Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[tonimark]

 

I PRESENT YOU THE NEXT GENERATION (or the previous) in the supersonic transport, the KERBCRAFT T400-1 ("T" means turbo variant) inspired by the Concorde design also sorry for the image to be a little bit dark its because of the high altitude 

link:https://www.dropbox.com/s/fvbich9cag7uf83/kerbcraft T400-1.craft?dl=0

specs: price:85,032,000

range:4000km

fuel capacity:980 kallons

fuel burn rate:0.12 kallons per second

cruising altitude:18000m 

cruising speed:500 m/s

passenger capacity:96 passengers

category: supersonic

note: autopilot not recommended due to brainless disability issue. Manual fly with sas  recommended 

the aircraft is unstable due to high speed and broken autopilot (a specific autopilot mod  is requested for supersonic flight) and due to this factors some calculations may not be so much accurate

extra notes: shortcut keys: 1 toggle afterburner for cruise (climb) 2 toggle all the engines on-off 3 togge droop nose

engines on dry mod in climb and approach (for fuel saving).reheat and wet mod on in cruise  

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by tonimark
adding link (sorry i forgot)

[blackheart612]

Hello, there seems to be no rule about 1.875m which are not Making History. Here's my chance  With that in mind here's my entry:

---

Moa Regional Jet Mk2 (MRJ-2)

Range · ~1100km
Fuel ·  1040 units
Cruise speed · ~130m/s
Cruise Altitude · 7000m~7400m 
Burn Rate · 0.12
Passenger Capacity · 40 Kerbals

---

If you click on the image, it will take you to the craft page on KerbalX. It should fill in the spot for a small regional jet. Carries actual 40 kerbals and has usable flaps and slats as well as reverse thrust capable. Also features an Air Ramp, deploying from the door to get up and down the craft (adjustable). Needs the latest version of Airplane Plus, though. No rules against making my own set of parts  

---

Edit: KVV Images

Edited July 20, 2018 by blackheart612

[Blasty McBlastblast]

48 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

No rules against making my own set of parts

^^ this is the best kind of cheating, and I heartily approve! 

[Box of Stardust]

56 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

Hello, there seems to be no rule about 1.875m which are not Making History. Here's my chance  With that in mind here's my entry:

---

Moa Regional Jet Mk2 (MRJ-2)

Range · ~1100km
Fuel ·  1040 units
Cruise speed · ~130m/s
Cruise Altitude · 7000m~7400m 
Burn Rate · 0.12
Passenger Capacity · 40 Kerbals

---

If you click on the image, it will take you to the craft page on KerbalX. It should fill in the spot for a small regional jet. Carries actual 40 kerbals and has usable flaps and slats as well as reverse thrust capable. Also features an Air Ramp, deploying from the door to get up and down the craft (adjustable). Needs the latest version of Airplane Plus, though. No rules against making my own set of parts  

---

Edit: KVV Images

NEW PARTS?!

oooooooooooooooooooh

[sturmhauke]

I'm working on a seaplane/medium regional entry. Do I calculate the cost with wet or dry mass?

[CrazyJebGuy]

4 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

-snip

---

If you click on the image, it will take you to the craft page on KerbalX. It should fill in the spot for a small regional jet. Carries actual 40 kerbals and has usable flaps and slats as well as reverse thrust capable. Also features an Air Ramp, deploying from the door to get up and down the craft (adjustable). Needs the latest version of Airplane Plus, though. No rules against making my own set of parts  

---

-snip-

Well I'd argue custom parts count as a mod, and it is not included on the list of acceptable mods. Air ramps are nice though.

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Well I'd argue custom parts count as a mod, and it is not included on the list of acceptable mods. Air ramps are nice though.

You do know that Blackheart is the maker of Airplane Plus, and that those are the new parts from today's release right?

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, neistridlar said:

You do know that Blackheart is the maker of Airplane Plus, and that those are the new parts from today's release right?

I do now, but didn't four minutes ago.

[Box of Stardust]

14 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

You do know that Blackheart is the maker of Airplane Plus, and that those are the new parts from today's release right?

There is the question, though, of how we count cabin capacity of these new parts. But I guess for this case, we don't have to flub numbers?

 

none of my planes have been reviewed yet and I might already start designing a new A-4xx and A-5xx lol

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Box of Stardust said:

There is the question, though, of how we count cabin capacity of these new parts. But I guess for this case, we don't have to flub numbers?

 

none of my planes have been reviewed yet and I might already start designing a new A-4xx and A-5xx lol

I took a look at them now. They cost 6k a pop, weight 1.5 tonnes and have a passenger capacity of 8. Considering the mk1 cabins cost 550, weigh 1 tonne and by the rules carry 8 passengers as well, these need to have boosted capacity as well. If they count as 16 seats, you get a seat price of 375, and with 12 seat you get a seat price of 500. I think one of those two would make sense.

For comparison sake, The size 2 cabin has a seat price of 416, the mk2 cabin: 525, the mk3 cabin: 1250, and the mk1 cabin: 68.75 (no that is not a typo, it is practically free).

[Box of Stardust]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

I took a look at them now. They cost 6k a pop, weight 1.5 tonnes and have a passenger capacity of 8. Considering the mk1 cabins cost 550, weigh 1 tonne and by the rules carry 8 passengers as well, these need to have boosted capacity as well. If they count as 16 seats, you get a seat price of 375, and with 12 seat you get a seat price of 500. I think one of those two would make sense.

For comparison sake, The size 2 cabin has a seat price of 416, the mk2 cabin: 525, the mk3 cabin: 1250, and the mk1 cabin: 68.75 (no that is not a typo, it is practically free).

Well, we already knew the Mk1 had a ludicrously cheap seat price; that's why you made the Slinkies. 

I personally always felt that the Mk2 should have had 12 seats, but since we've now also done 'cabin luxury level', it's kind of fine. 

... That Mk3 is a really heavy deal though.

Let's compromise and give the new cabins 14 seats. Though, I guess 16 seats wouldn't be bad either, since we're a bit low on 'economy' options with reasonable capacity and of reasonable size dimensions.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[Box of Stardust]

New projects because new parts!

AX-505, assuming we decide on 16 passenger capacity (which, after thinking some more about it, I think is a good number), is a 128 passenger medium regional jet. But really, that's getting within an unofficial 'large' range. (hmm... small is 40 - 71, medium is 72-151 right now... maybe there should be a new cutoff for large starting about 110-120?)

It's like a bigger A-401! Juuuust within 'normal' size dimensions, but not quite, since it's starting to get kinda passenger-noodle-like...

It's very much just a prototype right now because it uses a new STRIDE (Scaled Turbofan Radius with Improved Dimensions and Efficiency), but this time, far less cheaty, with no screwing with the thrust limiters. Still, values are something like 255m/s (0.13 burn) @ 7100m = 4,300km.

I looked into the Goliath scaling a little more to see how it would best compare with the Lotus, and I came up with these values:

1.80m: 300 cheaper, 21kN less nominal

1.90m: roughly same price, roughly same thrust

And values in the middle are somewhere between those two extremes.

But again, with the Goliath thrust curves allowing the engine to continue producing meaningful thrust above the Lotus's 220m/s limit at a higher altitude. Its only drawbacks against the Lotus is in its physical dimensions and slightly worse fuel efficiency. A Lotus would work on this plane, but it'd also be back to being stuck to the 220m/s speed limit.

 

Also, I toyed around with the new J-34 Chevron engine, but while it's cool, the thrust curves for that engine seem to be even worse than the Lotus's, lol. I couldn't get any faster than 215m/s at a reasonable cruise altitude for a small regional jet. But it sure does help this 64 passenger jet fit the airliner look with the new cabins!

The AX-404 also costs ~42,000,000, so not exactly breaking any of the price records, but, as was previously mentioned, that's mainly because the Mk1 cabins are so broken in terms of balance for values (even without fabricating the passenger numbers, they still come out the cheapest for cost-per-seat!). Oh, and this design as-is also only got about 2,500km range, which isn't really anything spectacular either (but that's probably because I always build for very long range). That is off of only 1200 fuel, though, which is good for efficiency I guess. But So might submit it just because it's a solid plane anyways.

 

And since this new cabin is going to generate a bit of talk, might as well refer back to the in-development scoring sheet. I'd put this cabin as comfort rating 2, and push everything above it up one score. Really, it feels like the 'true' economy cabin, that fits along the others price-wise, and isn't an awkward, diminuative size for jet liners. (Big for turboprops though.)

Edited July 21, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[CrazyJebGuy]

12 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

-snip-

What is the point of Lotuses then? If they are just slightly smaller but they restrict speed to 220m/s, I would argue that the new engine is a bit too good. It seems exactly like a Lotus, except almost plain better. The size difference can also hardly even be called a difference, the smaller one being 95% of the larger size.

Think this engine is a bit of 'power creep', since it's hard to think of a situation in which a lotus would be better. In my opinion, not fair to older entries which were made before it. Even if for some reason you wanted smallness, why wouldn't you just offset the larger engine inwards?

The Lotus itself seems to be in no need of an upgrade as well, I see it on well-thought out submissions reasonably often, probably due to high thrust per part-count and efficiency. Just be careful not to fall into this trap of making each new thing slightly better than the last, in the long run you will end up with about the same number of useful parts, and a large backlog of things you would never use because some other thing is just plain better.

Maybe if you hampered the new engine in some way compared to the Lotus, it provides power to 260m/s or something but lacks reverse thrust, costs more and is a bit less efficient, something like that. Doing it changes it from being better to different, so a plane designer has a decision, rather than a calculation, and could reasonably go for either option depending on what they were trying to do.

[neistridlar]

37 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

I'm working on a seaplane/medium regional entry. Do I calculate the cost with wet or dry mass?

I'm too lazy to drain the tanks for the reviews, so I always use the wet price for that. Besides the fuel is not a major cost usually.

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

What is the point of Lotuses then? If they are just slightly smaller but they restrict speed to 220m/s, I would argue that the new engine is a bit too good. It seems exactly like a Lotus, except almost plain better. The size difference can also hardly even be called a difference, the smaller one being 95% of the larger size.

It is somewhat unclear which engine you are referencing here. The j-34 "Chevorn" seems to have the same mach 0.7 speed limit at the j-56 "Lotus". The Chevron is ~1m instead of 1.25m, ~80% of the size of the Lotus. They are also ~80% of the mass and ~80% of the mass, but only 55% the thrust. So the only reason to go with the Chevron is if the Lotus is way more powerful than you need.

3 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

It's very much just a prototype right now because it uses a new STRIDE (Scaled Turbofan Radius with Improved Dimensions and Efficiency), but this time, far less cheaty, with no screwing with the thrust limiters

CrazyJebGuy, if you were referencing this one, that is not slightly bigger than the lotus, it is 45% bigger than the lotus, while offering mostly the same weight, performance and price, just without the speed limit. The bigger size means they have more drag though, about 50% more (not surprising), IIRC. Bigger size also means you need bigger gear, and you get a larger thrust offset if you put them under the wing, which is a downside, as your throttle now also acts as pitch-control. 

[CrazyJebGuy]

22 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

 -snip-

CrazyJebGuy, if you were referencing this one, that is not slightly bigger than the lotus, it is 45% bigger than the lotus, while offering mostly the same weight, performance and price, just without the speed limit. The bigger size means they have more drag though, about 50% more (not surprising), IIRC. Bigger size also means you need bigger gear, and you get a larger thrust offset if you put them under the wing, which is a downside, as your throttle now also acts as pitch-control. 

I was registering that one, although a physically bigger engine (even if 45% bigger, it seems I misread, I thought it was 1.8m vs 1.9m) is not such a bad deal for the much higher maximum speed. I would say it'd be more balanced with some sort of disadvantage other than that, it could be less efficient for example.

 

13 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

I'm working on a seaplane/medium regional entry. Do I calculate the cost with wet or dry mass?

I used to use dry costs, I've been using wet costs now, but I always mark it if it's in a review or matters much. Use either, just say which one you use.

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I was registering that one, although a physically bigger engine (even if 45% bigger, it seems I misread, I thought it was 1.8m vs 1.9m) is not such a bad deal for the much higher maximum speed. I would say it'd be more balanced with some sort of disadvantage other than that, it could be less efficient for example.

Well, tweak scale does not do that (we are simply talking about a scaled down j-90 Goliath). In a way it is slightly less efficient though, due to increased drag. Though I would agree, the speed limit of the lotus is the only thing that really holds it back from being way to powerful. 

[TheFlyingKerman]

By design smaller stock engines have lower ISP. People have got around it. In fact the Kull wing and Kerbus K-300 are both more efficient than that Twin Crown plane, and only use stock engines. The whole 'argument' about rescaling engines hold no water.

@blackheart612 the new APP cabin is really light. To compare the mk2 cabin is 2t. Suggest increasing the mass while reducing the price.

[kingstevenrules]

Thinking about taking my computer (which still refuses to run at 100% physics rate) and just doing some tests anyway. Should I? It runs.. reasonably. Just don't give me a big plane.

[kingstevenrules]

Also what's with the pause sign? Hold off on the new planes?

[neistridlar]

30 minutes ago, kingstevenrules said:

Thinking about taking my computer (which still refuses to run at 100% physics rate) and just doing some tests anyway. Should I? It runs.. reasonably. Just don't give me a big plane.

I've done a few on my laptop, which also refuses to do 100% physics rate, so I don't see a problem with that. Just pick something small. 

4 minutes ago, kingstevenrules said:

Also what's with the pause sign? Hold off on the new planes?

Which pause sign?

[kingstevenrules]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I've done a few on my laptop, which also refuses to do 100% physics rate, so I don't see a problem with that. Just pick something small. 

Which pause sign?

Ok. Thanks.

Also it's gone now. Never mind.

[Box of Stardust]

1 hour ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

By design smaller stock engines have lower ISP. People have got around it. In fact the Kull wing and Kerbus K-300 are both more efficient than that Twin Crown plane, and only use stock engines. The whole 'argument' about rescaling engines hold no water.

@blackheart612 the new APP cabin is really light. To compare the mk2 cabin is 2t. Suggest increasing the mass while reducing the price.

Well, the newer plane (AX-505) is lighter (37t) than the older ones the original STRIDEs were designed for (A-502, 44t), but that's still not very light, and it's also carrying 128 passengers. I guess this one can get away with Wheesleys, since I think a good rule for using those was 1 Wheesley per 15t. It'll feel really underpowered most of the time though. That's a test for later.

I'm just trying new engines since I feel satisfied with the efficiency of the aircraft I've put out, but lack in speed. Here's a size comparison with the Lotus in the middle, and 1.8m and 1.9m Goliaths:

So it's also a lot more reasonable in size for what would be the equivalent of the GE90 in real life, because stock Goliaths are maaaasssiiive. Stock Goliaths are like, real-GE90 size, but in KSP, everything else is scaled down.

 

As for the new cabin, it's scaled against the Mk1 and Size 2 cabins, which are 1t and 2t respectively, and for our challenge purposes, I agree with @neistridlar's 16 passenger capacity, which comes out to the cheapest- but within the range of the other cabins unlike the Mk1 cabin- cost per seat, making it a good choice for smaller-yet-still-reasonably-sized jet. To balance the far-heavier stock cabins, we just say those are luxury cabins.

[sturmhauke]

Presenting Sturmhauke Aerospace Industries' first civilian offering, the S/MR-1 Cormorant.

KerbalX listing

Sturmhauke Aerospace Industries began as a contractor for the KSP, but hopes to break into commercial airspace with the Cormorant. Borrowing some airframe elements from SAI's Pelican rescue/cargo seaplane, the  Seaplane/MediumRegional-1 Cormorant boasts excellent range, maneuverability, and comfort. This aircraft can land equally well at municipal airports, open fields, or even offshore - perfect for those remote seaside getaways. Each Goliath engine can be activated, deactivated, and reversed independently to help navigate narrow waters. Yes the pricetag is a bit high, but your customers will thank you. Get one today!

price $151,857,000 (fully fueled)
part count 71
crew 4
passengers 72
takeoff speed 45 m/s
water takeoff speed 70 m/s
cruising altitude 4000 m
cruising speed 275 m/s
max speed approx. 310 m/s (not recommended for extended periods)
range 3917 km

Edited July 25, 2018 by sturmhauke
updated description

[Box of Stardust]

Test Pilot Review: @Magzimum's MAD TART-1b Sparrow

A quirky one for sure...

Figures as Tested (TART-1b, 24 passengers max):

• Price: 15,512,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 760kallons
• Cruising speed: 129m/s
• Cruising altitude: 2000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05kal/s
• Range:  1900km

Review Notes:

We at Twin Crown Aerospace Industries has found an opening in our test airfield's busy schedule to fulfill another KEA outsourced aircraft inspection. But while it may be a test day for a civilian aircraft, apparently observers at the airfield will see similar acrobatics and crazy feats as during the recent fighter jet tests taking place prior to the date and will likely take place after...

Magzimum Aerospace Design has designed... an interesting biplane intended for the turboprop class- with inverse stagger, so that's pretty cool. Pre-rollout analysis of the Sparrow revealed a center of lift slightly behind the center of mass. We expected the plane to have a noticeable pitch-down tendency, but for an aircraft of its size and control surfaces, should be able to compensate for. Ground observation by engineers... made notes on its very tall landing gear, but these were required to give the pusher props ground clearance. Also we're not really quite sure where the entrance is other than through the cockpit, which is a bit inconvenient, especially since it's so high up. Lastly, concern was noted over the oversized engines for an aircraft of this size. TCA engineers have not really dealt with this particular turboprop much- once only, actually, on an internal project- so we weren't really sure as to its exact performance statistics either.

And with nothing else much to note down, our new test pilot, Shepry- who most call 'Shep', apparently- was given her first assignment as a civilian aircraft test pilot. We think she seemed quite excited, as the day prior, she was flying around the same airfield, but in a super-maneuverable fighter jet. No boring, large commercial liner to test yet! (Though if the Stouts were anything to go by...)

Pre-flight checks revealed... interesting behavior by the front control surfaces. While they rolled together, the bottom one didn't seem to actuate for pitch correctly. We probably should have turned these two sets of control surfaces off for flight, or at least the one that interferes, but... we didn't. Oh well.

Shep was cleared for takeoff, and the two large turboprops propelled the Sparrow down the runway with ease. In fact, it felt like it could pull up and take off fairly quickly- but its landing gear setup was hindering it from actually taking off until around 45m/s.

Cruising altitude was reached in no time, only 2000m. But on the way there, the turboprops made a surprising noise once the plane hit around 120-125m/s- they just kinda died. Not shut off, but just stopped producing thrust. This was a bit of a problem, since cruising speed was said to be 135m/s according to the briefing. But it was not to be so, with the Sparrow topping out at 129m/s. That actually misses the turboprop class minimum speed by 1m/s, but... well, if TCA's own jet airliner designs are anything to go by, speed is a guideline that can be circumvented by performing well in all other aspects. Also, it's just 1m/s...

With those cruise conditions, a maximum fuel load will actually fly 1900km, which is 300km more than the advertised range. So that's good. General maneuverability tests on the way up to cruise revealed no glaring issues; it's hard to get small craft wrong, really. During cruise, trimming the aircraft did not prove difficult, though the pitch-down tendency was felt in trimming the aircraft.

Engine failure testing was next. Port engine failure- because Shep is new to the test pilot program and shut off the wrong engine- did not cause any severe loss of control incidents. It also performs well under full power loss conditions.

Mid-speed and low-speed maneuverability tests were done. Control authority was found to be good in all axes, though the nature of the Sparrow does mean it's a bit squirrely. If anything of note, it's that pitch was found to be okay, but we kind of expected better. Especially since the front control surfaces actuate for pitch control also, but the incorrect actuation of one is a probable culprit. The Sparrow is stable enough, no complaints there. Critical speed was under 40m/s, though the engines aren't the fastest-responding to throttle input.

Lastly, we decided to see what all of this acrobatic stuff was all about. First we tried the thrust reversers mid-flight, which was... interesting. It was here that we discovered that the throttle doesn't really like to respond quickly if the throttle was zeroed out- but the thrust reversers themselves responded quickly when toggled. It was also discovered that it didn't output the same amount of thrust as it did flying forward, which meant in reverse, the Sparrow didn't have a 1:1 thrust ratio like it did in forward flight. Shep put it through some loops, which actually didn't seem to impress her that much; it actually felt hesitant a bit, apparently,  like it could have been smoother and looser. We don't know, we're just reporting what our test pilot said. She actually smacked the plane into the ground because of a combination of the strange throttle response and pitch characteristics... and with the landing gear deployed just before it hit the ground... it survived?

The Sparrow impacted the ground at 20m/s, but nothing was damaged. With a bit of righting, Shep taxied the plane onto one of the site complex's streets and took off again. This durability test was done... a few more times... inadvertently. Somehow that large glass cockpit was withstanding impacts, probably because the large main landing gear stuck out enough to absorb the initial shock of impact.

Speaking of surviving by landing nosed-over, it was discovered that, upon a normal landing, the Sparrow had a tendency to nose-over with the brakes applied to stop the plane. So... that's not too good.

Finally, MAD made such a huge deal about the acrobatic achievements of the plane, that Shep thought the plane could do better than a hangar roof if a veteran pilot was behind the controls. So why not a helipad?

Well, the first few times, it became clear the plane was a bit squirrely to control well to accurately place down, and the thrust reversers required precise timing even with the fairly fast thrust reversing response time, which she could not be bothered with anymore, so a new idea was devised based on the Sparrow's accidentally discovered quirks- its crash durability and thrust reverser flight performance.

So after lining up with the helipad, Shep put the plane into a dive with the thrust reversers on to slow the descent. Significantly.

And by toggling the thrust reversers, adjustments could be made to the longitudinal aiming position.

This aim point for the landing was important, since we needed a little bit of distance to get up to speed again for a takeoff, lest the plane not have enough forward velocity to pass the ledge of the building below the end of the helipad.

And finally, with a grand whack at a velocity between 20m/s and 25m/s, the Sparrow hit the pad at the intended spot and rebounded back onto its tailwheel, no worse for wear. Probably.

It was a finely aimed landing, proving great short-field potential. Though, we don't really recommend this method, lest passengers receive concussions upon landing. Plus, you know, using the cockpit as a lithobraking system.

Though Shep's hands were fast, the reverse thrust upon landing pulled the Sparrow back just a little bit more before the brakes could be locked down and the thrust reversers shut off and the throttle zeroed. But it turns out that this was actually a good thing, as it marginally increased the length of takeoff room for the Sparrow to pick up speed to dive past the edge of the building, and fly off to circle back onto the runway.

Where it promptly nosed-over upon stopping.

The Verdict:

A strangely engineered, somewhat over-engineered, biplane. For it to be a good transport turboprop, we recommend switching to the industry-standard Kitty turboprops, which will give it better performance across the board, especially top speed, while losing only a marginal amount of thrust. The smaller blades will also allow for shorter landing gear, as well as a better landing gear layout for less nose-overs and easier takeoff. They'll also be a little more bearable for passengers. And the pusher configuration might be unnecessary. Actually, the pusher configuration is already kind of unnecessary even here.

Also maybe a small adjustment to the aerodynamics. And the control surface actuations. And an easier entry point to the passenger cabins. Resolve these issues and it might make a good consideration for a turboprop aircraft in tight airspaces. It's a very compact plane that stores a respectable amount of fuel and gets good range, all for a really good price (er, what's the price between the Predator and Kitty turboprops?).

And we can say for sure, after a few more shenanigans and accidentally bouncing the plane around the top of a building between various structures, that durability is certainly one of its strong points.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[SLAMOVNIK989]

Announcement of Aerobus Industries regarding airplane production decisions

As we have been testing around Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 possibilities of airplanes, their cost and fuel efficiency and other assets it has come that Mk3 supersonic airplanes and Jumbos are the worst, regarding mentioned earlier.

We came to design and test some subsonic types of airplanes and we came to interesting conclusion: Mk2 Medium Regional Jet Airplane can fly twice as far as Mk2 supersonic airplane at same cost, while being 45 tonnes heavier and capable of cargo transport. That have surprised us the most, as the Mk2 MRJA we talk about has about 100K meters/s of DeltaV, approximate range of 7500 km, which is quite overpowered for such a category.

Let me ask you something: Have you ever heard about Medium Regional Jet Airplane with such a range and capability of both passenger and cargo transport? I guess you did not.

Regarding Multi-Purpose Jumbo, it would be overpriced and it would be better to build rocket to Eeloo for that amount of money than airplane that barely reaches 5000m (360 million to be exact).

As we have found those facts above, Aerobus Industries will concentrate on multi-purpose subsonic airplanes of Mk2 size and possible Mk3 regional planes. Aerobus A420 described as overpowered MRJA will be released in about 6 hours to market.

 

Sincerely, SLAMOVNIK989, CEO of Aerobus Industries.