[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 17  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 517 »
Author Message
APDAF
Post subject: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 10th, 2012, 10:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 1482
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
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.

[ img ]
And a top view wip.
[ img ]

*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.


Last edited by APDAF on December 9th, 2012, 8:47 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cruel2BEkind
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 10th, 2012, 10:40 pm
Offline
Posts: 272
Joined: May 12th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
Thats neat

_________________
Coming soon....
-Carrier Submarine?
-Missile Interceptor


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
APDAF
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 10th, 2012, 10:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 1482
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
Thanks.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KHT
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 10th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1376
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Raxar
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 10th, 2012, 11:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 31st, 2011, 4:49 pm
Location: Des Moines, for now
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.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 11th, 2012, 3:43 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2766
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Honestly, it's really hard to tell at this scale, at least for me.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Radome
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 11th, 2012, 8:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1126
Joined: April 15th, 2011, 10:57 pm
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Maybe it just me but doesn't it look like a sub betwen to pieces of bread?
Still needs alot of work.

_________________
- - -> My Worklist! <- - -


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
APDAF
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 11th, 2012, 10:19 am
Offline
Posts: 1482
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KHT
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 11th, 2012, 10:28 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1376
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Britannian AircraftPosted: July 11th, 2012, 11:07 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9073
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 17  [ 165 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page 1 2 3 4 517 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]