CrazyJebGuy

Yeah, your plane will be marked down a bit, but we'll still review it. Although some things can affect category, a plane will go into the highest category it fits into. For instance a plane with 32 passengers is a turbo-prop, but if it can exceed the sound barrier it gets bumped up to be a supersonic jet. If we do change the category, we'll mark it as that category.

Is this thread up to date? Am rginking of joining, but I want to know if there is a huge backlog of planes to be tested or something like that. (Like the KSP regional jet challenge)

What do you mean? Ah, whoops. Somehow I got it in my head that the cut off was 96.

Test Pilot Review: @FleshJeb's FleshJeb Studios Klonkorde Figures as Tested: Price: 68,710,000 (dry) Fuel: 1,560 kallons Cruising speed: 258 m/s Cruising altitude: 6.7 km Fuel burn rate: 0.2 kal/s Range: 2,017 km Passengers: 72 Review Notes: We will be honest, when we saw it we called them to check if the engine was supposed to be that big. We were surprised to hear our unit was not defective. At this point a certain test pilot saw it, and the huge engine, and we had a volunteer. (For reviewing some planes, we must force someone to volunteer.) This, main shock somewhat delayed our realization that it was far longer and far narrower than most planes.The designers at least get points for originality, and probably a test for drugs. It's takeoff speed caused some debate, because the front of the plane started flying way before the back part. There was considerable debate about this, with everyone choosing numbers between 67 and 85. At this point we noticed that it was a bit small for a medium regional jet, having only 72 passenger seats. It should really be classed as a small regional jet. But that is not a big issue. We don't really care. Also, it turns out the probe core included (why?) is a very powerful computer, and Jedediah's co-pilot spent the whole flight playing games with it. Now as we get to the bit about the flying, this plane handles pretty well. It's a bit nose heavy, but it's not a big issue. We then made standard measurements, range, speed, etc. But the range turned out to almost be the exact number of years since Kesus was borne, and we took it as a sign we should fly really high near Heaven. It didn't work very well, so we decided that was how Kesus told us we had the right height. Comfort inside the cabins were commendable, even though the engine is huge it sits well back of most cabins and is not overly annoying, and the cabins have good views. On landing, we found that it could slow right down pretty quick, although takes a long runway to take off. It can water ditch safely and without harm. With 50 parts, maintainance is middling, but not too bad. The main thing is the high up front costs, which make it hard to justify. We liked the landing gear design, the raised ones at the back to prevent tail strikes show the thought put into making this plane. It can be a taildragger or a tricycle, and not an easy tail striker. This is good. We feel we should mention our range calculation might be a little low, when testing it had gone 450km and burned two thirteenths of it's fuel, so that calculation says the range is closer to 3000km. The Verdict: Great plane, but not great for our wallet. It can do nearly Mach 1 at surface though, so we're buying 4 for medium range luxury flights.

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) Figures as Tested: Price: 34,119,000 (dry) Fuel: 2190 kallons Cruising speed: 251 m/s Cruising altitude: 1800 m Fuel burn rate: 0.21 kal/s Range: 2,620 km Passengers: 16 Review Notes: The Isometric is meant to be able to go where the infrastructure is bad, to take off on very short or low quality aerodromes. It can land on water, act as a boat even and land on dirt strips and the such. This plane is built for a niche. But does it suck? If I knew that now, what would be the point of the rest of the review? Unusually for an aircraft review, we come to the part about boating. It has a special little jet engine to go boating with. It can go fast, but it can't turn fast. We measured the turning circle to be about 3/4 of a kilometer. We were impressed it could be a boat, but not impressed by the turning. At low speed it is much better though. We know this because after accidentally pushing the red button to explosively decouple the landing gear, and revving to full speed, Jedediah jumped out and we had to go back for him. Only running him over twice with a boat. It takes off in very short runways, true, at low speed. It needs a bit more at sea, where the plane needs to dive and then come up again. We expected it to be far less hilarious. The plane dives a few meters down, comes up and must pitch up at some funny angle, it's slow and stalling, but after-burning jet engines just lift it into the air. If only it was on camera. We received no instruction on what altitude or speed to cruise at, and so we just made a guess. It was pretty fast, and had a long range. We're pleased. We also decided to land on a huge mountain. It went okay, except the tail struck and damaged the plane so we couldn't take off again. This a really common problem, even on good airfeilds it needs a lot of care not to damage the plane, and we would quite like it fixed. On comfort the plane has almost no views due to wings over engines, and the jets are very near the passengers. But if it's going to be operating outside of good airports and usual routes, we don't think it matters too much there. On maintenance, 45 parts is going to cost a bit, especially considering it carries so few passengers. It costs a fair bit too considering the passenger capacity. Oddly we found some oxidizer sitting in the tanks, we think this was a simple mistake. The Verdict: It is a really great plane, but it is let down by price. That would be forgivable, if not for the tail-strikes problem. We won't buy any, but if the tail striking problem is fixed we would be glad to buy a few. The Bush Variant Costing 31,112,000, the main difference I can see is they ditched the water jet and made the end wing pontoons smaller. We also won't be buying any until the tail strike issue is fixed, because it's an even worse problem for a plane designed to land in somewhat un-tamed areas.

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 Figures as Tested: Price: 9,957,000 (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: After testing it's bigger brother, the Kerbus K-350 and liking it quite a lot, we had some hope for this plane. On paper, it looks great. In the air? Well it can takeoff from small runways easily, having only a takeoff speed of about 45m/s. We found the speed to be, surprising. It's good. And considering the budget consists of a pack of peanuts, we were impressed. 300m/s for 10mil is a bargain. What is not a bargain, is the cockpit visibility. It comes with an in-built webcam, but this is crappy. We would expect better. On the water ditching test, we found it could (with a long run-up) take off again. A decent ranged plane that can be a substitute floatplane and go at 300m/s for only 10mil? At that point of testing, we were impressed. On land landing, it has no airbrakes or reverse thrust, but the flaps slow it quite a lot. We should say that tail strikes can happen if the pilot is not careful. Comfort is acceptable. There are a couple of jet engines quite close, small ones, but still. With 27 parts, maintenance is fairly cheap, and in general everything is cheap, and some bits are good. The Verdict: It's good at most everything, with bad visibility and okay comfort. We'll buy 20, since they are very cheap and versatile. (Being able to act as a seaplane impressed us greatly)

I was a bit surprised the range was so low, I tested myself and I just managed 811km at 100m off sea level.

Test Pilot Review: @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 Figures as Tested: Price: 50,671 (dry) Fuel: 2000 kallons Cruising speed: 1350 m/s Cruising altitude: 12 km Fuel burn rate: 1.87 kal/s Range: 1500 km Review Notes: Not seeing any pictures before it got delivered, we were very surprised by the flying wing design, massive elevons, relatively tiny rudder, general stubbiness, droop nose, and the fuel is mounted on the bottom of the plane. "U wot m8?" - Our engineer's written safety report concludes It takes off at a very good speed of about 40-50m/s, but the good stops there. On about 5 out of our seven flights, we had a tail strike. When we managed to get in the air, we found the plane to be appalling in all aspects but speed. Our first "successful" flight ended in the engines overheating at 4km altitude. Our second ended when at 12km up, we decided to turn. Roll is incredibly sensitive, and a small adjustment results in multiple barrel rolls. A high speed turn is also liable to destroy the plane, and in the wreckage somehow the passenger compartments survived. This, rather burny nature lead to the nickname of "Stumpster Dumpster Fire" among the pilots. The flight specs, are technically, up to snuff, barely. The range only meets it if you disregard you need lots of fuel to get up to cruising altitude. Another, relatively small issue is the passenger compartments are right next to two gigantic, very powerful, very loud and very shaking-aroundy jet engines. Ignoring the massive tail-strike and crashing issue, with only 30 parts it has very cheap maintenance. And it is reasonably priced for a supersonic. We would almost say the 30 parts are good value, but they are assembled so that we really aren't impressed by the value. The Verdict: The aircraft is interesting, with it's design, speed and spontaneous combustion, but we will buy only some photographs for advertising. The public doesn't know the plane is a deathtrap, they just know it looks cool. (But the military might be interested, don't let them test it - rather have them pay you to let an enemy military test it)

I don't want to add to the pile of planes too much, but I thought this plane was too good not to add. Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Comet Line Comet Mark 1b: It has been a while since our last submission, but we think the Comet will do so well, we had to. This plane has good, new pilot friendly handling, although may spin at very high altitudes. The high wing and low mounted passenger compartments mean it has spectacular, unobstructed views, the jet engine is placed far rear of this, so it makes for a very pleasant flight for 48 lucky people. If flown correctly, it can circumnavigate Kerbin without refueling! The airbrakes can stop it quickly, and we have a special mode so you can use the rudders as airbrakes in addition. Note: We put some rubber in the wings, so they can flex safely, and in flight they do. They bend slightly when turning, but don't worry because they won't fall off. We even tried this at 900m/s, the wings bent spectacularly, but they stayed in perfect condition. It is perfectly safe. It is reliable and has afterburners available with action group 1, which will greatly aid takeoffs and landings. To take off, we recommend full throttle afterburning until you get to 60m/s then pull up, the aircraft will unstick very soon afterwards. Because of the afterburners, you can go supersonic, we don't recommend it, but you can: 5,500km @ 867m/s Range: 1,060km (wet) Recommended Flight modes: 6,000m @ 278.9m/s with a range of very almost 3,000km 3,500m @ 216m/s with range of 3,850km (but use action group 2 to turn the top engine off) Price of this awesomeness is $30,627,000 dry. You can order yours here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Comet-Mk-1b And it's bigger brother: The Comet 2a At an only slightly increased price of $33,135,000 (dry) you get 88 passengers instead of 48! It's a little bit slower and we traded the parachute in for the airbrakes, but we well a cheap kit for adding airbrakes to it, if you are so inclined. We think you should keep the parachute though, because it can safely land the plane on it's own. We flew it to 1500m and cut the engines, released the parachute to see what would happen. We did try to slow down and so on, but we bonked into the ground nose first and the plane was unharmed. So, that will surely up the safety and reliability score. Recommended modes: 4,500m @ 268.5m/s Range: 2,600 km Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Comet-2a In short, these planes are safe, reliable, have a very good range and comfort, along with being fast and cheap. What's not to love? (The part count is a little bit high, but the rubber in the wings needs almost no maintenance.) Edit: PanzerKnoef can you send me the file of plane that are reviewed and not? I am just guessing.

No - just an eclipse. I don't know where you live, but where I live I can see the moon and it is blocked from sunlight by the earth. It has no direct sunlight currently.

by the way there is a lunar eclipse on right now.

The massive backlog. It stretches back to October. That's about the only reason.

Thanks for telling me! I went and tested, this worked. I measured the range of it to be 8,100 km (tremendous) but I don't entirely trust my calculations. The number seems too high. (But the maths works!) Updated review.

Your inital post says it does that in dry mode, do you have an mods installed that might mess with it? I wondered if you had FAR installed or something...

Wing span is the span (width) of the wings.

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 Figures as Tested: Price: 18,539,000 (dry) Fuel: 560 kallons (880 max) Cruising speed: 685 m/s Cruising altitude: 5000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.23 kal/s Range: 1667 km (2620 with full fuel) Passengers: 40 Review Notes: Immediately we knew it would be a fast plane, with the powerful jet The parachute gave the pilots no inhibitions on flying it, so we quickly took off at 60m/s. And not quickly reached the cruising altitude of 11.4km. Because at that height this plane really wants to go down, so much so that we had to pull up fairly hard continuously, and this bled speed, and so it could not even reach half of the promised 640m/s. The onboard AI fared even worse. But this plane looked to have a lot of potential, it had a lot of passengers, so we gave it another try, but at 5km this time, where it performed much better. At this height, we managed to get it to go faster than the advertised speed, at 685m/s. It has a range of 1,667 km. Not bad, but not good. Fully fuelled it ups that to 2620km, which is much better. On landing, the flaps slow it very little and it bleeds speed slowly. But it has a parachute, which slows it much faster, but slow enough to not discomfort the passengers too much. Later we went up again, and we simulated an engine failure. We deployed the parachute, and glided for a bit as it opened, and then we descended vertically to a somewhat hard, but safe landing, nothing broke and this earns it a much higher safety and reliability score. We would have performed additional tests at this point, but some pilots spent an hour mucking about with the parachute. After the delay, we noted the plane's mostly good views, and lack of vibrations in the cabin. The rear ones can be a little bit noisy, but as we go faster this issue goes away. And then we looked at the price, and it is shockingly low! We were very impressed. The part count of 29 makes for middling maintenance, and a KPPM of 0.013, which is very impressive. We would expect this kind of mileage from jumbo jets going a third the speed of this thing! The Verdict: It's cheap, comfortable, fast, (not by supersonic standards, but it still is fast!) gets good mileage, and is safe and reliable. How can we pass this up? To quote the sales pitch: "Even for a small regional jet, it is a bargain, let alone a supersonic one!" We agree! We'll be buying 35, and we'll keep the business card, in case we want to buy more in future. Addendum: We recently found the manual, and it recommends to get to high speeds that you should engage the afterburners to accelerate. We had not tried this, but gave it a go and it worked brilliantly! We got the plane flying at 11,500m at 646m/s sipping just 0.07 kallons each second. In this mode, it has a range of a whopping 8,100 km / 5000 miles! Enough to circle Kerbin twice! And at a KPPM of 0.0044, which is absurdly good! Armed with this, we would like to order 13 more for long range supersonic flights! We think we will be able to get very good profit margins.

yes

Can you fix the download link? I get 404 errors when I click on either link.

I did this once, but I forget everything about it. I know I crash landed my first manned mission on Duna, so I sent another one and I picked up my kerbals and got them home.

What page is the original review on?

Test Pilot Review: @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 Figures as Tested: Price: 35,280,000 (dry) Fuel: 1200 kallons Cruising speed: 656 m/s Cruising altitude: 7200 m Fuel burn rate: 0.29 kal/s Range: 2,714 km Review Notes: After unpacking this, it made us hungry so we went and had pancakes. After snacks, the engineers came out and immediately wondering if flies. The pilots were less keen. But after some persuasion, they agreed and we sent it out to the runway. The pilot started it up, and voom. Up in the air in 3 seconds. This thing takes off at a very low 40m/s, (although we almost scored a tailstrike) and it is pretty stable in flight. Jebediah may or may not have crashed the prototype after getting it into a spin when doing aerial acrobatics. But after fixing the broken plane refueling it, we went on another test flight, this time with passengers. The view from the ceiling windows is remarkably blue. The view from the bottom is interesting, and somewhat scary to a couple of the passengers. (But 2 out of 40 being scared is pretty good) Speaking of the passengers, they complained of noise and vibrations, and oddly this stopped when we turn the engines off. We also tested the range and speed, and found both to be significantly higher than advertized. At 7200 meters, we found it topped out at about 656m/s, and had a range of 2,714 km. Somewhat unusually, this plane pitches up on it's own, not down, like most planes, up. Still, a top speed of 650 is not impressive compared to most other supersonic planes, some do double this. On landing, it can land in a fairly short space. On price however it is average, with 40 passengers it isn't bad, but it's not anything to write home about. 29 parts, with 3 big shaking jet engines is not cheap, although at mileage it gets a KPPM of 0.017, which is rather impressive. The Verdict: It's not comfortable, the views, while novel, get old pretty fast, and it's generally expensive, except has good mileage. It also spins a bit, but mostly it is easy to recover from. We are going to buy 1 for airshows and occasional passenger runs. The comfort stops us putting it into service much, being a supersonic tickets are not usually cheap, and people expect better if they pay for supersonic. It is also slow, by supersonic standards.

Test Pilot Review: @macktruck6666's Lackheed L-1011 Jumbo Jet Figures as Tested: Price: 321,395,000 (dry) Fuel: 14670 kallons Cruising speed: m/s Cruising altitude: m Fuel burn rate: kal/s Range: 3,800 km Passengers: 192 Review Notes: Our engineers were a bit surprised by some interesting design choices. And a bit surprised because the intake on the top of the fuselage? That's actually an engine. But it can't thrust backwards, so it doesn't move the plane. It does though, make for a very powerful air conditioner. The pilots were eager to fly in it. So we took it out to the runway and it took off at 78m/s. Considering it weights 185 tons, we were impressed. Off to a flying start. (Apologies for the pun) Once in the air, the plane behaved better than we expected. It water landed safely, and was stable in the water. It is a bit slow on the yaw, but it flies well apart from. On landing, it can land with a small amount of runway considering it's size and bulk. Although the wings do flex a bit more than is normal, it isn't serious. As for comfort, it sucks. But only near the rear of the plane. The further forward you go the nicer it is. The air conditioner is superb however, so this plane would be well suited for tropical regions. But what really lets this plane down, is the price. We could buy quite a lot of smaller planes for the price. It is hard to justify an expense this big, with a passenger count of merely 192. It's KPPM, too, is 0.032, which is average for small planes. But jumbo jets of this size frequently sip only half that amount, or less. The part count of 132 is, pretty cheap compared to the rest of it. It's still on the high end though. The Verdict: An impressive plane with an impressive price. It's good in all ways, except for one important one. We'll rent one, and if it turns out to be profitable we'll buy it, maybe some more. For long range routes. We'll sell luxury at the front, economy seating at the rear. But the air conditioner is wonderful.

Possibly never. The waiting list only grows, and it is already very long. Also, I don't kno9w exactly how long or what planes are already reviewed, so I am just guessing. All 5 of the official judges are not here, so if some-one else thinks they can, they are welcome to. (Don't bother asking for permission) If @Mjp1050 sees this, I think he should put some sort of deadline on it, because the list is growing to infinity.

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's KAT Chalduro Figures as Tested: Price: Fuel: 1040 kallons Cruising speed: 206 m/s Cruising altitude: 6500 m Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s Range: 3400 km Review Notes: When we opened the box to this plane, the engineers watching stared for a minute or two, and then started debating which end was the front. When we took it off the runway (after concluding the lengthy debate with offers of snacks) the engineers were amazed that it lifted off the runway so easily, with such a small wing area. It took off at under 50m/s! Which is pretty good for newer pilots. What isn't great for newer pilots is the handling. Aside from being very nose-heavy, it spins very easily and once in a spin, tend to start flying backwards. And down. It can take a lot of altitude to pull out of the spin, and it turns poorly. This is not particularly good for safety, or pilot training costs. We tested the range, and it came out at about 3400km, considerably less than the 4500km promised. It is still impressive though, and for a price so low. For comfort, the vibrations are significant, but the view is good. We would have liked the ability to open windows, we would have saved on barf bags. The plane is fairly fast though, and fuel efficient. Now the economics of it. Mileage? It has a KPPM of 0.02, which is quite good for a small craft, it has a very reasonable cost of 19,934,000 (dry) and a medium-high maintenance with 32 parts. This is though, offset, due to the extensive training pilots need to fly it. And 24 passengers is a bit on the low side. The Verdict: We think it is really only viable for long, unpopular, economy routes, with little turning involved. We are buying 3 for that purpose with options for 14 more if the handling is fixed.

There is a really huge backlog. I am not even official technically, and I kind of wish that another judge would send me the list of planes and which are reviewed, I am pretty much reviewing at random and I am just hoping my review isn't a review of a plane already reviewed.