CrazyJebGuy

Well the way my Comet does it is a nose landing, just comes down and bonks the nose, and tips backward. Wasn't even too hard of a bonk, I looked in F3 and it says hardest gforce endured was 10.1, which might have been a hard turn.

This is why I choose a taildragger set-up so often, it will not break. It just won't. These planes were built for durability, and to prove it, go and fly the 2a. Go to some height like 3000m or something, over the grass planes of Kerbin. Cut the engines, deploy landing gear and chutes, rudder airbrakes (AG 4), and don't touch the controls. The plane will descend slowly at ~30m/s before hitting the ground, when it does, if you're lucky there will be no damage whatsoever to the aircraft, if you are unlucky some minor damage may be incurred, but all passengers and crew will be perfectly fine, if they were wearing their seat-belts. This simulates simultaneous control and engine failure, and you can see the plane handled admirably. Alternatively, do that but apply trim to the elevator, full pitch up and do not touch the controls. The plane will (depending on the speed) do some loop the loops, maybe stall, but it will recover from this without pilot assistance, and will descend to the ground. Most likely the plane will be right way up, no injuries sustained by passengers or crew, and depending on terrain bumps and so on, there is a good chance the plane will be completely unharmed by the impact. The Comet 2a is one of, if not the, single safest aircraft on the market. It can land and take off on small, neglected airfeilds, without risk of damage to the under-carriage due to the landing gear. The landing gear are also in a good position to taxi as well. As for engine failure, it has a bonus in that the aircraft is entirely capable, using afterburners (which we strongly recommend for takeoff even on an undamaged plane) of taking off and flying to a destination, on only one engine. That means it could be flown to an airfield with good repair facilities, even earning money by taking passengers on the route. Makes maintenance a fair bit cheaper. Also the ducts are very simple, it just has a pipe funnel all the air through the 'tanker' part of the plane. And by the way, this is not a converted tanker. It was meant to be a bit of a copy of panzerknoef's Dotsero, I just remembered all wrong what the Dotsero was and ended up with this unique thing. Pretty proud of this aircraft.

A floatplane Search and Rescue Aircraft: The GAI K-38\52s This is admittedly the exact same plane we submitted as a very successful float plane design, but we think it is the ideal search and rescue machine. It can land and take off from water, it has reverse thrust in case you overshoot the water landing. But none of that matters if you can't find the guy you're trying to rescue. Which is where this plane suddenly becomes a true marvel, since it has very good visibility, both from the cabin, and from the side cabins, which have completely unobstructed views downwards. On top of that it can fly slowly (98m/s) for extra time to spot at less than 100m altitude. And if it's a long search, you might need a good flight endurance, which is good because at such a speed this can cruise about for 6 and 3/4 hours. At 70m/s it can stay airborne for 7 and 4/5 hours, with a smaller yet still quite good range of 2,000km, compared to the 2,340km at 98m/s. So you can find the guy, and pick him up, but suppose he's injured? Maybe he needs urgent medical attention to survive? Well use this plane. It can accelerate to the top speed of 300m/s quickly, and you can rush the patient home with minimal vibration of noise in the cabin. (Had a broken leg once, ambulance ride was trippy cause I used the painkiller puffer too much, remember seeing dragons, then found myself in an ambulance going under a bridge - I was going to make some point about how not rattling a broken bone is a good thing) What if you're rescuing a family or group? No problem, this thing has 16 bunks for passengers, chances are you'll be fine. This is the ideal search and rescue operations plane, and on our KEA test pilot review contracts, GAI uses them (very successfully) in this role. Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-K-3852 Unrelated but @neistridlar, I get your point about range varying fue to pilot patience and skill, and I am not very patient usually, which I know is not optimal, but there needs to be a safety margin on these things.

Formatting wise I thought I would say, it should look like this: (There is a template to copy-paste from the original post, it's in an expandable box below the list of official judges) Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries K-38/52 Figures as Tested: Price: 19,970,000 Fuel: 800 kallons Cruising speed: 148 - 260 m/s Cruising altitude: 2500 - 7000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.05 - 0.09 kal/s Range: 2320 - 2310 km Review Notes: When GAI delivered the K-38/52, we thought it was supposed to be a fighter... until we saw the passenger cabins below the wings. And then a few of us facepalmed. So I personally took over as flight tester, which in Phase Aviation's opinion helped out a lot. I took a look around the plane, noting its features such as the hydroplane steps between the passenger compartments and the fuselage, and the intake being positioned right behind the canopy. I also took a moment to look at the EAS-4 Struts supporting the wings, and wondered if those were truly necessary. As such, I experimented with them being taken off. Right off the bat I attempted a high-g turn, only to have the wings flex... like bats. I quickly reverted back to SPH, and put the struts back on. Thank goodness I didn't save it. I also noticed at 4x physics warp, you can rock the joystick back and forth to create an effect where the wings flap... even with struts. Continuing with physical stress testing, I accidentally tail-struck the plane while flying very low over the water. Somehow, I managed to get enough altitude to bail out safely before I lost control due to no vertical stabilizers. After realizing that the K-38 isn't a fighter, I quickly moved onto actual flight testing.... Now I understand why the engineers thought it was a fighter. It performs incredibly well, even if roll is a little slow. At the recommended altitude, I noticed that it performed well in all categories, range included. This range increased as I throttled the engine down to 1/3 power, because of course, I was burning less fuel. However, I felt that it might be better at higher altitudes. At first I tried 2000 meters, and I have to say, the results were great. The K-38 handled just fine, and minimal input was required. Then I tried 7000 meters, and there the plane had a few downfalls. At 7000 meters, the constant drop of the port wing for some reason gets annoying, and if not corrected can send you off course. However, the slightest input sends you carrening off to who knows where, so even finer input is required. Precise Input mode is even too much. You have to use the trim, accessible via the Alt-WASD keys, to control the plane smoothly. After altitude and range testing, I tested the landing capabilities of the K-38, both on land, and on sea. While on descent, I was flying about 500 meters ASL, and found that at full power, this plane can fly at Mach 0.90. Interesting. With enough practice, one could softly land this on water. Taking off is easy too, as the hydroplane steps are a really big help. This plane lands and takes off at about 45 m/s on water, whereas on land it is capable of landing at 40 m/s and taking off at 50 m/s (82 m/s with no input). Side note to manufacturer: I recommend that the entire wing be set to grandparent auto-strut, as this will keep the wing from flexing. The Verdict: It's an excellent plane, but I feel like its aerodynamics are too effective for a passenger plane. However, I'm not kicking this plane out just because of that. As a matter of fact, I would like to purchase about 5 of these for our fleet, as a medium range floatplane, so that we may service our areas which are inaccessible to other larger craft. And I'd like one as a personal plane ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-- Note that I added an @CrazyJebGuy tag, this will notify the maker of the aeroplane that their plane has actually been reviewed. Panzerknoef has reviewed this plane before, he had nothing bad to say about it. You didn't comment on a couple of things in the review, and these can be important, one is passenger comfort (quite good on this design with excellent views) and the other is economy, you didn't mention if it was expensive or how much maintenance was likely to cost. I'd also like to say that in a review you shouldn't speak in first person, you're speaking for the KEA review team after all. Modification of aeroplanes also is a big nope, except for things that do absolutely nothing (struts not actually connected, navigation lights, that sort of thing) and action groups. Also images in a review are quite nice, without an image a reader of your review would need to know already what it looked like. It's a very good first try, a few simple things and it's actually quite a good review. Also note that range does not need to be so precise, to within 40km is fine, mostly because it's very difficult to measure range to the nessecary accuracy. (Some planes get measured multiple times by official judges, and vary often by a hundred kilometers or more)

Yes but that is till wrong.

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

It has that because it would be a stronger place to attach the struts from the wing tips, since attaching them to the engine sleeves causes much more wing bending. Why do you call it the HAPPI by the way?

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

Test Pilot Review: @Kernel Kraken's Krakentech AKP-10 Jumbo Jet Figures as Tested: Price: 480,853,000 Fuel: 19,375 kallons Cruising speed: 214m/s Cruising altitude: 4700 m Fuel burn rate: 0.88 kal/s Range: 4,711 km Review Notes: Given the hype about colossally over-sized planes coming from Krakentech, we were a little surprised to find this jumbo was only moderately big, seating 240. We were more surprised at the construction on it, with the absolutely colossal vertical stabilizer, the odd observation post up front and the V shaped wings on top, this plane will not be infringing anybody's copyright. Adding to that, it's not fully symmetrical. It comes close, but we found the tail-plane to flex in manuevers, but only the starboard side one. The port side tailplane is quite rigid. Takeoff is pretty quick, the engines are a good fit and accelerate well enough. It can pitch up on the back wheels very easily, since they are so very close to the centre of mass. So close, in fact, that like some Neist Air designs it can sit, nose in the air, on the tail. It's a good thing most of our air-strips are not angled, so it would probably tip backwards a lot. Regardless of that, the top speed is not very impressive, nor the time taken to achieve it, and climb is a bit on the slow side. Range is decent, and the plane handles nicely. We wrote that before we actually did pull any high G turns at cruise speed and altitude, and while it is technically true it won't do it for long, since we found the build quality lacking. We tried rolling first, and it has an impressive rate of roll, and the outer engines produced impressive explosions too. Next off the flying fail bus was the starboard tail-plane, followed by the port side V wing on top, apparently it got dizzy in the flat spin this other stuff induced. Other dizzy departees included the starboard fuel tank's rear nose cone and the starboard V wing end tip. (also the rear one) Genedock Kerman did manage to get the remainder of the plane out of the spin, and flew a very damaged plane back. Safety, with a skilled pilot two engines is sufficient and it can fly with only half a tail-plane, so that's kind of good, but sort of un-done by the fact it can easily tear those things off. By the way we meant to say this earlier but it can take off at 40m/s in a very short run, would be decent for a turboprop. Comfort, when not spinning about, is very good. Engine noise and vibrations are distant and largely negligible for most all passengers, and the views from the luxurious cabins are nothing to complain over. The Verdict: It's another luxury jumbo, but it has the disadvantage of being quite able to cause damage to itself in flight. It's nothing special in other regards like speed, as compared to a Grande Dumbo or something, and that has the advantage of being a bit cheaper, and not having bits fall off mid-flight. The maintenance may also cost a fair little bit, with 178 parts it's just the nail in the coffin for this thing. A reinforced, cheaper version might do better though.

Another tip: it's nice if you link to the review, maybe in the title. I'll review something after I go cycling, and I'll make sure to show you what I mean by that. I'd also like to say the other very economical jumbo jet is my Konig, slightly worse at economy than the Slinky 152, but unlike the slinky it's not spectacularly under-powered.

No idea how you were flying it, the plane was unchanged since I uploaded BTW. I managed to get it to 214m/s, with about double the range you stated. Neistridlar (I think it was him anyway) turned off the main engine and managed to get a range of 3400km.

No, part of the challenge is building something that doesn't fall apart.

I didn't start it, but if others are doing it, I don't see why I shouldn't join in.

I've been working on stairs. Got a design that seems to do well, but I'm not satisfied with it.

Download link please.

On the topic of stairs I think yeah, 1000x price is too much. I still think they should be in the hundreds of thousands, so maybe x100.

I think it might be faster to just do a practice one, we'll just tell you if some bit is unusual. Some things are a bit subjective, so things vary there. Anyway, here's the first ones I posted, all have been reviewed, but I think they are good practice ones, being reasonably normal. (Quality does vary between them, ranges from almost perfect to quite bad; most are sort of middling.) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3199416 Standards for what is considered good vary from class to class, and over time of course. (Passengers in Jumbo jets, 200 used to be large! Then I stepped up large to 384, 864, somebody made a 1152 and I beat them much later with 1488, then a few months later @neistridlar comes along with a 2592 (I think, it's about that)) Best I can recommend is to just read a few reviews.

No.

No. B9 is not allowed.

This is why I cannot beat @neistridlar at aeroplane size, the craft get too big and unmanagable. I probably could actually, but I'd need to keep part count so low I would need to do it just like his, and I'd basically have to copy his design. I have though managed to create quite manageable super-jumbos.

Nah, so many mods over I have to enforce the rules. Nice work building it, but it's disqualified.

Luckily I had them in a stupid, inclined and very elliptical orbit. Or unluckily, cause I think crashing through 20 excrementsty probes in one orbit would be fun.

Only trouble, I used a Communitron 16 as the antenna, having forgot they are not relay antennas. So I just jettisoned them all. They also had no engines or experiments, so they are completely and totally useless. As a bonus I forgot a parachute, so I'm off to Minmus where I will land and then land a rescue vehicle.

@neistridlar Mine's bigger.

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's ADXL 'Mr Tiddles' Figures as Tested: Price: 385,148,000 wet Fuel: 20,480 kallons Cruising speed: 915 m/s Cruising altitude: 20,000 m Fuel burn rate: 6.3 kal/s Range: 2,930 km Review Notes: For review this week, my cat! Mr Tiddles is a tabby, jet engined British short-hair. I have just been informed that this is actually a plane. Which makes much more sense to review. Oddly it certainly doesn't have the sort of styling you might expect from a thing called "Mister Tiddles", it sort of looks like an over-grown fighter jet, and it has lots of big engines, so fast or something. Now on the runway it does have a bit of a concerning quirk, concerning in that it's supposed to have the highest cruising altitude of any plane thus reviewed, at high speed, and it flexes, quite a lot. But it's modeled after a cat, and cats are known for being very flexible. (I can confirm this by the way - I have one) And after the ADX CJG, we trust the Andetch engineers more. Once we started it though, we thought it might be able to use less engines. It can really slam you back in your seat, 1.6gs of acceleration! The takeoff speed? It's about 80m/s. Which is reasonable considering the class of superjumbo, and it accelerates quickly so medium runways are quite doable. The engineers at Andetch also had the idea to have two pilots as legally required, not by having a larger cockpit like normal companies, they have two cockpits, and we initially thought this might block the second cockpit's view, but no. They put a special luxury cabin for VIPs, and the space means the rear cockpit's view is just fine. We couldn't get it much higher than 20km, we just scratched it, and at 915m/s cruising speed we get a range of 2930 km, 430 more than advertised. Although we can see why it was not advertised the fuel consumption, which while tremendous, is not so bad when adjusted for passenger count, with a GPPM of .014, which is better than most planes, but it's pretty bad by the standards of aeroplanes this big and hypersonic jets cruising at crazy altitude. Up at 20,000m it suffers from abominable handling, although that seems unavoidable, so does every other plane at such altitude. At lower heights and speeds, it has stupendously powerful rudders, we might even say too powerful seeing as they can spin the plane right around, into a spin. Other than that we have no issues with control, we just strongly advise against using the rudder much at all. It's actually not that bad on price though, per seat wise it's okay, and maintenance wise 263 parts with a dozen engines, may become expensive, but not when considering the passenger count. And mostly the passengers are comfortable, a few affected by noise and vibration, but most of them get a pretty good flight. The Verdict: We like it and it's quite appealing but for the fact it needs metal bars preventing the rudder from deploying fully, but those only cost $30 and that's frankly insignificant compared to the rest of the cost. It's enormouse, and we think our busiest routes could benefit from this, the sheer passenger throughput of going really fast and carrying loads of passengers. So we want 3, and also we hope it doesn't drain the remainder of Kerbin's oil reserves. Just in case, we'd like to request a gas powered piston engine craft.