PZL104

Thank you! The steep learning curve is confirmed. I've started seriously working with blender in May 2020! For learning blender I relied on only two different superb teachers; Blender Guru and his Donut & Chair and after becoming sufficiently proficient with hard surface modelling, Josh Gambrell.

Fortunately the Meteor is so small, that it was pretty easy to accomplish alone: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235134075-meteor-fl53/ Nope. I had to correct it afterwards. That's what I found out when I bought an 1/48 Eduard Fw190. The details are breathtaking but the panel lines multiplied by 48 would be trenches in IRL.

Thank you very much for your kind words 🙂🙂🙂

That's exactly what I did with my Meteor project. It took me 3 visits to the museum to take all the necessary photos and laser measurements.

Me too! It's like @John Thompson wrote: The Bentley drawings are perfectly drawn and contain a very high amount of data. I never expected them to be incorrect. My airplane art: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bernt-stolle

As mentioned above, when I'm trying to capture the personality of an airplane I certainly don't want to interpret anything. Like one famous Musician one said about Glenn Gould; When Glenn Gould plays Bach, I hear Glenn Gould, not Bach. My airplane art: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bernt-stolle

That's one of the advantages with 3D modelling programs. You can alter the shape rather easily in most cases and rotate it in every direction to check if the general appearance matches the photos. In case of the HP Victor I collected over 500 photos for reference. My airplane art: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bernt-stolle

That's unfortunately an interesting observation. I've seen pages of discussions about the correct shape of a tiny maintenance panel while ignoring the fact that the whole fuselage is noticeable too wide/narrow long/short. Especially when creating airplanes as art projects it's very important for me to capture the personality of the airplane, hence dimensions and shape must be as close as possible to the real one. Compare the fuselage shapes of these two 1:48 F-84Fs...That's a pretty big difference. My airplane art: Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America

Just wanted to ask you, how you find out what good sources for reference drawings are. When I started working with blender, I wanted to do an F-84F first due to my love for Richard Bach's 'Stranger to the ground' book I've first read many decades ago. Found out that no drawing I found was of acceptable precision. Maru Mechanic, Cox, Caruana, Monogram etc. they all differ wildly. When I put together 2 fuselage halfes from a 1:48 Monogram F-84F and from a rather new Asian company, it was difficult to believe that these were identical airplanes! I've then switched to one of my all time favourites, the HP Victor and wanted to use the famous Bentley drawings. Using the radii etc used on his drawings I discovered that these are pure fantasy and creating a 3D model with his numbers doesn't work at all. Looking at the front view, it became obvious that the lower fuselage shape was incorrect as well. In both cases I had to buy rather expensive maintenance manuals etc. to find out how the planes actually look like. Even in case of the modern F-16 there are no 2 drawings which are identical, let alone correct. Luckily free original General Dynamics drawings can be found on the internet at various places. But what do you do if there are no original sources or manuals available? My airplane art: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bernt-stolle

Dear Aviation art fans Since I've stopped modelling and flight simming I turned to airplane art a few years ago. It took me almost 2 years until my blender skill was at an acceptable level. That's my latest project. An airplane not many people know. It's the first airplane I ever flew on at the age of 4. Since then my love for airplanes has never ceased. Every nut and bolt has been modelled with blender on this Meteor. My airplane art: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bernt-stolle

Wow, what a terrific build. Very impressive in every sense. Camo, weathering etc. 👍

Very nice model The only thing I've noticed is that the windshield is in the supersonic instead of the subsonic (takeoff and landing) position and the poor pilots wouldn't be able to see the runway in this config

Very nicely done Harrier. Doesn't look like 1/72 scale!

A very nicely built and painted 109. Really top! The antenna looks very realistic now, the only remaining item are the slats. They shouldn't change their angle. They are supposed to simply move forward a bit to provide a gap between the wing leading edge and the slats. https://www.flickr.com/photos/108070235@N05/37107692425/

Another very nicely done Airfix Hunter. Excellent work. Congratulations and a great way to diplay it!

That's a terrific build! Very nice and impressive what you've got out of the old Monogram kit! I just threw away my Hobbyboss F-84F because it has so many shape and other irreparable errors Concerning details, e.g. intake and gear bays the Monogram kit is way better.

Absolutely stunning. I wanted to build the very same Hunter in the Oman camo, but looking at this magnificent one makes me re-think my decision, and if it turns out half as nice as yours, I'de be very happy!

Tiny correction; The 'flaperons' on the Typhoon are actually elevons. (There are no flight control surfaces which act as flaps on the Typhoon)

This would be a the common flight controls position for most airplanes once there's no more hydraulic pressure left and there's a crosswind on the apron. The rudder is being moved/positioned by the wind and the elevons etc. are drooped. The Typhoon automatically goes into lift dump as soon as the engines are shut down, which means that the foreplanes are deflected fully (60°) down (so they don't interfere with the ladder) and the elevons are fully deflected up (20°) which is, in case of the Typhoon, the parked position for the actuators. That's why the Typhoon elevons have the rather unusual elevon deflection.

What is really surprising to me is the fact that (3rd photo in post #6) the Balkenkreuz on the wings is located in different positions and different angles on each of those three Fws.

Oh, now that's nice to know! I initially mentioned that the ICM kit incorrectly shows the first stage of the rotors instead of the stators but I thought that this would be over the top. Nice to see that the replacement has corrected this issue as well

A few weeks ago I bought the ICM MiG-25RBT. It's not an exactly elegant plane, but it's pure speed due to the really big engines. So that's the main reason why I was interested in this kit. Today I was working on the engines, the most impressive part of the MiG-25, and noticed that ICM has the engine intake trunking and the first stage compressor wrong! On all turbojet engines like the Tumanski R-15, the compressor size is usually the same size as the turbine, and the engine intake is as wide, or a tad wider, than the compressor. On the ICM MiG-25 the compressor is only 1/4 the size of the turbine and the intake trunking noticable tapers until it reaches the tiny business jet engine sized compressor. This looks rather bad, especially since the engines are the hallmark of the MiG-25. So I tried to find out if the much more expensive Kitty Hawk version is any better. To my surprise I've read that the parts fit isn't good (excellent on the ICM version) and that there's no intake trunking and no compressor at all! If this is actually the case, this would mean that you can build this kit only with engine covers installed and this rather important fact would have been mentioned in the various kit reviews. Edit: After searching for more info, it looks like there's really nothing inside the Kitty Hawk MiG-25. So I consider myself blessed with the ICM version

Although it lacks the elegance of a 'real' Mirage, you did an absolutely brilliant job with the conversion, camo and weathering. A top job 👍

To be honest, if Troffa wouldn't have mentioned it, I wouldn't have noticed this tiny error since the smaller (and IMO more elegant) chord stabilizers are much more noticable and you simply don't expect these to be cut off. FYI, the 'lightning rods' don't have anything to do with lightning. These static dischargers are fitted to avoid problems with the navigation and communication equipment. when flying through precipitation.

A very nice paint scheme and a very nice build.👍 @Troffa, his F-16 does have the correct small stabilizers (trailing edges are flush with the speedbrakes) but for some reason the outboard edges are slightly cut off.