Is Pro Engineer best for this task ?

[DBenz]

Hi,

I have need of drawing up an aircraft and wonder if I should use ProEng or Rhino, or Catia V5 or Solidworks or autocad etc.
<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
Autocad doesnt have the Parametric update ability of progs like ProEng or Solidworks, but is it better for what I need to do below than Rhino or SW ? It must be easy and intuitive to learn. It used to be said that autocad was a steep learning curve but a friend finds it easy and logical. How does ProEng compare and also to Solidworks which is easier than Cartia I gather ?

Can ProEng do the following ?

I am having to draw up an aircraft armed with some GA drawings giving datums, locations of fuselage frames, wing spar, rudder hinge line, thrust line, canopy leading and trailing edge, wheel hub positions etc, real skeletal stuff. Its enough to draw side view and plan view outlines except for fillets. I also have site photos and measurements of stiffener locations (needing the ability to measure around curves and across skins in a program to plot these, seeing that they are measured across the real subjects skin) and some original drawings of specific items e.g. one cockpit frame, fuselage frame stiffeners cross section, some flanges, torsion rods etc, engine bulkhead to name a few.

Solidworks or Catia V5 or Autodesk Inventor seem to be about creating
objects more so than laying out such basic shapes. Would ProEng be able to start with the skeletal outline data mentioned above, enabling me to draw the outlines of the aircraft, over imported tiff images as done in FH9 or as possible in autocad. Could one then draw up the fuselage frame I have a plan of, and locate it into this outline both in side view and front view, it then appearing in end views as a consequence of this ?

Can I skin the fuselage and measure on the skin surface other features measured as such on the real thing ? Which CAD prog can handle this ? I have a certain amount of 'detective' work to do, items becoming clear as to their dimensions and location as further data comes to light. The automatic updating across the board of Parametric progs unlike autocad would appear ideal for this.

CanProEng create skins of differing thickness where they are needed on the aircraft structure. Initially I would need to skin the structure to get the overall flow shape and check its ok, then break this down into the relevant
skin thicknesses, wing leading edge for example thicker than rest of wing. How easy is this in ProEng versus the other progs ? Can I skin the structure, measure and place internal ribs, or does skinning disallow further items placed underneath. I would need the skin so as to place the ribs, i.e. generate their curves and locations, is that possible to do ?

How well blessed with easy to follow video tutorials is the internet on ProEng? progs like autocad have a number of sites giving such. Classroom in a book...again a well thought through book for beginners would be a good start, structured to teach the right things in the right order, is there such for ProEng ?

DBenz

 

[jelston]

How well blessed with easy to follow video tutorials is the internet on ProEng? progs like autocad have a number of sites giving such. Classroom in a book...again a well thought through book for beginners would be a good start, structured to teach the right things in the right order, is there such for ProEng ?

Fogetaboutit!

 

[audctrl]

Many programs will do what your asking, it just comes down to the following three items:


Cost - On Time - Quality


pick two

 

[Knut Fiskergård]

Quite a question this


Dont think you'll find an unbiased answer in any forum that is dedicated to a particular prog. Some (as I've) have used other progs, but some versions ago, and things have changed.


Not knowing all of the mentioned progs, I think they all cando what you request, at least to a great extent. But they all may require a different approach. You may need to adjust the way you want to work (are used to) to fit with thecad-software.


Another thing to consider is the amount of time you have for the project and how much time you can use for training. I don't think ProE is blessed at all in terms of available (free) tutorials on the internet, so you may need to buy them.The more advanced prog. requires more time to learn. ProE i advanced and I think it's absolutly up for the task, but make room for training.


This was my first thoughts.


KF

 

[dgs]

Pro|E or SolidWorks are good choices here. I'm not sure about Catia, no experience, and ACAD is out. Rhino is asurface modeler more than a full CAD tool, I think.


My general impression is that SW will get you up and running pretty quickly, but you may run into headaches as the geometry gets more complicated. Pro|E is a steep learning curve, but has finer geometry control and better capabilities for advanced geometry.


Another question is why are you doing this and how far do you want to go?If it's a student project or for fun, than SW or maybe even Rhino are cheap and will get you good enough. If it's for something more serious, and a high level of geometry control is important, go with Pro|E.


That ought to get me in trouble with the SW guys.

 

[dr_gallup]

Catia & Unigraphics were both written by aerospace companies for designing airplanes so they definitely can do the job. Being very old systems they have the most arcane features and probably the steepest learning curves. Pro/E runs a close 3rd. Solidworks seems to choke when you get to a certain complexity level, not sure you could do a complete airplane. Probably depends on the level of detail. Are you going to model every rivet & wire?

AutoMAD is a joke, no experience with Rhino.

 

[jeff4136]

> I have need


Referencing, also ...
[url]http://news2.mcneel.com/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?utag=&group =rhino&xrelated=276389&cmd_related=View+thread [/url]


I think the first thing you need to do is pull back your horizons,
settle on some realistic expectations and goals. With zero (as
indicated by your questions) CAD experience you'll probably be years
building the skill sets necessary unless it's a full time effort with
professional training and guidance of a type few are capable of
providing. Were talking six figure numbers here for casual
endeavors.


Full up production means Catia or UG because of the integrated
systems built around the basic modeling, assembly and drawing
creation modules (what we think of as "CAD"). I'd like to add Pro/E
to the list (as primary CAD system) but the nearest I can come is
CADDS (saw a marketing blurb about one of the Russian manufacturers
buying it a year or two back). Maybe someday. The Pro/E LLNL NIF
models were around a million part instances? ... No one else need
apply.


Brep models for low detail model or mockup building? Now we're within
practical range of some of the low to mid range CAD systems. You'll
still invest a Lot in the skill set.


_ Rhino's not a bad choice for the modeling. Cost vs. capability make
it an excellent choice. James Carruthers ha(s/d?) a C130 modeling
tutorial for sale. I've never seen it but think it's probably worth
looking at. He's a very capable guy. There are also some free auto
body and aero tutorials around. What I ~really~ like about Rhino is
what it will teach you about surface theory and structure if you'll
make the investment and dig into it.


_ Pro/E's a good choice across the board. It's no slouch on the
modeling (would, in fact, be my choice;
http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2448). The rest of
it's capabilities make it a hands down winner reaching for the
horizon.


_ Inventor? I'd stay away from Autodesk. Bad investment for the
purpose. If you want to check, though, search for the name
"Closterman". He's(?) been dabbling at aero models with Inventor for
a few years. Might give you some insight.


_ I don't know Solidworks but it's certainly capable enough for low
detail work. Might also search for info on Concepts3D (or something
like that). Tim Olson (arguably the best ACIS application developer
around - don't laugh at ACIS, Autodesk gave them a bad rep with their
inept interface programming) and someone from Douglas(?) put together
a low priced aero app some time back. And, of course, there's Ashlar,
but I don't think (bang for buck) it's worth looking at. I won't look
at an app that doesn't have native spaceball support, myself, and I
doubt it's remotely capable of assembly scope.


... For what it's worth and good luck with the endeavor.

 

[_olivier_]

Yes, with ProE, you can anything... The limit of ProE is the guy sitting in front of it.


Solidworks, like all other midrange, they are easy to use. But you will reach the limit of the software.


Catia, ProE and UG are high end product. They should all be able to do the job.

 

[HARMAN]

DBenz,


You are on a pro-e forum so your mostcommon answer is that pro-e will be the best tool for the job I have. I have many friends who work in the aerospace business and their system of choice is always Catia.


As some of the other posts said you really need to think about what you want out of it, if as is suggested it is for a college project or something like that you will certainly be better going for something like solidworks or inventor (which does have parametric updating),as they will do the job, although they are probably not the top of the tree for this application, but much areeasier to use for a beginner. You will also find inventor much more capable than most people on this forum will give it credit for (don't know why?).


Pro-e will do the job but you may spend more hours banging your head against a wall trying to get it to do what you want it to do than actually doing anything.


Catia is number one for this application but are you going to start making aeroplanes? It also is a tricky package to learn compared to some of the others.


Cant speak for ugs or rhino as i've never used them.

 

[jeff4136]

Harman,


That all sounds pretty good but it's right out of the 'plausible nothingness'
section of the sales manuals (which seriously need new material, btw).


> You will also find inventor much more
> capable than most people on this forum
> will give it credit for (don't know why?).


Because unlike yourself, I suspect, I tried for a few years, and failed, to
productively employ it in related, but much less grand in scope, enterprises.
Inventor is comfortable for small assemblies of prismatic parts (< 10K instance)
and much smaller 'complex' part assemblies (< a few score). It doesn't have the
geometry definition tools and is, no way, capable of managing even sub assemblies
of the implied scope. Way too slow and unstable. You can wait, literally,
minutes regenerating a fuselage frame model and the drawings are as bad or worse.
Then, a dollar to a doughnut, the drawings will be missing significant edges.
Inventor has problems generating silhouettes of nonanalytic shapes.


But, don't take my word for it. Ask here...
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4963866


> Pro-e will do the job but you may spend
> more hours banging your head against a
> wall trying to get it to do what you want
> it to do than actually doing anything.


I don't suppose you could provide a 'for instance' other than the normal
problems inexperienced or casual or just in way over their head users will
encounter?


> ... tricky package to learn compared to some of the others.


Two comments:
_ There's nothing trickier, no steeper learning curve to be negotiated than
that encountered trying to work beyond the operating envelope of a design
software.
_ The OP has a steep learning curve ahead of him / her. The portion of the
learning learning curve attributed to software choice is going to be
proportionally insignificant, as is always the case once above low end
applications of design software.


The matter being discussed here, with the scope proposed by the OP, is not for
the inexperienced or casual CAD user, or low end AE. It's going to require a
serious, dedicated, knowledgable CAD monkey. Anyone that thinks they're going
to "loft" their way through it needs to think again. My advice to anyone
considering similar endeavors is to start small; model an aluminum canoe
assembly. One of the old Grumman heavies would be a good choice.

 

[HARMAN]

Thanks for that Jeff, but i think you havemissed something DBenz has asked for.


"It must be easy and intuitive to learn."


I use pro-e every day and easy and intuitive for a new user it isn't.


I am aware it can do stuff that others struggle with, we use it because we have in excess of a million components in our model with over 35,000 being indiviual components, not much can really touch it for that.


This thread is to help out DBenz not to bash cad software you don't happen to like.


I know pro-e is a good tool but without a bit more detail about what is required I can't see how you can justify it over any of the others.


I dohave experience usingInventor and althoughthe assemblies were only around 15,000 parts with only1500 or so individual parts i never had problem which i don't get in other packages.Incedentally the way theforum threadyou point tois over 2 years out of date so is probably obsolete now.


DBenz, maybe you could step in now and give us more detail about your requirements, before this thread digresses into a rant and rave topic.

 

[jeff4136]

> easy and intuitive


I guess the point being communicated is being missed or ignored.


> 2 years old ... obsolete


Still current, as is
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3862693
http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/IMAGES/EX-SCREW.jpg


> digresses into a rant and rave topic


Don't rant. Don't rave. Don't even talk.
Do the canoe model. Or the screw.
That's how these dilemmas are resolved.

 

[DBenz]

Hi,


many hanks for the replies so far, drifting a little from my questions perhaps as was said somewhere in them so I am replying with more gen as requested.


I shall try and add some more details though my post I had hoped painted a good as picture as I was able to. Questions in it on things like once its skinned, can I add more ribs etc, I suppose are answered as yes to all the progs you have mentioned, having not seen specific answers.


Its not a student project, yes I am a newbie, but we are building a full size metal aircraft...static...ww2 single engine...so nothing hyper complex ! Reckoned a CAD prog would be beneficial to take over from the 2D vector prog currently in use, as things like measuring distances fore/aft over a skinned wing to use site measurements with tape measureto rivet lines etc would or should be possible with such, but impossible in 2D due to the double inclined plane coupled with the curvature !


I realise expecting to learn a CAD prog in a short time is asking a lot, but circumstances mean we cant wait whilst I spend many months learning, so easy intuitive is a must.


Rhino certainly gets mentioned on that front. Is it only good at surface modelling or is it ok on assemblies and details, well the hercules engine looks impressive on their site !,...also a cutaway tanker. They answer yes to all I have asked, there again they could be biased.


I need to wrap scans of acetate traces made of wing leading edges, underwing shapes etc onto the skinned surface in the program, things too tricky to judge shape of with pen and paper. If the skin is curved in one direction, it can umwrap it, then put tiff onto that, adjust its position, then trace details onto the skin, then re-apply skin to the aircraft. UV something or other means accuracy not guaranteed.


Certainly gets mentioned as the better choice to autocad.


I am not sure after your replies if Pro Eng is better given the non complexity of the task, and the learning involved. Also Rhino have free tech support UK and supplied with the job file can and will assist. Thats a bonus to me. Are Pro Eng or Catia likely to do so ?


Perhaps I would be best staring out on Rhino, then when familiar with it, and with more money available, trying out Pro Eng or Catia, these may be better learnt after I have CAD experience ?


Another thing I need to do. Imagine a point T under a wing, referenced to three known positions A B C using tape measure to get distances AT BT CT. Having consructed my wing using frame shapes and skinned it, how would Pro Eng or Catia locate T ? With Rhino, one draws a line on plane XY and projects it to wing skin. It tells you the line length, then trim line and try again, unitl you get distance AT displayed (!), repeat with a line radiused out from A, and so on, then draw an arc between the tips of the line, we now have an arc on wing underside of distance AT from A, somewhere on that arc is T, repeat method for BT and CT then where arcs meet, there is T !


Has Pro Eng or Catia a better way ? I can see myself spending ages doing this if thats involved for just one point !


I am sort of doing reverse engineering.


Hope this helps


I do need to know how these progs tackle these and other tasks mentioned in the post that started this thread.


Are there any tutorials to be seen on the net showing an aircraft being built within Catia or Pro Eng ? Progs kept close to the chest of the trade industries are difficult to learn and talk to others about I should imagine ? Web site tutorials would be limited.e.g the response to 'classroom in a book' equivalentfor them !


Thanks


DBenz