Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[Steel Starling]

Yeah. I feel that this may need to be temporarily paused  . I do hope @Mjp1050 is ok though.

[shdwlrd]

4 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

I don't even think he got a third tbh, but that's irrelevant. He did put the bar very high with his reviews. Having to do that for such a load of content is a loooot work ofc. 

We should yeah, at least until we catch up with the last submission, after that we can see again. 

Someone could do a quick screening of the entries based on specs and just flight test the best ones for each category.

[Samwise Potato]

Even with just one or two reviews a day, we'd be caught up in a month, easy. The only reason it's so far behind is that none have been done in so long.

[panzerknoef]

On 11/14/2017 at 12:42 AM, Steel Starling said:

Yeah. I feel that this may need to be temporarily paused  . I do hope @Mjp1050 is ok though.

Fingers crossed for him yeah, hopefully he's alright! 

On 11/14/2017 at 3:32 AM, shdwlrd said:

Someone could do a quick screening of the entries based on specs and just flight test the best ones for each category.

How do we know which ones are the best though, selecting like that is inevitably subjective I'm afraid... 

On 11/14/2017 at 7:37 AM, Samwise Potato said:

Even with just one or two reviews a day, we'd be caught up in a month, easy. The only reason it's so far behind is that none have been done in so long.

Yeah absolutely, it would take ages, but with renewed activity on this thread we might be able to pull in new people. More people=more reviews, and that means we'd be through faster. 

 

I'll check out just how many planes there still are later today. 

EDIT: 

There's 88 planes up for testing. I already left some out since they lack a download link but there's a chance I've missed some. Out of those 88, 9 are seaplanes, 9 turboprops, 19 small regional jets, 15 medium regional jets, 27 supersonic jets and 9 jumbo jets.

Here's the list:

Seaplane: (9)

Boatee (download link seems to be nonfunctional)
Some Random Seaplane 100
Kerijew 100
SF-A116 "Tulip"
SkiKull
PBY Katalina
K-38\52
K-61\a
Isometric I (Bush)

Turboprop: (9)

Fulmar
Kombardier 300 and 301
SF-A232 "Lupin" (goes on water)
AVRO Prop-Star
Canberra-P
GAI* Turbo-XL Classic
Bx-1 "Shoebox"
Bx-2 "Sturdy Shoebox"
SI-R-1 "Puddlejumper" (scout)

Small regional jet: (19)

CPS C-1 "Alice"
Screechcraft Starship  NEO
The Monarc P4
K-57 "Tern"
Kombardier 400 and 401
Cathiogac 2
CAL-4
IS2J-32B
Bluejay 32
SF-J240 "Daisy"
The FF-Shockcone
Skots Small (goes on water)
Sea Dragon 1000(goes on water)
Sea Newt(goes on water)
Sea Newt X(goes on water)
K-57D "Tern"(goes on water)
Skots Long(goes on water)
B-3 "Lance"
CRNE-458

Medium regional jet: (15)

Kerman Dove
Ka-62
Kerman Stingray
Kombardier 200
Generous Spirit
Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B)
Goosewing 80
Olympus 100
Olympus 120
Olympus 150
Skots Medium (goes on water)
Lassen
Sea Dragon 2000(goes on water)
Sea Dragon 3000(goes on water)
Klonkorde

Supersonic: (27)

SAI Concorde Mk. II
ISSJ-40
Hope series airframe
Kavro 730 Supersonic
Transcendent Spirit
SSP-1a/b Phoenix
Sonic
AAA074 Potato
SF-J240 "Daisy" (double duty)
SF-S240 "Marigold"
Kupolew Ku-100 SSJ
Kramer SSTP-34 Benirschke
The FF-Shockcone (double duty)
Kramer SSTP-2000 Starmachine
Daxworks Lightning Cruiser
Arenal
PBY Katalina (double duty)
Pegasus(only 32 passengers)
Skots Speedmaster
Lassen-Supersonic-A
Lassen-Supersonic-B
SST-1
Delta II
Zoomer (Island Hopper)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"
Dotsero
Dotsero-EC

Jumbo jet: (9)

The "Grizzly" Super Transport Civilian (ST-3 Civilian)
Koeing 747-100 Super
WH-04
Olympus 250
Skots Mouse
C5 "RePurpose" (only 2000km range)
Skots Ratt (only 3000km range)
Challenger Seaplane(goes on water)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"(double duty)

 

If everyone agrees, I would like to start judging the SAI Concorde Mk. II and the ISSJ-40.

I'll keep this list updated, marking planes that have already been judged.

Edited November 15, 2017 by panzerknoef

[NightshineRecorralis]

6 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Fingers crossed for him yeah, hopefully he's alright! 

How do we know which ones are the best though, selecting like that is inevitably subjective I'm afraid... 

Yeah absolutely, it would take ages, but with renewed activity on this thread we might be able to pull in new people. More people=more reviews, and that means we'd be through faster. 

 

I'll check out just how many planes there still are later today. 

EDIT: 

There's 88 planes up for testing. I already left some out since they lack a download link but there's a chance I've missed some. Out of those 88, 9 are seaplanes, 9 turboprops, 19 small regional jets, 15 medium regional jets, 27 supersonic jets and 9 jumbo jets.

Here's the list:

Seaplane: (9)

Boatee
Some Random Seaplane 100
Kerijew 100
SF-A116 "Tulip"
SkiKull
PBY Katalina
K-38\52
K-61\a
Isometric I (Bush)

Turboprop: (9)

Fulmar
Kombardier 300 and 301
SF-A232 "Lupin" (goes on water)
AVRO Prop-Star
Canberra-P
GAI* Turbo-XL Classic
Bx-1 "Shoebox"
Bx-2 "Sturdy Shoebox"
SI-R-1 "Puddlejumper" (scout)

Small regional jet: (19)

CPS C-1 "Alice"
Screechcraft Starship  NEO
The Monarc P4
K-57 "Tern"
Kombardier 400 and 401
Cathiogac 2
CAL-4
IS2J-32B
Bluejay 32
SF-J240 "Daisy"
The FF-Shockcone
Skots Small (goes on water)
Sea Dragon 1000(goes on water)
Sea Newt(goes on water)
Sea Newt X(goes on water)
K-57D "Tern"(goes on water)
Skots Long(goes on water)
B-3 "Lance"
CRNE-458

Medium regional jet: (15)

Kerman Dove
Ka-62
Kerman Stingray
Kombardier 200
Generous Spirit
Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B)
Goosewing 80
Olympus 100
Olympus 120
Olympus 150
Skots Medium (goes on water)
Lassen
Sea Dragon 2000(goes on water)
Sea Dragon 3000(goes on water)
Klonkorde

Supersonic: (27)

SAI Concorde Mk. II
ISSJ-40
Hope series airframe
Kavro 730 Supersonic
Transcendent Spirit
SSP-1a/b Phoenix
Sonic
AAA074 Potato
SF-J240 "Daisy" (double duty)
SF-S240 "Marigold"
Kupolew Ku-100 SSJ
Kramer SSTP-34 Benirschke
The FF-Shockcone (double duty)
Kramer SSTP-2000 Starmachine
Daxworks Lightning Cruiser
Arenal
PBY Katalina (double duty)
Pegasus(only 32 passengers)
Skots Speedmaster
Lassen-Supersonic-A
Lassen-Supersonic-B
SST-1
Delta II
Zoomer (Island Hopper)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"
Dotsero
Dotsero-EC

Jumbo jet: (9)

The "Grizzly" Super Transport Civilian (ST-3 Civilian)
Koeing 747-100 Super
WH-04
Olympus 250
Skots Mouse
C5 "RePurpose" (only 2000km range)
Skots Ratt (only 3000km range)
Challenger Seaplane(goes on water)
(ASEI) B-1337 "Swift Moon"(double duty)

 

If everyone agrees, I would like to start judging the SAI Concorde Mk. II and the ISSJ-40. I'll keep this list updated, marking planes that have already been judged.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd also like to judge planes. Obviously I'd take those that aren't my own, and review bombing is out of the question.

[no_intelligence]

I would also offer to join the reviewers team. I think with a team of 3 we are able to keep this thread alive and get rid of the large amount of planes to be reviewed in no time.

And as I already developed a test flight pattern for my entries, I would also use this for the other planes, which makes entries more comparable. Maybe we should agree on a test flight pattern?

