Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge Discussion Thread [Thread Opened]

[FahmiRBLX]

Welcome to the Semi-Official Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge discussion thread.

Those at KEA knew that the fact stuff is discussed there, while the thread's dedicated for reviews, submissions, etc. related. Too much discussion clutters there, the best is to post here.

This also covers the previous reboots (Including the original challenge).

KEA-RJC (RC) Judges

• @Mjp1050
• @neistridlar
• @NightshineRecorralis
• @1Revenger1
• @panzerknoef
• @Bob_Saget54
• @hoioh
• @kingstevenrules
• @Bottle Rocketeer 500
• @Box of Stardust

 

FAQ :

Q : Airplane Plus fuselage cabin capacities?

A : 1.875m, 16 pax. Mk3S1, 4 pax. However, @hoioh said that the former is 0 for now until the OP gets updated, but I'm safe to assume (?) it's 16.

Q : My plane reviews?

A : These judges are starting reviews on the current thread's planes. If you're on page 20 or so, take a deep breath then.

Q : Are you a judge?

A :  Nope. Just contributing stuff such as notifying mod updates. But I may give it a try, maybe in the near or far-future.

 

@CrazyJebGuy, you could add a link to this thread in your OP.

Edited February 4, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

@FahmiRBLXian I am also a judge for that challenge. Also, a few tips:

• To get the CoM closer to the CoL, change the Angle of Incidence of the elevators very slightly.
• Take some time to test your plane before you submit it so you do not have to post a million new versions.
• Take screenshots of your planes in the day when it is bright.

[MaverickSawyer]

Glad to see some consensus on the 1.875 part seat count... Now I can start on an MRJ.

[GDJ]

I made a new version of my AVRO Prop-Star and a Jet-Star, but I have been reluctant to submit them due to the sheer number of craft that still need judging (not critiquing at anybody. There has been ALOT of submissions).

I'd offer my services to judge but real life has kept me from doing a whole lot on KSP.

[hoioh]

22 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Glad to see some consensus on the 1.875 part seat count... Now I can start on an MRJ.

There has been a mention, some discussion and then, nothing. There has not been any ruling as to the size of a 1.875m cabin.

What most of you can't see is the discussion in the judges message thread, only judges can. I can and I said no consensus has been reached in the main thread.

So yeah, there's an idea, but as long as CrazyJebGuy does not add this size to the OP with a number attached to it the amount of Kerbals a 1.875m cabin carries is 0

Sorry

 

On a maybe brighter note, I very much like how involved people are with this particular challenge, it's why I started judging and had fun doing so. I haven't written any reviews recently because I had been working on a faster, more objective and efficient judging system, but it was considered too "hardcore" basically. No hard feelings either way, but it has kept me from judging more planes recently, which is a shame considering the queue. Consider it writers block, or a bit of a winter depression or some such. I'm sure I'll be back at some point when I feel I have the energy to do so.

In the meantime you might consider this: CrazyJebGuy is the OP, the challenge is his to manage untill such time as he cedes control and another judge takes his place. That means he sets the rules, no matter how anybody else might feel about that is completely irrelevant because he's the OP and the challenge is his. So whatever it is you may want, consider how you could best put your argument amd entice him to find your point of view attractive, so attractive that he might come to accept it.

I've recently responded to someone demanding an answer, I chose to do so to keep the peace, but was seriously considering escalating. Demands are not for anyone to make of anybody else. The best you can hope for is agreement and that is reached easiest and soonest if we all remain civil with each other and consider each other friends who want the same thing: a lot of fun!

Edited February 3, 2019 by hoioh
Mistakenly put the wrong name for the OP

[neistridlar]

16 hours ago, hoioh said:

CrazyJebGuy is the OP, the challenge is his to manage untill such time as he cedes control and another judge takes his place

Since @CrazyJebGuy seems to not be all that interested in maintaining the thread anymore, maybe it is time for someone to grab that torch. I've been contemplating taking it my self, but not sure I'm up to the task at the moment.

[hoioh]

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Since @CrazyJebGuy seems to not be all that interested in maintaining the thread anymore, maybe it is time for someone to grab that torch. I've been contemplating taking it my self, but not sure I'm up to the task at the moment.

Same here, maybe @panzerknoef is up for it?

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, hoioh said:

Same here, maybe @panzerknoef is up for it?

I'm gonna politely pass on that as well... My activity here isn't consistant enough and I'd feel bad about not maintaining the challenge as well... 

[FahmiRBLX]

I might be in for holding it. I'm quite active around here, around at least 10 times a month. Just not being one of the judges however.

Edited February 5, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[panzerknoef]

7 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

I might be in for holding it. I'm quite active around here, around at least 10 times a month. Just not being one of the judges however.

I kinda think you need at least a bit of knowledge on judging to run the challenge... Just so you know what is and what isn't good and nice to work with. Also because as challenge owner you get to make the rules, but you don't actually have to work with the planes designed by those rules if you're not judging. That, to me, seems like a pretty bad idea. 

Also, I know you're quite a mod enthusiast, and I'd be pretty disappointed if this challenge was to get out of hand with dozens of allowed or even required mods since I like to keep my install fairly clean. I'm pretty sure you'd also scare off a lot of potential judges that way. 

But if you really wanna take it upon you, go ahead, but I would strongly suggest not making any major changes without consulting the judges and possibly getting the majority on your side for new ideas. (shouldn't be too hard if your ideas are solid and good for the challenge though)

[hoioh]

In the sense of maintaining the thread I might actually be a reasonably good OP, considering I log in daily, keep uo to date and have a lot of spare time during work hours, not to mention the experience as a judge

I'll think about it

[CrazyJebGuy]

Sorry about the inconsistency, I'll have to get on with updating the leader-board, although it's very long already. I joined this thing about a year 5 months or something ago, my interest is simply fading. Aside from this I haven't been very motivated to play KSP since 0.90.

[FahmiRBLX]

Airplane+ has been updated.

On 2/5/2019 at 7:38 PM, panzerknoef said:

I kinda think you need at least a bit of knowledge on judging to run the challenge... Just so you know what is and what isn't good and nice to work with. Also because as challenge owner you get to make the rules, but you don't actually have to work with the planes designed by those rules if you're not judging. That, to me, seems like a pretty bad idea. 

Also, I know you're quite a mod enthusiast, and I'd be pretty disappointed if this challenge was to get out of hand with dozens of allowed or even required mods since I like to keep my install fairly clean. I'm pretty sure you'd also scare off a lot of potential judges that way. 

But if you really wanna take it upon you, go ahead, but I would strongly suggest not making any major changes without consulting the judges and possibly getting the majority on your side for new ideas. (shouldn't be too hard if your ideas are solid and good for the challenge though)

I'll give it a try on judging. Just expect a review on 3 practice planes and a meme. In the spoiler is the teaser...

Spoiler

lol

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[FahmiRBLX]

Just some questions regarding on the calculations.

1. May I get a formula of every single calculations? (The KPPM, KPPKM, etc.)
2. Any more advice?

I'll be starting a test review today. Just after playing some FPS before launching KSP.

[hoioh]

The formulas are worked into this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d7sQ29krOUyyFNCWxbpo-jJK_16te12qtuQh52RbN4M/edit#gid=1862528954

Start with a plane that already jas a review, read that review and fly the plane to get a feel for what we think is good, or bad, or anything im between. Then start on your test review

[FahmiRBLX]

Sorry for the very long waiting, but here they are :

Test Pilot Review: @qzgy's Kramer K-150-100 Baltimore

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 116033000
• Fuel: 3120 kallons
• Cruising speed: 260 m/s, 936 km/h, Mach 0.75
• Cruising altitude: 3500m, 6 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.08 kal/s
• Range: 2535 km, 1368.79 nmi

Review Notes:

Rumour by rumour, had it by had it, part by part, stages by stages, explosions by explosions, Kerbals by Kerbals, reverts by reverts and false names by false names. Finally I've (And Frontinco) been awarded the contract to review this so-called truly Slav'd plane. The Kramer Baltimore. Why Slav'd? because it seems to be based on a real-life, Soviet aircraft. Meet the Tupolev Tu-114 Rossiya.

 

Sidenote, medium regional jets are basically like Bombardier CRJs or Embraer ERJs, small regoinals are something like Bombardier Dash-8 or ATRs. Large ones are the one we knew; Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family.

Anyways we've applied the K-prefix on purpose since the model name doesn't seem right...

Introduction

All we read before, about the Baltimore, is mostly bad thoughts for its use as an airliner, but fun fact that the Tu-114 got almost the same problems.

With four turboprops rotating contra-rotating propellers and a single deck passenger cabin, yes, aviation enthusiasts can clearly say it's based on that Soviet-era plane.

 

 

Tupolev Tu-114 Rossiya

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kramer K-150-100 Baltimore

 

 

 

 

 

 

See the similarity?

That if one ignores the engine placement and the existence of the navigator (?)'s cockpit.

While the propeller mechanism is already complicated IRL, in-game, flying it is even more hairy.

Takeoff

The plane achieves V_2min at 70 m/s, 10 m/s short of the limit, but still high. The plane also tends to dive with SAS off. That's also due to poor pitch response. But still, as you pull the yoke to the chest, it still speeds up, as long as you pull at 60 m/s.

The plane can take off from water as well, proving those rumors true. But with the combination of flaps and speeds above 100 m/s.

[Insert Recorder cover of the anthem]

Mid-Flight

A screenshot of the plane trying to level itself out. With MechJeb for life. 

The plane tends to perform phugoid oscillations if using an autopilot, but less noticeable with SAS (Since it didn't maintain the plane's attitude and slowly lets a plane dive if one notices with other planes as well). This can only be prevented by disabling one of the Elevons, but that's not good when levelling out after a descent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even an elevator turn is slow enough. What about aileron banking then? (Well, don't get me wrong, I know aileron banking is slow AH in KSP)

Turning was a pain as well. The rather weak-but-useful yaw is seemingly only good for aligning up with the runway.

Quote

"Aaaaaand he's gone Space Shuttle status"

-Airforceproud95-

Spoiler

He uses the phrase whenever a plane 'takes off' (Uses slew mode actually) vertically at high speeds). Like a space shuttle. But no SRBs and that big fat External Tank.

 

The plane can ascend quite vertically, but then stalls out.

"Engine #2, flameout" -Jebediah- "Sum Ting Wong" -Bill-

"Engine #1, #3, flameout" -Bill- "Three out. Mayday, mayday, mayday" -Jebediah-

"Wi Tu Low" -Bill-

"Ho Lee F**" -Jebediah- "AND BANG DING *Impact* OWWWW"

The aftermath.

After reverting. we've tried for the second time. This time, coincidentally, in between 180 - 185 m/s, which is the safe speed to do this 'Space Shuttle' maneuver, with a sideways gravity turn afterwards.

Yet another Space Shuttle status.

"Whenever your plane tips, level it out" -Me-

Here, I got the Wallpaper edition of this thing.

So Bill went into the passenger cabin, through a large space that could accommodate four toilets and a big galley when it supposed to be an emergency exit.

"Here we go again" -Bill-

"Ah"

"Much better"

"Almost there. If you move one seat back, you'll be fine to have your kids stare at the window. Or if you're half-deaf and/or your kid loves something literally wonderful such as the 'Contraprop', then have them at the front cabin", Bill said. Picture taken on ground.

The view from the inside is quite awful at the front of the plane until after the wing root. The back seats are, however, unobstructed.

Landing

"Ten-Kilo-Kilo-One-Five-Zero, is on final, runway Zero Niner"

"Ten-Kilo-Kilo-One-Five-Zero, going around. Wi Tu Low again"

The yawing sometimes even didn't act good enough for unprepared airstrips.

Approaching downwind of 09, turning from Crosswind Leg.

"We're too high, but seems safe. This thing has a high landing speed and descent rate! At below 60 however", Jebediah said in one of his literally last Air Traffic Control contact"

:oof:

The aftermath, yet again. Only the tail is left. Whoever got a parachute stuck on the tail got broken bones FTW.

And Jeb said the exact same thing I'd like to say. Pilots piloting the aircraft must fly at least 75m/s (270 km/h) or about 145 Knots (CRJ-700's is lower, at around 120 Knots IIRC from my FSX landings in the latter).

"We have new information now, also on the plane crash, KWVTV (Kerbinwide-vision Television) has just learned the name of the literally 'four' pilots who were onboard the flight, there are Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Low, Ho Lee F** and Bang Ding Ow. And the KTSA (Kerbin Transport Safety Administration) has confirmed, these are the names of the pilots onboard flight KSN-015 when it crashed, and we're working to determine whether in the cockpit there is actually two or four pilots"

Yep, we've crashed short of the runway.

We've also accidentally tested whether the plane can land on unprepared airstrips; in this case, a literally flat ground on Kerbin. Why accidental? Because the test pilots didn't realised they've ventured too far to the next land so they've tried landing it with no luck at the end. Yes. Crash.

And in one other landing, the plane landed nosegear-first, which is out of any protocol since planes are meant to flare nose-up before landingand not slamming the front wheel. Nonetheless, the plane survived it.

Taxiing

Part of the turning.

The plane can turn around without even touching the grass around the runway, which is good for smaller airports. However, smaller airports will also have slimmer runways, so...

Utility Tests

Unfortunately the plane didn't survive a 2-meter drop under Kerbin gravity. Which is bad news for passengers in case the pilots came from Ryanair. 

Before the drop.

During impact.

Aftermath.

Hence, that's why the test pilots buttered every landing with this plane.

 

The Rest

 

 

[Work in Progress]

Edited June 3, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian