PART TWO OF GA Challenge Results

15: ##Cessna 337 Super Skymaster by Deboss311

• Design: 7/10
• Performance: 9/10
• Paint scheme: 6/10
• Build quality: 5/10
• Personal impression: 5/5

• Description: 3.5/10

• Total: 34.5/55

Nice choice of plane. You've made sure to get every major detail on it. It's close to scale too, I'd say. Performance are good, except the lack of flaps changing takeoff/landing performance. Paint scheme is realistic, but roughly made, reducing a few points in both paint scheme and build quality categories. Also, lack of flaps and surfaces being stock reduces "quality". However, gear is custom, all features are working, and the plane is holding together, which are all plusses. Description is pretty dry. Overall, very good for a bronze user.

16: ##Ghost Dynamics GD-201 Sparrow by GhostHTX

• Design: 6/10
• Performance: 9/10
• Paint scheme: 5/10
• Build quality: 8/10
• Personal impression: 4/5

• Description: 1/10

• Total: 33/55

Dummies aren't life-sized, and making the cockpit around them caused it to be too small. Performance are good, except that flaps don't provide a lot of extra lift and brakes are unedited, making the plane feel like slamming into a wall while braking. Paint scheme is basic, but has registration on it and suits the plane. Sharp trailing edge is always better than a rounded one, but cockpit is very nice and landing gear is good. There's barely any description.

17: ##Ring Wing Mk.1 by asteroidbook345

• Design: 6/10
• Performance: 5.5/10
• Paint scheme: 4/10
• Build quality: 7/10
• Personal impression: 3.5/5

• Description: 4/10

• Total: 30/55

This plane has a very unusual and likeable design idea behind it. However, it's not well executed. Canopy is huge, and tail surfaces are tiny. It pulls left on the runway and rolls slightly to the left, and doesn't like low speed landings. Paint scheme is pretty basic, with some effort being made on in on the "wingtips". All control surfaces are custom, but there's not much in terms of details. Description is a bit plain and only has one picture of the plane that was an inspiration for the build.

18: ##Lykins UC-1 Colt by Strikefighter04

• Design: 4/10
• Performance: 6/10
• Paint scheme: 5/10
• Build quality: 5/10
• Personal impression: 2/5

• Description: 7/10

• Total: 29/55

While I see where you were going with the design, it isn't very well executed. The fuselage rear doesn't taper in height as much as it should, wing cord is unusually large for this kind of plane, horizontal stabilizers are way out of proportion, and engines in nacelles are the thing of the 1930s, not 2010s. Landing gear that rises but doesn't retract has all disadvantages and no advantages of retractable gear. Paint scheme is simple but pleasant. Build quality is pretty low as you don't even have flaps, surfaces are all stock, actual elevators are tiny. Bonus points for interior though. I can't see pictures in description, but I'll accept that they are there, hence nice rating in description area.

19: ##Em-11 Orka M3 by Tw1st3dPs7ch0

• Design: 6/10
• Performance: 6.5/10
• Paint scheme: 3/10
• Build quality: 4.5/10
• Personal impression: 4/5

• Description: 3.5/10

• Total: 27.5/55

Build is larger than it should be by around 50%, and shape of the windows is off. Lots of small details though. Performance are good, except that the plane is overpowered and too maneuverable. Very smooth on landing. Paint scheme is very basic, but has a logo on the tail. Rudder is stuck, and all other control surfaces are stock. Custom landing gear gives good shock absorption. Description is very short and lacks pictures.

20: ##Zenith Ch 750 Super Duty by Deboss311

• Design: 3/10
• Performance: 6/10
• Paint scheme: 2/10
• Build quality: 5.5/10
• Personal impression: 3/5

• Description: 6/10

• Total: 25.5/55

Build is out of scale and out of proportion, but does look like Ch-750. Performance are acceptable, except for ineffective flaps, abysmal roll rate, and tendency to stall on takeoff. Paint scheme is very basic. Only main wing control surfaces are semi-custom, but there's a bit of interior which is a plus. Description has everything it's supposed to have except pictures. It could have been longer though.

21: ##Lightning Aircraft Industries NJ-96 by ND40X

• Design: 5/10
• Performance: 3.5/10
• Paint scheme: 3.5/10
• Build quality: 4/10
• Personal impression: 2/5

• Description: 5.5/10

• Total: 23.5/55

The overall proportion is decent, although control surfaces (especially the rudder) should have been bigger and landing gear taller. Counter-rotating props are out of place here. Performance aren't quite good, with takeoff speed being around 200km/h and plane needing constant pitch up to stay level even at full trim. Paint scheme is basic. Build quality is average. While all control surfaces are stock, landing gear is nice and there's quite a few nice details. Description says all it should say, but has no pictures.

22: ##cessna 337 by Griffinthedragon

• Design: 2/10
• Performance: 3.5/10
• Paint scheme: 6/10
• Build quality: 3/10
• Personal impression: 2/5

• Description: 2/10

• Total: 18.5/55

Design does remind of Cessna 337, but fuselage is too narrow, there are no intakes and exhausts for either engine, no major details, and the build is out of proportion. Takeoff speed is very high due to gear being far behind CoM, and there is elevator stall at full deflection. There is no trim, and flaps move both ways, which is bad. Paint scheme shows effort, and does look quite nice. Surfaces are custom (except rudders), but rounded. Landing gear retracts weirdly, in a very impossible way. Penalty for using challenge logo on the build without request or credit. Description is just a few pictures. Nice pictures, but still...

23: ##bolt aerospace 145 pigion by bolty

• Design: 4/10
• Performance: 3/10
• Paint scheme: 5/10
• Build quality: 3/10
• Personal impression: 2/5

• Description: 1/10

• Total: 18/55

I see what you tried to do with the design (Cessna-172 style), but you've missed proportion quite a bit. Performance aren't terrible once you get airborne, as the plane can maintain altitude with around four degrees AoA. Paint scheme is very simple, but fitting. There are no custom control surfaces, no custom airfoils, no custom anything but gear, putting out a low "quality" score. Description very short and doesn't give any significant information about the plane.

24: ##Aidan’s General Aviation Aircraft by LordAidanYT

• Design: 3/10
• Performance: 6/10
• Paint scheme: 1/10
• Build quality: 4/10
• Personal impression: 1/5

• Description: 1.5/10

• Total: 16.5/55

Design is very rough, assembled out of flat plates. Performance are pretty good, except for very high landing speed (required to keep the nose up) and lack of flaps. Requires maximum trim at all times. Paint scheme is very basic. There is not much custom stuff on it except interior. Stock wings with stock control surfaces. Description just states how to use the build. Not much else.

25: ##Private Prop by Stoney

• Design: 3.5/10
• Performance: 2/10
• Paint scheme: 4/10
• Build quality: 3/10
• Personal impression: 1.5/5

• Description: 1/10

• Total: 15/55

A generic twin prop design. It lacks flaps, which are an important feature. Not many details on it. It can barely hold itself in the air, requiring constant positive AoA to maintain altitude. Some effort has been made in the paint department. Colors picked really suit the build, and there are some basic stripes. Build quality is pretty low, with the build lacking custom surfaces, custom gear, and having only a few details like engine exhaust pipes. Description, well, exists...

26: ##PTA-2 Blazer by Garrett1235

• Design: 3/10
• Performance: 3/10
• Paint scheme: 2/10
• Build quality: 3/10
• Personal impression: 1/5

• Description: 2.5/10

• Total: 14.5/55

Very unusual design. Very impractical too, as internal layout wouldn't be very good and tail booms would put huge strain on wingtips. Plane rolls heavily to the right and tends to turn on the runway. Paint scheme is very basic, and consists of trims of some parts being painted different color. There's custom landing gear, which is the best feature of this build, but it retracts via VTOL, not LandingGear input. Description lists controls and and some basic features (theoretical).

27: ##GA Challenge Entry Part 2. The Return by TheAtomicFox

• Design: 2.5/10
• Performance: 1/10
• Paint scheme: 1/10
• Build quality: 2/10
• Personal impression: 0.5/5

• Description: 1/10

• Total: 8/55

Design of this build is cute, but needs a lot of perfecting. Performance are very poor, with plane being virtually unflyable without a gyro. There's no paint scheme whatsoever, with even tires on wheels being white. Description, eh... It's there, I guess...