Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Artienia]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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.

sorry what? dumb dumb here

[neistridlar]

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

Fuel burn rate and cruise speed should be measured in level flight. There must be something wrong with either your install or something if you can not get it to fly with lesser fuel burn rate than that. 

Also the stuff I pointed out is not spelling errors, but bad sentence structure. As you read and write more I am sure You will pick it up. Just need more practice.

[Artienia]

1 minute ago, neistridlar said:

Fuel burn rate and cruise speed should be measured in level flight. There must be something wrong with either your install or something if you can not get it to fly with lesser fuel burn rate than that. 

Also the stuff I pointed out is not spelling errors, but bad sentence structure. As you read and write more I am sure You will pick it up. Just need more practice.

maybe if you try it? I belive you but i tried mutliple times and nothing happened
Man i dont wanna be disqualified to review bc theres some buggy excrements with my ksp

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Artienia said:

maybe if you try it? I belive you but i tried mutliple times and nothing happened
Man i dont wanna be disqualified to review bc theres some buggy excrements with my ksp

I already stated that it did try it. Just minutes ago. And I got ~0.10-0.12 kal/s and 200-210m/s speeds, depending on altitude. It was pretty much impossible for me to get the fuel burn rate up to 0.31, as you stated in the review.

I would recommend that you make a backup of you current install, and do a clean install with only the mods allowed for this challenge (they are all linked in the OP).

6 minutes ago, Artienia said:

sorry what? dumb dumb here

You can make a link like this in the title: The GAI* Turbo-XL Classic . To do this, go to the post where the aircraft was submitted. In the top right corner there is an icon with 3 dots connected by two lines. click that to get a link to that post and copy it.. When you post your review highlight the text that you want to become the link. Then press the button with two chain links. This brings up a new dialogue box. paste the link to the submission in the upper box and press insert into post.

[kingstevenrules]

I'll do a review of the Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38\52 sometime soon when I have the chance. Hopefully, it'll qualify me for aircraft reviewing.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Kernel Kraken's Krakentech AKP-10 Jumbo Jet

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 480,853,000
• Fuel: 19,375 kallons
• Cruising speed: 214m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4700 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.88 kal/s
• Range: 4,711 km

Review Notes:

Given the hype about colossally over-sized planes coming from Krakentech, we were a little surprised to find this jumbo was only moderately big, seating 240. We were more surprised at the construction on it, with the absolutely colossal vertical stabilizer, the odd observation post up front and the V shaped wings on top, this plane will not be infringing anybody's copyright. Adding to that, it's not fully symmetrical. It comes close, but we found the tail-plane to flex in manuevers, but only the  starboard side one. The port side tailplane is quite rigid.

 Takeoff is pretty quick, the engines are a good fit and accelerate well enough. It can pitch up on the back wheels very easily, since they are so very close to the centre of mass. So close, in fact, that like some Neist Air designs it can sit, nose in the air, on the tail. It's a good thing most of our air-strips are not angled, so it would probably tip backwards a lot.

Regardless of that, the top speed is not very impressive, nor the time taken to achieve it, and climb is a bit on the slow side. Range is decent, and the plane handles nicely. We wrote that before we actually did pull any high G turns at cruise speed and altitude, and while it is technically true it won't do it for long, since we found the build quality lacking. We tried rolling first, and it has an impressive rate of roll, and the outer engines produced impressive explosions too.

 Next off the flying fail bus was the starboard tail-plane, followed by the port side V wing on top, apparently it got dizzy in the flat spin this other stuff induced. Other dizzy departees included the starboard fuel tank's rear nose cone and the starboard V wing end tip. (also the rear one) Genedock Kerman did manage to get the remainder of the plane out of the spin, and flew a very damaged plane back.

Safety, with a skilled pilot two engines is sufficient and it can fly with only half a tail-plane, so that's kind of good, but sort of un-done by the fact it can easily tear those things off. By the way we meant to say this earlier but it can take off at 40m/s in a very short run, would be decent for a turboprop.

Comfort, when not spinning about, is very good. Engine noise and vibrations are distant and largely negligible for most all passengers, and the views from the luxurious cabins are nothing to complain over.

The Verdict:

It's another luxury jumbo, but it has the disadvantage of being quite able to cause damage to itself in flight. It's nothing special in other regards like speed, as compared to a Grande Dumbo or something, and that has the advantage of being a bit cheaper, and not having bits fall off mid-flight. The maintenance may also cost a fair little bit, with 178 parts it's just the nail in the coffin for this thing. A reinforced, cheaper version might do better though.

