Too much work?

[evankok]

Is this too much work for the outcome?

Yes………………………..I was bored!

What I wanted was to ensure that all of the cuts, sweeps and lofts were all tight fitting. Previous attempts always had gaps and exposed edges from the stringers not even with the top of the formers. The cutout edges also did not align with the stringers where the stringers were embedded into the formers.

The only thing that I can see that could have cut down on the item count was mirroring stringers 1-4.

Any thought of what could have made it easier?

Regards,

Kenn

 

[SBix26 · Accepted solution]

Looks to me as if creating one stringer and then creating a rotary pattern of that stringer would be much less work.  Also, you're sweeping a 2D rectangle along a 3D sketch which is nothing more than a line... why not simply use an extrusion?  Or at least a 2D sketch for the sweep path?

At the end, to trim everything, you used a loft... which is nothing more than a cone, so using a revolved profile would be simpler.

If any of that gives you trouble, someone here will can show you how.

---

Sam B
Inventor Pro 2019.1.2 | Windows 7 SP1
LinkedIn

[SBix26 · Accepted solution]

Here's one way to do the job, a bit simpler, no sweeps, lofts, or 3D sketches involved.  It can probably be simplified further.

---

Sam B
Inventor Pro 2019.1.2 | Windows 7 SP1
LinkedIn

[WHolzwarth · Accepted solution]

Well, 55 years ago I began building model airplanes. Buying Ready-to-Fly models was no alternative in those times, only kits or plans were availabe.

Sam showed an ideal solution, but it's not quite the same as in real life.

- Stringers have square or rectangle sized sections. Sanding to an outer arc normally makes things worse than better

- The formers with round shape are similar to sheet metal, with rectangular edges

You can see the result in the attachment (2019 IPT). The zones at the transition between stringers and formers don't match perfectly, but that's reality.

[evankok]

---

@WHolzwarth wrote:

Well, 55 years ago I began building model airplanes. Buying Ready-to-Fly models was no alternative in those times, only kits or plans were availabe.

Sam showed an ideal solution, but it's not quite the same as in real life.

- Stringers have square or rectangle sized sections. Sanding to an outer arc normally makes things worse than better

- The formers with round shape are similar to sheet metal, with rectangular edges

You can see the result in the attachment (2019 IPT). The zones at the transition between stringers and formers don't match perfectly, but that's reality.

---

Thank you for the upload. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "The zones at the transition between stringers and formers don't match perfectly, but that's reality." 

I can't see what you are talking about and I have looked pretty close. They all look good to me.

Regards, and thanks!

Kenn

[WHolzwarth]

OMG, pardon me. I've added an intermediate file instead of the final one.

Right now I'll have to do some other work, but I'll come back in a few hours.

[Anonymous]

What about creating 4 parts and assemble them?

[WHolzwarth · Accepted solution]

Now the better one. And a detail view

[kelly.young · Accepted solution]

Hello @evankok I see that you are visiting as a new member to the Inventor Forum.
Welcome to the Autodesk Community!

Here is another go that is easily modified through an iLogic Form to stretch to any size and stringer number. 

There are many ways to set something like this up, it just depends on what you are trying to achieve and if it will be made by hand, 3D printed, or CNC.

Please select the Accept as Solution button if a post solves your issue or answers your question.

[WHolzwarth]

Excellent job, Kelly.

Now it's very easy demonstrating the situation with former and stringer at steep angles.

[evankok]

I noticed that my reply to you never made it here. My fault.

Thank you for the ipt. I went through it and realized that I was just a little too focused on what I thought was the proper way that it had to be drawn. I tried what you showed on other sections, and it is much easier. I can see where I can use it further down the line.

All your points are well taken and appreciated!

That why we come here!

Much THANKS!

Kenn

Kenn

[evankok]

This was just a simple experiment to see if I could do it, but it did take a lot of time.

If all stringers were in a straight line, it would work, but my intention was to make sure that the former's and cutouts were cut at the proper angles, and that I had a smooth arc of the stringer tops that matched the former so there were no gaps for sheeting or covering. 

A lot of stringers will always have some kind of bow\twist\arc to them as they go back and not all former's are uniform in shape. The previous posts and ipt's are great. I am over complicating things for myself. I am looking at other things to model a little bit differently now.

Thanks for the response!

Kenn

[evankok]

---

@kelly.young wrote:

Hello @evankok I see that you are visiting as a new member to the Inventor Forum.
Welcome to the Autodesk Community!

Here is another go that is easily modified through an iLogic Form to stretch to any size and stringer number. 

There are many ways to set something like this up, it just depends on what you are trying to achieve and if it will be made by hand, 3D printed, or CNC.

Please select the Accept as Solution button if a post solves your issue or answers your question.

---

iLogic form.....huh! Never heard of it. (I am not that far along in the learning curve). Just one of the issues of trying to teach myself. I see that there a few videos on Youtube that I need to watch. I can see it working in situations. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

As wh points out with his screen shot, he shows what I want to avoid, parts not lining up.

Thanks for the heads up on this!

Regards,

Kenn