Shipbucket

A320 is still two pixels short, the rest are good.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

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

Enrr asked me the KC767, anyway i have redraw only wing and added some details, not redraw total aircraft.
Now i have working on B707 and military derivate (E-3, RC135, probabily E8), there is something that I know before continuing?
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!

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

Here:



Is a known good 707-320.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

It's accurate in dimensions but...it doesn't just quite have the right feel.

I should know since I drew it.

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

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Didn't you read my post?

Ok, this is the KC135 with 273px length.

For E3, E8 and RC135, what is the right length?
Yes, but it doesn't correspond with the other profiles.