For example, my standard pattern for medium to large planes is: Runway takeoff, left turn to 360°, climbing to recommended cruising altitude, left turn to 270°, stable flight at recommended speed and altitude to estimate fuel consumption, left turn to 180°, descent and maneuverability testing, left turn to 090° and landing back at the KSC. For small planes I use this: Runway takeoff, right turn to 180° and climb to recommended cruise altitude and speed to estimate fuel consumption, left turn back to 090°, descending and maneuverability testing, landing at the old airfield. For Seaplanes i have no specified pattern tho, but I think I would follow the one for medium/large planes to estimate all and the land landing abilities and just takeoff the runway and land it straight into the sea for the water landing abilities.

Btw... Of course I won't judge my own designs 

[panzerknoef]

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

-snip-

 

19 minutes ago, no_intelligence said:

-snip-

I'd say everyone who wants to judge is more than welcome to, 3 people is a good team already, but the more the merrier! 

 

As for a standard test flight pattern, I think it'll just be good if the planes get tested on the main things. Everyone likes to do that their own way, and allowing that is more fun imo. What we do have to agree on is what exactly is gonna be tested. You do test on the most important things in your pattern, those being: 

Take-off speed. 

Maneuverabilty. 

Range and fuel consumption. 

Speed. 

Landing behavior. 

Emergency water landing. 

(I additionally test for performance in high G's, but I don't think that's very important.)

I'd say these are the minimum things to test the planes by, you want to do it more extensively? Go ahead, as long as it has those factors in it. 

I'd also suggest everyone to mention up ahead which planes they'll be judging, that way we can prevent double judgings. How many at a time you take doesn't really matter I'd say, as long as it isn't an amount so large that the timeframe of judging would become excessively long. 

 

For a start, I'll judge the SAI Concorde Mk. II and the ISSJ-40 (both on page 2) expect reviews soon. 

[no_intelligence]

Sounds good. I will start with the Fulmar, CPS C-1 Alice and the KA-62.

Expect Reviews coming up soon, guys! 

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54 [companyNameNotFound] - SAI Concorde Mk. II

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 41.354.000 
• Fuel: 2780 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1050m/s
• Cruising altitude: 18000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.36kal/s
• Range:  7000km

Review Notes:
The executives had a heard decision on this one. The SAI Concorde Mk. II is a great plane, but it has some disadvantages.
With a price lower than that of the Screechcraft Starship, it's definitely interesting, the difference isn't large at all, but still noteworthy. It is however still on the high side.
The SAI Concorde Mk. II has exceptional speed going for it, 1050m/s will get you anywhere withing the blink of an eye. The Range being around 7000km is very impressive as well.
Additionally the large amount of wing surfaces also makes it great at gliding and ensures stability at low speeds.
However, the large wings are seemingly not reinforced at all and seem to flop about when pulling maneuvers, we have some doubts about the safety of that.
When flown at high speeds and low altitude even a small attempt at changing the AOA can cause extensive flapping and bending of the structure, a highly distressing feature.

(I'm not the only one who thinks this looks quite unsafe, right?)

The low landing gear also makes it a bit harder to land, but this is mostly negated by the excellent glide characteristics of the craft. The take-off speed was higher than described, at around 75-80m/s.
The high part count will also make for a large amount of maintenance, which results in a high price to keep her airborne.
Comfort wise the SAI Concorde Mk. II is alright, the front most cabins being excellent, but the rearmost cabins are squashed between two large engines, which makes for a very loud flight. We presume this area is intended for sub-economy seating. Emergency water landings have been found to be good, wings might be destroyed when splashing down at high speeds, but the cabin remains in one piece at all times.

The Verdict:
Self-explanatory to fly, blazingly fast and exceptional range. Countered by a high price, low structural integrity and a high need for maintenance. Thanks to the high take-off speed the plane can also only operate off large airports.
Though the good characteristics are there, we don't think the SAI Concorde Mk. II is ready for service just yet. If an improved version does arrive, we might be interested.

[Bob_Saget54]

2 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

-snip-

Is the durability really that bad? I remember testing it and it seemed quite reliable and not-flappy in the air...

[NightshineRecorralis]

I'll take some turboprops:
Kombardier 300 and 301

Consider them claimed.

Edited November 14, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis

[panzerknoef]

1 hour ago, Bob_Saget54 said:

Is the durability really that bad? I remember testing it and it seemed quite reliable and not-flappy in the air...

at high speeds and low altitudes, yes it is. Can make for some issues when you're descending and still at a high velocity. I suggest just strutting it up a bit, also give it higher landing gears and place them closer to the COM, should fix the take-off speed issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Pilot Review: @TheEpicSquared's IRIDIUM AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES -  ISSJ-40

Figures as Tested:

• Price:  29,023,000
• Fuel: 800 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1500m/s
• Cruising altitude: 21000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0,3kal/s
• Range:  4000km

Review Notes:
The KEA board has a pretty simple opinion about this craft, it's great. Priced at 29.023.000 funds, it's a lot cheaper than all current competitors, not only that, it also largly outperforms them!
While we weren't quite capable of matching up the top cruising speed of 1550m/s with the aformentioned fuel usage, we still got quite close. 1500m/s is absolutely ridiculously fast, we were surprised the plane's structure didn't melt at said speed.
Low altitude testing has also proven that it also offers a stable flight in the lower atmosphere. Additionally, high G maneuvers don't destroy the ISSJ-40, it's a very rigid plane.
Take-off speed was actually discovered to be lower than described, as it could pull away at around 50m/s, which allows for use on shorter runways. The extensive airbreaks also allow it to land on short runways.
Thanks to the high gears and the beam at the back of the plane, it's quite hard to get a tailstrike. 
The only real negative point we have on it is the lack of power generator on the RAPIER engine. The limited battery power can provide issues during extensive maneuvering and long haul flights, which in turn could lead to severe incomfort as the passengers have to spend their time in the dark. Worse still would be attempting a night time landing without lights.
Without power there isn't any reaction wheel action either, which doesn't have much influence, but it doesn't go entirely unnoticed either.
It does however suffer from the same issue as the other plane by Iridium, center placed fuel tanks. These are once more an obstacle for reaching the back of the plane. Some of the air intakes have been placed on the passenger cabins again, which once more leads to noise and vibrations, magnified further by the big engine being placed directly behind the rearmost cabins.
Splash down testing hasn't uncovered any flaws, it's safe to ditch it in the water.
 

The Verdict:
Easy to fly, sturdy, extremely fast and at a good price. It doesn't go without drawbacks, but the performance of the plane is more than enough to make up for those. We like this plane, a lot even! Ordering 6 for long range flights, and hoping that the power issue gets resolved.

Edited November 14, 2017 by panzerknoef

[1Revenger1]

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?

Edited November 14, 2017 by 1Revenger1

[NightshineRecorralis]

 

Test Pilot Review: @no_intelligence's Kombardier Aeroplane Ltd. -- Kombardier 300 Series

Kombardier 300

Figures as Tested: Kombardier 300

• Price:15,149,000
• Fuel: 800 kallons
• Cruising Speed: 145m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05 kal/min
• Range: 2235km

 

Kombardier 301

Figures as Tested: Kombardier 301

• Price:15,699,000
• Fuel: 800 kallons
• Cruising Speed: 145m/s
• Cruising Altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.06 kal/min
• Range: 1860km

 

Review Notes:

At first glance, the Kombardier 300 Series does not look like much, but we were pleasantly surprised by how capable this turboprop family is. Practically able to carry either 24 or 32 passengers to any corner of the world, the 300 and 301 have excellent fuel economy for such small aircraft. There are some odd quirks that our test pilots encountered while testing, though, the most obnoxious one being the landing gear configuration.

Judging by the fact that the landing gear is mounted to the body at an angle and not level or underwing, this is clearly a cost-saving measure. However, whether or not this measure can be justified is a difficult topic. The 300 and 301 both suffer from large deviations from true on the tarmac, requiring plenty of effort from the pilot to fight against the yawing tendency of these aircraft. While this is easily adjustable on larger runways, a narrow airstrip proves to be a larger challenge for the 300 and 301. With a price tag nearly double that of the Dusty Turboprop, it is unclear if the better amenities of the Kombardier 300/301 can make up for such a design oversight. Perhaps it should be added that, despite higher than expected performance, the pitch authority in the Kombardier 300 leaves something to be desired. Oddly enough, it's larger sibling does not seem to have any pitch issues whatsoever, even boasting lower landing and stall speeds.

Enough with the nitpicking, the Kombardier 300 family is, again, very capable for the tasks it was designed for, with strong landing gear and solid aerofoil design. Once we were able to get these planes off the ground, they were delightful to fly in. The turboprops barely exceed 1/3 throttle at cruise, leaving a mild drone in the rear cabin, and quiet but noticeable sounds up front. A good design approach in the landing gear is a small tail wheel to prevent damage from tailstrikes. This is a commonly overlooked feature in smaller aircraft, and we are glad that Kombardier Aeroplane Ltd.'s designers included this little detail. Short field performance is greatly enhanced by the inclusion of thrust reversing turboprops, but we found that we barely had to use them. The wheel brakes were usually powerful enough to stop the plane at a reasonable length: about 5-7 plane lengths, in this case.

In terms of serviceability, the Kombardier 300 and 301 have 24 and 25 parts, respectively. With relatively low maintenance turboprops and a high wing to keep debris from any vital components, combined with a tailwheel for less experienced pilots, we foresee the 300 and 301 to require little maintenance. Not only that, but a large fuel capacity will undoubtedly aid in quick turnaround times. Emergency water ditchings with and without power were extremely satisfactory. Our pilots were able to glide her down like a dove, and in both cases, the planes survived in perfect condition. Upon video playback, it was discovered that the engines hadn't even been touched. These planes would likely need only a wash before being put back into service. 

 

 

The Verdict:

A beast to handle on the tarmac, but a beauty in the air, the Kombardier 300 family is what constitutes a "one time payment" kind of airframe. While rather pricey compared to competitors, these planes are a dream to fly. Able to takeoff and land from nearly any land environment, and with a sturdy construction, we expect these planes to last a long time in their fleets. We love these planes, even with their quirks. After all, what's a couple more hours of pilots training compared to years of flying? Ordering 2 of each for low-density routes and hard to service airports, with options for up to 3 more of each.

 

(@panzerknoef Please add this to your list of completed planes!)

2 hours ago, 1Revenger1 said:

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?

A spreadsheet would be nice, if others don't mind me plucking words out of their hands, I'm sure the other judges would agree too ^^

Now that I've finished my last one, I'll claim my next: SF-A232

If everyone's ok with this, I'd like to claim all turboprops that haven't been claimed yet simply due to the power of my PC ^^. Exceptions should only be the Fumar and the Canberra P (Which I made)

Edited November 14, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis

[Mjp1050]

Hey folks, I'm back from my hiatus. 

And holy cow you guys are amazing! I haven't been on the forums for the better part of a month, and when I got back today, I honestly expected this challenge to be dead. But you guys are not only keeping the challenge alive, but also managed to get this in the Heritage Challenges! That's incredible! You guys are the best.

I'm also really pleased to see that we've managed to get other judges on this, because honestly, I was completely overwhelmed and stressed out by the sheer volume of submissions. There was no way that I could've managed to get through them all. So thank you everyone who's judging planes right now, because you are making my life a lot less stressful. @panzerknoef, @NightshineRecorralis, @no_intelligence, @1Revenger1, I'll put you in the OP as official judges. I'll still be judging, too, but I don't know how often I can do it: each review takes me about two hours, and it's hard for me to actually find the time to review planes. Even on a good week, I could only get about 3 planes reviewed before I had to call it quits. I really can't thank you all enough for this.

I'll still be around the forums too, so I'll be updating the OP with the new reviews about once a day.

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 minute ago, Mjp1050 said:

Hey folks, I'm back from my hiatus. 

And holy cow you guys are amazing! I haven't been on the forums for the better part of a month, and when I got back today, I honestly expected this challenge to be dead. But you guys are not only keeping the challenge alive, but also managed to get this in the Heritage Challenges! That's incredible! You guys are the best.

I'm also really pleased to see that we've managed to get other judges on this, because honestly, I was completely overwhelmed and stressed out by the sheer volume of submissions. There was no way that I could've managed to get through them all. So thank you everyone who's judging planes right now, because you are making my life a lot less stressful. @panzerknoef, @NightshineRecorralis, @no_intelligence, @1Revenger1, I'll put you in the OP as official judges. I'll still be judging, too, but I don't know how often I can do it: each review takes me about two hours, and it's hard for me to actually find the time to review planes. Even on a good week, I could only get about 3 planes reviewed before I had to call it quits. I really can't thank you all enough for this.

I'll still be around the forums too, so I'll be updating the OP with the new reviews about once a day.

Glad to hear that you are back! After all, real life comes first. I'm looking forward to working with you! <3

[1Revenger1]

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.

