• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

508 Excellent


About Mjp1050

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Ice cream!

Recent Profile Visitors

3058 profile views
  1. I'd be willing to rebuild your plane. Do you know how to insert pictures in posts yet?
  2. Normally you'd have to upload the craft to somewhere so that we can test it, but I don't know if that's an option on consoles... I've got a theory, though: maybe you could back up your KSP data to a USB drive, then upload your data to Dropbox and we could pull the craft file from that? I'm just guessing; I don't know if that would actually work or not...you wanna give it a try?
  3. I'm halfway there... just another ~20 months to go...
  4. Sorry, no. The only mods allowed are AirplanePlus and Tweakscale.
  5. Hey folks, I'm back from my hiatus. And holy cow you guys are amazing! I haven't been on the forums for the better part of a month, and when I got back today, I honestly expected this challenge to be dead. But you guys are not only keeping the challenge alive, but also managed to get this in the Heritage Challenges! That's incredible! You guys are the best. I'm also really pleased to see that we've managed to get other judges on this, because honestly, I was completely overwhelmed and stressed out by the sheer volume of submissions. There was no way that I could've managed to get through them all. So thank you everyone who's judging planes right now, because you are making my life a lot less stressful. @panzerknoef, @NightshineRecorralis, @no_intelligence, @1Revenger1, I'll put you in the OP as official judges. I'll still be judging, too, but I don't know how often I can do it: each review takes me about two hours, and it's hard for me to actually find the time to review planes. Even on a good week, I could only get about 3 planes reviewed before I had to call it quits. I really can't thank you all enough for this. I'll still be around the forums too, so I'll be updating the OP with the new reviews about once a day.
  6. Yep, they're allowed. We've had a few flying wing submissions already, actually. How many passenger planes have you seen that glide? If you mess up while gliding, your plane crashes, because you have no propulsion and can't climb to a safe altitude. No gliding.
  7. Test Pilot Review: @aerodis's [CompanyNameNotFound]: AerLeeker 3.6 Figures as Tested: Price: 51,901,000 Fuel: 900 kallons Cruising speed: 300 m/s Cruising altitude: 6000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.22 l/s Range: 1200 km Review Notes: For an aircraft that relies entirely on Junos, the Aerleeker packs a quite a punch. During our testing, we managed to push the plane up to 300 m/s, which, although less than the promised 450m/s, is still far more than you would expect a Juno to go. It's also very quiet - the smaller engines result in less noise, and the wings are angled upwards, which results in much less noise in the cabins. The wings are actually quite interesting; we think they're the largest wings we've seen compared to the size of the plane, which enables the Aerleeker to take off from shorter runways at lower speeds. The wings also provide the most responsive roll control that we've seen - which takes some getting used to, as we accidentally barrel rolled twice before finding a balance. The price is high, though, at 51,901,000. That, combined with its fuel consumption of 0.22 kal/s and its six high-maintenance engines means that this plane will be expensive to keep in the air. The Verdict: The Aerleeker 3.6 is a typical private jet - very comfortable to fly in, very solidly built, and offers a smooth ride, but also quite pricey. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to a good regional jet; we don't think that we can afford to put this plane into service.
  8. Yes, It's still open. I'll continue to do this for as long as people submit planes. The reason I haven't tested any planes in over a week is because last week I had midterms, and I thought I should prioritize studying for those over KSP. I'd like to apologize for abandoning this thread without any sort of explanation; that was rather rude of me. Sorry. But now that I have midterms behind me, I can get back to testing your aircraft! I'll have @aerodis's entry up in a few hours. @MiffedStarfish covered it pretty well, actually. Fuel capacity / burn rate gives you your flight time, in seconds. Multiply that by speed to get your range in meters. Divide that by 1000 to get your range in kilometers. Sorry it's taking so long. I've currently got 37 38 submissions to test, and you're currently 12th in line... your entry will take a while.
