Sea Vixen FAW.1x2

[71chally]

I would say that your CAD is nearer reality than the DH drawing.  I think the underside is more rounded than the top due to the slight bulging at the airbrake position, without that  feature I reckon bottom would be similar to the top in shape.

Shows you how subtle and complex the shapes are, at the half canopy position the top of the fuselage is quite flat, I can see how kit manufacturers have struggle with it a bit.

 

Best I can manage at the moment, https://s9.photobucket.com/user/pagen/media/Sea Vixen Simulator Small/sm2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=29

 

https://qam.com.au/qam-content/aircraft/sea-vixen-xj607/XJ607-9.jpg

There are better pictures out there, I've seen some square on.

Edited February 6, 2020 by 71chally

[perdu]

3 hours ago, TheBaron said:

I've no idea, but they were a rum looking ground crew...

I have no idea how ANYONE would even go about finding pictures and content like that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No please don't tell me...

 

I love all the plotting for planning the plotting, utterly brilliant

 

And did I mention bonkers?

 

phew

[Pete in Lincs]

Memory says there were two Sea Vixens, both still in RN colours in 1976 when I was first there. 

We were allowed a look around and told there were four hydraulic systems but that was about it.

The Fitters course was five years later, But I'm not certain if they were still there.

[hendie]

29 minutes ago, Pete in Lincs said:

The Fitters course was five years later, But I'm not certain if they were still there.

 

I did my mech's course in 79 and I remember them being grey.  My fitters course was in 84 and I can't remember if they were there then or whether they had been removed by that time, though I can't remember anything else in that position.  There were a few Hunters on the other side but that's about the only aircraft I can remember in there.  I'm sure there must have been other types there, but the memories gone now.

[Pete in Lincs]

Lots of JP's and four or five Gnats in trainer colours. On my Fitters course quite a few of us were ex Wessex (Odiham & 18 Sqn).

One of the Gutersloh blokes was Scottish and liked to partake of the falling down water. We often used to shut him in a JP engine bay to sleep it off!

[71chally]

1 SoTT Halton had at least seven Sea Vixens, XJ526/8145M, XJ560/8142M, XJ571/8140M 33, XJ582/8139, XN699/8224M, XN707/8144M and XP921/8226M.  XJ526 & '582 were scrapped in 1980, the rest were around to 1987.

They were mainly used for hydraulics instruction, but I have also seen references to armament and electrical instruction being carried out on them aswel.

 

2 SoTT Cosford had XJ607/8178M and XN685/8173 (ex TT Cranwell), again until the late 1980s.

 

None were repainted from their standard FAA colours.

The only one I've seen painted not standard was a weird semi camo one with the SAH at Culdrose.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

The only one I've seen painted not standard was a weird semi camo one with the SAH at Culdrose.

Plus that abomination of a Red Bull scheme, of which we must Never Speak Again.

[keefr22]

44 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Plus that abomination of a Red Bull scheme, of which we must Never Speak Again.

 

I thought it was quite pretty....

 

 

(just kidding!)

[The Spadgent]

Thanks for the response. If you don’t mind me asking what was the layout of the resin printer? I’m not getting one by the way. 🤣 

Also I know you said you might not panel line but would the machine pick up a “normal map” or “height map” if the mesh were textured? Might be a good way to get lines in without damaging the mesh hierarchy. Keeping it smooth. 
 

Just a thought.

 

JJ. 

[stevehnz]

15 hours ago, 71chally said:

https://qam.com.au/qam-content/aircraft/sea-vixen-xj607/XJ607-9.jpg

I did a google image search on this to see if I could find a bigger one, it brought up a whole lot of visually similar images of designer suitcases.  

Enjoying the Sea vixen lore being revealed here, even if the lot of the technicality  of the cad stuff is at stratospheric levels above me. Its all part of a fascinating whole.  

Steve.

[71chally]

They have got this webpage @stevehnz , https://qam.com.au/portfolio/de-havilland-sea-vixen-f-a-w-mk-2-xj607-cn-110074/ but nothing thee that quite fits the bill.

 

I wouldn't mind betting that I could take a template of the top curve section, and that same template would pretty well fit the sides, will have to give it a go sometime!.

[TheBaron]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:34 PM, 71chally said:

Shows you how subtle and complex the shapes are, at the half canopy position the top of the fuselage is quite flat, I can see how kit manufacturers have struggle with it a bit.

It is an incredibly rich shape environment James!

One of the reasons for my geological speed is the sheer amount of observation and (re)appraisal of the constant shifts in contour and X-section across the airframe.

-It's not too fanciful at this stage to refer to it as much as a landscape as an aircraft! (At this rate Robert Macfarlane will be bringing out a book on the Sea Vixen...)

On 2/6/2020 at 3:34 PM, 71chally said:

I think the underside is more rounded than the top due to the slight bulging at the airbrake position,

Agreed. Both that aspect and the bulges for the Microcells won't feature at all in the first phase of the process as I want to get all main profiles integrated as a convincing whole. Subsequently I'll come back through and attend to all lumps and cuts and panel openings @etc. in a 'second fixing' before the real detailing starts.

 

On 2/6/2020 at 4:34 PM, perdu said:

I have no idea how ANYONE would even go about finding pictures and content like that

No region of the map is ever hidden from the truly warped mind Bill!

More prosaically - if you type 'Sea Vixen' into the search function on Twitter there are a deluge of Japanese manga-related posts with either 'Sea Vixen' or 'DH110' in the title or username, this being only one of the most recent.

Uncle Geoffrey would be truly boggled.

On 2/6/2020 at 5:02 PM, Pete in Lincs said:

Memory says there were two Sea Vixens, both still in RN colours in 1976 when I was first there. 

We were allowed a look around and told there were four hydraulic systems but that was about it.

The Fitters course was five years later, But I'm not certain if they were still there.

'You can't get quicker than a Vixen fitter'!

*Joke withdrawn by Quality Police

On 2/6/2020 at 5:35 PM, hendie said:

There were a few Hunters on the other side but that's about the only aircraft I can remember in there.  I'm sure there must have been other types there, but the memories gone now.

On 2/6/2020 at 11:17 PM, The Spadgent said:

If you don’t mind me asking what was the layout of the resin printer?

No problem Johnny. It's one of these, at that price:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ELEGOO-MARS-Photocuring-LCD-Printer/dp/B07KRWNR82

On 2/7/2020 at 7:26 AM, stevehnz said:

Its all part of a fascinating whole.

My peripheral vision read that as 'whore' and I thought that you'd suddenly become far bolder in your comments Steve!

On 2/7/2020 at 8:58 AM, 71chally said:

 

I wouldn't mind betting that I could take a template of the top curve section, and that same template would pretty well fit the sides, will have to give it a go sometime!.

Thanks for digging James

The front fuselage section is 'quartic' enough for my purposes now (given that some of the latter side detail will be buried from view by commencement of intakes/wing) so I'm moving on to the really tricky bit that starts behind it. Have  just projected top and bottom profiles  into a new component space for the main fuselage/engine tunnel section but need to do some working out of process first as to what and how many profiles/rails I'll need to build 'the landscape'!

 

Right.

Before committing to the next region back - Tony Buttler talks evocatively here about 'sculptured skins' in relation the the main box/engine bays that form the core of this aircraft - I've spent any free time during the week (pitifully little...) trying to reduce the design work down to its key essentials in terms of capturing form. The following screenshots aren't actual sections of the aircraft but a fictitious amalgam of the main forms that I'm going to have to reconcile with each other in three-dimensions:

 

 

@hendie was right (and far too much of a gentleman to say 'I told you so' since'!) when he suggested several pages back that I would have to devolve the nose-to-tail run of the aircraft into a series of connected sub-assemblies, rather than build them as a single continuous loft.

 

How right he was.

 

This isn't simply about getting the aircraft to look 'right' in terms of the 'visual' (critical though that is of course) but equally involves simultaneously translating the shapes of an actual aircraft into the design language that Fusion uses to sculpt virtual form. In this respect I've come to realize (belatedly you might say) this is a parallel process and my job involves reconciling those two aspects with one another if this is to work. The aircraft tells you what it needs and Fusion tells you what limitations there are to the various ways of trying to meet those needs.

 

In relation to this I had to revise my initial idea of simply building the engine bay as a cylindrical tunnel due to the way both the tunnel walls within it and the opening for the access panel extend outward into the wing slightly  -as you can see in Damien Burke's superb revealing shot from the excellent 'Thunder & Lightnings' site:

^{Image credit: Damien Burke}

 

In these tests I've managed to join the contours of an imaginary engine bay to meet the (equally imaginary) lateral profile of a wing in a way that I think will let me resolve this part of the aircraft:

Front view:

I managed to make that by drawing only four lines so although the actual aircraft will require more fidelity in three-dimensional space, feel that there's a working methodology present now reducing these issues to their bare essentials in terms of technique.

 

You've no doubt clicked that the idea is to build to top and bottom parts as separate 'shells' (due to the necessity of them joining outboard at the wing profile), which will then subsequently be turned into a single solid body once all required profiles have been reconciled. The wing profile will act as a 'gatekeeper' at one end then to ensure that both halves meet at the same point in space outboard, with a centreline profile ensuring the same happening vertically down the middle of the aircraft.

 

Banging this out quickly as with Storm Ciara about to stick us Orange weather (ironically for the Republic...) there may not be power to do anything later.

 

General Election here also today just to add to the foment - walking back from the polling booth a little earlier I happened upon this scene of the storm approaching from the West coast:

Symbols everywhere these days it seems.....

 

Take care until next time me dears.

Tony

 

 

 

[keefr22]

3 hours ago, TheBaron said:

 

 

Love that sky! Those poor sheep are going to get a battering later though!

 

I've lately been wondering (doing little else at the moment) though Tony, are you seriously still going to be satisfied with any aspects of building the kit (and I've lost track now which one it is), after all these adventures in design & scratchbuilding? Or might you just end up seeing it as a waste of time?

 

Keith

[giemme]

Brilliant 3D shaping, Tony

Can't really wait for the next instalment

 

Ciao

[Spookytooth]

21 minutes ago, keefr22 said:

Those poor sheep are going to get a battering later though!

This could get silly?

 

Simon.

[Terry1954]

On 2/6/2020 at 1:29 PM, TheBaron said:

I've been quietly following this epic build, mostly dumbstruck at the bleeding edge approach you are taking in pursuit of achieving small scale Sea Vixen perfection, but I have to comment on that superb picture above. Probably one of the sharpest underside shots I've seen of  this aircraft. A beauty indeed and lots of weathering/detail there which would enhance any model, assuming it could be replicated.

 

I watch in wonder!

 

Terry

 

 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

I agree with Terry; particularly unusual to see the extended flaps from beneath with no underwing tank to get in the way.  Gold dust. 

[71chally]

Luckily XJ474 was extremely well photographed during its trials period, the one above was taken from a series showing all sorts of configurations in flight.

 

If would be a nice Vixen to model, especially comparing the above shot to the first flight one earlier in the thread.

The carrier trials shots also shown earlier in the thread are of this particular airframe aswel.

There is another later photo that shows very heavy staining undersides.

 

 

[hendie]

Tony,

 

I can't remember if you followed Witold Jaworski's Dauntless build but if not, it would be worth reading through to see how he approached things.  I know he used Blender and not Fusion, but some of the techniques may be transferable

 

 

[The Spadgent]

19 hours ago, TheBaron said:

No problem Johnny. It's one of these, at that price:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ELEGOO-MARS-Photocuring-LCD-Printer/dp/B07KRWNR82

Thanks Tony.

That’s amazing!!!! 🤩🤩🤩

[TheBaron]

22 hours ago, keefr22 said:

 

I've lately been wondering (doing little else at the moment) though Tony, are you seriously still going to be satisfied with any aspects of building the kit (and I've lost track now which one it is), after all these adventures in design & scratchbuilding? Or might you just end up seeing it as a waste of time?

Keith:  that's a very good question I one that I don't currently have a clear answer for to be honest.

 

The more time I invest in the current approach the more intriguing it becomes - partly as I've never had to stare so hard at the actual aircraft on a build before to get things right! 😃 It also appeals deeply to my problem-solving side in a way that kits haven't always scratched, or, to be more precise I guess, it opens up a set of new and (for me) unexplored problems that have much to commend them. The remaining kit in limbo is the Special Hobby one, which I keep taped together beside me at the desk.

 

The more I gaze at the front of it though the more something nags at me - is it just a trick of the light or does that nose look slightly Buccaneerish viewed from the rear quarter?

 

21 hours ago, giemme said:

Brilliant 3D shaping, Tony

Can't really wait for the next instalment

Giorgio!

Thinking of designing some pasta later...

21 hours ago, Spookytooth said:

This could get silly?

On BM?

20 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

I've been quietly following this epic build, mostly dumbstruck at the bleeding edge approach you are taking in pursuit of achieving small scale Sea Vixen perfection, but I have to comment on that superb picture above.

Thanks on both counts Terry! That's the second great Vixen shot I found on that image library site (the other being a closer frontal look at the nose of XJ481 during the Martel period).

20 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

A beauty indeed and lots of weathering/detail there which would enhance any model, assuming it could be replicated.

It can always be replicated! 😁 Pencil, varnish layers and oil paint look good candidates to me...

20 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Gold dust. 

Looks like they have inherited the Royal Aeronautical Society archive (or part of it anyway).

12 hours ago, hendie said:

I can't remember if you followed Witold Jaworski's Dauntless build but if not, it would be worth reading through to see how he approached things.  I know he used Blender and not Fusion, but some of the techniques may be transferable

Hard work this!

 

I don't have enough hats to doff in sufficient quantity in respect of the detailed knowledge he's shared over there! So much so that I've just purhcased  the opening chapters of his book on aircraft design dealing with preparing and rectifying drawings, as a discrete thank-you.

 

An excellent and timely nudge as always Alan: I'd been mulling over the necessity for accurate rib profiles for the next phase and he pointed me towards an answer - more below! 😁

6 hours ago, The Spadgent said:

that’s amazing!!!!

My thoughts exactly!

How long until the brass printer becomes a thing? 😆

 

Did some sketching in bed last night (whilst expecting the power to go off at any minute) to help explain the next stage of the process:

As mentioned in yesterday's instalment, the current scenario involved building top and bottom sections of the main box/engine bays using rib 2 as the outboard extent of both alongside a centreline profile down the middle of the aircraft. At rail 1 in the drawing above is the junction between this bit of the aircraft and the (now done) front fuselage section, though I yet have to decide what to do about the region rail 4 +5 (defining the intake in front of it) in terms of trying to include it in this step, or a separate component.

 

Need to think the implications through.

 

The underside has its own unique issues of course:

Instead of just meeting the main intake to mirror the top ( and hence make it easier to build top/bottom due to symmetry, there's the not insignificant matter of the smaller cooling air intake that the engine tunnels fairs into underneath the main intake. I actually took a photo of it at Yeovilton last summer knowing full well it was a detail that would come back to haunt me:

In crudely generalized terms then, the engine tunnel up top tapers and blends in to the airframe progressively to meet the junction of intake and fuselage above whereas below, it narrows right down to form this intake here.

Loads of fun...

 

I'd mentioned in my above reply to @hendie that there's been some progress made after gorging on the intro to @Witold Jaworskis jaw-dropping thread (Witold even references SIGGRAPH in it,  which must be the unique occasion this has turned up as a source in a forum build!). This made me determined to seek out an accurate reference (or at least as accurate as surviving documentation allows) for the airfoil section of the Sea Vixen. Hopping around various sources eventually led me to a post by a Mr. Quorneng over on the 'Aeromodellers' forum where he references an EC 1040 airfoil equating in his view to an RAE 104 one (I'm presuming the latter prefix means a 'Royal Aircraft Establishement' designation?). Querying said item over on the Airfoil Tools database revealed it to be a most promising candidate for the job so I did an overlay in P-shop against the least-distorted side-view of the wingfold that I've been able to find:

Allowing for perspectival shift and misleading outlines produced by the recessed nature of the fold within wing and top/bottom fairings for the hydraulics, that fit as as close to perfect as to be conmpelling.

 

One problem this immediately threw up was that importing the airfoil as raw data into Fusion directly produces a highly detailed set of datum points around the outline:

Highly accurate but far too many reference points to be usable in a wing design, considering this represents just a single rib. Using the graphical overlay I'd done in P-shop as an initial guide, I used the same image as a background canvas here to sketch out the airfoil shape using splines:

This required only nine points in total and is much more manageable as a result.

 

All well and good as a basis for the wingfold surface at rib 4 of course, so in this instance I needed to make a scaled-up copy of this profile onto a separate image plane inboard of this one in order to create rib 2 in the correct location, as seen below:

In sequence from the middle of the aircraft now then is the centreline profile of the fuselage, an intermediate profile to act as a guide for the engine bays, outboard of which are rib2, and rib 4 respectively.

 

Same elements viewed from the rear with the front fuselage turned on:

I realized in this shot and in the side view below that I haven't got ribs 2 & 4 correctly positioned yet vertically:

 - but with a quick test loft to give matters some temporary substance around the inner wing, horizontal placing is good however:

 

Might be a slow week ahead due to work and writing reports associated with it but pleased at the number of problems worked through this weekend now.

 

Nearly forgot.

 

We've nearly finished with Ciara now - she's all yours UK!

Spoke to soon, ice and snow warnings for tomorrow just popped upon on my weather app. Come back Ciara, all is forgiven....

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[giemme]

3 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

Thinking of designing some pasta later...

Please don't ...    

 

Ciara didn't stop you from 3D-ing, apparently ...  

 

Ciao

[Spookytooth]

41 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

On BM?

Of course , naturally, where else do we get great builds and typical schoolboy humour ?

 

Simon.

[71chally]

Superb research work going on there tony, loving the pencil sketches, reminds of the SBAC show sketches of new aircraft features in Flight magazine in the late 1950s.

 

EC1040 seems to be a generic aerofoil chosen for sweptwing aircraft in the early post-war period.  I believe EC was a designation used by the National Physical Laboratory.

'Read all about, read all about it',

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3648.pdf

 

 

I do like Keefs question earlier, that is one I have asked, but also how do you feel that in away your main project isn't a produced kit at all?

 

For me the pleasure of kit building is mainly the fact that I'm putting together a product and trying to do the best I can with it.

I certainly appreciate that your kits have increasingly been basic canvasses that have used your incredible modelling skills to render a superb model at the end.

 

Not very well asked or put across, but hope you get my drift!

Edited February 10, 2020 by 71chally

[perdu]

Lost

 

Totally lost and in fear of losing my sanity trying to understand all this but wow, how bl***y awesome is this stuff?

 

I'm back there cowering behind the others...

 

 

 

Dammit some of them look as if they know what you are doing, wow!