Realism (75/100): Excellent Cold War–style design with historically consistent proportions, performance, and concept. The flight model feels authentic for a late‑1950s supersonic fighter.
Weapons (30/30): Well‑balanced and plausible armament, realistically integrated and following the challenge rules.
Appearance (29/30): Detailed and cohesive build with strong external modeling and surface finishing. The jet’s silhouette perfectly fits the era.
Build Quality (20/30): Technically solid with functional systems, clean assembly, and a working cockpit.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant—part count, weight, and performance all within challenge parameters.
Description (30/30): Outstanding write‑up—rich technical history, complete lore, and professional presentation. Among the best in documentation quality.
Total: 214/250 points.
A beautifully crafted, realistic aircraft with excellent storytelling and technical fidelity. One of the top entries—balanced, detailed, and fully rule‑compliant.
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (0/30)
Total: 140/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (30/30): Excellent lore, combining historical context and technical explanation with clarity and immersion.
Total: 170/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
Realism (40/100): Basic but plausible shape for a 1950s-style jet. However, extremely simplified and lacks detailed realism.
Weapons (25/30): Assuming standard challenge armament, acceptable but not specified.
Appearance (20/30): Clean but overly simple design with minimal detail and texture work.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very basic structure and limited surfaces.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — only 107 parts, below the 200-part minimum.
Description (15/30): Lacks historical or technical background beyond numbers.
Total: 120/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
Functional but incomplete model that fails the minimum construction requirement for the challenge.
Realism (60/100): The general silhouette resembles the real Su-7, but the model lacks aerodynamic detail and surface refinement. Flight behavior is acceptable but oversimplified.
Weapons (25/30): Armament not specified; assuming compliance with challenge limits, it’s acceptable but basic.
Appearance (20/30): Recognizable Su-7 shape, yet wings, fuselage, and landing gear are extremely simple. Cockpit lacks any detailing.
Build Quality (12/30): Structurally stable but very rudimentary. Minimal complexity in surfaces and components.
Fair Play (25/30): Part count is below minimum (only 101, while 200 required), which disqualifies the entry.
Description (15/30): No defined history or specs beyond basic parameters.
Total: 157/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
A basic early-stage build resembling a Su-7, but lacking realism, cockpit work, and fine detailing. Needs major improvement for competition standards.
Realism (65/100): The concept fits well within 1950s Soviet jet design philosophy—twin-engine, subsonic interceptor. Flight profile and stats are believable, though the aircraft’s form and aerodynamic detailing are overly simple.
Weapons (30/30): Armament (four 23mm cannons + four missiles) fits both the era and the challenge rules. Properly integrated and balanced.
Appearance (14/30): Simplistic but coherent design. Lacks finesse in shaping—especially fuselage curvature, landing gear, and cockpit detailing.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid and functional with decent performance; structure could benefit from finer detailing and more defined control surfaces.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits (part count, weight, and speed).
Description (28/30): Fun and creative lore written with a clear Cold War tone, complemented by proper credits and context.
Total: 184/250 points.
A straightforward, functional build with a clear 1950s Soviet aesthetic—technically compliant, but visually and structurally basic compared to top-tier entries.
Realism (30/100): Unfinished and highly unrealistic. The design lacks coherence with 1950s aircraft technology, and flight behavior is exaggerated.
Weapons (10/30): Includes a ground weapons cart, which falls outside challenge parameters.
Appearance (10/30): Extremely basic and incomplete, with minimal shaping or detailing.
Build Quality (15/30): Very rough construction, limited control surfaces, and incomplete systems.
Fair Play (0/30): Violates multiple rules—does not reach the 200-part minimum, uses external items not allowed, and doesn’t meet realism or performance standards.
Description (10/30): Lacks proper technical or historical information.
Total: 75/250 points – Disqualified.
The build is an unfinished concept and does not meet the challenge’s technical or construction requirements.
Realism (45/100): Very poor aerodynamic design; shape and proportions are far from the real T-37. Boxy fuselage and unrealistic flight profile make it feel inaccurate for a 1950s jet trainer.
Weapons (—/30): Not applicable or minimal, but compliant with the rules if unarmed.
Appearance (15/30): Extremely basic model with rough geometry and minimal surface or cockpit detail.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very rudimentary structure, lacking refinement in assembly and proportions.
Fair Play (25/30): Low part count (146) falls below challenge minimum (200), disqualifying it technically. No sign of cheating or mods, however.
Description (27/30): Historical background is accurate and well-written, providing good informational value.
Total: 132/250 points.
A basic, beginner-level build: functional but poorly shaped, lacking realism and aerodynamic refinement. Needs major visual and structural improvement to meet challenge standards.
Realism (90/100): Unique concept for a 1950s jet flying boat, with believable specs and plausible jet performance. The wing design is unusual but consistent with its seaplane purpose. Lacks retractable gear, which limits operational realism.
Weapons (29/30): Proper and balanced armament of three NR-23 cannons, accurate for the era and concept.
Appearance (28/30): Nicely detailed with a distinctive configuration; good textures and shapes. The cockpit is functional and reasonably detailed, though not exceptional.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and fluid functionality. Minor aerodynamic or control refinements could improve realism.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits and no violations detected.
Description (29/30): Clear and interesting lore with solid technical detailing and historical flavor.
Total: 234/250 points.
An imaginative, well-made jet seaplane with realistic design principles and good execution—remarkably original, though a landing gear option would enhance versatility and realism.
Realism (92/100): Excellent aerodynamic design and proportions consistent with early-1950s jet technology. Balanced performance and believable specifications, though slight improvements could be made to landing gear realism and cockpit polish.
Weapons (28/30): Historically plausible dual DEFA 30mm setup, appropriate for its described era and capabilities.
Appearance (28/30): Clean, refined shape with very good exterior lines and wing geometry. Minor cockpit and landing gear detailing could raise visual quality further.
Build Quality (29/30): Solid construction with coherent assembly and realistic control behavior; landing gear needs minor refinement.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully complies with challenge limits and regulations.
Description (30/30): Well-written fictional backstory with strong internal logic, detailed specs, and immersive historical tone.
Total: 237/250 points.
A sleek and well-balanced fictional jet with realistic performance and excellent design consistency—just a few small areas (gear and cockpit detail) to perfect.
Realism (94/100): Excellent 1950s design, cohesive with British fighter aesthetics and specs of the era. Flight performance feels authentic and balanced, though landing gear realism could be slightly improved.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly fitted twin ADEN 30mm cannons—accurate for the aircraft’s concept and era.
Appearance (28/30): Elegant, detailed model with strong historical consistency and thoughtful texturing. Minor detailing could still be refined on smaller components.
Build Quality (29/30): Very solid construction with functional systems and working cockpit; landing gear needs slight adjustment for smoother operation.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within rules—parts, performance, and weight limits respected.
Description (30/30): Exceptionally written with rich lore, technical specifics, and operational history. Fully immersive and professional.
Total: 241/250 points.
A beautiful, realistic creation with an authentic 1950s feel. Excellent craftsmanship and writing—among the best-balanced entries in the challenge.
Realism (50/100): Design and flight model are very basic and far from realistic 1950s jet behavior. Handling and proportions feel simplified, with doubtful aerodynamic coherence.
Weapons (25/30): Armament within the allowed limit, but mix of missile types and gun calibers feels unbalanced for the era.
Appearance (15/30): Very low detail level; rough shapes, simple geometry, and minimal surface work. Cockpit interior is crude and lacks realism.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but primitive. Visible alignment issues and structural simplicity reduce build quality.
Fair Play (25/30): Within rule limits, though part count is below minimum (requires at least 200).
Description (25/30): Provides some creative lore, but it’s fictional and lacks technical depth compared with historical entries.
Total: 160/250 points.
A functional but very rough aircraft—basic geometry, unrealistic flight model, and low detail. Creativity noted, but major refinement is needed for realism and build quality.
Realism (97/100): Highly accurate model with proportions, flight characteristics, and performance matching real data. The four-gun setup (instead of six) complies with challenge requirements without breaking realism.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly implemented and balanced armament, following the challenge limits.
Appearance (30/30): Outstanding detail inside and out; exceptional surface work, paint accuracy, and cockpit realism. One of the most visually complete builds of the challenge.
Build Quality (30/30): Perfect structural integrity, all controls and systems function smoothly.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all rule limits—part count, performance, and armament compliant.
Description (30/30): Thorough historical and technical context, well-written, and complete.
Total: 247/250 points.