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's – BS-40 Super

Figures as tested:

• Price:  30,475,000
• Fuel:  880 Kallons
• Cruising Speed: 940m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 23,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.31 Kallons/sec
• Range: 2,660km

Review:

The last member of the BS family to be reviewed. Not surprising it has a lot in common with the rest of the family, twin engines mounted mid-wing, T-tail and the telltale belly tank. It also shares the short, but fast, take off run and tremendous climb rate. Now when our pilot saw the tremendous down angle on the horizontal stabilizer they though to themselves, at least this one we are not going to have to hold back on the stick all the time, and have the autopilot jump up and down all the time. Well, it turns out they were wrong. At the recommended cruising parameters, the aircraft needs almost full elevator deflection to stay in the air, which makes it very difficult to maintain the recommended cruise. They were not quite able to reproduce the results from the brochure, having to fly slightly faster, and burning ~50% more fuel doing so. It also required a tremendous 10 degrees nose up attitude to maintain this cruise. Still the aircraft manages to have good range, and about average fuel economy for its class. For a hypersonic plane like this the cruising speed is a little disappointing, not even breaking the 1000m/s bar.

Thanks to the built-in trim, flight at lower altitudes was quite comfortable, and landing performance was much like we have come to expect from the BS family, short and easy. The passengers were overall quite happy with the noise levels, with the engines mounted out on the wings and far back. However, the flight attendants reported a peculiar incident occurred shortly after coffee and tea had been served. First the trolley tipped over, and just a few seconds later a choir of curses sounded in unison, as everyone had spilled their coffee. Upon further investigation of the incident our engineers determined that, in an attempt to get back up to cruising altitude, after having experimented with the throttle settings to get to the desired cruise speed, they had pitched up 12.8 degrees. Well, as had been determined in earlier tests, the critical angle for coffee cups against airplane tables was 12.6 degrees. Now had it not been for the fact that everyone was completely lost in the entertainment system, this would not have been much of a problem, as they would have had approximately 2.4 seconds to react.

Now the engineers, clever as they are, came up with a solution to the problem. Simply attach a small sepatron, controlled by an accelerometer to each cup, and if it detects that the cup starts to slide, just fire the sepatron at the critical moment, so that it stays on the table. The health and safety department however decided this was not a good idea, claiming that the paint on the sepatrons could pose a choking hazard, should it fall off in larger flakes.

When it comes to the running cost of this aircraft, it is about as average as they come with its two engines, and 42 parts. Though 30 million is fairly reasonable for a jet like this, especially considering how comfortable it is. Pilot training will be a little on the high side though, due to the challenging cruise characteristics.

The verdict:
A comfortable supersonic with average economics and good range. We will order 7 for business class flights, with options for 2 more if the coffee spilling issue can be fixed, and another 3 if cruising speed can be increased.

Edited May 21, 2018 by neistridlar

[CrazyJebGuy]

8 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's – BS-40 Super

-snip-

Bit surprised the appalling trim requirements were mentioned in passing, I flew it a bit before (but I scrapped that review) and that was a pretty big problem, due to the fact I couldn't pull up at all near those heights. Also, are you sure it went to 33km? I thought the recommendation was only 23km altitude.

That pitch problem caused me to discover it can land on water easily.

[Blasty McBlastblast]

@neistridlar another fine review   Our BS designers are currently considering your recommendations for sepratron boosted drink service, perhaps even adding "rocket fuel" cocktails!

On another (maybe related to performance) note, do you know if the drag-cube bug afflicting airplane plus parts has been resolved? I've been holding back from playing with this mod until i hear it has been fixed...

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Bit surprised the appalling trim requirements were mentioned in passing, I flew it a bit before (but I scrapped that review) and that was a pretty big problem, due to the fact I couldn't pull up at all near those heights. Also, are you sure it went to 33km? I thought the recommendation was only 23km altitude.

That pitch problem caused me to discover it can land on water easily.

Oops, typo, it was 23km, barely. And yes getting up there was difficult, which is why I mentioned it both in the flight characteristics and economics, and hinted at it in the comfort sections as well. Don't know how I should have made it more clear.

1 minute ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

@neistridlar another fine review   Our BS designers are currently considering your recommendations for sepratron boosted drink service, perhaps even adding "rocket fuel" cocktails!

On another (maybe related to performance) note, do you know if the drag-cube bug afflicting airplane plus parts has been resolved? I've been holding back from playing with this mod until i hear it has been fixed...

I have submitted a fix for it. @blackheart612 has not acknowledged it yet. From what I understand he/she has not been able to work much on the mod lately due to real life stuff. I have posted the fix in the APP thread, so you can play with it if you like, but until it becomes part of an official release I don't think we should use it for this challenge.

On a more serious note though, with the coffee. Some angle of incidence would do wonders, and with fixed drag cubes I recon it would improve the cruising speed and fuel efficiency as well.

[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: 208m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 1,000m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0.12 Kallons/sec
• Range:  2,253km

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. Now when we first tested, we flew it in rainy weather this is why we got low range (AKA i have no idea why it changed, i removed all mods except the ones which i need for the airplane)

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 further down. Also the hot air could, over time damage the plane's paint and windows

The verdict:
This plane is great. Beginer pilots could pilot it with ease, Its hard to loose controll and its somewhat fuel efficient. It's over-the-top range is excelent for long routes, as well for short ones. Overall, We will be buying 5 for buissness and 2 for tourits purpouses.

