i made a version with landing gear

AWESOME!

Yay finally something I can take off from the under mountain sea base

Everything @BaconEggs

whats up with that big intake blocking the props airflow

Ok, sounds cool, I’m used to using overpowers engines cause for a long time I was using vanilla SP with crappy drag and overweight blocks. Thanks for the advice @WNP78

@Chancey21 look at existing designs, sure it's in the future but people are still the same size and physics will still apply. Try and get the passenger subassembly to compare sizes at least (an average sitting person is 0.9m or 1.8 in fuselage). Try not to cover up your prop - physics still exists in the future.
Keep the wing area realistic and don't scale the wings massively.
Instead of powering up the engines to increase top speed, settle for a realistic horsepower or thrust to weight ratio and then tweak the drag (yes, using the dragscale stuff en masse is quite laborious but I will have a tool to batch edit in the future) to get realistic speeds. Because thrust and mass and wing area etc can be quantified by numbers and specs and only leaves drag to be found experimentally.

When building fictional builds in the future how do you recommend I make them sized and perform more realisticly? @WNP78

@WNP78 wow and @Chancey21 buuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

You should try and make it more realistic...
- Size is off. Try getting the passenger, (hidden part, you can find a subassembly somewhere, partType is Passenger-1. You could almost fit two floors of sitting people in that cabin if they reclined, and it's supposed to be a one-seater. The cabin itself is about the same width as a 4-seat Cessna 172.
- Also weighs a lot too much (heavier than a 172 on max load)
- Has way too much drag, so that despite having modded wing area (twice that of a decent glider), it's glide ratio is that of a brick
- To compensate for the huge amount of drag you've massively overpowered the engines, which causes it to accelerate at roughly 0.9g forwards, and can maintain a climb of 50 degrees. The thing this is based on which only floats were added to claims "realistic performance". It does 0-60 in the same time as a Ferrari F50, but on water.
- The engine placement is simply not feasible. Putting the engines in a reinforced airtight metal box would protect them from a propstrike very well, but blocking off so much of it is just terrible for efficiency.
- It carries roughly as much fuel as a Cessna 208 regional airliner but with it's flight endurance of a drunk cockroach can only just about make it to Bandit from the seaplane hangar at water, and landed with 2% fuel. It uses 3% to take off.
You've put some work into detailing it, but it's better to start out with a reasonable design in the first place.

Thanks @Treadmill103

I’d love a spotlight @Treadmill103

np @Chancey21

Np! @Chancey21

Thanks guys @CoaxiumSmuggler @ChallengerHellcat @CRJ900Pilot

Cool!

awesome!

Really nice.

Thanks guys @WaffleCakes @ThePilotDude

Yes