I have some questions about the use of SOLIDWORKS for designing aircrafts and aircraft parts and I'm wonder who uses it...how long you've been using it...how you use it...what you think of it etc.? Anyone out there willing to answer some questions about SOLIDWORKS? Are you willing to share some parts you've designed in SOLIDWORKS?
Thanks!
Cory
Most of the manufacturers are using Pro-E due to its ability to integrate individual drawing data thru the whole assembly. Personally, I still use Autocad (mainly 2D, top view, 2 side views & an isometric), but that is how I learned & when the 3D products first came out none of my employers wanted to pay to have a design engineer learn to use it since that was the draftsmen's job. Now a young design engineer pretty much has to know how to use Pro-E.
I don't know of too many aircraft manufacturers using Pro-E; in fact, I can't think of any. CATIA is pretty much the industry standard at this point.Originally Posted by Mike Switzer
Wow things sure change in a few years. I knew a couple of the automotive companies were using CATIA to some extent, but most of the contract jobs (around here, at least) are still asking for Pro-E experience.
As far as solidworks goes, the only people I know using it are facility engineers, it works pretty good for piping layouts.
I had read/heard that Cirrus, Synergy, Sonex, Zenith and Sam have all been designed in SolidWorks. Any designers from those companies on this forum?
There are so many CAD systems out there nowadays that there really is no "standard". That said, most of the big auto and airplane companies use the really high end systems (CATIA, Unigraphics, etc.) that small companies and individuals rarely can or are willing to pay for.
I've used Solidworks in the past and though it's a good program, I really don't care for the parametric sketch based approach... it just doesn't suit the way I design. I personally prefer a direct modeler. I use Keycreator (formerly Cadkey), but if I was looking for a new system I'd take a good look at Creo Direct, which is from the Pro/E people. They have a free version you can download that's limited to 60 parts.
Cory, 100% of Synergy was designed in SolidWorks. Tens of thousands of part files were required to do the job, not because of complexity/part count, but because of the way complexity grows exponentially over time and with scale.
Knowing this up front helps; for example, we made the decision to keep all master files in the oldest possible format, not allowing them to be replaced with later versions by opening/saving them in newer releases of the software. Once migrated, there's no going back and that can cause huge unexpected pain.
Presently we design and develop airframes, parts, and systems for numerous clients as well. Anyone wanting to gain performance, efficiency, or just go faster is welcome to reach out.
Enjoy your learning curve!
John
John McGinnis
CEO Synergy Aircraft
John, salt of the earth
I'm somewhat familiar with these issues because I've been using and developing CAD/CAM software (in FORTRAN) since the 70's and 80's. But there's and old saying that says "don't make it if you can buy it", so I've been using SW for as long as I can remember. SW is very easy to learn and it's certainly adequate for every day use by EAA members. The more specialized stuff like your applications need specialized software. The small yearly incremental increases in functionality in SW are not usually worth the high subscription prices, and are highly unlikely to provide extensive solutions for your specialized needs.
Good to know that we can turn to guys like you for the special projects.
Jeffrey
Great, beautiful stuff. John.
Without wishing to appear prying, a few questions:
1. In what version of SW are your master files stored?
2, I fully appreciate (and endorse) your policy of keeping your master files in the oldest possible format because SW is not "backwards compatible". But at some stage you will probably want to use the newer functionality of the later versions. My question: What is your policy in this regard?
3. I assume your answer to the above is that for newer projects you will use newer versions of SW. But then how do deal with the problem of running two (or more) versions of SW on your network?
4. The screen shots you posted seem to be CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) results. If so what CFD software do you use? I'm asking because in my experience running a CFD analysis on a whole aircraft requires horrendous computational resources in order to get any meaningful results (if at all!) in any reasonable time. For example, a rough simulation of the propeller alone is a major operation.
Jeffrey
Thanks Jeffrey. As a licensed user with multiple seats I have run every version of SolidWorks since 1996, and without being too specific, (1) froze the software date with the first Synergy release candidate. I did subsequently use newer versions (not much, because the primary required utility has been adequate for a long time), mostly to collaborate with outside contractors and volunteering engineers. I'm currently subscribed and running 2015 and 2016.
My policy (2) is to utilize the master software for all master files and assemblies. Once final, they are exported as dumb bodies so they can be used in any subsequent operation on any version without possible migration back to an unapproved state. Similar final parts are brought into the older software for assembly as required.
200,000 parts ago I'd have joined the chorus regarding not limiting future bi-directional, updateable, interdependent, or top-down design intelligence by such caveman methods, but with 20+ years of will-CAD-to-eat experience comes a certain skill with the flint.
No problem with multiple versions on the network as we exclusively use standalone software. (3)
4. The image above is a Solidworks rendering combined with a CFD rendering in which the aircraft itself was hidden. We have the "horrendous computational resources" and proprietary algorithms required to run entire aircraft with moving parts and complex geometries in a (?) reasonable (?) time... (you know, like lofting in SolidWorks, way back in the day ;-)
You're absolutely right about the challenges and significance of wielding such powers of analysis, but our system is two orders of magnitude more advanced in terms of time to accuracy. Now that we're mostly done creating it, others can avail themselves of the resource we spun off: mvAero Since Oshkosh we've been busily cranking out such things for other clients.
John McGinnis
CEO Synergy Aircraft
Reply With Quote
