Ju88A

[Grafikco]

Nice one Clint, pleased for for yeah, you must be well chuffed, looks bob on, just out of curiosity, how many hours have you had on this one from the start?

[Clint Mitchell]

Thank you gentlemen. A ridiculous amount of hours already. Been working on it for well over 6 months from initial redraw of the line work to now.

[Clint Mitchell]

I've altered the highlights on the power egg and wings and added some details/weathering to the prop blades and it should be popping out from the main fuselage a bit more. Cheers Otter & Peter K. Undercarriage at last!


Cheers

Clint

[Skyraider3D]

Looking excellent, mate.
Not too sure about the abundant weathering on the rear of the prop blade tho.

[BLOWHARD]

I keep forgetting to ask about this.

What is that? I'm not saying it's wrong mind you. But I don't understand the shape your showing. Is the prop more bulbous at the tip or is there a reverse twist or wash out? The other blade certainly doesn't show any contour that would explain what is going on there.
So, just asking, what's going on with that blade tip?

[Otterkins2]

I'd push it a bit more Clint, but it's starting to pop now. Great job!!!

[Clint Mitchell]

Thanks Ronnie I'll tone it down a tad.

Blowhard: Thanks for the crit. The prop blades are actually a trace of the prop blades and spinner that came with the new'ish 1:32 Ju88A-1 from Revell. I would not usually trust a model but Revell spent 2 weeks measuring this actual aircraft at the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum for the model and it seems very accurate. I kind of wanted to get the blades as realistic as poss (well better than the drawings I had). I basically blu-tacked the bits from the kit together then photographed the assembly then traced in Illustrator.Then a bit of jiggery pokery to counter the perspective issues. The bit at the bottom of the blade is kinda where it twists back on it's self slightly, anyway attached is the photo. Actually come to think of it it could do with a bit shaved off the bottom it does seem like you say a bit Bulbous. I might rework the blades a little bit.


Otterkins: Thanks dude I will look into it mate.

Cheers all

Clint

[Skyraider3D]

Sideviews of propellers are an odd thing, and to be bluntly honest: almost every 2D profile artists gets them wrong. Why? Because they forget to show the third blade. It looks bloody odd, I admit, but in the sideview the tip of the third blade is visible. I can appreciate artists leaving them off for aesthetical reasons though, as it doesn't look particularly nice, but this is what a three-bladed prop looks like in sideview (see attachment).

The point there the "trailing edge" of the front-most blade and the "leading edge" of the rear-most blade cross is actually the extreme tip of both blades. That's why it looks so weird
In case you wonder, the cowling and prop belong to a work-in-progress Ki-43-III-Ko 3D model.


NB. The shape of the prop tip depends a bit on the pitch angle of the prop. The way it's shown on Clint's '88 is indeed possible with fine pitch.

[Clint Mitchell]

Hhhmmmmmm! Decision time the fine balance: Aesthetics or accuracy. Thanks for the render Ronnie and the explanation. What are your views on the matter, 3 blades or two? It does look a bit weird doesn't it

Cheers again dude

Clint

[Skyraider3D]

Really up to you, mate, though I admit I lean towards leaving it away despite being a bit of an accuracy nut

Personally I leave prop blades off altogether on my 2D profiles, for the sake of not having to draw undercarriage or have a dead-engine "flying" plane!!

For my 3D work I'd probably live with it or twist the blades in an optimum position (to see as little as possible of the far blade) as it would be slightly silly too to remove a propblade before rendering...