Spwith Pup

Terrencejones · 16 November 2009, 10:33 AM

Hi Dave,
Thanks mate

a great compliment, I love Leonard Bridgman's work.
You're not wrong with the Dove bits. I used existing photo's of the Pup to put all the detail into the line model and get ideas for the light and shadows, neglecting to check those finer details

. I know you have built a number of Pups, a couple if I am not wrong 1/3 size? You certainly know what your talking about.
At some point I'm going to paint a Pup with an Alb D111. Old Man (still missing?) was a great help with the DH2 painting, it would be great if you could do the same for me with the Pup. I,m still looking at ideas at the moment, if you have any that you think might make a good painting let me know mate

Cheers, Terry

bristol scout · 16 November 2009, 10:53 AM

Hi mate,
I still don't know how I came to this late--can only be that I'm still lagging behind after being 'off' for those weeks...

Direct me to your D.H.2 --I don't recall that at all....senility creeping on

Am somewhat concerned over Old Man---most unlike him this long silence---but apart from calling him here I am at a loss to know where else to go..

Brian Knights superb Pup and Albatros dogfight on the cover of the Windsock special 'Sopwith Pup' is inspirational.....but proves the point about 'knowing the subject intimately' He has made the error of showing the U/C legs as wood---when of course they were steel streamline tube. He also seems to have the Fin mixed up with the Shuttleworth 'Pup' also!

This is not me being supercritical of a great Aviation artist----it is just trying to show two points I suppose 1) we should always treat (even the most expert and accomplished artwork with caution---and 2) It is essential to really 'know' the subject you are painting.

I am keen to see this one develop Terry my friend---and to see your D.H.2.

All the best,
Dave.

Russell Smith · 16 November 2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

2) It is essential to really 'know' the subject you are painting.

AMEN! So true!

Terrencejones · 16 November 2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

Nicely done, Terrence. I like this one.

Thanks Russ

,Been looking at some of your pencil work on the gallery. Fabulous work, love that Spad.
Terry

Terrencejones · 16 November 2009, 11:42 AM

Hi Dave,
An earlier Pup (Dove!) painting that isn't too late to alter and that DH2,

[IMG]

[/IMG]

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Cheers, Terry

bristol scout · 16 November 2009, 12:03 PM

Love the sense---or feeling, of speed Terry. That Fokker is definately 'motoring' ---and so he should---for dear life!

.

The 'Pup' shows a bit of 'compression' on those port interplane struts

--but no criticism mate--indeed it is a very 'dynamic' picture also.

Please treat my ---some might say 'nit picking' (though not you) for what it is trying to do-----a superb painting of a tree does not (should not) attempt to show every leaf---a generic scene needs no high fidelity to detail either--but a picture purporting to show a particular object---I feel (for what it's worth) does need to be true to that object.

I know you know where I'm coming from Terry

Cheers,
Dave. Edit--I see you are in the 'Green camp' for PC10

not sure about the D.H.2 colours mind....

RAF56_Ball · 3 December 2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Hi Terry,
...The Shuttleworth 'Pup' was never really a 'Pup' but a 'Dove' and as such inherited lot's of non standard bits-----wrong stringers aft of Aluminium---and wrong Aluminium side shields being the most obvious...Dave.

Dave, i am building a "stand-of" full scale and am at the point of the stringers and side shields (is that the part just before the wings?). In looking at photos of Pups from the old C&C (vol 19, but forget rest of reference - am out of town and doing this from memory) I saw planes from the era that were not doves that had that bent sheetmetal/angled look, others without, i.e. more rounded.
It seemed to depend on if it was a Sopwith, Standard or W-something or other (with the odd asymetric cowl intake panels and ribbed cowl supports - my terms, not thiers, obviously). Is that correct? I can take this to another thread, if it does not help Terrence's project. (Which, BTW, Terrence, I have enjoyed following in developement!)
Glenn