Shipbucket

I am in the process of drawing the Imperial Britannian Air Corps so naturally I wanted feedback on my very first aircraft.

Here is the Vickers-Kriegskraft* VK-3 Valkyrie medium Bomber.


And a top view wip.


*Yes I know it means warpower but it is supposed to be lost in translation.

P.s I don't know if I posted this I the right forum but as this is my first Aircraft I posted is here on the safe side.

Thats neat

Thanks.

Hm... needs a lot of work. First thoughts are that the wings should typicaly be three pixels thick(it would be too heavy otherwise), and that the body needs to be more streamlined. The tail fin looks really odd as well. The landing gears shouldn't be equally long, shorten the back one, and move it to just front of the tail fin section. Also, the propellers should probably face forward.

Other than what KHT has said (which I second) I don't think that last gunner's position between the rudders is worth it's weight (literaly). It is going to have a very limited firing arc, and be a liability on takeoff.

Honestly, it's really hard to tell at this scale, at least for me.

Maybe it just me but doesn't it look like a sub betwen to pieces of bread?
Still needs alot of work.

The wings are dihedral so are seen to be thick.

The landing gear are the same length to increase safety on landing as there are issues about the flipping over forward when the brakes are applied.

The engines are similar the the Gotha G.IV.

I don't think any biplanes have used dihedral wings... might be wrong though. And if that's the case, you have to draw and shade them in a manner that makes it look like they are... look around on other planes on the 'bucket.

That won't increase safety. Why do you think that practicaly all (military) planes in the world has refrained from equall length landing gear?

Ok, I won't say anything on the engines, becouse I suck at such things. Someone more proffessional than me has to jump in.

KHT wrote:I don't think any biplanes have used dihedral wings... might be wrong though.

Indeed, You are wrong. Lots of biplanes have used dihedral wings including such types like BE.2, DH.9 or Bristol Fighter. Lots didn't, lots only on lower wing.
My comment about the wings is that they are too "flat", that is, they lack any attempt to show their airfoil, while the struts between them should be "more vertical" (looking not like N, but I I , as N would make sense if the upper wing was much more to the forward then the lower).

APDAF
I'd say that weakest part of this design is the undercarriage - typical (for the era) one with the tail wheel would be better, I guess, and for safety You could add a front wheel a la Caproni Ca.3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.3

Also, IMHO the engines are bit too far to the rear, even for a pusher.