CrazyJebGuy

I did it so quick because I was already doing it when you posted the other thing. I ddin't get it around Kerbin twice, I just calculated the range and that's enough to get it around Kerbin twice. There are tricks to getting off of water.

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Perbro Aerospace Zoomer Figures as Tested: Price: 29,580,000 fueled Fuel: 1800 kallons Cruising speed: 1,042 m/s Cruising altitude: 20,000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s Range: 7,900 km Review Notes: This plane is a very old entry, it is the third oldest entry still not reviewed, and the first oldest isn't even a proper aircraft, and the second is just a Skots Small fitted with tiny wing pontoons and called a seaplane. When we flew it, the first thing we noticed was it's incredible acceleration, the massive engines can propell this thing to 8 thousand meters climbing at 880m/s in well under 50 seconds. It's top speed is reached on pretty low throttle, we couldn't get it down to the claimed 1/6, but we could get to 3/15 with slightly slower speed, but it is still impressive. It claims it is the company's first plane that can circumnavigate Kerbin, we our calculations say this is wrong, it can do it twice without refueling. Which, is very, very good! In the last review I had just sung the praises to an aircraft with 2,000km shorter. And this aeroplane does it at over 4 times the speed. Up at 20km, it manuevers terribly, but so does every other plane. For pretty simple reasons, to turn 90 degrees you need a much larger change of velocity at 1000mph* than at 100, and up there the air is very thin, so you need to whack a lot more of it to change velocity. In other words, you need to do more turning, and your worse at it. So we give it a pass here. At lower altitudes, it doesn't have that excuse, but it doesn't need it. Except on the yaw axis, that's very weak. But pitch and roll are strong, roll a bit too strong even, some pilots had trouble adjusting to such a powerful roll. It's not great on comfort however, as the engines are mounted inline and very close to the cabins, vibrations are an issue, but the side cabins have some built in suspension and drinks, so it's okay, since in flight the engines are on low throttle, so it isn't a big issue, except on takeoff and whenever the pilot really needs speed. We do think highly of the lowly cost, being under 30 million for a supersonic like this, it's quite good, how the engineers did so much with so little. It can even land on water, and take off again! It can't do it normally, it has to build up some speed, duck under the water and then come out at a crazy angle so the engines can just brute power the thing away. We like the maintenance costs of merely 29 parts, it's very cheap. At this point, I will just say that the Island hopper is exactly the same plane but they added air-brakes and parachutes. The maintenance is a bit higher and it costs 32,040,000. We like the additional stopping power. *true of any speed unit - mph is there because it's nice to say The Verdict: It's a great supersonic plane, a bit uncomfy, but otherwise very good, and such a huge range means we can't turn it down, especially for the price. We'll buy 32 normal planes, and 17 of the Island Hopper variant. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3205406

Is it the KB-90 slipstream? If so, we have that on our records and it will be reviewed eventually.

me too - please, which plane did you think we forgot?

Which plane else? We may have missed it. The KB-90 is the only one on our list.

Your KB-90 Slipstream? No, it's not forgotten. We just have a huge backlog, some stretches back to page 9.

Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K32-200 Figures as Tested: Price: 58,010,000 wet Fuel: 4780 kallons Cruising speed: 231m/s Cruising altitude: 5000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.19 kal/s Range: 5,800 km (~3800 miles) Review Notes: This plane is a refinement of a previous plane, which had problems with manueverability. They aimed to fix those problems, and the result takes off at 56m/s, although it should be noted that it has difficulty taxiing, because the CoM is behind the rear landing gear, so it will sit on it's tail. On takeoff it rights itself at about 20m/s, although it is possible to take off while having not once put the frontal landing gear on the ground, it really is a landing gear, because it certainly isn't for takeoff. In the air, it behaves more or less as you would expect from a small regional jet, except it has a phenomenal range, it puts most jumbos and supersonic planes to shame. Any range that begins with a 5 is either really good or really bad, and this range certainly isn't bad. We were absolutely shocked, we calculated twice and got the same, very impressive answer, both times! Fkying with the throttle 3 notches off full, it is very efficient! Initially we wondered why they picked this engine, we absolutely see the point now! Very few planes can rival this one at range. Unfortunately they absolutely can rival it on comfort, having a massive engine stuck right behind your head for a several hour flight is not a common idea of comfort, and they can also easily compete on price, with the price tag of 58 mill for a 48 passenger plane being a hefty one. Although maintenance is very cheap, only 29 parts. The Verdict: London new Kork, a very long route, currently we only fly a few large supersonics and Jumbos, with this, we can introduce economy. The high purchase cost will be offset by the low maintenance, and the fact that there is a lot of demand for economy on the route, and not much serves it. We will buy 12 of these. Links: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3258063 https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3257312

I have been thinking, in reviews we should link to the original post, and we should always state the part count in the review.

