Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

8 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Well, I'm not that great at coming up with formal math equations, but I can outline some points in the system we can add. 

For starters, we can consider the Mk1 cabin to be an 'economy'-level cabin, with a base comfort value. The Mk2 is wider, so more 'bussiness-class'. For the Size 2 and Mk3 cabins, I guess it gets the same treatment, but I think the Size 2 should get a slightly higher than base value due to its fairly high price. Maybe even give it the same value as a Mk2 cabin, depending how the price scales.

Then we can come up with modifiers for engine placement-related comfort, which will still have a factor of subjectiveness, but I think all the judges have a generally similar idea of how we rate this.

 

For maintenance, engine count obviously. We may need a modifier based on TweakScale re-sized parts (resized engines only?). A lot of aircraft here have their part count numbers increased by wing segments, which I always say 'maintenance will consist of checking welds between parts'; not exactly high maintenance despite increased part count.

 

This is all on top of what @hoioh said. Of course, exact mathematical forumlas to be determined. 

ok, proposal for scores:

other: 1 (this is for cargobays, or other creative solutions)

mk1: 2

Size2: 3

mk2: 4

mk3: 5

then make some formula that takes "noise/vibration/other factors*" on a scale from 1-5 as a comfort modifier scale.

*examples of other factors could be stuff clipped into the passenger compartment, like on the Colossus for instance where some cabins are heavily clipped into each other, or like the Kramer I think it was, where some passengers are seated upside down at an angle.

To define the comfort modifier could be defined out from a set of sample aircraft for comparison. I am thinking something like the Ikaros, which sacrifices a lot of aerodynamics to make for a fancy seating arrangement with a bar in the middle or what ever it was, would be a 5, while the bottom deck on the colossus with a pair of engines strapped directly to them would be a 1 or something like that.

Maybe the formula could be as simple as just adding the two scores together.

[hoioh]

21 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Well, I'm not that great at coming up with formal math equations, but I can outline some points in the system we can add. 

For starters, we can consider the Mk1 cabin to be an 'economy'-level cabin, with a base comfort value. The Mk2 is wider, so more 'bussiness-class'. For the Size 2 and Mk3 cabins, I guess it gets the same treatment, but I think the Size 2 should get a slightly higher than base value due to its fairly high price. Maybe even give it the same value as a Mk2 cabin, depending how the price scales.

Then we can come up with modifiers for engine placement-related comfort, which will still have a factor of subjectiveness, but I think all the judges have a generally similar idea of how we rate this.

 

For maintenance, engine count obviously. We may need a modifier based on TweakScale re-sized parts (resized engines only?). A lot of aircraft here have their part count numbers increased by wing segments, which I always say 'maintenance will consist of checking welds between parts'; not exactly high maintenance despite increased part count.

 

This is all on top of what @hoioh said. Of course, exact mathematical forumlas to be determined. 

 

I think the outlined rules in this challenge are fine, though I've personally always disagreed at some level that a Mk2 cabin only holds 8 if a Size 1 cabin also holds 8. But again, I've self-justified that by considering Mk2 cabins as more luxurious. We just need to fine-tune how we interpret the results of testing. 

Some of what you're mentioning is already integrated into the LIP10 score (I'd love to go into the details, but suffice it to say that cruise speed, number of engines, number of parts and number of struts are each weighed differently. I actualy mention them in descending order)

Passenger comfort though, isn't. So that needs adding in some way. Can we come up with 3 metrics for passenger comfort?

Engine placement (AKA noise/vibrations)
Luxury level of cabins (1 being reserved for seats in a cargo bay)
Max G-force?

[Andetch]

Type KAT "Chalduro" Update

We're pleased to announce that we finally updated the Chalduro to address some handling issues reported by KEA. We will perform modifications on the existing fleet of Chalduro's free of charge, based on KEA's promise to order more (range is enough to go from any one point on Kerbin to another, remember? Useful plane now you can turn it). 

As a reminder to pilots, it lifts off around 50m/s but it is unwise to do lots of turns until you're nearer 100 m/s. Fly with SAS engaged.
If/when you spin out (it can be deliberately span by using the yaw control or thrown around excessively) just disengage the SAS, release the control stick and cut the engine. When the nose settles into a dive near the prograde above 50 m/s turn SAS back on. Pull out of the dive, adding throttle as needed to re-enter level cruise flight.

As a reminder. the vital stats are:

• Cruise Level <6500m Range <3,400KM
• Cruise Level >1000m Range <1,500KM
• Cruise Angle 5 degrees.
• Rotate 40 m/s
• Liftoff >50m/s
• Landing <40m/s
• 1 - Thrust Reverse
• Toggle 0 - Toggle Engine
• Price 20,706,000
• Can be pushed off tall buildings, cliffs or mountains in lieu of a runway. 

https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/Andetch-Type-KAT-Chalduro

We would also like to remind pilots that the pointy end should be pointed forwards. If you get confused, just don't look at the wings!

