NightshineRecorralis

True, but it shouldn't be too difficult for a semi-decent pilot, especially if the plane was designed to have that in mind. It would make reviews a lot more interesting

I agree! It was a joy to fly. I don't think having the duct described like that is realistic since all the fuel tanks were full, which presumable does not leave room for any ducting. I have to say, I am rather disappointed that none of the planes I've tested have done a gear up landing without lives lost though, perhaps you'd be the first if a new Comet was made. I know I can do that with my Jupiter, but that is currently the only aircraft (that I know of, vtols not included) that can do that. I would like to be proved wrong for passengers' safety sake

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries Comet 1b/2a Figures as Tested: Comet 1b Price: 31,891,000 Fuel: 2140 kallons Cruising speed: 216m/s Cruising altitude: 3500m Fuel burn rate: .11 kal/s Range: 4050km Figures as Tested: Comet 2a Price: 34,911,000 Fuel: 2220 kallons Cruising speed: 268m/s Cruising altitude: 4500m Fuel burn rate: .21 kal/s Range: 2500km Review Notes: Oh boy! Were we excited to get our hands on one of the new planes promised from GAI. First impressions were good, as we didn't need an airport tug that tended to break our shiny new planes. After getting the pilots to stop doing donuts in the taxiway, they set out to push the Comets to their limits. Both the 1b and the 2a took off fairly quickly at 68m/s, and initial low speed and stall testing revealed excellent handling characteristics thanks to the swiveling engines. The Comets both provide great views from their cabin windows, though the pilots would like to get in on that, and unfortunately, the taildragging landing gear that GAI just loves has simply put down yet another fantastic aircraft. Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. The wings have no incidence, which makes for a slight nose up attitude in flight. This combined with the taildragger landing gear and measly viewing angles from the cockpit make for interesting landings, as the pilots are essentially blind without their instrumentation. This is a minor gripe, but we would like to see tricycle gear on the next iteration. Speaking of which, GAI has curiously not removed the supply of monopropellent from the cockpit, presumably as an in-flight drink to us? Another minor issue is the way the plane is built. There is a lot a fuel, giving plenty of range to both the 1b and the 2a, but it seems that GAI has merely repurposed a tanker by strapping passenger cabins to the dorsal and ventral sides. Not that we're complaining, but the complicated ducting required on the lower deck does make us wonder how we're going to service these planes. The good thing about the design is the excellent passenger experience. Apart from the mild vibrations from the engines, the whine isn't overwhelming in the rear cabin, and any sound that does get through will most likely be overshadowed by the view of the surrounding space. With both models performing best at relatively low altitudes, these planes make the daily commute much more bearable. The excellent maneuverability and excessive fuel reserves make this a possibility. For longer range flights, these planes prove to be reliable workhorses, as an engine failure will not result in any emergency action needed. In the event that both engines fail, the landing gear is strong enough to withstand field landings and the airframe is sturdy enough for ditchings. Not to mention the parachute included with the 2a. At 44 parts and 52 parts respectively, and with 2 engines and many shared components, we don't expect the Comet to bankrupt us for maintenance. However, the intricate ducting required for the intake does require a little more work than most other jets, but that's not really a problem considering how high off the ground it is. What can we say? The price isn't the best out there, but it is fair for an aircraft that operates economically and provides creature comforts like the Comet. We liked it , and we believe our passengers will too. The Verdict: With an interesting design that does not implicate any of its performance, the Comet is well suited for business travelers or commuters that wish to have some peace aboard their daily commute. With the ability to turnaround very speedily, we'll purchase 17 Comet 1b's as daily shuttles between major hubs, with an option for 5 more, and 9 Comet 2a's for the heavier routes to complement our current arsenal of small/medium jetliners, with an option for 3 more.

No problem! You've really been spearheading the effort, so I must applaud you for doing so. Maybe we could set up a standardized test suite and then have reviewers append independent tests? I feel like this would establish the best "inter-compatibility" and comparability between reviews but still retain the style that everyone is known for.

Hey yall, I'm ready to get back into things in the following weeks now that all the testing before the school years ends is over, though I probably will be limited to 1-2 per week due to the ramp up in sports now. If there's a specific order to review I'll follow it, but I'm sticking to the Review spreadsheet if no one objects. @neistridlarBecause reasons @hoioh I love the work you've been putting into those logos! They look stunning!

I think if it has not been reviewed yet, then yes. Just to get it fresh in our heads again.

Same here. Most mods will need a new version to go with the unity update and maybe textures. I'm staying on 1.3 until my library of mods are all up to date.

Haha yeah, competition is nice, but I hope nobody minds the similarity of my design and some others.

