Shipbucket

Polls Now Open
Submissions for the Falklands War Commemorative Challnege are now closed. Members of the Shipbucket community can rate each entry here.

The poll for the next challenge can be found here. The options are:

Submarine Menace
-The year is 1951. Intelligence reports that a hostile nation has developed a fast submarine based on the German Type XXI (or an alternate universe equivalent). It is believed these submarines will be used to strike and sink your convoys and carriers. You must create a fictional submarine or surface ship that can find and shadow these submarines and destroy them in wartime. It must be commissioned within ten years.

Modern Coast Guard Ship
- Your submission must depict a fictional surface ship operated by a coast guard or similar organization.
- The design should be oriented towards one or more civilian roles such as border security, search and rescue, or fisheries protection. However, it may have a secondary military role.
- Your ship must be laid down after 1991.

World War I Destroyer Challenge
- Your submission must depict a fictional destroyer.
- The ship should be shown in active service between 1914 and 1918.

Military Airship Challenge*
- Your submission must depict a fictional airship operated by an armed force.
- The airship should have a clearly defined military role.

Torpedo Ram Challenge
- Your submission must depict a fictional torpedo ram.
- The ship should be first commissioned between 1870 and 1890.

* If the Military Airship Challenge is chosen, the focus on realism associated with Shipbucket challenge's may be relaxed to accommodate more fantastic entries.

Both polls will remain open until 23:59 (UTC-12) on Thursday the 5th of January.
Countdown Timer

Ok, new year, new reasons for some people to dislike me even more than before... Here are some thoughts on submitted entries...

It's interesting to see so many, often quite original, entries. Also, congratulations in advance to whoever will win.

The_Sprinklez, North American OA-28G Super Trojan
Entirely plausible entry made by one of the best Artists of "new generation" of Shipbucketeers. Yet, IMHO it would benefit from stronger contrast between shades, and more pronounced "standing out" of what I call "non-black contours" (lines where use of black is not warranted, but which, nonetheless represent quite sharp break in surface. Another (minor thing) is that I'd made a upper (transparent) contour of the main part of canopy and of external part of the tires in darker shade (the internal contour of tires, where they meet metal part of wheel, should rather be standard black, I'd say the same about the contour of bottom part of moving section of canopy - the metal one, not the glass). Plus, why is the warning light on top of vertical stabilizer outlined in black, but those on wingtip tanks have no outline at all? Also, although the interior of cockpit, including crew, is magnificently made, I don't really like the practice of making it (in the contour-less manner) at all, as it IMHO deviates from the original spirit of SB/FD (where "windows" of whatever kind were either completely opaque, or semi-opaque, showing only the "outline/shade" of what's inside).

Saryn, Norr Flugvél Hlutafélag A.38S Sjávardreki
The plane looks to me like a very oversized PZL I-22 Iryda - and that "oversize" makes me very strongly doubt if it would fit within the weight limit of ca. 6800 kg, being much bigger than A-7 Corsair II, which had empty weight of 8676 kg. As for the drawing itself, it's perhaps unspectacular, but a quite solid work from a new member, who seems to be capable of producing excellent works in the future. One nit-pick: I'd outline the bottom contour of the canopies (their moving parts) in black.

Shigure, Channing-Brassard CS-7 Penguin
Design-wise it looks solid, although the necking in the middle makes an impression like it were to be snap-prone; also the practicality (or rather lack thereof) of having above-wing launchers to be operated in the confines of a carrier hangar has been already commented on. Drawing-wise, I'd outline flaps and ailerons in black (the way the rudder is outlined), but more importantly, shading on the top view seems to follow slightly strange logic, as it's the sides that are highlighted, while top (which, logically, should be highlighted) is in basic shade.

Hood, Dassault Étendard VII
As always, it's really hard to find reasons for serious criticism of Hood's work. So in this case I can mention only that I'd outline metal part of canopy in black, my lack of preference to fully transparent cockpit interiors and - most importantly, the clog of black lines around engine intakes on front view - there's outer contour of fuselage, there's the contour of intake itself, and in the middle there's a black line that looks like "outer contour of intake", but which has no equivalent (even non-black) on side and top views.

RAIDER1_1, FaR-6 Vulture
Design itself slightly resembles Mirage 2000 in overall layout, and I have doubts if it would be within weight limits, esp. given the specs of the engine (not mentioning that it's meant to be attack/light fighter plane, and that looks more like a full-blown supersonic fighter). Drawing-wise... it's a work from an inexperienced Artist and it looks, I'm afraid. Fundamental thing - side and front view don't match (on front view canopy is higher, while vertical stabilizer is lower - and on side view the stabilizer is black, on front view it's blue). The undercarriage - main wheels seem to be too far aft, plus their dimension on side view is larger than on the front view, the nosewheel (well, all of them) shock absorbers are almost completely featureless and look like lumps of metal - plus the side view of nosewheel suggest single wheel, with strut on right side, and front view shows twin wheels with strut in the middle. Panel lines are quite random and so are rivets (both arrangement and quantity). Shapes of certain parts also look odd, I'm afraid. Still, I hope that criticism won't discourage You from further efforts to improve or from entering further challenges. It's for fun, after all.

St_lawrence, Northrop F-7 Shark
Very nice, dinky design, though not sure if not too small to fit all the stuff it would be expected to carry - like, where's the fuel tank?
Very nice execution of the drawing too - as usual, canopy outline and cockpit interior are my main "disagreements". I'd also mark the line where wing meets fuselage in black (use of black in such places is sensitive matter, though). One thing regarding shading - the top view is shaded with assumption that the source of light is "around the upper right corner of the template" (so left side of plane is highlighted and right is shaded) - it's ok with me, but if we assume the most strict (and apparently favored by Kiwi Imperialist) interpretation of Challenge Rule 4 ("If two or three views are included, they must depict the same example of the system, in the same configuration, at the same point in time."), then it can't be "same point in time", because on the side view the shading of both right and left side of airplane is the same, and on the top view it's like if it were "flying on one side" (like whilst doing the barrel roll).