[Box of Stardust]

35 minutes ago, hoioh said:

Some of what you're mentioning is already integrated into the LIP10 score (I'd love to go into the details, but suffice it to say that cruise speed, number of engines, number of parts and number of struts are each weighed differently. I actualy mention them in descending order)

Passenger comfort though, isn't. So that needs adding in some way. Can we come up with 3 metrics for passenger comfort?

Engine placement (AKA noise/vibrations)
Luxury level of cabins (1 being reserved for seats in a cargo bay)
Max G-force?

If there's better documentation of the LIP10 score, that'd be nice to see. I haven't found it, but maybe I just didn't look for it enough.

But yeah. A value per cabin, then a modifier based on outside factors (engine placement and other potential oddities).

Do we really need max g-force? Just because an aircraft has good maneuverability doesn't mean you have to use it. Under normal circumstances, I imagine g-force will be kept within a standardized limit, and abnormal circumstances, well, I don't think passengers are going to care much about their comfort by that point.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

If there's better documentation of the LIP10 score, that'd be nice to see. I haven't found it, but maybe I just didn't look for it enough.

But yeah. A value per cabin, then a modifier based on outside factors (engine placement and other potential oddities).

Do we really need max g-force? Just because an aircraft has good maneuverability doesn't mean you have to use it. Under normal circumstances, I imagine g-force will be kept within a standardized limit, and abnormal circumstances, well, I don't think passengers are going to care much about their comfort by that point.

My thoughts as well. Only exception is planes that struggle to go bellow like 5G or something like that, but that could be factored in to other parts of the score.

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

A lot of aircraft here have their part count numbers increased by wing segments, which I always say 'maintenance will consist of checking welds between parts'; not exactly high maintenance despite increased part count.

If you have a good way of counting wing parts (for instance on my slab 2592 with its 500 or there about parts, of which probably 100 is wing parts, I don't fancy counting them all by hand). That could easily be accounted for in the spreadsheet. having wing parts only count like 40% towards the calculation part count (yes there is such a thing in the spreadsheet, but most of the stuff you don't need to see is hidden).

3 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

If there's better documentation of the LIP10 score, that'd be nice to see. I haven't found it, but maybe I just didn't look for it enough.

I have written a little README in the spreadsheet, also I made this post a while back:

If you want more information on it I can probably go more in depth, but without diving into the inner workings of the spreadsheet it self that would be hard I think. Though I have been toying with the Idea of making an even more intuitive version of the LIP10 score, which turns it into a % above average (below average would be negative numbers). Could also link it to the Standard deviation, to give it a statistical prediction of how many of the competing planes it is going to be better than, so basicaly a score from 0-100% (though it will actually be impossible to score 0 or 100%). 

[hoioh]

17 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

If there's better documentation of the LIP10 score, that'd be nice to see. I haven't found it, but maybe I just didn't look for it enough.

But yeah. A value per cabin, then a modifier based on outside factors (engine placement and other potential oddities).

Do we really need max g-force? Just because an aircraft has good maneuverability doesn't mean you have to use it. Under normal circumstances, I imagine g-force will be kept within a standardized limit, and abnormal circumstances, well, I don't think passengers are going to care much about their comfort by that point.

There is/was, a lot of what was discussed happened in private chat and then a whole bunch just directly in cells of the spreadsheet, which were subsequently deleted...

What little there is in the form of an explanation is placed on the first page of the lifetime cost sheet, just look at the tabs on the bottom and click the leftmost one

 

I'm just spitting stuff here, but if flown normally I wouldn't expect G-forces to be outliers anyway unless controls are particularly janky.

Maybe something to do with the separation of control surfaces could influence a comfort score for providing a particularly bumpy ride? But then, what to include that in?

[neistridlar]

7 minutes ago, hoioh said:

Maybe something to do with the separation of control surfaces could influence a comfort score for providing a particularly bumpy ride? But then, what to include that in?

bumpy response to control inputs, like is often caused by non separated control surfaces, but also by badly factory trimmed aircraft as well, can be baked into the comfort modifier scale from my proposal. That one is going to be subjective anyways. I'm kind of in favor of having the more highly subjective factors count less than the hard cold objective ones, so that inconsistencies between judges don't weigh as much.

[GDJ]

3 hours ago, hoioh said:

I didn't want to claim anything, that's why I agree, but yeah, Neist mentioned it just now so that's what I simply responded to. Frankly I don't really care who came up with it, it's a good idea so we should pursue it.

