Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot)

[CrazyJebGuy]

31 minutes ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

-snip-

I'm veri impressed by your engineuity, but I am not sure a commercial airline company should ahve planes with nuclear reactors on board..... I applaud it though!

[HolidayTheLeek]

42 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I'm veri impressed by your engineuity, but I am not sure a commercial airline company should ahve planes with nuclear reactors on board..... I applaud it though!

Thanks!

But technically RTGs aren't nuclear reactors. They collect energy from the decay of an unstable element. It's perfectly safe!

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 minute ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Thanks!

But technically RTGs aren't nuclear reactors. They collect energy from the decay of an unstable element. It's perfectly safe!

Oh, so it's exactly like a reactor, and it functions the exact same way, but it's not a reactor! Neat!

[HolidayTheLeek]

Just now, CrazyJebGuy said:

Oh, so it's exactly like a reactor, and it functions the exact same way, but it's not a reactor! Neat!

I mean, that's what it said in the fine print

 

 

 

[CrazyJebGuy]

Test Pilot Review: @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 473,374,000
• Fuel: 000 kallons
• Cruising speed: 104m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1000-2000 m
• Fuel burn rate: N/A kal/s
• Range: Keeps going until the pilot needs a nap

Review Notes:

 This review is way ahead of schedule, we normally put submissions in a very long queue, but in this case, the sheer absurdity is reason enough to queue jump, that and the fact we should do this before nuclear powered aeroplanes are made illegal, give us plenty of reason to do this.

 First off, one of the elephants in this bizarre room: the price. It is simply astronomical, the largest documented entry (by passenger count) has a price $80,000,000 lower than this, and it holds 45 times more passengers. We could quite literally buy 25 normal jets, for the price of a single one of these. The rest of the review will answer the question "should we?".

 This plane seems like someone had an idea in a board room, drunk, and suddenly some engineers start making bets on it and debating whether they could, and this debate was so intense no-body stopped to ask if they should.

 One reason not to do it, is the pilot training costs. It is so different from every other aircraft at engines, and when our engineers opened up the engine cover, they quickly closed it becuase it only made them more confused. It also has an instruction manual, that is actually needed to fly the thing, and considering it carries radioactive material, our pilots had better well be able to recite the thing backwards while riding a bike with no hands on a speeding merry-go-round!

 Oh yeah, and did we mention the other oddities of this thing? So many! And they are all irrelevant compared to the engines! There is a second fuselage, embedded but lowered, into the higher fuselage with passengers, and for some reason the high winged monoplane has it's wings bolted onto the lowest fuselage? This second fuselage also does nothing as far as we can tell, it just sits there, not providing fuel or anything.

 Now, up till now we haven't even got into this crazy contraption, let alone fly it! But now, we will. And we revved up the engines, (due to complicated procedure only 1 can be throttle adjusted at any one time, and it's slow) the plane practically lept into the air! With an acceleration of a whopping 20m/s in our first 15 seconds, we knew this thing would go at least mach nine hundred!

 Although credit where credit is due, it takes off at an amazingly low 31m/s! The surprises never stop! We just hope any future ones won't need to be measured in kilotons of TNT.

Up in the air, it won't get very up any time soon, this plane climbs at the pace of a snail carrying heavy shopping the wrong way up an escalator! But fortunately it cruises just above sea level, very low altitudes.

Handling wise, we were amazed. We expected something extraordinary from this plane, and we were astonished when it handled completely normally and like a regular plane. It's nothing special here, not bad, not good, but not being remarkable is remarkable for a plane so strange as this.

The engines are completely silent, so silent that it is eery to fly on this plane. Our pilot, on several occasions, thought the engines had stopped with how quiet they were, and panicked. We had to install speakers to play a bit of engine noise, just to calm down the pilot and passengers, the comfort here is impeccable, although vibrations happen a heck of a lot of the engines, they get transferred a bit to the wings, but the thing is so bendy or something, because it is hardly felt in the cabin.

And when we mean a heck of a lot of vibration in the engines, we mean it. A huge jet at full blast has nothing on these things, these things will be shaking back and forth about 2 inches difference, several times a second! There are warning signs to not put anything next to then when in operation, because the engines will smash it to pieces!

On landing, the engines were quick to throttle down, and the plane glides well, and can land pretty quickly.

It's maintenance is.... incredibly high. Not as stupidly high as the price, but very high. The nuclear powered engines are a total mystery to our engineers, let alone mechanics, and it has a part count of 159! One hundred and fifty nine!

The range cannot be calculated normally, this plane does not need to be refueled for decades.

The Verdict:

 This is an absurd plane. In ever way, it's absurd. The price is absurd, the engines are absurd, the speed is absurdly low, the range is practically unlimited, so again, absurd. It doesn't have much going for it, other than a range of fly anywhere. Even then, it's so slow it would be faster to fly a faster plane and have some stop-overs, so it's really only suited for the sort of crazy en-devour of very long range stunts, and for PR. We will be the airline of the future, powered by nuclear energy!

 Even though we don't have to buy fuel, we'll never make a profit using these for normal things. We will buy one though, for a publicity stunt and for that sort of long range tom-foolery mentioned before.

[HamnavoePer]

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Test Pilot Review: @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper

Figures as Tested:

• Price: 473,374,000
• Fuel: 000 kallons
• Cruising speed: 104m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1000-2000 m
• Fuel burn rate: N/A kal/s
• Range: Keeps going until the pilot needs a nap

Review Notes:

 This review is way ahead of schedule, we normally put submissions in a very long queue, but in this case, the sheer absurdity is reason enough to queue jump, that and the fact we should do this before nuclear powered aeroplanes are made illegal, give us plenty of reason to do this.

 First off, one of the elephants in this bizarre room: the price. It is simply astronomical, the largest documented entry (by passenger count) has a price $80,000,000 lower than this, and it holds 45 times more passengers. We could quite literally buy 25 normal jets, for the price of a single one of these. The rest of the review will answer the question "should we?".

 This plane seems like someone had an idea in a board room, drunk, and suddenly some engineers start making bets on it and debating whether they could, and this debate was so intense no-body stopped to ask if they should.

 One reason not to do it, is the pilot training costs. It is so different from every other aircraft at engines, and when our engineers opened up the engine cover, they quickly closed it becuase it only made them more confused. It also has an instruction manual, that is actually needed to fly the thing, and considering it carries radioactive material, our pilots had better well be able to recite the thing backwards while riding a bike with no hands on a speeding merry-go-round!

 Oh yeah, and did we mention the other oddities of this thing? So many! And they are all irrelevant compared to the engines! There is a second fuselage, embedded but lowered, into the higher fuselage with passengers, and for some reason the high winged monoplane has it's wings bolted onto the lowest fuselage? This second fuselage also does nothing as far as we can tell, it just sits there, not providing fuel or anything.

 Now, up till now we haven't even got into this crazy contraption, let alone fly it! But now, we will. And we revved up the engines, (due to complicated procedure only 1 can be throttle adjusted at any one time, and it's slow) the plane practically lept into the air! With an acceleration of a whopping 20m/s in our first 15 seconds, we knew this thing would go at least mach nine hundred!

 Although credit where credit is due, it takes off at an amazingly low 31m/s! The surprises never stop! We just hope any future ones won't need to be measured in kilotons of TNT.

Up in the air, it won't get very up any time soon, this plane climbs at the pace of a snail carrying heavy shopping the wrong way up an escalator! But fortunately it cruises just above sea level, very low altitudes.

Handling wise, we were amazed. We expected something extraordinary from this plane, and we were astonished when it handled completely normally and like a regular plane. It's nothing special here, not bad, not good, but not being remarkable is remarkable for a plane so strange as this.

The engines are completely silent, so silent that it is eery to fly on this plane. Our pilot, on several occasions, thought the engines had stopped with how quiet they were, and panicked. We had to install speakers to play a bit of engine noise, just to calm down the pilot and passengers, the comfort here is impeccable, although vibrations happen a heck of a lot of the engines, they get transferred a bit to the wings, but the thing is so bendy or something, because it is hardly felt in the cabin.

And when we mean a heck of a lot of vibration in the engines, we mean it. A huge jet at full blast has nothing on these things, these things will be shaking back and forth about 2 inches difference, several times a second! There are warning signs to not put anything next to then when in operation, because the engines will smash it to pieces!

On landing, the engines were quick to throttle down, and the plane glides well, and can land pretty quickly.

It's maintenance is.... incredibly high. Not as stupidly high as the price, but very high. The nuclear powered engines are a total mystery to our engineers, let alone mechanics, and it has a part count of 159! One hundred and fifty nine!

The range cannot be calculated normally, this plane does not need to be refueled for decades.

The Verdict:

 This is an absurd plane. In ever way, it's absurd. The price is absurd, the engines are absurd, the speed is absurdly low, the range is practically unlimited, so again, absurd. It doesn't have much going for it, other than a range of fly anywhere. Even then, it's so slow it would be faster to fly a faster plane and have some stop-overs, so it's really only suited for the sort of crazy en-devour of very long range stunts, and for PR. We will be the airline of the future, powered by nuclear energy!

 Even though we don't have to buy fuel, we'll never make a profit using these for normal things. We will buy one though, for a publicity stunt and for that sort of long range tom-foolery mentioned before.

Pfft, just buy a Perbro Aerospace Zoomer Island Hopper.  You can still go round Kerbin twice and do some cool stunts. 

Definitely not an advertising attempt to persuade the company to buy some more island hopper varients.

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 hours ago, HamnavoePer said:

Pfft, just buy a Perbro Aerospace Zoomer Island Hopper.  You can still go round Kerbin twice and do some cool stunts. 

Definitely not an advertising attempt to persuade the company to buy some more island hopper varients.

Yeah, but there is a big difference between a very long range, and an unlimited range. That plane was a one-trick pony, so we only bought one. Your plane did more stuff, so we bought more. (21 if I remember correctly?)

[HolidayTheLeek]

Wow! I can't believe you even bought ONE! 

The aircraft is so absurdly expensive that I don't even know why you even bothered haha! At the moment, I'm trying to find cheaper ways to make these sorts of aircraft so they're actually viable to use for an airline.

But hey, if Kerbin runs out of oil, you know who to call

[CrazyJebGuy]

2 minutes ago, HolidayTheLeek said:

Wow! I can't believe you even bought ONE! 

The aircraft is so absurdly expensive that I don't even know why you even bothered haha! At the moment, I'm trying to find cheaper ways to make these sorts of aircraft so they're actually viable to use for an airline.

But hey, if Kerbin runs out of oil, you know who to call

Bothered for PR reasons! We're the only airline operating a nuclear aircraft, we are the airline of the future!

[TaRebelSheep]

The Trifekta Aeronautics Albatross.

It looks like an albatross.

I'm not really trying here so the stats:

Range: 3500 km 

Passengers: 112

Action Groups: 4 for flaps, 5 for reverse thrust

Extra Features:

• A natural tendency to recover from stalls automatically, but upside-down
• the ability to land and take off from water (But it may damage the engines as they will be partially submerged)
• sound and vibration blocking wings
• Takeoff autopilot: activate progade SAS and hit the flaps for a takeoff just under 80 m/s. For water take offs, the takeoff speed should be around 50 m/s
• Easy and fun to drift on the runway due to unnaturally gripping tyres

Download: https://kerbalx.com/TaRebelSheep/Trifekta-Aeronautics-Albatross

Edited March 18, 2018 by TaRebelSheep

[neistridlar]

I think I might have created the biggest jumbo yet. The passenger capacity is 2592. The range is 9700km, and the KPPM is 0.0048. And you get all that for the mere price of 1.47 billions :D. It even seems to be immune to spontaneous disassembly.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

I think I might have created the biggest jumbo yet. The passenger capacity is 2592. The range is 9700km, and the KPPM is 0.0048. And you get all that for the mere price of 1.47 billions :D. It even seems to be immune to spontaneous disassembly.

Hold my beer.

[Kernel Kraken]

4 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Hold my beer.

Hold my unspecified non- alcoholic beverage.

[HamnavoePer]

27 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Hold my unspecified non- alcoholic beverage.

Hold my Diet Coke

[Kernel Kraken]

54 minutes ago, HamnavoePer said:

Hold my Diet Coke

Hold my Red Bull.. wait no...

If red bull gives you wings than...

KRAKEN: REMOVES YOUR WINGS! I wish I came up with that.

[neistridlar]

8 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Hold my beer.

 

3 hours ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Hold my unspecified non- alcoholic beverage.

 

2 hours ago, HamnavoePer said:

Hold my Diet Coke

Oh, boy what have I started. Anyways, thanks for all the free drinks! 

[KenjiKrafts]

10 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Hold my beer.

*proceeds to crack his wrists and a cold one at the same time* I'll need few hours. Tops. (Don't mean to sound rude or cocky but just cashing in on the joke)

Edited March 18, 2018 by KenjiKrafts
M

[neistridlar]

Test Pilot Review: @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Sky Titanic

 

Figures as Tested:

• Price:  335,830,000
• Fuel: 26,400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 208m/s
• Cruising altitude: 1100m
• Fuel burn rate: 1.22 kal/s
• Range:  4500km

Review Notes:

This aircraft is supposed to be a challenger to the Habu Industries Colossus, and on paper it looks like a good competitor. In real life however it looks like two really long tubes with lots of big flat square pieces stuck to it. Well, there is a little bit more to it than that, there are some thinner tubes stuck to the top of the big tubes as well. Alright, at 864 passengers it is slightly smaller than the Colossus, however that is not necessarily a bad thing, as we have found out the gates at most airports simply are not made to fit 1152 passengers at one time, which is causing some major headaches for the ground personnel. Not that we think that the 864 passengers of this thing is going to be much better.

So how does it fly then? Well, the takeoff is rather long, with a takeoff speed of 90m/s it takes the better part of the runway at KSC, and that is with the afterburners. Without them it is unable to take to the sky before it falls of the end. We do however think that this could be greatly improved, as our test pilots reported that the plane could maintain stable flight as slow as 50m/s once it was in the air. A redesigned landing gear, allowing the aircraft to attain a 10 degree nose up while on the ground should remedy this. In the air the aircraft for some reason has a tendency to pitch up at almost all speeds. This struck us as odd, as the aircraft does not appear to have any built-in trim. The acceleration and climb performance in the air without afterburners is quite poor, and so we found the advice in the brochure to use afterburners for this to be quite sensible. We were unable to stay at the advertised cruise speed of 222m/s in dry mode at any altitude, however we found that 208m/s @ 1100m made for a good cruise, with the range coming in at 4500km, which is a little above the advertised range. We think this could be improved by adding a couple degrees angle of incidence to the wings though, as the aircraft flies with a pronounced nose up attitude. This might help with takeoff performance as well.

The brochure warned that the plane did not handle heavy maneuvering very well, and we can confirm this to be true. In fact we would argue that it does only handle light maneuvering, breaking apart without even exceeding 2G in a turn. We would have liked to see at least the controls be limited to prevent this, as it is very easy to break the plane during normal operations. The landings are also a major source of breakage, so major that in fact, that we had more unsuccessful landings than successful ones, despite our best efforts. It even destroys the runway quite frequently. The few successful landings we had also revealed a second issue. The stopping distance is quite enormous, about the length of the KSC runway. Surprisingly it can ditch rather safely in the water, and we think this would be our preferred method of landing. Sadly the plane is unable to take off from water. This does however suggest that the landing issues are landing gear related as well.

Contrary to the Colossus, all of the passengers have both a fairly nice view and legroom. Now the center facing windows have some of the view blocked by the second fuselage, however this is outweighed by the fabulous light show from the afterburners. Now the center engines do provide a good dose of noise as well when afterburning, however once in cruising it is reduced to manageable levels. Apart from the fear of having the plane break apart during flight or landing, we think passengers will quite enjoy this plane.

The fuel economy of this aircraft is just marginally better than the Colossus, however the purchase price per seat is only 65% of the Colossus, which would make this aircraft much cheaper, had it not been for the tendency for this aircraft to tear itself apart, which the Colossus completely lacks. Also, clocking in at a part count of 325, it somehow manages to have almost twice the part count of the Colossus, which will surely go a long way in offsetting the purchase price in the form of maintenance.

The Verdict:

Although it looks promising on paper, has very few advantages over the Habu Industries Colossus, and quite a few disadvantages. Therefore, we will not be ordering any of these, however with a brand-new landing gear design and improved structural integrity we think it could be a good contender to the Colossus.

[hoioh]

Skaled Komposites would like to submit the R-wing series (a whole bunch of similar planes) for all your regional and international needs with a seatcount ranging from 32 up to 128, all based on the same variant model, using the same engine, wing structure and building model.

We figured it would be nice if all your seats could be window seats. And not just have a whole bunch of cabins smashed together, say that they're window seats, but really you're just looking at the next cabin and really see anything. So in order to accomodate this we've built a model where, instead of connecting the main hull to the wings, the engine resides in the middle of the plane connected directly to the wings and instead of having engines connected to the middle of the wings we instead connected a pair of hulls to them. This allows for a all seats to be window seats and there's even an option to only use 1 of the front cabins as a cockpit and rent out the other to a bunch of rich snobs that want the best view they could possibly afford as a sort of "in air private cabin".

Each successive model has more passenger count at a slight cost of maneuvering speed and range. All models needs some sort of runway to take off and land on and thanks to thrust reversing on the massive propeller can land really easily on just about any runway, taking off again depends on the length and size of the craft, but all models can easily take off from the island runway.

 

All models use the same control scheme (once you've flown one, you can fly all of them with little to no practise):

Press 1 to activate flaps (only required if you need to reduce speed for landing, do not overuse!)

Press 2 to invert engine thrust (press again to go back to normal, mostly used to slow down once already on the runway or when flaps prove insufficient)

To fly: simply activate SAS, set throttle to maximum and activate engine. Once a speed of about 60m/s is reached pull back on the stick a little and angle to about 10 degrees upward, wait for airspeed to exceed 100m/s before setting angle to about 25 degrees upward and climbing to cruising altitude between 8000 and 9000 meters. Angle back to 5 degrees upward once cruising altitude has been achieved, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

During flight any kind of steering maneuver can be made, even very aggressive ones (if passengers provided with barf bags) as long as the engine remains at full throttle. With engine off take care not to let speed drop below 100m/s unless attempting to land. (The smaller models are better at acrobaticsm the bigger ones are worse for this purpose.) At cruising altitude all the planes will all fly at about 215m/s with a fuel usage between 0.09 and 0.14 depending on size, smaller ones are obviously more efficient. That makes them a bit on the slow side, which is however adequately compensated for by the magnificent views from the many windows.

To land: point at runway, drop landing gear and use flaps and/or reverse thrust to reduce speed to below 80m/s before letting wheels touch runway, stamp down hard on brakes once groud has been connected with wheels to stop.

 

All models are very fuel efficient, share a lot of parts and therefore reduce engineer training costs,do not contain a whole lot of parts to begin with (33 up to 49) and there's only 1 common engine to take care of for each plane.

Prices range from 34mln up to 43mln, depending on passenger count, and range is in excess of 1500km for all models and can reach up to beyond 3000km. To squeeze out that last extra drop of cash out of each flight you can, on top the official passenger count, rent out the right hand side "cockpit" for a frat party.

 

In short: the R-wing series by Skaled Komposites provides excellent range and versatility in an efficient package that can go anywhere and can land and take off from just about every runway. On top of that it provides supreme passenger comfort and you can skimp on in-flight entertainment because everyone has a view.

The full spec list on all models:

R-wing 32
Type: Turboprop
Passenger count: 32 + Honeymoon suite
Part count: 32 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 3,225km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ34,006,000

R-wing 48
Type: Small regional
Passenger count: 48 + Frat party lounge
Part count: 34 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 2,867km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ35,106,000

R-wing 64
Type: Small regional
Passenger count: 64 + In-flight romatic restaurant for 2
Part count: 38 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 2,580km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ37,406,000

R-wing 80
Type: Medium regional
Passenger count: 80 + Spectator cabin
Part count: 42 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 2,150km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ39,706,000

R-wing 96
Type: Medium regional
Passenger count: 96 + Silent room
Part count: 44 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 1,827km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ40,806,000

R-wing 112
Type: Medium regional
Passenger count: 112 + VIP deck
Part count: 46 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 1,827km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ41,906,000

R-wing 128
Type: Medium regional
Passenger count: 128 + Hostess relaxation area
Part count: 48 parts + 1 engine
Cruising altitude: 8500m ± 500m
Range: about 1,612km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)
Cost: Ѵ43,006,000

Download link to craft files and more screenshots: https://www.dropbox.com/s/37climtlq6cxiam/Skaled Komposites R-wing series.zip?dl=0

[neistridlar]

13 minutes ago, hoioh said:

smaller ones are obviously more efficient

If you look at the per seat fuel consumption, the bigger ones are actually much more efficient than the smaller ones. Search this thread for KPPM or GPPM to find a good formula for calculating this. The aircraft do look quite unique though. I will be looking forward to the reviews. (Expect them to be bunched together though, as there are a lot of them, and they seem quite similar.)

[CrazyJebGuy]

26 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

If you look at the per seat fuel consumption, the bigger ones are actually much more efficient than the smaller ones. Search this thread for KPPM or GPPM to find a good formula for calculating this. The aircraft do look quite unique though. I will be looking forward to the reviews. (Expect them to be bunched together though, as there are a lot of them, and they seem quite similar.)

KPPM is GPPM, Gallons/Kallons per passenger mile. (I think the fuel is already in gallons - but others disagreed and so GPPM caused confusion, KPPM is less confusing)

KPM = (Fuel capacity / Passenger Capacity) / (Range * 0.62)

General rules of thumb:

KPPM of over 0.1, you are doing it wrong, this is very bad.

KPPM of 0.05, innefficient

GPPM of 0.04, bad.

KPPM of 0.02, roughly average

GPPM of .01-.02, pretty good

GPPM of under .01? Really good. I've only seen this done with high altitude hypersonic planes at maximum speed.

Meanwhile I'm off to add another layer to my modification of the Skots Squirrel will be (largest plane entered until Neistridlar enters his - wonder why he hasn't)

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

If you look at the per seat fuel consumption, the bigger ones are actually much more efficient than the smaller ones. Search this thread for KPPM or GPPM to find a good formula for calculating this. The aircraft do look quite unique though. I will be looking forward to the reviews. (Expect them to be bunched together though, as there are a lot of them, and they seem quite similar.)

Ofcourse, the more the merrier and therefore more passengers = more efficiency  I'm just referring to the fact that the smaller ones use less fuel per travelled mile and will thus go further, which is also good!

For review purposes I would recommend doing the smallest, the middle and the largest. That will give you a very good feel for the series as a whole and experience how the handling changes as it becomes ever bigger

1 hour ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

KPPM is GPPM, Gallons/Kallons per passenger mile. (I think the fuel is already in gallons - but others disagreed and so GPPM caused confusion, KPPM is less confusing)

KPM = (Fuel capacity / Passenger Capacity) / (Range * 0.62)

General rules of thumb:

KPPM of over 0.1, you are doing it wrong, this is very bad.

KPPM of 0.05, innefficient

GPPM of 0.04, bad.

KPPM of 0.02, roughly average

GPPM of .01-.02, pretty good

GPPM of under .01? Really good. I've only seen this done with high altitude hypersonic planes at maximum speed.

Meanwhile I'm off to add another layer to my modification of the Skots Squirrel will be (largest plane entered until Neistridlar enters his - wonder why he hasn't)

Well, looks like the R-wing 128 comes out below 0.01 if only just, so there clearly are other ways than just hyperspeed at extreme altitude

[neistridlar]

6 hours ago, hoioh said:

Well, looks like the R-wing 128 comes out below 0.01 if only just, so there clearly are other ways than just hyperspeed at extreme altitude

Jup, it's more difficult, but I am currently working on an entire range of sub sonic planes with KPPM of less than 0.006 IIRC. 

7 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

largest plane entered until Neistridlar enters his - wonder why he hasn't

In the interest of not flooding the thread with entries I have decided not to submit anything, unless I don't think I can improve on it any more. Also I am trying to at least make a review for of every submission I make for the same reason.

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

In the interest of not flooding the thread with entries I have decided not to submit anything, unless I don't think I can improve on it any more. Also I am trying to at least make a review for of every submission I make for the same reason.

Yes, I still submit, I just save it for when It's really worth it. I've been doing so since about page 20, I've only been submitting the things I thought were really worth it.

When people say my reviews are making my planes look good, and I'm just doing it so my planes do better, they have it backwards. Of course my planes look good, I build them so if I were to review it, it would so well. And due to this other thing, I won't submit any half-rate thing.

But do submit it, it's worth a longer list. And anyways, If you do I'll review two planes today I wouldn't otherwise have done today, so it'll shorten it. Basically whenever I submit, I review two or more, It's just this time I'm reviewing on your behalf.

 

EDIT: I am getting close to beating your 2592, making mine and got 1,944 so far. I've put four huge jets facing backwards, just to help at braking.

Edited March 19, 2018 by CrazyJebGuy

[Kebab Kerman]

3 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

I am getting close to beating your 2592, making mine and got 1,944 so far.

Huh... I wonder who had the highest again? You know what, we need a seperate thread for this. On it!