# Frustrations



## Gordon (Apr 7, 2012)

I find it frustrating when the plans I am following have dimensions which are overly specific. That is, when something is dimensioned 27/64 and then it finally comes down to assembly and I find that it could have been +/- 1/8 and been just fine. I think that what is happening is someone is building a model and designing as they go along and when the model is finished someone else or even the original builder quite a while later measures the finished product and makes the drawing fit the piece exactly. Short of recalculating everything as you are building it it is hard to determine if the dimension is critical. When I see some dimension like 27/64 I assume that the dimension is quite critical or it would have just been labeled 7/16. 

Another thing which I find frustrating is when the final dimension can only be arrived at by several mathematical calculations. Also when things like the c/c of holes is critical and the dimensions are given from two different points. ie: c/c is 2" which is critical but is given as 1/2" in from each end of a 3" long piece. I say let dimensioning rules be hanged. Give the builder the dimension he needs without a lot of calculations.

Sorry just a frustrating day I guess.


----------



## miner49r (Apr 7, 2012)

I feel your frustration. In some of Elmer's drawings the measurements are taken from both the edge and the center line.
Alan


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 7, 2012)

I think we have all been there. 
learn what measurements are not important and then do not worry about the rest. 
redraw all parts in a way that makes sense to you. sketch with pencil and paper cad or 3-D parmeric 
change the dimension notation if you want ie fractions to decimals
tin


----------



## rake60 (Apr 7, 2012)

I have seen the worst of that.

We were making parts for a gas well fracturing ball dropper.
All it did was blast steel balls down the drill pipe to block off different size zones 
further down stream in the pipe so the new gas well could be hydraulically 
fractured in sections.

Anyway, one part called for a .640 +.001/-.000 through bore with a 63 finish.
The young man running the machine on 3rd shift had to make a small boring bar to
bore the hole to size and maintain the finish requirement.

Long story short, the man in charge of that project came to me screaming about the
time we had on those parts. I pointed out the challenges of that critical small bore.
His reaction would best be described as _*"BALLISTIC!"*_

Turned out that hole was nothing more than clearance on a 5/8" rod.
It looked like an important thing to the drafts-person so she made it a critical fit on
the print.

That was not only frustrating, it trimmed the profit margin considerably on a quoted job.

Rick


----------



## arnoldb (Apr 7, 2012)

What Tin said :bow:

It can be difficult - but don't let that deter you. When I started out, I found the most frustrating thing converting plans to suit my mostly metric tooling - and NO! - I don't want to start a Metric vs Imperial discussion Gents & Ladies - it's just what I have available to build engines with.

Once you've built a couple of engines, you'll start to see where and which the important and critical dimensions are for an engine. If you can work through the plans and get to understand exactly how the engine will work before you start machining, you're well away - in fact, then you can start changing measurements to suit your own needs, materials and equipment.

I'm of the opinion that if_one day when I will_ pay good money for a set of plans, I'd expect sensible dimensions and very few or no errors on those, but for free or old and no-longer-maintained plans, what you see is what you get. At least someone went to the trouble of drawing up those plans; it's darn hard work to draw up a good set of plans.

Many times in our hobby you'll feel frustrated - but don't let that get to you. I can promise you there are extremely few more satisfying and rewarding things to do than going through the frustration, effort, and failures in the process of building a successful engine. 

I don't know how others feel about this, but I see each and every one of the engines I've built as a personal winner's trophy, and I hope you'll find the same goes for you and your engines Thm:

Kind regards, Arnold


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Apr 7, 2012)

arnoldb  said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that if_one day when I will_ pay good money for a set of plans, I'd expect sensible dimensions and very few or no errors on those




That may or may not happen. You have to remember that alot of engine builders are not machinests. When someone like that creates a set of drawings they work hard to relate the important information to others. Doing that can be a challenge when have never seen a professional drawing. But without these "unprofessional" drawing sets, there would be very little to choose from. Just remember that behind every set of drawings, good or bad, is a well intentioned model builder trying to do something to promote the hobby and provide something to build. It's ALOT harder than you would think.

Believe me I know!

Happy Easter!
Steve


----------



## doc1955 (Apr 7, 2012)

stevehuckss396  said:
			
		

> It's ALOT harder than you would think.
> 
> Believe me I know!
> 
> ...



Steve I agree!! This is what I do for a real job for the past 38 years and some think it is a simple task but that is far from the truth. :big:

By the way Steve you did a good job on your drawing NO COMPLAINTS what so ever!!
I have started on some of the parts I've modeled up most all of the engine.


----------



## chuck foster (Apr 7, 2012)

another frustrating thing is to make all the parts according to the drawings only to find out the drawings are wrong  

myself and a few other guys on here know all about the galloway drawings :

chuck


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Apr 7, 2012)

chuck foster  said:
			
		

> another frustrating thing is to make all the parts according to the drawings only to find out the drawings are wrong
> 
> myself and a few other guys on here know all about the galloway drawings :
> 
> chuck



I have heard rumor that there are 3 sizes of the galloway. One was built and the drawings are good. The other 2 were scaled down or up from the original and not checked very good. That was the source of the troubles.

The new owner had Gbritnell build the engines and edit the drawings as he went. I'm not sure where he is at, but I would think the drawings are in fine shape by now.

That's one of the reasons I decided to go the Paypal route to purchase my drawings. This way when an error is reported to me, I can email everybody the changes or omissions before they run into trouble like that.


----------



## kuhncw (Apr 7, 2012)

No matter whose drawings you have, I think it pays to study ahead on the drawings to make sure you understand the critical dimensions, catch any errors, or note things you might want to change. To me that is part of the fun as I usually end up changing the design a bit anyway.

I built the 1/4 scale Galloway, found a few bugs in the drawings, changed a few things, became good friends with three other fellows building the same engine, and generally had a heck of a good time. Despite a few drawing errors, Richard Shelly is a nice fellow and deserves a lot of credit for the contribution he and his wife have made to our hobby. 

The Chanticleer I built had a few quirks in the drawings as well. The only engine I've built that, as far as I know, had no errors in the drawings was the 0.3 scale Deere developed by Jerry Frisbie and now sold by Gary Martin. 

Those are my thoughts. Just look out ahead as you build and don't let a few errors in the prints get you down. 

Like Steve said, getting a perfect set of drawings out is not easy. 

Regards,

Chuck Kuhn


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 7, 2012)

As rick pointed out the designers often do not know what is needed or how to communicate it. 
I worked in a shop that expected people to be mind readers. 
the blue prints were drawn by the owner his dad was an architect. dimensions were in fractions. I was taut that fractional dimensions wer close counts make quick +- 1/64 of an inch. so I make the parts only to find the forman remaking them because my parts were out of spec and they may me out to look like the dummy . I only stayed on that job for a few months the owner was a....... . I say nothing if it is not nice ;D
In model work there is flexibility if you understand what is needed. You are the machinist , QC, accounting,and the customer. One of my engines has a part that is a half inch too long . I just did not take the time to cut off the extra but it is my engine and I never had a person at a show complain LOL. 
Like it or not part of machining is checking the drawings. 
Tin


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 7, 2012)

Producing good quality provisional looking drawings that are error free is indeed no an easy task. and there are several conventions that can be used and different folks are used to different styles and conventions. 
what are the best units of measure decimal inches , fractions . millimeters? And should the dimensions reference on corner or the center. what is the best corner to reference. 
Rudy kuhoupt managed to make a comfortable living at this . He may have had some income from retirement from previous jobs do not know. 
little locos tried to make it a business and never made a profit. like others have said people do there best . and you take what is there.
We are fortunate to have Brian Rupnow here. his plans are professional quality he is a pro.
If I practice enough at Alibre maybe one day I maybe able to produce good plan sets.
Tin


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Apr 7, 2012)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> If I practice enough at Alibre maybe one day I maybe able to produce good plan sets.



That's what I used to make my set. Problem with Alibre is, it will only do what you ask it. You have to actually know what a good drawing looks like. In my case I don't know what a real drawing looks like. I just fudged my way thru puting numbers on what I thought was important. I did'nt use tolerance because I dont know exactly what they should be. I just put a note when 2 pieces should be press fit. Size really isn't as important as how they fit. I would guess that most hobby designers do the same as I do and I'm glad they were brave enough to do it. It's a little nerve racking having your work judged by thousands of internet onlookers.

Think about this. The average price for a set of drawings for a model engine is $0 - $100. For a professional to design and build a nice engine and then create a perfect set of drawings I would imagine that price would go up 10 times. We buy cheap machines and tools because having to purchase Pro stuff is out of the budget for the hobbiest. We accept the machines and it's many flaws as good enough and we work with what we have. Drawings are the same way. In many cases they are affordable and with a little work on our part, the project can be completed to a high degree of quality.If everybody only excepted the highest quality everything, there would be about 100 people left who could afford to do this.


----------



## Gordon (Apr 7, 2012)

I agree that making drawings is difficult. I have spent my life designing and building custom industrial machines. To date I have built about 15 model engines. When I have a sketchy set of plane I frequently will redraw them with CAD. The model I am working on at this time has a good looking set of CAD drawings. Even when I figure out what a dimension should be and it is some obscure fraction like 27/64 and I feel it can be anything close I wonder what I am missing. The present drawings have quite a few pieces which are specifies as just slightly over a standard size like 2.040 and 1.520 blank size and when I get the part complete I find that 2" and 1.5 stock size would have worked just fine by making the mating pieces to fit. I suspect that the present drawings may have been converted from metric, thus the odd dimensions. Since this is a new type of engine for me I have not been as familiar with the entire design.Also I may have been lulled into complacency by nice looking drawings. On the other hand that is the joy of this hobby, learning new things and trying to adapt the designs to eq


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 8, 2012)

Steve I think I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for a drawing. I have studied mechanical drawing here and there bits and pieces since Jr high school. took classes in college. USAF Tech school was for machining and welding but included blue print reading and basic part drawing. I have and have studied the drawings of Rudy Kuhoupt and Elmer V. 
And I am a machinist so I know from that as well. 

the design process takes time and work. come up with an Idea. sketch it drawit machine a prototype find and correct the mistakes then prove it in the field market publish .... correct mistakes found after release. software is in many respects the same way . never finished but sometimes left as is. 
Tin 

Tin


----------



## Mosey (Apr 8, 2012)

I just finished 50 years of designing buildings, and the development of drawings to communicate the intended construction to the various people who had to build those structures. I enjoyed training dozens of people over the years to make drawings for others to build from. Some got it, others didn't. We worked in feet, inches, and fractions because the construction of buildings derives from materials and techniques that often were not precise. there were always approximations. Modern structures are now much more precise in materials and making them go together. Having said that, fractions simply do not belong in precise work in my opinion.

Now, machinery is another world from construction, and precision and Clarity in making machines and in the drawings communicating the building of the intended machine is important and necessary. It is possible that one of the attractions of machining for us is just that precision. It is for me. No fractions, please.
I can't talk about clarity in drawings because it is a very difficult area to express in words. Let's just say that there are clear ways to communicate the dimensions and other basic drawing information, rarely seen. For example, the Elmer #25 shows the plan view from the bottom looking up...worm's eye view! Not the best way, folks. I will probably say more about good drawings in a later post.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 8, 2012)

> ..worm's eye view! Not the best way, folks.


From what I understand common in European standards. And can be helpful as an auxiliary view. Not of any use for buildings though.

Tin


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Apr 8, 2012)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> Steve I think I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for a drawing. I have studied mechanical drawing here and there bits and pieces since Jr high school. took classes in college. USAF Tech school was for machining and welding but included blue print reading and basic part drawing. I have and have studied the drawings of Rudy Kuhoupt and Elmer V.
> And I am a machinist so I know from that as well.
> 
> the design process takes time and work. come up with an Idea. sketch it drawit machine a prototype find and correct the mistakes then prove it in the field market publish .... correct mistakes found after release. software is in many respects the same way . never finished but sometimes left as is.



Sorry Tin, I'm not trying to make it sound like we are all clueless when it comes to this stuff. I guess I was trying to drum up a little compassion for those who don't and try anyway. Takes gut's and I appreciate every one of them.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 8, 2012)

No offence taken Steve. There is a lot of amateur stuff out there that deserves kudos. whether in the form of videos, and engine or a drawing. like any other media and in the interest of good communication the outcome depends on the person producing the drawings the method of production and the intended audience. 

How much information is the right amount.? not enough and the user has to guess. too much info and the newby may be confused overwhelmed or both. HMMM It is all good Steve. 
And I do realize a pretty model in Albre does not guarantee it can be machined. there are thing that can be drawn that may be difficult to impossible to machine.
I am currently trying to redraw some of Elmers stuff with alibre figure a good place to start. 
Tin


----------



## Kaleb (Apr 17, 2012)

I have something to add here about drawings. I'm currently in a metal fabrication course at TAFE, which includes a section on technical drawings. A.S. 1100 is the convention used here in Australia generally. Here, dimensions are nearly always given in millimetres, so units are often only mentioned in a note reading "All dimensions in millimetres". Radii are indicated by an R in front of the dimension, for instance a 4mm radius would be written as R4. Diameters are indicated by the symbol Ø, e.g. a diameter of 8mm would be written as Ø8. General information, like tolerances, surface finish, amendments, author of drawing, date, approval etc. is generally placed in a title block at the bottom. Surface finishes are specified in microns or as an N grade. These range from N12 to N1. Each grade is half the roughness value in microns as you go down. N12 is like a roughish(I've seen much rougher than that) oxy cut at 50 microns. N11 is like the finish on a raw casting at 25 microns. Machining will generally produce a finish between N10 and N6. N5 can be achieved by a very fine grinding operation, N4 is like a honed surface, N3 is like a buffed surface, N2 and N1 are achieved by very fine polishing.

I have attached a drawing for a lathe dog as an example.


----------



## Mosey (Apr 17, 2012)

Kaleb,
Thanks for your input. Actually, Steve and I are going to try to show some drawings that illustrate the good, the bad, and the ugly, but that will be in a week or 2.
In the meantime, the drawing you show is good, but could be better, and I will make a few, simple suggestions to show what I mean, but that will also be in a day or 2. Please keep in mind that my intention here is to help everyone, not to be a know-it-all. I just hope that someone can find value in what I offer, or if not, there is the delete button. I'm also certain that there are many here who can add their valuable knowledge and experience to this discussion.
Mosey


----------



## Mosey (Apr 17, 2012)

Kaleb,
Here is a quick sketch of some suggested revisions to make the drawing clearer.
1. Rearrange drawings on the sheet to align them directly over each other
2. Number them so you can refer to them on other sheets, etc.
3. Use better arrows that are easy to connect with the item, less confusing
4. Always have overall dimensions
5. Might like to see where the tapped hole is in plan view, etc.
Mosey 

View attachment 40 mm Lathe Dog sketch 1.pdf


----------



## Don1966 (Apr 17, 2012)

Mosey  said:
			
		

> Kaleb,
> Thanks for your input. Actually, Steve and I are going to try to show some drawings that illustrate the good, the bad, and the ugly, but that will be in a week or 2.
> In the meantime, the drawing you show is good, but could be better, and I will make a few, simple suggestions to show what I mean, but that will also be in a day or 2. Please keep in mind that my intention here is to help everyone, not to be a know-it-all. I just hope that someone can find value in what I offer, or if not, there is the delete button. I'm also certain that there are many here who can add their valuable knowledge and experience to this discussion.
> Mosey


Mosey I would be interested in your input on drawings. I thinks it is a good idea to have a crash course in making and reading drawings. I sure a lot of us would value your input on the subject. 

Regards Don


----------



## Mosey (Apr 17, 2012)

Don,
I hope the little markup I did below of the Lathe Dog is visible. Let's find a drawing with some meat to it, that I can take a look at. Do you have any that we might work on?
Mosey


----------



## Tin Falcon (Apr 17, 2012)

The navy blueprint reading manual covers the basics. the main thing to learn is lines what do they represent.
projections and views and the section on machine drawing. there is lots of stuff in there that may or may not be of use to the folks hear like aircraft stations plumbing symbols and architectural drawing. but that is in the book too.

 http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pdf/blueprint.pdf
Tin


----------



## Don1966 (Apr 17, 2012)

Mosey  said:
			
		

> Don,
> I hope the little markup I did below of the Lathe Dog is visible. Let's find a drawing with some meat to it, that I can take a look at. Do you have any that we might work on?
> Mosey


By some meat to it,d o you need a drawing that has a lot of errors are just a drawing of parts? I can't supply a drawing with errors. I have a connectiong rod drawing.


Don



View attachment SAMPLE DRAWING_0001.pdf


----------



## Mosey (Apr 17, 2012)

Tin,
That manual is excellent in many ways, though dated before CAD, so it doesn't have the look we are used to today. The part about line standards is very good, we all can follow most of that (except it is infected with the common poor arrowhead types).
Jared,
We don't need one with errors, just one with lots of machine parts drafted. I'm sure we can edit most of what is out there. I will see what we can find.
You will notice that the organization of several drawings on a single sheet is most often poorly organized, and very confusing to follow, ie., the Elmers engines.
Mosey


----------



## Swifty (Apr 18, 2012)

When doing tool design drawings, I always endeavoured to show all overall dimensions of parts so the toolmaker could start blocking up parts straight away without having to add up dimensions. Also made sure that detail dimensions were from one datum edge, having to add up 2 or more dimensions to get the overall size had the chance of errors.

Paul.


----------



## Ken I (Apr 18, 2012)

Mosey, you can download any of mine from the downloads section.

I design machines for a living but for model building I try to keep the jargon and symbols off the drawing. Even for engineering work I find some of the geometric tollerancing to be a PITB - I see no point in issuing a drawing that requires the toolmaker to delve into a number of reference books simply to hand mark up the print with values from tables. I see little point in lableing a hole 7.0H7 when all I mean is 7.0 Ream.

If the part cannot be made from the print - then I have failed as a designer particularly wrt model building (within reason of course). 

I typically do a three view 2D General Assembly drawing with each part in a different layer / colour - that way you can turn layers on and off to see where it goes in the assembly.

I copy those components to another part of the sheet for dimensioning and if I make any changes at that stage it is a simple matter to slot it back in to the GA.

After construction I renumber the component parts into the manufacturing sequence which (in my opinion) gives the best sequence of making matching parts.

Similarly all parts are marked "untoleranced, make allowances for limits and fits" which is pretty much the way most modellers approach their projects anyway.

There are better and more correct ways of doing it but I'm trying to make the drawing "accesable" to the nature of the hobby rather than engineering pe se.

At first glance this approach may look a bit cluttered but I find it works rather well.

I've attatched my 6 Shooter Elbow Engine (zipped Autocad *.dwg) as an example if you are interested - the drawings are mostly complete and I will post it to the downloads section once fully finished.

Ken 

View attachment ELBOW6.zip


----------



## Maryak (Apr 18, 2012)

IMHO,

All else to one side, the most frustrating thing about model engineering drawings that I have purchased is that not one of them could be made from the plan due to:

Incorrect measurements

The inability for the model to be assembled as drawn.

Having made a couple of designs using 2D Cad and then started to build them it's easy to see how this happens because the real world soon overtakes the drawing board. Without meticulous attention to detail and constant correction the theory and reality soon drift apart. If you are doing this to make money, please make it worth my while to part with same.

I agree with Ken in that rather than write some obscure series of letters and numbers even though oh so correct they may be: mild steel, drill rod, phosphor bronze etc. are IMHO, more readily recognised. As for fits and tolerances, rattling good, sliding, push and shrink/press pretty well cover it.

Having recently graduated to the world of 3D modeling, a lot of the above errors are more apparent. Non the less and even with a layer for each part one part will go together with another in cyberspace that will not go together in the workshop. e.g. I rotated a cam, moved the pushrod to match and guess what the end of the push rod slid quite happily into the rocker arm and the valve did not budge.

I should add that apart from some elementary drawing lessons at school and during my apprenticeship, I am self taught with the aid of a couple of DVD's and the CAD program idiots guide. When it comes to dimensions I use the programs defaults and I'm pretty confident that my efforts in this important area are very amateurish.

Thanks for taking the time to show us the way to better presentation.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Mosey (Apr 18, 2012)

Ken,
I have downloaded your 6 Shooter drawings and your Broach, and they are very impressive. I am hesitant to make any comment, except to say that they could be made even easier to use with a few enhancements. If you wouldn't be offended, I would suggest some points to consider from the viewpoint of the guy who wants to make these parts. Let me know.
As you know I'm sure, one of the most difficult things to draft is a multi-part assembly, where you are trying to show parts that touch in reality, but have to be drawn with space or multi-lines to show the separate pieces. I have a set of drawings that I am in awe of, that do just that. They are architectural drawings, but the clarity of the difficult drawing subject is just amazing, and they were drawn in 1977 with pens on paper (Mylar)! I will post a piece of them later.
The one quick suggestion I have for your complex and terrific drawings would be to put each drawing or cluster of drawings on the sheet into a separate lined box. I will also try to post an illustration of that.
Stay tuned.
Mosey


----------



## Ken I (Apr 18, 2012)

Mosey, no problem I'm always open to suggestions.

Bob, My problem with the dimensioning defaults is they don't work for all sizes of object and are a PITB to change (at least on mine there are probably 50 parameters).

What I do is draw everything in real size (to hell with scale) - then when it comes to dimensioning, I scale the part up or down by an appropriate factor - switch on the alternate dimension and set its scale factor - that way I get dimensions and arrows etc. which are appropriately proportional to the drawing. Once I'm finished I scale the whole thing - dimensioning included - to actual values again.

That way I only ever have to dicker with two parameters in the dimensioning menu.

So if Im dimensioning a part 5000mm long and my default lettering is 4mm I would scale down 20:1 so when I scale up again I have 80mm lettering - more appropriate to the part. By the same token I would scale up very small parts.

I would like to hear any other tips.

P.S. I'm sure other CAD packages have ways of handling this way better than my antideluvian ACAD Ver 10.

Ken


----------



## Mosey (Apr 18, 2012)

Ken,
We always draw in model space at real world size. Lettering is good in paper space at whatever scale/size gets you where you want to be (with AutoCRAP). Scale is really only for drawings when they get onto paper.
I will make some gentle notes on what you are doing. Who knows, you might find it helps you get your drawings done. I know that better organization of the drawings keeps me (barely) sane.
More later.
Mosey


----------



## Maryak (Apr 18, 2012)

Thanks Ken,

In model space I always draw full size i.e. 1 : 1 on a world scale.

Rightly or more probably wrongly I only use dimensions in model space to show me where I'm at e.g. how much must I move something x,y or z to position it. For a model, I use 1/16" grid spacing. If I'm drawing say a house, (these are metric here) then I alter the grid to 100 mm spacing and change to a metric template.

My program, (TurboCAD) has a pullout called a "drafting pallet" from which up to 19 different views of a 3D model can be turned into 2D sketches. I have been placing the appropriate?? 2D sketches, in paper space where I set the scale if needed and then annotate and dimension.

To me it's easier to dimension in paper space 12 pt is 12 pt, not say 1ft in model space which when scaled down to paper space becomes unreadable. Of course If I had an A0 plotter rather than an A4 printer I may feel differently. ;D

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Mosey (Apr 21, 2012)

Ken,
We normally divide our sheets up into a grid with a series of horizontal and vertical heavy lines, putting a single drawing in each of the boxes created. We number the drawings to match their position on the sheet within the boxes.
I've marked up your drawing with a grid, and attached one of mine to show how it looks.
After you've done this, we can go to the next step. I hope you will give it a go.
Mosey
In case you are wondering, my arrowheads don't show due to an Autocad glitch. They are actually 90 degree arrows, and this is an important item for you to apply to your drawings, rather than the long skinny map-style arrowheads. These arrowheads make a big difference in clarity, I think.
Mosey 

View attachment sheets.pdf


----------



## Ken I (Apr 22, 2012)

Mosey,
     The block framing I agree with - in fact I do that on many (but not all) of my industrial drawings.

On my elbow drawings I have blocked in the optional parts to avoid confusing them with the others - but I could still block in the remainder with a different thickness line - etc.

I've been drawing solid point arrowheads since I started with a pencil - 90° arrowheads make me think "Diodes" and those architechtural obliques I dislike with a passion - ditto outline arrowheads - merely a point of personal preference.

There's no accounting for taste.

Please contine.

Regards,
       Ken


----------



## Mosey (Apr 22, 2012)

Have a look at the Chain Hook post by Brian Rupnow to see some pretty nice drawings.
Of course, I have a few tiny suggestions for improving his drawings as well, but basically, they are very clear.


----------



## doc1955 (Apr 22, 2012)

I've been working with drawing in one fashion or another a long time in the aerospace and military area. And Ken your drawings for the most part meet the specs. The arrow solid heads are correct, blocking in views over the years have not seen much of. Just my observing over the last 38 years. Now architectural drafting my be different in fact I think it's standards are substantially different.


----------



## Ken I (Apr 22, 2012)

Doc,
   When I studied engineering drawing at college, I already had a couple of years draughting behind me. The first lecture opened with a stern warning about doing everything "by the book" but once the lecturer saw my work he said "Oh - I see you've already developed your own style. I'm not going to interfere with that." He was however still strict about technicalities.

Since then much has changed and to some extent I've drifted off into my own world of draughting & design.

I still don't think that drawing standards have caught up with CAD, especially the 3D world (and neither have I).

Mosey - If I "issue" drawings - then they get plonked into a frame with my company details and all the other guff on tollerancing etc. etc. - in the CAD world it doesn't make sense to jamb that around every detail.

My engineering world revolves around one off parts (not production) and I generally work very closely with the toolmakers so to some extent the drawings are dumbed down.

Ken


----------



## Maryak (May 1, 2012)

OK Critique away







PDF Attached

I will make some more posts with a series of RAR files  

View attachment 16cc.pdf


----------



## Mosey (May 1, 2012)

You have shown us a very fine set of drawings that obviously represent many hours of work, thanks.
I do have suggestions that I think will make them even better, so please take these comments in the spirit of offering help.
I have made a few notes in a freehand sketch over a couple of your drawings.

1. use a different arrowhead, one that is open, as these overpower the drawing.

2. make dimension strings to include all of the dimensions keyed to an overall string...no floaters

3. use several line-weights to denote differing things, with 1 heavy line profiling the perimeter of the major part

4. a little more space between the individual drawings would help in places

5. Valve and Points sheet is excellent because of the placement of drawing groups in boxes.

6. Some of the drawings are very faint, like the valves, PDF problem?

7. dashed lines could have a finer dash, as not it gets lost in the rest of the drawing.

Please see my sketches below, and if you like, we can work on this some more.

Mosey 

View attachment piston.pdf


View attachment crank .pdf


----------



## stevehuckss396 (May 1, 2012)

Thanks for the help Mosey! The only thing I can't figure out how to do is increase the line weight of the outline of my parts. The other suggestions made my drawings look alot nicer.


----------



## Mosey (May 1, 2012)

Master Steve,
I am happy to help.
My personal AutoCAD days are in the distant past, but I think you need to overlay a polyline over your parts outlines, and give it the required thickness. If someone wants to give me a piece of a drawing file in DWG or DXF format, I will have a go at it. Remember, we are not doing CAM, that is trying to drive a milling machine to make the parts, rather, we are trying to make a drawing that represents visually what we want, so the lines need to be visually informative. That allows us to have 2 nearly touching lines to represent 2 parts that actually will be in contact, but look like 2 parts so we can see what to make. Don't be afraid to exaggerate the line thicknesses to show what you mean.
Now, if only I could make what I see without all of the mistakes....
Mosey


----------



## Maryak (May 1, 2012)

Mosey,

Thank you :bow:

Like Steve I am wondering about increasing the size of the outline lines. In 2D CAD it's fairly easy :-

1. Pick the lines which form the outline and increase their width.







2. Put the outline on a separate layer with an increased line width.

In 3D where I used a program re-generation of the model into 2D sketches I don't know. I will have a play and see what can be done then report back.

Best Regards
Bob.


----------



## Mosey (May 1, 2012)

YES! You've got it.
Where's the shop?


----------



## Tin Falcon (May 1, 2012)

In alibre you edit the layers table each line type is a "layer" you can set line weight as desired
Tin


----------



## Maryak (May 2, 2012)

OK,

I've had my play and here's what I found.

If I change the line size/weight and then generate a solid, the whole thing is at the increased line size/weight. This in itself is not so bad but when you assemble it to other parts, IMHO it looks very very ordinary. Then again most assemblies are either rendered or have material specs, (effectively removing any lines as such). The 2D generation from the model transfers to paper space as a block. This can be exploded and then each line of the outline selected and it's size/weight changed.

So............. In TurboCAD, which is my program, yes it can be done. Will I do it?...............Can't say for sure especially as what appears to be one line visually can end up being several lines when exploded. Maybe other programs are better at this than mine.

Mosey,

Like Ken I don't like the open 900 arrow heads. However, IMHO your comment about mine being overpowering is totally valid and I have been through my sketches and halved the size of the arrowheads. Also I have blocked each page to separate the items therein.

Thanks again :bow:

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## doubletop (May 2, 2012)

This is a great discussion thread and even tutorial. However that all seems to go to rats if you send your drawings off to a magazine for publishing and all your good work gets thrown away.

My "Northumbrian", currently gracing project of the month was built straight out of the Model Engineer magazine articles, I didn't bother with spending 50quid on the plans. Fortunately I had the full set before I started and asked the question on the ME forum "has anybody built one of these?" That started a flurry of posts on problems found in the drawings in the articles. Worst of which was the frames, published in the first issue, were wrong and the correction had to be posted 2 issues later. That put a good few people off before they started.

The editor was asked how this could happen. Apparently the drawings are sent to a guy in Greece who carves them up to fit the pages in the magazine and redraws them on the way. When asked why they would be wrong, it turns out he's a graphic artist and not a draughtsman. When the editor was asked why they were not proof read, he said he didn't have time. 

The net result of this was drawings...

1) That were plain wrong
2) Missing completely from the series
2) That weren't to scale to the dimensions in the two axis (one may be close the other way out)
3) Had wrong dimensions
4) Had missing dimensions
5) Had dimensions that had to be derived from other drawings in the set
6) that didn't relate to the text in the issue and you had to wait for a future issue for the drawing (consider that with #5)

Nonetheless I with the help of the posts on ME and a few remakes I got my way through it.

Stew has had a few of his models printed in ME it would be interesting to hear how well his drawings got transcribed into the articles.

Anyway back to the discussion........

Pete


----------



## Mosey (May 2, 2012)

I think that we should not try to solve the publishers' problems on this thread, though we will let them know that we are watching and take a strong interest in what they do, as the real customers. Let's do keep the mags on their toes.
I intended to restrict my comments to 2D drawings for now, as 3D would be too complicated at the onset.
So, we are making progress if we agree that smaller open arrowheads are preferred, simply because they are not interfering with the drawing. Like all of you, I have had my share of lousy plans, with mistakes, etc. As we learn how to profile line weights in AutoCAD we can share that as well.
I may try to redraw the water pump from the plans I am now working from, as it is less than clear. I'll post my redraw if successful. In the meantime, please post any drawings that you think are good examples. I will also post any plans I have that also are good.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mosey


----------



## jj-smith (Nov 9, 2014)

Hi folks,

I know this is an old subject, but it seems funny that after the promise of more excellent reading, and soaking up new input, the lights get turned off and we're at a dead end

I did however thouroughly enjoy the "East-West" powow about styles, likes and dislikes.
Very well presented by most and very amically received by most!

I, like a lot of others, am eager to learn and in the drawing department (in my case) the windows have been open and most of the learned information has gone the way of the birds to say the least and on top of that; someone changed all the parameters!

In any case, I learned a few things even from this small thread.

My thanks to all the survivors, and respect to the departed.

Regards, J.


----------



## Bastelmike (Feb 25, 2015)

Tin Falcon said:


> From what I understand common in European standards. And can be helpful as an auxiliary view. Not of any use for buildings though.
> 
> Tin


Hi Tin,

its a pretty old post, but I'm tempted to correct it.

If I understand You right, You are not correct.
There are to standards for this matter, international standards.

They are called ISO A and ISO E. A for American, E for European. 
ISO A is what You US folks are used to. In ISO E the different views are mirrored on the center view. The worm eyes view in ISO A is below the center, in ISO E is above. Same applies to the side views, left and right are exchanged. 

There are symbols for these two methods, see sketch.

As the model building community is international, this is hopefully a useful information.

Mike


----------