As to the effective scoring, I was on the same path earlier with the design of a bunch of bronze, silver and gold medals to support the challenge: 
 

(snipped images of badges)

I think this would be a decent reward for planes that are respectively:

1. Bronze: good enough (AKA it flies well enough to consider a purchase)
2. Silver: Really good and sort of efficient (AKA it flies really well and is averagely efficient)
3. Gold: Really good and really efficient (AKA it flies really well AND is in the top 16% most efficient and cost effective)

This would make the numbers less arbitrary, but we would also have to start setting up a testing procedure and scoring for each test, which would be more official and more objective, but maybe also less fun for the reviewers?

We could use the judging sheet to start to make a setup to judge (please extend this list):

Roll control
Yaw control
Pitch control

Attitude at cruise
Stability at cruise
Meets cruise requirements

KPPM
Seat price
LIP10 (a metric @neistridlar and myself came up with a few months ago that scores the lifetime cost per seat mile based on a whole range of plane characteristics, not just fuel efficieny)

Integrated safety features
Behaviour with engine failure
Take-off and landing safety

Please add

Using numbers 1 - 5 for each respective criterium (1 for really bad, 5 for excellent)

Well heck If I can earn a badge or two then I'll improve the Prop-Star and resubmit.

[TheTripleAce3]

6 hours ago, neistridlar said:

My thoughts as well. Only exception is planes that struggle to go bellow like 5G or something like that, but that could be factored in to other parts of the score.

Time to go back to the drawing board then...

[CrazyJebGuy]

@neistridlar@Box of Stardust

I'm a bit skeptical that all this data about planes is a good idea. A significant proportion of these numbers would have to be gathered in a subjective way, you can put definitions like a pitch score of 2 means easy side-slipping and possible to spin, but what qualifies as side-slipping would vary between reviewers, some might consider only a very little bit to be sideslipping, others might think the nose has to slip a bit further to qualify, and in those tests is rudder used to correct the slip, it's things like this that could lead to endless minutia, and the fine tuned statistics I think get pretty useless at much more complex than GPPM, simply because of the inaccuracy of measurement.

Other problems I have with it is it would be very time-consuming, and advantage/disadvantage older planes which were reviewed before. And I kind of like the little bit of randomness in how many are bought, since it reflects the somewhat random ways real businesses work.

 I'd also like to argue the numbers I put forward are not very random, 0 is for hopeless planes, 1-8 is for niches, 9-20 is for decent planes, 21+ is for 'workhorses', which beyond that can be a bit random, but for something to be a workhorse it should be cheaper than average, it should outperform most planes in most things, compared to other planes of the category, and be really good at one thing, with no major flaws and it has to be fairly safe. @TheFlyingKerman is very good at doing this, his planes tend to be good and he clearly thinks about cost and considers it, so a fair few of his planes get workhorse status. @TaRebelSheep's T-140 little float-plane I reviewed a while back, that one got 62 purchases because it was very good at what it did, and there was very little competition for trainer aircraft, while there being a pretty significant demand.

Box of stardust too, before you standardize something else, please standardize the formatting in your reviews. There is a template in a 'hidden content' box in the original post for this exact reason.

[Box of Stardust]

11 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Box of stardust too, before you standardize something else, please standardize the formatting in your reviews. There is a template in a 'hidden content' box in the original post for this exact reason.

Err... my format is standardized. Every single one of my reviews up to this point has followed that format, plus consistent with other minor modifications for my own style (though I guess I skip out on defining KPPM on a few, but that's not in the template anyways).

Anyways, if we're trying to 'keep score', if everyone wants a 'fair' challenge, then we need more firmly quantifiable metrics to measure by. It'll be... a little more nebulous with just placing values down, but in the spirit of a KSP challenge, I think it's good to highlight aspects of designs that work and don't work with some sort of value, rather than being more like a business with a wildcard thrown in of how many gets bought of what.

I also think we have to be careful defining the rated categories, such that they're not so specific that it gets tedious, but clearly defined and general enough that reviewers will generally come to about the same rating were they to review the same plane.

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

 

By the way, @neistridlar and @hoioh, do you have a place to discuss the new judging parameters that doesn't involve clogging up this thread?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[CrazyJebGuy]

9 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Anyways, if we're trying to 'keep score', if everyone wants a 'fair' challenge, then we need more firmly quantifiable metrics to measure by. It'll be... a little more nebulous with just placing values down, but in the spirit of a KSP challenge, I think it's good to highlight aspects of designs that work and don't work with some sort of value, rather than being more like a business with a wildcard thrown in of how many gets bought of what.

I also think we have to be careful defining the rated categories, such that they're not so specific that it gets tedious, but clearly defined and general enough that reviewers will generally come to about the same rating were they to review the same plane.

 

We already do that, before I submit planes I review them in my head, and then submit. I compare this review to the one done by a reviewer, and outside of working, not much changes.

[Box of Stardust]

Test Pilot Review: @Eivuii's Kalibu & Meridian

Can't go wrong with simple...

Figures as Tested (Kalibu, 16 passengers max):

• Price: 16,265,000 (empty) / 14,785,000 (electronics removed)
• Fuel: 425 kallons
• Cruising speed: measured at 166m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1200m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.04kal/s
• Range: 1720km

Figures as Tested (Meridian, 24 passengers max):

• Price: 16,815,000 (empty) / 15,335,000 (electronics removed)
• Fuel: 425kallons
• Cruising speed: measured at 167m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1200m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.04kal/s
• Range: 1730km

Review Notes:

TCA apparently had one more aircraft test contracted to them before the fire emergency at our facilities occurred, so we got right to it so we could get back to recovery and reconditioning efforts around our test site.

Kerlin Industries has designed a fairly simple, normal-looking single-turboprop-powered aircraft in the form of the Kalibu and its extended cabin variant the Meridian. Right away, though, we have to mention that the Kalibu does not meet minimum passenger amount standards for KEA's turboprop class, so for consideration, it should perform excellently in all other aspects.

Pre-rollout statistical analysis showed at center of lift behind the center of mass, which indicated right away that it would have a noticeable pitch-down tendency. The all-flying tailplane, however, was expected to prove sufficient in providing pitch authority. The fuel tank is all the way in the rear, however, so pitch, or at least required pitch trim, will get worse as fuel is burnt, due to a drastic shifting of center of mass. While we believe the aircraft will still be able to fly in this state, it may affect the actual range compared to the calculated value.

With the on-paper stuff done, the Kalibu and Meridian were given a walk-around by engineers on the tarmac. One of the first things that was noticed was the inclusion of fairly expensive electronics- a high-grade, high-capacity battery unit in the rear, as well as antennae. It's nice of Kerlin Industries to include this additional hardware though, to reduce the need for installation of such things should the aircraft be bought by some clients. The report we have written up includes prices with these items removed, for better comparison of the base aircraft against other similar aircraft such as the Swirlygig we've also reviewed.

The self-contained ramp proved useful, which is a plus for landing at less-equipped airfields that turboprops might find themselves landing at.

The aircraft was otherwise conventional, so we went into the flight tests in short order. The Kalibu was chosen to test first.

First thing we discovered was that none of the control surfaces were set up, with everything responding to all inputs. We figured this was highly unnecessary, and re-wired the controls to a conventional layout. We did find that flap controls, thrust reverser controls, and the stair controls were wired to switches, so that's good. The main gear were allowed to steer, which is generally not good for high speeds, but good for taxiing around.

The takeoff sequence was predictable, despite the main gear having steering capability. We expected the large elevator surfaces to provide a lot of pitch control, so ground control warned our test pilot to be careful on the pitch. Rotation was achieved at as low as 25m/s, but not enough velocity to takeoff. Tail strike is very possible and there are no safeguards other than being aware of the danger. Should an accidental tail strike occur, we do expect the aircraft to otherwise be safe despite losing the rear control section.

Wheels-up was actually achieved at around 40m/s after an average-turboprop-length takeoff run. The speed is a little bit on the high end for a turboprop, but within a fairly standard range.

The flight up to cruise altitude was fairly short due to low cruising altitude. General control testing proved promising, with the aircraft very easy to fly even without SAS on. We ended up flying both aircraft with SAS turned off most of the time, only turning it on for takeoff and landing.

Cruise altitude was reached in short order, and cruise conditions were attained with little trouble. The briefing given by Kerlin Industries didn't outline anymore than speed, burn rate, and altitude, with not even range given. So we took our best guess using the altitude as a primary guideline, then speed, then burn rate. Results were achieved with a faster speed and lower burn rate than stated, so that was good, and range was calculated at ~1700km. Promising results.

Engine failure testing came next. With only one engine, loss of power means gliding right away. It proved fine for gliding, though its need for pitch-up trim did hurt it a bit. Control of the aircraft remained very responsive.

After engine restart, we did maneuverability tests. The test pilot, a combat veteran, enjoyed the excellent maneuverability of the aircraft, coupled with very stable flight characteristics and general ease of flying. The single turboprop was a bit underpowered for more extreme maneuvers though, but that's no issue. Critical speed was found to be around 45m/s.

Landing the aircraft proved an easy task, touching down around ~40m/s. In fact, the pilot screwed up the approach and made a hard landing, but the plane survived fully intact anyways. So that's a definite positive.

Water landing test was done with no hassle. We didn't try taking off from the sea with the Kalibu since it didn't appear designed to do that, and past experiences lead us to guess that it probably wouldn't be able to build up the speed to takeoff. So it isn't a seaplane contender.

 

We tested the Meridian next, which was, overall, very similar to the Kalibu. Takeoff was pretty much the same, but once it got up into the air, it felt noticeably more stable, with a little less maneuverability. The tail strike hazard remained.

Cooperative flight characteristics meant flying with SAS off most of the time. SAS, when on, did not appear to interfere negatively.

The cruise test was much of the same as was done on the Kalibu. We recorded a slightly higher cruising speed at 167m/s, and calculated an insignificant increase in range.

Landing speed was at ~45m/s. All other flight characteristics did not differ significantly from the Kalibu.

Comfort on both was good, with the single engine mounted far forward, even buffered from the cockpit a little with a fuel tank, and buffered from the cabins by the ramp entry section.

Maintenance is about average at worse, with the single engine helping keep those costs down.

The Verdict:

Can't go wrong with simple. We just recommend that the manufacturer get the control wiring sorted out and to add a bumper wheel to prevent tail strike damage, but it's an otherwise solid aircraft. They come with pre-installed electronics hardware, which KEA may consider a plus.

We have minor concerns over fuel affecting pitch trim and the subsequent effects on range and in case of emergencies, glide distance. This is not a major concern, however.

We don't think the Kalibu is worth ordering, simply because it doesn't meet KEA's turboprop passenger capacity standards, but the Meridian does, while being similar in all ways to the Kalibu. But if KEA does think they can find a place for a 16-passenger turboprop, it's up to them. The Meridian would probably be best used as an express commuter aircraft between smaller airports and larger hubs, around more populated areas.

[Joseph Kerman]

WaffleTech Civilian Transportations present the newest plane in the fleet!

The WCT BJ-3 is the third-generation business jet for a low cost. Able to house 24 passengers, it can even be considered a mini-regional by some. With one J-33 in the center and a top-mounted intake, the vertical empennage had to be split into two to not compromise the intake's efficiency.

As a result, it looks much sleeker than the competition with its gears up, and although lacking in the speed department, it makes up for that in efficiency and range. The vibration issue that is apparent at high RPM's become almost non-existent at cruising throttle settings, improving comfort. But then again, who wouldn't be comfortable flying at less than 300 m/s?

It has a really tight turn radius, enabling it to confuse SAM's if it ever gets targeted or if Jeb decides doing it makes for good PR. Nonetheless, you won't be using more than half back stick when turning for comfort.

Finally, you should be able to fly far, as far as many jumbos, in fact. At 3000 km range, you can get pretty far, and you can land in many small-ish airstrips.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistics:
 

Cruise throttle:           67%
Cruise speed:             272 m/s
Cruise altitude:           6000 m

Ceiling:                        12000 m

Range:                         3000 km

Cost:                            22,001,000

Capacity:                     24

Takeoff Speed:           70-75 m/s

Landing Speed:           35-40 m/s

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I FORGOT THE F-ING LINK!!! https://kerbalx.com/The_Kerbal_Way/WCT-BJ-3

Edited June 5, 2018 by Joseph Kerman

[neistridlar]

12 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

@neistridlar@Box of Stardust

I'm a bit skeptical that all this data about planes is a good idea. A significant proportion of these numbers would have to be gathered in a subjective way, you can put definitions like a pitch score of 2 means easy side-slipping and possible to spin, but what qualifies as side-slipping would vary between reviewers, some might consider only a very little bit to be sideslipping, others might think the nose has to slip a bit further to qualify, and in those tests is rudder used to correct the slip, it's things like this that could lead to endless minutia, and the fine tuned statistics I think get pretty useless at much more complex than GPPM, simply because of the inaccuracy of measurement.

Other problems I have with it is it would be very time-consuming, and advantage/disadvantage older planes which were reviewed before. And I kind of like the little bit of randomness in how many are bought, since it reflects the somewhat random ways real businesses work.

 I'd also like to argue the numbers I put forward are not very random, 0 is for hopeless planes, 1-8 is for niches, 9-20 is for decent planes, 21+ is for 'workhorses', which beyond that can be a bit random, but for something to be a workhorse it should be cheaper than average, it should outperform most planes in most things, compared to other planes of the category, and be really good at one thing, with no major flaws and it has to be fairly safe. @TheFlyingKerman is very good at doing this, his planes tend to be good and he clearly thinks about cost and considers it, so a fair few of his planes get workhorse status. @TaRebelSheep's T-140 little float-plane I reviewed a while back, that one got 62 purchases because it was very good at what it did, and there was very little competition for trainer aircraft, while there being a pretty significant demand.

Box of stardust too, before you standardize something else, please standardize the formatting in your reviews. There is a template in a 'hidden content' box in the original post for this exact reason.

First of all, gathering the data should not affect the outcome of the review. Anything that intrinsically breaks consistency with older reviews I am absolutely against, if we were to do that we would also have to restart the challenge, with new rules and fresh sheets. Also I agree with you, most reviewers have been fairly consistent within their own reviews. The bad thing is that they are not consistent across reviewers. In doing reviews lately I have tried to use similar reviewed planes as reference to decide how many to buy, but they are oftentimes wildly inconsistent in their conclusions and numbers bought, despite aircraft being very similar.

As for increased time for reviews. The stuff that has been suggested so far is pretty much exclusively things I already do test, I just don't put a 1-5 rating on it. Also seeing as the suggestions have very broad range for each of the discreet levels, and for the most part easily definable by using example craft, so every one is measuring with the same yardstick so to speak. Now there is no way around the subjectiveness of some of the factors, but lessening the subjectiveness is still better than not doing so. 

If nothing else I think it is worth it just to have a metric for awarding the badges.

If you put your foot down, I suppose we'll have to do a mutiny .

12 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

By the way, @neistridlar and @hoioh, do you have a place to discuss the new judging parameters that doesn't involve clogging up this thread?

We could start a group chat (PM) for it, or maybe there is a place on the forums that would be suitable for starting a thread for the discussion, so everyone can see, should they want to.

[hoioh]

14 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

By the way, @neistridlar and @hoioh, do you have a place to discuss the new judging parameters that doesn't involve clogging up this thread?

I recently noticed that the Google Spreadsheet has a chat function, could that be a good place to chat about said sheet?

[neistridlar]

@Box of Stardust you have been added to a PM with me and hoioh. Anyone else that wants to participate in the discussion, tell any one of us, and we can add you to the conversation.

[keptin]

Introducing the ODYSSEY 200 Revolution Series. Fast, Versatile, Affordable Medium Haul.

https://kerbalx.com/keptin/Odyssey-200

ODYSSEY's heritage is producing revolutionary aircraft, and that's what we wanted to do to the medium-range regional jet. First, we focused on price. Wide-body fuselages are feature rich, but expensive. By moving to a narrow-body design we cut costs in half. After countless prototypes, a canard style design was chosen to provide excellent control, with ease of takeoff and landing. Our GlassCanopy-V multi-windowed cockpit allows for best-in-glass viewing angles that increases pilot awareness and safety. Lastly, the ODYSSEY 200 uses a single ultra-high-bypass turbofan that's exceptionally efficient at only 0.11 kal/s at cruise,  easy to maintain, and reduces drag. All of this results in a design that pushes new boundaries at an affordable price, allowing it to serve as the backbone for airlines across Kerbin.

Statistics:

Cruise speed:             275 m/s
Cruise altitude:           11000 m

Range:                         1750 km

Cost:                            19,891,000

Fuel burn rate:            0.11 kal/s (at cruise)

Capacity:                     72

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by keptin

[keptin]

Oops, double posted.
 

Edited June 4, 2018 by keptin

[Mathrilord]

(BAF) Bored/Blind Aircraft Facilities airliners catalog FIRST edition
Disclaimer: english isn't my native language (french is) be tolerant for error and weird phrasing of a sentence. I do my best. Also feel free to correct me.

NEED ATMOSPHEREAUTOPILOT TO AVOID RESET OF CONTROL SURFACE
Otherwise limit them by following this patern (for non delta wing config: rudder=yaw only, horizontal on tail and front is pitch only, wing extremity roll only, wing central none(flaps)) (for delta wing config: rudder=yaw only, horizontal front is pitch only, wing roll and pitch) For max deflection set it to fit your preference. For front and central wings flaps should deploy downward, for back wings flaps should deploy upward. Be aware of NONAAP as it mean exception(ex: to high pitch=disintegration) and will give more info.

As I post a lot of craft I'll put an * before the name of craft that I really want to be reviewed. (In this post: Cotcot2, Ades1 and Stratostar)

BAF is proud to present you this selection of ten aircrafts for his first commercial release.

BAF isn't actually a company, it's a grouping of a multitude of small manufacturers that grow up by being an important army supplier. Fun fact BAF was originally a small local airfield, now it build rocket to be launch in space at the Kerbal Space Center. Having several manufacturers administrated individually means that they all names their product the way they wants.

(RMCa) Repurposed Military Cargo aircraft previously (MCa) they had to change their guideline and name when Kerbin's government decide to stop investing in war.

(SP) Sea Proof was created to design and build boat but as they never got the proper installation they ask for, their activity got limited to sea plane collaboration.

(GAP) Grand Airliner Production is the newcomer. His main activity sector is obviously commercial airliners.

