAT Control Surfaces for scale

7 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

Gonna have to build F variant for my Megalovania2 (F: seventh (third of it) deck +240 seats). E variant(first release) also have 3888 seats without cockpit. This monster is supersonic  600 m/s

If you wonder what happened to Megalovania1

  Reveal hidden contents

Original design for Megalovania was fantastic, a beauty, a clever design... on paper.

Reality is that gravity seems to want to destroy everything that has a hole.

Did fly once but it's end there.

For more teasing

  Reveal hidden contents

Should upload and submit Friday

 

How big are those engines? I scaled mine to 3.5m since the largest turbofans irl are 3.3m across.

Edited May 31, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[MaverickSawyer]

16 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

If you've flown any of my bigger planes they shouldn't explode on landing haha

Just because something is easy for you to fly doesn't mean others will.

And no, I haven't flown any of the bigger planes, because the part count is far beyond what my computer can handle. (Stupid 5-year-old laptop...)

[NightshineRecorralis]

Just now, MaverickSawyer said:

Just because something is easy for you to fly doesn't mean others will.

And no, I haven't flown any of the bigger planes, because the part count is far beyond what my computer can handle. (Stupid 5-year-old laptop...)

True, I know the feel, I just recently moved to an ultrabook and still want to play KSP haha.

BTW, what is the size of the engines on the Megolovania 2? They look to be bigger than 5m somehow.

[RedPandaz]

My Giganto IV has 10m engines

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

My Giganto IV has 10m engines

Now that is an instance of using tweakscale inappropriately  

[MaverickSawyer]

Indeed. I believe the rule was 50% change, either way. I.E. a 2.5 meter engine could only be adjusted to be between 1.25m (50% of stock) and 3.75m (150% of stock) in diameter.

[Mathrilord]

17 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Indeed. I believe the rule was 50% change, either way. I.E. a 2.5 meter engine could only be adjusted to be between 1.25m (50% of stock) and 3.75m (150% of stock) in diameter.

Not written in the OP

 

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

True, I know the feel, I just recently moved to an ultrabook and still want to play KSP haha.

BTW, what is the size of the engines on the Megolovania 2? They look to be bigger than 5m somehow.

7.5 m 

Anyway a plane that big is more for lol than anything else. The 162 size 2 crew cabin mean a ludicrously high price. (5 163 127 000)

Would like to have some feedback on this one.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Mathrilord

[RedPandaz]

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Now that is an instance of using tweakscale inappropriately  

haha. It's part of a cargo plane with 20m Mk3 cargo holds

[neistridlar]

 

2 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

Ok, I can work on a Delta Impulse B, should fix the problems. It was *incredibly* maneuverable before I took off the control surfaces off to reduce cost. Not sure about limiting control surfaces, I don't do that on any of my planes so far because I'm not quite sure how it would help and what would lack. Offering to subcontract the dev out with another manufacturer. Will also stretch the fuselage, might switch out the Panther for a rapier, will test

So I take it the Impulse S was a success? Still, might make an S-B model. Potenial Subcontractors wanted

Success might be a bit strong of a word I think. Not a failure  is more appropriate I think. Both of the Delta Impulse models need better roll authority to be good. In stead of limiting the control surfaces you can simply remove some, or even replace them with cheaper ones. Also, just try out a bunch of different options, and pick the best one. There is no shame in failing repeatedly, that is how you learn what not to do. Eventually you run out of ways to screw things up .

As for limiting the control surfaces to only one function at a time. Do try it! There is a reason most planes have only one function assigned to each control surface. When you have surfaces set to both pitch and roll for instance, that means that if you want to pitch and roll at the same time, you only get half as much pitch and half as much roll, because the deflection of the control surfaces is shared. This can be really annoying if you are bottomed out in pitch already just to keep the plane turning for instance. Also having traditionally placed rudders they cause adverse yaw when you roll if they are assigned to roll. Not a problem on your design, but it makes for very jerky flight when doing roll adjustments, because it also yaws the plane in the wrong direction at the same time. If you want an example of a very well behaved nice flying aircraft I would recommend you try out my Swirlygig planes, and also the BS-24 and BS-32 handle quite nicely, as well as pretty much all the Kerbus planes I have tried. Don't remember all of their names though.

As for the tweak scale debate, the rules does not specify a hard limit, but it says not to break the spirit of the challenge. Earlier in the thread we had a discussion, around page 8 IIRC, about this, and came to the conclusion that downscaling engine and landing gear parts is advantageous, and thus should not be done much. If there is an other option available in the right size that one should be used. Up scaling I don't think is that bad, but anything more than double size I think is breaking the limit, at least if it is to gain an advantage. And scaling crewed parts is a nogo. 

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

Not written in the OP

Okay, fair point. Went back to find the following discussion results from about a month and a half ago regarding TweakScale abuse:

On 4/11/2018 at 2:54 PM, Box of Stardust said:

So basically a good rule of thumb to stay within the spirit of the challenge is to not resize (downsize only?) parts if there is already an existing equivalent part of that size.

On 4/11/2018 at 3:23 PM, neistridlar said:

Something like that sounds good. As long as you stay within half or double size I would say you are good, just to give some numbers. Having played with it a little more, I must admit I am falling in love with ~1m Goliaths. They look so good, and work so well, but the price just seems wrong for the performance. I think a fair way of handling it would be to say that crafts that have lots of highly scaled parts would be hard to maintain because of all the custom parts being hard to get hold of, to offset any advantage it may have given.

It appears I remembered the upper limit wrong. My apologies.

And, per the OP:

TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it.

I agree with neistridlar in that pushing the engine that large is kinda OP and does break the spirit of the challenge.