Author Topic: B17G Ruby's Raiders (Read 3292 times)

Reynolds · « **Reply #45 on:** July 03, 2006, 04:25:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Trust me on this one Only one Sally B.

909 is the Collings Foundation bird that flies the country regularly. The CAF has Texas Ranger (Grounded at the moment) They also have Sentimental Journey that flies in natural metal 457th BG markings.

Yankee Air Force has "Yankee Lady"
Also flying are Dave Tallichet's "Memphis Belle"
Doc Hosper's "Chuckie"
EAA "Aluminum Overcast
Evergreen Museums B17G (unnamed)
B17G Fuddy Duddy (just changed ownership)
The newly restored "Liberty Belle" has been flying about a year.

Paul Allen has a B17E he's restoring to flight.
There is a B17F that is flyable, but not flown called "Boeing B"
The well known "Swamp Ghost" a B17E that was sitting intact in a swamp in New Guiniea was just recovered and on it's way home.

And there are lots of gate guardians and museum birds, as well as the original Memphis Belle and another combat vet B17G Shoo Shoo Baby at the AF Museum. And the NASM has the B17D "The Swoose"

Throw in the recovered and restored to static "My Gal Sal" B17E and one recovered a while back from a Canadian river that is being restored along with a couple others and you've got it for B17s. At least what I can recall off the top of my head There are a couple more in museums in England too

Yankee air force has the 17 that flew as Sally B. I have an article on it in one of my magazines as well as a photo. I will try to find it and put it up here. But yeah, thanks for the info!

And damn! You remember ALL that! WOW!!! I wish I knew that much!

Reynolds · « **Reply #46 on:** July 03, 2006, 04:30:28 AM »

Oh, and if you dont mind, can you list some of your sources? I want to know as much as you! lol. That way i can study and learn some more!

Krusty · « **Reply #47 on:** July 03, 2006, 03:23:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gatt
Yes, its good! ...................... Now start with the 205

The 205 is a right b**** to skin. I'm finding that out. The same wing is used for both upper wings, only it's mapped smaller on one side than it is on the other! The default skin is almost useless because none of the panel lines match up to the moving surfaces (except the rudder, maybe). It's got mirrors, stretches, and hidden spots for some odd reason. I'm working on it as if there was no default, and it's taking more time.

As for Ruby, I am going to submit it without rivets. So aside from that, were there any other comments?

Fencer51 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 03, 2006, 04:12:00 PM »

Yeah the signiture on the nose art is missing!

Looks great, you have inspired me to try a B-17 after I finish a couple more 109G6s.

Krusty · « **Reply #49 on:** July 03, 2006, 04:21:56 PM »

Actually it was there! It just got lost in the resizing.

EDIT: It was just a couple of white pixels anyways

gatt · « **Reply #50 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:20:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The 205 is a right b**** to skin. I'm finding that out. The same wing is used for both upper wings, only it's mapped smaller on one side than it is on the other! The default skin is almost useless because none of the panel lines match up to the moving surfaces (except the rudder, maybe). It's got mirrors, stretches, and hidden spots for some odd reason. I'm working on it as if there was no default, and it's taking more time

Uh, oh ... it seems I'll have to send some good wine bottles to Colorado

Reynolds · « **Reply #51 on:** July 04, 2006, 04:00:54 AM »

Hey, can somone teach me to do a skin?

Fencer51 · « **Reply #52 on:** July 06, 2006, 10:34:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
What do you think about the absence of rivets? Do you think it matters on big bombers?

Just for reference on what you can see out on the wing. I think its appropriate to not do the rivets.

Krusty · « **Reply #53 on:** July 06, 2006, 11:51:31 AM »

Thanks, Fencer. That does ease my mind a bit. On that wing I can see a bunch of rivets (about 10 or so, towards the wing root, close to the camera) that would all fit inside a single 1-pixel dot in AH.

Citabria · « **Reply #54 on:** July 06, 2006, 11:18:37 PM »

if you think tracing the rivets is bad imagine researching every bulkhead and stringer that is behind those rivets in order to know where the rivets go!

it about drove me insane making that default b17 skin hehe.

personally i like the rivets it adds more detail and I love detail.

Krusty · « **Reply #55 on:** July 07, 2006, 11:54:02 AM »

Normally I agree, but I think that they're over-rated. I like detail, but rivets for the sake of detail isn't necessary. There was a FW190 I did a while back and I tested it without any rivets -- and it looked sweet. To me, the only thing rivets do is break up the solid colors of the paint scheme. If you do this through other means then the rivets are pointless.

Just one thought on the matter.

Reynolds · « **Reply #56 on:** July 07, 2006, 04:58:04 PM »

I fly B-17s a lot, and i have NEVER noticed rivets from my views. They surely look nice, but are not noticed by pilots not looking for them. So its entirely up to you.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 07, 2006, 07:10:04 PM »

Well I started my B-17 today and the rivets are numerous and while very well done, they do not represent the enormous quantity of what is actually there. Its just impossible to show all the rivets. So, I am following Krusty's lead and not going to do the small rivets. If I come across any large rivets (bolts) I will do those.

Lord ReDhAwK · « **Reply #58 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:03:09 PM »

Salute Lord Fencer,

I have numerous shots of Yankee Lady detailing rivet layout all over the bird if you would like em. Very large pics, so I may need to zip em and mail em to you instead of posting. All in jpeg format. Let me know if you (or anyone else) would like em. Example atached:

ReDhAwK