Maxwell john, Experimental French Light Naval Attacker
Another entry by one of our new Artists, so, as I wrote before to RAIDER1_1 - it's all for fun, so I hope You won't be discouraged. Because I can't offer too much praise, I'm afraid. As for the design, I have a feeling it has rather weird shape, reminiscent rather of some sci-fi manga/anime or some XXI century designs, but not an aerospace industry practice of late 1970s, and the horizontal stabilizer is weirdest of all of it. It seems that main undercarriage not only is very narrow (it looks like it's not extending to sides at all, judging from lack of any covers on sides), but also that it retracts straight into the engine. Drawing-wise, it's lacking shading in conventional SB/FD sense - some parts of the plane seem to have lighter shade, but the extent of that highlight seems to be dicated by panel lines, rather than any conceivable shape of fuselage, while on the bottom the shade is only below the engine intakes, but it extends all the way to the back, even in the area between wings and horizontal stabilizer where there is nothing to cast that shade except for curvature of fuselage's cross-section, to which You haven't made any allowance in the area forward of the intakes.

Corp, Sea Sparrow
Corp is Challenge Department's King of Unusual, so it's not surprising he made a choice to submit a most unusual (but real-world) entry. So the plausibility of design can be taken for granted, though not necessarily wether it fits the description of light-ish attack aircraft. Drawing-wise: standard remark about canopy outline and cockpit, plus I'd mark the undercarriage covers and armament pylons in black. Plus, in regards to shading of top-view, the same "time-related" inconsistency applies as for St_Lawrence's work.

Min, Kuching Aerotech Q-2 Qilin
Next entry by new Member. Generally it resembles much oversized, low-wing Helwan HA-300. I'd say that it would be too heavy to fit within weight limit, and generally it has rather vibe of "full fighter" instead of attack plane in the A-4, A-7 or Etendard sense. As for the drawing - shading is completely off the mark, panel lines are rather random and very few and nosewheel shock absorber is structurally rather inconceivable. (Still, I hope it won't discourage You from trying to improve)

Idunevenknow, BDA Lance Serie II
I have a feeling it's based on some actual design (though not necessarily naval-related), but can't remember what it was. A quite nice work, but it could greatly benefit from more contrasting shades, plus esp. on front view some things ought to be outlined in black (canopy frame is lost somehow, for example). Also nosewheel appear single on side view but twin on front view, and absorbers could be definitely improved. Standard remarks about canopy frame (black outline) and cockpit interior.

Lemachin, NAAED A.65D Kitefin
Very solid entry with no major flaws. Drawing-wise: standard remark about canopy frame (but the semi-opaque "glass" is ok), plus same issue with shading of top-view as with St_Lawrence's and Corp entries.

KoleonGray, AHI-Ciel A-9 Skimmer
Design seems fairly plausible, even if rather massive (lumpy) looking. Drawing-wise, there are 2 highlight shades, but only 1 shaded, which is extremely awkward. Standard remarks about canopy frame (black outline) and cockpit interior. On the front view I really don't like the "fuzzy" depiction of missiles' stabilizers/wings (esp. double black lines on the bigger missiles). Plus the issue shared with St_Lawrence, Corp et al.

Kiwi Imperialist, ARC Lawrence A71 Taranui
Overall arrangement seems entirely ok, but I have a feeling that visibility from the cockpit is atrocious. Big issue is shading. One thing is weak contrast, plus the highlight on the nose is rather strange, but biggest problem to me is that all views are shaded with assumption that source of light is in the top right corner of template, but if we assume that it has to be depicted exactly as the Challenge Rule 4 states, to within a second (as the very author of this drawing seemed to be very keen to underscore in some previous challenges), then these 3 views can't represent the plane "in the same point in time", because the plane needed time to move relative to source of light (or the source of light needed time to move).

Blackbuck, Skyhawk FRS.2
Modification of a real-world plane, so obviously plausible. Usual remark about canopy frame, plus an issue with shading: one-pixel thick highlight along the top contour, very thick two-shade workout of engine intakes and top part of the part of fuselage that houses engine, two-shade - each one-pixel thick shading along the bottom contour... rather inconsistent to me.

VC_, IAC Seaflash Mk.II
Very solid entry with no major flaws. Only remarks of significance - visible cockpit interior (as usual), and top shading inconsistency like with St_Lawrence, Corp et al.

Charguizard, ADSTRA Jaguar
Clone of SEPECAT Jaguar, so plausible by default. Drawing-wise it's IMHO more problematic. For one thing, the choice of colour scheme makes shade contrast completely invisible. As always, I dislike the visible cockpit interior. Another thing is what I pointed out in regards to Sprinklez's entry (and hinted with few others) - some contours I'd mark either in black or at least with a very visibly darker shade, to mark that it's a very serious break in surface. Marking of missile stabilizers/wings, and covers of undercarriage in a non-black colours on front-views is a total no-go for me (esp. the undercarriage covers - not only they are VERY solid, they are thick enough if not for full 3-pixel thickness, then at least for 2-pixel one: black plus dark-shaded color).

General note: although it's just AU, so of no real consequence, any Real-Life/Never-Were drawings with similar issue like the one regarding front view of undercarriage covers/missile stabilizers not properly made black on outline WILL NOT be accepted for upload to Main Archive.

Cruz-del-Delta, FAMA VA-98 Astra
Another entry from a new Artist. It looks quite nice at a glance, but I don't think that 2 vertical engines would fit in so "low" fuselage. Movable part of canopy should be outlined (now there's no outline at all) and a shading has 2 highlight shades vs. 1 shaded (not counting one used for overhang shade, as it's different matter), plus it's used inconsistently. Shading of wings and horizontal stabilizers on top view also seems awkward.
That said, it seems You have a real talent and am looking forward to see Your future works.

MrJetMan, GRA-71MK
Next entry from new - and obviously very talented - Artist. Plausible design, and very well made drawing. I'd only try to avoid/get rid of some lumps of double black line, and (of course) I don't like the choice to represent the cockpit interior. Also, on top view same shading issue as with St_Lawrence, Corp et al.

Garlicdesign, Yakovlev Yak-39
Obviously excellent work from one of our most established Artists. Only serious nit-pick: the time-related shading issue between side and top view as in case of St_Lawrence and Kiwi Imperialist.

jjx indoweeb, G/C Satin
Very interesting design (that resembles some late 1940s/early 1950s French design). Drawing-wise: I'd add more black in some places (why rudder is outlined in black only on 2 out of 4 sides?, why aren't black-outlined flaps and ailerons?), standard disapproval of fully-transparent canopy - and I'd make the framing of front canopy 3-pixel thick with full black outline. And the shading seems to me completely awkward: apparently there are 2 highlight shades, but only 1 shaded (except on top view, but overall shading of top view doesn't follow the logic needed to assume that source of light is in top-right corner of template) nose on top and front views is shaded assymetrically, and the principle behind shading of top-views of wings is also rather odd.

Panzerfaust, FMA A-1 Lechuza
It looks bit like tandem-seated A-37 and is generally a fairly plausible, no-nonsense drawing. Usual disapproval of transparent-ish canopy. Shading around canopy (the highlight) is off: for example, behind the canopy (behind the rear seat) the highlight follow the diagonal outline of canopy frame, but it shouldn't as the shape of fuselage there isn't facing either front or top. Shading on top-view is almost non-existent, except for highlight and shade along the sides of fuselage (but their application suggest an issue in regard to Challenge Rule 4, as in the case of St_Lawrence, Kiwi Imperialist et al.

El_snow, Blackbell F/A-19N Sky Tiger
Plausible design and very elaborate drawing. Usual criticism of transparent canopy. Tires should be IMHO outlined in darker shade on the outside, and marked black where they meet metal of the wheel. Shading: 2 highlight shades and... is there any shaded shade at all, except for the nose cone and external fuel tank? Plus, on top view, I see FOUR shades - highlight+, highlight, basic and dark-basic... :/

Waritem, Atlas Tierboskat-M
Like Corp, Waritem loves unusual design, and this one is no exception... result of a swingers party between Jaguar, Harrier and Fiat G.91Y.
Drawing-wise it's ok, if quite conservative in style. Design-wise, I thing that engine might need to be bit too far back.

Minepagan, Kerman Pattern 49 Hafoc
Interesting design, not sure if it would fit within weight constraints, but not saying it certainly wouldn't. Interesting approach to transparence of canopy (though still don't like it ). Choice of colour scheme make it hard to comment on shading, but after copying and repainting it, it seems that it has an issue with top-view shading like works of St_Lawrence, Corp et al., while on the side view, the thickness of shade in the rear part of fuselage goes suddenly in one place from "reasonable" to "massive".

JCSTCap, Socuy So-17 Comete
Interesting derivative of Yak-38. No major issues with it (cockpit transparence... :/ ). Great work on the nose art.

MattewEx, AS.227 Calkin
Nice, plausible design. Canopy is outlined (the external contour of transparent part) IMHO to weakly - it almost look like if there was nothing there. Shading could benefit from more contrast, and there's a top-view shading issue common with St_Lawrence, Kiwi Imperialist et al. :>

Torpid_Hunter, Aeroknight MkH.32
Design wise, it was supposed to be 1970s light-ish naval attack aircraft, and I see here 2000s supersonic air-superiority fighter, that would have empty weight of 10 tons. Drawing-wise, as impressive it is artistically, it uses excessive amount of shades (3 highlights and at least 2 shades) and panel lines and rivets are total overkill. IMHO completely outside "the style".

Derpy Donut, Euravia Albatros
Nice design of a new Member, loosely (or not so loosely? ) resembling some real-world design. But I have a feeling that at this size it might be just over the weight limit. Unfortunately I see excess of shades (2 highlight and 2 shades) and, as usual, don't like the transparent canopy. Plus the top-view shading issue shared with St_Lawrence, Kiwi Imperialist et al. These things aside, I'd really like to see more of Your works in the future.

Christian 101, Courants Cipher
Quite solid design and drawing, but doesn't look 1970s at all, rather 1990s. Also, panel lines look bit random and seem to be missing any equipment/inspection hatches, undercarriage convers and the like.

TigerHunter1945, Douglas Mohawk I
Interesting and plausible design (with a rather late 1950s vibe). That said, I don't think that a plane within prescribed weight limits would carry 2 Exocets and 2 rather huge bombs (Super Etendard could theoretically carry 2 tons of ordnance, with weight of Exocet being 780kgs - and they only carried one at a time). Drawing-wise: transparence of canopy (as always) and one thing I don't quite understand on top-view. First of all, top view looks like there is something like a dorsal spine along the fuselage (like on Etendard, Jaguar or late A-4) on top-view, but it looks flush on side view. Also, on top view, shading - when looking from centre - is: highlight > basic (suggesting that it's vertical-ish) > highlight (suggesting it's facing top) > basic (on sides of fuselage), and the second "basic" is crossed by line suggesting the break in surface, but such break would be logical only if it was break from basic to highlight (or vice versa).

Thank you for the feedback! I'll definitely admit that my design is one of the larger entries, and would without a doubt be at the upper end of the weight range. I was (perhaps optimistically) thinking it'd be a bit heavier than the VAK 191b at 5,500 kg? Alas I'm not an aircraft designer so any hard numbers would be more or less pulled out of my derriere. As for the top-view shading, I can't speak for the others but I did it that way to maintain continuity within the drawing, since it's my understanding that light is supposed to come from the upper-right corner of the image. I'm hardly an expert though—this is only my second three-view and second FD-scale aircraft, after all—so I defer to the other, more experienced hands that used this shading. Last but not least, for the side view shading, I was attempting to convey that the fuselage narrowed to a more cylindrical shape aft of the landing gear. Since that region of the airframe was obscured by the wings, all I could think to do was use the shading in the side view. It seems I was a tad overzealous in this, unfortunately. Lessons for next time!

It was an apprehension that I had. The original plan was for the forward reactor to be placed under the aft cockpit. But I realized that would have made the aircraft much too tall. Nevertheless the anterior unit is located approximately in the center of the fuselage and the weight of the posterior turbofan must significantly move back the center of gravity. Consequently the modulation of the thrust of the latter must make it possible to rise vertically in a certain balance ........ (if that is the issue you fear)

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

JE SUIS CHARLIE

@Minepagan
In principle there is nothing wrong with doing the top-view shading with assumption that source of light is in the top-right corner of template (or somewhere in that direction), BUT...

Generally, views other than starboard one (that is, showing right side of the vehicle that is pointed with bow/nose to the right of the template) were and still are only a minor % of all drawings. When the principle regarding source of light was formulated, their amount was negligible, if not zero. So when pretty much ALL drawings were of vehicles viewed from that particular side, the matter was straightforward. Yet, when other views started to appear, pretty much all of them were shaded based on the assumption that (both these statements, in practice, amount to the same):
- source of light is meant to in the top-right corner for the vehicle in "basic", "right-pointing" position;
- source of light is meant to be above and in front of the bow/nose of the vehicle depicted;
which effectively means that for a vehicle shown in basic, starboard view the source of light is in the top-right corner, but for the port view it's in top-left corner, for the top view it's somewhere in the middle of the height of the right edge of template, for front view it's above the viewer's head and for rear view it's somewhere behind the screen.
Such assumption had a practical dimension, because when drawing a vehicle from both sides, the artist could simply flip the drawing and just modify the details, whereas asumption that "source of light is in the top-right corner, regardless of spatial orientation of depicted vehicle" would meant that shading would have to be completely reworked for each view. Similarly for front/back views, the "over the bow" assumption allowed to simply draw the half of the vehicle (left/right) and just flip it, whila "in the corner" assumption would force to do the shading separately for each half. And, as I said, I don't think there were many volunteers to do it (if any at all).

And in regards to this particular challenge - again, it would be perfectly fine to use the "above the corner" assumption of shading (it's Your thing if You want to add yourself more work and do it more complicated way) - but there's Challenge Rule 4: "If two or three views are included, they must depict the same example of the system, in the same configuration, at the same point in time." And since the shading is actually different, on each view, then it must be logically understood, that either source of light has moved (which makes it "a different point in time" as it needed some time to move) or the vehicle has moved relative to the source of light (which again makes it "a different point in time" as it needed some time to move).
Now, I freely admit I'm nit-picking, but in the past challenges Kiwi Imperialist was taking the point to emphasize that "same point in time" was meant to be "same" down to a second, nor permitting to show things in, say, extended and retracted position (like here: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 67#p205967 ), and here he made this, lets say, "questionable" thing himself, so I just couldn't resist to point it out (but had to be consistent with pointing it out to everybody else as well).

@Waritem
Balance doing ascent/descent is one thing, but I have a feeling that it would be flying forward at significant angle of attack because of the weight near the tail.

I was suggested by a number of people to post this in the forum as I had helped quite a few people during this challenge. My critiques arent long, and with some people's images whom I helped in Discord, i refer the critiques I already listed out for you a number of times.

My overall notes overall are as follows: Some of the entries confused a fighter with ground attack abilities with an attack aircraft, a number of entries had severe drawing issues, a quite a lot of people messed up Comando de la Aviación Naval Argentina (COAN) schemes, and there were way too many copies of irl stuff that go beyond “inspiration”. I decided to do a write up opinion this challenge even though I did not participate as Argentina is one of my main focuses defense wise.

The specific notes:
- Sprinks "Super Trojan": As a resident T-2 attacker conversion enjoyer, i love the concept, as well as the camo. It makes sense and is well structured as a "naval attack aircraft". I do wish a little more love for the lore was given, but otherwise not much else to comment
- Saryn "Sjávardreki": For me this just looks like an Su-25 way too much for me to notice that its something else entirely, camo mimics the COAN scheme, but doesnt really hit the mark as there plenty of open areas without good detail. the roundel is also super big and too far forward on the body, but its so small on the wings i thought it was an refueling location symbol.
- Shigure "Penguin": its 100% an attack aircraft, however, to me it seems kind pancaked in the side view that kinda makes it look weirdish. some love to the non-existant lore would nice too
- Hood "Étendard VII": i hate you for making me love it so much. I threw out the concept of a Chilean naval attack aircraft as a concept I wanted to see and you delivered. Thats exactly what I envisioned in wanting to see if i actually had effort and did a drawing (I beg for you to do the Almirante Cochrane in Chilean service and a planebucket version of the aircaft)
- RAIDER "Vulture": this aircraft is...special. Im not a fan at all with the colour schemes used, nor the riveting work on the drawing. How did you make the riveting so detailed, but yet the aircraft overall is lacking detail?? as i noted in the discord, i had several issues with the plane's looks even before you posted it (i notice you only took one out of my numerous suggestions)
- st_lawrence "Shark": at least someone got the COAN profile perfect on their aircraft. I enjoy the concept of a lighter F-5, but im struggling to wrap my head around how the plane would be able to fly given how small the F-5 already is in practice. I would have elongated the fuselage a bit to allow for more room, as I dont believe the current aircraft can hold the shown armament weight
- maxwell john "French-American light carrier attack aircraft": imma be blunt, it doesnt look all that good. I cant even wrap my head around what its even supposed to look like. design choices made here are a bit wild, and stylistically they are even worse. it seems there was a lack of care when doing this drawing as well as lack of a drawing reference… also even if you squint your eyes it looks more like an f-18 than any specific attack aircraft
- Corp "Sea Sparrow": ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
- Min "Qilin": kinda iffy drawing which I can understand from a beginner, but I do have issues regarding how high contrasting the colours are, as well as the design overall doesnt look all that aerodynamic.
- Idunevenknow "Lance"- i love the flying dorito. Im familiar with the project as a light attacker, so I know it fits well for the role at hand
- lemachin "Kitefin": lowkey it reminds me of an AMX, its decently detailed and very generic. IDK what id fix to it, perhaps a bit more detailing or rivet work?
- KoleonGray "Skimmer": quite an obese lad, seems to be another T-2 style attacker conversion. my only real note is that the roundels are far too small and that the side profile's symbols and identification stuff is way "too busy" that it makes it look like they were thrown on there at random
- kiwi "Taranui": it definitely has that intimating attacker look with the high wing and down looking nose. my only note that I wish was different was how the refueling probe was depicted. perhaps something similar to how the super etendard's probe falls back onto the nose while still remaining in the center of the aircraft.

- Blackbuck "Speyhawk": lowkey disappointed, When the challenge started i knew we were gonna have some offbrand harriers, A4s, and Super Etd.'s, but I didnt expect literally an A-4. Like ig it works in practice, but it doesnt really show effort like others did to create a brand new concept.
- VC "Seaflash" - it reminds me if someone let a F-5 and a Super Etd have a night alone in a hotel room. the tail screams Super Etd while the engine screams F-5. Not much of a fan on how you displayed the refueling probe. id mabe say its an F/A rather than strictly attack.
- Char "ADSTRA": I wasnt expecting anyone to realize that the Jaguar M actually was a thing! pleasantly surprised with the aircraft and its usual char level of detail. I believe we have even seen this make an appearance in a planebucket scale image too
- Cruz-del-Delta "Astra": I made a couple notes on the discord about how the COAN scheme was presented, and how the text was formatted. I also noted the relative fragileness that this plane looks, as if a light sidewind could snap it in half. its not really characteristic of an attack aircraft that are typically bulky lads
- MrJetMan "GRA-71MK": I am pleased with this remake on a soviet VSTOL aircraft. It looks like it was designed with full dimensions and aspiration at the start, arguably, it looks the most realistic of all the planes in the challenge.
- Garlicdesign "Yak-39": You already posted this aircraft a while back in your own thread, I kinda did wish you would have at least updated some stuff to make it look like you put some effort in rather than simply a copy paste (rework cockpit, more details) know I was told a number of times that you can post something you already have posted before but idk, i kinda wish it was updated.
- jjx "Satin": WACK. idk, its well detailed and I like the camo. It definitely looks like a STOL attack aircraft. not much else to say regarding it besides it is a tad overshaded, but the aircaft needs that curvy look due to its unique shape
- Panzer "A-1": my notes on this were already posted previously on discord
- El_snow "Sky tiger": everything forward of the wing is great. I think the engine displayed is too large, and the tail is distinctively an F-16
- waritem "Tierboskat":.........................................................what?????????? i dont understand one thing about the aircraft. the nozzles, the spine, the cockpit, the intake, the COAN scheme is wrong and all over the place
- Mine "Hafoc": thats a Convair alright. personally the only thing I have against it is im not a fan of convair cockpits and they look so bubbly". The tail also doesn’t flow well with style of aircraft. Another thing to note is that challenge requests “in service aircraft”, not a prototype or promotional.
- JCSTCap "Comete": I like the boar design, but it just looks like a Yak-38 copy from china that APDAF would complain about. Like I legit can’t say much else cause to me it legit just looks like a Yak38 fancied up
- MattewEx "Calkin": i did the writeup lolz, but the aircraft seems kinda small and a bit more light fighter than an attacker. Is there a on board gun system as I dont know if I am missing it or not? The overall concept is nice but it reminds me if someone made an F-9 Cougar in the 1980s.
- Torbid “Aeroknight”: I am not a fan of the style at all to be clear. I feel you have managed to “overshade” the entire plane that it doesn’t even look right. The panels make the panel look far too busy when most of them would be barely visible to the eye. Honestly it looks like you are trying to fill up empty space, but managed to make it look too full. Not a fan on the overall look of the aircraft itself as well
- Derpy “Albatros”: it looks like you tried to westernize MrJetMan’s GRA-71MK tbh. Some issues I have are that tailhook looks wack, why are the roundels all in weird places, and what’s with that weird canard or flap thing blocking the gunpod. It basically looks like Yak 38 as well
- Christian 101 “Cipher”: looks like that Spanish trainer converted into a carrier aircraft. Idk why you decided to post it with an Exocet on the wingtip launcher, it would be more accurate to be under the wing. Not a fan of how bold the Armada text is, needs to be thinner. The panel lines in the image aren’t being adjusted when they enter highlighted portions as well. Also I’m not 100% sure the coding of the aircraft is correct applied
- TigerHunter1945 “Mohawk”: I quite like this one. You are the only other person other than st_lawrence who got the COAN scheme correct. You also made the aircraft as a whole look similar in concept to the A-4 and Super Etd., but unique in design. Definitely feels like a “what if Douglas made the Super Etd” which mixes the two leading elements of the COAN together.

Regarding cockpit colours/detailing that eswube notes: I am a chronic cockpit detailer so I like cockpit details so any cockpit details are something I like

_________________
Worklist:
- Solkriet - My Personal AU: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 14&t=10834
- America the Divided - Joint-Project between Minepagen and I http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =14&t=9855
- Occasionally the Random pop-ups of my Abyssinia or Hong Kong AUs

"The word Br*t?sh is a horrible term I never want to hear from you again, We do not tolerate that dehumanization".

Providing some commentary. I don't view myself as an authority on drawing or design, but I know that it feels good to receive (even critical) feedback or even just have someone else talk about & acknowledge your work, so I am making an effort to pay it forward:

The_Sprinklez, North American OA-28G Super Trojan
I love this drawing - it’s understated but chock full of detail that comes out at you the longer you look. I do have some concern that the wings are a bit far behind the plane’s likely centre of gravity.

Saryn, Norr Flugvél Hlutafélag A.38S Sjávardreki
A nice-looking aircraft, though I have doubts that it could realistically fit below the weight limit. The design is good, though the drawing appears slightly unfinished - several surfaces lack panel lines, and the payload visible in profile is missing from the plan view, for example.

Shigure, Channing-Brassard CS-7 Penguin
“What if an A7 Corsair was the size of a Skyhawk?” A charming little plane that looks somehow elegant, but also somehow hits some kind of uncanny valley effect where the constituent parts just don’t seem to come together as a whole, almost giving the impression of being kitbashed. It’s like, am I looking at Thom Yorke or Tilda Swindon? Anyway - solid effort from a fave illustrator but strange result.

Hood, Dassault Étendard VII
A magnificent bit of work, believable enough that I actually googled Etendard VII to see if there had actually been a proposal like this on paper. Congratulations - you made me look. I do have doubts that an aircraft of this size, with three engines, could fall below the challenge weight limit, but it is nonetheless a great drawing and plausible-seeming design. Top marks.

