New P3 Orion

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Last night, I started working on a Wing Template just to see if my understanding of the dimensions was correct.
The first idea was to use Fuselage Station Zero as the Center of the model. That did not work because of AF99 limitations.

Instead, I used 25% MAC as the Longitudinal Reference Point. The Vertical Reference was Water Line 150 as originally intended.

What I found was that either I do not know how to read the dimensions or that some of the numbers do not line up.

Next is to create the Stabiliser Template and the Fin / Rudder Template to see how well those line up.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

I almost forgot....

In response to your earlier post about HAL and Eliza:

Eliza was what originally got me interested in computers. It was back around 1978 when I was first introduced to computers. This was back in the days when computers required their own climate controlled rooms and our Middle / High School only had a computer system using punched cards.
We connected via 300 Baud acoustic Modem to a remote computer system in Washington DC.
We were shown a few games such as Lander, Star Trek, and of course Eliza. Our version of Eliza was of course much more primitive than the one that was originally done as AI research.

I was amazed at how "advanced" computer technology must have been to allow for an "Artificial Person" to be created in a computer program.
I was hooked. (The program had passed the "Turing Test" as far as I was concerned.)
Occasionally it made stupid replies, but in general, it made relevant replies and asked reasonably questions.
When I got into the actual source code of Eliza, I was quite disappointed with the "SUPERficial Person" that was implemented. I continued to play the other games because it was a way to escape the regular boring classes, but could not get over how little there really was to Eliza.
My teacher never deviated from her comment that a computer was just a very fast, very accurate moron.

After a couple years of disappointment with how little there actually was, I decided to actually learn to program in BASIC. Of course without any formal training, I decided to build something pretty complicated using trigonometric functions to simulate the cannon fire of a tank battle. That program actually never ran.
It had not occurred to me that EVERY GOSUB call required a RETURN....
The error I could not get rid of was "GOSUBs nested 20 deep". Eventually I got better at it....

So that's how Eliza sparked my interest in computers.

As for Eliza, perhaps you already know, but its purpose was to simulate a therapist implementing the theories of Carl Rogers. Its name is a twist on "My Fair Lady". Eliza Doolittle in that story polished her manners and behaviour. She pretended to be a proper English Lady but wasn't one.

There were other programs build along the similar themes such as Parry the Paranoid, so Eliza was not alone though folks may not have heard of the others.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

The Orion´s tail and Eliza

Hello Ivan,

The datum position for the P3-Orion´s fin and tailplane is of course important, as from some photographs, it is clear that the tailplane seems to be set a little aft with respect to the fin. I´m going to try to see if I can get it any better, and to check the whole tail empenage position too.

I´ve given up on trying to follow the aircraft stations and to figure out their correspondingly correct positions. It was impossible - I don´t know why, and I no longer care. I wouldn´t worry too much about any of that anymore. It´s a waste of time, I think.

I have found a couple of additional diagrammes, so I´ll try to put a scale into those and see what comes out. My holidays are over, and I have less time, so will take a while yet!

You were lucky that you had a computer at school - AND connected to a remote system in Washington! I learnt COBOL at a computer school on fridays in 1975 and they didn´t even have a computer! After 6 months we wrote out first programme, a database thing for personnel, and they had to carry our programme listings to the oil refinery´s Univac 2030 for the operator to make the punch cards.

My first listing came back with a 3-foot an error list, and then, after corrections, a couple of weeks later I got the second error list. This time it was 7 feet long, so I got up and left, and that was it as far as I was concerned.

However, 10 years later the Spectrum + came out, with its Zilog Z80 CPU, which was a bit better than the 8080 of the time, and I quickly got the grips because I remembered my COBOL from 1975! It came with a cool a vector-graphic helicopter simulator called "Tomahawk", and "Vectron", a variant of "Tron", which were incredible for the time, but mainly you could programme your own games, and that´s what hooked me.

There were interesting magazines that suggested programming ideas, and apart from Eliza there were others, like "Amoeba", a cell survival study depending on an individual´s capacity to evolve into a traveller instead of a local with only random movements to find food, and "Party", the differences in an individual´s ideal distance to different people, that cause people to move around in a party, and of course John Conway´s "Life". At a clock speed of 2.5 Mhz it took some time to actually see what was going on, but it was fascinating!

A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then... but nevertheless, still a very accurate moron, as your teacher said!!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Don't give up on the Fuselage Stations and other Dimensions stated in this PDF. It is an amazing amount of information and although some of it is contradictory, perhaps I think so only because I haven't learned enough to interpret the drawings yet. The field of aeronautical engineering isn't going to change to suit us, so we just have to learn how to understand how to interpret what we get.

I have already interpreted enough about the Wing specifications to build a pretty good model of one and that really took about an hour's work to read and plot a Template of it as a AF99 Part. I have some little utilities to make shifting things around a bit easier, but everything CAN be done inside AF99's Parts Shop.

The Longitudinal location of the Horizontal Stabiliser and its shape are pretty well determined but I have not found a dimension to locate its Vertical position yet. Even if it isn't there, an estimate would not be too far off.
The Fin / Rudder is also pretty well determined but the Fillet is not.

I also had my chance at COBOL and RPG II as well. It was on our school computer (IBM System 3). It was interesting to use a card punch machine to write the programs. The Hollerith cards were a pain because the punch would work as soon as a key was pressed. It is really hard to erase or patch up a hole in a card.
The IBM (96 columns on three rows) cards were done on a machine that allowed an entire line to be entered and would not punch until the "Release" key was pressed. (Those cards also were much more aerodynamic and could be flicked across a room pretty easily.) Watching the punched card holes being cleaned out of the machine was also amusing.

We would then take our little punched deck of cards and go to the computer, put the deck in the hopper and add a couple JCL (Job Control Language) cards which were either red or blue and notched on a different corner, put a weight on top and push the "Go/Start" (I forget which) button.

Our teacher was very cool. I can see that now....
One time I can remember him going through teaching our class about conditional branches (If-Then tests) and because I had already figured things out, I was just going merrily along with my coding while only half paying attention. (maybe not even half.)
He finally saw that I wasn't really in the class any more and with the entire class watching him, walked over to see what I was doing.

Now here is the cool part.

I had already gotten way past the conditional branch part and when he saw how I had combined the multiple tests into a single test, he looked for a minute or so....
...and then walked back to the front of the room and explained what I had done and told the class that My method was the better way to go.
It says a lot for the instructor when they are willing to do something like that.

That was our High School Computer Science class. It was small and everyone including the instructor knew everyone else.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

Ok then. Anyway, now the contradictory information for the FS-0 station has been established, things seem at least quite acceptable in general, but as there´s always room for improvement and no hurry, I´ll wait and see what you come up with thanks to your current AC-station investigations. Thanks very much!
Meanwhile, I´ll increase the size of the cabin-windows, as from the photos that´s quite obvious, and the cabin shape will also be improving accordingly.

I´d never seen punch-cards working on computers other than in films. Interesting description! In those times, and also some time later, it seems like one was able to actually do things in a more "hands on" aspect, and there was a rapid visible result of what one was trying to achieve. Nowadays everything is more interfaced and much more complicated, so it´s not like a hobby anymore, but more like a job because you have to learn so much more to be able to use the modern stuff - things like BASIC programming have gone totally out of fashion. Well, at least with old hardware one can still do old things!

Anyway, I expect there are good modern IT teachers who can still no doubt encourage modern IT students in the same way good teachers were doing years back!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Templates for Orion and Computer Stuff

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Don't wait on me to finish up the P-3 Orion. The templates are just something I am doing for a bit of amusement. I actually still don't have much interest in the P-3. I am more interested in whether or not there is enough information to allow for a precise specification of templates for this aeroplane. It is really an exercise in reading specifications and I certainly could use some practice.
I have no idea when I will finish or even IF I will finish.
At the moment, a P-40F, Revised Textures for the P-40E, information gathering for the J2M Raiden and Corsair\....
...and a new command line utility to rotate Parts for AF99 are all competing for time.

