First ever challenge: 46 upvotes, 13 spotlights, 6 submissions, and it's only been 3 days
This has surpassed my expectations to a level I could never have predicted. Thanks for all the support!
@Mastereldo
- Originality: 10/10 (very rare concept, also you seem to be the second T-4MS ever in SimplePlanes)
- Looks: 12/15 (very accurate, though it could have looked better with fuselage smoothing and fuselage tails)
- Performance: 12/15 (no problems overall, it can go supersonic and I'm able to blow stuff up with the missiles quite easily)
- Features: 5/5 (it has swing wing)
- Overall: 39/45 (much better than the Aurora you built previously)
@qazedcujmyhn
- Originality: 8/10 (rare design, but there are already a few on SP)
- Looks: 9/15 (it looks good, but the plane looks more like a Boeing 767 than a Boeing 727, which the 7J7 looks more like.)
- Performance: 15/15 (everything works like it should, flight is stable too)
- Features: 5/5 (since it has the propfans)
- Overall: 37/45 (it's a really good airliner, it's just that it's not accurate enough)
@CR929thenewSPplayer
- Originality: 10/10 (plane's very rarely talked about, plus this seems to be the only HS.141 on SimplePlanes)
- Looks: 14/15 (looks exactly like the real one, I really like it!)
- Performance: 11/15 (pitches up a lot when flying, although I figured out that I can fly straight when I turn on the VTOL engines)
- Features: 5/5 (you successfully added in the main feature of the HS.141, VTOL)
- Overall: 40/45 (excellent job, I've saved the aircraft for use in future, if I could upvote this, I would)
@Rick09
- Originality: 9/10 (I never even heard of this plane until you posted it, good job!)
- Looks: 11/15 (looks nice at a first glance, quite accurate too, I really like the fact that it has a working cockpit. Just change the tail shape to make it more accurate, and make the cockpit look more 1940-ish.)
- Performance: 10/15 (flies quite well, only bad thing is that it's unstable, although the real plane's performance wasn't that good either)
- Features: 5/5 (it's suitable as a fighter, and has working guns too)
- Overall: 35/45 (good job!)
@UnitedDC4TwaL1049
- Originality: 6/10 (XB-70's quite a well-known aircraft)
- Looks: 2/15 ("looks really horrible", to quote UnitedDC4TwaL1049. The proportions are completely off, and the plane thus looks more like a fighter jet than a bomber. Also the plane's made using basic building techniques and the landing gear's not straight, making the plane lie on its tail. Also what is that random pylon doing there, not attached to anything at all)
- Performance: 3/15 (elevators are inverted, took a few tries before I could stabilise the plane, and even so, when I retract the landing gear, the plane suddenly spins out of control)
- Features: 2/5 (it's supposed to be a supersonic bomber, but it doesn't go supersonic, nor does it drop any bombs, also no folding wingtips)
- Overall: 13/45 (mission failed, better luck next time)
@AlivePan hello there
@Kingachuuu yes
Approved
Interesting plane
Approved
hmm a block plane
Rip 🪦
+1@TheSonOfThunder thank you so much!
+1@TheSonOfThunder even though not many planes were produced, it still got beyond the prototype stage, so it can’t qualify, sorry
+1That’s one huge nose
+1@qazedcujmyhn thx
First ever challenge: 46 upvotes, 13 spotlights, 6 submissions, and it's only been 3 days
+1This has surpassed my expectations to a level I could never have predicted. Thanks for all the support!
@Mastereldo
+3- Originality:
10/10(very rare concept, also you seem to be the second T-4MS ever in SimplePlanes)- Looks:
12/15(very accurate, though it could have looked better with fuselage smoothing and fuselage tails)- Performance:
12/15(no problems overall, it can go supersonic and I'm able to blow stuff up with the missiles quite easily)- Features:
5/5(it has swing wing)- Overall:
39/45(much better than the Aurora you built previously)Also can I use your engines for something I'm making? @qazedcujmyhn
@qazedcujmyhn
+1- Originality:
8/10(rare design, but there are already a few on SP)- Looks:
9/15(it looks good, but the plane looks more like a Boeing 767 than a Boeing 727, which the 7J7 looks more like.)- Performance:
15/15(everything works like it should, flight is stable too)- Features:
5/5(since it has the propfans)- Overall:
37/45(it's a really good airliner, it's just that it's not accurate enough)@CR929thenewSPplayer
+1- Originality:
10/10(plane's very rarely talked about, plus this seems to be the only HS.141 on SimplePlanes)- Looks:
14/15(looks exactly like the real one, I really like it!)- Performance:
11/15(pitches up a lot when flying, although I figured out that I can fly straight when I turn on the VTOL engines)- Features:
5/5(you successfully added in the main feature of the HS.141, VTOL)- Overall:
40/45(excellent job, I've saved the aircraft for use in future, if I could upvote this, I would)@Rick09
- Originality:
9/10(I never even heard of this plane until you posted it, good job!)- Looks:
11/15(looks nice at a first glance, quite accurate too, I really like the fact that it has a working cockpit. Just change the tail shape to make it more accurate, and make the cockpit look more 1940-ish.)- Performance:
10/15(flies quite well, only bad thing is that it's unstable, although the real plane's performance wasn't that good either)- Features:
5/5(it's suitable as a fighter, and has working guns too)- Overall:
35/45(good job!)Approved
Much better-looking this time
+3When FedEx is FedUp with you
+1@CR929thenewSPplayer I’m at school, will do it when I get home
Accepted
but why does it look like a 767 (the real 7J7’s based off the 727)
@HololiveFan2009 it’s 226 upvotes now
+1(my bad)
@okand sorry what?
@Jackflysplane001 the manufacturer operates its own cargo airline i think
+1first comment...?
T... i guess?
Wait, did you literally get gold from just one plane
if you did that's really impressive 👍
@Emuoverlord sure, just remember to follow the rules
@CR929thenewSPplayer yes
also the abbreviation for “I don’t know” is IDK, not IDN
787
Approved
Nice art
+3Also tag a mod and ask them to make this post a successor to this challenge.
tutel
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
@Legomaster0418 my bad
@Mastereldo FBI OPEN UP
+3So yeah, I think the answer is clear now
@Rick09 besides your submission, there are already 3 other builds; go check the list of successors to this post
Approved
will judge it later
first plane (I mean car)
@ChronicMotors no, sorry
@FirstFish83828 i'm afraid that's classified
+1@AirJMC just attach the nose to a hinge rotator
@AirJMC oh the one with the swinging nose door
@FirstFish83828 bye
+1Classified photograph of the crash of one of the 2 SR-91-A1 prototypes, RAF Boscombe Down, Wiltshire 26 September 1994
+1@Mastereldo one comment on the plane: the fuselage looks much better when I use fuselage smoothing
+1What does the 6-digit string of letters and numbers represent
@UnitedDC4TwaL1049
+3- Originality:
6/10(XB-70's quite a well-known aircraft)- Looks:
2/15("looks really horrible", to quote UnitedDC4TwaL1049. The proportions are completely off, and the plane thus looks more like a fighter jet than a bomber. Also the plane's made using basic building techniques and the landing gear's not straight, making the plane lie on its tail. Also what is that random pylon doing there, not attached to anything at all)- Performance:
3/15(elevators are inverted, took a few tries before I could stabilise the plane, and even so, when I retract the landing gear, the plane suddenly spins out of control)- Features:
2/5(it's supposed to be a supersonic bomber, but it doesn't go supersonic, nor does it drop any bombs, also no folding wingtips)- Overall:
13/45(mission failed, better luck next time)@Bryan5 wait there are variants???
+12 hours, 41 upvotes
(to any mods) is this considered a political debate? If it is I’m sorry
+1Approved
but i guarantee this will not get many points, I’m really sorry
+1