Technote

Technote: Divide a Line in Inventor

HughLeave a comment

Technote: Divide a Line in Inventor:

Dividing a sketch line in Autocad is very straightforward and the question is often asked how this can be done in Inventor. There are a number of options to do this which I will explore and then I will discuss an application where the solution is not so obvious.

Where you have a known length and you wish to locate a point at 20% of the LENGTH it is simply a matter of applying the formula “LENGTH*0.2” for the dimension value. Another option is when you want to divide the line into 5 equal portions then you can use the RECTANGLE Pattern command. You first set the number of points, expand the dialogue and select FITTED; you will then need to select the line dimensions or measure as I have done here for the value.

Another way of doing this is to draw five line segments in succession and apply an equal constraint to each one. For the above; the length is a required parameter, so what do you do when you don’t actually know the length?

The following example is the P-38 Lightning Horizontal Stabiliser tip for which I wanted to document the ordinate points for the ribs. The ribs perpendicular to the stabiliser axis are known dimensions based on the standard profile however I also needed to record the profile dimensions of the ribs set at an angle to the main axis. Admittedly the Lockheed archive does contain a number of ordinate profiles for the canted ribs where unfortunately the majority of dimensions are illegible.

I like to record numbers so it should come as no surprise to those that visit this blog regularly that I was keen to tabulate the ordinate profiles for these canted ribs. The above image shows a number of magenta profiles which are the rib templates illustrating how the surface converges towards the tip extents. Incidentally, the diagonal lines on the main rib profile actually have a purpose…as you view the stab tip on the elevation you will notice that the ordinate points (projected) align with those diagonals.

Getting back to the main subject. The wing rib and horizontal stabiliser ribs follow industry-standard percentage increments for defining the ordinates as shown in the following image. Now we are getting to the main topic…where I wanted to transfer the ordinate locations for the perpendicular ribs to define the ordinate profiles for the canted ribs.

The Horizontal stabiliser ribs are based on the NACA 0010 airfoil profile which is listed as per the Lockheed drawings in the table on the left. The column on the immediate right is the calculated values to improve accuracy which also verifies the recorded data. The table on the right is the transposed calculated values for the main perpendicular Horizontal stabiliser rib with a chord length of 45″.

The above image is the plan view for the Stabiliser tip which shows the centres for the canted ribs and over to the right a number of red vertical dotted lines indicating the position of the reference perpendicular rib profiles. Between those ribs is a blue dotted line with a small circle indicator which is actually the main subject of this article.

The easiest way of defining the canted ribs is simply to loft the known perpendicular profiles and cut along the axis of the canted ribs…it definitely is the quickest way of doing this. However, that leaves a lot of miscellaneous activities in the cad model which just adds clutter.

Transposing the location of percentage increments from the rib table ordinate table to the canted ribs is done like this.

The perpendicular profile chord is the blue dotted line and the canted rib is the red centre line. The LENGTH is the chord length and the dimension A is the percentage increment on that line that we need to find the comparative intersection for on the cant rib. At this point, we do not know the LENGTH as this is dependent on the line position relative to the cant rib at whatever percentage increment we chose.

As mentioned at the start of this article for say a 20% chord dimension we could simply draw 5 lines in succession and apply an equal constraint and so on for the equal divisible portions…but that is not very practical.

So what we do is to locate the template rib line at any arbitrary point on the cant rib and then dimension the length…it does not matter at this stage what the dimension is. Now, this is the key thing we must do…select the LENGTH dimension and change it to a Driven Dimension. Now define the percentage increment (multiplied by Length) you wish to interrogate from the NACA table above and the template rib line will automatically relocate to a position where the Dim A is actually the percentage dimension you define of the total chord length. The software calculates the correct length according to the parameters specified.

An example would be where you specify 15%: you would write “0.15*D20” where D20 is the Driven Dimension.

I have included in the ordinate spreadsheets a table that will calculate the ordinate rib offsets depending on the chord length derived from the above exercise.

You then simply transfer those ordinate offsets to the intersection point of the cant rib. It really is quite clever when you think about it…you are asking the software to define the length of a line based on a percentage value relative to another canted line within boundaries specified by the arc.

Of course, I did not have to do this for all the cant rib offsets just the ones that were missing from the Lockheed drawings.

The P38 Lightning project is now finished. Only known dimensional data is included in this study. The engine Nacelle and Carb intake are omitted due to lack of dimensional information…however the creative among you will find it straightforward to interpolate fairly accurate profiles from the known information incorporated in this model and accompanying spreadsheet dataset.

Drop me a line at hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Technote: P-38 Lightning Tailfin Rudder Calcs

HughLeave a comment

Technote: P-38 Lightning Tailfin Rudder Calcs

When I started this project the Lockheed drawings seemed to be quite well organised with the provision of a number of what I thought were key ordinate drawings. These appeared to be full of tabulated dimensions and associated formulas. The wing layout and dimensional information were well documented so it was logical to assume this pattern would follow with the other drawings. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case with the Empennage drawings which required a lot more work thus this blog article.

Having worked my way through the vagaries of the wing design and the forward Boom section I then progressed to the Vertical Stabiliser Fin and Rudder drawings. The first drawing in the batch I looked at was an ordinate layout drawing which on closer inspection only provided the location of the spars and struts…there was no information on the Leading or Trailing edge curved profiles. So I ventured to look at Assembly drawing #223026 to see what information I could glean from that.

Again it was just the main component locations and little or no information on the curvature. However, there was the drawing for the Rudder Tab and yes indeed it did contain information on the curvature. At this point, I should note that the Lockheed drawings include some sketches which contain chord profile information for both the wings and empennage…unfortunately 80% of those are illegible.

This sketch is the exception for the Fin/Rudder profiles at a specified WaterLine. This is where things got interesting because the chord dimension on this drawing did not match the dimension of the Rudder Tab at the same location after I had modelled it and furthermore did not match a comparative drawing in the Structural manual which also included dimensional information. It turns out that the Rudder and Tab Trailing edges are constructed in the same way as the main wing with an extended tab for jointing top and bottom sheet panels…which explains the dimensional variation.

The dimensions on the Basic layout sketch above and the corresponding information in the structural repair manual are actually relative to the rib chord and not to the finished edge.

As the above sketch was the only legible example of the requisite rib chord information I had to rethink my approach and reverse engineer the data on the Fin/Rudder’s ribs.

The Fin/Rudder rib drawings contain chord profiles for the ribs, though only partial I suspected that they may follow a standard format normally applied to rib airfoils i.e. percentage increments. It may seem an obvious comparison but in my experience, this is not always the case.

The drawing on the left is the partial profile information for the Fin/Rudder rib and the drawing on the right is the basic profile included on the Ordinate layout drawing I mentioned in the beginning. I surmised that if the Rib drawing follows the same convention as the Ordinate table with logical percentage increments it would be possible to determine the chord lengths of each rib.

In excel I created this spreadsheet with the Ordinate Table on the left and subsequent tables containing information from the Fin/Rudder Rib drawings. The first 2 columns in each table are the values as noted on the drawings and then to check my theory that they followed a logical sequence I calculated the third column which indeed returned a close approximation of the actual chord length. The fourth column is the new offsets calculated from the derived chord length in each case.

Having established that the rib profile is as I expected it is now possible to create ordinate points to profile the Trailing Edge and define the contours for the Rudder’s ribs. Remember we also have a tab extension to which we have to add an additional fraction of an inch to get the final trimmed profile. As I am calculating and applying the new information to the CAD model sketches I maintain a 2d view to check the overall dimensions to see how they compare.

I am only halfway through the development of the Fin and Rudder layout as shown but will continue the same process to ascertain the remaining curve sections. At the end of the day and similarly the same with the wing the 2d drawing will display 2 lines profiling the Trailing Edge, one which will be the 100% chord ordinate and the other the extended tab. By the way please don’t use any of the dimensions noted on this drawing…it is a study with temporary dimensions!

A lot of work still to do on this which will have to be done for all the spars and ribs to ascertain the correct curvatures of the Trailing Edges. Where occasionally you need to derive specific information it is often beneficial to look at opportunities to interrogate what information you do have to determine the information you need.

Update 26th May 2022:

After extensive study and listing of ordinates in stacks of excel tables, I have managed to verify the Vertical Stabiliser dimensions. The Basic or True Rudder line noted on the sheet drawings is defined by the 100% chord dimension for the ribs…this is an important change to the wing trailing edge. Anyway as I need to take a break I thought it may be prudent to provide this update for your perusal. Still some work to do for the top and bottom profiles and of course a general tidy up would be in order…it is still a work in progress!

I could have just accepted the dimensions noted in the Structural repair manual as the end result would have been close. However, it is important where there are slight variations between the manual, the ordinate sketch and the part drawings that every effort is expended to understand the design intent and derive a correct solution.

One further point of interest: the profile for the Vertical Stabilizer is close to being symmetrical about the vertical centre of the full length of the rib chords. I marked out the centres of each rib profile and found only a 3.6mm difference for the top section, however, the variation in the lower section (below WL 21) is considerably more at 19mm… which is too much even accounting for the fractional accuracy from inch measurements.

Update 10th July 2022:

My study of the P-38 Lightning is now finished. I have documented all aspects of the aircraft and compiled an extensive record of dimensions in a comprehensive Excel spreadsheet. The 3d CAD model is supported with dimensioned 2d layout drawings with all models available in native IPT, IAM forms as well as Parasolid XT and 3d DWG.

For more information get in touch, as usual, contact me at hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Technote: Bell P-39 Airacobra Updated Model

Hugh7 Comments

Technote: Bell P-39 Airacobra Updated Model

For the last 3 weeks I have been working on an update to the Bell P-39 Airacobra Ordinate and CAD dataset. The original P-39 was intended to be a personal study of the construction and structure and therefore never actually finished. However following a request from a good friend who asked if I could do some work on the Vertical and Horizontal Stabilisers I decided to have a look and see what I could do.

This model is brand new, effectively replacing the old model with a new direction in how these models are presented. The majority of the CAD/Ordinate datasets comprise extensive spreadsheets of dimensional data, drawings and a 3d cad model of the profiles. The idea is that all this data will provide the end-user with a number of options for their own projects. To develop their own models, from either the 3D cad model provided, the 2d drawings or using the spreadsheet data. Fundamental to all this is getting the core dimensions correct which was my primary goal.

I have extended that concept further by applying a base material thickness to the frames and ribs using the Sheet Metal function. For reasons of clarity it is just the basic web profile but what it does is provide the end-user with an actual solid 3d model; dimensionally correct. This can be further utilised for production or used for RC models with the basic frames in place.

This development came about as a consequence of building the Horizontal Stabiliser. This was hampered due to a number of significant Bell drawings that don’t seem to exist as well as a few-dimensional error in the drawings I do have.

Developing this model required a lot of research to achieve the most accurate model possible for the P-39 Stabiliser. For example, the angle noted at “3” is defined on the Bell drawings as 13 degrees but when you check the layout against the Jig mounting points on the fuselage the angle is actually 13.1127 degrees. The material thickness of the ribs was an important factor when calculating this angle.

The dimension at “1” is not on the drawings but I did eventually find this quoted on a NACA Wartime report which aligns perfectly with expectations. The Leading Edge sweep angle is derived after I developed the LE ribs and aligned with known information. This is close and guaranteed to be within plus or minus 0.2 degrees. I have also written to a few companies that have P-39s to see if they are able to verify this angle. Update: Note the leading edge angle has been verified with a new value; see later post on this blog dated 12 July 2022.

The new P-39 Airacobra model and Excel spreadsheets are now online. Dimensionally it covers all aspects, wings, fuselage and empennage. There is also a copy of the old model which is still relevant.

Old Model (more 3d cad bits):

The plan is eventually to revisit the previous CAD Models for the other aircraft projects and add the web material thickness as I have done with the new study. This adds value to the potential use of these models far beyond what I initially intended.

As usual for more information drop me a line at hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Technote: Understanding Ordinate Datasets

Hugh1 Comment

Technote: Understanding Ordinate Datasets

I wrote an article on using the Ordinate datasets many moons ago, which is now rather dated so I figured it was time to write an update with a better explanation.

First of all the reason why? It’s like every other construction project where you first start with a skeletal framework and then develop the project’s envelope. Whether it be a building with a steel frame, a boat, even the human body relies on having in place the skeleton on which to build the construction elements.

Aircraft projects are no different and to this end, many manufacturers provide this information in the form of ordinate dimensions. This information occasionally is listed in tables or included on the individual part blueprint drawings. I firmly believe that once you have the basic framework dimensionally accurate then everything else falls into place…so it is incredibly important.

Basic Ordinate Overview:

Let’s take an example from the Bell P-39 Airacobra.

For this aircraft, the ordinate dimensions are noted on the actual part blueprints so I have developed a series of tables listing this information in excel spreadsheets as shown. They list the Station Location from the aircraft Zero plane (this is usually identified by the manufacturer). The Station number is actually the station dimensions from this plane which defines the Z component. The next column on the table is the Vertical Y-component or the dimension to the Waterline and finally, we have the Horizontal X-Dim which lists either the Buttock Line position or Half Breadth dimension.

Commonly the Horizontal axis on the aircraft is known as the Fuselage Reference Line (FRL) or occasionally the Thrust Line. The Vertical Line is simply known as the Centre of the Ship to the Aircraft.

Waterline (WL): Horizontal Axis, Buttock Line (BL): Vertical Axis. An example of this is where we commonly have a designation like WL4…which means the Waterline at 4″ above or below the Centre of the Fuselage. So when it is not specifically dimensioned you would know from the designation where it is located.

Once I have the tables of known dimensions I would occasionally extrapolate this data to list the actual X,Y,Z dimensions in separate tables to make it easier to copy and paste into any CAD system.

As you can see from the above image, the dimensions are initially listed in 3 columns, X,Y,Z and next to that is the same data listed with comma delimiters. The reason for this is because Mechanical design packages like Inventor and Solidworks will recognise separate columns of data in the requisite order as stated whereas Autocad will require combined data for Mulitple Point input as comma-delimited.

The way I do this is to have a separate excel spreadsheet which I keep on my desktop which I call Scrap.xlsx. The format is common as shown in the image on the left though I should note the top 2 rows are optional. If there are no units specified it will default to the CAD template units. I usually don’t bother with the top 2 lines. Once the points are imported into CAD I tend to delete the values in the spreadsheet Scrap.Xlsx and start again.

The comma-delimited column data in the above image can also be copied onto a Notepad Text file and used in Autocad. Worth noting is that if you try to import X, Y, Z coordinates onto a 2D sketch it will only import the first 2 lines and ignore the third…so make sure the columns are in X, Y, and Z-order.

An important consideration is that not everyone uses Inventor or Solidworks or even Autocad which is why the spreadsheets are critical because then everyone can use the data to build their own models.

Actually building the model can be done in several ways. You can build a part file with multiple workplanes on which to sketch the profiles from the input ordinate data or individually in separate part files. You can model the parts in context, i.e. taking into consideration the Station (Z-axis) dimensions so when input into the assembly they locate correctly in 3d space. Or just the X, Y, ordinates in the part file and locate to the Z-axis offset in the assembly.

Dealing with problem data:

This is perhaps one of the main driving initiatives behind the development of Ordinate datasets with regards to the legibility of the original manufacturer’s blueprints.

This example is actually quite reasonable whilst others are quite illegible. As most of these datasets are listed in Inches; which are normally factions; it is easy to confuse whether a fraction is 3/16, 5/16 or 9/16 when all you have is a blob of dark matter.

What I tend to do in these circumstances is develop what I do know and develop the profile using splines to connect the points and then apply the curvature to help determine the missing point location or check that a point is correct.

Occasionally points you need to complete a profile just don’t exist on the blueprints or are completely illegible which will then require more extensive research. Sometimes this information is included in the maintenance or Repair manuals or in the case of the P-51 Mustang a missing point was actually found in correspondence. Either way compiling this data and building the profiles is very time-consuming.

Another fairly common problem is wrong dimensions. Every aircraft project I have worked on from this era has this problem, not because they are bad draughtsman (very much to the contrary) it is because many of the drawings are only records of the Template Lofts and occasionally the dimension is recorded incorrectly. The skill is identifying that the dimension is wrong; it is unwise to assume that because something does not look quite right that it is actually a mistake. So you have to check with associated parts and layouts to be sure.

The image above is the Horizontal Stabiliser leading edge. The rib in blue (1) was obviously wrong because of a distinct kink in the curved edge, which when corrected aligns well with its neighbours. The one in red (2) also appears to be wrong even though the curvature looks fine the forward edge does not match with the projected alignment (I tend to use an Axis feature to check this). Before I apply any corrections I will check the part drawing and then the assemblies to determine if there is an error or if it is actually a design feature.

Locating Sketch Datum Points:

Creating workplanes for sketches as offsets from the primary X, Y or Z planes tends to copy the originating plane datum point which is not always where we need it to be when importing a series of points. The best option is to use the Parallel To Plane Through Point when creating a workplane as this allows you to select the point which will be the datum point on that sketch plane for locating the point data.

I previously wrote an article on this here: https://hughtechnotes.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/technote-inventor-sketch-datum/

Some of the datasets are setout specifically to make it easier to input the data from the spreadsheet. For example, the extrapolated X, Y, and Z, coordinates for the P-51 Mustang wing have been compiled and calculated so they will input at the location of the 25% wing chord. This is assumed to be the logical setout point from the CAD World Coordinate system which saves you a lot of hassle.

If however, you have to create a workplane on an incline this option may not be available in which case you need to adapt the local sketch coordinate system to suit the required datum point.

In Inventor, you would right-click the Sketch in the model browser and select the Edit Coordinate System option which initiates an adjustable Coordinate icon on the sketch.

Suffice to say this icon can be manipulated, moved and rotated to any point on the sketch to suit your requirements. I will do a more comprehensive article on this shortly.

Other Excel Ordinate Examples:

The actual layout of the Ordinate spreadsheets depends entirely on the form from which the data is developed. Where the original blueprint data are listed in tables I will generate the excel spreadsheet in exactly the same format…which helps when checking the data input. If there are no tables but data from the part drawings then I will generate tables according to how the dimensions are noted.

All the dimensions are listed in Inches and Millimetres. I normally extrapolate the X, Y, and Z coordinates to millimetres as this is easier for me to work with…but it is easy to change that to inches if required. All the spreadsheets are fully editable and not restricted in any way.

Finally a quick Excel tip:

If you work with percentages a lot you will find this useful. When entering the value in the cell just add the % sign after the numbers and Excel will automatically format the cell as a percentage value.

Ordinate Data set Availability.

The NAA P-51 Mustang (probably the most comprehensive study) is available as a separate package from the Blueprints archive. The B-25 Mitchell is also a separate package and the Grumman Goose. The F6F and F4F are currently included in the Blueprint archive as they are not so well organised (work in progress) for now.

The Bell P-39 Airacobra is currently included with the blueprints but as I am now working on a new update this will shortly only be available as a separate package.

The P-38 Lightning is brand new and will not be available until June.

Final Note: All the Ordinate packages include the 3D cad model as developed in Inventor. This should not be an obstacle to anyone wanting to interrogate the model as a 30-day evaluation of the Autodesk Inventor is readily available for download. You can even extract sketches from the model as DWG files if required.

Many of the Ordinate packages include fully dimensioned Autocad 2D drawings and PDFs. These are mainly layout drawings and critical location information where it is essential to better understand relationships between wings, fuselage and empennage. Again all these are fully editable.

For all inquiries and feedback please get in touch: hughtechnotes@gmail.com

P-38 Lightning: New Project

HughLeave a comment

P-38 Lightning: New Project

New Ordinate/CAD Project: The Lockheed P-38 Lightning is an American single-seated, twin piston-engined fighter aircraft that was used during World War II. Developed for the United States Army Air Corps by the Lockheed Corporation, the P-38 incorporated a distinctive twin-boom design with a central nacelle containing the cockpit and armament.

This project will dissect the complexity of the aircraft dimensions with fully developed spreadsheets, CAD models and drawings. I have drifted back and forth on this project over the last few months, studying the blueprints in detail to determine the best way of presenting the data in a usable format.

Surprisingly the wings are probably one the most complex parts of this study. The complexity comes about as a consequence of how the dimensional data has been recorded. For example, the wing chord is at a dihedral angle of over 5 degrees with the wing ribs actually perpendicular to the ground plane.

When we define the wing ribs we are actually working on a vertical plane angled to the wing chord line with the main beam and rear shear beams perpendicular to the chord on section. We also have the dimensions for the basic wing airfoil profile. Initially, I will record the rib dimensional information and generate the correct array of points at each Station. Then I shall calculate the airfoil profile at each station based on the given formulae Yu = YuT+(YuL-YuT)A. This should give us a means of verifying the tabulated data, for example; the table values for the Main Beam on 35% chord should match with the calculated airfoil values.

The plan is to record the dimensions as noted, vertical, horizontal and chord aligned in inches and millimetres exactly as defined on the original blueprints. Then I will extrapolate the X, Y, Z, coordinates for each point taking into account the chord angle of 2 degrees so that we can simply transpose these points directly into CAD at the correct positions relative to the origin point where the Nose Ref Line intersects with the Fuselage Ref Line.

The other caveat to all this is the 0% chord line is actually set back from the leading edge. There is yet another table of dimensions that relates the curvature of the leading edge to the 0% chord line. Ultimately to define the wing ordinates will involve a lot of work and then checking to ensure accuracy and correct alignment with the airfoil claculated profiles. At the end of the day, it is about making sense of all this fragmented information into a workable solution that makes it easier to interpret and use in any CAD system.

This is essentially how I work with all these Ordinate/CAD datasets. It is not just about recording information but also to check that the information works and that the end-user can transpose this into whatever system they are using. It is quite common for the information on the blueprints to be obscured, missing or simply illegible which usually requires a fair amount of time searching for answers. To complete this project I estimate something in the region of 300 manhours.

Update: 26th April 2022:

I have not yet decided on how best to present the Wing Ordinate dataset. I am looking at establishing check tables that will effectively compare the noted tabulated dimensions on the Blueprints with the calculated values. Also, we need to derive locational information directly from the wing plan CAD drawing for the Rear Shear beam and do a calculated check. Just to give you some idea of where I am going with this see screenshot below. As I mentioned above, the information on the drawings is fragmented so it is important that the excel spreadsheet data is presented in a clear and legible manner. Just now it is a bit of a muddle.

A quick update: Have rearranged the spreadsheet now with calculated values in lieu of listed values so the CAD model will be considerably more accurate. Calculated values are in blue text.

The rest of the Rib station tables will be added with similar calculated values and then I shall create a second worksheet with the airfoils for each corresponding station. The final sequence will be the extrapolation of 3D Ordinate points from a single datum so it will be possible to build an entire wing just from one collection of X, Y, and Z coordinates in one step. At least up to STA 254…still need to figure out the intricacies of the wingtip geometry.

Ordinates for each wing STA profile are calculated and recorded as shown. The highlighted rows at the 35% chord, are checked with those corresponding values listed in the tables above from the Lockheed original drawings. By the way, the drawing on the right is the Basic Layout Engine Mounts…there are 2 variations on this; both of which will be developed.

In the above screenshot, I have highlighted 2 minor corrections to the wing rib locations. They should be the decimal value for 85 11/16″ and 106 5/16″.

Update 3rd May 2022:

Have made good progress on the datasets for the Wing, Boom and Engine Mounts. Whilst working on this project I thought it may be prudent to compile an assembly list for each aircraft type for the basic dimension layouts as shown below. I plan to do a Technote shortly updating work methods using the ordinate dataset from Excel spreadsheets and include information on Sketch coordinate systems; manipulating the X, Y, Z-axis locally…so look out for that.

Technote: Manufacturers Standard Parts

Hugh1 Comment

Technote: Manufacturers Standard Parts:

Every aircraft manufacturer has libraries of standard parts in addition to the MIL specs that are used for their various aircraft designs. These vary considerably covering a wide number of standard parts like bolts, nuts, washers, hinges, screws, grommets, extrusions etc, etc.

When I was working on the P-51 Mustang Tailwheel mechanism I was forever jumping back and forth looking for the various standard parts which was a nightmare due to the large number of files in the archive. This was further complicated as the file names were the scan numbers and not the drawing names. So I figured it was time to get this stuff organised.

I have worked through the archives for the Grumman F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat and extracted the Standard Part drawings and renamed them with the correct drawing designations. I have also done a similar exercise for the NAA P-51 Mustang.

The actual drawing filenames have been adjusted slightly to make sorting easier (by group) and make the names more legible. Where for example we have 1E48; this is denoted as 1E-48…the 1E is the alpha-numeric group designation with the numerical sequence suffix. This just makes it easier to read when you have hundreds of files in the same folder.

The excel spreadsheet is a register with the different manufacturers’ part drawings listed on separate sheets in one workbook. This is tabbed along the bottom of the spreadsheet. It is envisaged that each set of drawings as listed will include a download link to an online resource to access the files. This download link for the collection of standard part drawings is located on the top right of the spreadsheets.

The NAA Part Drawings also include the previous specification identifier as some of the earlier blueprints still refer to this number.

This is an evolving project and will be continually updated as more information becomes available with the inclusion of other manufacturers data. Currently, over 400 part drawings are registered. For further information please drop me a line at hughtechnotes@gmail.com.

Update: This file Revision A containing the Standard Part drawing links for Grumman and NAA is now available for download here. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KQbn8FNCwKO8xODLlPB3jTAExa3qygZJ?usp=sharing

Footnote: If you are looking for MilSpecs; as discussed in a previous post; then check out these resources:

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

http://everyspec.com/MS-Specs/MS2/MS21000-MS21999/

Technote: Sheetmetal; Avoid Bend Stress Points

HughLeave a comment

Technote: Sheetmetal; Avoid Bend Stress Points:

This is a sheet metal part for the P-39 Airacobra (#12-509-052) sent to me by a fellow enthusiast for comment. Before I get immersed in discussion on this subject I would just say that this part is a cable cover that is unlikely to be under any substantial stress and thus would probably be fine as modelled.

The part comprises 2 tabs, one on the top and one on the bottom. It is the fillet radius that I will focus on. The first bend is offset from the edge of the plate. The drawing specifies a 5/32″ (4mm) radius for the fillets at the intersection of the top tab and the main body which overlaps the sheet metal bend. The originator has taken this literally and attempted to create a finished fillet of 5/32″.

I suspect that the drawing is actually referring to a 5/32″ radius as it would be for the developed flat pattern because doing so otherwise; due to the bend being offset as illustrated on the cad model; this introduces stress points.

The images show the irregular continuity which creates angular edges that essentially become focussed stress points. It is often best to try to achieve smooth continuity both for bending purposes and of course when in use. What they did was sketch a face profile; which included the specified radius (#1)and then proceeded to adopt the standard commands to build the flanges. Technically it is not wrong but as the manufacturer’s drawing does not contain a developed flat pattern it is often misinterpreted…the radius should perhaps be applied to the pattern before bending.

Similarly, at the bottom tab, we also have irregular continuity as shown at #2.

I rebuilt this model to address these issues and you can see how a small change in modelling technique can obviate some of these issues.

The images show the developed pattern with the original cad model on the top and the new version on the bottom. At #3 the outline of the tab would be difficult to cut with the small taper before the fillet, whereas the lower profile at #4 is easier to cut with no stress points. Similarly for the base tab at #5 and #6. I should note that the bottom tab radius is not specified so I opted for the default minimum which fits nicely before the bend lines.

There are several ways to do this with the easiest being accomplished by using the Unfold command on a square flange and then applying the fillet before refolding. The option I have used here is first to draw an extended flange as part of the initial face sketch, create the first part of the model as a Face then apply the 5/32″ fillet before bending along a predetermined bend line sketch.

The sketched tab outline is a lot bigger than is required which of course can be trimmed once the tab is complete. You can see the extents of the tab on the initial sketch…you only need to add a plane at that point to trim. The resulting fillet is a smooth continuity with no obvious stress points.

Understandably the designers wished to increase the amount of material at the bend to maximise strength so it is advised to try to achieve those goals. As I said before, for a cover like this it is probably not too critical if we only applied a small fillet but for framing and structural elements, it may be critical.

One quick note on the 2 vertical flanges…the drawing specified an internal radius of 5/32″ which to be honest is unworkable as the resulting bend would overlap the bottom tab…in this case, I opted for the minimum specified.

At the end of the day, it is down to the interpretation of the designer intent. For the majority of sheet-metal drawings, they often do not include developed flat patterns but may contain information that is actually applicable to the flat pattern and not necessarily the finished folded profile.

Technote: Learning Resource for 3D CAD!

HughLeave a comment

Technote: Learning Resource for 3D CAD!

Today I had an interesting conversation with a University lecturer on utilising historical blueprints as a resource for learning 3D CAD. I have been involved in similar discussions in the past and I do think they are an ideal source for those that are beginning this journey. I once helped a college to develop a curriculum for their students learning CAD on the principle that they would be more engaged in the learning process if they were developing a real-world object that they could actually relate to.

It does make a lot of sense and I would encourage new users to seriously consider the many benefits of using blueprint resources for learning. A typical aircraft design covers complex mechanical items, hydraulics, electrical, sheet metal, moulds, integration with external resources such as Excel spreadsheets as well as familiarising the end-user with tolerance application. Never mind the added benefit of how to prepare quality, fully dimensioned 2D drawings. All disciplines in one package!

I work with a lot of different CAD systems, not just Inventor, though the main reason for using Inventor is because it is accessible as a trial product more so than many others and that this industry is not one normally associated with Inventor…so it is a nice challenge. Occasionally, particularly with other CAD systems, I tend to evaluate them using the blueprints as source material to cover the many aspects of their functionality.

The blueprint archives are not expensive when you think that you could get 10000 blueprints for a small amount of money. The downside of having so many blueprints is finding what you need to help with your learning task. The P-51 Mustang blueprints come complete with a fully detailed drawing list which helps enormously. The P-39 blueprints are roughly sorted into categories which helps in this respect. The Fw190 and Bf109 sets are also very good but as they are in German this sometimes can be counterproductive if it is not your first language.

I am currently putting together a free random collection of a dozen or so blueprints from the various Aviation archives that will give you an introduction to real-world applications and a head start on your project. Just drop me a line at hughtechnotes@gmail.com.

The initial randomly selected files are available online here. https://www.mediafire.com/folder/iyedg37u0ckku/Blueprint+samples

Technote: Autodesk Inventor 2022 Part Model States

HughLeave a comment

Technote: Autodesk Inventor 2022 Part Model States

In a previous Technote I briefly introduced the work method for Derived parts that provide the capability of managing model states i.e. from Forged part to machining; as separate part files. This was included in a discussion on the P-51 Mustang Tail Wheel down position modeling.

Inventor 2022; just released; now has a feature called Part Model states which will enable you to manage manufacturing operations, dimensional variations and simplified representations all on one part file.

Check out the introductory video on The Autodesk website for more details on this feature as well as more information on the latest release of Autodesk® Inventor®. This is packed with user-requested updates and enhancements to help manage your design process, speed up your connected engineering workflows and reduce repetitive tasks.

Whilst Autodesk Inventor is not normally associated with the Aviation industry it has a very advanced 3D toolset that adapts well to this industry as I have demonstrated in the many Technotes throughout this blog. So do checkout my previous articles on using Inventor in this environment and drop me a line or comment below. More information on Inventor 2022 and specific tutorials on utilizing the host of features within Inventor will follow.

P-51D Mustang: Conic Formula in Excel

Hugh1 Comment

P-51D Mustang: Conic Formula in Excel

A quick technote on entering a conic formula in MS Excel spreadsheets. Getting the correct syntax is critical to achieving correct results.

I am updating the ordinate datasheets for the P-51 B/C and D models to incorporate new information using the various conic formula according to the curve type. Typically with these equations, there are a number of constants to be established to input to the final quadratic formula.

excel formula 2

test equationThe original formula for one of the constants “P” is given as shown (1). If we enter the formula as prescribed in a hand calculator it will evaluate correctly but will not work correctly in Excel in this format. So we need to tell Excel to essentially divide everything in the top line by everything in the bottom by adding parenthesis as shown (2).

The bottom line shows the actual input in the excel formula bar (3).

We are continually working on updates to the Ordinate and Cad package so watch this space for new articles. There will also be in-depth tutorials on interrogating ordinate information to find max-width, tangents and matched second-degree curves as well as updates on detail drawings.