CrazyJebGuy

If I set up a maneuver node at Mun Peria psis, only needs about 200m/s of delta v to get home. I did this completely on accident. Sad thing is the contracts mean I have to actually orbit.

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra-P Figures as Tested: Price: 15,905,000 (dry) Fuel: 500 kallons (600 max) Cruising speed: 245m/s Cruising altitude: 3000m Fuel burn rate: 0.13kal/s Range: 900km Review Notes: On receiving what looked a fairly ordinary plane, we took it for a test spin and got it into the air, and noticed very quickly that this plane loves pitching down. So much so that the built in autopilot can't keep the plane level, meaning it has to be done manually. But that's ok - we don't pay our pilots for sleeping, after all. But that, combined with the kite's somewhat weak pitch and yaw authority, means pitching up is very slow. The fact that the plane is so eager to get into a dive, and so slow to pull out is not terribly reassuring about safety. Roll is very disconcerting, because the thing can spin 180 in about a second. (In our mind, not a very safe combination.) It doesn't have any form of air-brakes, but on the ground the light mass means the wheel brakes stop it reasonably quickly. To it's credit, it can water ditch though, and run on two engines, even if the faulty engine is a side one, it doesn't have enough leverage to affect the plane much. The pitch never gave us a number for range, but we expected it to be higher when it said the plane was ideal for long range low traffic routes. Our calculations put the range at a not impressive 900km. Still, the plane itself is cheap, but maintainance is not. Having over double the part count of some other designs (it has 50!) do not make for cheap operation. The Verdict: The Canberra-P has no serious faults, but it does have enough minor faults and problems to outweigh the good mileage, cheap cost of purchase and small size. (Saves a bit on hangar space) We are afraid the bad handling, range and very high maintenance are a bit too bad. EXCEPT: An intern has rushed this up right before sending, apparently the insides are very good, we forgot to test them. He spent half an hour solving rubics cubes or something in it, and he says the view would be good if we hadn't parked it near some portaloos. Apparently the seats are very comfortable too, so we have decided to buy 3, (with options for 8 more) after all, as luxury transports. The Canberra-P is very cheap for a plane of that type..

If it needs that long of a takeoff, the review will definitely dock some points. Just saying. BTW, @Mjp1050 Can you send me the spreadsheet of planes, and make me an official reviewer? I am just reviewing and hoping it's not already reviewed. EDIT: This one is. Oops. Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 Figures as Tested: Price: 59,677,000 Fuel: 2340 kallons (~1555 standard) Cruising speed: 200m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: 0.13kal/s Range: 2470km Review Notes: On receiving the shipment our engineers were a little bit baffled by the strange machine they saw emerge from the box. Immediatley they began to wonder if some bits were really nessecary After takeing off without incident, it was noted that on landing, and getting out to strtch our pilot's legs that he should have turned the engines off. He was safe luckily but a bit worried. Range was 2470 after loading with 1600 kallons of fuel. A little less than promised, but still quite good. In flight it was a little bit hard to control, especially at rolling, but it is a decent flyer discounting that. The pilot's view is good, except for his view forward, but it does sheild the plane to some degree from water spray. The plane itself feels very sensitive to controls, and engine power makes the plane pitch a bit hard to control on occasion. Comfort is acceptable, being good apart from the noise and vibrations caused by the engines. (And the bumping from instability) In many regards it actually fairly average, speed, landing, not handling, and comfort. On maintenance it has 34 parts, but 2 are high maintenance engines. The Verdict: Long range, expensive, a bit unstable in flight, and medium everything else. But with a passenger count of just 24, especially with a price tag of nearly sixty million, we really can't justify buying more than 2 for long range sea-plane operations. The range is the only thing really keeping it competitive with other designs.

Wait - did you put a fairing inside a fairing?

This is my rocket that causes SAS to stand for Stability Assistance Spastic.

Hey, my rocket is still in orbit and I didn't quicksave or anything, it would probably be legal to continue the mission now I fixed the SAS.... Edit: No I haven't fixed the SAS, it's still got less intelligence than a nail.

That's what I tried to do. I built a ship I was pretty sure could do it, but on launch the SAS betrayed me and caused me to waste loads of fuel. I did make Kerbin orbit though before I realized I had been lied to about where to burn to get Eve encounter. (None of the maneuver nodes even got a closest approach)

There is a huge backlog, and I seem to be the only active judge. (And I'm not even official yet) Hope some others do stuff over the weekend.

I tried going to Eve, and returning. But I didn't even go. Immediately upon launch my spacecraft lurched very violently left, I have no clue why. SAS also turned out to be an absolute retard, when I turned the rocket stuff worked, when it turned the rocket it failed absolutely spectacularly. (Again, I haven't a clue. My rocket was perfectly symmetrical) But that would have been OK, except I launched at the wrong time. So I warped for a year until Eve was 60 degrees behind kerbin, as I had been told was correct. Then I spent 10 minutes fiddling with manuever nodes before realizing it was completely wrong because the wiki was wrong. It wouldn't even give me a bloody closest approach. I know my orbit was not on the correct plane also, (Thanks SAS) but that is a bit ridiculous that it wouldn't even give me a closest approach. I may reload one of the quicksaves I took and continue, even though it won't count any in this competition. At least I orbited Kerbin, so i get.... 5 points. Proof of my not impressive feat, is I filmed the whole thing. Will upload video at https://youtu.be/lggYryRTtrc Edit: Oh wait, no I won't. It's too long apparently. Stupid bloody youtube.

