NightshineRecorralis

wonder if you could import just the new parts from the update back to 1.7 or earlier and not have it break the game I'm certainly going to try that once I get home just for the new SRBs

That’s interesting, would provide a baseline (flawed, sure) that may be useful in preliminary rounds of testing

I would love to reboot this if I had the time to do so, like most of the judges I believe we were quite starved for time and the work just kept piling up...

Ahem, it’s Habu Industries dO yOuR rEsEaRcH /s

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)

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

@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!

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.

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.

@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

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

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

@Klapaucius Does this count

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

https://youtu.be/DJiibhWRrgY 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

@neistridlar I'm intrigued as to what this PM contains

I was just dissing the RAPIER - just an inside joke i guess? But yes, purely cosmetic for pure rockets, Rapier is iffy

@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!

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Slab 2592 Figures as Tested: Price: 1,481,208,000 Fuel: 75,600 kallons Cruising speed: 215m/s Cruising altitude: 6,400m Fuel burn rate: 1.4kal/s Range: 11500km Max, 10500km usually Review Notes: Boy oh boy were we excited when we saw the giant box show up at our doorstep. Noting the “This Side Up” and “Fragile” stickers, we unboxed the mammoth plane with due care. Once we maneuvered the thing into our hangar, we started going over preflight checks immediately, as our pilots could hardly keep themselves contained. The Slab is powered by 8 J-90 “Goliath” engines, each producing a maximum of 360kN of thrust for a total of 2880kN for the whole craft. The Slab seat 2592 is its standard configuration, but contrary to its name, it appears quite box-like. We admired the giant dual rows of landing gear as well as the mass of struts holding the whole thing together. We started with low level flight, wanting to see how the plane would handle the tight maneuvers required by many airports. Liftoff was sprightly at 45m/s at around the administration complex, under what was advertised, and thanks to the many control surfaces, the aircraft handled like a champ, more like a business jet than a super-jumbo. The advertiser’s recommendation of 5Gs seems to be selling the plane short, as we were are to push 7Gs easily in loops. Climbing up to altitude, we found that the aircraft had sluggish climb performance, no doubt due to the high takeoff mass. In fact, at a 7 degree climb (about 20m/s), the plane never was able to exceed 160m/s. We’d like Neist Air’s support in figuring out how to get the most speed during climb out of the Slab. As the plane climbs, it loses quite a bit of speed, and so that all has to be regained once it reaches altitude. Cruise altitude was reached after 9 minutes, but cruising speed took another 8 minutes. The nose starts out quite level, and as flight continues it dips beneath the horizon. With an average fuel consumption of 1.4kal/s at cruise, coupled with the massive fuel load, means the Slab has a very respectable or even somewhat ludicrous range of over 10000km. We feel that converting the Slab to a premium long-distance workhorse seems plausible. Our patrons will certainly appreciate arriving at their destinations refreshed. In terms of cabin comfort, the noise generated by the Goliaths are quite noticeable as they are worked to their full potential carrying this huge plane. The engines are fairly close to the fuselage, though the noise and vibrations are dampened significantly by the supports and the inclusion of fuel tanks as a mass damper. Engine outages shouldn’t be a major issue either, as the Slab can fly on only 4 engines, provided there isn’t more than 2 Goliaths’ difference between either side. The landing performance is inline with the takeoff - short, which is great for airport compatibility. The safety of the Slab has to be emphasized, too, as not only can it handle losing half its engines, but it can also survive a ditching with no significant damage to speak of. We confirmed this both in our simulator and (don’t tell our investors this) the sample aircraft Neist Air provided us! We were thoroughly impressed by the Slab’s performance, but where it compromises is in price. At an eye-watering 1.5 billion funds, that’s no small sum to pay for this plane. Add to that the maintenance costs are no small fee either, but all in all, the majority of the costs associated with the Slab is with its purchase price. Though, to be fair, it has great efficiency, and a great performer in all of our tests. It also has no real competition, and we’re sure we can find a way to consolidate some of the busiest flights we have into a fewer number of flights (See here), while providing an even better experience than its competitors. The Verdict: To assess viability in high volume high density air routes, we will lease 2 in a hopefully not futile attempt to convince our passengers that they do want to go to a random city just for fun. The large fuel load may allow for quicker turnaround times at the gate, and even allows the Slab to act as a tanker when fuel prices rise!

So there go my plans for the weekend Anyway, if anyone reading this would like to judge planes, y'all can feel free to jump in! It's fun (for the first couple, at least XD) and not that much pressure - it doesn't have to be serious or silly, just do what feels right! If you think this is interesting and something you want to do, read a couple of reviews from different judges and try a plane that has been reviewed before. See how it feels and give your opinion! Also we need help holy crap there's a ton of planes to go through

Almost 3000 hours, most of it dedicated to atmospheric flight and sstos. The furthest I've been from kerbin on a planned trajectory was Duna, though I did make a Jool-5 + Eeloo run back in 1.0.4 which took like 80 hours. I don't focus on the "Space" part of KSP as much as I used to, I should, though!

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's Andetch Industries ADX-WFTWT (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Figures as Tested: Price: 78,970,000 Fuel: 1780 kallons Cruising speed: 280/750m/s Cruising altitude: 2500/5900m Fuel burn rate: 0.28/1.5ishkal/s Range: 1500/900km Review Notes: Let's keep it short, shall we? In theory, what Andetch Industries has done makes sense... to a point. Less wings equals less drag, right? But also less room for fuel, more emphasis on lifting bodies, etc. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Did you hear that? That was the sound the pilots and passengers were making as they flew by. For good reason, too. The roll controls are super overpowered compared to the pitch and yaw was practically non-functional. Takeoff was hard - trying to yank the stick back resulted in the loss of both engines and the bottom set of rear stabilizers. Waiting too long earns you a dramatic loss of control as the shocks decide they don't want to live on this planet anymore. 115m/s was the sweet spot, we found. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Oh, here they come again, hope they can land that thing. It's hard, but not impossible. Touchdown was generally survivable around 105m/s. Anything less than 90 leaves no speed for control, and anything above 120 generally means no room for stopping. Still, in order to land, you gotta fly first. In flight, the cabins are pretty comfortable, minus the screaming. Actually, if the pilots do absolutely everything right, there's very little of that. That occurs about once every 50 flights or so, according to our simulator. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Was that a loop? Anyway, the high price of the aircraft means high ticket prices, and if our test pilots have shown us anything, it's that they gotta be super expensive to cover all that insurance, plane, and potentially infrastructure. At least maintenance won't be an issue. Not recommended - 7/7 passengers tell us they'd like a winged aircraft instead. And maybe one that can actually make it to the destination.

Test Pilot Review: @hoioh's Skaled Komposites R-Wing-112/128 Figures as Tested: Price: 41,356,000/42,456,000 Fuel: 1200 kallons Cruising speed: 215m/s Cruising altitude: 8500m Fuel burn rate: 0.13/0.15kal/s Range: 2000km Max, 1700km usually/1750km Max, 1500km usually Review Notes: As a stretch of the R-80/96 we liked, both the R-112 and the R-128 are on the large side of the R-wing series, and it shows. Will they be as loved as their smaller brethren? Let’s find out. We decided to take the R-128 out for a spin, and our pilots immediately noticed the difference in handling, even when compared to the R-96 they flew yesterday. Like the others in the R-wing series, the R-112 and the R-128 are equipped with a single KP-12 “Bear” contrarotating turboprop, providing a maximum of 150kN of thrust, and a spare cockpit up front that has been stripped down and reconfigured for passenger entertainment purposes. The overall design has not changed, but it seems Skaled Komposites started to run into engine limitations with such a large craft when compared to the other end of the spectrum. Overview: The landing gear we praised last time has been preserved, and for a large turboprop aircraft such as this one, it certainly helps. Our pilots tested the brakes and suspension to its limits with hot and fast landings. The structural rigidity of the airframe also was not compromised with the stretch, and tailstrikes are still nigh on impossible. The ascent was slower than the smaller models, no doubt due to the aircraft reaching the upper limits on the KP-12. Cruise was achieved in 5 minutes in the R-112 and 6 minutes in the R-128. Both have meagre at best acceleration at takeoff, and both have a distinct nose up attitude at cruise. Thankfully, the engine remains quiet at altitude, though it is noticeably louder than the smaller R-wings. Fuel consumption was also worse, as expected with a larger craft with the same engine. While the R-80/96 were perfectly capable with the “Bear”, a “Lotus” would be really appreciated on a larger airframe. These planes both manage the recommended range for a medium regional airliner, but only just. A long range airliner this is not. Not that it matters, anyway. It is clear that these crafts cater to short fat routes between cities, and for that purpose, they perform excellently. For our praise and criticisms, they remain identical to the R-80/96. The engine choice is questionable, but for the lower perceived cabin noise, it might be worth it. Cabin comfort is above average and gets better the further forward the seat is. Maintenance is simplified by the use of the same parts across the series, with good engine placement but okay propellor clearance. If anything, the R-112/128 are more efficient than the smaller R-wings, at the cost of a slower ascent, higher operating noise, and longer takeoff run. In return, you get a good performing aircraft with great relative cost per seat, and most passengers won’t even notice the difference. The Verdict: The R-112/128 are great aircraft provided you can fill the seats, and in conjunction with the R-80/96, the high end of the R-wing series suddenly makes a lot of sense for those high density inter-city routes. Tourists will be happy at the lower price these planes enable us to offer, and business travelers will be happy of the great cabin experience they receive. Given the only major cost is the initial purchase price, it will be negated by the reliability and easy maintenance over service. Placing an order for 12 each, plus an updated order of 20 R-80/96s to accompany them.

@Bottle Rocketeer 500 The new 1.875m parts are rally nice - they're perfect in combination with the 2.5m cabins

Habu Industries Presents: the Queen of the skies it's not a 747 what are you talking about (The Queen, above) and its sibling (The Queen Lite, on the runway) Let's talk specs: The Habu Industries Queen is a luxury, first and business class only airliner, with a whopping 256 seats, of which 64 are first class on the top deck, and a 4000km+ range with whisper-quiet cruise at 4500m and 220m/s AG1: Thrust Reversers; AG2/3: Flaps Take-off speed: 60m/s The Habu Industries Queen Lite is the natural extension of the Queen that caters to the masses. The top deck is preserved for business and first class travelers, but the bottom deck has been replaced with economy cabins, seating a total of 64+480 passengers for a total of 544 seats. Range had to be cut to accommodate the extra passengers, with a range of 2500km+ Take off speed: 70m/s Cruise: 3000m @ 210m/s For the low, low price of 147 million funds, you can get your own luxury liner of the decade. If you haven't won the lottery and want something more sensible, the Queen Lite is available for 100 million! Get yours today! Only available for preorder on our website Please buy it we crashed like 3 of them just trying to take the pictures >.<