CiTrus90's 3D Drawings of Unbuilt Aircraft

Thank you for the three views showing the wing locked to the canard. :)
 
Thanks for all the compliments!
They are mostly undeserved though, there are way better artists than me on the internet (and here on SPF as well) who really know what they are doing.
I just tinker with things that I like and, to paraphrase Gattuso, sometimes a few things come out nice enough to share.
I'm happy to know there are people that like my renders.
I hope I can keep picking up interesting subjects and meeting your expectations in the future.

AE220 said:
If only the DoD hired someone as talented as you for their concept renderings
Click to expand...
Thank you!
That's one of the best compliments I've received so far, it strokes me right in the ego :D
I'd love to do concept renders, things like Rodrigo Avella for example, just to name a great artist that does that sort of work (most NGAD renders floating around are his works or are based on them).
Being able to inspire other people with my work is something that came as a surprise side-effect of my efforts, but that I dearly love.
It's a great feeling when I can see people building or printing their own scale models, doing their own drawings and renders or getting more interested in aviation at large just by looking at the "strange beasts" that I try to picture.
It's looking at drawings and pictures when I was a kid that got me into this passion, so I hope I can, in turn, pay my debt back to the next generation of "aviation enthusiasts".
Who knows, maybe a few of them will even be lucky enough to make their dreams come true and become engineers and pilots...
And maybe, that's just because they looked at a picture one day when they were young.
 
Personally, I love your FMA I.Ae. 48 & Payen RP420 artworks !!!
Congratulations and keep up the good work !
 
Absolutely wonderful. The attention to accuracy with high turn around time is amazing. Just out of curiosity have you ever attempted doing a series? Like all the proposals for a particular program?
 
donnage99 said:
Just out of curiosity have you ever attempted doing a series? Like all the proposals for a particular program?
Click to expand...
I believe that happened only for Dan Sharp's bookazine about the F.155T IIRC.
I think I did model all the proposals submitted.
 
CiTrus90 said:
I believe that happened only for Dan Sharp's bookazine about the F.155T IIRC.
I think I did model all the proposals submitted.
Click to expand...
Wonderful. So what's your usual approach to picking the next inspiration? Just whatever catch your eyes?

If I may, an ATF proposals would probably be quite epic or navy a/f-x. The selection of the f-22 and its approach to stealth is consequential in all of stealth aircraft programs internationally today. One wonders had Northrop been chosen or, God forbid, Mcdonnell Douglas's with its rough faceted surfaces, China's j-20, Turkey's KAAN, India's AMCA, Korea's KF-21 would end up looking the way they do.
 
donnage99 said:
Wonderful. So what's your usual approach to picking the next inspiration? Just whatever catch your eyes?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's pretty much just that.

But once something has caught my fancy then I'd also need access to enough resources in order to make a 3d model of it.
Like, for example, 3 views or (missing those) technical drawings, pictures from different angles of wind tunnel/display models (top, side, front, rear, 3/4), etc..

If I don't have enough material to confidently depict an aircraft, I usually refrain from doing it.
For example, I've done a 3d model of Nuri Demirağ Nu.D.40, but I have not completed it because there is no drawing available that can give me a sufficiently high degree of confidence as to what the glazing/canopy of the aircraft would have looked like.
Or, as another example, I've done a 3d model of Northrop's FB-23, which I don't feel like sharing, because its proportions do not match the ones in the pictures of the display model. I've attempted to create a "more correct" 3 view of it than those already available, but it's not good enough for my OCD, thus ensuing in frustration.
Waiting to see if better references emerge with the passing of time is usually what happens then.

There's plenty of great "paper" aircraft that I'd like to depict, but at a certain point I have to ask myself if what I'm doing is attempting a correct representation of what said aircraft would have looked like or if I'm making my own aircraft.
If the balance is towards the latter, then this is not the place for such an image.
 
I must admit that I followed the X-32's progress more closely than the X-35 during the JSF contest years.
It's ugly but there is something that little dumpy aircraft that sparks something. The poor A-7 got nicknamed SLUF but I always thought that was a reasonable looking aircraft too.
 
I think it became aesthetically pleasing with the addition of the empennage. In a beefy, supersonic brick sorta way.
 
I think I've now officially run out of ideas and materials for new projects...
Click to expand...
Fancy doing some big wing Sea Harrier’s? :D
Flame2512 said:
A few interesting designs from DEFE 71/1139 Naval Staff Target 6464: Sea Harrier replacement:
  • Shar 3A - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with larger wing (9.2 m)
  • Shar 3B - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with even larger folding wing (11.9 m)
  • P.1227 -Based on Harrier GR.5 with larger folding wing (11.9 m)
All were to feature the Blue Vixen radar from the Sea Harrier FA.2, and the Zeus ECM system from the Harrier GR.5. They were to be fitted with either the Pegasus 19 or RB.532 engine offering a 15% or 30% increase in thrust respectively over the Pegasus Mk.104/5 used in the Sea Harrier FA.2 / Harrier GR.5.
Click to expand...
 
CiTrus90 said:
Thanks for your suggestions guys.

