Box of Stardust

The mod list in this challenge is firm, according to the last time other mods were asked. So no.

Test Pilot Review: @Ozelui's O.A. Model 221 'Bronco' Carfrey standing on the tarmac hoping for a carefree flight... Figures as Tested (O.A. Model 221, 48 passengers max): Price: 17,090,000 (empty Fuel: 490 kallons Cruising speed: ~230m/s Cruising altitude: 5,500m Fuel burn rate: tested at 0.10kal/s Range: ~1,100km (max, as calculated) KPPM: 0.0149 Review Notes: Ozelui Aerospace has designed a quite simple aircraft, though with a somewhat unconventional design that gives the aircraft an overall small form factor. Our engineers took a walk around the Model 221 and after some notes, gave their first impressions. The largest concern on this aircraft was foreseen to be poor lift; not a lot of wing surface to help keep the Bronco in the air at lower speeds, and the fairly extreme dihedral on the main outer wings wouldn't help in that department either. But it would probably be fine once it got up to speed. Also, passing through a fuel tank bulkhead that separated the crew compartments and entrance, from the passenger compartments, was thought to be somewhat of a hassle for embarkation and debarkation. Other than these though, there didn't seem to be much other things that raised suspicion. So, we moved onto the flight test. O.A. stated takeoff at 62m/s on a paved runway, but we found that wheels-up was achieved around 55-60m/s after a short to average length takeoff run. A hard pull on the stick for takeoff, though, did cause a tailstrike that destroyed the rear section of the aircraft. Therefore, this aircraft, while a taildragger, is not immune from tail strikes, but it also requires significant pitch input at takeoff. The remainder of the aircraft was able to be recovered. We pulled the second prototype out while the first one was in repairs, and took to the skies again, this time with a gentler takeoff. We noticed that none of the control surfaces were setup for specific actuations, so we took a guess and quickly set each set of control surfaces to only actuate for single inputs. Doing this, roll control was somewhat sluggish, but probably sufficient, and would probably be fine if the ailerons were moved farther outward and were boosted in deflection. Alternatively, activating roll control on the elevators to make them double as tailerons made roll control responsive, though at the sacrifice of a little more complicated pitch stability. Cruise altitude was reached with a reasonable time of 3-4 minutes. Speeding up to cruise speed also took a bit of time. At cruise, we were able to corroborate the fairly short range stated by the manufacturer, barely 1,000km under our own conservative fuel reserves standard. However, we estimate that a maximum range of 1,100 is probable, as fuel consumption did not increase at cruise altitude despite the aircraft continuing to accelerate (though slowly). We are unsure what the maximum speed of the aircraft would be. Trimming the aircraft was fairly easy, and it flew in a very stable manner. The manufacturer has stated the design to improve passenger comfort by spacing away the engine from the passenger compartments. Onboard engineers on later test flights would note that noise was still moderate due to size and direct passage of sounds from the exhaust to the cabins, but bearable. Finished with testing the standard flight portions, we headed back over the test site for the various other flight tests. Simulating an engine failure, we found that the Bronco was still a stable flyer, but was a mediocre glider. It bleeds speed fairly quickly, finding a relatively stable speed around 100-90m/s. Pushing this test revealed what was originally assumed about the design- the poor lift letting the aircraft down. Under 70m/s, the aircraft's state slowly cascades into worse and worse, almost dropping like a rock. It struggles to pull level, and continues descending at a high rate. We restarted the engine and began testing other maneuverability parameters. We conclude that its mid-speed maneuverability and stability is fine, but again, would prefer some sort of official solution to the somewhat sluggish-feeling roll rate if using a basic control surface setup, with the solution either being aileron adjustment or retaining taileron functionality. The other conclusion reached was that maneuverability suffers at low speeds, with the possibility of losing more altitude than preferred in a turn, but it was an otherwise stable aircraft, under power or not, as long as airspeed was kept above 70m/s. Finally, we went in for a landing. For this portion, everything went mostly fine, but we feel that a minimum landing speed of 60-70m/s is too high, especially for an aircraft of this size. Further landing tests revealed difficulty at landing at speeds 50m/s or below, as the aircraft is severely stalling out by that speed. We performed some taxiing tests, and the enhanced ground maneuverability mode proved very useful. Combined with the fairly small overall size of the aircraft, and it would be suitable for small or tight airfields. We also did water landing tests. The aircraft with its high stall speed did not fare very well in this test, breaking up upon water impact. However, we do note that the airframe failed along the wing connections to the fuselage, and all components remained otherwise intact. Maintenance-wise, the aircraft are fairly simple, and with only one engine to maintain, projected costs are quite low. Two separate cockpits may be cause for slightly increased maintenance in that department though. The aircraft as a whole has a fairly low to average part count of 32, which is a noted positive. The Verdict: A novel yet simple aircraft, the Model 221 'Bronco' shows potential as a short-range workhorse. However, we do have the one significant problem with it in its current form, and that is its poor lift. From this stems most of the problems found during testing. Relatively high stall speed and landing speed on an aircraft of this size don't make for an entirely comfortable aircraft to fly when on approach, but it's not like the aircraft isn't flyable. We'd also like the control surface setup situation to be sorted out. Other concerns are the fairly short range (possibly not a major concern), ease of passenger movement due to fuel tank bulkhead (potential significant concern), and a little better tail strike immunity. We recommend KEA not place orders on this aircraft in its current form, but be open to options should its flaws be remedied. --- By the way, can the other reviews be added into the KPPM scoring sheet?

To be fair, impacts in KSP are a lot harsher in a way than they would be in real life. Since parts don't deform (unless we use Kerbal Krash System), they can't really absorb impacts, and just explode instead.

If you go on EVA, the flight log resets to record the new 'vessel' in action. So... it's a bit tricky to do a launch, then glide with the parachute. Nonetheless, I managed to get... a general idea of how far I was able to get, without strictly leaving the atmosphere. Jeb is almost halfway around the world from KSC. Bit of a whoops moment on this one, but it shows how far the vessel itself actually went: And the final stage parachute glide: The biggest issue at this point honestly was not exploding from reentry heat, since a lot of this was coasting around 50km at orbital velocity.

Well, I had to pick my pilot up with an SAR aircraft, lol.

Oh yeaaahhh, Twin Boar is fuel tank + engine. I forgot about that one. I haven't been to space in a while lol, nor have I launched anything that massive.

I was going to do command pod + Kickback, then parachute once out of fuel. But didn't have enough time, so I'll have to wait a few hours until I get home.

You all will get a narrative, because my writing skills are spooling up again. --- Test Pilot Review: @Andiron's Seps A & B The only photo ever to be taken with the Seps A and B together... Figures as Tested (Seps A, 40 passengers max): Price: 22,418,000 (empty) Fuel: 1,100 kallons Cruising speed: 240m/s Cruising altitude: 8,000m Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.09kal/s Range: 2,800km (as calculated) Figures as Tested (Seps B, 56 passengers max): Price: 24,726,000 (empty) Fuel: 1,300 kallons Cruising speed: 250m/s Cruising altitude: 8,000m Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.13kal/s Range: 2,400km (as calculated) Review Notes: We at Twin Crown Aerospace Industries, the company KEA has outsourced its test flights to, have decently strict standards when it comes to inspecting aircraft designs, as we are upheld to maintaining high standards of operational capability and a dedication to kerbal safety. With that outlined, let's start with our engineers' initial impressions of the aircraft as they sat on the tarmac this one sunny afternoon. Pizio & Hartmann Co. have designed an interesting airframe that looks very suitable to cruising at altitude... and not much else. The narrow track for the main gear was great cause for concern in terms of ground handling, combined with the very wide wingspan. The engines mounted far out on the wings would not help either, as they were a significant amount of mass that would further the risk of tipping the aircraft. As well, the long, thin wing showed a lot of flex. While not necessarily a problem in flight, it exacerbated risk of hitting the ground with the wings either during turns or while landing. Engineers did note that the distanced engines meant that the cabins were likely to be fairly quiet, away from engine noise. Also, the wide engine layout made for a great deal of concern when thinking about engine failure scenarios... Our test pilots Samantha and Kirrim, both combat veterans, boarded their aircraft to do initial testing. Concerns of the wide wingspan and narrow track were confirmed when taking a hard turn above 8m/s, which caused the wingtip vertical surfaces and even the outer wing to hit the ground and be torn off. TCA engineers quickly went to work to make the airframes airworthy again. The brake programming did not play very well when paired with engine thrust reversers, which could find them stuck in the wrong position if the brakes were toggled too quickly. The flaps being programmed to the brakes were also a curious decision, as applying brakes would then de-activate the flaps when released, even if they were initially deployed by action group. The engine thrust reversers were definitely the larger concern though. Still, we didn't want these negative impressions to affect the rest of the flight test, so we tried to maintain a clear and open mind as testing proceeded. But for the short version: It's The Little Things. Seps B Testing The Seps B was chosen to fly off first. Pitch control was more sensitive than expected and resulted in a tail strike that destroyed the rear portion of the aircraft, which cascaded into complete airframe failure along the runway. Despite a wheel being back there to help prevent damage due to tail striking. Yes, it was that severe. ... Fortunately, prototypes are made in multiples, so our test pilot Kirrim was put in the second Seps B, with the new knowledge that more care needed to be taken when lifting off. Wheels-up was achieved at ~40-45m/s as stated after a short takeoff run, with the two Wheesleys providing more than sufficient power. Climbing to cruise altitude at the recommended 20 degrees was quick, taking no more than 3 minutes. Cruising altitude was reached with little trouble. Sort of. Attempts to activate SAS for stability would lead to a cascading failure of roll overcorrection by the computer. We believe this is due to the wing flex affecting the aerodynamics and the effects of the ailerons mounted far on the ends of the flexing wings. Since the Seps proved to be a stable aircraft in straight flight though, the SAS was simply turned off and the aircraft was left to manual flight. Testing began on the cruise parameters outlined by P&H Co. To our surprise, we managed a lower fuel burn rate than stated at the cruising speed and altitude, for a conservative fuel capacity estimated range of 2,400km, more than the 2,200km stated by P&H. Trimming the aircraft was also fairly easy, and it flew with a very neutral pitch. Happy with this result, we moved on to safety testing. We simulated an engine failure on the starboard engine. The wide engine layout meant that the remaining port engine exerted a great deal of torque on the aircraft, and roll was required to counteract it, as the yaw authority was simply not enough. For a while, this felt fine, but we wanted to push it to see if we could get somewhat level flight out of the aircraft. It required throttling down of the engine, which reduced torque enough for the aircraft's rudder to keep it somewhat stable. Then Kirrim tried increasing throttle again slowly. This proved to be an disagreeable course of action for the aircraft. The Seps B entered a flat spin, and even after throttling the engines down, the Seps B proved difficult to recover from the spin which soon became a complete stall. Eventually, the aircraft was recovered from the stall, after dropping from 7,000m to just about 3,000m. Kirrim felt like giving single-engine testing another go, so TCA ground controllers gave the okay. Maybe she just did something wrong? After the first spin, it was identified that low to medium throttle was the limit for single engine operation. This went along fine again, until some maneuvering was attempted. This, again, proved to be disagreeable with the aircraft. And that was the end of Seps B Prototype #2, with our test pilot bailing out under 300m above sea level. Later picked up by recovery crews, she was still in shock reflecting on the near-death experience. Seps A Testing The mishaps with the Seps B marred our perception of the Seps aircraft, but we were obligated to test both aircraft due to differences in aerodynamics. Maybe it'll be different this time? Seps A is shorter by two fuselage lengths and carries 200 kallons less of fuel, which is fairly significant. Either because of increased caution, or just better design, we found the Seps A harder to damage with a tail strike, with the bumper wheel working fine to save the tail from damage before the aircraft lifts off. Takeoff was again quick and short, as was reaching cruise altitude. Like the Seps B, our testing found that it cruised at recommended altitude and speed with a lower burn rate than stated, attaining a calculated range of 2,800km, a significant improvement over the stated 2,200km, even with our more conservative fuel capacity standards. We told test pilot Samantha to head back to the testing site for general maneuverability testing. We already knew that pitch control was sensitive. We discovered that roll control was decent, and yaw control was... passable at best. However, it was noted to have problems with yaw stability, probably due to the vertical surfaces on the ends of the wings imparting unnecessary force far ahead of where vertical surfaces would be optimal. The aircraft was prone to sideslipping before finally managing to stabilize, and the consequences of this would be realized shortly. The aircraft was directed to land. Initial concern was over the narrow landing gear track, but it soon became clear that there was a bigger problem: landing in the first place. Poor yaw stability meant that minor corrections were difficult to make. With one Seps A prototype remaining, Samantha took to the air again, with TCA's engineers opting to monitor the situation from the ground. We did a complete engine failure test. The Seps... fared decently enough, but maneuverability and control was poor at the speed it glided at, which was fairly low. It spun out again when it stalled out, but the Seps A proved somewhat easier to recover from a loss of control than the Seps B. Next was water landing. This test was performed with no airframe damage, which was finally some good news. After picking the aircraft out of the water, it took the the air again for more maneuverability tests, focusing on low-speed maneuvers. It... did not fare well. Control was found to be poor at low speeds, and the yaw instability was more noticeable, with risks of loss of control clear. We weren't even looking for acrobatic capabilities or anything (though it did do vertical loops well), just stable maneuvering. Feeling that enough data was gathered, Samantha was told to try and land again. And that's how we lost all of the Seps prototypes. The Verdict: The Seps A & B are very good at doing their intended design mission- comfortably cruising fast and far at high altitude. Better than advertised by the manufacturer in fact. Unfortunately, it does everything else... averagely or poorly. Ground performance did not make good impressions other than its short takeoff run. Low speed maneuverability was poor. Its handling of any emergencies was poor, with both poor single-engine capability as well as poor spin recovery. And we weren't even able to keep even a single one out of four aircraft intact. Projected maintenance costs were either average or high. It was powered by two Wheesleys, which is average maintenance. However, a high part count over 70 meant a lot of things to watch over, but we noted that most of the failures would probably be from welds between major components, like fuel tank sections or wing sections. As it is, we cannot recommend this aircraft to Kerbal Express Airlines due to poor safety in the event of a variety of emergencies, as well as generally being difficult to fly.

You mean remaining range? Because that just gets you your approximate remaining range under current conditions (and is how I stated the ranges of my aircraft).

KER/MJ stage time readouts actually calculate for fuel mass too, though. So while most aircraft here will reach the range calculated by the current method, some might reach further than other in actuality.

There's also the method that @MaverickSawyer said, which is to use a KER or MechJeb dV readout for time for stage at cruise conditions, and multiply that by cruise speed.

Hey guys, update. So I've made the decision to just start on a new, clean leaderboard, instead of continuing to use the leaderboard with aircraft from 1.3.1. This is because the AI in BDA 1.2 behaves so much differently that what made current leaderboard aircraft succeed in BDA 1.0 may not necessarily translate to success in BDA 1.2. Though the opposite is also possible, and that they'll be just fine, but in that case, just re-submit your aircraft with any desired adjustments. I've been experimenting a lot with BDA 1.2, and I've discovered a few things: Big hint: new meta is Sidewinders. AI tuning is somewhat less of a concern now. The AI is much smarter in maneuvering and performs hard maneuvering naturally. However, AI tuning is still important to perform optimally. You still need to tune the AI to ensure that it will be able to perform its intended maneuvers as directly and smoothly as possible, and also prevent it from doing any overcorrections (same as before, but again, the AI is also a bit smarter and is able to fix its flight path better). Generally, before, flight tuning was mainly to ensure that the AI would pitch as hard as it could, but that's no longer the case, since the AI will do it almost naturally in most cases. Now it's more about directional accuracy stability and focusing on having stable roll control. Flight AI in BDA 1.2 seems to require lower Steer Factor relative to BDA 1.0 settings, but also potentially higher Steer Damping relative to BDA 1.0. So yeah. The 1.3.1 leaderboard will be frozen and moved into the past records section.

I kind of bundled that in with the 'effective, economic' at the end. Also, I was super tired when I did the review and just wanted to get it done. Did you include the KPPM or is that something that has to be calculated? I forget what the calculation for KPPM is. As for the buying number, I find that number so arbitrary and subjective that I didn't feel like specifying a number. Speaking of 'aircraft score', I always figured you guys could take the numerical calculations a little further in that other spreadsheet. Maintenance modifier on an engine-count basis (don' t remember if included). Maybe find a way to quantify passenger comfort (could start with a relatively simple base value per cabin part, splitting between 'economy' and 'luxury' cabins, e.g., Mk1 cabin vs Mk2 cabin).

Consider this both an official review (taken from un-reviewed queue) and a test run (reviewed a judge's first). --- Test Pilot Review: @neistridlar's NA Swirlygig 24 & 32 Taken on a fairly foggy day at the site... Figures as Tested (NA Swg. 24): Price: 13,577,000 (empty) Fuel: 210 kallons Cruising speed: 152m/s Cruising altitude: 5,500m Fuel burn rate: measured at 0.0167 kal/s Range: 1800km (conservative estimate) Figures as Tested (NA Swg. 32): Price: 14,107,000 (empty) Fuel: 210 kallons Cruising speed: 152m/s Cruising altitude: 5,500m Fuel burn rate: measured at ~0.02 kal/s Range: 1500km (conservative estimate) Review Notes: KEA has finally found another company to outsource some of its testing to. A relief, since KEA has figured there's still more untested planes out there that would be a great buy to add to their fleet numbers. This particularly company believes in slightly stricter standards for aircraft testing results, in the name of safety... and stuff. Neist Air has designed a slightly-less-than conventional-looking, slightly fish-like turboprop in the form of the Swirlygig 24 and 32, citing the design for aerodynamics. And it does work fairly well. The single Kitty turboprop mounted right on the front of an aircraft is a very basic, logical way to create a single-engine aircraft, and normally this might be cause for concern for noise and vibrations with a direct connection to the fuselage, but onboard engineers even in the front cabin found that such problems were minimized by the low throttle setting during cruising, and pilots were busy listening to music in their headsets. Passenger comfort is satisfactory at best in the most economic configuration. Outside views were hampered by the large wing area for most of the passenger compartments. The cabins in the rear for both aircraft were found to be the most luxurious, both away from the engine and with views downwards at the earth. The aircraft was advertised as very easy to fly with little pilot training, and we can corroborate that statement for the Swirlygig 24. The 32 is not much harder to fly, but is a little quirkier. Noted takeoff procedure was by-the-numbers for the Swg. 24, with rotation at 35m/s and wheels-up at 40m/s. The takeoff run with a single engine felt a little sluggish, though that may just be the pilots and engineers being used to slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratios. Takeoff length was satisfactory, though probably nearing the far end of preferable for a turboprop. Tailstrikes were impossible, as the Swg. 24 just didn't produce enough lift at its takeoff speed to rotate the aircraft far back enough to hit the rear. Some care had to be taken in flying its somewhat low-power from the one turboprop, but it was not noted to be a real problem of any sort. Maneuverability in the air isn't winning it any acrobatic awards, but that's perfectly fine. The roll control was noted to be very good, while the pitch control was adequate at best (but that's a passing grade). Landing was very easy, and the aircraft was compliant as a whole, with the airbrakes assisting in ease of landing at a shallow angle, touching down at ~40m/s. It proved difficult to do wrong to this aircraft, with our pilots only succeeding at causing damage by stalling the aircraft on a landing approach, at which point it fell to the ground fairly hard and destroying the tail assembly (but the rest of the fuselage and cabins were fine). Cruising with SAS on prograde was found to somewhat work. Crusing with SAS for stability was found to be more compliant, and Neist Air's stated values for the cruise portion were corroborated. However, our engineers used the fuel load at that time at cruise altitude to calculate a more probable range and came up reaching around 1800km at cruise. However, the advertised 1900km would probably be reached due to fuel weight being burned off during the flight. The Swg. 32 is a Swg. 24 with a lengthened fuselage and nothing more. However, this addition has made it a fair bit more sluggish than the Swg. 24. Rotation was only achieved at ~40m/s, and wheels-up at ~45m/s. After wheels up, pilots found that a shallow climb angle had to be maintained until close to ~100m/s, instead of trying to pitch up to 25 degrees right away, or else the aircraft would stall out. Pitch control felt more sluggish than the Swg. 24 by a decent margin, and was rated 'sufficient at best'. Roll control was unaffected by the lengthened fuselage. Landing was also affected, with the aircraft feeling less compliant than the Swg. 24, but not significantly so. It was also less compliant during the cruise portion, with pilots finally resorting to simply manually adjusting the trim settings to find the most stable flight configuration, at which point the engineers calculated away once more and came up with the values presented in the test results. Again, under more conservative standards. The most notable point this entire time was skepticism of the single-engine configuration, as an engine failure means full loss of propulsion. Testing this scenario, however, revealed that the Swirlygigs responded quite well to this emergency. Gliding ability was very good, and was very stable. Water landings were tested and the aircraft was found to be quite robust, surviving a ~40m/s crash into the water completely intact. The main gear were allowed to steer in the set configuration, which made the plane quite squirrely at speed (read: trying to adjust steering on takeoff or landing). However, this attribute does make it good for taxiing on the ground, combined with its short wingspan, making it great for moving around tight spaces. Braking distance during landing could probably be improved by increasing brake force, though stopping distance for landings is also satisfactory as-is. Our test pilots and crew also found it difficult to enter and exit the aircraft as the wing was built blocking the only visible entrance to the interior. We suspect this was due to using off-the-shelf parts and would probably be fixed in production... 28 and 29 parts put the Swirlygigs in an average range for maintenance, but only having to maintain one engine per plane reduces maintenance costs per aircraft quite well. The Verdict: The Swirlygig is an effective, economic turboprop, and would be suitable for short to short-mid-range hops to and from smaller airports around more populated areas. It's cheap to buy and maintain, and maintenance is simplified with only one engine, but we wouldn't want to risk sending this aircraft out on more remote routes that would spell trouble for an engine failure. Passenger luxuries aren't significant, but it's also not uncomfortable, and it's packed in a modern-looking package, so it's fine for moving around the average commuter or traveler over short distances. Also, it needs a good method for passenger egress.

Yeah, I can go straight into the real run.

I'm feeling a little diligent. One of the current judges throw me an aircraft somewhere in the queue to review, and I'll do it some time tomorrow.

In the abscence of KJR, with Editor Extensions Redux, there is a toggle for 'all rigid', which is a fairly workable solution (for most cases indistinguishable to the effects of KJR) and does not require installing other mods for anyone that downloads the plane.

I mean, hey, it survived and finished off the last half-dead P-5, so that's a success.

No new official battles yet, since I haven't figured out what to do with the leaderboard going into 1.4.x and BDA 1.2. Also since I've just been experimenting with BDA 1.2 in general, mainly testing aircraft survivability and to find out if we really do need the DCK hitpoint editor to adjust part HP or not. First, I made this thing for testing how much damage guns actually do, and found out that 1 unit of Vulcan ammo corresponds to about ~350 hitpoints. Which is actually a pretty decent chunk of health. Then to see how that worked in dogfights. To that end, some of you may remember my small testing and re-engineering project, the Lynx IIC, created from the Lynx. Well, I decided I needed a more 'conventional' drone to test BDA dogfights and weapon effects, plus @53miner53 rebuilt the P-5 for BDA 1.2, so I then decided to grab @Earthlinger's Berzerker/Lancer and made the Lancer IIC, to pit it against the tiny target that beat the Berzerker 2.1 the first time around. Testing indicates that, well, I don't think we have to change part hitpoint values at all. Which is great! Also, having only 1 gun is also no issue at all... at least against more 'normally' constructed craft like Lancer (not normal: PEGASys/Basilisk). 1 Vulcan is perfectly sufficient in a dogfight. P-5 is still pretty accurate with that Vulcan and uses it to good effect. Again, the Flight AI is far more compliant and flies much more aggressively. It's also very, very missile-happy. Here's the exhibition battles. Also, Lancer IIC pulls off what is probably the best kill ever done in ASC.

For the last of KSP 1.3.1 and BDA 1.0 and its thermal-damage-system-instant-aircraft-combustion-goodness, we have @Wolf5698's Jaguar JX and Enterprise. Jaguar JX vs @ZLM-Master's X-Fighter 2: Enterprise vs ...? And now we're officially open for KSP 1.4.3 and BDA 1.2!

That depends on a number of factors actually. I've found that this BD Armory Wiki page actually helps to learn how to 'read' your plane's flying with the AI. In simple, quick terms though, from my experience, the most noticeable trait for needing to increase damping is your plane rolling too hard/not being able to control its roll well. A well-tuned plane should be able to roll quickly to the orientation it wants to and need minimal correction (some over-rolling is fine, but it shouldn't overcorrect more than once or twice). From there, you can derive how to set steer factor and damping.

@ZLM-Master's X-Fighter 2 vs Gunbrick. Already said the results though. Battle: After Action Report: Because I figured that CShRAID isn't really gonna be getting anywhere, due to leaderboard rules and Gunbrick, here's some exhibition fights vs the top 2 Tier 2 aircraft: Analysis:

I already filmed it vs Gunbrick. It lost lol. You're right on the analysis, you can't really evade Gunbrick unless you're super lucky, and there isn't really any 'second chances' unless you get your Sidewinders off before the head-on pass kills you. X-Fighter 2 gets #6 spot. I'll put up the videos later.

Up next in the race to clear the 1.3.1 queue (we're almost done!): @ZLM-Master's X-Fighter 2 vs V-TEK: Battle: After Action Report:

So I was considering doing a re-advancement for Gunbrick, and I started doing it, even though I considered that a 5v5 between Gunbrick and TFD 2.1 would be extremely dumb. It turns out that the game agrees. At least it wasn't an 8v8, because I would not like to have seen what kind of slide show that would've been.