(SU) Space Up focus on spaceplane (SSTO and space shuttle) and rover. Also build satellite, spaceship module and pieces for high speed planes.

(SIC) Some Inverted Concept, they are the ones who created those weird and futuristic machine. We know they are genius but we still have a hard time to thrust them.

(ETC) Explosive Tower Confirmed, well they build rocket (the flying ones).

Important: all stats and pilot manual are included in craft description
Also note that all stats represent optimal initial flight profile with the use of AtmosphereAutopilot

Turboprop

-*BAF RMCa Cotcot2

full load= 1,070 kallons
Cruise speed: 237 m/s
Cruise altitude: 2600 m
Cruise fuel burn rate: 0.08 kallons/s
Range: 3170 km
Takeoff speed: 57.6 m/s
passenger: 32
Cost: 17,424,000(empty)/ 18,280,000(full)
Mass: 12.32t(empty)/ 17.68t(full)
Part count: 35
No. of Struts: 0
Link

As Cotcot1 never flew we are very proud that the second iteration does. This modern luxurious turboprop can be easily reconfigured for freight transport. Original concept was to build smaller version of the popular Groscot.

Small Regional Jet

-Groscot series

BAF RMCa Groscot
full load= 2,470 kallons
Cruise speed: 236.4 m/s
Cruise altitude: 2600 m
Cruise fuel burn rate: 0.16 kallons/s
Range: 3650 km
Takeoff speed: 68 m/s
passenger: 72
Cost: 50,349,000(empty)/ 52,325,000(full)
Mass: 19.10t(empty)/ 31.47t(full)
Part count: 40
No. of Struts: 0
Link

BAF RMCa(SP) Groscot2 (also a Seaplane)
full load= 2,070 kallons
Cruise speed: 222 m/s
Cruise altitude: 5000 m
Cruise fuel burn rate: 0.16 kallons/s
Range: 2872 km
Takeoff speed: 57 m/s
passenger: 72
Cost: 55,089,000(empty)/ 56,745,000(full)
Mass: 19.44t(empty)/ 29.87t(full)
Part count: 50
No. of Struts: 0
Link

(Gros is the french term for big) A classic, in opposition to Cotcot this plane is very old. But don't worry! Due to his popularity we keep it up-to-date with the latest in technology. In collaboration with Sea Proof engineers replaced engine by new one to allow it to land and takeoff from water(Groscot2). Again don't worry if you break propeller on water landing it can fly without them. Seats can be easily removed to match his original purpose; freight transport.

Medium Regional Jet

-*BAF SIC ADES1 TheSpaceship

full load= 6,604 kallons
Cruise speed: 232-240 m/s
Cruise altitude: 2500-1000 m
Cruise fuel burn rate: 0.46-0.52 kallons/s
Range: 3330-3050 km
Takeoff speed: 70 m/s
passenger: 104
Cost: 46,962,630(empty)/ 52,246,800(full)
Mass: 39.28t(empty)/ 72.34t(full)
Part count: 95
No. of Struts: 8
Link

This beautifull airplane was build to make use of the new inline double turbine kontraturboprop (IDT)DP100F/J-33. ADES mean Airborn Dual Engine Speeder and NO IT DOESN'T GO IN SPACE.

SUPER JUMBO

-*BAF RMCa GigantorG2 Antollo

full load: 30,490 kallons
Cruise speed: 600 m/s
Cruise altitude: 8600 m
Cruise fuel burn rate: 1.29 Kallons/s
Theoretical range: 14100 km
takeoff: 70 m/s
passenger: 1040
Cost: 355,815,190(empty)/ 380,207,190(full)
Mass: 305.18t(empty)/ 458.19t(full)
Part count: 359
No. of Struts: 96
Link
NONAAP: 4 black and white under the tail limit at 80 start deploy pitch only, 4 central on main wing need to stay at 100 start deploy yaw only, the 2 extremity on main wing(roll) limit not higher than 80 if lag, normal tail pitch control surface not higher than 38 if you lag.(lag induced explosion)

Developed in parallel with the Megalovania it's his little brother. On paper it was supposed to receive a standard wing configuration but in test flight pilot report their instant combustion at cruise speed. Engineers solved the problem by replacing them by a scaled version of space shuttle wings. DON'T FLY WITH FLAPS

 

 

-ebauche series

BAF RMCa ebauche8 revGuerrero
full load= 29,510.2 kallons
Cruise speed= 230 m/s
Cruise altitude= 2500 m
Cruise fuel burn rate= 1.4 Kallons/s
Theoretical range= 5000 km
takeoff speed: 69.5 m/s
passenger: 864
Cost: 207,922,700(empty)/ 231,530,800(full)
Mass: 212.29t(empty)/ 360.47t(full)
Part count: 276
No. of Struts: 65
Link

*BAF RMCa ebauche10-1 Stratostar
Full load= 28,650 kallons
Cruise speed= 1300 m/s
Cruise altitude= 18000 m
Cruise fuel burn rate= 4.2 Kallons/s
Theoretical range= 9000 km
takeoff speed: 70 m/s
passenger: 864
Cost: 284,085,000(empty)/ 307,005,000(full)
Mass: 211.06t(empty)/ 354.94t(full)
Part count: 267
No. of Struts: 65
Link
NONAAP: Trailling edge flaps align with engine limit at 85

BAF RMCa ebauche11-1 Koncordeon
full load= 36,238 kallons
Cruise speed= 1420 m/s
Cruise altitude= 18000 m
Cruise fuel burn rate= 4.38 Kallons/s
Theoretical range= 11700 km
takeoff speed: 68 m/s
passenger: 864
Cost: 348,770,310(empty)/ 377,760,690(full)
Mass: 206.02t(empty)/ 388.07t(full)
Part count: 263
No. of Struts: 65
Link
NONAAP: I limit all control surface at 56 but can take higher

BAF RMCa ebauche11-2(rapier) Koncordian
full load= 36,238 kallons
Cruise speed= 1650 m/s
Cruise altitude= 23000 m
Cruise fuel burn rate= 3.56 Kallons/s
Theoretical range= 16800 km
takeoff speed: 66.5 m/s
passenger: 864
Cost: 421,629,019(empty)/ 450,619,290(full)
Mass: 209.91t(empty)/ 391.96t(full)
Part count: 263
No. of Struts: 65
Link
NONAAP: I limit all control surface at 56 but can take higher

(For your curiosity ébauche is the french equivalent for draft.) This plane served several fonctions one of them being a long-range strategic bomber. Engineers adapted it to a commercial use but failed to agree on engine configuration. We offer these four variants among which you should find one that suits your needs and your wallet. More than half the cost of the Koncordian come from his engine.

MEGA JUMBO

-BAF RMCa Megalovania2E Megalovania

full load= 251,385 Kallons
cruise altitude: 8600m
cruise speed:585+ m/s
cruise fuel burn rate: 11.37- kal/s
range: 12900+ km
takeoff speed: 85 m/s
passenger: 3888
Cost: 4,962,019,000(empty)/ 5,163,126,000(full)
Mass: 1,767.22t(empty)/ 3,027.84t(full)
Part count: 424
No. of Struts: 73
Link
NONAAP: rudder(yaw) limit at 30, may have to limit everything if you lag (lag induced explosion), Control surface below back wings(not s.p.o.i.l.e.r.s.) need to stay at 100 and start deploy pitch only.

This plane is not covered by any guarantee if pilots didn't fly 2000 hours in dedicated flight simulator. This behemoth is not supposed to exist since the administration has not given its agreement for its construction. It's the engineers who secretly build it. (As BAF writer I wonder how they achieve to hide it) Because of this insubordination engineers are going to loose their job if they don't achieve to sell at least one. So please buy it! Can't fly with leading edge slat deploy. DON'T DEPLOY FLAPS IN FLIGHT and raise as soon as you liftoff.  

This plane is well suited for...           ...city evacutation...            ...colonization...         ...invasion... As it will spend the majority of his life on the ground, it come equiped with a secret military device in the cargo bay that magically reduce maintenance cost by 50 to 75%

Edited July 28, 2018 by Mathrilord

[Box of Stardust]

@Mathrilord Just saying, AtmosphericAutopilot causes havoc between installs with AA and without AA, as any settings you set on control surfaces will not be readable without AA, or vice-versa, and modifying settings in an install with AA will erase settings that were made without AA.

It's weird, but I know it from experience trying out AA, and wondering why all my control surface settings disappeared, but reverted when I uninstalled AA except for the ones I modified while I had AA installed. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[Mathrilord]

That's a problem since the Antollo and Megalovania can blow up or be uncontrollable without a correct configuration of control surface.

[Box of Stardust]

By the way, has anyone tested for efficiency differences between KSP 1.3.1 and 1.4.3? Some of my planes have appeared to become more efficient, and some unaffected. And I feel like other planes have gained efficiency as well.

However, I'm not sure if I just calculated range wrong the first time around. It also doesn't seem linked to using APP parts or not.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[Mathrilord]

Some teasing for the second BAF catalog

My flying carpet or magicarp or....

 

Is this a flying saucer? No! It's the FRISBEE

Both are 100% stock

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mathrilord

[NightshineRecorralis]

17 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

~~snip~~

That's alotta planes!

It might help if you spread them out over a period of time instead of submitting them all at once  

Anyhow, here's a quick tease of my current project: A replica of a BAE 146 that actually performs well (hopefully)