A Milestone Creating a Fusion 360 Title Block!

I have completed the task I challenged myself with in my previous post. I finished up my reproduction of a 1940s era North American Aviation title block in Autodesk Fusion 360!

The original, and Fusion 360 Title block together

It was a little tedious at times, it's a lot of repetitive sketching geometry and inserting text and properties. 

But it's completed, and ready for use. I'm sure I'll find a few more things to adjust as I test it out. 

Ultimately, I was able to recreate nearly every feature of the title block. It's not an exact match. I couldn't find a solid fill to block out the box above the part number for example. But it is close, and it will serve it's purpose just fine. 

As more features get added to Fusion 360, I'll update the title block accordingly. 

The North American Aviation tile block finished

So now, it's time to start creating drawings! From there, I'll learn more lessons and make more adjustments!

Credits:

Title Block Sourced from my Aircorps Library subscription.

About the Author:

Jonathan Landeros is a degreed Mechanical Engineer and certified Aircraft Maintenance Techncian. He designs in Autodesk Inventor, Siemens NX, at work, and Autodesk Fusion 360 for home projects. 

For fun he cycles, snowboards, and turns wrenches on aircraft. 

A Trick - Creating Fusion 360 Title Blocks from an Image

 Happy 2022! Here's to hoping for a prosperous loop around the sun. 

One of my latest endeavors has been recreating 1940s aviation prints as 3D models in Fusion 360. The drawings are available via my Aircorps Library subscription, and they're a great look into how parts and assemblies were documented nearly 100 years ago. 

A piston for an actuator on a North American P-51 Mustang.
Model created in Autodesk Fusion 360

The models are the fun part for sure, but I also decided to recreate the drawings themselves too. 

The first part of recreating the drawing, is to recreate the title block of course. 

The title block image, ready for import into Fusion 360

\

It's still a work in progress, but I thought I'd spare a moment to document my progress.

It almost goes without saying, the process can be tedious. Since the original drawings are hand drawn, they have to be recreated from scratch. 

The thought of trying to "eyeball" the title block wasn't very appealing, but finally an idea dawned on me that made the process much less challenging. 

I imported an image of the title block, scaled it to a suitable size, and laid out the geometry on top of the image.

The title block in Fusion 360. The lines sketched in Fusion 360 are highlighted.

Overall, I felt pretty well. But there was one thing I did have to overcome

There's no image opacity setting like there are in other parts of Fusion 360. But I was able to see where my sketched lines were by highlighting them. I also extended the lines beyond the edges of the image. I can always trim them later. 

Finally, I'd also use the good old, "Delete, Inspect, Undo" trick by deleting the image, inspecting, and undoing the delete.

Overall, its working pretty well. I've found the process is much faster, accurate, and less frustrating than trying to scale by using the title block in a separate window. 

As I said earlier, it's a work in progress.  I'll share my final product when I'm done. Give me time, it might be a while! This is an "evening here and there" project! 

One Final Note

The team at Aircorps Library have done a spectacular job collecting, scanning, and sharing these vintage documents. Out of respect for their work, I won't be sharing any documents or models. Please, don't ask me to do so.

If you are really interested in their documentation, feel free to check out their site and investigate a subscription yourself! 

About the Author:

Jonathan Landeros is a degreed Mechanical Engineer and certified Aircraft Maintenance Techncian. He designs in Autodesk Inventor, Siemens NX, at work, and Autodesk Fusion 360 for home projects. 

For fun he cycles, snowboards, and turns wrenches on aircraft. 

A Musing on Modeling Safety Wire - How Much Detail is Necessary?

A question that was recently posed to me was; "How would you model safety wire in an assembly?" 

Safety wire on a fuel
divider on an 
aircraft engine

At first, I thought I'd write a post trying to summarize the standard, and how I've seen it approached in my travels over the years. But no matter how I tried to "summarize" the standard, it ended up too long, and so dry it put me to sleep.  So instead, I'm going to try writing this briefly, and hopefully to the point. 

First of all, Safety (aka lock-wire) is small diameter wire of various sizes that is used to prevent fasteners from loosening and ultimately falling out. It should always pull in a direction that tightens the fastener. It's usually twisted with 6-8 twists per inch. 

Of course there are more details, but they're covered by standards. In my aviation maintenance travels, that standard is AC43.13-1b, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration  (FAA). In my engineering travels, that standard is NASM33540.  I'm sure there are other standards.

That's important. The standards tell the installer how to secure the fasteners with safety wire.

So when it comes time to show safety wire on a model or drawing, is it normal to show the twisted wire?  Is it modeled exactly as shown in the

image to the right?

Heck no! That takes a lot of time and computer resources, which gets expensive fast. And having a standard to reference, there's little to be gained other than bragging rights for the designer. 

Instead, I've seen, and used, on of two alternatives. 

The first, is to use a sweep in the model, showing where the wire should go. This takes a little modeling time and dedication, but it will show up on the model, and propagate to the drawing when its created.

Safety wire shown in the model.
I've colored it in red here to make it stand out. 

The modeled sweep representing the safety wire on the drawing.
A leader references the standards in the notes.

The other, is to use sketch geometry when the drawing is created. It takes a bit of time to sketch in the drawing, but the results do a good job of showing the desired result.

Sketches on the drawing calling out the safety wire
Circles and lines represent the wire's twists.

Which ever method is used, a note can call out the standard to be complied with.  So the wire shown on on the drawing and model show where the wire should go, the note calls out the standard to reference.

If the installer has any doubts, the standard should be readily available for reference. I know in many cases, it's probably even legally required to be available. 

The next logical question for a reader may be, "How does this apply to me?" After all, while safe wire isn't uncommon, there are plenty of users who live long, fulfilling lives without ever touching safety wire.

If you get anything out of this post, ponder if there's anything that can be streamlined by adding more or less detail? How detailed does the model of that purchased part need to be? Are you spending extra time showing model details that are covered by a standards that can just be shown by a note with a leader? 

Perhaps take a few minutes to think it over. You might find you save hours! 

Acknowledgements

Models created by me in Autodesk Fusion 360

McMaster Carr models used:

• Round Head Screws (wire lockable) - P/N 90350A310 
• Flat Washer: P/N 92141A011
• 45 degree elbow (37 degree flare to NPT): P/N 50715K637
• 90 degree elbow (37 degree flare to NPT): P/N 50715K413

FAA Reference for Safetying: AC43.13-1b (See page 7-19)

NASM33540: This document is only available for purchase, so I've added a link to the old standard, MS33540.  It's very similar to NASM33540, as well as AC43-13-1b

Double Checking Your Work and Subverting Mr. Murphy

I once saw a graph that showed the cost of making a change in the CAD model vs  further down in the product design cycle

Spoiler alert! It gets more expensive as you move from design, to prototype, to production.  

One need only to cases like the Takata airbag recall, or Boeing 737 Max grounding or the impact of the impact of a a production level design change in in money, company reputation, and tragically, in lives lost. 

But I'm not here to write about such heavy topics. The example I'm choosing to document is a much lower stakes version of the same thing.  It's just a basic hobbyist example that at worst, is inconvenient and marginally embarrassing.

It's an access panel based on something you'd find on an aircraft. It's a concept for a potential future hobby project. I built one back when I was in school.

So I happily modeled away in Fusion 360, creating sheet metal parts and placing fasteners from McMaster Carr. 

After spending a couple of evenings of casual modeling, I was done! I took that moment we all love, I leaned back, looked at my work proudly, then prepared one last check before I took my little victory lap.

The completed inspection hangar, or so I thought...

And that's when I saw it. 

The countersunk rivets I had installed were the wrong ones. I'm not sure how I missed it initially, but obviously I did. 

So first, what's wrong with the rivet? 

It's a rivet with a 78 degree countersink, which means the countersink extends to the second sheet of metal being riveted.  This is a big no-no. When the countersink extends into the second piece of metal, the larger hole required in the first sheet of metal makes for a weaker joint.

The wrong rivet. I did match the countersink angle to match the rivet for clarification.

The incorrect rivet for this application. The countersink angle is too steep

The correct rivet is a 100 degree rivet. The shallower angle prevents the head from punching into the second sheet of metal. That means a stronger, and safer joint.

The 100 degree rivet, the correct one for this application. 
I know in the model the rivet does appear to just clip the second sheet.
But past experience has taught me that this combination does work.

The shallower angle of the 100 degre countersink makes a stronger joint

So that's the technical aspect of it, what's the other lesson?

I suppose the first lesson is make sure to check the hardware before you put it in. But we all make mistakes. That's where double checking comes in. 

A final check can help prevent the last little "oops" from slipping through. Even though we can't eliminate them all, we can reduce them with a little time. 

For those of us working in industry, a second set of eyes never hurts. In some places, multiple checks on a drawing are required. It's not a bad practice at all, one I think should be taken advantage of whenever possible. 

Some may argue it takes time, but it takes much less time than undoing a costly mistake. 

I've worked in maintenance shops where "second eyes" is a standard policy on items such as fuel system repairs. In other words, the person performing the work checks his work, and then a second technician or inspector checks it again. There often are even signatures required to prove that this step was performed. 

But that's it for today's anecdote. I re-learned a few lessons in a safe environment where the only bruise was to my pride. 

I hope you can take a few lessons from this musing, and keep making cool stuff! 

About the Author:

Jonathan Landeros is a degreed Mechanical Engineer and certified Aircraft Maintenance Techncian. He designs in Autodesk Inventor, Siemens NX, at work, and Autodesk Fusion 360 for home projects. 

For fun he cycles, snowboards, and turns wrenches on aircraft. 

Additional Resources: 

A nice  rundown on different types of rivets by- Hanson Rivet and Supply

A wealth of knowledge on general airframe repairs (start at page 4-31 for the Riveting Section) -Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook 

Standard Parts Used on this Project.

.125 Diameter, 78 Degree Solid Rivet (The Wrong One) - McMaster Carr Part Number 97483A075

.125 Diameter, 100 Degree Solid Rivet (The Right One) - McMaster Carr Part Number 96685A170

10-32 Floating Nut Plate - McMaster Carr Part Number 90857A129

.094 Diameter Rivet (to Fasten Nut Plate) - McMaster Carr Part Number 96685A143

#10 Flat Washer - McMaster Carr Part Number 92141A011

10-32 Pan Head Phillips Screw - McMaster Carr Part Number 91772A826

Lessons from the Shop Floor - Helical Inserts do more than Repairs.

Many technicians, designers, and fabricators are familiar with helical inserts, often referred to by their trade name "Heli-Coil". 

A helical insert in an exhaust manifold

These inserts are made of a coil of diamond shaped wire. Looking like tightly wound spring, they can be installed in a special threaded hole to create standard metric and imperial threads.

In my early experience, I only saw them used to repair a damaged thread. As a matter of fact, they were used for thread repair so often, the name "Heli-Coil" became a verb. 

"Curses! This thread is completely boogered up! I'm going to have to Heli-Coil it! This why you always start a screw with your fingers!"

But as I gained more experience, I saw two additional uses for helical insert, and that's what I thought I'd share in this post. 

Wear Resistance

A 3D model of a free running (non-lockng) 
helical insert in an aluminum block

The first is to create a wear resistant hole in softer material, such as aluminum. Instead of waiting for the hole to get worn out, a helical insert is installed in the hole at the time of fabrication. The helical insert is made of a more wear resistant material such as stainless steel, although there are other materials available. This creates a more durable hole better suited if repeated installation and removal of the fastener is expected.

You might see this on a panel that needs to be removed periodically for inspection. Naturally, once the inspection is competed, the panel needs to be reinstalled. The more wear resistant helical insert lasts longer, and resists damage caused by cross threading. 

And if you have a really bad day and damage the insert, it's possible to remove the insert and install a new one without damaging the base material. 

Create a Locking Element

A 3D model of a locking helical insert.
Note the deformed thread in the middle.

Another element is to create a hole with a locking element in it. Locking helical inserts have a distorted thread in the middle that resists the screw backing out. By using a locking insert, the need for a screw with its own locking element, such as a nylon pellet, can be eliminated.

While this may seem like extra work for not much gain, this can be advantageous since you don't need to purchase fasteners with their own locking elements. Another advantage is in higher temperature applications where a nylon locking insert's performance may degrade to the point where it loses effectiveness.

And just like it's non-locking (also known as "free running") counterpart, it can be removed and replaced ,when it's locking element loses effectiveness.

 Wrapping it up

I've written this post based on helical inserts, but there are many styles of threaded inserts. Far more than I know about, let alone discuss in one post. So if the helical insert isn't your speed, there's likely another that will do the trick.  

For a sampling of just some of the different types of threaded inserts available for different applications and materials, take a look at the McMaster Carr catalog!

I hope you found this post helpful and informative. 

Let's get out there and design, fabricate, and maintain some stuff!

Appendix and Credits

• 3D models created in Autodesk Fusion 360.
• Threaded insert models downloaded from McMaster Carr
• Threaded insert models are based on the NASM/MS21208 standard for non-locking inserts, locking inserts are based on the NASM/MS21209 standard, although several standards, both imperial and metric, exist.

Finally! Looking for a video on how to install a helical insert? Check out this video here! 

Photo Credit: rustyheaps Repairing exhaust manifold, XK engine via photopin (license)

Sharing a Short Lesson on Flared Tubes in Fusion 360

It's been a while since I've posted.  New projects and a different path of life have kept me away from working on "bloggable projects".

So I now share only the occasional post, and I hope that you find these posts helpful.

The other night, I was "doodling" in Fusion 360, and decided to model a "semi-rigid tube", similar to what one might find in an aircraft or some automotive applications.   It was good to get a little practice.

A typical 37 semi-rigid tube

And I found a couple of things that were worth documenting, at least for me.

Background on the Part.

In real life, a semi-rigid tube of this type is composed of a seamless tube, typically made from aluminum, or stainless steel, although other materials are sometimes used.

The flare is backed by a sleeve or "ferrule".  This reinforces the flare.  This design also greatly reduces the possibility of "wiping" damage to the flare, since the nut doesn't turn against the flare itself.

So that's why the design is made the way it is!

The Part in Fusion 360   

The part isn't complex, it's just a path created using a couple of 2D sweeps.

The flares at the ends of the parts are revolutions.  Just like the paths creating the sweep, there's nothing earth shattering if you're familiar with the tools

One thing worth noting, I downloaded the flares and sleeves from McMaster Carr, using the tools built right into Fusion 360.  That's a nice feature that simplifies downloading and inserting standard parts.

Inserting from McMaster Carr

I wrote about that tip here in a post a little ways back.  You can check out that post here.

And by the way, here's a link to the part.  Feel free to download it and take a look at it!



A Few Other Notes

• McMaster-Carr actually didn't have the fitting I needed.  I wanted the fitting in aluminum, which does exist.  So I used a steel part and changed the material.  Yes.  In this case, I'd probably have to go elsewhere to purchase the part. In my case, Aircraft Spruce.  Sorry McMaster, I love you, but you didn't have what I needed in this case.

• The parts from McMaster weren't modeled quite right.  There's some interference with the threads and the ferrule, and the flare on the ferrule is actually 30 degrees, not 37 degrees.  But how much does it matter?  If the purchased parts are correct (which they should be), then the fact that the models are slightly incorrect won't make much difference.  But it is noticeable in the cross section.

• Aircraft tubing is sized using a unique numbering system.  The tubing (and hardware) are assigned a number, such as 3, 4, 5, etc.  If you take this number and divide it by "16", you'll get the outside diameter of the tubing in inches.  So #3 tube is 3/16, #4 tubing is 4/16, or a 1/4 inch, and so on.  The hardware is often number the same way. 

• Aircraft tubing is also flared to 37 degrees, not 45 degrees as may be found in other applications. Just in case anyone is wondering why I'm using that flare!
• If you're interested in learning more about flaring, here's a nice video that shows the process of flaring the tubes.  It's worth a few minutes of your day! 

In Conclusion

I started this project out as a bit of practice, as I said, it was an elaborate doodle.  But I had the chance to try a few tricks, and I thought I'd share them with you.

So go ahead and download the part, and have a little fun with it!

Sources and Acknowledgements

Flare Dimensions are from HylockUSA.  They also have the dimensions for metric flares!

Part Models are downloaded from McMaster Carr.

Lesson's From LIfe's Workbench - Working with Helical Inserts

Ahh. The helical insert.   If you've run into a mangled thread, there's a good chance you've had to use one.  Most likely it's come in the form of a tightly wound, diamond shaped wire which forms the insert.

The common helical-insert.
By The original uploader was Boellhoff at German Wikipedia - Transferred from de.wikipedia to Commons by MichaelFrey using CommonsHelper., Attribution, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7363606

You may also know them as "Heli-Coil" inserts.  Heli-Coil is actually the name of a specific brand of helical inserts, but the names have become interchangeable, much like Teflon (PTFE), Kleelex (facial tissue), and Inconel 718 (Nickel 718).

Many of us have used them to repair stripped threads, they can also be used in softer materials, such as aluminum, to create a more durable thread.

A helical- insert used to repair a thread.

But like any fastener, they need to be placed into a threaded hole, which requires drills to tap holes, and depths for threads

Luckily, I found a great website that has the recommended taps, and hole diameters for helical inserts.

Our friends at Noble Aerospace have provided a recommended drill size chart, and a tap chart for both Imperial and Metric threads.

It's a nice resource if you're using helical inserts in your next design!

How Noble of them indeed! 

Additional photo credits:

photo credit: rustyheaps Repairing exhaust manifold, XK engine via photopin (license)

Galvanic Corrosion - Lesson's from Life's Workbench

In the last few months, I've been spending a lot of time reading for my aircraft maintenance class.  I've been through my General text, and I'm halfway through my Electricity book.

These two books are well worn from reading. 

Naturally, that takes away from my time working on things like Inventor and Fusion 360.  So I thought to myself, why not share a few of the lessons from my studies?  It'll help me study, and maybe help out someone else who's trying to learn themselves.

Consider it paying forward!  So every Wednesday, I intend to post a tip on a little something I've learned about design in my studies.

Without further delay, here's a lesson that had faded into the archives of my mind, only to be relearned.

A Life Lesson on Galvanic Corrosion

When two different metals are attached to each other, there can be an electrical potential between the two metals.  One metal will act as an anode, the other will act as a cathode.  If an electrolyte, such as water is added, a chemical reaction known as galvanic (or dissimilar metal) corrosion will occur.

When that happens the anodic material will be eaten away by the cathodic material.  For my tests, I remembered it as the "cat" the one that does the eating.

Galvanic Corrosion between Copper (Cathode) and Iron (Anode)
By Ricardo Maçãs - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17645877

Galvanic corrosion can be mitigated by isolating the two materials from each other.  Another solution is to use materials that have similar galvanic potential.  Several charts can be found in textbooks and on the web.  Here's a basic one from Wikipedia.

Just remember to keep the two materials as close as possible!

Yet one more is to attach a third, more anodic material to the assembly.  This sacrificial material will corrode away first, saving the other two.   You can see some good pictures of sacrificial anodes on a ship hull here.

No matter which method is chosen, designing for corrosion is something that can make a difference between a product having a long life, or a painfully short one.

I hope this first little tip is one that helps you out! I'm hoping to post some more soon!