CrazyJebGuy

Fun fact, there is a switch under the right control column we forgot to talk about in the manual, it disables the lower intakes to allow for operations floating on water. Also we strongly recommend not taking the full fuel load, since this will make the plane highly unstable. The standard should be considered the maximum safe amount. (The fuel tanks were so cheap without fuel that it was decided to use them as structural parts) And as some high up executive (who cares what my actual rank is) of Gawain-KEA (Since we're playing companies, would not it make sense that me starting a continuum thread and being basically OP would be some kind of pretend merger or something?), I can just hire Jeb to be technically a part of the legal team, working no time but being paid a bit anyway. Mortimer has no control over the legal team! Seriously though, great review! I'm hoping that Jeb's seemingly wholesome and drug-free flight might be the start of him kicking a drug habit. Or it might not. The Lotus is there mainly for low speed power and acceleration, reverse thrust braking and endurance flight. And a structural element, a revised version can be made. I'm surprised you didn't mention the part count or comfort in your review.

The first Hopper aircraft officially entered is.... the GAI Box Carrying 280 passengers with the ability using afterburners to quickly accelerate and take off, we think this plane will be a winner. With a length of 11.1m by 10.1 wide, this thing can climb at 70 degrees so it can clear tall buildings in the area. The range is approximately 780km, which it will accomplish at a rate of 250m/s, altitude approx 2,000m. Comfort is minimal but for such short flights, do you really need better? AG1 toggles afterburners, and for reference the parachute is NOT INTENDED for emergency use, doing so will result in an aircraft doomed to descend vertically at 35m/s. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Box P.S. If I'm now OP, (should have asked a while ago) we're playing companies so is that the pretend equivalent of Gawain Aeroplane Industries buying out Kerbal Express Airlines or something? Just thinking if it is a name change might be in order. (GAI is a stupid acronym anyway)

I know those reasons, but a biplane design is more compact. The whole point of a hopper is to be compact ( except in vertical, a hopper can be very tall and still not need much parking space.

With the hoppers, why would you even want a mono-plane? With a biplane you get double the wing area for the same aircraft width. More lift, for less space.

I don't like it much, given the innacuracy in data gathering I would not trust it to more than a digit or two, and doesn't account for aircraft oddities, or performance quirks that might cause a crash. I also kind of like how the planes are not judged mainly on numbers, having them play a large role I am fine with, but I simply don't think they should be applied this much.

I like to build the cheapest practical thing, and remember performance can be a significant factor in a review, still though those ultra-cheap-can-be-outstripped-by-a-bicycle planes have a niche, although definitely not on routes that contain hills. I reviewed @neistridlar's Stingy 24 and 32 planes, it was horrible flying them, they were so underpowered and the cruising altitude (even though it was 3km or something low) took a long while to reach, and I think in the review I said the 24 was okay for some stuff, but I rejected the 32 as simply too under-powered to use. I try to make sure all my planes have at least 0.4 TWR, mostly I get about 0.6. I plan to make one, I'm not sure it can be done well though, I'm worried on landing it will just keel over and fall on it's face if you put on brakes. For a first time poster, I'm impressed you got one so cheap. Hell, $35m is impressive for a veteran here. Would you mind putting a download link though? We cannot review your plane if we cannot download it.

I think city hoppers, or hoppers for short is a good name. Also passenger capacity is important, because with hoppers you would want compact bulk throughput, fuel efficiency and range are not important, nor comfort really due to short flights. Think the pinnacle of design in that category will look something like a narrow tower of wing parts and cabins, shaped roughly like a skyscraper, those will have high capacity and use little land for parking. I'm going to add them to the OP soon. EDIT: The turboprop I was testing flipped out on takeoff, after that's fixed it travels 256m/s with a range of 1605km, bit slower than yours (still pretty quick by turbo standards) with a very slightly longer range. Biggest difference is the price of ~12m and the 30 partcount, in comparison to your turboprop. I am going to work a bit more on it.

Truth be told my first seaplane being a masterpiece was a bit of a fluke, I knew at that point how to make a well performing plane, never learned any tricks on how to reduce cost (Did you see that really low cost Jumbo I made ~$60 million for 304 passengers, @neistridlar made one about $25/30 million for 152, (I forget exactly how much) and I think they are quite competitive. Outside of these planes it's almost unheard of to have less than 300k/seat, think the only planes which manage this are these jumbos which manage somewhere in the region of 160-180k/seat. Mine is worse than his at this, but I think it is better anyway because his are chronically underpowered, my jumbo can pull some stunts! Sidetracked there a bit, also had no idea that comfort was even a consideration. Pure luck that I put it in a good configuration then! I have a design of turbo I'm about to test fly for the first time, it's about 2/3 the price of yours, no idea how it compares in other ways. By the way, I had the idea: Bulk transport planes for big cities, where land is extremely expensive, (like inner New Kork or something) which tack off and land in a very small space, while tacking up as little surface area of hangars as possible, range would need not be longer than 300km or so to get to a airfield where bigger planes are more practical. Any-one got any suggestions for this class name? Comfort also, not too important due to short journey.

Nice to see you again, and now I feel I have to make a turboprop that beats yours. Your one has beaten mine.

Please use normal formatting.

We already do that, before I submit planes I review them in my head, and then submit. I compare this review to the one done by a reviewer, and outside of working, not much changes.

@neistridlar@Box of Stardust I'm a bit skeptical that all this data about planes is a good idea. A significant proportion of these numbers would have to be gathered in a subjective way, you can put definitions like a pitch score of 2 means easy side-slipping and possible to spin, but what qualifies as side-slipping would vary between reviewers, some might consider only a very little bit to be sideslipping, others might think the nose has to slip a bit further to qualify, and in those tests is rudder used to correct the slip, it's things like this that could lead to endless minutia, and the fine tuned statistics I think get pretty useless at much more complex than GPPM, simply because of the inaccuracy of measurement. Other problems I have with it is it would be very time-consuming, and advantage/disadvantage older planes which were reviewed before. And I kind of like the little bit of randomness in how many are bought, since it reflects the somewhat random ways real businesses work. I'd also like to argue the numbers I put forward are not very random, 0 is for hopeless planes, 1-8 is for niches, 9-20 is for decent planes, 21+ is for 'workhorses', which beyond that can be a bit random, but for something to be a workhorse it should be cheaper than average, it should outperform most planes in most things, compared to other planes of the category, and be really good at one thing, with no major flaws and it has to be fairly safe. @TheFlyingKerman is very good at doing this, his planes tend to be good and he clearly thinks about cost and considers it, so a fair few of his planes get workhorse status. @TaRebelSheep's T-140 little float-plane I reviewed a while back, that one got 62 purchases because it was very good at what it did, and there was very little competition for trainer aircraft, while there being a pretty significant demand. Box of stardust too, before you standardize something else, please standardize the formatting in your reviews. There is a template in a 'hidden content' box in the original post for this exact reason.

I was accused once that my reviews promote my planes. And I will say, it's no coincidence that I review planes and reward the types of things my own planes do. But that's not because of biased judging, that's because as a submitter I consider what I would say if I were to review it, and my submissions are better for it. The single best plane building tip I can offer, consider what the judge would say.

By the way after you advised KEA to not buy the Slinky 152, and then suggested some other Neist planes, can I suggest my own plane? The GK-6 Konig? It is like the slinky in price, (slightly worse) but it is also not chronically under-powered.

This thread is going a bit quickly for my tastes, couple days ago i was thinking page 31 was really new. The rules say medium and large planes need two pilots, so I would interpret as anything medium regional jet or higher. Remember, that rule was made back when 200 was considered a behemoth. See what's considered a behemoth soon, I've just learned how to use autostruts!

No, I don't think any of my planes have it. Some have backwards sweep though, did you get confused about that? Although if I make a very maneuverable plane I might, reason swept-forward is more manueverable I think is because as the plane pitches, AoA increases, and a wing sweeping back will get more lift, and also leverage pushing against the direction of pitch. But if it is further forward, the increased AoA will start having a force helping the pitch. But I suspect that may just be a fallacy, since the centre of lift will have to be the same, so a forward swept wing will be put further back, cancelling out the effect before. Might be wrong but if this is the reason the wing shape won't matter, it will have the same centre of lift. (or else the plane will flip out of the sky)

Gawain Aeroplane Industries actually almost did a review of this plane, we ran into significant trouble after the prototype was shot down by anti-aircraft guns, being mistaken for an alien space-craft.

The tornado picture is broken by the way, just says ksp_tornado.png

No, I have used Vista a bit and it is better than 10. It's bad reputation comes largely from it breaking older programs, and having very high system requirements for the time. 7 is basically Vista with some bells and whistles taken off to save disk space, and with some backward compatibility fixes. If we're going to talk UI though, Vista's is actually pretty, and is more sensibly designed, compare to 10's UI and Vista is glorious in comparison. Back on topic though I don't think I could get a better design by swapping out the passenger cabins for something heavier, since then it would take longer to takeoff, and I think ~550 tons is a good starting post for a thread like this.

I have differing reasons for my hatred of 10, my computer is plenty powerful enough to run it, I just dislike it. It tries to make things easier, so dumbs some things down and makes basic things hard, but it also adds some really un-needed complexity (A setting 'app' and a control panel, the start button has different shutdown/logout/etc buttons depending if you right click it or act like a normal person. The UI in general (This is subjective though) looks very ugly, and it looks as if no effort was put in whatsoever, like I did it in microsoft paint. I also don't like that it takes up so much more disk space, Pro is ~16.5gb, win 7 ultimate (largest version) is about 8gb. (Probably - I may remember incorrectly) Another complaint is the adds and forced updates, I had pro so I could delay updates, but they still put adverts on Minesweeper for goodness sakes. That and you can't roll-back updates, which I need to do from time to time on 7 because it breaks some old program or something.

I will do the second thing, once I can no longer use Windows 7. I tried 10, seems utter rubbish to me, kicker is that it spies so much.

15.5 seconds. This was submitted in KSP Regional Jet challenge, but it works well here. Mass is 553.5 tons. Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Skots-VIII-Squirrel Not sure of the scoring, but by the way Andetch, this is the plane that lagged my PC so much I did not know for a long time how easily it spins.

May I suggest making rules of only jet engines and rolling takeoffs, with wings?

How is that a bad thing? They gotta learn sometime!

As the guy who reviewed Mr Tiddles, you did indeed do that well. All mine feel like whales to control, except one which lagged my PC so much I did not realize just how powerful it's controls are until I set physics timing higher and discovered it will spin itself in <3 seconds. (I have since updated it, new model cannot do that)