Your opinions needed on illustrating future aircraft books

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From Chris Gibson

1) Which combination of images, A,B,C,D or E, would you prefer to see in a book?

2) Which option, A,B,C,D or E, would you consider worth paying a premium for?

3) Assuming none of these are freebies, which combination, A,B,C,D or E, would you consider the most costly to produce?

4) Any combinations of the individual images not shown here that they would like to see?

Some idea of reasons for selection / comments would be nice, as the results could have an impact on future production. Don't moan if you don't contribute!

Please note these are all very low resolution and do not reflect production quality.

Thanks

Chris

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My answer is it depends, on the subject being depicted.

Redrawing a GA is presumably time-consuming, so if the original drawing is adequate, use it. I like original drawings as you know it is original and not "interpreted" by the author.

CGI is best reserved for designs that never flew. I already know what a TSR2 looks like from photos, so its nice but not massively educational. Seeing a CGI image of a design you know only from a 3 view is much more surprising and informative, IMHO.

Profiles are always popular with modellers. Can't go wrong with a few pages of profiles.

 

[Thorvic]

To be honest Chris i suspect the best option is a combination of the lot.

Original drawings and artwork are handy to show the authenticity of the subject but we know many are not of suitable quality or size for reproduction in a book and thus need to be replaced by modern representations.
The CGI artwork does nicely illustrate the look and feel of how the subject matter would look if completed and put into service but in the case of the Japanese Secret Projects it was all CGI and colour profiles leaving nothing for the 3 views so felt more like a coffee table artwork book than a technical reference.

Cheers

Geoff

 

[Jemiba]

Most important for me is a good GA, artwork is a very pleasant eyecatcher,
epsecially as frontispiece, colour profiles come third. So, principally, I would like
most all three in a book ! If that's too imprudent and I would have to chose,
I would like most A, the least useful for me C.

 

[foiling]

I have a great love for quality General Arrangements, and it saddens me (& troubles me) that it seems to be a dying form of representation in monthly magazines, at least in the ones available in English. (I suspect that the very appealing 'Le Fana', which is too inconvenient to order from South Africa, still excels in that field). I hope that general arrangements remain sufficiently popular amongst guys of your caliber & influence, or they may die out.
There are several (at least) very capable & talented technical artists on this site - producing stunning GA's or Colour Artwork - but I won't mention names here lest I over-look someone truly deserving of acknowledgment, but I am sure you know who you are. I cannot thank you guys enough for the thrill you bring to the study of aircraft for a beginner like me. I will never tire of greedily pouring over your masterpieces.

 

[Matej]

Definitely E. I agree with the overscan. Just to add that when someone redraws original GA, some of the information is always lost or misinterpreted. So when the quality is good enough, I like the original (and its also the cheaper option for the publisher).

 

[mz]

I find aircraft histories mostly very shallow, they lack context (what other projects had been completed or were going on and how did this compare to them? Did basic research on subject X influence the design, RAE/NACA/NASA?) and don't explain reasons for design decisions!
Also would sometimes like to see some close-ups of structures.

Overall, they rarely explain why planes became what they were. It's just some fantasy on how someone came up with an idea from heaven and sketched it on a napkin. Even if it was a napkin sketch, that person had a wealth of background information that made even the sketch what it was. They didn't live in a vacuum. General ideas like what new aerodynamic research had been going on, what new engines, what weapons, what kind of military needs...

This would mean one would have to interview engineers. They might be a little bad at explaining, but perhaps some iteration, by showing the text to them after the author has tried to generalize it, would help, so that they could stress out the main ideas.

The most lacking thing in popular technical issues is context. When listing aircraft dimensions or profiles, there should be some references, like the predecessor and successor as shadow figures, or at least a human figure. It doesn't say much to anyone if wing span is six or ten or fifteen meters - if they don't know what other planes have. (But don't use tennis courts or london buses!)

rant end...

 

[phil gollin]

"A" or "B" with a scattering of "colour artworks" to sell the book.

The newly drawn GAs are most important, with a decent colour representation a good visual aid.

The "colour artworks" can work wonders, but PRESUMABLY cost. These are useful to help browsers in shops, but what percentage of books are bought on the web now ?

Having said that I would have paid more for the recent TSR2 book because of the huge use of colour - I regard it as a "bargain". (But that is in retrospect, would I have paid up buying "blind" on a website ?)

.

 

[red admiral]

Definitely E. I agree with the overscan. Just to add that when someone redraws original GA, some of the information is always lost or misinterpreted. So when the quality is good enough, I like the original (and its also the cheaper option for the publisher).

I'd agree with this. As a reader, you don't know what details might have been omitted from the original if it's re-drawn. If there's internal structure shown etc. It's also quite nice to see old style technical drawings as well. If we take BSP: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles as an example and flip to Chapter 12 (as I happened to open the book there) we have some nice re-drawn GAs which are pretty good, then we have some original GAs from Brooklands Museum which give internal detail, sections, dimensions etc. but they're a bit more crowded than the re-drawn GAs. As an aside I do like the re-drawn cross sections through the propulsion systems - great for understanding what's going on in a bit more detail. The two types complement each other.

I don't have as much time for profiles myself. If there's a GA I already know what it looks like from the side. It's more useful as a whif illustration.

Company drawings, artist's impressions from the time are nice to have, but a modern re-do can give more clarity or colour. The cover illustration of BSP:Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles is wonderful. Really captures what the book is about.

 

[DamienB]

As those who've got it know all the GA drawings in my TSR2 book were redrawn. Many of them combined multiple GAs into a single one, so without doing that I would have needed to either make room for many more illustrations, or simply live with not including many of them. I find the basic outline shape GAs fairly useless - they usually give no indication of internal fuel, weapons bays etc. Brochures and other project documentation tend to break out different systems into separate drawings (and often they scale differently to each other and the master GA!)... and sometimes the quality is so poor as to be impossible to reproduce the original in print.

Given care I think the redrawn GA is the way to go. Profiles and CGI on top are nice to have - and if it's one or the other, the CGI gives a better idea of the real shape - assuming your 3D artist has got things right, which will take a great deal of time and effort.

 

[foiling]

I'm rather surprised at the general reluctance to favour newly drawn General Arrangements. In the light of the incredible talent of the artists who are represented on this site alone (eg Jemiba, Matej, Scott Lowther, to name 3 I know of by name, and there are several others at least), I would favour, & encourage, them whole-heartedly. These artists have a deep understanding of what the experts look for in a drawing, what they want to know; surely they won't, as a rule, omit any details in the new drawing. On the other hand, are not most original GA's quite faint, sketchy, often with broken lines, or errors that today's artists are able to correct? I have great confidence in our current technical draftsmen, and I am sure they are very capable of producing artwork of an even more pleasing standard than the originals. Is that not what Scott has alluded to with his rating of originals upon which he bases his work?

 

[Matej]

Being one of the artists you mentioned (thanks for that), I will answer you a bit poetical: will you redraw the Mona Lisa with the state of the art technology? I understand that not all original GA drawings are in the sufficient quality, but if the author has some and has the permission to use them, then why not? This faint, sketchy or broken lines is called the spirit of the past Aviation book is mostly some kind of the history book. If you have all new material in it, the spirit will lack. Of course, this is my individual preference. If someone has the different opinion, its nothing bad with that.

 

[foiling]

I understand what you're saying Matej, and would certainly not be especially impressed by a modern re-construction of the Mona Lisa, nor any other classical artwork. For me, personally, I don't often look at aircraft art from this poetical perspective; although one could, and with good reason especially if one is admiring what in this topic is called a 'colour artwork', such as the magnificent art of Joseph Gatial, whose work I adore. One can judge aircraft artwork either in terms of its technical accuracy, detail, scale, etc or in terms of its colour, realism, sense of energy or movement, evocativeness, story-telling, etc. The latter would be a more poetic or emotive assessment - as in a colour artwork, but I would look at a general arrangement first & foremost in terms of how accurately & how completely it re-captured the aircraft as it is. I would not look at such from an emotive view-point, even though I get very thrilled/excited when I see one of your creations, or that of Jemiba, or Pete West, Hubert Cance, the breath-taking work in Avico Press's Myasishchev volumes, or the excellent Giuseppi Picarella and Juanita Franzi - and I know I am still leaving out a good few who deserve credit - sorry! (You guys know who among you have been richly praised for your talent, both for GA's & for colour artwork, and I am sure that I am not alone in saying how incredibly grateful I am to each & every one of you. I look forward - breath held - for many more of your reconstructed general arrangements.

 

[shockonlip]

I'm from the U.S. and I'm not sure what "GA" means. Someone above mentioned General Arrangements.
If that is what GA means, I'm still not sure what that signifies. Is that a 3-view diagram, or something
else?

Anyway, you want your artwork to be very memorable, and to provide a reason in itself, for
buying the book !

Such things require passion about the subject, and the ability to communicate the dream.

I have bought books just for the artwork! I don't think I am the only one who has done this.

Aviation artists have a tendency to try to be very factual. They don't want to portray an image
involving the aircraft that didn't happen. But what they forget, is that when the aircraft was
being proposed, there may have been conceptual artwotk done by the manufacturer, where
the aircraft was portrayed performing its mission. For example, I have some old books from the
1960's that portray the B-70 as if it had been taken operational by the USAF. Such things seem
taboo by aviation artists, but I enjoy these very much.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I liked the art approach seen in BSP4: Hypersonics of newly drawn three views and colour 'action' pictures. The redrawn line art provides a standard throughout the book compared to copies of variable original vendor line arts. Any display merit of colour profiles can surely be incoporated into additional colour 'action' pictures which can illustrate multiple products (as in BSP4 with unbuilt aircraft carrying unbuilt ordnance and so on).

 

[Tophe]

I'm not sure what "GA" means. Someone above mentioned General Arrangements.
If that is what GA means, I'm still not sure what that signifies. Is that a 3-view diagram, or something
else?

I have not voted, for the same reason (not understanding abreviations)

 

[Steve Pace]

I'm not sure what "GA" means. Someone above mentioned General Arrangements.
If that is what GA means, I'm still not sure what that signifies. Is that a 3-view diagram, or something
else?

I have not voted, for the same reason (not understanding abreviations)

GA: General Arrangement, I think?... -SP

 

[red admiral]

GA is indeed General Arrangement or a 3-view drawing that shows the overall shape but little detail.

Having just received Damien Burke's book on TSR2, I might have to retract my earlier opinion. In this book, the majority of the drawings have been re-drawn. This does give clarity and consistency throughout the book. More impressive is the attention put into the internal detail of the drawings.

 

[foiling]

Just curious: does a general arrangement drawing, as a rule, mean one that does not include much detail? There are so many excellent 3-view drawings - as by the artists I mentioned earlier - that could not be regarded as lacking detail. Is there another name for those, or are they simply "more detailed GA's"?

 

[red admiral]

A General Arrangement shows how the object looks overall when assembled and gives information on it's interaction with other objects. A few overall dimensions would typically be included. For an aircraft, these dimensions might be used by someone designing a new hangar to fit the plane in for example. You also get other drawing levels below General Arrangements, e.g. Detail Drawings. These completely dimension the part and show the complete geometry in order for someone to go about making it. It's probably easier to think of something simple like a nut or bolt in order to get your mind around it, rather than an entire aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

A good question, but a difficult one to answer helpfully.

I love to have accurate three-views in black and white. Often these can be used to get a model made, especially of ships and aircraft that were never built.

Good artwork in colour, especially side view colour schemes

My hates are double page spreads of photos are artwork when a single page would be sufficient. This is also true of poor quality photos and drawings which area commonly available and yet are used to pad out a book.

But actually I am usually so grateful that someone has taken the time and effort to produce a book (Mr Burke, Mr Buttler inter alia) that I understand their reasons for the format.

UK 75

 

[foiling]

It's like you read my mind, UK 75. There's something very special about a detailed & high quality 3-view or more, and few things as disheartening as a much-desired one spread across two pages. I have a book on British prototypes - can't think of the name off-hand - that has spectacular 3-views, almost all across two pages. A magnificent book, with a big draw-back.

 

[Skyraider3D]

I voted E but I did D...! ;D

Indeed the author (Damien Burke) added new-drawn GA drawings as well, and pretty excellent ones at those, so with his book you got all three! In case of his book they are definitely superior in presenting the subject that authentic GA drawings would have been.

That said I am a real sucker for authentic materials. For example I love Jared Zichek's books, in which original GA materials form a very important ingredient. Hence choice E.

Colour profiles are nice, but in case of hypothetical aircraft they are mostly just eye candy. They are neither as striking as "3D" artwork, nor as informative as GA drawings. Nothing wrong with eye candy though! And in case of an aircraft that was actually built, colour profiles are really quite useful and informative. In case of the TSR2 book, they showed the built prototypes as well as the anticipated service colour scheme.

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting topic, question and consideration!!

If I may, I would like to reflect what I would like in a book
- Newly drawn GA
(for although I personally appreciate manufacturers GA and often the comments, notes and dimensions that come with them, this can often make for a messier drawing, which can depict from the actual aircraft's details!)

- Colour Profile
(As it is always good to see the details had it entered service + a depiction of weapons arrangements!)

- Colour Art
(Like that of Colour Profile, it often gives the reader an in-depth 'what if' perspective of the design in a more dimensional manner - as emphasized by Skyraider3D fantastic depiction of an RAF TSR.2 carrying out it's prime and intended role of delivering nukes, low and fast!)

Good luck with your research, and look forward as to what will derive from it!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[pathology_doc]

One thing I would definitely vote for in those books dealing with unfinished (e.g. SR177, Avro 730 bomber), unbuilt (e.g. Armstrong-Whitworth's 4-engined entry into the interceptor competition) or back-of-the-envelope concept designs, is (somewhere, ANYWHERE) a picture of a crew-member to scale, even if it's just a zero-detail silhouette. (Derek Wood went one better in Project Cancelled - he had a silhouette overlay of a Fairey Delta 2 on a Mirage III, and in size they're all but identical.)

I think sometimes this would also help with the aircraft that actually got built - for example, I never realised just how big Concorde was NOT until I saw one in the flesh (or rather, metal). TSR-2, Arrow etc. aren't as much of a problem to the initiated because there are plenty of shots of the aircraft at roll-out etc, but a newbie to the whole cancelled-project world might never have seen much of that material. I have seen ONE artist's impression of the Avro 730 with the crew climbing out, and it's a much smaller aircraft than Project Cancelled or BSP: Jet Bombers gave me the impression of.

I also remember a battleship book (I can't remember who wrote it now), in which next to every lovely glossy full-colour drawing or illustration was a small blue-on-black silhouette giving a size-comparison of the ship with the Dreadnought. One could imagine a book on Western aircraft comparing them with a contemporary - e.g. British Cold War fighters against the Lightning, bombers against a Vulcan; American 50's fighters against an F-104; bombers against a B-52 or B-58, Soviet fighters against a MiG-21 and so on...

 

[CJGibson]

Hmmm...interesting, but what's wrong with a foot/metre scale?
Be secure in the knowledge that Father Dougal McGuire is not the target market for projects books!

I have tried adding human figures as scales to drawings in the past, but when you get to a beast the size of a Belfast or C-5, the scale just looks like a speck of dust, especially once the drawing is reduced for the layout. Then I tried cars, but how many Americans know the length of a Renault Clio and how many Brits know what size a F150 truck is? I don't.

Ah, wait! How about a Toyota Hilux? Dshka optional.

Chris

 

[CJGibson]

How about this?

 

[Thorvic]

Wheres the Missile ? ;D

 

[CJGibson]

Sorry Geoff, I meant to post this one.

Chris

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I pity the fool driving that Hilux - he's more at risk from that missile than the guys he's firing at

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The London double decker red bus seems a pretty common size standard around the world. It could also carry a Blue Streak on its back...

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

One problem with most manufacturer's General Arrangement drawings is that they contain errors or depict a non-representative configuration, i.e. early flight test, although that can be explained in the caption. When sized to the same scale to provide a size comparison, the line weights are notably different. The dimensions are inconsistently annotated. They are frequently of poor quality due to number of generations between the original and the best copy extant. On close examination, I've often found that the views are slightly different scales or that the illustration has been distorted in the copying or layout process so that ten feet on the vertical axis is a different length on the horizontal one. When various types are presented together using manufacturers GAs, the set of illustrations begins to resemble a ransom note. So I prefer to redraw them to a common format, level of detail, and scale, correcting errors. Attached as an example is a draft illustration for my F7U-1 monograph that depicts the various V-346 configurations to a common scale and level of detail for direct comparison in a single illustration. Nevertheless, there are times when the manufacturers GAs are appropriate.

I personally don't include markings profiles because 1) I don't have the expertise to create them and they cost too much to obtain otherwise, 2) they are not fully useful to modelers if only a side view is provided, 3) they only depict a handful of the schemes out there, and 4) the transition from photos to profile of a complex scheme is likely to contain small errors. That said, I appreciate their use in depicting the change in color schemes and markings over time.

I really like the color art but it is again, well beyond my expertise. I make do with the use of the manufacturer's art, which has some historic value in addition to esthetic quality (see examples by Douglas' R.G. Smith), and photographs of manufacturers models. However, if I had the wherewithal, I'd commission Jared Zichek or a similarly talented artist to provide bespoke art work in my books and monographs.

In summary, I voted A plus lots and lots of pictures, preferably unpublished and with informative captions that amplify or add to the text.

 

[robunos]

Ah, wait! How about a Toyota Hilux? Dshka optional.

How about, depending on era, nationality, etc,
A WWII era Jeep, a Land Rover, or a HUMMVEE?


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In summary, I voted A plus lots and lots of pictures, preferably unpublished and with informative captions that amplify or add to the text.

You've tipped A ahead by one vote. And even one vote can make a difference, I was once elected to the university senate by a single vote.

The London double decker red bus seems a pretty common size standard around the world.

Its a design school standard:

 

[CJGibson]

The problem with using vehicles is that they are country / era specific. While the double-decker is a fairly universal standard, how many people know what size a double decker is? Perhaps I'm lucky in being able to flip between units and visualise dimensions, but the feet/metres scale suits me fine. However, while I appreciate that some kind of lingua-franca or analogue for size would help many people, I wouldn't want to stray into Father Dougal territory.

Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
[he points to some plastic cows on the table]
Father Ted: are very small; those
[pointing at some cows out of the window]
Father Ted: are far away...

As a supplementary question to modellers, are scales on drawings used in scratchbuilding? I've always assumed they were, but an answer would be interesting.

Chris

 

[pathology_doc]

Hmmm...interesting, but what's wrong with a foot/metre scale?
Be secure in the knowledge that Father Dougal McGuire is not the target market for projects books!

I have tried adding human figures as scales to drawings in the past, but when you get to a beast the size of a Belfast or C-5, the scale just looks like a speck of dust, especially once the drawing is reduced for the layout.

That's when you use airliners! Pretty much everyone knows what a Boeing 747 is. ;D As for Father Dougal not being in the market... who knows just what's going to turn up for sale at the church fete? "Good heavens, I didn't know we were planning to build THAT! How interesting!" And behold, you have a new convert!

 

[aemann]

I used an A380 as a comparison to REL LAPCAT A2... very handy, having an A380 model in the back pocket! I've also shown the Daedalus Starship next to a Saturn V, the Empire State Building and St. Pauls' Cathedral... I think a double-decker bus would just be a dot at that scale!

 

[dannydale]

Voted for A, though E can look nice. I like good 3-views.

Sorry Geoff, I meant to post this one.

Chris

...Dude, what did you do to my truck!? ;D

 

[pathology_doc]

. Attached as an example is a draft illustration for my F7U-1 monograph

OT but... details?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

. Attached as an example is a draft illustration for my F7U-1 monograph

OT but... details?

For Steve Ginter, like my F8U-3 monograph (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10680.0.html). In work, no hard date for completion. Maybe late this year.