An odd thing about CAD...

[[email protected]]

(aside from blank messages :-)

I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
I talk about it, too. If you hope to share information at a distance
you need good drawings and a simple CAD program is miles ahead of
old-fashioned drafting.

That produces a lot of mail, almost all of it from guys telling me why
they DON'T use CAD, or at least, not DeltaCAD. Such as the message I
received last night in which the feller explained that the reason he
didn't like DeltaCAD -- and only had it so he could print out my
drawings of VW conversion parts -- was because he was accustomed to
working in fractional inches.

"In the time it takes me to convert 27/64ths to decimal and get it
typed in," he wrote, "I could have drawn it a dozen times with a
drafting scale."

I had to think about that for a while. A private answer would have
been more polite but if one person thinks DeltaCAD can't handle
fractional inputs then others might, too. And the truth is, it handles
them just fine. Want a line 27/32nds in length? Then select the LINE
function, indicate the point of oirgin with your pointer and type in
27/32.

One and nine-sixteenths? Then type in 1 (space) 9/16. Two feet, three
and three-sixteens would be entered as 2'3 3/16.

I can appreciate the feelings some guys have when they're faced with
converting a 1920's drawing into a digital format. Back then,
everything was in fractions of an inch and American Wire Gauge, neither
of which is in common usage today. But DeltaCAD, with which I have no
relationship other than as a satisfied customer, really IS handier than
your T-square, triangles and drafting scale. The odd thing is that so
few guys my age think so and I really can't understand why. The
complete manual is only 218 pages long and most of that is white-space.
In fact, compared to other CAD software DeltaCAD is so simple most
guys start turning out usable drawings without ever reading the manual.

-R.S.Hoover

[Robert Schieck]

wrote:

> (aside from blank messages :-)
>
> I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
> and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty

So fess up, what do you print your 56" rib out on ?

Rob .. a happy DeltaCAD user

..ps If I can use DeltaCAD, anyone can and I only had to peek at the
manual a couple of times!

[[email protected]]

>>But DeltaCAD, with which I have no
relationship other than as a satisfied customer, really IS handier than

your T-square, triangles and drafting scale. The odd thing is that so
few guys my age think so and I really can't understand why.>>

The sad thing is that guys your age can probably learn CAD faster than
the average high school grad. They most likely remember a bit of 8th
grade geometry from 40+ years ago. :-)
==============
Leon McAtee
I too recommend DeltaCad for the masses

[Ron Webb]

I don't use "DeltaCAD", I use "TurboCAD". Which is probably about the same
thing. New CD's of a recent version can be had on EBay for $10 or so.

Not only is it better than manual CAD, I can take a DXF file to Kinkos and
print it out full size. I printed out a side view of my MoHawk tube and
fabric fuselage (16 feet long, all one piece of paper), then just stapled it
to my workbench and welded tube over the top of it. A really easy way of
getting things exact.

I did a drawing of a back plate of a home made PSRU. Did it full size, with
each of the holes to be drilled marked by a dot. Glued the paper to the
aluminum plate, and started drilling and cutting. Again it was easy, and the
holes are within a few thousandths of perfect.

[[email protected]]

Robert Schieck wrote:
>
> So fess up, what do you print your 56" rib out on ?
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regular typing paper :-)

Select a new LAYER called 'Grid' and draw a grid atop the finished
drawing. I used a 2" square and selected THIN pale blue lines, printed
the rib 1:1, which took 6 sheets, then glued them together aligned on
the blue lines.

If you don't have a light-table, attach a small weight to a length of
black thread and tape it to the OUTSIDE of a picture window or sliding
glass door. Gravity does its thang and the black line of the thread
becomes your vertical alignment guide, easily visible through the paper
when in contact with the INSIDE of the glass. The regular (ie, black)
lines of the drawing are clearly visible and each sheet is fairly easy
to align in the horizontal plane. But for maximum precision, you may
print TWO copies of the drawing and OVERLAP the sheets, using the blue
grid for both vertical and horizontal alignment.

Printing was done on a garden variety HP Deskjet 930c. Using an
optical comparitor, accuracy is better than .001" over 8". If you wish
to verify the trammeling of your paste-up, compare your 2" grid to a
steel tape as the paste-up progresses. To transfer that degree of
precision to the work-piece, use spray-glue to attach the pasted-up
pattern to a sheet of aluminum, use an optical center-punch to prick
the centers of your tooling holes and check that with a regular
trammel.

Crude as the method above may appear, the dimensional accuracy of such
a pattern will typically exceed the standard of precision available to
the typical home-builder. Although maybe not the first time they try
it :-) Parallax plays a role in the accuracy of your paste-up as does
paper quality in your printing. But on average, ribs are pretty easy
compared to a 4x4 paste-up for a firewall or bulkhead.

-R.S.Hoover

[Stealth Pilot]

On 24 Nov 2005 16:17:51 -0800, wrote:

>(aside from blank messages :-)
>
>I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
>and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
>things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
>I talk about it, too. If you hope to share information at a distance
>you need good drawings and a simple CAD program is miles ahead of
>old-fashioned drafting.
>
>That produces a lot of mail, almost all of it from guys telling me why
>they DON'T use CAD, or at least, not DeltaCAD. Such as the message I
>received last night in which the feller explained that the reason he
>didn't like DeltaCAD -- and only had it so he could print out my
>drawings of VW conversion parts -- was because he was accustomed to
>working in fractional inches.
>
>"In the time it takes me to convert 27/64ths to decimal and get it
>typed in," he wrote, "I could have drawn it a dozen times with a
>drafting scale."
>
>I had to think about that for a while. A private answer would have
>been more polite but if one person thinks DeltaCAD can't handle
>fractional inputs then others might, too. And the truth is, it handles
>them just fine. Want a line 27/32nds in length? Then select the LINE
>function, indicate the point of oirgin with your pointer and type in
>27/32.
>
>One and nine-sixteenths? Then type in 1 (space) 9/16. Two feet, three
>and three-sixteens would be entered as 2'3 3/16.
>
>I can appreciate the feelings some guys have when they're faced with
>converting a 1920's drawing into a digital format. Back then,
>everything was in fractions of an inch and American Wire Gauge, neither
>of which is in common usage today. But DeltaCAD, with which I have no
>relationship other than as a satisfied customer, really IS handier than
>your T-square, triangles and drafting scale. The odd thing is that so
>few guys my age think so and I really can't understand why. The
>complete manual is only 218 pages long and most of that is white-space.
> In fact, compared to other CAD software DeltaCAD is so simple most
>guys start turning out usable drawings without ever reading the manual.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

hey bob. do you realise that america has been a metric country for
over 103 years now. are you going to get the message soon?
:-)
Stealth Pilot

[John]

wrote:

> (aside from blank messages :-)
>
> I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
> and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
> things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
Do they have a Linux version ;-)
John

[[email protected]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> hey bob. do you realise that america has been a metric country for
> over 103 years now. are you going to get the message soon?
> :-)
> Stealth Pilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey ozzie, did you realize that the American Congress authorized the
use of the metric system in 1866? Or that the SI system became our
official standard for weights & measures when the United States signed
the original international Metric Treaty in 1875?

America uses a mix of traditional and SI units because Congress
provided no funds for conversion nor penalties for failing to do so and
indicated how little importance they placed on the matter by exempting
themselves and their functions (such as the Library of Congress) from
any legal requirement to observe the metric standards.

So I guess the answer to the first part of your question is, yes. And
since we seem to have gotten the message about a hundred years before
you did, the answer to the second appears to be moot. But perhaps the
most important part of this exchange has to do with the fact DeltaCAD
works equally well with meters or inches. And we were talking about
CAD software instead of how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
mile :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"karel" > wrote:

> "John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >> (aside from blank messages :-)
> >>
> >> I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
> >> and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
> >> things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
>
> > Do they have a Linux version ;-)
>
> Or MAC?
> KA

No and no. What a shame. An easy to use 2-D CAD program for the Mac is
all I want in my stocking this year. Well, and a good rivet bucking
partner.

