Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @Overlonder's - LJ-40-100... or is the RA-30-200, We're not quite sure

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 14.015.000
• Fuel: 100 kallons
• Cruising speed: 235m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.09kal/s
• Range:  220km

Review Notes:

Honestly, we're not even sure if we tested the right plane. The brochure and planning said we were supposed to be testing the LJ-40-100 today, but when we checked the plane it said RA-30-200... After thoroughly comparing the provided pictures with the plane in front of us, we eventually came to the conclusion that it must be the same plane. Design is really not special, the only thing worth mentioning is the lack of any major fuel tank in the plane, but more on that later. Noteworthy is the placement of the engines all the way at the end of the wings, probably with comfort in mind.

Performance...This is where it already gets nasty. We were warned in advance that the pitch authority was "lacking" but actually nonexistent would be closer to reality. Bill and Jeb boarded this plane thinking it wouldn't be bad, but upon attempting to pull up, their thoughts quickly changed to "oh no, it's one of these again". It seemed as if their just wasn't enough speed yet to properly take off, so I let the nose back down and sped up a bit. Second attempt at taking off was equally disappointing. It was right about then that Jeb and Bill realized that that was really it. After they eventually did manage to get the plane airborne, they tried to pitch up a little bit more, this must've happened at a staggering 1 degree a second, if not less. Landing is equally hard, since this plane only gives you one chance to get everything right. Coming too low? well too bad for you cuz you can't pitch up, and you can't accelerate fast enough to avoid a crash either. All in all, pitch is a nightmare. Roll on the other hand... also a nightmare, but the opposite kind. This control is so ridiculously sensitive that even the slightest attempt at rolling usually ends 90° further than you actually wanted. Safe to say that the passengers on board got sick after a print short amount of time. Now on to the aforementioned lack of fuel tanks. The brochure described the range as a very impressive 4255km. Since we trusted the brochure, we set off over the ocean for a long test flight. To the surprise of everyone on board the engines suddenly went very quiet about 4000km before they were expected to run out of fuel. At first we thought that this was some kind of super advanced noise suppressing for a more comfortable flight...It wasn't. And since this plane glides as well as a block of lead, we decided that it was probably best for everyone to bail out. To this day we're still not quite sure how the range estimate managed to be more than 4000km off, but we sure are impressed with the size of that mistake.

Comfort actually is technically speaking pretty good though. the far out and small engines make for little noise and vibration in the cabins. This doesn't really matter though, as the sound of luggage being thrown from left to right while the pilots try to get the roll right is quite unavoidable. It's also very hard to expose the passengers to high G ratings, since the plane just can't turn fast enough to do so.

The price of 14.015.000 would be pretty alright if the plane wasn't as crappy as it is. Part count is pretty low at 25 though. Will still require a lot of maintenance since our engineers will have to scrape them from the ground and piece them back together after every flight. 

The Verdict:

This plane can best be described as a "Jack of no trades, master of...even less". We highly recommend significant alteration to this aircraft should you ever want to sell one. We'll be happy to take a look at improved versions, but for now we won't be ordering any.

Edited June 24, 2018 by panzerknoef

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Test Pilot Review: @Overlonder's - LJ-40-100

I just noticed you have not put a link to the submission post of the aircraft you have reviewed. Me and CrazyJeb started doing that when you were absent. It is just for the convenience of the reader, should they want to try the plane them selves.

The agreed upon standard for doing this is to make the name of the aircraft in the title a link to the original submission post.

[Eivuii]

I'm producing a small jetliner, since my Islander has been taken...

 

[Box of Stardust]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

I just noticed you have not put a link to the submission post of the aircraft you have reviewed. Me and CrazyJeb started doing that when you were absent. It is just for the convenience of the reader, should they want to try the plane them selves.

The agreed upon standard for doing this is to make the name of the aircraft in the title a link to the original submission post.

Just a suggestion, put '[link to submission]' as part of the template since I also keep forgetting. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[Joseph Kerman]

waiting...

[Agent Awesome]

Patience @Joseph Kerman

[hoioh]

I checked, only 22 more planes before we've handled the submissions in the OLD thread and then we can start on the this thread

[TheTripleAce3]

6 hours ago, hoioh said:

I checked, only 22 more planes before we've handled the submissions in the OLD thread and then we can start on the this thread

That's if we don't have someone go reverse order in this one for a few planes

[Klapaucius]

Announcing, the Groucho 32 passenger seaplane.

Proudly produced by Klapaucius Reliable Air, Space, Sea & Hardware (Krassh).

If you buy a Honda Civic, you get an incredibly reliable, efficient car for not too much outlay.  If you buy a Rolls Royce, you get a very expensive, inefficient car and to be honest, not particularly attractice automobile that will likely spend a fair amount of time in the shop.  But who needs practicality when you can have cache??

Well, we here at Klapaucius's Reliable Air Space Sea and Hardware (KRASSH) know a niche market when we see one.  The Groucho 32 passenger (and 2 crew) seaplane is very expensive, rather inefficient, and aesthetically probably an acquired taste. But like cavier and stinky cheese, these are the very traits that demonstrate exclusivity.  And 4 lucky passengers even get to ride upside down!

On the plus side, with SAS on, it will launch itself from the runway and it IS reliable.

This is a distinctive aircraft for a discerning carrier.

 

Cost: 84,622,000

Cruising speed: (2 engine efficiency) 90 or (4 engines flat out) 300 

Passengers: 32 plus 2 crew.

Range: just makes 600 with all 4 engines running. Range can be increased significantly by filling the floats with fuel, but you'll want to run through that before landing on the water or you will never get airborn again).  The fuel is ducted to run out of the floats first.

Fuel Capacity: I actually have no idea how to easily figure this out without taking the whole thing apart.  

(https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Groucho-32-passenger-seaplane)

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Klapaucius

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @SLAMOVNIK989's Aerobus Industries - Kerbus K200

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 91.940.000
• Fuel: 4780kallons
• Cruising speed: 1330m/s
• Cruising altitude: 18.000m
• Fuel burn rate: 1.9kal/s
• Range:  3200km

Review Notes:

The design of this aircraft somewhat reminded us of a certain military aircraft with the designation SR-71, only longer and with more engines. We recon that's a good thing though, since a lot of little Kerbals have got posters of that aircraft hanging on their bedroom walls. Having kids put up posters of our aircraft with it would be a considerable advertisement. 

The thing has 4 engines... As soon as that fact was known, we couldn't stop Jeb from running towards it as fast as he possibly could to take a closer look, and get in the cockpit. We decided to just let him have his ways since the plane wasn't actually fueled yet, and sure enough a few moments later a bamboozled Jeb exited the plane and asked if the plane was broken before we even tried it. Soon after we got it all fueled up and started the engines. The massive noise it produced instantly destroyed some glass and the ears of several bystanders. The plane quickly started picking up pace and took to the sky. In the manual it was mentioned we should fly it at 50% throttle but that was so dreadfully slow that we went with 3/4 instead. The plane makes altitude very easily and arrives at 18000m in less than 3 minutes. A very useful trait since you don't want this thing low over inhabited areas for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Flying at 400m/s up at 18000m did throw up a problem though, the AoA we had to maintain to keep our altitude was very steep, so steep in fact that we couldn't pick up more speed at all. Easily resolved though, as we just put it horizontal, made some speed in a very shallow descent and flew right back up again, this time at proper speed. The plane can stay at its cruising speed of 1330m/s with the throttle at 3/4, we can absolutely not call the plane fuel efficient though, since it used 1.9 units a second. We've tried turning off the engines in pairs but it definitely needs all 4 engines to be running if it wants to stay at speed. Maneuverability is quite average for a supersonic jet, it performs solidly at all altitudes, given that you are flying the speed you should be flying at said altitude. The brochure warned us of flying over 1000m/s under 6000m because the plane could disintegrate, curious as we are, we tried it. The plane doesn't disintegrate at all, in fact nothing happens. Nothing does really mean nothing though, you can't actually pull up or pitch down at all. You can just watch as the ground approaches you quickly while there's nothing you can do about it. We agree with the brochure, don't fly that fast under 6000m. 

The plane is an absolute joy to fly with though. Despite the ear shattering noise on the outside, the inside is fairly quiet thanks to the use of the more expensive mk2 cabins. Apart from superior noise suppression they're also more spacious than a mk1 cabin, making the entire flight a first class experience...more or less. The ramjets  mounted on the wings get all their vibrations filtered out by the distance and the sheer amount of surface to absorb the vibrations. However, the 2 centerline mounted rapiers do create a significant amount of vibrations, as a result we discourage serving drinks and meals on board, it could get a bit messy. We do think we can hide all this by saying the plane has special massage seats, extra luxurious, right?

All this luxury does come at a price. 91.940.000 to be exact. Whilst definitely not the most expensive supersonic jet we've ever seen, it is on the higher side of the spectrum. 64 parts is surprisingly low for a plane of its size and capabilities, we expected way worse of that to be honest. That doesn't mean the maintenance won't be high though, there's still 4 engines of 2 different types, meaning that we don't only need a lot of maintenance on the engines, we also need a wider expertise to maintain it. Finally there's the cost of fuel... This plane literally erases fuel faster than Jeb can eat sandwiches, and that's not a good thing.

The Verdict:

The K-200 is a boys dream. It's big, extremely loud and very fast. Though admittedly the boy would probably cry if he heard the plane in the flesh since it's just so loud. However, you do get a plane with an exceptionally luxurious flight (though I better hope you like massages) for 72 people, and you will get those people to where they want to be in no time at all. We'd like to order a set of 5 for first class supersonic routes. 

[neistridlar]

32 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Passengers: 32 plus 2 crew.

From kerbalX:

Both the Mk1 and Mk2 cabins count as 8 passengers each, so your passenger capacity is 80. And to determine the fuel capacity easily, just launch the craft, and check the resource panel (in the top right corner). Also you need to specify a cruising altitude! Also the cruising speed of 90m/s is too slow for any of our categories.

[Andetch]

1 hour ago, panzerknoef said:

the boy would probably cry if he heard the plane in the flesh since it's just so loud. 

Sort of like the first time I saw a Vulcan Bomber in flight.... (I didn't cry, I was 20 - I did jump though. I think everyone around aged 10 or below literally went do do in their panties through)..

It hung in the air exactly the same way a brick doesn't, completing it's turn and lining up for the low pass - and then the pilot open the throttle, and that has got to be the loudest noise I ever heard!

Nice review, I enjoyed the read

[Box of Stardust]

41 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Sort of like the first time I saw a Vulcan Bomber in flight.... (I didn't cry, I was 20 - I did jump though. I think everyone around aged 10 or below literally went do do in their panties through)..

It hung in the air exactly the same way a brick doesn't, completing it's turn and lining up for the low pass - and then the pilot open the throttle, and that has got to be the loudest noise I ever heard!

Nice review, I enjoyed the read

Well, that's why the Vulcan Howl is a thing. 

 

[TheTripleAce3]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

Well, that's why the Vulcan Howl is a thing. 

 

F-4s are pretty loud too. Found that out the hard way at EAA Airventure.

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, Andetch said:

Sort of like the first time I saw a Vulcan Bomber in flight.... (I didn't cry, I was 20 - I did jump though. I think everyone around aged 10 or below literally went do do in their panties through)..

It hung in the air exactly the same way a brick doesn't, completing it's turn and lining up for the low pass - and then the pilot open the throttle, and that has got to be the loudest noise I ever heard!

Nice review, I enjoyed the read

Sounds like something absolutely unforgettable! I'd love to hear something like that once... Glad you liked the review though! 

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Both the Mk1 and Mk2 cabins count as 8 passengers each, so your passenger capacity is 80. And to determine the fuel capacity easily, just launch the craft, and check the resource panel (in the top right corner). Also you need to specify a cruising altitude! Also the cruising speed of 90m/s is too slow for any of our categories.

Wow, I did not read the fine print.

 

Anyway, fuel is 3480 Kallons in seaplane mode, though it will hold 6160.  It will not take orr from water with full tanks, but fuel priority is set to drain those first, if you want to take off from land and make use of the extra capacity.

The 90m/s is just a bonus option. Cruise speed is 300 around 6500 meters.  Takeoff speed is around 62 on both land and water, but recommended takeoff on land is 82. At this speed with SAS engaged, the craft will get into the air without any input from the pilot.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Klapaucius

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @DunnoAnyThing's Simpjet-O Manta 1-1

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 43,548,000
• Fuel: 1400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 220 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.175 kal/s
• Range:  1600 km

Review Notes:

When we took our first look at this plane, we knew things were going to get interesting. The Manta 1-1 was originally assumed to be a VIP transport of some sort when we first saw pictures, but when it arrived, nobody at Habu Industries expected a compact Medium Haul Airliner. Despite being marketed as a small regional jet, the Manta achieved all of the prerequisites of a medium regional aircraft. Of course, squeezing 72 kerbals into a 13m by 13m box came with its own set of ups and downs.

There were a couple of things we noticed immediately. The lack of a smooth tail was a slap to the face to all of our designers, and nearly brought anarchy to all of our engineers. In the walk-around, many of our pilots also questioned the reason behind putting 4 Wheesleys onto this airframe. Rolling the plane onto the taxiway, the pilots complained about the natural nose-up position the plane takes on the ground, severely limiting visibility and increasing the likelihood of sucking debris into the engine nacelles thanks to the low gear placement. 

In flight, the problems kept coming up. We had sourced 25 volunteers and placed them into the various cabins. The Mk2 cabins, as usual, were roomy and delightful to fly in, but all the Mk1 cabins suffered from noisiness and vibrations due to having engines bolted on the the rear, and an intake at the front. At cruise, we figured the most efficient flight was achieved at 220m/s, but even then the engines were running at a sustained 40-45% for the entire flight, to the distress of the crew and the passengers.

There are many benefits to this design, however. Due to how close together the engines are placed, failures won't affect stability all that much, at the risk of an engine exploding and damaging the one next to it. We were able to keep level flight at reduced speed with just one working engine, and initial ditching simulations gave very pleasing results. If anything, landing is more dangerous, since the plane has a tendency to lose two (or more) engines on rougher landings. Since we don't expect it to be sunny everywhere all the time, we suspect maintenance costs will take over the majority of this aircraft's running budget. Despite that, it will be able to replace many larger aircraft that have similar capacities, reducing hangar costs overall.

At 34 parts and 43.5 million funds, the Manta represents something of a middle ground. It's not the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most efficient, but it seems to be part of a new generation of medium haul liners, which can cater to the needs of both cheap tickets and relaxing flights, just in a different form factor. It does have issues though, the gear placement can lead to a lot of error, increased pilot awareness and training costs, and the unprotected nacelles might be prone to sucking in debris from the field. If only maintenance wasn't such a big issue, this would be an excellent contender to take over "typical" medium airliners.

The Verdict:

It's not the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most efficient, but it seems to be part of a new generation of medium haul liners, which can cater to the needs of both cheap tickets and relaxing flights, just in a different form factor. The Manta could've been the next big thing, but with so many issues regarding training and comfort, we don't think this plane will be viable in the long run. If Simpjet-O ever releases a next generation Manta, as the name implies, we will be all over it!

[DunnoAnyThing]

Thanks for the review! By the way, I'd like to ask for (a little bit more)specific ways this Manta could be improved.

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

There were a couple of things we noticed immediately. The lack of a smooth tail was a slap to the face to all of our designers, and nearly brought anarchy to all of our engineers.

Yep, I expected that *Slap*. Though the tailless design was 'intended', it turned out that I couldn't make it more aesthetically appealing, so just snapped off the tail(sigh). That will be rounded in some way in the next version, but still without a long tail.

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

In the walk-around, many of our pilots also questioned the reason behind putting 4 Wheesleys onto this airframe.

Also, I'm not sure if this means that 4 Wheesleys are way too much, or instead a different engine should be used?

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Rolling the plane onto the taxiway, the pilots complained about the natural nose-up position the plane takes on the ground, severely limiting visibility and increasing the likelihood of sucking debris into the engine nacelles thanks to the low gear placement. 

This should be easy to fix since just moving the landing gear a little bit would be enough.(Did I get it right?)

2 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

but all the Mk1 cabins suffered from noisiness and vibrations due to having engines bolted on the the rear, and an intake at the front. At cruise, we figured the most efficient flight was achieved at 220m/s, but even then the engines were running at a sustained 40-45% for the entire flight, to the distress of the crew and the passengers.

Yes, that was the point that I myself was worried the most.(Seriously, who would like to sit not just near the engine or the intake, but in between?)
This should be handled in some way, but probably would require quite a lot of redesigning.
Also, is the throttle 40-45% too high? If this is the case, I'll have to handle two seemingly contradictory problems. Too much engines but too high required thrust. So, what could be the solution...

Anyways, thanks for the review again!(gotta re-educate my engineers...hmm.)

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 minutes ago, DunnoAnyThing said:

Thanks for the review! By the way, I'd like to ask for (a little bit more)specific ways this Manta could be improved.

Yep, I expected that *Slap*. Though the tailless design was 'intended', it turned out that I couldn't make it more aesthetically appealing, so just snapped off the tail(sigh). That will be rounded in some way in the next version, but still without a long tail.

Also, I'm not sure if this means that 4 Wheesleys are way too much, or instead a different engine should be used?

This should be easy to fix since just moving the landing gear a little bit would be enough.(Did I get it right?)

Yes, that was the point that I myself was worried the most.(Seriously, who would like to sit not just near the engine or the intake, but in between?)
This should be handled in some way, but probably would require quite a lot of redesigning.
Also, is the throttle 40-45% too high? If this is the case, I'll have to handle two seemingly contradictory problems. Too much engines but too high required thrust. So, what could be the solution...

Anyways, thanks for the review again!(gotta re-educate my engineers...hmm.)

I personally wouldn't have expected 4 engines, and yes, moving the gear should fix most issues

40-45% isn't bad in a cabin unless you're sitting right next to...oh.

:P 

[DunnoAnyThing]

1 minute ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

I personally wouldn't have expected 4 engines, and yes, moving the gear should fix most issues

40-45% isn't bad in a cabin unless you're sitting right next to...oh.

To sum up, fix gear, lower engine number(if possible), and handle the noise!
Thanks!

[MaverickSawyer]

4 hours ago, DunnoAnyThing said:

To sum up, fix gear, lower engine number(if possible), and handle the noise!
Thanks!

Suggestion, if weight and balance allows for it... use the DSI intakes aft of the Mk I crew cabins, with the intakes clipped through the top surface of the wing to cut down on FOD issues, instead of the intake parts ahead of the crew cabins. Win-win-win, right?

[Box of Stardust]

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE

WAVE 2

 

Twin Crown Aerospace Industries presents new contract bids for Kerbal Express Airlines, now finalized and polished after finding the time to so so, once those outsourced aircraft tests were finished. As with all TCA aircraft, they feature excellent ground performance, with all aircraft able to get wheels up by around 60m/s (generally lower) and fairly short takeoff and landing distances. They're also still unassuming in appearance (most of them, at least).

Wave 2 features the 'Econo-Liner Series', a roster of aircraft with an extreme focus on economic operations and transport, but compromising minimally in all critical aspects. The only compromise made on Econo-Liner aircraft is the comfort, which can be deemed 'average at best'. You may be able to fit in-flight entertainment systems, but those seat sizes aren't getting any bigger in the most economic of configurations. They also declined to chase down the title of 'lowest buy-in cost', due to the pursuit of the ideal combination between efficient operations and being a functional aircraft.

There's also a few specialized aircraft featured in Wave 2 not part of the Econo-Liner series, focusing on the complete opposite: passenger experience. Styles featured are: executive, luxury+business, and... well, whatever the wacky one is, it's somewhere between relaxing and thrilling. (Meta note: these were created with the intention of being graded on the upgraded judging sheet with proposed 'passenger experience' modifier rating; we should get back to discussing this.)

As always, price displayed is empty of fuel.

AG 1 will always toggle engines.

AG 4 will toggle alternate engine modes on most aircraft, though some thrust reversers are linked to AG 2.

AG 2 will toggle flaps if applicable.

 

A-104-4B Aspen Empress: The Executive Aspen

23,036,000 ; 24 passengers max (executive layout) ; 167m/s (0.07 burn) @ 1600m = 2800km

An executive version of the Aspen airplane, with upgraded airframe features. Features a sectioned off rear cabin. Seats up to 24, due to cabin reconfiguration. Those Military Application Division guys really like this plane. Contract bids to everyone!

 

A-203-2A Flying Trimaran: The Vacation Starts Here

61,816,000 ; 40 passengers (?) ; 200m/s @ 1500m = 1300km (as fueled)

When asked how this aircraft fit into ‘military application’, the Twin Crown Aerospace Military Applications Division spokeskerbal said ‘Profits are military-applicable!’ and refused to give further comment on the matter.

On the A-203 Flying Trimaran, your vacation getaway starts as soon as you make it out to be! Enjoy the spectacular views from the open deck, or have a drink at the Lift Bar at the back!

(TCA recommends use of tethers if mid-flight.)

I figured if the Ikaros worked as a weird, unique, fascinating party plane for the rich and to impress investors, there was a place for a luxo-barge with great accomodations for enjoying the tropical regions.

Okay, I know the rule was ‘make a cabin around command seats’, but rules are meant to be broken, as long as they’re broken creatively, and that was the motivator behind this design. A ‘how can I use command seats in an actually reasonable manner on a plane’ kind of thought. Didn’t really have a plan for the deck plan except place a bar ‘somewhere’, so I went with what seemed right.

Passenger capacity is however you want to count it. 40 according to cabins, but unfortunately the amount of drag on the plane means it can’t hit that 220m/s speed for a small regional airliner. But it was intended for the seaplane class anyways  

 

A-402: The Flagship Econo-Liner, a Small Economy Jet for the Masses

1A: 15,620,000 ; 40 passengers ; 220m/s @ 5600m = 4700km

1C: 16,720,000 ; 56 passengers ; 222m/s (0.05 - 0.06 burn) @ 5500m = 5100km - 6000km

Executives at TCA realized that buy-in cost might be a small expense in the life of an aircraft, so unlike our competitors, TCA didn't try to design this aircraft to be the ultimate cheaply buyable aircraft. Instead it was designed with industry-leading operating efficiency.

The A-402s do not have an ultimately cheap unit price as other competitors, but for a very slightly higher price, TCA has produced an aircraft that does not compromise in any critical performance category to achieve unequaled, industry-leading, maybe even industry-breaking, operating efficiency.

The -C variant has an even lower entry cost than the A-401-1A with equal passenger seating, at the compromise of not meeting ETOPS standards. Engine failure and it’s going down!

 

A-403: Class-Straddling Luxo-Liner

1A:58,192,000 ; 64 passengers ; 220m/s (0.12 burn) @ 5600m = 4100km

It's not an economy liner in cost, but it's just as long-legged. Just 8 seats short of medium regional jet standards, A-403 was developed from the same prototype that led to the A-501. After much consideration and design tweaking, as well as the release of the 401 and 402 economy jets, TCA felt that the release of a relatively expensive small luxury airliner was finally reasonable, as opposed to when it was originally designed before becoming the A-501 airliner. It strategically sits at 64 maximum seats as to not be hampered by the 220m/s limit of the Lotus engines and the minimum 240m/s cruise speed of medium regional jets...

 

A-301: From Luxo-Liner to Utilitarian Hauler

1A:27,174,000 ; 15t maximum recommended payload / 20t do not exceed payload ; 200 - 220m/s @ 5600m = ???

Fleet sales is the goal! To help promote fleet sales of the expensive A-403 luxury liner, TCA is offering a stripped-out version suitable for light freight duties, designated the A-301. It has downwards opening cargo bay doors at the rear to assist pallet loading from the ground. For heavier-equipped airports, top-opening cargo bay doors line the length of the aircraft for any long cargo that may be transported (such as rockets for a space program…).

The A-301 is intended for light freight duties, primarily filling roles of mail carriers and such, with an average payload weight of 10-15 tons with fully loaded fuel tanks.

 

A-503: Medium Economy Airliner

1A:76,712,000 ; 120 passengers ; 260m/s (0.18 burn) @ 7100m = 4100km / 270m/s (0.20 burn) @ 6600m = 3900km

Medium regional jet liner of TCA’s new ‘Econo-Liner’ series of aircraft. An aircraft so good, we even impressed ourselves. Especially since the development process for this aircraft's peculiar propulsion arrangement caused some difficulties.

Not bad for the design that originally caused TCA’s multi-prototype-destroying hangar fire.

 

A-502: True Economy Wide Body

1A:36,285,000 ; 112 passengers ; 220m/s (0.13 burn) @ 5500m = 4000km

1B: 48,415,000 ; 96 passengers ; 220m/s (0.13 burn) @ 5600m = 4000km

Determined to make the most out of the Mk2 commercial aircraft platform TCA has developed, TCA engineers had an epiphany after finishing the design of the A-403 Cargo/A-301: why not use the space for economy seating and create an economy wide body airliner? This decision has been regarded as ‘promotion-worthy’, as soon as TCA executives can figure out whose idea it was. But regardless of who the pay raise goes to, everyone at TCA agrees that this is one good-looking economy liner, carrying 112 passengers, slotting it between the 104-passenger mixed-class A-501 and the 120-passenger A-503 ‘econo-liner’. The A-502’s major selling point is that it costs just half of either of TCA’s other two current offerings, made possible by using economy cabin hardware, mated to the Mk2 platform through... ingenious methods. Which also help improve passenger luggage space!

To keep the production line as streamlined as possible, as well as maintain commonality between all aircraft built on the TCAI Mk2 commercial platform, TCA executives have decided to keep the Lotus engines with known operation parameters, despite being unable to meet the 240m/s cruising speed requirement for medium regional jets. Apparently their belief in the rest of the A-502’s merits are enough for KEA to disregard the lower cruise speed. Retaining the Lotus engines also mean that the flight characteristics of the A-502 are extremely similar to the A-403, allowing easy transfer of pilots.

The -A variant is a full economy coach layout, while the -B variant has 32 first/luxury/business-class seats in the forward cabins, separated from the 64 economy seats in the rear by a bulkhead (presumably where a flight attendant station and washrooms can be placed).

In the case of wanting higher speed, however, the Block 2 A-502 has been prepared to receive Wheesley engines for propulsion in a tri-jet configuration as on the A-501 or a quad-jet configuration (to be determined if such a need arises).

 

A-609: Twin-Powered Jumbo

1A:166,377,000 ; 288 passengers ; 264m/s (0.44 burn) @ 6000m = 4000km

While not as much as an overachiever for long range as the rest of TCA's aircraft, the A-609 does meet the minimum range requirement flying at a decent speed of 264m/s, as opposed to the A-606's 220m/s cruise speed. It's also very economic overall, flying on only two Goliath engines for less individual engine unit maintenance, while hauling 288 passengers.

 

A-703 CREST (Commercial Rate Economic Supersonic Transport): Exactly What It Says It Is

1A:29,439,000 ; 40 passengers ; 800m/s (0.37 burn) @ 13500m = 3500km

1B:29,989,000 ; 48 passengers ; 800m/s (0.39 burn) @ 13000m = 3300km

Designed by the acronym/backronym-loving Twin Crown Aerospace Military Applications Division, the CREST is exactly what it says it is. It’s not too expensive, not flashy or fancy, goes far, goes fast, and generally does its job well.

A -B variant with 48 seats is in consideration.

The -B variant of the A-703 CREST with an additional cabin segment has been confirmed for production. Most clients are encouraged to buy the -B variant, but the 40-passenger -A variant remains available, should they choose to cheap out by 550,000, or feel that the slightly higher range and various other qualities due to slightly smaller size are more beneficial.

 

Hey, I paid my dues. Also, again, the quirkier ones pertaining to special passenger accommodations are ideal tests for a 'special factor' on the upgraded judging sheet. We should get back to discussing that specific point, I think.

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[TheFlyingKerman]

Seaplanes don't need to be expensive, as the Kerbus-K240 shows.

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-240

For 13 995 000 Kerbucks and 38 parts the plane is capable of carrying 32 passengers, and gives up nothing -- not even looks. Cruising at 200m/s at 5500m, the plane has 1200 km range, and very good fuel economy of 0.013 KPPM. If you are in a hurry, the plane's top speed is 260m/s at 6100m.

Notes:

Taking off from runway:
Deploy flaps (AG2) and tail fin (AG3). Start the engines. The plane automatically pulls up at 43m/s. Retract the landing gear, tail fin and flap. We recommend climbing at 130m/s.

Landing in water:
Descend to about 100m, deploy flaps (AG2) to reduce speed to 50m/s, then deploy tail-fins (AG3). Maintain 7-10 degrees nose up. 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 touches the water surface.

Taking off from water:
Deploy flaps and retract tail-fins. Accelerate with full power. When the plane is going at 25m/s, lightly tap W to gently lift the tail out of water until the plane steadily goes at 32m/s. The speed would increase to 38m/s. Then pullup. 

[NightshineRecorralis]

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

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 480,853,000
• Fuel: 19,375 kallons
• Cruising speed: 220m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.83 kal/s
• Range:  5000 km

Review Notes:

Well, it looks like a Kraken alright.

We had trouble getting pilots to volunteer to fly this thing, as it simply looked so unnatural. The curved tail surfaces seemed out of place compared to the straight angular construction of the rest of the plane, as if the they had been re-purposed from a different design. Why the AKP-10 needs two large ventral fins is unknown, but we do like how it was incorporated into the body. The spacious MK3 cabins were also a welcome feature. Overall, this plane was a curious conundrum for our pilots and our volunteer flyers.

First off, our initial impressions weren't all that great. The fact that the wings were held together by struts and trusses didn't instill much confidence, and the unsteerable landing gear deterred even more pilots. Still, we eked out a handful of brave souls who were willing to fly. Things promptly took a turn for the worse in our minds, as the AKP-10 has an unavoidable tendency to nose up on the ground at full throttle, and the tail does not unstick until 25m/s. Granted, the plane does lift off at 35m/s, and does so in a relatively fast fashion, significantly lower than advertised. In flight, however, the beast seemed to be tamed as our pilots settled the plane into level flight. We were forced to fly without stability assist due to the wobbly nature of the jet, despite the liberal use of struts. If our pilots were nervous before, they were certainly having a breakdown now. They demanded to get landing clearance immediately, though the lack of thrust reversers and airbrakes certainly didn't help matters. To absolutely no one's surprise though, the plane didn't make it. Not the landing, but the turn. With a roll deflection of over 120 degrees per second, the AKP-10 does not maneuver like a jumbo jet at all, and the pitch authority is simply so overpowered that anything longer than a tap at high speeds leads to Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.

The AKP-10 loses its horizontal stabilizer not long after takeoff, resulting in a flat spin and corkscrew soon after.

To be fair, many problems could potentially be solved with intense pilot training courses and structural reinforcement, perhaps coming in the form of a MK2? Either way, while the passengers will enjoy the roomy cabin and relatively quiet flight, they won't like the numbers behind each flight. Neither will our wallets, as this plane guzzles fuel and is quite inefficient for its class. Strict maintenance will have to be performed to ensure the rear bulkhead is not compromised after each takeoff, and the likelihood of a runway excursion is simply inescapable if the landing is anything short of perfect. At 178 parts and 480 million funds, this plane will be nothing but a drain of resources and bad PR if we ever fly it.

The Verdict:

 In theory a great performing plane, but in reality plagued with many life-threatening issues and economic inefficiencies, the Krakentech AKP-10 is not worthy of airline service in its current state. Changes can be made to make it a lot better, to exploit its full potential, and we look forward to flying it in the future.

[Kernel Kraken]

31 minutes ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

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

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 480,853,000
• Fuel: 19,375 kallons
• Cruising speed: 220m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.83 kal/s
• Range:  5000 km

Review Notes:

Well, it looks like a Kraken alright.

We had trouble getting pilots to volunteer to fly this thing, as it simply looked so unnatural. The curved tail surfaces seemed out of place compared to the straight angular construction of the rest of the plane, as if the they had been re-purposed from a different design. Why the AKP-10 needs two large ventral fins is unknown, but we do like how it was incorporated into the body. The spacious MK3 cabins were also a welcome feature. Overall, this plane was a curious conundrum for our pilots and our volunteer flyers.

First off, our initial impressions weren't all that great. The fact that the wings were held together by struts and trusses didn't instill much confidence, and the unsteerable landing gear deterred even more pilots. Still, we eked out a handful of brave souls who were willing to fly. Things promptly took a turn for the worse in our minds, as the AKP-10 has an unavoidable tendency to nose up on the ground at full throttle, and the tail does not unstick until 25m/s. Granted, the plane does lift off at 35m/s, and does so in a relatively fast fashion, significantly lower than advertised. In flight, however, the beast seemed to be tamed as our pilots settled the plane into level flight. We were forced to fly without stability assist due to the wobbly nature of the jet, despite the liberal use of struts. If our pilots were nervous before, they were certainly having a breakdown now. They demanded to get landing clearance immediately, though the lack of thrust reversers and airbrakes certainly didn't help matters. To absolutely no one's surprise though, the plane didn't make it. Not the landing, but the turn. With a roll deflection of over 120 degrees per second, the AKP-10 does not maneuver like a jumbo jet at all, and the pitch authority is simply so overpowered that anything longer than a tap at high speeds leads to Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.

The AKP-10 loses its horizontal stabilizer not long after takeoff, resulting in a flat spin and corkscrew soon after.

To be fair, many problems could potentially be solved with intense pilot training courses and structural reinforcement, perhaps coming in the form of a MK2? Either way, while the passengers will enjoy the roomy cabin and relatively quiet flight, they won't like the numbers behind each flight. Neither will our wallets, as this plane guzzles fuel and is quite inefficient for its class. Strict maintenance will have to be performed to ensure the rear bulkhead is not compromised after each takeoff, and the likelihood of a runway excursion is simply inescapable if the landing is anything short of perfect. At 178 parts and 480 million funds, this plane will be nothing but a drain of resources and bad PR if we ever fly it.

The Verdict:

 In theory a great performing plane, but in reality plagued with many life-threatening issues and economic inefficiencies, the Krakentech AKP-10 is not worthy of airline service in its current state. Changes can be made to make it a lot better, to exploit its full potential, and we look forward to flying it in the future.

Ok then... 

I have an idea.

I'll do a live stream or a video or something later of me making a better one, lol.