As for modern computer education, I am really not quite sure what to make of it.
I learned BASIC on my own and the idea of "Structured Programming" didn't really come up until I ran into Pascal as a language in College. Before College, I had already gotten a pretty good idea of how computers actually worked and could understand processor specifications to some degree.
These days, my daughter really has no concept of how computers work, but she programs in Java and understands a bit of Object-Oriented design. I believe the modern approach is to give students a "Manager's View" rather than a "Programmer's View" of software design and computers in general.

I believe her education (in High School) is really a "How do I use a computer" rather than "What is a computer".
My opinion is that anyone wanting to get into "Computer Science" really should at least understand computer architecture. The actual guts of how things are done inside such as speculative execution, pipelining, cache organization, etc. can wait for "Higher Education". (or should it be Lower Education?)

You mentioned John Conway's Game of Life. I once implemented that on my IBM PC by using the entire screen as a grid. It was only 320 X 200, but was taxing enough to the processors of the time so that even with this size grid, it was taking about 5-10 seconds between generations.

My opinion is that it isn't necessary to learn as much stuff to use modern computers. I find that I know amazingly little about the actual MS Window operating system these days as compared to when I was developing DOS or Unix systems.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
OK, I´ll keep on finishing off the P-3 then. I hadn´t understood exactly what you meant.

My knowledge about computers has always been more on a hobbyist´s 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 I´ll be able to see more or less what it´s like nowadays!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

P3 Orion FS-0 position

Hi Ivan,

Encouraged by your motivating comments, I went through all the drawings of the P3 Orion I´d 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 I´d 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 I´ll 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 that´s easy to correct.

Basically it´s only minor adjustments, which will be no difficulty, and is quite a relief!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

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.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
You had a nice birthday then! That´s 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 I´ve run out of components and individual added-on pieces cause bleedthrough, I´ve 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 - I´ll see. I have plenty of structures left over, and parts count still allows 32 parts, so it may just be possible.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

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.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

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 wife´s birthday, but as she´s 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 won´t get too upset about and raise hell!

She is so spartan that she´s 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. We´re 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 it´s either that, or the lights and propblurs with incorrect wingtips, with the ailerons going all the way to the end.
I´m 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... I´ll see what I do.
Meanwhile, here´s 2 screenshots!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello 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.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Yes, my wife was surprised and relievingly happy at her new laptop! She said at first that she didn´t really need one, but soon saw how much faster and consequently more useful it was her needs than the other one. My daughters also chipped in, saying she deserved a good work-tool for her job-training course as she´s always using the net for material the cookery teacher sends, and she has to send back, so surprisingly, there were no arguments!

My computer dealer had commented that the anti-virus programmes nowadays are constantly watching for threats, ans slow down older machines considerably, so much that they really can´t be networked anymore. In those days the anti-virus did less and took up fewer resources. Now I have to see if the old WinXP laptop with 2x800 Mhz is any faster than my old WinXP one at 1x1600 Mhz to use as a fall-back aircraft factory, but I have the feeling it could be the same.

Anyway, the Orion: Thanks for your ideas. Feedback is important for me as a modeller, and moral support, so I value that very much!
Yes, I´d noticed the side window was round on a lot of photos, if not on all... so I´ll take it out and do it on the textures. That way I can save two more parts. The pretty little ventral antenna is gone too, as that would be on the bomb-bay doors, so that´s no good. I just hadn´t got round to these little things yet.
I añsp tppk out all the lights, and i I can, I´ll try and put the prop-blurs back in if I can free enough parts. It may just be possible.

My memory is failing, but now I remember: The reason I´d changed the fuselage structures to components was to get the nose out of its C-130 shape, the structures imposed on it, and I made the rest into components to avoid hairline cracks at possible joints between the front components and rear structures.

Well, If I can´t get the engine texture-shading right to make the engine-shape better, I might have to settle for 4 fuselage structures at the back and make the engines with 4 components. We shall see.

It´s like a complicated puzzle with interchangeable pieces that have their advantages and disadvantages, but it´s not going as badly as it could be!

OK, then! The important thing is the fun.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Progress of sorts

Hello Ivan, hello all too!

I hope everyone is having a nice weekend!
The P3 Orion is slowly improving, at least a little. As long as it´s better than before, I suppose it´s justified to continue with a difficult job. Well, difficult if one does not lower the standard.

Once the tail section and the nosewheel got their correct FS station, and the windshield looked more plausible, the wingtips needed improving. For this, it was necessary to use structures because nothing else worked, and there were no components left over. The side template is built below the wing tip level so that the dihedral puts fits them snuggly onto the end of the wing, and it works very nicely, which is rather pleasing, but I had to steal parts from the lights and prop-blurs.

However, the individual prop-blades bled through the spinners, and the prop-blurs hat to be re-fitted, so I scrounged the tail sting/MAD Boom for parts by making it 8 instead of 12-sided. I also eliminated the 2 extra windows you mentioned which don´t exist on most models. At the end I ended up with enough parts to put back the lights too, for all they´re worth... but at least the aeroplane´s complete!

Then, I adjusted the upper and lower scoop shading and shaped the engine nacelle structures better, which required more parts again. I noticed the lower scoops weren´t working properly (possibly due to the high parts count) with their insignia, so I eliminated them, gaining 4 parts, and replaced them with black sections on the textures, which seemed to work very well. I then managed to use 1 texture for all engines instead of 2, and now there´s one texture left over, perhaps for something more interesting.

Further part-efficiency improving adjustments on the engine structure tempates have now lowered the parts count to a safer 148.5% - which means that there are still 12 parts left over for glue or stuff maybe.

Of course, fitting 4 structures into the fuselage instead of components (with their corresponding adjustment problems to the restly components) would free 4 components for the engines, but with all the scoops, I´m not sure if this will work any better than it´s doing on now.

Things seem to be looking better, and even the cracks between engines and wings have got smaller, although there are some things that may be unavoidable, like the geardoor bleedthrough.

Finally, I tried out some colour changes on the provisional textures, and some small preliminary alterations as a texture test for a possible military version, should the plane get good enough for an upload one day.

Here are a couple of screenshots! I wonder if the resemblance has improved...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Compared Orions

I just found a nice video on the U-tube of a German Orion taxiing and taking off from Split, and captured a side view on the tarmac when it turned. Comparing the picture to an Aircraft Animator wireframe screenshot, this is the result.

Perhaps I can improve the slope on the engine back. The main gear could go a little further back, and the wheel doors could be a little longer. Then, the base of the MAD-Boom could be a bit shorter, and the boom itself longer, but not going any further back.

Hmm... What else?... The trailing edge of the rudder on my model is a little steep and could be slightly more slanted.

More other eyes may see more than my own...

Update: Engine height is difficult to tell by the angle of vision, whether they should be higher or not. The one who did the video was obviously standing on the ground, which seems to be level here, so he´d be below the waterline, so to speak - so the engines look higher in the photo than if viewed from mid-fuselage height. Presumably then, the engine height on the model would be correct. I wonder...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

That looks to be a pretty good match between your model and the photograph.

If you are still juggling angles, I should point out that the angles of the Fin/Rudder, H.Stab, and Wing are all pretty well defined in the NASA document along with dihedral angles and incidence (which I ignored). That is what I was using to build my templates. The incidence angles are easy to put in which is why I ignored them for the templates. I still have not found a good reference for the H.Stab vertical location though.

If you are still running short of Parts, I recommend simplifying the angles on the aft Fuselage. I believe it can be represented pretty well with just two angles instead of four.

Coming along nicely!

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Getting better!

Hello Ivan,
Thank you for your good words and advice!

I think the angles seem to be quite accurate, and the height of the horizontal stabilizer seems to tie in with the photo too, but I may have to follow your advice and take out one of the rear bottom fuselage angles to gain some more parts. I was actually a bit wary of that, but I´ll go ahead with it if I need them then! The slope also seems to begin a bit further forward from where I have it. However, the fuselage seen from above does not get thinner until the second angle, and that´s why it´s still there.

At the moment everything seems to be going quite well with the latest modifications. There´s a noisy rainstorm here at the moment so I went ahead with them. I also moved the middle windshield forwards a bit, as well as the inner edges of the 2 forward side-windshields, forming a more pointed angle there, and adjusted the cabin shape accordingly. The nose became slightly shorter, and it seems to have been a good move. I think the rear windshield can still stretch a little further back.

Also, I was a bit afraid of moving the main gear back too much, but I should have moved it all the way to the specified 43 ft aft of the nose FS station - and I´m still 4 inches short! I think one can see that in the comparison too, but it´s easy to further correct.

Anyway, here´s another comparison-screenshot just for kicks!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
I thought I´d just put in 3 new screenshots. I wonder if the nose can qualify as quite acceptable now.
What´s the Orion doing snooping around Lake Chelan?... Hunting submarines in the river, no doubt.

P.S. Update: I just looked at the rear-bottom fuselage, and the foremost of the two bulkheads is the thicker one, so technically the second one could be eliminated, to save 12 parts! - it would make the transition to the rear a bit more abrupt seen from the top, but it won´t be too bad, I expect. I´ll try if necessesary! Looking more exactly, it is rather on the thin side at the forward tailplane root though, so making that a bit thicker would make a better transition. There´s an extra screenshot for that.

As you mentioned angles, here´s a screenshot from the front too, as well as a frontal capture of the video I mentioned before for comparison, just to check. Interesting, the down-flexing of the outer wings with the plane on the ground. Must be fully tanked-up.

P.P.S: 2nd Update: The next step after these last corrections, would perhaps be to send the aeroplane to your technical staff for an inspection in due course, without hurry, of course.
I´m still looking for a better solution for the geardoor bleedthrough. I´ve already changed the inner ones from Gear left/right into Gear-Center, but it still interferes with props. Putting them into Low-Wing left/right is worse, though, so perhaps they have to stay like they are.
The Vcockpit is also almost finished, and if you would be so kind as to flip the parts, I´d be very grateful indeed.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Two strange but successful glue sequences

Hi Ivan,

After taking out the aft fuselage bulkhead like you suggested, I included a pair of triangles at the bottom to round off the angle, freeing 10 more parts, and also made the fuselage under the tailplanes wider. Some of the drawings showed it as being far too narrow, so this area now also fits the photographs better. Strangely, this part was shown correctly on the drawing that had all the erroneous FS Stations!

Anyway, I obtained lots of free parts for more glue - this time for the landing gear doors, and here is the interesting part: More strangely successful improvements!

1) Wing / engine nacelles / main landing-gear / main gear-doors:
- Only the outside nacelle was originally glued to the mid- and outer wing sections.
- The inner nacelle uses automatic glue with the mid- and inner wing sections.
- The whole wing is Mid Wing left/right, and everything was working really well on the wing.
- So, this means that the automatic glue was doing its job on the wing very well.
- But, the landing-gear and gear-doors that were in Gear Left/right, bled through propeller and opposite nacelle.

So now: What if we add the main landing-gear + doors ALL into Mid-Wing left/right with a manual glue sequence? Maybe AF99 can understand what it has to do without really messing things up?
Well, it seems to work!

2) Fuselage Cabin Section / Nose gear / Nose gear-doors:
The nose gear and its doors bled through engine nacelles and propellers, so I experimented here in the same way, glueing it all into Body Main under the cabin section.
Not so unexpectedly time, thanks to the previous success, this also seems to work, except for slight nose-door interference with each other, which I might even also be able to fix.

So, the complete landing gear and all its doors aren´t creating any visual havoc any longer, which I thought was quite surprising and rather good!

Hopefully I won´t find some terrible glitch now that will do away with the improvements and only make it a momentary illusion of success!... Hmmmm....

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp