Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

Kerbobulus Aerospace presents:

The KS-100 Family

KS-99 Series:

 

KS-99:

Stats:

Category: Turboprop

Price: 46,300,000

Passengers: 24

Cruising Stats: 175m/s @4km

Range: 1,030km

Dry Mass: 14.764t

Wet Mass: 19.764t

Part Count: 83

KS-99S

Stats:

Category: Turboprop

Price: 44,750,000

Passengers: 24

Cruising Stats: 180m/s @4km

Range: 1,125km

Dry Mass: 14.624t

Wet Mass: 19.624t

Part Count: 83

KS-99P

Stats

Category: Turboprop

Price: 46,900,000

Passengers: 24

Cruising Stats: 210m/s @5km

Range: 1,115km

Dry Mass: 15.364t

Wet Mass: 20.364t

Part Count: 83

KS-99SP

Stats:

Category: Turboprop

Price: 45,350,000

Passengers: 24

Cruising Stats: 210m/s @5.5km

Range: 1,166km

Dry Mass: 15.224t

Wet Mass: 20.224t

Part Count: 83

KS-100 Series

Cruise at 5-6.5km at 150-180m/s

KS-100

Price: 56,300,000

KS-100P

Price:56,900,000

KS-100PT

Price: 57,300,000

KS-101 Series

Cruise at 150-210m/s at 5.5-6km

KS-101 Family, left to right: KS-101, KS-101P, KS-101R, KS-101RPER, KS-101RP

KS-101

Price: 72,650,000

KS-101P

Price: 73,250,000

KS-101R

Price: 75,150,000

KS-101RP

Price: 77,250,000

KS-101RPER

Price: 78,900,000

Download

Edited November 4, 2018 by Bottle Rocketeer 500

[epicman81]

VERTECH INTRODUCES OUR FIRST SEAPLANE THE SP-100

Range is Approximately 900 km

cruising altitude of around 7 km

With ertech's Famous Comfort, you can Go to any island and fly with the dolphins.

For the low price of $55,713,000, you can have the great and Luxurious Seaplane.

LINK:https://kerbalx.com/epicman352/VT-SP-100

[Mathrilord]

I'm going to create a new challenge similar to this one but that will focus on cargo and effectiveness(kerbals count as cargo :P). More mod allowed, metric unit and no rules that change crew capacity or cost.

I don't want the same problem KEA have with review. Any idea or advice?

Also I want to expand the challenge to every kind of craft. I'm not sure if I should go with one thread or more. (Best would be sub-thread)

There is also the question of wich addons to choose. Can excel be automatized?

Edited November 5, 2018 by Mathrilord

[MaverickSawyer]

28 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

I'm going to create a new challenge similar to this one but that will focus on cargo and effectiveness(kerbals count as cargo :P). More mod allowed, metric unit and no rules that change crew capacity or cost.

Count me in! I love me a good airlifter. 

Quote

Also I want to expand the challenge to every kind of craft. I'm not sure if I should go with one thread or more. (Best would be sub-thread)

That... could prove difficult. Someone will likely produce a Whackjobian VTVL SSTA cargo rocket.

Quote

There is also the question of wich addons to choose.

Well, Airplanes Plus! is certainly on the list, but beyond that... *shrugs*

Quote

Can excel be automatized?

Yep. You can create formulas in the cells and filter based off of certain criteria. So, for example, you could have the entries provide certain details to determine "effectiveness" and have the formula solve for that figure, then filter by lowest to highest. Should sort itself out automatically.

[panzerknoef]

38 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

I don't want the same problem KEA have with review. Any idea or advice?

If you decide to go with a review system anyway, I'd suggest a take one leave one system. Otherwise you'll probably have to come up with a fancy and fair point system. 

On another note, I'm just about to start my exams so don't expect any reviews from me for a bit. 

[sturmhauke]

36 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

That... could prove difficult. Someone will likely produce a Whackjobian VTVL SSTA cargo rocket.

Isn't that standard operating procedure around here?

[Mathrilord]

I'm not going to do the same kind of review because I only need them to make sure noboby is cheating. (Also because I'm not a good writer)

Just have an idea; using mission as anti-cheat. Didn't play much with mission builder so not sure if it's feasible. Maybe for later.

I could go with something like: 2 craft max per week per person for more take one leave one.

Maverick don't worry nobody will be able to do a all in one because I'll make simplicity the best way to go. Plus there will be the following rule: If your craft cause too much lag to my computer I delete it

[MaverickSawyer]

23 minutes ago, Mathrilord said:

I'm not going to do the same kind of review because I only need them to make sure noboby is cheating. (Also because I'm not a good writer)

Just have an idea; using mission as anti-cheat. Didn't play much with mission builder so not sure if it's feasible. Maybe for later.I could go with something like: 2 craft max per week per person for more take one leave one.

