Second World War Heavy Bomber Challenge

[Weebson]

Weebson - Fokker T.VI Flying Citadel
Apparent child of Halifax and B-17, with wings from He 111. As a drawing, it's good. As a design - I'm afraid it suffers from the Center of
Gravity Problem I explained earlier with Armoured Man's work - only here the bay is too much aft, instead of forward. On the minor issues - the waist guns are IMHO bit too low and these gun ports just forward and below of the cockpit are rather awkwardly placed - when firing forward, the gunner would have to practically walk into pilot's legs.

Aye, thanks for precious criticism for my very first challange entry in general, perhaps gonna post the 'fixed' design once we done with voting ;P

[Wolftheriot]

Wolftheriot - König Kö 123
Drawing-wise it's bit austere with details. The shape and airfoil of the wing is bit odd, the trim tabs on the vertical stabilizer is of awkward shape (horribly thin but extremely high), and it looks like the inner engine's nacelle blends at the rear into the wing root. In the transport version, the ramps are horribly thin - no more than just some 13,5 centimeters in fact. But the biggest problem - and a HUGE one, is that this plane, as it is, probably wouldn't even manage to taxi from the hangar to the runway. Reason for this is the main undercarriage, retracted into the fuselage, and with a very short legs at that. In practical terms, I think that it's track would be no more than some +/- 4 meters - not much, considering the wingspan of 69 meters and comparing it with Spitfire, whose undercarriage had a track of 2 meters at a wingspan of just 11,23 meters and was notorious for it's poor ground handling due to that. And spitfire didn't had 6 engines in the completely unsupported wings. On top of that, the clearance between propeller tips and the ground is just 50 centimeters. In other words - first major bump on the ground, stronger gust of crosswind, too sharp turn or possibly even a flat tire and the outermost propellers slam into the ground - with predictable consequences.

Thanks a lot for the great and detailed feedback on my first entry,I did have a lot of trouble designing wings I will work on the design a bit more especially the wings and where they attach perhaps make em attach to the top of the fuselage.

[BB1987]

BB1987 - Okajima G6O
To me - ex aequo with Charguizard's work - the best entry of the challenge. If there's anything wrong with it, then I can't see it. Design itself seems to be loosely inspired by Nakajima G6N Renzan, but larger and the drawing as such is excellent. In particular I love the front view.

Thanks.
Indeed my inspiration comes from the Nakajima G8N, with a bit of G5N sprinkled here and there (like the twin tail). Regarding possible issues with the design, it has been pointed to me on discord that while not critical, it is usual to have the engines spaced between them and the fuselage by the edge of the propellers turning radios and not the engines themselves. Plus I noticed a few minor details I've missed. I'm eventually going to correct those (and maybe do some more mods, who knows) as I'm long into planning and FD thread from my AU airplanes.

[Charguizard]

Congratulations to all the participants and the whole community on another very succesful challenge. I believe the skill ceiling and style of the FD scale have been expanded succesfully with this demonstration, we even have something I had never before seen in SB in jjx’s absolutely outstanding 3/4ths view, which I would very much like to discuss later.

Many thanks to eswube too who graciously commented on all entries, an incredibly helpful insight. Since he did most of the heavy lifting, I’ll be commenting on things he didn’t, I’ll tell you what things I liked, what I didn’t and talk a little about aesthetics and the process of drawing.

Shigure’s Statler BH2 Vulture
No ammount of persuasion was enough to get Shigure to draw even a top view. Which is a shame because I really really like how this thing looks. Sure it is basically an equivalent of a B-17, but it somehow manages to look more badass than the Fort. All the visual cues from it are well translated here, a muscular brute bristling with guns. The brighter green and colorful markings and noseart make the final product look excellent too. The aft door looks a bit quirky with its weird curving top and bottom. The engine cooling flaps stand out a bit too much in my opinion. The last nose turret would restrict the pilots’ vision a lot during landing. Overall very pretty but a lot of missed potential here.

