Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 24 of 123  [ 1226 posts ]  Go to page « 122 23 24 25 26123 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 19th, 2011, 7:21 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
A320 is still two pixels short, the rest are good.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 21st, 2011, 6:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Why did you redraw the old 767-200? The old one was valid!

If you want to keep drawing the following have all been drawn to within two pixels:

707-320B; 727-200; 737-300,500,700,800; 747-300/400; 757-200; 767-200,300,400; 777-200; KC-10; L-1011-500; A318; A319; A320; A321; A330-200,300; and A380

There are others that are known good, but I haven't checked them yet.

Go here and please give me a chance to get a list of known good aircraft.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Little Bird
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 12:48 am
Offline
Posts: 262
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 1:01 pm
Location: Italy
Contact: Website
Enrr asked me the KC767, anyway i have redraw only wing and added some details, not redraw total aircraft.
Quote:
If you want to keep drawing the following have all been drawn to within two pixels:

707-320B; 727-200; 737-300,500,700,800; 747-300/400; 757-200; 767-200,300,400; 777-200; KC-10; L-1011-500; A318; A319; A320; A321; A330-200,300; and A380

There are others that are known good, but I haven't checked them yet.
Now i have working on B707 and military derivate (E-3, RC135, probabily E8), there is something that I know before continuing?
Quote:
go here and please give me a chance to get a list of known good aircraft.
I can only post the aircraft that i have on my HD (some my design, some of other artists), that i think are good.

Sorry for my english!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 2:07 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
The C-135s are not the same as the 707s. The 707 airframe is the C-137, E-3, E-6, and E-8 aircraft, and not any of the -135. I'll post the known good (in terms of dimension) 707-320B that I have on my main PC later this evening.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 3:27 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Here:

[ img ]

Is a known good 707-320.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 4:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
It's accurate in dimensions but...it doesn't just quite have the right feel.

I should know since I drew it.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Little Bird
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 12:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 262
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 1:01 pm
Location: Italy
Contact: Website
are you sure that the design is right?

I have scaled some profile, with the length of Boeing site (152 ft 11 inc for E3, 136 ft 3 inc for KC135)

Anyway, the E3 and E8, derived from C137 (aka 707-320), but the KC135 and RC135 derived from 720 (or 707-020).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 3:06 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Little Bird wrote:
are you sure that the design is right?

I have scaled some profile, with the length of Boeing site (152 ft 11 inc for E3, 136 ft 3 inc for KC135)

Anyway, the E3 and E8, derived from C137 (aka 707-320), but the KC135 and RC135 derived from 720 (or 707-020).
The length checks, which is the major measurement that I am checking. And the (X)C-135s are not derived from the 707-020, but were a unique airframe different than both the 707 and the progenitor of both (the C-135 and 707), the 367-80. The 707-020 / 720 was simply a shortened version of the 707-120 for shorter range flights with fewer passengers.

What happened is that the Dash 80 had one size for the fuselage, and airliners wanted a bigger size, so Boeing made it wider to better seat 5 passengers per row. This tooling set became the (X)C-135. Douglas then showed off the DC-8, which could seat 6 wide, and Boeing went for an even wider fuselage to match, and that became the 707.

For the record the correct (pixel) lengths are as follows
Plane		Length
707-020		272
707-120		290
707-230		306
KC-135		273
367-80		256

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 4:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Little Bird wrote:
are you sure that the design is right?
Didn't you read my post?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Little Bird
Post subject: Re: Planebucket Discussion ThreadPosted: March 22nd, 2011, 5:15 pm
Offline
Posts: 262
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 1:01 pm
Location: Italy
Contact: Website
Ok, this is the KC135 with 273px length.

For E3, E8 and RC135, what is the right length?
Quote:
Didn't you read my post?
Yes, but it doesn't correspond with the other profiles.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 24 of 123  [ 1226 posts ]  Return to “Parts Sheets Discussion” | Go to page « 122 23 24 25 26123 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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


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