Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, panzerknoef said:

Talking about those death traps again though... I just happen to be testing another craft again which is one yet again, loses a wing upon slight banking at cruise speed 

I tried out one of the ones reviewed here, it had 4 contraprop engines, the death trap accusation was extremely accurate. I tried turning at 200m/s, the left wing falls into the sea. I then fly again, and set the leftmost engine to reverse thrust. It's hilarious! It spins sideways and then both wings break apart mid air! Then thing proceeds to cart-wheel into the sea, where some of it survived, the only engine that survived was the one i set in reverse. (Guess it hated the other 3)

In contrast I made my supersonic plane so tough I could turn it as hard as possible (about 70 degrees off prograde) at 1200m/s and it is just fine. Since air resistance is velocity cubed, my plane was at least 220 times stronger! And that's before accounting for the fact that the AoA on my wings were 70 degrees, on his it was maybe 10? I am not impressed with his design at all.

Even worse: Could have been fixed with 20 struts. I put some struts on, it's quite solid now.

Edited November 18, 2017 by CrazyJebGuy

[no_intelligence]

Test Pilot Review: @AeroGav's Screechcraft Corporation "Fulmar" Turboprop

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 18,401,000
• Fuel: 8000 kal
• Cruising Speed: 150 m/s
• Altitude: 9000 m
• Fuel Burn Rate: 0,04 kal/s
• Range: 3000 km

Review Notes:

Our test pilots saw this aircraft and did not know, what they could expect from it, so just took a seat at the controls and throttled up, not knowing what was awaiting them. Take off was very easy and fast, we managed to get the Fulmar airbourne at just 35 m/s. Once airbourne, the first thing noticeable are the extremely sensitive controls, especially the pitch. Combined with the large wing area it resulted at first very often in a steep ascent right after take off, but with more training we managed to tame the beast. the Fulmar climbs rather fast the first few thousand metres, but to reach its recommended altitude it takes time, a lot of time. Finally reached it cruises very efficient at just 0,04 kal/s but a merely 150 m/s, which, of course, is fast enough, but not outstanding.

At first we thought, the sensitive controls would only be a problem shortly after take off, but oh boy were we wrong. It turns out, that no matter how gently we were, a direction change at above about 2500m and 100 m/s nearly constantly results in an uncontrollable flat or sometimes steep spin, which luckily the Fulmar recovers itself after a few moments, but with a massive altitude and velocity loss. So flying a turn in cruise flight requires loads of training and luck. This requires a lot of training and combined with long climbing time somehow disqualifies it for short routes.

Apart from that we quite did not understand some design choices made by Screechcraft, such like the engine not alligned with the fuselage. It only makes the plane look a bit more curious and as it is still mounted directly to the cabin, does nothing to reduce the rambling noise and vibration inside. Also something described as "safety-feature" turned out as a danger source. The deployable fuel tanks are described to only be deployed if the engine fails, to assure a better gliding performance. We can confirm that there is such an improvement, but that comes at high risks. Once jettisoned, it is impossible to restart the engine, as it is lacking fuel. And as KEA got loads of inexperienced pilots, who are desperate at finding out what red buttons do, it happened a lot that the fuel tanks were dropped for no reason at any phase of the flight.

But enough about the problems. The Fulmar is apart from that a nice craft, it handles well at low speeds, we managed to approach at just 50 and land at 35 m/s without any problems. Also it does a great performance at emergency water landings too and seems to have very sturdy construction, as we never managed to tear things apart. Most impressive tho was the range. We calculated about 3000 km, which is not only more than advertised, but loads more than required. Also the high wing design and high cruising altitude assures every of the 32 passengers a great view around Kerbin and makes flying above the highest mountains possible aswell.

The Verdict:

We had long debates and a hard time evaluating the test results of the Fulmar. After all, we can say it is reasonably priced, not especially cheap or expensive, is good to handle at low speeds and altitudes and also easy to maintain as it just got one engine. However, the encountered problems cannot be unregarded.

This leads us to being even more confused about this plane. We like its efficiency, range and easy maintenance, but the handling at cruising speed and altitude, ejective fuel tanks and noise and vibration we do not really appreciate. Finally our staff came out ordering 2 Fulmar for low frequented long range routes, for which it is not needed to fly turns and hope that the passengers will mostly be deaf after the first flight, so they board the Fulmar again.

If our criticism is heard at Screechcraft and they come up with an improved version, we already place up to 10 options. Otherwise we will stick with our 2 orders.

(We also reduced the problem of un-intended fuel tank drops: A green button instead of a red one! So only colour blind Kerbals tend to press it...)

Edited November 18, 2017 by no_intelligence

[AeroGav]

In view of the spate of high profile jumbo jet accidents,   Screechcraft corporation has submitted a number of prototypes to Kerbal International Airlines (KIA),  to help make up lost equipment.

The "Dumbo"  liner  gets its name from its large "ears", after the cartoon elephant.    .

The Deluxe model, features four Mk3 cabins and  an observation cupola on the tail, for well heeled passengers who don't mind a bit of engine noise and don't get travel sick from facing backwards. 

https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/Screechcraft-Dumbo-Deluxe

>>Don't panic, it's only a prototype 

Selecting the brakes toes the tail fins inwards, creating drag and also pitching the nose up, allowing slower landing speeds. Beware, this also puts engines into reverse.

 

https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/GRANDE-DUMBO

If size is everything,  the Grande Dumbo variant features 7 cabins for a whopping 168 passengers.  A triple wheesley mount takes the place of the cupola, and the wing has been enlarged again.    Preliminary testing indicates a cruise altitude of 6-7km at 220 m/s yielding a fuel burn of 0.33 Kallons / sec.  With a total capacity of 5620 kallons, a flight endurance of at least four and a half hours can be expected.

Possible areas for further development, subject to funding (Valentina blew most of it on the sub orbital version of the Screechcraft Starship) 

• angled up wings (incidence).   Should improve fuel burn and reduce landing /takeoff speed slightly, and enable the airplane to fly on prograde lock).  The downside is that the aircraft will keep trying to pitch up when going fast at low levels.   Possibly, trim flaps deployed via action group to depress the nose, could allow us to enjoy the best of both worlds.
• improved control authority.  Neither of these large aircraft are as nimble as the Starship series.   If rapid roll rates are a requiement, substantial work may be needed.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Also in light of recent failures, the GP-1a (General Purpose Mk 1a)

It has some easily accessible cargo space up front for all your cargoing needs! You could put mail in it. Or extreme economy seating. Your choice, but it's not your choice that there is about 3280 ft³ of space. That is enough for slightly over 9,000 toasters. Should you need to move a lot of toasters very quickly at short notice, this is the plane for you.

The wings are certified to not randomly combust, explode or detach in flight. It can also taxi, just don't accidentally launch yourself into the sky.

On the safety aspect we think we should say that we crashed an early version right smack into the ground at 300mph. Not on purpose, (plane didn't roll fast enough, but we've fixed that issue) but lots of it somehow survived. (If pilots are expensive, tell them to go fly one of these!) The cargo area was fine, toasters can be expensive! Another thing that was fine was 64 of the 152 passengers.

It can fly on 50% throttle at 155m/s at 2000m (range = 3000 km), or 100% throttle at 1000 which gets it going 260m/s (range = 2250km). Or you can afterburn, and probably exceed Mach 1. (We have not tested - there isn't a good reason for it)

It seats 152, it costs $107,424,000 (dry) and

P.S. To the OP, would KAX be ok? I really like it's 2.5m to 1.25m tail boom adapter. (I accidentally included it in several of my designs)

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GP-1a

Edited December 20, 2017 by CrazyJebGuy

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 21,484,000
• Fuel: 1300 kallons
• Cruising speed: 216 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 3000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.14 kal/s
• Range:  1930 km

Review Notes:

Err... what can we say... The GAI Turbo-XL Classic is a wild card of sorts. We aren't sure what the designers were thinking when they were designing this plane, but it is clear that, despite whatever the heck they were on, it worked. There are many odd choices in this plane, such as the mixture of piston and turbofan engines, the over-wing engines, and the short but broad wing. We suspect that this craft has its roots in an old long-range light bomber, with its bomb bay swapped out for passenger cabins and two newer engines bolted on. That isn't to say that the Classic isn't a good performer, even though it may look odd, it performs quite well.

The taildragger design is reminiscent of a time long gone, but the Classic lives up to its heritage. However, the long distance between the main and the tail gear coupled with how low the fuselage is to the ground mean that it is all too easy to damage or destroy the plane on rough, bumpy, or hilly terrain. The relatively short wings also limit how powerful the roll authority can be. Overall, the Classic handles like a bomber, with slow, wide turns, and below average rudder control. We were a little surprised to see the ailerons respond to pitch control, maybe this is a wiring issue, but we think it's just a design oversight. The triple engine design is quoted to add safety, but it does so at the expense of passenger comfort. The vibrations from the radial engine will travel through the whole body of the plane, and the side mounted engines happen to exhaust straight towards the windows on the passenger cabins, causing a distressingly loud noise to be audible anywhere and everywhere in the cabin (Mainly because all engines are practically at full throttle). Even though the Classic has plenty of power, it takes quite a bit of runway and speed to get airborne, and just as much to slow down. We think this is due to the weak brakes and high mass of the craft.

In the air, the Classic surprised us with better than expected fuel economy, able to fly over 500km more than advertised. The airframe is also quite robust, able to ditch perfectly fine in the event of an in-flight failure (which we suspect will be often with the piston engine shaking the craft around so much). With the long range, we'd like to use this plane on long thin routes, thanks to the impressive fuel economy and speed of doing so. Landing this plane is quite a treat despite the long runway it will require, mainly due to how smooth the ride is. The relatively high cruising speed of this plane made short work (see what I did there?) of any route we threw at it, which was very pleasing. The fact that this plane can rival some regional jets practically sold us due to the much lower cost.

With 41 parts, the Classic resides on the higher end in terms of maintenance. Piston engines are notorious for their unreliability, and we doubt that the turbofans will offset that. The large size of this aircraft means that we will need to dedicate more hangar and tarmac space for them when in storage, and with this space at a premium, we aren't sure if the higher cost can be justified by the Classic's performance.

The Verdict:

We think this plane will slip in nicely between regional turboprops and regional jets and will perform the best at economy long thin routes. We're sure that our passengers are willing to give up some comfort and speed for a cheaper fare, and this plane will serve nicely. Due to the longer runways needed to serve this craft, we can only operate them out of a smaller number of airports, and most rural airfields are out of the question due to the size of the plane and unkemptness of the airfield. Purchasing 2 for long thin routes as support for our jets, with options for up to 5 more.

[TheEpicSquared]

On 11/15/2017 at 9:53 AM, TheEpicSquared said:

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

Well I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong, but now the updated ISSJ-40 can't get past Mach 1. Hmmm... @panzerknoef the updated version will be slightly delayed as I try to fix the issue, unfortunately. Just a heads up.  

[AeroGav]

1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

Well I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong, but now the updated ISSJ-40 can't get past Mach 1. Hmmm... @panzerknoef the updated version will be slightly delayed as I try to fix the issue, unfortunately. Just a heads up.  

I can't find the link for the craft, only the review !

My thoughts for improvements

1. Big s wings and strakes can carry your fuel without having fuel tanks in the middle of the cabin.  Unfortunately this means the Business class passengers are unprotected from the unwashed masses, but makes meal service easier.
2.  An inline cockpit then a shock cone or something ahead will reduce heating on that mk1 cockpit.
3. shock cone or pre-cooler intake work better above 1000 m/s,  can get rid of all them radials
4. power is a tricky one.   solar panels are v draggy, and the rules say no RTGs  i think,  so best bet would be a service bay ahead of cockpit, with an oscar b inside, and radially attached fuel cell.     

[kerbinorbiter]

International Space Exploration Agency Airplanes presents the latest small regional jet by the name of Kerbair K32

specs:

48 passengers

a fuel capacity of 4400 kallons but we only thing 3200 kallons is necessary

costs a small price of :43,490,000 

cruising speed of 525 mph (235 m/s)

weight or mass: 33.434 tonnes

cruising altitude of around 3km

https://kerbalx.com/Kerbalorbiter/Kerbair-K32

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by kerbinorbiter
canot read

[CrazyJebGuy]

7 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

-snip-

We have modified the design, it has a slightly reduced part count, airbrakes, stronger wheel brakes, a more powerful elevator and about the same price. We included two jet engines because we thought one propeller engine (Which we thought would be fairly smooth, whenever one cylinder fires a cylinder on the opposite side of the engine also fires, we thought it would counteract that - and it is bird resistant.)

It is downloadable at same link as all our other planes.

 

Edit: Just noticed this thread was started on September 11. A reminder: my cargo planes are bomb compatible.

Edited November 18, 2017 by CrazyJebGuy

[CrazyJebGuy]

17 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Talking about those death traps again though... I just happen to be testing another craft again which is one yet again, loses a wing upon slight banking at cruise speed 

Not entirely complaining about the death trap thing, it makes my not a jet-powered-coffin look better in comparison.

[1Revenger1]

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.

[RedPandaz]

is Prakasa Aeroworks allowed? It adds a lot of useful parts

[Mjp1050]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

P.S. To the OP, would KAX be ok? I really like it's 2.5m to 1.25m tail boom adapter. (I accidentally included it in several of my designs)
 

3 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

is Prakasa Aeroworks allowed? It adds a lot of useful parts

Sorry, no. The only mods allowed are AirplanePlus and Tweakscale.

[RedPandaz]

Just now, Mjp1050 said:

Sorry, no. The only mods allowed are AirplanePlus and Tweakscale.

Aww, ok. Sorry that I haven't posted yet, I haven't really gotten around to figuring out KerbalX.

Tho I have made a VTOL passenger plane

[RedPandaz]

7 hours ago, kerbinorbiter said:

International Space Exploration Agency Airplanes presents the latest small regional jet by the name of Kerbair K32

specs:

48 passengers

a fuel capacity of 4400 kallons but we only thing 3200 kallons is necessary

costs a small price of :43,490,000 

cruising speed of 525 mph (235 m/s)

weight or mass: 33.434 tonnes

cruising altitude of around 3km

https://kerbalx.com/Kerbalorbiter/Kerbair-K32

 

 

Not the most reassuring picture

 

[SuicidalInsanity]

Is this too wacky a design? On the off chance it isn't:
Insanity Aerospace IA-960 Ikaros

IA's newest offering in the Medium Jet category, the Ikaros seeks to redefine decadent luxury, harking back to an era when air travel was as much an experience as it was a means of transit. At 70,906,000 funds and 84 parts, it features an elegant, retro-futurist design that totally wasn't a mothballed nuclear jet prototype retrofitted as a tax-write-off. Forgoing the standard tube with windows design, the Ikaros instead sports a panoramic passenger cabin that simultaneously seeks to minimize engine noise as well as offering an unparalleled view. Seats are arranged around the circumference of the cabin, while the center of the cabin is occupied by a glass-floored skylounge for any of the 96 passengers who want to stretch their legs, socialize, or simply relax and watch the world go by during the flight.The Ikaros' emphasis on comfort extends to the ground crews as well; knowing the hassle of refueling multi-part tanks, the Ikaros can instead be refueled by simply swapping its 3060 kallon fuel pod, greatly expediting aircraft turnaround.

At an optimum cruise altitude of 7500m, the Ikaros is capable of 250m/s and can travel at least 1500km without refueling, with its three Goliath engines consuming an average of 0.52 LF/s. At 61.84 tons it has a takeoff speed of ~75m/s, but the quick acceleration provided by the Goliaths allows it to reach this speed in a much shorter distance than one might expect.

Craft file

[TaRebelSheep]

7 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

How's runway visibility for the cockpit though? The cockpit seems kinda obscured by the ring of crew modules and the large fuel tank at the front.

[NightshineRecorralis]

Test Pilot Review: @panzerknoef 's KnoefCo Aerospace -- Bx-1/2 "Shoebox"/"Sturdy Shoebox"

(Olympus for scale)

Figures as Tested: Bx-1 Shoebox

• Price: 6,443,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 160 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.05 kal/s
• Range:  1170 km

Figures as Tested: Bx-2 Sturdy Shoebox

• Price: 7,121,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 150 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.06 kal/s
• Range:  910 km

Review Notes:

Let's be honest, when our pilots first saw the Shoebox, they either dropped on the spot or ran away at the first chance they had. With so many death traps masquerading as planes around, we thought this would be one of them. However, the Shoebox is quite a neat little airplane, despite some clear disadvantages. The Sturdy Shoebox was received with much more enthusiasm comparatively, but pilots were still hesitant. While these planes may not look much, they are certainly a force to be contended with.

For the Shoebox, we were quite concerned about the visibility and field of view of the pilot. There is nothing to see, the pilots have to rely completely on their instruments, which may prove fatal if something malfunctions. Either way, the wing has no incidence, which means that the plane cruises at a nose up attitude always. Speaking of cruise, it takes 6 whole minutes for the Shoebox and the Sturdy Shoebox to reach cruising altitude and speed, wasting a significant amount of fuel in the less efficient air. When we tested landing, it was apparent that the wheel brakes were simply too weak, and the crafts take up a large runway length, even when we landed as slow as possible. The craft itself is also rather draggy, and it is all too easy to stall these planes at lower speeds. The placement of the fuel tank in between the cabin and the engines does well to prevent noise in the cabin, but vibrations are still rather noticeable and the CoM shifts forward significantly, causing our pilots to fight against a very nose heavy craft at the end of a long flight.

We did still love these planes, as they are very attractive in terms of their price point. At 6,443,000 and 7,121,000 funds respectively, they provide a lot for so little. We found that the missing ailerons and rudder did not impact performance as much as we expected, as the reaction wheels in the cockpit were more than sufficient for the task. We like the inclusion of some protection from tailstrikes, as that happens more than one would expect. Both planes have slightly more range than advertised, which was a nice bonus. We were a little confused at the inclusion of monoprop with the planes, but we simply drained the tank before a flight. The toughness of these crafts is rather impressive, as we put them through their paces with collisions and rough landings, and both survived just fine. In the event of an emergency ditching, we think our pilots won't sweat it. Ditching the Shoebox and Sturdy Shoebox is just like landing it, and maybe even a little easier.

With 23 and 24 parts respectively, we don't think these planes will require much in the way of maintenance. The Shoebox's internal ducting might take some work, but the Study Shoebox at least doesn't have air from the intake running the length of the craft. Turbofans are quite reliable, and with the simple construction, it won't take much to keep these planes flying.

 

The Verdict:

The Shoebox is a mixed bag for us. With nonexistent visibility and a long landing run, we don't think it is worth the hassle to purchase this craft, even though it is amazingly cheap. The Sturdy Shoebox, with simpler duct work and better visibility, is worth the higher price in our mind. We don't expect these planes to service remote airfields due to their landing characteristics, but as a commuter liner, they perform admirably, with quick turnarounds and decent range compared to competitors. Buying 5 Bx-2s with options for 5 more.

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

 

On 11/16/2017 at 6:35 PM, CrazyJebGuy said:

Gawain Aircraft Presents: a turboprop, the GAI Kalcing (Name comes from the calculators embedded in the walls)

Example Wall Calculator: (Karuida KK)

  Reveal hidden contents

Range: 2300km @ 1000m, 322m/s, full throttle        OR        3640km @ 2000m, 142m/s, 322m/s

 Should it turn out to be profitable to haul 40 mathematicians at 322m/s for 2300 km, or anyone really, this is the plane for you. With 40 calculators total, it has a theoretical maximum 193 square root calculations per second.

At $18,670,000 ($19,630,000 wet) it is very affordable, and has a GPPM (gallons per passenger mile) of 0.013, which is very good.

In ditching tests, we found it was very safe. When we tries to see if it could take off again, we hit a sea mine (or something) because it suddenly blew up at 6m/s, the wings were gone and the fuselage was permanently bent. (But everyone survived)

 The forward mounted air intake also can divert air into cabins, keeping the passengers very cool.

And with a part count of 37, maintenance is cheap.

With 40 passengers and that kind of speed, this should be considered a small regional jet, just saying.

Edited November 19, 2017 by NightshineRecorralis

[NightshineRecorralis]

Anyone interested in reviewing this monstrosity?

[kerbinorbiter]

IS THAT A JUMBO JET!!!

[NightshineRecorralis]

2 minutes ago, kerbinorbiter said:

IS THAT A JUMBO JET!!!

Yes, seats around 1100 iirc. Not at my PC right now, so I can't double check.

[kerbinorbiter]

international space exploration airplanes presents

the latest small regonal jet with 96 passengers 

costing 34,750,000 funds (this is real)

with a weight of 44.618 tonnes

https://kerbalx.com/Kerbalorbiter/Kerbair-K20

and a range of a lot.

[53miner53]

18537 Tech SupersonicJet1: https://kerbalx.com/53miner53/SupersonicJet1

Pics: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cTntZB3QJ474T0dW77L8RgI8NDv54CFy

Specs: (it’s a supersonic jet category entry)

Cost: 52,271,000

Cruising altitude: 20100m

Cruising speed: floor it! Anything above 800m/s is good, but faster is better

Takeoff speed: 60m/s

landing speed: 40m/s

action group: 2: flaps and droopnose cockpit.

Note to pilot: you want to glide for an approach to the airport for a long distance, otherwise you will overshoot the airport by a lot. Approach the runway as low as possible, and be careful with pitch control.

Pitch: 18537 Tech used its experience with supersonic flight and space shuttles to bring a craft that is stable beyond the speed of sound, but plenty maneuverable during takeoff and landing. Seats 48, and has ejector seats for all passengers and crew. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by 53miner53

[RedPandaz]

Are Drone Cores allowed?

[1Revenger1]

36 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

Are Drone Cores allowed?

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.