NightshineRecorralis

How would you maintain this fleet of 15 or 20 planes? Again, supersonic flight is dictated by maintaining said fleet, which ultimately costs more than the planes bought. Cost per passenger mile is less of an issue since fuel cost will be much higher anyway. Let me remind you that there is no big supersonic jet in the fleet, at least not one that would cut into this plane's profits, in which case please correct me if I'm wrong. Also. Turn around time is not dependent on the passenger, only the flight. So, I don't understand what you mean by that

Here's the problem with the routes this plane is designed for: small planes don't do well when it comes to supersonic flight. It's simple economics, really. the more passengers, the better, as the planes fly so fast that turn around time is your limiting factor here, followed by range. The only real competition this thing has is the X-Series Night Fury (from what I've seen so far). That thing, on the other hand, will be a nightmare to maintain. This is a piece of cake in comparison. The price tag also doesn't look ridiculous either given it's only about 2x the Night Fury. With supersonic aircraft, maintenance is the highest cost over the airframe's lifespan (20-30yrs, maybe more). There are many factors that weigh into my decisions and feel free to disagree, but please, at least back up your arguments to let me know you care, and I'll probably change my review if I feel you have a point. Right now, you're just attacking my review because you disagree. That's it.

It's a big plane, it's a niche plane, long thin routes with frequent business travelers benefit from this aircraft. The last plane i reviewed got 2 orders, which cost more than these 4 combined.

The Dassault Mercure got 12 (i think) orders. If that niche plane got 12 orders, I think I can justify ordering 4 of these.

Test Pilot Review: @Not Sure’s ASEI B-1337 “Swift Moon” Figures as Tested: Price: 278,427,000 Fuel: 6000 kallons Cruising speed: 1200 m/s Cruising altitude: 20,000m Fuel burn rate: 2.12 kal/s Range: 2900 km Review Notes: For a plane that's supposed to fly fast and fly far, the Swift Moon does pretty well. However, the less than advertised range and relatively slow climb to cruise makes this aircraft difficult on our fuel stores. The two deck layout makes it easy for us to price seats according to comfort and the outside view. However, a large number of engines this close to the cabin forced us to provide ear protection for all our test pilots, and we expect the same for all our passengers, especially those in the rear cabin. There are a few gripes, but none of them are more damning than the noise. Vibrations are somewhat acceptable considering this thing flies pretty fast, but the roar of the Whiplashes in flight is enough to permanently damage ears, as our first pilots discovered. Apart from that, this plane is average. Average takeoff and landing performance, average maneuverability, average fuel consumption. That last part might not have been true. We were told to expect a range of >4000km, yet the plane struggles to reach 3000km consistently. Even then, 3000km is quite impressive, but we don't appreciate the false advertising getting out hopes up. Apart from that, the Swift Moon is a good buy for the money, given its characteristics. The Verdict: So, with supersonic aircraft on the rise, we liked the general plane itself. For the price, it'll be a sound investment, or so we think. With new planes on the rise, this plane may not be as profitable as we like with its fuel consumption and being limited to larger airports. Still, we'll be ordering 4 for those routes that businesspeople will pay anything for to get to their destinations fast.

Submission for: Kerbal Express Airlines Submission from: Habu Industries Following: Sea Dragon 2nd Generation Type: Medium Regional Jet/Seaplane Top Left to Right: Sea Dragon 2100, Sea Dragon 2000, Sea Dragon 2100 X Bottom: Sea Dragon 1100 Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 1100 Cost of Purchase: $58,677,000 Estimated Range: 1300km (800 kallons) Suggested Operation: 1000m @ 150m/s Keep flaps down at speeds less than 50 m/s V1: 35m/s Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 2100 Cost of Purchase: $69,437,000 Estimated Range: 1300km (800 kallons) Suggested Operation: 1000m @ 150m/s Keep flaps down at speeds less than 50 m/s V1: 40m/s After taking some notes after our previous submission, we have tweaked the original Sea Dragon to perform in two distinct sectors, rather than being a jack of all trades. The first sector being amphibious sightseeing, which the non X variants are designed for. The following are high performance, long range variants more suitable for point to point transit. Aircraft for submission: Sea Dragon 2100 X Cost of Purchase: $80,599,000 Estimated Range: 2950km max in ER mode (2800 kallons), 2700km max in balanced mode (2440 kallons), 1850km max in STOL mode (1600 kallons) Suggested Operation: 5000m @ 250m/s or 5000m @ 280m/s Keep flaps down at speeds less than 75 m/s V1: 40-65m/s Flying at 280m/s will incur a slight range penalty compared to 250m/s of about 100km In short, we tried to make the Sea Dragon into the perfect amphibious aircraft for any market, boasting better than ever efficiencies, aerodynamics, and usability while retaining the classic look, feel, and controls.

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super Figures as Tested: Price: 501,023,000 Fuel: 7425 kallons Cruising speed: 230m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: 1.01 kal/s Range: 1600 km Review Notes: Ah, there’s nothing like sipping champagne while soaring through the clouds. The Koeing 747-100 Super is the definition of a luxury liner, with spacious Mk.3 cabins and a breathtaking view from most seats. We like how it looks and how it performs on paper, but flying this monstrosity in person is quite a pain, according to our pilots. Taking off is an emotional rollercoaster, as the abort marker passes before the plane is even able to get to half of its required speed for takeoff. Not to mention that this occurs on a large runway, under calm conditions. Performance is what we’d expect, though the range left a little to be desired. However, the 747-100 is built like an ocean liner, and at cruise, there’s nothing to suggest otherwise. After returning from therapy and the ICU, our pilots all agreed that this plane was not easy to tame. Not only are the controls unoptimised and feel like ol’ cable controls, but the plane, when fully loaded, cannot take off under 130m/s. This, combined with the roar of 6 huge engines, make for a very difficult takeoff and climb. In the air, the Koeing performs more like a keluga whale, having a large turning radius and a tendency to sideslip. The price is also rather steep for a plane with a capacity of 312 passengers. At 500 million funds, we couldn’t help but wonder if there was a better alternative for the price, and with the routes this thing can do, there are plenty. On the other hand, we cannot fault the engineers for giving us a design straight out of the golden age of air travel. The 747-100 has a very smooth and gentle ride, provided it survives take off, and is very stable and easy to fly outside of takeoff and landing. While maneuverability was not high on the list of priorities for a jumbo jet, the Koeing does what can be described as “adequate”. The good views provided for most of the cabin coupled with the lower range may make this aircraft a good sightseeing plane, if not for the sky high price tag. Despite its poor take off characteristics, the 747 manages a decent landing run, able to touch down at just below 90m/s. The Verdict: We have decided that this plane really doesn’t fit into any specific route. It can’t make long flights, and isn’t efficient enough for short, high density routes either. With 71 parts, general maintenance isn't bad, but long term costs over engines may push this aircraft into the red. Still, we like the aesthetics and the feel, and so will be purchasing 2 for luxury vacation routes between large cities.

The way I do it is to take the average of the fuel consumption at the start of cruise and at the end of cruise (~5% fuel left). I use hyperedit to change the fuel amounts in flight, and I find that this method usually gives a pretty darned accurate estimate. Usually not much deviance for most larger aircraft provided that the amount of fuel burned is the same.

I could, just it wouldn't be an official review, considering others have reviewed already

Hi y'all, life's been hectic for me during these last couple months, and I do apologize for disappearing without a trace. However, now that I've ironed most of the kinks out of my workflow after this new year, I'm ready to get back into judging. Hopefully, I'll be pushing out 1 every day, but if that fails, I'll try for 3/week, starting Monday. Due to PC limitations, I might not be able to do crafts with high part counts, but I'll definitely finish the 747-100 Super and get along to other planes! Thanks for understanding. I'll also probably get back into building aircraft, but who knows. The following is what happened while I was testing my Sea Dragon, so... might just include some semi-serious testing in my reviews. (I know some submissions can land on the VAB if tuned right)

I did a thing. Developed my first mk.3 SSTO since 1.0.5 and flew it up to my latest LKO station.

Quick question, what are the throttle settings that you test with?

I managed to hit 6GB of RAM usage in testing a new passenger aircraft design, and KSP now refuses to run at anything higher than 10fps.

Even in real life, shorter flights climb to lower altitudes. This is also reflected in most of the submissions. Depending on the design, most planes are still more efficient at higher altitudes. Yours may not be, and that's okay.

Drag is the primary concern. Then there's potential obstructions. The highest place on kerbin is no higher than 8km, and most lands are under 5km.

Delta Impulse: 6000m @ 270m/s - 1690km range , 8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range (Afterburner) Delta Impulse S: 5000m @ 200m/s - 1235km range, 8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range (afterburner)

Which plane?

Test Pilot Review: @Kneves's WH-04 Figures as Tested: Price: 370,382,000 Fuel: 35,400 kallons Cruising speed: 235 m/s Cruising altitude: 4000 m Fuel burn rate: 1.46 kal/s Range: 2100 km Review Notes: Wow... Just wow. We probably spent more on therapy for our pilots than actually paying for the airplane. It's big and looks good, but boy, we could handle this thing at all. Its poor ground handling restricts it to large airports with powerful enough tugs and plenty of space, and pilot training will likely be close to impossible. Our pilots tell us that the craft is very unstable. With the tanks fully loaded, the plane is prone to tipping onto its tail, and if the tanks are more than 70% drained, the plane cannot pull up at all. We recommend to any future fliers to limit their minimums to around 50%. This limits the realistic range to about 2100km. The controls of this plane are untuned, and the relatively little vertical stabilizer area allows the craft to sideslip a lot. At cruise, the plane exhibits a constant nose up attitude, resulting in lots of drag and noise from the engines combating this. The WH-04 is quite responsive along the roll axis, but not along any others, this makes for a difficult and terrifying landing sequence, especially for airports that don't have a completely straight landing approach. If you manage to line up your descent, the WH-04 still struggles to stop on even the longest of runways despite the thrust reversing from the engines. It was difficult to find anything positive about this craft. It's pricey, doesn't carry many passengers, and is a massive pain. At 88 parts, maintenance won't cost much, but considering how easy it is to cause tailstrikes on take off, damage may come too easily. The Verdict: If we could sum it up in one word it'd be this: No. To put it plainly, we don't like this aircraft. It's hard to fly, not cost effective, and is hard to fit into existing routes. Not to mention the few airports that can support this plane. Unless major changes are made, Kerbal Express won't be purchasing WH-04s anytime soon.

In much testin, I take the average of the start of cruise and end of cruise, calculated with the amount of fuel at the time when the aircraft reaches cruise. I leave a few units of fuel left as emergency supply but that doesn't impact range too much.

Holy crap, chill. I understand that you fell strongly about this topic (it is your plane, after all), but there's no point in trying to shove your own viewpoint down another user's throat. I can see why you feel you are in the right, and how you've been wronged in some ways, but please, keep the tone level and not pointingly directed at someone else. Give the guy some credit, he's testing a plane that he has no idea in terms of controls and overall handling. I doubt you would be able to fly another user's craft as proficiently as the user themselves, in fact, I doubt anyone can. The fact that any of the judges can acclimate so quickly and turn around reviews is quite astonishing to me, so, please, on the premise of being an (unofficial) judge, I implore you both to keep this conversation civil and put niceties first. Don't let it develop any further and treat each other like equals. @Blasty McBlastblast That is all. Thanks for understanding. On a completely irrelevant point, I'll post my next review sometime Friday. ^^

Currently in the process of reviewing some jumbo jets

Test Pilot Review: @notsodeadjeb 's Konsolidated Aircraft Corporation -- PBY Katalina Figures as Tested: Price: 53,807,000 Fuel: 2000 kallons Cruising speed: 1350m/s Cruising altitude: 21000m Fuel burn rate: .285kal/s Range: 8500km Review Notes: It's not often that one finds a supersonic seaplane, but the PBY Katalina is such a craft and does so while maintaining the luxuries of both without much sacrifice. The Katalina is an excellent performer without significant drawbacks. It is able to ferry 24 passengers to any location in the world at a speedy rate, though comfort may be mildly overlooked. The Katalina proves to be a simple plane, though it does take a while to learn its behavior. With 3 turboramjets, the Katalina accelerates like nothing else, boasting a rather short liftoff run for a supersonic aircraft. However, these engines run loud, guzzle fuel, and shake the cabin at full throttle. We don't think this will be a plane that brings great first impressions, but the Katalina does reach cruise fairly quickly, which might remedy this issue. The unconventional landing gear doesn't like being on the ground, causing the plane to bounce around erratically on terra firma. Although barf bags are provided for all our flights, we hope we won't need to replace every single one after a flight. The Katalina also has a wildly varying fuel consumption, so any mistake in bringing the plane up to cruise can result in hundreds of kilometers of the overall range being lost. While the plane is easy to fly, visibility from the cockpit is very poor, being blocked off by the wings and fuel tanks on the side, and the passenger cabins up front. This is very much an instrument based aircraft, and will require much more training than other planes. We liked practically everything else about this plane, though, the large wing area made for excellent low-speed handling, and the pontoons didn't seem to affect overall flight characteristics. The triple engine design makes this aircraft very safe in the event of an emergency, as it can easily fly on a lone Whiplash with ease. The two engines in the nose to aid in water takeoffs were very easy to use, and they did make life a lot easier for our pilots. The aircraft was very maneuverable in both pitch and roll axes, and above average yaw control, especially for a supersonic jet. Landings tended to be shorter than takeoffs with the Katalina, as the large wings allow for a very low stall speed. While the plane may not be a looker, she performs very well, providing the best of both worlds. With 67 parts, many of which form the pontoons, the Katalina should not require excessive amounts of maintenance. The engines are well placed, as are the intakes. We don't think the craft will need much service throughout its lifespan, though the extensive ducting may drive up costs if there are any defects. The Verdict: With a relatively high cost, especially for the passenger capacity, we aren't sure if we can afford to put this craft into service. Despite the great characteristics, there are not many water routes that would benefit from supersonic speeds, especially due to the acoustic properties of water. However, the performance is simply too good to give up. We will purchase 4 to put into business class only routes along the coast and vacation spots, with options for up to 8 more.

Currently in the process of judging, sorry for the radio silence.

I don't have a ton of time with my desktop, but for black Friday I got a laptop with an i5 7300hq and a GTX 1050Ti. So hyped ^^ I would like to spend more time at home, so maybe when I get out of school in the summer.

Huh, we have almost the same PC, I have a 6600K and a GTX 970, but I usually use my laptop with an i5 3337u and GT 720m