Simpit Panel designing guide.

[shu77]

Great series!

[ReaperB]

I heard that the U.S. did try to go metric...I heard it didn't go well, which I guess would be an obvious statement since we do not use it today.

 

Interestingly enough, there's been a bit of a history, I found this on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07/us/metric-road-american-story/#:~:text=%22The%20metric%20system%20has%20everything,all%20about%20a%20selling%20system.%22&text=So%20they%20adopted%20an%20international,the%20Treaty%20of%20the%20Meter.

[Stang]

Hi Tea_cypher,

 

I like the idea of this thread and the demonstration of how you want to build your switch panels. I also wanted to say, in my response below, I do not mean to come across critical or demeaning. There are many people who build switch panels many different ways, and with a great variance of results. In this instance, you "can" say there is a right way to build switch panels, and a wrong way.

 

To understand the "BEST" way to build them, you simply need to look at real US Military panels from the 4th generation aircraft forward. "Not simulator panels"! The how and why have already been worked out and are there for our use. Again though, I say, anyone can build panels any way they choose. This is most commonly accomplished by what tools they have available to them.

 

If you want to know how to build switch panels the same way as the US Military, then you should be talking to Deadman. He is the definitive source and knows the how's and why's a panel is built a certain way, and has all of the information and dimensions that go with each part of the panel building operation.

 

I would "suggest" that the method you are describing for for lighting up the Light Rings, is not how real panel are lighted, and will decrease the strength and rigidity of your panels. This will "probably" also cause "hot-spots" in your light rings as well. You method is a pretty far deviance from the normal method of back lighting methods, and decreases the efficiency in the actual building process. This is just my "opinion" and doesn't mean you should change your method.

 

In my humble opinion, there are 2 things that separate the best panels from the worst. 1 - The "QUALITY" of Text/Lines/Symbols (FONTS) which includes the actual "Creation Process" of them on the panel itself, and 2 - Back Lighting. The rest is just the right dimensions and materials, which are all in inch by the way, and the proper fasteners and assembly technique. These are all commonly available on Mil-Spec doc MS25212 "Basic Panel Dimensions".

 

Again, I would suggest you reach out to Deadman and ask the questions of "why" a switch panel is built a certain way and what techniques are used. This information would be very valuable to everyone here that is reading your post, and using your information as a guide for "How to build Switch Panels"?.

 

Good luck with your progress.

 

Stang out

[No1sonuk]

I would "suggest" that the method you are describing for for lighting up the Light Rings, is not how real panel are lighted, and will decrease the strength and rigidity of your panels. This will "probably" also cause "hot-spots" in your light rings as well. You method is a pretty far deviance from the normal method of back lighting methods, and decreases the efficiency in the actual building process. This is just my "opinion" and doesn't mean you should change your method.

I'm not sure any hotspotting would be as bad as you might think.

Considering the material is aluminium, the inside of the holes would be reflective, so should cause some scatter as the light passes through and comes out.

[Stang]

It will also create a shadow box effect and require a ton of extra milling.

 

 

Just wait until you see the engrave times with a CNC...its not quick.

 

Stang out

 

I'm not sure any hotspotting would be as bad as you might think.

Considering the material is aluminium, the inside of the holes would be reflective, so should cause some scatter as the light passes through and comes out.

[tea_cypher]

Thanks Stang, I fully admit mine is not perfect, but tried to give methods people can try, as there really is not the greatest info out there.

 

Back lighting is one of those really interesting topics, for what I am doing, do I need it, No, but its cools so try not make it work :)

 

My thoughts are by using opal acrylic the light will be diffused and give a reasonable diffusion, as for rigidity, its a fair question, but I have done a test piece in 2mm alley along these lines at it seems pretty solid, again will in meet mil spec testing, who knows.

 

This is all a learning process, trial and error, joys of having home based equipment is that you can prototype and improve.

 

The entire imperial argument is a different thing, my document is within the requirements of mil-spec. And its interesting that NASA use SI units (metric).

Edited June 25, 2020 by tea_cypher
for got to put not infront of perfect

[No1sonuk]

Just wait until you see the engrave times with a CNC...its not quick.

I know. I own a 3040.

And an X3 manual mill.

And a 7x12 manual lathe.

 

Ironically, some jobs are quicker on the manual machines.

[tea_cypher]

I am running a workbee, but uppgrading it to queenbee with high quality linear rails, will make it alot more rigid and allow me to machine alley, not got any manual mills though i have a lathe

Edited June 25, 2020 by tea_cypher