Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challenge

[Dragan1212]

This is not the earlier version of the New Avion but was developed in cooperation with the British, and the other version of how you say the clone from Rafal was developed at the same time with that British version, the development was running in parallel, but the British decided to leave the project and continued the cooperation with the French because of that the selected version is similar to Rafal

[LIVEWIRE]

This is not the earlier version of the New Avion but was developed in cooperation with the British, and the other version of how you say the clone from Rafal was developed at the same time with that British version, the development was running in parallel, but the British decided to leave the project and continued the cooperation with the French because of that the selected version is similar to Rafal

The British didn't assist or co-operate with the Novi Avion program in any way, I think you're getting the (two completely separate) EF2000(Eurofighter) and Yugoslavian Novi Avion projects a little mixed up

[Hood]

These are my thoughts and comments on the entries. Given the previous lack of 3-views in FD scale and the range of artists contributing here, I think some feedback would be useful for everyone. For example topview shading styles vary and from this I think we can examine what looks good and what works. I won’t cover any specifications or back-histories, though the range of AU histories were very interesting.

HAe Maelstrom by Rowdy 36: Draken meets Gripen looks. Overall a pretty neat and compact airframe. Drawing nicely detailed and the front views with the various weapon fits are nice, though the cockpit lacks the windscreen frame. The canopy is very well shaded, albeit non-standard. The colour schemes also look good with some nice badge details. Rowdy is an accomplished FD AU aircraft artist and this is to his usual high standards.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Lockheed C-80 Murceielago by Rundrewrun: Mini-SR72, I love the looks and camo scheme, looks like something from a sci-fi comic and has a ‘cool’ factor. Not sure the widely spaced engines would be good on a carrier, especially in engine out situations and for increasing the span of wing that can’t be folded. Also, not sure on the aerodynamics of the wing with the notches by the engine nacelles etc. and the control surfaces next to the jet exhaust probably not ideal either. Pilot heads in cockpit look a little small for scale. Artistically its nicely detailed and the weapon loadout is nice to see.
Technical Plausibility: 3/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Mitsubishi A17M by Charguizard: A chunky twin-engined F-16-esque fighter. Looks completely plausible and the catapult-launch ready view is a nice addition. To my eyes the intake looks a little too far forward, and the two-seater has better ‘lines’. The front view is great, top-view lacks panel details but good overall. Nice range of AU colour schemes and the variants look plausible with nice weapon options and AU weapons to boot.
Not giving extra points for the carrier, but WOW! (Picking up CVA01-esque vibes )
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Yakovlev Yak-45 by me: OK, lets critique my own design. Originally I had a high-back spine with a MiG-23 type canopy but switched it for a more cooler looking Rafale style canopy. To make it more ‘Soviet’ I should probably have stuck to the original. Too much ventral fin I think, originally I intended this as a twin-tail but it was waaay too tail surface heavy to switched to single fin. Not 100% happy with rear fuselage contours and I’m sure the top view shading could be improved. My first 3-view, not a bad attempt. The existing Soviet FD weapons needs some serious work as they look rough but I don’t feel qualified to do this work alone. I do like this design a lot and I might re-use this for AU work later.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

VAI Naval Fighter by Novice: a big Vought-esque fighter and looks more 60s-70s than 80s in style. Its big and chunky but I like the overall design. Armament looks good. Style wise the wings (flaps and slats on top view missing from side view) and rear fuselage could do with more detailing and the rear cockpit looks jammed in with no real alignment to the contours of the front cockpit hatch. Top views lack any shading.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 3/5

De Havilland Vandal by Blackbuck: Blackbuck always gives us a good British-styled AU vibe and he delivers the goods here. Ok, so basically it’s the real never-were DH.123. I’m no fan of sticking lift engines into noses but technically if its good enough for DH then its good enough here. Nice series of side views with good range of colour schemes, top view could do with more detailing and shading (more shading on side-view would be good too). Front view looks good.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

Rockwell F-19A Hussar by Illamaman2: this design reminds me of one of the early ATF concepts. Not a bad design but it feels a little unfinished in places, e.g. cockpit has windows but no canopy outline, wing seems basic, lack of panel lines etc. I am a sucker for prototype colour schemes though. Use of Phoenix is interesting. Overall a decent design and looks capable of being the kind of 80s high AoA agile fighter then in vouge.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 3/5

WAC/Hawker Siddeley Thresher: A Yak-41 meets BAE (Brough) V/STOL studies design. Looks pretty spot on. Although not shown on front-view, I think the undercarriage track is pretty narrow for carrier-based operation. The tail exhaust seems a long way from the front nozzles, most vectored-thrust designs had pretty compact engine arrangements. Not convinced putting ASRAAM next to the front nozzles is a good idea if PCB is used. Same non-standard canopy shading as Rowdy but it does look good.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Lockheed F5V Mithras by RaspingLeech: very similar to the F-19A but with single tail and ramp intakes. Looks plausible but perhaps light on armament. Compact design, close coupled canards fit period, but the tail surfaces seem too close to the wing. Not 100% sure on the aerodynamics on this one. Excellent range of side-views including prototypes etc. Top-view could do with more shading, the undercarriage on the front view looks unfinished with single pixel beige lines
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

Hispano HA-1000 Astral by Yqueleden: A super-Harrier type design. Looks good overall, kudos for raised-wing side view. Front and top views look good. Undercarriage width looks wide enough for naval use. Pilot in cockpit is way too small and the fairing around the nozzles could be neater and more aerodynamic. More panel lines would have been nice. Two seater needs a bigger canopy and longer nose I think. Nice range of export colours too.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

SOKO/IAR Super Orao by Nestin: Orao meets MiG-21. Perhaps not feasible in real-life but taken as a what-if design the design seems reasonable in the 3-view. My nitpicks are lack of arrestor hook or naval gear or folding wings and the undercarriage is too tall. So impractical for a naval fighter but if this was a GA attack fighter contest it would be ideal.
Technical Plausibility: 2/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

YF84 Seahawk by Miklania: A 1980s F-14, but still pretty much a 70s concept. Overall I think this design looks good, the tail is a bit chunky and slabby but otherwise it looks good overall. The top-view perhaps needed more shading and details and the cockpit looks quite wide. Nice collection of colour schemes and armament.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

SCI T3S Siolpaire by Garlicdesign: Very much a Hornet clone. GD is a top artist and the work here is superb. Intriguing top-view canopy shading, rest of top-view might need some shading though. LERX is quite chunky but seems a good design overall. Masses of variants and operators.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

YJ-76 Lynx by Obsydian Shade: A small F-14, good design overall but the intakes look too large and there are basic steppy rear fuselage contours. Nice panel lines but no lines for canopy frame at all and shading is pretty basic. Not convinced the top-view canopy shading looks good. With a little more work it could be a good design.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 3/5

Arsenal-Hawker Siddeley Gerfaut by reytuerto: super-Harrier design. Good concept but let down by details. Intake too small, canopy too small, rear nozzles look like fixed exhaust, stalky 1-pixel thick undercarriage on front view, no shading on front view, basic panel lines.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 3/5

Timoshenko Ti-12 by APDAF: reminds me of the Su-15. Looks like a promising design but feels more 60s-70s in concept. Needs more detail and the wings and tail look too basic. Fuselage perhaps too long. Nice colour scheme though.
Technical Plausibility: 3/5
Drawing Style: 2/5

Walraven MA-6 Griffin II by Pegasus206: F-15 meets F-18. Pretty good design and nice artistry, love the white bonedomes in the cockpit. Underside view was a nice touch too.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

SOKO L029K Belorepan by Gollevainen: based on a real never-were project the design is both plausible and looks very much like an 80s design. Can’t fault it for details, though perhaps the dorsal contours could be improved a little and the arrestor hook made a little longer. Artistically it’s a good FD drawing. Nice selection of side-views and the armament chart is excellent.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Messerschmitt Me 1260 by TigerHunter1945: a radical design with blended wing and large nose canards blended into the nose, but located below the main wing. It looks cool but I’m not sure the aerodynamics are completely feasible. I’m also not sure the nose radome really matches between the 3-views in relation to its shape. The intake looks too small for a twin-jet. Its an interesting concept and the additional side-views look good. The pilot inside the cockpit is a neat touch.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

BAC Sea Lightning by Deskjester: this is a real never-were so if its good enough for Warton and Weybridge then its good enough for me. As a refreshed design with origins to 1949 its not a 1980s fighter like the others here but it takes the basic what-if concept and is plausible. Lovely set of additional side-views.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Fighter Challenge by Skyder2598: very much an early Sukhoi T-10 ‘Flanker’ in design and concept. Very nicely drawn and detailed. Again the pilot’s head in the cockpit might be a tad small for scale.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

TF-20 Pangolin by Navybrat85: another Hornet clone but with VG wings. A nice looking concept but the details and shading detail lets this down. The nose of the top-view looks terrible but the rest looks good.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 3/5

ICAR K-83 by waritem: Mig-29 meets BAe Brough V/STOL studies. It looks good but I’m wondering about some of the details. Where does the nose undercarriage go? What is the arrangement of that odd rear bogie? How are those massive tail booms supported? The tail area feels excessive. Also the forward nozzles seem mounted rather high given the location of the tail nozzle and intake (though the powerplant length feels spot on). No worries over the artistry though.
Technical Plausibility: 3/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Vought F74V Vagabond by Kannevets: another 1960s Vought, and on balance perhaps better than Novice’s earlier design in execution. Complete lack of panel lines and detail on the rear fuselage is a pity. No armament shown on drawing so can’t comment on that aspect. No colours too, though the small SB scale drawing elaborates a little on this.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

Aerospatiale-Dassault Menace C by VictorCharlie: this FD scale artist is flying under the radar. A really good Mirage G development and concept and excellently drawn, though the different angles of the front and rear cockpit hatches is a little annoying to look at. The radar inside the folded radome is a neat touch.
Technical Plausibility: 5/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

F/A-21 Gryphon by Sareva: Looks fitting for the time period and nice design but it seems rather fat. The really pale panel lines make it hard to sense the shape and rudders, ailerons and canopy frame should really be outlined in black. Shading looks good though. Undercarriage seems rather stubby, exposed arrestor hook seems odd and no armament details sadly.
Technical Plausibility: 4/5
Drawing Style: 4/5

[odysseus1980]

After seen all the entries as they appearead I voted for Yakovlev Yak-45 by Hood. With above post he covered my thoughts about technical plausibility of each design, Hood was into my mind!

For drawing style I cannot comment because myshelf is not very skilled.

[Dragan1212]

This is not the earlier version of the New Avion but was developed in cooperation with the British, and the other version of how you say the clone from Rafal was developed at the same time with that British version, the development was running in parallel, but the British decided to leave the project and continued the cooperation with the French because of that the selected version is similar to Rafal

The British didn't assist or co-operate with the Novi Avion program in any way, I think you're getting the (two completely separate) EF2000(Eurofighter) and Yugoslavian Novi Avion projects a little mixed up

The British collaborated on the NA program, a group of British engineers who occasionally visited Belgrade were led by the Director of the Advanced BAE programs, Mr. Fletcher

[wb21]

Those last-minute entries were a very good surprise there . I unfortunately chose to withdraw from the challenge in the very end after encountering multiple design dead ends (and thus multiple redesigns) with my naval light fighter design throughout the month—but on the other hand, here are my top 5 picks:

5. Hood's Yakovlev Yak-45: An interesting and well-drawn Soviet fighter, though it had quite a "Western" hint, mainly through the shape of the wings.
4. RaspingLeech's Lockheed F5V: A decent and sound one in terms of design. The multiple prototype and test schemes are a nice addition. Drawing style is pretty good, even on the conservative side in terms of the SB styling standard.
3. Gollevainen's SOKO L-20K: I like the general design of this—it's simple, yet well drawn. The front-view loadout chart is the strongest point here.
2. Rowdy36's HAe Maelstrom: I also liked this one quite a lot. This one is pretty capable for a light fighter; to be fair to TimothyC's comments, I think as a double-delta wing it should handle low-speed performance pretty well. My only concern though is the shading on the wings' leading edges at side view.
1. Charguizard's Mitsubishi A15M: A well-made 4th-generation fighter, reasonable and "conservative" in design, and a detailed yet concise lore.

Honorable mentions include Garlicdesign's SCI T3S (perhaps the most comprehensive entry), TigerHunter1945's Messerschmitt Me 1260 (unorthodox, outside-the-box, and high-risk), VictorCharlie's Aérospatiale-Dassault Menace (crisp-looking art style), pegasus206's Walraven MA-6 (underside views are a plus), and Miklania's F84 Seahawk (interesting F-111B × F-14-esque design).

All in all, congratulations to all participants!

cheers — wb21

[waritem]

Wariterm: Wow, just wow. Extraordinarily excentric, this plane is beautiful and I want more of it. Exquisite use of colour and decent fluff help this entry overall. Please please please I beg of you do a top view at least, but don’t stop at that if you can. Is Euskadi getting aviation ships in this universe? I might want to contribute to that. Would be a high contender for my vote if all the features were fleshed out.

ICAR K-83 by waritem: Mig-29 meets BAe Brough V/STOL studies. It looks good but I’m wondering about some of the details. Where does the nose undercarriage go? What is the arrangement of that odd rear bogie? How are those massive tail booms supported? The tail area feels excessive. Also the forward nozzles seem mounted rather high given the location of the tail nozzle and intake (though the powerplant length feels spot on). No worries over the artistry though.
Technical Plausibility: 3/5
Drawing Style: 5/5

Thanks both of you for your praise. As i'm still busy,I'm afraid i will be unable to complete the top view before the end of the poll. Plus i'd like to integrat and answer the comments of Hood in the grafic (an undercarriage cinematic for exemple....).
So i'm afraid my plane will remain without vote...................

[reytuerto]

Good evening, guys.
Hi, Hood. Yes, you are right, the canopy of your fighter is not so soviet (which were tiny), but with that all around roomy canopy, your Yak looks superb! Better than a contemporary soviet aircraft.

NB: I was almost lost with the shading in the upper and front views. The poor details in shading of my Gerfaut were the obvious outcome .

[Charguizard]

@ eswube; well, that clears the Lavi question, I had no idea this was a thing.

@ reytuerto; the reason for the cranked shallow angle wing is that the A17M design prioritizes safe and comfortable carrier performance over raw speed, it also retains the IJN heritage of excellent maneuverability. As an aircraft, this is a maneuverable and forgiving fighter, but as a weapons system, the high performance radar and air breathing missile enables it to fulfill the interceptor role. Maximum speed listed on the stats is about 1.8 Mach at high altitude, completely clean, so you can imagine it'd be a fair bit slower while burdened with a CAP load, considerably less than some of the other, bigger entries in this challenge.

Thanks once more to those who commented, lets hope more members will take a little time to give the participants, specially the newer members, a piece of their mind.

[reytuerto]

Thanks for your intructive answer, Char!