Edited November 15, 2017 by 1Revenger1
You don't label altitude over time...

[shdwlrd]

30 minutes ago, 1Revenger1 said:

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: 15000m/s
• 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 arn'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.

Thank you for the review and order. Further testing by our experimental group suggests that if you reduce the cruising speed to 900-950m/s you can extend the range ~300 km @ 15000m. You are correct at stating that an altitude of 18000m will yield much greater range. The pitch up behavior upon using the airbrakes is a feature that helps reduce your airspeed quicker. As stated, this airframe can be fitted with any engine combination you would like. May we suggest changing out the 2 J-X4 with 2 J-90 or 4 J-33. With the J-90 engines, you can enjoy a cruising speed of 290m/s @ 9000m with a range of 2000km. With the affordable J-33 engines you will see a range of 2200 km with a cruising speed of 180m/s @ 6000m. (Notice: All prices will be quoted upon request.)

Latitude Aerospace Group.

PS. Not a real submission. 

I've was playing around with the airbrake positions. I wasn't able to balance the braking force cause I kept breaking them off during take off or landing. As for my testing at 18-19km altitude, the range is about 2900km @ a speed of 1380m/s. You are capable of reaching 1490-1500m/s, but stuff starts going boom. As a side note; If you use bi-couplers to make a nacelle and add 4 Rapiers and everything that is needed for use in space. It also makes a good SSTO shuttle too.  (My first successful stock SSTO since .25) 

[panzerknoef]

10 hours ago, 1Revenger1 said:

-snip-

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?

Good idea, that way we don't need to continuously announce what planes we're judging, I'll send all the judges a link in PM soon. I'll cross out every plane that's been taken for judging in the list as soon as I can.

On another note, glad to see you're back among the living, MJP1050!

Edited November 15, 2017 by panzerknoef

[TheEpicSquared]

@panzerknoef Thanks for the feedback. Expect a new version of the ISSJ-40 soon.  

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @logman 's Kerman & Kerman aviation - Kerman Dove

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 44.082.000
• Fuel: 3200 kallons
• Cruising speed: 240m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1300m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.43kal/s
• Range:  1800km

Review Notes:
The Kerman Dove...Is not a really good plane. There are some parts about it which we do enjoy, such as the emergency system and the modular buildup of the plane.
Sadly, that's pretty much were the good news ends. During testing its maneuverabilty was found to be sub-par, having done extra testing on this, it has a turning circle of 3km, which is just a bit large in our opinion.
The engines were fairly loud, and the fact that two of them were up front made for a noisy flight. We also wonder how you managed to fit 128 kerbals in there, since we only found room for 96 (which was the other number mentioned in the description, consider us confused). Another oddity about the plane is the fuel consumption, this varied widely along the testing, going as low as 0.39 but also up to 0.66. This makes for a range difference of 800km, it's just not safe to make this plane fly trips which correspond with near max range since it could very well run out of fuel way before that. 
Take-off speed was high, at 80m/s and the same goes for landing speed, this combined with the lack of use of the thrust-reversers means that it needs a very long runway to operate from.
The biggest issue however was the air-frame itself. Only 1 out of 4 cabins has actually been attached to the back end of the hull, leaving the other 3 wobbling dangerously. Upon a less than perfect landing We've even had a cabin smash into the ground, destroying it completely (and that didn't happen just once). As you can hopefully understand, this is not the kind of safety we are looking for in a plane.

(The missing cabin, sadly not an uncommon issue)

Tests on water ditching were rather successful though, the plane usually survived ditching.
To make the package complete the Kerman Dove also comes at a fairly high price, combined with the high part count and thus high maintenance, it's just too expensive run.

The Verdict:
The Kerman Dove has some nice touches but overall we still consider it to be rather unpleasant. Unsafe, unreliable, noisy and expensive. Putting this aircraft into service would be a risk for our passengers, as such we have chosen not to acquire any of them.

Edited November 15, 2017 by panzerknoef

[no_intelligence]

Test Pilot Review @Cabbink's CPS C-1 "Alice"

Figures as tested:

• Price: 65,150,000
• Fuel: 4220 (loaded at default)
• Cruising Speed: 320m/s (Afterburners off), 890m/s (Afterburners on)
• Altitude: 5000m (AB off), 8000m (AB on)
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0,44 (AB off), 1,25 (AB on)
• Range (calculated): 3069km (AB off), 3004 (AB on)

 

Review Notes:

The "Alice" looks like their engineers were not sure whether to construct a helicopter, a supersonic jet or a medium sized passenger carrier. This results in a very interesting design. The cockpit section clearly allows a great view for the pilots, the engines mounted far at the back help reducing the cabin noise and assure that CoM and CoT stay leveled and the large delta wings make low landing speeds possible.

Anyway, it is as hard to get her in the air as it easy to put her back down. The very far mounted gear results in a take off speed of 80m/s or even more, while fully pitched up. The take off run distance can be greatly reduced by using the afterburners, if only a short runway is available, but that requires everyone on the ground to protect their ears and lungs as the panthers cannot really be called "silent" or "clean" in that mode. Once airbourne, the "Alice" is a joy to handle, only the yaw authority might be improved. Landing is also as smooth as could be, it survived even Chuck's harsh landings on non-solid ground at ease. And even if you don't wanna spend money on training your pilots, the parachutes can be simply deployed and even a fully fueled "Alice" just gently glides back to the ground, back first. That only results in the destruction of the engine section (just like water landings normally do), but everyone abord survives with minor to no injuries.

To bring it on point, we really liked many features of the C-1, especially its high safety standards. But this all comes at a price higher than many larger medium regional jets and because of the bunch of panthers a comparatively high fuel consumption. The range clearly overshoots our requirements and it is capable of its maximum range in subsonic flight aswell as in supersonic flight, but its versatility for different purposes might also make it expensive to maintain and service.

The Verdict:

The CPS C-1 "Alice" is in our mind a very versatile plane, carrying a count of Kerbals somewhere between the small and medium regional and supersonic jet requirements. And this comes at high costs, high take off speeds and an overall design that we think would not quite fit our main use for the plane. Anyway, KEA will be ordering 1 for further testing and research if there might be a need for such an aircraft in our fleet in the future, but right now it cannot really keep up with other designs which have been fitted tightly around our requirements for a pure small regional jet or even a pure supersonic jet.

[Cabbink]

49 minutes ago, no_intelligence said:

-snip-

Yeah that was one of my first planes. I have some better ones on the way tht have the highest turn capabilites possible. Just dont black out.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @logman's Kerman & Kerman aviation - Kerman Stingray 

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 141.321.000
• Fuel: 2610 kallons
• Cruising speed: 241m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.32kal/s
• Range:  1900km

Review Notes:
After the previous Kerman & Kerman plane was found to be more or less a death trap, we have to admit that we didn't look forward to judging this one... However, we couldn't have been more wrong! It seems that Kerman & Kerman made some serious advances in their plane design.
Maneuverability was good, vastly improved over the Dove. Rolling wasn't very fast, but we didn't expect that either of a craft with that size. COM was fairly far forward, resulting in a plane that wanted to dip down quite badly, but the excessive amount of control surfaces could usually keep that in check. Take-off usually took place around 65m/s, an acceptable number.
The plane could glide rather well, resulting in easy landings. Using the thrust-reversers (which we did have to configure for testing) also allowed the plane to come to a halt on a shortish distance. The plane can thus be used on medium-sized airports. Ditching the plane in water gave us a very pleasant surprise though, not only did it ditch with ease, it could also take back off again!
The fuel consumption of the engines remained a bit weird, but in cruising it stayed stable, the engines under the wings even shut down when cruising speed was reached (we nearly got a stroke when 2/3 engines suddenly stopped functioning mid flight though), which allowed for a fuel usage as low as 0.29.
Comfortwise everything was good as well, the big engines still mounted behind the cabin, causing some slight vibrations but nothing more. Having the 2 additional engines mounted under the wings was very pleasant though. Sound and vibrations were well withing acceptable limits.
We were however confused by the fact that rocket fuel tanks were used, for testing purposes we did drain the oxidizer from those.
Additionally, the placement of the wing beneath the windows allows passengers to look outside in a limited degree, those not seated above the wing even having good views of Kerbin, especially from the lowish 3000m cruise altitude.
Extreme maneuvering at low altitude showed some wing movement, but once again, well within acceptable limits. We did also like the small wheel mounted near the back of the plane to prevent tail strikes.
There's one huge negative point about the Stingray though, and that is the price... costing  141.321.000, over thrice the price of the dove and with a part count of 67, it's a very expensive plane to say the least.
 

The Verdict:
For all intents and purposes, this is a good aircraft for its category. However, the price is so high that we can buy 4 IA-E720's for the same money, and then we're not even counting in maintenance costs. Despite its appealing characteristics, we just cannot afford putting this plane into service, no matter how much we'd like to.

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @Samwise Potato's Spud Flight -- SF-A232 "Lupin"

 

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21,194,000
• Fuel: 500 kallons
• Cruising speed: 159 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.06 kal/s
• Range:  1300 km

Review Notes:

The Lupin is an unassuming little turboprop from the outside, but packs some serious power under the hood. With an impressive range of a small craft and a speedy cruising speed, the Lupin has proven to be quite handy. We loved the plane's small footprint, which allowed us to fit more in the same space compared to other turboprops (See 2nd picture). We also loved how maneuverable this airframe is, with all the bells and whistles that accompany what was clearly designed to be an executive's plane.

There are a lot of things to like about the Lupin, so much so that we were hard-pressed to find any significant downfalls. We would've liked the inclusion of flaps for low-speed flight, but the built-in airbrakes are a great alternative. The worst part of this aircraft is arguably a little nit-picky on our side, but during low altitude testing, we found the dual turboprops to be quite loud and inefficient. We spent about 10% of the tank in a short 5 minute joyride, which caused some concern. However, the Lupin is clearly not designed to be flown in this way, so we really can't blame the designers for this flaw. Another gripe we had was the artificially low operational ceiling. At a mere 3 kilometers, the Lupin will be subject to all sorts of low level weather and obstacles. We hope that the operational ceiling can be raised to an altitude closer to the service ceiling, as there is no measurable penalty in fuel economy or sound level.

The Lupin is great, we'd call it amazing if we could, but our own designers would probably want our skin if we did that. (It's amazing, just don't tell our designers we said that.) With its dual turboprops, climbing power is extraordinary. The Lupin was able to climb to 3000m in under a minute and probably less if we pushed the craft harder. Short field performance is great, taking off at a lower than advertised 35m/s on both land and water. At cruise, the plane is quite fuel efficient, but the close proximity of the engines and high throttle mean that the cabin does experience louder than expected drone and more vibrations. However, in the event of an engine failure, the closeness of the engines means that the plane is less susceptible to undesired yaw. The steep tail structure minimizes the chances of tail strikes on land, which is always a nice to have, especially for rural or mountain airfields with poor runways. However, in terms of landing on water, we dutifully followed given instructions, but results were unsatisfactory. We determined through independent testing that landing at a nose up attitude was much better, as the craft had a smaller tendency to tip forward and flood the engines.

In terms of serviceability, the Lupin, with 47 parts, has a good, middle of the road, serviceability. The part count might be high, but quite a bit is due to the triple pontoon setup, which will undoubtedly require very little in terms of intensive care. The relatively high landing gear does keep debris away from the engines, but a careless ditching is likely to result in flooded engines. This will like definitely increase both the cost of pilot training and repair, and shorten the lifespan of this aircraft. However, it is possible to fit more of these aircraft in a given space compared to others, so the running cost of these aircraft might be offset by sheer volume.

 

The Verdict:

The Lupin has excellent performance all around, at a slight sacrifice of passenger comfort. If bought in large enough volumes, we expect that the higher performance and higher storage density can offset the higher initial cost and higher maintenance costs. These will be an excellent replacement for the aging seaplane fleet currently being operated, but we are unsure of the longevity of these planes. Overall, we love this plane, and are purchasing 4 for low-density vacation destinations and hard to reach lake and river ports, with options for up to 5 more.

-----

With the newer generation of the Lupin bringing flaps and lower pontoons, we were quite excited to test fly this new craft. Overall, the plane has not changed much, just an extra set of control surfaces and a slight change to the fuselage. Let's put it out there first: we expected too much. The flaps appeared to be more for marketing than actual performance gains, as we experienced the exact same takeoff and landing speeds. The only measurable difference was in the water, where the lower pontoons and flaps both helped to get the plane off the surface faster. While this is a better plane in some regards, we don't think it is worth the cost to upgrade our existing Lupins to the Lupin II, however, as buying new, both cost the same. Thus, we will fulfill our preexisting options and purchase 5 Lupin IIs.

@Samwise Potato

Edited November 18, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis