After a considerable delay, results are finally here. Since number of entries is considerably lower than expected, I have given up on splitting them into two categories, so both single engines and twins are rated together. Rewards will be issued over the next few days.
Winners, feel free to comment posts on which you want spotlights. One spotlight goes for the entry. Rewards are:
- 1st place - 10 upvotes and 3 spotlights;
- 2nd place - 8 upvotes and 2 spotlight;
- 3rd place - 5 upvotes and a spotlight on the entry;
Here are the scores:
1: ##Super Petrel LS by Chancey21
- Design: 9.5/10
- Performance: 9/10
- Paint scheme: 9/10
- Build quality: 9.5/10
- Personal impression: 5/5
Description: 10/10
Total: 52/55
Very accurate replica with all major details in place. Performs very well, although I'd say drag is too low for a biplane. It just won't slow down. Paint scheme is a bit simple, but loaded with details and quite realistic. Build quality is exceptional, with custom gear, control surfaces, interior, moving doors... There's a significant gap between doors and fuselage though. Description is excellent, containing pictures, a but about the plane, controls, and even a video.
- Design: 10/10
- Performance: 8/10
- Paint scheme: 9.5/10
- Build quality: 9.5/10
- Personal impression: 4/5
Description: 9.5/10
Total: 50/55
Very nice design, and very well replicated. Performs very well, but doesn't quite reach what I'd expect from a channel wing. I'd also expect more powerful trim. Paint scheme is a replica of the real one, and very well done, although I think a bit too glossy. Build quality is exceptional, with only flaw I found being that elevators don't move with trim. Description is great.
3: ##Piper PA-34-200T Seneca II by BRuthless
- Design: 9/10
- Performance: 9.5/10
- Paint scheme: 7.5/10
- Build quality: 9/10
- Personal impression: 5/5
Description: 9.5/10
Total: 49.5/55
Excellent replica, though I think it looks a bit boxier than the real thing and main wheels should, I think, be a bit bigger. Performs as intended, except that yaw gives a lot of oscillation and rolls the plane more than I'd expect (nitpicking, really). Paint scheme suits the plane really well, and has decent amount of insignia, but is still somewhat simple. Only flaw in build quality is the somewhat messy paneling at the rear of the cabin. The rest is superb. Actual trim tabs, interior of the passenger compartment, details, custom lg... Description is good, but could use a scheme showing features like with some other entries.
4: ##Dehavilland-Lockheed Rapid Connie 2.8 by RamboJutter
- Design: 8.5/10
- Performance: 10/10
- Paint scheme: 7/10
- Build quality: 9/10
- Personal impression: 5/5
Description: 9.5/10
Total: 49/55
Very nice, smooth design, with all necessary details in place, except one: boarding step. It takes off, flies, and lands itself. Paint scheme isn't amazing, but it fits the plane very well and has some nice details. All surfaces are custom, split flaps look great, trim is visible,... Description is very good, having description of the aircraft, story of its origin, pictures, and controls list.
5: ##Sorrell HiperBype modernised 4.3 by RamboJutter
- Design: 9.5/10
- Performance: 8.5/10
- Paint scheme: 9/10
- Build quality: 10/10
- Personal impression: 4/5
Description: 7.5/10
Total: 48.5/55
Very unusual but realistic design. A bit bulky. Performance are great, although I would expect a bit more maneuverability from what is basically an upscaled aerobatic biplane and ailerons tend to stall when flaps are lowered. Paint scheme is very nice and close to the original, but it could use registration or something similar, especially since you have so much flat area. Build quality is impressive. Interior with details, custom surfaces, smooth paint job, everything a build should have. Description is a bit short, but does explain the basics and has a few nice pictures to look at.
6: ##S.E Aviation AC-15 Beagle by Kimcotupan15
- Design: 8.5/10
- Performance: 8.5/10
- Paint scheme: 8/10
- Build quality: 9/10
- Personal impression: 5/5
Description: 6.5/10
Total: 47.5/55
Design is very nice, except for the slightly goofy nose. Another flaw I'm putting under "design" is blue collision avoidance light. Those are always red. Performance are great, except for takeoff (LG could be a bit closer to CoM, rotation is too sudden) and the fact that it easily passes its designated top speed in level flight at low altitude. Paint scheme is pleasant, but nothing spectacular. Nice details on it though. Build quality is good. Everything is custom, edited drag for more realistic power-to-weight, great flaps, etc. Description is very descriptive, but lacking graphic content.
7: ##Scout Dragonfly by jamesPLANESii
- Design: 6.5/10
- Performance: 9.5/10
- Paint scheme: 6.5/10
- Build quality: 8.5/10
- Personal impression: 4.5/5
Description: 7/10
Total: 42.5/55
Very unusual design, I'd say inspired by gliders. Forward swept wings would, I think, put CoL too far forward in real life, and horizontal stabilizers are pretty small. Performance are excellent, with my only complaint being the flaps being a bit too powerful. Paint scheme is nothing special, but there are writings on it, which is nice. Build quality is overall very nice, with everything being custom, custom interior with working screen, but it's lacking in exterior details and technique used to make wings is far from the best. Description is short, but provides some nice pictures.
- Design: 10/10
- Performance: 3.5/10
- Paint scheme: 9/10
- Build quality: 8/10
- Personal impression: 3/5
Description: 7/10
Total: 40.5/55
Design is perfect. Exactly what I had in mind when I started the challenge. All major components are in place. Paint scheme looks great on it. However, collisions aren't disabled on control surfaces, and them getting stuck affects the performance heavily and causes clicking noises. That great oversight reduced both quality and performance points. Also, takeoff/landing speed is I believe a bit too low. Description has very nice posters, but not much else.
9: ##AERODynamics CLUB-53SA Condor by Aeromen
- Design: 6.5/10
- Performance: 6/10
- Paint scheme: 7/10
- Build quality: 7/10
- Personal impression: 4/5
Description: 10/10
Total: 40/55
Design is pretty realistic, but a bit oversized. Flaps should have used all the trailing edge available, and doors are too small. There are also some unnecessary lights. Performance are extreme. Plane behaves like a fighter. Reaches speed of 500km/h at sea level. Other than that, good. Paint scheme is basic but nice, and has writings. Build quality is good overall with custom surfaces, and details, but stock landing gear is a big minus. Description is excellent.
10: ##Le-6 Pointer by jlewisifer
- Design: 8/10
- Performance: 8/10
- Paint scheme: 5/10
- Build quality: 5.5/10
- Personal impression: 5/5
Description: 7.5/10
Total: 39/55
Very cute design, with all major details in place. A bit simple and lacks flaps. Climbing into this one was easier than into most of the other low wing entries as author provided a step under the right wing. Extra points for that :)
Very smooth flyer, barely requiring any trim. Stall speed is non existent, as plane glides down at full pitch up with enngine off at parachute speed, and maintains docile characteristics while at it. A bit unrealistic for the design, but very impressive. Paint scheme is simple, but has some details and effort. There are some nice details and basic cockpit, but all control surfaces are stock. Description is pretty nice and lengthy, with some nice pictures.
11: ##MIK GA2 TwinLine by mikoyanster
- Design: 6/10
- Performance: 6.5/10
- Paint scheme: 8/10
- Build quality: 8/10
- Personal impression: 3/5
Description: 5/10
Total: 36.5/55
Design of the cockpit would give the pilot awful visibility. Flaps are tiny, and large part of the trailing edge is devoted to completely unnecessary airbrakes. Acceleration is better than on a jet fighter, which isn't good on GA twin. It can literally climb vertically. Paint scheme is basic, but with lots of details. Trailing edges are rounded, but landing gear is quite nice, and there are quite a few details. Description is too short, but has some nice pictures.
12: ##BE-76 Beechcraft Duchess by ThunderNova
- Design: 6.5/10
- Performance: 9/10
- Paint scheme: 8/10
- Build quality: 5/10
- Personal impression: 4/5
Description: 3/10
Total: 35.5/55
While it does look like the plane it represents, it is way more boxy and somewhat bulky. Performs like I would expect the real thing to perform (good climb rate, mediocre roll rate). Paint scheme is not spectacular, but it's realistic and suits the plane well. Build quality suffered, as there are no custom surfaces and scale is off. There are however some nice details, and main gear is pretty good. Description does explain how to use the plane, but it's a pretty "dry".
14: ##Wright Model 85A by WrightAirCo
- Design: 6.5/10
- Performance: 7/10
- Paint scheme: 5/10
- Build quality: 6.5/10
- Personal impression: 4/5
Description: 6/10
Total: 35/55
Design is quite good, although the fuselage is a bit narrow and you forgot flaps. Rearview mirrors are a bit out of place. Performance are exceptional for a plane without flaps. Braking on the ground is too quick. Paint scheme is quite basic, but fits the plane well. Build only has one custom control surface, but gear is nice and techniques used are quite part-efficient. Description is fine, but lacking pictures and tags.
@EternalDarkness thank´s for the upvote
@jlewisifer no problem.
@EternalDarkness well conducted challenge, thank you for the thorough review!
Np! @EternalDarkness
@jamesPLANESii I did eventually notice the size of tails is actually acceptable, but forgot to change the review. I did adjust the rating though. Thanks for reminding me.
The Le-6 Pointer by jlewisifer, there is actually a real plane (Erco Ercoupe) that looks almost identical to it, so I disagree with the statement "A bit unrealistic for the design"...unless you're mentioning something else on the plane lol.
@EternalDarkness when will be your next challenge?
@EternalDarkness Thanks! Kinda wish i didn't rush it now but eh. I'm good with 8th.
@jamesPLANESii all of your heavy components (engine, shaft, gesrs, probably tank) are behind or exactly at CoL. I've tried hard to be fair to everyone. I do like your build, and it's really good, but there are better ones and I had to adjust my rating scale in every area to cover the best possible as 10 and worst as 0. Also, these are short reviews, and I didn't state everything I like and dislike about every build, just what I found to be the most mention worthy.
Oh and the paint scheme, yeah, it’s simple, but with this plane, a complicated one (in my opinion) wouldn’t look very good. A good paint scheme doesn’t have to be a complicated paint scheme, does it? (I think 6.5/10 is a bit harsh)
I disagree with what you said by the wing location on my Scout Dragonfly. Although the wings sweep forward, their root is quite far back, and most of the mass of the plane is ahead of the wings. The rear section would be extremely light as it is of composite design, and all the systems are in the front, and it’s a two seater design. The fuselage would be quite front heavy. Also, if you look at gliders, their wings are located much further forward than my Dragonfly, and often have a sweep forward.
But yeah I agree with what you said about how I made the wings lol.
This is probably the most detailed analysis for a challenge I've ever seen
@Aeromen twenty seven.
@Zippy6 sure, I'll spotlight the build once it's posted. Other spotlight went to the entry itself.
@EternalDarkness I have a build that hasn’t been posted yet. When I do post it can you spotlight that and either my Boeing Quiet Bird and/or IS-2 biplane?
P.S. thanks for running this challenge. I needed an excuse to build this and I had a lot of fun building it!
@Zippy6 you can chose one more of your builds to be spotlighted.
Both othwane and James should have done better
@Chancey21 ok.
I would like my Spotlights on the Super Petrel, the Lil Cub, and I’ll save one for my next build that’s almost done @EternalDarkness
@TheAtomicFox
@LordAidanYT @Stoney @Garrett1235
@ND40X @Griffinthedragon @bolty
@Strikefighter04 @Tw1st3dPs7ch0 @Deboss311
@Deboss311 @GhostHTX @asteroidbook345
@mikoyanster @ThunderNova @WrightAirCo