Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

7 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Get yours today!

The link does not seem to work. You might have forgotten to hit the publish button or something.

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

The link does not seem to work. You might have forgotten to hit the publish button or something.

No, I tried to link the download link on KerbalX. Apparently it didn't like that.

 

Try it now. Should just go to the page on KerbalX.

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

No, I tried to link the download link on KerbalX. Apparently it didn't like that.

 

Try it now. Should just go to the page on KerbalX.

That works

[hoioh]

(At the risk of flooding the thread with entries, this will be my final entry for the forseeable future, any updates will be put on Kerbal-X, please look there for latest versions of craft)

Skaled Komposites presents: the Aqua Twin

Whether you want to take a whole medium sized company to an otherwise unreachable seaside resort, or want to evacuate a small island before an incoming hurricane, or because you just want to have fun splashing something big at the local lake, the Aqua Twin has you covered!
Whith landing speeds as low as 30m/s (a near vertical drop into the water) no lake is too small to put this baby down in. Taking off requires a little more space, but by utilizing the built in flap system properly you can take off from a pretty small patch of water as well at about 60m/s. The twin goliaths output enough power to fly at almost 300m/s at an altitude of 6250m, pitch 0, so you will get to your destination quick. The tail mounted engines and rear luggage compartment keep the noise behind you for a very smooth ride on this luxury airliner with ample window space. By mounting the engines high they keep dry and that results in a bit of an awkward looking tail fin which doubles as a rudder in the water, killing 2 birds with 1 stone, as they say. Proper use of the flap system will also prevent tailstrike during landing and take-off runs significantly reducing the length of the run as well as pushing up hard to gain altitude as quickly as possible. She can do loops, but we don't recommend doing so during the in flight luch, or when the fasten sealbelt sign is off.

 

Controls:
1 = short fap
2 = main flap
All other controls as expected

To take off (from any surface):
Activate the main flaps by pressing 2, set to full throttle and activate the engines. Wait to reach 60m/s before pulling back on the stick. Once in the air press 2 again to disengage the main flap.
Angle to 30 degree pitch at any desired heading up to about 5000m then gently level off to 0 pitch while the plane reaches it's cruising altitude and speed.

To land on water:
Shut down the engines, activate all flaps (1 and 2) and pitch down to reach a low cruising altitude at reasonable speed. Level out the plane and play with the flaps to maintain a speed of about 80m/s for stable, level flight untill you've found a body of water to land in. Get close to the water and activate the brakes, pitch up a bit to maintain your height above the water and gradually get closer to it as your speed drops to about 30m/s when you finally hit the water and come to a halt. Disengage brakes, use the engines and yaw control to boat to shore (if you want to come out of the water, don't forget to extend the landing gear!)

To land on land:
Shut down engines, activate all flaps and pitch down to reach a low cruising altitude at reasonable speed. Level out the plane and play with the flaps to maintain above 80m/s speed for stable, level flight while lining up with the runway. Drop the gear, get close to the runway and activate the brakes. Maintain below 6m/s downward speed and gently touch down on the runway. You should be able to do this at nearly level pitch, contrary to the water landing procedure where you will be pitching up to further reduce speed. You should come to a swift stop on the runway.

 

Skaled Komposites Aqua Twin specifications:

Type: large waterplane
Price: Ѵ81,518,000
Passenger count: 96 + Holliday hideout + cargo bays
Part count: 38 + 2 engines
Fuel: 2119 Kallons
Cruising altitude: 6250m
Speed: 296m/s
Fuel use: 0.44 K/s
Range: 1425km
KPPM: 0.0155

Craft file link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnv1mis4s1ihx2s/Skaled Komposites Aqua Twin.zip?dl=0

More pictures https://imgur.com/a/OQ95o

 

I'm working on putting up the complete repertoire on Kerbal-X but I can only upload 10 craft every couple of hours or so. Link to there is in my signature.

Edited April 11, 2018 by hoioh

[Box of Stardust]

On 4/10/2018 at 5:33 PM, neistridlar said:

In the interest of giving this question a proper answer I decided to try build something that would break the tweak scale rule. This is what I came up with. As you can see it is insanely cheap at 6,114,000. Also with its mere 100kallons fuel capacity it has a range of 1250km, and cruises at 235m/s @ 4400m with a fuel burn rate of 0.0185 kallons/s. The KPPM comes out to be 0.0053. The things about this one that I would probably consider in bad spirit is the down scaling of the landing gear, engine, intake and adapter, which is simply cheaper, lighter and better than the equivalently sized parts. Now part of the reason for the good performance is that I have shaved everything down to the minimum. That means for instance that it takes 12 minutes to reach cruise. Also, I started out with basically the same design, but without tweak scale. It cost ~8,800,000, and was only able to get 910km range out of the same fuel. It did climb and accelerate much better though. 

I would like to hear from others though, if they agree that this one should be against the rules. Though in general what I found from playing around with this, there seems to be very few advantages with regards to economy by up scaling parts, as the resultant parts are generally more expensive and heavier than building with non scaled parts, so you only save on part count. Unless someone can come up with a design that uses uppscaling of parts in an exploitative manner I would say that should be completely ok.

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

[MaverickSawyer]

Yeah, that downscaled J-90 is certainly into the range I'd consider to be ridiculously unfair. Usually I don't scale engines, but if I do, I tend to limit it to, at most, reducing to 75% of original. Beyond that, it just feels wrong. And even then, it's kinda a case-by-case basis. Case in point:

That's about as far as I'm ever going to push the downscaling of a Wheesley. It's just... It feels wrong to me to go any smaller. Cheaty, even. But the full sized, 1.25m one didn't look right, either. This does look good, however, and I'm curious to see what kind of an impact the scaling has on performance. I may be returning it to normal size if it doesn't give me the performance I want, looks or no.

[neistridlar]

10 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

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

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

[Box of Stardust]

15 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

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

I think there should definitely be a firm line about 'don't resize if part exists' though. At least to catch something that could be as loop-hole-y as this, even if it breaks logic in the first place:

[hoioh]

13 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I think there should definitely be a firm line about 'don't resize if part exists' though. At least to catch something that could be as loop-hole-y as this, even if it breaks logic in the first place:

That's clearly a mk1 cabin and holds 8 people according to the rules, so upsaling passenger cabins offers negative bonus. I would say that scaling (up or down) of passenger cabins is out of the question in all cases.

Edited April 11, 2018 by hoioh

[Box of Stardust]

17 minutes ago, hoioh said:

That's clearly a mk1 cabin and holds 8 people according to the rules, so upsaling passenger cabins offers negative bonus. I would say that scaling (up or down) of passenger cabins is out of the question in all cases.

Well if you interpret it that way, that... also doesn't really make sense logically. Which I admitted, scaling cabins probably wouldn't be a logical thing to do in any case.

 

40 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Having played with it a little more, I must admit I am falling in love with ~1m Goliaths. They look so good, and work so well, but the price just seems wrong for the performance.

I just looked at them really quickly. Does this basically turn Goliaths into Lotuses with Wheesley stats (especially the thrust curve, which is almost too good really)?

Edited April 11, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[MaverickSawyer]

Hmm. Is a 51% scale Juno okay if it's there as an APU for power generation, not thrust production? If it's not, it's a quick and simple task to delete it.

 

EDIT: At that size, it's pretty much worthless for power generation. 0.03 EC/s.

Edited April 12, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[Gaarst]

Following the unanimous critical and commercial success of our last opus, the Kerbalespace™ C-1000 airliner, we have came to the realisation that improving upon this magnificent aircraft would not only be impossible but also futile as it is as close to perfection as it can get. And so, we have made the decision to radically change our register, indeed the creation that we offer you today is a low-capacity supersonic business jet named the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer".

Supersonic to say the least, because well, to get straight to the point, it boasts a cruising speed of 1,500 m/s at an altitude of 26,000 m. A speed that takes you around Kerbin in 50 minutes, at an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is less than 1% that of sea level. These figures are the first signature of Kerbalespace™'s quest for perfection, the second being the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" itself, of course.

To allow it to pierce the skies at a speed approaching Mach 5, the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" possesses several innovations that our skilled engineers developed through their relentless and unpaid voluntary work. The Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" is a blended delta wing design with the fuselage hosting the cockpit and room for 16 passengers elegantly morphing into the delta wing itself upon which are mounted the four engine nacelles, source of the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer"'s unique performance. These are a homemade design combining the advantages of turbojets, ramjets and space-grade engineering into the RAPIER system ^{(The RAPIER system is built by C7 Aerospace and the Rockomax Conglomerate; Kerbalespace™ will not be held accountable for any performance defects from the RAPIER systems.)}, providing sufficient thrust for all stages of the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer"'s flight, whilst maintaining an environmentally friendly efficiency so that you can enjoy your flight knowing that Kerbin's grass plains thank you. ^{(Kerbalespace™ will not be held accountable for the emission and release of environmentally hazardous substances by the RAPIER systems.)}
Another challenge encountered, and overcome, by our engineers is the intense heat generated by near-hypersonic regime, so intense it cannot be dissipated by even the most powerful radiators available. ^{(Test realised with 1 different model of radiators)} The scorching airflow is first of all mitigated by the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer"'s stratospheric altitude of 26 km reducing the air density even further than conventional supersonic aircraft. Then, the high-tolerance low-conduction materials of the nosecone ensure that the bulk of the heat is absorbed but not conducted to the rest of the plane keeping sensitive components shielded from the outer blaze. These measures would not be as efficient without the last feature of the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer"'s heat management system: the drag-reducing aerospike ^{(The "drag-reducing aerospike" system does not contribute in reducing the aircraft's drag.)} placed at the very end of the nosecone allowing to detach the airflow shockwaves from the body of the aircraft and deflecting most of it around the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer". Thanks to these brilliant feats of engineering, the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" is capable of withstanding the heat generated by its cruise for the entirety of a circumkerbal flight. ^{(Kerbalespace™ will not be held accountable for any damage sustained by the purchased aircraft or injuries after long- or short-term exposure to aerodynamic heating within the flight envelope.)}

Now I hear you, you may expect that such a ludicrous speed would be extremely uncomfortable for the passengers and would make for an excruciating ride. That would be without our expert designers which were hard at work to bring the luxurious comfort, signature of Kerbalespace™ for decades, to the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer". Intended for wealthy businesskerbals, it provides state-of-the-art amenities including, but not limited to, individual seats and cabin lighting! ^{(Available on selected models only.)} Although perhaps the most significant feature which will make your flight incomparably pleasant comes is the speed at which you will travel: indeed, the cruising speed of 1,500 m/s is so close to orbital velocity that you will be feeling less than half the gravity at the surface. ^{(Values measured for an eastbound flight and indicated as estimates only.)} Combined with the altitude far above any turbulence ^{(All turbulences encountered during cruise are liabilities of the Kerbin MET Office.)}, this made totally independent and neutral testers say that the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" was "the most comfortable vehicle that has ever existed, bar none", "outstandingly pleasant to ride" and "feeling like we are sitting in the clouds over 20 km below". ^{(Observations made by independent Kerbalespace™ employees remunerated for the test and their comments; only selected comments are mentioned, for a complete list of comments made after the test go look somewhere else;  Kerbalespace™ will not refund twice the difference of anything if you find a concurrent aircraft more comfortable.)}

Priced at only $66 million, the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" will allow you to carry up to 16 passengers faster than anything else in the world to anywhere and back ^{(This statement is indicative only and does not mean that the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" is the fastest means of transportation available; Kerbalespace™ will not provide assistance or be held accountable for stranded aircraft)}, for an affordable cost, all while enjoying a starry black sky in complete calmness. ^{(The aerodynamic heating experienced by the aircraft may obstruct outside view.)} Truly a miracle of engineering, this outstanding aircraft meets Kerbalespace™'s draconian performance and comfort requirements and we can affirm with confidence that it will meet yours as well. As usual, Kerbalespace™'s friendly consumer support and generous refund policy will ensure any complaint of yours never remains ignored. ^{(Kerbalespace™ will not be held accountable for performance lower than advertised; all figures and features given are indicative only and you agree that they cannot be considered as false advertising from Kerbalespace™ should they not be met; all purchases are definitive and non-refundable; by signing the acquisition contract the consumer agrees to be the sole responsible for the operation, maintenance and support of the Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" aircraft.)}

Kerbalespace™ X-1500B "Rømer" data sheet

Spoiler

Vc:               1500 m/s
Vto:              65 m/s
SC:               26000 m
RoC:              250+ m/s
Range:            over 3700 km (can circumnavigate)
Fuel burn rate:   under 0.37 per sec cruising
                  0.015 per passenger per km cruising
Fuel capacity:    1320 (6.6 t) default
                  1320+ (6.6+ t) full tanks
Thurst:           420 kN stationary ASL
Dry mass:         18.955 t
T-O mass:         25.555 t
MTOW:             30 t
Dimensions (LWH): 17.7x11.2x3.7 m
Part count:       55
Seating:          16 + 1 crew member

Cost:             $65,052,000
Wet cost:         $66,068,000
Operating cost:   $17 per passenger per km averaged

AG1: cabin lights

KerbalX download link: https://kerbalx.com/Gaarst/X-1500B-Romer

[MaverickSawyer]

Another day, another design:

 

Maverick AeroSpace Technologies proudly presents their latest design:

 

MAST SRJ-1 "Canuck"

 

Originally intended to be the bigger, faster brother of the Puddle Jumper, the SRJ-1 wound up morphing into a multi-purpose short-haul airframe. With a similar range, albeit with nearly 50% more speed and more seats, the Canuck is suitable for supporting intercity travel on medium-density routes, or running intermediate feeder routes.

 

Features:

Wide-spaced, stable landing gear: No matter how sloppy your pilots fly their final approach, they'll have a hard time tipping this bird over on landing.

 

Aft utility hold: Currently fitted with extra battery packs to turn over the large engines, this space can be fitted with extra equipment with little difficulty.

 

Powerful, fuel-efficient engines: Powered by a pair of J-33 medium-bypass turbofans, the SRJ-1 can travel for long distances easily, and can vault over mountains that would stymie the Puddle Jumper.

 

Integrated air stairs: As is typical of MAST's smaller airliners, the Canuck features integrated air stairs to make austere field operations easy and fast.

 

Class-leading reliability and maintainability: MAST's engineers all started their careers as mechanics, pilots, and ground support personnel, and their experiences have led to a robust, reliable, and service-friendly aircraft. After all, a plane that's sitting on the tarmac being worked on isn't making your airline any money.

 

SPECS:

Range: 1200 km + reserves for a missed approach/go around.

Cruise: 240 m/s @ 5-6 km. 1 hour, 30 minutes endurance.

Service ceiling: 8 km.

Vne (Velocity Never Exceed): Mach 0.95

Approach speed: 80 m/s

Takeoff/landing speed: ~60 m/s (takeoff); ~50 m/s (landing)

Crew: 2

Passengers: 40

MTOW: 16,137 kg

Parts: 49

Cost: $22,248,000

 

Get yours today!

 

 

Action groups:

1: Flaps

2: Reverse thrust

3: Engine start/stop, parking brakes release/set, landing lights on/off

4: Airstairs

Brake: Main gear brakes.

Gear: Actuate landing gear and auto-switch the landing lights.

 

Flight notes for the test pilot:

I have NOT tested this craft without the use of Atmospheric Autopilot, and cannot vouch for the stability of the craft under manual control. It seems to handle well enough, but use caution.

Requires quite a bit of nose up input on final, and gear can be a bit... bouncy. Mind your sink rates as you cross the threshold, though, and you should be fine.

Edited April 12, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[KeranoKerman]

Just to make sure, did you judges miss my flat fury? If you did then it is close to the bottom of the previous page. (Sorry about my horrible patience.

[neistridlar]

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

I just looked at them really quickly. Does this basically turn Goliaths into Lotuses with Wheesley stats (especially the thrust curve, which is almost too good really)?

I have taken a closer look at things. 0.9m Goliath cost half of the juno with approximately the same thrust, is a little heavier but comes with its own intake, and has twice the specific impulse, and thrust reverses. I made an aircraft using two 0.9m Goliaths, and the same aircraft with two junos. The Goliath one had almost twice the range, and yet was 1100 cheaper, and had 4 parts less. At 1.9m it becomes equivalent of the Lotus. The lotus is actually the better one in many ways, as the 1.9m Goliath has abut tiwce as much drag! In this case I actually think the Lotus is a little OP. The Wheesley cost a little more than this, weighs a little more than this, and has less thrust and less specific impulse, and does not come with its own intake. Only real downside to the Lotus is the mach 0.72 max speed.

[TheFlyingKerman]

43 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I have taken a closer look at things. 0.9m Goliath cost half of the juno with approximately the same thrust, is a little heavier but comes with its own intake, and has twice the specific impulse, and thrust reverses. I made an aircraft using two 0.9m Goliaths, and the same aircraft with two junos. The Goliath one had almost twice the range, and yet was 1100 cheaper, and had 4 parts less. At 1.9m it becomes equivalent of the Lotus. The lotus is actually the better one in many ways, as the 1.9m Goliath has abut tiwce as much drag! In this case I actually think the Lotus is a little OP. The Wheesley cost a little more than this, weighs a little more than this, and has less thrust and less specific impulse, and does not come with its own intake. Only real downside to the Lotus is the mach 0.72 max speed.

I agree. Another example: The big stock delta wing costs 500 and has an area of 2, the small one costs 200 and an area of 0.5. I am sure a scaled down large wing is cheaper and equivalent in every other ways.

[neistridlar]

26 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

I agree. Another example: The big stock delta wing costs 500 and has an area of 2, the small one costs 200 and an area of 0.5. I am sure a scaled down large wing is cheaper and equivalent in every other ways.

Tested this. The down scaled one is exactly the same as the small one, just slightly cheaper. The scaled one maintains the same price per wing area though, so I don't think it terribly unbalanced. I tested the wet wings as well. The FAT-455 vs. the FAT-A. The performance difference between the FAT-A based wing and FAT-455 scaled wing was pretty much the same as FAT-A based wing vs. non-scaled FAT-455. That is The FAT-A is cheaper but heavier, so it get's worse fuel economy, but lower purchase price. When you downscale the FAT-455 wing you forfeit the part count advantage as well though, so I don't think there is nothing wrong with scaling those.

Down scaling landing gear is very beneficial though. Offering both better performance and better price. I think the rule of thumb here should be to always use the closest size to what you need, and if you scale down one, try scaling up the other to cancel it out.

Down scaling intakes and nosecones seem to be a bit of a mixed bag. The down scaled ones seem to be something like half the price, but twice the weight. Don't think there is really much problem with this.

Any other parts people are concerned with?

[Box of Stardust]

Anyone have any tips to make working floats for seaplanes that aren't massive/relatively scale size to the aircraft?

Though I'm thinking that's pretty much impossible with the parts we have, even with TweakScale usage. But I'm not sure I get the water physics anyways. 

If only ram air intake floats were still a thing...

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

14 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Anyone have any tips to make working floats for seaplanes that aren't massive/relatively scale size to the aircraft?

<Snip>

I believe fairings make pretty good floats. In fact I don't think I've ever managed to sink one.

[Box of Stardust]

15 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I believe fairings make pretty good floats. In fact I don't think I've ever managed to sink one.

I'm still in 1.3.1 by the way. I've heard there's fairing bugs in 1.4.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

41 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'm still in 1.3.1 by the way. I've heard there's fairing bugs in 1.4.

This applies to all versions of KSP with fairings.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

Anyone have any tips to make working floats for seaplanes that aren't massive/relatively scale size to the aircraft?

Though I'm thinking that's pretty much impossible with the parts we have, even with TweakScale usage. But I'm not sure I get the water physics anyways. 

If only ram air intake floats were still a thing...

I suggest putting structural hulls inline with the other stuff, they add floatation and it is cheaper than dedicated pontoons.

[Box of Stardust]

1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I believe fairings make pretty good floats. In fact I don't think I've ever managed to sink one.

Okay, confirmed, fairings are pretty awesome floats.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's – GAI Tin

Figures as Tested:

• Price:  9,903,000
• Fuel:  800 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 250m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 1,600m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.065 Kallons/sec
• Range: 3,000km

Review:

It’s cheap, it’s fast, are you sure this is a sea plane? Where are the flotation devices? Guess GAI does not believe in flotation devices. Anyways, in typical GAI fashion the taildragger landing gear prevents the aircraft to take off before 60m/s. The acceleration is fast enough that it does not really matter though. In the air the aircraft is very agile and easy to handle. Now GAI did not specify any particular cruising altitude, so our pilots just chose the number in the catalog that looked the most like a cruising altitude. It turned out to be the range, 1,563km, well, km wasn’t going to work, but meters certainly were. We got a speed of 346m/s and range of 1730km, quite respectable for a sea plane, though the fuel efficiency was not the best. Seeing as this speed is pretty much right in the middle of the sound barrier, we figured we could do better at a lower speed, and tested 250m/s, which still is quite fast for a sea plane, and got a range of 3000km, and a good fuel economy for a sea plane. Pretty impressive stuff for such a cheap plane.

According to the brochure the plane has been fitted with an afterburner for supersonic flight and takeoff from water, however our pilots could not find any controls for it in the cockpit. As a result of recent events at the testing facility however there was an abundance of struts available, and so one was re-purposed to switch the afterburners on and off. Cruising with afterburners however the fuel economy went from quite good to positively terrible. At 647m/s the speed is almost unheard of for a sea plane though. Landing both in water and on land can be accomplished as slow as 44m/s, with a short stopping distance. Taking off from water however, even with afterburners proved to be a little bit challenging. Now there seemed to be a trick to it, pull up just enough to not get the tail wet. Well that was easier said than done with the tail so close to the water, but still possible.

The passenger comfort is decent. With the engine mounted directly to the fuselage, there is some vibrations to be felt, but the fuel tanks in the back do a good job in soaking it up. The test passengers complained that the ride was a little rough on the ground though. We managed to track this down to the tail wheel. There seems to be something wrong with the suspension back there.

With its 26 parts and a single engine, we don’t think this aircraft will be hard to maintain. Though With the engine getting partially submerged every time the aircraft lands in water probably will increase the maintenance. It also features a slightly above average fuel economy. Being such a cheap plane to buy though we think we will make back the investment quite quickly with this one.

The verdict:
A sea plane with an unusually low price and unusually high speed. There simply does not seem to be any excuse not to buy some of these. We will take 9. We suspect the emergency services will be very interested in buying some as well.

[RedPandaz]

19 hours ago, hoioh said:

That's clearly a mk1 cabin and holds 8 people according to the rules, so upsaling passenger cabins offers negative bonus. I would say that scaling (up or down) of passenger cabins is out of the question in all cases.

Just like *scales a full passenger cabin to the size of a can of soda*?