An Australian Non-entity . . .

[mclaring]

Guys,

I did this for a mate who is restoring the actual aircraft. Its a relative non-entity, as its an early model P-40N which saw no combat. I hasten to add the markings are approximations, and we are still a while from locking in the accurate ones, although we have the right letters and digits (thank goodness for layers eh?). I like the Warhawk; like the P-39 it has a certain projection, a certain 'je ne sais quoi'

Cheers lads,

Michael Claringbould

[GrubbyFingers]

Looking good, Michael. I like the chipping effects.
Grubby.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

When I saw the thread title I thought I may have referred to me. Im relieved.

[pkassak]

my comments...with all respect:

area 1: if the position light is under the wing, is the strong reflection correct?
area 2: I always thought that the darkest is the wing in the middle where most of the shadow is located..not on the borders and the middle is enlioghtened...
area 3: where does that shadow on tail landing gear comes from?????
area4: propeller shadow...should not it be weaker with the increasing distance??? it is thinner, but the opacity or fill is the same...
area5: dark shadow on the prop hub is not correct..if the illumination is from front high, than whi it is darkest on the front of the hub???

else nice profile...I do not comment the canopy glass color...everyone has different taste

[Vacajun]

Michael,

More beautiful art work I'm curious as to what software you're using?

Nice rendering, but I keep looking at that landing gear/l.g. fairing/gear door/wheel well, and IMHO the arrangement doesn't look right. Maybe worth checking?

Keep up the great work!

[mclaring]

guys,

good critiques - tx - I have gone back and changed some fundamentals. The original UC was plain wrong (it is still not perfect). other comments about shadings etc are on the money. I thought I'd try the underwing highlight in the middle to show it up. it is a nice effect, although not realistic according to Newtons laws ! Vacajun asked the software I used - it is PS (CS3). I reckon I'd be lucky to master 20% of the program. PS is a seriously powerful tool,

Cheers lads,

Michael

[BLOWHARD]

Basically you can show volume either way. It also depends on the lighting conditions you want to show. I would say that the under wing lighting should be carried through to the fuselage. The reflected light should be consistent. I'd say pull higher highlights through the fuselage where you already have them, add more lower shadow followed by some reflected light in the underside of the fuselage edge. \Maybe the green could be lightened some?
It's getting there

[Vacajun]

M,
Here's some really good high-res close-up views showing the l.g. area on P-40K, P-40E, and P-40F versions (click on photo for high res):

http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LA...003-00002.jpeg

http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LA...000-00217.jpeg

and

http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LA...003-00003.jpeg

Hope these help!

P.S.--These are on a largely unknown excellent NASA site with high-res photos of WWII aircraft. Go to
Search/browse for photos, images, videos, movies, etc.

and select "Browse Category- Aircraft" then "Historical Aircraft (1) and (2)." Enjoy!!

Joe

[gamary]

Peter and Vacajun have pointed out the biggest issues IMO. I'd also suggest you rethink about the shadow cast by the dorsan antenna, which isn't coherent with that of the prop.

Also, I think you should reinforce the shading of the nose section. the engine cowling on late mark P-40s had a wonderful shape which you don't want to miss out on!

I think you have a very good start here, keep going at it and don't get discouraged!