#1
|
||||
|
||||
3D views
Like the previous model, the Fokker G1 I stumbled again across a deviation in the 3D-view of the Grumman Tracker I like to draw.the top-view might show the proper length of the engines, but it's worthwile to look a bit further...
|
Google Adsense |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I've had such errors in the past, too. That's why I tend to try finding either enough measurements of if possible original drawings. You can't trust a single second-hand information.
Thorsten |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Sadly, very, very few percentage-wise of the 3-views I've seen are relatively close to accurate in relation to each other.
Ryan
__________________
Certified Flight Instructor in Dallas, TX Websites: www.doolittleraid.com & www.lbirds.com Papermodels at: www.scribd.com/TexasTailwheel.com |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Check the drawing to be sure........... but the top profile is a S2-A and the bottom profile is a S2-E
The engine nacells ARE different in that the A's ARE longer than the E's............. A's have a hook on the back E's are slanted. If you can find Scale Aviation Modeller Internation magazine Vol. 3 issue 12 from Dec 1997, they have 3 vues done by Ricahard J. Caruana........... he ain't perfect, but he is the best I've found at being accurate............. If you can not find it (check ebay and amazon) I can scan you a copy, BUT as usual scanning can create even more errors............ john |
Google Adsense |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Yes John, I am sure the shortest way to obtain accurate and reliable info runs via shops or the 'selling-section' of the internet.
Since I think it a challenge to attain the most realistic proportions using 'public sources' (eg photo's - Lex) plus the fact that paper modeling to my opinion should remain at a price as low as possible (within the reach of 'the upcoming generation') I'll keep up doing it without. The latter is the mainspring for dropping my models free on the internet. I admire your pen drawn pictures John. Using the good-old tracing pen or what ? |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Engine check in 4 steps. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sure takes the madness of making mistakes out of the equation......... not to mention the amount of paper saved from the trash can I believe this is the only time that a computer has actually saved paper! Which version of the "stoof" are you planning on modeling........... the "E" model was used by several different Navies........ but not Canada. They changed the engine nacelles to even another profile. john |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What I always do is...
1- save each view as a separate image, and trim off the white areas 2- rotate the views slightly (in photoshop) so they are properly aligned 3- take the official dimensions, then resample the images at a scale of 1" to 1 pixel so they are scaled properly to each other 4- then correct the drawings due to photo evidence Like the posters above, it needs to be said that three view drawings should only be a starting point and a guideline. The most time consuming part of design work (other than making instructions) is just doing the research. I often collect over a thousand photos, drawings, flight manuals, etc for over a year before I even attempt a design effort. It's made all the harder when there are no more examples of these airframes in existence. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
b) not the F John, 'mine' is the 'stoon', the plane you'll find by clicking "And so it is" in my reply to Lex's message. The engines (length/position) are still worrying me. Apart from the KLM training plane I cannot find the S2N on the net. |
Google Adsense |
|
|