Armoured Man’s Okamoto ES-60
In this instance, I couldn’t convince Armoured Man to make a front view, but really, the top view is much more important. A side view with landing gear extended would’ve been great to assess that prop clearance. I don’t like the first one’s blue roundel on black under the wing, but I don’t like blue on black in general. I believe it could dispense with roundels on the bottom completely. The plane overall is very big and looks very menacing, 2nd biggest in the challenge and a huge brute. Defensive armament is weak compared to contemporaries but the debate between defensive guns vs speed and altitude wasn’t resolved for a while yet. Colours on the 2nd one are very pretty.

Aiseus’ Nagarna Heavy Bomber Number 3
Aiseus has improved with every challenge, this might not be their best drawing yet but its solid stylewise. Designwise it is very odd however. I would’ve really liked to see it with landing gear deployed just to know where the hell is it. The sudden thinning down of the fuselage aft is probably not necessary. The dorsal and nose turrets should have their base in black and probably some sort of transparecy or aiming device on the front. Sad you gave up so soon, could’ve been your best. The little story snippet is unique and very endearing too, not common for an entry to have something like this, but of course its secondary to the drawing itself.

Hexelarity’s Humei H5S1
Should’ve really spent more time on it, which was what, a day? Pretty good when one considers that, but there’s a long way to go. Sorely missing camo, markings, anything really. Ventral turret should have its base in black. There should be at least a slight curve where the wing blends into the wing root structure. Overall needs a bit more polish.

Schlemm’s Sc99
Pretty good for a first challenge entry (pretty sure this is your first?). Its a bit crude in places but you’ll get better with time. Good job on getting three views done. Engine pods lack detail like access hatches and whatnot. I’d be more mindful of the shading taking into account the position where light comes from, particularly on the wing leading edge, which should be bright further down, we’d probably see no shade there, and on the engine pod pylons, which are all in a dark shade despite the wings not casting a shadow over the front of them. These fairings probably should at least partially wrap around the leading edge too. Panel lines are too uniform on the side of the fuselage, its a hard thing to come up with out of nowhere so looking at real aircraft is a must.

Dalamace’s Rapp R.173
While a great drawing, at first I found it a bit uninspired as it was basically an MB.162, but the next two versions are really something, completely different flavours all of a sudden! The green of the first version is a bit bright for my taste. I feel that more little details like access panels and moving surface control rods would take this to the next level. Second one is my favourite.

Zenith’s Heston 416
I really really like this one, very good entry from someone who barely just joined. The profile is very attractive, the shape of the nose and engines very aggresive. It’d be awesome if it actually had a trycicle landing gear and was shown with it down. Improvement points include smoothening up the vertical tail extension forward, outlining all windows in black, adding lights and maybe some silhouettes of interior detail. A top and front view would of course help define the aircraft better and make evident any design flaws. Great job and welcome to SB.

Weebson’s Fokker T.VI
One chonky boi, the visual mass is very far forward. I don’t like that the whole canopy section is outlined in black for some reason, as if the thing was superimposed on the fuselage and not blended into it, like a plastic toy. Camouflage and markings are great, the blue in the fin flash a bit saturated though. I feel it needs a little bubble so the navigator can use a sextant, also lights. The variety between versions is good but it kinda mimics the Halifax too closely. Given how much time was left, a top view is kind of warranted >: )

BB1987’s Okajima G6O
I witnessed this beast as it progressed and BB’s work really encouraged me to push myself harder just to try and keep up with it. G8N aesthetics on a bigger package (rasp said it before), its a delight we got all the views. The proportions are beautiful and delicate, its muscular while also being sleek, like a dobermann. BB tried an innovative glazing scheme that looks good while not showing much inside, it works pretty well and I would’ve adopted it in a heartbeat if I wasn’t already doing interiors+transparencies (I don’t know why I’m doing that, its a lot of work and you can barely see anything in the end). Sometimes I wish it was a japanese and not a kokoan aircraft so we’d see more colourful schemes on it. The nose glazing is even more impressive given how hard it was to do, something I couldn’t replicate with my own bomber in the last version. The radial engine face as seen from the front could use more contrast because right now it looks like a solid dark grey. I also wonder where the flat optical panel is where the bomb sight can look through, something I’m just now noticing.

Psychicumbreon’s RP-3
This entry is a bit flat and bland. The few markings are not enough to make it pop, it really is missing a roundel under the wing, a serial number, squadron emblem, individual aircraft’s number, so on. The shading on the radome does a poor job at defining its shape, its too uniform front to back. More time spent on it would only net improvements.

Wolftheriot’s König Kö 123
I like how big and ugly it is, there’s merit in trying something unconventional even if the result is not perfect. On the grey ones, the belly colour is inconsitent nose to mid. Highlighting on the nose could be broader in order to represent the wideness of it. Rear turret should be shaded instead of highlighted since its facing back. If the engine is in an X arrangement it should probably have exhausts on the bottom too, and the stubs indicate the engine resides partially within the wing too, which would make maintenance harder surely.

WesleyWestland’s HS 95
Surprisingly competent and Westland’s best drawing yet. It still can’t completely shake a bit of a cartoony look at times but its almost there. Too much contrast maybe? On the top view the engine fairings should blend into the wing a bit smoother, right now the dark and sharp outlines suggest a rear facing dome instead of a flowing shape. Not a fan of the purple window colour but its not a dealbreaker. Radial engine face is very good, keep up the good work.

Rowdy36’s Brunel Broadsword
I like this plane, a lot, my friends in discord didn’t so much but I told them they just didn’t get it. It looks like a fat shark and that’s excellent on a bomber. Things I don’t love are the square cut horizontal tail, the awkward ventral gunner’s position and that the engine nacelles don’t seem to match on every view, specifically on how they blend into the wing. Top job, love the colours, ‘ery noice.

Corp’s Model 60
When I learned Corp was going to try this after an abortive 1st option, I was a bit skeptical, but he pulled it off, the absolute madman. The biggest plane in the challenge, I was very much expecting this to be the norm rather than an outlier. The huge drawing is awe inspiring, the basic shapes are well defined, it really shows how humongous this monster is. The dorsal guns on the top view are outright impressive. Not a fan of the black line defining the leading edge of the wing, it looks as if the top part has an overbite, I would’ve defined the leading edge differently on the front and side view. The way of depicting the interior is not my style but it works. Love the last one’s red brick colour. Solid idea, solid execution, good show.

RaspingLeech’s Me 464
I’m gonna start by saying I am downright impressed by how fast rasp produced this, very productive fellow just set himself to it and bam, 3 drawings with 3 views each. Second one has the distinction of being the aircraft with the most engines in the challenge, at 12. The aircraft looks rather small for its shape, compared to some of the monsters we got in play, I wonder how it’d look if it was B-29 sized or a bit bigger. The drawing is very good and it defines the shapes of the plane very well so I’ll just talk about the few things I don’t like. The engine pods should probably not be outlined in black on the top view, as I think they wouldn’t go completely vertical before reaching the wing. The aft of the fuselage is a bit humpbacked as it narrows down into the tail, this of course is attributable to the original german designs but I’d like it better if it wasn’t so. That’s it really, since the drawing is, again, very good. I wonder if rasp can be persuaded to try different things in terms of glazing and interiors, I know his 5th gen fighter was a bit of a step forward in that regard.

APDAF’s Sikorsky S-64
I was present during the gestation and creation of this one, and I can ascertain that APDAF put a lot of work into it. He didn’t always follow my advice though : ) . I disagree with eswube in this being a step backwards, its just that APDAF simply didn’t get things right this time. The plane is ugly and menacing (in a good way), there’s a number of issues with it that drag it down but eswube has covered them all I think.

jjx’s Gu-300
There’s an elephant in the room here and it already knocked everything down in the discord glasshouse, so I want to talk about this, the 3/4ths view, which is monumentally good, a first in SB as far as I know and a big debate point right now. Kiwi decided to exclude this view from the challenge and I support his decision as challenge master unconditionally. Nevertheless, the obvious reason is that this new format suddenly raises the bar and the requirements for a “complete” entry and would push everyone to start doing this over halfway through the challenge. One could argue that nobody is forced to draw 3 views, or a bomb chart/diagram, or a version with the gear down, but all the top contenders will do this in order to attempt to score the highest. Memories of Hood winning the stratbomber challenge with just a side view come to mind, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Another point which acelanceloet pointed out in discord is that this view shares more with a sprite than with what we do in SB, which are plan, elevation and profile orthographic views, despite it still technically being orthographic. I’m not against this but perhaps its not time to include something like this in challenges yet, the community as a whole will have to decide. Nevertheless, this view is jaw dropping good and knocked me back on my chair in amazement, jjx demonstrated to be very talented back in the endgame heavy tank challenge and his skill keep improving. Nitpickingly I’ll say the wing root probably doesn’t need to be completely outlined in black.
Disregarding this view, the entry still stands up by itself, the interior of the gear hatches is beautiful, the details under the glazing are excellent, the natural metal and camos are attractive, the enlarged noseart snippets are a nice touch, the chocks and safety warnings on covers and pins an outstanding detail. In hindsight all the time spent on the 3/4ths view could’ve netted a top and front view, but we all make our decisions and have to run with them. Excellent entry.

