totm july 2020 Trans-Kerbin Airways - Regional Jet Challenge 2: Electric Boogaloo

[FahmiRBLX]

@HolidayTheLeek I'm wondering whether submissions with the stock FTE-1 Drain Valve is allowed or not. I mean, it's stock, but 1.9 only. And that's the problem.

Edited June 17, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[HolidayTheLeek]

3 minutes ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

@HolidayTheLeek I'm wondering whether submissions with the stock FTE-1 Drain Valve is allowed or not. I mean, it's stock, but 1.9 only. And that's the problem.

I'm pretty sure we're all playing on 1.9+ so I don't see why not.

Though, I'm not sure why you would use drain valves in the first place

[l0kki]

2 hours ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Though, I'm not sure why you would use drain valves in the first place

Cough cough exploits cough cough

Or maybe just cosmetics cant say without knowing.

[FahmiRBLX]

On 6/17/2020 at 10:37 AM, l0kki said:

On 6/17/2020 at 8:25 AM, HolidayTheLeek said:

Though, I'm not sure why you would use drain valves in the first place

Cough cough exploits cough cough

Or maybe just cosmetics cant say without knowing.

Well I have a 240+ ton Heavy and landings twice as hard as Ryanair's would break it. But I'm just putting it on mine mainly for engine-out situations.

Anyways the craft is almost ready to be submitted here, but then... I think I forgot to switch to "Vessel" Draining Mode on the FTE (so I believe it's on "Part" instead). I hope tomorrow's the day I can release it.

Anyways @HolidayTheLeek how's the exam?

EDIT: My submission is now up. Check it out.

Edited June 18, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[FahmiRBLX]

Edited June 18, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[Mathrilord]

3 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

 

36,00 km??????

[FahmiRBLX]

7 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

36,00 km??????

The thrust went down to roughly half on altitudes 2.5km ASL and above, the Delta-V is near-60,000m/s, yes.

EDIT: I've updated the brochure to feature the Category, Max. Passengers & Range in more detail.

EDIT 2: Now pricetag as well.

EDIT 3: Every picture on my brochure is clickable.

Edited June 18, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[espartanlast1]

Spartan Industries S240 Family

https://kerbalx.com/espartanlast/S240-642HGW

https://kerbalx.com/espartanlast/S240-542HGW

Edited June 18, 2020 by espartanlast1

[FahmiRBLX]

3 hours ago, espartanlast1 said:

If you want to make brochures long and wide (like mine) try 'splitting' your brochure up into several pieces you can recognize where's the bottom. Use Paint (or its .net counterpart if you have it) then use the "Crop" tool ("Home" tab, next to the "Select" tool).

Each picture only allows 768 pixels for height, so that's why you're ending up with a tiny little brochure.

Then when you're pasting its direct link from an image-hosting site onto here, make sure the flashing "|" line is next to the previous image, without pressing "Enter". Do that step for the following pictures.

EDIT: As a finishing touch, you may link every segments to one link, which is the original, un-sliced image. Making a separate segment containing the KerbalX link, while making it blend nicely with the rest of the brochure also works. You may also link one of the other segments to somewhere else for a twist (like my brochure's Contact Information segment).

EDIT 2: Grammar check, "Fuel Use". Sounds better if you use "Fuel Consumption" instead. Not to mention...

3 hours ago, espartanlast1 said:

... an easier maintenance compared to the competition.

It should be:

3 hours ago, espartanlast1 said:

... an easier maintenance compared to competitors.

Just two cents from me.

Edited June 18, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[HolidayTheLeek]

Test Pilot Review: @KestrelAerospace's Exmouth Class Flying Boat (Flying Boat... duh)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 136,242,000
• Fuel: 2925 units (capacity for 12350 units, though, only up to 5288 has been tested)
• Cruising speed: 124.5m/s (110m/s w/ extra fuel) 
• Cruising altitude: 4.8km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.37 (0.64 full throttle)
• Passengers Carried: 48
• Range:  971km (1427km)

Review Notes:

Have we gone back further in time? We got sent a few 1940s era aircraft and now we're back to the 30s?

Nevertheless, under some closer inspection, it was found this aircraft was not a vintage 1930s flying boat (the advertising certainly made it seem that way) but indeed, new. The Exmouth was powered with modern turboprops rather than the radials of the past and overall, the aircraft looks to be well designed with aesthetics being a priority. Passenger comfort is at a premium with the deluxe mk3 cabins being used. Wide, tricycle landing gear was available for operations on land-based airfields giving the aircraft extra flexibility. Unlike every other propeller driven submission so far, the Exmouth is the first to be powered by conventional turboprops rather than electric motors and fuel cells. While fuel consumption is much higher, maintenance is much lower as existing aircraft technicians can be employed rather than the expensive specialists required to maintain fuelcell-electric aircraft. 

Aside from the slightly tedious process of having propeller pitch bound to a different throttle, the aircraft proved to be extremely responsive and easy to fly. Takeoff and landing on land was short and landing in the water was also quite easy. Unfortunately, the aircraft required a long takeoff run in water, though, we suspect this is due to the lack of wing incidence on the aircraft. The Exmouth was beautiful to fly. Control in every axis (especially pitch) were almost fighter-like which, was surprising for an aircraft of this size. High-speed handling was also surprisingly good. In emergencies, the Exmouth can just about sustain level flight with two engines missing. As the aircraft has excellent control authority, the inbalanced thrust from having engines only on one side was mostly a non-issue. The sturdy mk3 cabins also helped ensue safety in the event of an emergency. 

Range was lower than expected at 971km though, the top cruising speed achieved was roughly what was advertised. As the aircraft had capacity for more fuel, more was added to see if range could be increased. Fuel load went from 2925 units to 5288. The aircraft retained its excellent flight characteristics even with almost double the fuel load. Cruising speed suffered slightly and was reduced to 110m/s and the aircraft could no longer takeoff from water though we suspect this could be fixed with the addition of some wing incidence. The prescribed cruising altitude of 4.8km didn't really prove too much of an improvement from cruising at a lower altitude. Cruising at a lower altitude would typically be more efficient as well as the aircraft is short range and spends less time climbing.

Overall, the Exmouth is an excellent aircraft though, a bit on the steep side when it comes to cost.

The Verdict:

The Exmouth is safe, comfortable and easy to fly. Aside from initial cost and fuel consumption, the Exmouth is simple to maintain due to it being powered by conventional turboprops. The Exmouth is flexible being able to land from runways and on the water but is constrained by its limited range.

We advise TKA to buy at least three for use on island hopper routes. We see the potential for a larger, longer range variant (at least 3200km).

 

[Mopoii]

Test pilot review : @antimatterkill's Antech S.126

Figures as tested :

• Price : 44513
• Fuel : 88 units lf, 72 units ox
• Cruising speed : 105 m/s
• Fuel burn rate : 0.01 units/s
• Passengers carried : 24
• Range : 1850 km

Review notes :

This aircraft has quite an original shape, firstly because of its VTOL design, but also because of a somewhat peculiar layout. The lifting surfaces have a pleasant look and are harmonious in the angular style they provide. They give a dynamic look to the craft, which one may however consider somewhat spoilt by the double-deck configuration, more reminiscent of a heavy cargo vehicle.

Vertical take-off is easy and the transition to level flight is consistently well managed, although a bit harsh on the passengers. Once trim is corrected for, the aircraft behaves very well and remains stable. This aspect is appreciated for cruising, but when trying to operate tight manoeuvres at low speeds a bit more dynamic controlling would have been appreciated. Amongst other characteristics rendering true vertical landing somewhat awkward, this is possibly the most prominent. Others include the lack of deployable flaps (the control surfaces are there and unused, might as well use them), floppy & bouncy suspension, and disastrous braking (which can lead to very problematic and potentially dangerous situations when on a slope). Horizontal take-off & landing were also tested, and the team would’ve enjoyed slightly better performance than observed, as stall was experienced at around 60 m/s, and take-off speed being as high as 80 m/s. However, as detailed further, several easy fixes were thought of by the test pilots and mechanics.

In the case of failure of one of the 4 engines, it was observed that the VTOL capabilities were expectedly gone. A short landing was achieved, but it was hard for both the vehicle and its occupants. On the other hand, level flight is managed relatively well in this occurrence. Because a lot of the potential wing surface is occupied by the engines and props, the glide characteristics are subsequently quite poor (which is in one way positive in the case of high winds).

The verdict :

The aircraft is quite notably cheap, especially considering its unique capabilities. However, high maintenance costs were predicted for multiple reasons : structural complexity due to wing and fuel tank positioning relative to the cabins, steering on the main landing gear which wasn’t needed for normal operations and especially the counter-rotating propellers. However, the board was still showing keen interest and with the help of the engineering and mechanical teams, a few modifications are proposed before buying : placing the fuel tanks on the centre of mass for consistent flight characteristics and either above or below the cabins for easier maintenance and structure, moving the wings up for better ground clearance and again especially structure, increasing control surface actuation angle as well as space between front and main gear for increased stability (moving the main gear and wings forwards a bit would also aid horizontal take-off), and possibly removing half of the engines and adding variable angle of attack on the blades for weight, cost and complexity savings. Once at least a few of these of these recommendations are followed, Trans-Kerbin Airways will be glad to enter negotiations for the purchase of several aircraft !

[espartanlast1]

3 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

If you want to make brochures long and wide (like mine) try 'splitting' your brochure up into several pieces you can recognize where's the bottom. Use Paint (or its .net counterpart if you have it) then use the "Crop" tool ("Home" tab, next to the "Select" tool).

Each picture only allows 768 pixels for height, so that's why you're ending up with a tiny little brochure.

Then when you're pasting its direct link from an image-hosting site onto here, make sure the flashing "|" line is next to the previous image, without pressing "Enter". Do that step for the following pictures.

EDIT: As a finishing touch, you may link every segments to one link, which is the original, un-sliced image. Making a separate segment containing the KerbalX link, while making it blend nicely with the rest of the brochure also works. You may also link one of the other segments to somewhere else for a twist (like my brochure's Contact Information segment).

EDIT 2: Grammar check, "Fuel Use". Sounds better if you use "Fuel Consumption" instead. Not to mention...

It should be:

Just two cents from me.

thank you very much really, my main language is spanish, what I think explains some things.

[FahmiRBLX]

5 hours ago, espartanlast1 said:

..., my main language is spanish, ...

We'll correct each other (I'm also not a native English speaker; I'm Malaysian), you're welcome.

[Servo]

A new airliner for your consideration - an advanced, supersonic transport which promises to be competitive not just with other SSTs, but with traditional airliners as well: 

The LA-900

Life doesn't wait, why should you?

https://kerbalx.com/servo/LA-900-SST-Airliner

Spoiler

Pilot's Manual

Takeoff:

throttle up to full to begin the takeoff roll and pull the stick back at 60m/s. The aircraft will rotate right at 75m/s

pull into just below a constant-speed climb beginning at 100m/s - climb as aggressively as possible while still accelerating until you reach 5km.

At 5km ASL, level off into a 10 degree climb and accelerate through Mach 1 during the climb up to 15km ASL. 

At 15km ASL, level off the trajectory to a slight continue accelerating until you reach 1100m/s

ideal altitude is 19km and 1200m/s, however in practice it is much easier on pilots to oscillate between 1100m/s at 18km and 1200m/s at 20km

 

Landing: 

Begin descent more or less as soon as the destination is visible over the horizon. 

Throttle back to 1/3 and begin a shallow descent that places you on a glideslope just overshooting the target.

Pitch authority is excellent, so use the ability to pitch up and brake as a way to control this overshoot down to the final approach

On final approach, throttle to idle (1/8th throttle) and pitch back as much as possible without gaining altitude to lower airspeed

touchdown speeds of between 80 and 50m/s are ideal, to provide margin against stalling

At cruise altitude, typically about 3300 units of Liquid Fuel remain, and it burns through between 1.4 and 1.8 kal/s, which gives a conservative range estimate of just over 2000km. However, in the hands of skilled pilots, speeds of 1280m/s and fuel consumption of 1.0 kal/s are possible, achieving an optimistic range of 4500km. This efficiency is much better than the climb phase, so to be used most efficiently priority should be given to long overwater routes which minimise the periods of acceleration. 

The LA-900, thanks to its unique aerodynamic layout, is an extremely efficient glider. This is combined with an incredibly low stall speed and short braking distances to make it incredibly easy to divert to alternate airports, or if none are available, ditch safely.

Other Stats: 
Crew Complement: 2 (pilot, copilot)
Passengers: 64, in a wide-body Mk2 cabin for maximum comfort. Skylights are included so that passengers may enjoy the unique experience of seeing stars in daytime
Engines: 3x Afterburning Whiplash Engines
Cost: $105 million on delivery
Fuel Cost: $25/passenger/1000km flown

 

Additionally, thanks to the feedback from TKA Executive on the prototype of our LA-600 Airliner, we have been able to move forward to a Pre-Production model which we believe will suit the needs of TKA's long-haul, medium capacity routes.