RAIDER1_1, FaR-6 Vulture
The linework is very stiff, and several features seem tacked-on without much regard for how the plane, or even a drawing of a plane, would work as a whole. The tail is especially incongruous, it’s shaped like something off a first-gen jet or even a WW2 plane.

St_lawrence, Northrop F-7 Shark
Kudos for a submission that is unambiguously below the challenge’s weight limit - though I have to say this plane is almost unreasonably tiny, and its capabilities would likely be greatly restricted by its size.

Maxwell john, Experimental French Light Naval Attacker
It was great watching you work through ideas on the Discord, but you often seemed resistant to feedback on the basis that you’re new at this and just trying to complete something. This is ok for a first drawing and I’m glad you got it in, but if you want to grow as an illustrator you’ve got to aim higher for yourself and lean in when advice challenges you. More concrete feedback: the shading on this drawing is pretty minimal, the linework is a bit stiff (at some points there are “I used the line tool in MS Paint” vibes), the shape of the tail is kind of bizarre, and I’m unsure how the wing is meeting the fuselage or what shape is being represented there.

Corp, Sea Sparrow
A great drawing of a completely insane proposal; credit to you for dredging up something so obscure. Hard to assess how to score the design on this one, since as much as I’m tempted to say “there’s no way this thing could fly” the Ryan VTOL proposal was historical so at least one professional aeronautics engineer really did consume enough ayahuasca to consider it.

Min, Kuching Aerotech Q-2 Qilin
The design could be plausible and may well suit the requirements of the brief, but this drawing is pretty wooden and extremely light on details, which kind of lets down the submission as a while. Even among all the controversy about how to draw a canopy within the evolving FB style, this one seems like it’s filled with lilac colored smoke, which definitely does not seem right.

Idunevenknow, BDA Lance Serie II
Though I question some of the design choices (What’s the benefit of four tiny engines? Why overwing hardpoints?) I also accept the rule of cool, and it is hard to deny that this little guy is extremely interesting. I do think more needs to be done with shading or linework to make the engines show up in the plan view, as they appear much flatter than the profile or frontal view reveal.

lemachin, NAAED A.65D Kitefin
Some self-reflection:

• In addition to the challenge requirements, my design brief to myself was: a short, fat little jet that is “mostly engine” - a bit of a hot rod.
• I studied lots of aircraft for inspiration, but also for insight on how to draw certain areas effectively. These include the Super Mystere, the Skyhawk, the F11 Tiger, the Crusader/Corsair, the Mirage F1 and the SEPECAT Jaguar.
• I do worry that in focusing heavily on a “plausible” entry and in referring heavily to historical examples, I have created a boring or generic-looking aircraft and am passing up the opportunity to submit a fun oddball design.
• The above inspirations and self-doubts being noted, the whole design is from scratch and I have a high opinion of its likely practicality and mission effectiveness.
• I would have liked to finish my frontal view, but struggled mainly with how to draw the intakes flowing smoothly into the body along with the high-set wing flowing smoothly into one dorsal surface. I will probably keep trying as I improve the design post-challenge.
• In profile I prefer the “pilot silhouette” approach to drawing the cockpit, but this style doesn’t work so well in plan view. My ultimate approach is contrary to the drawing’s internal logic (I used the “transparent glass” color) but I felt it looked best anyway.

KoleonGray, AHI-Ciel A-9 Skimmer
A submission that is bursting with character. Love this fat little guy, although I have some doubts that an aircraft of these proportions would fly very well.

Kiwi Imperialist, ARC Lawrence A71 Taranui
Beautifully drawn. The design is excellent. It seems practical, and is kind of awkward looking in exactly the way one kind of expects from realistic midcentury Commonwealth designs. If I could give any feedback - the panel lines on the wings seem a little rigid - but that’s just me looking for something to nitpick.

Blackbuck, Skyhawk FRS.2
Solid drawing, but ultimately it’s a Skyhawk. The most interesting or original thing about it is the Spey, which is internal and thus has little impact on the drawing.

VC_, IAC Seaflash Mk.II
A very nice-looking submission: it’s in that sweet spot of not too weird but not too closely based on any particular real/historical plane. In that sense I like to think that our submissions have a lot in common, and I see already we’ve gotten similar feedback. Let’s team up and break out of the mid-pack for the next challenge!

Charguizard, ADSTRA Jaguar
A splendid drawing, but this is basically a Jaguar. On the plus side, this seems to be more custom than the Speyhawk and has some very tasty plan + frontal views and unit patch.

Cruz-del-Delta, FAMA VA-98 Astra
I am not certain this thin little plane has enough internal volume to function as described. Nonetheless, it was a real pleasure to watch you develop this design on the Discord. I hope you had a good time with the challenge and have learned from the process - I sure did!

MrJetMan, GRA-71MK
Frankly, I am blown away by this. The drawing is busy but shines with personality; the design is loaded with enough of its own idiosyncrasies that it does not come across as just a “Communist Harrier” and yet it seems very practical/plausible. Bravo.

Garlicdesign, Yakovlev Yak-39
Awesome drawing + design as always, but I understand that this predates the challenge. Frankly it seems a little contrary to the spirit of competition to accept this.

jjx indoweeb, G/C Satin
Nice drawing with a very novel layout. Also a cool livery. I would really be curious to see an “x-ray” version depicting how the engine fits into the rear fuselage and how the intake is routed to it.

(One comment that is not challenge-related and TBH feels so minor and nitpicky that I'm writing it in grey: as a French speaker and conlang enthusiast, I found the made-up NotFrench words distracting. Might be preferable to either put more thought into this conlang or just bash around a bit in Google Translate to ensure you're not getting anything goofy when you're substituting random vowels or articles. Satan in nearly every Romance language is some kind of variation on satan or satana, whereas satin in nearly every romance language means.... satin. So on the other hand you could stick with Satin and said it refers to how silky smooth this plane is.)

Panzerfaust, FMA A-1 Lechuza
This little weirdo is extremely charming to me. I am not sure how the internal layout is supposed to work - much of the fuselage volume is dedicated to crew, which makes me wonder how big the engines could be or where they are supposed to go. The drawing would also benefit from a little more detail.

El_snow, Blackbell F/A-19N Sky Tiger
An extremely handsome plane. The drawing has a lot of depth to it that is unfortunately kinda lost; louder details kind of drown out the finer details. Nonetheless, top five contestant for me. Bonus points for the heavy gunpod loadout, very cool.

Waritem, Atlas Tierboskat-M
I think the drawing is well executed, though possibly partially kitbashed from a DP drawing (I assume this is why they were credited - the tail looks like a Jaguar transplant) so I’m not sure how much is original. I don’t really believe that there would be much of a practical advantage to separate cockpits that isn't cancelled by added weight, drag, and structural complexity.

Minepagan, Kerman Pattern 49 Hafoc
There’s a lot about this drawing that is confusing. Why is the landing gear so tiny? Why is the canopy so huge? I was hoping there would be a note in the writeup about this being part of a fantasy AU where giants or orcs have an air force, but no luck. Nonetheless, the frontal view is nice, and the plan view does a few things very well also.

JCSTCap, Socuy So-17 Comete
A solid piece of work - it’s strange to see your post claim this is unfinished, since it’s a very well-resolved drawing. I suppose you ran out of time to add loadout or a top view: I don’t view the lack of these as problematic. The tougher question is whether anyone can look at this without seeing what is essentially a VTOL Jaguar.

MattewEx, AS.227 Calkin
I am very happy that you managed to finish this - I really like the shape of it! It’s a very attractive little plane, with strong “baby F3H Demon” vibes. Almost tempted to acquire some for my AU as the fighter that my own A.65 would have been.

Torpid_Hunter, Aeroknight MkH.32
Drawing is rushed, the aircraft depicted is huge and seems more modern than the designated time period. I don’t know if it’s confusion induced by the dense paneling lines or if the shading is actually as weird as it seems to be. I do really like the unit patch though.

Derpy Donut, Euravia Albatros
I see mention that you’re a new member - if true, then this is an extremely impressive effort. This submission is perhaps a little too conservative for its own good (potentially like my own) in that the details and design don’t pop out and distinguish themselves, but I’m not sure that this is fundamentally a bad thing except in the context of a challenge where we’re striving to impress.

Christian 101, Courants Cipher
Decent drawing, though the panelwork falls prey to a bit of a “regular grid” effect in the middle fuselage. Other bits of the drawing seem slapped together at the last minute: what’s that large missile attached to? A wingtip pylon? Doesn’t make any sense. The design of the aircraft also seems a little out-of-era - more like a modern-day trainer or light attack jet.

TigerHunter1945, Douglas Mohawk I
This is a superb drawing and design. The payload depicted seems unreasonably heavy, and what kind of wonky mission profile involves launching exocets and then dumb bombs? It kind of detracts from the realism of the (quite excellent) design.

Poll Results
The polls are now closed. It is time to reveal our next challenge and the results of the Falklands War Commemorative Challenge. As always, special thanks to the 30 artists who participated and everyone who took the time to evaluate their hard work in a fair fashion. Unfortunately, two respondents failed to provide fair and meaningful scores. Their votes have been removed from the final result. With that out of the way, in first place with a commanding total of 479 points is Charguizard who achieved the highest score in both categories with the ADSTRA Jaguar. They are followed by Hood who achieved second place with 460s points for the Dassault Étendard VII and MrJetMan in third with the GRA-71MK earning 451 points. Congratulations to our challenge winners!

If you are looking for a new challenge, the Modern Coast Guard Ship Challenge is now open.

Thanks for the feedback. On the topic of whether or not it fits as a light attack aircraft, My initial idea for it was as a harrier analogue but I do agree it ended up as less light attack and more light fighter. I considered making it a bit more "original" but I didn't want to deviate too much from the original concept.

For the Canopy / Outline debate: There's a spectrum from fully opaque to fully detailed. The main thing that pushed me towards the detailed end this challenge are doing top/front views. From the side, I think silhouettes of interior details are typically the way to go, however this translates poorly to top/front views.

As far as the "time-related" inconsistency of shading, I don't buy the idea of a uniform light source across the canvas as showing the object at different points in time. We are planes as they were at x/y/z point in time not the ships/planes at x / y/ z point in time. This is a subtle but important distinction. We're not drawing planes flying through the sky only their configuration when they were doing so. For SB/FD style drawings, the ship/aircraft is drawn as independent of the environment. When we draw something we're essentially plucking it out of the universe it exists and sticking it in a light box. Imagine if instead of drawing we built models. The argument being made here is essentially that if we adjusted the lighting and took a photo at a different angle the model depicts a different instant in time despite nothing other on the actual model changing.

I am very happy with a second place finish and how good my entry turned out. Congrats to Char for his well deserved win.

I thought I would share some design comments on the entries (leaving aside artistic comments which have been amply covered already).

The_Sprinklez, North American OA-28G Super Trojan
I really like this concept, it certainly looks better than the real T-2 Buckeye and feels very much like other piston-based jet developments then in vogue. Its got Temco TT and Lockheed T2V vibes about it. Given the T-28s success in COIN operations its not a stretch to imagine that the OA-28G would be similarly successful and manage to survive in USMC use until the early 1980s.

Saryn, Norr Flugvél Hlutafélag A.38S Sjávardreki
I'm picking up strong SAAB B3LA vibes but with a twin-engine layout, which as eswube says is rather reminiscent of the PZL I-22 Iryda. I think that it would just about meet the weight criteria for this challenge, thought it is quite a chunky aircraft. Although the backstory seems to imply an attack aircraft origin it does feel more like an overgrown trainer than a dedicated strike aircraft, certainly the nav/weapons operator doesn't need a stepped cockpit for example, which would also help to reduce weight and drag.
One artistic nitpick - the top view doesn't quite meet rule #4 because the underwing weapons are not visible on the top-view, which they should be.

Shigure, Channing-Brassard CS-7 Penguin
I love this A-7-esque fighter. But there was thing that struck me that lost points, the wing roots are too fat. The root is about 11 pixels thick and yet where the overwing pylons are (only 7 pixels from the side of the fuselage) the wing is four pixels thick. That implies a massively bulbous wing root, doubling in thickness very rapidly at the root. A front view would have helped you catch this little flaw.

Hood, Dassault Étendard VII
I think in hindsight I would remove the two inner wing hardpoints. I think I was pushing the weight limit here but the Convair 200 shows it might be feasible.

RAIDER1_1, FaR-6 Vulture
A lot of work needed here, though the basics look ok. What is the grey ring for on the forward fuselage? It looks like a break in the structure of some kind? The intakes need some refining. The main undercarriage is too far back, almost at the trailing edge of the wings which is unworkable. Having a bulbous tail for the jetpipe is draggy. No arrester hook?

St_lawrence, Northrop F-7 Shark
A very interesting pre-F-5 design. I think the fuselage should be a little longer. The cockpit canopy (and reclining pilot seat) is too much like a 1970s fighter for something designed in the 1950s.

Maxwell john, Experimental French Light Naval Attacker
It has some interesting F/A-18 vibes but is a very basic drawing. Needs a taller tailfin, again the main undercarriage is placed too far aft. No arrester hook?

Corp, Sea Sparrow
This reminds me of a real VTOL concept that I've seen. It's crazy bonkers. I don't think it would work in practice and hence lost marks for me but its a very neat drawing and an interesting take.

Min, Kuching Aerotech Q-2 Qilin
Again, the basics look good. This needs some refining in fuselage shape, perhaps add intake bullets but overall not a terrible design. Would also need leading-edge slats or flaps to enable carrier landings.

Idunevenknow, BDA Lance Serie II
Reminds me of the EFW N-20 Aiguillon but with an engine placement I know I've seen before but can't place (possible a 1945 German jet fighter design). I love the 1950s project aesthetic. From discord conversations with Idunevenknow, I know he shares my doubts about the upper engines at high AoA but its a likeable design nevertheless.

Lemachin, NAAED A.65D Kitefin
A very good entry, Dassault F1 vibes, looks completely plausible to me. I would have been tempted to add folding wings though, they look a little long to fit on carrier lifts.

KoleonGray, AHI-Ciel A-9 Skimmer
T-2 Buckeye on steroids! It looks good but I have a few nitpicks. I can understand why the backstory refers to trainer roots to explain the side-by-side seating but it looks a very fat aircraft even for one with side-by-side seating (though this could just be due to how the top view is shaded?). Also, why would a fairly basic subsonic attack aircraft need two crew? I would have been tempted to either make the wings straight or add more sweep, right now they look neither one nor the other. The pilot's head in the canopy looks too small to me, makes the plane look giant!

Kiwi Imperialist, ARC Lawrence A71 Taranui
A very neat looking design, though I would be tempted to fit leading-edge flaps on that delta wing. I share eswube's view that the cockpit windscreen should probably be angled down a little more. I really wish you had used a darker line for the folding wing panels and intake trunks, it lost a point because of that.

Blackbuck, Skyhawk FRS.2
A chunky Spey A-4. I like the idea a lot. The asymmetrically tapered jetpipe looks a little janky to me, but that's a minor nitpick.

VC_, IAC Seaflash Mk.II
Another super F-5. I like it. Maybe a tad too much tail area but that's just being picky.

Charguizard, ADSTRA Jaguar
A Big Wing Jaguar! Cool as hell. I love it. The overwing pylons on this design would be a bitch to load when in the hangar though. Might you need a folding tailfin?

Cruz-del-Delta, FAMA VA-98 Astra
I really liked the FIAT G.95 vibes. For me the fuselage is too thin, I know you did make it a little fatter but really it needs even more meat on the bones. I would be tempted to lower the wing to the bottom of the intake trunking too, right now the wing spars would need an O section to go around the intakes/engines.

MrJetMan, GRA-71MK
Yak-38 on steroids. I love it. I can't really think of any nitpicks!

Garlicdesign, Yakovlev Yak-39
A CTOL Yak-38. I did a similar SB-scale concept years ago but never thought of making it a twin-engined design. The result is genius. The fuselage proportions look a little dinky, or perhaps the tail a little long, but either way its not unattractive.

jjx indoweeb, G/C Satin
A very interesting design. Maybe not totally feasible for naval operation (a dorsal engine is a bugger to change inside a hangar) but overall I can't see any show stoppers. A really nice French-based concept.

Panzerfaust, FMA A-1 Lechuza
The idea is neat. The design needs some refinement though in details and shaping to make it less angular (though the top view is better in this regard). Fuel capacity might be an issue though.

El_snow, Blackbell F/A-19N Sky Tiger
A very good looking design. It feels like it might struggle to meet the 15,000lb limit though.

Waritem, Atlas Tierboskat-M
Well its different.... the design is a bit too far out for my tastes. The thrust-vectoring being too far aft was a killer for me though, you wouldn't get off the ground without flipping over into a toasty fireball. So for me, art was ok but the design was not good.

Minepagan, Kerman Pattern 49 Hafoc
A good SCS-inspired design, I think the details need work, lower rear fuselage might need a little more curve perhaps. I do like the large canopy, very good for VTOL operations and dogfighting but the nosecone feels very small for anything more than a very basic radar.

JCSTCap, Socuy So-17 Comete
Another interesting Yak-38 clone. No issues here really.

MattewEx, AS.227 Calkin
A very nice design, looks very plausbile to me

Torpid_Hunter, Aeroknight MkH.32
Looks too advanced (and too heavy) for this challenge. It has some positives but would be suited more to a late-1980s air superiority fighter design contest.
The rivets are waaaaayyyy overdone.

Derpy Donut, Euravia Albatros
A very nice Harrier/Yak-38 combo. I like the snazzy anti-recirculation/ground effect ventral vanes. Not sure why you have folding wingtips with outrigger undercarriage though as that makes no sense. I don't think you'd need a folding wing given the wingspan.

Christian 101, Courants Cipher
A nifty design but looks too modern, especially for 1982. Also, why no underwing hardpoints? Looks more like a souped up trainer to me.

TigerHunter1945, Douglas Mohawk I
A very interesting design. The canopy is too large for what you need really and I'm a bit wary of the sloping intakes with bullet centres, might have some airflow issues there. Also, what are the Küchemann carrots for on the wings?

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