Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Shaun]

43 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

As for completely clipping wings inside the fuselage, I would say no to that. You could possibly use some small canards, or wing streaks to help out. Also play a little with the angle on the tail-plane to compensate. I'm sure you can figure something out that works.

Bugger.

[Lapis]

when I need to do that I just out 6 or so canards on it to balance it out as a prototype, then I take them off and tweak the wing design, fuel priorities, and fuel capacity.

Edited January 28, 2019 by lapis

[panzerknack]

You mind if I show lapis my post with the disclaimer that it's 100% NON OFFICIAL and in no way represents the interests or decisions of competition? Surprised to see the name come up again.

[Mathrilord]

I was hoping for more talk about my comparative sheet as it definitely show an unfair advantage for mk1. For now you can't really make a competitive aircraft design with mk2 and mk3. Also it's not written in the OP the amount of kerbals for mk3s1 and S1.5

 

[Lapis]

6 hours ago, panzerknack said:

You mind if I show lapis my post with the disclaimer that it's 100% NON OFFICIAL and in no way represents the interests or decisions of competition? Surprised to see the name come up again.

what do you mean?

[neistridlar]

5 hours ago, panzerknack said:

You mind if I show lapis my post with the disclaimer that it's 100% NON OFFICIAL and in no way represents the interests or decisions of competition? Surprised to see the name come up again.

Not entirely sure exactly what you are asking, or who you are asking, but I think the answer is: sure, go ahead!

10 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

I was hoping for more talk about my comparative sheet as it definitely show an unfair advantage for mk1. For now you can't really make a competitive aircraft design with mk2 and mk3. Also it's not written in the OP the amount of kerbals for mk3s1 and S1.5

 

On 1/27/2019 at 1:07 AM, panzerknack said:

Ok sounds reasonable.  Also I read earlier in the thread (or perhaps prior thread) there was discussion of revision to passenger compartments - has any more been discussed on this?  It seems to my unqualified opinion this is the biggest "Waffle-factor" as the mk1 is so disproportionately priced and sized- so we end up seeing loads of MK1 cabins in a tile-configuration.  I'd think it'd benefit competitiveness to have different cabins offering different advantages - i.e. mk3 is most expensive but maybe densest, mk2 is considered the most comfortable inside, etc etc.  As it is right now, mk1 is superior in the two things that matter most - cost/passenger# and volumetric density/passenger#.

This also seems to go against conventional realism, since for a given fuselage diameter, increasing it scales the circumference and thus materials by the same diameter factor, while the walls can remain more or less the same thickness-however you get much more interior room from the squared area function.

The main reason I'd suggest this is it'd change the core design constraint from cabins to engines.  As I look at more craft to be reviewed, cabin config is the biggest difference.  As I understand in the real world, the engines are most of the cost, both upfront and recurring - how do we accomplish our design with the fewest and most efficient engines?  Also with Airplane plus/KAX there's so many engines with price points and performance envelopes this could make things much more diverse and interesting- right now engines are an afterthought to cabin design - its mostly "how can I best tile mk1s or Size2s in a way that won't get kraken'd?"

Just my 24 cents.

Yeah, the competitiveness of the different cabins has been discussed before. At over a year into the challenge making substantial changes to the rules does not seem like a good Idea. The consensus seems to be that the bigger and more expensive cabins should be considered more comfortable and luxurious, and thus caters to a different market, making them still a valid option. Though It better be comfortable and reliable, because the customers are going to have to pay big bucks for those tickets.

On 1/27/2019 at 1:07 AM, panzerknack said:

its mostly "how can I best tile mk1s or Size2s in a way that won't get kraken'd?"

For the super jumbos, this is true to some extent. For the more modest sized aircraft I don't think this holds water though. It is a lot about getting the right engine configuration for the best balance of price/performance and a lot of fine-tuning the aerodynamics and handling characteristics. 

[Kerbinchaser]

@NightshineRecorralis @neistridlar

Is there any way you can remove the "clipped parts" on my Lark so that it can be entered? I would do it, but I have been very busy recently and I just can't open KSP right now. 

[Shaun]

18 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Not entirely sure exactly what you are asking, or who you are asking, but I think the answer is: sure, go ahead!

