Box of Stardust

The other problem I can see from your picture is that you simply need larger/more control surfaces. It looks like you have 1 unit of lift surface per ton of aircraft, so it looks like you have enough lift to begin with.

That sounds like a center of mass to center of lift relationship problem to me. Sounds to me your CoL is too far back relative to the CoM.

You may want to rectify these before the judges get their hands on it, because these will be held against the plane's performance and will reflect poorly on the final verdict about the plane. (In fact, you pretty much just told KEA "there is no reason to buy this plane over some other options".) Fortunately, you still have a few months time to fix it all.

Not dead, just... slow, I guess? I'll let the queue build up a bit, maybe start back up at the end of the month. Consider it a season break.

You should see the backlog to work through. You're not the only one who waits for reviews. My planes were first posted back in... March or Apirl? Also, the records board on the main post is no longer updated, we've moved to a spreadsheet that we're currently working on before we make public.

By the way, has anyone tested for efficiency differences between KSP 1.3.1 and 1.4.3? Some of my planes have appeared to become more efficient, and some unaffected. And I feel like other planes have gained efficiency as well. However, I'm not sure if I just calculated range wrong the first time around. It also doesn't seem linked to using APP parts or not.

@Mathrilord Just saying, AtmosphericAutopilot causes havoc between installs with AA and without AA, as any settings you set on control surfaces will not be readable without AA, or vice-versa, and modifying settings in an install with AA will erase settings that were made without AA. It's weird, but I know it from experience trying out AA, and wondering why all my control surface settings disappeared, but reverted when I uninstalled AA except for the ones I modified while I had AA installed.

Test Pilot Review: @Eivuii's Kalibu & Meridian Can't go wrong with simple... Figures as Tested (Kalibu, 16 passengers max): Price: 16,265,000 (empty) / 14,785,000 (electronics removed) Fuel: 425 kallons Cruising speed: measured at 166m/s Cruising altitude: 1200m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.04kal/s Range: 1720km Figures as Tested (Meridian, 24 passengers max): Price: 16,815,000 (empty) / 15,335,000 (electronics removed) Fuel: 425kallons Cruising speed: measured at 167m/s Cruising altitude: 1200m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.04kal/s Range: 1730km Review Notes: TCA apparently had one more aircraft test contracted to them before the fire emergency at our facilities occurred, so we got right to it so we could get back to recovery and reconditioning efforts around our test site. Kerlin Industries has designed a fairly simple, normal-looking single-turboprop-powered aircraft in the form of the Kalibu and its extended cabin variant the Meridian. Right away, though, we have to mention that the Kalibu does not meet minimum passenger amount standards for KEA's turboprop class, so for consideration, it should perform excellently in all other aspects. Pre-rollout statistical analysis showed at center of lift behind the center of mass, which indicated right away that it would have a noticeable pitch-down tendency. The all-flying tailplane, however, was expected to prove sufficient in providing pitch authority. The fuel tank is all the way in the rear, however, so pitch, or at least required pitch trim, will get worse as fuel is burnt, due to a drastic shifting of center of mass. While we believe the aircraft will still be able to fly in this state, it may affect the actual range compared to the calculated value. With the on-paper stuff done, the Kalibu and Meridian were given a walk-around by engineers on the tarmac. One of the first things that was noticed was the inclusion of fairly expensive electronics- a high-grade, high-capacity battery unit in the rear, as well as antennae. It's nice of Kerlin Industries to include this additional hardware though, to reduce the need for installation of such things should the aircraft be bought by some clients. The report we have written up includes prices with these items removed, for better comparison of the base aircraft against other similar aircraft such as the Swirlygig we've also reviewed. The self-contained ramp proved useful, which is a plus for landing at less-equipped airfields that turboprops might find themselves landing at. The aircraft was otherwise conventional, so we went into the flight tests in short order. The Kalibu was chosen to test first. First thing we discovered was that none of the control surfaces were set up, with everything responding to all inputs. We figured this was highly unnecessary, and re-wired the controls to a conventional layout. We did find that flap controls, thrust reverser controls, and the stair controls were wired to switches, so that's good. The main gear were allowed to steer, which is generally not good for high speeds, but good for taxiing around. The takeoff sequence was predictable, despite the main gear having steering capability. We expected the large elevator surfaces to provide a lot of pitch control, so ground control warned our test pilot to be careful on the pitch. Rotation was achieved at as low as 25m/s, but not enough velocity to takeoff. Tail strike is very possible and there are no safeguards other than being aware of the danger. Should an accidental tail strike occur, we do expect the aircraft to otherwise be safe despite losing the rear control section. Wheels-up was actually achieved at around 40m/s after an average-turboprop-length takeoff run. The speed is a little bit on the high end for a turboprop, but within a fairly standard range. The flight up to cruise altitude was fairly short due to low cruising altitude. General control testing proved promising, with the aircraft very easy to fly even without SAS on. We ended up flying both aircraft with SAS turned off most of the time, only turning it on for takeoff and landing. Cruise altitude was reached in short order, and cruise conditions were attained with little trouble. The briefing given by Kerlin Industries didn't outline anymore than speed, burn rate, and altitude, with not even range given. So we took our best guess using the altitude as a primary guideline, then speed, then burn rate. Results were achieved with a faster speed and lower burn rate than stated, so that was good, and range was calculated at ~1700km. Promising results. Engine failure testing came next. With only one engine, loss of power means gliding right away. It proved fine for gliding, though its need for pitch-up trim did hurt it a bit. Control of the aircraft remained very responsive. After engine restart, we did maneuverability tests. The test pilot, a combat veteran, enjoyed the excellent maneuverability of the aircraft, coupled with very stable flight characteristics and general ease of flying. The single turboprop was a bit underpowered for more extreme maneuvers though, but that's no issue. Critical speed was found to be around 45m/s. Landing the aircraft proved an easy task, touching down around ~40m/s. In fact, the pilot screwed up the approach and made a hard landing, but the plane survived fully intact anyways. So that's a definite positive. Water landing test was done with no hassle. We didn't try taking off from the sea with the Kalibu since it didn't appear designed to do that, and past experiences lead us to guess that it probably wouldn't be able to build up the speed to takeoff. So it isn't a seaplane contender. We tested the Meridian next, which was, overall, very similar to the Kalibu. Takeoff was pretty much the same, but once it got up into the air, it felt noticeably more stable, with a little less maneuverability. The tail strike hazard remained. Cooperative flight characteristics meant flying with SAS off most of the time. SAS, when on, did not appear to interfere negatively. The cruise test was much of the same as was done on the Kalibu. We recorded a slightly higher cruising speed at 167m/s, and calculated an insignificant increase in range. Landing speed was at ~45m/s. All other flight characteristics did not differ significantly from the Kalibu. Comfort on both was good, with the single engine mounted far forward, even buffered from the cockpit a little with a fuel tank, and buffered from the cabins by the ramp entry section. Maintenance is about average at worse, with the single engine helping keep those costs down. The Verdict: Can't go wrong with simple. We just recommend that the manufacturer get the control wiring sorted out and to add a bumper wheel to prevent tail strike damage, but it's an otherwise solid aircraft. They come with pre-installed electronics hardware, which KEA may consider a plus. We have minor concerns over fuel affecting pitch trim and the subsequent effects on range and in case of emergencies, glide distance. This is not a major concern, however. We don't think the Kalibu is worth ordering, simply because it doesn't meet KEA's turboprop passenger capacity standards, but the Meridian does, while being similar in all ways to the Kalibu. But if KEA does think they can find a place for a 16-passenger turboprop, it's up to them. The Meridian would probably be best used as an express commuter aircraft between smaller airports and larger hubs, around more populated areas.

Err... my format is standardized. Every single one of my reviews up to this point has followed that format, plus consistent with other minor modifications for my own style (though I guess I skip out on defining KPPM on a few, but that's not in the template anyways). Anyways, if we're trying to 'keep score', if everyone wants a 'fair' challenge, then we need more firmly quantifiable metrics to measure by. It'll be... a little more nebulous with just placing values down, but in the spirit of a KSP challenge, I think it's good to highlight aspects of designs that work and don't work with some sort of value, rather than being more like a business with a wildcard thrown in of how many gets bought of what. I also think we have to be careful defining the rated categories, such that they're not so specific that it gets tedious, but clearly defined and general enough that reviewers will generally come to about the same rating were they to review the same plane. That's just my opinion, of course. By the way, @neistridlar and @hoioh, do you have a place to discuss the new judging parameters that doesn't involve clogging up this thread?

If there's better documentation of the LIP10 score, that'd be nice to see. I haven't found it, but maybe I just didn't look for it enough. But yeah. A value per cabin, then a modifier based on outside factors (engine placement and other potential oddities). Do we really need max g-force? Just because an aircraft has good maneuverability doesn't mean you have to use it. Under normal circumstances, I imagine g-force will be kept within a standardized limit, and abnormal circumstances, well, I don't think passengers are going to care much about their comfort by that point.

Well, I'm not that great at coming up with formal math equations, but I can outline some points in the system we can add. For starters, we can consider the Mk1 cabin to be an 'economy'-level cabin, with a base comfort value. The Mk2 is wider, so more 'bussiness-class'. For the Size 2 and Mk3 cabins, I guess it gets the same treatment, but I think the Size 2 should get a slightly higher than base value due to its fairly high price. Maybe even give it the same value as a Mk2 cabin, depending how the price scales. Then we can come up with modifiers for engine placement-related comfort, which will still have a factor of subjectiveness, but I think all the judges have a generally similar idea of how we rate this. For maintenance, engine count obviously. We may need a modifier based on TweakScale re-sized parts (resized engines only?). A lot of aircraft here have their part count numbers increased by wing segments, which I always say 'maintenance will consist of checking welds between parts'; not exactly high maintenance despite increased part count. This is all on top of what @hoioh said. Of course, exact mathematical forumlas to be determined. I think the outlined rules in this challenge are fine, though I've personally always disagreed at some level that a Mk2 cabin only holds 8 if a Size 1 cabin also holds 8. But again, I've self-justified that by considering Mk2 cabins as more luxurious. We just need to fine-tune how we interpret the results of testing.

Well, first off, this one was me mentioning the idea first. Next would be a need for refinement of the 'ordered/leased' number and the factors determining such, because we currently have no formal declaration of determining procurement amount. It's just this odd subjective number that goes per-reviewer. Frankly, I think the 'amount bought' number is... dumb, as of right now. Which is why I simply 'approve' or 'unapprove' planes. I'd rather scores be kept to the measurable numbers, which I think could use some further refinement for taking into account all of an aircraft's design features, not just flat operation costs, but also comfort, safety, and flight characteristics.

That wasn't me (though I would've probably reached the same verdict). There should be a publicized, non-editing/view-only link for the records/aircraft list, by the way. Would make it easier for everyone, guests especially, to know the state of various aircraft and past reviews.

Editor Extensions Redux allows you to toggle all autostruts on a vessel at once, as well as do/toggle all Rigid Attach, which might be far less phantom-force-y. But you'll need to double up in the worst of cases, or even place real struts between more load-bearing parts that autostruts won't strut between. Also, rigid attaching and maybe auto-strutting wings can be bad. Be careful about that.

Test Pilot Review: @Overlonder's LJ-80 Family Looks nondescript and conventional enough... Figures as Tested (LJ-80-100 / LJ-81 / LJ-80SR, 72 passengers max): Price: 62,458,000 Fuel: 1200 kallons Cruising speed: measured at 219.8m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.15kal/s Range: 2,000km (as calculated) Figures as Tested (LJ-80-100ER / LJ-81-ER / LJ-80, 72 passengers max): Price: 68,508,000 Fuel: 2200kallons Cruising speed: measured at 202m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.22kal/s Range: 2,020km Review Notes: Lorings Aerospace has designed a nondescript, conventional, and unassuming aircraft that meets the minimal passenger requirement for medium regional jets, but, due to the nature of Lotus engines, does not meet the minimum speed requirement. Therefore, to be a good contender, the LJ-80s should display stellar performance in all other aspects to be worth overlooking its low speed. TCA has added an additional step in its testing process, consisting of a very quick pre-rollout statistical analysis. Initial statistical analysis showed a center of lift far behind the center of mass, so we expected poor pitch authority in its flight characteristics. This was already not a good sign. In addition, aircraft designations were fairly confusing, with the initial briefing naming the aircraft under a long-form name, then a short-form name. Then once we received the prototypes, they were then referred to under a third different short-form designation, and we had to refer between documentation of parts to figure out which was which, which fortunately was fairly quick. We will be referring to the aircraft by the short-form designation (LJ-81) from here on. LJ-81, the base version of the aircraft, was very basic, but still included flaps on the wings. These, however, were not wired to any specific control in the cockpit, and were only actuated by the brakes. As well, the tail controls were mixed to receive all inputs. We suspect that this was intentional, as the ailerons on the main wings were not set to respond to pitch or yaw. Further inspection discovered that the engine thrust reversers were also not wired to any control. All of these flight control issues were rectified before flight by TCA engineers. However, we missed the fact that the main gear was allowed to steer, in addition to their inward cant. The LJ-81-ER was similar, but included more flaps, as well as spoilers for increased deceleration ability. Additional range was supposedly achieved through the addition of a belly tank holding 1000kal of fuel. Also, an additional exit door was added at the rear of the aircraft. In both aircraft, the rear fuel tank was left unused and empty of fuel. As for passenger comfort, given the similarities to TCA airliner designs, comfort has been rated as good, with cabins shielded from decent portions of noise and vibrations due to the engine mounting design. Part counts of 40 and 49 put them around average for maintenance, with most of the cost going to flight control surfaces. Two engines are about average maintenance. LJ-81 Flight Testing Flight testing began with the base-model LJ-81. Wheels up was achieved at ~64m/s, with tailstrikes impossible by nature of the aicraft's flight characterstics. Takeoff length was decent. Flight up to cruise altitude was uneventful. The aircraft flew stable with or without SAS. Roll control was noted to be good. More importantly, pitch authority was poor, as was initially hypothesized. Cruise altitude was attained fairly quickly, around 3 minutes. The poor aerodynamic setup manifested greatly in the cruise testing, requiring 30-40% of pitch-up trim setting, similar to the M38 tested by TCA previously. And much like the M38, we're not sure where the extra 1000km+ advertised range came from, with only a 2000km range as tested under the KEA range calculation equation, unless, of course, the advertised range was based off of a completely fueled aircraft using the tail tank. The highly efficient Lotus engines were only able to push the aircraft to a maintainable cruise speed of 219.8m/s; not even 220m/s unless in a shallow dive. The aircraft was otherwise stable and fairly easy to trim. Engine failure testing came next. The LJ-81 performed well with a single engine failure, remaining very stable and easy to control, even without SAS turned on. Full loss of power, however, did not fare well. The plane was unable to maintain level pitch for glide speed due to a severe natural pitch-down tendency. Pitch was maxed out and bled speed extremely quickly in doing so. A level attitude was unable to be maintained under 80m/s. Under maneuverability tests, it was formally declared that the pitch authority was adequate at best for normal operations at speed, and sluggish for all other cases. The LJ-81 was extremely sluggish at mid-speeds, with its pitch-down tendencies showing more. At low speed, it loses a lot of altitude on turns and was very hard to maneuver due to exacerbated poor pitch control. Landing was difficult due to this fact, and its wing-mounted landing gear meant that a safe landing could only be performed at higher speeds, where vertical velocity could be kept at a minimum. This was discovered after attempting to land under 80m/s, which caused too much stress on the wings trying to absorb the vertical velocity upon contact with the runway, and the prototype proceeded to break up further after this damage. Water landing tests showed that the cockpit separates from the fuselage. The body remains intact, but the engines are lost. This is the best case scenario after maintaining maximum pitch-up input and attempting to impact the water at the lowest feasible horizontal velocity. LJ-81-ER Flight Testing More weight, very slightly more lift, no extra power with already no extra power to spare from the LJ-81. It tended to steer randomly during the takeoff run. Attributed to inward cant of main gear combined with unlocked steering. Wheels-up was achieved at ~80m/s, on the edge of allowed takeoff speed. Takeoff length was acceptably moderate. Cruise altitude was reached under 3 minutes, partially due to its relatively low cruising altitude of 5,000m. No significant differences from base LJ-81. Again, pitch control was lacking. Trim for maintaining cruise conditions required 55-65% of available pitch authority. Cruising speed was measured at an abysmally low speed of 202m/s, and the engine efficiency suffered immensely. Range, based on optimistic (read: not TCA conservative) standards of maximum as-loaded fuel load was, from the LJ-81 base, improved by a mere 20km. Engine failure characteristics were the same as the base LJ-81, except that full power loss is even worse due to potentially increased forward mass depending on fuel load, which intensifies the poor pitch ability of the LJ-81-ER. Level pitch can only be achieved with great difficulty at moderate velocity. Unpowered glide capability should be considered as 'minimal' to 'none'. Essentially, the aircraft must always be under power; otherwise, the aircraft is rendered unable to maintain positive or zero pitch at speeds under 130m/s. Landing performance was also worse, both for standard ground landing and emergency water landing. Due to poor low-speed directional control, lining up to a runway had to be done a fair distance away. More flaps might have helped, but they weren't wired to a separate control. Spoilers and engine thrust reversers, as of this aircraft's state, were unneeded, as it needed velocity, not bleed it. A fire emergency in Twin Crown Aerospace's prototype storage hangars prohibited us from testing the cargo variant, which was lost with all remaining LJ-81 aircraft prototypes, in addition to various TCA property. Source discovered to be poor welding practices around an A-50X prototype, which started a fire that spread to the nearby Military Applications Division hangars storing various explosive munitions. Recovery efforts around the facility and reconditioning will slow progress in processing further outsourced aircraft testing. The Verdict: Lorings Aerospace's LJ-81 family is designed almost how Twin Crown Aerospace would have designed a medium regional jet with conventional cabins, with a design that appears very conventional and unassuming. However, the devil is in the details, and the LJ-81s proved to be poor performers in vital flight characteristic categories, mostly stemming from poor pitch characteristics. The rear tanks were left unused, and the aircraft may have performed better were they filled and set to lowest drain priority to bring CoM back closer. Or simply adjusted angle of horizontal stablizer to push CoL up. Likely both would have been required, short of a full airframe reconsideration. Beyond these flaws found in testing, the aircraft as designed have low airspeeds, and they both come in with fairly steep entry prices. It would be difficult for an aircraft to outshine not meeting minimum design requirements in the first place even with a decent design, and this aircraft firmly does not have what it takes. No orders by KEA firmly recommended. Design remedies suggested, though doubt has been cast over their eventual effects.

I thought we established that wide engine placement is a bad idea.

Funny thing, since I actually skipped over it when looking for a plane to review, and went signed on to whatever your other plane was after that. --- Also, notice to everyone, I might take a break from KSP for a bit since a file handling error ended up deleting/losing my entire SPH folder, which makes me really salty. I managed to recover a lot of it, but much of the new things I did in KSP 1.4 are kinda gone.

Well, I found out why I can't fully load craft. File recovery couldn't recover the craft files fully intact. So... yeah. Just an update. So something happened when something was reading the SPH folder and tried to load it all. Maybe something in KSP itself, not sure. In any case, I'm in the process of trying to see if there's any other way to recover those craft files fully. They weren't really deleted, per se, but again, just more of 'lost'.

I was working on a creative rule-breaker for one of the rules, but yours went a step further than my method. That said, mine might actually be more viable as a sales product than a novelty piece lol.

No, since the game didn't actually crash. Actually, something weird now. I uninstalled and reinstalled Craft History, but now it can't load the full craft list, so maybe I actually broke something in KSP or my computer did something weird. I'll keep looking into the problem and report back when I'm able to load all my crafts again, and whatever solution that takes.

Just here to report in with a... bad happenings with Craft History. It managed to glitch up while loading up my SPH folder... which consequently caused the entire SPH folder to be lost. Just bam, gone, and then was replaced by a fresh, empty SPH folder. Fortunately, I managed to recover most of my crafts and subsequent directories with crafts (everything except what I did in the past two days, which fortunately either isn't much, or was uploaded to KerbalX) with a data recovery tool, but... would be nice if Craft History's method of loading craft was a little more foolproofed against this kind of thing...

I like how it's pretty much a 747.

Alien spacecraft-looking is something Twin Crown Aerospace admits the GAC-Group does well... But we forgot to mention that this one feels more like a sky whale. --- I fortunately didn't have magical spontaneous SAM problems with this plane, even during hard maneuvering. Just when landing. Well, my plan was actually to go through and do two of some of the older ones from each category, and which was originally whichever two oldest ones of a class from this new thread, but I seem to have forgotten that rule when I signed on for medium jet reviews. But in general, I choose to do older ones out of fairness. Then after finishing this whole two-per business, I'd leave my second wave of aircraft designs, then take a break for a while. In a way, this whole stint was a bit of a courtesy gesture before I throw more planes onto a backlog. As well as the fact that Air Superiority Competition went on break, so I had free KSP time to do this in the first place... But who knows, maybe your aircraft will still be on the list by the time I decide to do more reviews?...

