Maxorin

Almost-completed B777-8X. Also an experiment using flags for liveries. It's proving to be quite annoying, but it's really nice. Here's Boeing's unused burgundy livery, which frankly looks nicer than the typical blue house livery.

Remember the WIP B737 I posted progress of? It's finally completed! Truth be told, it was done a long time ago. I was just lazy to edit the video of it. Anyway, we'll skip the life story. You're here for the pictures. Cockpit instrument panels and overhead panel Forward and Aft Galley Forward and Aft Lavatories E&E Bay Passenger Half Rear Airstair Tail Compartment - Cable Drum APU Compartment Wheel Well Trailing-edge surfaces + more things. Look at everything in the album here. Want to download this? Bad idea, buddy! 3250 part Stripped, No Livery version. 4100 part Stripped with Livery version. 7500 part Full Interior version. Life story time Never before had I worked with parts in such a small scale. The most obvious section that displays this is the cockpit instrument panel. To do the gauges, it required me to use parts I, frankly, never thought I would use for a build. The gauges were made by, believe it or not, the Mystery Goo Containment Unit. The needles themselves were angled Communotrons, and the redlines were thermometers. If you actually look at the Mystery Goo Unit, you'll see for yourself how small the scale actually is. On the overhead panel, due to lack of space, a new part entered the fray. The small circles are actually struts. They have little balls at the ends of them, that when clipped properly shows as a small circle, perfect for these things. The "3 Green" lights are batteries. That's it really. Nothing special about them. Everything past the cockpit is pretty obvious. Perhaps the next special item is the galley, specifically the food you can see on it. As it so happened, the Barometer looks exactly like a tray of airline food. Cheap-looking, unappetising and minimal. But Kerbals have had worse. The other notable feature is the Lattice Livery. You might make claims like "That looks exactly like the A350's carbon fibre livery!" and "You copycat!", in which case you'd be right. Other than that, there's nothing else to really talk about. Hope you like the detail, and may your PC rest in pieces. Happy Flying!

Hi I'm gonna shamelessly promote my B-2 Spirit. Airliners are not the only things I make.

Test Pilot Review: [@Mathrilord's LoRE HST-3-8 Missile] Long Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The HST-3-8 Missile in subsonic flight) Figures as Tested: Price: 21 644 000 Fuel: 440kal Cruising speed: 1700m/s Cruising altitude: 25000m Fuel burn rate: 0.07kal/s Range: 10000km Review Notes: On first glance, the plane appeared to be very sleek, fitted with an engine that was uncommon in the civilian sector. Indeed, while it looked like a typical small plane, there were a number of features that stood out. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the plane was the lack of a visible cockpit-the only thing that stood out was a small camera on the nose of the plane. We later learnt that this small camera was the pilots' only view out of the plane, which admittedly did scare them a bit. Nonetheless, they agreed to take the plane for a spin. Just like its name, the Missile performed like a…missile. At full throttle, the plane accelerated very quickly, reaching its takeoff speed of 85m/s, a bit higher than stated, in 800m. Our pilots did have a concern that excessive pitching could lead to a tailstrike on the engine, although in regular situations this would be unlikely. Once in the air, our pilots performed the standard control check, noting that the plane had very good handling in all 3 axes. In fact, they even managed to sideslip the plane 40 degrees without causing it to spin out. Furthermore, the airframe managed to withstand a force of 46Gs, which was very impressive. As per its manual, the plane rocketed up to its cruising speed and altitude very quickly, in only 120km and with 300kal of fuel remaining. Also true to its name was the speed at which it cruised: a blinding 1700m/s. This was the fastest plane TKA has received so far. Not to mention, it had an incredible calculated range of more than 10000km. When it was time to land, the speedbrakes helped to slow the missile down from its hypersonic trip. Our pilots expected the plane to have a high landing speed due to its low wing loading. However, it managed to land at 65m/s, which was a bit slower than expected. That being said, it was at this moment when things started to go a bit wrong. The wheels started to bounce on touchdown which caused some instability in the plane. In fact, it started to skid and spring off the ground. This did catch our pilots off guard, and a later inspection found that the auto-spring and auto-damper systems were the culprits. We recommend having a set value for the springs and dampers to avoid such an incident again. In emergency situations, the sleek aerodynamic design allows the plane to retain its speed very well, although its single engine design could be a cause for concern in the redundancy sector. The plane also handled extremely well for water ditchings, with no damage whatsoever. The Verdict: It's relatively cheap and lightning fast. The passenger count, lacking at a mere 16, could limit the Missile to niche luxury trips, aided by the speed of the plane. Maintenance-wise, it's quite a charm, not requiring much at all. The new cockpit arrangement could require some extra training to operate safety. Most importantly, the part that requires some redesign is the landing gears' springiness. All in all, it's quite a good plane with few flaws. TKA will take 5 for its luxury or time-sensitive trips, with an additional 3 if it's popular with the people.

