CrazyJebGuy

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, prime example of extension done wrong.

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....)

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.

please help i build a huge massive plane for a challeng and it crashed the game, now the sph load screen does not show any vehicles, but i can still load from launchpad. (But now the really big plane) I am on Windows 7 64bit and am using KSP engineer redux, KAX and airplane plus. tyried reinstalling, didn't help.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Test Pilot Review: @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 Figures as Tested: Price: 16,111,000 Fuel: 360 kallons Cruising speed: 300 m/s Cruising altitude: 500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.18 kal/s Range: Who cares? It's gonna blow up! km Review Notes: One of the plane's "best features" is the impossibility of a jet powered turboprop. Another (unlisted) feature is a turboprop with only 8 passengers, again, it is impossible to meet the requirements. It boasts " Only 14 parts (or something like that) " , which is true. We expect virtually no maintenance. And when we found out about the third feature, our pilots all started running. Because it is " The ability for passengers (and the pilot) to bail out when you indefinitely crash ". We do not find it necessary to explain their reasons. The crashes, it seems, are actually inevitable. We almost scored a tail-strike right on takeoff, at 53m/s, which is not a bad takeoff speed, but which is a good segwey to this part of the review. It also pitches up with all the speed of continental drift. This has led to at least one accident. However we have no serious problems with yaw or roll. But you may be asking, how is the comfort? When you get on a death trap, you damn well want leather seats! Well, it's very good, until the plane starts moving. The two huge, inline jet engines flood your cabin with noise and vibrations, and when a bird hasn't hit it, the window is great. The pilot will also know exactly when you are doomed too, as his view is impeccable. On landing, we think that bit is irrelevant since we never expect to land it. The Verdict: All in all, the manueverability of a wounded 1300 ton kettle and generally exploding nature, along with very low passenger count, and bad comfort, we will not buy any. That being said, we will never need to pay any maintenance, due to the plane exploding after the first flight.

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

So it begins. How many CPUs are you gonna burn? BTW, qzgy what graphics mods do you use?

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

I will have a good look at it soon, but now I am a bit busy. Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The Skots VIII Squirrel It's the largest aeroplane in existence. (As far as this thread is concerned) It weighs 554 tonnes. It can go supersonic. It seats one thousand, four hundred and eighty-eight passengers. It has 645 parts, which luckily, are all very standardized. It has high speed wireless internet, and a range of 3800km flying at 190m/s 500m up. Or a range of 2800km at 315m/s. Or it can after-burn supersonic. Later tests reveal a longer range at 7500m and 210m/s. As far as takeoff is concerned, it gets to 110m/s, then just pull up, once only the rear wheels are still on the ground, you can pull up the gear and fly away. Landing is more complicated, since you can use the built in reverse engines and airbrakes to slow down rapidly, and also we may or may not have destroyed our own runway with the sheer weight of it. We recommend either a very strong runway, a very cheap one, or a big field. It costs a whoppingly low considering the passenger count price tag of $393,236,000 with fuel. Without fuel it's about $350,000,000. We recommend having fuel. That is (fueled) $264,289.65 per seat, which is incredibly low. It has good mileage too, perfect for the airline whom hates paying for petrol. We pulled off this feat of designing a truly spectacular jet, after months of failures when we tried sensible things. This time we tried just taking the Skots VI Ratt and adding as much stuff as we possibly could. Somehow it flies, but hey, we aren't complaining. Consider yourself one-upped, @NightshineRecorralis. It took a while, but I beat your 1152. Action groups: 1. Toggle afterburners 2. Toggle reverse thrust 3. Engines off 4. Engines on 5. Aileron Pitch Activate 6. Aileron Pitch Deactivate Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Skots-VIII-Squirrel May god have mercy on the reviewer's cpu.

I thought they basically copied FAR when they went from 0.90 to 1.0? I figured the drag was irrelevant, they just calculated the aircraft's drag as a whole. I know it would have happened 0.90 or earlier though. Edit: With developing my monster plane, so far I am at 612 tonnes, 643 parts, 1488 passengers. Anyone's guess where it'll stop, I'm currently just adding stuff until it's great.

But the price per seat becomes steadily as you have a higher cabin to other parts ratio, so if a cabin is expensive per passenger (like the Mk3, it is about 1.25mil/head) you cannot get lower than that in cost per seat using it. The best are the 1.25m ones, at 68,750 per head, I use them mainly (makes designing it a massive headache, the little things bend like there is no tomorrow) and when I compare my planes against say, NightShine's, (on some page there is a post I did of a 384, Night then posted a 384, and they offered roughly the same, except mine was half the cost, but higher part count for the same reason. Basically if designing: littler cabins are better value, (save the Mk2) but add more maintenance and need cleverer design to hold a large plane Oglethorpe. Yes I meant together, I misspell it and i accidentally clicked the wrong spell check recommendation. Decided to leave it.

Having fought with the maker of the plane, before I make the review I feel obliged to add this disclaimer: I am treating his plane fairly, having forgotten our quarrel. I kind of expect it to be a good plane. Test Pilot Review: @Blasty McBlastblast's Blasty Systems Fleet BS-16 Splashy Figures as Tested: Price: 15,853,000 Fuel: 280 kallons (400 max) Cruising speed: 155 m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.09 kal/s Range: 482 km (688km) Review Notes: We got this plane, not entirely sure what to expect, it looked well engineered and it showed promise, so we wasted no time getting it tested. The first test was, the plane being a seaplane, if it could land and take off from water. It absolutely can. It takes off quickly, and the reversible engines mean it can land just as quickly. It unsticks at 56m/s and climbs reasonably well into the sky. In the air, it pitches slowly, rolls slowly, and yaws slowly. It maneuvers safely, but does it slowly. The engines, being very near the cabins, cause a good deal of vibration and noise, the view can hardly be faulted, and it has very good wireless. It's a safe plane, a little on the slow side, but it's safe. We also can't pull high G turns, so the passengers might thank us for that. The range with the recommended fuel load was found to be lacking, and with a full fuel load it barely makes the requirement, and then it struggles to take off of water, we were unable to get it off. We could not build up any serious speed due to the pontoons on the wing ends taking turns to splash into the water and impede the plane's progress, while also turning it violently. On the economy of it, for 16 passengers it is a little on the expensive side, with two piston engines and a part count of 39, the purchase cost is fairly low though. We don't expect an excessive amount of maintenance, but it still will not be cheap, especially compared to it's passenger count. The Verdict: This whole plane has one, very consistent theme: one of not good, but not bad. Nothing in particular can be especially faulted, and likewise there is nothing especially to recommend it. With the exception of range, and price, the range is bad, the price is good. With so many alternatives available, some of which beat it on nearly every requirement for only a little more, we simply can't justify buying any, even for a niche route, because this plane has no singular good quality to make itself appeal to any particular route.

I don't see how I can improve the looks all that much, I personally think it looks great. I will still have a look, try to improve a couple things though. If you want to see great handling though, try @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1, that thing manuevers like a dream. Better than my own thing, and it can act as a seaplane too. Only bad thing is the range, I think he should submit a better one. Currently I am trying to get the huge plane thing going again, I have been trying for a while to build something really big, and I ahve been failing. But I have a scret weapon: I will extend the Skots Ratt! So far I'm up to 1,272 passengers.

Yeah, but an increased range would be nice. I would suggest getting rid of the empty box between the cokcpit and cabins, you could put fuel there and double the range.

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman'S WCT IH-1 Figures as Tested: Price: 18,435,000 (dry) Fuel: 200 kallons Cruising speed: 126 m/s (185) Cruising altitude: 1300 m (1500) Fuel burn rate: 0.08 kal/s (0.33) Range: 286 km (114) Review Notes: This thing flies wonderfully, we couldn't be happier with it's handling. We may or may not have flown until it ran out of fuel... which happens far too soon. With only 200 kallons and some thirsty engines, the taste of pilot's heaven doesn't last. It can lift off at an impressive 35m/s on a tiny amount of runway. Unfortunately it has a spectacularly bad range. We managed to get it to 286km on very low throttle, but at a speed of only 126m/s. The very powerful engines and low take off speed togetyhor mean that not only can it ditch in water, but it can take off from it far better than most seaplanes can. On landings it can kill speed very fast due to very good acceleration and reverse thrust. It can climb straight up into the air, 90 degrees. The views are good but the sound is not. Tail-strikes are very hard to achieve, and overall it's a safe aeroplane. It has 37 parts, so high maintenance, oddly all the tail control surfaces are doubled up, two rudders look like one slightly longer one. But it is cheap. The Verdict: It simply has too short of a range to buy in bulk. We'll buy 8, with options of 27 more if the range is increased. Not including Jebediah's personal one.

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef's KnoefCo Lassen Series Figures as Tested: Lassen Price: 28,788,000 (dry) Fuel: 2,180 kallons Cruising speed: 285 m/s Cruising altitude: 5,600 m Fuel burn rate: 0.2 kal/s Range: 3,106 km Passengers: 80 Review Notes: Lassen With all the tail-strikes we have had lately, our engineers look very quickly to see potential tail strikers. In this case, they were concerned, until they spotted the steel beams mounted underneath the plane. We think it is a very clever solution, very cheap, and effective. In the sky it handles nicely, it is not too strong nor too weak on any control but roll, roll is a little over-powered, but still quite usable. It can water ditch safely. On cruise we found the range to be greater than advertised, by 400km. It can lift off at 60m/s fairly smoothly, and land pretty smoothly. This is over-all, a fairly easy aircraft to fly, despite not being so standard construction. The air brakes and reverse thrusters mean it can slow quickly. We like that pilot training will be very cheap, after all some of our pilots really need it. Comfort wise it is a bit of a mixed bag, some seats have no view due to the wings, and a couple have a jet engine right behind them. The forward seats have it very good. In terms of maintenance, we think the 45 parts is pretty reasonable, none of them are particularly high maintenance either. The 80 passengers makes up for this very well, and the fairly low price tag bodes well for it. Figures as Tested: Lassen Supersonic B Price: 31,588,000 (dry) Fuel: 2,180 kallons Cruising speed: 1160 m/s Cruising altitude: 18 km Fuel burn rate: 2/3 kal/s Range: 3,500 km Passengers: 80 Review Notes Lassen Supersonic B Next up is the supersonic variant, some-one at KnoefCo thought "Hey, why not bolt two large jets onto the back?" and some-one else said "That's a stupid idea!". But they were wrong, because it was a great idea. At low altitudes, it behaves pretty much like the base model, but faster. It takes a little while to get up to height and speed, but once in cruising at 1160m/s, it has an impressive range of 3500 km, carrying 80 passengers, with a KPPM of 0.013, which is quite good. The main difference apart from this is that it needs a longer runway to land, seeing as the supersonic variant has non-reversible engines. Review Notes Lassen Supersonic A In their own words, the A variant is the one where they "decided to just grab a chainsaw and start removing parts of the B variant planes until we got closer to the demands", and they did very clean cuts with the chainsaw. It is slightly cheaper, but not much, while having slightly more than half the passenger capacity. It performs very similarly to the Lassen-B, so much so in fact we won't bother saying how much it differs. It is just the B, but someone pulled off some stuff and it's a little cheaper. The Verdict: We like the series, we question why we would buy the A variant, it having a massive reduction in capacity while only a minor reduction in price, so we won't buy any of them. We decided that since the stock Lassen is better on shorter runways, that we will guy 9, and of the supersonic we will buy 30, because for only a little bit more we can get an 80 passenger high performance supersonic jet with a long range and good fuel economy.