CrazyJebGuy

Page 17

My reasoning, is most aircraft have a niche, so usually a small order of 3 to 12 can be justified. In the cases where I buy bulk (such as a Kerbus K-350) that happens when I think it's a good workhorse, (So, just generally very good, no major flaws) or it has a very large niche, for example the Kerbus K-220, which I said would be an ideal aeroplane to keep a stock of, and then reassign them to different routes as needed, so if a route becomes very busy for a week you might deploy a few to that route. It's very good for that, because it's very cheap, and because it's very versatile. The thing could even act as a sea-plane, it will void our warranty though.

No, I have this sorted. I am just going through the thread, updating the craft folder and also summarizing reviews as I see them, and it's not really something that other people can help with, because most of the work is just clicking and coping links and so on....

No, we'll still review them if they are in the previous thread. If anyone wants a practice aeroplane to review, the Turbo XL is a fairly good one for practice. It's already reviewed, twice. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165372-kerbal-express-airlines-regional-jet-challenge-reboot/&do=findComment&comment=3199416

Not really. Unless @Mjp1050 wants to put a little thing linking to the new thread.

I will, but I am quite busy ATM. Will start on it tonight.

Original challenge by @keptin First thread of this challenge by @Mjp1050 Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. The Rules: KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus + Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated) Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone. TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it. The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots. Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories. Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells. Minor clipping is allowed, within reason. A rolling runway takeoff is required. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water. Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.] Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered. 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet category What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category: For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. Seaplane Must be able to land on and take off from water and land Range of at least 600km Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s 16+ Passengers Turboprop Range of at least 800km Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s 24+ Passengers Small Regional Jet Range of at least 1000km Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s 40+ Passengers Small Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s 56+ Passengers See 'Hopper Information' below. Medium Regional Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s 72+ Passengers Supersonic Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s 40+ Passengers Hopper Range of at least 400km Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s 104+ Passengers Jumbo Jet Range of at least 4000km 152+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Super Jumbo Range of at least 4000km 800+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Hopper information: Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers. Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred Passenger comfort How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================== The Judges: @panzerknoef @neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy @NightshineRecorralis @no_intelligence (Judge of last thread) @1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread) @Mjp1050 (OP of last thread) Challenge Submissions Seaplane @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane. @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit. @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range. @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride. @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water. @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant. @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper. @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement. @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy. @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Long - It's just a Skots Medium but we told you it can land on water. That's the only difference. Turboprop @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface. @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range. @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop. @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way. @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes. @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210. @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?" @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km! @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km. @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty. @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often. @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range. @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled. @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap. @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material. @HamnavoePer's Keinheim Passenger Transport - Mediocre turboprop, but it can do stunts! Small Regional Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet. @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort. @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive. @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet. @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame! @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet. @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range. @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit." @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago. @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price, but let down by poor handling. @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend. @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range. @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Kalcing - Capable of going up to 322m/s with a great range saves this from being just another mediocre SRJ. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper - Outdated, but there is one model which can produce it's own fuel. @shdwlrd's Monarc P4 - Expensive but classy with a very long range. Medium Regional Jet @SuicidalInsanity's IA-720 - Offers an innovative design at a reasonable price. The IA-720 has all the qualities that we're looking for in a medium regional jet. @logman's Kerman Dove - Unreliable and very unsafe: it's not uncommon for the rear cabins to be destroyed on landing. Avoid this plane. @logman's Kerman Stingray - Very solidly built, reliable, and handles wonderfully. Hampered only by its large price tag. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-62 - Sturdy and reliable, but suffers from a large price tag and low fuel efficiency. Its exterior is reminiscent of designs from 50 years ago, too. @Bombstar10's Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B) - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-72 Medium - A bit expensive, but powerful fast and comfortable. @Gaarst's Kerbalespace C-1K - An expensive, but reliable and luxurious passenger liner. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-20 - It's comfortable, but it's slow, and it's quite cheap. Would recommend. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Medium - Uncomfortable, but turns well and has a long range. Expensive though. @FleshJeb's Klonkorde - It's a pretty good plane, very long and sleek, but it's not extremely cheap. It is though, very pleasant to fly in. @panzerknoef's Lassen - A pretty standard medium regional, it can take off from small runways and flies pretty well. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 100 Series - Nice looking, well built aircraft, but it comes at a steep price. @sdj64's Goosewing 80 - A modern looking design, a dream to fly, but it's not so good at passenger comfort. @no_intelligence's Kombardier 200 - Cheap to maintain, long range and good fuel economy are nice, but don't outweigh the fact flying it is a suicide mission. Supersonic Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet. @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs. @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort. @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption. @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it. @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though. @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended. @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel. @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero. @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design. @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort. @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas. @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner. @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it! @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK! @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable. @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it. @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse. @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies. @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control. @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles. @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what. @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames. @no_intelligence's Kupolev KU-100 - Decent plane, comfortable but a bit slower than most of its supersonic competition. @Magzimum's MAD TF-3a Swift - It's cheap, has spectacular range and great mileage. @TaRebelSheep's Trifekta Aeronautics F45T-W4 - Expensive to buy and operate, but comfy safe and fast. Only worth considering for 1st class flights. Jumbo Jet @Andetch's Day Fury - It's very fast an maneuverable, but with a range that is easily exceeded by seaplanes, and it takes off at very high speed. @NightshineRecorralis's Challenger Seaplane - A bit lacking at everything except being a HUGE FLYING BOAT. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Skots Mouse - Somebody added wings and a few jet engines to a ship, and it's cheap. @NildimensionalString's Winter Tech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner - It's expensive, slow, short ranged, will probably explode and it's obvious why the original company who designed it went bankrupt. @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II - It has very long range, and is generally pretty good, but it comes with a steep price tag. @Cols's A797 - It's slow, handles poorly, it climbs slowly and has a very short range, but it's dirt cheap, so we bought 3. @AeroGav's Screehcraft Grande Dumbo - A wonderful plane, it's luxurious, flies like a dream, but it's expensive. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI GP-1a - This jumbo carries cargo too - apart from that it just looks odd and is otherwise fairly normal. @Andetch's X Series Night Fury - It's a really big fighter jet with passenger cabins, and a short range by Jumbo standards. @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super - Hard to fly, very short range and expensive, but with comfort and luxury straight out of the golden age of air travel. @Not sure's B-1337 Swift Moon - A very unpleasant, loud airplane. It costs a lot of money. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 250 - A fat version of the 100, carries more passengers but with a shorter range and it can tail-strike if you aren't careful. @macktruck6666's L-1011 Jumbo Jet - It's very expensive and doesn't perform well, but it does have luxury seating! @Kneves's WH-04 - A short ranged, very hard to fly thing, it needs a tremendously big runway too and we will not buy any. @Bombstar10's Grizzly ST - 3 Civilian - It costs an arm, leg 4 fingers and a left toe, for a plane that is guaranteed to explode, it is slow and uncomfortable and is absolutely, undoubtedly the worst plane we have tested. So far. Yours could beat it and be King Krap. @TaRebelSheep's Trifecta Aeronautics C5 "RePurpose" - Only 140 seats, but there's a lot of space in the cargo bay to pull a Skots Economy, so it's a jumbo anyway. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Ratt - It's slow, but fairly good at all the other stuff, except price. Super Jumbo @NightshineRecorralis's Colossus - It's flipping massive, 1152 passengers, gets off the runway like a turbo-prop, flies like a cruise ship. @CrazyJebGuy's Sky Titanic - A wonderful idea on paper, but in turns the wings fall off and everybody dies. Other @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Cool Corporate Jet - Not sure to have a meeting or an air show? Now you can have both at once! Wunderwaffe* @qzgy's Kramer Starmachine - No windows, supersonic jumbo and passenger cabins are upside down. Please someone review that plane I made by super-gluing one of Niestridlar's jets to one of my own. It's the very epitome of this section. @Steel Starling's SI-R-1 Puddlejumper Scout - It can produce it's own fuel. Isn't that nifty? *Not really but this is for special planes that remind me of some of the mad German stuff; this section is for weird and wonderful things that may or may not work. How your Plane will be judged This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers. We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear) To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities: -Be cheap, at least per passenger -Fly well -Be reasonably fast -Have a long range -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later) -Be reasonably fuel efficient -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue. Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review. This thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome.

This held the record for a couple months on the main thread, only beat 8 hours ago. Should be a good start to this thread. Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The Skots VIII Squirrel It's the largest aeroplane in existence. (As far as this thread is concerned) It weighs 554 tonnes. It can go supersonic. It seats one thousand, four hundred and eighty-eight passengers. It has 645 parts, which luckily, are all very standardized. It has high speed wireless internet, and a range of 3800km flying at 190m/s 500m up. Or a range of 2800km at 315m/s. Or it can afterburn supersonic. As far as takeoff is concerned, it gets to 110m/s, then just pull up, once only the rear wheels are still on the ground, you can pull up the gear and fly away. Landing is more complicated, since you can use the built in reverse engines and airbrakes to slow down rapidly, and also we may or may not have destroyed our own runway with the sheer weight of it. We recommend either a very strong runway, a very cheap one, or a big field. It costs a whoppingly low considering the passenger count price tag of $393,236,000 with fuel. Without fuel it's about $350,000,000. We recommend having fuel. That is (fueled) $264,289.65 per seat, which is incredibly low. It has good mileage too, perfect for the airline whom hates paying for petrol. We pulled off this feat of designing a truly spectacular jet, after months of failures when we tried sensible things. This time we tried just taking the Skots VI Ratt and adding as much stuff as we possibly could. Somehow it flies, but hey, we aren't complaining. Consider yourself one-upped, @NightshineRecorralis. It took a while, but I beat your 1152. Action groups: 1. Toggle afterburners 2. Toggle reverse thrust Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/Skots-VIII-Squirrel May god have mercy on the reviewer's cpu.

But that factors in not cost at all! Nearly any fool can make a plane handle wonderfully without a limit on cash. I think Gold should be for if you do it on less than 750k/passenger or something. Anyways, off to start new thread. Won't include the badges until we get that sorted out.

We're really very embarrassed a plane could get through testing with faults like that, and we are working hard to fix it. The problem (fixed now) is that the wings are too wide, and so when turning the high AoA gives them much more lift than the wing in between fuselages and so it twists the fuselages in opposite directions, so it looks like it just splits down the middle, as if you put something really heavy on the wing between fuselages. We just shortened the wings, problem solved. Also it doesn't fly nose up in the air much more than smaller planes, you just notice it more because the plane is so much longer. We also fixed the landing gear, having it rest in anything near the tail was not going to work, to get any appreciable angle would require absurdly large front wheels, simply due to the plane's enormous length. So instead we opted for no resting angle, but 3 sets of gears. One front one, a middle one, of equal height to the front one, and a rear, small one, so it doesn't get in the way of pivoting, and to stop tailstrikes. The middle set is placed slightly behind the plane's center of mass, and so it can easily lever itself up to rest on the middle and rear gears, and thus have a very good angle. On a side-note, we added some engines to act as brakes, they point backwards, and are right near passenger cabins, so they are a huge pain for those passengers when firing, but we don't think this is an issue, since we don't expect them to fire much. They do get activated with staging though, so action group 3 disables them and enables all forward thrusting engines, AG 4 turns on the stopping engines and switches off all other engines though.

I'll do it if there is some support for it, front post really needs updating. But that does mean we now can choose to allow other mods, and that's probably going to cause a fight. I would suggest KAX, because it has 2.5m tail booms and structural fuselage, but if I do that I would put money on it that five people beg for five different mods, and then we either veto them and I'm a huge hypocrite, or we let them all in and this becomes much too complicated.

Yes, I still submit, I just save it for when It's really worth it. I've been doing so since about page 20, I've only been submitting the things I thought were really worth it. When people say my reviews are making my planes look good, and I'm just doing it so my planes do better, they have it backwards. Of course my planes look good, I build them so if I were to review it, it would so well. And due to this other thing, I won't submit any half-rate thing. But do submit it, it's worth a longer list. And anyways, If you do I'll review two planes today I wouldn't otherwise have done today, so it'll shorten it. Basically whenever I submit, I review two or more, It's just this time I'm reviewing on your behalf. EDIT: I am getting close to beating your 2592, making mine and got 1,944 so far. I've put four huge jets facing backwards, just to help at braking.