We do have a small one, which we're trying to clear. That's right, we do have a 'claiming system' of sorts, where judges will take on the planes. It just so happens that the ones up in the queue are taken, so I took the next available. Don't worry, I'll wrestle with them to get to it. It's just a series of messages on Discord. The judge who wants to take a plane with react with a symbol of sorts and 'claim' it. There's no inherent spreadsheet.

Sorry for the late review chaps. Test Pilot Review: [@Commodoregamer118's DDR ISSRJ1] Medium Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The ISSRJ1 in flight) Figures as Tested: Price: 62 186 000 Fuel: 2320kal Cruising speed: 180m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s Range: 1750km Review Notes: The plane's cabin layout caught our eye immediately. The upper cabin's windows were facing up and the lower cabin's downwards, which allowed for a blinding view both ways. This was quite the interesting design choice. During takeoff, our pilots noted that it had a pretty high acceleration, reaching its rotation speed of 60m/s quickly. It should also be noted that this was actually 10m/s higher than the stated rotation speed, but it was found that any slower a rotation would prevent the plane from accelerating any further. It was also able to take off in 850m, which was admittedly high for planes of its size. The wings also did not provide a lot of lift, and required high angles of attack to remain climbing. Upon its takeoff, our pilots also took note of the plane's incredible pitch and roll capabilities, which were very powerful. In fact, they think it might be too powerful. The extreme deflections and size of the control surfaces almost spun them out of control. Furthermore, because both pitch and roll were bound to the same control surfaces, they hindered each other's actions and led to a more 'rocky' recovery. The aforementioned weak lift also meant that the plane was unable to reach its stated cruising altitude of 5000m, and instead managed 4000m. To the plane's credit, it was able to cruise at a higher speed of 180m/s instead of the stated 120m/s, and also had lower fuel consumption. However, it was at this point that our flight engineer noticed a discrepancy in the manual. It stated that the plane could travel 5000km, but a quick run through the calculator found a range of only 1750km. This was far below the stated number, and frankly quite disappointing. Finally, it was time for landing. The plane touched down at 65m/s and our pilots applied the brakes and reversers. At least, they think they did, because the plane decelerated…not at all. Rather, the plane stopped in 1km. This was rather appalling to us. After inspecting the brakes, we found that they were not set at full braking power, and the thrust reversers were deflecting off the V-tail. The plane was also tested in emergency situations. The plane was able to take off with one operational engine, but the power of the pitch and roll meant that it was quite difficult to handle at the low speeds. In fact, our pilots accidentally impacted the left wingtip, shaving a few centimetres off the tips and a few years off their lives. In a double engine failure, the plane's weak lift means it has unimpressive gliding performance. In a ditching, it also means that the plane has to land at higher speeds, although this did not hinder the plane as it was able to landing in one piece. The Verdict: It could be quite a good regional jet. It's pretty cheap and can carry a decent amount of passengers. However, its performance is both too good and bad at the same time. Not to mention, the poor landing performance is really quite unfavourable. Maintenance-wise, the plane isn't all that bad. The only major issue would be the application of the reversers, as the cold stream would deflect straight into the V-tail which could damage it. In order to fix the plane's grievous flaws, we recommend, firstly, making the wings bigger and limiting the control authority and allocation. Secondly, the plane's brakes need to be adjusted to a higher braking force. Thirdly, the engines should be placed in a position where their reversers do not deflect straight into any critical components. If the flaws are fixed, TKA will consider buying 3.

I don't believe aesthetics can ever be taken too far, it's a challenge to make things look good and perform good.

Don't worry chap we have it under control this time

Woo! Welcome to the fairing fuselage gang! Your planes be looking hella nice.

B737-200C update! Your treat for today will be the passenger half of the cabin. View from Front View from Rear How many parts is the plane now? Good news! It's only 4270 parts in its almost-half-completed state. I might have the record for highest part count plane at the end of this suffering. It might also end up being a static model at this rate. Not that it can't fly, but that no computer can run it.

Take the amount of fuel you have, divide it by the fuel consumption rate. Multiply by speed. Divide by 1000 to get range in km.

Test Pilot Review: [@rutnam's A917-A Skycutter] Long Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The A917-A in flight) Figures as Tested: Price:192 600 000 Fuel: 520 kal LF, 640 kal Ox Cruising speed: 150 m/s Cruising altitude: 7000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.02 kal/s Range: ~3800 km Review Notes: When we saw the plane, the thing that caught the attention of the entire review board was the absolute size of the propellers. In fact, they were twice as high as the cabin and fuselage, coming in at 5.3m diameter. Not to mention, there were 2 pairs of contras. We were looking forward to feeling the power they would provide, although our maintenance team was quite worried at maintaining those 4 propellers. What was also quite strange was the centreline main gear, which was unusual for a plane of this size. We figured that this would be unnecessary and would hinder rotation speed, so we tried to retract it. It was at this moment that we learnt what this was for, as the plane started to tip back. As it would turn out, the centre of mass was a tad far back, and we were unable to figure out why. What we were not looking forward to (because we were looking up) was the height of the plane. To accommodate the massive propeller assembly, the plane sat quite high off the ground, which would pose problems for boarding at small or regional airports and also hinder easy maintenance. Finally, we relinquished control to our test pilots to take it out for a spin. (Note the wording used). They taxied it out of the hanger and turned it onto the runway. Except it didn't turn, because there was no steerable gear. We were in a bit of bother, but one of our test pilots had the brilliant idea of throttling up the right engine to turn it left. Thankfully, this worked out, at the cost of a little convenience. We really would like to see a steerable gear though. Finally, it was time to takeoff. As was expected, the plane jolted forward as the throttles were advanced forward. It rotated at 55m/s and took off in 600m, which was actually 200m longer than stated. Regarding its controls, it was pretty alright on all 3 axes, although a bit slow. We also noticed that the rudder's deflection angle was rather small, however this proved to not be a significant problem, and the plane was able to sideslip 15 degrees. What caught all of our attention was the noise created by the propellers. It has to be the loudest propeller plane we've heard. Climb and cruise was also pretty standard, although admittedly we were unsure if the plane would be able to reach its cruising speed of 150m/s, due to the seemingly sensitive nature of the propellers. However, it was able to without much difficulty. Apropos to landing, the plane touched down at 70m/s and was able to stop in 300m, which is relatively good. We figure it can be made shorter by incorporating more powerful brakes; however this isn't a very big problem. What is a problem is that the props are relatively close to the ground, which means that a hard landing could scrape the propellers. In emergency simulations, our pilots commented that it was able to ditch easily without major damage. However, in the single-engine failure test, it was found that the plane was unable to stay stable with one engine at full throttle. The power that the contras provide overpowers the small rudder deflection. In fact, at slower speeds, the plane was almost put into a flat spin, had it not been for the pilots feeling this and immediately aborting the test. (Refer to above wording used) In the dual-engine failure test, the natural unpowered state of the engine meant that the propellers were actually decelerating the plane more. Our pilots also had some difficulty feathering the propellers for gliding. We recommend adding a system which automatically feathers the props in an engine-out situation. The Verdict: It's a nice-looking plane. However, there are some issues with the plane, the major ones being that it's quite high, leading to harder boarding and maintenance. Also, the lack of steerable gear means that it is not very manoeuvrable on the ground. Furthermore, while it does have a long range, it has quite a small capacity for its relatively high cost. TKA will buy 3 with a potential 2 more if we can successfully incorporate this into our low-density long-haul routes if the major problems are fixed.

Yes, this is fine @Pikapolar. (Although there are also the radial intakes, if you want an alternative)

To throw in my own two cents, I personally have never needed to use the whole length of the runway before. This is probably because airliners are much better at flying than space shuttles, so I don't have much of a say in this. What I can say are potential solutions. Firstly, the KSP landing gear are finicky. You're right. For the most part, the Spring and Damper settings need to be turned up (I usually put mine at max). For braking, I tend to put the Brakes at 200%, which is sometimes so strong for my airliners I reduce them to 50%. But perhaps you already knew this. Solution 2: Kerbinside / Kerbal Konstructs. Probably the solution you all wanted anyways. It allows you to spawn in a new runway wherever you want and scale its size, and set it as a new launchsite. Fantastic, isn't it?

Long time no update! This time, I show off the 737's galley. How cute. It has a meal trolley, a garbage can and another trolley. Apart from that, it also has some other features, like a drink dispenser and juice boxes (not the same material as the trolleys). Also, you can choose from a selection of 4 different meals. Wow! Look at how delicious airplane food is! All our 4 meals come with a complimentary Blueberry Bar™. Set A has a Blueberry Bar™ and a lime jello (not from the open mystery goo container above, we promise). Set B has two Blueberry Bars™ and a cake candle (cake not included). Set C has two Blueberry Bars™ and one, that's right, one whole noodle. What a deal. Finally, Set D has a Blueberry Bar™ and a cigar with match. Cigar not edible. Match not edible. There's also cake. Happy Birthday to all you 2-year-olds out there.