Maxorin

Almost-completed B777-8X. Also an experiment using flags for liveries. It's proving to be quite annoying, but it's really nice. Here's Boeing's unused burgundy livery, which frankly looks nicer than the typical blue house livery.

Remember the WIP B737 I posted progress of? It's finally completed! Truth be told, it was done a long time ago. I was just lazy to edit the video of it. Anyway, we'll skip the life story. You're here for the pictures. Cockpit instrument panels and overhead panel Forward and Aft Galley Forward and Aft Lavatories E&E Bay Passenger Half Rear Airstair Tail Compartment - Cable Drum APU Compartment Wheel Well Trailing-edge surfaces + more things. Look at everything in the album here. Want to download this? Bad idea, buddy! 3250 part Stripped, No Livery version. 4100 part Stripped with Livery version. 7500 part Full Interior version. Life story time Never before had I worked with parts in such a small scale. The most obvious section that displays this is the cockpit instrument panel. To do the gauges, it required me to use parts I, frankly, never thought I would use for a build. The gauges were made by, believe it or not, the Mystery Goo Containment Unit. The needles themselves were angled Communotrons, and the redlines were thermometers. If you actually look at the Mystery Goo Unit, you'll see for yourself how small the scale actually is. On the overhead panel, due to lack of space, a new part entered the fray. The small circles are actually struts. They have little balls at the ends of them, that when clipped properly shows as a small circle, perfect for these things. The "3 Green" lights are batteries. That's it really. Nothing special about them. Everything past the cockpit is pretty obvious. Perhaps the next special item is the galley, specifically the food you can see on it. As it so happened, the Barometer looks exactly like a tray of airline food. Cheap-looking, unappetising and minimal. But Kerbals have had worse. The other notable feature is the Lattice Livery. You might make claims like "That looks exactly like the A350's carbon fibre livery!" and "You copycat!", in which case you'd be right. Other than that, there's nothing else to really talk about. Hope you like the detail, and may your PC rest in pieces. Happy Flying!

Hi I'm gonna shamelessly promote my B-2 Spirit. Airliners are not the only things I make.

Test Pilot Review: [@Mathrilord's LoRE HST-3-8 Missile] Long Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The HST-3-8 Missile in subsonic flight) Figures as Tested: Price: 21 644 000 Fuel: 440kal Cruising speed: 1700m/s Cruising altitude: 25000m Fuel burn rate: 0.07kal/s Range: 10000km Review Notes: On first glance, the plane appeared to be very sleek, fitted with an engine that was uncommon in the civilian sector. Indeed, while it looked like a typical small plane, there were a number of features that stood out. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the plane was the lack of a visible cockpit-the only thing that stood out was a small camera on the nose of the plane. We later learnt that this small camera was the pilots' only view out of the plane, which admittedly did scare them a bit. Nonetheless, they agreed to take the plane for a spin. Just like its name, the Missile performed like a…missile. At full throttle, the plane accelerated very quickly, reaching its takeoff speed of 85m/s, a bit higher than stated, in 800m. Our pilots did have a concern that excessive pitching could lead to a tailstrike on the engine, although in regular situations this would be unlikely. Once in the air, our pilots performed the standard control check, noting that the plane had very good handling in all 3 axes. In fact, they even managed to sideslip the plane 40 degrees without causing it to spin out. Furthermore, the airframe managed to withstand a force of 46Gs, which was very impressive. As per its manual, the plane rocketed up to its cruising speed and altitude very quickly, in only 120km and with 300kal of fuel remaining. Also true to its name was the speed at which it cruised: a blinding 1700m/s. This was the fastest plane TKA has received so far. Not to mention, it had an incredible calculated range of more than 10000km. When it was time to land, the speedbrakes helped to slow the missile down from its hypersonic trip. Our pilots expected the plane to have a high landing speed due to its low wing loading. However, it managed to land at 65m/s, which was a bit slower than expected. That being said, it was at this moment when things started to go a bit wrong. The wheels started to bounce on touchdown which caused some instability in the plane. In fact, it started to skid and spring off the ground. This did catch our pilots off guard, and a later inspection found that the auto-spring and auto-damper systems were the culprits. We recommend having a set value for the springs and dampers to avoid such an incident again. In emergency situations, the sleek aerodynamic design allows the plane to retain its speed very well, although its single engine design could be a cause for concern in the redundancy sector. The plane also handled extremely well for water ditchings, with no damage whatsoever. The Verdict: It's relatively cheap and lightning fast. The passenger count, lacking at a mere 16, could limit the Missile to niche luxury trips, aided by the speed of the plane. Maintenance-wise, it's quite a charm, not requiring much at all. The new cockpit arrangement could require some extra training to operate safety. Most importantly, the part that requires some redesign is the landing gears' springiness. All in all, it's quite a good plane with few flaws. TKA will take 5 for its luxury or time-sensitive trips, with an additional 3 if it's popular with the people.

