Planebucket Discussion Thread

Post Shipbucket parts sheets here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#41 Post by klagldsf »

TimothyC wrote:
  • FB-111H
    • Further Extended body
      • Weapons Bay enlarged to carry 4 SRAM internally, with 6 externally
    • Long Wings, Possibly longer than the standard 'Long' wing.
    • Never got off the drawing board
      • Was a proposed replacement for the (then canceled B-1A program
        • Lost to the B-1B
At this point, the FB-111H became a completely new aircraft and was related to the F-111 series in name only.
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#42 Post by TimothyC »

klagldsf wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
  • FB-111H
    • Further Extended body
      • Weapons Bay enlarged to carry 4 SRAM internally, with 6 externally
    • Long Wings, Possibly longer than the standard 'Long' wing.
    • Never got off the drawing board
      • Was a proposed replacement for the (then canceled B-1A program
        • Lost to the B-1B
At this point, the FB-111H became a completely new aircraft and was related to the F-111 series in name only.
True, but I included it to be thorough.
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
darthpanda
Posts: 3437
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 2:14 pm
Location: HOLLAND!!!!!!!
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#43 Post by darthpanda »

I think I got this time right :lol:
Worklist:
- Victorian Navy - LINK
- ROC/Taiwan - 中華民國空軍 / 陸軍航特部 / 海軍航空兵 - LINK
- RHKAAF / HKGFS - 皇家香港輔助空軍 / 政府飛行服務隊
- Gunbucket - LINK

天滅中共全黨死清光!
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#44 Post by TimothyC »

Only one problem with the F-111Bs/C/K

The wing on those is 3.5 feet longer. Normally this would equate to 7 pixels, but because the wings have a maximum sweep of 72.5 and a minimum sweep of 16 the fully swept (which I presume you are drawing here) length is going to be roughly 6 pixels longer than the short wing version.

This will also effect the FB-111A if it gets drawn.
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
darthpanda
Posts: 3437
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 2:14 pm
Location: HOLLAND!!!!!!!
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#45 Post by darthpanda »

So, I have add 6 pix for the wings?
Worklist:
- Victorian Navy - LINK
- ROC/Taiwan - 中華民國空軍 / 陸軍航特部 / 海軍航空兵 - LINK
- RHKAAF / HKGFS - 皇家香港輔助空軍 / 政府飛行服務隊
- Gunbucket - LINK

天滅中共全黨死清光!
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#46 Post by TimothyC »

Are you trying to show the wings fully swept or not swept, or some combination there of (I ask because that determines the extension that would need to be made - NOTE: I'm going to be away for a few days so it might be Monday before I get back to you).
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
TurretHead
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#47 Post by TurretHead »

I think what Timothy is saying is that the longer wings of some of the F-111 versions will make the tips appear further to the rear in a side view. Especially if the wings are swept backwards. And I'm pretty sure the wings are drawn swept back otherwise the tips would be at about the centre of the fuselage.

Image
User avatar
TurretHead
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#48 Post by TurretHead »

klagldsf wrote:Only the FB-111A had the longer-length fuselage. The F-111E was the same length as the F-111A and was distinguishable pretty much only through the later style intakes and the use of three antenna under the nose instead of one larger-style ADF antenna.
The fuselage of the FB-111A (aka F-111G) is the same length as that of the other air force F-111s. This is a common misconception thanks to USAF SAC measuring in the pitot tube in the FB-111A and not measuring it in on TAC Varks (you got to be different!). The big difference between the FB-111A fuselage and the F-111D (which it was based on) is that there is additional fuel tankage in the bomber version. Now there are all sorts of structual differences between different models and batches of the F-111 because it was one of the last paper drawers, iron mongers built planes.

So apart from the wings and colour schemes and carried ordnance the difference for shipbucket is non exsistant. The FB-111A was perhaps the best looking F-111 thanks to SAC painting them in some nice colours. The common scheme was a three colour upper camie job in either green, medium grey and dark grey or light grey, medium grey and dark grey with a lower anti-nuclear flash white.

Looks like a bomber should:

Image
green

Image
grey
BlueEagle1
Posts: 34
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:35 am

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#49 Post by BlueEagle1 »

Has anyone ever drawn the Su-47?
User avatar
darthpanda
Posts: 3437
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 2:14 pm
Location: HOLLAND!!!!!!!
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#50 Post by darthpanda »

BlueEagle1 wrote:Has anyone ever drawn the Su-47?
I believe Golly already take care of her.
Worklist:
- Victorian Navy - LINK
- ROC/Taiwan - 中華民國空軍 / 陸軍航特部 / 海軍航空兵 - LINK
- RHKAAF / HKGFS - 皇家香港輔助空軍 / 政府飛行服務隊
- Gunbucket - LINK

天滅中共全黨死清光!
Post Reply