• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

198 Excellent

About NightshineRecorralis

  • Rank
    Professional Potato Gamer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,566 profile views
  1. What about cargo doors? The kerbals are technically inside a cabin, open the doors, deploy the chutes, and it's off to the races! (No I will not be building one)
  2. They either have issues in design or have been claimed but not posted, and there's only 3 of them I think? Is one of yours in that queue? Or maybe you can help alleviate the problem
  3. @Lo Var Lachland Hey I was going to review your "Lark" but I'll have to ask you to return to the drawing board due to the way fuel tanks and batteries are clipped into the passenger cabins. I believe this would violate the spirit of the challenge: Please fix this as soon as possible, and do know that this will not affect where you are currently in the queue! Thanks!
  4. Test Pilot Review: @Steel Starling's Starling Industries SI-XR-19 "HexWingMk2"  Figures as Tested: Price: 191,200,000 Fuel: 19,200 kallons Cruising speed: 1240m/s Cruising altitude: 17,500m Fuel burn rate: 2.30kal/s Range: 11,900km Max, <2000km usually Review Notes: After a government mandated 24 hour break, our pilots and engineers returned, spirits high, to continue reviewing aircraft for KEA. When they were greeted by the HexWing (as we’ll be abbreviating it), the was a collective shriek, of horror from the engineers, and of joy from the pilots. As we’ll eventually find out, however, the pilots would agree with the engineers. The HexWing is ludicrously overpowered with 16 J-X4 “Whiplash” turboramjets and has a fuel load to match. The cabins appear to be standard fare, albeit close to the engines, and the landing gear is rather unconventional. At this point we would normally continue with the review, but on our first flight we saw that apparently, Starling Industries neglected to check how the CoM of the HexWing shifts in flight. This results in a very unstable aircraft after even just a few minutes of flight, though with diligent piloting with the aid of a computer, we were able to fly for about 2000km. We found that the HexWing was not able to maintain 1240m/s at cruise without the outboard engines while fully fueled, but the efficiency didn't suffer, unlike the cabin experience. While the Hexwing has some nice qualities like its maneuverability, the high cost and abysmal stability had us question if we were even sent the right airframe. The landing gear setup is beyond weird, and just asking for trouble in the long term. There’s also the 16 engines to maintain, and the noise and vibration that stem from them. The Verdict: It shouldn’t be surprising that we would not wish this upon our worst enemy, and as for KEA, well, this plane should never have seen the light of day, never mind passenger service. It’s a great design in theory, but Starling Industries will have to make a few changes before this plane is safe to fly.
  5. Test Pilot Review: @EpicSpaceTroll139's PassTranz Aviation Co. PT-704 "Lambda" Figures as Tested: Price: 303,632,000 Fuel: 7205 kallons Cruising speed: 260m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: .38kal/s Range: 4600km usually, 5000km Max Review Notes: Hey, what’s this? It appears that we’ve been delivered a rather standard looking jumbo jet for the holidays! With our pilots and engineers practically begging to be let go for break we were forced to make this one quick. Our friends over at PassTranz Aviation seemed aware of our plight when they sent this craft over, as it was quite easy to just hop in and go. The Lambda is powered by 2 J-90 “Goliath” turbofans, each producing 360kN of thrust. The cabin is large and spacious for the passengers, and the plane was overall a delight to fly. Will that be enough to counter the high asking price? Let’s find out. Overview: The Lambda is quite powerful, and when equipped with plenty of large control surfaces this makes it maneuverable and easy to control. The flaps were able to generously slow the airplane down in conjunction with the airbrakes, and combined with the thrust reversers makes landing a breeze. We wish the brakes were a little more powerful, though, as many airports have strict noise regulations and thrust reversers may not be available. PassTranz Aviation designed the Lambda is a standard and conventional way. It also comes with a state-of-the-art cockpit and the entire aircraft shows a general passenger-concentric attitude. The cabin is comfortable, and was able to combat the engine noise at cruise. All the window seats are given a nice view at the relatively low altitude of 5000m, but the high cruise speed seems to make up for the lower altitude. Safety is also a big selling point. The dual engine layout means there’s redundancy in case of a failure, and the sturdy construction of both the fuselage and the undercarriage means emergency landings on land and water are possible. Maintenance isn’t a big deal either, though it is slightly costlier than some competitors. There are structural reinforcements that protect against tail and engine strikes, which is something we don’t see often and is greatly appreciated. Glad to see PassTranz Aviation going the extra mile for that 5 star safety rating. We have to say that the range is a little underwhelming, as it means the Lambda cannot compete in the ultra-long-range flights where its much better comfort will undoubtedly shine. Given that the Lambda isn’t as efficient as its competitors, the only redeeming qualities of this aircraft seem to be overshadowed by the large compromises we’d have to make by placing it into service. The Verdict: Despite the high price tag, the Lambda is squarely within its own niche - a high performing, high passenger count aircraft that is capable of taking on any situation we throw at it, and it does this without sacrificing any passenger comfort. The Lambda seems to be aimed at premium but difficult routes, and while it is expensive, it is much more efficient than others in its price class. Placing an order for 3 with 3 options.
  6. @Bottle Rocketeer 500 Great job on your first review! As @neistridlar said, the range in generally rounded, not to mention the tested range and calculated range are different (I believe you took the calculated range and plugged that in for the actual range?) There was good detail on takeoff, landing, and cruise, but a little more info on handling might be helpful. I liked the part about landing at the island but no, it is not required. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next! I'm sure those nuances in writing will come naturally. An important note is that you cannot fly the plane like it is your own design - we all design aircraft with subtle (or not so subtle) differences that can have a huge impact on handling and maneuverability. So don't just fly it once and run off to take notes, spend a little time with it and get used to it, then note what you had to learn in order to fly it the way it was intended
  7. Huh, So I still did the ascent somewhat quicker - that's interesting. I wonder which one is more fuel efficient though, even if it probably doesn't matter for a plane with such a long range
  8. Depending on if you take the weight fueled or not, here's my SSTO: Wet: 326-20+50+50+25 = 431pts Dry: 142-20+50+50+25 = 247pts Uncut bc I just realized I had HyperEdit installed so I wanted to make sure nobody thought I cheated
  9. Part of BD armory and a lifesaver for large crafts it slows down the physics so that everything loads in smoothly and things don't explode. It sometimes freaks though and that's why sometimes the plane drops like a brick. I hope you enjoyed the close pass I had right at the start
  10. I will return with an SSTO, but right now this plane I made for the regional jet challenge worked great! 225-60+25 = 195pts if my math is correct
  11. I was just dissing the RAPIER - just an inside joke i guess? But yes, purely cosmetic for pure rockets, Rapier is iffy
  12. @Bottle Rocketeer 500 Great! @neistridlar probably has more info about this than I do, but here's the gist (I guess) for your trial review. Go find a plane that has already been reviewed and one that you know your system can run (For example, if you're on an ultrabook, don't grab a 500+ part plane) and go test it out! Useful characteristics that are objective would be takeoff speed and distance, stall speed, landing speed (kinda hard to test but a ballpark is usually enough), cruising altitude and speed (supplied with manual, or just find one that seems reasonable), and more! There are some objective categories like engine noise and cabin comfort, but the general idea is this: The higher the relative cost of a cabin, the better it is, the further away from a cabin an engine is, the better, the lower the power setting of the engine(s) in flight, the better. Bearable to least bearable (from my own experience and TOTALLY BIASED): Turboprops, piston engines, jet engines (bigger diameter = better, turbofan better than turbojet), turboshafts (we don't use these), afterburning turbofans/jets, rocket engines. If you go supersonic sound doesn't matter unless the exhaust of the engine is in front of any or all cabins (see Concorde vs Tu-144 - turbojet vs afterburning turbojet). There are many things I take into account but not all of it makes it into the final review as I personally aim for a primarily objective viewpoint that explains the pros and cons of each aircraft. Also, supersonic jets and really large planes are really hard to test as their performance varies a lot across different flight plans. Hope this quick rundown helps, if you have any questions PM me or the other judges! Remember: We're here to have fun, so no pressure, you'll get better the more you write!