We do have a small one, which we're trying to clear. That's right, we do have a 'claiming system' of sorts, where judges will take on the planes. It just so happens that the ones up in the queue are taken, so I took the next available. Don't worry, I'll wrestle with them to get to it. It's just a series of messages on Discord. The judge who wants to take a plane with react with a symbol of sorts and 'claim' it. There's no inherent spreadsheet.

Sorry for the late review chaps. Test Pilot Review: [@Commodoregamer118's DDR ISSRJ1] Medium Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The ISSRJ1 in flight) Figures as Tested: Price: 62 186 000 Fuel: 2320kal Cruising speed: 180m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.24kal/s Range: 1750km Review Notes: The plane's cabin layout caught our eye immediately. The upper cabin's windows were facing up and the lower cabin's downwards, which allowed for a blinding view both ways. This was quite the interesting design choice. During takeoff, our pilots noted that it had a pretty high acceleration, reaching its rotation speed of 60m/s quickly. It should also be noted that this was actually 10m/s higher than the stated rotation speed, but it was found that any slower a rotation would prevent the plane from accelerating any further. It was also able to take off in 850m, which was admittedly high for planes of its size. The wings also did not provide a lot of lift, and required high angles of attack to remain climbing. Upon its takeoff, our pilots also took note of the plane's incredible pitch and roll capabilities, which were very powerful. In fact, they think it might be too powerful. The extreme deflections and size of the control surfaces almost spun them out of control. Furthermore, because both pitch and roll were bound to the same control surfaces, they hindered each other's actions and led to a more 'rocky' recovery. The aforementioned weak lift also meant that the plane was unable to reach its stated cruising altitude of 5000m, and instead managed 4000m. To the plane's credit, it was able to cruise at a higher speed of 180m/s instead of the stated 120m/s, and also had lower fuel consumption. However, it was at this point that our flight engineer noticed a discrepancy in the manual. It stated that the plane could travel 5000km, but a quick run through the calculator found a range of only 1750km. This was far below the stated number, and frankly quite disappointing. Finally, it was time for landing. The plane touched down at 65m/s and our pilots applied the brakes and reversers. At least, they think they did, because the plane decelerated…not at all. Rather, the plane stopped in 1km. This was rather appalling to us. After inspecting the brakes, we found that they were not set at full braking power, and the thrust reversers were deflecting off the V-tail. The plane was also tested in emergency situations. The plane was able to take off with one operational engine, but the power of the pitch and roll meant that it was quite difficult to handle at the low speeds. In fact, our pilots accidentally impacted the left wingtip, shaving a few centimetres off the tips and a few years off their lives. In a double engine failure, the plane's weak lift means it has unimpressive gliding performance. In a ditching, it also means that the plane has to land at higher speeds, although this did not hinder the plane as it was able to landing in one piece. The Verdict: It could be quite a good regional jet. It's pretty cheap and can carry a decent amount of passengers. However, its performance is both too good and bad at the same time. Not to mention, the poor landing performance is really quite unfavourable. Maintenance-wise, the plane isn't all that bad. The only major issue would be the application of the reversers, as the cold stream would deflect straight into the V-tail which could damage it. In order to fix the plane's grievous flaws, we recommend, firstly, making the wings bigger and limiting the control authority and allocation. Secondly, the plane's brakes need to be adjusted to a higher braking force. Thirdly, the engines should be placed in a position where their reversers do not deflect straight into any critical components. If the flaws are fixed, TKA will consider buying 3.

I don't believe aesthetics can ever be taken too far, it's a challenge to make things look good and perform good.

Don't worry chap we have it under control this time

Woo! Welcome to the fairing fuselage gang! Your planes be looking hella nice.

B737-200C update! Your treat for today will be the passenger half of the cabin. View from Front View from Rear How many parts is the plane now? Good news! It's only 4270 parts in its almost-half-completed state. I might have the record for highest part count plane at the end of this suffering. It might also end up being a static model at this rate. Not that it can't fly, but that no computer can run it.

Take the amount of fuel you have, divide it by the fuel consumption rate. Multiply by speed. Divide by 1000 to get range in km.

Test Pilot Review: [@rutnam's A917-A Skycutter] Long Haul, Low Capacity (Pictured: The A917-A in flight) Figures as Tested: Price:192 600 000 Fuel: 520 kal LF, 640 kal Ox Cruising speed: 150 m/s Cruising altitude: 7000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.02 kal/s Range: ~3800 km Review Notes: When we saw the plane, the thing that caught the attention of the entire review board was the absolute size of the propellers. In fact, they were twice as high as the cabin and fuselage, coming in at 5.3m diameter. Not to mention, there were 2 pairs of contras. We were looking forward to feeling the power they would provide, although our maintenance team was quite worried at maintaining those 4 propellers. What was also quite strange was the centreline main gear, which was unusual for a plane of this size. We figured that this would be unnecessary and would hinder rotation speed, so we tried to retract it. It was at this moment that we learnt what this was for, as the plane started to tip back. As it would turn out, the centre of mass was a tad far back, and we were unable to figure out why. What we were not looking forward to (because we were looking up) was the height of the plane. To accommodate the massive propeller assembly, the plane sat quite high off the ground, which would pose problems for boarding at small or regional airports and also hinder easy maintenance. Finally, we relinquished control to our test pilots to take it out for a spin. (Note the wording used). They taxied it out of the hanger and turned it onto the runway. Except it didn't turn, because there was no steerable gear. We were in a bit of bother, but one of our test pilots had the brilliant idea of throttling up the right engine to turn it left. Thankfully, this worked out, at the cost of a little convenience. We really would like to see a steerable gear though. Finally, it was time to takeoff. As was expected, the plane jolted forward as the throttles were advanced forward. It rotated at 55m/s and took off in 600m, which was actually 200m longer than stated. Regarding its controls, it was pretty alright on all 3 axes, although a bit slow. We also noticed that the rudder's deflection angle was rather small, however this proved to not be a significant problem, and the plane was able to sideslip 15 degrees. What caught all of our attention was the noise created by the propellers. It has to be the loudest propeller plane we've heard. Climb and cruise was also pretty standard, although admittedly we were unsure if the plane would be able to reach its cruising speed of 150m/s, due to the seemingly sensitive nature of the propellers. However, it was able to without much difficulty. Apropos to landing, the plane touched down at 70m/s and was able to stop in 300m, which is relatively good. We figure it can be made shorter by incorporating more powerful brakes; however this isn't a very big problem. What is a problem is that the props are relatively close to the ground, which means that a hard landing could scrape the propellers. In emergency simulations, our pilots commented that it was able to ditch easily without major damage. However, in the single-engine failure test, it was found that the plane was unable to stay stable with one engine at full throttle. The power that the contras provide overpowers the small rudder deflection. In fact, at slower speeds, the plane was almost put into a flat spin, had it not been for the pilots feeling this and immediately aborting the test. (Refer to above wording used) In the dual-engine failure test, the natural unpowered state of the engine meant that the propellers were actually decelerating the plane more. Our pilots also had some difficulty feathering the propellers for gliding. We recommend adding a system which automatically feathers the props in an engine-out situation. The Verdict: It's a nice-looking plane. However, there are some issues with the plane, the major ones being that it's quite high, leading to harder boarding and maintenance. Also, the lack of steerable gear means that it is not very manoeuvrable on the ground. Furthermore, while it does have a long range, it has quite a small capacity for its relatively high cost. TKA will buy 3 with a potential 2 more if we can successfully incorporate this into our low-density long-haul routes if the major problems are fixed.

Yes, this is fine @Pikapolar. (Although there are also the radial intakes, if you want an alternative)

To throw in my own two cents, I personally have never needed to use the whole length of the runway before. This is probably because airliners are much better at flying than space shuttles, so I don't have much of a say in this. What I can say are potential solutions. Firstly, the KSP landing gear are finicky. You're right. For the most part, the Spring and Damper settings need to be turned up (I usually put mine at max). For braking, I tend to put the Brakes at 200%, which is sometimes so strong for my airliners I reduce them to 50%. But perhaps you already knew this. Solution 2: Kerbinside / Kerbal Konstructs. Probably the solution you all wanted anyways. It allows you to spawn in a new runway wherever you want and scale its size, and set it as a new launchsite. Fantastic, isn't it?

Long time no update! This time, I show off the 737's galley. How cute. It has a meal trolley, a garbage can and another trolley. Apart from that, it also has some other features, like a drink dispenser and juice boxes (not the same material as the trolleys). Also, you can choose from a selection of 4 different meals. Wow! Look at how delicious airplane food is! All our 4 meals come with a complimentary Blueberry Bar™. Set A has a Blueberry Bar™ and a lime jello (not from the open mystery goo container above, we promise). Set B has two Blueberry Bars™ and a cake candle (cake not included). Set C has two Blueberry Bars™ and one, that's right, one whole noodle. What a deal. Finally, Set D has a Blueberry Bar™ and a cigar with match. Cigar not edible. Match not edible. There's also cake. Happy Birthday to all you 2-year-olds out there.

Test Pilot Review: [@Juhnu's JA-42] Short Haul, Low Capacity Turboprop (Pictured: The JA-42 flying over the ocean) Figures as Tested: Price:152,132,000 Fuel: 180 kal Cruising speed: 165 m/s Cruising altitude: 5000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.02 kal/s Range: ~1500 km Review Notes: On first impressions, this is an absolutely beautiful aircraft. Its looks are better than most of the airliners we have received. Our PR department jumped in joy when they looked at it, as it meant that they would be able to conjure up an attractive promotional advertisement for TKA. Our maintenance team were also pretty impressed with the plane. They noted that it wasn't very complex to keep running, which is fantastic. Perhaps most striking was the custom cabin. While it was on the smaller side, it means that TKA is able to customise the cabin to suit our needs, such as making it more comfortable. Regarding its takeoff performance, we were a bit surprised when it accelerated so quickly. The plane was able to takeoff in 800m, Vr 75m/s, pretty decent albeit a tad long for a plane of its size. That being said, it's a joy to fly. It has pretty good control authority in all 3 axes, although a stronger pitch-up would be preferred. It has a good climb rate and is incredible at maintaining speed. A little quirk we noticed was that the plane would yaw slightly when the throttles moved. However, this is no big deal, and the plane will right itself after a short while. Also, putting the throttles in idle gave the engines a 'thrust reversal' feeling. While this might catch trainee pilots off guard, it's not difficult to correct them. Plus, this could allow for steeper descents into airports. Apropos to landing, we noticed on full flaps that the pitch authority, specifically pitching up, of the plane was not as strong. In fact, the plane needed to maintain a speed of 85m/s at full flaps to be able to pitch up. With no flaps however, the plane managed a VTD of 70m/s and a landing roll of 500m. This can be made shorter by not braking the propellers and leaving them to spin, taking advantage of the aforementioned thrust reverser feeling. With regards to emergency simulations, it performed admirably. The plane was very easy to ditch in the water, and it was able to takeoff and climb on one engine. It is also a good glider, although the prop pitch needs to be managed closely so that the free-spinning props don't contribute to too much deceleration. In a bid to improve pitch-up authority and general performance, a minor change we highly recommend you add is a 3-5 degree trim to the horizontal stabilisers. We found that this small change contributed to a takeoff distance of 500m and Vr 60m/s (300m and 15m/s lesser), and a landing speed VTD of 65m/s, 400m landing roll (5m/s, 100m lesser). The Verdict: It's an absolutely incredible plane. The custom cabin is unlike what we have seen in the lineup, and this gives us freedom to customise our cabins better for our passengers. It has decent range and capacity for the amount of fuel it carries. While it is a tad expensive, we think its beauty, advertisement potential and customisable cabins more than make up the cost. Not to mention, the ease of maintenance will further lower the money spent on the aircraft. Our only suggestion is to implement the minor fix regarding the horizontal stabiliser's trim. All in all, it's a fantastic aircraft, and TKA will be willing to purchase 10 + another potential 5 if the aircraft proves to be good for our routes.

Test Pilot Review: [@antimatterkill's Antech J.220] A comic sans review was requested. Ask and you shall receive. (Pictured: The J.220 in flight over the ocean) [No Payload] Figures as Tested: Price:65,160,000 Fuel: 3380 kal Cruising speed: 145 m/s Cruising altitude: 5000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.32 kal/s Range: ~ 1500 km [9t Payload] Figures as Tested: Price:65,160,000 + Payload Cost Fuel: 3380 kal Cruising speed: 130 m/s Cruising altitude: 3000 m Fuel burn rate: 0.41 kal/s Range: ~ 1100 km Review Notes: The J.220 is a pretty unique plane. You could call it a double decker, having a cargo bay on the lower deck and an interchangeable passenger/cargo area up top. Its two side engines are also in an interesting position, angled away from the centreline. While interesting, we fear that this design might cause the engines to lose some effectiveness in its thrust. The intakes and engines also run along the space at the side between the two decks. Consequently, the passengers at the rear may experience some discomfort due to the engines being relatively close to the cabin. We took a look at the cargo bay lift, and we must say we're quite impressed with it. We tested its capabilities with a 9 ton payload and it performed admirably. It would also greatly reduce the reliance on ground crews to load the cargo, or for passengers to board it at lesser-equipped airports. However, we feel that the size of the cargo hold needs to be expanded, if possible, as it is currently quite small. Regarding its takeoff performance, we must say that the takeoff distance needed was a tad higher than expected at 700m, Vr 60m/s without payload and 1000m, Vr 70m/s with the 9 ton payload. For a plane of its size, we really were hoping for a shorter run. Its pitch, yaw and roll are all superb. Regarding the ailerons, we are slightly concerned that excessive loads on it could break it off its mounting servo. We suggest adding a 'restrainer' hinge at the aileron tip just to give it that extra rigidity. However, we noticed in the climbing phase that the plane suffers from a high AoA even at higher speeds. We figure that this is due to the plane's relatively high wing loading. Because of this, climb performance is a bit under our expectations. Also, this results in a relatively high stall speed of around 50m/s. This also made it quite difficult to maintain cruising speed at the designated cruise altitude, as the high AoA needed to keep the plane at 5000m caused a decent amount of drag. Because of this, the plane was only able to reach 145m/s (without payload), and even so, with great difficulty. Apropos to its landing performance, while it is able to land at relatively low speeds, the weak brakes and lack of thrust reversers greatly hampered its landing roll. The flaps also did not assist much with lift, and in fact contributed to excessive drag. Without a payload, the plane had a VTD of 55 m/s and a 800m landing roll. With the 9 ton payload, VTD was 60m/s and the plane had a 1300m landing roll. These numbers are quite high for a plane of its size, and we highly suggest that Antech incorporates more powerful brakes and install thrust reversers on the engines to improve landing distance. We also simulated potential emergency situations. We found that the plane, while capable of taking off with one engine, is neither able to climb out with said one engine nor fly level. The aforementioned high wing loading also results in subpar glide performance. That being said, the plane performed admirably in water ditching. The fuselage shape looks a tad like a ship's hull, and we figure that this helped it successfully ditch. The Verdict: It's a nice combi plane. Its integrated cargo lift opens up possibilities to less-developed airports for both passenger and cargo routes. It is also decently comfortable for the 32 passengers, save for the few at the rear. However, it has a relatively small cargo bay and as a result, it would be difficult to transport a large amount of cargo. Maintenance wise, it's an alright plane to keep flying. Some components are a tad high up, and the cargo lift has to be regularly checked. Also, the long landing distance needed reduces the number of airports we can fly to. Perhaps the most pressing issue is its high wing loading. As a result of this, its flight characteristics are greatly affected as listed above and are frankly suboptimal. We implore that you fix this issue before production. If the unfavourable aspects of this plane are resolved, TKA will consider buying 5, as the multitasking capability of the plane could be quite useful.

When SubPar Industries got wind of a new proposal request from Trans-Kerbin Airways, we knew we had to enter some planes. We present our flagship model, the S350 Long-Haul Airliner! (Pictured: SubPar Industries' S350-900) You can purchase this jet for 570,944,000 here. Our team excitedly revisited SubPar Industries' "Temporary Aircraft Storage Hanger", known in the company as "The Junkyard". We assure you that the plane was not made out scrap parts, but that's what we're legally obliged to say to avoid a lawsuit. The S350 is capable of incredible performance, much better than those stupid BoWing airliners. It has a passenger capacity of 240 Kerbals, and range is dependent on fuel load. More is elaborated on below. With a full fuel load [22250u] and full passenger load [240 Kerbals]: -Takeoff Distance 750m, Vr 60m/s, Flaps 10° -Cruising Alt 7500m, Speed 200m/s, Fuel Burn 1.05 u/s, Range ~4000km -Landing Roll [VTD 70m/s @Flaps 20° , Full Braking] 300m With a half fuel load [12250u] and full passenger load [240 Kerbals]: -Takeoff Distance 500m, Vr 45m/s, Flaps 10° -Cruising Alt 8100m, Speed 190m/s, Fuel Burn 0.75u/s, Range ~3000km -Landing Roll [VTD 50m/s @Flaps 30°, Full Braking] 200m The S350 is fitted out with several groundbreaking technologies, guaranteed to improve the performance of the airliner. Perhaps most striking are the S350's wingtips, colloquially called "sharklets". We promise that these beautiful sharklets allow for an increased fuel efficiency. Apart from the sharklets, another notable feature are the engine chevrons on the two turbofans of the S350. Our engineers tell us that these chevrons allow for smoother mixing of hot and cold exhaust, drastically reducing noise and allowing for a much more comfortable and silent ride for the passengers. The PR department also overheard the Engineering Sector that they had integrated some substance into the composite parts of the S350, something along the lines of "ore". We don't understand much about it, but the engineers assure us that this substance greatly lowers the mass of the composites, allowing for greater efficiency. We suspect you might complain about the price, which is comparatively high to the planes in this class. However, we assure you that, for one, we build it with the highest quality components available in the world (external claims that we use scrap parts are unfounded). For two, the ultra-high efficiency of this plane will result in break-even and increased profits over time. The S350, the world's most efficient long-haul airliner, unbeatable in capacity and range by any other of its class. Especially those pesky BoWings. Operation Manual: AG1: Thrust Reversers AG5: Toggle Engines /[K]: Retract / Extend Flaps (respectively) Beware of tailstrikes on takeoff and landing. The stated V-speeds should be followed as closely as possible.

Test Pilot Review: [@keptin 's JORG MANTABEAST] (Pictured: The JORG MANTABEAST flying over a desolate hellscape) Figures as Tested: Price:402,094,000 Fuel: 16800 kal Cruising speed: 200m/s Cruising altitude: 8500m Fuel burn rate: 1.10 kal/s Range: ~3000 km Review Notes: When we got the invitation to test out a new plane of JORG Aviation, we must admit that we thought they had invited us to play with a pet demon from the way the letter was worded. When the plane came in for landing at our test site, we saw that we were indeed playing with a demon. The first thing that caught our attention was the absolutely whack design of the plane. 7 rows of cabins in parallel, 7 Wheesleys and 5 Goliaths. But perhaps what was most frightening was the wings. The outer wing parts were connected to the small tips of the inner wings. After our Chief Engineer saw this, he promptly passed out and the waiver had to be signed while he was unconscious. When it was time to takeoff, the sounds of prayers promptly echoed throughout all 7 rows of cabins. What also echoed through the cabins were the intense vibrations and roar of the Goliath engines, with them being connected directly under the cabins, which made for a rather uncomfortable ride. Rather impressively, the beast was able to take off in 700m, Vr 60m/s and its pitch control was good. Its roll and yaw authority were sluggish but still alright. In another amazing feat, the plane was able to take off with only 1 Goliath and 3 Wheesleys, albeit not climbing very well. The plane struggled a bit to get to the designated cruise altitude and maintain speed, but eventually it managed. Fuel consumption was lower than expected at this stage. Apropos to structural integrity, it was during the manoeuvring tests that something completely unexpected happened. We had heard a single scraping sound and felt a sudden yaw to the right. Upon landing, it was found that the rightmost Goliath had actually broken off from the plane. Our naval response team eventually recovered the engine from the ocean and it was found that the connecting bolt to the wing was 'weaker than expected'. Furthermore, the connection points of the wing to the cabin were found to have had several cracks, likely due to stress. Our Chief Engineer estimated that had we put the plane into more extreme pitch manoeuvres, the entire wing assembly could have broken off. We also find that the single connector point to the nose landing gears is another point of concern, as we are uncertain that it will be able to take the stress of a potential hard landing. During landing, despite the lost engine, the plane performed admirably, in part due to its massive wing area. It was able to land at 75m/s with a landing roll of 700m, shorter than expected for a plane of this size. We think that it can be made shorter by implementing more powerful brakes and incorporating thrust reversers. In emergency testing, the plane was able to ditch quite well. It is also an amazing glider, and is able to run on half its engines, which is pretty impressive. The Verdict: Let's be blunt. On the maintenance side, this plane is an absolute nightmare. 12 engines, half of which are different from one another, not to mention the fact that the 7 Wheesleys are rather high up, makes maintenance a very difficult job. In addition to this, the 6 intakes run the entire length of the cabin rows. This makes intake maintenance very difficult. Its cost is quite high, without a doubt, and we fear that the incredible amounts of maintenance will shoot it up even more and make this plane unprofitable. On the plus side, it can transport an incredible number of passengers. While it does fall short a bit on range, it is still decently efficient despite the frankly ridiculous number of engines. However, its massive size means that it probably won't fit any of the gates, even at developed airports. In fact, the positioning of the exit hatches itself could cause problems for airports, which won't have the equipment needed to allow the passengers to board and deplane safely. Not to mention, the fact that the Goliaths are connected directly to the cabin rows makes for an extremely unfavourable ride for any passenger. However, the overarching issue with this plane is its structural integrity. We simply cannot risk the lives of our passengers in this problem-ridden plane, where we are uncertain of it staying in one piece. None of us on the TKA test team want to step back onto that plane. Frankly, a hard landing might pop more Goliaths off, or even worse, break off the cabin rows completely. The collapse of the nose landing gear structure will also result in the nose slamming down onto the runway. At the height of the plane, the entire nose might be literally swept under the rug, if the rug was a plane, and ingested into the 5 Goliaths. Aside from these, the wings, especially the outer ones, might also break off from its supports of 3 thin wingtips. If the outer wings do break off, we guarantee you that the plane will encounter a very hard lithobrake. To conclude, if you somehow manage to fix all of its safety concerns and make it a more comfortable experience, we'd consider buying 2 to parade around.

Test Pilot Review: [@keptin 's Valara Longboy] (Pictured: The Valara Longboy's variants in formation flight) Figures as Tested: Regular variant Price:33,766,000 Fuel: 1120 kal with 800 more capacity Cruising speed: 285m/s Cruising altitude: 9500m Fuel burn rate: 0.16kal/s Range: 2000km Figures as Tested: EX variant Price:40,530,000 Fuel: EX:1440 kal with 560 more capacity Cruising speed: 245m/s Cruising altitude: 9500m Fuel burn rate: 0.22kal/s Range: 1600km Review Notes: It's long, without a doubt. In fact, the EX variant might be *too* long. The fuselage visibly 'noodled', for lack of a better term, when flying turns, pitching and such. Also, we were slightly surprised at the positioning of the tail empennage being almost directly behind the exhaust of the jets. This might result in more maintenance needed for the control surfaces, should they deflect into the jetblast. As with any Valara plane, it possesses incredible roll and yaw authority, not to mention respectable pitch authority. The roll is so powerful that we are able to do a full revolution per second. This power does come at a price though: The plane is extremely sensitive to roll and could spin the brains of our passengers if rolling too hard. Only minute inputs were needed for a sharp roll. During landing, this makes alignment slightly difficult as the plane consistently rolled too far in the opposite direction. Regarding yaw authority, despite the relatively small control surfaces, it is capable of pretty significant sideslipping. During extreme testing, we were able to reach angles of 30 degrees sideslip. However, this does cause an issue during landing, as the plane needs to slip pretty far for the direction of travel to change. Both variants of the Longboy are also capable of respectable takeoff runs. The regular variant takes 450m, Vr 50m/s to take off while the EX variant requires 750m, Vr 60m/s to take off. Apropos to the engines, while for the most part the passengers will be fine, we must say that the position of the engines at the rear of the plane, and the fact that they are connected directly to the cabin, will result in 'unfavourable' comfort for the passengers at the rear of the plane. Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the landing and the design of the nose gear. It is extended by a piston which we guess compensates for the rather tall main landing gear. Upon landing, the piston actually buckled and collapsed in on itself. While it did right itself after the aircraft had come to a stop, the jolt of the landing gear collapsing and the damage to the piston assembly was less than ideal, both for the passengers and maintenance. Furthermore, it was found out that the nose gear would splay to the sides when taxiing at a reasonable speed. In regards to this significant issue, we figure that lowering the plane as a whole (making the main landing gear shorter) would be enough to solve this issue. It would also make maintenance easier as the plane is lower to the ground. Unfortunately, this suggestion is less feasible on the EX variant as its generally long tail could lead to easy tailstrikes. That being said, landing performance was still admirable. For the regular variant, it had a landing roll of 150m at VTD 50m/s. For the EX variant, it had a landing roll of 300m at VTD 60m/s. We figure that these distances could be made even shorter by incorporating more powerful brakes or the addition of thrust reversers. In simulated emergency situations, both Longboy variants performed impressively well. Surprising even the executives, both variants were able to take off with only one operating engine. In water ditchings, both were able to successfully ditch, although admittedly the EX variant took a much more significant impact at the nose section. The Verdict: Impressive plane. However, we must implore that you fix the landing gear design. The regular variant could be useful as a feeder service. It's a relatively quick and comfortable bird (save for the rear passengers). Due to the minute number of moving parts, we figure that maintenance would be pretty easy, although hindered by the plane's tall height from the ground. It's also relatively fuel-efficient, great for the short hops around smaller airports. We'll look into taking 10 of these into our fleet. However, regarding the EX variant, it has several drawbacks which makes it not-as-worth as the Regular variant. For one, the aforementioned 'noodling' could cause some fuselage damage, which will be costlier to upkeep. The 4 engine layout instead of the regular's 3 also means slightly less efficiency. Despite all this, the increased passenger capacity, almost double the regular variant, could prove useful, and so we'll look at taking 3 of the EX variant.

Banner plane! BoWing Commercial introduces its Model 727, a versatile Medium Regional Trijet easily customisable to your own needs! (Pictured: The 727F variant) You can purchase this jet for 336,224,000 here. By default, it is the Model 727F variant with a little over half fuel and a placeholder 15t payload. Speaking of variants, our Model 727 comes in two main variants: The Passenger variant and the Freighter variant. Both variants are capable of takeoff speeds under 80m/s, with an average takeoff distance of 1000m and lower, aided by the three powerful KT8D engines and triple-slotted Fowler flaps. For hotter and higher operations, the Model 727 comes with complimentary JATO bottles for that added takeoff kick. This means that the Model 727 is able to operate out of many smaller airports with shorter runways. But what's a short takeoff without a short landing? Of course, the Model 727 is more than capable of this feat. Advanced spoilers and powerful thrust reversers allow for incredibly short landing distances. All in all, the superior STOL performance increases your opportunities and broadens your horizons. 727 Passenger Capable of transporting 120 kerbals 1500km, the Model 727 allows for a comfortable ride to your destination in luxurious MK3 cabins. Worrying about airport compatibility? Fret not! The Model 727 comes with a rear airstair for easy boarding and deplaning. With a full fuel load [8360u] and full passenger load [120 kerbals], the Model 727 is capable of: -Takeoff Distance 900m, Vr 65m/s @Flaps 15° -Cruising Alt 4500m, Speed 170m/s, Fuel Burn 0.96kal/s, Range ~1500km -Landing Roll [VTD 75m/s @Flaps 20° , Full Braking] 500m 727 Freighter Fancy horizons that are not passenger-related? We got your back! The Model 727F is capable of transporting a 30t payload a distance of 1500km. Its short takeoff and landing runs mean that you get to transport your payloads practically anywhere in the world. With a full fuel load [8360u] and full payload [30t], the Model 727F is capable of: -Takeoff Distance 1200m, Vr 65m/s @Flaps 15° -Cruising Alt 4500m, Speed 170m/s, Fuel Burn 0.96kal/s, Range ~1500km -Landing Roll [VTD 80m/s @Flaps 20° , Full Braking] 600m Alternatively, with a half fuel load [4180u] and half payload [15t] (this is the standard loadout), the Model 727F is capable of: -Takeoff Distance 600m, Vr 45m/s @Flaps 15° -Cruising Alt 7000m, Speed 170m/s, Fuel Burn 0.73kal/s, Range ~1000km -Landing Roll [VTD 60m/s @Flaps 20° , Full Braking] 200m But wait, there's more! Perhaps you don't fancy focusing on passengers or cargo. Maybe your route isn't filled to the brim with passengers. No worries! The Model 727 is capable of operating as a Combi variant. The cabin can be split into both cargo and passenger sections. For a complete change from cargo to passenger or vice-versa, all it takes is one hour. That's quick! The performance of the Model 727 isn't affected either, so you can go hot or go high whenever you want. In addition to these, all variants of the Model 727 are able to be lengthened an additional 4 meters. For the Passenger variant, this means a capacity increase of 24 kerbals. The BoWing Model 727, the unparalleled choice for Trans-Kerbin Airways. *Note: Despite the superiority of the engines, they will have to be left at 50% throttle until 20m/s, after which you can full-throttle. Furthermore, the engines have to be idled before thrust reversers are toggled. Action Group Info: AG1: Toggle Thrust Reversers and [K]: Raise / Lower Flaps (respectively) [Abort]: JATO Bottles [Brakes]: All spoilers

Thank you! I'm sure I will. And for the next part of my 737, not as impressive as the cockpit but nonetheless a very essential aspect of any airliner: The lavatory, colloquially known as a toilet. Where would we be without it? Comes with a toilet, sink and cleaning supplies, if unable to resolve the 2nd type of emergency situation.

New to the forums! A project of pure insanity and potential regret but I decided to go ahead anyway, to build a full interior B737-200 Combi without any part mods. The first step to this ridiculous endeavour was the cockpit, coming in at a reasonable 900 parts. That's more than the amount of parts of my usual airliners. Maybe I've just gone insane.