[Post Reply] [*]  Page 11 of 13  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »

Vote for the best design
Poll ended at November 8th, 2018, 4:08 pm
Hae Maelstrom by Rowdy36  3%  [ 2 ]
Lockheed C-80 Murciélago by Rundrewrun99  1%  [ 1 ]
Mitsubishi A17M1, Type 44 Naval Fighter by Charguizard  20%  [ 14 ]
Yakolev Yak-45 by Hood  10%  [ 7 ]
VAI Naval Fighter by Novice  0%  [ 0 ]
de Havilland Vandal by Blackbuck  1%  [ 1 ]
Rockwell F-19A Hussar by Ilamaman2  1%  [ 1 ]
Westralian Aircraft Consortium Thresher by thegrumpykestrel  4%  [ 3 ]
Lockheed F5V-1A by RaspingLeech  1%  [ 1 ]
Hispano Aviacion HA-1000 Astral by Yuqueleden  3%  [ 2 ]
SOKO Super Orao by Nestin  0%  [ 0 ]
F84 Seahawk by Miklania  0%  [ 0 ]
SCI T3S Siolpaire by Garlicdesign  23%  [ 16 ]
YJ76 Lynx by Obsydian Shade  0%  [ 0 ]
Arsenal Aeronautique/Hawker Siddeley Gerfaut by reytuerto  1%  [ 1 ]
Timoshenko Ti-12 by APDAF  0%  [ 0 ]
Walraven MA-6 Griffin II by pegasus206  0%  [ 0 ]
SOKO L-20K Belorepan by Gollevainen  10%  [ 7 ]
Messerschmitt Me 1260 by TigerHunter1945  4%  [ 3 ]
Sea Lightning FG.2 by Deskjester  13%  [ 9 ]
Fighter Challenge by Skyder2598  0%  [ 0 ]
TF-20 Pangolin by Navybrat85  0%  [ 0 ]
ICAR K-83 μάντα by Wariterm  0%  [ 0 ]
VF74V by Kannevets  0%  [ 0 ]
Aérospatiale-Dassault Menace C by VictorCharlie  1%  [ 1 ]
GE/BAE F/A-21 Gryphon by Sareva  1%  [ 1 ]
Total votes: 70
Author Message
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 2nd, 2018, 2:02 pm
Online
User avatar
Posts: 1108
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Good morning:

After looking all the drawings, I arrived to the conclusion that the best in details was Char's drawing, and the best in feasibility was Hood´s fighter, both were equally good in SB style. At last, Yakovlev figther ended just 1 point over the Mitsubishi model (and this was biased by my personal taste of 1980s-esque aircraft :?, in fact, the first impression when I saw Hood´s drawing was "I can´t compete against that!!! ;) It was so close to my idea of a all around nice design).

But I also want to mention Pegasus, GD and Luis (his jump jet was very nice! as I said in spanish "avión guapo" ;), ranking third in my evaluation) drawings. And Drew´s mind blowing superfast model is interesting too. Blackbuck muscle delta (but I really prefered that fighter as a land based aircraft!), Rowdy´s Draken-esque figther , the fatty but excellent done Sea Lightning, and the two delta-canard designs (Golly´s and Rasping Leach´s ones) were also interesting, well thought and well executed drawings. Since the beginning of the challenge, the drawings were excellent, and it was a privilege share that work with us. Cheers.


PS: I am very pleased with the artist that vote for my modest Gerfaut! Lot of thanks!!! (but in my own evaluation, my own drawing ranks low :( , there were so many good drawings!).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 2nd, 2018, 6:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3737
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
A few thoughts on the entries for this challenge:

Rowdy36: The shape and the inlets make me think Saab, but the delta wings without any form of major thrust vectoring or canards give me questions about a probable high landing speed.

rundrewrun99: Lineage from the early Lockheed ATF proposals and back through the Blackbird is apparent, however like Rowdy's design, the lack of forward control surfaces to improve landing speed handling give me pause.

Charguizard: It's a navalized F-16 with twin engines! And a cranked wing! From the SB rendition and carrier, it is easier to get a good feel for the operational environment that it comes from, which is a very nice touch.

Hood: Coming up with a plausible soviet design isn't always easy, but this design very nearly gets it. All it needs is an over-sized wing fence to knock it out of the park. the Development and service history is also plausible.

Novice: It's a Vought V-507. That's a good thing as I have no doubt that it would work.

Blackbuck: The middle of a set of designs that are based on real life never-were designs, the use of lift-jets keeps this delta from getting into trouble with a lack of forward control surfaces for landing. Solid an reasonable service history and life.

Ilamaman2: There isn't a lot here to go on, but basing the design on the NAA VFX entry produces a design that would fly, and be able to fight in a reasonably competent manner. I would have liked to see more effort on the shading, and detail work however.

thegrumpykestrel: The lineage from the BAe P.1216 is readily apparent, while not being a slave to the inspiration. I do like to see entries in the challenges that get close, but have quirks, and this fits that mold well.

RaspingLeech: I especially enjoy the test aircraft markings and samples of the export markings. The aircraft design itself seems solid and reasonable, if not overly creative. Good use of canards.

Yuqueleden: It's a transonic harrier clone, and the design does that description well. Again, I enjoy the wide variety of markings/liveries.

Nestin: As Hood noted in the thread, she lacks an arrestor hook. I', not sure she rises to the level of a fleet defense fighter as it lacks some of the size one expects from the large engines and radars needed to fill the role in the 1980s.

Miklania: A cross between an F-14 and an F-111B, and a solid one at that. IT is what I think of when I think of a fleet air defense fighter.

Garlicdesign: A very good design that reminds me of a larger, slightly earlier Mako. This is however a source of a problem for me - it looks like a 90s design rather than an 80s design.

Obsydian Shade: I don't have a lot to say on this one. Quite conventional, but it feels like it could use some more work.

reytuerto: Yet another transonic STOVL fighter. Conventional, but reasonable. The drawing could use an art pass to make the shading pop.

APDAF: It looks a bit like a navalized MiG-25, and I'm not sure it works well as a carrier aircraft with that nose. I think with some refinement it could be something good, but I'm not sure what the right direction of that refinement is.

pegasus206: I'm reminded of the navalized F-15 proposals from the late 1970s with this entry.

Gollevainen: If Char did a Navalized Japanese F-16, Golly here has a Euro-Lavi. I'm not sold on this being a 1980s fleet air defense fighter on the lack of a second engine, and the smaller size. Yes, it is designed to operate off of smaller carriers but it's a hard sell. One thing it does do right is the size and placement of the canards.

TigerHunter1945: I'm really not sure how I feel about this one. It is certainly unique, and the massive all-moving canards probably give it some nice landing characteristics, but she's sufficiently unconventional that I'm not sure I'd want to fly her.

Deskjester: Sea Lightning! She's just so ugly from the bug-eye cockpit, to the wacky variable geometry wings, to the massive belly that she is almost cute.

Skyder2598: A Flanker. I don't have anything bad to say about the drawing, but I'd like to see more background on it.

Navybrat85: The Hornet and Tomcat parents must be proud of their Pangolin child here, which is good because it really doesn't work for me at all. Once again, I think an art pass would make it better.

Wariterm: It took me a while to figure out was was happening with this aircraft, but beyond that, it needs something, but I am not sure what that something is.

Kannevets: A twin-tailed V-507. By yet again going with a never-were design, the aerodynamics are not in question, but this entry lacks meat on the bones. In-service markings would be nice to see.

VictorCarlie: I've got a soft spot for the Mirage G, and this fills it well. A solid entry. I would like to see more marking examples.

Sareva: Honestly, this seems more like a bomb truck replacement for the Corsair than a fleet air defense fighter.

I've leave it as an exercise for the reader who I voted for.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rundrewrun99
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 2nd, 2018, 6:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 162
Joined: January 1st, 2017, 10:48 pm
reytuerto wrote: *
And Drew´s mind blowing superfast model is interesting too.
Made me smile! Glad someone found it neat!

_________________
Alternate Universe Projects:
Nation of Nukkumaa (A Septentrion Nation)
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =14&t=8129
THE EMPERIA AU! PRAISE THE GODS AND BLESS THE SPIRITS!
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =14&t=8202


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
waritem
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 2nd, 2018, 7:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 288
Joined: August 4th, 2011, 6:37 am
Location: France
TimothyC wrote: *
Wariterm: It took me a while to figure out was was happening with this aircraft, but beyond that, it needs something, but I am not sure what that something is.
What it needs (i believe) is a top view.
I started one but I was too busy to finish it ..................

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kannevets
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 2nd, 2018, 10:55 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 79
Joined: May 30th, 2017, 1:38 pm
TimothyC wrote: *

Kannevets: A twin-tailed V-507. By yet again going with a never-were design, the aerodynamics are not in question, but this entry lacks meat on the bones. In-service markings would be nice to see.
I'll have to agree with your judgement. I'd put it on my own procrastination skills and general frustration with getting schemes to look the way i wanted them to.

_________________
"What are they gonna do, fire me?" - Nate "Tic-Tac" McNally, 2016 (Fired 2019)


All my newer stuff is signed as czslworldtour.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Sareva
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 3rd, 2018, 11:16 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 71
Joined: June 9th, 2017, 9:48 pm
TimothyC wrote: *
Sareva: Honestly, this seems more like a bomb truck replacement for the Corsair than a fleet air defense fighter.
I'll admit that's what it morphed into, since the fleet defense fighter role limited what I wanted to do.

_________________
Professional spicy go-go juice handler. :D


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 3rd, 2018, 4:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 255
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
I’d like to thank Golly once more for setting up this challenge, and everyone who participated. These challenges keep getting more and more popular, I believe they’ve helped us grow in skill and as a community.
I would also like to offer my (very personal) thoughts about each entry, if my peers wouldn’t mind.

Rowdy36: When I saw this entry I was amazed by how quickly it had been posted, but I was also underwhelmed, “how is this not a grippen” I thought. Seriously, the author could’ve taken a bit more time to detail it more and make some schemes/loadouts? Boy was I surprised when in the end just that happened. It matured into a handsome little crate which looks dashing with a full loadout and camo! Would love to see it kept and used further by Rowdy.

Rundrewrun99: I witnessed this plane’s conception and development firsthand in the SB discord. Drew took a bold position into a field he had little experience with and I commend him for obtaining a resolved end product, the drawing is decent, it has 3 views, ordnance loadouts and 2 schemes. The drawing is hampered by hard to use colours and lack of finesse though, which will come with practice. Drew also did a poor job of describing and defending his choice, which led to the conception that it looks like something out of a sci-fi series rather than the embodiment of real Lockheed concepts, doubtlessly fueled by the drawing’s lack of excellence (statistics would’ve helped). A bulbous canopy and thick flying surfaces could be corrected, but if it was me who did this aircraft, I’d go for a much bigger airframe, at least A-5 sized, with an internal weapons bay and canards, either fixed or deployable, to supplement the bleed air system used here to reduce landing speed and augment control. Better luck next time!

Charguizard: It’s not an F-16! Having a chintake doesn’t make it an F-16! If anything it owes much more to Rafale as you can see in the stats and functionally its more of a reverse configuration version of that, which is what it started as. Sure, eventually the upgrade path uses a similar physical configuration as the Falcon since it seemed obvious to add dorsal CFTs and a spine, but that’s convergent evolution for you.

Hood: I was amazed when this one came around, it has intricate detail and use of colour, very sensible loadouts, plausible fluff and its very original in my opinion. I only wonder how it goes so fast. This one is high on my list for candidates for a vote.

Novice: A handsome aircraft hampered by the jarring colours of the roundels and indifferent shading. Would love to see the carrier proposals for which it was intended. More schemes wouldn’t hurt either.

Blackbuck: An impressive beast, I feel it would be one of the best performing of the bunch as a carrier aircraft. Beautifully drawn, with excellent use of colour. I lean more towards all-original designs but this one is also high on my list for a vote. Please please please do a TG version being refuelled by one of your tankers.

Ilamaman2: A very attractive aircraft. Fluff is meh. Could use better shading/highlighting and just a bit more effort in panneling, and of course 3 views, a gear down view, and more schemes. So more time investment in general so this believable plane really shines.

thegrumpykestrel: Supremely attractive little aircraft! So handsome I might steal license it for my own purposes. Also useful and practical to the core, it’d make a fine addition to any navy/expeditionary force. Really needs more schemes to be a top contender though.

RaspingLeech: Excellent side view, more modest front and top views, something is keeping this one back but I’m not sure what could be improved, the schemes are brilliant already. Definitely deserves more attention, I hope to see it on a carrier eventually.

Yuqueleden: While not the prettiest one around, it is a believable and practical aircraft with tons of schemes and loadouts. Detailing is more than sufficient. More delicate shading and use of colour could improve this one.

No es el avión más atractivo del concurso, pero se ve creíble y práctico y presenta muchos esquemas y configuraciones de armamento. El detallado es más que suficiente. El uso de sombreado y color más delicado podría mejorarlo.

Nestin: It’s a pretty little thing. I agree there’s no way it’d reach 2.5 mach but I disagree on the opinion that it’s a frankenstein job, it could work and maybe just the top view needs more effort. A front view would be nice too. Seems like good bang for buck if a multirole is what you need, but some other entries seem better as a budget interceptor. I still find it believable overall. Could use a bit more detailing. Absolutely love the schemes.

Miklania: An excellent entry, specially as a concept. The drawing could use more detailing on the flying surfaces and top view. Maybe the nose cone junction line shouldn’t be black? I also just realized I can’t figure how it rolls.

Garlicdesign: It wouldn’t be very gentlemanly if I critique the only other person that could win this challenge now, would it? ;)

Obsydian Shade: Sufficient in every way as an entry, could still improve in many aspects. Front view is bare but front views are hard. Would have to have many more schemes, a gear down view and loadouts to compete further up.

reytuerto: This is a very pretty aircraft, also a practical offering. I can’t shake the feeling its a bit in the past though. It has a lot of potential though and it could improve a lot with better highlighting. Would love to see more schemes and loadouts too.

APDAF: I was also witness to the conception and development of this airframe on the discord. It suffers first and foremost from misuse of time, rushed to completion at the end. The whole nose section seems to point too far up, the canopy bubbles up sharply, the drawing could use more detailing and of course it’s only a side view with no extra loadouts or schemes. Also, boy, were we shocked when APDAF showed us what it looked like from above, it really needs more thought given to the wings. Regardless of the brutal critique, I commend you on a finished drawing and I hope you’re not discouraged from competing more often in the future.

pegasus206: It’s a very good drawing, with lots of intricate details (look at the forward gear door!) has a nice scheme 5 (!) views, an impressive loadout, and yet, it somehow doesn’t appeal to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, I just find the wing and silhouette unattractive. Is an AESA array appropriate for the service entry date? Either way, very good job with the drawing, definitely deserves more attention.

Gollevainen: I know I just said my plane isn’t an F-16, but isn’t this literally a Lavi? The drawing is superb, it has 3 views, gear down view, many schemes, it’s an excellent entry. The ordnance chart caught me completely off guard too. Congrats to Golly.

TigerHunter1945: This entry definitely deserves more attention. Its a unique aircraft, it has all the views, very nice schemes, different loadouts, the works. Big kuddos to TH! The shapes are very hard to represent though and maybe this plane deserves to be drawn in franscale to show the details better. Any questions about the feasibility of this airframe and its performance seem to rest on the location and size of the cannards, and I would encourage those interested to test it at least on the most amateur of tools like KSP or X-plane, or hell, maybe a foam R/C plane. My prediction is that the canards need to be smaller and their tips moved out of the way of the main wing.

Deskjester: Man, it took you a while to churn this one out. I want to congratulate desk on his massive research and conceptual effort, the results are well worth it. Doubtlessly one of the most brutal and better performing in the bunch, this plane takes no compromises to deliver its intended specifications. An air-breathing missile is probably all it needs to punch it to the top, and I’m willing to bet it would fit a couple of SeaDart on the big pylons, compatibility problems be damned! An excellent drawing with all the views it needs, use of colour and shading is judicious and the numerous schemes are all lovely and different. Definitely on standby to be stolen acquired for my own purposes. Definitely deserves the top 3 placement it seems to be getting right now.

Skyder2598: Yeeees it’s a proto-Flanker but big deal, the drawing is beautiful and the markings are exquisitely delicate. A front view and more schemes would only help it. It’s also probably one of the better perfoming air-sup fighters in the bunch, would be a scary rival. More time investment would help it stand out more.

Navybrat85: A second-line concept but appropriate to its context to be sure. Needs highlighting and more delicate use of colour to stand out, and more time investment in views and schemes. For a writer, NB has done surprisingly little writing for it, though surely his wedding, children and job have deprived us of the results he surely wanted to achieve. Kudos for making it into the challenge though.

Wariterm: Wow, just wow. Extraordinarily excentric, this plane is beautiful and I want more of it. Exquisite use of colour and decent fluff help this entry overall. Please please please I beg of you do a top view at least, but don’t stop at that if you can. Is Euskadi getting aviation ships in this universe? I might want to contribute to that. Would be a high contender for my vote if all the features were fleshed out.

Kannevets: Kann, my boy, you left everything for the last moment and these are the consequences. A handsome aircraft and a good base drawing are hampered by lack of detail and any schemes at all! Time and effort is all it needs to improve.

VictorCarlie: Absolutely credible, a great drawing with excellent details and markings. More schemes is all it needs really. Very good entry overall. Would also be a scary rival.

Sareva: Sadly, this entry suffers from lack of focus and time. The drawing itself is good, Sareva doesn’t lack skill in execution. What this entry needed was to sit down, set some goals, write some numbers down, sketch, freeze the design and then use plenty of time to draw all the views and schemes as you’re able to. Too bad really, I really want you to participate more and improve your project management skills, which is what’s lacking here, surely that next drawing will be brilliant.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 3rd, 2018, 5:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8884
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
@Charguizard
Perhaps for You, the A17M owes conceptually more to Rafale than F-16, but visually it looks much like F-16 and nothing like Rafale. ;)

@TimothyC, Charguizard
Gollevainen's entry isn't an "Euro-Lavi" or "literally a Lavi" - though indeed it looks like one...
[ img ]
Early Yugoslav designs of Novi Avion looked like that, before they eventually settled on single-engined minature Rafale clone.

And one general remark - leaving aside the matter of plausibility of particular designs and the like, this challenge was a great exhibition of talents. Especially the relatively new talents, some of whom produced a number of drawings of exquisite quality. Which, because I'm an envious little pri*k, fill me with deep jealousy. ;)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 3rd, 2018, 5:45 pm
Online
User avatar
Posts: 1108
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
It is possible thanks to the existence of "bad cops" ready to help for improving the skills of the still green ones. Thanks, B!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
reytuerto
Post subject: Re: Fleet Air defence fighter of 1980 challengePosted: November 3rd, 2018, 5:51 pm
Online
User avatar
Posts: 1108
Joined: February 21st, 2015, 12:03 am
Hi, Char.

Your aircraft ranked second in my evaluation, just after Hood´s Yakovlev and 1 point forward Yqueleden´s jump jet. May I ask you the aeronautical reason of the wings of your Mitsubishi? Because in a side view, your drawing looks superb, but an upper wiew gives to your fighter a rather "slow" appearence (mainly because the little angle of the wings). But I am sure that there is an aerodynamic reason for this, and that es the quid of my question ;). Thanks and cheers.


PS: I am an old fashioned guy! My ideal jet fighter is the mythical Hawker Hunter!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 11 of 13  [ 128 posts ]  Return to “FD Scale Drawings” | Go to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Stormwalker and 9 guests


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


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