New P3 Orion

[Ivan]

Hello Aleeatorylamp,

Last night I got a bit tired and needed a break from the Warhawk and spent a couple hours doing templates and building the mid and aft Fuselage of an Orion.
I would post a screenshot but my flash drive is hiding at the moment. Lets see if I can make my own ideas work.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello all!

I´ve just installed the thicker wing-fillet and inner-wing, and this was rather interesting:
First I tried gluing the wing-root to the body with the inner-wing in Innerwing-mid left/right, as it was before, but stangely that was only successful on the right. On the left, seen from above on the side, the fuselage bled through the whole wing-root and inner wing.

So I also put the wing-root into Innerwing-mid left/right, changing the 2 fuselage glue parts into 2 quite tall Wing-Fuselage templates, and these are doing their work surprisingly well!

From most viewing angles it´s perfect, except from below on the side, where the bottom of the opposite wing-root disappears. I´m not sure if I like this, or if this can be acceptable though, even if the main viewing angles display very well.

Another (important?) question:
I was still debating whether to give total credibility to the fuselage at 11ft 3 inches maximum diameter as quoted in the NASA .pdf document. As you are presently working on the Orion fuselage templates, I was wondering if you could just confirm if this measurement is reliable.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello again, Ivan,

There is always something important that´s suddenly missing!
I was just checking the location of the leading and trailing edges at the wing root.

The .pdf document quotes the chord as 18.92 ft long, but then, with the way it goes on by quoting the length of MAC as 14.06 ft, with its position at 36.74 ft from the nose, and localizing 25% MAC at 40.25 ft from the nose, in addition to a 1.5 chord sweepback, and an aspect ratio of 7.5, there is no way I can understand where the root chord leading and trailing edges have to be.

Perhaps you have got that far with your templates and have got this information and could possibly clarify this puzzle?

The 3 drawings I have are discrepant: The leading edge is at 35.5, 36.4 and 37.8 ft from the nose, and the trailing edge, at 52.5, 54 and 56.8 ft.

My model has them at 36.24 and 54.7 ft, so as you can see, it is all rather disgraceful!
If I can´t get it any better, I could of course leave it as it is, as it is just in between the range of measurements, ha ha! ...and nobody would notice, but I wouldn´t really like that.

No hurry with your reply, please, and as always, I appreciate and am grateful for your comments!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Funny thing about your timing....

I was just starting to have some issues with the Fuselage Width on my Templates (now Pieces) as well.
I already told you that I decided to test out the idea of whether the Templates and Ideas especially were any good by building a few pieces because I didn't want to work on the P-40F the night before last.
Over the last two nights I built pieces of the Fuselage from the Bomb Bay back to include the MAD Boom and looked at the result last night in the Simulator.

My impressions were that the Fuselage was MUCH too narrow.
Also the night before last, I found a large resolution photograph of the Orion that is very close to an exact profile view.
I don't have much faith in drawings.
I scaled the photograph to 1 Pixel == 1/2 inch, flipped it so the Nose is on the left and put a 210 Pixel margin between the Nose and the edge of the photograph.
Effectively, this gives me a reference on which the Pixel Number is twice the Fuselage Station value and helped me locate a few critical pieces.

The Photograph I used may be found here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tna_c1984.JPEG

I decided to measure the diameter of the Fuselage of the Aeroplane in this Photograph in the same manner as I was using for Fuselage Stations.....

Are you ready for this????
The photograph is a bit fuzzy but my measurement shows 273 pixels from Top to Bottom of the Aft Fuselage.
At a scale of 1 pixel == 1/2 inch, we get <Drum Roll Here> 11.375 Feet. which is awfully close to 11.333 Feet as stated in the Orion drawing.....

As I stated before, the photograph is a bit fuzzy and if I had gotten 272 instead of 273 pixels, it would be EXACTLY 11 feet 4 inches. Within ONE pixel is pretty good. When measuring from a drawing or photograph it doesn't get any better which is why I prefer drawings with all the dimensions labeled.

Regarding the Wing Dimension, I know what I got from the NASA document but I will need to go look in my development computer tonight to see if I can find what you are looking for.
If you want to do it yourself, just consider that the Root Chord is at Wing Station 0 or the Aircraft Centerline.
This is pretty typical of how things are described.

Attached are a few Screenshots, but obviously those pieces need to be reworked.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Interesting coincidence to be working on similar areas.
Pretty good going for a photo-measurement confirmation! OK, so I´ll proceed with that!
My faith in drawings dwindles more every time I look at them.
I´ll see if I find a perpendicular fly-by photo dipping a wing to see where how far the wing-root leading edge is from the nose. Maybe a video capture...
The tail art of the Mt. Etna Orion fly-past is a good one too, incidentally.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I just finished re-doing the partial Fuselage to the new dimensions using 11.33 Feet (actually 11.32 Feet because it is really +-5.66 Feet) and scaled he Fuselage Depth to be 11.70 Feet at the Bomb Bay. I would have posted a screenshot but CFS controls stopped working and I could not close out the simulator at all.

I did pull a screenshot of the important points in my Wing Template before I started getting failures.
This screenshot shows my Wing Template with the assumption that the CoG is 40.25 feet from the nose and at Water Line 150.

I set my model CoG at WL 150 because I believe it is the vertical center line of the Fuselage and at FS 588.0 very near the Mean Aerodynamic Chord.
I suspect the CoG is actually much further forward because the Bomb Bay is entirely ahead of the Wing and because the Tail Plane has a negative camber Airfoil.

I suspect the original Electra may not have had quite as fat a Fuselage as the Orion.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

That´s very nice! Excellent! Thank you very much indeed!

I just couldn´t work it out, even if I did I understand what and where the mean aerodynamic chord is, but to use the 1.5 sweepback and 7.5 aspect ratio data to derive where the wing root leading edge lies was beyond my capacities.

I did some research on your hunch about the L-188 Electra having a narrower fuselage, and I found a page of a company who uses them as freighters. There was a cross-section diagramme of the hold, with a 108 inch wide pallet silhouhette sitting on the floor inside the circular fuselage.

Calculating with the pixels, the resulting fuselage diameter is 10.5 ft, exactly the same as on the original model I was deriving the Orion from. So, another mystery cleared.

OK, then, we can continue safely from here on...
Have a nice weekend!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I actually didn't know the sweep of the Wing Leading Edge.
I didn't use that in building my Template Part. It was both more and less complicated than that.

If you look at the Wing description in 2.2.2 of the NASA document, it states the Root Chord and the Tip Chord.
THAT along with the Sweep at 15% Chord tells me the layout of the general planform of the Wing.
After constructing that at 0,0,0, I modify it to add 5 degrees of Dihedral.
I then put a break in the Wing at Wing Station 65 as specified and remove Dihedral inboard.
The next step is a bit more complicated and required a bit of faith.
I located the MAC at the proper Wing Station and checked for the length to see that it was correct.
(I seem to remember it was.)
The last step was to locate it properly which is done by putting a point at 25% MAC (Insert Point twice to get 1/4)
and using Control-Mouse Click to locate it properly Horizontally and Vertically.

The other Templates were done in a pretty similar fashion except that the H Stabiliser Template still is located vertically at zero (WL 150) because I don't know the proper location.

The 1.5 degree sweep may be a reliable measurement, but my faith in the 7.5 Aspect Ratio is VERY low.
One digit of precision doesn't work well over nearly 50 feet of Wing Span.
Use the Root and Tip Chord instead. It is much more precise.

Glad the Fuselage Diameter is resolved.
You have a link to the photograph I am working from, so you can verify my estimates.
I am not sure if it is useful to you at this point, but there is also a publicly available Federal Aviation Administration Type Certificate Data Sheet for the Lockheed L-188 Electra. It may not be an exact match but gives an idea of values you may not find elsewhere.

The specific number you are looking for is 4A22 and it can be found here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...meset?OpenPage

On some aircraft, this document provides a wealth of information.

Hope this helps.
- Ivan.

P.S. Regarding "continue safely from here....", I would not bet on that at all.
You just haven't hit the next bump yet.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Oh, dear! So I´ll just fasten my seat belt in case something else crops up!

I´m adjusting the corrected wing dimensions wings to the CoG position on my model now, so that the distance from the leading edge to the nose stays the same.

For the moment, my plan of action seems quite solid I think:

- The leading edge at the wing root is only 2.04 inches out. Even though the difference is negligible I´ll correct it because I have to re-build all the wing components anyway to make them thicker, and also the wing-root, as I have to adapt it to the 9.6-inch fatter fuselage.

- Nacelle positions are based on the prop diameter and clearances to each other, the fuselage and the ground, and their FS stations matching several photos, so these can stay where they are.
- Wing root stations have been cleared thanks to your intervention. I think my problem is that I don´t know what to do with "Sweepback of .15 chord = zero degrees". I´m applying the correct wing shape and position to my model. The dihedral is no problem, I´ve understood that, including where it starts along the wing.

- Applying the new fuselage fatness and bomb bay dimensions to the forward component should really not create any problems.

Anyway, it´s back to the workshop! There´s a lot of work to do - repeating agan and again... I hate it too.

Thank you very much for indicating the Federal Aviation Administration Type Certificate Data Sheets. That can come in handy for some models, and also many thanks for all the pieces of information you have supplied. It makes for a better designed plane!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

We just had "Halloween" here last night. I went out with my Son for Trick-or-Treat.
Not much of a candy haul though.

I think I will try to create the Orion's Nose Section by using a Structure or general outlines and tuning and then put the cuts into it for the Windows after it is converted to a Structure.
I believe this method produces a pretty good shape but is not economical at all for resources because there tend to be Polygons used in places that don't really need them.
The lines generally look good though.

This is the method I used for building the Nacelle for the P-38 Lightning and hopefully will work here as well.
It was used previously to build the Nose for the B-26 Marauder which still sits quite incomplete in the workshop.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
My daughters went out with friends dressed as zombie fiancés and didn´t haul in much either, so they went off to the pub afterwards.
Structures are great to get nose-shapes to start off better, and then make components copying the parts. I got the forward fuselage nose/cabin/bombbay into the new sizes, first as structures, with the new nose outline measured out from one of the perpendicular photos, and turned it into 2 components: Nose and forward fuselage. Now I´m doing the aft-fuselage - I over simplified it under the fin-fillet and have to correct it, but it´s going reasonably well.

Here´s a screenshot of the forward part. Perhaps the windows are too big - I´ll have to re-measure them. I still have to fit the cabin parts at the windows so that the body shape coincides better and doesn´t do funny things with the windows when viewed from different angles.
(The engines are not components yet - still structures - and the wings are being corrected).

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

That shape doesn't look bad at all. The Windows ARE kinda big on the real aeroplane.
I think they have the right look so far, but perhaps the Component underneath can be made to match.

The attached screenshots show the idea that I had. Obviously the shape is wrong at the moment, but it is where I want it to be on the underside. This is what I meant by using Structures as a guide There will be other Structures used as guides in other areas, so hopefully it will all look right when completed.
I believe one of the Bulkheads on my Structure is actually unnecessary but will remain long enough for me to attach a few Windshield pieces.

Mine doesn't look like much right now, does it?
But it WILL get better unless I get bored first. The Merlin Warhawk is begging for attention again.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I was just making some class material. I can´t find exactly what 2 of my students need: An intensive, fast English revision course, so I´m making my own, and it seems to be working with the students. I´m basing it on the layout of an old intensive German revision course book from 1974 that covers 3 years of learning (for once-a-week classes). Modern course books nowadays never cover more than one single year - publishing companies certainly saw where the business was! Anyway, I like this kind of activity too because it is creative!

So, I have made no further progress on the Orion today.

Your approach for the nose certainly does look intriguing, I must say!

- My bomb bay is simpler and only really occuppies the bottom part of the fuselage. I´ll try and make it include the next panel further up the side.
- Windows: It should not be too hard to match the "metal" under the windows to the windows. Looking at photos, the cabin surface does merge with the flat windows, doesn´t it?
- Then, come the wings - correct placing and thickness. Angles are already OK, and so are the Wingtips!
- Next, the engine nacelles conversion into components, which will definitely be a challenge!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The next task is to create some Window Parts and adjust the wireframe to match.
This task is much more artwork than anything else.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
If I suppose correctly from what I´m seeing, the reason for starting out with a B-787 or Caravelle type nose is to use the lower outline of the parts in the lower portion for the nose component, as this way you eliminate the interference of the windschield cutaway at the bottom. Once you do the cutout, you get the outlines for the upper parts. Very interesting!
The idea is very simple, but the key is to have the idea!
I always asked myself what the purpose behind being able to actually make complicated and exact structures was in AF99, as you can´t really use them as such on the model because of parts count!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

You are supposing quite correctly.
As I have stated many times, I don't tend to use Structures very much when building but they are useful for templates.
There is seldom a piece of an aeroplane other than perhaps a Spinner or Drop Tank (Or a Cowl Machinegun) that is really shaped as a Structure requires. Just about anything a Structure can do, a Component can do better....
BUT, a Structure is pretty much guaranteed to have a predictable cross section and the lines often flow better than ones designed by eyeball.

I have ben using this idea for years. It is certainly no secret.
It was used to build the majority of the Macchi Fighters Fuselages and to check the P-40 Cowl.
The exact same technique being used here was shown in the Lightning Design Study.

The upper part of Nose really needs to be done by hand which will happen as soon as I can create properly shaped Windows. The dimensions of the Windows are being scaled from photographs as usual.

Today is Election Day in the United States.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I´ve been off line a few days trying to sort out a medical issue a different way than what is being imposed on me, and it´s taking up more time that I expected.
Also, after misdiagnosing one of my daughter´s flu as mononucleosis and prescribing antibiotics, they made things worse for her 6 weeks ago, and now my other daughter has the same symptoms. They´ve also prescribed antibiotics, but we haven´t started administering them yet, and today it´s back to the doctor to make sure there´s no misdiagnosis this time.

Your way of using structures is reminiscent of casting two different plaster halves and then shaping the final figure by hand in wood! A more useful of structures!
I will try to make some progress on the Orion at the weekend.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I do understand the feeling. We have a few issues around here also.

I have bee reworking the Structures a bit to get a better contour which means all the Parts created from the old Structure need edited.
I also worked out a little technique with a very special Structure and might need to write a new program to make tuning such a Structure less tedious.

- Ivan.

[Blood_Hawk23]

I've always loved this plane. I've spent a few days with my day when I was a kid around them. So it must be in my blood.



Got to love the old tail feathers.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, Blood_Hawk23,
You were very lucky! It must have been rather impressive.

What I find attractive about the plane is its rather classic design, (it has big props, that´s great!, even if it has jets too... ha ha!), its tremendous turboprop power - a bit more discrete and not quite as outrageous or monstruous as that of the Tu-95 Bear...(one day I´ll continue building that one too), and the fact that it´s still very much alive an kicking about 50 years after it started being built.

In your case, you will no doubt have many more reasons for liking this plane. According to several pilot´s comments, it definitely seems to be a remarkable machine, rugged, fast and reliable, even if they did have one or two mishaps due to "fodding" gearboxes, which sometimes caused props to over-rev, detach and create havoc. I wonder why there wasn´t an auto-feathering governor to prevent over-revving.

Very interesting, your very varied CFS2 work!, although I fear my projected P3-Orion will not do very well in that simulator...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Well, no antibiotics as yet, just in case it isn´t flu, which will be seen once the test results come through next week. This time we´re playing safe!

I was taking notes on the way you were describing the steps to make a cabin in this new way, (very exciting!), and you had mentioned making the windows before cutting out the upper cabin. I interpreted this very literally, and have changed my building strategy, which upto was adjusting the metal corners of the cabin shape so that they don´t portrude, and was having only a limited degree of success, as depending on the viewing angle, metal appeared beyond the windows, ...or not.

So: Now the windshield is a flat, 4-corner piece without triangles as it´s not supposed to be bent, and right now I´m fitting all the vertices of the different cabin component parts to meet the contours of the windows, checking that the 4-vertice pieces all remain flat. It´s like cutting pieces out of cardboard and gluing them to one another in handwork in junior school ages ago! What fun!

Let´s see what comes out. Maybe I can post something reasonably successful later today!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Blood_Hawk23]

They've had the viral form of meningitis up around here. The school my niece's goto have had a couple case. She had them out of school for a couple days a few weeks ago just incase.

I loved it being around the P-3s. I was born into it you might say. My Dad was stationed at NAS Jax from 73-78 then NAS Brunswick from 78-83/84ish. I remember going in on the weekends and walking around them. On a few occassions I was able to sit in them while he did his dailys. 81 or 82ish was the last time I was able to do that.

Something to note while your working on the P-3s. Not all of the B's or C's are alike.

For an interesting read look here...

http://www.verslo.is/baldur/p3vpu/p3vpu.htm

and here.

http://www.p3orion.nl/sneaky.html

That could be why you've had trouble with some of the measurements. Depending on your reference pics and the actual plane.

I will say She's looking great. I'll see if my Dad still has his pics and cruise books. If so I'll try to get some of them scanned. If you're interested that is.

[aleatorylamp]

Thanks for the links! A wealth of real information.
Some of the photos are excellent for modelling as they seem to be exactly perpendicular.
There is a very large variety of combinations of antennae, tubes or whatever that I´ll have to take into account for any specific unit I want to depict.
I´m trying to shape a basic model first, and had only furgally thought about the differences between B´s and C´s yet. Depending on how it goes, I may take you up on your kind offer to send me some of your father´s info on the plane. Would his cruise books perhaps have a reference to take-off speed, by the way?
Depending on the resources left after the result is as good as I can get it on a "generic" P3 without any special portrusions, my intention is to make both a B and a C model, with correct textures, hopefully being able to depict an existing unit that had some kind of special career.
Unfortunately, however, there will definitely be no parts left over for a radome like on the fake invasion of China model, which is a bit disappointing, actually.

[Ivan]

Hello Blood Hawk,

Welcome! It is very rare to see a new face in the sub-sub-basement.

A few posts ago, I realised I had been giving out lots of recommendations on the "best" approach to building the Orion. It is easy to give out advice without any proof, so I decided to test my own advice which is why you may occasionally see screenshots from me as well. It is also a nice diversion from regular projects and I can test ideas without really worrying if I finish anything or not.
Hopefully some of the developments will be of interest.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Here are a couple more screenshots showing the current construction and the "Very Special Structure" I was describing earlier.
The Nose Component seems to be reasonably shaped at this point.
It also ties in well with the Forward Fuselage and Bomb Bay area behind it.

I had to revise my original Nose Template Structure to bring the Mid Line down a bit. It should still be a smooth downward curve to the front. I found a night time photograph of the Orion in which the lights reflecting off the Fuselage show a distinct and smooth downward curve.

I found that my hand editing of the Upper Nose area didn't work very well, so I created a "Very Special Structure" which is quite ugly but makes a good template for Nose Parts. The "Very Special" aspect of this Structure is that its Mid Line is the same as that for the Nose Bottom Structure. Hmmm.... That is a strange way to go but I think the results look pretty good.

The Nose at the moment is just a single Component. The assembly order is what makes bleeds minimal:
Nose Window Parts First,
followed by Nose Fuselage Parts,
with Nose Roof Parts to "top things off".
There may be very very slight bleeds from certain angles, but the Windows Glued on top block even those slight bleeds.

What is in the screenshots has expended 2 Components and 220 Parts thus far.

Note also that the Windows and the panels under them are not quite planar which is why the far side Window will vanish at certain angles, but it isn't very noticeable. I think the shape is pretty good at this point, but let me know if you see issues.

Please pardon the numerous screenshots but I wanted to illustrate the evolution from where I began to the final form.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Good grief! If this is not an amazing job, nothing is...
Just out of curiosity, I´ll try to prepare my own version without textures, just to see how it compares!

Update:
The shortness of this post upto here was because I only had a few minutes before we were leaving for an important social visit.
Thankfully I can still edit it! I had wanted to add that after finishing my version of this component, I´m going to try my hand at the new approach and do one like yours.
Incidentally, the shape that is coming out on mine just behind the side-window is the same as
yours!
Oh, dear!, another interruption... Oh, well...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp