p40e work in progress

[Furball]

All that is gonna do is make vulching noobs in p40's on runway more aesthetically pleasing.

[Octavius]

It could be pink and purple polka dots and it'd STILL be aesthetically pleasing.. I mean come now, it's a P40!!

[Citabria]

it seems american theivery was more widespread than realized.

arizona the p-40 im modelling was in fact origionally destined for
 the british when it was diverted to the 49th fighter group in New Guinea.
some aircraft books have conflicting information seems to suggest that these schemes could have been repainted at the depot level


but in a further twist it seems the us when painting british aircraft
used colors that were close but not exact to britich standards! much confusion ensues.

the colors used here are british standard dark green dark earth over sky blue

but further examniation of us colors calls for a sand and spinach
 scheme wich may indeed prove that the origional p40 scheme in
 ah1 was the most accurate!!!


lol
 the colors in this test version pic are cmyk matched to
 those colors.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Replicant
Obviously we've got different quotes.  Interesting though, will try and find other sources, but this is the main source I have.

There were examples of the US recalling loaned Lend-Lease equipment, one being when the USAAF took over some of the P40s delivered to the RAF for use in North Africa (with shark mouth markings). ....

36 were diverted to China for use by the AVG.  Britain released a total of 100 Tomahawks to the AVG which adopted the famous shark's teeth nose emblem originating with the RAF which used the markings on its Tomahawks in North Africa.

I'm sure Furball can find out more about the P40 in the piccy he took, he works at the RAF museum so hope he can find more gen out.

But do you have a direct interview quote from the AVG fighter pilot who actually came up with the idea and directly partcipated in painting all the P40s?

A direct participant, AVG pilot and designer of scheme, Erik Schilling,  says he got it from German planes. You have an uncredidet and vague seemingly 2nd hand source.

Also why would he make up a story that it was copied from german planes, copied from the enemy side! It doesnt benefit him in any way whatsover...

So based on the first person evidence and simple logic I think its pretty much a solid case that argues againt it being inspired by British P40s. It was inspired by Bf110s.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But do you have a direct interview quote from the AVG fighter pilot who actually came up with the idea and directly partcipated in painting all the P40s?

A direct participant, AVG pilot and designer of scheme, Erik Schilling,  says he got it from German planes. You have an uncredidet and vague seemingly 2nd hand source.

Also why would he make up a story that it was copied from german planes, copied from the enemy side! It doesnt benefit him in any way whatsover...

So based on the first person evidence and simple logic I think its pretty much a solid case that argues againt it being inspired by British P40s. It was inspired by Bf110s.

Perhaps the shark teeth got painted over before they went to AVG and they just happen to do another sharks teeth?  

The source I used was Arthur Pearcey who drew all his information of the Lend Lease register of WW2 (from national military/aviation archives).

Anyway, either way you look at it, the sharks teeth look cool no matter who designed them.

[Citabria]

seems sand and spinach is the most acurate scheme for this p40

[Cobra412]

Citabria  I'm curious about a few things on your detailing.

 I've heard of many folks using a white 1 pixel offset to give the depth for panels lines. It seems with yours from what I can tell thats not the case or alteast it doesn't seem so.  Are you using a combination of grays for your panel lines opposed to the standard black with white offset for depth?

Also in the areas where you have depicted deep holes such as the canopy slide catch and between the rudder surface and the main vertical stabilizer is that purely a drop shadow effect or is a combination of drop shadow and weathering?

I've noticed that with your panel lines they seem very small and precise with a smudge or blur effect to simulate weathering.  I've started trying my hand at this skinning again but my panel lines seem to fake if that makes sense.  If you look at some of the other models put out they seem to have larger lines that are blurred totally.  This for me just doesn't seem realistic.  Nothing against all of you and your work I just think that if we get some hints on how to do this we'd all be better off in the long run.  

The weathering depicted in this P-40 looks alot like how our F-15s do at work.  The lines are there but they aren't.  It's the fine line between over exageratting the lines/weathering and not doing enough.  I know many lines are visible in an aircrafts structural build even if they aren't panel type lines.  Kinda like on the F-15s vertical stabilizers where the inner structural ribs are visible to some extent.  I can see that in this P-40s rudder surface and would love to know how to accomplish this without over doing it.  I know the skins color will determine how much opacity you should use and what colors for the lines/weathering but I'm not sure how to give it that depth look.

[Citabria]

included some pics of the bmps in the skin i posted for another player to help them.

the dark shadows are just black sometimes with some shading but the darkest part is black with little or no transparency.


the actual control surfaces havent been done yet theres only basic outlines of where the ribs etc are which might tray shading or smudging and bluring dunno

ive tried masking each panel and using the smudge tool to adjust the shading on and around the panel lines on the very first pic of the p40 with grey wings but the later aircraft pictures are done in a manner that allows the background camoflage to change freely without disrupting anything. I will probably do this finishing touch as final step on this skin.


its important to make everything but the actual camoflage transparent.panel lines, rivets, markings, numbers, nose art all of it needs to be semi transparent to allow it to look painted onto the plane instead of pasted on. the amount of transparency is in the eye of the beholder but some is always needed.

 make panel lines black and then creat anothe rpanel line layer and invert its colors and offset it forward and up or down. moving it forward will simulate overlapping panels but make this highlight layer very transparent too.

copy the black panel lines and rivets: blur the crap out of them until they wont blur anymore. once they are totally blurred out of recognition adjust their transparency and even layer properties to color burn or linear burn if using photoshop. again make this blurred layer fill and transparency low or to your own tastes.

im attempting to go for realism as much as possible and this p40 is my first attempt so it will take much more practice to get anything resembling realism of the planes ive seen and flown.
but panel lines and rivets are nto very visible on real aircraft, sometimes rudder and aileron and elevator joints can be highly visable if there are gaps in them. but panel lines dont have gaps. they are jammed up against eachother or overlaying one another and though they are visable they are faint.
ive flown little airplanes for many years and also worked on the line at the local airport  so ive seen what the real ones look like from point blank range on the ground and in flight. you have good reference working with f15s but remember f15s flush riveted where not welded or composited and all panels are flush with none overlapping like old ww2 planes.

[Cobra412]

cc Citabria and thanks for the info.  I'm gonna try my hand at this again sometime in the near future.  

As far as the F-15 and flush riveting, many of our rivets are actually inset slightly in many areas.  With that kind of riveting it's very often that there visibilty is high due to dirt, grime and oils that build up.  More often than not you get a tear drop effect that is very noticeable.  The majority of our panels are flush mounted side by side but in the wing routes and on some of back bone paneling they are actually overlapped.

 Still over all 85% or more of the paneling is flush mounted.  We do have some slight gapping inbetween panels that are constantly removed too.  They seem to show weathering alot more than those that are not constantly taken off.  Plus since we don't seal our panels like some aircraft do the paint seperation leaves a nice gap.  More often than not in those areas you'll start to see the base paint or on the extreme occasion bare metal on the edges and around the high torque/barrell fastener holes.  The high torque bits we use have a tendancy to slip and people chew up the panels around where the fasteners are leaving some light and deep scratches in the paint.  Without knowing what panels were constantly removed for the WWII aircraft and what type of fasteners they might have used on those panels makes it hard to make them look realistic.  Plus it's also hard to tell on some of the older photos where exactly fuels and oils were prone to leak from.

[Citabria]

engine panels will get removed a lot as will ammo hatch covers.

basically any panel that is fstenned will get romoved and any part that is riveted will not. the only way to tell is with a good plan view drawing or photo.