New P3 Orion

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Here is a first attempt at a set of Wings for my Orion.
The airfoil is symmetrical and hopefully resembles the NACA 0014 at the Root and NACA 0012 at the Tip.
The 3 degree angle of incidence looks pretty severe from a comparison with the level version.
The Wing Tip Template has only a 0.5 degree angle of incidence which means there is a slight twist built into the Wing though it is not very visible.

Now I have to go back and confirm the Fuselage Station locations because I know I changed the point of reference a couple times when scaling the drawings to a working size.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

All these experiments are fascinating.
I´ve just done a better version of my forward fuselage components, based whole structures and then hand-adjusted to the windshields in the cabin area.

Here´s some screenshots, although the model is not as professional as yours. There´s a slight bleedthrough on the "eyebrow" on the textured version, but presumably will be easy to fix. (The rear-fuselage texture is not adjusted yet).
Update: Perhaps I should push out the side window a bit at the back - this way that circle contour would get a little rounder, and then the window should got down a bit at the lower rear corner...

Your wings are coming along very nicely! I´m very much looking forward to see how they progress! (to take some notes....)

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your Orion's Nose actually looks quite good.
I like mine better for several reasons though:
The primary reason is that it is MINE and I spent a fair amount of time on it.
Another reason is that the flow of the Wire Frame on mine doesn't have any breaks in it.
Yet another reason is that the upper deck area in front of the Windows isn't really round on most aircraft with the C-130 being a notable exception. This round bottom, flat / semi-round top is a hard thing to capture.

There are a few not so good areas in my version as well:
The Fuselage / Nose Mid Line curve doesn't really look quite right.
The lines don't really flow all that well but with a limitation of a 12 sided Fuselage, it won't get much better.
The "metal work" under the side windows doesn't look the way I would want, but I also don't want to spend more polygons there either.
The top windows should extend further inward.

As others have commented: The project is never really finished; you just choose when to stop working on it.

I am also running into a slight mismatch on the fin and rudder between the drawings / specifications and photographs of the real aeroplanes.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I just noticed a minor Canopy Frame issue in your model.
Perhaps I am nitpicking here, but I notice it because it took me a while to work it out myself.

In the screenshot attached, you can see the highlighted frame.
This piece on the real aeroplane is not quite what I originally expected.
From the front, it appears to be nearly vertical.
From the side, it is more inclined from vertical than even the front canopy frame.
Normally we expect to see things that are more dome shaped, but this piece is not.

The other arrow in my screenshot points to a polygon that has vanished because of the shallow angle.
It is not ideal, but doesn't look too unsightly.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I managed to improve some angles a bit by placing the windows onto the metal panels instead of between window spars as I had been experimenting. This way I could make window-frames without using any extra parts, and even save some to make an extra triangulation possible under the side windows.

Changes in angles of the spars depending on the viewing point were driving me crazy - I think it happens when the vertice is only correct in 2 of the 3 x-y-z viewing axes, one of them being out.

In some cases now the lines of the parts flow a little better, and I think I can do it better elsewhere too! Here are five screenshots showing the improvements. This manual cut-out adjustment is a bit difficult, but seems to be working.

Very interesting, the visit to the sub-sub-basement of Blood Hawk!

Well... Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Blood_Hawk23]

Hello Ivan,

I managed to improve some angles a bit by placing the windows onto the metal panels instead of between window spars as I had been experimenting. This way I could make window-sills without any extra parts, and even saves some to make an extra triangulation possible under the side windows.

Changes in angles of the spars depending on the viewing point were driving me crazy - I think it happens when the vertice is only correct in 2 of the 3 x-y-z viewing axes, one of them being out.
In some cases the lines of the parts flow a little better,
Here are three screenshots of the improvements.

Very interesting, the visit to the sub-sub-basement of Blood Hawk!

Well... Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

I'm really seeing her now. That last pic without the textures looks spot on to me. You both are doing some beautiful work. I've done some modeling in Gmax and banged my head on the desk a few times. I can only guess at what its like doing it like this.

If your looking to give her a pretty dress, use LC-82 of VP-8.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-NAVY-PATR...ht_2591wt_1118

In here you see her flying past the "Rock". If you're interested that is. Always loved that pic.

Trying to see if my Dad has any pics from when they got the Battle "E".

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Blood Hawk,
Thanks for the link once again, and your words of encouragement!
So is the plane flying past the rock the one your dad was flying?
Ivan´s experiments with new techniques are definitely fruitful, and I can manage to improve the model a lot. It´s amazing how the old AF99 is much more effective than I´d ever thought before!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Blood_Hawk23]

My Dad was the flight engineer, Seat 3. I'm not sure if it was LC-82 or LC-85 at that time. I'll have to call him and see.

I know he didn't deploy in 1980. That was the year my sister was born. He was gone for Christmas in '81. But this is from memory and I wasn't that old back then. So my years could be mixed up.

The Lockheeds from the time of the Electra had a great look. A mix of a elegance and attitude. The P-3 really showed the Attitude side. You both are capturing it perfectly.

[aleatorylamp]

The designs in those days had what you said - elegance and attitude. This would also apply to car designs, and with modern (over-?)emphasis on aerodynamics, some of that is often lost, and especially on cars. Designs tend to come out quite amorphous, to say the least. One could use more expressive words to describe the shapes, but that wouldn´t be appropriate.

[Ivan]

The Orion does have a very strange look about it.
The Cabin looks modern as does the Horizontal Tail, but the Wings, Engines, and Fin all look like they are from an earlier era.

I don't know if my version will ever get finished. I seriously doubt that it will because of the lack of interest, but it makes for an interesting exercise in the meantime
I added a few more pieces to it over the last couple days.
Some of the pieces like the Wing Tips are just place holders because depending on resources, they may get replaced.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

It´s looking very clean and very orderly built. I envy that capacity. I understand your point on why you are building on the Orion - the goal in this case not being the finished plane, but experimentation, another equally valid goal, from which happily and luckily I can benefit for my building!

For the moment, I think the nose on mine is as good as I can get it, and the wingtips are in position, although their cross-section will have to change to fit a better shaped wing (NACA 0014/0012). The one inheritied from FS5 is a bit too simple, and that´s why it was so thin! More like what a modeller would use for a tailplane!

Then I´ll try and use your multiple-structure technique to make the parts for the engine components. That will be the really exciting part! The wing cut-outs will have to be as exact as possible so as to use the vertices to connect the engine component parts.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Today I tried to add a Horizontal Stabiliser.
It only costs 16 Parts per side which is about as cheap as it could go.

The basic pieces were very easy to build, but I am still having a problem with figuring out the vertical location.
The technique I used here should work pretty well with the B-26 Marauder as well because it also has a HStab with a lot of dihedral.
I cheated a bit and built it with a symmetrical airfoil even though it should have an inverted camber.

In looking over photographs of the tail section, I found that I had goofed a bit when interpreting shapes earlier.
It turns out that the numbers stated in the NASA document were not incorrect at all.
I just didn't realise there was a slight downward slope on the top of the Fuselage between the Fin Fillet and the end of the Rudder.
That explains why the Top of the Fuselage is at +5.66 feet and the Bottom of the Rudder is at +4.75 feet.
With the differences between the reference photograph and the stated dimensions in the NASA document, I chose to go with the Photograph because there are many dimensions missing from the NASA document that I need to pull from the photograph anyway.

Regarding thin Wings:
On this aeroplane, the Wing Root is 14% thickness while the Wing Tip is 12% thickness.
The Horizontal Tail isn't that much thinner at 11% and the Fin / Rudder is also 12%.

We shall see how resources go. I am up to 540 Parts already and there are still four fairly complicated Engines to build.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
My tailplane is, like the wing, also too simple for the moment, with only 8 parts per side and a flat-diamond cross-section. The height is inspired on the front view with respect to the props, these being calculated from the specifications in the NASA document, with their clearances, etc.
I´ll improve the NACA shape after doing the engines, depending what resources are left over - but judging by the present part count with 148.4% and 4 part-expensive engine structures, I´m sure I´ll have enough parts to do that.
Yes, the slope under the fin is quite misleading. No only is there one, but it´s curved. Anyway, here´s a screenshot of my blueprint side-view, just for the sake of argument. I haven´t included a screenshot of the rear of the plane itself, as there is a bad crack I haven´t seen to yet in the tailplane!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Last night I finished up the assembly of the Fin / Rudder, Fin Fillet, and Horizontal Stabilisers.
I thought I would need to have a complicated assembly sequence in the Tail Section which is why the Aft Fuselage was changed to a Component.

As it turned out, my complicated assembly sequence was no better than the simple version and was not noticeably better for appearance.

I also took out the extra Fuselage break for the Fin Fillet and broke the Fillet into two pieces instead.

Nothing here was complicated to do, but it was incredibly tedious because it involved doing a lot of vertex matching.
I think the end result isn't too bad though unless someone is looking for it, they will not see the parts that took the most work.

Next Step is building the Wing Fillets and then the Flaps. Hopefully Adding the Engines won't break anything there.
Total Parts count thus far is 558 with 10 Components used.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Looks like it´s going well.
A possible modification to get the horizontal top of the tail sting slightly lower than the top of the fuselage, if you are going to do it, will need a few extra parts on the fuselage, but I suppose it is not an important issue for experimentation - the crunch being the engines, I expect! Let´s see how it goes.
I´ve been so busy this week that I still have nothing to show. I´m still just about to fix the NACA on the wings... Let´s see if I can start this afternoon after the last morning English class!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

So far, things are not going badly, but as you mentioned, the major issue here is one I have not addressed yet which is the Engines.
I have some ideas, but let's see if they really work or not.

I bet just about everyone on this thread (including me) was thinking: "Looks pretty good, but let's see how he handles the engines...."

At the moment, I know the following:
Lateral location of the Engines: 1/2 of the Wheel Track of 31 feet 2 inches
Longitudinal Location of the Propeller: Coincides with the Warning Strip on the Fuselage.
Vertical Location of the Engines may be established by the Propeller Clearance with Ground and the Profile photograph.
(Hopefully the Vertical measurements are in agreement.)

I need to measure the width of the Engines still.
The shape will generally be by eyeball and measurements from photographs.

I am not sure what you mean about the Fuselage and Horizontal Tail.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Using the prop circle at 13.5 ft and the Wheels base, as you say at 31 ft 2 in, on the drawings I have, limited by the pixel width, I can establish the engine width between 4.0 and 4.1 ft, and the bottom of the inboard nacelles containing the wheels is between 4.1 and 4.2 ft wide.
What I meant about the fuselage and the horizontal tail was the top of the rear fuselage under the fin, that you mentioned as having built in a straight line and not curving slightly down. I was just wondering about that.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I have a question on the wing template you posted a while back:
The rear outermost corner:
Would that correspond to the continuation of the aileron line, or is it the actual aft outer wing-tip corner, that portrudes a little behind the aileron tips?
My assumption is that the NASA document states the chord at the wingtip at 7.58 ft as being theoretical because it would correspond to the continuation of the aileron trailing edge line, and in reality, the aft-portruding wingtips have a different measurement which is ignored.
Thanks for your attention, and have a nice weekend!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Thanks Aleatorylamp,

I took some measurements last night also from a large drawing I had.
The numbers I am getting are either 3.65 feet wide for the outboard engines or 4.01 feet wide for the inboard engines.
I doubt they are different so I am just going with 4.00 feet for simplicity's sake. Even if this is wrong, it should not be hard to correct at a later date though I don't know that I ever will.

Regarding the Wing Template: I believe the dimensions are the projected wing shape to the Wing Tips and Centerline without consideration for Fillets or Wing Tip Fairings. That is how I am interpreting it.
I actually cut off a bit from the template dimensions to fit on a set of Wing Tips and still stay within the overall Wing Span.

Last night I built a set of Wing Fillets. The shape seems about right to me but it is hardly definitive because it was pretty much done by eyeball. Notice there is a small bleed through the Forward Fuselage. With the shape of the Fillet, I believe this is unavoidable and I can accept it. Hopefully the bleeds will not get worse with the Engines but that is highly unlikely.

Here are a couple screenshots. I also included a couple screenshots of other non Propeller Driven aeroplanes I have worked on in the past. The Me 262 is a project a friend wanted me to rework to put on a different nose. I also cleaned it up a bit.
The Ohka is one I just built just to study the shape (pretty much as I am doing here with the Orion) and it has never been released.

The Messerschmitt 262 is such a beautifully shaped aeroplane and I have a set of pretty good drawings, so I will most likely build it at some point after the more deserving projects are done.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Roger on the wing template! It seemed the logical conclusion but I just wanted to check with you - thanks!
For the moment I´ve also gone on with 4 ft for the engine width.
On the photos the inboard and outboard ones all look the same width, which would also be logical from a manufacturer´s point of view, except of course for the lower part of the inboard nacelle with the wheels.

At the moment I´ve finished adapting the wing to the right position, and to avoid confusion, the first step is positioning it properly. The second will be adding extra panels to make the NACA profile rounder. Now I´m ironing out disappearing panels which shine through correct ones if viewed from the opposite side, and I´m trying to avoind triangulation to save on parts.

The way the wing fillet wraps around the lower fuselage curvature matching its own curvature going forwards is one of the most difficult things to get right! It´s well worth the study on your Ohka and the Me262.

I agree with your praise on the Me262 shape. It is definitely also one of my favourites.
Wow! I didn´t know the Me262 had a version with a transparent nose!
I had always felt this plane was the air-equivalent of a heavy but very powerful sportscar, something like the Corvette of the air, perhaps.

Talking about shapes: Recently you mentioned the Orion´s cabin/nose shape as rather modern. It is indeed a very well-achieved shape, quite harmonious. As regards well shaped nose/cabins, in my opinion, I would classify the ones of the Sud-Aviation Caravelle, the Boeing 707, and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as the winners.

Let´s see if I can soon get another provisional successful result. It would be the pre-finish stage with engines still as 2 structures each, the last stage being the engines as dual components.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

How I might choose to build something is just a suggestion. It is not a requirement that you do the same.
In fact, I am not entirely sure it will really work the way I am suggesting which is why I am building a model for testing.

This model is a really strange subject for me. You have done plenty of Airliners. I have done nothing but fighters though a couple bombers still remain in my workshop in various stages of completion.
A few years ago, I would only choose to build the hunter and not the prey. Even the P-40 took a long time to reach the project stage because I thought it was not a very competitive fighter. Now I am building multiple versions of it.

Regarding the Wing Fillet, the underside is pretty easy. There is no dihedral at all though I may need to put in a little to make texturing it easier. To build my version was pretty easy though very tedious: First draw the side view of the Fillet on the Fuselage.
Next, project the side view onto the Fuselage itself which in this case is very easy because the cross section of the Fuselage is constant regardless of location.

There are quite a few photographs which show how the Wing and Fuselage intersect underneath. The shape on mine is not so exact a match because I was trying to make the Trailing Edge of the Fillet match a particular Fuselage Line.

The screenshots also show my initial positioning of Propellers.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Were I building from scratch I would have impemented all of the techniques mentioned by you - but as such a lot of work has already gone in and some progress was made before, (CoG shift, etc.), I am implementing only some of the things that I observe, and they are proving very fruitful.

Results are coming along slowly but well. The ways I have built airliners before vary, and I always adapted to things as I progressed without really having a detailed plan beforehand - only a few general ideas in each case.

I usually cut out arches from the 3 separate wing components to fit in upper and lower nacelles, which also have cut-outs for the wing profile - components if top-half and bottom half structures don´t work well. Then I sometimes cut a hole into the fuselage component for the wing root, depending on how bleedthrough goes there. It´s never the same.

For the engine components I´m planning to use the new multiple structure template techniques, and a future Tu-95 will get the benefit of ALL the new techniques!

At the moment I´m correcting my wing flllet to fit the new wing positioning and vertices. Thanks for your indications! Your pictures make it very clear, thanks!

Here, I´m going to switch from the present way fillets are not glued to the fuselage but placed with the wings, separated by wing/fuselage templates because this only works when viewed from the sides or above, not from below. The opposite fillet keeps disappearing.

Well, I have to rush to the farmer´s market to get my biological food, otherwise I´ll have nothing to eat next week!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Blood_Hawk23]

Its funny that the Russians used the Bear for sub hunting. Its one of the Loudest planes in History. I've read stories of how the underseas listening devices could here them as they flew between Iceland and the UK. I've even heard stories of Navy Aviators that said the noise was deafening in their cockpits.

Not sure if that is a weakness or a strength. Granted the subs could hear them coming. At the same time they were coming to find them. It maight make a skipper a little nervious.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Blood Hawk,
Yes, apparently with 4x15000 shp it wasn´t only the largest, heaviest, fastest and most powerful turboprop plane, but the noisiest... the prop-tips were supersonic - with 19 ft diameter? That would really have been fun...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
To keep things simple, despite the ailerons, I made the outer-, mid- and inner wind components with 8 pieces each, including ailerons, except for the two extra pieces on the outer wing. Hence the basic wing surface is different from yours, being flatter towards the rear. It would actually only cost two more parts to get it the same way, but I´ll see how it goes.

Next will be to fit the engine nacelle component parts to all the wing the vertices in the cut-outs.
I was thinking of using a dome or a 10-circle cross section to make the "plaster mould" structure for the upper component parts, and see which one is better. The dome would have more parts.

For the bottom part, the forward nacelles would have a circle, and the inner one would be made by hand.

For the moment, only the three wing components are ready, as seen in the picture, accompanied by aileron, wing root components as well as fitted wing-tip structure.
For curiosity´s sake, a screenshot.

Incidentally,the planned change to fit the wing root to the fuselage with glue proved a disaster, as the engine nacelles on the opposite side of the fuselage shone through, so I´ve got the lesser evil again, of having one of the wing-roots disappear whan viewed from below. Although seen from the side and above it does admirably.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.