• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Motocar's Cutaway drawings

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
560
Reaction score
54
Website
www.steelpillow.com
Motocar was the one who made the speculative cutaway that bothers him so much, rather than enjoying it...
Oh, but I do enjoy it Motocar! It is a beautiful image, so much better than I can draw. As I said, it is only when it is presented as accurate that I am unhappy.
In case it helps, here is my own crude effort to put right some of the inaccuracies: the cockpit is moved forwards, the nose line smoothed, the nose intake more circular, the guns back behind the pilot, the canopy extended backwards, a steel wing box/fuel tank (with some internal stiffening) depicted and the undercarriage rearranged behind it (though the hinge is still too far forward and outboard), a central sheet steel chassis and carry-through box to which the wing is bolted (I am unsure if the jet intake or cockpit armour would have been integral with it yet). It may be rougher, but it is closer to the actual design.BV-210-alt.jpg
 
Last edited:

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
58
The point is that the Motocar's cutaway is essentially consistent with the Flitzer's 2 views artwork.
Considering the modification that Steelpillow propose we must assume that Flitzer's arttwork is also wrong.

Right?
 

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
Estos comentarios son mas contructivos que los anteriores...! Gracias, Motocar.

P.D. Los perfiles de guia son de gran ayuda pero en ocasiones tambien son especulativos y generan una cadena de errores involuntarios...!
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
560
Reaction score
54
Website
www.steelpillow.com
Oh, my, I am losing my marbles! I owe Motocar (and by implication also Flitzer and overscan) a sincere apology for the worst of my criticisms, as I have been at least as inaccurate: I have been muddling up the B&V P 210 with the P 209!:eek::oops:
My drawing is effectively the P 209. I suppose it started because Motocar originally posted on another thread in the middle of a P 209 discussion and I stupidly missed the change of subject. Flitzer's side profile of the P 210 is as good as it gets and I should not have altered the forward fuselage and cockpit in the way that I did. On the other hand I was right to pick up on the steel box spar and carry-through. We both got the main wheel wells wrong - they lie flat underneath as Motocar drew them but further back as I drew them.
(I think...)
Sincere apologies again to all concerned.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
58
Oh, my, I am losing my marbles! I owe Motocar (and by implication also Flitzer and overscan) a sincere apology for the worst of my criticisms, as I have been at least as inaccurate: I have been muddling up the B&V P 210 with the P 209!:eek::oops:
Ok but, in any case, the Flitzer's 2 views (and the Motocar's cutaway based upon it) and the Zizi6785's 3 views are not exactly the same thing.
Fuselage shape, canopy shape, cannon position, engine area and winglets are quite different.
What is right and what is wrong?
 

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
When I make a speculative cutaway drawing I do it trying to use all the available data, the originals and the interpretations of other artists of the cutaway and the profiles, the critics are always welcome to make a revision that allows to improve the work already presented. Thanks to Steelpillow, archipeppe and Zizi6786 for their contributions, criticisms and opinions in favor of that almost forgotten fighter Blhom & Voss BV-210 project...
 

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
Read carefully the note indicated on which they alerted me, I ask Can I continue to share the modifications, tweaks and originals that I have made or that are in the project or because they are completed? How are the cutaways already shared in the topic that I have in the forum and in those others where I have shared images of other authors? Greetings and thanks. Motocar
 

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
Cutaway Boeing XB/YB-52, the prototypes of the old, fat and ugly or better known as "Buff" nobody even their designers thought they would be flying in the 21st century, being part of the dissuasive triad of the USAF, that bomber that belonged to the famous "Strategic Command" whose logo adorned the nose of the bombers that were part of it in their different units, the B-52 had to replace the huge (and obsolete) Republic B-36 as well as increase the stride that the Boeing B-47 lacked, would be accompanied only for a decade of the fabulous, supersonic and very expensive Convair B-58. Already in the sixties he had planned his powerful substitute task entrusted to North American and his fantastic XB-70 with speed of Mach 3 flying at high altitude, would soon be relegated and then canceled when changing the balance of power due to Soviet capabilities in ground-to-air or SAM missiles that had already shown their ability to take down intruder planes flying at great heights, one and their victims was the previously untouchable Lockheed U-2, being shot down by Gary Powers who was captured and creating a serious international incident , Author Aviagraphica and retouched by Motocar to recreate this early version of the BUFF

 

Attachments

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
Cutaway Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-17SN, as I mentioned this prototype of the very maneuverable MiG-17 now with tilting cannons, which allowed him to change the angle of them in pitch, allowing the cannon down or up, the test flights showed which affected the handling (given the greater weight of the nose with this novel installation) which caused it not to enter into service, this is how he said goodbye the most attractive version of all MiG-17, its circular air intakes joined to a more aerodynamic cabin cover next to a rounded nose more pleasing to the eye (No more aerodynamic, since the front shot was very well designed and was very efficient from the aerodynamic and practical point of view, so much so that it was mounted almost without changes in the first MiG jets from the MiG-9, MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19) original author Mike Badrocke and modified by Motocar to recreate this beautiful version of one of the ma s feared fighters that left the guidelines of what should be an evolving combat fighter.

 

Attachments

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
590
Reaction score
33
Cutaway Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-17SM1-4, prototype of the MiG-17 used as a test bench for the Tumansky RD-9 engines but without the installation of the afterburners, the fabulous and simple MiG-17 proved once again to be up to par. of the needs required by the MiG design office, this particular model shows us the versatility of the fighter that was modified to its rear fuselage to accept two new axial flow engines of the newly created Tumansky firm, the RD -9 were quite long once the afterburners were installed, remember that the development of centrifugal motors was considered a dead way to break the sound barrier by its frontal area and its centrifugal compressor that had to have really large dimensions to achieve sufficient performance that would allow it to achieve truly supersonic performance, hence the next step was the development of the most complex engines axial that reduced the frontal area and increased compression ratios (The Germans were right when developing their more complex Jumo 004, Heinkel He-11 and BMW-003 engines) by simply placing several stages of compression impellers , it was this little fighter who had the task of serving as a flying test bench of these very new machines, the little expert eye goes unnoticed until you look from behind and both nozzles are observed, original author Mike Badrocke and modified by Motocar to recreate this non-existent schematic cut.

P.S. There it is for the enjoyment of friends who follow the topic
 

Attachments

Top