Garlicdesign’s Caproni Atlantach B11C
Very pretty aircraft and drawing, very detailed, lots of panels, colorful markings, love the spooky ghost, the glide bomb pops out a lot, very well drawn. Its got 3 views, its got 3 drawings, its got a bomb chart, it has everything it takes to win. I can still do some minor criticism, I would’ve not outlined the cylinder head fairings in black when seen straight on, they shouldn’t be going 90° from the viewer. The other more jarring one is the choice of glazing. This is a problem with other entries but its particularly evident here. I believe it was Golly who initially moved to white glazing, as the glass wouldn’t reflect a blue sky within the template or something like that. In this case it has the unfortunate effect of making the top view look as if it has big blank gaps when looking at the canopy, and to a lesser degree, the turrets. Overall very good though.

Albert1099’s CANT Z.1020
This entry excells in the schemes department, beautiful use of colour, lots of markings, realistic looking, good stuff. The aircraft itself is also good conceptually, the arrangement, ordnance, equipment and so on. The execution not so much. Obviously we’re dealing with a newer artist so its all about practice, next one will be better, but the plane does look a bit like a pancake, the small wheels are unavoidable to the eye and the bomb chart ate a bit of engine on the 2nd one. If anything, the good points should be an encouragement to keep practicing, for example the engines are very well done. Keep it up.

JCSTCap’s Ealhs E.460
A no-nonsense entry that covers its bases, the results are very attractive. Natural metal and camos are very good, nice colorful markings, neat noseart, good colour choices. Of course I would’ve liked a top view but I already asked : ) . Quality stuff, I don’t have anything to nitpick from what’s available really.

Charguizard’s WkB.3 Gans
My own entry so I’ll talk a little about it. I had been meaning to make something like the Fokker T.VI for some time, its a very interesting looking aircraft, but Anthony Fokker goes back to his plantation in the east indies in my AU so that goes nowhere. Conceptually, this aircraft started as a requirement that closely mimics B.12/36, and the result is an aircraft that is very much like a Stirling without the wing span restriction, and a short deep bomb bay instead of a long shallow one. It is a complete prewar concept, so it has limitations accordingly like no provision for a tail turret. Following this, I set off to draw the ugliest, most savage looking thing that I could concieve, and I think I fell a bit short, but am satisfied with the results as far as looking as a bomber goes. I almost made this a shoulder winged plane but I felt I was optimizing the bomb bay too much, since it would’ve had no drawbacks on that regard. Right now it is not a candidate to carry an atomic device and the role would be given to its succesor, which I think makes sense. It also lost the gigantic spindly Stirling gear at some point, shame that. The last version is a dedicated naval long range bomber, it loses the altitude performance but the chonky radials pull hard at low altitude. It is armed with a 23mm autocannon on the nose and two fixed machineguns for anti-shipping work. I’ll probably start a new thread for all my Batavian aircraft though right now I couldn’t keep a chronological order like Garlic does so well. Really wanted to do a postwar electronic recon variant but I was very tight for time. Hope you like it and criticism is very welcome. Also thanks to eswube for his kind words.

TigerHunter1945’s SAAB B.5
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one. Tigerhunter has been surprising us with competent entries for some time, and this one doesn’t dissapoint. Excellent shading, beautiful colours, markings are a bit modest but swedes weren’t too flashy about this. The interior is magnificently rendered wherever you can take a peek inside. I think that some of the flying surfaces are canvas covered and should be a different colour on the natural metal one. In this one I also wonder where is the optically flat panel for the bomb sight. Would love to see more of this plane, maybe even use it for my own purposes >: )

Imperialist’s Dornier Do 19
A real plane taken to where it had never gone, very interesting stuff as I like the two early quad engine bombers. I like the Ju 89 more but I digress. Shapes are very well done, the plane’s proportions sharply defined. It has the same issues as others with the whited out glazing panels looking like a void from above. The rear fuselage sides are a bit sparse but I understand there’s not that much on this plane anyways. I believe the lower engine fairings shouldn’t be outlined in black against the wing but this is up for debate. Sadly no props or gear on the front view, I understand Imperialist was running out of time. Hopefully there’ll be more versions later. Maybe play less WarThunder next time : )))))

[Hood]

Now the bar is getting higher my scoring is getting stricter, so I have been stingy with some scores, which I think is better than over-inflated scores just because something looks 'cool'.

Some detailed feedback and my thoughts:

Shigure, BH2 Vulture: I liked this entry but its very much a B-17 with a B-24H nose and a powered tail-turret. As eswube pointed out, the bomb bay looks a little shallow due to the low wing position and where the spars would cross the bomb bay. Details like the rear door look a little odd but generally the artistry is good with nose art etc.

Armoured man, Okamoto ES-60 Tusru: this design is perhaps a little too ambitious. The very long tail booms and very wide horizontal tailplane look like recipes for disaster with flutter and vibration, the layout might work on a smaller aircraft but the scale here seems too large to be workable. Centre of gravity would be an issue too with the bomb bay so far forward. The nose looks like a B-29 grafted directly on. As for drawing quality, it looks good but the top view might have benefitted from a few more details (though this entry is better than some others in this regard).

Aiseus, Nargana Bureau Heavy Bomber Number 3: elements of this look good, certainly the high wing gives a deep bomb bay. No evidence of any undercarriage though and the brick shape is probably not really optimised for what you want and the rear fuselage curves are just...odd. The artist states the entry is incomplete and no further work could be done on it, which is a big shame.

Hexelarity, H5S1: well its big and bold and and well armed and with six-engines should be quite a monster. For me this looked a little unfinished, some of the lines look too straight for the curved sections (especially on the tail unit) and the panel lines look a little generic. Also the inboard undercarriage pod seems rather large and draggy, there would be sufficient wing depth here to avoid the need for such a large nacelle. Shading and colour scheme is very basic.

Schlemm138, Sc-99: very much reminds me of some real German projects but I find the idea this early 1950s technology bomber could be in service in 1945 rather a stretch of the spirit of the design challenge. Some of the curves again look rather straight and 'odd' (the gun sighting blisters look almost triangular), other parts are very straight and blocky - even Imperialist's cockpit section has some odd curves near the top. The paint jobs are well done but its a shame the side and top views lack more details like inspection panels etc.

dalamace, Rapp R. 173: nicely drawn and very feasible, certainly looks like some of the unbuilt French and Italian projects of the period. The Cruel Snake looks less sexy but a lot of early-war bombers did get some rather ugly appendages during the war and it feels period correct.

Zenith, Heston 416 Blackadder: reminded me of some of the later Liberator variants. Again, the low wing might prevent that kind of bombload depicted being carried once you factor in the wing spars. I quite liked the engine nacelles, the vertical tail has some odd shapes though, add a touch of quirkyness to what is a fairly conventional design. The rear door would be better outlined in black as would the cabin windows for consistency.

Weebson, Fokker T. VI "Flying Citadel": Fokker in real life designed some ugly looking bombers so this fits well. I agree the cockpit area would be better blended into the fuselage with a darker shade other than black. Would the stated bomb loads fit? I'm assuming a long shallow bay, I have some doubts. Just noticed the aft side gun hatch is identical to that from Shigure's design, the tail unit looks lifted from Sheepter's Halifax. The Dutch markings and colours are well done.

BB1987, Okajima G6O: a long-thin design, looks very period for Japanese designs, well drawn and the front view looks great. Some extra details on the top view like inspection hatches and fuel tank fillers would have been very welcome, mroe detail overall would have added points in my view.

Psychicumbreon, RP-3 Merirosovo: the Handley Page Halifax is very strong here, Sheepster's base has been tinkered with, I like the tail gun position and the inline nacelles look ok (basic but ok) but the rear fuselage curves seem odd to me and makes it look a little ugly. A good first drawing but certainly room to refine and improve.

Wolftheriot, König Kö 123: very ambitious... where to start? very basic shading and details, the propellers look very odd, no propeller is just a straight line like these. The undercarriage looks very basic and probably not in the best place. The wing seems plonked on. Why is this bomber so big? It looks like a cartoon plane really and technically unfeasible on many levels.

WesleyWestland, Hartley & Shepherd HS 95 Westlandian: I like the overall design, very sleek, well drawn, the riveted lines are interesting, I like the effect, but again the top view lacks smaller details which is a big shame. The colour palette look a bit 'rich' to my eyes and could be toned down. The purple window shade frankly looks ugly. Some of the black lines around the bomb-aimer's nose could be darker shades and the nose art didn't need outlining in black.

Rowdy36, Brunel Broadsword: looks spot on for a Shackleton-development. I really like this design which looks 100% real. The ventral gun position is a little ugly but short of using a turret looks like a plausible alternative. The shading and colour schemes are sublime.

Corp, Polaris Model 60: I picked up a lot of B-36 vibes but the design looked reasonably different to be interesting. The tail unit, like some others, looks like a collection of straight lines, lacking a proper set of curves. Otherwise well drawn and some really nice details on the open-gun positions etc., my major nitpick would be the front of the wing nacelles, they look rather fat and draggy and how they are faired into the wing could be improved, the seem to stand out proud of the wing more than the front-view seems to indicate.

RaspingLeech, Messerschmitt Me 464: strongly reminds me of some real Messerchmitt projects, nice colour schemes, again a lack of smaller panel details and very basic shading. The swept-wing makes me think this is pushing the WW2 era a little too far. The engine nacelles need more work; the forward engine nacelle looks far too shallow to fit an inverted-V engine, the exhausts are mid-way up the nacelle (where the bottom of the engine should be) and yet are located lower down (correctly) on the rear nacelle. The radiators look unnecessarily large and draggy. A lack of undercarriage details, so can't comment, I'm presuming its a nose-wheel undercarriage?

APDAF, Sikorsky S-64 Sokol: APDAF's most ambitious drawing yet, very strong Tupolev TB-3 vibes. I don't think I can add much to the detailed critique that eswube made, there are some nice elements here and some bad ones, with further work and care and attention to detail, this could have been even better.

jjx indoweeb, Gu-300 "Supertruck": probably one of the three best drawn aircraft here, the tail feels a little too long and not sure the angled-up engine thrust lines would be good for economical cruising but overall a decent design. The internal bomb bay drawings are mind-blowing in detail. I am not privy to any discord chat about the 3/4 view, in my mind its similar to DarthPanda's comic artworks shown elsewhere on the forum. A 3-view I think would have been better to really get a sense of the design. Its a fancy bit of artistry and shows the skills well.

Garlicdesign, Caproni Atlantach B11C 'Bladhmiaire': GD bringing to life a Caproni design, superb detailing (THIS is what I want from a top-view! This level of detail gets 10/10 from me). Some of the camo is a bit garish but hey I'm nitpicking here, can't find anything else to moan about!!

Albert1099, CANT Z.1020: you call it a CANT I say hello Piaggio P.108! Nice colouring, needs a few more details, as eswube points out the curvature needs to be better shown perhaps, the gun turrets look a little 'stuck on', not a bad design but it just feels like it needs some finishing touches to make it really good (i.e. 10/10 material).

JCSTCap, Ealhs E.460: very nicely drawn, I liked the version without the ventral gun position the best but they all look good. Seems a good plausible design.

Charguizard, Werkspoor WkB.3 Gans: picking some some Short Sterling vibes but I like this, everything except the very low wing which makes a bomb bay very difficult, the 5,000kg bomb I guess would just about fit between the wing spars. Artistry is spot on.

TigerHunter1945, SAAB B.5: sadly the first time TigerHunter has made a design that didn't strike me as 110% sexy! So I gave it 0. Only kidding, this is 10/10 levels of drawing skill. That uncowled jet engine made me drool. Just tell SAAB to fit a decent bigger tail and ditch the ugly endplates and I would be 100% in love with this design.

Imperialist, Do 19 H-2/R3: great to see the Do 19 brought to life and the variants look plausible. Just a lack of fine details and very basic panel lines (unlike your usual style) and spindly undercarriage made these feel unfinished which was a shame. Any chance we will see the real Do 19 in FD?

So for me only 3-4 entries for me are the top 10/10 quality but a lot of others were very good even if small elements let them down. When the challenge was announced I felt that details would be a problem, a lot of big wings and fuselages which means a lack of details really shows up far more than it would on a smaller aircraft like a fighter. For me, a really top-end drawing should have more than basic panels. Big airframes also show up sloppy curves more, its too easy to get big and blocky, though some of these designs do have some very nice curves.

[Kiwi Imperialist]

Challenge Results
The community poll for the Second World War heavy bomber challenge is now closed. I wish to thank the 37 people who responded before the deadline. It is great to see so many people interested in the work of our participants. I am also grateful for the excellent feedback posted in this thread. While I did not submit an entry, there is a great deal of valuable advice that I will definitely refer to for my own work. As always, the artists who did submit an entry are deserving of special thanks. Without them, these challenges would not be possible, and I think our community would be a little quieter. With 23 entries. this was one of our more popular challenges. Now, on to the results.



Congratulations to Charguizard, the winner of the Second World War heavy bomber challenge! Their submission, the Werkspoor WkB.3 Gans, was one of our more grounded entries and it still achieved first place. It shows that you do not need a boundary-pushing design to achieve excellence. Charguizard also received the highest score in the drawing quality, design realism, and suitability categories. Second place goes to TigerHuner1945 and their SAAB B.5, another modest design. I was pleasantly surprised to see their entry in the last minutes of the challenge and am glad it was completed before the deadline. TigerHunter1945 also achieved the highest score in the originality category. Great work! In third place is JJX Indoweeb, who came up with the wonderful Gu-300 and a truly outstanding ¾ view. While that view was excluded from the final poll, JJX Indoweeb’s commitment to excellence elsewhere propelled them to a well-deserved place among the winners.

51 people responded to the poll for our next challenge topic. The options were: modern fleet auxiliary, fast attack craft, and response to a foreign Napoleonic ship-of-the-line. With 47% of the vote, modern fleet auxiliary was the most popular option. This challenge is now open to all who wish to participate. Please visit the forum thread if you wish to find out more.

[Charguizard]

Thank you very much Kiwi for another succesful challenge, we keep getting more and better entries every month. Thank you everyone who liked my entry, I think I managed to expand my technique thanks to this one. Also thank you and congrats to all of you challengers who participated, I think we need a large podium this time around, truly great stuff collected here.

[Corp]

Thanks a lot to eswube , hood and char for the feedback. I wish I had the time to put into putting in feedback into everyone's work but work and rl mean I don't quite have the time. I will however say that JJXIndoweeb 3/4 front view absolutely dominated this contest and really pushed the bounds of FD scale. While I can see a couple aspects of the view that could be improved, it's far and away above anything I've managed to do and it puts him in a very exclusive club of pixel artists who have ventured beyond the limits of side/front/top views.

Congratulations to all entrants for participating and for providing some very interesting works.
And now it's my time to make a lots of enemies here with a litany of vicious criticism. (even more enemies than already, that is )

Corp - Polaris Model 60 Arbalest
It's an original entry for sure. But I have some reservations - one is that the airfoil seems to be much thicker than even on B-36 (despite being indeed of similar size), while at the same time the empennage seems to be extremely thin and flat. Like with Rowdy36's work - the "moving parts" (control surfaces, gear and bomb bay covers, doors etc.) tend to be outlined in black, not jus the dark shade, and on the "windows" of all kinds, the border between the transparent and non-transparent material tends to be outilined in black too (basically, the whole our style is built around the black contours).

I was going to say that I measured the wing root and it was within a couple pixels of the B-36 but I then realized that my measuring was likely done on an earlier iteration of the wing. The black outlines on moving parts are something I've shifted to over the years as I feel like moving parts, if depicted in a "flush" position don't count as the sort of "hard edge" that should warrant a black line (unless they're depicted as "open" or "deployed". It's just one of those minor deviations from the "style" that I've done over the years of the sort that everyone has to some extent. I do think there is a better argument for black lines on transparent/nontransparent edges and it's a thing I've wavered on over the years. Usually I go with whatever "looks best" on a particular drawing. Consistency is something I think is important but I'm of the opinion that artistic quality trumps consistency when it comes to minor details like this. In this particular case I decided the dark shade looked better than black lines.

Now the bar is getting higher my scoring is getting stricter, so I have been stingy with some scores, which I think is better than over-inflated scores just because something looks 'cool'.

Some detailed feedback and my thoughts:

Corp, Polaris Model 60: I picked up a lot of B-36 vibes but the design looked reasonably different to be interesting. The tail unit, like some others, looks like a collection of straight lines, lacking a proper set of curves. Otherwise well drawn and some really nice details on the open-gun positions etc., my major nitpick would be the front of the wing nacelles, they look rather fat and draggy and how they are faired into the wing could be improved, the seem to stand out proud of the wing more than the front-view seems to indicate.

I'm glad I got the B-36 vibes across. My primary reference was the Consolidated Model 36, the design which eventually morphed into the B-36. With designs such as this I often start with a "never built" and as I draw I'll throw in my own touches. In this case the general measurements and outline are the same as the Model 36, but I incorporated the B-36's turrets, as well as an original cockpit, tail gun and other details to make the design more distinctively "mine".

The wing nacelles are something I struggled with. Partly due to the quality of the reference I worked on and partly from my desire to "diverge" from the reference in order to make my design more unique. I went through around 3 revisions and wavered on doing a 4th. Definitely going to take that extra time next time we have a similar challenge.

Congratulations to all the participants and the whole community on another very succesful challenge. I believe the skill ceiling and style of the FD scale have been expanded succesfully with this demonstration, we even have something I had never before seen in SB in jjx’s absolutely outstanding 3/4ths view, which I would very much like to discuss later.

Corp’s Model 60
When I learned Corp was going to try this after an abortive 1st option, I was a bit skeptical, but he pulled it off, the absolute madman. The biggest plane in the challenge, I was very much expecting this to be the norm rather than an outlier. The huge drawing is awe inspiring, the basic shapes are well defined, it really shows how humongous this monster is. The dorsal guns on the top view are outright impressive. Not a fan of the black line defining the leading edge of the wing, it looks as if the top part has an overbite, I would’ve defined the leading edge differently on the front and side view. The way of depicting the interior is not my style but it works. Love the last one’s red brick colour. Solid idea, solid execution, good show.

Thanks for the compliments. I was also expecting more large bombers and was surprised that wasn't the case. I also find it funny that you and eswube have polar opposite comments regarding black lines. Eswube disapproved of a lack of black lines in a place while you dislike my use of a black lines in a different place. Looking back in hindsight I definitely agree with you that a black line was probably not the way to go as there's more of a gradual curve than a hard edge. It's something I'll keep in mind next time I draw a chunky wing like this.

[Charguizard]

I also find it funny that you and eswube have polar opposite comments regarding black lines. Eswube disapproved of a lack of black lines in a place while you dislike my use of a black lines in a different place. Looking back in hindsight I definitely agree with you that a black line was probably not the way to go as there's more of a gradual curve than a hard edge. It's something I'll keep in mind next time I draw a chunky wing like this.

Just because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I disagree with eswube on the points he made, I did say I was going to skip over his points and talk about other things : )))
Our medium is severely limiting, and while we keep pushing its boundaries time and again, there are some black lines and other style points that I feel have to be kept lest the drawings become blurry and confusing. Kat's specter lingers over my shoulder menacingly. In the end our drawings are supposed to be easily comparable, compatible in scale and to a lesser extent compatible in style so as to be easily kitbashable and recolourable. I for one make a strong point of following strict colour conventions and control, all my drawings are easily recolourable with the tools provided by GIMP, PDN or PS, in a matter of minutes.