By the way, can we just pretend really long ranges aren't moot? I mean, anything with a range over 1900km can go from any point on Kerbin to any other without running out of fuel, which is quite a lot of planes, and thus why the reason for requiring Jumbo Jets to have a range of 4000? Makes it more interesting, and I would quite like the developement race (like we had with low cost Jumbos, and big jumbos) to get very good ranges. Maybe say any range above 18000km is moot, that's about ten times better as currently.

It's ear-marked by Panzerknoef, I don't know what's keeping him but it doesn't seem he's doing anything. But you've waited a while, so if you submit a plane it'll be reviewed ASAP. Edit: If he doesn't do it in a fortnight I'll assume he wont ever, so I'll review it myself.

He's active, just sorta forgot this thread.

We don't really know eitherm our spreadsheet is only up to date to page 32, but that's fine since we aren't up to judging the thirties anyway.

I kinda knew there was one, meant to mention I thought I was mistaken at that. Do you know whose it is?

Test Pilot Review: @Thor Wotansen's Fægir Industries Nomad Figures as Tested: Price: 25,806,000 Fuel: 1000 kallons Cruising speed: 297 m/s Cruising altitude: 4100 m Fuel burn rate: 0.14 kal/s Range: 2100 km Review Notes: It promises to be a revolutionary STOL aircraft for small runways. We thought this might have been just marketing bluster, but then we went and took off as instructed, no. It's not marketing bluster, this thing takes off very quickly, in very short distances. It is very good at what it does. It does this with flaps, and very powerful engines. The pilot's view is very good, which is important on the sort of airfeild this plane aims to service. The Nomad accelerates very quickly after climbing very quickly, we were at cruising speed speed amd height in 2 minutes, which impressed us greatly. It has no small speed to accelerate to either, the thing flies at about 300m/s on 60% throttle, which is very good and well above our requirements. In the air, it maneuvers very nicely, and with a practiced pilot could be fitting of an airshow, the training costs will be minimal. In the event of being forced down, the Nomad performed admirably, and landed on the sea better than some sea-planes, and it can take off like a seaplane. So basically, this thing can take off and land anywhere except mountains and urban areas, which, as far as planes go, is really very good, we couldn't ask for better. When we went for landing, it's possible to land in an even shorter space than it is to take off. We are quite impressed. The passenger comfort, the rear ones have some sound, but the views are mostly good and there are almost no vibrations, it's pretty good here. It's fairly average on cost, a bit on the high side, but still pretty average, but it has 54 parts! The maintenance will be a bit expensive, but not overly so. The Verdict: It's very, very good, and extremely versatile. There is a lot of places that we can now service thanks to this thing, and so because no other planes can do it, it opens up a lot of possibility for profit, and so we'll buy 24.

No, we'll just end up adding more and more if we do this. I think the only excuse for a mod being included is that it has parts that fill a noticable hole stock. Like KAX's Mk 2 Tail boom. Also, since there seems to be no supersonic jumbo jet aeroplanes, I decided to make my own. GAI PRESENTS: THE GAI TUPOLEV It's a low cost way to transport 168 kerbals really far, as in we went and took it all the way round Kerbin, odometer read 6018 km, and it has just over a quarter of the tank left. It did it in 56 minutes. It has 110 parts and costs $142,908,000 fueled, so it won't break the bank. We suggest flying at 17-19km, full throttle. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Tupolov

To add more on what they have said, it's a very random process. I review mostly planes that aren't supersonic, I try to do at least one a day. I still think you should review the Sky Titanic since you recently reviewed the Habu Challenger, they were rivalled. Download link is broken. @Spudmeist3r Craft Download link gives a 401 error. @Cantdesignrockets

Inconsistency between reviewers. I'' bet if you were to only look at once guy's reviews they would be pretty consistent. Same reason range estimates differ so much.

I had a lot of fun writing this review. Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics Kessna T-140 Figures as Tested: Price: 8,609,000 wet Fuel: 100 kallons Cruising speed: 162.5 m/s Cruising altitude: 2800 m Fuel burn rate: 0.0157 kal/s Range: 1030 km Review Notes: We are still not entirely sure this is the right plane, in the advertisement it said Kessna T-140, we were shipped a Cessna T-170, which in the manual was called a Cessna K-170, and basically we are confused. So we will just review the aeroplane we got shipped, and we'll call it Dave, to prevent even more confusion should this turn put to actually be something else entirely. To kick off the actual review, Dave is a unique aeroplane. It is not really meant to fit any of our defined roles, it is sort of a go-anywhere seaplane tiny thing type deal, it was advertized as "a (very) light aircraft capable of carrying nine (9) passengers", to which end it weighs 4 tons, so we think it succeeded here. Where it didn't succeed, was the landing gear suspension. It makes it bounce when still on the runway to a ridiculous degree, it took us a long while to tweak it correctly. Now we would have gone and took off, but right before we just read that "Don't pull up too hard when taking off on land or you'll strike the tail and lose the back half of the plane, but if you do just give the remaining flaps pitch control and keep flying! who needs the back half of the plane anyways?" aloud, and well, Jebediah was in the cockpit before we could stop him. Yes, you can fly with half the plane. After adding the back half back on, we found that this plane can take off in an amazingly short distance, less than the length of most larger planes, and at speeds of sub 30m/s, which will make it wonderfully easy for new pilots! That combined with the cockpit that can seat two, and you have yourself a promising training aeroplane! We still have to test other things, but it looks to be very good at that. In the advertisement it said the engine automatically adjusts power to the load! And we can confirm, it does indeed! At cruising, the throttle doesn't matter much, because the engine will just throttle itself back to producing about 0.7 tons of force, and in climbing it revvs itself right up! Practically the only time we need to adjust throttle is on landing, again, great features for a training plane. It also, has very nice handling, it requires little trim to stay level, and accelerates quickly to it's (albeit slow) top speed. All the control axis are responsive, except yaw, which we thought was pretty weak. Due to the thrust to weight ratio, it can climb very quickly as well. The range is a lot better than advertized, we think this is because the manufacturer measured fuel usage to the nearest 0.01 kallons/second, so do we usually, but this plane's was so low rounding has a big effect, so we measured the engine directly, and got a more accurate measurement of range. Passenger comfort is not good, the view is spectacular, but it's mostly a bit loud and with a few vibrations, the engine is very clsoe to the cabins, but it is a small engine, so it cancels out a bit, still though, we have to recommend ear protection, and it won't fly in anything other than economy class. The pilot also have a good view. Flying at such low altitude, no pressurization is needed. Mountains are a non-issue though, because Dave can climb at 45 degrees to high enough to get over any mountain. We like the maintenance and cost of Dave, the up front cost is very low, although so is the passenger count, but with 23 parts the maintenance is nice and cheap. The Verdict: It's an excellent plane for training, it's safe, very cheap, handles well and has a dual seat. On top of that it can land on water, the only real drawback is the passenger capacity of 8 or 9 (depending on if a co-pilot is present) and the passenger comfort. We'll buy 53, as training aircraft that double as decent seaplanes when we don't need so many training planes. Edit: And 9 more to form a training school, if it goes well we will buy more. Original link: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3278794

Test Pilot Review: @Wanderfound's Kerbodyne Kerbski Figures as Tested: Price: 26,912,000 (wet) Fuel: 530 kallons Cruising speed: 309 m/s Cruising altitude: 3500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.14 kal/s Range: 1180 km Review Notes: It's a flying boat with a very powerful jet engine. We expected it to take off very quickly, and we were right, although the landing gear means the nose points down fairly steeply. Getting in was no issue due to the included ladders. Landing on water is, (as it should be, this is a seaplane!) easy and safe, taking off is also easy, except that at low speed the plane is very nose heavy, so on one occasion our pilot forgot to pull up immediately and caused the plane to double as a submarine, it was interesting, and mostly safe. It flipped the plane upside down though, and we had to send a rescue team. Still pilot error, we can't blame the plane. In the air, it's a very speedy plane, and can even go supersonic, although we don't think we'll do this often, since the range when it does this is very short. But in normal operation, it has a nice range. When we asked the passengers what they thought, they said "Half past Two". It was a bit loud, and a bit skakey due to huge engine right near them, although at top speed the sound is less of an issue. The views were very good though. It can slow down in flight quickly, and we liked the underwing "hydrofoils". It has 33 parts, so maintenance will be okay, although it is slightly on the costly side. The Verdict: It is undoubtedly a good plane, but at a bit of a high cost. We will buy 8 of them, for high speed flights between coastal villages. Original post on page 22

no strict time scale, but expect a while, there is a huge backlog in this thread.

I flipping hate the new textures. I don't know, am I just some stick in the mud? I hate so many "new" things.

I have never had any issues landing there, nor returning, and I don't think many people do. I can now land with great precision with a much smaller vessel, I massively over-engineered the first rockets. (If I hadn't lost the file I'd probably be flying it to Duna and back) A challenge would be something like doing it with only SRBs, or on a shoe string budget, or carrying 74 passengers or something.

Nobody can accuse me of stealing their ideas!

Ok, now It's my turn!

OK, kerbal chests are smaller, so maybe they can only breath to 12,000ft. (4,000m)