Lockheed Electra Model 10
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 226

Thread: Lockheed Electra Model 10

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Lockheed Electra Model 10

    Hello folks,
    I have been toying with the idea of buiding a Lockheed Electra Model 10, firstly because Smilo suggested building one after I finished practising a bit of AD2K with the two tutorials under his guidance, and secondly, because it would be a good extra opportunity to use Ivanīs interesting new 2-pitch propeller, for a Lockheed Electra Model 10A.

    It could also be a good opportunity to build a detailed, fully animated model with AD2K, but only if the "manual Z buffer" sequencing technique could be undertaken by Smilo, as I feel quite incapable of doing something so complicated by myself.

    The other possiblility would be to supply a not-so-animated AF99 model, but built as cleanly as possible using building techniques to the best of my knowledge that I have learnt from Ivan, with a SCASMed virtual cockpit, which wouldnīt be bad alternative at all!

    So, this project could start with the Lockheed Electra Model 10A as a basis, and then also provide a Model 10E, the one flown by the famous Amelia Earhart. This one had more powerful engines and CV propellers and long range tanks.

    The Model 10A was powered by 2 P&W R-985 Wasp Junior SB engines with single-speed superchargers, providing a maximum of 450 Hp at 2300 RPPM for take-off, and giving 400 hp at 2200 RPM upto critical altitude of 5000 ft. Apart from the restly already known but scarce performance specs, I have found an interesting historical article from a flight magazine that quotes a few additional performance details.

    Now we know the following:
    --------------------------
    > Take-off power: 450 Hp at 2300 RPM.
    > Lea Level Max Speed: 202 mph.
    > Max Speed: 215 mph at 8000 ft.

    > Continuous power upto 5000 ft: 400 Hp at 2200 RPM
    > General cruise speed: 190 mph
    > Cruise speed at 5000 ft: 190 mph at 2000 RPM.

    > Max RoC of 1350 fpm (I havenīt tested this yet).

    Making the necessary adjustments to the flight modelīs engine and airframe parameters, I have arrived at the following results, which are not perfect yet, but would be quite usable, I suppose. Increasing performance a bit for 500 ft, as it isnīt really S.L., would give a bit more at 8000 Ft, at the price of a slight unwanted peak at 5000, because at the moment, 8000 ft performance really happens too soon at 5000 ft...

    Maximum speeds:
    ----------------
    _500 ft: 202.0 mph, 450 hp, 2296 RPM
    5000 ft: 214.0 mph, 471 hp, 2436 RPM
    8000 ft: 207.8 mph, 424 hp, 2412 RPM

    Cruise speeds:
    _500 ft: 190.9 mph, 399 hp, 2198 RPM, 93% throttle
    5000 ft: 190.8 mph, 377 hp, 2410 RPM, 86% throttle
    8000 ft: 190.0 mph, 364 hp, 2277 RPM, 85% throttle

    Hello Ivan,
    I know you are very busy indeed in your paint shop, with the textures on your Ki-61.
    Consequently I donīt expect an answer or any comments on these performances, at least not for the moment.
    There is time enough for that in the future, if you feel so inclined, so please donīt feel obliged to do so.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  2. #2

    Max. MAP 34.5" - performance closer.

    Hello All:
    I just came across another gem of information on the performance of the Electra, namely a performance/consumption table stating that a maximum manifold pressure of 34.5 inches of mercury was maintained upto critical altitude. I had had it a little higher from the Condorīs engines, for want of more exact information.
    So, correcting that and increasing Boost Gain ever so slightly, and also compensating the S.L./500 ft power difference, I got it a bit nearer to the specified 215 mph at 8000 ft without getting excessively fast at 5000.
    Now it is just 3 mph fast at 500 ft, and just 2 mph slow at 8000 ft, but these differences are probably negligible.


    Max. Speeds:
    _500 ft: 205.4 mph, 452 hp, 2307 RPM
    5000 ft: 215 mph, 462 hp, 2426 RPM
    8000 ft: 213 mph, 436 hp, 2444 RPM

    Cruise Speeds:
    _500 ft: 190.6 mph, 390 hp, 2198 RPM, 92% throttle
    5000 ft: 190.1 mph, 362 hp, 2218 RPM, 84% throttle
    8000 ft: 189.7 mph, 351 hp, 2253 RPM, 80% throttle

    For the time being it seems as close as I can get!

    Maybe Iīll start building the model at the weekend. My fingers are already itching.
    I still have to decide with what, though... AF99 or AD2K, that is the question!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; June 2nd, 2017 at 04:09.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  3. #3

    Success of sorts

    Hello Smilo,
    Getting into the wingroot sub-assembly parts with the Draw - Edit Chain menu, I managed to alter the shape of the wing-root by pulling up the trailing-edge vertices. The originally plano-convex wingroot, made with 8-sided simple profiles, is still a bit flat at the bottom, but the shape seems to be getting closer to what I want.

    Maybe the next step would be to cut out a bottom middle section to make the bottom surface convex too, so that the sloping angle upwards to the trailing edge starts further aft.


    In the screenshot you can see the original templates in blue (horizontal blue base lines), and the white lines are at newly positioned angles giving a higher trailing edge. Possibly this is partially what you were referring to editing the shape before, but it isnīt really the template that has been edited.

    Regarding the 12-sided circle you mention for forming a template into a desired shape: I would have expected that kind of template to be for a fuselage bulkhead, so it would be at 90 degrees to the wingroot cross-section profile type template I need... ...but Iīll try it out anyway!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Bent.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  4. #4

    Further improvement!

    Hello Folks,
    With the hope of not boring everyone, I thought Iīd continue trying to get the numbers to coincide a bit better.


    Having noticed the previous improvement higher up after adjusting Boost Gain, but also the greater speed lower down, I thought I would try and get it a little faster higher up, but also a little slower lower down, hoping to maintain Critical altitude at the specified 5000 ft.

    So I raised Zero Lift Drag by 1, and increased Boost Gain a little as well, and I got even better maximum performance results:

    _500 ft: 202.8 mph, 453 hp, 2300 RPM, 34.5 MAP
    5000 ft: 211.0 mph, 460 hp, 2415 RPM, 34.5 MAP
    8000 ft: 215.0 mph, 456 hp, 2477 RPM, 33.3 MAP

    This pretty well coincides with the available specs.
    Cruise speeds fit in nicely too, with some minor changes as regards required Hp and MAP to maintain typical 190 mph:

    _500 ft: 93% throttle: 190.3 mph, 397 hp, 2194 RPM, 32.2 MAP
    5000 ft: 86% throttle: 190.7 mph, 380 hp, 2248 RPM, 30.0 MAP
    8000 ft: 82% throttle: 190.4 mph, 369 hp, 2284 RPM, 28.7 MAP

    I think Iīll start building now... Enough numbers for the moment!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; June 2nd, 2017 at 09:47.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  5. #5

    Better, for the moment

    Hello Smilo, hello folks,
    The wingroot now has the desired bi-convex shape, with bottom surface less curved than the top.
    The only way to do it was to manually edit the sub-assembly itself, moving vertices and adding panels.

    But... the kicker is, it wonīt compile - I hadnīt tried that yet, and previous versions wonīt compile
    either, so at least, the flaw is not in the wingroot shape-improvement itself, which is a relief.
    Stupid... I forgot about changing all the polygons in the listings because they donīt have textures yet...
    thatīs why it wonīt compile yet!

    Cheers,

    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails better.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  6. #6
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    have spent the past few hours
    fiddling around with templates.
    basically, trying to remember.
    as i recall, i said the hell with it.
    i don't have the time for the aggravation.
    first off, section temples can be made
    to be viewable from different planes.
    click on the radio buttons at the top
    and select x0y, y0z or x0z
    to get a top, front or side view.
    unfortunately,
    template configuration is very limited.
    too bad there is not a random option
    which would enable one to place
    vertices wherever desired.
    as you've discovered,
    the wing profile options are also lacking.

    just for fun, i drew an 11 point chord shaped chain.
    next, i clicked the 'build a cylinder' option
    using said chord chain.
    after is was built,
    i 'enlarged' the original 'template' chain by .25%
    i now have a tapered cylinder
    that looks a lot like a wing.
    as an added bonus,
    there are two vertices
    forward of the trailing edge.
    one upper and one lower
    that will align with the aileron and flap joints.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  7. #7
    Hello Smilo,
    Iīm sorry this is being so aggravating.
    To lose a lengthy message has sometimes happened to me too, and it is very frustrating indeed.

    Update:

    In view of the success you have demonstrated, it has become clear that it IS indeed possible to do!
    So, I am repeating the steps you mentioned before for the simpler Fuselage-Innerwing joint.

    Now Iīm trying the system again for the nacelle-innerwing joint.
    The problem was that I couldnīt identify the nacelle panels that were being asked for the last time I tried this.

    OK: For the moment, I have made all the additional nacelle templates, coinciding with lines of the panels on the inner wing.
    So this should now make it possible to put in the intersect vertices so that the innerwing panels fit flush with the nacelle-side.

    Iīll see how it goes...

    Cheers,

    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 4th, 2017 at 11:02.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  8. #8
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    okay, my blood pressure has gone down.
    ...a little.

    be forewarned, this is a convoluted
    and very tedious process,
    BUT, it becomes easier,
    once you get the hang of it.

    as always, these are just my opinions;
    if it was my project,
    i would build a complete wing,
    with no breaks from fuselage center to tip.
    save it untouched for a solid reference base.
    second, i would have the nacelle completed
    before starting on the wing intersection process.
    build plenty of nacelle templates.
    at least, one for each chord vertices.
    more if necessary for nacelle shaping
    and have them laid out in order
    from forward to aft for ease of cycling through for editing.
    instead of jumping around trying to find the right one.

    i have some tips for finding the intersection,
    but, am afraid to write too much.
    who knows when everything will go away again?
    let me know if you're interested.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  9. #9
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    ps...if you have time,
    would you please send
    a completed nacelle
    and a full wing?
    thanks in advance.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  10. #10
    Hello Smilo,
    What is interesting in the bottom view I suppose is that the wheel well includes a narrower forward open section to cater for the landing gear strut. On other planes the strut had a plate that would cover that section, so only half the wheel would remain visible outside the well, and this plate would also act as an air-brake when the gear was extended. On the Electra it seems that it was simplified - although the gear did have mudguards!

    Regarding the wing profile and nacelle parts intersection, weīll see how the results of the different possibilities develop, and then take a decision on the best solution to be used.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  11. #11

    RoC too weak perhaps?

    Hello again,
    I was already getting afraid of this, because matching the .air file as closely as possible to specs seemed to be going too well! Rate of climb seemed was a bit low, hardly 900 fpm below 2000 ft, and getting worse further up.

    At first I thought I had to play around with the airframe, to get better lift out of the wings, which arguably could be possible, but I couldnīt manage an improvement there - but there could of course be a trick I donīt know about!!
    Increasing the size of the propellers to 9 ft is no good because it drops RPM by more than 200, and t
    he 8.21 ft propeller was actually not too far off reality, because I found another similar aircraft using identical engines with 99 inch propellers:

    BEECH E18S AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS:
    Powerplant Pratt & Whitney R985
    Horse Power @ RPM 450 @ 2300 RPM
    Propellers Hamilton Standard
    Propeller Diameter 99 in.

    So, 8.25 ft has improved things: Below 2000 I can maintain 1000 fpm and 150 mph or so, which seems OK. However, from 2000 to 3000 itīs only 500 fpm, at about 130 mph. Perhaps this is normal? Maybe now itīs OK....

    The 8.21 ft to 8.25 ft prop diameter increase has made a noticeable difference in RoC, but the 2300 max RPM I was getting at 500 ft have gone down to 2290 RPM. All in all, itīs better than before.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; June 3rd, 2017 at 12:36.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  12. #12
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    as always, how you build your model is up to you,
    but, i have to admit to being flattered by your offer.
    truthfully, a cooperative project was my dream
    for many years and, i have to say, i am intrigued.

    here's the rub, or, rubs, as it were.
    -i have forgotten most of the ad2k building techniques.
    (not that i couldn't relearn them in time)
    -my xp development computer bit the dust.
    meaning, i will have to scavenge parts
    and build another...again, doable with time.
    -my main monitor is crapping out.
    it's okay for reading texts and such,
    but, is worthless for detail work.
    of course, the remedy is buying another,
    which i am less than ecstatic about.
    -and finally, there is a time constraint.
    i have irons in the fire that can not be ignored.

    so, there are the negatives.
    BUT, as i said, i am intrigued.

    how about this option;
    build the model in af99.
    (are you aware that af99 parts
    can be imported into ad2k?)
    (also be aware, structures
    and components are a problem)
    anyway, when building the model,
    ignore the parts limit.
    make the thing ultra complex by af99 standards.
    get around this by building
    individual af99 models
    of the inner and outer wing, the tail section,
    the nacelle, the fuselage and so on.
    each at 0,0,0 for easy viewing.
    you get the idea, right?

    as i said, i'm intrigued.
    apparently, more so than a little.
    we shall see how it goes.

    that's enough for now,
    the band is playing tonight
    and i have to go get ready.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  13. #13
    Hello Smilo,
    Thanks for the instructions, and I appreciate the effort that went into discovering how it works. Iīll use the idea!
    I was under the impression that the cylinder option would force the use of the same profile at both ends, but obviously this wouldnīt make much sense.

    For the moment, Iīve obtained a wing-root by using an 8-sided profile, modifying the sub-assembly by adding 1 side underneath and pulling up the trailing edge slightly. Itīs still only only 9-sided though, but it works.

    However, adding further sides to improve the shape will be more laborious than using your idea to build a new 11 or 12 sided profile-chain, and making a tapered "cylinder" with it. This will also be a much easier way to make the outer wing.

    Iīve also managed the sequencing for the two wingroots and the central fuselage - it wasnīt complicated (this time...).

    Thanks again for the solution!

    Update: The way to build a nicely shaped 11-sided inner wing works very well.
    The only difficulty is that the intersection option does not apply here, and it appears that vertices will have to be lined up manually with the fuselage and the engine nacelles. Nothing is perfect in this life!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails works1.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; June 14th, 2017 at 10:17.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  14. #14
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    yes, it's true, this is not a perfect solution.
    if you've tried it, you've seen
    the new cylinder end is a duplicate configuration
    of the original chain, (minus the chain)
    with the vertices tied together.
    the cool thing is, if you want,
    you can change the shape
    and move the original anywhere.
    you can also change it's size.
    the new end...not as easily.

    unfortunately, the intersection option is gone.
    so, there will be handwork.
    another issue will be,
    figuring out the proper wing taper.
    i'd say, start with a chord chain
    the size of the wing root.
    and set it up at the wing cap location.
    create a cylinder back to the root location.

    now, you can use the enlarge option
    to reduce the size of the wing at the tip.
    use the copy/translate option
    to move the tip chain up/down
    or forward aft to get it's proper location.

    next, how to achieve wing/fuselage
    or nacelle vertices intersection alignment.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  15. #15
    Hello Smilo,
    OK, I moved the outer edge of the inner-wing outwards, to make a whole wing out of it, positioning an sizing it correctly.
    The wingtip would be the only missing bit on the wing now.
    The engine and nacelle body is hopefully now also shaped correctly, so as to fit into the wing.
    Iīve just e-mailed the model files to you, and hereīs a blueprint screenshot.
    I hope it is what you were asking for!
    Cheers, and thanks very much again for your assistance!
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails completewing.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  16. #16

    Then with AD2K shall it be!!

    Hello Smilo!
    The band is playing tonight, that will be great fun!

    The problem is not really actually building with AD2k, but the sequencing, and this will have to be done even if I build with AF99 first - even in sections, as you conveniently suggested.

    The AD2K building style itself, with the bulkheads and facilities offered in AD2k, will be in fact much easier and is quite attractive, so if you are still game to give me a hand with the sequencing, then Iīll be very pleased indeed to build the Electra with AD2K!


    So, this will be great fun too!

    ...and I wish you luck reviving the required old hardware!
    Incidentally, have you tried Virtual Machine Player to install WinXP onto a Windows 8.1 computer? It has worked for me, and I can build and test models there, although Hardware Accelleration for the graphics card wonīt work, but so what! Then I transport the model via USB-stick over to the normal computer with the normal CFS installation.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; June 3rd, 2017 at 12:16.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  17. #17
    Smilo,
    Not sure of your finances BUT, I bought my replacement rebuilt XP from these guys,
    https://www.amazon.com/Dell-760-SFF-...in%3A562222011

    $239.00 and it kicks butt

    They have many to choose from
    http://www.TheFreeFlightSite.com
    "Laissez les bon temps rouler"

  18. #18
    Hello Smilo,
    Yes, interesting! The resulting shape itself is actually incredibly good using this system, and very easy to make.

    I started off with two chains for the inner and outer profile, correctly sized for taper and dihedral (sizes and placing obtained from the diagrams). One of them was going to be the profile to make the cylinder, and the other the reference to adjust for taper and dihedral. Then I made the cylinder and adjusted its profile to match the reference profile.

    The next step is more difficult: To manually fit the vertices to the fuselage. After that, it will be the turn for the engine nacelles, and the fitting of the inner wing vertices there. Then comes the outer wing and wingtip - the latter will be easy, as the build is quite automatic!

    I still have to think about whether fitting all the vertices manually to the fuselage and engine nacelle will be more difficult than using my previous system - i.e. standard 8-sided profile templates, fit automatically with "intersection" to fuselage and engine nacelle, and then later adding 3 extra parts to the inner and outer wing profile covers, and pulling up the trailing edges. I wonder. Iīll see how it goes.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  19. #19
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    ..."fitting all the vertices manually to the fuselage and engine nacelle"

    okay, try this...for each wing vertices,
    create a correctly sized fuselage template,
    located exactly in line with each vertices.
    yes, that's a lot of templates,
    but, there will be no guess or by golly
    aligning the wing vertices with the fuselage.
    you will know exactly where the skin is.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  20. #20
    Hello Smilo,
    Actually, in AF99 this is the most difficult part because the whole wing and nacelle has to be made with components, i.e. individual parts by hand, and as it appears, it is not as straight forward as one could imagine in AD2K either.
    Hopefully it will not be too much of a hassle for you!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  21. #21
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    as far as i can tell,
    it is straight forward with ad2k,
    IF you are willing to accept,
    at best, a marginal wing profile.
    clearly, i am not and, therefore,
    am willing to do the hand work.

    i also see this as an opportunity
    to delve into the intersection process
    which i had problems with in the past.
    (probably, my lack of patience)
    who knows, i may find something
    that will work for us in the future.
    suffice to say, i have a few ideas.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  22. #22
    Hello Smilo,
    Yes, I see what you mean.
    I had taken the measurements from the front and top view drawings. There seems to be a discrepancy with the dimensions on the side-view drawing which I hadnīt noticed before. I wasnīt using those because the red and light-green lines there were drawn in by hand by myself, and could perhaps be a bit off! Iīm terribly sorry.
    In red, Iīve drawn in the sizes for the chord length and thickness on the top and front view drawing. Would you be OK with that? Iīll e-mail it to you too, because of the resolutioin.
    Cheers,
    Alņeatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Top-plan-.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  23. #23
    And as Far as AD2000 and AD2002 Do not forget these:
    AD2000 Using AD2000 aircraft designer by A.C.T. publishing ***
    ADChain Editing chain files in AD2000 by AFAlpha **
    http://thefreeflightsite.com/Tutorials.htm

    And this:
    ACT data FIX For AD2002 above, fixes compiling problems. By ACT
    http://thefreeflightsite.com/Design.htm
    http://www.TheFreeFlightSite.com
    "Laissez les bon temps rouler"

  24. #24
    Hello NoDice,
    Thanks for your concern!
    The AD2000 I used for the tutorials Smilo helped me with some months ago actually came from thefreeflightsite.
    I wonīt be needing AD2002 and the corresponding fix for the moment, but Iīll keep it in mind for a future possibility.
    Letīs see how it goes!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  25. #25
    Hello Smilo,
    I was already trying to get the individual vertice intersection option to work, but it wouldnīt.
    It couldnīt find the required templates.
    OK, so Iīll do it as you say. Making all those templates will be much easier than any other procedure.
    Great, and t
    hanks very much!
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

Members who have read this thread: 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •