NightshineRecorralis

aka a month (assuming no maintenance) Not all that bad, considering a life of approx. 20 yrs

Habu Industries Presents: The Leviathan: A YUGE HONKING PLANE Why do you want this plane? It's simple: You don't. You NEED this plane. Why? Because it's freaking huge and actually performs well. There are flaps but the wings are so big they aren't needed. Unlike the Colossus, everyone has legroom, all 3888 of them! Performs best at whatever altitude with the nose level at 220m/s, which is typically around 6500m to 7000m. The plane will rise as fuel is burned off. With the standard fuel load, range is approximately 3000km with 30,000 kallons of fuel, but ranges greater than 5000km can be achieved by fueling the wing tanks, with a total of over 100,000 kallons of capacity. Unfortunately, we only have pictures of the prototype, as the production version used up so much money we couldn't afford a photographer. At just over 1 billion funds, however, we think the price is justified. If testers need help flying (which I assume they will), Habu Industries hotline is open 24/6 and welcome for inquiring! Note: This plane has 334 parts and will stress your system. I am running on a 7600K @ 4.7Ghz and I'm only getting ~25fps. I tried running on a 7300HQ @ 3.5 Ghz and only got ~15fps. Proceed at your own caution, with physics slowdown the plane will be very unresponsive so physics delta WILL have to be increased to accommodate this on lower end systems.

Damn, how unfortunate, my internet was out for the last 4 hours.

Keep us posted, I'm sure we'd all like to watch

You should, I'd be down to watch

Test Pilot Review: @Kernel Kraken's Krakentech AKP-10 Figures as Tested: Price: 480,853,000 Fuel: 19,375 kallons Cruising speed: 220m/s Cruising altitude: 2500m Fuel burn rate: 0.83 kal/s Range: 5000 km Review Notes: Well, it looks like a Kraken alright. We had trouble getting pilots to volunteer to fly this thing, as it simply looked so unnatural. The curved tail surfaces seemed out of place compared to the straight angular construction of the rest of the plane, as if the they had been re-purposed from a different design. Why the AKP-10 needs two large ventral fins is unknown, but we do like how it was incorporated into the body. The spacious MK3 cabins were also a welcome feature. Overall, this plane was a curious conundrum for our pilots and our volunteer flyers. First off, our initial impressions weren't all that great. The fact that the wings were held together by struts and trusses didn't instill much confidence, and the unsteerable landing gear deterred even more pilots. Still, we eked out a handful of brave souls who were willing to fly. Things promptly took a turn for the worse in our minds, as the AKP-10 has an unavoidable tendency to nose up on the ground at full throttle, and the tail does not unstick until 25m/s. Granted, the plane does lift off at 35m/s, and does so in a relatively fast fashion, significantly lower than advertised. In flight, however, the beast seemed to be tamed as our pilots settled the plane into level flight. We were forced to fly without stability assist due to the wobbly nature of the jet, despite the liberal use of struts. If our pilots were nervous before, they were certainly having a breakdown now. They demanded to get landing clearance immediately, though the lack of thrust reversers and airbrakes certainly didn't help matters. To absolutely no one's surprise though, the plane didn't make it. Not the landing, but the turn. With a roll deflection of over 120 degrees per second, the AKP-10 does not maneuver like a jumbo jet at all, and the pitch authority is simply so overpowered that anything longer than a tap at high speeds leads to Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly. The AKP-10 loses its horizontal stabilizer not long after takeoff, resulting in a flat spin and corkscrew soon after. To be fair, many problems could potentially be solved with intense pilot training courses and structural reinforcement, perhaps coming in the form of a MK2? Either way, while the passengers will enjoy the roomy cabin and relatively quiet flight, they won't like the numbers behind each flight. Neither will our wallets, as this plane guzzles fuel and is quite inefficient for its class. Strict maintenance will have to be performed to ensure the rear bulkhead is not compromised after each takeoff, and the likelihood of a runway excursion is simply inescapable if the landing is anything short of perfect. At 178 parts and 480 million funds, this plane will be nothing but a drain of resources and bad PR if we ever fly it. The Verdict: In theory a great performing plane, but in reality plagued with many life-threatening issues and economic inefficiencies, the Krakentech AKP-10 is not worthy of airline service in its current state. Changes can be made to make it a lot better, to exploit its full potential, and we look forward to flying it in the future.