[Andetch]

@Artienia well done on a first review! Keep up the good work! May I suggest some more comments on how it flies? Like climb rate, descent rate, emergency landing possibility (engine failure/water landing), question why it has an expensive supersonic air intake when it doesn't go supersonic, the ease of loading and serving inflight snacks...... 
 

Let me make this clear, it's not criticisms, I haven't (and probably couldn't) do better, but I wanna help get as many judges on this thread as possible because I like it, (it is a very popular challenge) and I wanna see reviews coming quicker! 

[Artienia]

Just now, Andetch said:

@Artienia well done on a first review! Keep up the good work! May I suggest some more comments on how it flies? Like climb rate, descent rate, emergency landing possibility (engine failure/water landing), question why it has an expensive supersonic air intake when it doesn't go supersonic, the ease of loading and serving inflight snacks...... 
 

Let me make this clear, it's not criticisms, I haven't (and probably couldn't) do better, but I wanna help get as many judges on this thread as possible because I like it, (it is a very popular challenge) and I wanna see reviews coming quicker! 

I didn't built the plane so have no idea why it has an intake. Neis said i can go to the next planes and i will sure use the things you suggested to make it better
thanks

[Andetch]

5 minutes ago, Artienia said:

I didn't built the plane so have no idea why it has an intake. Neis said i can go to the next planes and i will sure use the things you suggested to make it better
thanks

I know you didn't build it, that's why you can question things like that - it comes down to economics, and undue cost to the airline. I look forward to reading your next review (ADX G Type Seaplane? Andetch HSKT Night Fury? No, I am not biased, hahaha!!) 
Thank you for helping with reviews, on behalf of all the people waiting for their planes to be reviewed! xx 

[Artienia]

1 minute ago, Andetch said:

I know you didn't build it, that's why you can question things like that - it comes down to economics, and undue cost to the airline. I look forward to reading your next review (ADX G Type Seaplane? Andetch HSKT Night Fury? No, I am not biased, hahaha!!) 
Thank you for helping with reviews, on behalf of all the people waiting for their planes to be reviewed! xx 

Well when i first submitted my plane one very kind reviewer review it instantly, so i will do the same to the people. The  first three planes i will review (without names) are the

• P-4
• 787-10
• GRJ-001

[CrazyJebGuy]

9 minutes ago, Artienia said:

I didn't built the plane so have no idea why it has an intake. Neis said i can go to the next planes and i will sure use the things you suggested to make it better
thanks

It has that because it would be a stronger place to attach the struts from the wing tips, since attaching them to the engine sleeves causes much more wing bending.

 

Why do you call it the HAPPI by the way?

[Artienia]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

It has that because it would be a stronger place to attach the struts from the wing tips, since attaching them to the engine sleeves causes much more wing bending.

 

Why do you call it the HAPPI by the way?

Gay = Happy
Gai = Happi

 

very creative i know

[Andetch]

Good to see you're being fair
I only have two planes  outstanding, and one was a bit of a joke entry anyway (without wings). I was going to make some more, but I don't wanna bog down the already overworked judges with more of the same. Unless I can make something really special I don't think I will submit more. 

2 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

It has that because it would be a stronger place to attach the struts from the wing tips, since attaching them to the engine sleeves causes much more wing bending.

 

Why do you call it the HAPPI by the way?

Ahh, so it is in the spirit of KSP - using a part for something other than what the game makers designed it for! 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Artienia said:

Gay = Happy
Gai = Happi

 

very creative i know

And seemingly everybody gets this wrong, but it is not the GAI* Turbo-XL, rather the GAI Turbo-XL. The asterisk is to put a thing at the bottom saying that "yeah oops I didn't mean it to say gay, it was an unfortunate acronym" Genuine mistake of my part when creating company.

[Artienia]

3 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

And seemingly everybody gets this wrong, but it is not the GAI* Turbo-XL, rather the GAI Turbo-XL. The asterisk is to put a thing at the bottom saying that "yeah oops I didn't mean it to say gay, it was an unfortunate acronym" Genuine mistake of my part when creating company.

i didnt put an *, i left it out if you check my post

i just used the happi

[CrazyJebGuy]

Just now, Artienia said:

i didnt put an *, i left it out if you check my post

i just used the happi

Yes but that is till wrong.

[Andetch]

 

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

And seemingly everybody gets this wrong, but it is not the GAI* Turbo-XL, rather the GAI Turbo-XL. The asterisk is to put a thing at the bottom saying that "yeah oops I didn't mean it to say gay, it was an unfortunate acronym" Genuine mistake of my part when creating company.

I would pronounce GAI more similar to "guy" than "gay" anyway..... Not sure how to solve the debate on the correct way to say it - but the aircon company Daikin (Japanese firm, anyone know them?) is pronounced "Dye-kin" so take the first three letters, replace the D with G and you have a similar sound to "guy". 

[Artienia]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

Yes but that is till wrong.

what a nicw weather we are having today dont you think?

[Eivuii]

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

just asking, what's the average time between the posting of aircraft and review?

[Artienia]

2 minutes ago, Eivuii said:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

just asking, what's the average time between the posting of aircraft and review?

2.17742789 × 10⁹ seconds