1Revenger1

Would it be worth it though to decrease the size of the cabin... (Not that we would allow it though (probably))

No

I mean they are if you need one for some reason. The plane must have at least 1 pilot though for a small plane and 2 for a medium - large plane though.

Test Pilot Review: @Eidahlil's Asymmetric Aerodynamics Potato (KSC Engineers taking the Potato out on the runway to drift...) Figures as tested: Cost: 15,861,000 Fuel: 800 Kallons Cruising Speed: 1200m/s Cruising Altitude: 22 - 24km Fuel Burn Rate: 0.9 Kallons/Minute Range: 8500+ Km Testing notes: We were initially suspicious of this plane. The off-center wing in the center, while abstract, just didn't look right to the pilots. That was before the engineers took it for a joy-ride and the pilots actually got a chance to fly it. We were very suprised by how rock solid the aircraft is. One of the engineers slid this plane sideways into the SPH at 20m/s and it sustained no damage whatsoever. Plus it proved very strong when the pilots dumped the aircraft on the runway as they were learning to fly this. Flying the aircraft was a little weird. It's takeoff and landing performance is great on paper, although trying to control it (Especially on landing) was somewhat difficult. Once we were able to tame the plane a bit though, it was great at taking off and landing, going well underneath the 80m/s requirement. This plane though in the air acted somewhat strange. Due to the off-center wing, the plane did roll around quite a bit when we didn't want to, and it was difficult to control the rolling even we did want to roll the aircraft. Once we got used to this a bit though, the flying became somewhat smoother and we had less issues. This is certainly a plane that will require a decent bit of training in order to get the pilots ready to fly this for passengers. At cruise though, this plane works amazingly well. It was easy as setting the pitch to 0 degrees at 20km, and keeping the speed around 1200m/s, and the plane climbed as high as it could go on it's own and sipped on fuel. At only 0.9 Kallons/Minute at cruise, this gives the aircraft ridiculous range that easily gives the plane a change to go around the world once or twice. We would've liked something to help slow down the aircraft though such as airbrakes, but we can always make the plane act like a speedbrake in it of itself by pitching down as hard as possible. Passenger comfort is generally pretty good. There would be some issues with the engine being back vibrating the whole plane, but it would be somewhat dampened by the fuel tank. This would also be very simple to maintain due to it's resilience and single engine. The Potato only has 1 engine to, reducing needed maintenance as well. The Verdict: The airline will buy 10 of these to slip into smaller airports as well as on low-demand routes. They are very cheap, and are great for many, low demand routes that couldn't support bigger planes.

If you want to, yes . If you actually want to judge, I can add you to our messaging group and give you access to our spreadsheet for keeping track of stuff.

What's odd is that it's so many in a row, lol. Normally we don't have this many death traps. A lot of the larger aircrafts seem to be at a larger risk though. Anyway, I got my own submission. I was planning on putting this in before I started judging for this, so I still feel like it's alright to put it in here. Submission: Here at KPE, we are proud to present our newest edition to the supersonic aircraft line up the... KPE SSP - 2a/b/c "Dragon" (SSP - 2b left, SSP - 2c center, SSP - 2a right) Specifications(2a, 2b, 3c variants): Cost: 57,222,000, 63,282,000, 68,121,000 Fuel (Kallons): 5160 ,5960, 5960 Recommended Cruising Speed/Altitude: 18000-19000m, 1200m/s Range: 4500km, 5400km, 4500km Number of passengers held: 96, 128, 160(Jumbo Category capacity!) The SSP - 2 family is a range of mid/long range Supersonic aircraft that extend off the ideas of the SSP - 1, including the attempt to keep the aircraft as basic as possible maintenance wise. These aircraft are sturdy, and all have been tested to have great short-field performance due to their extremely strong brakes and use of airbrakes. Taking off and landing in this is a breeze, especially due to the resilience of the aircraft. There are many times when we have smashed it down and the aircraft has been fine due to it's bending nature (Especially on the 2c). Flying this should feel very similar to the SSP - 1 as well, allowing for little training to be needed for direct transfer of pilots. It reaches it's recommended altitude very easily as well, granted you let the aircraft speed up to around 250m/s before trying to climb to 10000m. These aircraft include on board a snack room full of complimentary snacks, as well as 4 restrooms, as well as any other features on request. Engine noise should be at a minimum due to the engines being far away, although intake noise might be somewhat apparent in the back of the cabins. Operation notes: You will most likely need to transfer fuel towards the back of the aircraft as the fuel is used. Do Not Change Oxidizer levels! This is used as ballast to help in the transfer of COM backwards. Transfer the Oxidizer back whenever needed to help trim out the plane. Action Group 1 Activates the airbrakes. DO NOT USE IT ON THE GROUND, we are not responsible for the damage done to the bottom 2 airbrakes if this is done. Brake action group activates the brakes as well as the top pair of speedbrakes. This is normal. Takeoff can be forced; but it is encouraged not to do so, especially on the 2a. Takeoff around 60-70m/s forced, or 80 normally. Download Link: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am-Klu4h5TIdl4ZWBeMyslhrfdYFVA

I'll take a look at it. I'm curious about how it would preform using it properly. I'll update the review if there are some pretty big differences. Test Pilot Review: @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit Figures as tested: Cost: 78,810,000 Fuel: 6300 Kallons as from the factory (6480 max) Cruising Speed: 850-950m/s Cruising Altitude: 18500m Fuel Burn Rate: ~1.98 Kallons / Min Range: 3000km Notes: We had a difficult time with this plane. First off, these stupid songs won't get out of my head (Apparently the music is used in a popular anime or something). The engineers again decided it was field day and that aircraft are to be used for drifting. They did discover one issue though rather quickly, the plane tends to explode on bumps and ledges at speeds excess of 15m/s; this includes the drop on the runway. Anyways, after wrestling the planes from the engineers, we were able to conduct flight testing. Overall, the pilots didn't have a great time with this plane. With the lack of rudders, it was difficult to control the plane and we found that the thrust vectoring from the engines were not really enough to counteract this. On top of that, the roll authority on the plane is low, making it difficult to make turns and precise corrections. Elevator control was also really weird. We found we were able to make changes relatively quickly with it, but the stability assistant systems didn't really know what to do with it, and continued pitching the plane further off course. This issue was somewhat resolved though when fuel started emptying the tanks. We also had another big issue, and that was not being able to land the plane. As with the first issue we mentioned, anytime we touch down, even as slowly as possible, the whole plane would blow up, making it a death trap. It seemed like the joint between the main wing and the fuselage needs to be heavily reinforced, as that was always the first part to fail under analysis. Passenger comfort though is pretty great, looking past the death trap part of it. Passengers get lots of room and an excellent view outside, with there being limited noise and vibrations from the engines themselfs. We do however question the safety of the mostly sideways cabins, which could also possible make passengers somewhat motion sick. However, the safety point is moot anyways considering the plane blows up on any landing. Verdict: We will not be buying any. It is expensive, and a death trap, and fairly difficult to fly. While is a unique design that we were hoping wouldn't have many problems, we unfortunately have to skip by this. The plane does seem to be engineered well and looks great aesthetically, even if it is a death trap.

Awesome, thanks. Edit: New review! Test Pilot Review: @Laie's Sonic Figures as tested Price: 99,053,000 Fuel: 2540 kallons Cruising Speed: 600m/s Cruising Altitude: 9000-10000m Fuel Burn Rate: 0.98 kallons/minute Range: 1600km as tested (Probably could be bigger with better flying) My Notes: The engineers dragging the plane out I think had about as much fun as the pilots. The plane could be seen speeding all around the KSC, with some really upbeat music playing (Something about "Gas Gas Gas"?...). Either way, the plane was seen with the engineers pretending to drift all around. After about a day after giving them the plane, we had to tell them to stop so that the pilots could actually fly the aircraft instead of drifting it around everywhere. Once the pilots got a hold of it, flight testing actually began. Takeoffs were solid. We did find that we could takeoff about 20 knots slower than suggested, meaning that the plane easily got off at around 60m/s without the flaps. The gear configuration was an oddity though, with the tall front gear and shorter back gear. Not only did this make taxing somewhat difficult (although fun), but made it somewhat easy for us to strike the back Whiplash and 'Whiplash' it off. Although, the configuration was such that the plane easily took off without any pilot input, which is nice (Even if Jeb was dissapointed...). The engines that turn on at first are great for getting the aircraft up to around 8km, although after that point, it was required that the whiplash be turned, and one set of two engines have their mode switched in order to get past the sound barrier. Although, once near cruising speed, the modes could be switched back, with the whiplash severely being limited to help control speed. Pilots had some fun micromanaging the engine, although it certainly isn't for those who just want to kick back and relax. Although rolling was a bit sluggish, all the other controls worked fine. Landing was difficult for us, most likely just due to practice being needed. We more often than not ended up taking off the back engine, and we found the suggested 8 degrees of pitch to be a bit excessive, generally causing the plane to float and then get dumped down. Passenger Comfort is pretty good though, especially once the plane is in the air. On the ground and at lower speeds, the high pitch could be uncomfortable, especially when trying to board the plane on the ground, but levels out once in the air at a decent speed. The engines are all relatively far away from the cabin, so vibrations from them are going to be minimal. Maintenance wise, this plane would be quite expensive to maintain. It has a lot of parts (78 to be exact) and has a high risk of being dumped and having tail strikes. While the plane is quite sturdy, a plane can only be dumped so many times. Although the lower than average speed of around 600m/s certainly helps keep the plane from taking less heat damage compared to other supersonic aircraft. The Verdict We most likely will order 2-3, although we still need to consort with the admins to be sure. This plane could work well as a business class plane, especially due to the large cabin, although maintenance costs would likely be high and would require high skill in order to fly. Overall, we did enjoy the aircraft, although handling on the ground is somewhat weird, and would make maneuvering around difficult without proper training to. The price to is also a little excessive, most likely due to the large numbers of engines. Addendum 11/17/2017 After a word with the manufacturer, we took the plane out again based on their recommendations and found that knowing what stuff does actually helps a lot with flying this plane. While it was described that the bay should open and close based on the gear, we didn't find that this worked, but know when it should be opened did help us a lot and allowed us to use the cargo bay effectively. We found landing to be better this time around, although there still is some risk of the back engine being taken off. While this doesn't change our verdict, this was important information we felt should be given out. It is magnificent to fly and especially once we figured out how to close the cargo bay (Bob had to go in the back and close it manually), preformed slightly better than tested.

Could you please reupload your craft files? They have expired, thus we can't judge it.

Test Pilot Review: @shdwlrd's Altitude Aerospace Group - Hope Series Airframe Figures as tested: Cost:51,426,000 Fuel: 1680 kallons Cruising Speed: 1300m/s Cruising Altitude: 15000km (Not m/s...woops) Fuel Burn Rate: 0.98 kal/min Range: 1,724km Notes: We had great fun testing this aircraft out. It is stylish, responsive, and is one of the fastest aircraft we have tested with a cruising speed of 1300m/s. The plane is capable of going many places, and due to the large number of speed brakes and high thrust, is able to go in on even some shorter fields. It was easily able to fit into the island airport. There were a couple complaints though, especially from Bob. One of the major complaints that was stated was the fact that whenever the speed brakes were used, especially at speeds excess of 500m/s, the Hope Series would have a really large tendency to tip up. One test, where we turned the flight assist off (SAS), we saw the aircraft climb over 4k meters alone from the use of speed brakes. This is most likely due to the large number of speed brakes on the top wing. We think a pair could've maybe been fit on the outside wing edge. Other than this issue though, the Hope Series preformed very well, effortlessly reaching cruising speed and altitude. Another complaint we had though was the high fuel consumption. In comparison with other planes, the plane had a large fuel consumption at 15km, which most likely lowered the range quite drastically. We believe that with the recently uncapped flight ceiling, the aircraft would be at least 2x more efficient at altitude such as 18k. Passenger comfort was also another small issue we had. Although the plane flies very smoothly, the back 1/3rd of the cabin is hidden behind intakes, which produce a lot of noise and block the view out of the Hope series cabin. These cabins would most likely be for economy, although there isn't a lot of space within the cabin to begin with. What is nice though is that the cabins are away from the engines themselves, which would produce a lot more noise. In terms of maintenance, the Hope series, at 62 parts, would be somewhat complex to maintain. Only having 2 engines certainly helps a lot, so maintenance overall wouldn't be that bad. Verdict: We aren't really sure where the plane fits in. It is high performance, and as stated before, looks great. It only holds 48 passengers though with a 51 million price tag, making them somewhat expensive for what they offer. We decided that we wanted to buy 2-3 of them anyways, due to the high performance and the possibility to use it as a business class only plane, which would most likely offer good profit. We also found the planes to be very sturdy, lowering maintenance costs more to. Test Pilot Review: @reachmac's Kavro 730 Figures as tested: Cost: 218,163, 000 Fuel: 11205 kallons as loaded from factory (Capacity is 13839 kallons) Cruising Speed: 1000m/s Cruising Altitude: 20,000km Fuel Burn Rate: 1.98 kal/min Range: 4949km Notes: Upon laying our eyes on this for the first time, we were left scratching our heads. How could an aircraft so large get to supersonic speeds, or even Mach 3+? We were left pleasantly surprised though after flying the aircraft. Not only does it reach 1000m/s, it does so with little trouble. Not only that, we were also surprised by the handling of the aircraft. Due to the large control surfaces, the Kavro 730 had decent handling, and did not really feel that sluggish. The added cargo bay for luggage is a nice bonus as well. Unfortunately, there were quite a few problems that must be addressed. First off, the nose wheel does not turn at all. This means that you get very little control when taxing around, and this is only at higher speeds on the runway. This means that especially in tighter, smaller, airports, the Kavro 730 will not work. We’re still a little confused on how the engineers got this out of the SPH and onto the runway in the first place. The Kavro takeoff speed is also not within the parameters laid out by the contract. As opposed to the 80m/s max for takeoff, this takes off at over 125m/s, which is over 50% higher than the original speed asked for. We even tried taking off with less than half the original fuel and it still took off at over 110m/s. This makes the usage of this plane only for very large airports, if you can even taxi around that is. Our last complaint is with the landing performance. We were unable to land the aircraft due to the high takeoff speeds. We were able to land once, although this was not on a runway. Anytime we landed on the runway, the runway tended to explode, making turn-a-round times very long due to the need to repair the runway every time. Passenger comfort actually isn’t to bad, especially if they don’t mind overall pretty hard landings. The engines aren’t right next to the cabin, making noise levels overall not so bad. Verdict: Unfortunately, we have no interest in buying this aircraft. Due to the very high cost of purchasing this aircraft, it is not worth any of the cons listed above. Not only that, it would be nearly impossible to use at any airport, due to its lack of an ability to turn. We certainly were surprised by how well it flew though, but that doesn’t make up the cons either.

I'll join in on the judging as well, considering I have ample time tonight. I'll take the Hope series airframe and Kavro 730 Supersonic, and I'll try to get them done tonight. EDIT: Just thought of something. Do we want a google doc Excel sheet or something to show who is doing what just to keep track of everything?

I wasn't completely sure if my ship was considered small, and the rules state that if the ship is medium-large you need a second pilot.

KPE SSP-1a/b Phoenix https://imgur.com/IQrekIG.png SSP-1b on left, SSP-1a on the right. KPE is proud to announce the SSP-1a/b nicknamed the Phoenix(We scientists take pride in our nicknaming skills...)! Both variants are high performance, supersonic, passenger jet featuring the latest in comforts, including a full bar on board with 2 sets of restrooms. Specifications: Class: Small-Medium(?) Supersonic Jet Cruising Altitude: 18000-22000 meters Cruising Speed: 1200m/s Range: SSP-1a has a range of around 9400km at 20km, testing shows it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice SSP-1b has a range of around 6300km at 20km These values are recorded once the plane has reached cruising altitude, assuming 600kgals has been used to reach cruising altitude. Passengers: SSP-1a: 2 pilots, 48 passengers SSP-1b: 2 pilots, 74 passengers Fuel Burn: Depends, generally around 0.44kgal at cruise. Cost: 41,947,000 Both planes have good maneuverability, especially under 200m/s, and are able to takeoff around 60-70m/s, and lands 50-60m/s. Due to it's dual Whiplash engines, passengers enjoy a view of plasma licking their windows as they view the curvature of Kerbin. It can be useful in places such as the Island Strip as well, due to it's high deceleration and acceleration. It has 4 speedbrakes, allowing it to pull off maneuvers such as the Nose Dive (Seen below). Due to it's short wheelbase as well, the plane has high maneuverability on the ground as well, allowing it to get around tight spaces. The two pilots also get a birds eye view around them as they taxi, allowing them to potentially spot things over other planes if need be. Operation: Action Groups: "1" enables all 4 speedbrakes. DO NOT USE FOR LANDING. The bottom 2 speedbrakes will be damaged heavily by the ground. Brakes: The brakes do not enable the bottom 2 speedbrakes, this is normal, as otherwise they will be damaged by the ground. Getting up to cruising Altitude: When taking off, speed up to about 200m/s before pitching up to around 25-30 degrees. When you reach 12km, start to slowly pitch forward until level at 15km. If you reach 800m/s before leveling out, continue climbing at current pitch angle until you reach cruising altitude and speed. Craft Files: SSP-1a: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am-Klu4h5TIdl4RX1SWbJndnEHWhRw SSP-1b: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am-Klu4h5TIdl4RYNPQZJb5z0G4Lfg

I recently got this system because my laptop died (but then I revived it after doing some dissection and replacing...): Core I5 6600k @ 4.6Ghz w/ Asus Z170 Pro Gamer MSI GTX 970 250Gb adata SSD w/ 1tb Hardrive All in all, I expect it to run KSP very well when the time comes.

I would just like to say that for the uses of this, a CX series PSU is fine. But if you can, I'd probably try to get a better power supply in there such as an EVGA or XFX, especially for systems which require a lot of power. But like I said, the CX430 should be pretty good for the build. I understand that for a budget build, squeezing every dollar out is important :P. I also think that the 430 is one of the more reliable units anyway.

Yay, thanks for fixing this!

I did this mission for fun, as this is one of the first challenges I have actually posted in.(I keep making crafts and things like that for others, but I never seem to get around to finishing them ) There we go, I believe I might have gotten Commander, but you should check first.

(Edited, said something before that doesn't apply) This is quite the collection of great stuff! Currently looking at your bearing, and do you mind if I post a project that I use it in as long as I credit you? Thanks

I really hope I got in early enough for first class.... I am really hyped for 0.90, it will be amazing! Can't wait to see the new buildings as well as tiers! Choo! Choo!

Cool, Thanks!

This is working out great, although I am having some problems using the !sharecraft command. Whenever I try to use it, it does nothing, and I want to give it to someone to help troubleshoot it. Could you please fix this?

I am running KSP 0.25 with many mods forcing openGL. The problem I have, which I can't narrow down right now, is that I can't select on parts in the VAB or SPH on the left, and there are no tabs at the top to switch between parts. I can still launch saved crafts and things like that and do action groups, I just can't select parts. Here is my gamedata folder: http://prntscr.com/59r77j. Log: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/162487944/output_log.txt I did build the save using the Comprehensive Kerbal Archive Network (CKAN) Package Manager. If you need any other information, I would be happy to supply. Edit: I figured it out, part catalog was doing something that made the menu not work. It currently works right now

Just tried the experimental release, and this is the best tool I have ever seen! It even automatically downloads all of the mods! Thank you so much for making this. Although one problem, when I tried to run the stable release, the CMD window would pop up with some commands, and then disappear, although the latest experimental works just fine.

Here is my Entry, it is SSTO Reacher! I am quite proud of this as this is my first SSTO No mods were used(KLF will not effect craft. file) The flight path is in the craft description. It can reach 1800m/s if you do it correctly! Download:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/8sz8hj15ufavt0b/SSTO%20Reacher.craft?dl=1&token_hash=AAE8ERw9VJo2vJdfxaqGbcuXyJcYHSPJSBV1e0P3WKtF-g

I am having a bug with the Thor Boosters. Whenever I try to launch with them, they just fall off the decouplers and all the struts go away. When I check the log, it says nothing has happended.