[Darrel Toepfer]

karel wrote:

>>> I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
>>> and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
>>> things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
>
>> Do they have a Linux version ;-)
>
> Or MAC?

Palm?

[John]

> And we were talking about
> CAD software instead of how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
> mile :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Depends on whether it is a male or female ;-)

[kd5sak]

"karel" > wrote in message
...
> always believed america's a continent
>
>
Actually there are two America continents, North America and South America.
It is fairly common usage, among both native and foreign users of the term,
to refer to the United States of America as just, "America", however
incorrect the usage may be. Since we natives commonly speak of ourselves as
Americans, I suppose there is a certain level
of consistency in speaking of the nation as America. Ah, well.

HWB

[Frank Stutzman]

Smitty Two > wrote:
>> > Do they have a Linux version ;-)
>>
>> Or MAC?
>> KA
>
> No and no. What a shame. An easy to use 2-D CAD program for the Mac is
> all I want in my stocking this year. Well, and a good rivet bucking
> partner.

Eh? No Mac version? What is:
http://www.turbocad.com/prodinfo.asp?t=1&mcid=321

Alas, there is no linux version. Qcad does run on linux, but I havn't
found it overly easy to use.

Sorry, no help on the bucking partner, either.
--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:

> Smitty Two > wrote:
> >> > Do they have a Linux version ;-)
> >>
> >> Or MAC?
> >> KA
> >
> > No and no. What a shame. An easy to use 2-D CAD program for the Mac is
> > all I want in my stocking this year. Well, and a good rivet bucking
> > partner.
>
> Eh? No Mac version? What is:
> http://www.turbocad.com/prodinfo.asp?t=1&mcid=321
>

Well, it isn't DeltaCAD, which I thought was our topic. And I'm not sure
that it qualifies as easy to use, but I'd welcome feedback on that score.

[W P Dixon]

What are you building Smitty Two? If your close by I'll help you with some
rivets.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>
>> Smitty Two > wrote:
>> >> > Do they have a Linux version ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Or MAC?
>> >> KA
>> >
>> > No and no. What a shame. An easy to use 2-D CAD program for the Mac is
>> > all I want in my stocking this year. Well, and a good rivet bucking
>> > partner.
>>
>> Eh? No Mac version? What is:
>> http://www.turbocad.com/prodinfo.asp?t=1&mcid=321
>>
>
> Well, it isn't DeltaCAD, which I thought was our topic. And I'm not sure
> that it qualifies as easy to use, but I'd welcome feedback on that score.

[GTH]

how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
> mile :-)
>
Hi all,

Contrary to the statute mile, the nautical mile has nothing to do with
the Imperial system a few countries in the world are still using since
Colonial days ;-)

The nautical mile is based on the cicrcumference of the Earth. One NM
corresponds to a one minute angle along a big circle.
It is thus easy to relate distance to latitude and longitude coordinates.

That's why every nation in the world is (and will keep) using it for
navigation by air or sea.

Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Metric since day one

http://contrails.free.fr

[john smith]

> Or MAC?

I use Claris DRAW, but have not tried it on any OS above 8.6.

[UltraJohn]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> karel wrote:
>
>>>> I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
>>>> and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
>>>> things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
>>
>>> Do they have a Linux version ;-)
>>
>> Or MAC?
>
> Palm?
Actually in my searching today they did say DeltaCad will run using Wine
(Windows emulator under Linux) I haven't tried it I really don't like Wine.
John

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:
> Robert Schieck wrote:
>
>>So fess up, what do you print your 56" rib out on ?
>>
> use spray-glue to attach the pasted-up
> pattern to a sheet of aluminum,
> -R.S.Hoover
>

I'll add just one point. In my experience, spray glue won't work if
you're makeing steel pieces and have to grind it down to the line.
Cutting the metal gets it hot, and that melts the glue. I've used a
little paint instead. I have a couple little cans of Killz white primer
that I keep around. Spread a thin layer using some scrap paper or
whatever's handy. It will come off easier later if the metal still has
the shipping oil on it, but it will still stick plenty well enough to
make the part.

I've also used the Kinko's trick mentioned earlier, but they don't like
the CAD formats and only play nice with PDFs. And then they didn't like
the 8' airfoil of the Delta. Finally settled on printing it half size
and then blowing it up to full size using the blueprint copier they all
have.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> America uses a mix of traditional and SI units
>

In the same DA$$ truck. Some engineer at Dodge aught be shot...with
both a metric and standard size bullet!!

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Morgans]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> In the same DA$$ truck. Some engineer at Dodge aught be shot...with
> both a metric and standard size bullet!!

They all seem to do it, at least on some models.

My full sized Chevy van is somewhat consistent. If it is a hole in the
engine block, it is SAE. If it is something not screwed into the engine, it
is metric.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

In article >,
Ernest Christley > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Stealth Pilot wrote:
> >
> > America uses a mix of traditional and SI units

> In the same DA$$ truck. Some engineer at Dodge aught be shot...with
> both a metric and standard size bullet!!

Yes indeed!
My 1994 Plymouth Voyager mini-van has both standard and metric fastners
in the drivers seat. I found out last month when I had to replace the
seat recline mechanism and the seat pan. The recline mechanism has the
metric fastners, leading me to believe it is manufactured offshore.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"W P Dixon" > wrote:

> What are you building Smitty Two? If your close by I'll help you with some
> rivets.
>
> Patrick
> student SP
> aircraft structural mech
>

Thanks, Patrick. I sent you an email; let me know if it gets lost in the
ether.

[flybynightkarmarepair]

John wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > (aside from blank messages :-)
> >
> > I use DeltaCAD, a simple 2D replacement for the traditional T-square
> > and triangles, to make patterns for parts, from a 56" rib to itty-bitty
> > things for home-made clocks, tiny steam engines and similar stuff. And
> Do they have a Linux version ;-)
> John

http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html

[[email protected]]

>>> Eh? No Mac version? What is:
> http://www.turbocad.com/prodinfo.asp?t=1&mcid=321

Well, it isn't DeltaCAD, which I thought was our topic. And I'm not
sure
that it qualifies as easy to use, but I'd welcome feedback on that
score.<<

It is harder to use than DeltaCad, but not by much, and it has more
options. Rather than the 10 minutes it takes to figure out DeltaCad
plan on taking an hour or 2 with TurboCad. I have AutoCad, Solid
Works, BobCad, and a few others but I use the TurboCad for 90% of my
drawings. I find it quicker than most to use. The only prolem I've
come up with is that I can't find any drivers that will print correctly
to my old HP plotter using WinXP. Win98 works just fine!?. Encad
drivers also work OK for that plotter with either OS.
================
Leon McAtee

[Morgans]

> wrote

> The only prolem I've
> come up with is that I can't find any drivers that will print correctly
> to my old HP plotter using WinXP. Win98 works just fine!?.

XP can run a 98 emulator, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

[flybynightkarmarepair]

For 2-D CAD on a MAC, I use CADINSTOSH.

lemkesoft.com/en/cadintosh.htm

I actually like DeltaCAD better, and have gone so far as run it on my
MAC using Virtual PC, but I don't recommend anyone else do that -
getting Virtual PC to reliably print is something I haven't been able
to master, and the documentation is no help.

DeltaCAD will run on the cheapest, oldest, stupidest PC, and for less
than 200 bucks you can get a used system to devote to just CAD if you
really feel the need.

As for Linux devotees, here's a list of Linux resources for y'all to
explore (I've investigated/used none of these):

http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CAD.html and
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html

[[email protected]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> ...
>
> hey bob. do you realise that america has been a metric country for
> over 103 years now. are you going to get the message soon?
> :-)
>

What, you don't like binary fractions?

Alexander Hamilton convinced the US to adopt metric currency.
Shortly after, he was taken out and shot.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> ...
>
> And we were talking about
> CAD software instead of how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
> mile :-)
>

One nautical mile is the arc length of one arc-minute at the equator.
Useful for navigation, do you suppose?

--

FF

[mustanger]

Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
design, and full size aircraft components.
After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I bought a
copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was amazed at
how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small program.
I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects. For
all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
AutoCad installed on my computer.
The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
corrected in later versions.
Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting for
aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of cockpit
labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration work we
are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
found. If you don't believe me, try the demo. http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
the word when something works this well for so little cash.

Norm Meyers
Project Director
Mustang Restoration Project
http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/index.htm
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum
www.aeromuseum.org

[Matt Whiting]

mustanger wrote:
> Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
> years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
> design, and full size aircraft components.
> After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I bought a
> copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was amazed at
> how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small program.
> I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects. For
> all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
> AutoCad installed on my computer.
> The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
> properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
> corrected in later versions.
> Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting for
> aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of cockpit
> labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration work we
> are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
> Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
> In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
> found. If you don't believe me, try the demo. http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
> I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
> the word when something works this well for so little cash.

Norm,

This is a timely post! I'm looking for a low-cost program to draw
simple dimensioned objects for a structural engineering course that I am
taking. I want to use MathCAD for my homework assignments, but it has
no drawing capability and most of the problems I need to solve need
text, equations AND drawings/diagrams.

All I have to do now is confirm that MathCAD is able to import the files
that DeltaCAD creates. If it does, I'll be a happy camper and the $40
seems very reasonable.

Matt

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> mustanger wrote:
>
>> Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
>> years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
>> design, and full size aircraft components.
>> After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I
>> bought a
>> copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was
>> amazed at
>> how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small
>> program.
>> I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects.
>> For
>> all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
>> AutoCad installed on my computer.
>> The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
>> properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
>> corrected in later versions.
>> Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting
>> for
>> aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of
>> cockpit
>> labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration
>> work we
>> are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
>> Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
>> In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
>> found. If you don't believe me, try the demo.
>> http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
>> I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
>> the word when something works this well for so little cash.
>
>
> Norm,
>
> This is a timely post! I'm looking for a low-cost program to draw
> simple dimensioned objects for a structural engineering course that I am
> taking. I want to use MathCAD for my homework assignments, but it has
> no drawing capability and most of the problems I need to solve need
> text, equations AND drawings/diagrams.
>
> All I have to do now is confirm that MathCAD is able to import the files
> that DeltaCAD creates. If it does, I'll be a happy camper and the $40
> seems very reasonable.
>
> Matt

Before you do that check with your school bookstore. As s student you
can buy AutoCad or MicroStation for a fraction of the usual price. My
MicroStation cost me about $200 when the commercial version's price was
a few kilobucks. The academic versions are full function. The only
difference is you get a nag screen reminding you it's the academic
version every time you log on. The books alone are worth the price in my
opinion. I do feel I have gotten my money's worth.

I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my
unscientific observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than
Microstation which might be a consideration.

As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Flyingmonk]

I'm an AutuCad guy and I'm sorry...

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
karel > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> And we were talking about
>>> CAD software instead of how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
>>> mile :-)
>>>
>>
>> One nautical mile is the arc length of one arc-minute at the equator.
>or along any other great circle

*NOT*EXACTLY*. :)

The Earth is not a perfect sphere. it is, technically, an 'oblate spheroid'.

The 'equatorial circumference' of the Earth is *NOT* the same as the
'polar circumference'. The two figures differ by _26_ miles.

Want to explain one great circle can be 26 arc-minutes shorter than another
great circle? <*e*v*i*l* grin>

A Nautical mile was origially defined in terms of the _equatorial_
circumference of the Earth.

>
>> Useful for navigation, do you suppose?
>yes, quite
>especially as meridians are great circles
>
>

[MJC]

Like you, I had used AutoCad for years but when I retired from that job,
I still needed a good CAD program but couldn't justify Acad anymore.
So while I don't want to come across as a champion of the product, I
would suggest that former Acad users take a look at CMS Intellicad. The full
3D version in less than a couple hundred dollars, but the most significant
feature about it is that it feels almost exactly like AutoCad in most
respects. Additionally, you can customize it to work virtually exactly like
AutoCad.
It can open and save ALL of the AutoCad versions which is one of the
things that really ticked me off about Acad 2002 that IT couldn't. Having
used Intellicad exclusively for a couple of years now, I can honestly say
that I don't miss using AutoCad at all.
Check it out.
http://www.intellicadms.com/products/special-pricing.asp

MJC

"mustanger" > wrote in message
news:ynkmf.616362$_o.406487@attbi_s71...
> Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
> years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
> design, and full size aircraft components.
> After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I bought a
> copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was amazed
> at
> how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small
> program.
> I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects. For
> all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
> AutoCad installed on my computer.
> The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
> properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
> corrected in later versions.
> Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting for
> aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of cockpit
> labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration work
> we
> are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
> Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
> In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
> found. If you don't believe me, try the demo.
> http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
> I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
> the word when something works this well for so little cash.
>
> Norm Meyers
> Project Director
> Mustang Restoration Project
> http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/index.htm
> Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum
> www.aeromuseum.org
>
>

[LCT Paintball]

> I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my unscientific
> observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than Microstation which
> might be a consideration.
>
> As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you :)
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sorry I'm so late jumping in on this thread.

Autocad USED to be the system that EVERBODY used.

They fell way behind the curve when Solidworks was introduced. If you can
afford it, look into 3d modeling packages like solidworks. You should be
able to get it with your school discount too.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

LCT Paintball wrote:
>> I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my unscientific
>>observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than Microstation which
>>might be a consideration.
>>
>> As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you :)
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Sorry I'm so late jumping in on this thread.
>
> Autocad USED to be the system that EVERBODY used.
>
> They fell way behind the curve when Solidworks was introduced. If you can
> afford it, look into 3d modeling packages like solidworks. You should be
> able to get it with your school discount too.
>
>
I am not a student anymore and am quite happy with my MicroStation
running on my old 486 computer.

I gave up on A-Cad 10 years ago. One of the things I didn't like was
file size. The local printer only accepted A-Cad drawings for their big
plotters. When I went to get something printed it had to be in that
format. A MicroStation file on the order of 1meg would be 1.6meg or so
when converted. I also found I used about 2/3 as many operations in
MicroStation to accomplish the same thing in A-Cad. The list goes on,
but you get the idea.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bob Kuykendall]

Apropos of almost nothing, I just rediscovered my favorite article on
the tenuous relationship between CAD and design:

http://www.seqair.com/CADArticles/CADMalarky.html

Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
latches and my aunt's espresso machine...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Apropos of almost nothing, I just rediscovered my favorite article on
> the tenuous relationship between CAD and design:
>
> http://www.seqair.com/CADArticles/CADMalarky.html

I like the article:) The main reasons I use CAD is I am a klutz with a
pencil and I prefer storing the drawings on CD-ROM. One of my pet peeves
with a lot of CAD users is they have no idea how to sensibly dimension a
drawing.

>
> Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
> latches and my aunt's espresso machine...
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24


There's always my preferred method: visualize, make a part, make one
that w**ks,
if needed make a pretty one THEN make the drawing. This way you can be
assured the
drawing will make a w**king part. The question could arise whether the
part serves
a practical purpose, but I think we can forgo that discussion for now.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Morgans]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote

> Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
> latches and my aunt's espresso machine...

Give latchless Larry a call. I think he might have some latches you could
use! (ducking and running) <g>
--
Jim in NC