CAD Tool For Design Tiny Aircraft

On Oct 4, 10:05 am, jon_banquer wrote:
Personally, I prefer a pure geometry based modeler. Simple
dimensional changes affecting many components may take longer, but
it's far easier to make large sweeping changes if necessary, or switch
to an alternate design approach. Most of my work nowadays is large
machine design (though my degree is in aero engineering), for which I
use KeyCreator (formerly Cadkey). Same price range as SWX, though,
which I don't define as "cheap".

-Dana

This seems like it would be a helpful link.

http://www.darcorp.com/

Just want to summarize that SolidWorks seems to be what I was looking
for. Alibre's CEO makes a compelling argument about tactics of
salespeople to derail reason (in this case, he's talking about
SolidWorks), so I might at least give that a look. But I spoke to
sales engineer yesterday and SolidWorks is surely what I was looking
for.

Thanks for all the links Jon & All. I've been looking at them.

So much to learn, so little time.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:05:05 -0700, jon_banquer wrote:

This seems like it would be a helpful link.

http://www.darcorp.com/

WHY would you "think" that?
Other than it's about something else you have no clues about.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:05:05 -0700, jon_banquer
wrote:

This seems like it would be a helpful link.

Oh, I forgot: Keycreator: http://kubotekusa.com/

Jon Banquer! Small world, eh? I wondered what you were doing on
rec.aviation until I realized this is crossposted to
comp.cad.solidworks. Been quite awhile since we got into ****ing
matches on the Cadkey webforum... I gave history based parametric
modelers a good try, I really did (UG, SWX, and Inventor) but I got
tired of having the inability to model something the way I wanted
based on the constraints of an earlier design version... and want back
to a pure geometry modeler (KeyCreator). It certainly has some warts,
too many IMHO, and I think Greg Marr still gets annoyed when I bitch
too much, but warts and all it's still the best tool I've found for
the kind of work *I* do... YMMV.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does fuzzy logic tickle?

Jon Banquer! Small world, eh? I wondered what you were doing on
rec.aviation until I realized this is crossposted to
comp.cad.solidworks. Been quite awhile since we got into ****ing
matches on the Cadkey webforum... I gave history based parametric
modelers a good try, I really did (UG, SWX, and Inventor) but I got
tired of having the inability to model something the way I wanted
based on the constraints of an earlier design version... and want back
to a pure geometry modeler (KeyCreator). It certainly has some warts,
too many IMHO, and I think Greg Marr still gets annoyed when I bitch
too much, but warts and all it's still the best tool I've found for
the kind of work *I* do... YMMV.

Hi Dana,

One day more users many come to realize that you really need both
approaches in one system. I believe UGNX 5 has made major progress in
this area and probably is the leading system for using both
approaches. KeyCreator should be adding parametrics and SolidWorks
should be adding more tools for working directly on non-native
geometry.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/bl...mment-76366100

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:02:36 -0700, jon_banquer wrote:

Jon Banquer! Small world, eh? I wondered what you were doing on
rec.aviation until I realized this is crossposted to
comp.cad.solidworks. Been quite awhile since we got into ****ing
matches on the Cadkey webforum... I gave history based parametric
modelers a good try, I really did (UG, SWX, and Inventor) but I got
tired of having the inability to model something the way I wanted
based on the constraints of an earlier design version... and want back
to a pure geometry modeler (KeyCreator). It certainly has some warts,
too many IMHO, and I think Greg Marr still gets annoyed when I bitch
too much, but warts and all it's still the best tool I've found for
the kind of work *I* do... YMMV.

Hi Dana,

One day more users many come to realize that you really need both
approaches in one system. I believe UGNX 5 has made major progress in
this area and probably is the leading system for using both
approaches.

Still utterly clueless, eh?
Another system you've never used & know nothing much about: UG.

KeyCreator should be adding parametrics and SolidWorks
should be adding more tools for working directly on non-native
geometry.

Snicker

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/bl...mment-76366100

Snicker
--
Cliff

I am currently designing an aircraft to compete in a competition with
a specific goal and the way I'm proceding is as follows:

1) Select a published airfoil with characteristics that meet the
design goal/s. Use a free program like xfoil to help in the analysis.

2) Create a spreadsheet to compute the mass of the various components
based on material densities which is then tied to the airfoil lift
coefficient and vehicle speed to size the wing. It will calculate the
required moment arms to keep the MAC, aerodynamic center and CG where
they should be in relation to each other and size the wing and tail.
The wieght can also tie to the aircraft performance issues important
to you to size the power requirement which determines engine weight to
loop back through the previous calculations with the weight
correction. You could carry it further to cover strength analysis.

3) Create a model in the 3d modelling software you have access to (I
used Solidworks) and import it into a 3d CFD program to verify the
validity of your design (I used Ansys). You could probaly get a local
university student to take care of this step for you for next to
nothing.

4) Build and fly the prototype.

5) Repair the prototype and make adjustments.

I saw no need to create an executable. The spreadsheet was fast and
easy to adjust as required along the way.
There are quite a few programs available to do this that are not very
expensive but I personally didn't care for any of the ones I saw.



On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:17:19 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:

Hi All,

I have never really used a CAD program to design anything. I toyed
with AutoCAD back in 1987 but nothing more.

I'd like to design a small model aircraft, about one meter in length.
Even though it's small, it's still complex. There are many mechanical
pieces.

The most important feature I need, by far, is interdependencies of
paramters. [There is probably a fancy name for this]. In other words,
if I change an artifact of the aircraft from one material to the
other, I would like the change to manifest in every aspect of the
aircraft that depends on the material. I guess this is standard
feature. I would like to be able to program interelationships also,
preferrably in C++, but a scripting language will do.

The other important feature is that I need the tool to be "3D-aware"
from the outset. I'm hearing others in rec.aviation.piloting that
AutoCAD is not entirely 3D-aware. I don't know what that means, and I
am definitely not interested in finding out by trial and error.

I post to CCS because the presentation of SolidWorks on its website
gives me the feeling that they understand these issues and attacked
them head on, but any CAD package would do.

Finally, I prefer cheap over expensive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-