KPPM is GPPM, Gallons/Kallons per passenger mile. (I think the fuel is already in gallons - but others disagreed and so GPPM caused confusion, KPPM is less confusing) KPM = (Fuel capacity / Passenger Capacity) / (Range * 0.62) General rules of thumb: KPPM of over 0.1, you are doing it wrong, this is very bad. KPPM of 0.05, innefficient GPPM of 0.04, bad. KPPM of 0.02, roughly average GPPM of .01-.02, pretty good GPPM of under .01? Really good. I've only seen this done with high altitude hypersonic planes at maximum speed. Meanwhile I'm off to add another layer to my modification of the Skots Squirrel will be (largest plane entered until Neistridlar enters his - wonder why he hasn't)

Hold my beer.

Bothered for PR reasons! We're the only airline operating a nuclear aircraft, we are the airline of the future!

Yeah, but there is a big difference between a very long range, and an unlimited range. That plane was a one-trick pony, so we only bought one. Your plane did more stuff, so we bought more. (21 if I remember correctly?)

Test Pilot Review: @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper Figures as Tested: Price: 473,374,000 Fuel: 000 kallons Cruising speed: 104m/s Cruising altitude: 1000-2000 m Fuel burn rate: N/A kal/s Range: Keeps going until the pilot needs a nap Review Notes: This review is way ahead of schedule, we normally put submissions in a very long queue, but in this case, the sheer absurdity is reason enough to queue jump, that and the fact we should do this before nuclear powered aeroplanes are made illegal, give us plenty of reason to do this. First off, one of the elephants in this bizarre room: the price. It is simply astronomical, the largest documented entry (by passenger count) has a price $80,000,000 lower than this, and it holds 45 times more passengers. We could quite literally buy 25 normal jets, for the price of a single one of these. The rest of the review will answer the question "should we?". This plane seems like someone had an idea in a board room, drunk, and suddenly some engineers start making bets on it and debating whether they could, and this debate was so intense no-body stopped to ask if they should. One reason not to do it, is the pilot training costs. It is so different from every other aircraft at engines, and when our engineers opened up the engine cover, they quickly closed it becuase it only made them more confused. It also has an instruction manual, that is actually needed to fly the thing, and considering it carries radioactive material, our pilots had better well be able to recite the thing backwards while riding a bike with no hands on a speeding merry-go-round! Oh yeah, and did we mention the other oddities of this thing? So many! And they are all irrelevant compared to the engines! There is a second fuselage, embedded but lowered, into the higher fuselage with passengers, and for some reason the high winged monoplane has it's wings bolted onto the lowest fuselage? This second fuselage also does nothing as far as we can tell, it just sits there, not providing fuel or anything. Now, up till now we haven't even got into this crazy contraption, let alone fly it! But now, we will. And we revved up the engines, (due to complicated procedure only 1 can be throttle adjusted at any one time, and it's slow) the plane practically lept into the air! With an acceleration of a whopping 20m/s in our first 15 seconds, we knew this thing would go at least mach nine hundred! Although credit where credit is due, it takes off at an amazingly low 31m/s! The surprises never stop! We just hope any future ones won't need to be measured in kilotons of TNT. Up in the air, it won't get very up any time soon, this plane climbs at the pace of a snail carrying heavy shopping the wrong way up an escalator! But fortunately it cruises just above sea level, very low altitudes. Handling wise, we were amazed. We expected something extraordinary from this plane, and we were astonished when it handled completely normally and like a regular plane. It's nothing special here, not bad, not good, but not being remarkable is remarkable for a plane so strange as this. The engines are completely silent, so silent that it is eery to fly on this plane. Our pilot, on several occasions, thought the engines had stopped with how quiet they were, and panicked. We had to install speakers to play a bit of engine noise, just to calm down the pilot and passengers, the comfort here is impeccable, although vibrations happen a heck of a lot of the engines, they get transferred a bit to the wings, but the thing is so bendy or something, because it is hardly felt in the cabin. And when we mean a heck of a lot of vibration in the engines, we mean it. A huge jet at full blast has nothing on these things, these things will be shaking back and forth about 2 inches difference, several times a second! There are warning signs to not put anything next to then when in operation, because the engines will smash it to pieces! On landing, the engines were quick to throttle down, and the plane glides well, and can land pretty quickly. It's maintenance is.... incredibly high. Not as stupidly high as the price, but very high. The nuclear powered engines are a total mystery to our engineers, let alone mechanics, and it has a part count of 159! One hundred and fifty nine! The range cannot be calculated normally, this plane does not need to be refueled for decades. The Verdict: This is an absurd plane. In ever way, it's absurd. The price is absurd, the engines are absurd, the speed is absurdly low, the range is practically unlimited, so again, absurd. It doesn't have much going for it, other than a range of fly anywhere. Even then, it's so slow it would be faster to fly a faster plane and have some stop-overs, so it's really only suited for the sort of crazy en-devour of very long range stunts, and for PR. We will be the airline of the future, powered by nuclear energy! Even though we don't have to buy fuel, we'll never make a profit using these for normal things. We will buy one though, for a publicity stunt and for that sort of long range tom-foolery mentioned before.

Oh, so it's exactly like a reactor, and it functions the exact same way, but it's not a reactor! Neat!

I'm veri impressed by your engineuity, but I am not sure a commercial airline company should ahve planes with nuclear reactors on board..... I applaud it though!

Test Pilot Review: @valens's Kyasish'ev EK-4 Teal, EK-4e Teal Figures as Tested: Price: 19,493,000, 20,043,000 respectively. Fuel: 880 kallons Cruising speed: 246.7m/s Cruising altitude: 10 km Fuel burn rate: 0.096 kal/s Range: 2,260 km Review Notes: This was a converted "science plane", although what they used it to study is unclear. Their plane flies at 10 km up, a rare altitude for a plane to fly at, which for us as an airline just means it takes less attention to not bump into another plane, since most other planes either fly below that or only pass through climbing. Which, incidentally, this plane is quick at. The thing is fairly light, and has two fairly powerful engines. It cruises fairly fast, 246m/s is not bad, but not spectacular either. It's range, 2260km, is achieved with an impressively low fuel amount, of just 880. It's very efficient. We can certainly respect the engineers for this, or maybe oil prices were just high when this thing was designed. It's probably different in their country, where they make companies with such un-spellable names. The front passengers said they had a nice time, the back ones complained of a bit of noise, and the ones in the middle complained of small vibrations from the engines. The comfort on this plane is fairly good, the complaints were fairly off-hand. The pilots complained about the very slow pitch, a typical jumbo has a more powerful pitch control. We like that they added a rear tail wheel to prevent tail strikes. It takes off and lands in a pretty normal way. With 37/38 parts, the maintenance is a bit high. The price is low though, so it balances out. Note that the only difference between the EK-4 and EK-4e was that the 'e' variant had another 8 passenger seats and the flaps extend the wrong way. Apart from that they are identical, that's why in this review we refer to them as the same aircraft. The Verdict: We really don't see the point of the smaller version, it's nearly identical in ever way, except it has a 20% worse passenger count (thus income) and a very slightly (3%) reduced price. So we really only considered the EK-4e, which we would like to buy 21, seeing the long range and efficiency we think it will pay off.

I didn't review a plane, instead I tried to land on Minmus in my career game. No problem, I've done this loads before. I suddenly realized halfway through the transfer burn, I wanted to go to Minmus not the Mun. Oops. First KEA space routes are not going well.

To be honest the requirements are not that important, you can submit a thing with under the requirements, it will get points off for that, but even in requirements, some things can be marked down simply because a typical plane of that type does it way better.

It's allowed, I wouldn't recommend it though, high part counts cost a lot in maintenance. If you want propellers I suggest getting airplane plus. And try to keep engines away from passengers, it is more comfortable for them, and we like that in an aircraft.

Tried to review your Maui, but every time I spawn it on the runway it blows up. Could you fix it please?