I personally wouldn't have expected 4 engines, and yes, moving the gear should fix most issues 40-45% isn't bad in a cabin unless you're sitting right next to...oh. :P

Test Pilot Review: @DunnoAnyThing's Simpjet-O Manta 1-1 Figures as Tested: Price: 43,548,000 Fuel: 1400 kallons Cruising speed: 220 m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: 0.175 kal/s Range: 1600 km Review Notes: When we took our first look at this plane, we knew things were going to get interesting. The Manta 1-1 was originally assumed to be a VIP transport of some sort when we first saw pictures, but when it arrived, nobody at Habu Industries expected a compact Medium Haul Airliner. Despite being marketed as a small regional jet, the Manta achieved all of the prerequisites of a medium regional aircraft. Of course, squeezing 72 kerbals into a 13m by 13m box came with its own set of ups and downs. There were a couple of things we noticed immediately. The lack of a smooth tail was a slap to the face to all of our designers, and nearly brought anarchy to all of our engineers. In the walk-around, many of our pilots also questioned the reason behind putting 4 Wheesleys onto this airframe. Rolling the plane onto the taxiway, the pilots complained about the natural nose-up position the plane takes on the ground, severely limiting visibility and increasing the likelihood of sucking debris into the engine nacelles thanks to the low gear placement. In flight, the problems kept coming up. We had sourced 25 volunteers and placed them into the various cabins. The Mk2 cabins, as usual, were roomy and delightful to fly in, but all the Mk1 cabins suffered from noisiness and vibrations due to having engines bolted on the the rear, and an intake at the front. At cruise, we figured the most efficient flight was achieved at 220m/s, but even then the engines were running at a sustained 40-45% for the entire flight, to the distress of the crew and the passengers. There are many benefits to this design, however. Due to how close together the engines are placed, failures won't affect stability all that much, at the risk of an engine exploding and damaging the one next to it. We were able to keep level flight at reduced speed with just one working engine, and initial ditching simulations gave very pleasing results. If anything, landing is more dangerous, since the plane has a tendency to lose two (or more) engines on rougher landings. Since we don't expect it to be sunny everywhere all the time, we suspect maintenance costs will take over the majority of this aircraft's running budget. Despite that, it will be able to replace many larger aircraft that have similar capacities, reducing hangar costs overall. At 34 parts and 43.5 million funds, the Manta represents something of a middle ground. It's not the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most efficient, but it seems to be part of a new generation of medium haul liners, which can cater to the needs of both cheap tickets and relaxing flights, just in a different form factor. It does have issues though, the gear placement can lead to a lot of error, increased pilot awareness and training costs, and the unprotected nacelles might be prone to sucking in debris from the field. If only maintenance wasn't such a big issue, this would be an excellent contender to take over "typical" medium airliners. The Verdict: It's not the cheapest, or the fastest, or the most efficient, but it seems to be part of a new generation of medium haul liners, which can cater to the needs of both cheap tickets and relaxing flights, just in a different form factor. The Manta could've been the next big thing, but with so many issues regarding training and comfort, we don't think this plane will be viable in the long run. If Simpjet-O ever releases a next generation Manta, as the name implies, we will be all over it!

I finally fixed my computer! (Thanks Microsoft and Windows Update) Habu Industries Presents: The RJ-85: Medium Haul Business Liner A STOL craft suitable for feeder liner service between major cities that even economy passengers will love! Main notes: Take off @ 50m/s and absolutely no sooner. Landing speeds 45m/s-65m/s with flaps down. Higher or lower is possible at the risk of structural damage and passenger complaints. Flaps: AG2+3, Airbrakes: AG1 We didn't think thrust reversers were necessary, but they can be activated and assigned an action group Cruise at 7000m and 210m/s, with an estimated range of 2800km. Seats a total of 96 passengers Due to a bug in loading, the starting flap deploy directions may have to be adjusted prior to flight. There should also be an autostrut for the horizontal stabilizer to the heaviest part but it refuses to save. When Keastern Airlines ceased operations, we at Habu Industries could see why. They were relying on aging, unreliable jets to serve their most ludicrous routes. We don't want to see KEA suffer the same fate, so, after a long caffeine marathon by our designers and engineers, who for the first time worked together seamlessly, we developed the RJ-85. Featuring 4 state-of-the-art turbofan engines for reliability and safety, a high wing for great cabin views, and low landing gear for the ease of our passengers, the RJ-85 is the perfect medium haul liner to complement any airline. The Islander/Trislander: Bush Aircraft for Remote Airfields A bush style aircraft with all the characteristics! Main notes: There is no dedicated altitude to fly at for the Islander, but we recommend flying under 2000m. The Trislander flies at 2000-3500m Seat 18 and 26 respectively. Take off @ 35m/s (Islander) and 42m/s (Trislander). Release brakes only after moving at 1m/s. Both have priority seating in the forward bay, as well as a dedicated passenger entryway. Extensive and powerful flaps enable strong short field performance (AG 2+3) Cruise at 80m/s and 85m/s respectively means very little engine noise but still getting where you want to go. A pontoon version is in the works and may be released if enough interest is gained. Landings are best performed between 40m/s and 30m/s with flaps down. Estimated range of 1000km and 900km respectively We needed it, so we though KEA might need it too! Who doesn't need a rugged bush plane to service remote airfields, perform S&R missions, or buzz towers around airports? Both have extended fuel tanks to perform long flights to either pole, or for many short hops around island chains. The possibilities are endless! Performance can be pushed if the cruising speed of 80m/s is too slow, but Habu Industries does not guarantee structural rigidity at speeds above 120m/s.

That's alotta planes! It might help if you spread them out over a period of time instead of submitting them all at once Anyhow, here's a quick tease of my current project: A replica of a BAE 146 that actually performs well (hopefully)

Habu Industries Proudly Presents: The Voyager II Airliner Seating 248 kerbals and with a maximum range of 2400km, the Voyager II will satisfy any short fat routes an airline could need for the low, low price of 35,420,000 fully fueled. The elevated seating on the second floor gives excellent views while being situated as far away from the engines as possible, and even then, the outboard engines are guaranteed to give the quietest cabin noise for any jumbo jet. Yes, the range is short, but this plane was designed to get in and out of busy airports like nobody's business, and bring travelers to their destinations with some peace and quiet. Perfect for those "Economy Plus" tickets that are so popular! The pilots get a great view up front, the passengers get a great view in the back, it's quiet at 5500m in the air, and everyone's happy, even your wallet. This plane can make a island round trip with only 100 units of fuel for almost 500 people, imagine the possibilities! For more details, visit our KerbalX website, where you can get yours today!

Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Slinky 72 Figures as Tested: Price: 20,495,000 Fuel: 1350 kallons Cruising speed: 250 m/s Cruising altitude: 5500m Fuel burn rate: 0.07kal/s Range: 4500km Review Notes: When we received the Slinky 72, we thought it was a logical step forward, albeit a slight stretch for most other minds. The rear mounted nacelle and engine puzzled our engineers for a little, until we received a call from our friends over at Skaled Komposites. They were quite helpful in explaining the presence of the dragon living in the back. Upon hearing news of the scaly friend, most of our test pilots, and all of our interns, hit the road and didn’t seem like they were coming back anytime soon. Valentina stayed, though, and thoroughly enjoyed the fact that she wouldn’t be alone if something went wrong. On the first flight, we wondered why the landing gear was so high for a relatively small aircraft. The answer the our question was delivered when Val jerked the stick back before we reached the speed required for take off, probably because the dragon in the rear yawned. The plane is designed so that tail strikes are difficult to achieve, and we were very thankful of this, as the Slinky 72 is quite long. It lifts off the ground quickly at the specified 50m/s, but we found the roll authority to be quite touchy compared to the pitch, which led to pilot induced oscillations initially, but was quickly straightened out after a briefing. The aircraft has a tendency to pitch up in flight, and vice versa with the thrust reverser engaged, we wish Neist Air had removed the first tendency, as it made lining up with the runway a bit of a chore. The second one is a love it or hate it feature, since it can sometimes overload the nose gear and cause bouncing. The aircraft flies smoothly at 250m/s, though the wings didn’t have any incidence on them, which led to a slight nose up attitude at altitude. A minor annoyance, but still an annoyance. We would’ve asked for airbrakes to slow the plane down, too, seeing that the thrust reversers don’t function in flight. Or maybe train their dragon better, that could work, too. The Slinky 72 has an astounding range, with the only other competitors carrying twice the amount of fuel or more in comparison. It’s kppm value is also the lowest among the competitors, making this the most fuel efficient aircraft we’ve tested so far. It performs well, though we would like some more pitch authority, if possible. The passenger experience is good, the vibrations and noise is dampened by the nacelle, but the dragon housed within does tend to make noise, especially when hungry. We’ll have to add that to our maintenance bill, though we may use it as a PR move, for the dragon lovers out there. We also weren’t sure how NA is ever going to train enough dragons for us if we did replace our medium jetliner fleet with Slinkies, so we won’t. Instead, it’ll be slowly phased in. The existing hangars won’t have to be modified much, and the Slinkies are well built and we don’t plan to have to sink much money into maintaining them. Safety is another great selling point of this plane, it glides well, and can land in practically any condition thanks to robust gear and an out of the way engine. We plan to buy a dozen or so, as long as the dragons behave, and don’t scurry off somewhere to fight over planes, since they are very territorial. The Verdict: The best performing aircraft in its class, the Slinky 72 is perfect for low volume airports that don’t have the capacity to fuel up massive jetliners. It does have some teething problems though (literally), and we believe that Neist Air can build an even better aircraft. In the meantime however, we’ll be phasing out some older jets with a newer, efficient alternative. Purchasing 12 and leasing 20, provided that NA can support their dragon training program and stop them from gnawing on the elevator cables.

