Hello everyone! It is me, your jundro™ CEO here. Back from the cave of doom where I sent all 2 of our remaining employees to grind away at the newest and greatest update (it looks amazing, trust me I know - I'm the one who made the unrealistic deadline to get there) I’ve finally finished sitting down and grading submissions. Through a lot of IRL and technical problems (if you know, you know) they are here. The top 3 submissions will begin the process of getting money as this post is up.

I’d like to thank everyone who participated and interacted with the challenge. This was mostly an experiment. It was the very first challenge I've ever hosted in my 7 years of playing SP/JNO. There were a lot of lessons learned, complications, and management of things I didn’t expect to be so tedious. If/when a new challenge comes, it will be very different. I’d like to apologize for the long turnaround time it took, especially if you are a podium winner and you’ve missed a game/item sale that could’ve been bought with the winnings. The next one will definitely take this into account. I’d like to thank those who were patient and congratulate our winners for their amazing submissions! Check them all out below.

WINNERS (1-3)

ColonelStriker - XC-1 Lifting Body Cargo Concept

PRIZE - FEATURE + 25$ STEAM KEY(S)/GC

REALISM - 9/10

The aircraft is sci-fi in nature to a degree, being a very large cargo aircraft combining lifting-body design aspects with some stealth oriented designs. Despite the fact that this aircraft has one of the highest part counts in the competition, it has barely any examples of panel gaps and part clipping, with the examples of those inconsistencies being almost entirely negligible due to its relative lack of impact on the overall shape/form of the build itself. Many of the design aspects have a level of attention to detail surpassing that of every other build on the list, making sure the design is fictional but still plausible in nature such as the engine orientation, cockpit design, and build geometry (somewhat) abiding by principles of stealth design. (this is a nitpicky detail that didn’t affect judging, but it’s worth noting this is something most builders cannot do.)

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 9/10

The most well-built crafts of the competition by far. The level of complexity combined with the quality of the build itself shows that the level of quality this build has is beyond that of all other competitors. The one thing keeping this craft from a perfect score are the few examples of panel gaps and clipping. Not every build is perfect, and this is no exception, but the amount of detail and design choices put into the build itself combined with the overall appearance and quality of it is beyond every other build in the competition by far. The landing gear mechanism is a feat in itself, being semi-custom in its functionality but still using the default parts to provide guaranteed stability (please note all crafts are tested on high physics settings by default - if you are playing on a lower physics setting, your mileage may vary.)

FLIGHT TEST - 9/10

The aircraft is stable in flight and very easy to use. The handling is excellent but sluggish (as expected from an entry of this size) and the aircraft is entirely capable of pulling off a full length flight under load with no issues on stability/autopilot, etc. While the aircraft does have flaperons, they are only truly effective as landing flaps due to the nature of the wing configuration. It is not much of an issue though, as the wing configuration provides excellent lift at all speeds. Overall a solid submission with some quirks here and there.

FEATURES - 9/10

While the aircraft lacks speedbrakes, it has functioning flaps, an accessible and LARGE cargo bay with no obstruction, a functioning and fully interactive cockpit/cargo bay control system, light systems, pitch trim and a kneeling system - a feature every other build in the competition lacks. One of the greatest things keeping this build from a perfect score in this category is a lack of function in regards to its cargo loading capability - a feature that another submission executed better than every other submission in the challenge.

TOTAL: 36/40

.

SpacePanda25 - Titan 1 Remastered

PRIZE - 15$ STEAM KEY(S)/GC

REALISM - 7/10

The aircraft features all the standard features you’d see on a design in real life with some hypothetical twists in its design to keep it original and still functional ingame. Attention to detail on things like the engine design and landing gear. A special attention to detail has been put into ensuring the craft has no visible panel gaps/part clipping and does a good job in accomplishing that. When taking into consideration the moving parts (flaps) it is worth noting the spoilers are hidden within the actual flap system of the aircraft. It is also worth noting the aircraft also closely follows design aspects relevant to aircraft of the same class during the same design period.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

The aircrafts overall appearance is good, the build quality visually is exceptional. One issue is the flap system tends to wobble in flight (due to the singular connection point of the extending arm - an issue that can be remedied by using 2 or 3 more piston/rotator parts in the flap system). While this doesn’t affect flight performance, it is worth noting. The landing gear clips through the bay doors in turning maneuvers, and the middle spoiler segment also suffers from hitbox clipping. Again, this does not affect performance at all, but are factors taken into consideration when evaluating the overall build quality. Some neat tricks unique to this aircraft was the railing for the cargo bay using smaller cargo bays! A fun and unique trait not seen on other builds in the competition. Reverse thrust separation is also a feature on this craft which a surprisingly small amount of aircraft on the site have - let alone in this competition. Another thing worth noting is the use of textures. While textures were used on several submissions to the competition, the textures on this build in particular are used to simulate that of riveting and the slab metal design commonly seen on cargo aircraft in real life.

FLIGHT TEST - 8/10

The aircraft is easily among the easiest and most stable aircraft in the competition. There are no major flaws to the flight model of the aircraft. The aircraft is stable under load and in a regular length flight. The aircraft is easy to take off/land but it is worth noting your approach rate must be somewhat high in order to maintain stability. Other than that, this aircraft is definitely a good example of a stable flying aircraft of this configuration.

FEATURES - 6/10

The aircraft has working cosmetic wing mechanisms and a unique all-moving V tail trim system. The aircraft lacks some basic features like light systems and an actual physics model for the flap system (fair - the thing wobbles a bunch and would probably break as a result). While the aircraft lacks interior details further than some other builds in the competition, those that are on the aircraft are well executed (to varying degrees) giving it a decent standing in rankings.

TOTAL: 27/40

.

FoxtrotTheSergal - Merso Aerospace CM-203 Schwerlastflugel

PRIZE - 10$ STEAM KEY(S)/GC

REALISM - 7/10

A design that is plausible in real-world applications and functional in-game. Full (cosmetic) features such as flaps, slats, and spoilers being mechanically functional, with an addition of cosmetic flap tracks that move with the flap extension mechanism. A great attention to detail on the realism aspect of the aircraft in that respect. Exterior and interior design have been taken into account with this specific build, an attention to detail not afforded by many other aircraft entries in the competition to the same degree. Bay accessibility is limited by the door’s steep extension angle and significant gap between the ground and the ramp.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 7/10

This build is one of the few that features both a high attention to macro and micro details. Interior details such as the framing within the bay without being obstructive to any cargo loaded. There’s also a built interior cabin for passengers reminiscent to that of a passenger plane, which was a touch again rarely seen on other submissions. There are dozens of examples of gaps, odd part connections/shapes due to low part segmenting (ex. main gear housing, front cabin, exterior parts clipping with interior, and odd design decision for a transparent framing around the wing parts of the aircraft. While the overall execution is one of the highest in the competition, the issues regarding build quality mistakes are also more prevalent than the builds of similar quality in execution.

FLIGHT TEST - 6/10

The aircraft is stable and smooth in flight. It is very easy to take off, fly, and land. One gripe with the aircraft that it suffers from is the lackluster pitch authority. Combine this with the flight test using cargo weights (100, 50, 35T) this aircraft struggles to fly without a heavy pitch input throughout its flight. Another thing to note is the aircraft flaps are more cosmetic than functional. They provide minimal lift and some excess drag making them debatable to help its performance under load. Even without cargo, the nose authority is distinctly low on full deflection. The aircraft issue is alleviated in a full length flight while empty, but it does experience weight imbalances under load. While the aircraft has overall great and stable flight characteristics, its controllability under load has some space left to be desired.

FEATURES - 6/10

The aircraft has a variety of features and details that make it a distinct submission in this competition. The cosmetic wing features are something that set this submission apart from many of the other builds in this competition. The door mechanism is also not spared any simplicity, with its operation being multi-part. The Attention to detail extends to the interior with pieces and assemblies that create a full (cosmetic, albeit non-functioning/usable) interior cabin and a fully decorated interior of the cargo bay as well. Overall one of the most detailed builds of the competition, but also one that prioritizes form over function.

TOTAL: 26/40

.

RUNNER-UPS

FunkPunk - C7E Juno Logistics

REALISM - 6/10

A simple form function that still displays all the qualities of an aircraft that can easily be seen as realistic. No visual examples of panel gaps or overlooked details in terms of components both on the aircraft and payload. Proportions are well thought out and well executed despite its relatively simple design. A shining example of how to make an aircraft appear realistic/plausible without the use of too much detail. One notable detail is the functionality of the landing gear housing doors/bay door opening sequence. A subtle but wonderful design decision that takes into consideration real-world examples of aircraft of similar design.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

Overall design is very simple, but is by far the most functional and interactive build in the competition. The execution of the quality in this aspect of its design is something that other submissions haven’t come close to. The aircraft features basic flaps, a clear bay, bay clamps, and comes with its own fully functional array of cargo holding props within the bay. The aircraft itself has virtually no examples of significant panel gaps, weight imbalances, unstable connections, etc. There is little extra detail, but the detail that is present sits flush on the aircraft and doesn’t break the appearance of the aircraft in any way. Again, must mention the door sequences being a nice detail which lifted the quality as well. There are no details at a micro level which do somewhat hold back the overall standing of the build in this category, but an amazing example of quality nonetheless.

FLIGHT TEST - 7/10

The aircraft is stable and easy to control. Full compatibility with the navball autopilot, great flight controls with a very stable flight model both under load and while empty. What this aircraft lacks in intense detail it makes up for in its well fleshed-out flight model. Many other aircraft in this category begin to experience an increase in weight imbalances due to the fuel placement shifting the center of mass considerably. This is not the case for the aircraft in comparison to the rest of the competition. An amazing example of how to create a well-thought out and functional flight model accurate to the aircraft appearance and wing layout.

FEATURES - 6/10

Looking past its overall simple and minimalist design, the build as a whole features a well thought out and highly functional design when it comes to the airlift aspect of the build. In this respect, it serves as a decent base for all builders - mostly upcoming ones looking for how to utilize a limited variety of parts to create a functional design both visually and functionally. While the aircraft is amazing on this front, the simple design has its drawbacks. The wings do not feature slats or mechanical flap systems, and extra detail that once again can’t exactly be afforded in something like career mode but is still a major factor in the grading of this challenge. While the use of base parts to make an aircraft of this quality is still a good build, the use of these base parts are still the drawback keeping this build from getting a score higher than this in the features category. The simple design is made up in what is by far the most unique, functional, and well-made cargo loading system in the competition.

TOTAL: 25/40

.

NellEngineer - N-280F Branell

REALISM 6/10

The design has real-world applicability and is believable design in a real-world environment. Fully functional flap, spoiler, and trim systems. The bay doors involve a unique design which comes with its own specialized equipment to load cargo into said doors. Overall good design however it suffers from the issue of some panel gaps and part clipping. Multiple examples of floating parts (text labels) that do not sit flush with the body and protrusions for cosmetic details along the front of the aircraft. The custom LG is a nice touch that (so far in the grading process) has not been commonly seen. The acceleration is…. Extremely high. The liftoff-speed is also comparatively low, making the aircraft unrealistic in that respect.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

The attention to detail and effort for aesthetic is exceptional on this build, by far being one of if not the most visually pleasing liveries in the challenge overall. Appearance-wise, the fuselage itself is quite slim/narrow (which will not be a point deduction, just something to note when taking into consideration references from real life). Again, a note to add is the custom landing gear. A detail that many builders in the competition skipped over but is present here and works wonderfully. The wings are beautiful visually, but suffer from a flaw that drags the aircraft down quite a bit in ranking. (see flight test).

FLIGHT TEST - 5/10

The aircraft is stable under very strict speed and maneuvering restrictions. As said before, all aircraft will be tested using the newest version of the game. As of grading using release 1.106, the aircraft suffers from catastrophic structural failure while making certain turns at speeds in excess of 200m/s (~720km/h). Tested in both High and Ultra physics settings. Because of this, the aircraft was difficult to pass the flight test beyond very limited maneuvers and takeoff/landing tests (which it passed satisfactorily). Flying this aircraft under load lowers the speed at which the wings break sending the aircraft into an unrecoverable dive/spin to the ground. Despite this, it is stable in full length flights (given you do not have to make too many turns - the DDB > DSC flight does not involve such maneuvers).

FEATURES - 7/10

The aircraft has all the bells and whistles of a cargo aircraft of this caliber including fully functional flaps, spoilers, doors, etc. AND a modeled cockpit. Quite impressive. While the bay does not have support for securing its cargo like other builds on the list, the sheer variety and quality of them makes this one of the top builds in this category.

TOTAL: 24/40

.

JacobDaniel - C-48 Sky Hauler

REALISM 8/10

The build - like many other prop aircraft entries in the competition - takes very heavy inspiration from real world design. The ovular tapering fuselage shape and wing layout are hallmarks of early-to-mid 20th century aircraft design.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

The aircrafts overall shape is well designed, with the most prominent example of this submission pushing the limits of building being its way of tacking airfoil, an example similarly executed by the Titan-1 submission. Few examples of part clipping, and well thought-out landing gear mechanism that doesn’t allow the moving parts to clip into each other. The flow of the airframe is slightly disrupted by the bubble-like cockpit glass, which doesn’t sit flush with the airframe. While the aircraft does have an appealing overall shape, it has a distinct lack of micro detail and unlike some submissions with similar levels of detail - does not hake up for said lack of detail in functionality.

FLIGHT TEST - 4/10

The aircraft is stable in slow flight, but is unstable in rolling maneuvers due to yaw instabilities. The instability is worsened when the aircraft is flying under load. Aircraft is fully compatible when cruising with autopilot, but the yaw stability issues shine through again when put into a maneuver that requires it to roll for longer than a few seconds, which is often when taking into consideration an aircraft of this design isn’t meant for maneuverability. In spite of the instabilities, the sky hauler is perfectly capable of a full length flight without major issue.

FEATURES - 5/10

This submission has a distinct lack of not only features and functionality in terms of the basic aspects of its design, including a bay door w/ bay and flaps being the most notable examples of features this submission has. The LG sequencing was a good attention to detail which sets this submission apart from most of the rest of the competition. There is no functionality on the flap system, as they do not provide lift. The bay system is inaccessible without special equipment and does not come with a ramp or equipment similar to designs which face the same design challenge in terms of side-loading bays.

TOTAL: 24/40

.

Notapier - NC-3M

REALISM - 8/10

The aircraft has most of the features expected from an aircraft of the same class, all design aspects regarding the form and layout of the aircraft are plausible and realistic visually. The design overall doesn’t stray far from reality, all aspects of the aircraft design itself are a combination of real-world examples of aircraft design. Serves as a good model for those looking into building an aircraft of similar class, with the feature standing out the most being the technique to accomplish the wing shape.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

Overall build quality is decent. No major examples of part clipping - save for the wing root inside the upper area of the fuselage. Design aspects like the cockpit and streamlining on the wing airfoil/main gear section of the aircraft are also clean and well made, however there are still examples of part clipping, panel gaps, and a distinct lack of attention to detail on the bay area of the aircraft. Overall, the build is well made visually - especially from the outside and cockpit view - however is one of the lowest in terms of quality when it comes to the bay details.

FLIGHT TEST - 2/10

The aircraft is barely airworthy. The underpowered engines combined with the manual prop pitch controls not only make this plane difficult to fly by default, but also makes this plane unable to fly under load entirely. Because of this, grading of the flight test could not be accomplished.

FEATURES - 5/10

The aircraft has working cosmetic details such as a flap system and fuselage covered control surfaces for cosmetics and a well laid out cockpit. The aircraft does include a steep, side-loading ramp. Overall very standard and minimal in the features department, but the ones that are present on the aircraft

TOTAL:21/40

.

Halting C-4X

REALISM - 6/10

One of the largest submissions of the competition featuring a conventional layout along with a rather unique loading system (compared to other builds in the competition) inspired by real-world examples of cargo aircraft of the same class. The aircraft - similar to another entry set in a similar time period - follows the physical and stylistic design elements of an aircraft of its respective time period. The cockpit is well made and an attention to detail was brought to things like warning labels, identifying text, and utilizes a variety of textures in a way that accurately represents real-world aircraft. There are still several examples of clipping parts, panel gaps, and certain details not sitting flush with the aircraft that do hinder the realistic aspects of the build

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 6/10

The overall aircraft shape is well made. There are examples of macro and micro quality that display knowledge of advanced building techniques, similar to that of the most detailed submissions of the competition. What also needs to be considered is the aforementioned examples of panel gaps, clipping and non-flush parts that break the flow of the build. While this aircraft faces some unique design challenges due to its front-loading bay system, the swinging nose area proved somewhat unstable in flight. It is not uncommon to see the nose section shaking or waving when doing any form of maneuver that isn’t straight flight. The ramp instability is also a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. Being one of the only submissions with a ramp that requires moving parts along the actual ramp pathway to extend/retract, it faces the issue of being easily overloaded and wobbling in flight which causes minor stability issues when in flight. The detailed cockpit interior was a touch that was a surprise due in part to the lack of cameras however is is usable - just while taking control of a drood)

FLIGHT TEST - 4/10

The aircraft is stable in slow, level flight. When executing maneuvers close to cruising speed, however, the aircraft experiences catastrophic failure and wing overload, making it unable to pass the test of full length flight and flight under load. The design decision to make the wing part thin and long did not leave much room for pulling low-G maneuvers. As mentioned before, this aircraft suffers more under load, as it takes considerably less effort

FEATURES - 6/10

Just like some other high rank builds in the competition, the aircraft has a functioning cockpit interior fitted with functioning MFD displays and peripherals. The aircraft features the most unique loading method of the competition, with the loading bay being from the nose instead of the sides or rear of the aircraft. While there are some quirks regarding the mechanical aspects of the moving parts, the submission addresses the unique challenges with semi-functionality (though the ramp mechanism is a little fragile) No cosmetic detail to flaps or wings, however that doesn't keep this build from being one of the more unique ones in terms of features (albeit still somewhat average in the volume of features)

TOTAL: 22/40

.

ZeusSpaceAgency - A27 Great White Shark V1

REALISM - 3/10

Multiple examples of inaccuracies and/or physical aspects of the aircraft that do not have standing real-world application. Extremely large cockpit, which can be looked past due to the sci-fi nature of the build. Awkward wing and components that are questionable, like cockpit MFDs being behind the pilots but also no way for the pilots to see out of the front of the cockpit, that includes using the variety of MFD displays sat in front of the 3 crew operating the aircraft. Another thing to mention was the EXTRA THICK antenna that retracts/extends on the top end of the fuselage.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 3/10

Exterior of the aircraft has a wide variety of issues from panel gaps, several examples of visible part clipping, proportion exaggerations, etc. An example of this is the fins used to assist in takeoff, which when retracted phase through the main wing of the aircraft. Another are the control surfaces, which go through the engine nozzles when active. What it leaves to be desired in external features, it makes up for in interior features.The interior itself has some interesting design decisions and features that show an amount of effort.

FLIGHT TEST - 2/10

The aircraft is not stable in flight. The system meant to provide lift to the aircraft (the clam-like extensions) actually provide significantly more drag than they do lift, acting more as enormous airbrakes and significantly affecting the aircraft's takeoff run and ability to lift off. Carrying extra weight will make the aircraft significantly more unstable (and almost impossible to take off with due to some pre-existing weight imbalances and a lack of space to put said cargo, not staying too true to the aspect of its airlift capability.) Very hard to land and a distinct nose authority issue making the aircraft difficult to control and rather unpredictable when not doing very slow maneuvers and turns significantly larger than aircraft of comparable size. In a full length flight, the aircraft experiences instability. The weight imbalances cause oscillations due to autopilot overcorrection from the CoM/CoL shifting dramatically based on the angle of attack, meaning you must stay attentive for any severe losses of control in flight.

FEATURES - 4/10

The aircraft has a cargo bay with extremely limited accessibility, space that is taken up by the landing gear housing inhibits the ability to properly load any rolling cargo or that with a high height. Lights meant to illuminate also take up a significant partition of the already highly limited cargo space. The aircraft does feature other extras such as airbrakes, an original life assist system (albeit a little flawed in its functionality) and a well thought out interior cockpit which lift the build up in its overall standing in terms of features.

TOTAL: 12/40

.

Jayod99 - Cargo Aircraft

REALISM - 4/10

Practical overall design, the general form and performance of the aircraft is grounded in reality. Aspects such as the cockpit form are not consistent with the streamlining of the rest of the fuselage. While landing gear work in-game, they are disproportionately small in comparison to the size/weight of the aircraft itself. Engine placement is in a practical area but when referencing aircraft of similar design are not positioned correctly.

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 3/10

Variety of features including an operable bay, cabin, and cockpit. There are many panel gaps and again the inconsistency with the cockpit design along with the rest of the fuselage is a large point deduction as well. Lacks fine details (however I do recognize the use of textures to give it some detail) and seems to overall focus on a more function than form in that respect. Floating parts including the docking port used to secure cargo. Details such as the lighting controls arrangement, opening doors, and cockpit are major upsides however. Control surface binding is not designated correctly. The rudder is bound to the roll input, the elevators are not reflecting in the same direction as well.

FLIGHT TEST - 1/10

The aircraft is not stable. Because of the aforementioned pitch controls being inverted on one of the horizontal stabilizers, the aircraft is unable to fly. It can be fixed easily, but these builds are graded as they are when uploaded. For that reason I could not grade the submission in this category. Notice that while this may not have been the case

FEATURES - 3/10

Features slider-1 bound flap system on the regular wing part. Cargo bay is accessible, however even with its large size and vertical clearance, it is incapable of taking a variety of forms of cargo due to the large protrusions for the docking ports coming out of the floor. No spoiler system or features of mechanical/cosmetic detail for functional parts. Overall simple, but functional design in this respect (overlooking the pitch binding).

TOTAL: 11/40

.

XAS - Y-35 SonicSpeed Airlift

REALISM - 5/10

The aircraft shows design aspects reminiscent of real-world examples of military aircraft design, a trait shared by only a couple aircraft in the competition. Being one of the only supersonic aircraft in the competition, it handles its ability to break the sound barrier well in its design decisions (sloped nose and swing wings). There are multiple instances of part clipping within bays, wings, and moving parts that are part of the wing sweep assembly. The bay experiences some significant obstruction from the main LG and the main LG bay door (which does not retract automatically)

OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 4/10

The aforementioned gaps take away from the overall shape of the build. The decision to have a light fuselage piece inside the wing piece has no streamlining and instead goes for jagged edges which somewhat break the overall shape and form of the aircraft. There are some macro details including a use of texture for detail, roundels and some labels/mfds for extra detail. While the build itself features individual details and design aspects including large moving part assemblies separate from the cargo loading systems, the drawbacks brought on by the shapes created by the use of fuselage pieces and design decisions on the nose area of the aircraft hold this particular submission back.

FLIGHT TEST - 4/10

The aircraft is flyable, however its weight imbalances cause it to have a significant pitch-down when at 0 pitch input. This issue is exaggerated when the aircraft is in flight with the wings swept back, as the CoL is shifted back and there is no measure to compensate for that shift. When flying under load, the aircrafts issue persists with the wings swept back, however when they are forward the issue is less exaggerated. The aircraft struggles to do autopilot maneuvers at times, however is still doable.

FEATURES - 4/10

The aircrafts unique features lie mostly in its swing wing assembly. Compared to other submissions, there is no cockpit interior which sets this submission off from many submissions, and does not compensate for the simplification of the design through the use of unique or complex design techniques. The aircraft still has a bay (although it is obstructed)

TOTAL - 17/40

.

TomKerbal - Banane Challenger

REALISM - 4/10

While the build features design aspects similar to that of propeller driven helicopters in real life, the design itself takes a more game-friendly approach to its design which - while functional in-game, lacks the touch of realism that would allow many of the design choices to exist and be plausible in the real world. There is no cockpit, and the lack of one was not addressed in the form of any peripherals that would allow this aircraft to have a form of sight for the pilots. The design is very simple with a regular cylindrical fuselage and the necessary parts for lifting rotors.

#OVERALL APPEARANCE/BUILD QUALITY - 4/10

By far the most simple submission in the competition in terms of building technique, however there are no major caps or inconsistencies in the visual aspect of the build itself. The only major detail to note is the heavy use of texture to bring detail to the rather plain but overall functional design. Not much to put here, however the build itself was executed well and without issue in terms of inconsistencies, much of which is (again) in no small part due to the simple overall design.

FLIGHT TEST - 9/10

While deceptively simple and somewhat crude in its visual design, this is one of if not the easiest crafts to fly in the competition. While not able to complete the full length flight test due to its appalling speed in comparison to the much faster, jet powered jet aircraft - the build handles extremely well and is very easy to control both on the vertical and horizontal axes. While the aircraft is great under manual control, it is distinctly tricky to use with autopilot at times, needing the person under control to make slight adjustments to the pitch axes to maintain a stable altitude.

FEATURES - 3/10

The aircraft falls short on unique features - being another submission that was a career standard build, simplicity was made for a single-use mission type vehicle that deprives it of a unique characteristic or utilization of building technique to create a build that can be used multiple times. One of the few builds in the competition that only has the essential features to function in flight - which work wonderfully - however is not competitive in this particular category compared to the rest of the submissions.

TOTAL: 20/40