BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[Rune]

Allright guys - the first round of voting will stop in about 24 hours. So if you are still testing I sugggest you come to a close

A few.. flights... more... I'm almost halfway to making the first tentative ranking! I might be able to grade every ship, it's not that difficult as I'm doing it relative to each other, and I'm finding some reference ships (best, worst, good enough, better than most...). It is, however, terribly biased, but I'm doing my best. And I think my "aerodynamics are important" outlook will give a good perspective.

BTW, very nice to see I'm making most of the top tens, glad you guys like the White Dart! I never asked, but what did you guys think of the VTOL emergency system? Where rockets a bad choice for that?

Edit: Done! Phew, that took two hours, just to order them around. And I'm still not 100% happy, some craft don't end up in the place I would have expected. But hey, as good as it's going to get. Care to see my notes, and why you got the place you got? Here they go, note the special WTF version at the end for the designs that didn't really fit the challenge IMHO. As always, 100% my biased opinion.

1 R-2

- 10/10 in aerodynamics

- Looks sick as hell

- Slightly high rotation speed (after liftoff speed)

- Slightly high T/W

- Redundant solar panels

- Wasted fuel space

- Who am I kidding, the best contender so far.

2 ARX-6E Volley SSTO

- Good looks

- Good aerodynamics

- Unorthodox (not sure that's a bad thing)

- Serious final contender

- Solar breakable powerplant

- I don't get the side ports

3 Mako II

- Handles as good as the white dart, in a sentence.

-You'd better find out a reason to nock it down... You freaking forgot about it while flying and it made an awesome run without flaming out!

-It could look better? Not really that much, adn it has decent delta-v.

- Breakable solar panels

- Untweaked

4 Wholfine Hybrid

- Good aesthetics

- Noses down a bit

- Good aerodynamics otherwise (low rotation and takeoff speed, can rough land just after takeoff)

- Why so many reaction wheels

- High T/W

- Low intake number

- Tweaked somewhat (not the landing gear)

5 Spearhead

- Very good looks

- Tweaked perfectly

- Perfect build, "slightly" clippy

- So maneuverable, it's a bit unstable at times

- Can land perfectly full

6 Kaeris I

- Perfect build quality

-Percet aerodynamic performance

-Ugly as sin

-Takes forever to orbit

-Requires advanced airhogging knowledge to fly right

7 Mallard SSTO

-Untweaked landing gear

-Really well thought out, including RCS and escape system

-Perfect aerodynamics

-Not the sexiest entry around

-High rotation speed

8 Aeris 4B

- Unexplicably unbalanced RCS

- 10/10 aerodynamics

- Ok Aesthetics

- Simple and nice, not spectacular in anything other than rotation/liftoff speed.

9 Xeno Circumnavigator

-No ladder!

-Nice aesthetics

-Weird unbalanced RCS placement

-Wobbly nose, probaly due to clipping

-Decent glider, can land loaded

10 Lynx

- Untweaked

-Nice looking, in its own way

-Great aerodynamics, falls like a leaf without stalling

-Good performance

-Too much T/W (verticlimb)

-Unbalanced fuel load

-Slightly clippy

11 Aeris 4a Improved 08

- Balanced RCS

- Good aesthetics

- Simple and reliable powerplant combo

- Solar panels (at least the ones that make sense)

- Good aerodynamics

- Can glide

12 HOTOL II c 4

- Simple in a nice way

- Easy to use

- Balanced RCS

- Minimal part count

- Almost perfect in aerodynamics

- If it only looked a bit better, it would be perfect

13 BSC Bolt

- Simple yet pretty in its own way

- Too much T/W (verticlimb)

- Good aerodynamics, not perfect (too much yaw, not enough pitch)

- Balanced RCS and ease of use

- Intake-limited, mostly

14 Gecko

- Meh aesthetics

- Balanced RCS

- Excellent aerodynamics

- Balanced, ample powerplant

- Big, but in a good way since it doesn't feel like it

- It may look meh, but it is very flyable

15 Aeris 4A-1

-Very True to the original, greatly improved aesthetics

-Can't stick a heading at high altitudes, dependant on canards and torque

-Unbalanced Translation RCS

-Wobbly and prone to RUD on hard landings, especially full

16 Ceremonial Lite Fb

-Good aerodynamic handling

-Great performance

-Airhogger

-Too much T/W (vertical climb)

-Poor aesthetics

-Unbalanced RCS

17 Kerbos 2A

- Good RCS

- Makes the flying wing look work

- Simple powerplant, bad on intake choice

- Weird boarding arrangement

- About as good at flying characteristics as a flying wing can get (sideslip, etc)

- Can land comfortably full.

- Fuel budget,on the tight side

18 Speedy Box

- Tweaked except the landing gear

- Excessive T/W

- Balanced RCS

- Meh looks, especially coming from Exo

- It handles good, but it is a fat *******

19 Dubble-V11 Shuttle

- Bad action groups

- OK aesthetics

- Balanced RCS and resonable eject

- Too maneuverable, to the point of instability (can actually stall pretty easily)

- Original landing gear arrangement, but it doesn't really work without a bit more work

-Powerplant is nicely balanced between rockets and airbreathers, but it's waaaay too big (verticlimber).

20 UFB T

- High T/W (verticlimber)

- Lacks one axis of translation on RCS

- It's a VTOL

- Untweaked

- Weird boarding arrangement

- Breakable solar panels

- Interesting build

- Too much maneuvability (can be stalled pretty easily), but excellent otherwise.

21 Aeris 4A RedoNE

- Excessive electrical system

- Meh looks

- Low on low-quality intakes

- Flubby rubber wings

- Tailstrike hazard

- Wants to nosedown, BAD

22 Phoenixhammer Mk1-R

-Can land full

-Flips out at high angles of attack, but can recover

-Unbalanced RCS (not enough translation on the vertical axis)

-Waaay too much T/W (on a vertical climb it goes over terminal velocity)

23 KermaJet KR100 Kodachi

- Unbalanced RCS

- Good classic wing arrangement

- Simple powerplant, a tad light on fuel

- Excellent handling, but high wing loading makes full landings rough, and with risk of tailstrike

- Efficient design, but a bit ugly

24 Project A4C

-Interesting powerplant solution

-Original entry with plenty of margin

-Superb flying charcateristics, handles like the big plane it's supposed to be (slow but sure) with a minimum of control surfaces

-Unfortunately, the structural resistance is not up to par to allow full landings

-Tweaked perfectly

25 Spacegull 5

- Only partially tweaked (not control surfaces)

- Nice classic wing configuration

- RCS unbalanced

- Meh on looks

- High wing loading, so despite the awesome controllability AND stability ... can't land full

- High T/W, verticlimber

26 Wingspan - SSTO Mk 2 - Holy mother on intake clipping

- And T/W

- AND Wing spam

- Breakable solar panels

- Criss-crossing fuel is never a good idea

- Godd build quality however

- Wrong choice of powerplant isp-wise

- Flies, however, like a charm (a charm that can tailstrike)

- Balanced RCS

27 X-901-AR

- Fugly

- Learning opportunity with the fuel lines

- Tight on fuel

- Tweaked very wrong

- Flies very good, feels like too much wing, even, but control is adequate

28 Rasvelg

-Nice aesthetics

-Balanced RCS

-Untweaked

-Low battery capacity

-Verticlimber

-Lack control authority (especially pitch)

-Can't glide to land with full tanks

29 Shade

- Big WOW on looks

- Untweaked

- RCS unbalanced

- Breakable solar panels

- High rotation speed

- Lack of pitch control and a wrong tweak setup make landing full impossible

30 CR Atalanta

- Just Ok aesthetics

- Simple and reliable powerplant

- Weird boarding route

- Bit of a nosediver

- Ok fuel-wise

- Can't glide full worth a damn, it climbs on T/W alone

31 Peregrino

-Low on intakes

-Low fuel load-Extremely simple

-Untweaked landing gear

-Verticlimber

-Can't land full, too high wing loading

32 Rapid Mk1

- Unbalanced RCS

- Breakable solar panels

- Ok aesthetics

- Untweaked, or wrongly tweaked

- Unstable verticlimber with high wing loading > what NOT to do

33 Firebee SSTO

- Kinda fugly, too many control surfaces

- No RCS or docking port

- Breakable solar panels

- Verticlimber

- Can, however, land full

- Easy to sideslip

34 Plover SSTO

-Low fuel loading

-Weird port placement

-Emergencies well covered

-Verticlimber

-Can just about land full, but with very high wing loading

-Pitches too much, and can go unstable (flying wing)

-High rotation speed

-Untweaked

35 Icarus I

- Nice aesthetics

- Too much liquid fuel, not enough oxidizer

- Lots of weight wasted to structure

- Balanced powerplant

- Can't rotate, needs a jump to take off!

- Otherwise fine enough handling, but dude

- Another with missing action groups

36 XV-5V

- Wow that's a big wing

- Fugly nose

- Breakable solar panels

- Flies unsurprisingly good (very low wing loading)

- Untweaked

37 Strela IV

- Balanced RCS

- Simple interesting build

- Regular aesthetics

- Can't glide to a full landing, lack of pitch authority

38 Starlon

- Too much, unbalanced RCS

- Untweaked

- Light on fuel

- Can't glide period, high wing loading ad insufficient pitch authority. At least it is somewhat stable.

39 CSS-4A Cormorant

-True to the original

-Too much T/W

-Bad RCS balancing (not enough vertical translation compared with the rest)

-Difficult rotation

-Unstable

-Cant be landed on abort

40 Aereon 4B

- Weird boarding scheme

- High rotation speed

- Ok aesthetics

- Good and simple old powerplant combo

- Can't glide full

- Not full use of tweakables

41 Reacher

-Falls like a brick without the engine

-Excessive rotation speed

-Excessive thrust (marginally capable of verticlimb)

-No RCS

-Dubious aesthetics

42 Auk Ia

-Falls on the tail, leading to tailstrikes on landing

-Not enough glide to land safely loaded

-Asymmetric drag

-Excess liquid fuel

-Nice abort

43 Leisure

- Holy intake batman

- The other nuke

- A good example of how to not be eficient using the least fuel possible.

- Nice wing

- RCS unbalanced

- Untweaked

44 Buffalo

- Holy clipping batman

-Landing full is very dangerous

-Flies the way a brick with a big engine shouldn't

-Unbalanced fuel load

-Fugly

45 SSTO 1

- Too big perhaps?

- Excessive RCS

- Flies horribly

- Excessive rotation speed

- Worst than the stock Aeris

46 X-1 Gremlin

- "Interesting" powerplant choice

- Fugly

- REALLY unblanced RCS

- What the? It can't lift off iwthout rockets! Big NoNo

- This is a worse craft in every aspect than the original Aeris, nuff said

WTF Honorable Section:

Spike

- Perfect build

- Holy clipping batman

- Verticlimber

- Not what the challenge asked for

Aeris-Jumbo-Blitz

- Holy clipping Batman

- Not the spirit of the challenge

- Obstructed hatch!

- Nice building skills, but it should be disqualified.

Y Wing

- Not what the challenge was going for, but very interesting build, especially the "abort"

- Holy mother of clipping

- Perfectly tweaked

- The abort actually works beautifully

spaceplane

-Not really what the challenge asked for

-Difficult to take off

-Dangerous to land full (or empty, very little clearance)

-Ugly, part-inefficient build

-Good performance for the intake ratio

-Again, WTF rover wheels?

Dionysus

- Not what the challenge asked for

- Ugly as sin

- Original configuration

- Can't glide full

- Solar panels

Rune. Now less writing, and more loading crafts!

Edited March 21, 2014 by Rune

[NeatCrown]

I noticed wobbling with torque myself when testing it (Disabling torque in the cockpit mostly solves the problem). I am continuously tweaking it to improve flight. I'll move the CoL a bit father back, and increase yaw control. While testing, I did find out it can (barely) get into munar orbit. I was slightly doubtful of using air hogging after entering the contest though.

But you think this craft will do better in advanced SSTO threads? Wow, Thanks!

[capi3101]

Asymmetric drag? I never noticed that when I was flying it....since it's looking like I'm out of the competition in any event, what exactly does that mean and how do I go about fixing it in the future?

Guess I really should've fixed that tail problem while I had the opportunity.

[Cruzan]

I'll upload the final results here in a couple of hours. I finished the SSTO Testing video though that used oo0Filthy0oo's Wholpin Hybrid!

[oo0Filthy0oo]

I'll upload the final results here in a couple of hours. I finished the SSTO Testing video though that used oo0Filthy0oo's Wholpin Hybrid!

Loved seeing the Wholphin in action and really enjoyed your insights into the craft. Great video!

[Spartwo]

Just a general question.apart from the clipped intakes(and 50% of the jet fuel) have you found any issues,even if they are tiny nigglings?

Also "slightly" is an fair statement,I'm putting the intake area of a ram intake and a radial intake into the area of two ram intakes.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Spartwo

[Rune]

I'm going to show my huge ego and assume these comments refer to my notes... ^^'

I noticed wobbling with torque myself when testing it (Disabling torque in the cockpit mostly solves the problem). I am continuously tweaking it to improve flight. I'll move the CoL a bit father back, and increase yaw control. While testing, I did find out it can (barely) get into munar orbit. I was slightly doubtful of using air hogging after entering the contest though.

But you think this craft will do better in advanced SSTO threads? Wow, Thanks!

Yeah, the wingspan should score better if I was judging just a general SSTO (other than the aerospikes, really, worse 400s isp engine unless you light it at sea level), but it really didn't fit the theme of a stock craft for beginners, so I knocked it down real hard for that. In fact, for a while it was in the "unjudgable" category, and I may have ended up putting it in a weird position. Sorry!

Asymmetric drag? I never noticed that when I was flying it....since it's looking like I'm out of the competition in any event, what exactly does that mean and how do I go about fixing it in the future?

Guess I really should've fixed that tail problem while I had the opportunity.

Yeah, that "asymmetric drag" comment was not really taken much into account... it's a negligible effect when you have intakes only on the upside of your craft. Don't worry, most of your position is because of how the craft handled when gliding full and with engines off... I gave a lot of priority when voting to wing loading.

I'll upload the final results here in a couple of hours. I finished the SSTO Testing video though that used oo0Filthy0oo's Wholpin Hybrid!

Haha, I also noticed that about the action groups... I think I wrote them! That is the craft description from the White Dart, so either he based it off my file (which would honor me frankly, his design scores very high in my list), or that something weird happened to the file before it got into the save.

I'm going to show my huge ego and assume this comment refer to my notes... ^^'

Just a general question.apart from the clipped intakes(and 50% of the jet fuel) have you found any issues,even if they are tiny nigglings?

Also "slightly" is an fair statement,I'm putting the intake area of a ram intake and a radial intake into the area of two ram intakes.

Well, most of your negative points come from a lot of parts clipping each other and the intake stacking, but another thing I noticed was that the handling was a bit too sensitive. i don't know how (perhaps there is some reaction wheel you don't really need, or you hid one too many control surface?) but it yawed and pitched enough to take it out of control if you didn't fly it with a bit of care. Great in general, but a newbie would thank a design that doesn't let him go tail first and spinning unless he tries real hard .

Rune. Anyhow, remember it's just my opinion! I am in no way the best judge, but one does one's best (and I did rush it a bit too much).

Edited March 21, 2014 by Rune

[oo0Filthy0oo]

Haha, I also noticed that about the action groups... I think I wrote them! That is the craft description from the White Dart, so either he based it off my file (which would honor me frankly, his design scores very high in my list), or that something weird happened to the file before it got into the save.

I'm going to show my huge ego and assume this comment refer to my notes... ^^'

The Wholphin Hybrid is my 1st SSTO build and is based on the original Aeris 4a with inspiration from Spartwo - Spearhead, Tarmenius - Rasvelg and of course Rune - White Dart

The White Dart was the reason i got the old xbox controller out of the box and gave SSTO's another chance after my initial SSTO's are evil beliefs when i first started playing. Kodo's to you all and of course to the judges for the great suggestions!

[Xeldrak]

Since so many of you are still testing, I'll close the primary vote on March 25th 2014 21:00 CET

[regex]

Since so many of you are still testing, I'll close the primary vote on March 25th 2014 21:00 CET

Oh good, I didn't have time until Sunday anyway.

[Andrew Hansen]

Since so many of you are still testing, I'll close the primary vote on March 25th 2014 21:00 CET

Thank you! That's awesome!

[Cruzan]

Since so many of you are still testing, I'll close the primary vote on March 25th 2014 21:00 CET

That works for me! Thanks

[BagelRabbit]

That works for me! Thanks

Hey Cruzan! I'm wondering if you decided to include my craft in your video(s). I volunteered to have it be used but I may have posted too late...

[Cruzan]

Hey Cruzan! I'm wondering if you decided to include my craft in your video(s). I volunteered to have it be used but I may have posted too late...

I ended up using oo0Filthy0oo's design. I posted the video in this thread a few posts back. Here's a link to my post

[breakthrough]

24 Project A4C

-Interesting powerplant solution

-Original entry with plenty of margin

-Superb flying charcateristics, handles like the big plane it's supposed to be (slow but sure) with a minimum of control surfaces

-Unfortunately, the structural resistance is not up to par to allow full landings

-Tweaked perfectly

-I like how the TurboRapier turned out, but in hindsight I probably should have used a LV-N like Kasuha

-Was that a scoring criteria or just an observation? I just didn't think it was sporting to poach other entries' techniques during the challenge.

-I'm honored, I thought for sure you were going to criticize it for almost but not quite overtaxing its pitch authority while gliding fully loaded.

-I recall refueling it at a space station and landing on the runway the way I usually do without issue. What was your procedure for testing full landings?

-Wild guessing and RCS Build Aid did most of it but thanks.

[ssTALONps]

2 ARX-6E Volley SSTO

- Good looks

- Good aerodynamics

- Unorthodox (not sure that's a bad thing)

- Serious final contender

- Solar breakable powerplant

- I don't get the side ports

Side ports are primarily for ground refuel duty. It can also serve as auxiliary refuel port when docking with heavily occupied space station.

I'll give bonus points to any SSTO that can be used with General Purpose Tanker system, i.e. having Jr. docking port at correct height.

See screeny below if you can't understand what I'm saying.

I'm quite surprised by my Volley's consistent top 10 ranking among voters.

As Rune said, it's quite unorthodox and may not serve for beginners to learn ordinary SSTO design.

However, with Dual Engine Serviceability, I thought it can be easily modified and expanded by user's will.

I was originally going to submit recently recommissioned STX-3B Lynx (engine changed from 2x LV-909 to 4x 48-7S), screenshot below.

The main reason I didn't submitted it is that, apart from aesthetics and name conflict issue with another contestant, it's just a generic turbojet SSTO.

It didn't have that much 'edge' over others.

Edited March 22, 2014 by ssTALONps

[Rune]

The White Dart was the reason i got the old xbox controller out of the box and gave SSTO's another chance after my initial SSTO's are evil beliefs when i first started playing. Kodo's to you all and of course to the judges for the great suggestions!

Well, . Glad I gave you the SSTO bug!

-I like how the TurboRapier turned out, but in hindsight I probably should have used a LV-N like Kasuha

-Was that a scoring criteria or just an observation? I just didn't think it was sporting to poach other entries' techniques during the challenge.

-I'm honored, I thought for sure you were going to criticize it for almost but not quite overtaxing its pitch authority while gliding fully loaded.

-I recall refueling it at a space station and landing on the runway the way I usually do without issue. What was your procedure for testing full landings?

-Wild guessing and RCS Build Aid did most of it but thanks.

Yeah, your plane was one the ones that didn't end up where I would have expected. It was a very good entry! It is always nice when someone goes in an unexpected direction and his design still works. A nuke in my opinion would have taken out points, since the heavy feel and "delta-v through mass fraction" approach was the thing I liked the most: a new player can learn how a high mass fraction can be made to work. As to my landing methodology, I would basically try to land just after I lifted off, but without engines and as far away from a 90º heading as I managed. You plane was capable of pulling a full 180º turn while maintaining controllability (and then some), but unless you line up very long approaches and know your stuff, I was always busting the landing gear with ~10m/s vertical speed landings. It is my opinion a few struts would greatly improve non-nominal landings.

Side ports are primarily for ground refuel duty. It can also serve as auxiliary refuel port when docking with heavily occupied space station.

I'll give bonus points to any SSTO that can be used with General Purpose Tanker system, i.e. having Jr. docking port at correct height.

See screeny below if you can't understand what I'm saying.

http://i.imgur.com/6NFgyu0.png

I'm quite surprised by my Volley's consistent top 10 ranking among voters.

As Rune said, it's quite unorthodox and may not serve for beginners to learn ordinary SSTO design.

However, with Dual Engine Serviceability, I thought it can be easily modified and expanded by user's will.

I was originally going to submit recently recommissioned STX-3B Lynx (engine changed from 2x LV-909 to 4x 48-7S), screenshot below.

The main reason I didn't submitted it is that, apart from aesthetics and name conflict issue with another contestant, it's just a generic turbojet SSTO.

It didn't have that much 'edge' over others.

http://i.imgur.com/Lh6nchr.png

Well, you shouldn't be surprised! Not only is your entry very nicely balanced (T/W-Wing loading-Mass fraction-wise), it also illustrates the importance of rocket T/W and mass fraction as a function of jet cutoff speed, so a new player can learn a lot from it and then set out to improve on it. Plus, once they refuel it in space, they will see what the nice part about doing most of the orbital velocity on rockets is, when you have access to gas stations. I valued that kind of thing when voting, and I guess other voters did too. And ofcourse, that was after it performed very good on atmospheric tests.

Rune. Well, now that I've voted, I'm impatient to see the results.

[Cruzan]

Lol I'm comparing my notes to Rune's and a lot of the ranks we have are completely reversed . Odd. Should be interesting to see the results. Wrapping up the last few submissions soon!

[Andrew Hansen]

Here are my responses (red) along with what Rune said (in blue) about the Starlon:

- Too much, unbalanced RCS In my opinion you can never have too much RCS, especially when you're dealing with beginners. Sure, it might be overkill, but it's actually the same as the amount in two large radial tanks. When you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like so much. I think someone quite new to the game could take the Starlon into space and dock with it even if they were relatively unfamiliar with docking before, due to the amount of RCS it has.

- Untweaked It doesn't have to be tweaked.

- Light on fuel What? It has piles of fuel. Sure, it doesn't have lots of actual tanks of fuel, but its delta-V margins are huge - especially for going into space (as I said before, while it can go to Minmus, it's not designed to go to Minmus).

- Can't glide period, high wing loading ad insufficient pitch authority. At least it is somewhat stable. It can glide. Anything with wings should be able to glide (but things with more wings descend slower while gliding). It can't infiniglide, if that's what you mean. It doesn't have super high pitch authority. That's true. I would have added canards, but then that complicates where you put ladders and stuff. The Aeris 3A is designed for maneuverability, and the Aeris 4A is designed to go to space. Of course it's nice to have an airplane that is very maneuverable, but it isn't necessary for

Edited March 23, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[regex]

Just got started. This looks to be an all-day thing but that's alright because I'm just cleaning house today. Much as I want to ignore the single-engine craft as against the spirit of the contest I'm probably going to end up testing a few anyway because there are some really neat and interesting craft. So far the Kaeris I v2 and Aeris 4B have been added to the testing list.

I apologize in advance if you don't like or agree with my scoring.

[Exothermos]

18 Speedy Box

- Tweaked except the landing gear

- Excessive T/W

- Balanced RCS

- Meh looks, especially coming from Exo

- It handles good, but it is a fat *******

.

LOL! Pretty much

My latest lifter design uses exactly the same engine arrangement and is huge in comparison. I just thought it would be fun to throw my first working design in the ring because it is the one that I learned everything on. It definitely is not as refined as most.

[Cruzan]

Alright, all done. Did we decide on how judges are scoring their own designs? Being ranked on the bottom of 53 contestants seems to be a significant disadvantage, but if other judges have already done it then I'll follow suit.

Here's the ranks:

​

Here is the scoring breakdown listed alphabetically so it should be easy to find your scoring sheet.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'll officially cast my vote tomorrow. Feel free to ask questions regarding your score and why I graded your design the way I did. Keep in mind the two biggest design aspects affecting your score are

1. How easy it is to build (worth 31.25% overall)

2. How easy it was to get to orbit (worth 16.25% overall)

Here's the video of me going over my testing process for anyone who missed it:

If you see I docked you for something like ladders or power gen, but your design has it, let me know and I'll go back and check it! I'm also willing to tweak any weighting values if enough people feel i have a certain category weighted too highly.

For later rounds I'll break down the categories further and judge more harshly.

[regex]

Finally all done myself, put the vote in. Phew, that was like 9 hours of testing.

Alright, all done. Did we decide on how judges are scoring their own designs? Being ranked on the bottom of 53 contestants seems to be a significant disadvantage, but if other judges have already done it then I'll follow suit.

Try to be objective has generally been what's said about that. I put mine somewhere in the middle.

[KissSh0t]

Yaya~ Happy with my ranking by Cruzan~

It does lose control when you fly it like a stunt plane xD

Considering I quickly made it in half an hour thinking that the challenge was about to end... I am happy with how you scored it Cruzan... because honestly everything you pointed out is accurate.

: D

[Rune]

Here are my responses (red) along with what Rune said (in blue) about the Starlon:

Well, all I can say is, that was my humble opinion. As to the gliding comment it can't do what a lot of other entries can (be taken to a gliding landing with no engine and full tanks), so it gets that comment about wing loading. But hey, somebody else is bound to have looked at it differently.

LOL! Pretty much

My latest lifter design uses exactly the same engine arrangement and is huge in comparison. I just thought it would be fun to throw my first working design in the ring because it is the one that I learned everything on. It definitely is not as refined as most.

Glad we agree It wasn't even that bad, but you might have gotten punished because of the high expectations I had about your entry... in this case, knowing whose ship I was testing definitely worked against you

Alright, all done. Did we decide on how judges are scoring their own designs? Being ranked on the bottom of 53 contestants seems to be a significant disadvantage, but if other judges have already done it then I'll follow suit.

First, well done! And regarding my score, fair is fair, I knew I was risking a lot by not changing the build technique to stock. Not that it can't be done, as you say, but that round "50 parts" number on the loading list blinded me I guess

Well now that I think about it, while the intakes can be rebuilt using a single cubic strut on each as you say, it would be much more difficult to do the same thing with the VTOL rocket engines without switching them to radials, losing isp... What did you think of those? I haven't seen any comment yet, and they are the most original part of the entry.

Rune. As to voting for your own entry, I put mine ranked 53, like the ones I didn't think were the spirit of the challenge.