Be patient, that's all I can say. We still have about 15 pages of submissions to go through from the old challenge, never mind the 18 more for the new one before we get to you.

This is not a submission. I just need a volunteer to help me conduct some experiments. Mainly, will the judge's PC explode. https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Leviathan

Now that is an instance of using tweakscale inappropriately

True, I know the feel, I just recently moved to an ultrabook and still want to play KSP haha. BTW, what is the size of the engines on the Megolovania 2? They look to be bigger than 5m somehow.

If you've flown any of my bigger planes they shouldn't explode on landing haha This is just the beginning. The winglets are 100% scale FAT Control Surfaces for scale How big are those engines? I scaled mine to 3.5m since the largest turbofans irl are 3.3m across.

Be Scared. Be Frightened Be Ready to haul 3888 passengers

Water ops aren't that much different, in fact, the performance is nearly identical. I did intentionally leave some words ambiguous after all. I will go back and do specifics but I don't think it's necessary.

I see, is there anything specific you want me to change?

Will do! I think it's more of a turboprop than a seaplane, but of course you may disagree. It really fits either quite well. I decided to go with turboprop and that was my decision, I think it doesn't detract from the performance at all either way?

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-230-200 Seaplane Figures as Tested: Price: 12,880,000 Fuel: 316 kallons Cruising speed: 200m/s Cruising altitude: 5300m Fuel burn rate: 0.045kal/s Range: 1300km Review Notes: Small and sprightly, the K-232 is a fine airplane and a joy to both pilot and passenger. Despite the limited control authority on the roll axis, the plane flies beautifully, as is the view from both the cabin and the cockpit. Everything about this plane is good or pretty good, including the handling characteristics, performance, range, and cost. The takeoff performance is pretty hit or miss, as we could get it up at the advertised 41m/s in some cases, but in others, it’ll take a bit more runway or speed at around 44 to 45m/s. Negligible in the long run, and still perfectly fine for a turboprop class craft. Landing is a breeze, as long as the plane is somewhat lined up. We wish the flaps wouldn’t interfere with the roll capability of this plane, as when they are deployed, the roll response goes from adequate to cruise ship levels of maneuverability. There just isn’t much to complain about this plane otherwise though. The new pontoons provide a lot of stability in the water, and it makes ditching easy to accomplish without too much screaming. The natural tilt towards the back is eliminated in flight, since the wings are incidenced properly from the factory. With the stiff competition in the turboprop market, the K-232 fails to really stand out, it has a decent price, with not too many parts or complicated engines, and is build to a high standard of robustness. However, in the growing seaplane market, the K-232 is a high performing craft that is much better than the competition. We liked how we could put this plane down in any condition and it would take it like a champ. We’re sure this will incur some penalties for longevity, but we’d be hard pressed to find a similar plane with similar bush performance. The plane provides surprising fuel efficiency and ease of use thanks to its relatively long range and ability to act as a small commuter jet on longer, less popular routes, or for seaside destinations that are hard to get to. The Verdict: This is a hard decision to make, seeing that the market is overflowing with small jets, and the K-232 is not the star of the pack. What it is, however, is a sturdy, versatile seaplane with plenty of potential. While we do not see this aircraft acting as a major hauler in our fleet, we'd like to buy 2 and lease 10 for feederliner and bush use in our most remote destinations. We will certainly purchase more if the manufacturer could fix the very slight issues with the current airframe.

Ok, I know this was an old post but I wasn't around at the time. What exactly was puzzling about the Colossus? I'm building a version 2.0 and I'd like to iron out some kinks from the original design

Will do! Depending on the graphics card, enabling either eyefinity or surround ought to do the trick

Ooh, what is this spreadsheet and where can I find it? Also, I got some more monitors and I can now take screenshots like this: