P-51C 14th AF: One Way to Verify Victories

[ColesAircraft]

Just completed this commission for the son of this P-51C Mustang pilot. The composition depicts an actual moment in history when this aircraft, flown by Lt. John Hunycutt of the 'Yellow Scorpions', dropped one of his two bombs on a Japanese Ki-48 'Lilly' light bomber while attacking Tsinan airfield in 1944. The resulting explosion, described by his wing man (depicted in the background, flying 'My Dallas Darlin'), riddled Hunycutt's P-51 with shrapnel. The aircraft returned to its base in West China with part of the Ki-48's fuel gauge in its wing and radio antenna wrapped around its tail. "That's one way to confirm victories," Hunycutt later told his Charlotte, North Carolina newspaper!

Above: Lt. Hunycutt poses with his aircraft and a piece of the Ki-48 that he brought home.

 

[ozhawk40]

Great work there Colesaircraft!

 

[vikingBerserker]

Very cool and great story!

 

[Wildcat]

That is awesome! Well done

 

[BiffF15]

You do some excellent work!

 

[ColesAircraft]

Thanks, guys!

Here's some more information about Lt. Hunycutt and the mission depicted:

The mission report is especially interesting!

 

[airminded88]

Excellent work!
I find refreshing and very fascinating this piece of art that highlights unsung heroes fighting in the forgotten theaters of WWII.

 

[Gnomey]

Excellent work!

 

[Erik_Jensen]

X

 

[GregP]

This ain't looking too good for you, Ron. Any comment?

 

[Crimea_River]

Gawd, not again. We've been through this before.

 

[GregP]

Maybe, maybe not. If so, it's damned good editing!

I've had my own line drawings strongly resemble other work I've seen online, too. If you do line drawings, they SHOULD resemble one another or somebody is just wrong. A plane has only one profile, after all. 3D art with the props in the same position, wings in the same position, shadows and highlights on the aircraft the same ... makes me wonder, but not enough to accuse .... just wonder. I don't look at rivets, like the profile, they are all more or less in the same place in real life.

Personally I like everything Ron Cole has done and posted. He's quite good and detailed enough to make we wish I could do it as well, too. I don't make money from it, though ... I do it for fun.

No worries here, just looking at the evidence and thinking it is VERY similar, but have never seen either of the supposed artworks in person. It makes for an interesting thread, though, doesn't it?

 

[GrauGeist]

I have to say there is an uncanny similarity between the two, especially how the shadows fall perfectly across the insignia and the stacks in both images as well as the reflection of the sun being perfectly the same across the glazing in both images.

Hell of a coincidence...

 

[bobbysocks]

i was convinced the last time...with all the cg/3D programs ( which some decent ones are FREE ) out there to do something like this is un-necessary,lazy, and unethical. if he were making it for himself or as a free comic or story that is one thing. charging cash for it...??? i will cry foul.

 

[Erik_Jensen]

I have to say there is an uncanny similarity between the two, especially how the shadows fall perfectly across the insignia and the stacks in both images as well as the reflection of the sun being perfectly the same across the glazing in both images.

Hell of a coincidence...

It's not an uncanny similarity or coincidence. It's the SAME PHOTO with the markings and color changed.

If this was just for a hobby and not for profit, and called what it really is -- a photo montage -- then no harm. But that is not the case.

You can't take someone else's aircraft photo without permission, change the markings in Photoshop, throw in someone else's photos of the landscape and explosion, then resell it as your own original art that you "hand painted". It's deceptive to the people who are buying it and it's ripping off the original photographer's work.

 

[Airframes]

And as an artist who does paint by hand, using oils on canvas, using old-fashioned brushes, and finding it more and more difficult, and painful, due to Rheumatoid Arthritis, it really annoys me when when digital imaging technicians describe themselves as 'artists', who 'paint'.
No, the D.I.T. manipulates keys and a 'mouse' or tablet stylus to command computer software to create the required result, and any imperfections or errors can be corrected, again by the computer software - there's no having to start again, possibly physically re-painting, by hand, and certainly little in the way of visualisation, followed by sketches, position and perspective planning, selection of colours and tints which will create the desired illusion without the viewer realising that said colours or tints may be the opposite of what should be there. And there's very little, if indeed any, struggle to physically obtain the desired dimensions of the subject(s), whilst maintaining proportion, depth and perspective without dislocating a wrist, elbow or the neck !
I'll agree that some original CGI 'artwork' is extremely good, and the knowledge and practice required to operate the 'system' efficiently and competently is a skill to be admired, as are the finished results.
But to create a finished image by photo-montage, where the majority of the scene, if not all of the scene, is a composite of actual photographic images, whether originated by silver-halide or digital media, is not 'painting', it's photographic reproduction, with the basic techniques pre-dating digital imaging by almost a century, when camera technicians would produce such work by laborious overlay, undercut, dodging and burning, spacing and hand re-touching if required.
Fine for personal use, or non-commercial gain - but to pass this off as 'original' and 'hand-painted', especially with the illegal use of other people's work, for personal gain, is more than unethical, it's downright banditry.