CrazyJebGuy

If they wanted to be able to land in any direction, they should just use the simple solution they used in WW1. Just have a big circular field. Although if they want it to be much better than grass that may get expensive, and assumes a lot of free land is available. Would certainly though be easier than having to land in a circle. Probably practical for small airplanes and the so on.

Why? It's just one more thing a pilot can muck up on landing. And what if it's windy? Don't you normally want to land in some direction (I should know which direction, I think into the wind) relative to the wind?

Increase the order by one please. In other news we thing round runways have a lot of potential for phsuedo-scientific gimmicks....

I am. But I won't stick to that order, I just sort of so whatever. I've been doing that for a while. You do whatever order you like.

This took me about an hour. Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's ADX - CJG Figures as Tested: Price: 26,326,000 Fuel: 2000 kallons Cruising altitude: probably this number starts with an eight m Range: 4,866 km Cruising speed: 572 m/s Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s Review Notes: In them spirit of the creators company, this review will be done without full mental capacity. So starting off, it looks kinda wierd. But that's okay, cause nobody will [please pretend i thought up a reason - there is one i swear i just can't write it]. And so then we went and tried to fly it, but then we said it looks awesome with huge engines, but still weird. By the way there is little wheels in the wing-tips, and they were put on backwards, so the pilot thought the plane had a reverse gear, and he took off backwards. But then he scored a nose-strike, and the plane sort of tumbled about and the wings and stuff fell off, so for takeoff this plane scores a backwards C, since it looks kinda like a G, that stands for 'Good'. So then we fixed it and told him not to try reverse gear, and it took off at 155m/s, which is really fast and probably unsafe, but it has seat-belts so it's fine. Oh and it takes a big airport, but who actually cares about the tiny towns and so on which don't even have a big airport? In the sky it's really fast and at 2km up it goes 567m/s with a range of 1,410 km according to the maths i did on pen and paper. It could go faster but the engines were getting really hot and would probably blow up so we went higher. But than we went lower again because the wings caught fire and fell off. Then it hit the sea and all the passenger compartments survived hitting the water at 69m/s, those are some fine seat belts. So this plane gets an A+ for safeness because what other plane can crash land in the sea with no wings? The Andetch Ltd Company has said the altitude doesn't even matter, and didn't put in an altimeter. And we kind of agree, so all the altitudes here could be wrong by up to an error bar of 100%. We also like how it flies, it's a bit slow to turn but it doesn't spin or anything and it's an passenger plane anyway it won't need to do acrobatics, but it would be fun. Way up at high altitude, it's quite zippy and has a very long range and is fuel efficient, and the passengers are comfortable because of the very stable plane, the good, unobstructed views and lack of noise or vibrations. And then one stupid passenger complained his coffee cup was the wrong colour and got really annoyed at the (I forgot what they are called but one of those ladies on planes who serves drinks and such) over a stupid reason and so the sky waitress drank it herself to annoy him even more. Oh yeah it flies very well up there, and it has a stupendous range! It could circle-navigate Kerbin if it weren't flat! And it lands nicely. We accidentally slowed it down to ~50m/s with the thrust reversers before landing, and it stopped in a really short space easily and that was great. It's also cheap to maintain, having only thirty parts, and although it's a bit on the expensive side, we think it will long term work pretty well. The Verdict: Ww=How do I backspace? U,,mm oh,, andyway, we really like it and since KEA needs a nbunch of planes we'd like to buy about 18, cause it's good. And about 18, any number between 20 and 16.5 is good. As a bonus because the passengers are so close to the ground we save money on ladders.

I'm going to do another one, and time myself. Always wondered how much time it takes.

Eh, who cares about chronological order. I'll review this plane now. Test Pilot Review: @Artienia's Janet Sima Jaguar 40 Figures as Tested: Price: 16,646,000 Fuel: 674 kallons Cruising speed: 327 m/s Cruising altitude: 1200 m Fuel burn rate: 0.15 kal/s Range: 1,469 km Review Notes: Janet is the newest airline company, a title all airline companies once held, just not all of them for long. And this is their newest design. It is so new, in fact, that we found an engineer's coffee in it, still warm. Expensive mug though, we'll mail it back. Luckily Shepdin put his name on it. Anyway, the plane itself has some interesting design going on, seeming to decide rudders and tail-fins are for the birds. And two very expensive supersonic intakes, this plane isn't that fast surely? What makes the choice of intake more unusual is that on takeoff, the engine gets almost no air. The cockpit's inbuilt guage reads only 12% for a while until the plane builds up some speed. Even at takeoff speed, 80m/s, the engine is only supplied enough air for half power, and it takes a fair chunk of runway to get up to that speed. And it can tailstrike, not very easily but pilots should pay attention. At cruise speed it can just go supersonic, although we dialed off the throttle a bit and got it to stabilize at 327m/s, just 3m/s below the speed limit for small regional jets. This one is as fast as they come. 1200m is a very low altitude to cruise at, and the views there are spectacular, but we didn't think it was very fuel efficient. So we took it up to 4,500m, even though the range is fairly good at 1200m. Well, we tried. We got it up to 4500m, but when we tried to level off it sort of started spinning, we think maybe for the reason that it has no vertical stabilizer, since during turn down the plane had changed course a few degrees south, we turned it a bit north. But due to the lack of any rudder, we had to do a full elevator turn. Which didn't work, because then the nose sort of swung about and we ended up descending vertically at 60m/s, rotating. For purposes of getting out of a spin and not crashing and destroying the prototype, we would have liked a rudder, or at least a vertical stabilizer. This in combination with the huge flaps seems quite dangerous to us. Anyway after we had fished Genedock Kerman out of the sea, he told us it was a fairly comfortable plane, with good views and few vibrations, and generally quiet; the rear cabins are an exception to this rule though, since the engine is so close behind them they are suited only for 3rd class seating. Maintenance wise we believe Janet that it is cheap, 18 parts and as a bonus we don't need to do any maintenance if it crashes. The Verdict: We think it could be easily improved, but as it is we simply aren't interested. It's a dangerous plane and requires a large, expensive runway.

Yes it did, but a liberal amount of control authority can keep the plane level. Remember, this is uber-economy, it doesn't even matter if the plane is constantly pulling 2.5g turns, so far as comfort is concerned.

I tried removing the seats, turns out the airlines don't want a bunch of people all bouncing about in a metal box!

I think that's the point.

No, we absolutely do not. We give priority to older submissions, but absolutely not chronological.

Apologies for the slowness of updating the leader-board, and also not many reviews lately, I think @neistridlar said a while ago that reviews only happen with time and inspiration, I would have disagreed because I did a fair few fairly unmotivated, but it's true. Last few weeks really been struggling for inspiration, got about half way through a Passenger M38 (think it's called that) review, can't go much further. Hope I manage to get some inspiration soon.

That's not called a thrust reverser, although usually done with Whiplashes, that's called the "OH $%^# THE WINGS FELL OFF AND WE'RE PLUMMETING INTO A VOLCANO AT FOUR THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR!" brakes, to use the technical term.

But Juno engines don't have thrust reversers?

Glad somebody finally agrees with me. Biplanes are good.

The bad formatting is contagious! I should not have submitted the Konig in Comic Sans.... But seriously, where on Kerbin was that photo taken? I want to go there.

@neistridlar I did angle the wings on the Konig SR, it has about 3070km range now, ~300km more, but the biggest effect was the takeoff run. No longer does it need all the way to the VAB to lift off, it can do it, at about the flagpole! It now has a takeoff typical of a turboprop! Takes off now at ~63m/s whereas before it would be ~95m/s. By the way, what time is it where you are? Here it's half past nine in the morning.

Yes, but you've got an odd font, unusual font sizes. Here is the copy past thing we usually use: Test Pilot Review: [picture here] Figures as Tested: Price: Fuel: kallons Cruising speed: m/s Cruising altitude: m Fuel burn rate: kal/s Range: km Review Notes: Don't indent this text. The Verdict:

Good review, but I take issue with the formatting. The OP has an expandable bit below the list of judges, on the old thread it is marked "reveal hidden contenct" and on the new it's "spoiler". Just copy paste that.

I would have thought AoA on the wings made no significant difference, by doing it I'm just pointing the fuselage down a bit and pointing the wings up a bit, still have the same drag.

@neistridlar That also gave me the idea to put together about the two silliest planes I could, they do completely opposite things. And since I had these already downloaded, I added a Skots Speedmaster (5 whiplash engines cruises at ~1400m/s and it's a biplane) to the top of a Slinky 152 (Horribly under-powered jet) and expected them to blow up. No, what happened was it needed the drop at the runway to take off, but that was because the landing gear arrangement needed work, once in the air it actually went pretty well and I flew it south because I forgot if Kerbin has an ice-cap at the south pole.

You sure pure jets can do that? Turbojet thrust falls off spectacularly over about mach 5.

I can definitely see that argument, but I'd argue the craft isn't strictly mine or yours, although if singular ownership had to be enforced it would probably go to me, since I was the one who stuck them together, and my share of it is physically larger. Regardless I think if somebody wants a practice review, or a review that no-body takes too seriously this is a golden opportunity. Unless you object, I mean it is kind of your plane too.

@neistridlar I went and did exactly that, took an unmodified Konig SR and put an unmodified* Slinky 152 on top with struts, I was a little bit surprised to find out the Slinky was quite a bit longer than the Konig, here's a picture, the back is positioned level on both planes. (Not including Slinky's rear engine) *I had to re-root parts and pull off the rudder to attach it again so it would attach In the air it takes off about a quarter way along the crawlerway. Climbs and flies much like the unmodified Konig, guess that's to be expected since the Konig is roughly 2/3 of it. At 4000m up it does 224m/s and consumes 0.47 kallons per second, range of 3,300. Curiously it's about the average of plane's ranges. It's also got a fairly strong roll-yaw coupling, which I didn't expect given the Konig by itself has hardly any, I would have thought the Slinkies would be reduced more. (Still haven't flown the slinky by itself though - I'm just guessing it has similar roll yaw coupling to other Slinky planes I have flown) The actual design seems to work really well, which is surprising especially since when I connected them I gave no thought to balancing center of mass and lift or anything. Except the little tail wheel I added on the Konig to stop tailstrikes, the added weight of a Slinky is too much for it, it got crushed when I took off. If I was serious I'd just add another. Takes off at 100m/s exact, and by the way the center of lift is ahead of the center of mass, but there seems to be no ill effects. The issue of pitch down with reverse thrust, it's not there. The Gawain-Neist Slonig 456 seems costs $80,397,000, $176,309 per seat. I'm not officially entering it, but there is a download here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Gawain-Neist-Slonig-456 If I were entering it, who would be allowed to judge? I'm curious, and who would the reviewer ping in the title? Probably both of us to the second question, but the first one is more complex. Quick update: I found in the water it can make elevator turns! It's quite effective!

Apologies for the wrong stuff, I've corrected it now. Since my Konig's basic idea is a Slinky 152 glued to the bottom of another one, (heavily modified - I think past the basic structure they are quite different) I kind of hope to see somebody make a Thing 604, by bolting a Konig to a Konig. In fact, that makes me curious, what happens if I bolt a Slinky to a Konig? It might work, so I'll be off seeing what happens. I'll post if it's interesting.