1Revenger1

Yeah, definitely. I also experimented around with putting the steerable landing gear on one of the hydraulic pistons as well and that worked pretty well. Allowed me to shorten the length of the gear when retracted. It'd be cool if in maybe a larger scale build, if someone actually built compartments for gears and made robotic doors and stuff for them. I may try that next with the concorde

I "quickly" (spent hours too long) whipped this Concorde up, trying to see if I could replicate the droop nose. I think I got kinda close. The window which pulls down ended up being the hardest part, and it's two robotics parts moving it actually. The smallest hydraulic press and one of the servos. Edit: Oops, let me add the craft file. https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am-Klu4h5TIdmq4zUjBj9xbo7y6YtQ Action group 1 lowers/raises the nose for takeoff Action group 2 is used after action group 1 to put the nose in/out of landing position I also mapped the gear button to move the front nose gear too.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. Lol

That's weird, they all had about the same range when I tested them out myself. That said it doesn't really matter with the excessive range they have anyways, lol.

Test Pilot Review: @Andetch's - Night Fury HSKT / HSKT - EL / HSKT - ELX HSKT: Price: 89,507,000 Fuel: 1380 Kallons Cruising Speed: 1200m/s Cruising Altitude: 20,000m Fuel Burn Rate: 0.65 Kallons/sec Range: 1900km HSKT - EL: Price: 91,157,000 Fuel: 1780 Kallons Cruising Speed: 1200m/s Cruising Altitude: 20,000m Fuel Burn Rate: 0.72 Kallons/sec Range: 2250km HSKT - ELX: Price: 248,777,000 Fuel: 2840 Kallons Cruising Speed: 1150m/s (Full load) Cruising Altitude: 20,000m Fuel Burn Rate: 1.74 Kallons/sec Range: 1200km Review: We aren’t exactly sure where to begin. We almost counted the Night Fury ELX as a separate aircraft due to the large hull changes. We reasoned though that they were similar enough, with the extensions being replicas of what was already there. Anyways, onto the review. Overall, we enjoyed flying the stock and EL version of the Night Fury, both being very similar. We found it odd at first having only 3 engines on a small design like this, but we found it increased efficiency and were required to reach the specified performance. Both aircraft had excellent pitch authority, were well balanced with all loads, and generally wasn’t that difficult to land and takeoff; especially with the Night Fury’s high tolerance of hard landings. Yaw though ended up being a little weak, and the aircraft took off at a very high speed – closer to 100m/s at times. While the aircraft accelerated quickly, it still took at least a medium length runway due to it’s high takeoff speed and time on the runway. We honestly disliked the ELX. While it tried to retain many of the aspects of the stock Night Fury, we believed that it should have been developed on it’s own. Due to it’s large size, the wings were small and had 5 engines. While this wouldn’t be a big problem, the aircraft already used a lot of runway. Not only that, but it’s range was abysmally small compared to the other two variants. It also tended to pitch up, making it sometimes hard to fly, especially when compared to the other two variants. Comfort wise, it’s a mixed bag. The engines in the back definitely send a lot of noise and vibrations into the back half of the cabin, with the front generally being pretty quick when compared to the front. Those in the center get a nice view of the other cabin, making the aircraft act somewhat like a twin aisle aircraft, with a couple walls in between for privacy or noise separation – Depends on how you look at it. Those on the outside do get a nice view though outside of the aircraft. Overview: We will order 5 of the Night Fury EL, they were not that much more expensive compared to the stock version, had a larger range, and carried more passengers. The ELX we found to be uneconomical, and overall did not seem as well polished compared to the other 2 aircraft. Afternotes: We had a few issues at our center for plane testing, making it so that we could not test planes out unfortunately. We had to rebuild from the ground up due to the mass floods Edit: Oh hey, that actually worked. Didn't look like the message actually got sent Edit 2: Oh wait, it got sent twice in the same message...woops

Alright guys, gonna work on a review tonight/tomorrow. We just got our stuff done tonight for the most part. Also @NightshineRecorralis, we're team 2046, based near Seattle

Hey guys, I might end up having time to review something this week, yay! Part of First Robotics Competition where we have to build a robot in 6 weeks and program it. We finish building tomorrow, which means much more team to do stuff like this

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM KPE: On some SSP-2 models, you may need to turn braking all the way up, otherwise sufficient braking may not be achieved on especially short runways. This is our recommended setting anyways. If you decide that full braking on all three gears is to much, you may lower it from that if your airline so wishes to. Thank you for your time. Note: With the settings above, we have about 1/3rd of the island runway landing with touchdown occurring about 65m/s

Sorry for not being able to judge at all...got a project going on that takes up most of my weekends to. I've been lurking a bit (sorry). I should have some time to do reviews in like a week in a half, although that depends on how my project is doing. Know that I am eventually coming back to help review this, and that I still try to keep up with the thread.

Test Pilot Review: @Samwise Potato Spud Flight: SF-S240 "Marigold" Figures as Tested: Price: 31,094,000 Fuel: 1600 kallons Cruising speed: 1110 m/s Cruising altitude: 20,250 m Fuel burn rate: 0.24 kal/s Range: 6330 km Review Notes: We enjoyed this plane quite a bit, due to it's small size and nimble controls. Our test pilots were easily able to handle the plane with no training or practice, finding the handling very similar to some of our own planes that we had developed. The Marigold took off very quickly thanks to its two Whiplashes, rivaling the takeoff distance of smaller turboprops as well. Although the rudder was a little lackluster, the plane was still easy enough to fly. Passenger comfort was good as well. The two whiplashes are far away from the cabin, reducing vibrations and noise; although no matter what, the Whiplashes will be noisy in places like takeoff and climb. It flies very smoothly though, especially at cruise, allowing passengers to walk around as needed during the flight with little risk of being effected by turbulence or other factors because of the high cruising altitude. Maintenance would also be cheap due to it's low part count and having two Whiplash engines total. It's durable, and we've been able to smash it into the ground with no damage done. Overall, we have no complaints about the aircraft except for one thing, it's small passenger load. We would've liked it if maybe one or two more cabins could've been fitted to help increase the payload we could put on board. It has the engine power and range to support it, so we would think it would be a minor change. The Verdict: We don't have much to say about this aircraft really. It flies well, has great performance, and is good at even smaller airports. We will buy 30 of them for use on business class flights and low-usage routes mainly over the ocean. This plane would also be good for charters due to it being able to get pretty much anywhere.

Yeah I'm on, I won't have time to do any reviews though for like another week. I plan to crank them out next weekend though

Lol, don't forget we have to be able to run it

Test Pilot Review Addendum: @Samwise Potato's Spud Flight - SF-J240 "Daisy" Figures as Tested: Price: 20,810,000 Fuel: 800 kallons Cruising speed: 243m/s, 530m/s at supersonic Cruising altitude: 7000m, 9500m supersonic Fuel burn rate: 0.09kal/s, 0.11kal/s at supersonic Range: 1828km, 3540km at supersonic Verdict: After some testing mistakes and figuring out our unit was somehow defective, which got rid of the whole oscillation issue at cruise and Spud Flight even added a tail gear to help protect the tail from the overzealous pilots who decide pitching up to early is smart. Anyways, after this, we decided that we will buy 20 more of these on top of the order given out due to their great performance.

Sorry it took so long to get back. Testing it now

Alright, I do have the advanced tweakables on. Does the advanced tweakables stuff actually get saved in craft files?

Huh, that is really weird. I'll get rid of all my mods and test to be 100% sure, but I can't think of anything else to.

Here is what it looks like from my end (Note: For the review I did not fly it like this, I flew a bit higher and stuff and climbed more gently. No pulling up roughly at 270m/s at 1k :P).

Nothing that should change aerodynamics unfortunately. I am running EVE but that's all visual stuff. The smashing the tail into the ground is not that big of a deal, it's just me being dumb and being used to pulling up asap.I can try the cruise at 9.5 as well and update the review if you want

Test Pilot Review: @Samwise Potato's Spud Flight - SF-J240 "Daisy" Figures as Tested: Price: 20,204,000 Fuel: 800 kallons Cruising speed: 243m/s, 550ish at supersonic (We lost our figures for this unfortunately) Cruising altitude: 7000m, 9000m supersonic Fuel burn rate: 0.09kal/s, 0.14kal/s at supersonic Range: 1828km, 3360km at supersonic Notes: We were somewhat surprised to see a supersonic plane entered that only had Wheesley engines, due to their lack of power at higher speeds. Although with two of them, they were easily able to get this past mach 1 at around 7k, allowing us to climb to 9k while still gradually speeding up. The engine placement also provides good comfort to the passengers, if maybe blocking the view a bit of the scene below. It also flies very well at lower speeds, with a lot more rudder control we were expecting (Although we normally don't add enough rudder control on our aircraft so it might be a normal amount of rudder), good amount of roll and pitch authority to. We had no troubles controlling the aircraft especially at slower speeds. Speaking of slower speeds...it takes offs and lands at really slow speeds. We usually got it off the ground before 45m/s, and due to the 2 large wheesley engines, it quickly sped up to that no problem. This aircraft could easily be used in smaller airports with tiny runways due to this, as will as the reverse thrust ability of the wheesleys. There are a couple shortcomings though. One of them is that under Stability Assist, the elevators shake like mad, vibrating the whole frame and causing havoc in the cabin. This was most noticeable at supersonic cruise, although somewhat noticeable during subsonic cruise as well. We were confused as to why this was happening, as the aircraft would oscillate. This only occurred at cruise from what we found though, and wasn't noticeable at slower speeds. We also had some control issues with the elevator during takeoff, as the pilots would easily smash the tail into the ground at around 30m/s with just a little elevator input. This is easily fixed though with some pilot training though so we aren't worried about that, especially when it takes off so easily at around 40m/s. The Verdict: We will buy 10 of these for some shorter flights where the aircraft won't be at cruise speed as much. Due to it's maneuverability and high performance, it easily could fit into smaller airports but it's shaking at cruise speeds doesn't make it good for commuter flights in and out of airports on medium range flights.

I should have a review out today, yay. I've been spending to much time on my supersonic 300 passenger jet that can circumnavigate the world...

Idk, doesn't look like it goes supersonic

Don't worry, if worse comes to worse I can review it (I5 6600k @ 4.5 Ghz, and 2x GTX 970s)

Sure, we would probably review it as a seperate aircraft though, maybe comparing it to the previous variants if you reference the previous design and it's an important part of your pitch. Also, tomorrow I'll be doing one to two reviews for supersonic aircrafts: SF-240 "Daisy" and "Marigold"

Huh, those are some interesting notes. We've never really been able to spin out the plane except at very low speeds even with liberal rudder use. I do agree a little with the lack of pitch authority, although I found the other controls to be about right for myself. Of course, that is up to everyone's opinion. I probably put in a bit of excess fuel to...

Thing is with planes like the 747, the bottom half is actually bigger than the top half. It's very noticible if you look at the cross section of one.