Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Anybody have any suggestions on how to learn to read blueprints better. I am somewhat weak in that area and my job responsibilities are about to change. My employer has no problem with them but he does not have very much time to teach me what I should know. I was hoping for a website or a book or something I could study. I took some electrically related classes a while back but they just glossed over reading prints. Any ideas? Thanks
I recall back at Tinker AFB someone had input a suggestion that we do something to extend the life of the F-111 cockpit air conditioning vents. I had noted some time before that we were using a lot of the things - and what wears out in a vent? I had found that it was impossible to climb into an F-111 without putting your hand on the vent; they had provided a place to put your foot but nowhere to grab with your hand.A word of caution: If you are wanting to learn to read aircraft drawings, they can get pretty complicated in a hurry.
Electrical circuit diagrams?
I recall back at Tinker AFB someone had input a suggestion that we do something to extend the life of the F-111 cockpit air conditioning vents. I had noted some time before that we were using a lot of the things - and what wears out in a vent? I had found that it was impossible to climb into an F-111 without putting your hand on the vent; they had provided a place to put your foot but nowhere to grab with your hand.
So I got the General Dynamics drawings and had our shops build two examples, one made with 0.040 AL overall and one made with 0.050 AL overall, rather than the .020 and .032 AL material originally specified. The sheet metal shop guys said, "The drawing says there is a lip here." while pointing at a spot on the drawing. I replied, "No it does not! And GD and half a dozen small firms have built these without putting a lip there!" They insisted there was a lip and I did not object further, since for evaluating a stronger example it made no difference and they test examples would not have to be installed on an airplane. I looked at the results, decided to go with the 0.050 version and had a note added to the procurement requirements. A comparatively simple part, and the ALC shop people could not properly interpret the drawing.
When the first procurement was made of the new version I specified that a first article example would be supplied so I could look at the new version. The procurement guys asked me why I wanted to do that since we had bought literally hundreds of those before. I told them it was a new version I had designed and I needed to see it.
The first article samples came and I noted with approval that they were stronger than the old ones. But wait a minute! I had both one of the old ones and the two experimental ones still in my desk drawer. Comparing them, I found the new manufacturer had made a serious mistake. There was a Right and a Left version of the vent, basically mirror images of each other, and the new manufacturer had made one that was "half and half," mixing parts from the two different versions to make a type that would not fit the airplanes. I rejected the samples.
So there you go. A simple enough part, but different supposedly qualified people could not agree on what the drawing said.
An engineer I worked with at Tinker AFB said that he knew guy who worked at Boeing Wichita on the production line and one day they arrived at work to find the previous shift had installed some items on the fuselage that would prevent them from installing the items they had the job to handle. So they removed the items that had been installed, which took a whole shift and they did not get to do their own work. When they came back the next day they found the previous shift had installed the other items again and they again spent their shift taking them off. This went on for a full week, as they tried to get someone in management to realize what was going on. Finally, the next week they were able to get the job done.Next we asked when are the parts for the right hand side arriving only to be told that they were only to be installed on the right.
Hello.Different companies have their own approaches. Boeing's was different from most others. I can recall an engineer in our office unfolding a drawing and saying, "Oh, God! It's from Boeing!" and then going to get a fresh cup of coffee. He knew he was going to be at that task for a while.
For sheet metal parts Boeing would put things like "BUP" on the drawing. I asked a highly experienced engineer what that meant. He replied, "It means Bend Up." That meant that flat drawing representing the layout of a sheet metal part indicated that part of the metal should be bent upwards along the bend line. He could handle understanding it with no problem, which meant that drawings needing engineering review prior to procurement actions got stacked up around his desk, since few others could make heads or tails of them. He also asked for First Article review of the parts that were to be delivered, because he had seen far too many cases where a part that "Joe's Screen Door Repair and Airplane Parts" should have been able to build per the drawing but would screw up in some way.
General Dynamics and Grumman used the same approach for their drawings. They standardized when they were both going to be building F-111's and Grumman kept the GD approach after the Navy part of the program was cancelled.
This attachment is the reading primer? I think your browser hornswoggled you.And here is the official USAAF fundamentals for creating technical drawings from 1943.
It adds a little to the Basic Training Guide above.
View attachment 836961