Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[Spudmeist3r]

How many people are actually test flying this stuff? It’s backed up to October or something and I really don’t want to wait 4-5 months for mine to be tested

[TaRebelSheep]

I was bored, so I made a review! Don't expect any more though; this is probably a one off thing, unless @CrazyJebGuy manages to convince me to make more.

 

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman's - WCT BJ-1

 

Figures as Tested:

 

• Price: $16,990,000
• Fuel: 850 Units
• Cruising speed: 300 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.11 LF/s
• Range: 2600 km

Review Notes:

The WCT BJ-1 is a mostly normal looking jet, except for the canards at the front which have spikes sticking out that are very good at stabbing things. We didn’t remove them, of course, but they do seem to be excessively spiky. The performance of this aircraft is mostly average, it has a great range for a small regional jet but we don’t like the 0.11 kal/s fuel consumption rate, which is a bit high. Passenger comfort isn’t the best either. Both the air intake and engine are located directly on and above the rear cabin, resulting in a lot of noise and vibrations in the cabin. During dumping tests the BJ-1 was quite safe, it could maintain stable flight at quite low speeds. Control is good, the roll is a bit sensitive but Jeb can handle it.

The Verdict:

Not a comfortable plane to fly in, owing to the loud noise and vibrations, but the WCT BJ-1 has promise in longer range economy routes, which is what we’ll be buying 3 for, with options for more if they can make it more comfortable.

Edited January 31, 2018 by TaRebelSheep

[TheFlyingKerman]

@CrazyJebGuy

I have no mod installed, not even KER.

The initial post reads:

"With a little help from the afterburner to push it above the sound barrier, it is capable of cruising at 640m/s at 11400m, in dry mode."

It means the plane takes off and sets its course in dry mode, then fires up the afterburner to climb and accelerate to the required speed and altitude, then switches back to dry for the long haul flight.

IRL the Concorde also uses afterburner for acceleration and then cruises in dry mode.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by TheFlyingKerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

57 minutes ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

@CrazyJebGuy

The initial post reads:

"With a little help from the afterburner to push it above the sound barrier, it is capable of cruising at 640m/s at 11400m, in dry mode."

It means the plane takes off and sets its course in dry mode, then fires up the afterburner to climb and accelerate to the required speed and altitude, then switches back to dry for the long haul flight.

IRL the Concorde also uses afterburner for acceleration and then cruises in dry mode.

Thanks for telling me! I went and tested, this worked. I measured the range of it to be 8,100 km (tremendous) but I don't entirely trust my calculations. The number seems too high. (But the maths works!)

Updated review.

Edited January 31, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[Agent Awesome]

Is there any reason why my craft hasn’t been reviewed yet?

[CrazyJebGuy]

3 minutes ago, Agent Awesome said:

Is there any reason why my craft hasn’t been reviewed yet?

The massive backlog. It stretches back to October. That's about the only reason.

[Joseph Kerman]

3 hours ago, TaRebelSheep said:

I was bored, so I made a review! Don't expect any more though; this is probably a one off thing, unless @CrazyJebGuy manages to convince me to make more.

 

Test Pilot Review: @Joseph Kerman's - WCT BJ-1

 

Figures as Tested:

 

• Price: $16,990,000
• Fuel: 850 Units
• Cruising speed: 300 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.11 LF/s
• Range: 2600 km

Review Notes:

The WCT BJ-1 is a mostly normal looking jet, except for the canards at the front which have spikes sticking out that are very good at stabbing things. We didn’t remove them, of course, but they do seem to be excessively spiky. The performance of this aircraft is mostly average, it has a great range for a small regional jet but we don’t like the 0.11 kal/s fuel consumption rate, which is a bit high. Passenger comfort isn’t the best either. Both the air intake and engine are located directly on and above the rear cabin, resulting in a lot of noise and vibrations in the cabin. During dumping tests the BJ-1 was quite safe, it could maintain stable flight at quite low speeds. Control is good, the roll is a bit sensitive but Jeb can handle it.

The Verdict:

Not a comfortable plane to fly in, owing to the loud noise and vibrations, but the WCT BJ-1 has promise in longer range economy routes, which is what we’ll be buying 3 for, with options for more if they can make it more comfortable.

I guess you can say the mustache made it unique.

In all seriousness, had I used the standard twin-Juno, you won't get that long range the Wheesley made. Also, don't tell me you went full throttle for cruising; 2/3 is good enough to maintain 300 m/s Trust me, you'll get better range had you done that (as well as increased comfort with less noise and vibration).

I'm glad Jeb C. Kerman liked it (yes, I made the middle name up).

Edited January 31, 2018 by Joseph Kerman

[CrazyJebGuy]

by the way there is a lunar eclipse on right now.

[Joseph Kerman]

30 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

by the way there is a lunar eclipse on right now.

And a Blue Moon and a Supermoon

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

26 minutes ago, Joseph Kerman said:

And a Blue Moon and a Supermoon

 

No - just an eclipse. I don't know where you live, but where I live I can see the moon and it is blocked from sunlight by the earth. It has no direct sunlight currently.

[Spudmeist3r]

4 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

No - just an eclipse. I don't know where you live, but where I live I can see the moon and it is blocked from sunlight by the earth. It has no direct sunlight currently.

NASA said it was a blue blood supermoon so I think they are right

[RedPandaz]

8 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

And a Blue Moon and a Supermoon

 

I saw the end of it when I woke up, it was cool

[RedPandaz]

Guys I almost have mine done

[RedPandaz]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:41 PM, NightshineRecorralis said:

Delta Impulse: 6000m @ 270m/s - 1690km range , 8000m @ 370m/s - 430km range (Afterburner)

Delta Impulse S: 5000m @ 200m/s - 1235km range, 8000m @ 270m/s - 470km range (afterburner)

Hey can you also get the price of these? still at school, and almost ready to submit them, just need the price

[Kebab Kerman]

22 hours ago, RedPandaz said:

Hey can you also get the price of these? still at school, and almost ready to submit them, just need the price

You're not the only one at school...

 

A two hour delay was a nice touch, though.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @NightshineRecorralis's - Habu Industries: Dash series

Dash 3 on final approach

Dash 4 in flight

Dash 4-ER racing low over the surface

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 26,221,000 (Dash 3) -  27,179,000 (Dash 4) -  27,979,000 (Dash 4-ER)
• Fuel: 800 - 900 - 1100kallons
• Cruising speed: 150m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.04kal/s
• Range:  3000 - 3200 - 4000km

Review Notes:

Having been so long since I last did a review, I gotta say: the Dash series aircraft were a joy of a plane to welcome me back. All 3 of them flew like an absolute dream: highly maneuverable, very sturdy and powerful. The heavier the planes got, the less maneuverable of course, but the change was minor, and let's be fair... In commercial flights it's rather unlikely that pilots will be pulling loops and tight turns. Good to know the planes can pull it off though. The turboprop engines get to full power very quickly, making for a short take-off. Once at cruising speed and altitude they are very efficient, making for an extraordinary range on these small planes.

Comfort aboard the planes is quite good as well. The engines are mounted below the wings and next to the cabin, but their placement is rather far from the actual cabin, making for limited noise inside. The fact that there's no inline engines obviously strongly reduces vibrations. Thanks to the high wing, passengers can easily stare out the window and admire the world below, which they surely will like. All in all I think it's fair to say that passengers will enjoy flying this plane.

However... Part count and price are rather high. Especially the 60+ part count on all the planes is a bit of an issue. We do believe that the planes are excellently built, which will to some degree limit the amount of maintenance on them. Cross platform use of most parts and standardization is very much present on these planes, also allowing for easier maintenance. 

The Verdict:

Excellent planes, hampered only by a high price and part count. The difference in price between the Dash 4 and Dash 4-ER is insignificant enough for us to have wondered about why we'd buy any Dash 4's at all, and you know what... we won't. Ordering 5 Dash 3's and 10 Dash 4-ER's for low density flights to smaller and hard to reach airports though.

[CrazyJebGuy]

I don't want to add to the pile of planes too much, but I thought this plane was too good not to add.

Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Comet Line

Comet Mark 1b:

 It has been a while since our last submission, but we think the Comet will do so well, we had to. This plane has good, new pilot friendly handling, although may spin at very high altitudes. The high wing and low mounted passenger compartments mean it has spectacular, unobstructed views, the jet engine is placed far rear of this, so it makes for a very pleasant flight for 48 lucky people. If flown correctly, it can circumnavigate Kerbin without refueling! The airbrakes can stop it quickly, and we have a special mode so you can use the rudders as airbrakes in addition.

Note: We put some rubber in the wings, so they can flex safely, and in flight they do. They bend slightly when turning, but don't worry because they won't fall off. We even tried this at 900m/s, the wings bent spectacularly, but they stayed in perfect condition. It is perfectly safe.

It is reliable and has afterburners available with action group 1, which will greatly aid takeoffs and landings. To take off, we recommend full throttle afterburning until you get to 60m/s then pull up, the aircraft will unstick very soon afterwards.

 Because of the afterburners, you can go supersonic, we don't recommend it, but you can:

5,500km @ 867m/s Range: 1,060km (wet)

Recommended Flight modes:

6,000m @ 278.9m/s with a range of very almost 3,000km

3,500m @ 216m/s with range of 3,850km (but use action group 2 to turn the top engine off)

Price of this awesomeness is $30,627,000 dry. You can order yours here: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Comet-Mk-1b

And it's bigger brother: The Comet 2a

At an only slightly increased price of $33,135,000 (dry) you get 88 passengers instead of 48! It's a little bit slower and we traded the parachute in for the airbrakes, but we well a cheap kit for adding airbrakes to it, if you are so inclined. We think you should keep the parachute though, because it can safely land the plane on it's own. We flew it to 1500m and cut the engines, released the parachute to see what would happen. We did try to slow down and so on, but we bonked into the ground nose first and the plane was unharmed. So, that will surely up the safety and reliability score.

Recommended modes:

4,500m @ 268.5m/s Range: 2,600 km

Download: https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Comet-2a
In short, these planes are safe, reliable, have a very good range and comfort, along with being fast and cheap. What's not to love? (The part count is a little bit high, but the rubber in the wings needs almost no maintenance.)

Edit: PanzerKnoef can you send me the file of plane that are reviewed and not? I am just guessing.

Edited February 3, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 50,671 (dry)
• Fuel: 2000 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1350 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 12 km
• Fuel burn rate: 1.87 kal/s
• Range:  1500 km

Review Notes:

 Not seeing any pictures before it got delivered, we were very surprised by the flying wing design, massive elevons, relatively tiny rudder, general stubbiness, droop nose, and the fuel is mounted on the bottom of the plane. "U wot m8?" - Our engineer's written safety report concludes

It takes off at a very good speed of about 40-50m/s, but the good stops there. On about 5 out of our seven flights, we had a tail strike. When we managed to get in the air, we found the plane to be appalling in all aspects but speed. Our first "successful" flight ended in the engines overheating at 4km altitude. Our second ended when at 12km up, we decided to turn. Roll is incredibly sensitive, and a small adjustment results in multiple barrel rolls. A high speed turn is also liable to destroy the plane, and in the wreckage somehow the passenger compartments survived. This, rather burny nature lead to the nickname of "Stumpster Dumpster Fire" among the pilots.

 The flight specs, are technically, up to snuff, barely. The range only meets it if you disregard you need lots of fuel to get up to cruising altitude.

Another, relatively small issue is the passenger compartments are right next to two gigantic, very powerful, very loud and very shaking-aroundy jet engines.

 Ignoring the massive tail-strike and crashing issue, with only 30 parts it has very cheap maintenance. And it is reasonably priced for a supersonic. We would almost say the 30 parts are good value, but they are assembled so that we really aren't impressed by the value.

The Verdict:

 The aircraft is interesting, with it's design, speed and spontaneous combustion, but we will buy only some photographs for advertising. The public doesn't know the plane is a deathtrap, they just know it looks cool. (But the military might be interested, don't let them test it - rather have them pay you to let an enemy military test it)

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's - Gawain Aeroplane Industries - GAI Turbo-XL Classic C

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 18.463.000
• Fuel: 1200kallons
• Cruising speed: 202m/s
• Cruising altitude: 700m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.32kal/s
• Range:  760km

Review Notes:

The GAI Turbo-XL Classic C retains much of its parent and predecessor, the Classic B. Thankfully for the C, that was a pretty good plane. Speed and maneuverability are nearly identical to the other plane, though of course the B with its jet engines has an edge when it comes to speed. This plane, just like its variant the B, has a bit of a weird look. A long hull combined with short stubby wings, definitely not the best plane to look out, but who cares if it does the job. It takes off slightly faster than the B, at around 50m/s, not amazing for a plane in its class, but not bad either. We do have to say that we're a bit disappointed about the range of the plane, 760km doesn't make the 800km that we desired for a turboprop class aircraft.

Moving on to comfort, it's good news. The engine is placed so far forward that there's practically no noise of it in the cabin, which makes for a very peaceful flight. It's however mounted inline, making for some vibrations, but thanks to the "radial suspension system" these were limited to  a minimum. The 700m cruising altitude does make for great views out the window, though it causes a bit of an issue when coming across mountains... Thankfully the plane doesn't have too much issues just flying over those.

The Verdict:

The GAI Turbo-XL Classic C is a simple but good plane, it's not the prettiest in the house but it definitely gets the job done, and it does it and a reasonable price and part count as well. A single engine also means we won't be having too many maintenance on this plane either. The short range is a drawback though, if there's anything we could ask for, it would be for the engineers to just add 40km to the range so it qualifies properly. We'll take 7 for short range routes between medium sized airports.

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

We've also taken a look at the reworked GAI Turbo-XL Classic B

We were very glad to see that all our remarks were handled properly, the plane is now a very pleasant one to fly and to be flown in. As promised in the full review on this craft, we shall now order 5 more of this model.

[CrazyJebGuy]

20 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

-snip-

I was a bit surprised the range was so low, I tested myself and I just managed 811km at 100m off sea level.

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's - Perbro Aerospace: CRNE-458

A fully fueled up CRNE-458

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 23.525.000 (standard) -  30.656.000 (full drop tanks)
• Fuel: 600 - 1200kallons
• Cruising speed: 220 - 180m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.14kal/s
• Range:  940 - 1300km

Review Notes:

On paper this seemed to be a very good plane indeed, but once we rolled it out on the runway and took it to the skies... it wasn't really. The speed stats varied largely from what was specified in the brochure. 300m/s isn't possible in a level flight, only in a steep dive. These planes are in fact rather slow, without the added pods it can do 220m/s but not much more. Range estimates are still at 940-1300km which absolutely isn't bad, but you won't be getting there fast. Reaching 10000m for cruising was awful in all fairness, it took ages, and once there the plane could hardly accelerate. Maneuverability is alright, nothing really good nor bad. Take-off speed was around 45m/s, didn't reach that very fast though, so it still needed a lower-medium sized runway. We were a fan of how the cockpit was placed though, it allowed for easy views over the runway, very useful for take-off and landing. 

Comfort was pretty good, the 4 wing mounted engines aren't very large, making for a limited amount of sound being produced by them. They were placed exactly at cabin height though, making that every little sound they made did end up in the cabin. Further than that, vibrations were minimal, view out the windows was partly blocked by the wing, but that's not really an issue. 

Finally, the price and part count. Ranging from 23.525.000 (standard) to  30.656.000, it's not exactly a cheap plane for what it has to offer. Combine this with a part count of 56-80 with 4 engine pods, you know there's gonna be a lot of maintenance on these birds.

The Verdict:

Good on paper but not much more is pretty much our consensus on this plane. Speed is sub-par, range is average, comfort is good, high price and high part count. The fuel pod idea is indeed a nice idea, but the connections will wear out from all the connecting and disconnecting, probably needing regular replacement. We do think that a standard all-in fuel system is a simpler and better solution. We've eventually come to the decision that we will not buy any CRNE-458's yet. If the manufacturer is capable of bringing the speed up the more reasonable levels, we'd be glad to look at them again. 

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

24 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I was a bit surprised the range was so low, I tested myself and I just managed 811km at 100m off sea level.

I'll take a look at it again and edit the post if I did indeed make a mistake

[panzerknoef]

Test Pilot Review: @Jimbimbibble's - Daxworks: Lightning Cruiser

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 57.225.000 - 58.325.000
• Fuel: 1030 - 1830kallons
• Cruising speed: 1250-1100m/s
• Cruising altitude: 18000 - 19000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.63kal/s
• Range:  2000 - 3200km

Review Notes:

As described, the Lightning Cruiser is a very fast plane. Capable of speeds well in excess of mach 4. In case of the standard variant, it was easily capable of pushing beyond 1300m/s. Sadly though, it wasn't capable of efficiently cruising at said speed. Not that 1250m/s is that much slower. The extended range variant pays the price of its added fuel by being a touch slower, only managing 1100m/s while cruising. Both have excellent range 2000 and 3200km respectively. The design of the Lightning Cruiser is an OCD sufferer's dream. All the lines on the wings line up perfectly, as if it was made by a robot. Maneuverability is a bit of a mixed bag. The wings are pointed up, which results in extra stability at high speed and altitude, but at low speed and altitude it really does limit the plane's capabilities. Takeoff speed is very nice for a supersonic plane, at 60m/s for both.

Comfort has us in a bit of a dilemma. The cabins are large and luxurious, but the engines are placed rather close to the rear cabin, making an above average amount of noise in the cabin. Given the cabin size, we do think it's a small effort to add some noise reducing materials to get rid of said issue.  The big wings largely limit the view out the windows, which is a bit of a shame, because at cruising altitudes the views would be amazing! Vibrations are what you would expect from 2 large inline engines, quite noticeable, but at least the engines aren't placed directly onto the cabins, making for a certain factor of dampening.

Part count and price is quite well in line with most other supersonic jets. We don't expect a lot of maintenance since the planes seem to be very sturdy and made with a lot of expertise. 

The Verdict:

Fast, pretty and rather comfortable. The Daxworks Lightning cruiser is an excellent example of what a luxurious supersonic jet is supposed to be. Given the small price difference between the standard version and the ER, we have a preference for the longer range capabilities of the ER over the speed of the standard version. Buying 3 ER's for long range flights, mainly aimed at the richer end of the Kerbal population. We'd also like to take an option on 2 more if the sound issue is resolved and reworked in the already acquired planes.

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 9,957,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 270 kallons
• Cruising speed: 300 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.07 kal/s
• Range: 1,157 km
• Passengers: 24

Review Notes:

After testing it's bigger brother, the Kerbus K-350 and liking it quite a lot, we had some hope for this plane. On paper, it looks great. In the air? Well it can takeoff from small runways easily, having only a takeoff speed of about 45m/s.

We found the speed to be, surprising. It's good. And considering the budget consists of a pack of peanuts, we were impressed. 300m/s for 10mil is a bargain. What is not a bargain, is the cockpit visibility. It comes with an in-built webcam, but this is crappy. We would expect better.

 On the water ditching test, we found it could (with a long run-up) take off again. A decent ranged plane that can be a substitute floatplane and go at 300m/s for only 10mil? At that point of testing, we were impressed. On land landing, it has no airbrakes or reverse thrust, but the flaps slow it quite a lot. We should say that tail strikes can happen if the pilot is not careful.

Comfort is acceptable. There are a couple of jet engines quite close, small ones, but still. With 27 parts, maintenance is fairly cheap, and in general everything is cheap, and some bits are good.

The Verdict:

It's good at most everything, with bad visibility and okay comfort. We'll buy 20, since they are very cheap and versatile. (Being able to act as a seaplane impressed us greatly)

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy
fixed price

[53miner53]

19 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 50,671 (dry)
• Fuel: 2000 kallons
• Cruising speed: 1350 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 12 km
• Fuel burn rate: 1.87 kal/s
• Range:  1500 km

Review Notes:

 Not seeing any pictures before it got delivered, we were very surprised by the flying wing design, massive elevons, relatively tiny rudder, general stubbiness, droop nose, and the fuel is mounted on the bottom of the plane. "U wot m8?" - Our engineer's written safety report concludes

It takes off at a very good speed of about 40-50m/s, but the good stops there. On about 5 out of our seven flights, we had a tail strike. When we managed to get in the air, we found the plane to be appalling in all aspects but speed. Our first "successful" flight ended in the engines overheating at 4km altitude. Our second ended when at 12km up, we decided to turn. Roll is incredibly sensitive, and a small adjustment results in multiple barrel rolls. A high speed turn is also liable to destroy the plane, and in the wreckage somehow the passenger compartments survived. This, rather burny nature lead to the nickname of "Stumpster Dumpster Fire" among the pilots.

 The flight specs, are technically, up to snuff, barely. The range only meets it if you disregard you need lots of fuel to get up to cruising altitude.

Another, relatively small issue is the passenger compartments are right next to two gigantic, very powerful, very loud and very shaking-aroundy jet engines.

 Ignoring the massive tail-strike and crashing issue, with only 30 parts it has very cheap maintenance. And it is reasonably priced for a supersonic. We would almost say the 30 parts are good value, but they are assembled so that we really aren't impressed by the value.

The Verdict:

 The aircraft is interesting, with it's design, speed and spontaneous combustion, but we will buy only some photographs for advertising. The public doesn't know the plane is a deathtrap, they just know it looks cool. (But the military might be interested, don't let them test it - rather have them pay you to let an enemy military test it)

The cruising altitude is 20km, the take of speed is 60m/s, and the fuel tank placement is to act as cushioning in case of a gear up landing (though I question the logic of the engineers who decided that landing in a pile of your fuel was a good idea). 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush)

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 34,119,000 (dry)
• Fuel: 2190 kallons
• Cruising speed: 251 m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1800 m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.21 kal/s
• Range:  2,620 km
• Passengers: 16

Review Notes:

 The Isometric is meant to be able to go where the infrastructure is bad, to take off on very short or low quality aerodromes. It can land on water, act as a boat even and land on dirt strips and the such. This plane is built for a niche. But does it suck? If I knew that now, what would be the point of the rest of the review?

 Unusually for an aircraft review, we come to the part about boating. It has a special little jet engine to go boating with. It can go fast, but it can't turn fast. We measured the turning circle to be about 3/4 of a kilometer. We were impressed it could be a boat, but not impressed by the turning. At low speed it is much better though. We know this because after accidentally pushing the red button to explosively decouple the landing gear, and revving to full speed, Jedediah jumped out and we had to go back for him. Only running him over twice with a boat.

 It takes off in very short runways, true, at low speed. It needs a bit more at sea, where the plane needs to dive and then come up again. We expected it to be far less hilarious. The plane dives a few meters down, comes up and must pitch up at some funny angle, it's slow and stalling, but after-burning jet engines just lift it into the air. If only it was on camera.

 We received no instruction on what altitude or speed to cruise at, and so we just made a guess. It was pretty fast, and had a long range. We're pleased.

 We also decided to land on a huge mountain. It went okay, except the tail struck and damaged the plane so we couldn't take off again. This a really common problem, even on good airfeilds it needs a lot of care not to damage the plane, and we would quite like it fixed.

On comfort the plane has almost no views due to wings over engines, and the jets are very near the passengers. But if it's going to be operating outside of good airports and usual routes, we don't think it matters too much there. On maintenance, 45 parts is going to cost a bit, especially considering it carries so few passengers. It costs a fair bit too considering the passenger capacity. Oddly we found some oxidizer sitting in the tanks, we think this was a simple mistake.

The Verdict:

It is a really great plane, but it is let down by price. That would be forgivable, if not for the tail-strikes problem. We won't buy any, but if the tail striking problem is fixed we would be glad to buy a few.

The Bush Variant

 Costing 31,112,000, the main difference I can see is they ditched the water jet and made the end wing pontoons smaller. We also won't be buying any until the tail strike issue is fixed, because it's an even worse problem for a plane designed to land in somewhat un-tamed areas.