Yeah, the competitiveness of the different cabins has been discussed before. At over a year into the challenge making substantial changes to the rules does not seem like a good Idea. The consensus seems to be that the bigger and more expensive cabins should be considered more comfortable and luxurious, and thus caters to a different market, making them still a valid option. Though It better be comfortable and reliable, because the customers are going to have to pay big bucks for those tickets.

For the super jumbos, this is true to some extent. For the more modest sized aircraft I don't think this holds water though. It is a lot about getting the right engine configuration for the best balance of price/performance and a lot of fine-tuning the aerodynamics and handling characteristics. 

Perhaps a new thread is needed for a more ‘hardcore’ type competition that’s is more balanced, calculated maintenance costs dependant on engine costs and number of parts, and more emphasis on speed, access and cost per 100km as well as KPPM, more accurate range calculations, takeoff and landing distance as well as speed, and so on.

[panzerknack]

I had submitted a sample review to neistridlar earlier - I thought since it happened to be of someone who was still active in this thread- they'd want to see it, please note this is NOT OFFICIAL, I am merely acting as an advisor for KEA, my suggestions imply nothing for the actual competition.

 

Contract  Test Pilot Review: @lapis's - LSP Sparrow 

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 67,392,000
• Fuel: 2400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 235 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4000m
• Fuel burn rate: .24 kal/s
• Range:  2300 km

Review Notes: 

I was immediately intrigued by the high-lift stock concept of the Sparrow.  All test pilots love danger, and the Sparrow's resemblance to a flying pancake delighted this contractor.  Unfortunately, the Sparrow was oddly safe, and during several torture tests trying to achieve breakup or fatal spins, the craft stayed together.

Take-off:  The Sparrow feels like a rock, slowly accelerating on the runway until the manufacturer's published rotate speed of 65 m/s, then amazingly transforms into a soaring bird, leaping off the runway.  Takeoffs were quite fun, with no risk of of tailstrikes.  The aircraft quickly climbed to its cruising altitude of 4000m.

Cruising:  I was delighted by the manufacturer's inclusion of a CRUISE MODE, whereby pressing a button somehow increases engine efficiency while staying at a constant speed.  Coincidentally, I noticed two of the engines had turned off.  Technology.

Landing:  Oh boy.  This is where the Sparrow becomes less like an AIM-7 and earns the honorary title "Saucijzenbroodje-plane."  If this manufacturer was trying to open a shop that sold dutch rolls by the dozen, they succeeded with flying colors.  The smallest roll deviation induces a slip-and-slide dance where inputting opposite controls exacerbates the problem.  When lining up for Runway 09 at the KSC, the Sparrow became so errant I was soon heading over the SPH.  Fortunately, the huge wheel base meant the sloppiest of landings were usually forgiven, so while the dutch roll bakery wasn't tasty, it also wasn't fatal.

Overall, the Sparrow comes in at a middleground price, not cheap, but not as expensive as some peers.  Maintenance is a big plus with the Sparrow, it contains 75 parts, however, given the fully-stock nature and relatively simple construction, I anticipate low maintenance costs for KEA.  Fuel efficiency is quite good, I calculated the range at 40% greater than the published specs - this was after consuming fuel to climb based on the remaining fuel and speed at cruise altitude.

In crew and passenger comfort, the odd Sparrow is truly outstanding.  The wing-mounted Wheesley engines are spaced far from the cabins, lessening noise, while wing flex will certainly dampen much of the turbofan's vibrations.  In the rare crash-landing, the pancake shape causes the wings and engines to shear off first, acting as a crumple zone for the passenger compartments.  In two test crashes, all 5 cabins survived without harm.

However, there is one issue of concern for comfort - whichever passenger draws the short straw of sitting in the middle compartment will get this gorgeous view:

However, in this contractor's opinion, this could be leveraged as a value-added feature.  4 Cabins could have tickets sold at premium price, while the middle cabin functions as a "Gotta Get Away" ala Kalujet compartment.  Can't have first class without steerage.

 

The Verdict:

As a private contractor, I can only advise the KEA board on purchase decisions and not commit to any bill of sale.  The Sparrow certainly has its quirks, and the manufacturer should make a few changes before the design becomes feasible on a large scale.  Having said that, I can see it being a very niche attraction in the KEA fleet, owning 1-2 of them to give passengers a near-death joyride while returning them safely to the ground.   (Usually).  

[Lapis]

I thought I fixed the landing problem, I guess the next version will fix that.(I totally forgot about that window problem

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by lapis

[Mathrilord]

Still no answer...

How many kerbals for mk3s1 and s1.5???????

[Shaun]

18 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

Still no answer...

How many kerbals for mk3s1 and s1.5???????

I asked that a while ago.

[hoioh]

22 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

Still no answer...

How many kerbals for mk3s1 and s1.5???????

No decission has been made yet, so there is no answer to your question

[FahmiRBLX]

@panzerknack IIRC they've been discussed before. It says :

• Mk1 Cabin, Mk2 Cabin - Two-Abreast, 8 total (Woah, Mk2 Cabin seats are quite spacious while Mk1 Cabin might make me suffocate if I'm sitting next to a fat man).
• Size 1.5 Cabin - Four-Abreast, 16 total.
• Size 2 & Mk3 Cabin - Six-Abreast, 24 total (I wonder if the upper potion could be turned into a sleeper compartment, just like what some Douglas DC-3s have).

Anyways, Airplane+ is updated today (By the time I posted this from Malaysia).

APUs shouldn't create noticeable amount of vibration, don't they? Any thoughts, judges?

On 1/30/2019 at 3:11 AM, panzerknack said:

I had submitted a sample review to neistridlar earlier - I thought since it happened to be of someone who was still active in this thread- they'd want to see it, please note this is NOT OFFICIAL, I am merely acting as an advisor for KEA, my suggestions imply nothing for the actual competition.

 

Contract  Test Pilot Review: @lapis's - LSP Sparrow 

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 67,392,000
• Fuel: 2400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 235 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4000m
• Fuel burn rate: .24 kal/s
• Range:  2300 km

Review Notes: 

I was immediately intrigued by the high-lift stock concept of the Sparrow.  All test pilots love danger, and the Sparrow's resemblance to a flying pancake delighted this contractor.  Unfortunately, the Sparrow was oddly safe, and during several torture tests trying to achieve breakup or fatal spins, the craft stayed together.

Take-off:  The Sparrow feels like a rock, slowly accelerating on the runway until the manufacturer's published rotate speed of 65 m/s, then amazingly transforms into a soaring bird, leaping off the runway.  Takeoffs were quite fun, with no risk of of tailstrikes.  The aircraft quickly climbed to its cruising altitude of 4000m.

Cruising:  I was delighted by the manufacturer's inclusion of a CRUISE MODE, whereby pressing a button somehow increases engine efficiency while staying at a constant speed.  Coincidentally, I noticed two of the engines had turned off.  Technology.

Landing:  Oh boy.  This is where the Sparrow becomes less like an AIM-7 and earns the honorary title "Saucijzenbroodje-plane."  If this manufacturer was trying to open a shop that sold dutch rolls by the dozen, they succeeded with flying colors.  The smallest roll deviation induces a slip-and-slide dance where inputting opposite controls exacerbates the problem.  When lining up for Runway 09 at the KSC, the Sparrow became so errant I was soon heading over the SPH.  Fortunately, the huge wheel base meant the sloppiest of landings were usually forgiven, so while the dutch roll bakery wasn't tasty, it also wasn't fatal.

Overall, the Sparrow comes in at a middleground price, not cheap, but not as expensive as some peers.  Maintenance is a big plus with the Sparrow, it contains 75 parts, however, given the fully-stock nature and relatively simple construction, I anticipate low maintenance costs for KEA.  Fuel efficiency is quite good, I calculated the range at 40% greater than the published specs - this was after consuming fuel to climb based on the remaining fuel and speed at cruise altitude.

In crew and passenger comfort, the odd Sparrow is truly outstanding.  The wing-mounted Wheesley engines are spaced far from the cabins, lessening noise, while wing flex will certainly dampen much of the turbofan's vibrations.  In the rare crash-landing, the pancake shape causes the wings and engines to shear off first, acting as a crumple zone for the passenger compartments.  In two test crashes, all 5 cabins survived without harm.

However, there is one issue of concern for comfort - whichever passenger draws the short straw of sitting in the middle compartment will get this gorgeous view:

However, in this contractor's opinion, this could be leveraged as a value-added feature.  4 Cabins could have tickets sold at premium price, while the middle cabin functions as a "Gotta Get Away" ala Kalujet compartment.  Can't have first class without steerage.

 

The Verdict:

As a private contractor, I can only advise the KEA board on purchase decisions and not commit to any bill of sale.  The Sparrow certainly has its quirks, and the manufacturer should make a few changes before the design becomes feasible on a large scale.  Having said that, I can see it being a very niche attraction in the KEA fleet, owning 1-2 of them to give passengers a near-death joyride while returning them safely to the ground.   (Usually).  

Mentioning others : In this case you need to really mention their names that they get a notification. Don't simply embed a link to their profile, start with [@], then enter the username, but make sure a username list bubble appears as you type in the username. Example : @panzerknack, not @panzerknack or @panzerknack. This way, submitters can k ow that their plane is reviewed.

Take note : Mk2 Cabins actually have an advantage for high-altitude flights, however, in @lapis's case where the airbrakes act as 'blinds' or 'curtains', might be an except.

Edited February 1, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[FahmiRBLX]

Anyways, started a dedicated discussion thread for those who are willing to discuss their stuff.

All discussions shall go here. This thread is (Presumably) dedicated to challenge submissions and reviews.

[AeroGav]

Screechcraft Kalbatross

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nq8684a3khc0bgb/Screechcraft Kalbatross.craft?dl=0

The first new airframe from Screechcraft in quite some time,   the development of this Very Large Transport was largely funded with government money in order to ensure retention of "skilled personnel vital for the national interest" , at a time of contraction within the aerospace industry.

Jeb poses with the remains of the prototype after completing the high speed RTO test.     

Category - SST,  Jumbo Jet

Range - Kerbonavigation possible (stock scale)

Pax  - 336

Cruise Speed  - Up to 1400 m/s at 23km altitude

Cost - 776 million (!)  .. it's a government program

 

The aircraft achieved its design goal of mach 4.5 cruise at altitude

 

The aircraft is propelled by afterburning turbofans and ramjets,  but is capable of subsonic flight on the turbofans alone, with the afterburners off,  in noise abatement areas.  

Action Group 4 - Toggle Afterburner

Action Group 8 -  Toggle Ramjets

The pilot's seat features a bubble canopy, and there is a basic autopilot (SAS Prograde hold mode) included.    Three trim flap positions are included :

Action Group 1 - Nose Up Trim  

Action Group 2 -  Neutral Trim

Action Group 3 - Nose Down Trim

Nose up trim is recommended setting for takeoff and landing,  neutral trim is recommended for cruise.  However, the settings can be changed freely while autopilot is active in order to suppress porpoising while establishing cruise flight.

Cruising speed is a significant fraction of orbital velocity, resulting in half normal gravity for most of the flight.   This enables the cabin crew to handle food and beverage carts twice as large as normal,  which is likely to prove popular with passengers.

The prototype is also fitted with experimental booster engines, whose precise details are classified.   They can provide additional acceleration at the expense of a large increase in fuel consumption.  For environmental reasons,  use below 10km (over water) or 20km (over land) is forbidden.   Note,  overuse of these engines may make landing impossible.

Action Group 6-  Toggle Boosters

Note,  whilst the aircraft experiences low G in cruise,  parabolic trajectories with zero or negative G must be avoided at all costs,  as the restroom plumbing is not equipped with check valves in the wastewater system.   The consequences are too dire to imagine.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by AeroGav

[HyperDraco]

Draconic Triumph II

The Luxury Long Range Supersonic Transport 

The Triumph II is the final word in Luxurious Supersonic Transport. With a passenger capacity of 48 it can transport customers across the largest of oceans under 2 hours, all of this, without refueling.

The Power Plants are 4 J-404 Panthers that accelerate the craft to Mach 2 in under 15 minutes. (with afterburner.)

The price may be a large but this SST packs the slightly smaller, significantly quieter, and more efficient variant of the well known Military engine J-404 Panther.

The craft has been equipped with a Special Stability Inducing Speed Control Mechanism, which slows down the craft automatically when the Afterburners are turned off.

The Jet can make 3 trips and back by the time the average 118 Seater MK3 Commercial Aircraft (Assumed cruising speed of 190 to 225 m/s) makes 1 return trip, of about 150 KM, one way (900 KM for the same time as 300 KM)

That amounts to around 24 more passengers in the same time and when operated daily can provide about 100 or more passengers. 

There is a long range high capacity craft, Triumph 2S in the prototype stage.

The Aircraft has no shortage of Electricity either, it is produced by a Next-Gen Alternator found in all 4 engines, which runs in all weather conditions.

The SST has been designed with revolutionary precision and thus, is Exceptionally stable in all weather conditions.

Each SST must be fitted with Action groups for toggling Afterburners (Draconic leaves it to the preference of the Operator) (Draconic does not assume any responsibility if action groups are not fitted.)

The Draconic Triumph II,

The Luxury SST 

 

IMPORTANT: At High speeds (Mach 1.5+) the Triumph II has been noticed to lower it's nose slightly automatically, it has been named 'Elevated Droop' if the fore-mentioned happens pull out slowly, disengage afterburners and apply spoilers to reduce speed and then pull up gently.

Suggestion: (Refrain from Physics Warping during 'Elevated Droop')

Type: Medium To Long Range Luxury SST (Medium or High Demand)

Cruising Speed: Mach 2 (With Afterburner)

Cost -  51,067,480 

Cruising Altitude: 20 KM

Roll Speed: 75 - 85 m/s

Range - Exact Unknown (Can fly around Kerbin slightly more than once a on Full tank)

48 Passengers

81 Parts

Mods:

TweakScale

Craft File :

https://kerbalx.com/HyperDraco/Draconic-Triumph-II

Enjoy.

Edited February 10, 2019 by HyperDraco

[Potato flavored waffles]

I recently noticed the category on the judging sheet:  Miscelaneous / Sub-Turboprop would a paramotor fit under that category?

[hoioh]

6 hours ago, Potato flavored waffles said:

I recently noticed the category on the judging sheet:  Miscelaneous / Sub-Turboprop would a paramotor fit under that category?

For example, it's for anything that doesn't fit any category. To get purchased from there requires extreme creativity and the pitch will have to really sell it

[Rocket_man1234]

K-300/K-400/K-500 Turboprops

C-7 Aerospace Presents the K-300 / K-400 / K-500 Turboprops. 

These small turboprop aircraft are made for a variety of purposes and have relatively short take-offs and landings. The 3-4 K-X00 aircraft have a take-off speed of 70-75 m/s while the K-500 has a take-off speed of 80 m/s and all K-X00 aircraft have a cruising speed of 150 m/s which is the only reason for this aircraft being put in the turboprop category. The cruising altitude is at 5000m bring the total range to be 2679km. Landing is pretty basic, approach at 100 m/s, then deploy brakes, finally land at around 60 m/s (Press 2 to set reverse thrust for short landings). The aircraft can land and take off in large cities with its impressive climb/descent rate. Side Note: The AP+ mod states that the 1.5m passenger cabins have half the capacity as the MK 2 so il take half of the 24 and say 12 passengers per crew cabin. 

• K-300 Capacity: 48 (not counting pilot) https://kerbalx.com/Rocket_man1234/K-300 Cost: 731000
• K-400 Capacity: 60 (not counting pilot) https://kerbalx.com/Rocket_man1234/K-400 Cost: 791000
• K-500 Capacity: 72 (not counting pilot) https://kerbalx.com/Rocket_man1234/K-500 Cost: 851000

Also, this is not a competitive plane so plz don't get mad at me for using the 1.5m, just saw the whole debate above. 

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Rocket_man1234

[hoioh]

They look great @Rocket_man1234 by the time they're up for review I'm sure we'll know how many passengers really fit, or we'll just keep stuffing kerbals in to find out 

[Lego8_bit]

Mind if i join in on this band wagon?

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Lego8_bit

[Lego8_bit]

I have a question can we enter 1 plane for 2 categories XD supersonic and small regional.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Lego8_bit

[hoioh]

3 hours ago, Lego8_bit said:

I have a question can we enter 1 plane for 2 categories XD supersonic and small regional.

That would be a case of pick and choose, we can compare the performance to both during review to see which category it fits best

[Lego8_bit]

4 hours ago, hoioh said:

That would be a case of pick and choose, we can compare the performance to both during review to see which category it fits best

Ok, then a post later on tonight with my planes but for now here's a preview of  few test i was conducting last night 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Lego8_bit