Analysis of my mistake? Rail cannot be tangent to profiles

Analysis of my mistake? Rail cannot be tangent to profiles

Corvin.Huber
Contributor Contributor
6,437 Views
27 Replies
Message 1 of 28

Analysis of my mistake? Rail cannot be tangent to profiles

Corvin.Huber
Contributor
Contributor

Here is my miniature project:

https://a360.co/40VQwd0

 

When trying to loft from the transom (profile 1) and keel-line (profile 2) along the two top-view rails, I receive the error message: 
modelling error: rails cannot be tangent to profiles.
I fail to see where the rails ARE tangent.
Is there some way to analyse where Fusion 360 gets stuck?
Thank you!

 

[title modified]

0 Likes
Accepted solutions (1)
6,438 Views
27 Replies
Replies (27)
Message 21 of 28

Corvin.Huber
Contributor
Contributor

I mean a life-size, real replica. As one can see from my website, I have built an aircraft before (MONI), so I am aware of the effort it involves ... 😊

0 Likes
Message 22 of 28

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

@Corvin.Huber wrote:

I mean a life-size, real replica. As one can see from my website, I have built an aircraft before (MONI), so I am aware of the effort it involves ... 😊


Ha, I went back and I did indeed skip over that one sentence 😉 

@Frans.Hessels is doing something similar in recreating the Pander D. His CAD work on the model is all done in Fusion 360.

   


EESignature

Message 23 of 28

Frans.Hessels
Advocate
Advocate

Hello Peter, thank you for mentioning me modeling the Pander type D.

 

@Corvin.Huber like Peter Doering mentioned I am modeling the Pander type D, scale 1:1 in Fusion 360. From 2014 onwards the model is developing. Nowadays the 3D modeled parts are used to make 2D work drawings which are exported to Autocad and then saved and completed in pdf format so everyone is able to read the info. I'm guided by a engineer from Fokker being myself a technical illustrator coming from civil engineering. Also I am a volunteer at the Aviodrome Luchtvaart museum, Lelystad, The Netherlands.

 

The Sestava Scarlett 3VW motor was kindly send to me by the USA dealer in step format. (29.8 Mb in size).

The original used Anzani motor is build from photo's as a empty shell just for the looks of it.

 

Goodluck with your project. Frans Hessels

0 Likes
Message 24 of 28

Corvin.Huber
Contributor
Contributor

@TrippyLighting /Frank: thank you for the introduction!

That model looks very nice, Frank! Congratulations on your progress so far. Any plans to rebuild it?
Cheers,
Corvin

0 Likes
Message 25 of 28

Frans.Hessels
Advocate
Advocate

Good evening Corvin, in 2014 the plan was to build two airplanes. One static and one flying. We, the people from Stichting Neptune Association had finished the construction of the Van Berkel WA floatplane. Today part of the collection at the Aviodrome. But things turned out differently. The flying Catalina PBY5A PH-PBY was sold to California. The association is now focused on the restoration of the one remaining Catalina PBY5A in The Netherlands. I have decided to complete the 3D model of the Pander type D and the 2D drawings. As accurate as possible and flight wordy supported by the Fokker engineer. But it will be years before everything is drawn.

0 Likes
Message 26 of 28

Corvin.Huber
Contributor
Contributor

Hello Peter/Trippy!

 

A few months ago I was new to Fusion 360 and you helped me out. Thanks you, again. We also communicated "on the social side" and you mentioned that you were interested in "helping" in all matters relating to CAD.

I have a question that you may be able to shed some light upon:

I have progressed somewhat and have put a lot of energy into a model of a historic aircraft, initially with surface modelling only, which worked very nicely. My plan was now to turn this into a "buildable" blueprint (carbon fiber construction). Some of the elements (for instance the elliptical wings) are quite complex surfaces, lofted over changing profiles with changing angles of incidence. This works (quite nicely) as long as I am only looking at surfaces. When I want to thicken these surfaces into objects (such as transforming a thin surface into a 0.6 or 1.0mm carbon fiber skin, fusion 360 messes up. Sometimes the thickening is not permitted at all or when you make cross sections at new stations you find out that the thickness is different from the originally specified thickness. Sometimes the thickening also creates self-intersections.

 

By studying the internet, I seem to get the vibe that complex 3-D curvatures are not a Fusion 360' strong point.

My question to you: Is that something that I should work on and iron it out, or should I be looking at a CAD-program that is more suited in this specific drafting challenge? Rhino? What else?

Thank you for your input!

0 Likes
Message 27 of 28

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

@Corvin.Huber wrote:


Some of the elements (for instance the elliptical wings) are quite complex surfaces, lofted over changing profiles with changing angles of incidence. This works (quite nicely) as long as I am only looking at surfaces. When I want to thicken these surfaces into objects (such as transforming a thin surface into a 0.6 or 1.0mm carbon fiber skin, fusion 360 messes up. Sometimes the thickening is not permitted at all or when you make cross sections at new stations you find out that the thickness is different from the originally specified thickness. Sometimes the thickening also creates self-intersections.

 

By studying the internet, I seem to get the vibe that complex 3-D curvatures are not a Fusion 360' strong point.


First, I would not worry too much about what people say about Fusion 360 on the Internet. Many people who run into problems go to the internet to see what others say, read negative comments, and then repeat statements. What they very rarely do is to dive deeper and analyze the problem. Often, they will find that the limitations are their understanding of how CAD kernels and surface modeling work under the hood.

 

Have you used the Curvature Comb, Curvature map and Isocurve Analysis tools on the edges and surfaces you have created?

Problems with thickening, shelling, and offsetting surfaces are almost always due to bad curvature.
Would you know what to look for when seeing the results they report?

 

If the answer to that is not a firm YES, then for the moment, you don't need another CAD software. These tools provide essential feedback to analyze what the problem is, and their feedback drives the actions to fix those problems.

Surface modeling requires absolutely clean curves. Single-span 3-degree or 5-degree control point splines. Do you know what that means?  The Autodesk Alias Theory Builders provide an excellent foundation for surface modeling.

 

 

All that is not to say that Fuiosn 360 does not have limitations; it does. However, in many cases, the limitations are the user's skills, not the software.

 

 

 


EESignature

0 Likes
Message 28 of 28

conjured2018
Collaborator
Collaborator

genius, I have been trying for a long time to loft. the different sequence did it. Thx jr

0 Likes