Illustrations - RevuAIR

Why Three Views are Necessary

By fStop Fitzgerald | 2 July 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

We live in a three-dimensional (physicists may say four, fantasists say more) world. To visually represent that, one needs to meld length, width, and depth. Absent any one and the result is a bizarre view of the world.

Hence, we can start with something as seemingly complex as this flat, 2-dimensional—up and down, left and right—drawing . . .

And get something that looks a bit more real-worldly with not only left-right, up-down, but also front-back.

What if one dimension is missing?

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars have for years been wondering what the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley really looked like. The historic vessel was discovered a number of years ago, has been raised, and is currently under minute excavation and discovery in Charleston, South Carolina. Many questions have been answered, especially what she looked like. (https://hunley.org/) Here is a link to the most recent detailed (extremely!) analysis of the vessel by the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/recovery-report.html)

But before this, to envision the boat, historians had to rely on a written record, no known photographs exist. There were a few sketches and one watercolor wash painting by R. G. Skerrett, which gave a fair idea of her form, but they—as is all art—were reliant on the artist’s eye and especially, hand. What is real? (Naval History and Heritage Command)

One of the early references was this two-view tracing of a predecessor boat, the “Rebel Submarine Ram” Pioneer. It was from a contemporary 1864 Civil War report from U.S. Navy Fleet Engineer William H. Shock to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (National Archives and Records Administration)

The upper drawing shows a side view of the ram, with some interior details. The bottom drawing shows a top view looking down of the vessel.

There is nothing, however, to show us the third dimension, a front view. The illustrations below will demonstrate the impact of that missing third dimension.

All the views you will see were made with this set of lines that I pulled from the original drawing. The only thing that is different between the pairs of renders is that in one, I let the original drawings determine the final shapes, and in the other one I assumed the third dimension to be curved.

These are the top views of the two versions, the lower has many more lines because those are necessary to draw the curves in the 3D rendering of these lines. Note however that the external lines of each part are identical. This reflects the lines’ origins from the lines pulled from the original.

This shows the resultant 3D render.

Similarly, here are the side views, again with the lower drawing and render showing the addition of curved lines.

And this drawing shows the resultant third dimension, the front views, based on the base (left) and curved lines.

Here are the resultant images in full 3D.

Note that, both 3D renderings match the original 2D drawing. Which is correct?

While that is certainly obvious, this is just an illustration of issues that can occur in the absence of information.

This rendering further illustrates the need for three views. Notice the two highlighted areas.

Many times with all three views provided, even that information is not enough. Sometimes it is a confusion on the part of the original craftsman with regard to how a particular line should be depicted in each of the three views. More often, however, lines are hidden. These require either additional drawings, or better yet, a perspective drawing of their intersections. No examples come immediately to mind, but I am certain at least one will crop up on an upcoming drawing. I will address that when it happens.

This final rendering shows the curved 3D version over the original lines. The other version would similarly line up.

CSS Tennessee Brooke Rifles

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

The Confederate ironclad Tennessee was effectively armed with a concentrated and powerful armament of two 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles fore and aft on pivot mounts and four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles, two per broadside.

The 7-inch rifles, weighing 15,300 pounds each, were manufactured in Selma, Alabama. This, the bow gun, tube no. S-10, is property of the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) and located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. Its companion tube, no. S-5 at the stern pivot, is also the property of NHHC, is on loan and on display outside the Selma City Hall. In the background, the three visible guns are from Tennessee’s four-gun broadside battery.

This gun is one of the four 9,000 pound 6.4-inch broadside rifles, three of which are also at NHHC in Washington. It was forged at the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond, Virginia.

This illustration shows the guns mounts. The pivot guns were mounted on large sliding carriages and the broadside guns on two-wheel Marsilly carriages.

CSS Tennessee

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

Making Sausage: You Really Don’t Want to Know

This is an incomplete project. Although portions of it were published in the December 2009 issue of Naval History magazine, they were carefully cropped to eliminate errors that exist because of lack of documentation and skill on my part. My goal is to do the definitive model with accurate interior detail.

I am posting this to ping the greater world for more information so that I can properly detail the interior and fix the exterior, and perhaps rework the whole drawing. These renders are eight years old, so my skills have improved, but until I get more information this will sit on a back burner.

For the hull and casemate, I was only able to find these two drawings.

I do not have my sources readily at hand, but the profile and plan are obviously from a book. They are small and while apparently detailed, it is all lost in the small reproduction on poor absorbent paper. I believe the sections are from a different source. They are larger and cleaner, a big help.

The only way to approach a subject is to envision it in the simplest parts possible to keep your drawing time to a minimum. One fortunate aspect of ships (along with aircraft) is that you generally only have to do 50 percent of the project because of symmetry along the centerline. You simply copy, paste, reflect, and merge your work. With Tennessee, I created three basic pieces; the hull, hull armor, and casemate. Everything else is detail.

Using Illustrator, I created the lines for each. This is not a difficult process, but is somewhat challenging in trying to visualize your 2-dimensional work in 3-dimensions. Once those are complete, I import them into my 3-D software, Strata 3D, and proceed to extrude, lathe, hull, and whatever else needs to be done to get something that resembles Tennessee.

The hull sections, as noted, were clean and easy to reconstruct.

Once drawn, they were laid out in position along the length of the hull for “erecting” in the 3D program.

The failings of the hull—primarily because of my inexperience—is the plating. The interior, however, is another matter. Despite their size, the interior plan was really quite good for its level of detail. It allowed for proper positioning of the guns and their interaction. The funnel drops down through the gun deck to the engine room below. The capstan has an interesting position, but again, its linkages, unless below deck, are non-existent.

But details of the interior are sorely lacking. The gun handling fixtures are pretty much standard, so those details were easily added. But the real issue is the wheel stand and its workings. The drawings show that it was elevated above the gun deck and hung from the overhead, but how? How was the wheel linked to the rudder? What navigational equipment was associated with it? How did they use a compass surrounded by all that iron? Many questions, no answers. So the wheel is just suspended over the deck.

I added a drawing to illustrate the composite laminated construction of the casemate armor. It’s interesting to see how the laminations go together and how thick the armor was in relation to its backing.

I don’t normally share rejects. The faults in this are obvious, but it is here because it shows relationships and details, especially in the overhead grating, not visible in the others.The overhead view shows the layout of the fore (right) and aft 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles on swivel mounts. These align with the three fore- and aft-most gunports. The four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles occupy the four broadside ports.

These are some other interior views as well as the overall fore and aft views.

Again, if you can help by pointing me toward drawings that will get this closer to what it should be, please let me know.

Not as Advertised

By fStop Fitzgerald | 10 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless, CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.

Don’t Waste Your Money or Time

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

buy Lyrica online canada How to Draw and Paint Aircraft Like a Pro

Salqīn by Andrew Whyte

Zenith Press, 2008. 160 pages.

This is the first book I have ever purchased that I feel to the core was simply a waste of money. If I didn’t abhor book burning, this would be a pile of ashes in my backyard.

The title would lead one, or at least it led me, to believe that there would be tips, tricks, and techniques. That belief was wrong. This is all about hawking the author’s work.

I never like to leave a book with a bad thought, so my happy thought for this one is that it looks good. If you want to look at it, go ahead. But looks only go so far.

Reviewed June 2015

Swiss Army Boat

By fStop Fitzgerald | 24 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

An artist’s depiction of a proposed folding landing craft utiltiy—dubbed LCU-F—approaching shore. In the background, aft of an LHD, can be seen another LCU-F in the process of unfolding to its full length.

Okay, this illustration never saw print. Indeed, it is making its publication debute today, and thus retains my copyright.

Ladies and Gentlemen… I give you… the United States Navy’s… newest landing craft!

*An artist’s fanciful depiction of a proposed folding LCU, highlighting its unique features by showing it in Swiss Army Knife fashion.*

. . . or not.

Opportunities such as this are rare, but when they happen, they are a lot of fun.

In June 2013, Paul Merzlak, then editor in chief of Proceedings, asked if I could illustrate a boat that was only in conceptual stages. Why not? Who was going to call me out on it if I was “wrong”?

The Navy has a class of small utility craft called, very unsurprisingly light craft, utility, better known as LCUs. These things have been around in various incarnations since at least pre-World War II. Current LCUs, despite being built rather recently, were designed, I believe, in the late ’50s or early ’60s. These are the descendents (through use only) to the famous Higgins LCV(P) and LCVs landing craft, the little boats with square-bow drop ramps that littered beaches from Guadalcanal to Normandy to Inchon to Cam Rahn.

It’s time someone took a closer look. One designer did, but he passed on before he could present his work. In his stead, however, his wife pushed forward to show designs of this little gem to the government. She approached Proceedings because she knew we were open to getting new, even unconventional ideas—as this surely is—on the table. I cannot provide the article because of the USNI copyright, however, this is the link to it: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07/landing-craft-21st-century.

The new boat was to be larger, faster, heavily armed, and helicopter capable.

The aft portion of the LCU-F would fold down for a helicopter landing spot, and the ramp could also accommodate RHIBs for special ops, board and search, humanitarian operations. It would be armed with Stinger antiaircraft missiles and a Vulcan cannon. Sponsons would lower from each side to provide additional stability.

Basically, it would provide a boat twice as long — and capable — in the same cubic space as current LCUs. They called it LCU-F. F for folding.

This is my straight-forward illustration of one. Obviously, my humorous approach wouldn’t go very far so it stayed in the file drawer.

*An artist’s depiction of a proposed folding LCU, highlighting its unique features.*

Another view

By fStop Fitzgerald | 23 May 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

This is another view of the Curtiss SBC-3 that I am using for my header art.

I am not an artist, can’t draw a straight line let alone anything else representational. But I feel safe with Illustrator, a program I enjoy immensely.

A few years ago, I started poking around with 3D, because it allows me to do so much more. I started using Strata 3D, primarily because it works seamlessly with Illustrator and Photoshop. I draw my sections in Illustrator and paste them in Strata.

The impetus for the SBC was to do a profile for Norman Polmar’s Historic Aircraft column in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Naval History magazine. I can usually do a profile in a week or so, but that month I had more time, so tried it in 3D. I’m pretty happy with it. It’s a shame Naval History readers only get to see the profile (below) in the February 2016 issue.