Boeing P3B

C

chris707-2

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
16 August 2022
Messages
25
Reaction score
143
The Boeing Model 466/XP3B, a never built ASW/patrol design of the late '40s. Here, I postulated that it entered service, and at least a few ended up in Navy utility squadron service by the '60s, hence the high-viz scheme. But the odds of anything powered by the T40 making it in service that long are pretty remote!

boeing p3b vu-23 painting.jpg
 
chris707-2 said:
The Boeing Model 466/XP3B, a never built ASW/patrol design of the late '40s. Here, I postulated that it entered service, and at least a few ended up in Navy utility squadron service by the '60s, hence the high-viz scheme. But the odds of anything powered by the T40 making it in service that long are pretty remote!
Click to expand...
I figure it would have had the T40 dumpster fire replaced by the T56 by then.

Nice painting!
 
I *absolutely* respect and revere the artwork craftsmanship, but why pick such an *ugly* propeller driven design to waste artistic talent on?
 
chris707-2 said:
The Boeing Model 466/XP3B, a never built ASW/patrol design of the late '40s. Here, I postulated that it entered service, and at least a few ended up in Navy utility squadron service by the '60s, hence the high-viz scheme. But the odds of anything powered by the T40 making it in service that long are pretty remote!
Click to expand...
Very nice and emotional artwork! In my humble opinion, your choice of the Boeing's project as a "main character" offer to paint the subject, that inspire you, and express both interest to aviation and artistry. High-visibility scheme widen the color palette, enhance the contrast and overall vivacity.
 
martinbayer said:
I *absolutely* respect and revere the artwork craftsmanship, but why pick such an *ugly* propeller driven design to waste artistic talent on?
Click to expand...
Thank you! I just got to thinking about the design, and figured by the '60s it would be getting replaced by Lockheed's P-3, and wondered what it would look like in secondary service. I probably could have figured out a more dramatic pose for it
 
martinbayer said:
I *absolutely* respect and revere the artwork craftsmanship, but why pick such an *ugly* propeller driven design to waste artistic talent on?
Click to expand...
Haven't you heard? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Apart from a few universal horrors everyone can agree on, one man's trash is another man's treasure... The Boeing 466 might not have won any beauty contests, but it was elegant enough, and certainly no more ugly than, say, the Lockheed Neptune or Boeing's own Fortresses, whether Flying, Super or Strato...
 
Stargazer said:
Haven't you heard? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Apart from a few universal horrors everyone can agree on, one man's trash is another man's treasure... The Boeing 466 might not have won any beauty contests, but it was elegant enough, and certainly no more ugly than, say, the Lockheed Neptune or Boeing's own Fortresses, whether Flying, Super or Strato...
Click to expand...
See above. I'm a jet/rocket man through and through. Propellers (and *especially* piston engine driven ones - yuck!!!) are for speed losers...
 
Last edited:
I think it's fantastic and it deserves a lot more praise since it's done with traditional medium painting.
The aircraft choice itself isn't ugly at all IMO: it's very slender and elegant, the paint scheme you picked also gives it great contrast and makes it interesting to the eye.
Great job!
 
Agreed, traditional painting is still one of the best ways to illustrate aircraft. I always love seeing a good aviation or naval painting.
 
I think it looks beautiful, just the tail is a bit weird. Propably it was built for long range with its wide wingspan
 
It is a fine piece of art and imho, the aircraft is fine too. An elegant form to follow function.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom