Hi folks,
here I am with another unbuilt project. Suggestions welcome!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/or0znhb1edyrvvl/portaerei%20volante%20completo.png?dl=0

amazing !

how big is the original in pixelsize ?

Hah -- I assume you mean unbuilt with Inkscape, and not that you were planning to actually build an airplane like that!

I'm not sure what kind of suggestions you want. Is that a PNG of the work you've done with Inkscape? If so, can we see the original? Or is that the original image, and you haven't started to draw it with Inkscape yet? And if so, what kind of suggestions do you want?

Edit
If that's the work you've done with Inkscape, but in PNG format, the only comment I would make is about the middle image. That whitish area is hard to see. I guess it's meant to sort of show the inside area of the plane, as if the shell of the plane were transparent in that area. To me, it looks like there are several tiny airplanes inside, and one on top.

I don't know. Maybe there existed a huge airplane that acted like an aircraft carrier, in the 50s. But I've never heard of. Maybe was a dream, like the starship Enterprise?

Anyway, for that whitish area in the middle image, maybe make something like a cutaway, so that section can be much bigger, like as big as the top image.

Hi.

I reckon by un-built he means it was never built as an airplane.
The OP has some previous post of some nice airplane drawings made in Inkscape. This is another one.
By suggestions - he is probably asking for advice on how to improve the image, to me it looks very nice, not much to improve on this one!

ragstian wrote:Hi.

I reckon by un-built he means it was never built as an airplane.
The OP has some previous post of some nice airplane drawings made in Inkscape. This is another one.
By suggestions - he is probably asking for advice on how to improve the image, to me it looks very nice, not much to improve on this one!

Oohhh, everything makes much more sense now

brynn wrote:

ragstian wrote:Hi.

I reckon by un-built he means it was never built as an airplane.
The OP has some previous post of some nice airplane drawings made in Inkscape. This is another one.
By suggestions - he is probably asking for advice on how to improve the image, to me it looks very nice, not much to improve on this one!

Oohhh, everything makes much more sense now

Ooops, I must apologize . I don't focus that "unbuilt" could mean something also from a "pictorial" wiev. Ragstian is right. I meant "an airplane remained on the drawing board" a so-called "paper plane", and is part of a personal work about these less known beauties.
I ask suggestion or criticism from an "artistic" point of view, because I have NO artistic background. So I ask to more talented guy here how to improve the big boy I depicted.
And yes, brynn, the middle fuselage is "open" to show the internal fuselage with docked aircraft and is the same size of the original scan. Maybe I can increase the contrast a bit.
Dimensions (px): 1820x1300. Source: actual aviation magazine (1955/1956).
Thanks for the replies and for the comments.
Cheers,
Marco

Usually in drawings cast shadows are filled with a darker shade than the core shadow -the wing bottom would be better in a bit lighter one.
(Though I could hardly ever achieve that by rendering a 3D model without post processing.)

The shadows seem a bit inconsistent to me, between the front and the sideview.
Frontview shows a core shadow darker than the cast shadow on the side depicted above, while on the sideview the light comes from the different side, leaving it in in highlight,
just as not the view was rotated, but the airplane itself.

Mmmhh... so, should I flip horizontally the fuselage in the front view?
I must admit I assumed light coming from top left in every view "by default", acting as I rotate a scale model under a lamp, not considering the discrepancy if the plane were real.
Thanks, I'll do some change just to see the effect.

Howdy,
My crude fallback trick for suggesting depth is to flip the gradient. Maybe give it a try.

e.g. Cutaway to inside a pipe:

tylerdurden wrote:Howdy,
My crude fallback trick for suggesting depth is to flip the gradient. Maybe give it a try.

e.g. Cutaway to inside a pipe:

Good idea, thank you!