@VerySaltySniper it's still not bad. I've seen far worse builds outside this category. There were even a dozen I disqualified. You still have stuff to learn, like proportion and fuselage wings. That and difficult takeoff got you here.
@LEOPARDtec I have given the same amount of thought to your build as I did to all others. It doesn't fly that bad once it's off the ground, but takeoff is difficult. That's why it got low points for performance. Since I took exactness as a "design" for replica entries, low score there comes from the fact that it's not exact, but is recognizable. "Quality" part is explained in a comment below.
@Benkelmans that's how much I like the plane. It is usually proportioned to the rest of the score (if the plane looks and flies well, if course I'll like it), so there's not much point in having it.
@FarrowAirlines biplanes were usually characterised by unusually thin airfoils, due to the lack of need to support themselves. Those wings usually featured significant chamber in order to provide maximum lift. Thick wings came with monoplanes, after engineers figured out struts increase drag. I do understand that you have invested a lot of work into your build, but so did others. I had to judge fairly, and it wasn't easy.
@Lahoski107 it was a rough pick. I like both entries. In the end, lack of stall speed on the blue plane, and it lacking a good presentation, is what decided.
I'm not sure about that engine placement. Engines would transfer vibrations directly to the fuselage, and would be difficult to access for maintenance. Maybe over wing placement would be better. I like the rest of this plane. Nice design.
@Supercraft888 description took a big chunk out of your points. Picture presentation would have brought you more points. Make me want to buy a plane like that. Literally to spend million dollars to have it in my hangar. I'm running a day behind schedule with judging the last category and putting up the list of the most pleasurable entries to use. Your entry will most probably be on it. You also have no details on the wings, and control surfaces are such that they give rounded trailing edge, which reduces quality points. Try using fuselage inlets for trailing edge. Use angle option of inlets to get swept trailing edge.
@kingofsteam it would make stuff a bit easier that way, but you can simply stack engines to just barely lift the craft, and then add a tiny bit of dead weight to make it "neutrally buoyant".
@Flightsimulator you need a direct link to an image written as "". Link must end in an image link (example: jpg, png), being a direct link to an image, not the page hosting an image. Don't forget exclamation mark in front.
@chancey21 he deleted account. He'll be back for SR2, or so he says. He deleted just when I was finished rating entries, as that link worked when I placed it there.
@newclear cockpit is too small and too far back. Pilot would be landing blind, not able to see the runway over the nose. You should try getting inspiration for layout of aircraft from real planes.
@VerySaltySniper it's still not bad. I've seen far worse builds outside this category. There were even a dozen I disqualified. You still have stuff to learn, like proportion and fuselage wings. That and difficult takeoff got you here.
@LEOPARDtec I have given the same amount of thought to your build as I did to all others. It doesn't fly that bad once it's off the ground, but takeoff is difficult. That's why it got low points for performance. Since I took exactness as a "design" for replica entries, low score there comes from the fact that it's not exact, but is recognizable. "Quality" part is explained in a comment below.
@Benkelmans probably. As soon as I decide to fly a certain kind of plane, and can't find enough of those on the site.
@Benkelmans that's how much I like the plane. It is usually proportioned to the rest of the score (if the plane looks and flies well, if course I'll like it), so there's not much point in having it.
This turned out quite well.
@F104Deathtrap thanks.
@FarrowAirlines biplanes were usually characterised by unusually thin airfoils, due to the lack of need to support themselves. Those wings usually featured significant chamber in order to provide maximum lift. Thick wings came with monoplanes, after engineers figured out struts increase drag. I do understand that you have invested a lot of work into your build, but so did others. I had to judge fairly, and it wasn't easy.
Dornier Do-335 on steroids :)
@F104Deathtrap I can't give you all the upvotes. I have already upvoted all your builds XD
@Lahoski107 no problem. I'm glad that someone actually pays attention to this.
@Lahoski107 it was a rough pick. I like both entries. In the end, lack of stall speed on the blue plane, and it lacking a good presentation, is what decided.
@jamesPLANESii congrats. Pick two builds to be spotlighted along with your entry.
@F104Deathtrap congrats. Pick a build to be spotlighted along with your entry.
@Kimcotupan15 congrats. Your prize is coming.
@mikoyanster
@LEOPARDtec
@FarrowAirlines
@VerySaltySniper
I'm not sure about that engine placement. Engines would transfer vibrations directly to the fuselage, and would be difficult to access for maintenance. Maybe over wing placement would be better. I like the rest of this plane. Nice design.
@Supercraft888 description took a big chunk out of your points. Picture presentation would have brought you more points. Make me want to buy a plane like that. Literally to spend million dollars to have it in my hangar. I'm running a day behind schedule with judging the last category and putting up the list of the most pleasurable entries to use. Your entry will most probably be on it. You also have no details on the wings, and control surfaces are such that they give rounded trailing edge, which reduces quality points. Try using fuselage inlets for trailing edge. Use angle option of inlets to get swept trailing edge.
@kingofsteam no problem. If you need more, I probably won't be available for a few hours, but I'll be glad to help when I'm back online.
@kingofsteam it would make stuff a bit easier that way, but you can simply stack engines to just barely lift the craft, and then add a tiny bit of dead weight to make it "neutrally buoyant".
You can set a jet engine to counter 99.9% of the mass, and fly like it floats in the air.
Impressive build.
@Flightsimulator you need a direct link to an image written as "". Link must end in an image link (example: jpg, png), being a direct link to an image, not the page hosting an image. Don't forget exclamation mark in front.
@Authros @ShatSlanger @Benkelmans congratulations. Your rewards are coming.
@Benkelmans
@ShatSlanger
@Othawne
@Sarpanitu
@mikoyanster
@hopotumon
@Authros
@Tully2001
@Razor3278
@Thoum
@GhostHTX
@Supercraft888
@Alien no problem.
@SimpleJoe thanks.
@chancey21 he deleted account. He'll be back for SR2, or so he says. He deleted just when I was finished rating entries, as that link worked when I placed it there.
@jamesPLANESii I could, but then I'd have to give such for all, which would take ages.
@mikoyanster np
@newclear no problem
@Sgtk no problem.
@LostNight I'm glad you enjoyed.
@newclear cockpit is too small and too far back. Pilot would be landing blind, not able to see the runway over the nose. You should try getting inspiration for layout of aircraft from real planes.
Thanks for the entry. Better late than never :)
@F104Deathtrap lol, thanks
Here's one more: Trainer challenge is being judged. Last chance to push through prop entries, too late for jet ones.
@BogdanX thanks for the offer, but that won't be necessary. You can't spotlight yourself :)
@Blue0Bull you earned them. I'm glad you enjoyed.
@mikoyanster sorry, I can't spotlight you yet. I'll turn your spotlight into an upvote on a mod post.
@BaconAircraft congrats. Your prize will come soon. Chose two of your builds to be spotlighted.
@BogdanX congrats. Unfortunately, I have upvoted all your builds, and I can't spotlight you.
@Phoza
@Sarpanitu
@Alien
@Faded
@grizzlitn
@Homemadeforthepros
@Supermini555
@SangerAircraft
@Sgtk
@KHH
@SimpleJoe
@Ian1231100
@Alienbeef0421