I think that the complications that are arising during this job of converting the L-188 Electra into a P3 Orion, make an own thread necessary!
Apart from the fuselage-width, fin-height, tailplane-span and wingspan inaccuracies, now it turns out that the propeller diameter is also over a foot too small, and the distances between engines and fuselage are quite wrong too!
Comparing the measurments from the .pdf file to those of the large, detailed drawing that I thought was so good, it appears that this drawing is in effect the origin of all the misfortunes, which unfortunately the author of the original L-188 must have also used in good faith!
Anyway, not to worry. Iīve already corrected the fuselage from the "neck" backwards, and will be moving the fin upwards and extending the wing-tips and tailplanes outwards tomorrow.
So, with these modifications well underway, the cabin will then get a precise work-over, so that the "expression" derived from "forehead", windscreens and nose is the correct one. The wrong fuselage width/height may have been what was making this so difficult.
Anyhow, Iīll keep you posted as to how things develop.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Do you remember the post a while back when you stated that Length and Wing Span were pretty easy to find?
Seems like this original author didn't bother even checking those.
If you are going to do s much reworking, why not start from scratch? I have seen this model up close. It isn't really that complicated and you are likely to change EVERYTHING anyway. Why not just do one of your own?
The only really complicated parts on this aeroplane are the engines.
Remember the Me 109E Trop? I pretty much did the same thing with that project. By the time I was done, I had built or changed more pieces than were left untouched and it STILL did not satisfy my idea of a good project. To do it to good standards would have required changing ALL the parts at which point I would still owe credit to the original designer even though there was nothing left of the original project.
The only reason I did not do that was because I don't have all that much interest in a Me 109E. At some point, I will build a Me 109F/G/K series and if it is easy to convert back to the Me 109E, I might do that.
I believe the problem with this P-3 Orion is that like many other AFXs, it is basically just "Eyeball Scale".
Sounds like I am getting too arrogant again, but I do believe that measuring things out makes for a better model.
By the way, in looking at photographs, the Orion appears to have had two different tail heights though I have found no source that states exactly that.
Hello Ivan,
OK, Iīll keep on finishing off the P-3 then. I hadnīt understood exactly what you meant.
My knowledge about computers has always been more on a hobbyistīs basis, and has never been so in-depth as yours. As they have got so much more sophisticated so quickly, I suppose they allow an average user level of competence without having to study so much as in the past.
I remember the computer technician at the hotel school where I was teaching languages for 8 years until 2007, saying that the most difficult part was the computer network in there. The computer department boss was a computer engineer, but always relied heavily on his technician, who seemed to be doing most of the work all the time, for half the salary! Both of them taught the students though, but different things, of course.
I also got used hardware from them, which was tremendous fun as I was often able to build up old working computers with discarded hardware and give them away to friends.
My daughter has just started her first year of computer engineering at the university, so Iīll be able to see more or less what itīs like nowadays!
Interesting Wing-Fuselage template success, but not 100%
Hello Ivan, Hello all!
Iīve 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 itīs perfect, except from below on the side, where the bottom of the opposite wing-root disappears. Iīm 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
Last edited by aleatorylamp; October 30th, 2015 at 02:38.
All these experiments are fascinating.
Iīve just done a better version of my forward fuselage components, based whole structures and then hand-adjusted to the windshields in the cabin area.
Hereīs some screenshots, although the model is not as professional as yours. Thereīs 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! Iīm very much looking forward to see how they progress! (to take some notes....)
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; November 8th, 2015 at 03:52.
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.
Well, as there are still enough parts, I was reluctant to eliminate the animated control surfaces, Iīm afraid...
As for the Fowler flaps, here shown retracted, I thought theyīd be invisible retracted, and then slide out with an AA animation, the pivoting point being somewhere below the wing somewhere under their leading edge. I still have to improve the shape of the wing there - itīs too thick, goes too far down, and should be flatter.
Update: Iīve just done it, and the whole trailing edge area is better now. The retracted flaps are better positioned and the shape of the coming engines will fit in better too. The lower-aft part of the nacelles really doesnīt reach the trailing edge, and that area is better for that as well, as itsīflatter.
Very good that you pointed it out!
Iīve exchanged the screenshot - showing the corrected wing, now thinner at the back.
On the nacelle structures at the moment, the lower-aft part is still bulged but that canīt really be seen very well on purpose, as itīs disguised by the darker unshaded grey on the texture.
I wonder if there is a cleaner way of putting in engines... i.e. onto a whole wing, with upper and lower nacelles glued to the single component. For the moment, I still havenīt found a way.
In my case, one of decisions to take on the engines would be how to depict the scoops. On the structures right now they are just shaded on the textures, but with the components, these should allow some shaping, I suppose. The upper component could include its own floor under the forward scoop, so that thereīs a gap between the roof of the gearbox underneath just aft of the spinner - we shall see!
Cheers, Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; November 16th, 2015 at 01:22.
Actually, the whole thing is a botched-up cock-up! So then, Iīm arrogant too! And, itīs not only the people who build the models, but also the ones who draw the drawings!
I used to print the plan on paper, work out the scale, measure a part with a ruler and multiply it, noting it down on the plan by hand, but now I do it much quicker by drawing the scale onto the plan, adjusting pixels-to-the-foot, and then printing it out (or not). Itīs easy to see a measurement by the lines on the scale. Of course it depends on how big the drawing itself is, in pixels.
At the moment Iīm correcting the big drawing I found. The side view seems coherent with the correct data. Only the top and front views need adjusting. Hereīs where the props, engine positions, fuselage width, tailplane-span and wingspan come in.
Apparently the right and left halves of the drawings are not consistent in themselves, one half being even more incorrect than the other! Once Iīve got the drawings right, Iīll transfer all my well-built parts into another Construction-List and like you said, make everything else anew to get a new model.
This way I wonīt have to credit the original author - which is just as well, because if I were to mention him, then, in all justice, Iīd have to include a walloping for the dimensional cock-ups!
So much for all that! Letīs see how it goes, then!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Encouraged by your motivating comments, I went through all the drawings of the P3 Orion Iīd managed to collect, and applied the ruler scale to the lot! I noted down the positions mainly of the nose-gear, main-gear and rudder hinge, and soon noticed that some were quite similar, if not the same, and others quite a way off.
I even found a good perpendicular side view photo that confirmed these three positions. This way I discarded all the drawings that did not fit the norm - including the big detailed one Iīd found lately and thought was so good!
Anyway, armed with this confidence-boosting information, I soon found that the correct FS-0 position given in the .pdf document was 105 inches forward of the nose, not 100 inches. The latter seems to be a typing error.
So, apparently the engines, wings and forward fuselage - i.e. windshield and nosegear - are now positioned quite correctly on my model. Things that Iīll have to move are Main Gear, about 1 ft back, Fin, almost 2 ft forwards, (also has to be a bit higher), and Tailplane by a bit less, (its span has to be increased by about 1 ft per side). The wings also have to be 4 inches longer on either side, and finally, the prop blades have to be about 8 inches longer, but thatīs easy to correct.
Basically itīs only minor adjustments, which will be no difficulty, and is quite a relief!
Here is another confirmation that Fuselage Station 105 is the nose of the aeroplane.
I have been doing some searches when looking for P-40 Carburetor Scoops got too boring.
Tonight I decided to look around on the Internet and found some fairly large photographs that were well enough aligned to do some scaling for dimensions.
Lets see how it all looks when fitted to the rest of the templates.
I still do not have a good vertical location for the horizontal tail yet.
At the moment, I am thinking that most of this aeroplane can be built as Structures but the Engines should be mostly Components.
I do not believe it is possible to build a model that is absolutely faithful in shape because of the resource limitations, but the general shape should not be hard.
There is always something important thatīs 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 canīt 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 wouldnīt really like that.
No hurry with your reply, please, and as always, I appreciate and am grateful for your comments!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
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.
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.
Hi Ivan,
I have been correcting the detailed large drawing which was full of bugs, but now it seems like something usable. I incorporated as much data as I could from the .pdf document:
Fuselage width and height, Tailplane and Wing span, Engine positions relative to the fuselage, Propeller diameter and clearance to the ground, Wheelbase and tread, Fin height above ground, Fin height above MAD Boom, overall length.
Al these now seem to be correct. I have attached a copy of this heavily corrected drawing. I wonder....
There are, however, some things I havenīt found correct info on yet.
7 different side-view drawings, after graduating the scale on all of them to measure 116.8 ft in total length, are inconsistent in several positions:
Summarizing, these are the things that are not quite clear yet:
1) CoG : goes from 39 to 45 ft measured from the nose, generally around 40 ft. 2) Inner Spinner: goes from 24 to 31 ft from the nose, generally between 24 and 25.5 ft. 3) Outer Spinner: goes from 25 to 32.5 ft from the nose, generally between 25 and 26 ft. 4) Rudder Hinge: goes from 50.5 to 58.2 ft aft of the CoG, generally around 52 ft. 5) Rudder end: goes from 55 ft to 63.4 ft aft of CoG, generally between 57 and 59. 6) Nose-wheel: between 13 and 14.5 ft from the nose, generally around 14.3 7) Main Gear: between 41 and 44.7 ft from the nose, generally around 44.5
Would you perchance have a suggestion?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.
P.S. Iīm trying to find a way that will allow the attached drawing to be blown up to be viewed, but it doesnīt seem to work like for other pictures. Maybe itīs too big?
This is why I was debating on doing a Design Study.... Because there is so MUCH information that building a model is easy. Why are you using drawings when you have MUCH BETTER INFORMATION in the PDF????
1. CoG. Without any good weights and balances information, I would usually guess at about 25% of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. Further down in the NASA document, you can find a table describing CoG limits and Gross Weight. Allowable limits are 14.5 to 32% MAC, but 25% is always within the safe zone regardless of weight and is by eyeball, where the hardpoints are located. 25% MAC is 40.255 feet from the Nose.
4. Rudder Hinge Line is 92 feet 7.3inches from Nose
5. This is not a straightforward calculation but can be done from the geometric description of the Fin.
6. Nose Wheel is 13 feet 4 inches from Nose.
7. Main Wheels are 43 feet 0 inches from Nose.
I haven't actually looked very hard for a good drawing of the Orion yet. I pretty much quit when I found the NASA document.
Hello Ivan,
You had a nice birthday then! Thatīs fine. Thanks for confirming the 105 in. nose station!
To be honest, the vertical alignment of different elements is being somewhat of a headache, and although it is not too noticeable, it is a bit annoying. I do appreciate your efforts in this direction!
At the moment, the airplane is built just in the opposite way from what you suggested: The fuselage is all components, and the engines are all structures! They are so complicated that I did it this way round. I have made the upper air intakes and the hump a bit taller to fit the sillouhette better.
Another thing is the wing tips. They are not like on the L-188, where the aileron goes upto the end, but there seem to be some fillets added. As Iīve run out of components and individual added-on pieces cause bleedthrough, Iīve only been able to adjust the overall shape at the end of the wings.
My next try at the wingtip fillets will be totally unorthodox: Given their shape, it may be possible to make them out of two structures each, one forward one aligned with the wing and one rear one aligned with the aileron. These elements will probably not bleed through: One glued to the wing and the other glued to the aileron, or to the front part - Iīll see. I have plenty of structures left over, and parts count still allows 32 parts, so it may just be possible.
I like the idea of having a viable solution before I start a project. If I don't, then there is good chance things will never get completed. It is less important for a single engine fighter than for a multi engine aeroplane because there is likely to be much less working room.
In this case, with the P-3 Orion, with my normal methods, there is no hope whatsoever. I see the limitation as being a shortage of Components and since the most complex shapes are on the Engines, That is where I believe they should be spent. I do not like Fuselage Structures, but I can only see that as a viable method to get the appearance I would want, and even then, there will be missing features.
There is so much information out there which is why I was doing a little exploration on the subject.
By the way, where did you get the idea that I had a nice Birthday?
There were a number of events that day that made it much less than pleasant.
Hello Ivan,
Interesting coincidence to be working on similar areas.
Pretty good going for a photo-measurement confirmation! OK, so Iīll proceed with that!
My faith in drawings dwindles more every time I look at them.
Iīll 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
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.
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!
Iīd very much welcome a design study on this machine. A large, multi-engined prop-driven aeroplane as agile and fast as this one, could be very appealing - the only large US design of its type, with a very successful career after the initial teething problems that curbed production on the passenger-version.
I should have listed the doubtful aft positions in the side-view also as measured from the nose, that way it wouldnīt have been necessary to mention the CoG, which is already defined at 25% of the wing chord and lies within the range that normal pilot attention as per the .pdf document.
I only mentioned it because it shows that the dimensions fore and aft of it on many drawings vary considerably!
Anyway, with the restly information you have so kindly provided, the main issues are indeed clarified! Thank you very much!
Update: (I forgot to ask the obvious question):
In the .pdf document, some positions are indicated by mentioning 2 letters, F.S., W.L. or W.S. (perhaps Fuselage Station, Wing Level and Wing Station, but where exactly are they?), followed by a certain number.
E.g.:
Lower end of rudder: W.L. 207
Rudder hinge location F.S. 1216.3 (This is where you indicated the equiv. of 92.6 ft from the nose).
I canīt figure out how is this calculated. Perhaps you could expound...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; September 30th, 2015 at 23:55.
Hello Ivan,
OK, so I īve been reading about Aircraft Stations. Might as well educate myself... It was easier to find than Iīd expected, and more difficult to understand why anyone would refer to distances this way.
WS= Wing Station
FS = Fuselage Station
WL = Water line (inherited from ships). Oh? Apparently is at zero on the ground... the ocean floor?
BL = Body line (running along the centerline, numbers increasing right and left. (logical)
The numbers following these letters are in inches (quite comprehensible).
The question still remains for the FS and WS. Where are these at Zero? That depends on the manufacturer. So, I looked in the .pdf to see:
I noticed a WL-150 line in a drawing, going from a little above the nose, horizontally backwards, and then, it says that the wing (chord line?) is at WL 85.5. ...measured from the ground, then.
Then, thereīs a diagram on page 24, showing that the FS-zero is somewhere in front of the nose.
With other information given in feet, I suppose I can deduce where FS-0 is.
Update: Bingo! FS-0 is at 100 inches infront of the nose. At last!
WS seems to be the same as BL, so thatīs left/right inches outwards from centreline.
I would have used a more normal method for an instruction manual, to say where things are.
I mean, nobody is going to stretch the plane if they want to use NASAīs investigatory services... Apparently this measurement system is done by the factory to prevent having to re-do the reference positions on possible stretchings of the aircraft.
So now it is clear!
"As clear as mud, but it covers the ground, and the confusion made me head go round..."
as Harry Belafonte sang in Carnegie Hall one day a long time ago, when we were young and beautiful, and quicker on the uptake.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; October 1st, 2015 at 05:20.
You are correct in the notations:
FS = Fuselage Station
WS = Wing Station
WL = Water Line
You are correct that Wing Station is offset from the Aircraft Centerline
Water Line is "Sort Of" the ground line but is contradicted a bit in a couple drawings because the aeroplane does not sit level all the time.
Also, the CoG and Loaded Weight of the aeroplane to put the WL= 0 is unknown. At least I haven't found it yet.
Fuselage Station as stated on Page 8 o he Manual in Section 2.2.9 has the Nose at FS 105.
The offsets in feet were because I had already started a "Data Sheet" on the P-3 in converting some of the values.
Unfortunately, It was lost when I had to reboot my computer before I could save it.
Get used to picking an arbitrary reference point to locate things from. At least this one makes some sense and is consistent.
As for other strange ones:
The P-40 uses a vertical reference at the Joint between Top and Bottom Fuselage Halves. It is called the Fuselage Reference Line (FRL).
The P-40 also uses the Firewall as the Longitudinal Reference (Station 1)....
But in some manuals, the Longitudinal Reference is about halfway up the Spinner....
Some Aircraft use the extreme Nose as a reference but it would not be optimal in this case because sometimes the Orion had a more pointy Radome fitted.
The Hawker Hurricane uses the insertion point for the STARTER CRANK (!) as the "Datum Point"
The Firewall sounds like a pretty good reference point, but both the P-51 Mustang and the F4U Corsair had their firewalls moved around a bit with different engine installations.....
The manufacturer picked a reference point and generally if we want to use their manuals, we have to just get used to it.
It makes no sense for NASA to rewrite all the documentation for operating a SINGLE aircraft and also invalidate the training of other P-3 Orion pilots in operating THIS particular aircraft.
It gets better though..... After flipping through a bunch of Aircraft Manuals, you get an idea of what to look for. (Not to say that I am any kind of expert)
Regarding CoG being set at 25% MAC:
Look at Figure 2-5 on Page 14. Note that the CoG limits change with load.
Ideally for a Nose Wheel Aircraft, I would want the CoG to be a bit further forward but the location of the Wing makes that hard to justify even in the Virtual world if we want to have something that looks realistic
Please note that I commented on this on the original 3D model way before I found this manual. The problem with that model was that the Wings and Main Gear may not have been located correctly to make all the numbers work out....
Just from looking at a couple photographs, it is pretty obvious that the Nose Gear was way too far back.
On a related note, please observe that on this type of aeroplane, weights may move around a bit in flight. (The Weight of the Passengers is significant.)
When they move, the CoG changes....
One of the more interesting cases I have read about is about how changing CoG caused Martin B-26 Marauders to have failures of the Nose Gear.
Apparently, when Martin built the aircraft, there was a fair amount of equipment that needed to go with the aircraft to the operational sites.
They loaded it in a way to set the CoG correctly.
The problem was that when the equipment was removed, it caused a CoG shift which overloaded the Nose Gear which would sometimes break on landing.
Well, from your post describing the events of the day, I was led to believe that you had had a nice birthday.
Tomorrow is my wifeīs birthday, but as sheīs off early in the morning to her cookery training course, we are giving her the presents today in the late evening. Her main present is a new low-end laptop, at a reduced price because it came with no operating system, the expense of which I hope she wonīt get too upset about and raise hell!
She is so spartan that sheīs still battling away on an old slow recycled 2x800 Mhz that only has 2 Gb of DDR1 RAM and gets bottlenecked with anything you do - really only Word, Internet browsing, e-mails and photos, and she systematically gets angry every time she uses it, so she really should be happy with the new one - a 2x2016 Mhz one with 4 Gb of DDR3 RAM. Weīre all nervous here, my 2 daughters and me wondering what her reaction will be... Will it be a good birthday? I wonder. You never know until it happens...
Well, the Orion structure-wingtips have been a great success! They are in one piece and needed no glue, and fit in very well with the shape of the wing (without bleedthroughs) on the photos and drawings. ...but I had to eliminate the navigation lights and the propblurs, because the new wingtips ate up about 18 pieces each, and I only had 32 to spare.
So itīs either that, or the lights and propblurs with incorrect wingtips, with the ailerons going all the way to the end. Iīm also working on the cabin area to get the shape right. For the moment, now the fin is taller and placed correctly, the props are the right size, and the nose wheel is in position. The textures on the engine structures have shading to mark the scoops, but that is now out of place after I made them a bit higher, and has to be corrected. ...Or I can rebuild the fuselage and engines again with structures in the fuselage and components on the engines... Iīll see what I do. Meanwhile, hereīs 2 screenshots! Cheers, Aleatorylamp
Good Luck with your Wife's Reaction. Hopefully she will be happy.
The computer I use for most of my testing aeroplanes is actually a Pentium 3 866 MHz with only about 500 MB of memory but it is not networked.
There were plenty of arguments on my birthday, but I was not directly involved. It just made much of the day VERY stressful. My Daughter and Wife who were the ones arguing probably found it much more stressful.
Regarding the P-3:
You might want to check the Side Windows. I believe the artist for your drawing interpreted a Hatch with a Round Window in it as a Square Window.
Have you already removed the little ventral Antennae yet? I think they are less critical than Propeller Blurs.
Thatīs very nice! Excellent! Thank you very much indeed!
I just couldnīt 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
Bookmarks