Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Kebab Kerman]

Alright, so last night I built a plane that's (Supposedly) fast, comfortable, safe, has RCS thrusters to help you get back into the atmosphere in case some careless untrained pilot makes a mistake, and has new, powerful, state-of-the-art engines, which we nicknamed "The Neckbreakers" because of the speed they get you to. Unfortunately, they have a high fuel consumption, but the high amount of fuel compensates for that. For some reason, one of them had a VTOL engine installed in the front, presumably to help the high takeoff speed, even though the acceleration usually takes care of that. We added the largest parachutes we could find to the back, and the most flaps and airbrakes we could get our little green hands on. It hasn't been tested yet, so we have absolutely no idea how it performs. But we can tell you it will stop very quickly.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @SuicidalInsanity's – Insanity Aerospace IA-960 Ikaros

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 70,547,000
• Fuel: 3060 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 250m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 7,500m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.54 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1400km

Review:

Isn’t that one of those space ships in that series that you used to watch? Well, this one certainly lives up to its company name. Initially the plane attracted such a crowd that the test pilots could not actually get to the plane, let alone take off and fly it. Once everyone had had their round through the passenger compartment though, finding someone that was actually willing to fly in it proved to be quite a challenge. Most of our personnel were seemed to have gotten the idea that this was all a plot by the aliens to abduct kerbals for scientific purposes. Anyways we finally found some more, or less, we’re not entirely sure, sane kerbals that were willing to partake in the test flying.

The aircraft takes off at 75m/s, but in a very short distance, as advertised. What was not advertised however is how the aircraft swerves left and right on the runway during takeoff, which was quite disconcerting. In the air it was quickly discovered that pitch control was a bit lacking, and it seemed almost necessary to keep the autopilot engaged at all times to prevent the airplane from going in to a spin due to weak yaw stability. We suspect this might have to do with the very blunt nose of this aircraft. The roll control was spot on though. The aircraft had no trouble getting to the designated cruising altitude and speed. Getting down to land however proved quite exciting, but not in a good way. The lackluster pitch control made it very difficult to get the nose down, and once it was down it did not want to come back up again, especially not at landing speeds. Surprisingly this aircraft seems to have a higher landing speed, at 85m/s, than take off speed, which is highly unusual. Below this speed we were simply not able to touch down gently enough to prevent the fuselage from disintegrating. The aircraft also seem to be mostly soluble in water, as there was hardly any trace of the aircraft after the water ditching test.

The passenger cabins are absolutely something to behold though. No other aircraft can match this unique view, and with the lounge in the center it just screams luxury all the way. The very unique positioning also ensures minimal vibrations, and very little engine noise reaches the cabins, though it is not entirely quiet. With the constant fear of the aircraft suddenly going into a spin, or being beamed in to space, the atmosphere is a little tenser than it really should be in a luxury liner like this.

As expected this this is not a particularly cheap aircraft by any standards, though there are worse. The fuel economy is not at all good either, but still we have seen worse. 84 parts is also unusually high for a plane of this size. And then there is the pilot training, which will also be a little above average. It certainly is not going to be profitable to sell economy tickets for this plane. However, as a first class only plane we could probably still make a small profit.

The verdict:
Although it could probably make some money as a luxury liner, we do think that the safety concerns must be fixed before we are willing to put it in to service. It’s not quite a death trap, but it most certainly looks like one. If Insanity Aerospace would offer a version with improved flight characteristics and over all safety, we would be willing to give it another go, but in its current incarnation we only find it suitable as a display piece. We would like to keep one as a fancy meeting room though.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review Update: @CrazyJebGuy's – GK 4-skat

Figures as Tested:

• Price:13,425,000
• Fuel: 500 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 267m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 1,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.11 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1200km

Review:

We had barely posted the review for the GAI Skat, when this updated version came in. If there is one thing they know over at GAI, it is rapid development of almost new aircraft. The new aircraft features new engine position and taller main landing gear, as well as dedicated control surfaces. The new landing gear cuts the takeoff run in half, with a new takeoff speed of 45m/s, which makes the takeoff performance in line with most other turboprops. The new control surface configuration makes the plane much easier to fly. So easy in fact that we might consider using it as an advanced trainer now. It does however retain most of its plentiful control authority. With the new engine placement however roll response seems to have suffered a tiny bit, but it should not pose any major problems. The comfort in the rear compartment is also significantly improved by the relocated engines. Getting through the fuel tank still is a bit awkward though.

GAI claimed the plane should have the same performance, and that it would not be necessary to test it again, but we decided to do so anyway. Much to our surprise we got a slightly higher speed this time, without increased fuel usage. We don't understand why, but we like it non the less.

The verdict:

We will be fulfilling our promise and increase our order to 8, and request that our previous orders be converted to the new model if possible.

[roboslacker]

Presenting the WWYT Bloatfly (turboprop small regional jet)

Using conventional seating, this plane can hold 48 passengers. However, the plane is really intended for lower capacity luxury cabins. In dry mode it does 80m/s and should be able to go over 200km around 600km. With the afterburner on, it goes around 125m/s. and should do about 150km

Edited April 7, 2018 by roboslacker
there were some errors

[CrazyJebGuy]

There kids, see what a difference a few minor modifications can make? And for quite literally no cost. Other than the electricity my PC used. I'd think the extra performance might have been just testing it again, it seems well within the margin of error. I'll go test it too, see how far different answers I get. Meanwhile....

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Slinky 40

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 18,211,000
• Fuel: 1350 kallons
• Cruising speed: 254m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.074 kal/s
• Range: 4,630 km

Review Notes:

 The first thing we noticed, how large the landing gear is for such a relatively small plane. There have been Jumbos with smaller landing gears! It also seems to have the rear one right as far forward as possible, which lets the craft pivot on it okay, but it's so far forward the plane may decide to sit on the engine, and have the front wheels hanging in space. And it does have huge wings for such a plane, which we think might have the extra space, not to be wings, but fuel tanks.

 Speedy climb and acceleration, is a thing we wouldn't describe this aircraft as. The lone wheesly engine can take quite a while to get it up to altitude and cruising speed. It's efficient, but not very powerful. The efficiency gives it a very impressive range though, such a range is easily longer than most, possibly all, small regional jets. (EDIT: Kerbair K-200 has a couple thousand more km range) This gives it a GPPM of 0.012, which is definitely far better than average, but there are a fair few planes that can claim to beat that.

  Comfort in the air is important, and on this plane, variable. The first cabin, has a quiet, vibration free flight, and impeccable views. The two cabins following, have slightly more vibrations and noise, and their view is obscured by the large wings. The rear 16 seats have a significant amount of vibrations, and noise; although their view is quite good.

 The plane flies, with the large wings, pretty well. The ailerons are about what we'd like in a plane, and the pitch axis is nice, and if we really need to we can extend the elevators more and turn faster, just for those 'OH #&^$!' moments.

The water ditching test had us notice that with the engine in reverse at low speeds that it does not like pitching up, pitch full up and the plane's course is steady. Reversing the engine then should be done only on low throttle.

 It can be bought fairly cheaply, and it has a part count of just eighteen! That and the rest of the Slinky line are very standardized, and they look fairly solid designs, so we will be buying some of them mean this plane is very good at being cheap to maintain. And the fact that it is fairly fuel efficient make for a pretty cheap aircraft.

The Verdict:

It's a fairly typical (excluding the phenomenal range) regional jet. But it does that with such low part count and while being a reasonable cost to purchase, that we can't pass it up for economy routes, and it has 8 seats at the front practically begging to be business class. So a long ranged cheap regional jet, is something we are interested enough in to order 24.

27 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Presenting the WWYT Bloatfly (turboprop)

Using conventional seating, this plane can hold 48 passengers. However, the plane is really intended for lower capacity luxury cabins. In dry mode it does 80m/s and should be able to go over 200km. With the afterburner on, it goes around 125m/s and should do about 150km.

 

With 48 passengers, that should really be a small regional jet.

Edited April 7, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[roboslacker]

17 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

With 48 passengers, that should really be a small regional jet.

It was going to be a small regional jet, but then I noticed it wasn't fast enough for the category.

[CrazyJebGuy]

41 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

It was going to be a small regional jet, but then I noticed it wasn't fast enough for the category.

It will still be judged as one due to passenger count. Also if it's range is 2-300km, that is very short. It will do badly.

[roboslacker]

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Also if it's range is 2-300km, that is very short.

Took another look, turnes out the calculations I did were extremely inaccurate. I will amend the submission when I have better numbers.

[CrazyJebGuy]

5 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Took another look, turnes out the calculations I did were extremely inaccurate. I will amend the submission when I have better numbers.

Did some flying of it myself, 93m/s at 3km, range of 620km. Which is still a very bad range, a typical jet might have 1000km. A rare few even get stupendous numbers, I think the longest ranged entry has been 9,000km? Some terrible supersonic I made. Terrible except at long range and speed.

Would really suggest increasing range and speed, if it's going 90m/s that doesn't even meet the requirements for seaplanes.

[SuicidalInsanity]

8 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @SuicidalInsanity's – Insanity Aerospace IA-960 Ikaros

The verdict:

 

Although it could probably make some money as a luxury liner, we do think that the safety concerns must be fixed before we are willing to put it in to service. It’s not quite a death trap, but it most certainly looks like one. If Insanity Aerospace would offer a version with improved flight characteristics and over all safety, we would be willing to give it another go, but in its current incarnation we only find it suitable as a display piece. We would like to keep one as a fancy meeting room though.

Hah, almost forgot about this. It's a good thing I didn't go for the original design where the back saucer could pop off and glide to safety as a full body ejection system in case of emergency - if your kerbals were apprehensive about boarding this, imagine how they'd feel if the aircraft could literally turn into a alien saucer and fly off. Most of the aircraft's problems are due to its unique fueltank solution and having to account for substantial CoM shift over the duration of a flight; looks like replacing that with a monobody design improved performance, water landing viability, and knocked 10 mil off the price, but range/speed should still be the same - IA-960 Ikaros II.

[neistridlar]

5 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

 

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Slinky 40

The water ditching test had us notice that with the engine in reverse at low speeds that it does not like pitching up, pitch full up and the plane's course is steady. Reversing the engine then should be done only on low throttle.

-snip-

The engineers at Neist Air has done a study on this phenomenon, and came to the conclusion that it is caused by an interaction between the exhaust from the engine and the horizontal stabilizers. It turns out though that it is very useful when the plane does tip backwards. Just turn on the parking brake, engage reverse thrust, and throttle up. The plane will smoothly right it self. If the Slinky 40 was deemed slow in climb and acceleration, we are afraid the slinky 152 might be deemed to not have any at all.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

-snip-

If the Slinky 40 was deemed slow in climb and acceleration, we are afraid the slinky 152 might be deemed to not have any at all.

If so, we would suggest renting it as a few apartments. A jet engine has to make a good heater.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review update: @SuicidalInsanity's – Insanity Aerospace IA-960 Ikaros II

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 60,399,000
• Fuel: 3120 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 250m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 7,500m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.49 Kallons/sec
• Range: 1590km

Review:

It is truly amazing what a few small changes can make. The Ikaros II is cheaper, flies better, has better fuel economy, lower takeoff and landing speed, and went from being dissolved in water to now being able to operate as a sea plane! It still is not particularly cheap to operate, but with reduced pilot training and slightly lower operating costs the profit margins should increase significantly. With the greatly improved landing performance we think this plane might even be able to operate from some of the longer drive ways on kerbin, which would make this the ultimate millionaires party bus. 

The verdict:
We will take 4 Ikaros IIs for luxury party flights, and 1 to serve as a flying meeting room for when we really need to impress our investors. Now we hope that marketing is able to convince the crowd that those tall pink aliens are friendly creatures. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by neistridlar
messed up the title, and wrong picture

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @1Revenger1's – KPE SSP – 2a/b/c “Dragon”

Figures as Tested:

KPE SSP – 2a “Dragon”:

• Price: 57,222,000
• Fuel: 5,160 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1,200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 19,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.06 Kallons/sec
• Range: 5,840km

KPE SSP – 2b “Dragon”:

• Price: 63,284,000
• Fuel: 5,9600 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1,200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 19,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 1.22 Kallons/sec
• Range: 5,860km

KPE SSP – 2c “Dragon”:

• Price: 68,182,000
• Fuel: 5,960 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 1,200m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 19,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.98 Kallons/sec
• Range: 7,300km

Review:

We see why they gave it the nickname Dragon, but we thought dragons were supposed to spew fire out the front, not the back. It would not make for a good airplane if the fire spewed out of the front though. The three SSP – 2 models are very similar, but they do have some performance differences. For the most part we will treat them as one, but we will point out whenever there is a significant difference between them. The first difference is in the takeoff speed. Much to our surprise we found the smallest of the three to have the highest takeoff speed, at 70m/s, and the biggest to have the lowest takeoff speed, at 62m/s. All three have a short takeoff run for such big fast planes though. The smallest of the three is the only ones to not have protective tail gear, and it meant a lot more care had to be taken while taking off.

In the air the three planes handle surprisingly similarly. Obviously, the bigger ones climb and accelerate a little slower, but other than that the performance is practically the same. The planes are very easy to control, and seem to not have many bad habits, though pitch authority might be a little excessive, as it is easy to bleed off too much speed and stall out the aircraft if it is not used with moderation. In short, the planes feel smaller than they really are. We were surprised to find that the biggest of the three had the lowest fuel burn rate during cruise. We think this is due to the larger wing, which also contributed to lower takeoff and landing speeds. The other two cruises with a ~5 degree nose up attitude, while the bigger one flies with a ~4 degree nose up attitude. We think the fuel economy of these planes could be improved if the 4-5 degrees were added to the wing construction, so they could fly with the nose level, minimizing drag.

With the landings come the same trend as with takeoff speed, the smallest one has the highest one. Much to our surprise the smallest one also had the longest stopping distance, despite being a lighter plane. Now it is not particularly bad by any means, it is just that the two bigger models are better. Water ditching proved to be quite safe for the passengers, though the biggest model seemed to be somewhat prone to minor damage during ditching. We don’t plan to ditch the planes very often though, so we are not overly concerned about this. Speaking of the passengers though. They have a quite nice ride. The seats furthest back do catch a little bit of engine noise, and with the engines mounted to the fuselage there is a little bit of vibrations to be felt, though the fuel tanks do a good job of mitigating this. The view for most of the passengers is partially blocked by the wings, but what is there to see up at 19km anyways?

Then there is the economy. It’s always that annoying economy that kills of the good planes. Well, not with these three. With passenger counts of 96, 128 and 160, they are fairly reasonably priced, and the fuel economy is decent on all of them, well it is actually great on the 2c model. With part counts of 75, 89 and 98, and four engines on all of them, maintenance should not be particularly expensive either. Pilot training should be on par with most other models, and should be interchangeable between all three aircraft.

The verdict:
We simply cannot help it. We have to buy 12 of the KPE SSP – 2c, it has everything we are looking for in a supersonic/jumbo* jet. We will also buy 4 of the 2a model, to service lower capacity routes more frequently. The 2b model is not bad either, but we don’t see a place for it in-between the 2a and 2c models.

*technically it does not qualify as a jumbo because the rules state that only supersonic planes may have cruise altitudes above 15km, but it meets or exceeds every other requirement.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Thought I'd share the spreadsheet, but I'm scared people are going to mess it up. So I made a copy:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit#gid=566807625

Ignore the first page, we don't use it.

[roboslacker]

WWYT Floater (turbofan)

This plane by WWYT inovators is intended for use as a private jet. It can seat a maximum of 24 kerbals, or you can remove some of the seats in favor of a luxury cabin. It costs 31,792,000 funds, and goes 200m/s. It can fly 450km with a quarter of the fuel, so expect ranges around of 1800km

[1Revenger1]

15 hours ago, neistridlar said:

~snip~

 

That's weird, they all had about the same range when I tested them out myself. That said it doesn't really matter with the excessive range they have anyways, lol.

[SpacePigeon]

Re posting from the original thread:

Pigeon Aerospace Supersonic Rapid X

Full Album here: https://imgur.com/a/WrqpQ (I don't know how to embed imgur albums)

Pigeon Aerospace is proud to present the next iteration of the Rapid series, the Rapid X!

Designed by Billy-Bobner Kerman, a thrill-seeker professional aircraft designer, there are 8 engines strapped on the back and enough fuel for them all. We even included a drogue chute in the back. This aircraft includes airbrakes, (to Billy-Bobner's horror) no exploding parts and no visibility from anywhere on the aircraft. It can carry 40 Kerbals (not including the pilot and co-pilot) according to our probably incorrect math, 5,166 km. The Rapid X can go to 1450 m/s and has a maximum height of 23000m. 

Here at Pigeon Aerospace, we don't understand why people don't like the sound of jets running at 100%. We think that jet noises are cool and thus, chose to have our office next to an active runway. We are proud to say that the aircraft only just takes off at 80 m/s and lands at 80 m/s. 

 

SPECIFICATIONS:

Price: 94,652,000

Cruising Speed: 1400 m/s

Maximum Speed: 1450 m/s

Cruising Height: 20,000m

Maximum Height: 23,000m

Range: 5166km (at cruising speed and height)

Calculations for range: 7380/2*1400/1000

Amount of fuel: 7380 kallons

Passenger amount: 40 Kerbals 

Link: https://kerbalx.com/Pigeon11/Rapid-X

Edited April 8, 2018 by SpacePigeon

[TheFlyingKerman]

Kerbus has updated the K-380 to the K-380-400 standard.

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-380-400

The new airliner comes with newly designed wings, new intakes, carries more passengers, and even better fuel efficiency. It is also cheaper when taking into account the extra cabins.

Cruising speed: 620m/s
Cruising altitude: 11700m northbound/southbound, 11900m eastbound, 11500m westbound
Fuel burn during cruising: 0.187 unit/s (= 0.0029 KPPM with 168 passengers)
Range: 6300km (with recommended fuel load of 2000units, maximum fuel load is 2344 units, with 24 units in the aft NCS adapter)
Price: 42,742,000

Notes for taking off:
Set control point to the inline cockpit. Stage the engines. Pull up at 80m/s. We recommend climbing at 10 degrees. Turn on the afterburners (AG1, only the outboard ones) at 3000m. Ease off the climb at 10000m and fly level at the required altitude and at 630m/s. Turn back to dry mode and engage prograde lock for cruising. In prograde cruising mode, the plane would first climb and descend in 200m cycles, gradually converging to the optimal cruising altitude. To make convergence faster, temporary turn to SAS when the vertical speed is above 5m/s, level the flight and turn back to prograde mode.

Notes for cruising: To make small course corrections, roll about 30 degrees while in prograde mode. The plane will gradually change course without losing speed.

Notes for landing: Approach at 75-85m/s and land at 65-80m/s. Begin descending and slowing down well in advance.

Notes for land ditching with the parachute:
Stage the parachute at the back. When the back parachute partially opens, lower the landing and lock the brake, then stage the forward parachute. Deploy the tail fin (AG3) and flaps (AG2). The parachutes are set so that the plane tumbles at the last 500m and land front gear first at minimal speed.

Notes for water ditching with the parachute:
Stage both parachutes. Set the full deployment altitude of the back parachute to 1000m or higher, and that of the front parachute to 800m. The plane should crash into water at a more vertical angle. This should protect the fuselage from breaking apart.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by TheFlyingKerman

[neistridlar]

6 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Thought I'd share the spreadsheet, but I'm scared people are going to mess it up. So I made a copy:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit#gid=566807625

Ignore the first page, we don't use it.

I think you could just set the original sheet to view only with link, then the judges can request access to edit. That's how I set up the proposed life time cost spread sheet, which by the way has gone a little over board by now. I think it is worth taking a second look at.

1 hour ago, 1Revenger1 said:

That's weird, they all had about the same range when I tested them out myself. That said it doesn't really matter with the excessive range they have anyways, lol.

Yeah, hypersoinc aircraft like this is really hard to get a consistent reading for, since they travel so fast, have so little lift, has slow spooling engines, which thrust is highly dependent on speed and altitude. All that makes it hard to get a stable reading. I could test them again if you would like, but I don't think it really matters.

41 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Kerbus has updated the K-380 to the K-380-400 standard.
Fuel burn during cruising: 0.187 unit/s (= 0.0029 KPPM with 168 passengers)

Do you want this as a separate entry to the K-380? And also, it seems I have to finish up my ultra efficient jumbo. The KPPM wars are on .

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

Yeah, hypersoinc aircraft like this is really hard to get a consistent reading for, since they travel so fast, have so little lift, has slow spooling engines, which thrust is highly dependent on speed and altitude. All that makes it hard to get a stable reading. I could test them again if you would like, but I don't think it really matters.

 I don't like to review hypersonic planes for exactly this reason.

[1Revenger1]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I think you could just set the original sheet to view only with link, then the judges can request access to edit. That's how I set up the proposed life time cost spread sheet, which by the way has gone a little over board by now. I think it is worth taking a second look at.

Yeah, hypersoinc aircraft like this is really hard to get a consistent reading for, since they travel so fast, have so little lift, has slow spooling engines, which thrust is highly dependent on speed and altitude. All that makes it hard to get a stable reading. I could test them again if you would like, but I don't think it really matters.

Do you want this as a separate entry to the K-380? And also, it seems I have to finish up my ultra efficient jumbo. The KPPM wars are on .

 

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

 I don't like to review hypersonic planes for exactly this reason.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. Lol

[TheFlyingKerman]

4 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Do you want this as a separate entry to the K-380? And also, it seems I have to finish up my ultra efficient jumbo. The KPPM wars are on .

Just replace the old one, please. This saves the reviewer's time.

[KeranoKerman]

FLAT FURY from Tylo Airframes: Cheap Super-Jumbo

Specifications: 

Passenger Capacity: 928

Cost: 279,254,000, or 3300920 per passenger (fully fueled)

Takeoff Speed: 136 m/s. Will turn right when on ground so just fire up the engines and take off. (Darn you Kraken!) Engines will spark when you start moving but will all turn on when you start moving.

Part Count: 355

Fuel: 19,380 Kallons (96,900kg)

3.458 Kallons Per Second

1728 Kilometer range (A lot less range for cheap manufacturing)

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Tylo_Airframes/Flat-Fury 

Description:

This aircraft is designed to fit as many Kerbals as possible on a single plane for the least price. Lets look at some of the differences between this and the Colossus, its Super Jumbo competitor.

First, Flat Fury costs a little bit less than 45% of the Colossus, at 279,254,00 compared to the Colossus's 667,222,000.

Second, the price per passenger (Build Cost Fully Fueled) for the Flat Fury is 3300920, compared to the Colossus's 579186 per passenger. This allows for cheap tickets so that many kerbals can go on one airline and will increase it's popularity.

Because quite a few of the cockpits have bad views, Virtual Kerality Headsets are freely available on any flight with variety of games and movies, but mostly Danny 2462 horror shows. (This helps with the bumpy flight and kerbals' vigorous need for snacks) The main fuselage cabins have a good view and are for business class seats.

As an extra plus, the ship's stout square shape allows it to fit well in hangars, especially double-decker ones.

Edited April 8, 2018 by KeranoKerman

[Box of Stardust]

What's the definition of 'ruining the challenge with TweakScale'?

I just want to enlarge control surfaces and the airliner wing to (scale-correct) sizes.