Whatever I think it was reasonable that the creator did. In this case, I guessed and went for a bit over 2 thirds.

Test Pilot Review: @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer Figures as Tested: (Note the aircraft did not come with recommended height and cruising suggestions - we took 2 guesses) Price: 22,071,000 Fuel: 1900 kallons Cruising speed: 321m/s (Alternatively 288m/s) Cruising altitude: 800m (Alternatively 3500m/s) Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s (Alternatively 0.15kal/s) Range: 2547km (Alternatively 3648km) Review Notes: The aircraft's extremely unusual nature makes it arguably legal, and it gives it unusual flight characteristics. It also carries 24 passengers, double what was advertised. While not impressive, it is okay. It also unsticks from the runway a bit over the requirement of 80m/s, and has a tendency to roll immediately afterwards. In-fact it has a tendency to roll a bit whenever the pitch is altered, meaning it is good for being a jet powered roller-coaster. Once cruising however, it is quite fast. The views from the rear cockpits are good, however the forward one? Not so much. The pilot's seat has a very good view, with nothing obstructing on the front, and next to nothing blocking his view sideways. One engine is nice and far from the seats, and vibrates it very little. The other however is a bit closer, but the vibrations (unlike the sound) are dampened. It's very long range is a plus. A thing that is not a plus is that the craft has no air-brakes, but by pitching wildly it can bleed speed very fast. It still can take off and land from medium-smallish runways, and it can land on water, but not take off. When we tried to power it up it nosed down and sank.... Maintainance is middling though, at 31 parts. Even more so, considering all the mechanics will need new training. The thing bends a little bit, but it isn't serious and the thing seems pretty sturdy apart from that. The up front cost though is not very high. The Verdict: We'll buy 1 as an airborne roller-coaster, and 2 more for long range high speed low traffic routes, and low traffic cross-oceanic routes.

I'm sort of doing that. I'm just reviewing and hoping I'll become official, and thus all my reviews become official retroactively. I'm hoping my standards as a reviewer are close to the other reviewers. But anyway.... (Reviewing another plane now)

Would it be against the rules to launch a rocket and then split it up into smaller little rockets the go separate ways? I might for example launch a rocket into LKO, split it and land one half on Minmus and on on the Mun.

I know I'm not an official reviewer, but I want to get the thread going again.... Test Pilot Review: @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K32 Figures as Tested: Price: 43,490 (dry) Fuel: 3200 kallons (Although 4400 fully loaded) Cruising speed: 230m/s Cruising altitude: ~3000m Fuel burn rate: 0.18kal/s Range: 4,100km ( ~2500mi ) Review Notes: When the prototype arrived the engineers were a bit surprised by the wing mounted rudders and the relatively small elevator, and were concerned about tail-strikes. But tail-strikes weren't a big problem. Taxiing out to the runway was very smooth, but as an airplane it was very nose-heavy, and on takeoff the elevators had to be fully engaged for a bit, or else the K32 would fall back onto the runway and bounce. We were able to get it off at a bit under 60m/s, which is fairly good. On landing it tends to bump, but it can land on an impressively short runway. In the sky however the Kerbair K32 will pitch down 5 to 10 degrees for every roll adjustment, of which is very sensitive. It does climb quickly though, but a full turn takes about a mile to do - which is barely acceptable. On comfort though it is hard to fault it, discounting the pitch, the landing gear have very good springs and all the seats except a few have great views, the wing-mounted engines make for a comfortable (if slightly loud, the engines are very loud) flight. The cost is a a bit high for a Small Regional Jet, but at only 23 parts, long-term, maintenance brings it down a bit. The range also is very impressive, enough to circumnavigate Kerbin, and with average milage, 0.025 kallons per passenger mile (KPPM). Safety wise, it's pretty solid. Water ditching is uncomfortable, but doable and even at very high speeds the passengers are likely to survive. The Verdict: The plane is actually fairly good, except for the terrible handling, which really lets it down on some routes. Buying 4 with options for 8 more, to service long distance low demand routes, and across oceans. Edit: I wanted to say we could fit some mail and luggage in the back cargo ramp.

I know drag is, but when I do test at different altitudes I sometimes see my planes do worse - and then there is the consideration of the time it takes to climb, and that it maneuvers worse at altitude, I don't bother usually.

Why so high? Not any of planes do more than 4km, most fly flat on the deck even.

The number you quote as range doesn't matter too much. They will still review your craft, the reviewers might just say though that it has a far better range than advertised. (Happened to one of my planes) It still is good though to know the range when you are making it.

In the USA, they were sent some meter standards. They then defined it off of the yard.

Metric units used to be defined as Imperial units anyway. (Just saying - also, this was only in some places, e.g. the USA)

Fun fact: The Skots Speedmaster is 53% struts by part count. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Skots-Speedmaster-B It will. Imperial units defined off of Metric? They could just as easily have defined Imperial units based off of universal constants and based Metric off that. Not an argument. Your first two points are correct, but I still think it's nitpicking. A third of 1ft is 4 inches. 4 is not a recurring decimal. A third of three and quite a lot of numbers really is not a recurring decimal. Edit: Yes - I did invite criticism. I am just criticizing your criticism because it was bad criticism. I'd also like to apologize for being so arguementative.

Sorry about that. I do think however he is rich to criticize me for just having reverse thrust to slow down, when his plane doesn't even have that. On the other hand, I just confirmed it can safely freefall from 30,000m and water ditch.

GPPM Gallons Per Passenger Mile I just pretend that 1 Liquid fuel is a gallon. (As far as I know, theoretically, it could be - but I'll conceed they probably use liters) Let's make it Kallons per passenger mile, to erase confusion. I specifically said divide fuel capacity, not fuel capacity in gallons. Fuel capacity could be in any unit remember. And with which mile? Of course, a normal mile. (You know, stock-standard 5280 ft) Also, a nautical mile on kerbin (one minute angle of movement on the surface) is 174.533m Correcting for this the Blasty Super thing has a KPPM of 0.01 (Rounded) Edit: I just noticed, the plane gets this at 23,000m. Somehow that seems like it takes ages to get up there, and wastes a lot of fuel in the process. Edit2: I just flew it, it was fast admittedly, but it did use up 15% of it's fuel just getting there, and once up there it cannot pitch down due to it's already bad pitch at low altitude being made completely useless by the thin air. My plane at least can pitch at it's cruising altitude. I also wonder how comfortable it is to be ascending at 60 degrees? (No climb instructions, but if you do a lower angle, it uses even more fuel.) With your review, the "massively overpowered control surfaces" make the plane more capable. Any plane that is more capable is easier to crash, it is pilot error. I can fly it just fine, because I don't spend the whole time trying to yank the control stick out of it's socket. It can also reduce accidents, because the plane can dodge oncoming planes, or buildings, and it lets the plane lift off far sooner than it otherwise would, letting it go on smaller airfields. The cockpit reaction wheels are enabled because it's not possible to disable them. The monoprop was there because I messed up, and I have made the controls ignore other inputs. You take issue with the taxing? Really? I had a go myself to see if it was as bad as you say, spoiler: It wasn't. User error again. "Cockpit lights have not been added to action groups, and so remain unlit" How petty must you be to doc it marks for THIS? Yeah, wings flex in time warp. That's irrelevant. It's not meant to fly in time warp, is it? The reviews are done at standard speed. Also, Metric is worse than Imperial. I grew up on Metric, I taught myself Imperial. One massive advantage to Imperial is all the names are shorter. Some Metric units can be abbreviated, but there isn't a real abbreviation to millimeter, centimeter, milligram, and some other common units. Another is, a third of a meter is a recurring decimal. A third of a foot isn't. I could use fractions true, but my calculator can't. Metric's only advantage is it has powers of ten conversion ratios, in Imperial the units are also usually closer to what you are measuring, so you don't have numbers like 750, numbers like 9 or 6 most often. Those big numbers take longer to say and use more space on paper. Also, converting units in Imperial is slightly harder, enough so I have to pay attention (and not make silly mistakes like I did in Metric) but not hard enough that I make mistakes. I can go on.

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Dublup S.S.T. Mk 1 Cost: $23,000,000 dry, $24,440,000 wet Range: 3,710 km @ 670mt/s @ 4,000mt altitude Range: 2,642 km @ 694mt/s @ 2,500mt altitude Action groups: 1. Toggle afterburners 2. Toggle Panther engines, toggle reverse Wheasly thrust (For braking) This is a very good value plane. It has an amazing GPPM of 0.019, good by even subsonic standards! It has a lowish maintenance, at only 38 parts. Also it carries 40 passengers at a long range. It can take off at 55mt/s, just pull up and it will unstick from the runway. I'm finally ditching itch.io, now using KerbalX. Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/SST-Dublup-Mk-1

Please include statistics of your craft. I downloaded it to see these stats, you didn't even include a range estimate. (It's really easy) I calculated that myself, and it comes to 2,660 km. Look, to find range: when you test fly, look in the resource panel. (Or right click on an engine) to see fuel consumption. (Resource panel is total, engine is just that engine) Now you divide the amount of fuel (1200) by how much is burnt per second (0.23) to get how long it will fly (5200) in seconds. You then multiple by the speed (510) and divide by 1,000 to get the range in kilometers. GPPM is a bit harder. You divide the fuel capacity by the passenger capacity, and then divide that by the range in miles. Your craft has a GPPM of 0.03, which is a little on the high side but fairly average. Include stats. P.S. I had trouble getting the plane off the ground, the elevators didn't work. Just saying.

True. But at medium range, why wouldn't they just go for an even more fuel efficient plane? Can you tell me the range of your plane, it's passenger count and it's fuel capacity? (I will calculate GPPM)