Spoiler

Update notes:
Pilot's Manual:
Takeoff:
   an error from our flight-test division resulted in the omission of a crucial step in the takeoff manual. After spooling the engines up at 1/2 throttle, the power should be increased to full throttle before brakes are released for the takeoff roll.

Action Groups:
  The Flaps have been modified - the takeoff setting for flaps has been set to RCS. This moves the outboard flaps alone. The inboard flaps can be extended using AG 1 to move the aircraft from a descent mode to a landing mode
  An updated version of the Goliath Engines have been included which include Thrust Reversers (AG 2)

Crew:
  A crew cockpit has been added to appease the TKA executives who didn't think that fancy windows a cockpit makes

Passengers:
   The number of first-class seats has been increased, along with the overall passenger count. The final passenger count is 164, as originally advertised

Emergency Operations:
   The structural layout of the aircraft has been redesigned so that the losing the engines is no longer a catalyst for RUD. 

Updated version: https://kerbalx.com/servo/LA-600SM-Airliner_2

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Servo

[Nantares]

On 6/19/2020 at 6:41 AM, FahmiRBLXian said:

I'm also not a native English speaker; I'm Malaysian

well.. I use thai as a main language not english (I'm Thai )

[Mathrilord]

Am I the only one to have problem with turboprop and sas? When I make one sas doesn't work correctly and my craft keep pitch down and it shake at more than 100 m/s.

Also someone have a trick to see their fuel consumption?

Edit: I fixed the wobble... And made an electric plane powered by fuel cell with a range of 23 800 km

Edited June 22, 2020 by Mathrilord

[FahmiRBLX]

6 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

... And made an electric plane powered by fuel cell with a range of 23 800 km

OK, how did you managed to measure the thrust of electric engines?

[Mathrilord]

7 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

OK, how did you managed to measure the thrust of electric engines?

Trial and error. One design could do 0-200 m/s in 5 seconds... too much thrust XD

edit: the two engines need 3 fuel cell arrays  edit2: 5.8 G

Edit3: after testing each of them can lift vertically 80.1 t wich include their own mass
1 Ducted fan XL
weight: 5.174t
cost: 15.905 
static thrust: roughly 785.5 kN (more than 2 goliaths)
use at max rpm and max torque: 25.57 ec/s
made of 24 blades R-25 and a rotor EM-64S at 80
on this plane can reach 300+ m/s

 

 

Edit4: "Clipping and CFE is allowed within reason" 

What is CFE?

How much clipping is allowed for wing?

Edited June 23, 2020 by Mathrilord

[Rocket_man1234]

21 hours ago, Mathrilord said:

What is CFE?

Craft File Editing I believe  

[HolidayTheLeek]

On 6/23/2020 at 10:55 AM, Mathrilord said:

Edit4: "Clipping and CFE is allowed within reason" 

What is CFE?

How much clipping is allowed for wing?

CFE is Craft File Editing - this is where you go into the craft file and change some text to either increase or decrease some values. Editing engine thrust is not allowed, though, you are allowed to make parts lighter by editing them (within reason). 

As for clipping, a lot of wing clipping is okay as I'm expecting some more aesthetic oriented builds. Clipping of engines and fuel tanks with like 50 fuel tanks/engines in the space of one is what I'd consider excessive. Keep in mind doing this will increase maintenance costs.

[Mathrilord]

5 hours ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

...you are allowed to make parts lighter by editing them (within reason).

Sounds like cheating to me.

5 hours ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

As for clipping, a lot of wing clipping is okay as I'm expecting some more aesthetic oriented builds.

Oooooooh yeah be ready for some unrealistic design

5 hours ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

50 fuel tanks/engines in the space of one...

I don't like calling the kraken for no reason.

Maintenance costs... (Look away thinking of his hypersonic plane)

Edited June 24, 2020 by Mathrilord

[mrdanger2007]

Test Pilot Review: @Nantares' NA-AT 1011A "Tobi-Ume"

(Long Range, low capacity supersonic transport)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 376,240,000
• Fuel: 9240 kallons
• Cruising speed: ~1100 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 22000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.92 kal/s
• Passengers Carried: 96
• Range: ~9140 km

Review Notes:

• Pre-flight checks (Overview of the general design of the craft):
  • Our test pilots were initially stunned by the appearance of this thing. The NA-AT 1011A is anything but conventional in terms of appearance. The closed wing design and space shuttle like fuselage is very futuristic. Another notable feature was the canards mounted just aft of the fuselage. Needless to say, the 1011A is a good looking plane and most passengers and crew would be thrilled to fly aboard it. Our representatives were pleased to see the cabin which was rather comfortable. The noise at the rear of the fuselage is significant only when the plane is taking off and landing, and once the aircraft goes supersonic, the entire cabin is silent as far as engine noise goes.
• Flight Characteristics:
  • Generally speaking, the NA-AT 1011A handles well at all speeds, but is slightly more sluggish when flying in excess of mach 3 and has trouble pitching effectively below 100 m/s. It should be noted that high G forces will tear this plane apart if not flown carefully at higher speeds.
  • Stall characteristics are very good, with the aircraft stalling at around 75 m/s with a near full load of fuel and recovering rather easily, aircraft stability is good, and spins are nearly impossible to enter.
  • Flight at high speeds for extended periods of time may tire out the pilot, but the four person crew allows pilots to take turns flying.
  • Takeoff is easy with an acceptable takeoff roll length of around 600 m. In landing tests, the aircraft demonstrated a tendency to skid on landing when brakes are engaged rapidly, this is of some concern to the airline in terms of safety. Despite this, the 1011A was able to stop within 500 m of it's touchdown zone.
• Emergency Situations:
  • The 1011A has in testing been able to glide to an island ~115 km away from 23000 m with all engines out and a near full fuel load, which is rather impressive. Aircraft handling is similar but slightly reduced with no engines. A loss of all engines on one side of the aircraft at all speeds does however result in control issues which can be countered by shutting down one engine on the opposite side. Testing has determined that when near empty, flight is possible on only two engines, while a full weight, the aircraft will need at least three.
  • During testing, it has been determined that water landing characteristics are satisfactory. The fuselage and cockpit remain mostly undamaged and all aboard are able to survive. Despite this, the aircraft itself will almost always be significantly damaged by landing on water, which is acceptable since it would be a hull-loss either way.
  • The fuel tanks on the bottom of the fuselage offer some protection to the cockpit and cabin from damage in the event of a crash (when they are empty). Whether or not this was intentional, we find is as a valuable feature which helps to ensure the safety of flight crew and passengers.

The Verdict:

• Final notes:
  • With a cost of over 350,000,000, the NA-AT 1011A is not cheap by any means. In fact, it would be one of the most expensive aircraft in TKA's fleet.
  • Because of the high operating temperatures and stresses of the airframe and engines, maintenance would be significantly more costly than subsonic alternatives of similar passenger capacity. Engine maintenance is made somewhat more difficult by the fact that the engines are slung below the top of the closed wing and are a few meters off of the ground.
  • Fuel burn is high but acceptable for a supersonic transport.
  • It is my recommendation that TKA purchases one or two NA-AT 1011A 'Tobi-Ume' supersonic aircraft for use in very long distance routes and market the plane as a high speed luxury liner. If changes are made to decrease the cost and tendency to skid on landing, we will consider purchasing more.

[FahmiRBLX]

4 hours ago, mrdanger2007 said:

With a cost of over 350,000,000, the NA-AT 1011A is not cheap by any means. In fact, it would be one of the most expensive aircraft in TKA's fleet.

I thought my L-50's above-A380 pricetag is cheap enough for a jumbo...

[HolidayTheLeek]

On 6/24/2020 at 3:16 PM, Mathrilord said:

Sounds like cheating to me.

Yeah, thats the opinion of a lot of people though its needed for a lot of the detail-heavy builds. Most people use it to just make longer/specially shaped fairings tbh

[FahmiRBLX]

On 6/25/2020 at 2:37 AM, mrdanger2007 said:

Test Pilot Review: @Nantares' NA-AT 1011A "Tobi-Ume"

Well you should mention people with their username in a blue box, not a Blue-coloured text (which has a link).

When typing out someone's username after typing the Asterisk you must make sure a white 'dialogue bubble' pops up downwards from the username you're trying to mention, and select the user you'd like to mention.

Like this: @mrdanger2007 instead of @mrdanger2007.

If you're typing in a rich text (i.e your enraged, Bold text), you need to first type in a character with that rich text first, then put the Asterisk and start mentioning the user. Like this: @mrdanger2007.

If you only wanted the mentioned username to be the Rich Text, repeat the above step, then delete the text before the mentioned username.