CrazyJebGuy

Just a heads up: There have been some really good value supersonics, I wouldn't be sure your is good, especially since it goes only mach 1.5, mach 4 is pretty standard.

The landing gear on my Jumbos are very powerful, and can lower and raise the whole plane to allow for passengers to board with no ladder!

I wouldn't go so far as to say rock bottom, low would be a better word. Also, the Jumbo jet you submitted is tiny now compared to other jumbos. It's just been a constant stream of one-upping the person before you. At first it was < 250 but then I went 384 and then 800 and somebody did 1152 and some guy now is trying for > 3,000. Look back at the previous pages to see some of the nonsense that resulted of the race. Somewhere I posted a video of a 1348 prototype I made splitting end to end. (It needs work) And that reminds me: I gotta re-enter that race. I'll be one-upping the 1152, I will be interested to see who one-ups my one-up of a one-up that oned-up a previous one-up.

I expect the reviewer will have a similar reaction to the face, laughing very hard while sea-sick.

I look forward to hearing your criticisms of the large flying things I have built recently.

This is the Skots Rat - A huge passenger liner built for the following competition: By competition rules, it can fly 384 pasengers. It also weighs 300 tons. I am sure somebody will come and top this, but I like starting races to make huge things. The thing flies ok, and can circumnavigate Kerbin. (Theoretically, I never completed it) https://bristolbrick.itch.io/ksp-aeroplanes-for-competition

Presenting: The GAI Tin (As a floatplane, small mail plane and super-sonic) It is the most versatile flying thing you can buy for under $10,000,000. *Picture may differ slightly from actual plane* Stats: -Price: $9,903,000 (Wet) $9,263,000 (dry) -Range: 1,563km @ 345m/s low altitude -Speed: 650m/s (afterburning) It can take off from water if it after burns, as a result it can go near anywhere. It also has a completely un-obstructed cockpit view, and it handles nicely, making it a joy to fly. It is very cheap, even considering the mere 16 passengers, you could use it to access remote islands for rich tourists. You could use it as a private jet. You could use it to fly to small towns, you could use it as a flying ambulance, a cheap supplement to large routes that just need a little bit more, you could use it as a para-drop plane, a rescue plane or perhaps you could send it on expeditions to the arctic. Download: https://bristolbrick.itch.io/ksp-aeroplanes-for-competition Or: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Tin

Rover wheels!

dammit I have to re-enter this insanity competition. I tried to modify my earlier designs to hold more people, but testing revealed that that caused the plane to split apart, from back to front. ( I should probably video that - update, I have. ) If you look in horror at Big Brother's commandments, you are a doubleplusungood wrongthinker. https://youtu.be/jCULG2b6248

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Skat It's cheap. ($12,625,000 dry) It's fast. (256m/s) It can carry passengers. (32) It has a partcount. (29) And it has seatwarmers. And it has a range of 1,166 km. Edit: Forgot everything. Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Turboprop-Mk-IIIa-Skat

Mine is similar, 1060 3gb but a bit more powerful CPU, i7-2600. (Older, but it is still on par with the newest fanciest i5s, and is pretty close to the latest i7s) Runs KSP with maximum physics delta pretty well. (Usually, some of the huge things I have been testing lately have strained it)

We have heard critisms about our otherwise good GAI Turbo-XL Classic and we have fixed it. We can see the plane has a lot of potential. We think it can be used for medium, or short range express flights, or in arctic places, the piston engine being very well suited to the climate. The "B" version We added airbrakes, we fixed the rear landing gear problems. It has very good acceleration. We installed a special radial suspension to smooth and increase the reliability of the (already reasonably smooth) 18 cylinder prop engine. We moved the jets up, so as to not block passenger view, we also reduced the part count to a fairly typical 40. The cost slightly increased, and it should have the same performance as the original, except for the better stopping due to airbrakes. Costs $21,202,000 dry. Range is the same as the original, 1400km at 216m/s. Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Turboprop-Mk-1b The "C" version It is a cheap version, we took off the jet engines, and the airbrakes. This reduces it's cost by a bit over $4,000,000 per plane. It costs $17,503,000 dry and retains lots of good qualities (but now with a part count of just 30!). We managed to get it in level flight at 202m/s, 700m altitude, with a theoretical range of 781km. You could also fly on low altitude, 182m/s with a range of 950km. As with the "B" variant, we also included a radial suspension system to reduce the shaking from the engine, and improve reliability. Though we ditched the airbrakes, action group 1 reverses the engine, so you can stop really fast! Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Turboprop-Mk-1c And all three planes of this series have this certificate:

Can I submit a variant of a craft that was already reviewed? (My GAI Turboprop) I have fixed several problems with it (the landing gear, for instance) and reduced partcount while giving it fancy new air-brakes.

I got confused and thought some of the passenger compartments were upscaled.

Looked at the rules, Mk3 passenger compartments count as the same as Size 2. By upsizing it you are just being nicer to fatties.

Do up scaled crew compartments count as extra passengers? I suspect not.

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Proudly Presents: The Sky Titanic Skots Small is there for scale. So is Jebediah. Despite the name, the Skots Small is by no means small at all. This is the latest monstrosity we have made. (And I thought my last 2 were huge. Makes you wonder how big they will get before I become sane?) It can be safely water-landed with no damage, and (unlike the Titanic) it floats. This flipping thing can whiz a monstrous 800 fortunate souls 4,370km at 222m/s, and unlike some planes the wings are guaranteed (99%) not to fall off when turning. Not that that would matter, it has several more. It costs $304,174,000 dry ($380,217.50 per seat) and gets a GPPM of 0.012, which is excellent. (lower is better) The fact that it can circumnavigate Kerbin in less than 5 hours in that time is amazing. We suggest flying at low altitude max throttle without afterburning. In case of wars, not only would it make an excellent paratrooper plane, but it would be invulnerable to enemy fire, having more stuff to damage than the enemy has bullets! (300 tons) We think they would be really useful on very high density routes, save on therapy for the poor guys in the traffic control tower who must over-see hundreds of planes at a time! The Octuple (Double quadruple or double triple and double) engine design means if one, or two, or three, or maybe 5, engines explode it can safely get home. The action group 1 activates turbo-mode, and it can double it's power! (We recommend this to get up to speed, and from the passenger seats it looks awesome!) And incase of any stubborn passengers not leaving, (with 800, you can bet there will be one!) the pilot has the option to flood an entire passenger compartment with dihydrogen monoxide! (Water) We suggest not turning hard, it has been shown to lead to safety issues. Download: here Or here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Massivity-Mk-Ib

oops. thought you said it shouldn't be small regional jet. Sorry, I misread.

I never said my Kalcing was a small regional jet. I said it was a turbojet, right at the very top of my post you quoted. (Turboprop? I can never remember if the category is called turbojet or turboprop)

Not entirely complaining about the death trap thing, it makes my not a jet-powered-coffin look better in comparison.

We have modified the design, it has a slightly reduced part count, airbrakes, stronger wheel brakes, a more powerful elevator and about the same price. We included two jet engines because we thought one propeller engine (Which we thought would be fairly smooth, whenever one cylinder fires a cylinder on the opposite side of the engine also fires, we thought it would counteract that - and it is bird resistant.) It is downloadable at same link as all our other planes. Edit: Just noticed this thread was started on September 11. A reminder: my cargo planes are bomb compatible.

Also in light of recent failures, the GP-1a (General Purpose Mk 1a) It has some easily accessible cargo space up front for all your cargoing needs! You could put mail in it. Or extreme economy seating. Your choice, but it's not your choice that there is about 3280 ft3 of space. That is enough for slightly over 9,000 toasters. Should you need to move a lot of toasters very quickly at short notice, this is the plane for you. The wings are certified to not randomly combust, explode or detach in flight. It can also taxi, just don't accidentally launch yourself into the sky. On the safety aspect we think we should say that we crashed an early version right smack into the ground at 300mph. Not on purpose, (plane didn't roll fast enough, but we've fixed that issue) but lots of it somehow survived. (If pilots are expensive, tell them to go fly one of these!) The cargo area was fine, toasters can be expensive! Another thing that was fine was 64 of the 152 passengers. It can fly on 50% throttle at 155m/s at 2000m (range = 3000 km), or 100% throttle at 1000 which gets it going 260m/s (range = 2250km). Or you can afterburn, and probably exceed Mach 1. (We have not tested - there isn't a good reason for it) It seats 152, it costs $107,424,000 (dry) and P.S. To the OP, would KAX be ok? I really like it's 2.5m to 1.25m tail boom adapter. (I accidentally included it in several of my designs) Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GP-1a

I tried out one of the ones reviewed here, it had 4 contraprop engines, the death trap accusation was extremely accurate. I tried turning at 200m/s, the left wing falls into the sea. I then fly again, and set the leftmost engine to reverse thrust. It's hilarious! It spins sideways and then both wings break apart mid air! Then thing proceeds to cart-wheel into the sea, where some of it survived, the only engine that survived was the one i set in reverse. (Guess it hated the other 3) In contrast I made my supersonic plane so tough I could turn it as hard as possible (about 70 degrees off prograde) at 1200m/s and it is just fine. Since air resistance is velocity cubed, my plane was at least 220 times stronger! And that's before accounting for the fact that the AoA on my wings were 70 degrees, on his it was maybe 10? I am not impressed with his design at all. Even worse: Could have been fixed with 20 struts. I put some struts on, it's quite solid now.

Nah I'm not good enough at making up some of the sillier parts of the review, I'd rather somebody who could do it did it.

A judge submits. Can a submitter judge?