discussion My B-17 G project

[Neil Merryweather]

I like the first option ,Peter.
these were BIG planes-I think that ones shows it well -especially with the tight formation of the figures

 

[Tim Marlow]

I agree with Neil. If you go too tight it becomes abstract, not linking the crew to the plane but just framing them.

 

[Steven000]

Yes 2 engines looks great indeed, lovely project Peter!

 

[Jim R]

Hi Peter
I know it is the largest option and also the most work but in my humble opinion "first is best".
Jim

 

[boatman]

YEA i aggree with the guys
chris

 

[scottie3158]

Peter,
For me the first option the two engines and full wing give it a sense of size

 

[Guest]

Like everyone else, two engines gives a great sense of scale.

 

[adt70hk]

Hi Peter

It has to be two engines. It b looks a bit odd otherwise.

ATB.

Andrew

Ps meant to say that I love the concept.

 

[stillp]

First one for me too.
Pete

 

[Peter Gillson]

Hi Guys

Thanks for all of the feedback. I have made a decision ...

... which is: not to make a decision (yet) - I'm going to paint the three figures first and then worry about the wing. The main thing at the moment is that the general concept and vignette works.

not it's time to break out the paintbrushes ...

Peter

 

[Peter Gillson]

Hi Guys

nearly finished the flight crew - just a little finer details to add but they are 90% finished:



I now cannot avoid the big question: how much wing? I have decided thag there is no point in narrowing the wing, the width of the sign really gives an impression of how big the B-17 is. So it comes to one or 2 engines, and I am opting for two engines, the deciding factor was a comment that two engines makes it clear thag it is the wing of a four-engine aircraft.

i'm going to 'wing it' this evening.

Peter

 

[Airborne01]

Mais natur etc - two engines! I love your concept - very original! Will you blank or detail the exposed wing sections?

 

[Peter Gillson]

Steve

blanking off the ends is the option I'm going for. I would love to have detailed, exposed wing sections but that would involve scratch building all of the internal struts, possibly fuel tanks etc, and I do not have the information (or time) to build that level of detail. I will leave that to somebody whose main hobby is aircraft.

Peter

 

[scottie3158]

Peter,
The figures look really good.

 

[Guest]

Wow, figures look good already Peter. As for the engines yes 2 .

 

[Airborne01]

Steve

blanking off the ends is the option I'm going for. I would love to have detailed, exposed wing sections but that would involve scratch building all of the internal struts, possibly fuel tanks etc, and I do not have the information (or time) to build that level of detail. I will leave that to somebody whose main hobby is aircraft.

Peter

Peter.
That's very understandable - in the gentlest sense 'a pity' - however if I'd had the courage to chop that lump of plastic I'm not sure I would have the foresight or nous to do otherwise. I really look forward to the end results. Bon chance!

 

[adt70hk]

Love the figures Peter.

ATB.

Andrew

 

[Peter Gillson]

Hi all

Last week has seen me working on this project and here is the nearly finished wing section;



as you can see, I opted fir yhe two engines and full width wing. The base is simple; a piece of plywood with polllyfiller to represent the edge of the runway, and the rest covered with static grass.

a bit more detailing to add, ( and retouching thd tyre) and then the figures to add.

Peter

 

[papa 695]

Hi Peter, I’ve just seen this, and may I say what a fantastic way of building this. It’s like 4 builds in 1. Also a fantastic start. I’ve now squeezed in at the back.

 

[Peter Gillson]

Hi Guys

its been a while but here are some photos of the first in the series of vignettes:

next, the nose


peter