Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[SiriusRocketry]

OK, thanks. Maybe I'll use my stock planes then

 

[Box of Stardust]

57 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said:

OK, thanks. Maybe I'll use my stock planes then

 

There's still Airplane Plus if you want props, but I don't know how they compare to SXT props. 

[NightshineRecorralis]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

The allowed mods are clearly stated in the OP. SXT is not one of them.

I would like to see an evaluation of the water operation (take off and landing). Also compare the economic to other seaworthy planes as well. I think it is OK to keep the current stuff, evaluating it as a turboprop as well, since it is actually an OK turboprop as well. Would probably make a good feeder plane for island residents.

Water ops aren't that much different, in fact, the performance is nearly identical. I did intentionally leave some words ambiguous after all. I will go back and do specifics but I don't think it's necessary.

[Box of Stardust]

The oldest on the list of medium regional jets is...

Test Pilot Review: @ZLM-Master's GAC Passenger M38

The M38 in the only place where it wants to be...

Figures as Tested (M38, 72 passengers max):

• Price: 64,856,000 (empty)
• Fuel: 5260 kallons
• Cruising speed: measured at 262m/s
• Cruising altitude: 8,600m
• Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.31kal/s
• Range: 4,335km (as calculated)
• KPPM: 0.027

Review Notes:

Twin Crown Aerospace has a bit of a history with the group of companies this aircraft has been manufactured by, and had decent expectations in terms of design. Of course, much of the impressions came from the Military Applications Division and not the Commercial Division, but the MAD guys seemed to have passed on the sentiments to the ComD engineers. Such impressions included expectations of an intriguing yet well-performing design, with smart consideration put to most aspects of the aircraft... while also having a few flaws to poke at.

Initial impressions as our engineers took a walk around Greene Aerospace Companie's M38 on the tarmac were mixed into two categories: very good and concerning. The design appeared to be very suited for comfortable ranged flight, featuring various modern design aspects. We did think that two Goliath engines were overkill for a medium regional jet liner. The large wing area was achieved through a lot of separate sections welded together, which would be the projected largest cost of maintenance on this aircraft. Concern was also had over yaw stability with the fairly small-looking vertical stabilizer. Also, right away, it was easily declared: STEERING CAPABILITIES: NONE.

We don't know why GAC chose to use large landing gear on the rear, when a medium landing gear would have sufficed to give it a taildragger configuration with steering, but these were the prototypes we were given.

Up came the flight test, where we felt generally confident in its flight capabilities. Manufacturer stated takeoff speed though is 76m/s, which is a quite high speed for an aircraft of this class. But as our test pilot went down the runway, it turns out that this stated speed was, in fact, the M38's takeoff speed, with wheels-up at 77-80m/s. Takeoff distance, however, was quite short, with the powerful Goliaths easily shoving this aircraft along. This was achieved as instructed by the manufacturer, with flaps down. We later discovered there were hidden flaps hidden in the leading edge of the wing too, where the engine is...

Climb up to cruise altitude was fairly quick and easy, flying up at around 25 degrees as recommended. General maneuverability seemed promising, with the aircraft cooperative both under manual control and SAS. The recommended cruise altitude is quite high: 8400m to 8800m. We settled for the middle at 8600m. On the way up, though, we noticed that the control surfaces were allowed mixed inputs- deliberately. The ailerons were also allowed to contribute to pitch, but were deactivated for yaw. The elevator, similarly, was actually a taileron. We thought this was unnecessary and reprogrammed the surfaces for conventional flight inputs.

... And it turns out, the manufacturer knows their plane better than we do, because those mixed controls, at least for pitch control, were direly needed.

Testing for cruise conditions, the aircraft requires significant pitch trim. With the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer alone, the M38 could not maintain level flight at 8600m. The amount of pitch trim required necessitated the assistance of the ailerons on the main wings. So we returned the flight computer back to manufacturer settings, and the plane was able to fly level at cruise altitude, with the significant pitch trim required- around 60-70% of maximum pitch capability. Finely trimming the aircraft was a little tricky, but we were able to get it mostly stable after a bit of careful trim setting.

The aircraft flew fairly level during cruise, and so we began testing cruise parameters. It was discovered that the M38 flew faster than stated at the specified burn rate of 0.31kal/s; 262m/s. Using this speed and TCA's stricter fuel calculations, we came up with a range of about 4,335km. We're not really sure how GAC came up with 9,000km range as stated on their specifications, but nonetheless, 4,335km is still very good range. As for cabin comfort, the large engines can produce hefty noise and vibrations. Their mounting distance was not very far from the cabins, but it was mounted underneath the wing. So vibrations were felt as was noise, but noise was reduced due to the under-wing placement. Overall, we thought that passenger comfort was fair, but still potentially noisy due to engine proximity.

With cruise testing done, we went headed back to the test site, then into the next testing phase, which those familiar with TCA's testing process, should know what it is. Engine failure testing!

We simulated a starboard engine failure.

... We were very surprised at the results, which was a very good response from the aircraft, stabilizing very quickly. It remained very stable and able to maneuver, fairly minimally affected by asymmetric thrust torque. We were especially surprised at this due to the relatively small vertical stabilizer and rudder, which were enough to compensate for a single engine loss. Especially notable due to the high thrust of the Goliath engine. So, while close-together placement of the Goliaths aren't too conducive to passenger comfort, they are very good for passenger safety.

We then simulated a complete propulsion failure. Again, it's still stable and able to maneuver thanks to the many control surfaces. However, it now shows its weakness in pitch control. The M38 glides fine, but not for a long distance due to its natural pitch-down tendency, so it requires pitch-up input which bleeds speed. Stall speed seemed fairly low though, around 50m/s before the aircraft is unable to maintain a level attitude.

The engines were restarted and our test pilot flew around for a bit, testing various maneuverability and stability aspects. Overall, we feel that, as setup, the M38 performs well in most regards. However, pitch control was rated as 'adequate', which is fine, but there was also sometimes the feeling of wanting a little more pitch ability.

Our pilot was then directed to land, which we found to be possible at a lower speed than the manufacturer recommended 71m/s. A fairly decent touchdown was expected at around 50m/s...

... and then the aircraft exploded as the landing gear touched down.

Our pilot was able to perform an extremely quick, low-altitude bailout. Injuries were sustained as she bounced along the ground, but is mostly fine.

We pulled the second prototype out after that surprise incident- everything was going so well- to do the rest of the tests. We suspected that the aircraft's center of lift is still not optimal relative to its center of mass, which is why, despite still having some lift at low speeds, the pitch control can't maximize it. Therefore, we had concerns going into the water landing test. Results indicated that something is very wrong with how the wings are connected to the body, but that the fuselage makes for a very decent boat.

So a water landing doesn't have a lot of room for error in the best conditions; a good landing will leave the completely intact fuselage happily floating away from the torn off wings.

TCA's familiarity with the manufacturer's company groups allowed us to piece back together a prototype aircraft to have one last go at landing. This second landing attempt, we went in a little faster, probably more around the manufacturer-recommended 71m/s, just so we could maintain a slower descent rate. This time, the aircraft was actually able to be landed without spontaneously exploding... before its lack of steering caused it to veer off the runway, and destroy one of the Goliaths and maybe a few wing segments as it went off the side.

Our engineers' notes for maintenance shows 63 parts, but 15 of those are navigation lights, so it's more like 48 parts, which is on the upper end for part count, but not overly high. Most of maintenance will come from checking the welds between wing segments as well as potential leaks from the various wing fuel tanks contained within, and the belly fuel tanks. Two Goliaths aren't really excessive in some terms, but may be considered so for a medium regional jet. It also has quite a lot of moving control surfaces with multiple functions; a probable increase in maintenance as well, since it very much relies on all or most of them functioning properly.

The Verdict:

This plane is a very well-performing flier. It doesn't like the ground very much, especially coming down.

Ground performance isn't that great. But it can probably be solved by simply replacing the rear large landing gear with a medium landing gear. This will solve both the steering problem and, with proper placement, pitch the aircraft up more in a more traditional taildragger layout, which will lower the takeoff speed to the sub-60m/s. As for exploding upon landing... we're not really sure. Maybe adjust the spring and damper rates on the main gear? It's a very hazardous flaw though, having the aircraft explode if descent rate was just a little too fast for it, but which other aircraft would easily survive. But we also suspect a lot of the problems stem from the main wings being stressed due to all the components it supports, then also having to support the impact of landing on the main gears.

But in the air? We can only recommend one fix (which we're not sure if GAC has already looked into it), which is adjusting the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizers to push the center of lift up if possible, which would help give the plane more pitch authority. Other than this, it flies very well. Passenger comfort is average.

We can't recommend this aircraft to KEA in its current form, but KEA should be open to order options after its major ground-related issues have been remedied. While the starting price is a little steep for passenger capacity, its fuel economy could probably make up for it, and maintenance costs would probably be around average. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[CrazyJebGuy]

1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

-snip-

 

Gawain Aeroplane Industries actually almost did a review of this plane, we ran into significant trouble after the prototype was shot down by anti-aircraft guns, being mistaken for an alien space-craft.

[MaverickSawyer]

@Box of Stardust If you ever want a break from testing poorly designed planes, feel free to give one of MAST's designs a whirl.  

[Mathrilord]

Or wait for the 20 planes I'm gonna upload

[TheFlyingKerman]

10 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Will do!

I think it's more of a turboprop than a seaplane, but of course you may disagree. It really fits either quite well. I decided to go with turboprop and that was my decision, I think it doesn't detract from the performance at all either way? 

Aside from the general performance compromise pointed out by @neistridlar, the flap design for this plane is optimized for water operation. It is placed as forward as possible in order not to pitch the nose down when deployed. This enables the plane to soft land on water at a favorable angle and speed. One the other hand aligning with the runway is much less a problem when landing on water. I suspect in this light the verdict would be very different.

Last but not the least I suppose the designer decides which category the plane goes (seaplane in this case).

[Box of Stardust]

4 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Gawain Aeroplane Industries actually almost did a review of this plane, we ran into significant trouble after the prototype was shot down by anti-aircraft guns, being mistaken for an alien space-craft.

Alien spacecraft-looking is something Twin Crown Aerospace admits the GAC-Group does well...

But we forgot to mention that this one feels more like a sky whale.

 

---

 

I fortunately didn't have magical spontaneous SAM problems with this plane, even during hard maneuvering. Just when landing. 

 

3 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

@Box of Stardust If you ever want a break from testing poorly designed planes, feel free to give one of MAST's designs a whirl.  

Well, my plan was actually to go through and do two of some of the older ones from each category, and which was originally whichever two oldest ones of a class from this new thread, but I seem to have forgotten that rule when I signed on for medium jet reviews. But in general, I choose to do older ones out of fairness.

Then after finishing this whole two-per business, I'd leave my second wave of aircraft designs, then take a break for a while. In a way, this whole stint was a bit of a courtesy gesture before I throw more planes onto a backlog. As well as the fact that Air Superiority Competition went on break, so I had free KSP time to do this in the first place...

But who knows, maybe your aircraft will still be on the list by the time I decide to do more reviews?...

Edited May 30, 2018 by Box of Stardust

[hoioh]

Test pilot review: @neistridlar's Neist Air Company Seezik 16 (L)

Figures as tested Seezik 16
Fuel load: 200K (max 400K)
Price: 15,375,000
Passengers: 16

At reccomended speed and altitude:
Speed: 180 m/s
Altitude: 5500 m
Burn rate: 0.04834
Range: 744km (max 1489km)

Full throttle at ceiling:
Speed: 227.2 m/s
Altitude: 11000 m
Burn rate: 0.03916
Range: 1160km (max 2320km)

What to say about this one then, like anything else Neist it flies GREAT! No jokes, it really does fly great, we couldn't get valentina out of the pilot seat for anthing other than food! She even went so far as to take the boys along on a trip to show them how she feels about them, unfortunately there wasn't enough fuel to return all 4 of them, so she left the boys alone to "go and get help"

It's not without any room for improvement, but surely that won't be found in the flight characteristics. When we arrive at cruise altitude Valentina cut the throttle to about 2/3rd to maintain speed, but to maintain altitude she had to pitch the nose down by about 2.5 degrees to remain at level altitude. This being a small plane it will hardly annoy anybody other than the pilot because you can just about see te ground and nothing breaks the illusion of flight more than seeing the ground! So she decided to go full throttle and check out that fabled "operational ceiling" of 11500. To everybody's surprise the ceiling can be approached pretty closely, we didn't manage to pass 11km on our test runs. Furthermore the Seezik 16 is supremely efficient at this altitude once you get there. You can also fly perfectly level, so the ground is nowhere in sight for the pilot. When flown high and fast the Seezik has an exceptionally good range for such a tiny bit of fuel, I mean, even fully fueled it's still just 400 kallons worth and it'll get the little plane over 2300km away if tanking is available and half that if it's not.

What's holding it back is size, though the brief was for a minimum of 16 passengers, a great many of the submitted planes exceed this number putting the Seezik at a below average passenger count, and thereby also making it unable to reach the top cheapest planes per seat in the seaplanes class, it's pretty close though!

The verdict:
We would like to order 5 Seezik 16's for pilot training of water landings, the Seezik being an examplary performer in that regard and the low fuel consumption makes it an excellent training plane. On top of that we would recommend KEA order some 20 pieces to service the many uninhabited islands of Kerbin, a niche tourism market where these planes would really shine! We do recommend to tell the pilots to level out the plane at 5500m and to keep the throttle on. The plane will just keep rising, extending the standard range as it continues upward while the passengers enjoy a nice, smooth, level flight.

Figures as tested Seezik 16L
Fuel load: 500k (max 900k)
Price: 15,775,000
Passengers: 16

At recommended speed and altitude:
Speed: 150 m/s
Altitude: 5500 m
Burn rate: 0.04626
Range: 1621 km (max 2918 km)

Full throttle at ceiling:
Speed: 208.2 m/s
Altitude: 10500 m
Burn rate: 0.04190
Range: 1790 km (max 3222 km)

The Seezik 16L has as specified by the manufacturer: "A lot less visibility for the passengers", this is unfortunate because it has an absolutely insane flight time. When fully fueled and flown at high altitude for maximum range it can utilize the maximum 900 kallons of fuel aboard to fly the absolutely mind bending distance of 4472 km! But it takes a long time to do so and the lack of onboard entertainment will make it a bit dull perhaps.
According to valentina the plane handles fairly well, but when compared to the regular Seezik it's the comparison of an eagle to an albatros. The KPPM is also a bit worse compared to the regular Seezik, but because of the supreme range the plane is very close to the top 16% best performers per seat-mile. The included barf bags also proved handy because the light little airplane bobs around on the ocean surface with the precise frequency of 3hz. It turns out this is the perfect frequency for causing, as the name suggests, sea sickness. Better use this one for lake-landings.

The verdict:
The Seezik 16L is a fine addition to the Seezik 16, but the flights will ultimately be boring and long. We recommend KEA buys 5 pieces to reach the further lying lakes and other outreach locations, such as polar return flights to check on the whales. We do recommend the same flying strategy as with it's smaller sister, which is to fly up to cruise altitude and then level out, but keep the throttle on so the plane will continue to fly ever higher and the range ever increasing. Considering the fuel load and the range, it's not so important when cruise alt is achieved, as long as it is achieved.

Edited May 30, 2018 by hoioh

[RedPandaz]

Ok, how long until mine is reviewed? Newer planes have been reviewed, and I've been waiting months

 

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

Ok, how long until mine is reviewed? Newer planes have been reviewed, and I've been waiting months

 

Working on it right now. It has been a little slow going for me lately, but it is coming along now I think. I expect max a couple days, maybe a couple of hours.

[RedPandaz]

10 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Working on it right now. It has been a little slow going for me lately, but it is coming along now I think. I expect max a couple days, maybe a couple of hours.

Oh ok; does it seem nice so far? Also, I'm trying to get a good dedicated SST up, although that's trickier

[neistridlar]

10 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

Oh ok; does it seem nice so far? Also, I'm trying to get a good dedicated SST up, although that's trickier

It has some good traits, some bad ones, which can be remedied, and some wired ones. You will see in the review.

[RedPandaz]

13 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

It has some good traits, some bad ones, which can be remedied, and some wired ones. You will see in the review.

Ok

17 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

It has some good traits, some bad ones, which can be remedied, and some wired ones. You will see in the review.

Delta Industries offers to rework any aircraft for a sale of 10 or more

[TheTripleAce3]

5 hours ago, hoioh said:

Wonder how this would do if turned into an MK2 sized fuselage with some minor adjustments...

[Kerbolitto]

Jumbo Jet : Twin Socks - BolittoAirlines

 

This plane is a big jumbo, carrying 308 people (6Mk3 , 2Mk2 and 16Mk1)

 

Take off speed is around 70m/s and service ceiling 4200meters at 255-260m/s, at this altitude it consumes around 1.28Lf per second which gives it a range just shy of 4000ki (3700-3800).

113 parts, 309.551.000$

 

This craft is a twin boom design for the passengers cabins around one central core carrying most of the fuel, air intakes, cockpits and Safety Instructions (printed in Kerbissian, 3 volumes). 3 Goliath are encased in a fairing to reduce vibrations and noise, and the engines are pretty far back from any sensible ears, there are also 4 Wheesley because climbing to 4000m.+ would otherwise take the better part of this summer. You may have notice than one of the two cockpit is upside down, this was done on purpose, to inspect debris on the LZ such as : broken landing gear, bushes, lost pages of Flying Safe Using Your Nose Only, and sometimes rabbits. Also when you see it from the ground, it looks like it's doing a barrell roll which is always a cool sight from the airport.

Flight in this .. contraption, is stable, pitch authority is good, roll average, yaw almost non-existant but it's just a luxury fashion. Take off distance is short and landing is easy (but a little bit bumpy) thanks to 7 thrusts reversers.

Just like our other plane, this one is capable of spending the night on batteries with full lights and heaters at full blow, waiting in front of any Kurber King for Jeb to take his snacks.

 

 

 

Download : https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/Twin-Socks-dgepMj0t0qBdlzUfg2nwf

Edited June 1, 2018 by Kerbolitto

[hoioh]

24 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Wonder how this would do if turned into an MK2 sized fuselage with some minor adjustments...

It would become my Aqua Twin eventually 

[TheTripleAce3]

2 minutes ago, hoioh said:

It would become my Aqua Twin eventually 

Did you submit that yet?

[hoioh]

6 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Did you submit that yet?

check my Kerbal-x in my signature, it's on there and yes, I have submitted that flying boat

[TheTripleAce3]

That's not mk. 2 though.

[neistridlar]

 

Test Pilot Review: @RedPandaz's The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies Delta Impulse (-S)

 

 
Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse

• Price: 16,056,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 270m/s
• Cruising altitude: 6000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.060 kal/s
• Range: 1,800km

Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse-S

• Price: 22,043,000
• Fuel: 400 kallons
• Cruising speed: 200m/s
• Cruising altitude: 5000m
• Fuel burn rate: 0.073 kal/s
• Range: 1,100km

 
Review Notes:
Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. And with its forward swept anhedral wings it certainly looks agressive. During take off the pilots noted that the engine seemed to be starved of air, and the initial acceleration was surprisingly slow, gradually picking up as the plane gathered speed. Our engineers were somewhat puzzled by the choice of intake geometry, using an intake optimized for supersonic flight seemed a little out of place on a plane intended for subsonic operations, and recommended other options be investigated.
 
The somewhat unusual landing gear configuration of these aircraft, being a sort of odd hybrid of taildragger and tricycle, with the low, far back main gear and tall nose gear had caused some concerns for the take off stability. Some had speculated that the main gear would lift off first, leaving only the nose gear on the ground before liftoff, like a wheelbarrow. Not exactly the thing you would want to drive down a runway at umpteen miles per hour. Luckily the designers of this aircraft seemed to know what they were doing, and the Delta Impulse simply lifted off at 40m/s, without any input from the pilot. The Delta Impulse-S needed a little convincing with the elevators to get off the ground though, but still an easy takeoff. Though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension bottomed out in the process, giving them a good and proper jolt. Now despite the impressively low lift off speed, the aircraft still used a fair bit of runway reaching that speed, which made the takeoff distance about average.
 
Once in the air both planes handled very similarly. Our pilots noted that the roll rate was just barely adequate for normal flight. Not to surprising, seeing as all of the control surfaces are mounted so close to the fuselage. It did not help that all control surfaces were set to respond to everything, so the roll authority had to share with the pitch authority. Our engineers suggest that that a dedicated pair of ailerons be placed near the wing tips for extra roll authority. Now partially thanks to the thrust vectoring on the engine, the aircraft had enough yaw and pitch control for at least 3 aircraft at once. The aircraft are easily able to flip themselves 180 degrees in the air both in pitch and yaw. The pilots reported having flashbacks from certain other fighter looking planes. Though were happy to report that the air frame was sufficiently stable to recover quickly on its own, without much pilot intervention.
 
At low speeds however the combination of weak roll authority and somewhat weak yaw stability proved to be very dangerous to pilots trained in aircraft with dihedral. As turns were performed near stall speed the aircraft quickly took on a large amount of sideslip, the already anemic ailerons became practically ineffective, and so did the elevator. Our pilots being used to a strong roll yaw coupling instinctively stepped on the rudders to supplement the ailerons, and roll out of the turn. The aircraft does however have practically no roll yaw coupling at all, and so the maneuver proved ineffective, and just worsened the situation, with the aircraft continuing to sideslip towards the ground. In the last possible moment, they decided if this was not working, maybe they should try the opposite, and yaw towards the ground in stead. Much to their relief, this procedure proved very effective, as it canceled out the sideslip, and made the elevators effective again. The test pilots concluded that significant conversion training would be required for pilots used to flying aircraft with strong roll yaw coupling. 
 
Despite all the flaws, the aircraft proved to be very easy to fly, as long as it was kept within typical passenger jet operation limits. And even during the violent maneuvering the wings stayed reassuringly straight, and did not really seem to mind pulling 15Gs at all. We believe this is due to the lower semi wing bracing the upper wing in a very rigid triangle shape.
 
Landing the aircraft offered a bit of a surprise for our pilots though. They approached the runway on a shallow glide slope at 100m/s as usual, but even after cutting the throttle, the aircraft just seemed to float on and on down the runway. Having glided the entire length of the runway at KSC they finally set it down just at the end having reached 30m/s. That is impressively low, and consequently the stopping distance was hardly anything at all.
 
With such low landing speeds it should come as no surprise that the Delta Impulse is quite capable of safe ditching in water. With the air starved engine it was found to be completely unable to take of again. It probably did not help that the air consisted mostly of water. The Impulse-S however, being a seaplane design handled beautifully on the water. Nice and steady, no nose diving tendencies, no tipping over, and with both engines and intakes well clear of the water. Take off performance was even better than on land, lifting off at only 35m/s!. 
 
As for cruising, our pilots reported that the aircraft handled well both with and without the autopilot, though the strong pitch authority and slow reactions of the engines did make it somewhat difficult to maintain a steady cruise. The aircraft cruises with slight nose up attitudes, it is should not be detrimental, though we recommend that RET do research the effects of increasing the angle of incidence on their wings for increased fuel efficiency. 
 
With that short and sweet description of the flight characteristics out of the way, let’s get on with the passenger comfort. Well. The passengers were not impressed at all with the maneuverability of the aircraft, and reported that it was quite challenging aiming at the sick bags with the plane alternating between 15G turns, flat spins, stalls and recoveries, all within the span of a few seconds. Some also reported having lost a few centimeters of height during the flight. During the calmer parts of the flight though, they did manage to report some vibrations with a bit of noise in the back. Not unlike many other planes in these categories. 
 
As for the economics. The brochure said it was intended to be a better cheaper alternative to the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow". Well, it is cheaper, but not by much. And considering the Delta Impulse family only carries 24 passengers the “Arrow” is actually cheaper per seat with its 32 passenger capacity.The fuel economy and maintenance is better though, with only 25 parts for the Delta Impulse, and 39 for the Delta Impulse-S, which is good for a seaplane like this. On fuel economy there is almost no difference between the Impulse and the “Arrow” as well, though both have decent fuel economy, both being better than average. In the end it turns out the Delta Impulse accomplished what it set out to do, just barely.
 
The Verdict:
The turboprop marked is very crowded, and the competition is stiff, but with its good range and high top cruising speed we think there might be a place for a Dlata Impulse on long thin routes. As a trial we will be leasing a pair, to see how the conversion training goes. If RET can offer an improved version with better roll rate and generally less sensitive pitch and roll we would like to order a few more. As for the Delta Impulse-S, despite its handling shortcomings in the air we do believe it to be a good long lasting seaplane, and will be buying two, with options for 6 more if the handling issues can be sorted out.
 

[TheTripleAce3]

11 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Review Notes:
Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. 

Forward sweep is more common in GA I thought?

[hoioh]

1 hour ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

That's not mk. 2 though.

Confused mk2 with size 2 there, the mk2 cabins are heavy for their passenger count, so I don't use them much

[neistridlar]

7 minutes ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

Forward sweep is more common in GA I thought?

Most of the GAI fleet have straight wings. Also IRL pretty much only fighters have forward swept wings. Because of how the wings bend, they can turn slightly better, but at the expense of stability.