Jump to content

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)


Mjp1050

Recommended Posts

I use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (I think that's its name), but in some ways it makes the game less interesting because you don't need to design things to stay together really. I'm turning it off so i can get a chance to see how my planes fare without extra application of duct tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:17 AM, CrazyJebGuy said:

What is not a bargain, is the cockpit visibility. It comes with an in-built webcam, but this is crappy. We would expect better

In response to popular demand, Kerbus is offering a variant of the K-210 with traditional cockpit, the K-220.

screenshot13.png

https://kerbalx.com/TheFlyingKerman/Kerbus-K-220

It is more or less the same as the K-210.

Cruising speed: 300m/s
Cruising altitude: 5800m
Range: 1050km

 And again, AG2 toggles the flap. We also slightly increased ground clearance to reduce the risk of tail strikes (although we tried pulling up as hard we could and didn't get any tail strike). It is slightly more expensive, though, at 11,151,000 Kerbucks each.

Note: neither this plane or the K-210 is designed to takeoff repeatedly from water, because the water floods the engines during landing, and is like to cause damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2018 at 9:09 PM, TheFlyingKerman said:

-snip-

I will have a good look at it soon, but now I am a bit busy.

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents:

The Skots VIII Squirrel

u5tjBBl.png

It's the largest aeroplane in existence. (As far as this thread is concerned)

It weighs 554 tonnes.

It can go supersonic.

It seats one thousand, four hundred and eighty-eight passengers.

It has 645 parts, which luckily, are all very standardized. It has high speed wireless internet, and a range of 3800km flying at 190m/s 500m up. Or a range of 2800km at 315m/s. Or it can after-burn supersonic. Later tests reveal a longer range at 7500m and 210m/s.

As far as takeoff is concerned, it gets to 110m/s, then just pull up, once only the rear wheels are still on the ground, you can pull up the gear and fly away.
Landing is more complicated, since you can use the built in reverse engines and airbrakes to slow down rapidly, and also we may or may not have destroyed our own runway with the sheer weight of it. We recommend either a very strong runway, a very cheap one, or a big field.

It costs a whoppingly low considering the passenger count price tag of $393,236,000 with fuel. Without fuel it's about $350,000,000. We recommend having fuel.

That is (fueled) $264,289.65 per seat, which is incredibly low. It has good mileage too, perfect for the airline whom hates paying for petrol.

We pulled off this feat of designing a truly spectacular jet, after months of failures when we tried sensible things. This time we tried just taking the Skots VI Ratt and adding as much stuff as we possibly could. Somehow it flies, but hey, we aren't complaining. Consider yourself one-upped, @NightshineRecorralis. It took a while, but I beat your 1152.

Action groups:

1. Toggle afterburners

2. Toggle reverse thrust

3. Engines off

4. Engines on

5. Aileron Pitch Activate

6. Aileron Pitch Deactivate

Download:

https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Skots-VIII-Squirrel

May god have mercy on the reviewer's cpu.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I thought they basically copied FAR when they went from 0.90 to 1.0? I figured the drag was irrelevant, they just calculated the aircraft's drag as a whole. I know it would have happened 0.90 or earlier though.

Edit: With developing my monster plane, so far I am at 612 tonnes, 643 parts, 1488 passengers. Anyone's guess where it'll stop, I'm currently just adding stuff until it's great.

Yeah I thought so too, I guess my mk1 cabin planes just happen to be less aerodynamic than the others. I'll keep trying until I get a good one regardless. 

Edit: didn't see the new plane was already uploaded... 

Damn what in the name is that. An. Absolute beast, it's ridiculous 

Edited by panzerknoef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain aerospace: Skots Small

LHQjD9G.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:48.800.000
  • Fuel: 3560kallons
  • Cruising speed: 260m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 1000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.49kal/s
  • Range:  1800km

Review Notes:

The Skots Small looks like it came flying in right from a different era. Our pilots were wondering if there had been a mistake in shipping and we accidentally got a museum plane instead of the promised small jet. Upon closer inspection we noticed the 3 high performance jets though, removing all doubts about whether or not it was the right plane. Getting in the cockpit and starting the engines, it was surprising just how fast the Skots Small took to the air, we hardly even had to give any  input for it to take off. Small runways will be all this aircraft needs. Maneuverability is very good on yaw and pitch, but quite sluggish on the roll, preventing us from making very short and sudden curves. Probably a good thing for the passengers though, they won't get sick this way. Landing is easy thanks to the amazing glide capability of the plane. Indeed, landing and taking off from water is possible as well, though we did notice it was possible to lose the rear engine on a less-than-optimal landing. It didn't prevent us from taking back off again though. At full throttle the plane did indeed cruise at 260m/s, with an efficiency of 0.49kal/s, allowing for a good range of 1800km. Flying at 2/3 throttle put the cruising speed at roughly 215m/s, with an efficiency of 0.3, pushing the range up to 2500km. 

Comfort is as usual, a mixed bag. The front cabins have very little issues with vibrations and sound, despite an engine pod being mounted directly next to it. The engine of this pod is fairly far back, meaning that there's not a lot of noise from the engine actually entering the cabin. Vibrations are a thing in both the front and rear cabins thanks to the single inline engine though. Especially the rear cabins have some discomfort thank to it. Not to mention the large amount of noise from 3 engines surrounding the rear cabins. We do think these are meant to be used as some kind of "scum class" for the poorest of the poor. So if you can afford to get a seat in the front cabin, you'll have a great time, otherwise...not so much. The rear cabins do have the advantage of view though, since their windows are unobstructed. The front cabins has an engine pod and 2 wings blocking most of the view, so you better bring something to keep you busy.

This is where its bad news though. A price tag of :funds:48.800.000 is very high for a regional jet, no matter how well it performs. Then there's also the part count of 75 with 3 engines, meaning that a lot of maintenance shall be needed to keep this aircraft aloft.

The Verdict:

The Skots Small is best described as a Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. It can do most things quite well, but doesn't excel in a single thing. As a result we're not quite sure what role we should use this aircraft in. The big deal-breaker is the price and part count though. We just can't afford to buy and keep this plane in service, it's price matches or even over-matches that of some medium regional jets, and we'd much rather invest in those higher performance aircraft than in the Skots Small. As you must've expected we've therefor decided not to acquire any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I will have a good look at it soon, but now I am a bit busy.

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents:

The Skots VIII Squirrel

u5tjBBl.png

It's the largest aeroplane in existence. (As far as this thread is concerned)

It weighs 554 tonnes.

It can go supersonic.

It seats one thousand, four hundred and eighty-eight passengers.

It has 645 parts, which luckily, are all very standardized. It has high speed wireless internet, and a range of 3800km flying at 190m/s 500m up. Or a range of 2800km at 315m/s. Or it can afterburn supersonic.

As far as takeoff is concerned, it gets to 110m/s, then just pull up, once only the rear wheels are still on the ground, you can pull up the gear and fly away.
Landing is more complicated, since you can use the built in reverse engines and airbrakes to slow down rapidly, and also we may or may not have destroyed our own runway with the sheer weight of it. We recommend either a very strong runway, a very cheap one, or a big field.

It costs a whoppingly low considering the passenger count price tag of $393,236,000 with fuel. Without fuel it's about $350,000,000. We recommend having fuel.

That is (fueled) $264,289.65 per seat, which is incredibly low. It has good mileage too, perfect for the airline whom hates paying for petrol.

We pulled off this feat of designing a truly spectacular jet, after months of failures when we tried sensible things. This time we tried just taking the Skots VI Ratt and adding as much stuff as we possibly could. Somehow it flies, but hey, we aren't complaining. Consider yourself one-upped, @NightshineRecorralis. It took a while, but I beat your 1152.

Action groups:

1. Toggle afterburners

2. Toggle reverse thrust

Download:

https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Skots-VIII-Squirrel

May god have mercy on the reviewer's cpu.

Did you now see Me and @qzgy's one- upping war? Biggest Plane? Uh... I think it's on like 12- 20... Forgot exactly where. Qzgy made one with a 3*5* 200 rectangular prism of MK3 cargo bays and 20 meter whiplashes... Which held 15,000 passengers. IDK if he entered it though. Still awesome tho. Just not the 'biggest'

EDIT: submission in soon! I WILL STOP PROCRASTINATING AND DESIGN A REASONABLE AIRCRAFT, I SWEAR.

Edited by TheMadKraken2297
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Did you now see Me and @qzgy's one- upping war? Biggest Plane? Uh... I think it's on like 12- 20... Forgot exactly where. Qzgy made one with a 3*5* 200 rectangular prism of MK3 cargo bays and 20 meter whiplashes... Which held 15,000 passengers. IDK if he entered it though. Still awesome tho. Just not the 'biggest'

EDIT: submission in soon! I WILL STOP PROCRASTINATING AND DESIGN A REASONABLE AIRCRAFT, I SWEAR.

Biggest that has been posted. I do look forward to starting this size war though, although I'm not sure I can get to quite that big a plane, my CPU runs the game at about half speed on this one, and it's an older i7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

IDK if he entered it though. Still awesome tho. Just not the 'biggest'

EDIT: submission in soon! I WILL STOP PROCRASTINATING AND DESIGN A REASONABLE AIRCRAFT, I SWEAR.

I will! I just have to polish off its baby brother!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

BTW, qzgy what graphics mods do you use?

Why? I use just the Spectra Pack. Awesome thing that has the majority of the visual enhancements I like. There is one graphical glitch but only shows up if you cheat to orbit with the debug menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I do look forward to starting this size war

Challenge accepted

EDIT: I can't see the image, as it's Imgur and I'm at school, but I did make this:

C6F092C07AF9D6AA92359A5A2309CD3734D9CEDD

It does fly, by the way, but I may make a variant with different wings and a full-body cargo bay, because the tanks in the center are extremely pointless. Also, the plane has to be pointed up between 5-10° up, as it likes to pitch down a lot. I've been thinking of rotating the fuselage 90° so it looks slightly better.

I also made this:

7D6E8F969AD141BAEC4AD9F337D733B5AFB1E595

It's the largest passenger plane I have ever built. Unfortunately, it uses Tweakscale, as I wanted it to look as realistic in shape as possible, without having to use multiple Mk3 Fuselage parts to make one singl section of the fuselage, let alone the tail. I haven't been able to land it, as I can't line up large planes. I need to add flaps and possibly make the wings larger, as well as give it a KAS plug on the fuselage to act as a fuel port. It can hold a maximum of 1,440 passengers and has been flown to 8,500m before one of the inner engines exploded. It was later discovered that one side of the oil pipe was thicker than usual, and the opposite side of it was thinner. Thankfully, the plane was able to land without problems.

Edited by Kebab Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aerospace: Skots Medium

cVw02I1.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:60.555.000
  • Fuel: 4360kallons
  • Cruising speed: 255m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 2500m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.42kal/s
  • Range:  2700km

Review Notes:

The Skots Medium is pretty much just a longer version of the Skots small, as is also said in the plane brochure. As such it handles very much like its smaller brother, only it's...bigger. We weren't quite capable of hitting the 300m/s cruising speed that was mentioned without having to fire the afterburners on the engines, and for the sake of the passengers, we'd rather not burn those too often. Instead, cruising speed was a rather average 255m/s, with a fuel usage of 0.42kal/s, giving the Skots Medium a range of 2700km, 400km more than what was advertised. Maneuverability is still rather average, quite impressive that it was kept at the same level despite having a lot more mass than the smaller variant. The plane takes off at 50m/s, which can be reached rapidly thanks to the afterburner. Landings require quite a bit more space since the craft doesn't have thrust reversers or airbrakes.

Overall I would describe the comfort as being below average. Only the front-most cabin will have a really enjoyable flight, all the others have some negative influences of the engine in one way or another. The middle cabin is placed in between two engines, the exhaust of them being next to the windows, and these engines aren't quiet, especially not when firing the afterburners. As such, flying in that cabin is a very loud experience, vibrations there are also noticeable thanks to the single inline engine, but that's definitely not an overly large issue, it's pretty much on par with most other planes. All the other cabins have got engines mounted directly or almost directly to them though, not only making for a lot of noise, but also making for a significant amount of shaking and vibrating. Once again, an unpleasant experience.

Price and part count is the same story as it was on the Skots Small: high price, high part count. The price is at this level already more inline with the competition though, so it's less of a step up if we would want to buy some. The part count of 80 remains high, even for class levels and will need a lot of maintenance if we wish to keep these birds safe.

The Verdict:

The Skots Medium is a pretty average plane, but all that does get offset by an excellent passenger capacity of 96. Sure they won't be travelling in the best of comfort, but it does get the job done. The Skots Medium does offer a good range of 2700km, meaning that we can use this plane on high volume - low cost lines. In fact, we think it's perfect for that, despite the large initial price tag. We've decided to purchase 2 for the aforementioned purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Challenge accepted

EDIT: I can't see the image, as it's Imgur and I'm at school, but I did make this:

C6F092C07AF9D6AA92359A5A2309CD3734D9CEDD

It does fly, by the way, but I may make a variant with different wings and a full-body cargo bay, because the tanks in the center are extremely pointless. Also, the plane has to be pointed up between 5-10° up, as it likes to pitch down a lot. I've been thinking of rotating the fuselage 90° so it looks slightly better.

I also made this:

7D6E8F969AD141BAEC4AD9F337D733B5AFB1E595

It's the largest passenger plane I have ever built. Unfortunately, it uses Tweakscale, as I wanted it to look as realistic in shape as possible, without having to use multiple Mk3 Fuselage parts to make one singl section of the fuselage, let alone the tail. I haven't been able to land it, as I can't line up large planes. I need to add flaps and possibly make the wings larger, as well as give it a KAS plug on the fuselage to act as a fuel port. It can hold a maximum of 1,440 passengers and has been flown to 8,500m before one of the inner engines exploded. It was later discovered that one side of the oil pipe was thicker than usual, and the opposite side of it was thinner. Thankfully, the plane was able to land without problems.

How did you get it to fly? All my big ones exploded... With autostrut mods. The massive wing's lift actually ripped the wings off the fuselage. Just... How!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

All my big ones exploded... With autostrut mods.

Sadly mine are starting to explode too (the big ones atleast.) I guess I'll have to remake them. Which isn't so bad, the majority of it is just copying parts over.

Edited by qzgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

How did you get it to fly? All my big ones exploded... With autostrut mods. The massive wing's lift actually ripped the wings off the fuselage. Just... How!?

It uses tweakscale, EER (Editor Extensions Redux) adjustable landing gear for better suspension, and my unusual ability to make stupidly large craft that actually fly for some reason. Also, it uses Mk4 System for the engines. I'll make the wings larger when I get home in about an hour or something like that, as well as make a -500 version, which is longer and generally larger. It's not that hard to extend the fuselage, and all you need to do is completely autostrut-heaviest part with EER, which has a button to do it to all parts all at once.

Edited by Kebab Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, qzgy said:

Sadly mine are starting to explode too (the big ones atleast.) I guess I'll have to remake them. Which isn't so bad, the majority of it is just copying parts over.

I thought it was just me that caused these massive things to detonate. I've found a way to stop it though: Extending an already flying plane. My Skots Squirrel is an extention of Skots Ratt, extended from the Skots Mouse, Extended from Skots Medium, extended from skots small. Plane going too slowly? Add an extra wing-mounted fuselage, with an engine. Not flying very well? Add another wing. Your PC is lagging spectacularly? Umm..... Hey! There would be a good place to put another engine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I thought it was just me that caused these massive things to detonate. I've found a way to stop it though: Extending an already flying plane. My Skots Squirrel is an extention of Skots Ratt, extended from the Skots Mouse, Extended from Skots Medium, extended from skots small. Plane going too slowly? Add an extra wing-mounted fuselage, with an engine. Not flying very well? Add another wing. Your PC is lagging spectacularly? Umm..... Hey! There would be a good place to put another engine!

See thats fine if its a minor increase. However, I'm talking about going from a 2x3x(alot) arrangement of mk3 cabins to 5x3x(Even More), Which is quite a significant difference and can't really jut be done simply through extensions. It is a relatively similar design,but each one needs to be made from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001

d1dguu7.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:16,111,000
  • Fuel: 360 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 300 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 500 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.18 kal/s
  • Range: Who cares? It's gonna blow up! km

Review Notes:

 One of the plane's "best features" is the impossibility of a jet powered turboprop. Another (unlisted) feature is a turboprop with only 8 passengers, again, it is impossible to meet the requirements. It boasts " Only 14 parts (or something like that) " , which is true. We expect virtually no maintenance. And when we found out about the third feature, our pilots all started running. Because it is " The ability for passengers (and the pilot) to bail out when you indefinitely crash ". We do not find it necessary to explain their reasons.

The crashes, it seems, are actually inevitable. We almost scored a tail-strike right on takeoff, at 53m/s, which is not a bad takeoff speed, but which is a good segwey to this part of the review. It also pitches up with all the speed of continental drift. This has led to at least one accident. However we have no serious problems with yaw or roll.

 But you may be asking, how is the comfort? When you get on a death trap, you damn well want leather seats! Well, it's very good, until the plane starts moving. The two huge, inline jet engines flood your cabin with noise and vibrations, and when a bird hasn't hit it, the window is great. The pilot will also know exactly when you are doomed too, as his view is impeccable.

On landing, we think that bit is irrelevant since we never expect to land it.

The Verdict:

All in all, the manueverability of a wounded 1300 ton kettle and generally exploding nature, along with very low passenger count, and bad comfort, we will not buy any. That being said, we will never need to pay any maintenance, due to the plane exploding after the first flight.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aerospace: Skots Speedmaster

wV3xxzs.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:73.461.000
  • Fuel: 11560kallons
  • Cruising speed: 1200m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 19000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 2.30kal/s
  • Range:  6000km

Review Notes:

I'd like to start of with some weird stuff that was in the description. It was recommended to fly the plane at max 11000m, which is very low for a supersonic plane, but most of all, it's very inefficient when it comes to fuel usage. Yes you can go fast at that altitude, but you'll burn fuel like there's no tomorrow. Which is why I decided to completely ignore than recommended cruising altitude and instead took the plane up to 19000m, a more more efficient altitude for a plane of this class. With the insane amount of fuel (11560!) that this plane has, I was already pretty confident the range was gonna be a lot better than the described 1800km, and surely , I was right. Flying at 19000m gave an efficiency of 2.3kal/s, still very very wasteful, but better than what it is at 11000m. With this fuel efficiency, I was capable of getting a range of 6000km! Enough to fly around Kerbin one and a half times! More still, when flown at 20000m, the plane only used 1.5kal/s and got a range of 9000km. However this was hard to maintain since control was significantly less and I was afraid the engines would run out of air, as such, 19000m cruise altitude. Maneuverability is once more comparable to the other Skots series planes, and I do recommend you look at their reviews if you want a more expansive review of that. In short, it's average, but the plane glides very well.

Comfort for the 40 passengers on this plane is quite like in the Skots Small. The front cabins have a luxurious and pleasant flight, while the rear end cabins have a very uncomfortable experience, hearing noises from all 5 engines and getting some serious vibrations from the one bolted directly to those cabins. 

:funds:73.461.000 is a lot of money, a whole lot of it. Especially when you consider then plane can only carry 40 passengers. The part count of 148 also isn't small, meaning that a lot of maintenance is needed to keep the Skots Speedmaster safe. Price and part count do kind of seem to be an issue for the entire Skots series planes. Last but not least, the fuel usage of 2.3kal/s is very wasteful, meaning that the cost of fuel for this plane won't be a bill we're looking forward to paying.

The Verdict:

Speed and especially range on this plane are absolutely amazing! Whereas speed is still kind of inline with the competition, the range is the largest among all competitors. Sadly there's a lot of negatives about this plane to counter that. A mediocre level of comfort at best, high cost, high maintenance value, high fuel usage and low passenger capacity in comparison to the price. All of this makes for a plane that has a use we just can't figure out. Yes the range is amazing, but why would you actually want to fly 1.5 times around the planet? Maybe some super rich Kerbal would like to give a party in the plane with a theme of "journey around the world"? I'm afraid we'll have to pass on this plane, but we do recommend you make it available for sale to wealthy Kerbals, as they might find a use for it. A large airline like us has no spot for such a plane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Perbro Aerospace and Aviation Delta II

e9IoFtG.png

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:156,333,000
  • Fuel: 6685 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 1050 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 12800 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 1.96kal/s
  • Range: 3,570 km
  • Passengers: 72

Review Notes:

 On the engineer inspection we found oxidizer and mono-propellant inside the fuel tanks, they were full of it. So we removed it. We wondered why it was included, and decided it was probably a tax-write off. On the runway it took off at a pretty high 76m/s, we weren't impressed. Although we were a bit surprised at how heavy it was (70 tonnes) compared to how small the wings were. It has excellent pitch authority, slightly more powerful than we'd like roll, and a not very good rudder. (Although two rudders are placed directly inside the engines for some reason.)

 It is not a very comfortable ride for whoever sits at the back, with no views to speak of, a lot of vibrations and a good amount of noise. Further forward vibrations are still a small issue. It flies up to it's fairly low altitude acceptably quickly. It can water ditch safely, but not without a significant repair bill. It also doesn't have much of a way to slow down, an it needs a bit of planning before landing.

On the topic of bills, this plane has attached a high one. It's over two million per seat, with a fair maintenance, having 4 huge engines and 47 parts.

The Verdict:

With a price tag of 2 million a seat, they had better be stellar seats for us to buy any. They aren't though, so we won't. The plane is pretty good (save comfort) but let down by a huge price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're all doing a nice size war, I've joined in and somewhat succeeded. 

I present to you... The CL-2002!

dykN4AR.png

This behemoth can carry 2016 passengers. That's about all it can do though, it'll take off at the end of the runway without any input and start flying up. If you do have the urge to try and turn it in any way, it'll spontaneously disintegrate into a massive cloud of death and chaos. It's kinda like a huge suicidal cluster bomb.

GwZFQuT.png

I might have to do some work on it still, not sure if this is safe enough. 

And btw, yes, those are 5m Goliath's 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been extending the Skots Squirrel to over double it's size! I intend to test fly it if my CPU can handly the > 1000 parts. Currently I am trying to bring the COM forward, so I am adding more engines at the front as a counterbalance. Currently seats 3316 (or some number near it, I lost count. I uploaded an early version to KerbalX, just so I could look at the part list and see how many cabins it had....)

On a side-note I am now mounting jets on front, and just reversing thrust.

16 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Since we're all doing a nice size war, I've joined in and somewhat succeeded. 

I present to you... The CL-2002!

-snip-

That is one hell of a big plane. If you can't make anything structurally sound so big, try extending something already sound. Like maybe get your Lassen, and add wings, and cabins and so on until you can't add more. Then you call it a new plane and extend that.

I have built a lot of planes that don't fly, but all from scratch. If I extend something that works, that's about the only way I can get it to work. I really thought it was using 1.25 meter cabins, until I noticed you went for the big ones. Nice work.

Edited by CrazyJebGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...