Y'know... I've not tinkered with the Mission builder much myself, but that could be an interesting option. Set up a scoring system and whoever posts the highest score wins.

Quote

Maverick don't worry nobody will be able to do a all in one because I'll make simplicity the best way to go. Plus there will be the following rule: If your craft cause too much lag to my computer I delete it

I like your style.  

[neistridlar]

2 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

There is also the question of wich addons to choose.

I've heard Neist Airliner Parts is really good. It's still WIP though. 

Also, I'd recommend you use Google docs (or is it sheets, I don't remember), as you can have people help you set it up, and share it more easily.

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

7 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I've heard Neist Airliner Parts is really good.

Of course it is! You're the one making it!

[epicman81]

3 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

I'm going to create a new challenge similar to this one but that will focus on cargo and effectiveness(kerbals count as cargo :P). More mod allowed, metric unit and no rules that change crew capacity or cost.

I don't want the same problem KEA have with review. Any idea or advice?

Also I want to expand the challenge to every kind of craft. I'm not sure if I should go with one thread or more. (Best would be sub-thread)

There is also the question of wich addons to choose. Can excel be automatized?

Add Procedural wings pls

[Mathrilord]

Kerbal Express Delivery, good name for the challenge?

[Mathrilord]

I know it's pretty confuse but I can't write everything in one go.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Mathrilord

[MaverickSawyer]

Okay, quick question for @CrazyJebGuy

Now that Airplanes Plus has introduced parts in the 1.875m size, how many seats do the size 1.5 passenger cabins count for in this competition? Given their intermediate size between the size 1 and size 2... perhaps 16?

Edited November 6, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[TaRebelSheep]

I have consulted with @CrazyJebGuy and he agrees that 16 sounds good for the size 1.5 (1.875m) passenger cabin. In addition, the half size MK1 cabin counts as 4 passengers.

[MaverickSawyer]

3 hours ago, TaRebelSheep said:

I have consulted with @CrazyJebGuy and he agrees that 16 sounds good for the size 1.5 (1.875m) passenger cabin. In addition, the half size MK1 cabin counts as 4 passengers.

Cool. Need to tinker with some things on a design, and then I'll have a contender for the medium regional jet category... once my other designs get close to being reviewed. I'm not going to add to the backlog just yet.

[Mathrilord]

Would be appreciate to get feedback on what I've done so far, telling me the mistake I've made and is it understandable(what needs more clarity)? Please

Important to know that I have a hard time expressing my self even in french(first language). That's why I'm asking you. (To give you an idea I've been doing this almost continually since monday. #veryslow #nolife)

Edit: I need one submission for testing purpose, a plane with IKEA mods(Airplane+,KAX,tweakscale)

Edit2: neistridlar read the general challenge info spoiler 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Mathrilord

[Kebab Kerman]

5 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

-snip- ...with IKEA mods... -snip-

Wait... Ikea? So... Hard to put together? With really bad instructions?

Edited November 9, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Kebab Kerman]

KlankCo Presents...

The LA-67P!

(Don't have a better image, sorry.)

Nice and small, easily affordable, and low part count. Be wary of tail strikes, though, the aircraft sits low.

Download

Stats:

Class: Small Regional Jet

Max capacity: 48

Max speed: 220-250 m/s

Cruising Speed: 230 m/s

Cruising Altitude: 5,000m to 10,000m

KPPM: We, uh... Don't actually know. We can't find the calculations. But it should be good at cruising altitude.

Range: We also don't know this. Shouldn't be too bad though, it does have 1200 units of fuel.

Cost: 95,750,000

Extra stuff:

Has some space for oversized luggage where there could be more fuel, but hey, we're kinda low on budget right now. At least, until the next plane is built. This is also the only aircraft with navigation lights, from what I've seen so far. So, hey, no mid-air collisions. There will be a variant that has taller landing gear built at some point, too. The aircraft sits low because it's a converted cargo plane. When landing, attempt to level out as much as possible, then deploy the flaps and brakes. When touchdown is confirmed, engage thrust reversers and gun it.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[lobe]

LOBE L-838

 

 

Low Orbit Ballistic Enterprises (LOBE) presents its first product to the civilian transport market, the L-838. With the use of Full Belly^TM fuel tank technology, we were able to provide a jumbo jet with a 4000km range in the form factor of a large regional jet. With 168 valued customers, the KPPM is 0.017, and every L-838 comes with Self-Push^TM  reverse thrust technology, to eliminate the need to wait for a tug.  For the low price of 279,053,000, surely you could replace your entire fleet of airplanes and ground vehicles with these babies.

To activate flaps, use the lights, to use thrust reverser, press R. Taking off, use flaps 0, rotate at 50m/s, pitch no more than 10 degrees nose up. You should be airborne at 75m/s, pitch up to 15-20 degrees nose up or maintain 80m/s until 1000m altitude then increase to 120m/s for the rest of the climb. Cruising altitude is 3700m at 280m/s with a 0.82 kal/s fuel burn. Landing should be done with flaps 1 at around 80m/s and no more than 7m/s vertical speed under 500m agl. Approximately 20-30% power should be used on final approach, it increases the effectiveness of the thrust reverser on the landing roll. Once the main wheels touch the ground, apply thrust reverser and brakes, throttle up as needed to increase deceleration.

Buy yours today!: https://kerbalx.com/lobe/LOBE-L-838

 

[FahmiRBLX]

We've Moved Our Brochure to Page #58

We've successfully launched the Third Generation of our airliner behemoth, the Frontinco Fr-30 Liner5. Others may disregard this post, take note on this :

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by FahmiRBLXian
Brochure moved into the above link.

[Potato flavored waffles]

This is the S-840-J960 Super liner

Trans-sky Corporation is proud to introduce the S-840-J960 Super liner

This aircraft fits into the super jumbo jet category.

This massive behemoth carries 840 passengers over 8000 km at a speed of 210-220 meters per second and an altitude of 3 km. The aircraft performs very well for its size and just like one of those hyper sonic 6 passenger jets. It has a take off speed of 135 meters per second and a landing speed of about 145. Some of the safety features include, safety parachutes for tighter runways and a tail landing gear to avoid tail dragging. And passengers will be comfortable with the engines on the wing and state of the art wiglets will minimize cabin vibration. Even for such a huge plane, it has a reasonably low part count at only 89 and 6 engines. All of this for $473,413,000. Do not let the price deter you. With all those kerbals, you will get a very quick return on your investment. If you want to download the craft, click here: https://kerbalx.com/The_Kerbal_That_Builds_Enormous_planes/Transky-Co-S-840-J906-SuperLiner 

 

                                                                 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Potato flavored waffles
Revert to standard forum post font, removed bad image URL

[sumghai]

@Potato flavored waffles, I removed your invalid image URL since it points to a location on your personal computer.

The correct way to get your images on this forum is to first upload them to an image hosting website like Imgur, and then copy/paste the URL for the uploaded image into your post.

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Stingy 152-2

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 26,024,000
• Fuel: 1600 kallons
• Cruising speed: 213m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5900m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07kal/s
• Range:  4600km Max, 4000km+

Review Notes:

We took one look at this plane and immediately started looking for our assembly instructions - surely there should be more than just this! But there wasn’t. The Stingy 152 is the embodiment of, well, stinginess. Whatever you don’t need it doesn’t have. What it does have, however, is a single high bypass J-56 “Lotus” turbofan, rated at 180kN max thrust, a stylish, if cramped, cockpit for two, sturdy landing gear, and questionably functional controls.

Overview:

Take off was sprightly, 50m/s was reached quickly and easily, and no matter how hard Jeb pulled back on the stick the tail never once struck the earth. We tried our own ascent profile as well as the recommended one. Without an autopilot, this task was not as easy as expected as the nose had a tendency to dip, and there was a careful balancing act between airspeed and altitude. Once the nose did settle it was a very docile aircraft, responding to inputs smoothly and instantly.

The Stingy reached cruise after about 5 minutes of climbing, which isn’t the worst we’ve seen, and quite good for a large aircraft like itself. The large wing area with its slight incidence coupled with the long narrow-body design means the Stingy is very efficient up here, too. Neist Air was able to have this aircraft cruise at 213m/s with just a single engine. If we let the plane run its tanks dry, it could theoretically fly for upwards 4500km. Realistically, it’ll be able to achieve flights of 3700km without issues, and 4000km+ with a well thought out flight plan. With a fuel burn at cruise of 0.08 kal/s maximum, this craft goes easy on the wallet, too.

Flight characteristics of the Stingy 152 are about what you’d expect from looking at it. It’s pretty average, which is surprising given how little surface area is dedicated to controls. The only issue here is how closely the Lotus is situated to the cabin. At cruise, it runs nearly at full throttle, causing significant cabin noise to the point of disruption. At either end, it is quieter, so the middle of the cabin could be suitable for the least paying passengers.

We’d like to praise Neist Air for the excellent view most passengers will be getting for such a budget price, and the simplistic design means there’s little to worry about in terms of maintenance. The airframe is also very sturdy in flight - it was able to withstand a sustained 5G load and survived sharp turns and rolls at 4x time acceleration. Our test pilots only wished for slightly larger ailerons

A design like is not without issues, however. The single engine design make it hard to justify in overseas routes, and the low slung position of it means any debris present on the runway will likely be ingested, not to mention the perils of a gear up landing. Ditching is quite difficult to do and almost guarantees the destruction of the engine and its related components.

In a vacuum, the Stingy 152 is an excellent aircraft. Even in the real world, it is an excellent aircraft. There are plenty of jumbos that cater to the high end, but for cheap and reliable service for the masses, it’s hard to argue with the Stingy 152. Even when compared to the Slinky 152, which has similar performance, cost, and maintenance, the Stingy comes out on top.

The Verdict:

It's not pretty, but it's functional. It's cheap, it's efficient, and it opened up our eyes to the true nature of function over form. Our passengers might not appreciate the loss of comfort relative to other jumbos, but their wallets are certainly going to be happy. This could have been the perfect jumbo for our fleet if it has more redundancy, but for the time being, we will be purchasing 5 for landlocked routes, and hopefully a conversion or more for overseas routes in the future.

Edited November 24, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites R-Wing-80/96

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 39,156,000/40,256,000
• Fuel: 1200 kallons
• Cruising speed: 215m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8500m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.10kal/s / 0.11kal/s
• Range:  2500km Max, 2200km/ 2300km Max, 2000km

Review Notes:

Surprise! You get two planes in one! Wait, that’s not how that works? Aw…

The R-wing series from Skaled Komposites has an interesting design that turned heads when it came in, due to the uncommon dual fuselage construction. Both the R-80 and the R-96 are powered by a single KP-12 “Bear” contrarotating turboprop, providing a maximum of 150kN of thrust, have a spare cockpit for passenger entertainment purposes, and are equipped with sturdy landing gear.

 

Overview:

The models we received had monoprop for some reason, we removed it and promptly set out to take a joy ride in the R-wing-80. With a giant turboprop at the rear, the R-80 is quite powerful. It takes off at 50m/s, and the R-96 does it at 53m/s, under the 60 advertised, and climbs to cruise in about 4-5 minutes. Tailstrikes are impossible unless you happened to be a wizard thanks to the placement of the rear landing gear. There isn’t much to say about the ascent, it was easy and uneventful.

The turboprop remains at a significantly lower power setting than during takeoff and climb here, much to the relief of those in the rear. Maneuvers at cruise were limited to 3Gs by the controls, and hard turns and ascents failed to cause any structural damage to the airframe. The KP-12 is quite an efficient turboprop, but we had to wonder why the R-series didn’t just use a J-56 “Lotus” instead, considering the “Bear” alone accounts for nearly 25% of the R-80 and R-96’s price. At cruise, it sipped fuel, but the R-wing’s relatively small fuel load made for only an above average rating on it’s range. 2200km is nothing to scoff at, of course, but we feel that the engine choice is holding back an otherwise excellent craft.

The R-80 and R-96 both handle like small regional aircraft despite the higher capacity, we believe this is due to the almost excessive amount of control surfaces and the shortened fuselage relative to other planes in this category. Flight was very stable at all operational altitudes, and the strong landing gear allows for touchdowns in hairy conditions where other aircraft might not fly in. The engine is situated relatively close to the rear cabins, but it emits more of a low drone than a high pitched whine and is far easier to dismiss as background noise at cruise.

The R-series deserves praise for its integration of identical components across the whole lineup, thus making maintenance and pilot training far easier than competitors, but only if we have the entire lineup. The modern design is clean and pleasing to the eye, and exudes a certain style that turns heads at airports. Emergency landings and ditchings are handled easily thanks to the strong undercarriage and frame respectively, and all that would be replaced is the propellor. The view from each seat is also quite nice - the outboard windows have a great view and the windows are large enough for the entire row to see outside. The high cruising altitude places the R-series above most turbulence and weather, only adding to the passengers’ experience, and the double cabin cuts loading and unloading times in half.

There were a few compromises, we found. The decision to use a turboprop of this caliber increases cost, weight, and fuel consumption in exchange for a more pleasant cabin experience. The engine is high off the ground but the propellor tips are not, making debris a real hazard when taking off of unpaved runways. The offset cockpit makes flying the craft more difficult than a single cabin layout. These are all relatively minor, but for what you get in return, they have to be weighed seriously.

At an average price of 40 million funds each, the R-80 and R-96 are along the lower end of the price spectrum. These aircraft seem to strike a good balance between passenger comfort, large scale transport, and overall cost. Routes will be limited as the single engine is a concern for overseas routes, but for other trips, the R-80 and R-96 perform well under almost every condition. It’s not the fastest plane, nor the cheapest, nor the most comfortable, but it will provide a good enough experience for the average traveller.

 

The Verdict:

It’s hard to justify buying more than a handful if we don’t buy the entire series, but to serve as a baseline we will be leasing 4 each, with options of 6 more in the future to serve high density inter-city routes that have high noise restrictions.

Edited November 24, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis