It's an interesting exercise and your to-scale missiles are well executed, but I wasn't personally proposing that we draw missiles to scale. I think the historical chunky and overlength versions are more appropriate for Shipbucket, which (IMHO) kind of grew out of recognition guide styles.
Personally I like the "to-scale" Harpoon - does this mean the other missile (sorry I'm not sure what it is) is also to-scale? I think an easy way to improve it would just be to flip the Harpoon horizontal (all anti-surface missiles are shown this way) Remarkably, Harpoon is still shown diametricall...
Wow, very much at the limit of how much detail can be presented at this scale. Not 100% sure how I feel about the roughly to-scale Harpoon (which should be horizontal).
Everyone's points are well-taken. Certainly we will never achieve the productivity of the late 2000s--our standards are simply much higher. At the same time, I sometimes worry if those standards are so high for real and never-were drawings that a less experienced artist might never start. Now to get...
One thing that jumps out at me is that the OE-82C you're using is much too modern, and you should instead use the AS-3018 (also, no reason for more than one antenna on each beam). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Electronics_Technician_-_Volume_7_-_Figure_2-31.jpg You should also ...
Scheme II, with half of the plant removed, should probably only have two shafts (the ones on the skegs, in this case).
What are the large crane-like structures fore and aft of the IRBM deckhouse intended to portray?
Ah, that makes sense. I noticed that they're elevated, but I didn't consider that the line instead represented the elevated deck on which the gunner stood. I don't think it detracted from the drawing, it was just a question for my own edification. I do like the clarification on the pilothouse tubs, ...
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login
![[ img ]](https://i.postimg.cc/sD98vqGq/iowa-shafting.png)