CrazyJebGuy

Sorry, I misread.

It doesn't. You can test with FAR, if you want, but it's not a good idea, since the planes will be tested in stock aero. As for electric propellers? I don't think it's part of airplane plus, or tweakscale, which are the only mods allowed*. *excluding mods that don't affect physics and don't add parts. You can make the plane with parts mods installed, but be careful not to let any of the wrong parts in on accident. (I have accidentally included several KAX parts)

I tried flying a bit slower but at 250, it was at about 90% throttle and slowing down. What graphics mods are you using?

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Habu Ind. Challenger Seaplane Figures as Tested: Price: 253,104,000 (wet) Fuel: 7315.2 kallons Cruising speed: 274 m/s Cruising altitude: 3900 m Fuel burn rate: 0.83kal/s Range: 2,415 km Passengers: 384 Review Notes: With the heavy flooding going on at the KSC, we decided now was a great time to test a seaplane! Specifically this, very large seaplane! It lifts off like a very much smaller aircraft, at only 51m/s! On water too it can land, and it can takeoff after a longish run. We then took off again, and climbed to the recommended altitude, where we got a speed of 274m/s, 24m/s higher than advertised, but a range of only 2415 km, which is below our requirements for Jumbo jets by 1,585 km, we are not impressed by this. It turns well enough by Jumbo standards, especially with flaps extended, it rolls fairly well and has good yaw authority. It's slow to bleed speed on landing, (we think due to the sheer mass of it compared to the brakes) but it can make an approach at very low speeds, so it is usable on smaller airfields. The pilots have very good views, if though high, so we don't expect landings to be dangerous. With comfort, two very large engines near the cabins do not improve it, they cause some noise at the rear ones, a few vibrations, except right at the back, where it is shake-shakey-Mc-this-must-be-some-kind-of-dance-town back there, with a massive engine bolted directly to the cabins. It is also not terribly economical, costing so much and having 126 parts, some of which have been modified to nonstandard size, making maintenance a bit complex. The Verdict: It's a little pricey, got a short range and not too great comfort, but we can excuse that and the high maintenance bills for the fact that it's big and can take off and land from water, it's a bit of a PR boost and it will service certain places well, like big mountainous cities with large lakes nearby. We'll buy 3, and we asked the army too, they think it'd make a great amphibious troop transport for organizing sea-board invasions, they plan to buy between 6 and 24. We don't really know though, because it's classified. (We suspect 12)

That was qiite good! A few small critiques, I think you meant taildragger, not tricycle. Also, I'd suggest putting only 1 empty line between paragraphs, but there are different styles to reviews, if there's some reason you do it, that's fine. The last one, I think in the picture you should crop out the UI, makes it look a bit better, you can just go print screen, then paste right into MS Paint. (Assuming you're on Windows) Edit: The reason it got a longer range was because I tested at lower altitudes, I'll bet.

Yeah, I would appreciate that. If you want one to practice on, you can review a GAI Turbo XL, I posted it a while back, and it is already reviewed, but it is good practice, since it flies ok, but is odd enough. It's link is here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3199416 Or you can just review some. BS-24 and BS-32 Turbo are on page 21, I would review them myself but I don't want an entire line of planes reviewed by one guy. (I am the only reviewer doing anything page 20 or later. I think) Currently the backlog stretches back to page 8 or 9, but those were mega-pages, good news is pages 10 to 20 have hardly any submissions. Probably less than page 8, if you put all those pages together. PM me or panzerknoef if you need a link to the judging sheet.

They deserve a category of their own, you can see the 1488 one I built back on page 27, after building so big, suddenly anything less than 500 is tiny. Your craft would be classed as a Jumbo BTW, highest class it fits in. (Like some flying boats aren't in the seaplane category, they are big enough to be regional jets)

Yeas, several. There are 16 waiting, including some fricking huge ones. (In passenger count: 384, 800, 1152, 1488)

What mods are you using for the wings? As a reminder the only mods allowed are AirplanePlus, and tweakscale. (Along with mods like engineer mods which don't affect physics or parts) Where's the download link?

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo CL-2-RRE ( & L) Figures as Tested: Price: 13,730 wet Fuel: 400 kallons Cruising speed: 163 m/s Cruising altitude: 2200 m Fuel burn rate: 0.04 kal/s Range: 1,636 km Review Notes: It's a small turboprop, with not much odd except the pusher engines. It accelerates very quickly, although it has to get up to 60m/s to unstick. The review states it is not taped togethor, and that is true, it's put together using blue tack and staples; the plane is strong enough though so nobody would know unless we told them. It hardly flexes in flight, and it can climb well. We found the last part odd since it tops out at such a low speed, it flies on full throttle. The engines make it accelerate like a supersonic plane, so we did not expect such a low top speed, especially with the engines going full tilt. Our engineers say something about "not being optimized for high speed" with the engines thrust falling off dramatically at higher speeds. With comfort, two prop engines are a bit noisy, although the blue tack construction stops most vibrations; the views are good. The reversable engines are welcomed by pilots on landing, it can land very quickly. And with 28 parts, maintenance is a bit on the cheap side. The "L" variant is bigger, and upon testing we found to be just as fast, but can suffer from tailstrikes, while costing an extra 800k, and slightly higher part count. The Verdict: The L version is unsafe, and considering it's pretty close to the normal one we'll buy 2, but the normal one, it's cheap and efficient; we'll buy 12 CL-2-RREs for mid range turboprop lines.

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo Dotsero-EC Figures as Tested: Price: 18,000,000 wet Fuel: 760 kallons Cruising speed: 1055 m/s Cruising altitude: 21500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.17 kal/s Range: 4000 km Review Notes: The EC is the Dotsero, but cheaper. Some problems persist, like the problem of tailstrikes of a pilot isn't paying attention. Due to the cost cutting, there was weight cutting, and due to this weight cutting, there was a performance boost. Another persistent problem is that if it climbs up too slowly, (even at Mach 1!) it is unable to accelerate the cruising height. The lighter frame comes with much less fuel load, and so the range is still great, but reduced from the stupendous levels of the Dotsero. Also like the original, it struggles to turn at high altitudes. The EC, we think, stands for "Extra Cheap", and it is cheaper, in upfront costs by about a quarter, and in maintenance and fuel. The part count is lowered to 28, after removing a couple of struts that went no-where and we are mostly sure are unimportant, so, very low maintenance by supersonic standards. The Verdict: It's cheaper, shorter range, and that's about the only differences from the regular model, we'd like to buy 12.

With all these reviews, it's hard to keep up as judges. Submit if you want, just please try and make the submission worth the time. (So either really good, or, a really bad aircraft can get an entertaining review!)

Yes you would, because 767s are larger and cheaper per seat, the airlines don't use them purely because they are larger, they use them because they are more economical, and the planes are big enough that they are only economical if mostly full, so they only operate on the busier days. And a plane not waiting for passengers, surely you would want several smaller planes rather than one larger one, (all else equal) because several small ones depart more frequently, when you arrive at the airport, if a plane leaves hourly, you never have to wait more than an hour (assuming it has space for you) but a once a day plane, you could miss it and have to come back tomorrow, or you get get there several hours earlier.

Yes supersonic maintenance can cost mroe than a plane costs, but some planes have very different part count to cost rations, and with a very low one it becomes less important. I would maintain them by buying ones that are cheaper per seat, some fo the extra profit can be used to maintain them. I thouyght by turn-around time you meant the time between when a plane lands from one trip and departs on another. Am I mistakjen?

I do see your point about turnaround time, but smaller planes can be more flexibly allocated, and yeah, maybe maintenance is the main cost for a 30mill jet, but this one has a price tag relatively higher than it's part count, again, just the nature of larger planes. The maintenance is about ratios. My central point still remains though: why buy this one? Why buy 4 of it? I can see a few reasons now, and I'd agree to buying 2-3 if it would last 30-40 years, because it has a high initial price tag, and comparatively few passengers. (BTW, what is the passenger count? I have been guessing ~100.) That said, it can make a lot of trips. A plane that costs 300k per seat will, all else being equal, pay off 4 times faster than a plane that is 1.2m per seat, and so we can afford more, since they pay off sooner. It's still a massive amount of money to part with, and I'm skeptical given we already have a significant fleet of this sort of plane that there isn't one going on the route the hurried businessman would fly, but I suppose we could rent them out to large corporations, and even then, turnaround time is not important to hurried businessmen, since a lot of that will be cleaning off the seats and so on. Our hypothetical businessman, only cares about how fast it goes, how long it takes to load, and how long it takes to off-load. He doesn't care if the time between flights is an hour or a month. Econmomics dictate we can have multiple smaller ones, for each smaller one normally we could afford just initially, because the price per seat is better, they have less of an initial financial hole relative their revenue. (Passenger count) So we could have 10 of plane X, based on up front cost, but hypothetical plane X has half the cost per seat, so we can afford 15 or 20.

I was a bit worried about the last plane being ordered two, but given it is so luxurious, even if it costs a crazy amount, I can see the logic behind that, and I kind of agree. But this one getting 4? That is madness, as there are plenty of faster planes, all with a comparatively miniscule price tag. When I decide how many to buy (maybe know thid if you are designing) I at least consider "is it better than most other planes?" if it's sort of average, or worse but has a neiche feature, I'll buy a few. But if it gets a bit better, it suddenly gets a lot more buys. Buying 4 of them for a role like that is silly, when we could have bought dozens of smaller planes that all do that role better.

But other planes do what you bought that one to do, cheaper, faster, and more comfortably. It's a billion funds! We could easily get 20 smaller planes for that! Smaller planes, yeah you can buy a few for a neiche and no-body cares too much, but we could buy a small nation for the amount you just spent!

four of them? four? This seems a bit much to me, especially considering the price tag, and the fact that other jets do go faster, and with a longer range, and do it for a fraction of the cost. I've tested one such plane, I forget which one, but I do know my own Skots Speedmaster does about 1400m/s, and can circle kerbin twice over, all while not making people need sign language to communicate.

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo Aerospace Dotsero Figures as Tested: Price: 22,658,800 Fuel: 1,960 kallons Cruising speed: 1,090 m/s Cruising altitude: 20 km Fuel burn rate: 0.28 kal/s Range: 7,630 km Review Notes: Straight away, we noticed that the Dotsero is connected with top and bottom, by a bi coupler on it's side. An interesting choice, they also put a solid steel beam at the bottom to absorb the force of any tailstrikes, it is a cheap and simple solution, and on top they mounted an airbrake. Although the beam is not always reliable, it is still easy to score a tailstrike, and buy just pulling up on takeoff continuously, it is almost guaranteed. It does not especially impress us, and we really think the beam should have been mounted further back, or the gear, and it might have prevented many tailstrikes destroying the big expensive engine. Although if it does, the plane, to it's credit, can glide very well and can make a safe landing easily. It takes off at a fairly average 52m/s, and accelerates a bit slowly too, even though the engine is powerful, the plane is heavy. In the sky, if it climbs to the proper altitude and arrives at less than about 700-800m/s it needs too high of an AoA, and it cannot accelerate. And also, we pulled a hard turn at speed, it didn't work well. The plane turns, badly, at full speed and height, and bleeds speed and altitude rapidly, and it can't get back to level flight until it has fallen really quite a long way. Although for planes of the category, that sort of thing is hardly unique, and it generally is irrelevant, as the planes turn to the correct direction while accelerating. This plane does though, take longer to accelerate, but we can't really complain if it is priced at just 22 million. With such a low price point, we are well willing to forgive it some vices. The comfort, being not especially good, and not especially bad. The views are, well some people love it and some people don't. But the vibrations? There are a fair few, although hardly any noise. And last, the maintenance. 34 parts, fairly low for a supersonic. The Verdict: It's a decent supersonic craft, at a fair price, and a spectacular range. We would like to purchase 20, with options of 12 more, for high speed very long distance routes. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I actually copied this plane a bit to make the Comet, except I didn't remember quite right and so mine is a larger, upside down version with totally different wings. Sorry for also taking so long to review stuff lately, life has been getting in the way.

After seeing the success of our old floatplane designs, we went away for a while and designed this masterpiece! The GAI K-64/83 is a new, innovative design, trying to repeat everything that made earlier models great, and then add some neat stuff. Like a passenger count of 65! Assuming one can sit next to the pilot, if you do that we have an easy switch to disable the co-pilot controls. Or you could be normal, and have a co-pilot instead. But by far, the most innovative, new thing this plane has, is a frontal wheesly! One engine would provide insufficient thrust, and so we had the idea of mounting one backwards, on the front, and simply running it backwards. It throws a lot of exhausty steam stuff out the front like it's pushing in the other direction, and it does this.... um... to, err..... I don't know! I work in marketing! Ask an engineer! As for flying, it's a plane so apparently that is important, yeah it can fly. The engineers told me to put this in: Recommended modes of operation: -3300m, 2/3 throttle at 215m/s gives a range of 2200km -700m, full throttle, gives a range of 1400km at 315m/s Price: $28,494,000 dry, that's right, all this for sub 30 million.