A top-tier entry—superbly detailed, realistic, and fully compliant. One of the strongest candidates in the challenge.
Realism (88/100): Good overall shape and proportions, accurate to the real MiG-15Bis, with convincing flight dynamics. Slightly high power/weight ratio (2.918) compared to real specs but still balanced.
Weapons (30/30): Correct historical armament configuration—one N-37 and two NR-23 cannons—properly implemented.
Appearance (25/30): Exterior model captures the main lines well but lacks surface and small structural detailing compared to similar entries.
Build Quality (29/30): Solidly built with functional controls; no technical issues observed.
Fair Play (30/30): Within all rule limits—part count, performance, and weight are compliant.
Description (27/30): Clear and informative, though slightly more historical depth or specs could improve immersion.
Total: 229/250 points.
A faithful and clean MiG-15Bis build—accurate in shape and performance, but with less detail and cabin refinement than higher-rated entries.
Realism (90/100): Faithful representation of the MiG-17 with correct proportions and behavior. Flight dynamics feel authentic for a 1950s transonic fighter. The power/weight ratio may be slightly unrealistic (3.225), but performance seems balanced in practice.
Weapons (30/30): Historically accurate cannon setup—one N-37 and two NR-23s—properly used and compliant.
Appearance (26/30): The exterior looks accurate and clean, but landing gear details and cockpit interior could use refinement.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and functional controls; however, minor imperfections on gear mechanics.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge parameters and rule limits.
Description (28/30): Thorough historical and technical background with good clarity and structure.
Total: 232/250 points.
A well-balanced and realistic build, slightly rough in cockpit and landing gear detail but fully valid for the challenge.
Realism (95/100): Excellent handling and realistic flight performance based on real specs. Acceleration modeling is thoughtfully tuned, and small fictional touches (inner AIM-9 mounts) are acceptable.
Weapons (30/30): Correct and balanced armament—four ADEN cannons and four AIM-9Bs, properly integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Clean, elegant model with accurate proportions. Visual detailing could be higher; roundels built from parts instead of decals slightly lower realism.
Build Quality (30/30): Very well assembled; strong structure and good surface alignment.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge limits—part count, weight, and performance are compliant.
Description (28/30): Informative and technical, though a bit brief compared to the standard required for immersion.
Total: 240/250 points.
Beautifully built and perfectly within the challenge rules—a solid and realistic entry.
Realism (85/100): Accurate proportions and authentic flight behavior for a 1950s jet. However, the part count (1,891) far exceeds the 600-part limit. VR cockpit works but lacks refinement.
Weapons (28/30): Correct armament used and well integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Exterior looks excellent with proper 1950s Navy paint; cockpit detailing is rough.
Build Quality (30/30): Technically solid, all control surfaces and features work properly.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified due to excessive part count.
Description (30/30): Strong historical and technical write-up.
Total: 200/250 (disqualified for rules violation).
A beautiful and faithful build, but not eligible for the challenge due to part count.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I think a pro-rata system for penalty kicks is better, so it's proportional to all players who exceed the maximum number of parts. Keep in mind that the purpose of the maximum number of parts is to prevent the game from crashing during dogfights with Simpleplanes' AI. In other words, it's a rule there for a reason: to facilitate combat and ensure the game runs smoothly. Furthermore, you don't need that many parts to build a good aircraft model. So less is more, and this also tests your ability to build the same aircraft with fewer parts and better optimization, without compromising its details.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I completely understand. I would have liked to use the cannons too. However, when you engage in dogfights against the SimplePlanes AI, once they start firing, they keep firing until the weapon is completely empty. In other words, they don't fire in bursts and stop until the target is back in range. That's why the cannons aren't used. It's to avoid that bug in the game, which is quite unpleasant during combat.
You can only use the weapons provided in this post. You'll see a cart with the missiles and cannons you can use. This is to ensure balanced combat. Without this rule, you could cheat and create missiles that would give your opponents no chance.
The goal is to build a functional, VR-ready aircraft with a 1950s aesthetic. The better the design, the more points it will earn.
You can change the size of the cannons as long as it doesn't affect their combat specifications.
@upperflat According to the rules, you can modify the engine, as long as you do not exceed: Maximum speed: 950 mph at sea level, 1,350 mph at 34,000 feet
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread On the other hand, these types of techniques have been well-tested by SimplePlanes' AI when it has to face other aircraft. Don't forget that this aircraft was designed to be used by the game's AI in dogfights.
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread Your analysis makes sense from a real‑life aerodynamics perspective — excessive drag from large airbrakes would indeed penalize energy retention in sustained turns. However, in SimplePlanes (or similar simulators), their effect often depends more on balance and control modeling than on strict aerodynamic realism.
If the airbrake in this jet activates slightly during turns, it could be serving as a stability aid to help manage pitch or prevent overspeed tendencies rather than acting as a continuous drag plate. Real aircraft like the F‑15 or Su‑27 use control surfaces that can behave somewhat similarly when coupled to flight control logic (though usually not pure airbrakes).
So while your point about energy retention and turn performance is correct in practical aeronautics, in this context it might have been a deliberate design compromise for gameplay handling or visual effect rather than aerodynamic realism.
Dekara KP‑12 “Onslaught” – Evaluation
Realism (75/100): Excellent Cold War–style design with historically consistent proportions, performance, and concept. The flight model feels authentic for a late‑1950s supersonic fighter.
Weapons (30/30): Well‑balanced and plausible armament, realistically integrated and following the challenge rules.
Appearance (29/30): Detailed and cohesive build with strong external modeling and surface finishing. The jet’s silhouette perfectly fits the era.
Build Quality (20/30): Technically solid with functional systems, clean assembly, and a working cockpit.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant—part count, weight, and performance all within challenge parameters.
Description (30/30): Outstanding write‑up—rich technical history, complete lore, and professional presentation. Among the best in documentation quality.
Total: 214/250 points.
+1A beautifully crafted, realistic aircraft with excellent storytelling and technical fidelity. One of the top entries—balanced, detailed, and fully rule‑compliant.
Disqualified. It doesn't have the shape of a 1950s airplane.
Disqualified for insufficient parts and armament.
J36 XSG(VR) – Evaluation
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (0/30)
Total: 140/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
J36 XSG Typhon – Evaluation
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (30/30): Excellent lore, combining historical context and technical explanation with clarity and immersion.
Total: 170/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
MIY-14 Foxhound – Evaluation
Realism (40/100): Basic but plausible shape for a 1950s-style jet. However, extremely simplified and lacks detailed realism.
Weapons (25/30): Assuming standard challenge armament, acceptable but not specified.
Appearance (20/30): Clean but overly simple design with minimal detail and texture work.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very basic structure and limited surfaces.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — only 107 parts, below the 200-part minimum.
Description (15/30): Lacks historical or technical background beyond numbers.
Total: 120/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
+1Functional but incomplete model that fails the minimum construction requirement for the challenge.
1850 SU-7 Export – Evaluation
Realism (60/100): The general silhouette resembles the real Su-7, but the model lacks aerodynamic detail and surface refinement. Flight behavior is acceptable but oversimplified.
Weapons (25/30): Armament not specified; assuming compliance with challenge limits, it’s acceptable but basic.
Appearance (20/30): Recognizable Su-7 shape, yet wings, fuselage, and landing gear are extremely simple. Cockpit lacks any detailing.
Build Quality (12/30): Structurally stable but very rudimentary. Minimal complexity in surfaces and components.
Fair Play (25/30): Part count is below minimum (only 101, while 200 required), which disqualifies the entry.
Description (15/30): No defined history or specs beyond basic parameters.
Total: 157/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
A basic early-stage build resembling a Su-7, but lacking realism, cockpit work, and fine detailing. Needs major improvement for competition standards.
Crackovovich Cra-4 “Forest” – Evaluation
Realism (65/100): The concept fits well within 1950s Soviet jet design philosophy—twin-engine, subsonic interceptor. Flight profile and stats are believable, though the aircraft’s form and aerodynamic detailing are overly simple.
Weapons (30/30): Armament (four 23mm cannons + four missiles) fits both the era and the challenge rules. Properly integrated and balanced.
Appearance (14/30): Simplistic but coherent design. Lacks finesse in shaping—especially fuselage curvature, landing gear, and cockpit detailing.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid and functional with decent performance; structure could benefit from finer detailing and more defined control surfaces.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits (part count, weight, and speed).
Description (28/30): Fun and creative lore written with a clear Cold War tone, complemented by proper credits and context.
Total: 184/250 points.
A straightforward, functional build with a clear 1950s Soviet aesthetic—technically compliant, but visually and structurally basic compared to top-tier entries.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Ok!
+1Accidentally Supermaneuverable Prototype – Evaluation
Realism (30/100): Unfinished and highly unrealistic. The design lacks coherence with 1950s aircraft technology, and flight behavior is exaggerated.
Weapons (10/30): Includes a ground weapons cart, which falls outside challenge parameters.
Appearance (10/30): Extremely basic and incomplete, with minimal shaping or detailing.
Build Quality (15/30): Very rough construction, limited control surfaces, and incomplete systems.
Fair Play (0/30): Violates multiple rules—does not reach the 200-part minimum, uses external items not allowed, and doesn’t meet realism or performance standards.
Description (10/30): Lacks proper technical or historical information.
Total: 75/250 points – Disqualified.
The build is an unfinished concept and does not meet the challenge’s technical or construction requirements.
Cessna T-37 Simple – Evaluation
Realism (45/100): Very poor aerodynamic design; shape and proportions are far from the real T-37. Boxy fuselage and unrealistic flight profile make it feel inaccurate for a 1950s jet trainer.
Weapons (—/30): Not applicable or minimal, but compliant with the rules if unarmed.
Appearance (15/30): Extremely basic model with rough geometry and minimal surface or cockpit detail.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very rudimentary structure, lacking refinement in assembly and proportions.
Fair Play (25/30): Low part count (146) falls below challenge minimum (200), disqualifying it technically. No sign of cheating or mods, however.
Description (27/30): Historical background is accurate and well-written, providing good informational value.
Total: 132/250 points.
A basic, beginner-level build: functional but poorly shaped, lacking realism and aerodynamic refinement. Needs major visual and structural improvement to meet challenge standards.
Chang-An SJ2 – Evaluation
Realism (90/100): Unique concept for a 1950s jet flying boat, with believable specs and plausible jet performance. The wing design is unusual but consistent with its seaplane purpose. Lacks retractable gear, which limits operational realism.
Weapons (29/30): Proper and balanced armament of three NR-23 cannons, accurate for the era and concept.
Appearance (28/30): Nicely detailed with a distinctive configuration; good textures and shapes. The cockpit is functional and reasonably detailed, though not exceptional.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and fluid functionality. Minor aerodynamic or control refinements could improve realism.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits and no violations detected.
Description (29/30): Clear and interesting lore with solid technical detailing and historical flavor.
Total: 234/250 points.
+1An imaginative, well-made jet seaplane with realistic design principles and good execution—remarkably original, though a landing gear option would enhance versatility and realism.
Aeron-13A "Screamer" – Evaluation
Realism (92/100): Excellent aerodynamic design and proportions consistent with early-1950s jet technology. Balanced performance and believable specifications, though slight improvements could be made to landing gear realism and cockpit polish.
Weapons (28/30): Historically plausible dual DEFA 30mm setup, appropriate for its described era and capabilities.
Appearance (28/30): Clean, refined shape with very good exterior lines and wing geometry. Minor cockpit and landing gear detailing could raise visual quality further.
Build Quality (29/30): Solid construction with coherent assembly and realistic control behavior; landing gear needs minor refinement.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully complies with challenge limits and regulations.
Description (30/30): Well-written fictional backstory with strong internal logic, detailed specs, and immersive historical tone.
Total: 237/250 points.
+1A sleek and well-balanced fictional jet with realistic performance and excellent design consistency—just a few small areas (gear and cockpit detail) to perfect.
Folland Flash F.1 – Evaluation
Realism (94/100): Excellent 1950s design, cohesive with British fighter aesthetics and specs of the era. Flight performance feels authentic and balanced, though landing gear realism could be slightly improved.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly fitted twin ADEN 30mm cannons—accurate for the aircraft’s concept and era.
Appearance (28/30): Elegant, detailed model with strong historical consistency and thoughtful texturing. Minor detailing could still be refined on smaller components.
Build Quality (29/30): Very solid construction with functional systems and working cockpit; landing gear needs slight adjustment for smoother operation.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within rules—parts, performance, and weight limits respected.
Description (30/30): Exceptionally written with rich lore, technical specifics, and operational history. Fully immersive and professional.
Total: 241/250 points.
+1A beautiful, realistic creation with an authentic 1950s feel. Excellent craftsmanship and writing—among the best-balanced entries in the challenge.
SVD-1 – Evaluation
Realism (50/100): Design and flight model are very basic and far from realistic 1950s jet behavior. Handling and proportions feel simplified, with doubtful aerodynamic coherence.
Weapons (25/30): Armament within the allowed limit, but mix of missile types and gun calibers feels unbalanced for the era.
Appearance (15/30): Very low detail level; rough shapes, simple geometry, and minimal surface work. Cockpit interior is crude and lacks realism.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but primitive. Visible alignment issues and structural simplicity reduce build quality.
Fair Play (25/30): Within rule limits, though part count is below minimum (requires at least 200).
Description (25/30): Provides some creative lore, but it’s fictional and lacks technical depth compared with historical entries.
Total: 160/250 points.
A functional but very rough aircraft—basic geometry, unrealistic flight model, and low detail. Creativity noted, but major refinement is needed for realism and build quality.
Republic F-84G "Thunderjet" – Evaluation
Realism (97/100): Highly accurate model with proportions, flight characteristics, and performance matching real data. The four-gun setup (instead of six) complies with challenge requirements without breaking realism.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly implemented and balanced armament, following the challenge limits.
Appearance (30/30): Outstanding detail inside and out; exceptional surface work, paint accuracy, and cockpit realism. One of the most visually complete builds of the challenge.
Build Quality (30/30): Perfect structural integrity, all controls and systems function smoothly.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all rule limits—part count, performance, and armament compliant.
Description (30/30): Thorough historical and technical context, well-written, and complete.
Total: 247/250 points.
A top-tier entry—superbly detailed, realistic, and fully compliant. One of the strongest candidates in the challenge.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15Bis – Evaluation
Realism (88/100): Good overall shape and proportions, accurate to the real MiG-15Bis, with convincing flight dynamics. Slightly high power/weight ratio (2.918) compared to real specs but still balanced.
Weapons (30/30): Correct historical armament configuration—one N-37 and two NR-23 cannons—properly implemented.
Appearance (25/30): Exterior model captures the main lines well but lacks surface and small structural detailing compared to similar entries.
Build Quality (29/30): Solidly built with functional controls; no technical issues observed.
Fair Play (30/30): Within all rule limits—part count, performance, and weight are compliant.
Description (27/30): Clear and informative, though slightly more historical depth or specs could improve immersion.
Total: 229/250 points.
A faithful and clean MiG-15Bis build—accurate in shape and performance, but with less detail and cabin refinement than higher-rated entries.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 Fresco – Evaluation
Realism (90/100): Faithful representation of the MiG-17 with correct proportions and behavior. Flight dynamics feel authentic for a 1950s transonic fighter. The power/weight ratio may be slightly unrealistic (3.225), but performance seems balanced in practice.
Weapons (30/30): Historically accurate cannon setup—one N-37 and two NR-23s—properly used and compliant.
Appearance (26/30): The exterior looks accurate and clean, but landing gear details and cockpit interior could use refinement.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and functional controls; however, minor imperfections on gear mechanics.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge parameters and rule limits.
Description (28/30): Thorough historical and technical background with good clarity and structure.
Total: 232/250 points.
A well-balanced and realistic build, slightly rough in cockpit and landing gear detail but fully valid for the challenge.
Hawker Hunter/J34 – Evaluation
Realism (95/100): Excellent handling and realistic flight performance based on real specs. Acceleration modeling is thoughtfully tuned, and small fictional touches (inner AIM-9 mounts) are acceptable.
Weapons (30/30): Correct and balanced armament—four ADEN cannons and four AIM-9Bs, properly integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Clean, elegant model with accurate proportions. Visual detailing could be higher; roundels built from parts instead of decals slightly lower realism.
Build Quality (30/30): Very well assembled; strong structure and good surface alignment.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge limits—part count, weight, and performance are compliant.
Description (28/30): Informative and technical, though a bit brief compared to the standard required for immersion.
Total: 240/250 points.
Beautifully built and perfectly within the challenge rules—a solid and realistic entry.
Grumman F9F-5 Panther VF-781 – Evaluation
Realism (85/100): Accurate proportions and authentic flight behavior for a 1950s jet. However, the part count (1,891) far exceeds the 600-part limit. VR cockpit works but lacks refinement.
Weapons (28/30): Correct armament used and well integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Exterior looks excellent with proper 1950s Navy paint; cockpit detailing is rough.
Build Quality (30/30): Technically solid, all control surfaces and features work properly.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified due to excessive part count.
Description (30/30): Strong historical and technical write-up.
Total: 200/250 (disqualified for rules violation).
+1A beautiful and faithful build, but not eligible for the challenge due to part count.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Your plane it´s great, i like so much... but must be sucessor, may you change this matter?
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Sorry but must be direct successor to this post...
+1The challenge begins!
+1@alexJgameYTukraine000000 You can post your plane without any problems. I'm very busy these days, so I've extended the deadline to December.
+1@MajorMapleLeaf Relax, no problem. I play for fun.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I think a pro-rata system for penalty kicks is better, so it's proportional to all players who exceed the maximum number of parts. Keep in mind that the purpose of the maximum number of parts is to prevent the game from crashing during dogfights with Simpleplanes' AI. In other words, it's a rule there for a reason: to facilitate combat and ensure the game runs smoothly. Furthermore, you don't need that many parts to build a good aircraft model. So less is more, and this also tests your ability to build the same aircraft with fewer parts and better optimization, without compromising its details.
Very creative design! Congrats!
+2@TitanVector Thank you!
+1This is great! Me encanta este!
+3@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Yes, in some cases that has been the case; depending on what is fulfilled or not, there will be a penalty in the score.
Thank you for organizing this very interesting challenge. I think there were some great competitors and it was fantastic to participate! Thanks all!
Very nice!!! Thank you very much!!
Wow nice concept!! I like it!! Great job!!
+1hahahah Great!
Probably make it a new version of this, good concept
+1I like this concept, its probably make a new version. Great job!
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I completely understand. I would have liked to use the cannons too. However, when you engage in dogfights against the SimplePlanes AI, once they start firing, they keep firing until the weapon is completely empty. In other words, they don't fire in bursts and stop until the target is back in range. That's why the cannons aren't used. It's to avoid that bug in the game, which is quite unpleasant during combat.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000
Hey friend, just so you know:
You can only use the weapons provided in this post. You'll see a cart with the missiles and cannons you can use. This is to ensure balanced combat. Without this rule, you could cheat and create missiles that would give your opponents no chance.
The goal is to build a functional, VR-ready aircraft with a 1950s aesthetic. The better the design, the more points it will earn.
You can change the size of the cannons as long as it doesn't affect their combat specifications.
@Cuboidable Yes, of course, feel free to use it ;-)
@SimplyElegant Hi!! Tag me your next challenge ;-)
@avDude4 hahaha enjoy!
+1@KorKaiorWhatever Great!! I made one once https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/45mT15/Fairei-Fire-Comet
@KorKaiorWhatever Let's each design this Cessna jet-type aircraft with our design interpretation.
+1@KorKaiorWhatever hahaha There are several options for design a Cessna with jet engine ;-)
@KorKaiorWhatever I like this idea...
@upperflat According to the rules, you can modify the engine, as long as you do not exceed: Maximum speed: 950 mph at sea level, 1,350 mph at 34,000 feet
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread By the way, instead of talking so much, why don't you participate in the tournament? 😉😉
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread On the other hand, these types of techniques have been well-tested by SimplePlanes' AI when it has to face other aircraft. Don't forget that this aircraft was designed to be used by the game's AI in dogfights.
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread Your analysis makes sense from a real‑life aerodynamics perspective — excessive drag from large airbrakes would indeed penalize energy retention in sustained turns. However, in SimplePlanes (or similar simulators), their effect often depends more on balance and control modeling than on strict aerodynamic realism.
If the airbrake in this jet activates slightly during turns, it could be serving as a stability aid to help manage pitch or prevent overspeed tendencies rather than acting as a continuous drag plate. Real aircraft like the F‑15 or Su‑27 use control surfaces that can behave somewhat similarly when coupled to flight control logic (though usually not pure airbrakes).
So while your point about energy retention and turn performance is correct in practical aeronautics, in this context it might have been a deliberate design compromise for gameplay handling or visual effect rather than aerodynamic realism.
Nice!