aircraft instrument panel digitized and cut on the laser

[stan kern]

https://youtu.be/5i9sxMemvh8 digitizing an aircraft instrument panel

Aspire 9.00 proved great editing this diagram , went well and easy

[Brian Lamb]

Wouldn't be the way I'd do it. You have all the dimensions, use them and draw the part properly. You are taking the chance that the original draftsman drew the part properly, and based on lots of personal experience, that's hardly ever the case. I used to work with tons of aircraft parts and the prints might have dated back 20-40 years, and had numerous revisions over that lifespan. I would say almost 100% of the time they never re-drew the part, just changed the dimensions on the print.

I make my own product and I use my 3D models for generating g-code or laser programs, so going back and updating the model is the way to do it... but with an unknown origin drawing, I'd be going by the dimensions listed, not the drawing. In fact, every drawing we ever had in the machine shop had a standard disclaimer right on it "Not drawn to scale". If you made it look like the picture and not the dimensions.

I could see the benefit of this huge digitizing panel for things like prototypes sketched right off the existing part...

[stan kern]

not sure what to say I thought I did well and it matched the print

[Trey Tull]

It looks great to me.

[John Lifer]

Looks good, Yes, I too would be VERY concerned that a drawn and especially a reproduced drawing was actually accurate enough to digitize. I DO know that I would NEVER have used any of my drawings. And I don't think that any blueprint of anything I've ever picked up was anywhere near accurate. Dimensions, YES, actual drawings nope.Hope it fits!

[stan kern]

this was a a home built plane from 1963 and he guy was restoring it, the cut I made matched the print
I should have showed that

[Brian Lamb]

Sorry, didn't mean to rain on your parade, but like I said, matching the drawing is a dangerous way to go when the drawing is dimensioned. For example, the drawing is from 1963, in 1964 the panel changed, they moved a gauge over, went to a slightly different spacing, whatever, then the drawing didn't get re-drawn to those corrected dimensions, the draftsmen went and grabbed the vellum and changed the numbers, then re-printed the blueprint... a very common practice.

So, if you rely strictly upon the drawing, you take the chance something was changed and they didn't re-draw. Glad your part worked out, I was just trying to caution you to use dimensions first if you have them, other wise you will be making it again.

[Gary Hair]

Unless they changed the overall size/shape of the panel then any other changes don't really matter - unless you are trying for a 100% factory authentic reproduction. The placement of the instruments only really need to follow any "standard" when you are instrument rated and have a particular scan that you use. Otherwise they could be placed in whatever configuration you desire - not really recommended to vary too far from the "typical" 6 pack design, but it's not as critical as Brian and John are making it out to be... I think you did a fine job and it turned out great!

[Kev Williams]

using whatever digitizer that is, is great, very cool interface. Wish I had one like it way back when!

My only critique: To save time, my approach would be, digitize the panel shape, the top/left large hole assy, and the top/left small hole assy ... verify shape is good, verify size/position of the 2 hole assy's, then copy/paste new holes per print dims. Digitizing identical holes eats a lot of time, in layout and inspection.