The oldest on the list of medium regional jets is... Test Pilot Review: @ZLM-Master's GAC Passenger M38 The M38 in the only place where it wants to be... Figures as Tested (M38, 72 passengers max): Price: 64,856,000 (empty) Fuel: 5260 kallons Cruising speed: measured at 262m/s Cruising altitude: 8,600m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.31kal/s Range: 4,335km (as calculated) KPPM: 0.027 Review Notes: Twin Crown Aerospace has a bit of a history with the group of companies this aircraft has been manufactured by, and had decent expectations in terms of design. Of course, much of the impressions came from the Military Applications Division and not the Commercial Division, but the MAD guys seemed to have passed on the sentiments to the ComD engineers. Such impressions included expectations of an intriguing yet well-performing design, with smart consideration put to most aspects of the aircraft... while also having a few flaws to poke at. Initial impressions as our engineers took a walk around Greene Aerospace Companie's M38 on the tarmac were mixed into two categories: very good and concerning. The design appeared to be very suited for comfortable ranged flight, featuring various modern design aspects. We did think that two Goliath engines were overkill for a medium regional jet liner. The large wing area was achieved through a lot of separate sections welded together, which would be the projected largest cost of maintenance on this aircraft. Concern was also had over yaw stability with the fairly small-looking vertical stabilizer. Also, right away, it was easily declared: STEERING CAPABILITIES: NONE. We don't know why GAC chose to use large landing gear on the rear, when a medium landing gear would have sufficed to give it a taildragger configuration with steering, but these were the prototypes we were given. Up came the flight test, where we felt generally confident in its flight capabilities. Manufacturer stated takeoff speed though is 76m/s, which is a quite high speed for an aircraft of this class. But as our test pilot went down the runway, it turns out that this stated speed was, in fact, the M38's takeoff speed, with wheels-up at 77-80m/s. Takeoff distance, however, was quite short, with the powerful Goliaths easily shoving this aircraft along. This was achieved as instructed by the manufacturer, with flaps down. We later discovered there were hidden flaps hidden in the leading edge of the wing too, where the engine is... Climb up to cruise altitude was fairly quick and easy, flying up at around 25 degrees as recommended. General maneuverability seemed promising, with the aircraft cooperative both under manual control and SAS. The recommended cruise altitude is quite high: 8400m to 8800m. We settled for the middle at 8600m. On the way up, though, we noticed that the control surfaces were allowed mixed inputs- deliberately. The ailerons were also allowed to contribute to pitch, but were deactivated for yaw. The elevator, similarly, was actually a taileron. We thought this was unnecessary and reprogrammed the surfaces for conventional flight inputs. ... And it turns out, the manufacturer knows their plane better than we do, because those mixed controls, at least for pitch control, were direly needed. Testing for cruise conditions, the aircraft requires significant pitch trim. With the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer alone, the M38 could not maintain level flight at 8600m. The amount of pitch trim required necessitated the assistance of the ailerons on the main wings. So we returned the flight computer back to manufacturer settings, and the plane was able to fly level at cruise altitude, with the significant pitch trim required- around 60-70% of maximum pitch capability. Finely trimming the aircraft was a little tricky, but we were able to get it mostly stable after a bit of careful trim setting. The aircraft flew fairly level during cruise, and so we began testing cruise parameters. It was discovered that the M38 flew faster than stated at the specified burn rate of 0.31kal/s; 262m/s. Using this speed and TCA's stricter fuel calculations, we came up with a range of about 4,335km. We're not really sure how GAC came up with 9,000km range as stated on their specifications, but nonetheless, 4,335km is still very good range. As for cabin comfort, the large engines can produce hefty noise and vibrations. Their mounting distance was not very far from the cabins, but it was mounted underneath the wing. So vibrations were felt as was noise, but noise was reduced due to the under-wing placement. Overall, we thought that passenger comfort was fair, but still potentially noisy due to engine proximity. With cruise testing done, we went headed back to the test site, then into the next testing phase, which those familiar with TCA's testing process, should know what it is. Engine failure testing! We simulated a starboard engine failure. ... We were very surprised at the results, which was a very good response from the aircraft, stabilizing very quickly. It remained very stable and able to maneuver, fairly minimally affected by asymmetric thrust torque. We were especially surprised at this due to the relatively small vertical stabilizer and rudder, which were enough to compensate for a single engine loss. Especially notable due to the high thrust of the Goliath engine. So, while close-together placement of the Goliaths aren't too conducive to passenger comfort, they are very good for passenger safety. We then simulated a complete propulsion failure. Again, it's still stable and able to maneuver thanks to the many control surfaces. However, it now shows its weakness in pitch control. The M38 glides fine, but not for a long distance due to its natural pitch-down tendency, so it requires pitch-up input which bleeds speed. Stall speed seemed fairly low though, around 50m/s before the aircraft is unable to maintain a level attitude. The engines were restarted and our test pilot flew around for a bit, testing various maneuverability and stability aspects. Overall, we feel that, as setup, the M38 performs well in most regards. However, pitch control was rated as 'adequate', which is fine, but there was also sometimes the feeling of wanting a little more pitch ability. Our pilot was then directed to land, which we found to be possible at a lower speed than the manufacturer recommended 71m/s. A fairly decent touchdown was expected at around 50m/s... ... and then the aircraft exploded as the landing gear touched down. Our pilot was able to perform an extremely quick, low-altitude bailout. Injuries were sustained as she bounced along the ground, but is mostly fine. We pulled the second prototype out after that surprise incident- everything was going so well- to do the rest of the tests. We suspected that the aircraft's center of lift is still not optimal relative to its center of mass, which is why, despite still having some lift at low speeds, the pitch control can't maximize it. Therefore, we had concerns going into the water landing test. Results indicated that something is very wrong with how the wings are connected to the body, but that the fuselage makes for a very decent boat. So a water landing doesn't have a lot of room for error in the best conditions; a good landing will leave the completely intact fuselage happily floating away from the torn off wings. TCA's familiarity with the manufacturer's company groups allowed us to piece back together a prototype aircraft to have one last go at landing. This second landing attempt, we went in a little faster, probably more around the manufacturer-recommended 71m/s, just so we could maintain a slower descent rate. This time, the aircraft was actually able to be landed without spontaneously exploding... before its lack of steering caused it to veer off the runway, and destroy one of the Goliaths and maybe a few wing segments as it went off the side. Our engineers' notes for maintenance shows 63 parts, but 15 of those are navigation lights, so it's more like 48 parts, which is on the upper end for part count, but not overly high. Most of maintenance will come from checking the welds between wing segments as well as potential leaks from the various wing fuel tanks contained within, and the belly fuel tanks. Two Goliaths aren't really excessive in some terms, but may be considered so for a medium regional jet. It also has quite a lot of moving control surfaces with multiple functions; a probable increase in maintenance as well, since it very much relies on all or most of them functioning properly. The Verdict: This plane is a very well-performing flier. It doesn't like the ground very much, especially coming down. Ground performance isn't that great. But it can probably be solved by simply replacing the rear large landing gear with a medium landing gear. This will solve both the steering problem and, with proper placement, pitch the aircraft up more in a more traditional taildragger layout, which will lower the takeoff speed to the sub-60m/s. As for exploding upon landing... we're not really sure. Maybe adjust the spring and damper rates on the main gear? It's a very hazardous flaw though, having the aircraft explode if descent rate was just a little too fast for it, but which other aircraft would easily survive. But we also suspect a lot of the problems stem from the main wings being stressed due to all the components it supports, then also having to support the impact of landing on the main gears. But in the air? We can only recommend one fix (which we're not sure if GAC has already looked into it), which is adjusting the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizers to push the center of lift up if possible, which would help give the plane more pitch authority. Other than this, it flies very well. Passenger comfort is average. We can't recommend this aircraft to KEA in its current form, but KEA should be open to order options after its major ground-related issues have been remedied. While the starting price is a little steep for passenger capacity, its fuel economy could probably make up for it, and maintenance costs would probably be around average.

There's still Airplane Plus if you want props, but I don't know how they compare to SXT props.