Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, Mathrilord said:

Is kerbal joint reinforcement allowed?

It is not in the list of allowed mods, and I assume it requires the reviewers to install additional mods. In that case it should not be allowed. Liberal use of autostrut and regular struts does help a lot. Unless you are trying for the biggest jumbo you should not need anymore than that.

[Artienia]

Sorry to disturb but when will the next review be? there are a lot of people eager to find out. The last was on the 12th

[neistridlar]

1 hour ago, Artienia said:

Sorry to disturb but when will the next review be? there are a lot of people eager to find out. The last was on the 12th

I updated the copy of the review cue: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit?ts=5aff715c#gid=566807625

I am trying to get one finished up today, but there is no schedule. Keep in mind that many of the reviewers are students, and we are right in the middle of the exam period, so I would expect the pace to pick up in a few weeks, as people finish up their exams.

[Artienia]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I updated the copy of the review cue: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13u3dPW0zIhAgVe_UnwFlQEqQiFSXHlGcih_XsgZiF-8/edit?ts=5aff715c#gid=566807625

I am trying to get one finished up today, but there is no schedule. Keep in mind that many of the reviewers are students, and we are right in the middle of the exam period, so I would expect the pace to pick up in a few weeks, as people finish up their exams.

is that every plane submission that needs to be reviewed? if yes than mine is missing.

[neistridlar]

5 minutes ago, Artienia said:

is that every plane submission that needs to be reviewed? if yes than mine is missing.

It is only up to date up to page 17 of this thread (page numbers with n after them are the new thread, the others are the old thread). If yours is from before page 17 here, then please point out where, and I will add it to the cue.

[Artienia]

32 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

It is only up to date up to page 17 of this thread (page numbers with n after them are the new thread, the others are the old thread). If yours is from before page 17 here, then please point out where, and I will add it to the cue.

It is way after that. I am the JANET guy, you helped me and my plane take off
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/172690-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot-continued/&page=21&tab=comments#comment-3372353
scroll down a little to find it

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Artienia said:

It is way after that. I am the JANET guy, you helped me and my plane take off
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/172690-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot-continued/&page=21&tab=comments#comment-3372353
scroll down a little to find it

Ah, I remember that one. Ok, no worries then, it will be added the next time someone updates the spread sheet. We are so far behind though, that it seems kind of pointless to keep it perfectly up to date all the time. To put things into perspective, the one I am working on now was submitted in December... It should be the last one from 2017 I think.

[Artienia]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Ah, I remember that one. Ok, no worries then, it will be added the next time someone updates the spread sheet. We are so far behind though, that it seems kind of pointless to keep it perfectly up to date all the time. To put things into perspective, the one I am working on now was submitted in December... It should be the last one from 2017 I think.

You should get more guys to help you

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Artienia said:

You should get more guys to help you

I have been trying. 3 new reviewers have started after me, but between them they have so far only managed to do two reviews . Your are free to join in on the fun though, if you feel up to the task.

[Artienia]

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I have been trying. 3 new reviewers have started after me, but between them they have so far only managed to do two reviews . Your are free to join in on the fun though, if you feel up to the task.

Wait You can actually join? If yes hit me up with the table and i'll do a review right now. It is 21:11 here so kinda late but who cares. If i get the job i could do 2 reviews / one day on the weekends (2 for saturday, 2 for sunday). Where i live monday and the day after is like a holiday so more reviews i guess?

 

 

[TheTripleAce3]

7 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I have been trying. 3 new reviewers have started after me, but between them they have so far only managed to do two reviews . Your are free to join in on the fun though, if you feel up to the task.

*Joins to review plane I submitted*

[Artienia]

Just now, TheTripleAce3 said:

*Joins to review plane I submitted*

*joins to review every plane except mine so the other people have no choice other than review mine every single time*

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Artienia said:

Wait You can actually join? If yes hit me up with the table and i'll do a review right now. It is 21:11 here so kinda late but who cares. If i get the job i could do 2 reviews / one day on the weekends (2 for saturday, 2 for sunday). Where i live monday and the day after is like a holiday so more reviews i guess?

 

 

Great! I recommend you start by reading up on previous reviews, so you get a feel for the style, also try some of the planes out your self to kind of get calibrated. If you want to do a practice review @CrazyJebGuy has recommended you take one of the early planes that he submitted, and which has already been reviewed. I will PM you with further information.

 

Just now, TheTripleAce3 said:

*Joins to review plane I submitted*

Judges are not allowed to review their own creations for obvious reasons.

[Artienia]

4 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Great! I recommend you start by reading up on previous reviews, so you get a feel for the style, also try some of the planes out your self to kind of get calibrated. If you want to do a practice review @CrazyJebGuy has recommended you take one of the early planes that he submitted, and which has already been reviewed. I will PM you with further information.

 

I will await your PM to me with further information inside that will guide me

4 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

@CrazyJebGuy <- cant delete his name

Judges are not allowed to review their own creations for obvious reasons.

That will leave you guys with no other choice than to review my plane and only my plane. muwhahahahahah

[TheTripleAce3]

11 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Judges are not allowed to review their own creations for obvious reasons.

(That's the joke)

[CrazyJebGuy]

9 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

Is kerbal joint reinforcement allowed?

No, part of the challenge is building something that doesn't fall apart.

[MaverickSawyer]

There's two reasons I'm avoiding the Jumbo and larger categories... One, my computer can't handle the part counts needed to compete, and two... I kinda fail to see the point from a practical standpoint. If I build something that big, it'll be a cargo plane to carry rocket parts to either Woomerang or the new desert launch site.

[kingstevenrules]

37 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

There's two reasons I'm avoiding the Jumbo and larger categories... One, my computer can't handle the part counts needed to compete, and two... I kinda fail to see the point from a practical standpoint. If I build something that big, it'll be a cargo plane to carry rocket parts to either Woomerang or the new desert launch site.

Makes sense to me! 

[TheFlyingKerman]

5 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

I kinda fail to see the point from a practical standpoint.

Jumbo jets are supposed to be more economical and fuel efficient per seat, although as I know of no jumbo reviewed so far has realized this potential.

[neistridlar]

5 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

Jumbo jets are supposed to be more economical and fuel efficient per seat, although as I know of no jumbo reviewed so far has realized this potential.

Jup, that is the Idea. Though most of them fail horribly because they use the Mk3 cabin, which is heavy, expensive and draggy. There have been a few that were decent though. The skots ratt is not too bad, and the X-series night fury and SSTP Kramer were quite good. The colossus and sky titanic also did fairly well. When ever my stingy 152 gets reviewed though, everything else is going to be put to shame . It sacrifices pretty much everything to get low price and good fuel efficiency, and it does so very well.

There is an other point as well to Jumbos though. On high traffic routes you may not have enough runway capacity to cover the demand with smaller aircraft. Also the Mk3 cabins are very spacious. you could easily fit 3 times as many seats in those, so for luxury flights they kind of make sense.

[Artienia]

 Test Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - GAI Turbo-XL Classic

WARNING! Since this plane was released many of its specifics changed (price, Fuel Burn Rate). The Plane will be judged as it was released yesterday

• Price: 21,484,000
• Fuel: 1300 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 190m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.31 Kallons/sec
• Range:  Less than 800km

The GAI HAPPI plane is very interesting. It's old design would make you think that it is slow and badly manueverble, but it is the opposite. For its size and engines, it is fast and this is by far the easiest plane to manuever. Our professionals at the KSC have tried to put it in a dive and pull it out at the last minute (They have experience in that) and it was nearly impossible to crash. The only thing we feared would happen that it's wings wouth break off, but that never happened

The HAPPI plane is very good for small airports, as it can lift off at 65m/s without any pilot intervention. Right after takeoff it can be easily manuevered and flown. In the air it slows down a little but that is no problem! A plane that can do its job is the plane we need. But.... here is where the first problem comes, Its range is barely 800km and that is a problem. For Sightseeing it is perfect, for trans-oceanic flights? It could be dangerous.

Passanger comfort is an other problem, because the two hot streams of air blow from the engines further up, the majority of the noise goes to the people below. Also the hot air could, over time damage pretty significantly the plane's windows and paint.

The verdict:
This plane is good, but not as good as it was back in the days. Its extreme manuverability is a giant plus, while its barely capable range is a big minus. Overall We would like to order 3 planes for small airports to use as tourist planes or very short route ones. We would, if given the chance will buy more if the range and comfort issue is fixed

 

[neistridlar]

30 minutes ago, Artienia said:

 Test Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - GAI Turbo-XL Classic

 

WARNING! Since this plane was released many of its specifics changed (price, Fuel Burn Rate). The Plane will be judged as it was released yesterday

• Price: 21,484,000
• Fuel: 1300 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 190m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 3,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.31 Kallons/sec
• Range:  Less than 800km

The GAI HAPPI plane is very interesting. It's old design would make you think that it is slow and badly manueverble, but it is the opposite. For its size and engines, it is fast and this is by far the easiest plane to manuever. Our professionals at the KSC have tried to put it in a dive and pull it out at the last minute (They have experience in that) and it was nearly impossible to crash. The only thing we feared would happen that it's wings wouth break off, but that never happened

The HAPPI plane is very good for small airports, as it can lift off at 65m/s without any pilot intervention. Right after takeoff it can be easily manuevered and flown. In the air it slows down a little but that is no problem! A plane that can do its job is the plane we need. But.... here is where the first problem comes, Its range is barely 800km and that is a problem. For Sightseeing it is perfect, for trans-oceanic flights? It could be dangerous.

Passanger comfort is an other problem, because the two hot streams of air blow from the engines further up, the majority of the noise goes to the people below. Also the hot air could, over time damage pretty significantly the plane's windows and paint.

The verdict:
This plane is good, but not as good as it was back in the days. Its extreme manuverability is a giant plus, while its barely capable range is a big minus. Overall We would like to order 3 planes for small airports to use as tourist planes or very short route ones. We would, if given the chance will buy more if the range and comfort issue is fixed

 

So, I retested the cruise speed and fuel burn rate of the GAI Turbo-XL Classic in 1.4.3 with R21.1 of APP, and I get ~0.10 Kallons/sec of fuel burn rate, and cruise speed of ~200 m/s at 3km altitude. Something here is not right. Also for the take off, compared to other planes in it's class it really is kind of long, and high take off speed. 

Also it would be nice if you had a paragraph where you talk about the economy. That is purchase price, maintenance (part count and engine count), pilot training and what kind of tickets you would sell for this plane (economy, businesses, etc.). Don't have to mention everything in every review, but especially if something stands out it is good to mention it.

This would also be a good opportunity for you to practice good English. there are two places in particular that stands out to me. "We would, if given the chance will buy more if the range and comfort issue is fixed". This sentence needs some cleanup. The way most reviewers would word this is: "We would like to reserve options for more planes if the range and comfort issues are fixed". also "the majority of the noise goes to the people below". Below should definitively be replaced with "behind", "in the rear" or "aft of the engines". And "Also the hot air could, over time damage pretty significantly the plane's windows and paint." should be rearranged: "Also the hot air could, over time damage the plane's windows and paint pretty significantly ."

Other than that I think it is a good review.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, Artienia said:

 -snip-

No idea how you were flying it, the plane was unchanged since I uploaded BTW. I managed to get it to 214m/s, with about double the range you stated. Neistridlar (I think it was him anyway) turned off the main engine and managed to get a range of 3400km.

[Artienia]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

So, I retested the cruise speed and fuel burn rate of the GAI Turbo-XL Classic in 1.4.3 with R21.1 of APP, and I get ~0.10 Kallons/sec of fuel burn rate, and cruise speed of ~200 m/s at 3km altitude. Something here is not right. Also for the take off, compared to other planes in it's class it really is kind of long, and high take off speed. 

Also it would be nice if you had a paragraph where you talk about the economy. That is purchase price, maintenance (part count and engine count), pilot training and what kind of tickets you would sell for this plane (economy, businesses, etc.). Don't have to mention everything in every review, but especially if something stands out it is good to mention it.

This would also be a good opportunity for you to practice good English. there are two places in particular that stands out to me. "We would, if given the chance will buy more if the range and comfort issue is fixed". This sentence needs some cleanup. The way most reviewers would word this is: "We would like to reserve options for more planes if the range and comfort issues are fixed". also "the majority of the noise goes to the people below". Below should definitively be replaced with "behind", "in the rear" or "aft of the engines". And "Also the hot air could, over time damage pretty significantly the plane's windows and paint." should be rearranged: "Also the hot air could, over time damage the plane's windows and paint pretty significantly ."

Other than that I think it is a good review.

i could reach 200m/s+ with 0.12 FC but that was when i pitched down like 10° so in my opinion it shouldnt count

About the economy, Okey

The bad thing is the spellchecker doesnt work

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

No idea how you were flying it, the plane was unchanged since I uploaded BTW. I managed to get it to 214m/s, with about double the range you stated. Neistridlar (I think it was him anyway) turned off the main engine and managed to get a range of 3400km.

even the price shanged for the plane in my test WITHOUT doing anything to it. we had a private talk with nei where i came to the same problem and we have no idea why.
Our best guess is that the bumblebee engine was nerfed

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Artienia said:

i could reach 200m/s+ with 0.12 FC but that was when i pitched down like 10° so in my opinion it shouldnt count

About the economy, Okey

The bad thing is the spellchecker doesnt work

Another tip: it's nice if you link to the review, maybe in the title. I'll review something after I go cycling, and I'll make sure to show you what I mean by that.

 

I'd also like to say the other very economical jumbo jet is my Konig, slightly worse at economy than the Slinky 152, but unlike the slinky it's not spectacularly under-powered.