|
Post by komata on Dec 29, 2015 10:23:23 GMT 12
Perhaps my eyes and ears deceived me, but can anyone confirm that a Percival Provost was flying southwards over Cambridge / leamington at 1112 on 29 December 2015? It looked like a Provost, it sounded like a Provost, but was in fact one of the type? If so, would it have been ZK-JOT off for a little jaunt over the central North Island?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 19, 2015 9:21:04 GMT 12
Out of curiousity (and concerning the lead photo 'Some of the locals' 5 December, 2015): Can anyone tell me why Bell 429 No. 050 (the one flying) appears to be carrying three different sets of ID / Rego marks? Its RAN serial seems to be N49-218; its 'place in unit' No. evidently being 050, yet it carries the civil Rego VH-POJ. Curiously, N49-048 (on the ground in the same photo), doesn't carry any similar markings.
As there are apparently only three of these helicopters currently in service with the RAN, is this an 'Oz' thing or just a very confused aircraft?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 16, 2015 5:20:00 GMT 12
Ian
Re: '...pity 15 years back the Gov did not have any forward thinking'.
Oh but they did, they did; a complete destruction of the New Zealand military forces, which Clark, Goff and co hated with a passion. For such people ideology always wins over reality...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 16:34:34 GMT 12
Ian
Thank you. As an aviation historian you have it relatively easy in that you can at least find photographs of most of your aircraft. New Zealand gold mining photos are somewhat thin on the ground and as a result I operate on a 'reasonable hypothesis' basis (especially if no illustrations are known to exist; a very frequent ocurrence). On that basis it would seem that we are somewhat similar in our approach. For me, backgrounds are usually not a problem - it's the subject in the foreground that is the main 'difficulty', especially as not all mines are equal... The research alone can be fun, while subsequent confirmation of a drawn hypothesis is always gratifying, and adds another little piece to a very large jigsaw...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 12:11:47 GMT 12
True, but as an historian I am somewhat constrained in respect of accuracy (and the presence of innummerable 'rivet counters' who are experts on the subject of 'real' aircraft). 'Imaginary' flying machines are, of course, a completely different matter, but venturing into the realms of Diesel Punk has no real appeal...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 10:49:53 GMT 12
Ian If only... Historical reality Sir, Historical reality...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 10:14:23 GMT 12
Ian
Thank you for the invitation. However, as my current artistic endeavours are largely either gold-mining railway-orientated / themed (and as such, not exactly applicable to this forum), I must regretfully decline. However, I will do a search through my archives and see what is lurking there-in 'just in case'.. It may take a while...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 9:40:37 GMT 12
Ian Nice works- thanks for sharing them - I'm glad they have survived the years. Unfortunately all my 'early' aviation art vanished many years ago and what little I do have, is relatively recent (which is probably just as well ). However, irrespective of the age of any 'earlier' works, such pictures are always useful as it they show how far we've come - and how our styles have changed as we've grown into our skills and abilities. Hopefully we HAVE improved with time...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 15, 2015 5:08:24 GMT 12
Ian
Thank you. Ballpoint pen!!! THAT would get the 'purists' going, since evidently one must use 'approved' materials such as pencils and charcoal sticks. For such people, Ball point is definitely beyond the pale and if you use it, you are apaprently not a 'real' artist... Been there, done that (and was told that Ballpoint wasn't quite the done thing).. I carried on using it anyway (mainly because of the convenience and also because I liked the effect it produced), although I later converted to ink 'Multiliners' as IMHO, they produced a better result, and the ink faded less-rapidly than ballpoint. In respect of the artists we compare ourselves with: While I like what the Taylor's do, I personally prefer Michael Turner's works, while some (but not all) of Frank Wooton's and Maurice Conly's efforts are also worth looking at, if only to get ideas. I would suggest however, that you may be selling yourself somewhat-short, and that what you are producing (if the Hurricane, Wasp and the B-26 are anything to go on) is on a par with their work (at least IMHO), so please continue to do what you.
Again, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 14, 2015 15:07:17 GMT 12
Ian Many thanks for the detailed reply; it is appreciated. As previously noted, I work in a different media (primarily P&I) and subject /s, but do make occasional forays into acrylic painting, albeit usually to try and interpret some specific point or aspect that interests me as part of a research project or some other specific path / topic I am following. (I can assure you BTW, that you are under no threat from my competition ). Your use of the computer is along the lines of something which I have occasionally considered, but had concluded that it was 'probably unworkable'. Your efforts would seem to prove otherwise, so perhaps... Again, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 14, 2015 10:41:23 GMT 12
Ian
Thank you. It would seem to be a somewhat less-complicated process than I had anticipated. Unfortunately, after reading your reply, I have several additional questions which I hope you will be able to answer :
1. (Relating to my No.8): What type (and brand) of paint do you use for this stage? Oil or acrylic?
2. What (if any) medium (Matt, Satin), do you do apply to the final print (copy) to remove the (reflective) gloss / sheen from the surface?
3. How do you present / classify your work when presenting it for sale: As an 'Original Mixed Media'; 'Original Acrylic'; 'Original Oil' work; or do you sell them as 'prints' and number them accordingly?
4. Do you in fact use the term 'original' in this context? I ask this, as you still retain the 'original' on your computer, and could theoretically turn out large numbers of 'identical' copies should you feel so-inclined (hence my question about 'prints' in Q.3).
5. (A crucial question IMHO): How are your works received by other members of the 'arts' community? I ask this as some can become very 'precious' about what (to them) constitutes 'real' art (which they believe can only be done with 'real' tools such as brush and pallette knife)? I have had some very 'interesting' conversations with such individuals over the years, especially in respect of whether 'computer-based' works are actually even worthy of being termed 'art'. (I personally believe they can, but have found that not everyone agrees).
Again, thank you; this is a very interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 14, 2015 5:30:38 GMT 12
Ian Warren
Thank you; a lot to think about. To summarise, is the following correct?
1. Basic 'concept' sketch (pencil) on A3 paper.
2. Concept sketch has water-colour added.
3. (Second?) Concept sketch drawn, detail and shadow added.
4. (Second) Concept sketch scanned onto PC.
5. (Second) Concept sketch printed-off using laser printer.
6. Detail / shadow added to printed-off image.
7. Modified' image taken to commercial printer for 'final' print to appropriate size (onto canvas?)
8. Paint added to 'final' print.
9. Painted work completed.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 12, 2015 14:16:28 GMT 12
Out of interest, did anyone give thought to retaining an airworthy airframe for the RNZAF Historic Flight? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 12, 2015 13:27:18 GMT 12
Ian
Thank you for posting your art work. Very impressive.
As an artist who works in another field (but who is always on the look out for alternative methods of achieving the intended result), I am interested in your method of using computer databases to create a work. Is there a 'step-by-step process that you would care to share?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 10, 2015 5:26:28 GMT 12
Dave H:
An interesting question. Although you didn't mention him specifically, presumably you are aware of Arthur Edmond (A.E.) Clouston from Moutueka; a gentleman with a long and active involvement in both aviation generally, and pre-WW II long-distance air racing in particular?
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 6, 2015 20:14:40 GMT 12
Very nice work, Thank you for sharing it with us. However, such photographs and plans as I have seen would seem to indicate that the Lancaster's fuselage cross-section was essentially an oval, with the fuselage sides being vertical. On that basis, I wonder if the fuselage roundel in the painting would be sloping outwards at such an acute angle on an actual aircraft, or if what you have portrayed is merely an optical illusion, due to the angle at which your 'reference' aircraft was photographed?
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 11, 2015 6:21:33 GMT 12
WilM
Thanks for the info (and apologies for the delay in replying). So, not North American, but 'only' Titan, which would explain why the 'sigh of a Merlin' was conspicuous in abstentia. No sign of a Stearman on Sunday either.
One can but hope that next year things might be different, but I'm not holding my breath against the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 7, 2015 17:26:40 GMT 12
Thanks KB- if it was transitting or on a holding pattern then it was remarkably silent - especially as in past years the aircraft involved have tended to track across from Hamilton before starting their run along the lake from either end.
All I heard was Starlings (which are not exactly in the same league).
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 7, 2015 17:01:57 GMT 12
According to a schedule published on the facebook page of 'Armistice in Cambridge' (those organising the annual commemoration of the end of WWI), at 1310 on 7 November 2015 there was to be an 'Air Display - Mustangs'. So I waited in anticipation (as one does) expecting to hear the sound of a Packard Merlin (or, if not a Merlin then perhaps at least a V-12 of some sort) as a 'Mustang' appeared from 'somewhere'.
Yet 1310 arrived - and went, as did 1330 and even 1345... The 'silence' was deafening. I checked this site to see if something had been cancelled (without success BTW), and (in desperation) even checked Fr24 'just in case' yet, nowt!!!
Did I miss something, and if so, what?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Oct 25, 2015 7:20:19 GMT 12
Dave H
Concerning Malaya,'Confrontation' and 'Do modellers not find these two conflicts inspiring enough? Or is it just a case they don't know enough about them?'
I suspect that there are several reasons for this 'lack', with the primary one being that, unlike the somewhat-noisier conflict going on further north, there was no nightly news update on TV. Those involved simply 'got on' and did what they were there to do.
In addition, these operations were occurring in very remote areas, with few roads, so helicopters (usually only able to carry relatively-small payloads due to the limitations imposed by the local climate) tended to be the primary mean of access, although a few fixed-wing types were also available. Their numbers were never great and it was easy to 'regulate' who went where. Service personnel always took priority...
It should also be remembered that the 'Empire' forces involved were all 'professionals' and not draftees. They knew why they were there, they knew what they had to do and they did so. The were also proud of their work, and knew that the people back home in Britain and Australia and New Zealand(along with the other colonial territories that comprised the larger Empire) shared that pride.
Finally (and unlike the American experience), and in Malaya especially, the 'British' military forces knew that they had the support of the locals (initially the Malay peoples, and later the Malaysian state) and exactly whom they were fighting against. The US had had this at one time, but largely as a result of their own actions eventually lost it...
The 'Emergency' came, it was concluded and was followed by the 'Confrontation' and it too was concluded; all quietly, all efficiently and, most importantly without fanfare. Such is the 'British' military way. And when the operations were declared to be 'completed', those involved merely submitted their reports, tidied up their barracks and went on to whatever the next 'job' was to be.
The Americans, of course, did things differently...
Because of this, and for the reasons I've outlined, few dioramas are made because little is known and little was recorded; such was the nature of 'Police Actions' when Britannia ruled the waves (and the Jungles).
Trusting that this helps to answer your questions. Thanks for posing them.
|
|