• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

193 Excellent


About panzerknoef

  • Rank
    Spaceship Trainer

Profile Information

  • Location Qworz-5

Recent Profile Visitors

1,591 profile views
  1. We've got 16 jumbo jets currently lined up for testing. Can't say for sure that any of those are actually proper before I'm flying them or read a review though
  2. First of all, thanks for all the reviews! I've been looking forward to getting some of my crafts reviewed for a while. The Dotsero's do have some issues yeah, I've only picked up on most of them after they've already been submitted which is why they're still present. I didn't know about the CL-2-RRE-L's tail strike issue though, thought the wheels were far enough back to prevent those from happening, guess I was wrong. The engines having such a low top speed is indeed a bit of a double edged blade. Yes they're slow, but on the other side they're very efficient and allow for good range. Also, they've got a lot of torque when not at cruise speed, which explains the great climb ability.
  3. Sorry to interrupt y'all for a little announcement here. I'm currently not reviewing as I'm on holiday. Service will be resumed normally from on Monday.
  4. Yeah well, for times sake we went with a calculation to roughly figure out the range. Given that you fly at the same altitude and speed for most of the rest of the flight, that's a good enough estimate.for example, I don't think anyone would be too keen of flying a plane with a top speed of say 200m/s for its entire range of 5500km.
  5. You don't have to explain that to me
  6. The fuel consumption rate is just in the fuel bar in the top right, that's all you need.
  7. Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's - Trifekta Aeronautics: B-3 "Lance" Figures as Tested: Price: 28.345.000 Fuel: 1680kallons Cruising speed: 280m/s Cruising altitude: 6000m Fuel burn rate: 0.20kal/s Range: 2300km Review Notes: The first thing we noticed about the B-3 is (obviously), its weird design. Featuring a 2 floor passenger hull, and engines mounted at the very furthest edge of the sizable wings. This design comes with its pros and cons, and the review will point out. First up: maneuverability. The B-3 has pretty average maneuverability. One of the first cons of the design is the reason behind this. Placing the engines and nacelles that far away from the center off mass greatly limits the planes capability of turning around its axis. Which means the plane kinda rolls like a whale, or a bit better than that. Pitch control on the other hand is fairly good. Yaw control is a bit underwhelming, but nothing more than that. The plane accelerates at an average pace and takes to the sky at a similarly average 50m/s. Medium sized or larger airports would be recommended for this aircraft. Landing is quite easy, reason for this is the huge wings, resulting in an excellent glide, allowing you to approach the runway at nice and slow speeds. Cruising speed is a bit lower than described at 280m/s, this is still more than sufficient though. The range on the other hand is far above what the brochure said, 2300km vs 1100km, that's a difference of 1200km! 2300km is an amazing range, means that this plane can reach pretty much every airstrip on Kerbin from anywhere else on Kerbin. Comfort is great. This is where the pro of the design comes in. First of all, the engines are mounted on the wings, meaning that vibrations are mostly absorbed and not passed on to the cabins.But more importantly, the engines are so far away from the cabins that you can hardly even hear them inside. These two combined make for a quiet and silk smooth flight. The B-3 is an absolute joy to fly in. The two floors also make it fairly easy for us to divide the plane in economy and business/first class seating. Even in economy you'll have a fantastically comfortable flight though. We'd say that 28.345.000 is pretty much inline with most other planes in this category. Perhaps a bit above average, but the passenger capacity of 56 more than makes up for that. 43 parts does mean that it will be a reasonably high maintenance plane. The Verdict: Offering good range, speed, price and capacity, while being held back a bit by maneuverability and part count. Overall we consider this plane to be more than good enough to join our fleet. We'd like to use them on medium volume, but long range routes between medium sized airports. We presume our passengers won't only like the looks of the aircraft, but they'll love flying with them as well. Ordering 10 right now, and taking an option on 15 more.
  8. Test Pilot Review: @MostExcellent's: K2707 Figures as Tested: Price: 30.630.000 Fuel: 880kallons Cruising speed: 840m/s Cruising altitude: 13000m Fuel burn rate: 0.4kal/s Range: 1800km Review Notes: The K2707 is a slick looking and fairly small supersonic aircraft. The 2 large engine pods mounted beneath the wings did remind our engineers of the Konkorde. First thing we noticed upon seeing it was the positioning of the wheels. The front one is a lot lower than the rear ones, meaning that the planes points down when on the ground. We thought maybe it had something to do with making the landings easier, or possibly something as simple as keeping the engines off the ground. Regardless of this, the plane accelerated rapidly on the runway, and was capable of taking to the air at about 60m/s, pretty fast for a supersonic aircraft. We think this plane is capable of taking off from small airports, which is very useful. Landings are fairly easy as well, and stopping can be done easily thanks to the airbrakes. Maneuverability is a bit of a negative point. Pitch control is fairly unresponsive, you can't make fast and tight turns in this aircraft. That might be a good thing as well though, since we weren't capable of producing a G-force above 4.2, quite nice for the passengers. Roll control on the other hand is extremely responsive and should be used with a lot of care. It took us a few barrel rolls before we got it under control. Yaw is average. We haven't actually seen that many supersonic planes with panther engines, but with these burning only 0.4kal/s with an 840m/s cruising speed, we kinda wonder why. Comfort on the K2707 is excellent. Both engines are mounted beneath the wings, limiting vibrations to a minimum. Thanks to the wing being below the windows, sound from the engines is nearly completely reflected downwards, making for a very quiet flight. The huge size of the wing also prevents the noise from sneaking around it somewhere and polluting the cabins with noise regardless. Only the very last part of the very last cabin is capable of catching some noise. Views are limited thanks to this huge wing, but that's a small negative to take for so many positives that this design brings. Costing 30.630.000 it's a fairly cheap plane as well, especially when you consider what it offers for this price. The part count of 36 also isn't excessively large, neither is the amount of 2 engines. We don't expect to have a lot of maintenance work on this aircraft. The Verdict: It's fast, has good range, offers great comfort and it does all that at a fairly low price and part count, what's not to like? We can run this plane on pretty much every conceivable route and it would do fine. We'd like to start with an order of 10 K2707's, with an option of 20 more. They shall be used on various routes all over Kerbin.
  9. Not yet, but it's on page 9 and we've just about finished up page 8 (which was extraordinarily large for some reason) so I should get to it one of the next few days
  10. Yeah I know he did mean that, but I've been here all along and he hasn't asked me instead to do that review, despite the fact that I'm 100% official. On that other matter, yes you'd surely be official if MJ hadn't just disappeared. Even if you don't have the mention in the original post, you've got access to all the judge stuff. As far as I'm concerned, you're just as official as I am.
  11. Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Industries: K-61/a Figures as Tested: Price: 16.131.000 Fuel: 800kallons Cruising speed: 320m/s Cruising altitude: 2000m Fuel burn rate: 0.16kal/s Range: 1600km Review Notes: The K-61/a is very close to the K-38/57 when it comes to... Well, pretty much everything. The K-61/a just takes the very good plane that is the K-38/57 and makes it cheaper. One of the things that were changed is the landing gears, the tow back retractable ones were replaced by non-retractable ones. These are seemingly closer to the ground, but also further back. Resulting in a lower ground takeoff speed of ~60m/s. Behavior on water remained pretty much identical. Range is still excellent at 1600km while flying 320m/s. Though we think you can probably fly further if you go a bit slower, but where's the fun in that? Maneuverability is still as excellent and enjoyable as on the K-38/57. It was very hard to get Jeb out of the cockpit, but luring him with some snacks did eventually pay off. Comfort was one of the best things about the K-38/57, and we were a bit sad to see that exactly that is where most sacrifices to justify the lower price were made. A new cabin was installed in the center hull, allowing 8 more passengers to fly along. Sadly this cabin was installed right in front of the engine, as expected, a very noticeable amount of noise and vibrations made it into the cabin. There's also 0 view out of the windows in this cabin. So if you fly in one of these, make sure you're not seated in the center. Comfort in the side cabins has also decreased, since they were moved back. They're now behind the main engine, meaning you can hear it quite easily. Noise levels are still acceptable though. Moving them backwards did allow the wing to be mounted lower without obstructing the view, we think this is the reason behind the move. At 16.131.000 (roughly 4mil cheaper than the 38/57) the price is very reasonable for a seaplane. It's even one of, if not the, best in class when it comes to price. Part count of 32 is pretty reasonable as well, engineering needs of this craft should be in line with the others. In total the 61/a is a very affordable craft. The Verdict: I like to see this as an economy variant of the 38/57, offering a lower price at the cost of comfort. The plane still has good range, speed, maneuverability and part count, all things the 38/57 does as well, but obviously, it costs less. We think these are a great extension for our already existing fleet of 38/57's, filling the same niche, but capable of making a low-cost version of the lines the 38/57 does now, allowing less wealthy kerbals to visit the same remote areas as the others already could. We'd like to order 20 K-61/a's.
  12. Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aerospace: P.AT. Postman & Stubs express The P.A.T Stubs The P.A.T Postman Figures as Tested: Price: 12.249.000 Fuel: 800kallons Cruising speed: 320 or 185m/s Cruising altitude: 1000m or 2500m Fuel burn rate: 0.17 or 0.05kal/s Range: 1500 or 2900km Review Notes: We're not sure since when we started acquiring a fleet of cargo plane, but apparently it's a thing now, so might as well go with it. So, the P.A.T. series aircraft, they're identical apart from 3 parts. 2 of those are cargo bays, and one is a parachute which got mounted to the top of the Stubs. Since they're so alike I'll describe them as one. Maneuverability on the P.A.T. is very nice. It accelerates rapidly thanks to the big engine, the wide wings also mean that the plane can turn very well. Takeoff speed is rather disappointing at 75m/s, but we suspect this is more down to the placement of the rear wheels than to lift provided by the aircraft. Roll controls are sensitive, but not overly sensitive, they feel just about right. Yaw control is exceptionally functional though. I usually don't expect much of yaw, but the 2 large tailfins do a very good job. Pitch control is good as well. We're not sure what to classify the P.A.T. Stubs as, but the range of maximum 2900km is very nice for a plane of its size and price. Comfort in the P.A.T isn't anything to write home about. The engine is mounted directly to the back of the cabins, making for a lot of noise and vibrations, but for the amount of funds this plane costs, we weren't exactly expecting a luxury liner anyway so. View of Kerbin are excellent thanks to the unobstructed windows, especially since the cruising altitude is so low. Both price and part count are very nice at 12.249.000 and 24-25. Making for a very low initial fee, and low maintenance costs afterwards. Keeping these planes aloft won't be a burden to our wallet. The Verdict: The P.A.T series aircraft are very nice. They're fast (if you want to be fast), got decent range and maneuverability, but most of all, they're cheap! very cheap. However, we're just not sure what to do with the P.A.T Stubs, since it doesn't actually fit into any of the categories. it comes closest to the seaplane category, but since it can't land on water, I can't put it in that category, and it's too small to be a turboprop. We'll take it as a one off (But I would like to stress that I'm not a fan of planes out of the categories like this, and I would recommend to you all that you just keep building them on par with the rules). We'll buy 5 P.A.T Postman's for our brand new cargo fleet, capable of delivering packages fast and efficiently. On top of that we'd like to order 5 Stub's for very low volume economy routes, preferably between large airports.
  13. Glad to have you back! Looking forward to your reviews already. Remember that there's no need to rush this though, you do it if you can, no obligations. @1Revenger1 glad to see you again as well! Same goes for you ofc.
  14. Am I perhaps not official enough? I'm literally in the challenge description as official judge.
  15. Fly that Sea Dragon 1000 and the 3000 afterwards and tell me I'm wrong. There isn't any added engines or anything, while you do add engines when expanding iirc