Search the Community

This is my first post here. I was convinced by some friends to post the results of one of my investigations on this forum. It will be partly a question about things I have yet to fully discover, a bit of an explanation of how jet engines work. I will tell this investigation in chronological order explaining each step so if I have an error anywhere in my understanding feel free dear reader to point it out. I started this little investigation because of an unrelated efficiency calculation I wanted to do however it quickly spiraled into a bit of a rabit hole. I wanted to mathematically determine the most efficient jet engines for each flight regime but for this I needed a way to create a function for the thrust multiplier given the flight conditions(pressure and mach). To my understanding at the time the thrust was simply a function of two values those being the mach multiplier and the pressure multiplier. In other words: Thrust = mach_curve x pressure_curve Nice and simple right? The wiki shows these two curves as looking as follows for the whiplash: The data for these two curves are easy enough to find in the game files and look as follows (for the whiplash at least): velCurve { key = 0 1 0 0 key = 0.2 0.98 0 0 key = 0.72 1.716 2.433527 2.433527 key = 1.36 3.2 1.986082 1.986082 key = 2.15 4.9 1.452677 1.452677 key = 3 5.8 0.0005786046 0.0005786046 key = 4.5 3 -4.279616 -4.279616 key = 5.5 0 -0.02420209 0 } atmCurve { // definite 'kink' to the curve at high altitude, compared to flatter BJE curve key = 0 0 0 0 key = 0.045 0.166 4.304647 4.304647 key = 0.16 0.5 0.5779132 0.5779132 key = 0.5 0.6 0.4809403 0.4809403 key = 1 1 1.013946 0 } The way in which this is stored is not entirely obvious but through some googling i figured out it uses a technique called Cubic Hermite spline also known as Cubic Hermite interpolation [source for the curious reader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_Hermite_spline#:~:text=In numerical analysis%2C a cubic,of the corresponding domain interval.]. Each point (represented by a key) is defined by 4 properties which are the x, y coordinates and incoming and outgoing tangents in that order. To do this numerically in the program I was using(aka MATLAB) I had the option to either implement this interpolation from scratch or use one of the preexisting interpolation methods available to me. The functions that MATLAB had available were: spline() pchip() makima() I first decided on spline() and through that I aquired functions that produced the following curves: and: These curves look good but they differ slightly from the ones found in the wiki. This error could be through a number of reasons, it could be that i used the wrong interpolation function, it could be that the wiki is wrong or it could even be that both I and the wiki are wrong. I tried googling for which interpolation the devs used or which interpolation unity would use by default however very predictably this gave no results (Like many things in ksp odds are they implemented a custom interpolation method). Unable to find the answers I needed online i then proceeded to look at the functions themselves available to me. Each giving ever so slightly different behavior. If i am to show the difference in the interpolation method i am going to borrow an example from the online documentation for these functions:[image source: https://se.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/spline.html?searchHighlight=spline&s_tid=srchtitle_support_results_1_spline] As you can see from this image each interpolation method does it ever so slightly differently (though granted makima and spline are almost identical). The pchip() method seems most similar to the one used in the wiki however at this point I was through taking peoples word for it so i decided on a different course of action. To determine which of these methods I should use for my function I decided to conduct a little experiment. I slapped together a tiny test rig which would help me (with the aid of the autopilot mod) determine the properties of such a curve. The vehicle is seen below but there is not much to say about it: This vehicle flew on 100% throttle with infinite fuel turned on to limit the variables. The autopilot mod used was atmospheric autopilot [link: https://spacedock.info/mod/683/AtmosphereAutopilot]. This autopilot held 200m above sea level and flew only in the ocean east of the KSC. It held the speed asigned to it in mach and i confirmed the mach number both with the ingame aero data in the gui setting and through atmospheric autopilot. Then i sat down to record the data I needed. Here is a table (oh and since this whole journey started with efficiency I decided it could not hurt to record the fuel consumption as well). I did a little tweaking to the PID parameters mid flight to ensure zero steady state error and also a fast enough response. Here is the raw data: Raw experimental data Mach Thrust [kN] fuel drain [u/s] 1 292.2 1.372 1.2 297.6 1.487 2 350.2 1.785 2.2 357.2 1.821 2.4 363 1.852 2.6 368.4 1.878 2.8 371.8 1.89 3 375.6 1.915 3.1 375.4 1.914 3.2 374.8 1.910 3.3 374.2 1.908 3.4 372.8 1.901 3.5 371.1 1.89 3.6 368.8 1.88 3.7 365.8 1.865 3.8 362.1 1.846 3.9 357.6 1.823 4 352.0 1.795 I would have sampled higher but this is where my poor slapped together craft reached its maximum velocity and at any rate I had enough data to work with. I took extra readings in the top of that "hump" to check if it is flat or curved. Something else stood out about this though which became all the more apparent when this data was subsiquently graphed: There seems to be quite a bit of thrust missing from this. In other words we have a mystery multiplier at play somewhere in the code. It is less simple than the equation for thrust I stated near the beginning. That said from the smoothness of this curve especially around the mach 3 region i can at the very least conclude that the interpolation method in the wiki is wrong. To Investigate the thrust discrepency further I decided to plot the theoretical data divided by the experimental data and the result looks as follows: The results of this show that our mystery multiplier is nonlinear making life difficult. That said I have tracked down the identity of this multiplier. It can be found in a seemingly unrelated spot in the data for the engine. The parameters section for this engine is as follows: // Jet params atmChangeFlow = True useVelCurve = True useAtmCurve = True flowMultCap = 2.0 machLimit = 2.5 machHeatMult = 6.0 Can you spot it? well it may not necessarily be obvious at first glance but looking back on the raw data it is curious that the fuel flow never goes above the flowMultCap set by the game. That is because this is our culprit. The specific impulse is tied to both thrust and fuel flow rate. The equation for which looks like this: Isp = T * (dm/dt)-1 *g-1 where: T is "thrust" expressed in newtons, dm/dt is the mass flwo rate of the fuel into the engine expressed in kg/s g is the gravitational acceleration at the surface (9.81 m/s2) The equation for Isp Ties the two values together and since the thrust can't rise without an increase in fuel flow rate and the fuel flow rate can't rise due to the limiter the end result is a situatuation where the thrust is effectivly capped at low altitudes. Just to show this equation is accurate i am going to take a random set of values (say, @mach 3 ) and confirm the fuel flow rate from the thrust value and Isp: For the whiplash at this point Isp = 4000 T = 375.6 [kN] = 375600 [N] Rarranging the equation for the specific impulse gives: (dm/dt) = T * Isp-1 *g-1 substituting in the values gives: dm/dt = 375600 / (4000*9.81) => (dm/dt)theoretical = 9.572 [kg/s] To convert this to u/s we need to know the density which can be found on the wiki [https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Liquid_fuel] to be 5kg/unit so: (dm/dt)theoretical = 9.572 [kg/s] / 5 [kg/u] => (dm/dt)theoretical = 1.9144 [u/s] this value is similar to the experimental value: (dm/dt)experimental = 1.9148 [u/s] The discrepency in the last digit can be ignored due to me doing this calculation with values with up to 4 significant figures and the limiting value (g) has 3 significant figures. Thus the experimental and theoretical values can be seen as equal and thus the equation works. When I went in and changed the flowMultCap to a much higher number then the whiplash behaved as expected reaching its full thrust multiplier so it iscertainly the culprit here. When looking at the KSP API [source: https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ksp/api/class_module_engines.html] the description for this is: This quote does not provide any actual details of how this tapering off multiplier is implemented or how it works in detail. I did a little more digging around this but found no actual answers so this is where this investigation of mine ends for now. For anybody still reading this i thank you for your time. I also shall ask the question I mentioned at the beginning but never actually asked throughout the entire text. Does anybody how this flowMultCap curve is implemented? maybe you have decompiled the code somewhere and you have it handy and can share? maybe you instantly know from the shape of the functions i have presented? maybe you are a dev and have the actual code infront of you? no matter how any answers to this are appriciated and would also appriciate the feedback to any errors you have seen me make during this investigation. Thank you for reading.

"Kerbal Aircraft Reactor Experiment" The KARE package is here, meeting the people's need for a suite of high performance atomic jet engines. License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 DOWNLOAD :: SPACEDOCK :: GITHUB

This is the new thread. The original thread can be found here. Advanced Jet Engine About Advanced Jet Engine gives jets, propellers, and rotors realistic performance in KSP. NathanKell's valiant efforts have made stock performance much more reasonable in recent versions of KSP, but it's still a very long way from realistic. AJE calculates performance for air-breathing engines based on real thermodynamics. Features Real-world jet engines AJE uses thermodynamic equations to calculate jet engine performance in flight. Real throttle Throttle is linked to fuel consumption instead of thrust. Afterburners, if installed on the engine, is turned on when throttle > 66% and off when throttle <= 66% Overheat. Like in real world, not all engines can tolerate the heat from air compression of hypersonic flight. This is affected by both mach number and throttle Inlet. Each engine requires a minimum inlet area (see right click menu in editor). Make sure you have enough inlet till you see "Inlet Area:100%" in flight. Each inlet has a TPR(total recovery pressure) that is dependent on Mach number and angle of attack. Avoid TPR loss by facing the inlet to the freestream. Download Download Latest Version from Github Also available on CKAN Troubleshooting If you are experiencing an issue, please read this topic, if you have not already, on how to get proper support. Incomplete support requests will not be processed. Most importantly, include logs. Source On Github Requirements Each release of AJE is intended to be run with a particular version of KSP. Please only use that version. If you have an earlier version of KSP AJE requires these mods to work. It will not function if they are missing or not installed properly. ModuleManager SolverEngines AJE does not explicitly depend on Ferram Aerospace Research but has not been tested without it, and you will probably think that your engines are very underpowered in stock aero. Recommendations Ferram Aerospace Research, as above. AJE might work without it, but it's not tested and you will probably not have much fun Real Fuels - if you're going to have realistic jet engines, why not use them with real world fuels? Mod Support AJE has configs to work with the following mods' engines: B9 Aerospace SXT (Lack's Stock Extension) Bahamuto Dynamics KAX (Kerbal Aircraft Expansion) AJE has configs for these mods, but the configs may not be up to date: Mark IV Spaceplane System AJE has configs for these mods, but the mods themselves haven't been updated in a while: Taverio's Pizza and Aerospace D12 Aerotech Retro Future Changelog License AJE is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.0 AJE incorporates portions of NASA EngineSim; used according to NASA's license thereof with due credit. AJE incorporates portions of JSBSim by Jon S. Berndt, used in accordance with the LGPLv2 Authors @camlost @NathanKell @ferram4 @blowfish And all others who have submitted fixes and enhancements

A great thing would be to put electric motors in from the beginning of Early Access, we could plan A LOT of missions if they have it, just like with Breaking Ground in KSP1. Another nice thing would be a electric jet engine. Basically, Air from an intake goes past by a powerful magnetron, which heats the air a lot, which generates thrust. It's nothing like an ion engine, in which a noble gas is bombarded with electrons and is directed by electromagnets. This allows it to function in places where "air" isn't really air, like in Eve, or even Jool. Maybe there could be a version like a RAPIER engine, where some gas is injected into the engine so it can run in space (don't know if this really works IRL and it's not tested, so I dont know if it is realistic).

Hello guys, I've decided to include many realism mods in my current career playthrough and was wondering if any of you knew of any mods that make stock jet engines more realistic (you know, turbofans not magically becoming more efficient above Mach 1...)?

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Version 1.0.0 https://spacedock.info/mod/2863/Harrier Jump Jet Parts Pack A Harrier parts pack that provides everything but the landing gear and the hinges for under the wings, to build a Harrier Jump Jet. BREAKING GROUND IS NEEDED FOR THE ROTATING VTOL ENGINES. As I can't build complex internals yet, it uses a slightly modified Harrier IVA from Cold War Aerospace and the license reflects that. Prebuilt craft within the SPH folder that is in the main folder. SORRY, FORGOT TO MENTION. THE COCKPIT,TAIL AND WINGTIPS ALL HAVE BUILTIN RCS AND THE COCKPIT CREATES MONOPROPELLANT TO KEEP THEM TOPPED UP. Gear, Toggle wing wheel hinges. 1,Toggle engines on/off. 2,Toggle transition from vertical to forward thrust. 5,Toggle ladders. EVA is right side. 6,Toggle hinge lock for wing wheels. Custom 1, Adjust thrust limit of front engines for a bit more forward thrust, just make sure to revert them to 45 for hovering and landing VTOL. These are cruise engines and have a spool time, so make sure you adjust ahead of time and let them catch up or you will have a very hard landing. Over 2 thirds throttle to take off and then as soon as you do drop it just under 2 thirds and tilt the nose down 5 degrees to get forward momentum before transitioning.

you can build any fighter jet you would want. be it replica, concept or original content. you can make stock and/or modded. requirements: 1. able to have enough fuel for long range engagement. (the other side of the ksc continent is a good range point. 2. must have the ability to combat air or ground forces. 3, can be piloted or uav 4. post you plane and hype it up but if someone challenges you try to make video with your plane fighting the challenger if you can 5. (optional ) send the plane to me and ill try to make a video of the fight on my youtube channel 6. list the kerbalx or send the craft files with a list of mods remember the forums rules still apply here below is my example/submission: https://kerbalx.com/callsignblaze/FAF-VEF-15

Based on the Mig-21, on my DeviantART. Messerschmitt Me 262, Drone, on my DeviantART. Lockheed Constellation, on my DeviantART. 787 Dreamliner, on my DeviantART. Tupolev Tu-160, on my DeviantART. Harrier/VTOL, on my DeviantART.

Journal on my DeviantART

SU27! Yes, SU27! In this pack you can see: --- Jet Fuselage with 6 tons of fuel --- 30mm Auto-cannon with 300 units of ammunition (needs BDA) --- Cockpit with full IVA (needs ASET MOD and JSI mod to work) --- Main Wing with 3 missile racks --- Tail Fin --- UHF Antenna --- N001 Radar （thinks for the help form @XOC2008） You can also use stock parts to finish this jet - much more interesting than giving you a complete jet, right ? I am trying to make it work in FAR, which took me a lot of time to do it, but it just wouldn't work... I will be really grateful if anyone could make it work, . Oh and what's more, there are some bombs in this pack too. License: MIT Thanks for the help from all my friends who helped me finish this mod! and sorry for my poor English and Let me put a piece of my oil painting here. Download at： https://spacedock.info/mod/1590/Maimico‘s Flanker SU-27 Gallery: ____________________________________________________________________ 1.01 update ----a main wing without racks ----some codes change

Mitsubishi F-4EJ Phantom II Towards the end of the 1960s the Japanese F-104 fleet started showing it’s age. Modern air-to-air combat shifted beyond the horizon and a modern, robust platform was needed to equip the JASDF for the new era. Soon after the deal was struck between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and McDonnell Douglas the production of the F-4EJ begun - it was the first 3rd generation fighter manufactured on Japanese soil and apart from missing the avionics necessary for guiding ground ordnance (due to post-war Japanese military limitations) was just as capable as it’s US counterpart. The F-4EJ saw long service with the JASDF, both in the standard and it’s modernized F-4EJ Kai versions with the last Phantoms being phased out from service in 2020. 301 Hikōtai is currently the last squadron using the F-4EJ and will recieve new F-35 fighters before the end of the year. This is a complete rebuild of my older F-4E and I am very satisfied with the result. Flight performance is admirable and the plane is very stable and pilot friendly in most cases! I hope you enjoy flying it out as much as I enjoyed building it. ACTION GROUPS: AG1 - Toggle afterburner AG2 - Toggle flaps AG3 - Toggle airbrake CHANGELOG: v1.0 - Initial release v2.0 - Revamped the engine section - intake/engine transition made smoother, exhaust nozzles made wider and more detailed, airbrakes added, external stores added, intake ramps revamped. DOWNLOAD LINK: https://kerbalx.com/EvenFlow/Mitsubishi-F-4EJ-Phantom-II

Made it for my multipurpose (training, stunts etc.) jet, the K-36 Terner. Comments appreciated:)

Hello, everyone! Recently, I took a break from my usual space-faring missions to build a new VTOL dropship. The Hummingbyrd VTOL has four Panther engines which are mounted on hinges that allow the aircraft to alternate between VTOL and forward flight postures. The decision to use Panther engines was made because of their ability to make instantaneous thrust changes via the afterburners, which helps tremendously when landing. The engine housings use two sets of small internal docking ports with one of each offset to the other engine to allow for each set of engines to remain coupled despite no actual axle passing through the engine mount. The downward-facing payload bay contains an extendable crew bench, allowing for quick on-loading and off-loading of passengers. The crew capacity is 10: two pilot seats and 8 seats in the payload bay. The vessel is 119 parts. Notice the highlighted docking port in the far engine housing, as well as the corresponding un-highlighted port in the near housing. Both are attached to the opposite engine housing, but remain docked to the non-offset port in the same engine housing. This prevents flight/aerodynamic forces from causing asynchronous engine rotation, leading to unbalanced thrust and instability. Shown above is the center of thrust, mass, and lift placement while in VTOL mode. While in this posture, all three are collinear in the dorsal-ventral axis. All tanks with fuel in them are laid out with symmetry front-to-back, allowing the C.O.M. to remain stationary regardless of fuel levels. This is critical for VTOL operations, as any significant deviation of the C.O.M. from the net thrust vector will cause a persistent pitch bias. Shown below is the center of thrust, mass, and lift placement while in forward flight mode. While in this posture, the C.O.M. is offset forward of the center of lift due to the redistribution of engine mass, leading to improved stability while in forward flight. The rear engine set is offset above the longitudinal axis to the same extent that the forward engine set is offset below, allowing the net thrust vector to remain in line with the C.O.M. Action Groups: AG1) Toggle engine orientation AG2) Toggle afterburners AG3) Toggle landing gear AG4) Toggle payload bay doors and piston lock AG5) Toggle piston extension Gallery: I hope you liked it! This ship is a joy to fly, and I highly recommend you try it out! Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Jamie_Logan/Hummingbyrd Also, Check out my last mission:

Jet Sounds Continued Jet Sounds was an amazing mod that eventually stop being updated. After this happened many people wanted the creator to keep developing it, or for someone to release their own copy that worked. Here I am, with a working copy of Jet Sounds. This mod replace the stock jet engine sounds with their realistic counter-part; J-20 "Juno" > Garrett TFE731 J-33 "Wheesley" > CFM International CFM56 J-90 "Goliath" > General Electric GE90 J-404 "Panther" > General Electric GE404 J-X4 "Whiplash" > Rolls Royce Olympus CR-7 "R.A.P.I.E.R." >SABRE (This is cool, go check it out here!) Go check out the original mod by JeanTheDragon! Now with Partial-support for SXT Continued! Download From SpaceDock! *Disclaimer: I will try my hardest to develop the mod as far as I can, but with my limited experience from modding, don't expect any new content soon. Right now it doesn't seem to work with some mods, most likely because of my poor modding* *Disclaimer 2: I do not own any of the content within the mod. All of it belongs to JeanTheDragon, the original creator. I just made the mod compatible. If JeanTheDragon wishes me to take down this mod, I will* Change Log: 1.0.0 - Release 1.0.1 - Added Licensing Info 1.1.0 - Fixed rather serious bug that involved duplicate parts - Now runs on Module Manager! (Thanks to AccidentalDissasembly for that) 1.1.1 - Updated Module Manager to V. 3.0.7 1.2 - Added sounds for the CR-7 "R.A.P.I.E.R" - Added support for SXT Continued (Thanks to linuxgurugamer for that) - Added support for RealPlume (Thanks to theonegalen for that) Planned Additions: - Rocket sound effects (Might have to change the name to "Kerbal Sound Overhaul") - Decoupler sound effects - Explosion sound effects License: This mod is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. I want to give a big thanks to everyone involved, This is one of my favorite mods I am so happy that we can keep it alive.

https://imgur.com/gallery/GendYrR Hey guys! Here’s a sneak peak at my new stock replica of the American F-22 RAPTOR air superiority fighter. Unfortunately a lot of my media clips wouldn’t upload to the forum or some reason, perhaps because of the gaming platform I’m using since discovering Kerbal Space Program haha The aircraft was made on KSP: enhanced edition on XBOX and is still currently undergoing aggressive flight tests and minor tweaking to perfect the jet’s advanced manoeuvreability & sleek aesthetics that can live up to the high standards of its reality counterpart! More info on the aircraft & it’s in flight specifications as well as part count, thrust to weight ratio etc, COMING SOON!!! https://imgur.com/gallery/GendYrR

I am playing in KSP 1.8.1 with BD Armory. I built a carrier capable fighter that can land at a very short distance. However, when I attempt to land, my gear always bounces the jet back up, causing the node to hit the ground. This happens even at very slow descent rate and high AoA landings. So I added support vertical thrusters so that jet can hand at 30m/s, but the same problem still happens. I know since 1.1.2 ksp added gear damper and spring strength, but when I right click the gear part, there are no settings regarding those two factors.

This plane which I call the Giupen 1 is one powerful and manoeuvrable boi. With its dual Panther engines, it can easily reach speeds of probably up to 1000m/s and is extremely agile, able to do sharp turns. (Going too fast may cause it to overheat and explode though) Ask if you want more pics.

Original challenge by @keptin First thread of this challenge by @Mjp1050 Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. The Rules: KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus + Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated) Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone. TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it. The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots. Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories. Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells. Minor clipping is allowed, within reason. A rolling runway takeoff is required. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water. Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.] Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered. 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet category What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category: For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. Seaplane Must be able to land on and take off from water and land Range of at least 600km Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s 16+ Passengers Turboprop Range of at least 800km Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s 24+ Passengers Small Regional Jet Range of at least 1000km Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s 40+ Passengers Small Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s 56+ Passengers See 'Hopper Information' below. Medium Regional Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s 72+ Passengers Supersonic Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s 40+ Passengers Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s 104+ Passengers Jumbo Jet Range of at least 4000km 152+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Super Jumbo Range of at least 4000km 800+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Hopper information: Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers. Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred Passenger comfort How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================== The Judges: @panzerknoef @neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy @NightshineRecorralis @no_intelligence (Judge of last thread) @1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread) @Mjp1050 (OP of last thread) Challenge Submissions Seaplane @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane. @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit. @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range. @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride. @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water. @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant. @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper. @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement. @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy. @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Long - It's just a Skots Medium but we told you it can land on water. That's the only difference. Turboprop @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface. @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range. @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop. @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way. @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes. @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210. @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?" @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km! @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km. @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty. @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often. @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range. @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled. @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap. @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material. @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport - Mediocre turboprop, but it can do stunts! Small Regional Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet. @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort. @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive. @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet. @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame! @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet. @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range. @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit." @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago. @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price, but let down by poor handling. @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend. @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range. @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Kalcing - Capable of going up to 322m/s with a great range saves this from being just another mediocre SRJ. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper - Outdated, but there is one model which can produce it's own fuel. @shdwlrd's Monarc P4 - Expensive but classy with a very long range. Medium Regional Jet @SuicidalInsanity's IA-720 - Offers an innovative design at a reasonable price. The IA-720 has all the qualities that we're looking for in a medium regional jet. @logman's Kerman Dove - Unreliable and very unsafe: it's not uncommon for the rear cabins to be destroyed on landing. Avoid this plane. @logman's Kerman Stingray - Very solidly built, reliable, and handles wonderfully. Hampered only by its large price tag. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-62 - Sturdy and reliable, but suffers from a large price tag and low fuel efficiency. Its exterior is reminiscent of designs from 50 years ago, too. @Bombstar10's Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B) - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-72 Medium - A bit expensive, but powerful fast and comfortable. @Gaarst's Kerbalespace C-1K - An expensive, but reliable and luxurious passenger liner. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-20 - It's comfortable, but it's slow, and it's quite cheap. Would recommend. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Medium - Uncomfortable, but turns well and has a long range. Expensive though. @FleshJeb's Klonkorde - It's a pretty good plane, very long and sleek, but it's not extremely cheap. It is though, very pleasant to fly in. @panzerknoef's Lassen - A pretty standard medium regional, it can take off from small runways and flies pretty well. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 100 Series - Nice looking, well built aircraft, but it comes at a steep price. @sdj64's Goosewing 80 - A modern looking design, a dream to fly, but it's not so good at passenger comfort. @no_intelligence's Kombardier 200 - Cheap to maintain, long range and good fuel economy are nice, but don't outweigh the fact flying it is a suicide mission. Supersonic Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet. @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs. @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort. @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption. @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it. @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though. @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended. @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel. @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero. @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design. @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort. @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas. @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner. @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it! @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK! @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable. @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it. @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse. @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies. @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control. @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles. @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what. @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames. @no_intelligence's Kupolev KU-100 - Decent plane, comfortable but a bit slower than most of its supersonic competition. @Magzimum's MAD TF-3a Swift - It's cheap, has spectacular range and great mileage. @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4 - Expensive to buy and operate, but comfy safe and fast. Only worth considering for 1st class flights. Jumbo Jet @Andetch's Day Fury - It's very fast an maneuverable, but with a range that is easily exceeded by seaplanes, and it takes off at very high speed. @NightshineRecorralis's Challenger Seaplane - A bit lacking at everything except being a HUGE FLYING BOAT. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Skots Mouse - Somebody added wings and a few jet engines to a ship, and it's cheap. @NildimensionalString's Winter Tech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner - It's expensive, slow, short ranged, will probably explode and it's obvious why the original company who designed it went bankrupt. @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II - It has very long range, and is generally pretty good, but it comes with a steep price tag. @Cols's A797 - It's slow, handles poorly, it climbs slowly and has a very short range, but it's dirt cheap, so we bought 3. @AeroGav's Screehcraft Grande Dumbo - A wonderful plane, it's luxurious, flies like a dream, but it's expensive. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI GP-1a - This jumbo carries cargo too - apart from that it just looks odd and is otherwise fairly normal. @Andetch's X Series Night Fury - It's a really big fighter jet with passenger cabins, and a short range by Jumbo standards. @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super - Hard to fly, very short range and expensive, but with comfort and luxury straight out of the golden age of air travel. @Not sure's B-1337 Swift Moon - A very unpleasant, loud airplane. It costs a lot of money. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 250 - A fat version of the 100, carries more passengers but with a shorter range and it can tail-strike if you aren't careful. @macktruck6666's L-1011 Jumbo Jet - It's very expensive and doesn't perform well, but it does have luxury seating! @Kneves's WH-04 - A short ranged, very hard to fly thing, it needs a tremendously big runway too and we will not buy any. @Bombstar10's Grizzly ST - 3 Civilian - It costs an arm, leg 4 fingers and a left toe, for a plane that is guaranteed to explode, it is slow and uncomfortable and is absolutely, undoubtedly the worst plane we have tested. So far. Yours could beat it and be King Krap. @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics C5 "RePurpose" - Only 140 seats, but there's a lot of space in the cargo bay to pull a Skots Economy, so it's a jumbo anyway. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Ratt - It's slow, but fairly good at all the other stuff, except price. Super Jumbo @NightshineRecorralis's Colossus - It's flipping massive, 1152 passengers, gets off the runway like a turbo-prop, flies like a cruise ship. @CrazyJebGuy's Sky Titanic - A wonderful idea on paper, but in turns the wings fall off and everybody dies. Other @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Cool Corporate Jet - Not sure to have a meeting or an air show? Now you can have both at once! Wunderwaffe* @qzgy's Kramer Starmachine - No windows, supersonic jumbo and passenger cabins are upside down. Please someone review that plane I made by super-gluing one of Niestridlar's jets to one of my own. It's the very epitome of this section. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper Scout - It can produce it's own fuel. Isn't that nifty? *Not really but this is for special planes that remind me of some of the mad German stuff; this section is for weird and wonderful things that may or may not work. How your Plane will be judged This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers. We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear) To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities: -Be cheap, at least per passenger -Fly well -Be reasonably fast -Have a long range -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later) -Be reasonably fuel efficient -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue. Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review. This thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome.

Spear of HorusDisclaimer(needs breaking grounds for robotic parts)(to match graphics shown in screenshots make sure you have downloaded stock only version or restock) *not restock+ (this is optional not needed this is fully stock)Controls:USE I and K to tilt Vtol wings Forward and BackDual VTOL technology.|( KAL-1000 mapped to Main Throttle: Control Fan Pitch/Deploy and Speed )||( AG1: Toggle 8 Juno Engines )|Throttle|( Dual Juno (AG2: Toggle Engine )||( Panther (AG3: Toggle Engine )||( Panther (AG4: Switch Mode )|Decouple|( AG5: Decouple Node ) Decouples from node for the first time )||( AG6: Undock Node *available after using AG4 at least once to redeploy after successful redock )|Part of InterstellerKev’s Phaethon Dynamics series:Short Story -The head of a falcon and the body of a mere man was really the sky god once known as Horus the deity of past Kerbal History. Once said to fly all day and night.They said he held a spear called The Spear of Horus. Reading ancient hieroglyphs contained some old Blueprint for his Spear of Horus! It turns out it is a Flying Vehicle of some kind?!Ground breaking theories are now shattered. We have to rewrite history. Questions like “did aliens come down and help build the monuments that still stand today are now more concrete. KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/InterstellarKev/Spear-of-HorusSteam: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1983151486

In order to train the new KAF pilots, you have been contracted to make an aggressor fighter jet. The competition for the contract is fierce. Can yours stay at the top? This is a BDArmory fighter competition. RULES: 1. The battles are run King Of The Hill style. You fight the 5th place aircraft, and work your way up the leaderboard. 1.1. There are 5 maintained spots on the leaderboard. 1.2. Fights are 3v3 matches, best out of 3. 2. No space-grade parts permitted (oxidizer, monoprop, rockets, non-cockpit reaction wheels, ISRU, etc). 2. Ore is allowed for ballast purposes only. 3. No drones (or lawn chairs). 4. Armor thickness must be left at the default value. 5. No unreasonable part clipping 6. 75 part count limit(may be raised later to 85 if necessary) 7. No decouplers/multi-staging (this is a plane, not a rocket!) 8. Up to 2 Vulcan hidden 20mm cannons, 1 GAU-8, 6 Browning AN/M2 .50 cal, or 2 M230s (locked in forward position) 8.1. No turrets (unless locked in forward position). 8.2. No mixing different types of guns. 9. Up to 6 AIM-9 "Sidewinder" missiles. 9.1. AIM-9s are the only missiles allowed. 10. Up to 4 flare boxes 11. Your plane must fall under 1 of two categories: light and heavy fighters. 11.1. Your plane (light or heavy) has a two engine limit. 11.2. Thrust is calculated with the engine on AB (if applicable). 12. Light fighters must weigh at least 6t at combat weight. 12.1. Light fighters can have up to 250kn of static thrust, and at least 400 units of liquid fuel. 13. Heavy fighters weigh at least 12t at combat weight. 13.1. Heavy fighters can have up to 500kn of static thrust, and at least 800 units of liquid fuel. 14. Editing of the craft outside of the game (e.g, text editing in notepad) is ABSOLUTELY prohibited. (Looking at you @Eidahlil) 15. BDA 1.1, and KSP 1.3.1 is used. 15.1. We will use 1.4.x as soon as BDArmory is ready . 15.2. AirplanePlus and BDArmory (duh!) are the only allowed mods. 16. Have fun! 17. If you have any questions, ask me (@dundun92). PLANES IN TESTING: [none yet] LEADERBOARD: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

So i have never seen a craft or replica or anything of the Honda jet before, and i decided to try and tackle it for myself. It wasnt all that hard and im quite happy with my end result to the point i would like to share it with yall! Unlike the real thing, this doesnt have winglets as i couldnt get them to a fit i like. It also only seats 2 instead of 5. excluding pilots. It has a range around 3500km with normal fuel load and can load an additional 90units of fuel. As always, my crafts are tested to take off, fly, and land without any external assistance (other than the possible SAS). While im not sure the stall speed of this craft, i have bought it to landing at 55m/s still having pitch control with landing flaps. Anyways, enjoy and let me know what you think! Excuse my crummy hanger pics. Ive never been good at getting in air pictures. And here's a picture of the real one for comparison. ACTION GROUPS 0 - Toggle ladder 3 - Landing/ Take off Flaps Download link - https://kerbalx.com/rivin/Honda-Jet

I present to you: my latest invention! Hawk Mk 3 Guardian: The third iteration of the famous line of fighters by Kerbal Dunatian, the company that brought you the Hawk Mk 2 and Falcon Mk2. This fighter utilises some of the most modern software available, putting it at the top of the areal food chain. Designed specifically with combat in mind, this plane can go up to Mach 3 at cruising speeds, can take off at only 50 m/s and is the most maneuverable craft around. It has 2 main and 2 secodary engines, which can be toggled independantly from each other. The craft has an additional autopilot in case your kerbal loses conciosness during a dogfight. It has been proven especially effective during the Free Space War. Flight manual can be seen on KerbalX. *No weapons included* Download from KerbalX Known bugs: No bugs as of today!! Flight advice: use SAS. When landing, don't turn the brakes on untill touchdown. I am open for suggestions on improving and creating new content. If you have any ideas, please feel free to post them in the comments.

This craft is a full stock super-scale fighter craft. This craft was heavily inspired by various Sukhoi fighters, most notably the Su-57. Though it isn't too speedy, this craft is highly maneuverable and is capable of ultra short take off, requiring only 1 of its own body-lengths to take off. This craft was a fairly difficult build, as the geometry of the body is much more complex than what I normally build. Due to the craft's complexity and large size, it unfortunately requires Unbreakable Joints in order to survive hard maneuvers. Download Link: https://kerbalx.com/Kronus_Aerospace/Kronus-DD-6-Silver-Crane Part Count: 999

Gründer Industries ADF-01 FALKEN [Stock] A super-maneuverable, supersonic jet fighter, the ADF-01 (Advanced Dominance Fighter 01) "FALKEN" is a fictional jet from the Ace Combat series of video games- a rare prototype design produced by the fictitious South Belka Munitions Factory Gründer Industries, featuring a distinct forward-swept wing layout and massive twin engine nacelles sunk into the fuselage, as well as an assortment of fins and canards. Additionally, the FALKEN is the first production aircraft in the Ace Combat games to prominently feature the fictional "C.O.F.F.I.N." (Connection For Flight INterface) windowless cockpit technology, and in the games is known for its devastating special munitions it can carry (such as lasers, fuel-air bombs, and multi-target missiles ). For the purposes of KSP, this stock replica of the craft is fairly faithful to the original (fictional) plane- minus a few things impossible to replicate without mods (i.e. lasers or other weapons, and so on). The engines have been setup to have functional 2D thrust vectoring, and just like in the games this FALKEN is super-maneuverable, with a high amount of wing loading allowing you to pull off some impressive post-stall maneuvers, tricks, and sharp turns. The C.O.F.F.I.N. camera/sensor array across the nose of the plane has been replicated as well, and the aircraft is indeed manned. If you choose to do so, mounting mock FAEBs (Fuel-Air Explosive Bombs) to the plane makes for some fun bombing run times attempting to hit space center buildings. Ultimately, this is just meant to be a fun, fast, and agile replica of a video game plane I'm personally a huge fan of. I originally built it for BDArmory combat, but upon seeing how close I was able to get it to the fictional plane and how insanely fun and agile it handled, I had to stockify it so I could share it around. I hope you all enjoy just as much as I have. Download Link [KerbalX] STATS: Parts - 108 Mass - 14.32 tons Crew - 1 Pilot Powerplant - 2x Panther (2D vectored) w/ afterburners

What is the best way to bring a jet aircraft into Laythe's atmosphere safely? Should I dump as much velocity with rockets as possible before insertion, or dump just enough so my perigee is just above the ocean's surface? I've done the latter once before and it almost ended with a flat spin stall and crash; I managed to land safely some how.