Shipbucket

Bulgaria - Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun


Manchukuo - Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun

Ukranian Air Force Tu-22M "Red 57"

Germany, Heinkel He 100D
water cooling to a run-on sentence error

eswube wrote: ↑February 24th, 2022, 9:14 pm (carried over from FD Aircraft 18 thread)

Albion00 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 9:58 am SAAB 2000 Erieye AEW&C

Actually I have some reservations about this drawing. One is that elements such as rudders, elevators, flaps or ailerons are usually marked in black (yeah, there are few drawings around where they are not, but generally it's a break in surface, and these are marked black) - so are usually doors or major hatches (like luggage - inspection ones rather not, though).
Also - though that's somewhat conditional, but I'd apply it in this case - I'd mark the line of separation between vertical stabilizer and fuselage, as well as between horizontal stabilizer and fuselage in black.
Another thing - for a strange reason there's a 2-pixel thick shaded line along the rudder's trailing edge, which doesn't make much sense, as it would suggest that it's very thick and circular there - which is clearly not the case.
Next issue - very important - there's just one highlight shade on top of fuselage (and engines) but two shades along the bottom of fuselage (yet not on engines and the wing-fuselage fairing) - just one is standard.
Finally the brighter shade over the cockpit and over the nose - over the cockpit it's deepening (from 4 pixels for most of the length to 8+ pixels over cockpit windows) in typical FD practice would suggest that the fuselage becomes horribly wide and flat-ish on top, while the constant width of the highlight on the also doesn't quite makes sense, as the nose gets narrower towards the front, and so should highlight.
(as an extension of this last point: highlight on the propeller cap is very wide but just 1-pixel wide shaded - it should be symmetrical top-bottom - wide on the engines' side and narrowing towards the front tip)

Hiiii eswube. Thank you for the feedback. I apologize for the delayed update, but here are the improved versions for both the AEW and civilian versions.

Do you think you could make other improvements to the Saab 2000, including a version without landing gear?

Good evening gentlemen!

My first drawings after a pause (once again this year, health issues ). A classic little warbird in South and Central America: the Cessna A37B Dragonfly.


The first examples arrived in the mid 1970s to the Chilean and Peruvian air forces, during a complex and tense near war situation between these countries. During the following years, part of the Chilean aircraft were moved to the south, in another quasi-war against Argentina. In the 1980s, the Dragonfly was intensely used in Central America in almost all the civil wars of that region. The A37 was the main and only warplane in the Uruguayan AF. In 1981 and 1995 was used both by the Peruvian and Ecuatorian AF during brief border clashes in Amazon basin. And in the Colombian AF the model was used in the war against several left wing gangs, being improved during the early 2000s with new sensors that made the Dragonfly able to deliver guided bombs. Cheers.

Robert MacReady wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 10:00 pm Do you think you could make other improvements to the Saab 2000, including a version without landing gear?

Can you elaborate on what "other improvements" mean?

CANT Z.1018 Leone I

The planned great hope for a revitalised Italian Air Force, crippled by project mismanagement.



In 1939 a design request was made for a new all-metal medium bomber to replace the technologically aged wooden designs current in Italy. Zappata at CANT proposed a metalised version of the 3-engined Z.1007 as the Z.1015. It was decided that the design loading factor for the new model was insufficient and it was requested that the aircraft be strengthened. And so commenced a ridiculous train of improvement and change requests thar ultimately doomed the aircraft.
Zappata realised that strengthening the design would mean more weight and less performance, and so instead redesigned the aircraft to use only 2 higher powered engines to save weight and also reduce costs. Zappata also planned the aircraft to be able to be fitted with differing inner wing sections to allow high altitude, long range, or high speed bomber models, as well as a floatplane model as the Z.514.
The new design was well received, and in Feb 1939 an order was placed for a wooden prototype - identical to the production machine in all aspects except made from wood - and production aircraft had to be in service before the end of 1939.
The time scale was unreasonable, especially as the chosen Alfa Romeo engine was itself still only in development, and was eventually dropped but design demands now started flowing in, disrupting the development. Requests included changing to the DB601 engine and adding a powered 360* rotating dorsal turret.
The prototype flew in October 1939, but the Alfa Romeo engines were very unreliable, and by March 1940 were replaced by the definitive Piaggio P.XII engines - which were themselves still in development. The poor performance of the original engines was concerning, and especially as the aircraft was a twin rather than 3-engined design, confidence in the Z.1018 had slipped and the Z.1007ter version now became favoured.
Finally in October 1940 an order was placed for 100 series aircraft, but in December it was required that 10 pre-production wooden aircraft be built first. Again the requirement for the wooden aircraft was that they be identical in weight and performance to the planned metalic model. So in effect the Z.1018 had to be designed from scratch 3 times. Further design changes kept flowing in, the most notable being a change from twin tails to a single tail, while the armament was in a constant state of flux.
The first wooden aircraft flew in December 1941, a year after the construction approval. The first metal aircraft was completed in September 1942, and delays with engine deliveries meant that only about 5 aircraft had been built by the time of the armistice, and even these were used as test aircraft for torpedo trials and heavy fighter and night fighter installations.
In the end only about 15 aircraft were completed, and the Z.1018 was never used operationally.

Rainmaker wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:01 pm A few months back, I made the switch from flying the 757/767 freighter to flying the A320 family with Canada's flag carrier. I saw Ukraineball's A319/A320 series and felt inspired to do the same for Air Canada. It turned out to be a time-consuming process, but I did my best to show all the major liveries from 1990 until now.

I used Ro-Po Max's excellent A320 as a base and modified it to include the A319 and the A321, so many thanks to Ro-Po Max for creating such a great base drawing to which I could clumsily apply some additional liveries. As always, comments and feedback are much appreciated - enjoy!

(...)

@Rainmaker

Although I have to commend amount of effort and sophistication of Your work, I'm afraid, that it's not really quite SB/FD-compliant work. Most of it is not related to Your part of work (although that leaf on tail of C-GBHM, C-FDQV and C-GJWI is borderline gradient), basic problem is that You decided to use Ro-Po Max's work as a base, and unfortunately I wouldn't encourage anyone to use his works for that purpose. Ro-Po Max's drawings are very sophisticated, but precisely of it are NOT SB/FD-compliant (I wasn't commenting much on it before, because Ro-Po Max posts primarily in AU threads, where I don't bother too much to call for compliance with rules), including for some features that go explicitly against rules and/or established principles. Primary "sins" are excess amount of shades (like 5 of them on the fuselage itself, not counting areas shaded by wing and horizontal stabilizer - just 5 BASIC shades where standard is 3 - highlight/basic/shaded) and under-use of black contour, which is missing from contour of rudder, elevator, wing mechanization, outline of windows and doors and major hatches and some other places (like where horizontal stablizer and wing meets fuselage and where engine meets mount, but these are grey area).

Albion00 wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 8:01 pm (...)

Hiiii eswube. Thank you for the feedback. I apologize for the delayed update, but here are the improved versions for both the AEW and civilian versions.

(...)

@Albion00

It seems that You've misunderstood my feedback, and You've "improved" these drawings out of SB/FD altogether and into the "Non-Shipbucket Drawings" forum. Seriously.
To begin with, it's a massive shade overkill: You're using SEVEN shades (strong highlight, medium highlight, basic, medium shade, strong shade, ultra-strong shade, panel lines on ultra-strong shade), and except for one, all are used universally on all areas. Earliest FD drawings used only FOUR shades (highlight, basic, shade, panel lines on shade), these days most commonly amount is, I believe five or six (I use six), but some of them only for very limited purposes - these are: highlight, basic, shade, overhang shade/panel lines on shade (mainly used to show curvature of the elements that are shaded by wings, horizontal stabilizers and the like), panel lines on overhang shade (few pixels per drawing, on average), "semi-contour" (used to draw outlines that don't warrant marking them in black).
You have, for example, two shades on the trailing edge of rudder, even though one, or even zero, would suffice, because it's not really a rounded thing (unlike leading edge) to a degree appreciable in this scale. I don't understand the highlights surrounding the passenger windows (and of irregular shapes, at that). Between aft door and horizontal stabilizer there are some things that look like air intakes (or something similar) - places where are the actual breaks in continuity of surface (the actual holes) should be marked in black. I don't understand why bottom surface of horizontal stabilzer is painted in darker shade than of the wing. Shape of highlight near the cockpit is also wrong - it's not turning in a gentle arc towards the nose, across the cockpit, but approximately follows the upper contour of the fuselage (it's not a teardrop-hulled submarine). And IMHO there are too many shades used in windows, but I'm not insisting on this, because some other artist also have a penchant for using multiple shades on what essentialy is just a flat glass surface.

Below there is a comparison of Your SAAB repainted in false colors with one of my works also in false colors, representing what is basically a usual practice in SB/FD.

reytuerto wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 12:41 am Good evening gentlemen!

My first drawings after a pause (once again this year, health issues ). A classic little warbird in South and Central America: the Cessna A37B Dragonfly.

(...)

@Reytuerto

Great to see You back. Hope You'll health will improve decidedly from now on!
Nice work, but I'd say that thick 3-pixel outline along the upper contour of cockpit is unnecessary and single black line would suffice, because at this angle the frame that goes through the middle of canopy doesn't really stand above the transparent part. Also the windscreen is IMHO too bulging and at this scale a straight line would be enough too (suggested alteration added at the bottom of the sheet below). Also, some tweaks to the shading could be applied, if I may suggest so. Btw. "various Los Angeles users"? (if it's multi-country sheet, then we use format "country of manufacturer, name" - and it's A-37 with hyphen)


@Garlicdesign

Nice, but what's wrong with version done by Garlicdesign and Naixoterk? ( http://shipbucket.com/vehicles/3726 )

Aermacchi MB-339 - Blanco


Aermacchi MB-339 - Various Users ( to replace the old drawing)