adding that Jodyc111 also suggests Fusion360. Pity its no longer free.
In response to a pleasant reply…ouch
I have not produced garbage ! You have no idea of what I have created, how accurate it is, have accused me of producing something unfit for a flyer.
arrive at something that is just as accurate (read: inaccurate) as a guessed-at CAD solution.
I DO NOT HAVE A guessed at CAD solution. I now have an ACCURATE replication of the item, it is for what used to be a flyer, and in fact what I have here would match the original plans. When I reverse engineer something I know what I am doing AND I AM EXTREMELY ACCURATE in my work. I specialise in such things.
with the implication that this is going to be part of a craft intended to be airworthy, the lack of rigor in your design approach AND manufacturing scheme makes me grateful for safety inspections.
I never implied such for one moment. Ask before you assume. It is not going into a flyer, I never said it was going to. I know what is required for such and for starters one needs to be an approved aircraft engineer.
lack of rigor in your design approach
How dare you say that, I have poured over this with vernier gauge, measuring three times, doing traces with my special methods.
You dont know what methods I employ and yet say that, insulted !
I can assure you though that such engineers would study my plans and the wreckage, and stamp it approved ! You also refer to the static aircraft restorer, I could mention this to him but the response would be edited out by the admin I AM SURE ! He knows exactly what he is doing and the replication with vice and wood and sheet steel for this particular part is standard practice. You havent even seen it yet say that.
Too many assumptions.
If a client presents you with an impossible task exacerbated by questionable safety standards, it is always acceptable to JUST SAY NO.
Who said it was impossible, I didnt… If its impossible yes say no, anyone would !
If safety standards applied to it and it was doubtful the wreckage could yield original accurate shape, again say no. quite right, I would be the first to do so, but none of that applied.
Its a non structural component for a static restoration of what used to be a flyer, but wont ever again fly., made in the manner I described so remaking it that way is perfectly acceptable. its 80 yrs old. Practices carried out by the warbird fraternity to remake parts.
Time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted. No flaming please as I have never flamed you. I am a friendly guy and have never ever received a reply such as this and had to write a response until now as such.
I am an expert in reverse engineering, whilst still learning Rhino which I did ask is it suitable for aircraft parts CADing and was told yes, then I find it cant do metal bending. It gets me through on the reverse engineering and replica restoration scene, .