CrazyJebGuy

It doesn't have to be the same people, but even if one guy did run an airline then you've got KEA already, and then if you just design aircraft you'll be able to see what they're doing.

It's late at night for me, but I'll respond to this now: (but the rest maybe tomorrow) perhaps it could be different threads (but closely related, e.g. one has all the submissions of aircraft, one has reviews, one has bla and bla... all linked) or just one. But I know it would be more complex, but assuming I can manage the complexity of all the behind the scenes stuff, it can still be simple for others. If you want to only design aircraft, you can do exactly that. Others are free to go and business their own companies as they would like. (Maybe you can design something and 'sell'/license it to someone else who handles whatever businessy things I add in) If there are problems, we can work out the details later. But I'm just curious what people think of the overall idea.

I think at this point we should start over completely. I've got a great new idea as well. This thread is simply dead. The last review was done by @panzerknoef on the 15th of January. (Nevermind, it's actually by @panzerknack on the 30th) They've been sporadic for a long time beforehand, and I don't particularly want to know how hideously large the backlog of unreviewed craft has become, possibly it's not even kept up to date. Personally I'd like to amend the rules, but I think it would then be unfair to have planes from before and after compete. (Notably I want to change the passenger count of the Mk 1 cabins, I think 8 is far too many, and that 3 or 4 would be more appropriate. Not much else though.) I've also toyed with the idea of making a sort of tycoon simulation game for it, but it's a lot of work and frankly I can't be bothered to program the thing. But I have had a better idea: I'd run some sort of game, manually. We had companies going on before, and I think it'd be interesting if they actually did things. If you could actually have companies, doing real things and having totals running of budgets and whatnot, that would be interesting. Maybe I could run it (if you've ever played Gearcity you will know what I'm talking about) on a system of monthly updates. Everybody who participates can have company, and I will set up a few rules. (I'm thinking it will be mostly anything goes, so long as it's explained to me so I can keep track of it somehow) I'd set up a world (probably based on Kerbin to some degree) and each company could operate planes, hire pilots, build airfields, design planes, build planes and whatever else crops up. A company could do any of those things, it could do just one or all. I'm imagining players running companies and airlines, making deals and selling or leasing things to one another. (Creativity here will only make it more interesting!) I'd run a design and manufacturing company. (I won't operate planes if I do this, since that relies mainly on my own rules of how Kerbin's economy works, but if I design and sell planes it's more dependent on what other players think of them.) Players would send me messages or post in a thread somewhere (I can work out the specifics later) before every month is over and I'll go and let things play out in my simulated world. We clearly had a good idea. (it's the only KSP challenge that I've done much of. I started about 2 or 3 years ago, and I still see some of the same people coming back, so it must be good) Please, I'd like some opinions on this. I think it would be a pretty interesting idea, and if I only have to update it once per month I think it will be manageably okay, even if at first a monthly update will have a very slow pace.

Sorry about the inconsistency, I'll have to get on with updating the leader-board, although it's very long already. I joined this thing about a year 5 months or something ago, my interest is simply fading. Aside from this I haven't been very motivated to play KSP since 0.90.

Super-jumbos are hard, and I haven't seen anybody design one which does it well. The Brittanic I made comes close, but I'm not satisfied with it because it's a lot slower than I'd like. Landing gear is fairly simple though, you can't go too wrong with long gear up front, and just behind the CoM; just be careful to make it so it won't tailstrike and break things. (Which can be done by sticking another smaller landing gear or a steel beam at the back to protect the tail.)

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Britannic With 912 passengers it's a modified Sky Titanic. We fixed the problems it has (such as rapid unplanned disintegration) and improved the plane. The main changes involve a complete rework of the structure and supports, new landing gear and reduced wing-span. It was found that the wingspan in the Titanic was too long, and twisting the fuselages inward in turns. Previously our engineers had no idea what auto-strut was, (the Skots Squirrel is I think the largest plane to not use autostrut) but this new technology has meant the airframe now can be stronger, lighter and cheaper. The elevators were reduced in size and the canards removed, along with the experimental airbrakes. (Elevons which extended with the brake AG - doesn't work for a plane this big) There are also a few additional cabins near the rear, bringing the passenger count to 912. Partcount has been reduced from 325 to only 192. We changed the engines too. Takeoff distance is very short, just pitch up once you get to 40m/s and the plane will lift off at about 60, before getting to the astronaut complex. The afterburners are recommended for this. Price: $299,503,000 Passengers: 912 Part count: 192, 10 engines. Speed: 271m/s @ 4000m dry, 580 m/s wet. Range: ~5100km dry, ~2000 wet It's recommended to fly between 400 and 5000m. The pitch is very powerful and the plane can enter a spin, which is done more easily at high speed/altitude. The engine gimbal (AG2) is recommended to be disabled when going over 180m/s. Afterburners (AG1) recommended for climbing and takeoff. If a spin is entered the rear parachutes normally used for braking can be instead used to get the plane back under control. At high speed we advise turning very slowly and cautiously, even though the parachutes can bring the plane out of a spin. If they are used in flight, the plane can go to about 580m/s, this makes it the largest supersonic jumbo. (Possibly, I don't know if it has more passengers than @Andetch's Mr Tiddles) It can also water ditch safely, and take-off again. (For water takeoff, frontal flaps (AG3) are recommended.) Since it can takeoff from water, we're also entering it as a flying ship, and we put rope attachment points on the plane so it can be operated out of harbours and moor at docks like a proper ship, there are even small underwater water-jets to help with docking. Get your here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Brittanic

