In need of Drawing assistance.

Hi all, ^^

I am doing a Glider drawing for a class, and i am having various issues with it,

for 1. the designated grid/snap settings it asks me to use (1/8" snap, 1/4" grid) doesn't allow me to precisely snap to the tiny corners i need to get to (0'0"-1/32" Architectural Precision), and the actual instructions do not designate the angles i need to use, nor much else, is there anyone with msn/aim/gtalk that would be able to tutor/aide me in this? i am not asking anyone to do it for me, but just interactively help me with this. Unless this is easier than i make it out to be?

Well, No one really uses grid snaps or grids anymore for that matter. However, except for the widths a 1/8" snap should be fine but you can change it to 1/32 if you like.

I assume you are going to make several profile views for each part... Simple triangles...

You don't need to know any angles, since the dimensions will make the appropriate angle for you.

KC

Well, No one really uses grid snaps or grids anymore for that matter. However, except for the widths a 1/8" snap should be fine but you can change it to 1/32 if you like.

 

I assume you are going to make several profile views for each part... Simple triangles...

 

You don't need to know any angles, since the dimensions will make the appropriate angle for you.

 

KC

that's the thing, this is the first time i am going to actually draw in the class, but he gave us really minimal instructions, and he's the type to get really um... get really if we ask questions that he doesn't feel are necessary, which is why i'd rather come here for help.

here are the instructions given:

Units: Architectural

Precision: 1/32"

Limits: 20.2,15.4

Snap: .125

Grid: .25

In the settings, notice how you can use set the units to Architectural, and use different units for the Limits, Snap, and Grid.

The limits for A size paper are 8.5 X 11. The paper size limits for most A size output devices are 10.1 X 7.75. Since this drawing will not fit comfortably on a standard sheet of paper, we doubled the limits to 20.2 X 15.4. If you have an output device, you would then plot to limits at 1=2.

Start AutoCAD and create a new drawing called PLANE.DWG.

Use the setting show above.

Using a combination of snap, ortho, and coordinate entry, draw detail views of the model plane. Do not dimension the drawing. A picture of the plane appears on page 106 of your text.

E-MAIL me the PLANE.DWG.

so i am a bit confuzzled... keep in mind, that this is like, the 3rd unit i've done, the previous 2 units were just familiarity with commands and buttons.

wait, and what does it mean 'detail views' of the model plane?

bump, in need of some clarification or any help ^^

wait, and what does it mean 'detail views' of the model plane?

Detail views can mean many things, but I think your teacher is looking for some plan (flat), views of the planes parts.

I used a simple method of boxes and trimming but try to follow what you have learned so far. Just setup your grid and follow the dimensions using the line tool and you should be done in no time.

KC

Detail views can mean many things, but I think your teacher is looking for some plan (flat), views of the planes parts.

 

[ATTACH]18803[/ATTACH]

 

I used a simple method of boxes and trimming but try to follow what you have learned so far. Just setup your grid and follow the dimensions using the line tool and you should be done in no time.

 

KC

thank you so much! that is a lot clearer now, i was actually trying to draw the same aspect the the plane was portrayed as, it seemed almost impossible with my given settings.

I work in steel but the basics are still the same. We construct drawings of the entire building. Then we break that down into the individual parts to be fabricated and shipped . Then each assembly has to be broken down into the individual parts for each machine operator to cut/saw/drill/ . Those smallest part drawings are the detail drawings. Most machine operators don't really know or care what the building looks like.

I work in steel but the basics are still the same. We construct drawings of the entire building. Then we break that down into the individual parts to be fabricated and shipped . Then each assembly has to be broken down into the individual parts for each machine operator to cut/saw/drill/ . Those smallest part drawings are the detail drawings. Most machine operators don't really know or care what the building looks like.

To basically reiterate what kadeycat said try to look at the whole, in this case the assembled plane, and break it up into the parts you would need to build it than draw the parts.

When you get into 3d models, especially if you plan on applying quality textures for rendering, looking at the whole as the parts needed to creat it will be a big help.

Best of luck to you.

The image itself says "detail drawings of each part" by the way.

It's a pretty cool exercise, actually.

Kencaz - you took a liberty with the wing and tail pieces.. (so did I till I realized what I'd done..) For the top wing, the blueprints show a seam across the middle, indicating a seperation point.

For the tail 'wing," it is two pieces, as shown at the end view, where the tail "stops" as it touches the body, rather than showing it continue across.

Also.. if the tail WAS a single piece, you'd have to "blunt" the forward tip of it to reach the 1-3/8" dimension given, or project past that point to determine where the tip would end up (and notch out the body sideview for the tail addition, accordingly)

It reminded me of the old foam gliders though.. so I drew it up the same way at first.

Numerics? a quick warning without giving it away.. The length of those two rear wings won't add-up to the overall width (or even the half-width) dimensioned on the blueprint at the tail. Be sure you know why.

Most machine operators don't really know or care what the building looks like.

Welcome to the forums kadeycat!

I agree, worked on many steel buildings, seldom got to see one.

Or, didn't care to see one.

I played a little bit with gliders when I was much younger.

If I remember someone sent a little pet mouse gliding around the playground. He survived a few orbits.

The image itself says "detail drawings of each part" by the way.

 

It's a pretty cool exercise, actually.

 

Kencaz - you took a liberty with the wing and tail pieces.. (so did I till I realized what I'd done..) For the top wing, the blueprints show a seam across the middle, indicating a seperation point.

 

For the tail 'wing," it is two pieces, as shown at the end view, where the tail "stops" as it touches the body, rather than showing it continue across.

 

Also.. if the tail WAS a single piece, you'd have to "blunt" the forward tip of it to reach the 1-3/8" dimension given, or project past that point to determine where the tip would end up (and notch out the body sideview for the tail addition, accordingly)

 

It reminded me of the old foam gliders though.. so I drew it up the same way at first.

 

Numerics? a quick warning without giving it away.. The length of those two rear wings won't add-up to the overall width (or even the half-width) dimensioned on the blueprint at the tail. Be sure you know why.

If a person were to actually build this model and fly it, the wing would absolutely require that joint at the center. Each wing would be angled upward toward the tips a few degrees, from 2 to 5 or so, to add stability in flight. Nearly every real airplane, with the exception of high performance craft are built like that. The resulting construct is called Dihedral Angle. But there is no need to even know that for this excersize.

There is probably a reason why the half length of the horizontal stabilizer(s) is shown. I would tell you why the rear Horizontal Stabilizers (rear wings) might add up to the total length shown but that would also give away part of the excersize.

To basically reiterate what kadeycat said try to look at the whole, in this case the assembled plane, and break it up into the parts you would need to build it than draw the parts.

 

When you get into 3d models, especially if you plan on applying quality textures for rendering, looking at the whole as the parts needed to creat it will be a big help.

 

Best of luck to you.

ok well that is good to know for future assignments ^^ thank you.

If a person were to actually build this model and fly it, the wing would absolutely require that joint at the center. Each wing would be angled upward toward the tips a few degrees, from 2 to 5 or so, to add stability in flight. Nearly every real airplane, with the exception of high performance craft are built like that. The resulting construct is called Dihedral Angle. But there is no need to even know that for this excersize.

 

There is probably a reason why the half length of the horizontal stabilizer(s) is shown. I would tell you why the rear Horizontal Stabilizers (rear wings) might add up to the total length shown but that would also give away part of the excersize.

ya, i was wondering if i should have divided the wing/tail but i decided to turn it in as a whole, luckily he didn't say there was anything wrong with it and it looked good, but also, i think he is trying to assess how everyone would do on their first drawing .

he said all of my turn ins looked good though, so i am relieved... i'll be back for unit5 i am sure.. something in there is bound to confuse me.

ya, i was wondering if i should have divided the wing/tail but i decided to turn it in as a whole, luckily he didn't say there was anything wrong with it and it looked good, but also, i think he is trying to assess how everyone would do on their first drawing .

he said all of my turn ins looked good though, so i am relieved... i'll be back for unit5 i am sure.. something in there is bound to confuse me.

Glad you did well and glad we could help.

Well, I am not sure I helped you very much, I was just trying to let you see the object as an actual buildable entity, and to think about alternatives to what is only visible on the surface. I fell into my past as a builder of radio controlled model planes too easily. I would have told you how to draw it with movable control surfaces, landing gear and a cockpit. and would have turned you onto sources for parts and training for the radio gear and flight lessons:lol:

MikeScott(who is either an intuitive engineer, or a model builder, which makes him both) was refering to the possibility of the rear wing (Stabilizer) being the full width. In reality, when built, the body (fuselage) would be notched out to allow the rear wing to pass all the way through. Remember, we are talking about an 8" model here. The rear wing may or may not be in two equal pieces, divided at the center like the main wing or just one solid piece. Just attaching the two pieces by the edges would not be sufficiently strong even for an 8" model glider.

Hold it, there I go again. Next thing ya know, we'll be upgrading this thing to a 1/4 scale F6F Hellcat WWII fighter with a real gas powered multi-cylinder radial engine, pneumaticly actuated retractable landing gear, jetisonable external fuel tank....... Arrrggghhhh lemmee go lemmeee go.......

(Scene closes - Wife grabs him by the ear and drags him off up the stairs.)

Welcome to the forums kadeycat!

 

I agree, worked on many steel buildings, seldom got to see one.

Or, didn't care to see one.

 

I played a little bit with gliders when I was much younger.

If I remember someone sent a little pet mouse gliding around the playground. He survived a few orbits.

that makes me sad

If I remember someone sent a little pet mouse gliding around the playground. He survived a few orbits.

o:)Then we took him home and fed him. Right? That's the real ending is that correct? Huh, please tell me that's it....

o:)Then we took him home and fed him. Right? That's the real ending is that correct? Huh, please tell me that's it....

we can only hope

Actually.. on the back wing, I was referring to the dimension width being from the tip of the wing, to the centerline of the body.

So the overall width is the length of each back wing, plus the width of the body.

The two problems with drawing it as a full piece are:

#1- the dimension of the back wing, from the tail of the glider to the start of the wing, is a measurement taken from where the wing would go into body of the glider.

If your one-piece tail ends in a point, it shouldn't match that dimension, OR should match the dimension, but have a flat spot equal to the width of the aircraft body, instead of that point.

#2- The aircraft body must "stop", in-order to allow the wing to pass through it. This would be in the form of a notch that'd be visible on the flat view of the body piece.

Since no information was given on a notch, and the wing was drawn to stop at the body of the aircraft, those should be represented as two wings.

In CAD exercises, you are supposed to focus on what you see, or information given, and only "assume" information that can be directly derived from the information given. Anything else only serves to confuse the issue.

In reality, I'm sure that top wing also tilts back slightly, rather than be a straight run, with the front and rear wings parallel to each other. However, the exercise doesn't illustrate that point, and the angle would be dependant on the weights/strengths of materials used, and the method of thrust used to launch the glider. (ie-- handheld, or perhaps a rubberband launcher) Plus the expected glide distance, or aerobatic flying style (gliding for distance, or entertaining loops, etc..).

If you go into the design aspects, and challenge what information is given to you, you're missing the point of the exercise. You DO learn something from it if you research all the possibilities, but it's not what's in the lesson. Try answering the following two simple Multiple choice questions on the exam using what you've learned, versus what the question (and diagram) answer:

How many Parts are there on this drawing:

A) Four (body, 1 tail wing, tail, forward wing)

B) Five (body, 2 tail wings, tail, forward wing)

C) Nine (body, 1 tail wing, tail, control surfaces, forward wing)

How many parts are 1/32" thick?

A) One tail wing

B) Two tail wings

C) None, 1/32" is too thin for balsa wood and could break, the thinnest should be 1/16" thereby saving on material as well, since a 3 foot board of balsa wood could handle all of the 1/16th parts without purchasing more wood, and costs about the same.

The decision to follow only what you've been given, will make sure that you are able to pass questions on it.

I only go to such length to explain this because I used to get into a lot of trouble with exams giving me word problems that I overworked. It's also important that if I'm at work and deviate from the design given to me, I have to document what, and why, changes were made. So if I make a deviation, I have to be aware I'm doing it, and why.

It'll also help with derivative questions that come from the exercise, to assist the school in knowing that you understand what you're doing.

Ie- "If a train leaves one station at 2PM and arrives at a station 60 miles away, at 3PM, what was it's speed?"

The real question totally depends on how long it takes the train to get up to speed and to slow down again, and whether the train engineer was rushing pedal-to-the-metal, or taking their sweet time. The 60 miles stated COULD have crossed timezones if it were headed Westward, thereby possibly suggesting two hours of travel time... but that assumes the train was actually a train, and not a light image of a train, projected 60 miles Eastward to arrive at the same time it left, in the previous timezone, assuming the time duration was rounded up to seconds.

The curvature of the Earth might also become a variable, but assuming they were not projecting/recieving at a height great enough to remove the need for bouncing, it still shouldn't delay long enough for a full second to elapse, unless they took pains to make multiple bounces that took it far from it's logical tragectory.

Plus, although the start and stop points might be 60 miles apart, you have to consider that any curves in the track would make the distance longer. Also, it depends upon what state they're in, and whether those 60 miles take the train through speed control zones, such as interesections, or other stations.

My teacher pointed out that while all of that was true, there would be no way to test for that unless the students were expected to have answers for all of those variables, or if they were provided with that information. Within the confines of a test question, we should only proceed with what we're given in the question, and make no assumptions beyond it. Therefore the correct answer would be 1 mile per hour.

Actually.. on the back wing, I was referring to the dimension width being from the tip of the wing, to the centerline of the body.

 

So the overall width is the length of each back wing, plus the width of the body.

 

The two problems with drawing it as a full piece are:

 

#1- the dimension of the back wing, from the tail of the glider to the start of the wing, is a measurement taken from where the wing would go into body of the glider.

 

If your one-piece tail ends in a point, it shouldn't match that dimension, OR should match the dimension, but have a flat spot equal to the width of the aircraft body, instead of that point.

 

#2- The aircraft body must "stop", in-order to allow the wing to pass through it. This would be in the form of a notch that'd be visible on the flat view of the body piece.

 

Since no information was given on a notch, and the wing was drawn to stop at the body of the aircraft, those should be represented as two wings.

 

In CAD exercises, you are supposed to focus on what you see, or information given, and only "assume" information that can be directly derived from the information given. Anything else only serves to confuse the issue.

 

In reality, I'm sure that top wing also tilts back slightly, rather than be a straight run, with the front and rear wings parallel to each other. However, the exercise doesn't illustrate that point, and the angle would be dependant on the weights/strengths of materials used, and the method of thrust used to launch the glider. (ie-- handheld, or perhaps a rubberband launcher) Plus the expected glide distance, or aerobatic flying style (gliding for distance, or entertaining loops, etc..).

 

If you go into the design aspects, and challenge what information is given to you, you're missing the point of the exercise. You DO learn something from it if you research all the possibilities, but it's not what's in the lesson. Try answering the following two simple Multiple choice questions on the exam using what you've learned, versus what the question (and diagram) answer:

 

How many Parts are there on this drawing:

A) Four (body, 1 tail wing, tail, forward wing)

B) Five (body, 2 tail wings, tail, forward wing)

C) Nine (body, 1 tail wing, tail, control surfaces, forward wing)

 

How many parts are 1/32" thick?

A) One tail wing

B) Two tail wings

C) None, 1/32" is too thin for balsa wood and could break, the thinnest should be 1/16" thereby saving on material as well, since a 3 foot board of balsa wood could handle all of the 1/16th parts without purchasing more wood, and costs about the same.

 

The decision to follow only what you've been given, will make sure that you are able to pass questions on it.

 

I only go to such length to explain this because I used to get into a lot of trouble with exams giving me word problems that I overworked. It was also important that if I'm at work and deviate from the design given to me, I have to document what, and why, changes were made. So if I make a deviation, I have to know I'm doing it, and why.

 

It'll also help with derivative questions that come from the exercise, to assist the school in knowing that you understand what you're doing.

 

Ie- "If a train leaves one station at 2PM and arrives at a station 60 miles away, at 3PM, what was it's speed?"

The real question totally depends on how long it takes the train to get up to speed and to slow down again, and whether the train engineer was rushing pedal-to-the-metal, or taking their sweet time. I felt exceptionally rebellious, so I pointed-out that the 60 miles stated COULD have crossed timezones if it were headed Westward, thereby possibly suggesting two hours of travel time... "or, assuming the train was actually a train, and not a light image of a train, projected 60 miles Eastward to arrive at the same time it left, in the previous timezone, assuming the time duration was rounded up to seconds. The curvature of the Earth might also become a variable, but in bouncing the light, assuming they were not projecting/recieving at a height great enough to remove the need for bouncing, it still shouldn't delay long enough for a full second to elapse, unless they took pains to make multiple bounces that took it far from it's logical tragectory."

 

Plus, although the start and stop points might be 60 miles apart, you have to consider that any curves in the track would make the distance longer. Also, it depends upon what state they're in, and whether those 60 miles take the train through speed control zones, such as interesections, or other stations.

 

My teacher pointed out that while all of that was true, there would be no way to test for that unless the students were expected to have answers for all of those variables, or if they were provided with that information. Within the confines of a test question, we should only proceed with what we're given in the question, and make no assumptions beyond it. Therefore the correct answer would be 1 mile per hour.

lol! well.. luckily we're not making a plane out of anything that thing then, right?

but i have another issue at hand, i was just about to post when i got an email notification that you posted in my thread, my other problem is that the instructions on my unit 5 exercise is asking me to set my grid and snap to .25", but it doesn't designate limits or anything... and i can't enter .25", it says invalid or something, but it does convert it to decimals if i leave the " out, is that okay? on the example drawing it shows the grid being a different width than what i am using though.. it shows as having a mid point between dots on the grid giving me halves to snap to, but when i use the designated settings, it just jumps from dot to dot.