Habu Industries Presents: The Jupiter SST For under 100 million funds, you can get the best SST on the market, being able to operate in nearly any environment and carry 176 kerbals anywhere and back (on Kerbin). Cruising Speed and Altitude: 1200m/s @ 21000m Takeoff at 60m/s, Landings at 50m/s 5000+km range (depending on ascent profile) AG 2 & 3 for flaps Has 6 “Stargazer” cabins for the best view of space at altitude. Note: MechJeb Module is not included in final product

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's Gawain Aeroplane Industries GP-1a Figures as Tested: Price: 111,434,000 Fuel: 5525 kallons Cruising speed: 115m/s Cruising altitude: 2000m Fuel burn rate: .28 kal/s Range: 2950km Review Notes: In the classic GAI fashion, the GP-1a redefines what large aircraft ought to look like. What it does not do is redefine how they ought to perform. With a distinct double decker design and plenty of horsepower under the hood, the GP-1a promised to be a sturdy workhorse in any fleet. With the airframe able to seat 152 passengers, it meets the criteria of a jumbo jet. Couple that with it's slow flying, and it is quite the puzzle. We liked the flexibility of the wings, it reminds us of those ornithopters or whatever they were called that were a fad way back when. Fortunately for the GP-1a, its wings don't ultimately break and shatter into a million pieces. The taildragger design is unusual for a plane of this size, but given GAI's history, we can appreciate the throwback. Despite the inclusion of a pair of airbrakes, this plane does not like to slow down upon landing. We were able to land it at the island airfield, but only just barely, and also had to remove part of its fuel load. Speaking of which, we learned that flying this craft under 25% fueled was a bad idea, as it became aerodynamically unstable. Thankfully, it is tameable, but none of our resident pilots were willing to land it under 10% fueled. There's still plenty to like, though. The plane allows for plenty of visibility out of the cabin windows, and the spacious cabin is perfect for long haul flights. The inclusion of a dedicated cargo bay is nice, though it is rather hard to access. We'd liked to have seen a kneeling feature on the front gear, or getting rid of the cargo bay altogether for another cabin. Despite the range being lacking, it is still respectable at nearly 3000km, but the instability is a big problem at the tail end of that range. With 124 parts and a whole bunch of struts, maintenance costs are predicted to be high from what we’ve seen. The wings take plenty of stress through the flight, and while GAI promises they won’t break, it is possible that cracks will develop through the airframe’s lifespan. On the other hand, with four relatively easy to maintain engines, they won’t be costing us too much, not to mention the heavy duty landing gear has not failed us yet through all of our rigorous tests. The Verdict: At just over 100 million funds, the GP-1a is a pretty standard performer in terms of price. There aren’t many benefits we’d get from it, but we won’t be losing anything except for a slightly higher fuel cost. However, with the Skots Mouse being a similar aircraft and performing better for the same price, there seems to be no reason to buy the GP-1a. The only thing that makes up for it would be the view and the passenger comfort, but we wouldn’t purchase a jumbo like this for sightseeing only. Also, with such a slow cruise, a 5 hour flight will only get you to limited destinations. If anything, this will be relegated to short haul flights with fast turnarounds. We’ll lease a pair for high density, short haul flights, but we don’t expect to be operating these long term.

Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's international space exploration airplanes: Kerbair K20 Figures as Tested: Price: 34,150,000 Fuel: 3200 kallons Cruising speed: 220m/s Cruising altitude: 1500m Fuel burn rate: 0.40 kal/s Range: 1700km Review Notes: The Kerbair K20 does not look like a conventional passenger jet of the olden days. Instead, it utilizes a 2x2 cabin layout within its bounds. The design certainly caught our eye, though not necessarily in a good way. However, we were willing to throw our pilots at a problem like this. We weren't sure why a tail boom was left out, but we aren't going to get into another fight with our engineers. Overall looks are good after you get past the nonexistent tail, ad passenger comfort is quite good. The same can't be said about performance, though, but it could be forgiven in lieu of the view from the cabins. The 2x2 layout makes the K20 very compact for a jet that can carry 96 passengers, and the engines placed under the wing and far from the cabin helps both with cabin noise and the view. In flight, the engines maintain a noticeable but not intrusive drone, making ear protection unnecessary but still recommended. Pilots all said that they liked the way the plane cruised, as the altitude of 1500m is achievable very quickly. The high landing gear relative to the engine mounts allow for plenty of last minute adjustments. We would have like to see thrust reversers bound to the main control panel, as our pilots all had to activate them manually. The view from the cabin is great, and with a low flying aircraft, no pressurization is needed, potentially increasing the lifespan of the aircraft. With forward thinking design comes forward facing aircraft, or so we thought. The K20 lifts off at 80m/s, higher if you don't pull back at the right time. We attributed this to its distinct lack of dedicated elevators, relying instead on elevons. Its pitch authority was sorely lacking, yaw could be checked off as acceptable or good, and the roll was quite touchy. We would like to see dedicated control surfaces next time around. The K20 also performed worse compared to its competition in terms of fuel economy. With 3200 kallons in its standard configuration, the craft was only able to fly 1700km with 96 passengers. This relatively limited range, coupled with poor economy and long takeoff/landing runs, mean that the K20 can only operate out of medium or large airports. Smaller airports with longer runways will also be serviceable, but we won;t be sending this plane anywhere remote. At 34 parts and with a price tag of 34 million, the K20 remains quite attractive, being near the middle of the road relative to the competition. However, we really don't know if a slow flying aircraft with relatively poor controls is a desirable addition to our fleet. The plane itself is built sturdily, though the poor pitch control may result in handling accidents even after pilots come out of the simulator. The Verdict: With great passenger comfort, the K20 will likely shine on business routes. Unfortunately, it was also one of the slowest planes we've tested as a medium regional jet. We will lease 3 for a few years to see if they are up to the task, but we don't think we'll be needing the K20 in such a crowded market.

ok, let's try this (3100/176)/(8000*0.621) = 0.003545 GPPM Though you are correct, the cost is quite steep at $98mil.

Cool! Can't wait to see the review of that (I'll be posting one tonight), how did you calculate that GPPM though? Speaking of hypersonic, I think I have something that can be potentially better but probably not considering it has 4 whiplashes.

Why half fuel? Is there something I don't get behind the reasoning for this? My way is, as far as I know, the most accurate way without delving into nerd sniping territory.

F3 isn't accurate enough, planting a flag at the end of the runway and trigonometry is more accurate as long as you don't fly too far and thus have to account for the curvature of Kerbin (20km ish) I'll fly the plane up to cruise as described or whichever I find to be most efficient, do it five times and find the average distance covered and fuel at start of cruise. Then hyperedit once the plane is at cruise back to the specs at the start of cruise and take measurement, then change fuel to 50% and take measurement, then again at 5%. Fuel economy should increase linearly and I just find the average fuel consumption. I use this fuel consumption with the cruising fuel load in the calculation, leaving out about 5% fuel and adding the distance covered up to cruise. It's long and tedious, but it's the most accurate way that is still time efficient, since these tests usually don't last more than 1.5 hrs, and I'd rather do this than fly a jet for 6-10 hrs or maybe even more.

If that's the case, I suppose leaving the game running overnight with a screen capture might be needed then. I find that my method seems to be rather accurate within about 2-5%, and no, descent does not mean gliding. Descent means descent.

What's the official method of calculating range though? The way you described isn't really applicable since fuel economy changes drastically from airframe to airframe especially with large aircraft or supersonic aircraft. I try to keep my measurements as accurate as possible by calculating range at cruise with the fuel load at cruise, then adding the distance covered during climb and descent. I leave ~5% fuel in the tank since no airliner is supposed to run dry. I do like your designs though, quite stylish in the kernel sense. I personally want that blend of realism and kerbalism, so part count isn't a concern for me. I'll take the maintenance penalty if it looks better/has more features.

If that's the case, I suppose pilot error is the cause then, I had zero problems like that. It is more economical at 250m/s, but I don't understand why it would be slowing down if it can reach 274m/s as you stated. Perhaps it's just a conflict somewhere? I can upload the file again if you want.

Did you fly the thing at a higher throttle to get 274m/s? If so, it isn't flying at its peak efficiency and I suspect that is why the range is so low.

Cool, I'm a mentor for team 5000, from Boston.

Ooh, what team? We might compete haha

would it be possible for there to be a mirror download for BDa? I can't download from the official GitHub Release due to gov't regulation. Thanks!

haha, that sounds like a kerbal thing to do, though I personally prefer pilot assistant. IMO it's just a little easier to set up and use.

After burners dont require much in terms of maintenance or R&D, turbo ram jets need R&D, so initial cost is higher. Also, since we are comparing crafts that solely use whiplashes, I don't think that works when it otherwise would.

Here's a different analogy, if you have a service from New York to London or Paris, do you use multiple smaller A330s or 767s? Or do you use the A380 or 747 exclusively? The answer lies between the two, as larger planes are needed during certain days of the week, or certain hours of the day, as are smaller planes. As for the turnaround time, I was specifically talking about the businessperson. The planes don't wait for passengers. That's the part that didn't make sense. There are no large supersonic planes in the fleet, it is more economical to have both large planes and small ones.