I did build one, the Skots Economy. None were bought, which I think is a bit unfair considering that it was actually good at carrying cargo. Now since everyone remembers the famous success of the Sky Titanic (Review here. Basically if you turn or land it explodes, it looks awesome.) we decided to improve on the design, and change the name because we think it may have been jinxed. I'm not going to submit it yet, I want to make the air-frame more stable at high altitude and speeds. (It tends to start suddenly backflipping and then fall feet first into the sea) I have fixed the tendency to disintegrate, by shortening the wings. Which also made it faster and with the new landing gear it takes off at about 60m/s anyway, so the longer wings were completely pointless. I also replaced the engines, it is about 60m/s faster now.

Wrong thread, but yes. It's here. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Tupolov

I was reviewing your plane, but I've had to disqualify it due to the part clipping. There are several engines per actual 'engine' and the big fuel carrying wings are placed very very close together. There is a rule that part clipping is allowed, within reason, and this is not within reason. There may be more clipping, I have not thoroughly checked, but the engines alone is easily enough to disqualify it. There isn't even enough intakes for them, on takeoff it's kicking sparks out the back like there is no tomorrow. I'd discovered this after going to takeoff and seeing about 4 times as many engines show in staging as should have, given the 3 engines on the plane.

The Slinky-40 impressed me, and I've never really done that sort of plane, (~40 passengers, single whiplash) so I decided I would take the general idea and change it a bit. I'm aware similarly impressive ranges have been achieved, (I think I did it accidentally once) but I've got a fuel efficient (.0095 gppm) and fast (1327m/s) with a range of almost 9,000 km. It's slightly cheaper than the Slinky 40, but has almost double the part-count. There are three fuselages, the centre one with the engine and fuel tanks, all passengers sit on the side two, so it's probably a lot more comfy than the slinky. Probably not as nice to fly at low altitudes, due to being slightly asymmetrical and having an elevator which is very powerful. (but works better at high altitude in the thinner air) Also I am using a tricycle landing gear with tail-strike protection, but I will experiment with a tail-dragger as the takeoff speed is higher than I'd like. (75m/s) I will also do some reviews coming up. (Sorry for the delay)

No, we're an airline company. This challenge has enough categories and reviews are already well behind (I'm surprised nobody has done a review and caused me to do another, I thought that would get lots of attention) and it's also very hard without rocket engines, those are strictly banned.

I don't remember the Night Fury very well because I didn't review it, (short range and very innefficient and uncomfortable or something like that?) the Type G was something else. That thing could pull the sharpest of corners with the ability of a fridge, with landings as soft as brick walls. Really, how did some of these problems not get noticed in testing? "Really, how did some of these problems not get noticed in testing?" - The man who made a super-jumbo which will tear all 6 wings off in a mild turn.

Sorry for being gone too long, as for the point about standardizing the reviews, I just think it's more important to do them. And I am getting a bit bored of this, having put my first post in this challenge back in a year ago. It's Tuesday now, and since I'd like to get this thread going again I will make one review for every review done before next Tuesday. (Up to a limit of 3 per day) Also let's just ditch most of the review reforming, what we had before was good enough (not perfect though) and fixing it would be unfair on newer/older entries due to changing standards, and many of the proposed ideas would only take more time and effort, further reducing the amount of reviews done. @neistridlar@Mjp1050@NightshineRecorralis@1Revenger1@panzerknoef@Bob_Saget54@hoioh@kingstevenrules@Box of Stardust There, pinged a bunch of reviewers. Please if you take me at my review matching offer, ping me so I see your review. (Regardless if you are reviewing a plane I made) Edit: I realized that my initial thing was worded badly, to clarify I will do one review for each review done by any other reviewer.

Sorry for a delay here, but the new thread really is a continuation of this. The planes entered in this thread are judged in the other, we have a spreadsheet and keep track of what planes have and haven't been reviewed. There is a long queue, mainly because it seems one can only do so many reviews before it becomes quite a pain to do them. It's why I haven't really done any for a while, and I'm assuming it's why @Mjp1050 had stopped too.

Not likely soon, since I only had time for that one review which broke, and I'm leaving on a holiday today.

It is fine though, to modify this a bit. Often with large aircraft I will also include passenger capacity, because it can be harder to count passenger compartments with big planes. (I recommend this for anything 96+) Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54 What the love I had an entire review done and then it bloody dissappears after I post it. It just has this stupid title, it didn't even add in the name of the plane. I am disappointed, I put about an hours work into that.

The main reason GPPM/KPPM was picked instead of KPPKM is because KPPKM sounds stupid to say, it's a bit longer and frankly I like the Imperial system. I was the one who picked it by the way, I just included the statistic in my planes and it caught on. (I probably shouldn't have, my planes didn't do that well at it) Renamed it to KPPM because Gallons were not meant to be converted, Kallons are more clear. Several reasons, a large one being balance, one of the rules on the OP being don't ruin the challenge with Tweakscale. I quite like that the smaller (and thus harder to design with for bigger planes) cabins are cheaper per seat, you don't want that upscaled. Another one is that of you can scale an engine. But it's not really scaling if you add more seats, it is scaling and modifying. Down-scaling is completely out of the question. Mathematically in any case doubling makes little sense, assuming you are increasing everything by 2 fold. If you double the height, width and depth of a barrel you don't get a barrel with 2x the capacity, you get a barrel with 2^3 (8) times the capacity. This is just a bit of a nitpick with me though. But by far the main reason: here at KEA, we have standards. We demand that all passengers be no further than 2 seats from a window, 3 if the seats are small. We will not compromise this element of passenger comfort! ( the GAI Skots Economy had no seats, thus no windows were needed! )

Yes, it's definitely not allowed to tweak-scale passenger carrying parts.

That is pretty-much why I haven't done any recently either. That and a busier schedule than a few months ago means I will probably not do that much.

I was registering that one, although a physically bigger engine (even if 45% bigger, it seems I misread, I thought it was 1.8m vs 1.9m) is not such a bad deal for the much higher maximum speed. I would say it'd be more balanced with some sort of disadvantage other than that, it could be less efficient for example. I used to use dry costs, I've been using wet costs now, but I always mark it if it's in a review or matters much. Use either, just say which one you use.

What is the point of Lotuses then? If they are just slightly smaller but they restrict speed to 220m/s, I would argue that the new engine is a bit too good. It seems exactly like a Lotus, except almost plain better. The size difference can also hardly even be called a difference, the smaller one being 95% of the larger size. Think this engine is a bit of 'power creep', since it's hard to think of a situation in which a lotus would be better. In my opinion, not fair to older entries which were made before it. Even if for some reason you wanted smallness, why wouldn't you just offset the larger engine inwards? The Lotus itself seems to be in no need of an upgrade as well, I see it on well-thought out submissions reasonably often, probably due to high thrust per part-count and efficiency. Just be careful not to fall into this trap of making each new thing slightly better than the last, in the long run you will end up with about the same number of useful parts, and a large backlog of things you would never use because some other thing is just plain better. Maybe if you hampered the new engine in some way compared to the Lotus, it provides power to 260m/s or something but lacks reverse thrust, costs more and is a bit less efficient, something like that. Doing it changes it from being better to different, so a plane designer has a decision, rather than a calculation, and could reasonably go for either option depending on what they were trying to do.

I do now, but didn't four minutes ago.

Well I'd argue custom parts count as a mod, and it is not included on the list of acceptable mods. Air ramps are nice though.

Cruise altitude is unchanged from previous version.

Introducing the GK*-12 Skots Horse Mk II A significant redesign from the ground breaking predecessor is this. This has undergone a number of changes, including an increase in maximum fuel load from 9,610 kallons to 11,040 kallons. The takeoff speed has decreased from 70m/s to 51m/s, price has decreased by $1,054,000 and fuel efficiency has been increased further from the already respectable Mk I; this at the same time as speed increasing by about 35m/s to over 290m/s and part count decreased by 10 with it has one less engine. It also sports a more prominent button to disable the lower intakes to allow power while floating in water, more powerful rudder, faster climb rate and strengthened main airframe. (not that it was weak on the Mk I) Due to the extra fuel, speed and efficiency gained, the range has increased by an estimated 1,400km to close to 6,000 km. Now join us and party like it's 1924: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GK-12-Skots-Horse-Mk-II *After a merger with KEA our company is called Gawain-KEA. The asterisk is not part of the aeroplane's name.