Technote: P-38 Forged Parts

Technote: P-38 Forged Parts

I had promised an article on the P-38 Flap CAD development as a follow-up to my earlier article on this topic…but I deviated slightly to address a question from a reader about Forged Parts.

Typically for all these aircraft Forged parts are the main element in the process of manufacturing complex parts that may be used in such applications as Landing Gear. Such is the case with the P-38 Lightning where we have the main support members that are machined forged parts.

I have touched on this briefly in previous posts: Technote P-39 Inventor Face draft and P-51d Mustang Tailwheel Down Position support. Those articles tend to focus on using the Face draft feature in Inventor and using Derived model parts to differentiate between model states i.e. Forged and machined. I should note that with the later versions of Inventor, it is possible to contain the various Model states in one part file but I prefer to use separate derived Part files. The reason is that they are in fact 2 very different manufacturing processes and the drawings for each model may be sent to different departments or indeed different companies. So it makes sense to keep them separate.

In the example above we have 2 components for the Main Landing Gear and the Nose Landing Gear. Both examples use the derived parts process as you can see. In this article, I wanted to cover some of the frustrating differences that you will likely encounter when building these models.

Forged Parts are notoriously complex and the Lockheed drawings tend to only provide the main dimensions and key elements often omitting small details that are likely to have been decided by the mold maker. To determine missing details I often build the models as a surface and then turn that into a final solid.

In the above images, this part had an elevated top and bottom section interspersed with a waveform for the main body. The 2d sketches were drawn outside the main part body to make it easier to visualize and manipulate the part data. This part used 3d intersection curves to generate a sweep path for the top and bottom profiles and the surface trim command to profile the main body.

Incidentally, although the sketches do not share the same space as the main model you can still select a single line from any of the sketches in order to trim parts and surfaces in the model…they do not need to be connected. I have often seen folks extrude surfaces from external sketches and then trimmings to that surface but you don’t have to do that…just select the line.

One of the key details that is not clear in this particular example was the protrusion just above the cylinder at the front of the model. All you have on the drawings is a line on elevation and 2 lines on the plan sketches..the specific details of how this small detail interfaces with the main body is down to interpretation. I modeled it with the flat upper surfaces tangent to the curved edge and applied a fillet to the intersecting sides. I did look at a number of variations but I think the end product is close to how it will actually be. This is the frustrating bit when trying to decipher designer intent with limited information.

Some of the complexity comes from how the drawings themselves depict the dimensions of the profiled sections. In the first image above we have the criteria shown as the center line of the section’s curved profile. The second image shows a different part however this time the dimensions are to the projected edge intersection of the curved profile. The third image is also similar where the dimensions shown are to the projected intersections. The final image is the Flap carriage arm with the dimensions shown to a dotted line which is not clearly defined on either the sections or the main views to determine what this actually is. After much deliberation, I deiced to interpolate this line as the projected intersection of the drafted sides with the top and bottom faces. I had initially suspected this was to the corner tangent but that would entail a very complex development process due to the varying corner radius.

As you look through the dozens of forged part drawing there are all sorts of variations on the theme with few consistencies. This is where you can spend a lot of time determining how these dimensions relate to the model and how best to incorporate this information in such a manner to keep the model as simple as possible. Consequently, it is not unusual to spend upwards of between 3 and 4 hours modeling the forged parts. I think for the most part where doubt exists to work to a projected intersection as the point of dimension…it will be a lot easier to model and saves a whole lot of frustration.

To give you some idea of progress on the Nose Landing Gear models:

In the latter 2 images, you may notice small differences which relate to the various model variances. I am modeling the P-38H and the comparison photo is the P-38J.

TechTip: Variable Fillets:

When modeling these complex parts often applying fillets can yield unexpected and undesirable results.

In the images above you can see how applying just standard fillets of different radii can result in quite an undesirable intersection between the flat plane and the circular node. What we need is continuity to achieve a smooth transition from one edge to the next as shown in the second image above. This can be achieved by using the Variable fillet feature.

Variable Fillets give us the option to vary the radius of the applied fillet. When you first apply the Variable Fillet you have a radius specified for the beginning and the end of the selection…you can apply additional points anywhere along the length of the selection to which we can adjust the radius at those points.

You can also add selection sets of edges to the original selection which have their own capacity for separate adjustment. To achieve our goal here for fillet continuity I have 4 selections: the top planar edge (1), the node circumference (2), the lower planar edge (4), and the remaining node circumference (3). It is important for each selection set fillet to have the same radius at each intersection to ensure continuity.

Each selection set is listed separately in the dialogue box and the way to adjust them is to simply select the edge selection as I have highlighted with the first one…this shows the applied points and values in the area below under the heading “Variable Fillet Behaviour”. I have added additional points to the planar fillets at 1 and 4 where the value is set to 2mm which then defines the radius between those 2 points. A small point worth noting is the diagonal draft parting line on the face of the round node that prevents selection continuity which is why we have 4 selections and not just one continuous.

It does not take long to do this and the end result is much more agreeable.

P-38 General Updates

P-38 General Updates

Just a quick update to share new and updated assemblies for the Wing Flaps, Centre Section Flaps, and the Horizontal Stabiliser.

This post was intended to be a detailed overview of the Wing and CS Flaps but I was keen to share progress on these main assemblies. I will revert back to the flap discussion in my next post.

An interesting point worth noting is the color coding for the Horizontal Stabiliser and Elevator. The Red ribs are exclusive to the forward Horizontal Stab area, and the Yellow Ribs are where the internal Horizontal Stab ribs and Elevator ribs share the same alignment.

For the flaps, the main surfaces shown represent the cutout in the wing ribs…the information for this is rather sketchy but more on that in my next post.

Each of these new assemblies also includes new Basic Geometry fully dimensioned drawings in DWG and PDF formats. Soon to be added to the P-38 CAD/Ordinate dataset, drop me a line for details or check out the CAD Resources tab at the top of the page.

.

.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Flap Guide Tracks

Technote: P-38 Lightning Flap Guide Tracks:

The P-38 project is a study I have been working on for a while. In previous posts, I have covered the development of the Boom, Empennage, and Dive Flaps…even did a video on Youtube for the latter. Many of these studies are designed to research the operational characteristics of the component parts and this new study of the wing Flaps is no exception.

Essentially the flaps are split on either side of the Main Boom, with one being fitted at the Centre Section and the other at the main wing. These are activated by hydraulically controlled push and pull tubes with preformed carbon steel cables.

The extent of the operation of the flaps is controlled by guide tracks at each end, which incidentally is where this part of the project starts.

These guides are machined solid from forged Alumimiun blocks. In the image above the machined part is shown with the original forging in the background. It comprises 2 tracks with the upper track just over an inch wide and the lower track slightly smaller at 0.835″ wide. The blue part at the extreme end is a separate stop block.

I am currently working through the variations of these tracks for each location and although some minor differences they are all based on one type of forging, part #235452.

The forging drawing is not too clear about the definition of the track at the left-hand side which appears to drift slightly from the main track center. Understandably the lower part of the track walls deviate to align with the edge of the forging and therefore the main upper wall portion will adjust accordingly. I have improvised in developing this area and now that the project has further progressed there are a few minor changes I would make should this part ever be required for actual production. At this stage, my primary objective is the operational characteristics that are unaffected by this as the end product is the machined component that is derived from this forging.

Update: 26th March 2023:

Making good progress on the Wing Flap mechanism with the Carriage Assembly now complete except for a few standard AN nuts and Washers. The Carriage Assembly also shows the track surfaces to demonstrate the correct relationships between the rollers and the track.

The second image above shows the adjustable roller at the front end of the carriage. This is achieved by the use of an eccentric bushing item #221832 which fits into the retaining locking ring item #221741 at increments of 30 degrees.

Update 30th March 2023:

Have spent a considerable amount of time researching and resolving macro dimensional variation for the Flap Track guides. When I talk about macro I am looking at close to 1/128″ or 0.2mm…but it is essential to get this correct. The dimensions are blanked out for obvious reasons as this stuff takes a lot of time to research and develop.

Finally located the Flap Track assemblies in their exact position on the wings. I will actually build the final assemblies as 2 separate items; one being the Inboard Flap and the other the Outboard Flap. For now, the initial plan was to get to a point where the tracks are accurately positioned and ready for the next phase which will be the Flaps themselves. The final stage will be a working simulation to determine operational parameters but we are a long way from that goal at this time.

The tracks are currently shown in the assembly as surface models which keep it simple, however, when I get to the stage of finalizing the assemblies this will be fully modeled. This part of the project was surprisingly complex to achieve and every dimension has been cross-referenced and checked against known data…at one stage I had over 21 drawings one at the same time.

To help establish the starting point for the Flap Crriage I have an outline sketch of the key runner positions to which I later constrain the carriage parts in an assembly. It is actually quite a useful technique to use sketches to help establish relationships when building an assembly.

In summary, it is often beneficial to use surfaces in lieu of solid models for clarity when building these types of models as it is so much easier to see the key relationships between the main elements. Also using sketches to help align component parts in an assembly is a good work method and can also be used later when creating 2d drawings.

This more or less covers the basic setup for the Flap Tracks and carriages…the next article will focus on the Flaps and the eventual final wing Flap assembly.

.

.

.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Dive Flaps

Technote: P-38 Lightning Dive Flaps

This is what I am working on now: the P-38 Lightning Dive Flaps. At the moment this is a multi-body part file which I will then extract as separate parts and then assemble. The plan is to also include all the mechanical components to analyze operational criteria.

I shall add to this post as this part of the project progresses and perhaps add some notes on Simulation within Inventor. I should note that the external panels are actually transparent to show the internal lightening holes depicted in these images.

Update Dec 7th 2022:

The mechanical components are now modeled and temporarily located in the Dive Flap assembly. It is actually quite a substantial mechanism that is currently missing the main hydraulic operating cylinder. That component is a contracted supply unit for which I do not have any details so the simulation will use a proxy component for purposes of evaluation.

Before I get around to doing that I must first locate it on the underside of the wing…that will need to be partially modeled with local ribs and struts in order to define the fixing bolt locations.

Update Dec 8th 2022:

Another day, another update. I now have the rib at Station 146 and 158 modeled primarily to assist with positioning. The Lockheed layout drawing for this assembly is not included in the archive so I had a lot of research to do to get this thing in the correct position. What I noticed is an access hatch on the underside of the wing which this assembly effectively replaces so that was useful in this task, though I had a lot of rivet holes to position to get it right!

You will notice that the assembly now has the operating cylinder…I was lucky to find a drawing for this that provides much-needed data for maximum and minimum travel. Actually, I call it an operating cylinder but technically it is a linear actuator gearbox.

When I inserted this item into the assembly it provided a positional check on the main assembly.. which incidentally was perfect.

A few bits to tidy up and then move on to a simulation…I shall upload a short video to Youtube when that is done.

Update 9th Dec 2022:

I have cobbled together a quick video showing the operational aspects of the P-38 Dive Flaps. I am working on a more detailed video which won’t be ready for a few days…so check out this short version for now and let me know what you think.

https://youtu.be/95d8tc3wd14

The technical bit: Each of the 3 flap panels comprises 3 layers of sheet metal with a total thickness of 0.18 inches or 4.572mm. The mechanical assembly is fitted between Ribs at Station 146 and Station 158 and driven by a Linear Actuator. The Dive Flaps were designed to be retrofitted to P-38 Lightning prior to P-38J which explains the location of the main support frame which aligns with the hole centers for a wing access panel and the forward panel fitted forward of the main beam. For reference, I have included a selection of design operational data and some close-ups of the mechanism. that you may find interesting below.

.

.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Wing Tip

Technote: P-38 Lightning Wing Tip Development:

Developing this wing tip turned out to be more complex than I originally thought it would be. Because the model required a few interesting techniques I figured it is worthy of a quick technote that hopefully will assist others.

First, off the bat, you will probably have noticed the center partition which came about as a consequence of the development process. I will try to explain how this transpired…read on for more details.

What we have is essentially one main rib profile at Station 289 and 2 others towards the tip which you would normally just loft to achieve the finished surface assuming that the required outline guide rails were included in the initial data set. Actually in this case we didn’t have those curved outlines as a 3d profile only a 2d outline on the plan view. Even with the guide rails in place just lofting the full rib profiles did not work due to the continuity of the rails in a circular manner that prevented a successful loft.

By the way, the circular guide rails at “A” and “B” were generated as intersection curves using a side profile (top right in the background) and the plan profile to derive the resulting intersection lines. I initially wanted to extrude the 2d plan profile and build a 3d curve on the face of the surface but I was unable to apply a tangent constraint to align with the Leading and Trailing edges…so my only option was a 3d intersection curve.

Realizing that a full rib profile loft was not achievable I decided to fill each rib profile with a patch surface and then split the surface at the main beam intersection, which incidentally is perpendicular to the ribs. So this gave me a patchwork of surfaces fore and aft that I used as surface profiles and lofted each section as shown using the guide rails at “A” and “B” and the center rail at “C”…this created the partition I mentioned in the beginning.

Once the main fore and aft sections were modeled I then proceeded with the extreme tip which was simply a case of again adding a surface patch to the small projecting profile in the center and lofting the surfaces separately as before. Occasionally when you have problems with lofting it often helps to break it down into more manageable chunks.

Accuracy is extremely important to ensure a good surface finish with no small deviations or folds. So I checked the coordinates of each profile mathematically and adjusted the dimensions accordingly for the top surface.

The rib profile at 1,2 and 3 was adjusted to the new coordinates for the top line only but making sure that the LE and TE were tangential to the mathematically generated curves shown in red. These end ribs are actually modified profiles according to the tabulated information on the Lockheed drawings…apparently, the profile at the wing tips is based on a NACA 4412 airfoil but when I generated a 4412 it did not match…I am not sure why but it is something that warrants further research. As I did not have the mathematical formulas or guidance on hand to check the lower profiles I accepted what information was contained in the tables…mind you I could have generated a line equation from this information in Excel. Incidentally, all the wing ribs were checked mathematically with the resulting dimensions used to generate the profiles throughout.

The first image shows a sample of the modified values at Rib station 289, highlighted in green alongside the normal profile on the left. The second image shows the explanation of how the main wing rib profiles were generated. All this information is included in the CAD/ordinate dataset. Also on the second image, you can see a typical rib profile extracted from the Lockheed drawings which shows the 0% chord is actually set back from the Leading Edge, which is most unusual. This created a few problems because now I had to determine from the CAD model the Actual Leading Edge before I could define the curved guide rails for generating the wing tip lofts.

This all may seem overkill and a lot more work than one would expect just to build a wing tip but the Inventor Loft command requires absolute precision when lofting with guide rails so it pays dividends to mathematically check everything where possible to ensure successful lofting. I shall update the CAD/Ordinate dataset over the next few days to include this new data.

.

.

.

Technote: P-39 and P-38 Updates

Technote: P-39 and P-38 Updates

An update on some recent work I have done for the P-38 Lightning and P-39 Airacobra. For the P38 Lightning, I now have the Boom Tailend interface with the Empennage and for the P-39 Airacobra, the new work includes the Auxiliary Fuel tank, Wing and underside panels at the Centre Section.

P-39 Airacobra Wing Layout and Aux Tank:

I was doing some research into the various closed penetrations on the underside panel as shown in the photograph on the right. So I modeled this panel to get a clearer idea of what was happening in this area as marked “A” in the underside view and front view images above. The 2 oblong holes are actually openings that normally would have a curved reinforcement which I understand would be used for the Auxiliary Fuel tank pipes and hoses. The Teardrops are for domed covers, which you can see more clearly in the first image view.

The Square cutout towards the rear of the panel is for the exhaust Flap and the slot to the front is for a removable panel that houses the Auxiliary Fuel tank mounting. The Aux fuel tank itself was well documented and was an interesting model to develop…I still have the fuel cap and vent pipe to add along with a few bracing struts to complete.

Following this exercise, I decided to further develop the wing layout. Although the CAD work for the wing was well-dimensioned with outlines for the Wing plan, Front Beam, Rear Beam, and Aux Rear Beam there was not much information on the actual rib profiles. We know that at STA 1 (22″) from the center of the ship the rib profile is a NACA 0015 and at the wing tip this is a NACA 23009 profile (204″ outboard). Other than that we have virtually no ordinate information for the ribs except for a partial profile at STA 7 +7.

The arrangement for the wing has been a subject of debate on several forums mainly regarding the construction of the Wing Tip. Usually, when there is a change in the rib profile the change occurs at the intersection of the wing tip and main wing however in this instance it is located at the extreme point of the wing tip. So the surface model is based on a loft between the 0015 profile at the root and the proxy 23009 profile at the extremities. This loft reveals an interesting caveat related to the evident wing twist and alignment of the Leading Edge.

Clarification on the location of the different NACA profiles was actually found in the NACA Report L-602 on the Flying Quality of the P-39 which defines the relative positions of the profiles. The caveat I was talking about relates to the wing twist…normally when we think of Wing twist or Washout we visualize the rib rotated about the 30% or 35% chord with the leading edge dropping and the trailing edge lifting slightly…but that is not what is happening here. The entire 23009 rib drops from a static position at the trailing edge towards the leading edge…the rotation is roughly 1.257 degrees. This results in a continuous leading edge downward alignment all along the length of the wing from the root to the tip.

As this is most unusual I was able to check the resulting surface model against known dimensional information for the beams and the partial profile at STA 7 +7 which matches. I still have to model the wing tip which has an interesting upward curvature.

P-38 Lightning Boom Tail End:

Another challenging aspect of the P-38 Lightning was determining the geometry for the Boom Tailend…essentially the intersection of the Boom and Empennage. We do have the lines of intersection for the Vertical Stabiliser, Horizontal Stabiliser, and the end of the boom but we don’t have any dimensional information for the curved profiles though we do have drawings that give us some idea of the profiles.

This was surprisingly difficult to get right and to be honest this final version is the result of 3 different attempts to achieve a viable solution. At first, I attempted to draw the Boom section, and stabilizers then fill the void with a surface patch to naturally define the curved fillets…with a few guidelines I managed to get a reasonable result but I incurred a few anomalies with the finished surface which I couldn’t correct. The second effort was more structured with a number of contours traced from the available drawings as a reference to gauge the curvature and then try again with surface patches but this time is broken down into quadrants, top 2 sections, and bottom sections…this was better and very close but again I had a few surface deviations at the leading edges.

Finally, I decided to have a look at using variable radius fillets…although I had already tried this unsuccessfully I changed my approach slightly which gave me good results. The fillets I used initially were tangential which caused a few problems where they met particularly on the top surface…what was happening was a sharp edge developing where the fillets intersected…so that was no good. It also mattered in which order the fillets were generated.

Eventually, I figured why not try G2 fillets and see if that worked…I am always wary of using G2 fillets due to some bad experiences using them before but I was running out of ideas and I was keen to find a workable solution. I started with variable G2 fillets at “1” and “2” with several control points to control the curvature and avoid folding the surface at the leading edges. After some fine-tuning, this worked out well for the first 3 locations. The remaining fillet for the Vertical Stabiliser did not go quite so well as it was impossible for the CAD software to give me a G2 variable fillet…so this one ended up being tangential. Perhaps with a bit more tweaking, it may have achieved a G2 fillet but I had spent many hours on this and I needed to make a decision.

There is a very very slight edging but it is almost unnoticeable on the final product. The final curvature of this model matches well with the guidelines extrapolated from the drawings and I am satisfied it is a very good representation of the Boom Tail End.

I hope you find this article useful and as usual any inquiries please get in touch at hughtechnotes@gmail.com

.

.

.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Engine Cowl

Technote: P-38 Lightning Engine Cowl:

Yet another challenging aspect of the P-38 Lightning is the Engine Cowls for the P-38J and earlier variants. As before with the Coolant Rad Scoop, there are very few ordinate dimensions so this will require a similar workflow by developing what we do know to help determine what we need to know.

Part of this development includes the Shroud Air Intake Scoop which will provide some key data for determining a partial profile for the top section of the cowl.

The engine cowl above is for the P-38J, I also have another work in progress for the earlier variants. Common to both forms is the Shroud Air Intake which is the main subject of this article. As per normal practice, I tend to first develop all the sketch profiles according to the drawing information…this is not always ideal for the CAD modeling environment but it is important reference material to ensure the final model is compliant.

The sections described in the drawing show a gradual curve intersecting arcs that form the scoop…early on I determined that these will need to be separate sketches as they will be modeled separately and then combined. The first arc section is important for sweeping the scoop duct and then of course building the profiles of the leading edge, so this was actually created as a full circle. The remaining profiles are retained as arcs.

This profile is a swept feature using the centreline (1) as the guide curve making sure that the orientation is set to Fixed and not Follow Path. All the arcs are set perpendicular to each other so it is important to make sure the swept profile follows this alignment.

Another important consideration for making the leading edge a full circle path is when building the actual leading edge. I elected to build sketch profiles at each of the circle quadrants to account for the variations in the curved swept surface. The edge profile actually extends inside to form a lip which I offset from the main surface by 0.1mm… sometimes if the surfaces are coincident this causes problems with later editing.

That worked rather well and gave me a smooth curved leading edge when lofted. A quick point to note is the loft does not do circular paths so the profile at D was duplicated and selected separately to complete the full circle.

The second image above is the fillet applied to the stitched surfaces of the scoop main body and the curved plate. This is a variable filler as I wanted to control the eventual curvature around the leading edge. Regardless of how careful I was to ensure perfect tangency at the leading edge, sometimes this is not always possible and micro variations can result in a slight imperfection which prevents the edge selection continuity for applying the variable fillet.

So what I did was select the edges as separate sections within the same command which you can see at E, F, and G. To define each of the edges you first select the edge from the top panel and then adjust the variables in the panel below. By doing this within one command Inventor will adjust the finished fillet to be continuous along all 3 sections.

The final model is rather good and very accurate. The key thing is to think ahead as to how you will model these objects from the outset so it is well worth taking your time to get this right.

Update 28th Oct 2022:

Just about finished with the P-38H Engine Nacelle…just a few items to add.

Just to give you some idea of the complexity of the underlying geometry: P-38H and P-38J Overlaid…

Update 6th Nov 2022:

This is the updated version of the Left-Hand boom on the P-38H Lightning.

.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Coolant Rad.

Technote: P-38 Lightning Coolant Rad Scoop.

My latest endeavour is to model the Coolant Rad Scoop and later on the Engine Cowl for the P-38J. This is the Coolant Rad Scoop which was very challenging. There is not a lot of dimensional information on the drawings for this scoop which is larger and wider than the previous versions.

I would say this finished model is probably as close to the real thing as I can get given the complete lack of decent information. The Lockheed drawings for this scoop are largely predicated on known ordinate information which unfortunately is not available in the microfilm archives. What we do have though is a 5″ grid overlaid on the drawings…this in itself is a puzzle because what they have done is divide the drawings into 5″ square grids which may or not be relevant to end views and cross sections…so using the grid as a positional aid is inconsistent.

There are of course good references to the Stations which help a lot. One of the key decisions is interpreting what is an arc radius and what is a spline…I made some decisions on this early on and opted for a circular profile of the inlet and the second frame and beyond that a spline with ordinates at every 5″. It was a close match to the profiles on the drawings but if it is what the designer intended I have no idea.

Scaling digital copies of the drawings and using them as a background for building CAD models is not something I am keen on doing. I did write an article way back on scaling in X and Y directions…I shall get the link and post it here.

Fortunately, this model is being used for a CFD study so microdimensional accuracy isn’t required. The final model is what is best described as a close approximation…I don’t do close approximations…this is the exception…though I may have to undergo a similar exercise for the engine cowl!!

Inventor is probably not the best CAD product for serious surface modelling that is dependent on dimensional information. Sure they have the usual lofts, patches, sweeps and of course freeform. Freeform is a very organic feature that can work with other surface-derived types but it does not regenerate when that sketch geometry changes; a serious omission which I understand is on the Autodesk to-do list. Even the standard Loft feature is flawed.

For example, if you have 2 sketches that contain concentric profiles (like the ends of a tube) this cannot be lofted in Inventor…it just cannot be done. The other issue I have with this command is when you loft using guidelines or rails. No matter how precise your modelling there will be times this will not work…so you redo the lines over and over again…double checking everything and eventually it may work. Yet if you use the sweep command using the same profiles and rails it will work…so there are some serious issues with lofting that Autodesk really need to fix.

I think Autodesk need to take a leaf out of the Dassault workbook…I believe it was in Solidworks 2010 that Dassault decided to revise all the commands and features within the product…resolving glitches, adding functionality to existing functions and generally cleaning up the product. The main fear of the media at that time was whether there was enough to tempt users to upgrade…that was a stupid concern if a product is better and everything works as it should of course that is an absolute no-brainer, folks will upgrade and they did.

Even though Inventor has a number of glitches, I quite like the product and it is generally rather good but I do think it could be a lot better. When something does not work as it should then you can spend hours just developing workarounds to achieve the end result…time for a product cleanup.

I actually prefer Solidworks but Dassault does themselves no favours when it comes to product accessibility. You can’t just download a 30-day evaluation copy whereas Autodesk has a better approach with accessibility to their products. In fact, to get a 30-day evaluation of Solidworks you have to sit through a meeting with their sales rep and only then will they load it onto your computer for you…this is a real pain that you can’t just go online and download a copy. They do have an online access portal but for folks like me, that is not convenient. I don’t have time for sales reps, all I would want to do is buy online and download without the sales crap…you can buy Autodesk products online but not Dassault.

Getting back on the subject, what I wanted to mention is surface modelling. Generally, there are a few conditions for generating surfaces with Direction, Tangency or G2. If you are lofting or creating a sweep from a sketch you won’t have the latter 2 options but if you use a surface edge as a base for a loft you will get Tangent or G2 options. I like the option of G2 but comes with restrictions…it can cause problems with applying fillets (particular variable fillets) and surface offsets..so if you plan to do these late on in the model development stick to tangency. Variable fillets will not give you continuity with G2 surfaces.

When using guidelines or rails to control the curvature of a surface loft please consider using them judiciously. As I mentioned in the previous article overuse of constraining elements can create problems with the eventual surface generated. In the first image above I have several guidelines drawn but only a few have been selected…this gives you options so that can pick and choose between the various guidelines to see how the eventual surface evolves so it is worthwhile spending the extra time having these available…it does help.

When you do run into problems with surface modelling using Lofts or Sweeps occasionally it helps if you delete that surface and replace it with a Fill Patch…the reason for this is that you have more control over each edge of a surface patch that you would not otherwise have with those features.

The Scoop actually turned out quite well…it was a frustrating journey to get to this point but it is worth it.

Update 20th Oct 2022:

I decided that it would be prudent to also develop the earlier variant Coolant Rad Scoop for the P-38 D, G, and H models.

.

.

.

Technote: P-39 Airacobra Exhaust Stack

Technote: P-39 Airacobra Exhaust Stack:

This rather small unassuming item is at first glance a straightforward little model that actually turned out to be a huge headache. I spent several days working on this model which will all be explained in this article. Hopefully, the solutions I found can help you.

The first hurdle was the Bell Drawing 12-614-001… several key dimensions were illegible and a complete end section was non-existent. The first task was to develop what I do know to help determine what I needed to know…that in itself took an inordinate amount of time but eventually managed to get that sorted. In addition to the sections shown on the drawing I needed to include a control sketch to control the dimensions of the eventual loft activity…this was essentially an ellipse with fixed height and variable half-width.

The side/outside lines of the Exhaust Stack are fixed profiles so it will be the inner profile that will change to make sure that the intersections of the 2 pipe exhausts were correctly located in the centre of the element.

You will notice the side profile sketch is separate from the main model sketches, this just makes it easier to see what I am doing as for the most part, it was mainly for reference.

At this stage, everything is quite straightforward as all I had to was loft the 2 pipes by selecting each of the profiles as shown and then trim the surfaces to give me a base model. A small tip: for this to work correctly and ensure the alignment with the external lines and allow for expansion internally it was necessary to loft using the Centreline option…the centerline holds the loft shape between sections normal to the centerline.

This is where everything got crazy. The main body part of this stack has no joint seam and is quite bulbous…so what I had to do was adapt this base model to form the bulbous surface complete with an internal curve.

As you can see in the image on the right the real item shows the bulbous main body part and the generous inside curve. By the way, some may have observed the real item looks shorter than the model…this is a puzzle…some of these exhaust items are indeed short and this is further noted on the Bell drawing as a dotted line! I suspect this may be linked to the engine used but as yet I do not know for sure.

I initially created the short version thinking that this was normal until I found out that most are actually longer versions. That was the start of many frustrations to come as that first batch of models was quickly scrapped and started again. That bulbous bit though is the main problem.

In order to achieve this I had to derive a solution that filled the void between the 2 tube lofts and at the same time provide an internal curve consistent with the real product. What I opted to do was simply trim and then remove the inner surfaces and then blend the remaining void with a surface patch.

My initial effort was to remove the centre section according to the natural divisions along the centre of each tube and the sketch plane. I tried variation after variation on this, adjusting tangency strength and G2 for each side, I even adjusted the dimensions on the control systems to make minor corrections. I eventually ended up with something reasonable and we got it 3d printed. The second image above is the latest model incarnation which I will explain below.

Two immediate issues are quite visible on these printed models…the initial curve between the 2 tubes is far too tight and almost looks as though it has folded. The second is the surface continuity…okay admittedly I was unsure about the short and long versions of this stack so the end extensions were a separate model part…though I should note that the surface should have been tangential and it’s clearly not.

Coming back to the cad model above…the second image shows what needed to be done. In this one you can see the cutout in the main body is an ellipse which gave much better results and a larger smoother curve between the tubes.

What was happening with effort 1 was that choosing the centre of the tubes at 2 and 3 (which by way was a logical choice) was actually restricting the area in which the inner curve could form, resulting in small deviations in surface accounting for the folded look. Essentially by selecting the centre lines I was actually creating self-imposed restrictions. It took me a while to figure that one out and many hours of work.

Further the mere fact that this patch includes sharp angular corners also did not help as the patch stretches to accommodate those corners again leading to imperfections. Finally, I decided to forego that first attempt and ended up using an ellipse profile that extended beyond the centrelines of the tubes. As there were no sharp edges continuity of the surface patch outline was good and ended with a smoother patch surface that was G2 compliant. There is a small additional patch at the end of the stack…there was a natural seam there which I needed to get rid of.

The final model is shown above and is a very much improved surface with good continuity and a generous internal curvature between the tubes. One final point is the mounting plate… which is not dimensioned on this Bell drawings because it is a contractor-supplied item. I searched through many drawings and found something similar…so I cannibalised the dimensions from that drawing to create the mounting plate. It turns out that this was a good effort as it actually aligns with the engine block.

Surface modelling is rarely this complex but occasionally you will come across something equally challenging. If something is not turning out the way you had hoped or expected just check to see if your choices are imposing restrictions on how the surface is created. When you are trimming or splitting surfaces try to minimise sharp edges and instead opt for curved circular solutions.

Update: 7th October 2022:

Just received word that the newly revised Exhaust Stack model has now been 3d printed…just another 11 sets to go. Apparently, the time for printing and ultrasonic cleaning will be about 4.6 days. They look good…check out the awesome curvature on these prints.

Technote: P-39 Airacobra Carb Scoop

Technote: P-39 Airacobra Carb Scoop: New Project:

Following a recent inquiry about the P-39 Airacobra, I was asked if I had a model for the P-39 Carburettor Air Scoop. At the time I didn’t, though I did have some preliminary outlines that were done as part of the dimensional ordinate study. So I decided to get stuck in on this new project and see what can be accomplished…by the way did I mention this will be used on a real aircraft. The template moulds will be 3d printed and used to form the aluminium plates.

When you look at a photograph of the Carb Scoop it looks deceivingly uncomplicated however it turns out this part is surprisingly complex. The main body part itself is challenging with the curved profiles and filleted interfaces, the curvature of the fuselage; which by the way is not actually documented anywhere and the transitions from one frame to another to achieve smooth curvature. The internal duct comprises many varying profiles…the profiles tend to be rectangular with different corner radii throughout culminating in what can be described as a slot profile for the Air Scoop inlet.

I have been working on this for a few days now studying various modelling methods to achieve the most accurate and consistent results. So far I have the main scoop body and the fuselage skin modelled. The internal ductwork is set out on a sketch, though I will still have to define a number of intermittent profiles to ensure I get that right as well. Overall there are 12 individual parts for this assembly all detailed on one drawing…so some interpolation of design intent and cross-referencing with a few external drawings is essential.

At the Scoop inlet, there is a small lip that I have yet to model. The drawing has very little information on this so I decided to model the scoop without the Lip and then I will have to sculpt the curved form from extrapolated model information. That Lip at the end of the day will probably look inconsequential but the development work for such a small item cannot be understated. I shall update this article as work progresses.

An overview of the underlying geometry sketches for the CAD model. Point “1” is the fuselage skin…as mentioned the ordinates for this profile do not exist on available Bell drawings. So I work with what I know, namely the fuselage frames fore and aft and below. These were surface lofted and then the profile at “1” was patched to align with curvatures of known surfaces. using tangency and G2 on selected edges.

Point “2” is the scoop outline sketches, in which I made continuous elliptical profiles with an additional circular profile at the very tip below the fuselage plate surface.

The blue lines at “3” are the lofting guidelines, absolutely essential to getting this right. I initially skimped on this, instead, I attempted to just loft and use G2 or Tangency adjustments…it did not work well…so if you are doing this don’t skimp on these guidelines. Once the scoop body was lofted there was trimming to do with the flange plate (it was the offset from the fuselage surface) and then the 2 items were stitched. This provided an edge to which a variable fillet was applied. Cautionary note on the variable fillet…when initially applied don’t try and create adjustment points all at once…take your time, just create one pair at a time making micro adjustments and let the model regen and repeat.

The other key consideration is that the Bell drawing dimensions are generally only accurate to 1/32″ and 1/16″ (0.8mm and 1.6mm respectively). This will invariably impact the eventual quality of the end product when using CAD so it is important to understand where and how you need to compensate.

Update: Internal Duct:

I have now modelled the internal duct which has a partial concave curve on both sides to allow clearance to the main scoop housing. That was a real pain to model and to be honest, to achieve continuity with the duct curvature I simplified it slightly.

The sides of the duct are shown on the Bell drawings as being flat from the base level almost to the scoop inlet itself; merging to a point just past the horizontal breaker bar. I tried various methods of doing this but failed to achieve a good result…even using freeform curves…mathematically it is not to be! I settled for a smooth loft of the various sections to ensure that at the very least I could still achieve the partial concave surface and a smooth shell.

The front curved edge of the scoop inlet has a weld seam which is shown in the centre of the edge on the Bell drawings. I decided to move that joint further inward because an extended flange may reduce the installation clearance when installing the duct.

The curved plate you see will be cut back to finalise the flange for the scoop, which I shall leave until the main parts are all modelled. More updates to follow.

Duct Vane and Scoop Ring Stiffeners:

All inquiries as usual to HughTechnotes@gmail.com

Update 11th Sept 2022: Almost There:

Looking good and is deadly accurate. Trimmed the flange for the scoop main body and added the fuselage frame stiffeners. I still have a small panel door, forward lip and a few miscellaneous items to finish. One more day should do it.

The Main Body Sorted: Just the Lip to model and add to the finished model.

If you require a professional design and draughting service for your projects then please do not hesitate to drop me a line. Providing professional engineering, draughting (time served, old school) and modelling services in CAD since 1985. Fully conversant with Geometrical Tolerancing, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T), ISO Geometrical Product Specification (ISO GPS), BS 8888 and mechanical specification.

Email: hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Update 12th Dec 2022:

I have just received word that the P-39 Carb Scoop has just come off the 3d printer after 4 days. They printed this in 2 parts as you can see. Still a lot of finishing work to do before they have a chance to fit it onto the P-39.

.