Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[CrazyJebGuy]

12 minutes ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@Mjp1050 @CrazyJebGuy

TBH, there should be an aesthetics variable.

I would disagree. Aesthetics are too subjective.

About my Skots Hamster, it is cancelled. I tried launching it and my game gave up on it completely, crashed (did this often with big planes) and now won't let me load any planes into SPH, but I can still from runway. But not the Hamster. I can provide the file if any is interested.

[panzerknoef]

27 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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.

Problem is that the back snakes around too much, despite having struts all I've the place, that and the fact that the huge wing immediately breaks off thanks to a structural failure when you try to turn... It's probably smarter to build wide rather than long when it comes to super sized planes. I went for the size 2 cabins because I needed less of those so I was hoping for a more structurally sound plane. I did build one with 1.25m parts earlier, which counted roughly 700 parts and just exploded nearly instantaneously... 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Kerman said:

 

TBH, there should be an aesthetics variable.

Liking or disliking style is a very subjective matter though, makes judging it very hard to do from an objective point of view. As an example, CrazyJebGuy really likes his design of planes whereas I'm not a real fan of it. I can mention it in my review, but by no means will I let it have an impact on the verdict. 

[CrazyJebGuy]

8 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Problem is that the back snakes around too much, despite having struts all I've the place, that and the fact that the huge wing immediately breaks off thanks to a structural failure when you try to turn... It's probably smarter to build wide rather than long when it comes to super sized planes. I went for the size 2 cabins because I needed less of those so I was hoping for a more structurally sound plane. I did build one with 1.25m parts earlier, which counted roughly 700 parts and just exploded nearly instantaneously... 

Liking or disliking style is a very subjective matter though, makes judging it very hard to do from an objective point of view. As an example, CrazyJebGuy really likes his design of planes whereas I'm not a real fan of it. I can mention it in my review, but by no means will I let it have an impact on the verdict. 

I've found that the singular big wings just fall off, the strength doesn't scale with  the part. The only success I've had is with the smaller wings, attaching them togethor and ignoring tweakscale. With lots of struts.

 

I do like my style though. Mainly because it works. Think I got it because I learned mostly about pre 50s planes, I don't think a swept wing WW1 plane ever has existed.

Edited February 9, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[panzerknoef]

1 minute ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I've found that the singular big wings just fall off, the strength doesn't scale with  the part. The only success I've had is with the smaller wings, attaching them togethor and ignoring tweakscale. With lots of struts.

Yeah I figured that out as well, no idea where I'm gonna store my fuel now, and all those wing parts will surely be a burden to my CPU, but I'd do anything to make it fly

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, panzerknoef said:

Yeah I figured that out as well, no idea where I'm gonna store my fuel now, and all those wing parts will surely be a burden to my CPU, but I'd do anything to make it fly

I just do design by amalgamation. Just add more and more things as you need. For almost any problem, another [insert here] will solve it.

Personally I suggest going a bit mad with wing mounted fueselages, they are also a really great place to mount struts to make a wing longer.

Edited February 9, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I just do design by amalgamation. Just add more and more things as you need. For almost any problem, another [insert here] will solve it.

Personally I suggest going a bit mad with wing mounted fueselages, they are also a really great place to mount struts to make a wing longer.

those wing mounted fuselages do make the plane harder to roll. But I don't think I've got a lot of choice tbh, long planes are just to unstable to keep using...

[qzgy]

3 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

no idea where I'm gonna store my fuel now

Maybe use those BIG-S delta wings? I find those to be quite nice for wing construction. For more normal plane-y type things, maybe try under fuselage fuel bulges.

[HamnavoePer]

4 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

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

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 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.

Ahh, did we not mention the totally existant noise dampening tech we put in there and the vibration cushioned seats? Whoops, we'll be on to the PR department about that.

[Thor Wotansen]

The latest offering from Fægir Industries, the Nomad is aimed at the small regional jet market.  The Nomad was designed to operate from the roughest and shortest of runways without compromising passenger volume or cruise performance.  With a 40 passenger capacity and a range of 1800km, combined with it's revolutionary short field performance, the Nomad is a bargain at 25.85 million. 

Flying the Nomad is actually quite simple.  Engage the brakes fully before spooling up the engines to full throttle.  Then simply release the brakes and begin your takeoff roll.  At 20m/s pull back on the stick until the aircraft rotates onto it's rear wheel.  Be careful not to force the angle higher, this can lead to tail strikes.  The plane should lift off at around 35m/s after a takeoff roll of about 100m.  Once the plane is airborne and the gear is stowed, the flaps can be retracted with AG 1.  The manufacturer suggests a climb of about 30 degrees to a cruising altitude of 4,000m.  Once this altitude is reached reduce throttle to 60% for the most comfortable cruise at 300m/s.  Landing is also quite simple, although new pilots often make their final approach a little hot.  It can take a few landings to get used to the incredible slow speed the Nomad is capable of on landing.  For the best landing performance it is recommended that the pilot applies the brakes fully well before touchdown and extends the flaps a good 100m above the ground.  The aircraft tends to adopt a nose down attitude when the flaps are applied which can be troublesome if the flaps are applied to late in the landing.  With the right approach, it is quite possible to put the wheels down at 20m/s

The Nomad can be found here.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Thor Wotansen

[Spudmeist3r]

Wow, seeing as how the ssrj-1001 was an utter failure, the ssrj-1111 is now in production! Let’s just hope it works better this time @CrazyJebGuy, amirite. Also, I misread the directions, so that’s why it had 8 passengers. I thought Mk 2s were 24, not 8

Edited February 9, 2018 by Spudmeist3r

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's Andetch ADX Type G Seaplane

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21,463,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 440 kallons
• Cruising speed: 330 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6600 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.2 kal/s
• Range: 726 km

Review Notes:

 Upon showing several of our pilots, several of our pilots became confused. Our engineers recovered more quickly, and just started debating where they could put the snacks. Due to this, there was a long delay before we could test it. When we did though, it took off at 88m/s, which is very high, especially for a seaplane. Being as the engines are mounted at a steep angle, we thought we would try revving them up to full power before we took off. We tried this, and then they ran out of intake air, so one engine flamed out, and one continued going. That made us very dizzy. The claimed take off speed is half of this, so we pondered for a while about what we were doing wrong.

We think it is so high because the wheels on the aircraft make it point itself down at the runway, so the wings are pushing the plane down, not up. But maybe the takeoff speed was meant for water, because it can take off very easily from water, at around 50m/s. But that is still a bit higher than advertized. In the air it handles well, we don't have any problems with it, (except how nose heavy it is) and it can go supersonic. The range was exactly what was advertised, 726km, which, is not good, but it's also not bad. It however does this very fast, at 330m/s in fact.

When we landed it, despite having tricycle gear, it can still crash the cabins into the ground if the pilot is not careful. We don't think this is very safe. It is however, reasonably comfortable, with good views, but also a good amount of noise.

 It also does not come especially cheap, being an average price at best, and having a low passenger count. The maintenance would be highish with the highly unusual design and 34 parts, not to mention an occasional landing accident.

The Verdict:

The high takeoff speed and the ease of killing half the passengers on landings pretty much rule it out for use on land, and a seaplane limited to sea only better be very good, which it is not really. Being limited to water means maintenance is harder. It is fast, but also not very comfortable, and does not have a very long range. We won't be buying any.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's - Habu Industries: Sea Dragon series

Sea Dragon 1000

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 65.167.000
• Fuel: 2400kallons
• Cruising speed: 280m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.28kal/s
• Range:  2400km

Review Notes:

The Sea Dragon 1000 is a plane with a bit of a quirky design, but that design does work. It features 3 engines, 2 on top and one in the tail. All together they make for a craft with a lot of power, capable of accelerating rather fast. The fact that it takes off at a reasonably okay 50m/s in combination with this previous fact makes for a plane that can takeoff on short runways. The thrust reversers on all 3 wheesley engines also makes sure the plane can land on these short runways. Landing on water is made a lot easier by the preconfigured flaps, allowing you to approach the water at very slow speeds. Even still, the plane likes to dip its nose in the water upon landing thanks to the skidded design. The aforementioned flaps also making taking back off again a pleasure, and so do the 3 engines. It accelerates at a very much above average rate on the water, meaning it doesn't even need a lot of water to take off from. Maneuverability generally is pretty good, but the roll control is a bit sensitive in our opinion. Even the slightest twitch could make it roll, and trying to even back out could be a bit of a challenge.

Comfort for all 48 passengers isn't that amazing. The front cabin has to air intakes above it, while the rear one has two engines above it. We'd still rather be in the front-most cabin, but there's definitely a noticeable noise there as well. There's also some vibrations thanks to all these engines, seeing as they all are mounted directly to the hull, there isn't really any dampening for all this vibration. Meaning that having a drink without getting some of it on yourself could be more challenging that expected.

Now here's where the really bad news comes... The price tag. 65.167.000 for what will be classified as a small regional jet is a lot. Even for a seaplane it's about 15mil above average. The part count of 66 also isn't exactly something to write home about. It all makes for an expensive plane to buy and to maintain. Though the fuel usage at 0.28kal/s is pretty efficient, so at least we won't be splashing the cash to much on fuel.

 

Sea Dragon 2000

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 75.167.000
• Fuel: 2400kallons
• Cruising speed: 280m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.26kal/s
• Range:  2500km

Review Notes:

 Pretty much identical to the Sea Dragon 1000, only this one can take 24 extra passengers, bringing the total up to 72. Which makes this craft a medium regional jet instead of a small one. The Sea Dragon 2000 does have a bit more troubles taking off from water, but it's nowhere near difficult still. Somehow it also manages to be more efficient by 0.02 at the same altitude and speed as the Sea Dragon 1000, meaning this one has an extended range of 2500km.

However it is still expensive, but with more passengers and more range, it's already a better buy than the Sea Dragon 1000.

 

Sea Dragon 3000

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 90.487.000
• Fuel: 3200kallons
• Cruising speed: 210m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.26kal/s
• Range:  2500km

Review Notes:

 Once again a bigger variant. This time it can carry 96 passengers. To allow for all this Habu Industries has added extra pontoons underneath the plane. This change makes landing on water a lot nicer, since the plane doesn't diver down upon touching the water quite as much. Taking back off from the water has become a challenge though. First of all, the increased weight and size means that the takeoff speed on land has increased to a rather high 70m/s. Achieving this on water is not as easy. It takes a whole lot of time and effort to do this on water. Not to mention the still annoyingly high roll controls mean that if you make a bit of a twist on the controls, you'll lose most of that speed again rather rapidly. Pitch control has lost most of its originally good functionality and is now a rather sluggish control. All the added weight also means the climbing performance went down, and going up to 7000m isn't a fast ordeal. Cruising speed of 250m/s is very hard or even impossible to reach, 210m/s seems to be the more doable speed.

Everything else is identical to the previous two planes.

The Verdict:

The Sea Dragon 1000 is an excellent flyers plane, and I do recommend it for that (especially if the roll authority is fixed). Sadly it lets down when it comes to comfort, price and part count. We're not interested in investing in this plane. The Sea Dragon 2000 retains most of the good characteristics of the 1000, adds more passengers and range, and eventually also just makes for better value for money. Sadly comfort is still rather poor for a craft of this price, we're afraid we'll have to pass on this one as well. Eventually there's the Sea Dragon 3000. We'd describe it as a prime example of an expansion that was pushed too far. The Sea Dragon 3000 has lost all of the good qualities of the 1000 & 2000, while retaining the bad ones. It is definitely not worth the price even though it carries 96 passengers. We won't be buying any of these either. All in all the Sea Dragon type aircraft just seem to be over-engineered, while too little attention was put into passenger comfort.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

-snip--

We'd describe it as a prime example of an expansion that was pushed too far. -snip-

There can never be such a thing! (At least, I hope not. My 1500 passenger jet is extended from extensions, and traced all the way back to the Skots Small! A plane with one thirty-seventh the passenger capacity....)

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

There can never be such a thing! (At least, I hope not. My 1500 passenger jet is extended from extensions, and traced all the way back to the Skots Small! A plane with one thirty-seventh the passenger capacity....)

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

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

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

So, prime example of extension done wrong.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 10,927,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 270 kallons
• Cruising speed: 300 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s
• Range: 1,157 km
• Passengers: 24

Review Notes:

This is not a review per say, since this is only a variant of the original plane. It is very similar, so we just copied the stats of it's earlier version. This plane has been improved in a few ways, one being our complaint about the extremely poor cockpit visibility has been fixed, it now has excellent visibility. Can't fault it at all here.

We have been told that taking off and landing on water might flood and damage the engines, we found that on throttle higher than a third, it just washes the water pretty harmlessly out the back, so we think it's fairly safe to use as a makeshift seaplane. (Versatility is nice)

The other thing they did was to make tail-strikes harder, on previous Kerbus aircraft, it was possible, but you could easily get off the ground without one. We pulled up as hard as was possible on the improved version, and we very nearly scored a strike. The key word is very nearly, we missed the ground by only a few inches. Regardless, this is safe, and we are glad of the improvement.

The Verdict:

With our main complaints gone, we think we'll buy some more. Specifically, 29, as we think they will do well to supplement currently overstressed routes, being fast and cheap, along with small, so we save on hangar space, makes them ideal for staying in reserve until needed. They can also supplement seaplane routes, which we like greatly. The planes also are quite cheap per seat, and have the flexibility of use that larger planes don't. On top of that we can use them in low traffic rural areas, and out plane that goes out to Kitcairn Island needs replacing anyway.

Edited February 10, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's Blasty Systems Fleet BS-32 'Regional'

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 18,073,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 700 kallons
• Cruising speed: 313m/s
• Cruising altitude: 7000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.195 kal/s
• Range: 1,120 km

Review Notes:

The Regional is not really a regional jet at all, having only 32 passengers it really should be called a turboprop. We also noted that the rudder is small, and mounted much higher than it needs to be. We are curious as to why, because this way it would seem to induce more unintended roll. The thing pretty quickly accelerates to 51m/s, and then can go in the air after a short takeoff run. In the air, it is a bit nose-heavy for the automated stability system to work correctly, but it is no big deal.

In the air, it's handling is acceptable, it's slow to turn, but it is good enough. On landing, a hard landing or on a slight angle can cause an engine to hit the runway and explode.

On the comfort department, there are a few vibrations, not many but it exists, and a fair amount of noise at the rear cabins. It does have 36 parts, which makes for a fairly high maintenance, but it can ditch and take off from water. (Though taking off does have a little trick to it) The small luggage compartment is nice, along with the radio.

The range is a bit short, but everything else is generally, good enough.

The Verdict:

 It looks almost exactly what you would expect a small airliner to look like, and behaves (save being able to double as a makeshift seaplane) like it too. It's ordinary, and cheap, and we'll buy 11.

[RedPandaz]

 

The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies is proud to present you with their first commercially-available model, the Delta Impulse! The available variants are the standard Delta Impulse and the Delta Impulse S.

 

Delta Impulse: https://i.imgur.com/eMk4qbc.png -

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse

 

Delta Impulse S: -

https://kerbalx.com/RedPandaz/Delta-Impulse-S

 

The Delta Impulse is a completely stock regional passenger jet, designed with the intent to do everything the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow" does, but better, and is a bargin, at just 16,056,000 funds! .

This beautiful plane takes off at just below 50 m/s, and in the air, is as agile as a jet fighter, thanks to its vectoring engine.

We found that the original design of flaps along the back wing was redundant, as the Panther engine, along with the two remaining flaps provides all the maneuverability that any passenger plane will ever need

[Although Kerbal Express Airlines certainly can request that earlier variant, the flaps push the price above that of the Arrow]

We recommend flying at 270m/s [1690km range @ 6000m], although under afterburners this plane can easily go supersonic with no loss in maneuverability or strength [8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range] . Pushing past Mach, however, does lower the range of this airplane, and as Delta Flight is developing a dedicated supersonic plane, we do advise waiting

The sole engine, being separated from the cabin by the fuel tank, does little to affect passenger comfort, so passengers can enjoy their flight in peace and quiet. At only 25 parts and one engine, maintenance should be a breeze.

Easy to fly, this plane should require little to no extra training for your pilots to fly. It’s agility, combined with the intuitive cockpit and controls, make training pilots for this aircraft a breeze

Finally, as for passenger comfort, there are two roomy bathrooms in the back, along with storage for an airline to store snacks.

 

The Delta Impulse S is a regional passenger seaplane, designed with the intent to provide the convenience of the Delta Impulse to seaside routes. Like it’s sibling, this craft is cheap, at just 22,042,600 funds, and needs little mainainance with only 39 parts.

This beautiful plane takes off at just 44 m/s like its sibling, and like its sibling, is as agile as a jet fighter, thanks to its vectoring engine.  

We recommend flying at 200m/s [1235km range @ 5000m ], although under afterburners this plane can easily keep pace with the Delta Impulse with no loss in maneuverability or strength [8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range ] The sole engine, being separated from the cabin by the fuel tank, does little to affect passenger comfort, so passengers can enjoy their flight in peace and quiet while watching scenic views of the sea

Finally, as for passenger comfort, there are two roomy bathrooms in the back, along with storage for an airline to store snacks.

 

Special thanks to NightshineRecorralis for testing our airplane.

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Before I do the review, I want to say I think liquid fuel might be in gallons, it weighs 5kg per LF, and petrol, diesel aviation fuel, etc, tend to weigh ~70-80% of 1kg, per liter. So it might be US gallons.

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series

Sea Newt

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 24,039,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 225 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 4 km
• Fuel burn rate: 0.125kal/s
• Range: 750 km

Review Notes:

It takes off at a low 37m/s, downside is the 3, somewhat weak engines take a while to accelerate it up to speed. Most seaplanes have quite good acceleration, in order to force themselves out of the water, this one, it has huge wings and a small weight (12 ton, and it's a decent sized plane). We suspect there is a good reason most flying boats go with the other method, this plane took a longer run-up before lift off than some non-sea planes have, when they can take off water. We have found out it actually uses less runway if you retract the flaps on takeoff, despite a higher lift off speed.

It also takes its sweet time when climbing, meaning that by the time it reaches the altitude of 4,000m a sizable chunk of fuel is gone. The range is pretty short, at just 750km. (Not counting climbing fuel usage) In the air, it's a bit nose-heavy but otherwise handles very nicely.

When landing, the pontoons are dangerously close to hitting the ground, due to the landing gear not going down very far. On a cheap airfield or rough ground the pontoons can get damaged. But with no pontoons, it can act just fine as a regular land-plane. On maintenance, we expect some pretty serious bills, with 63 parts including 3 jet engines, along with the pontoon damage, we expect to pay a fair bit.

Comfort isn't too good either with a couple jets sitting 4 feet from your head, you can imagine the noise and vibrations.

Sea Newt X

Review Notes:

It's exactly the same as the Sea Newt except one engine has been replaced with an engine that can afterburn, but using it in level flight is inefficient and would hurt the already unimpressive range, it just accelerates a little bit faster for an extra 800 grand. It does also have an extra 8 passengers, with very similar performance.

C-Newt

Review Notes:

This is the Sea Newt, but with the passengers swapped for a cargo bay.

The Verdict:

With it's bigger brother carrying more passengers for only a little more, we don't see the point in the Sea Newt on it's own, the safety is a problem though, so it can only operate from big airports and at sea. The short range is quite limiting here, and the comfort, maintenance are not winning factors here. Even worse combined, because the comfort means it's only suited for economy routes, and the high maintenance means it can't do economy routes. We aren't completely without hope though, so we'll rent 2 for 6 months and see how it goes.

With cargo capable planes so rare, we do need a few. Again, the pontoon issue, (it makes a good land plane without it, once they break we'll just get rid of them) is quite limiting, and the range, so we'll buy 7, simply because it has no competition there, but is not a spectacularly good plane at it.

We do think a few modifications could fairly easily be made to make this a much more competitive plane however, so we'll have options open for 15 C-Newts and 16 Sea Newt Xs.

[NightshineRecorralis]

Hi y'all, life's been hectic for me during these last couple months, and I do apologize for disappearing without a trace. However, now that I've ironed most of the kinks out of my workflow after this new year, I'm ready to get back into judging. Hopefully, I'll be pushing out 1 every day, but if that fails, I'll try for 3/week, starting Monday. Due to PC limitations, I might not be able to do crafts with high part counts, but I'll definitely finish the 747-100 Super and get along to other planes! Thanks for understanding.  

I'll also probably get back into building aircraft, but who knows.  The following is what happened while I was testing my Sea Dragon, so... might just include some semi-serious testing in my reviews. (I know some submissions can land on the VAB if tuned right)

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by NightshineRecorralis

[GDJ]

@NightshineRecorralis: At least you came back. The OP disappeared like a fart in the wind.

[Joseph Kerman]

@NightshineRecorralis Hey, mind you do you personal opinion on my current fleet? Just really don't feel good that a user and a semi-official judged my fleet.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@NightshineRecorralis Hey, mind you do you personal opinion on my current fleet? Just really don't feel good that a user and a semi-official judged my fleet.

Submit more if you like. BTW, I'm official in all but name now, I use the internal spreadsheet for which planes have and haven't been reviewed.

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@NightshineRecorralis Hey, mind you do you personal opinion on my current fleet? Just really don't feel good that a user and a semi-official judged my fleet.

Am I perhaps not official enough? I'm literally in the challenge description as official judge. 

[1Revenger1]

Sorry for not being able to judge at all...got a project going on that takes up most of my weekends to. I've been lurking a bit (sorry). I should have some time to do reviews in like a week in a half, although that depends on how my project is doing. Know that I am eventually coming back to help review this, and that I still try to keep up with the thread.