  9. Test Pilot Review: @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Factory No 653: Ka-12 series Ka-12/24: Figures as Tested for Ka-12/24 Price: 130,976,000 Fuel: 5813 kallons Cruising speed: 155 m/s Cruising altitude: 4000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.35 kal/s Range: 2500 km Ka-12/48 Figures as Tested for Ka-12/48 Price: 160,310,000 Fuel: 5813 kallons Cruising speed: 155 m/s Cruising altitude: 4000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.36 kal/s Range: 2500 km Review Notes: Let's start with the obvious: the Ka-12/24 and Ka-12/48 are massive. The lightest variant is 64 tons, which is more than twice as much as any other aircraft we've tested so far. Unsurprisingly, we found the Ka-12 series to be quite sluggish, because of their sheer mass. Unfortunately, this limits the Ka-12 series to the larger airports, and because it carries so few passengers, it would not be as efficient in that situation as other, larger aircraft. We suspect that the Ka-12 series originated as cargo planes, and were converted into passenger planes later in their lifespan. The renovated cargo bays make the fuselage almost indestructible, though. We also found the engines to be unreliable; notably, fuel consumption varied wildly depending on the altitude and angle of attack. At one point, the aircraft was consuming 0.70 kal/s, and that's twice the normal fuel consumption. The engines also didn't respond well to changes in pitch; diving would block airflow to the engines and choke them. The Verdict: The Ka-12 series is frankly too unreliable to put into service. Perhaps swapping out the engines would yield some improvements.
  10. Test Pilot Review: @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Factory No. 653: Ka-24 Figures as Tested: Price: 43,916,000 Fuel: 2000 kallons Cruising speed: 130 m/s Cruising altitude: 1200 m Fuel burn rate: 0.32 kal/s Range: 810 km Review Notes: We really enjoyed our experience with the Ka-24. First, landing on water is incredibly smooth - we managed to land at 33 m/s on water, and Bob Kerman, our crash test dummy test passenger barely even noticed. Takeoff was a bit trickier, because it required all the flaps to be deployed; if they weren't, the plane nose-dived into the water at 30 m/s. Annoyingly, flaps aren't bound to any action groups, so they had to be deployed manually - but once they were deployed, takeoff was as smooth as smooth could be. The engines are placed well above the waterline, and remained quite dry for the entire flight, so we don't think that engine maintenance will be much of a problem. The KA-24's cruising speed of 130 m/s is delightful, especially with the cruising altitude of 1200 meters - combine that with the parasol wing placement and the passengers get a wonderful view of the world below. That being said, with a cruising altitude of 1200 meters, it can't fly very far inland, making it useful only on water . Interestingly, 130 m/s isn't even the top speed - it's actually upwards of 200 m/s, but speeds that high kill the fuel economy, so 130 m/s offers the best bang for buck. Our main criticism of the Ka-24 is its price: at 44 million, it's not the cheapest aircraft on the market, and the fuel economy means that refueling this aircraft will be pricey. The Verdict: A very solid first entry in to the Seaplane category, the Ka-24 performs above and beyond what we need in a seaplane, though we would recommend creating an action group for flaps. Ordering 3 for use at island airports, and we'll order an additional 6 if Factory No. 653 can lower the price.
  11. Test Pilot Review: @SuicidalInsanity's Insanity Aerospace -- IA-720 Series IA-720 Figures as Tested: IA-720 Price: 32,739,000 Fuel: 1695 kallons Cruising speed: 290 m/s Cruising altitude: 5500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.22 kal/s Range: 2200 km IA-E720 Figures as Tested: IA-E720 Price: 34,839000 Fuel: 2395 kallons Cruising speed: 240 m/s Cruising altitude: 5500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.20 kal/s Range: 2900 km Review Notes: We were impressed with the IA-720 series. To begin with, the 720 blurs the line between a flying wing and a more traditional wide-body airliner; it holds 72-80 Kerbals in comfort, but at 5 meters wider than it is long, it gives the appearance of a jet that's been run over by a steamroller. That's not a criticism; the overly large lifting surface helps it take off at less than 60 m/s, which is impressive for a 27-ton aircraft. At 48 parts (58 for the E720) and two engines apiece, the 720 series seems like it would be a nightmare for a mechanic to take care of, but the nearly identical airframes ensure that replacing parts will be trivial. The aircraft is also very easy to maneuver, thanks to its oversized control surfaces. We appreciate that the engines are located at the rear of the aircraft, too; it reduces cabin noise. The IA-720 series also offers wonderful views on the ground below, thanks to its low cruising altitude of 5500m. Overall, we think that Kerbals will enjoy riding in this aircraft. In our testing, though, we noted that the IA-E720 is actually superior to the IA-720. The E720 is 2 million more than the IA-720 and is slower, but offers better fuel economy, a larger range, and more cabin space for the passengers. And if necessary, the E720 can be converted into a 720 by simply not filling up the tanks all the way. We're not sure why anyone would buy the original 720 over the E720 variant. The Verdict: A unique design and exemplary Kerbal comfort make the IA-720 series a wonderful first entry into the Medium Regional Jet category. Ordering 12 IA-E720s for use on the medium-haul routes, but we'll pass on the IA-720 because it doesn't offer any concrete advantages over its brother.
  12. Test Pilot Review: @TheEpicSquared's IRIDIUM AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES - ISRJ-32 Figures as Tested: Price: 20,655,000 Fuel: 600 kallons Cruising speed: 260 m/s Cruising altitude: 8700m Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s Range: 2200 km Review Notes: The ISRJ-32 features a very interesting design that we've not seen before. Unlike most aircraft, the ISRJ-32 lacks elevons and instead features canards, resulting in the most responsive pitch control we've seen in a while. It also has an I-Beam on the back to prevent tail strikes, which is incredibly useful on takeoff, especially on smaller, rougher runways. The ISRJ-32 also features very large flaps on the wings, which allows for a quick deceleration, making landing a breeze. The performance of this aircraft is above average - in particular, we like the 0.07 kal/s fuel consumption rate, which is the best we've seen in a Small Regional Jet - but this performance comes at the cost of passenger comfort. The placement of the main fuel tank is unique: it's located directly between the two halves of the cabin, and while this placement ensures that the ISRJ-32 remains balanced even as fuel is drained, it does make climbing into the back half awkward. Additionally, both the air intake and engine are located directly on the rear cabin, resulting in a lot of noise and vibrations in the cabin. The Verdict: Not the most comfortable plane to fly in, but its innovative design gives it unrivaled performance as a Small Regional Jet. Ordering 6 for use on medium-range routes.
  13. You should try to lower the takeoff speed. I won't disqualify your plane if you enter it as it is, but it will be marked down. I'm going down the line. @TheEpicSquared is next, I'll try to get to his tonight. Good grief, 23 entries already... this might take a while. There's no deadline, so you can enter whenever you want. There's no score for the number of passengers. Come to think of it, there isn't really a quantifiable score at all. Just pitch me your plane and I'll review it. Added. I've been meaning to do this, but somehow never got around to it. If you use it in jet mode, it counts as a jet engine. No. The plane has to have a cruising altitude, and sub-orbital hops don't do that.
  14. Test Pilot Review: @dundun92's Airborne Technologies - URJ-101 Figures as Tested: Price: 21,702,000 Fuel: 1110 kal Cruising speed: 290 m's Cruising altitude: 6500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.11 kal/s Range: 2900 km Review Notes: To begin with, we'd like to say that the URJ-101 is a beautiful plane. Everything about its appearance screams "modern," and we absolutely love the exterior. This plane's an absolute delight to fly, once it's in the air, but a takeoff speed of 60 m/s meant that the URJ-101 can't be used on smaller runways. The fuel efficiency is decent; it's 0.11 kal/s is slightly above the average, but it's range of 2900 km is more than enough to make up for it. We like how the engines were placed beneath the wing, rather than directly behind the aircraft; it makes pitching up much easier and reduces vibrations in the cabins, allowing for a much more comfortable ride. However, there is one major aspect of the URJ-101 that we can't wrap our heads around. The interior of the aircraft does not match up with the exterior: We're not sure why - or how - Airborne Technologies eschewed traditional Euclidean geometry, but the end result is quite disconcerting. It's certainly an incredible achievement that they managed to create a pocket universe at all, especially for less than 22,000,000, but we do wonder if airplane cabins are really the wisest use of this technology. The Verdict: That interior is so gosh-darn freaky that we really don't think that we can put this into commercial use. Ordering one for testing purposes, though
  15. Gotcha. I misunderstood your post. Why the whole save file? I only need the one aircraft.