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57D Tern Figures as Tested: Price: 27,959,000 dry Fuel: 390 kallons Cruising speed: 205 m/s Cruising altitude: 6000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.1 kal/s Range: 800 km Review Notes: Since the previous Tern versions were well enough liked, we thought we'd have a look at this sea-plane. As a common theme, the inclusion of unusual things, this time a solar panel and a probe core. We discovered the deplorable solar panel doesn't work very well in flight, and when not in flight, electricity usually isn't a problem on planes. It takes off fine, and can land on water and take off fine, but the engine is a but underpowered, as it now has to lift the equivalent of a Tern, with pontoons strapped to the bottom. It lacks much fuel, and it cruises a good deal slower than the other Tern lineup. In the air it is much slower than previous Tern planes, and has a greatly reduced range of just 800km. The maneuverability is still good, but the performance is noticeably worse. On landing, the flaps and reversible engine mean it can land very quickly, which we like. Again with comfort, it's very much like the original versions, vibrations, some noise, and great views. With maintenance, at 57 parts it is very high for a plane with only 32 passengers. The Verdict: While we liked previous Tern planes, this one is a bit of a let-down. It's a bit costly to buy, very costly to maintain, and now it is slower and has a low range. In short, it sacrificed everything that made previous Terns good, for the ability to take off from water. It is a bit disappointing, and considering that there are far better floatplanes available, we won't be buying any.

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57B Tern Figures as Tested: Price: 23,369,000 Fuel: 490 kallons Cruising speed: 302 m/s Cruising altitude: 5 km Fuel burn rate: 0.11 kal/s Range: 1345 km Review Notes: This is essentially a larger version of the A just reviewed, and they included a probe core, we don't quite know the purpose, but at least one engineer has been caught using it to mine crypto currencies. Anyway, it takes off at a good speed of just 47m/s, and maneuvers quite well. Actually the probe core does let it fly completely autonomously, but for legal reasons we can't, and we had to disable it for fear of it being hacked. It does not accelerate very fast, but it does top out at an impressive 302m/s at 5000m, and the range can be increased to 1708 km by flying on two thirds throttle, at 244m/s. This is quite good, and we have not a single complaint about performance. The comfort, there are some vibrations caused by an inline engines, but these are only an issue at the back. The views are good all round and on landing the reverse engine and flaps can slow it rapidly it has two sets of deploy-able flaps by the way, on the theta wing design there is a set on the front and a set on the back. Over at maintenance, it is fairly high with 45 parts, but it won't break the bank. The initial cost is reasonable too, but we think it could be reduced significantly by the removal of the probe core. The Verdict: It's a good plane. Fast and manueverable, reasonably cheap and with reasonable comfort, we see no reason not to buy some. We'll buy 10, for medium range general purpose routes.

Here is a few tips: (Saying them because I didn't know them) -Try to only use the Mk.1 cabins, because they are much, much cheaper per passenger -Make sure the landing gear won't harm the plane, so, try and have some clearance between the plane and the ground, and make it hard to whack the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing

Test Pilot Review: @Haruspex's Roley & Ferbur Kerman's Design Emporium K-57A Tern Figures as Tested: Price: 20,359,000 dry Fuel: 390 kallons Cruising speed: 300 m/s Cruising altitude: 6000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.1 kal/s Range: 1170 km Review Notes: Due to the absurdly long company name, we will refer to it as Roley & Ferburs, so we do not go broke buying ink. The plane also takes off in a shorter space than the company name can be written, it accelerates decently and lifts off at 46m/s. It can ditch, but not take off. We tested this thoroughly, having confused it for it's seaplane K-57D variant. In the air, it handles nicely, but for some reason every maneuver involving pitch always rolls it a little bit to the right, we have no clue why. The wing design greatly interested the engineers, and we had difficulty getting the plane away from them. On comfort, an inline engine mounted without much space between it and the cabins will produce vibrations and some noise, but the views are very nice. In the air the reverse thruster lets it stop quickly, and landings are no big issue. The range is on the low end for this type, but is by no means bad, and travelling at such a speed makes up for it. We're sure we could squeeze out extra miles if we really wanted too. The battery was appreciated by some passengers, and the plane's cockpit has a very good view. The maintenance is medium highish, with 38 parts. The cost is slightly above average for a plane like this, but it is well within the normal range. The Verdict: A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit. But we still like it enough that we'll buy 14, with options for 7 more.

Am I perhaps not official enough? I'm literally in the challenge description as official judge. By user and semi-official I think he means TaRebelSheep as user, and I as the semi-official. I think by this point I would be official if OP hadn't vanished. I do really try to put the effort into reviews, somebody put their time and effort in creating the thing, I'll put mine in to reviewing it.