David Fontaine wrote:

> Nice progress!
> Shouldn't it have blue/gray camo on the bottom (for looking up at it)
> and
> green/brown on the top (for looking down)? The latest planes I think
> don't
> have any, they're just stealth black. (What good is camo on a plane
> going mach
> 3 and being looked at by non-visible radiation?) I'm not saying take
> it off
> though, it looks neat. :-)
>
> --
> David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Well, yes, the paint scheme......
Hmmm, you must know there are MANY different paint schemes
around the world for this jet. (Check out the little sample below !)
I somewhat chose my own, but I will keep experimenting with
different camo schemes. Btw, over-all flat black or fire red looks also
nice !
Will post some of them here later on...
Stay tuned !
Jens

[Image]


[Image]

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB) Download 'c:\windows\temp\nsmail7p.jpeg.jpg' (14 KB) Download 'c:\windows\temp\nsmailqh.jpeg.jpg' (32 KB)

Preview of image 'c:\windows\temp\nsmail7p.jpeg.jpg'

Preview of image 'c:\windows\temp\nsmailqh.jpeg.jpg'

GrimDude wrote:

> Your Sidewinders look awesome!

I'm happy you like 'em ! :)
It is funny, because I spent just about a quarter of an hour
designing them (no joke !). All I had was a small image in a book
and my great "golden thumb rule".  ;)

> I know you know this, but... the fuselage needs a tuck where the wing
> reaches maximum thickness. Perhaps the "coke bottle" look will come into
> being witht he rest of the plane?

I already thought about that....of course, the "area rule" should be
applied
correctly like on the original plane. Maybe later...?
BTW: Do you know the F-20 (F-5G) Tigershark, a further development
of its predecessor, the F-5E ?  It was an excellent aircraft but
did not reach series production. It had just one engine, but that one
was even more powerful than the two engines of the 5E. The "coke-bottle-
slender-effect" (or better "area rule") is used to reduce drag in
supersonic flight regime (for example, take a look at the Convair F-104
and F-106 !  Same thing. If you have sufficient engine
power mounted, you don't need to apply the area rule. That simplifies
construction, too !
Maybe I should convert the plane into the single-engine F-20 to avoid
application of the area rule !?  ;)

> The perspective makes the pitot tube
> appear to be too far out, but who can judge that? :)

No, it is all right there. You are positive: It is just due to the
perspective.

> I sat in one of these things (F-5 Freedom Fighter actually) at the Air
> Museum near the Seattle Space needle (a long time ago). I believe I had a
> better view then your helmet position implies ;)

Imagine there are small pilots, too !
(Even if they believe they're big...eheh !)

> Dropping the background may be going too far in future updates (reflection
> mapping will suffer). Perhaps a tad more compression on your jpeg settings?

Acknowledged, sir !  ;)))

Jens

Post a reply to this message

Jens Strohmeyer wrote:

> Well, yes, the paint scheme......
> Hmmm, you must know there are MANY different paint schemes
> around the world for this jet. (Check out the little sample below !)
> I somewhat chose my own, but I will keep experimenting with
> different camo schemes. Btw, over-all flat black or fire red looks
> also nice !

You should match it to whatever background you have in the end. Either
ocean or vast farmland should be doable in POV, mostly flat... and no
placing the horizon below the camera's field of view! :-)

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

> BTW: Do you know the F-20 (F-5G) Tigershark, a further development
> of its predecessor, the F-5E ?  It was an excellent aircraft but

I've flown R/C versions. There's a new kit coming out of Australia very
soon!

There were a few other versions, including a swept forward wing design. I do
not care for these planes, as they put a computer between pilot and
aircraft. That is not a bad thing, but I still don't like it. I'm funny that
way. :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

(What good is camo on a plane going mach
> 3 and being looked at by non-visible radiation?) I'm not saying take it
off
> though, it looks neat. :-)

Actually, camo is essential to this airplanes survival. It is not a high
dollar fighter. It has to get in close to use its weapons. Most combat
maneuvering occurs down at about 350-425mph (corner velocity) and the turn
circle is still rather large at that speed. The F5 has to force its opponent
to lose sight of him, so he can maneuver for the kill. Since this plane is
deployed at forward fields it also uses camo to disguise its position. Don't
want to get your plane strafed! :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message