They all are in the pipeline, and will come in the next few weeks.

In the meantime I had already started on Flateric's proposals and here they are. I hope you'll like them.

Kind regards.
Click to expand...
By the way any change of further views of Model 1074-0006? If you still have that model :)
 
SteveO said:
Fancy doing some big wing Sea Harrier’s? :D
Click to expand...
Well, I mean...isn't that just another Harrier?
I feel like making a 3d model of a variant with a few minor differences from a real aircraft is a bit of a waste.
I hope you don't take offense to it, I appreciate your suggestion and support, but I'd rather make a SAAB P.1509 or BAe P.1216.
There's plenty of interesting and forgotten projects, some of which nobody will ever even take into consideration and that is what I enjoy working on the most: trying to bring to life aircraft that we would never get to see.

It would be great for a book on the subject, investigating the Harrier's development and career in depth, but making a render of a real aircraft with a slightly bigger wing is a bit...underwhelming I'd say, when there are so many other things that we could try to show.

Tuomasn said:
By the way any change of further views of Model 1074-0006? If you still have that model :)
Click to expand...
Sure thing!
McDD Mach 6 CSJ - front 1.jpg
McDD Mach 6 CSJ - side 1.jpg
McDD Mach 6 CSJ - top 1.jpg
 
CiTrus90 said:
I am stupid.

I don't know why, but when you asked about the Model 1074-0006 my brain thought "ah, yes! The McDonnell Mach 6".
Apologies, here's the proper views you requested:
Click to expand...
Well this was lucky mistake, more Mach 6 research aircraft views are awesome too! Thanks!
Now we also have the 1074-0012 to go along if you have the interest and time at some point... ;)
 
Tuomasn said:
Now we also have the 1074-0012 to go along if you have the interest and time at some point... ;)
Click to expand...
I'd love to, but...

Like with many other projects that I'd really like to put into 3d, the available drawings are few and very unclear on the shapes depicted.
The drawings for 1074-0012 are one such example.

The most striking feature I'd say are (what I believe to be) the compression inlets/ramps marked in red here:
1074-0012 - 1- top.jpg
They are clearly visible in the top view.
But...on the other hand, they are not visible in the side view:
1074-0012 - 1 - side.jpg
I could hypothesize at this point that, since they are visible only from the top and not from the side, that they are extremely thin and flat in the areas I highlighted in red above.
But again...
1074-0012 - 1 - front.jpg
...from the front view, there is no flat surface depicted in the upper part of the round inlets...

So, in the end, I have 3 different views that show 3 different things.

Moreover, the canopy is barely visible: what will be its correct shape? I'd really dislike to come up with a made-up solution for the reasons I explained a few posts ago. At what point am I re-creating a project and when am I making my own fantasy aircraft instead?
That is something I'd rather be careful about, before spreading "fakes" around the internet.
 
Last edited:
CiTrus90 said:
I'd love to, but...

Like with many other projects that I'd really like to put into 3d, the available drawings are few and very unclear on the shapes depicted.
The drawings for 1074-0012 are one such example.
Click to expand...
...
 

Attachments

  • 1718226698829.png
    1718226698829.png
    102.3 KB · Views: 56
CiTrus90 said:
I'd love to, but...

Like with many other projects that I'd really like to put into 3d, the available drawings are few and very unclear on the shapes depicted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree, and this is something I too often struggle with. Though in this case the engine cutout from the report which flateric posted does provide some clues. If I was to model this I would probably use the separate engine drawing instead of the main three view as the basis for modeling the engine, the three view side shot might be missing part of the inlet for whatever reason.
 
Tuomasn said:
Though in this case the engine cutout from the report which flateric posted does provide some clues. If I was to model this I would probably use the separate engine drawing instead of the main three view as the basis for modeling the engine, the three view side shot might be missing part of the inlet for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
It's a bit more complicated than that unfortunately, because I'd still have to pick 1 out of 3 views to base my model on.

I'm going to simplify a lot for the sake of making it readily visible, so bear with my explanation.
This is what I see from the side view with regards to the engines:
1074-0012 - engine_3.jpg
When seen from the side, both of these shapes look similar. The only thing that differentiates them (besides the color) is the ligthining and shading, which on a 3-view drawing/blueprint is not something that is available.

The shape on top (in light teal) is a square when seen from the front, the shape on the bottom (red) is a circle when see from the front.
1074-0012 - engine_4.jpg
Now, when I look at the 3 view from the top, I have a large squared area for this intake, with 90° angles at the front lip:
1074-0012 - 1- top.jpg
This is compatible with my teal shape, the one that is a square when seen from the front and shows 90° angles when seen from the top:
1074-0012 - engine_2.jpg
The red one, in fact, by keeping the same oblique cut that we see in the side view, has a frontal lip that is curved when seen from the top.

This makes for very different shapes when see them side by side in perspective:
1074-0012 - engine_1.jpg

But...the teal shape is incompatible with the frontal view of the aircraft:
1074-0012 - front.jpg
The engines, here, are depicted as circles and not as squares (as it would seem reasonable to infer from the previous views) which would mean that the engines should have a rounded lip like we see on the red shape.

Even if I were to to pick the detailed view of the engine, that would be completely different from the one shown in the 3 view, as you can see here:
1074-0012 - side 3.jpg
The top one is much shorter than the bottom one, it shows a different OML, a different exhaust area, etc. etc..

I could make some guesses and decide to use only some of those views and not all of them, but that's going to be patchwork.
Would that really be ok?
I could say "ok, that's my reconstruction of what the Model 1074-0012 would have looked like", but it's a slippery slope: what if I think the wing is too far backward, do I move it forward because I'm sure it wouldn't have been feasible to fly with such a configuration? Do I make the vertical stabilizer thinner because in the frontal view it's too thick and I don't think that's realistic? Do I add or remove stuff on my own?
A bit like with the Ship of Theseus, here I'm starting to replace what is in the original drawings with my conjectures. Would that still be a depiction of the Model 1074-0012 or am I going to make something else?

The issue is trying to find a reasonable equilibrium: when do I trust the drawings and when do I have to make some guesses to complete a project?

Mind you, I'm ok with making some guesses (more or less educated) preferably based on other products of the same manufacturer or on contemporary projects that show some points of contact. For example, I could model the canopy after the one of the model 1074-0019C (for which there is a detailed 3 view online *wink wink*). But that works only for details and there is nothing, at the moment, that can help me to understand the overall correct shape for those engines.
There is too many guesses to make here.

In my opinion that would be like if somebody were to ask me to make a rendering of the Concorde and I 3d modeled the Tu-144 instead. They look similar, but are they really close enough to say they are the same thing?
Would anyone be satisfied if I posted a render of a Tu-144 and called it a Concorde?
I doubt it, or at least I would certainly not be happy with my own work.
 
Yes, I fully understand, and my original request wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, hence the wink emoji. I just thought it might be fun to collect the whole series :) (And of course if there is a more suitable three view of 1074-0019C available, a model of that would be great too!)
Anyway since we got into this discussion attached is a quick sketch of how I would interpret the inlet so it mostly fits both top, front and side views. After all it is entirely possible for the shape to blend from edged to rounded over the length of the inlet (from 2D to 3D).
 

Attachments

  • temp.jpg
    temp.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 45
Tuomasn said:
Yeah, agree, and this is something I too often struggle with. Though in this case the engine cutout from the report which flateric posted does provide some clues. If I was to model this I would probably use the separate engine drawing instead of the main three view as the basis for modeling the engine, the three view side shot might be missing part of the inlet for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I think it's because the side view shows a fuselage cross section as well as whatever is behind it outside the fuselage contour, but not what's in front of it.
 
Tuomasn said:
Anyway since we got into this discussion attached is a quick sketch of how I would interpret the inlet so it mostly fits both top, front and side views. After all it is entirely possible for the shape to blend from edged to rounded over the length of the inlet (from 2D to 3D).
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a possibility I also considered, but for the sake of simplicity didn't mention.
In that case the problem (notwithstanding the side view incongruence) would then become: where does the transition from the squared lip to the rounded exhaust start? At the front of the engine? Halfway through its length? At 3/4 from the end?

Like Socrates, the more I stare at those drawings and the more I realize that "all I know is that I know nothing" :eek:

Tuomasn said:
(And of course if there is a more suitable three view of 1074-0019C available, a model of that would be great too!)
Click to expand...
This one, on the other hand, shows even ✨sections✨
So...
 
Tuomasn said:
Yes, I fully understand, and my original request wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, hence the wink emoji. I just thought it might be fun to collect the whole series :) (And of course if there is a more suitable three view of 1074-0019C available, a model of that would be great too!)
Anyway since we got into this discussion attached is a quick sketch of how I would interpret the inlet so it mostly fits both top, front and side views. After all it is entirely possible for the shape to blend from edged to rounded over the length of the inlet (from 2D to 3D).
Click to expand...
seems so but ramp is positioned closer to nacelle C/L, not on top
still, @CiTrus90 is correct that there are too little info to draw a correct 3D model - just look at complicated WTBF area...cockpit shape varies too on 0012 and 0012A
 
FWIW, I found these photos I had saved, probably from ebay or such some years ago. Can't remember the exact source unfortunately. And obivously somewhat distorted.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing 1074-0012A -1.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012A -1.jpg
    149.8 KB · Views: 30
  • Boeing 1074-0012A -2.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012A -2.jpg
    156.6 KB · Views: 28
  • Boeing 1074-0012A -3.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012A -3.jpg
    129.6 KB · Views: 28
  • Boeing 1074-0012A -4.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012A -4.jpg
    129.7 KB · Views: 29
  • Boeing 1074-0012A -5.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012A -5.jpg
    115.2 KB · Views: 41
Also this design we have been discussing seems to actually be 1074-0012A. There's at least one other 0012 variant:
 

Attachments

  • Boeing 1074-0012 -1.jpg
    Boeing 1074-0012 -1.jpg
    184.7 KB · Views: 40

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom