[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 4  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 18th, 2019, 10:02 pm
Posts: 9144
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Very interesting entries! Great work!

My very neglected Deviantart page

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 18th, 2019, 11:09 pm
Posts: 41
Joined: July 30th, 2015, 11:40 pm
Location: Indiana
[ img ]
First Production: 1971
Length: 134 ft
Wingspan: 102 ft
Empty Weight: 98,500 lb
Max Flight Weight: 210, 000 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 163,000 lb
Powerplant: 2x Tremec TF-43 31,000/55,000 lb dry/wet
Max Speed: Mach .93/1.32 dry/wet
Un-refueled Combat Radius: 1,300 mile @ 28,000lb payload
Max Bay-load: 45,500lb
Bay Config: Tandem 7 position rack for up to 14 standoff missiles
Defense: Flares, Chaff, minor ECM and 20mm gatling in tail

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 19th, 2019, 4:38 am
User avatar
Posts: 4382
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
Alright thank you all for submissions. The competition is now closed, no more entries anymore. We shall draft the voting system soonish.

Coming next: L/M Moskva, some research ships, pr.26bis, Pr.1144 remakes and Project 1143 complete redux.

Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
Submit your drawings to the archive here
Novgorod AU wiki

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 19th, 2019, 3:02 pm
Posts: 5048
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Poll is open here: https://goo.gl/forms/WTaqx0uQxXB3gIQG2

Please note that this poll does not accept commentary; if you wish to leave feedback for the entries, please make a post here. Thx!

USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 19th, 2019, 4:25 pm
User avatar
Posts: 3741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website

Garlic - As usual an entry that looks solid on first glance, but with the details falls apart. For example, there is only one aircraft that ever stacked jets like his entry does here - because there get to be airflow issues at variable angles of attack. Furthermore the main gear have nowhere to go - the place where one would expect them to go is occupied by the bombbay and the air intakes - which we see running directly back to the fan faces (meaning the systems needed to control airlow into them might be insufficient).

Char - It's an A3J on steroids, and I love it.

sprinklez - An exceptional rendition of a never-was plane. I think a bit of finetuning would have made it even better, but as it stands, probably the best entry.

Armoured man - It's a Vulcan, but not? I'm not sure what to exactly make of some of it, and a bit of cleanup on the top view would be good. A solid, if not a standout entry

Hood - Easily my favorite. The detail work on the drawing, combined with the exceptionally realistic nature of the design only lost points because it didn't have three views, and wasn't a real design.

Tigerhunter - The two-element design is certainly unique, but Even after several read-throughs of the text I'm still not 100% sure what is going on. Is the uncrewed section an over sized cruise missile, a recoverable drone, or some form of range extender for the crewed portion? - EDIT: I have been informed that it is a giant cruise missile. Makes sense.

Victorcharlie - A subsonic French strategic bomber is an interesting proposition. There is however something odd going on with the tail, and I'd like to see more detail on it.

Gollevainen - A very nice design that looses some points due to engine placement - they just feel way to low (resulting in pitching motions), too close to the ground (Foreign Object Damage!), and too far outboard (I've heard that one of the issues with the B-52 being re-engined with four large engines is stability on engine-out conditions). Other than this, it's a very workman like entry.

Muscatatuck - A slightly less strategic P6M. While the top view avoids some of the shading issues that came up in other entries, the front view and side views seem a bit spartan. A solid entry nonetheless.

Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 19th, 2019, 9:49 pm
Posts: 9144
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
My 3 cents.

Garlicdesign (MCE B5M Griofa) - fantastic looking entry (in typical GD's style) and indeed the only serious 'negatives' are those mentioned by Timothy, regarding the air ducts and undercarriage bays - I guess (not being an engineer) that with proper (possibly adjustable) shape of the air ducts the issue of airflow could be minimized, but the plain view of the compressor fans means that the ducts are just straight pipes, which, in turn raises a question of the undercarriage. (to be honest, when I saw the drawing for the first time, I thought the 'duct problem', but 'gear bay problem' completely escaped my attention, possibly because I was overwhelmed by general awesomeness of this entry).

Charguizard (Nakajima G14N Shirozan) - another fabulous looking design (with lots of fabulous variants and paint schemes), from one of new, rapidly rising stars of our community (Char, any chance to see Your works more often in the non-AU FD department? ;) ). More compact than other designs, doesn't seem to have any obvious serious flaws. Only thing I'd object to - and rather on esthetical grounds, rather than technical is the relative width and "flatness" of the central fuselage, with so wide intakes spaced so widely relative to fairly narrow-looking engines, and main undercarriage seemingly "far to the rear" (again, purely subjective, esthetical impression). Thumbs up!

The_Sprinklez (General Dynamics AMSA Config. 2906) - a real-world design, so gets 100% in the plausibily area by default. In regards to style and quality - it's solid entry, drawing-wise, though as Timothy remarked, there is a room for fine-tuning.
(on a side note, one thing I'd remark about is shading on top-view - with 'bright' sides and 'medium shade' top-view - if it were to be a view of a plane in horizontal flight seen from top, then the top parts would have 'bright shade' and sides were 'medium' ;) )
Anyway, keep up the good work. I hope to see it in the "real" Never-were thread. :)

Armoured man (Fujimoto E55 Yokai) - clearly inspired by Avro Vulcan. Unfortunately, while the Vulcan also had "flat" bottom contour of fuselage and "curved" top one, the proportions were very different and the E55 looks rather awkward. Also, there are, IMHO, lots of things that could be fine-tuned - cockpit windows look quite bad, also the undercarriage looks 'heavy' and underdetailed (and I'm wondering where the main gear is retracted - really would love to see the bottom view ;) ) and panel lines on wings on top view don't seem to have much sense.
(on a side note - that KE25 clone of Halifax probably wouldn't be capable to take enough fuel to make it a big difference; Charguizard's entry has bit similar problem, but he's got smaller bomber)

Hood (Hawker Siddeley HS.1110 SSR.2 Vanquish B.Mk.1/B.Mk.1A) - I won't hide it: that's the entry that got my vote. As always with Hood's works, the drawing is excellent in execution and style. Regarding the design itself, it's a loose variation on a theme of Hawker-Siddeley HS.1011 - initially designed as supersonic passenger jet and as rapid-response ASW aircraft. Hood made it smaller and with more conventional location of engines (HS.1011 had two under the wing roots and two at the tail) - and also perfectly captured the "very own, unimitable style" of British avant-garde designs of the era. One could only wish it was armed with some more fancy nukes (though the nuclear-armed Martel was indeed considered in 1960s). 10/10/10 in all categories.

TigerHunter1945 (Sosrobirowo Strategic Weapon System) - drawings are nicely executed (there are few details I personally don't "like" but nothing really serious, nor even "breaking the rules", just my individual preferences) and the design is certainly "out of the box" idea, an interesting to create a mega(ton)-Mistel. Wiweko B-54 Gelatik seems to be clearly inspired with Canberra, at least when the front half of the fuselage is concerned. The wings seem to have rather small chord, especially relative to their thickness and the horizontal stabilizer looks like attached from completely different airplane (plus the top view could definitely use more panel lines - and make them bit more pronounced), but the overall idea looks nice. The Nurtanio R12N Wisanggeni missile looks great (again, panel lines on top view, though...) but... I have one serious problem with whole arrangement - I definitely wouldn't want to be a pilot that would have to perform a landing of this whole combo because the main undercarriage looks extremely narrow, especially for a vehicle with so high centre of gravity. I also wonder where these four wheels fit, relative to air duct (or even the engine itself).

VictorCharlie (Sud-Aviation Nuage) - well, fittingly with text description, it's a very 1950s design. Overall arrangement looks fine, even if rather slightly strange (I assume that the tail has 3 vertical stabilizers/rudders in the 1930s style?), though the shape of engine nacelles - esp. their rear part - is somewhat puzzling. It seems that there's something very wrong with profile of wings and horizontal stabilizer (they look more like superellipses instead of 'proper' teardrop shape). Also the tail turret seems to have its "top" higher than the rest of the fuselage forward of it, the undercarriage begs for more detailing and fuselage and wings for more panel lines and tiny details (antennas, equipment hatches etc.)

Gollevainen (Khabarovsk B-7) - that's another adaptation of the "real-world never-were", namely the Chinese Xian H-7 (or H-8I depending on sources - in Andreas Rupprecht's 'Dragon's Wings. Chinese fighter and bomber aircraft aircraft development it's H-7, but in Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Kommisarov's 'Chinese aircraft. China aviation industry since 1951' it's H-8I) design of 1970 but with an upgrade. Original H-7/8 was a H-6 (Tu-16) with four (later version even with six) engines in underwing nacelles (B707-style). Gollevainen's design, however, uses the most modern (currently in production) H-6K version as a base, with heavily redesigned nose section and deleted tail turret. As such, like The_Sprinklez's AMSA, it's overall plausibility can be basically taken for granted (regarding the engine issues raised by Timothy - it could turn out to be a lemon, but would work, more or less ;) ). On the 'visual' side, I miss the practical lack of window color and I'd say that wheels look rather huge.

Muscatatuck (Martin P5M Orca) - P6M SeaMaster derivative (unfortunately the P5M designation was already used before ;) ) so plausible in principle, though the actual P6M had engines blowing slightly downwards and here they are completely horizontal (which, I believe, would have certain meaning in practice). Drawing is fairly solid but bit unspectacular and begs for more detailing, panel lines etc. My biggest problem is perhaps the front view, namely the egg-ish shape (cross-section) of the fuselage (particularly in the bottom part).

My very neglected Deviantart page

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 20th, 2019, 12:21 pm
Posts: 6325
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Garlicdesign (MCE B5M Griofa): I just want to say that the T4M looks an excellent design, shame its only an appendix to the entry. Looks every inch like a Tornado/Su-24 class strike aircraft. I can only say good things about the artistry, we all know GD is an artist of the top calibre. My only technical issue with the aircraft itself is the double-stacked engine layout. Not that this is unfeasible, it has been studied many times in projects. I just feel its the less optimal solution here, robbing internal space that could be used for fuel and probably creating a 'draggier' airframe than necessary. I'm also unsure whether you've made allowance for the trunking for the lower engine which seems to sit behind the undercarriage bay but the compressor face is visible on the front-view which assumes a straight-through intake that would be impossible.

Charguizard (Nakajima G14N Shirozan): The artistry is very good and the extra drawings are all great with some other very nice AU designs. My only technical criticism is the low undercarriage. Although the aircraft sits nose-high on the ground, there seems to be insufficent clearance with the ventral fins for rotating for take off and with the swept planform its likely the AoA on take off would be high. Overall its a very sleek design aesthetically.

The_Sprinklez (General Dynamics AMSA Config. 2906): As a real project design its not really fair to offer a critique of the design. The artistry is solid, a little more panel detail might have been good but the extra drawings were good to see.

Armoured man (Fujimoto E55 Yokai): As a suped-up Vulcan this design looks reasonably feasible, a front view would have been handy for making sense of the underwing intakes. The ground-mapping/bombing radar might interfere slightly with the bomb-aimer's position internally but overall this looks an impressive delta-winged bomber.

Hood (Hawker Siddeley HS.1110 SSR.2 Vanquish B.Mk.1/B.Mk.1A):As the artist I won't elaborate further on the notes I made on the entry.

TigerHunter1945 (Sosrobirowo Strategic Weapon System): The B-54 looks like a nice Canberra-esque light bomber. I am surprised that the horizontal tailplane isn't swept though. The unmanned Sosrobirowo element looks impressive. I'm still a little unsure on some aspects of the system, does the Sosrobirowo detach for the strike-mission and then recover under autopilot for landing or is it expendable? An interesting concept though for sure.

VictorCharlie (Sud-Aviation Nuage): I just want to start by saying this has spades of French aesthetic. Picking up vibes of the B-52 and B-47 too here. The cockpit looks more modern than the rest of the airframe, the sloped windscreen should help visibility when landing. I'm not a big fan of bicycle undercarriages but I can see why its been used here and it works ok. The engine nacelles with the kinked tailpipe is strange. The tail layout is odd too, but I guess it aids hangarage and gives a good French vibe. A little more shading would have been good to see to really finish this off nicely.

Gollevainen (Khabarovsk B-7): As a real project design its not really fair to offer a critique of the design. I agree though the high-bypass turbofan pods might give some issues and with four underwing missiles it feels like the wings are rather loaded. Very nicely drawn too.

Muscatatuck (Martin P5M Orca): As a real design its not really fair to offer a critique of the design. The drawings are good but more panel detail and shading (hard I know with that dark blue) would have made this an even better drawing.

Overall, I don't think there is much between any of the drawings here. Some technical nit picks for sure, but no crazy far-out stuff and the drawing quality is pretty high I think, especially when everyone is still trying to grips with 3-views which are still fairly novel for FD scale.

Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Never-Were British Aircraft

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 21st, 2019, 9:17 pm
User avatar
Posts: 278
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
Two cents from me to the forum.

Garlicdesign (MCE B5M Griofa): A fantastic aircraft with a fantastic design story. Neverminding the criticism offered on the stacked engines and its implications, the plane looks believable, specially with the attention given to info labels. The plane is enormous though, and it seems it would be a moneypit for anything other than a superpower. Seems about right to sell in small numbers to arab dictatorships though, as an ego-extender. Must still be fun to take out the top engines.

Charguizard (Nakajima G14N Shirozan): Since it’s my own plane I’ll talk about the project a bit. This aircraft is based on what little info there is on project NA-237 of 12th June 1955, which is related to specification WS-300A. Contemporary to the F-105 Thunderchief but looking more like a MiG-25, there don’t seem to be solid stats for this aircraft. If we assume its powered by something like two J57s, then I increased the size of the aircraft to fit its new role. The G14N has the same missions that the old G4M Betty had, and strives to be as versatile, being detailed for naval strike, tactical and strategic bombing. Other differences with the NA-237/WS-300A include a second seat for the WSO/nav and the removal of the internal cannon. The ventral fins were supposed to retract for takeoff/landing on the original aircraft but I failed to say this anywhere in the story for my plane, or draw them retracted in the ground image. The Shirozan-Kai diverges more from the original project and is my interpretation of an idealized WS-300A, getting the gun back, changing the fins for some more reasonable ones and generally looking more like a modern A-5 or TSR.2. Tornado Beast Mode, if you will.

The_Sprinklez (General Dynamics AMSA Config. 2906): An excellent choice for inspiration, perfect for the challenge’s contest. The silhouette and general detail level are more than sufficient, though more work could be done in small details like exhaust nozzle (I don’t like it, maybe its correct?), flying surface thinness at the tips (they all look a bit chonky from the front), and the top view, which is a bit confusing with regards to where the light source comes from. Overal superb effort from one of the newest members.

Armoured man (Fujimoto E55 Yokai): The devil is in the details here. Center of pressure is clearly aft due to the delta wing planform, so the bomb bay seems too far forward to balance the aircraft out. I feel the edge between the fuselage and the canopy bulb doesn’t deserve a black line. The top view is confusing, the shadow cast by the tail indicates light comes from port, top of the image, but the fuselage is shaded on both sides, and the exhausts have mirrored shading. Changes as small as these would result in a much more believable aircraft.

Hood (Hawker Siddeley HS.1110 SSR.2 Vanquish B.Mk.1/B.Mk.1A): An impressive drawing of a no less impressive concept, Master Hood goes to show that more views don’t make a better submission, despite my best efforts. The version depicting a plane on the ground is brilliant, and the colours and shading are very well balanced. The wheel detail is particularly good. I still want a top view at the very least, I’m curious as to the engine placement.

TigerHunter1945 (Sosrobirowo Strategic Weapon System): Quirky and I like it, it was never clear for me from the text if the lower element was a drone or a bomb, but from talking in the discord I’ve learned its a huge cruise missile. The arrangement seems to perform its mission well but I wouldn’t want to be the one lifting that bomber onto the missile component. The bomber looks a tiny bit anachronistic with the straight tailplane but the aircraft overall is solid. A bit more work on shading and the top views would really make this one stand out.

VictorCharlie (Sud-Aviation Nuage): This one actually has four tails, right? I know what its based on but I won’t say~ I don’t find the engine pods too quirky, surely weirder things have flown. It could definitely use more inspection hatches and information markings, and please oh please do more views and schemes. The wings look a bit too thick maybe?

Gollevainen (Khabarovsk B-7): A very conservative but attractive and effective design, probably a very good platform to make variants for other purposes. The side view is just about perfect, though I do wonder if the front gear hatch could use more detailing and highlighting work when in the open position. On the top view, light seems to come from above to the viewer, port side to the aircraft, but the shading doesn’t look completely resolved, on the tailfin and the engine pods. I do think the engine pods would interfere with the landing gear. A bit more work and it would be 10/10.

Muscatatuck (Martin P5M Orca): A nuclear-powered aircraft converted to conventional power, I’m amazed it can go supersonic but I believe it. I know the drawing was a bit rushed, and it shows, it really needs more work in “filling out” the never-were concept into an actual service aircraft, including panel lines, inspection hatches and information labels. The blue colour might be chromatically correct vs the real deal, but I adscribe to the thought that “viewing distance” must be applied to pixelart, so my recommendation would be to lighten up the blue a lot, and reduce the contrast between shades of “white”(which should never be pure white). The front view needs the hull to be better defined and shading looked after, bottom of the wings are in base colour. Musc hasn’t reached anywhere close to his potential even at his current experience level, so I expect better of him.

w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 21st, 2019, 9:35 pm
Posts: 21
Joined: November 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm
I did compare your design to the images of the model of the North American WS-300A design on the Secret Projects Forum. It looked very similar, aside from the TSR-2 style cockpit.

[Profile] [Quote]
Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber ChallengePosted: March 22nd, 2019, 5:57 pm
User avatar
Posts: 331
Joined: July 14th, 2014, 6:29 pm
Location: PH
Been following this challenge since Garlic and Charguizard's entries... well, unfortunately, I backed out when I realized I was never gonna make it, design dead ends and pitfalls and all that stuff (it could appear in the AU thread sometime).

Here are my top 3 picks:

3. Hood's Hawker Siddeley HS.1110: This was a beautifully drawn and detailed aircraft, and the paintwork is crisply done. The lack of a 3-view (or at least top-view) drawing is understandable, but regardless, this entry is a great one.
2. Garlicdesign's MCE B5M: Quite a monstrous and complex beast of an aircraft (as attested in the lore). Upscaling a tactical strike aircraft design for a heavy bomber is an interesting thought exercise (I had the same idea in mind for what could have been my contender). The stacked engine configuration is also interesting; however, concurring with others in hindsight, I felt such configuration was unsuited for an A-5 Vigilante-type design. I think the aircraft would've benefited from bottom and rear views to really appreciate and understand the design.
1. Charguizard's Nakajima G14N: Perhaps my personal top pick—a nice take on the smaller, Mirage IV-level strategic bomber category. It's the most fleshed-out entry with all the variants and paintschemes, and I love the illustrations of select key campaigns involving the type. I think the engines are somewhat too small for the airframe though.

cheers – wb21

>"Emotions are prohibited." —YoRHa No. 2, Type B ("2B"), NieR: Automata
>"Wow, if I wasn't a hardened killing machine, that mightta hurt..." —SSgt. John Lugo (1st SFOD-D), Spec Ops: The Line
On the pipeline (on hold/slow pace): US Navy WWII DEs | Petlyakov Pe-8, Yermolayev Yer-2

[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 4  [ 35 posts ]  Return to “FD Scale Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

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

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