With only 100 ever produced, I’m not really sure who wants (or needs) detailed side view illustrations of the British Aerospace Jetstream 41. No matter. There was very little that could’ve stopped me from spending the last three weeks of my life creating the set of drawings you see below.

Side view templates of the British Aerospace Jetstream 41

There’s a lot about the Jetstream 41 to like. It’s a fairly good looking turboprop IMHO, with decent proportions and nothing that looks too far out of the ordinary (something I can’t say about the Beechcraft 1900D). Most importantly? There were no variants. It was one design. One configuration. That’s all they ever made.

British aerospace jetstream 41 all white side view
Side profile illustration of an all white British Aerospace Jetstream 41. Not a bad looking turboprop!
British aerospace jetstream 41 technical line drawing side view
Here’s the technical line drawing / Blue print version showing all the deets.

Because the Jetstream 41 was the evolution of the Jetstream 31 (an aircraft which first flew in 1980), some of the design elements seem a bit dated for a 1990s aircraft. For example, the cockpit windows are tall and upright.

That (combined with the overall shape of the stubby fuselage) gave it a bit of a “classic” look – at least compared to similar aircraft of the time.

Need Larger Images?
British Aerospace Jetstream 41 Template Source Files

Fully editable 5000 x 3000 px high-resolution source files for these templates are available! Get them in JPG, PNG, PSD, and vector format.

Shop Now

The most interesting design elements

Let’s face it. The J41 is pretty darn far from being one of the best looking aircraft ever made. That said, it has some redeeming qualities:

  • The most fascinating thing about the Jetstream 41 design (at least it to me anyway) is the fact that the fuselage was an entirely new design – even though it was based on an existing aircraft (the Jetstream 31).
  • Speaking of the fuselage, the sectioning (as you can see above in the line drawing) is relatively simple for an aircraft of this type. There appears to be the typical amount of panel lines near the front of the fuselage, but it gets a lot simpler towards the back near the cargo door.
  • The horizontal stabilizer seems small for an aircraft of this size. It’s obviously sufficient, but the visual designer in me feels like it needs to be at least 50% larger to match the proportions of the surrounding elements.
  • It’s a lot lower than it looks. The very tip of the vertical stabilizer measures 18′-10″ off the ground – which is 22′ lower than the Boeing 737 MAX 8.

Finally, I am of the opinion that the Allied Signal TPE331-14 engines sound really nice. I distinctly recall being enamored by the sound of a Trans World Express Express J41 buzzing past me at STL sometime in the mid 90s. It sounded good.

I hope you’re able to do something amazing with these illustrations!

Similar Posts

10 Comments

    1. Yeah, either the Beluga or the AN-124 is next. Those are the two I’m getting requests for (more than anything else) at the moment.

      1. Hey, ever considered making the Fokker 70 (just a shorter Fokker 100) I know it’s a fairly niche plane, but I think its one of the best looking regional jets

        1. Hey Gage – yes, that one is on my shortlist. I’ve already started gathering reference material for it actually…

  1. First off, welcome back!

    Among current in-production aircraft templates I’d buy would be the Beechcraft 220 Denali and the Daher TBM 960. The old British Aerospace ATP would be good as well. In business jets the newest Dassults, Gulfstreams and Bombardiers seem like good choices.

    But the template I’d *really* like to see you create would be the Douglas DC-3! You did such a great job with the DC-4, plus the DC-3 is still in active use after 89 years. It might become the first airliner to be in active service for 100 years by 2035, since there are still about 150 of them flying. It would probably sell well too. I know I would buy it for sure.

    1. Thanks Barry! These are all very good suggestions. The DC-3 has been on my shortlist for a very long time, and the only reason I haven’t done it yet it’s because of how difficult the DC-4 was. 🙂 Finding good reference material for those old birds is really difficult. But you’re right – it’s a very popular aircraft and I should probably just roll up my sleeves and do it.

      I’ve never even heard of the Daher TBM 960 though. I guess I’m not as hard-core as I thought I was haha.

    1. Thanks Barry! That’s a really neat little aircraft – and yes, now that I see pictures of it, I have seen it before. I’ll definitely add it to my to do list.

  2. There are so many fantastic aircraft and yet so many that find their niche audience…. you have fantastic work that is by far a class of it’s own and you should remain insanely proud, despite the C-17 lack of commercial appeal. That’s part of the labor of love is sometimes you trip and stumble while you still are running.

    To that end; my wish list would be everything….

    The “golden age” and transition…. The 727-100, Lockheed L-188, Convair 880/990A, BAC 1-11, Martin 4-0-4, DC-6, DC-7C, Lockheed “Connie” Constellation, Focker F-28 (Fokker 70 as prior mentioned), Convair 240/340/580 series, SuD Caravelle…………

    Futuristic and cancelled projects…I would love to see the Boom Ovation (both prior and remake), Embraer Next Gen Turboprop, Boeing Sonic Cruiser, the A220-500, a release/rework of the 757Max/767Max…

    Final thing… I would love to see a store rework… I wish that a “family” could be discounted grouping like the “747” series, etc… I would also love a better sort feature with drop down menu selection of manufacturer etc to find projects.

    Finally, despite Russia “things,” if we’re talking former Soviet and now Russian airliners… the Tu-154, Yak-40, Il-114, Tu-124, Tu-134, etc….

    That all said, You’re doing amazing work and I’ve loved all of the stuff you have put out even when you have taken needed breaks to regroup. That’s the creative process. Keep up the good work, it’s needed and valued.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *