Forum sponsored by:
Technical and engineering drawing.
| Richard Parsons | 23/04/2011 17:42:41 |
 645 forum posts 33 photos | Ah MGJ - these days the fill their brains with the ‘Hippy – Twitch’ or whatever is the latest craze. Their brains are too full to remember the Number 25.4. We had to learn all the parts of a £ like 3/4d which is 1/6 of 240d (£1) OR 13/4d 2/3 of a £ etc. and how to handle the odd ‘vulgar fraction’. I very often have to sketch out from a drawing what the thing will look like when it is finished. Humph!
Us olduns can grump 'Nostalgia is not as good it used to be'.
RGDS or as the old time sparks would sign off 'UYP' - and do not ask
Dick |
| mgj | 23/04/2011 19:17:06 |
| 1017 forum posts 14 photos | Well its true. When I was 20+ as a young officer in tax free Germenay, about the only things I was seriouly interested in was how much gin I could sink a day (at 7/10d a tax free export bottle), a large motorcycle, and getting her knickers off. (Mostly in reverse order). And if she was any good and a bit lively, she had more interesting things on her mind than my going fishing or spending hours on lathes! Thats just young men. All you can do is generate a general interest which can develop. I was lucky, - Her Majesty sent me on a driving and maintenance instructors course (tanks), and then the Long Armour Course, which was all about tank design - someone in the Regiment wisely realised I was bent that way, and that allowed me to learn about engineering at degree level during working hours, while attempting to navigate as many frilly things as one could in my spare time. (Tights had just been invented by some grotesque spoilsport) - but then so had the pill!!!) No matter, as a young cavalry man I met with enough success to make working hours useful and you may read that as you will. What we have to understand/accept as old decayed fogies is that the whole nature of professional production engineering has changed. Yes there are the jobbing workshops with centre lathes and mills, but mostly some graduate programs the the machine, and tests all in a wax, and the machine minder keeps the thing fed with sharp tools from a box, and adds metal as required, and someone else checks it. So the guy who needs to understand what he is making is no longer the guy on the machine. Thus IMO there isn't the body of hands on machinists around to go into the hobby. So its no good us all getting nostalgic and saying "Fings aint wot they usterbe", because they are not, and we have to adapt the hobby. Problem is I'm too old to adapt in such a general sense and I don't want to anyway - I like munching metal using handwheels and micrometers. For the next generation will there still be a set of plans for Springbok in ME, or will it just be a disc each month with a set of DXF files? (Look at model aircraft - you can hardly buy a real model kit any more - dope, nylon and balsa. Glens Models used to do really excelent CAPs and Extras, but no one wants to make those. They want to shake the box and fly next day. - I never liked the ARTF kits -they were never built as light as they could have been, and they only gained weight by saving on the covering. But that didn't matter. Break it, go buy another. Is it better - ? You tell me, but its certainly different.) Edited By mgj on 23/04/2011 19:17:47 Edited By mgj on 23/04/2011 19:19:20 |
| NJH | 23/04/2011 20:44:30 |
 2314 forum posts 139 photos | MGJ Too much information !!! Yes I have pretty nearly zero interest in CNC - I'm sure it is useful and interesting to some but I already spend far too much time in front of computers and when I see pages of code in MEW I am taken back to the days of the ZX Spectrum. Hours and hours of input only to lose it all just as I was about to complete and run the programme that I was copying from some magazine! Give me a few knobs to twiddle anytime ! There seems to be much tearing of hair and renting of garments here about the state of the world in general and the lack of (traditional) skills and expertise in the "younger generation" Frankly - I 'aint bovered - I can only persue my own course through this fascinating and engrossing hobby. I'm very happy to offer any help if I am able but I don't think it is my role to educate or lay down rules for others. The youngsters today will find their way through life and will no doubt gain as much satisfaction on their journey as I have on mine. We didn't do things better in our youth - only differently just as the old guys then did when they too were young.. I do understand that Terryd, for instance, may have a rather different perspective on adolescents having suffered rather more exposure than many here but I suspect even he was, at times, the scourge of some teacher! I do know that even now I can be pretty silly at times - or so my wife tells me! ( But she has put up with me for the last 45 years!) Regards Norman |
| Steve Garnett | 23/04/2011 21:10:50 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by mgj on 23/04/2011 15:44:41: Perhaps we ought to accept that this is in general, possibly not a young mans hobby? We need kit which is expensive, we need patience on long projects, and we need expertise, and none of these come easily to the young? There is IMO, a difference between a youngster and a beginner BTW. Added to that list, we also need an adequate supply of time, and that's another commodity that they are generally a bit short of too... but we perhaps shouldn't be too keen to promote workshop activities and model-making as only fitting for people who fall into that demographic, should we? There's a lot to be said for softening people up along the way, I think, and making it a bit easier for them to appreciate what's being presented to them as a possible future activity. Yes there are youngsters and beginners, and they are certainly different. But 'others who might be less confident' seemed to me to avoid any particular labelling of that sort, which is why I used it. The reason that I describe some people as such is based on the experiences I had with one of my ex-bosses, who had been building model boats for years, but when presented with a machine drawing had - well let's say some considerable difficulty working out what an awful lot of it meant. The thing that Richard Parsons does, presumably quite happily, in turning 2D into 3D sketches he had a lot of difficulty with, and I'm sure he's not the only one. I'm pretty sure that there really is a wide range of ability amongst drawing readers, one way or another. In many ways it's a lot like reading music. Some people can quite happily play by ear and turn out quite musical results along the way; but if you want to play other peoples' works, then reading their music is generally the most efficient way of achieving this. |
| Steve Garnett | 23/04/2011 21:28:44 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by NJH on 23/04/2011 20:44:30: The youngsters today will find their way through life and will no doubt gain as much satisfaction on their journey as I have on mine. We didn't do things better in our youth - only differently just as the old guys then did when they too were young.. I wish. When I was the age my kids are now, I was renovating houses, etc and generally doing stuff for myself. My father didn't do quite so much of that, but generally he was/is pretty capable too (although he's rather old for too much of this these days). His father did it as well before he did, although I don't know what happened before that. But despite encouraging my kids to do stuff for themselves, they are generally absolutely crap at it - except one. And yes this is largely the fault of an education system that places no value whatsoever on skills like this. The general idea now is that if you can't do it yourself, you get somebody in to do it for you. And even these people who do it for a living have to start on it pretty late, as a rule - same reason. The one of mine who's actually capable this way I can't really explain - for a lot of reasons I can't really take the credit for this at all. But regardless of that, I'm afraid that I'm going to stick my neck out and flatly disagree with you - I'm pretty damn sure we did do things better in our youth - because at least we actually did them!!!!   |
| Clive Hartland | 23/04/2011 22:05:48 |
 2929 forum posts 41 photos | Looking at the young of today I have found that there is a distinct lack of interface between hand and brain, yes, they can use computers and digital TV items and enjoy sending highly significant text and pictures to each other. But! give them a monotonous detailed job and within minutes they are off on a jaunt.
I had the hardest job trying to get or even find likely candidates for apprentice training and in the end only had one when we needed at least four to fill situations within three to five years. (We had to make do with older candidates to fill posts and teach them up!)
Teaching them the basics of engineering, filing, drilling, thread cutting and trying to instil this knowledge was an uphill climb as they could not remember constants from one day to the next.
As for trying to instil knowledge of Optics in conjunction with electronics was a nightmare situation.
Then letting them loose on a machine was not possible as I am sure they would jhave lost digits or even maimed themselves, again through lack of knowledge and experience. No way could they grind a tool!
In fact, this single apprentice attained a City and Guilds cert. and immediately de-camped to work on the then Southern Rail (Connex) as a signal technician, Since then I have not been on a train.
As regards to Technical Drawings, I forever found errors and had to vet everything that came through carefully to check for errors.
Worst was sending off circuit diagrams for printed circuits and receiving a mirror image circuit boards from a reputable board maker, not once but several times. Cant get the staff they say but they still drive around in big cars that I could not afford.
With drawings for modelling use, they are mainly drawn up by amaturers for amature use and errors or conception of design do not get layed down properly in 2d or envisaged in 3d.
I have found several errors in an expensive set of Loco drawings and received much the same comment when seeking clarification about them as other posters have found.
Working through the drawing I was soon able to make a correction to make it work.
I have Geometric and Technical Drawing qualifications and actually passed the exam when I was 15, achieving a Distinction, they had never awarded 100% so I was marked at 98%. It has never had any effect on job application and has never been referred to.
Mention has been made of our early years of model airplane making and how much we learned from that. Deisel and Glo-plug engines taught me nearly all I needed to know about vehicle engines and instilled a desire to learn as much as I could about such things so that I am now fully independant and can repair anything I need to,
But you do not see that now! Its a throw away society and its 'Easy-come-Easy-go'.
I do not think it matters which angle a drawing is set in 1st or 3rd angle, being able to interpret the physical shape/outline and the hidden detail is able to be put off to one side on a seperate sheet if need be.
Tolerances are fine but in any case you still need to follow a Norm. be it DIN or a current Uk Norm. Nobody seems to know, but DIN Norm is pretty standard and easy to follow.
In my work I have to work in Deutsche text and sometimes the translations do not come through very well and I have to amend to correct them.
Some of the drawings of the Theodolites are extremely detailed and can take some considerable study to see how parts are functioning and it is all hidden detail. I wish I could post one to show it.
One aspect I have not seen mentioned is that the last Gobment did away with Tech. colleges where students did engineering as a part of their studies, woodwork was a nice afternoons work for me and I slipped classes to stay in the engineering dept. until I was able to leave school and join the army at 14.
So we now have at least a generation of people who have no concept of model making nor knowledge of how to read a drawing so ergo we get rubbish drawings from them.
Clive, long post I know
|
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 10:25:25 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 08:30:45: One site I have looked at estimates the circulation as 20,000, but this is not the same as having the actual figures, but it does serve to show that the views of 1000 actually influence what the 19,000 read in the future. Also it does fit in with the top end estimate of Responders at 5% There's a good chance that this is true, but also that it's a good thing. Because I could make a strong case for saying that it's the 1,000 people who care enough to respond who also care enough about the content, who make the magazine acceptable for the other 19,000 to read. If this wasn't the case, then presumably the other 19,000 wouldn't read it! This also fits in quite well with the figures for a normal statistical distribution. Which means that if the Ed makes decisions on what to publish based on that sort of response, he's unlikely to be wrong. The only thing you have to be really careful about in this sort of situation is insidious agenda-setting. For instance, if you gave, in your questionnaire, examples of existing types of articles and asked people to rate their interest in them, then all they would be doing was considering the limited agenda you gave, and voting on that. Even if you ask them what other sorts of articles they'd like to see, that's an open-ended suggestion to put down the first thing that comes into their heads - not necessarily helpful. But if you first of consider the article types that could be within the remit of your journal, but that you haven't included, and base questions on that, then you would probably get a more representative view. And this may be why the perceived wisdom about the desirability of some types of articles is why it is - targeted questions in those areas just haven't been asked. Yes that's easy for me to say, and I don't mean it to sound like that. Please don't go away with the idea that creating questionnaires and getting it dead right every time is easy - it most certainly isn't. And yes, I do know a bit about it. |
| david simmo | 24/04/2011 10:50:28 |
| 33 forum posts | hi after reading most of the post on this subject clive you was young once and had to learn the young off to day just like most of us in are young days beer girls and motorbikes but you learn eg from the the people around you help each other even at work someboby will help you . sam if that test drawing was draw right 1st time most people would know the corect shape .in model engineer in the 1950s (before my time)the mag had a novices corner so even then you all have to learn sometime and thing progrese and some people stand still but have a great knowledge to pass on to the young (there children) and friends and work colleague so have patientwith the young so more help for the novice dave |
| Clive Hartland | 24/04/2011 11:14:37 |
2929 forum posts 41 photos | I am more inclined to think that the older generation (Us) had better basic skills as we had it included in our education syllubus.
We then went into industry/work with the ability to carry out these basic skills and learnt on from them.
One of the hardest things I had with a steep learning curve was to convert to the electronic testing of Theodolites, I would go home with my head bizzing.
In consequence I started to build my own PC and learn the basics which in the early 80's cost me an arm and leg. My first PC plus printer was some £1500, a 386. I still have it but now I have made about five PC's and do not look back.
The rate of change in the equipment we sold changed almost monthly and of course we had to learn the new equipment on the trot as you might say.
Technological advances and miniturisation being the watchwords coupled with reduced power consumption to allow a full days work on one battery!
Some of us specialised in one type and others were more generally applied as they had more skills in the machining and basics of engineering instrument wise.
I just found it hard to get the young ones to accept the basics and to follow protocols laid down.
Some of the basics would be the upkeep of the ultrasonic tanks which the young workers would not deal with and it was left to the older ones to clean and replenish.
This was annoying as the younger ones were the ones that would contaminate the tanks and not care. They were expensive to run being Freon or Chlorothene.
Another thing I found was that they would go to a pub at lunch time and drink and by mid afternoon were drowsy and useless.
Anyway they are days gone by and now I am retired I no longer care and just do my thing,
I hear from the firm occasionally about the goings on and whats happening and it is all changed completely, centers of exellence I am told,and then I wonder why they send the work down to me in an ancillary firm a hundred miles away?
Clive |
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 11:27:19 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Clive Hartland on 24/04/2011 11:14:37: I hear from the firm occasionally about the goings on and whats happening and it is all changed completely, centers of exellence I am told,and then I wonder why they send the work down to me in an ancillary firm a hundred miles away? Because, as you have suggested may be the case, that's where the centre of excellence really is? |
| Tony Pratt 1 | 24/04/2011 11:27:33 |
| 2319 forum posts 13 photos | Dave, your are quite right, if Sam's little test was supplied with all the necessary information at the beginning it wouldn't have been a test and I could have spent more time cutting metal rather than scratching my head and I believe that is the whole point! I used to know the drawing standards years ago but like many things they are filed away in a forgotten part of my brain. In the context of all engineering work the drawings should be clear and unambiguous so the part can be produced in a timely and efficient manner, this applies both to amateur and professional drawings and in theory should be a simple process to follow.
People of a certain age do have a lot of knowledge to pass on but we all tend to get impatient with the young as our fathers and granfathers did, I have taught many apprentices and now my 19 year old son Toolroom techniques and I really do have to remind myself that they are only just starting out on the journey of life.
 Tony |
| John Stevenson | 24/04/2011 14:04:32 |
 5068 forum posts 3 photos | Gray, My thought is that it won't get better but actually get worse. Instead of getting people back into the fold the choice of interests will drive them away to specialised points of interest. It has already happened with the spin off of boats planes and tooling into separate publications, possibly a costing exercise that may well backfire. As interests change and develop, take CNC, I know many are not interested but for some this IS their main point of interest and has spawned new publications for these users, as per digital machinist in the US. Whilst not technically Model engineering [ I hate that name many of my friends have workshops and none make models ] there has been a vast rise in the number of CNC routers over the last few years and not all are for cutting wood. That big a rise it has spawned it's own brand of software but so far no specialised publications We are starting to see web blogs crop up and although these are hard to find, keep track of etc they are there. We already have one free web based model engineering magazine which I won't link to or this post will disappear ! ME is still predominantly about loco's and steam but with the rising lack of time and skills taking on a large project such as a loco is dying away and the increase of kit built loco's is on the rise , to that extent some clubs run Polly weekends just to run kit built loco's, something you would have been thrown out of a club for a few years ago. My thoughts are dilution will be the outcome and not concentration. John S. |
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 15:14:19 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 13:08:36: Hi Steve, There are always arguments for and against, but I do not believe that those responding to the Survey do so purely because they are passionate about the Magazine, just remember there is an incentive to do so. My experience is that incentives are generally what you have to offer to get even enthusiastic people to fill them in at all. The theory about this says that the anticipated reward of participation has to exceed the cost of responding, otherwise people simply don't. And this is, I'm afraid, universal. For instance, if you don't even make a survey reply-paid, then you should expect an absolute minimum response to it. Believe it or not, there is even evidence to suggest that stamps produce a better return rate than franked envelopes! There is a load of other stuff you have to do as well to get truly representative results from a survey - there's more science in this than you might credit, and virtually all of it has come from real-world experience. In fact if you get it right, 'belief' almost doesn't come into it. Having said this, how would you, or others envisage I and new potential readers be drawn to the fold? A fresh bold approach like the article Terry is proposing which I consider a good thing might be a start, but I shall remain to be convinced on that score. Good question. First thing anybody researching this has to do though is not to assume that they might know the answer. But that's where surveys come in, if they're designed properly. This is mainly because what a survey really measures is Attitude - and that's what you are trying to elicit - what makes people tick, and why they might want to do certain things rather than others. So the first thing I'd look at is the existing readership of ME and MEW, but ask them questions not so much about what ought or ought not to be in the magazine, but what drew them to consider modelling, etc in the first place. And this might need to be quite detailed. And you might need to get at some of this sideways - by asking about the sorts of things that satisfy them, etc. for instance. Chances are though that to do this thoroughly, you might need more than one questionnaire - simply because you can't predict in advance what the scope of replies will be, and it's very easy to fall into traps. At the risk of a slight diversion, I'll give you a real-world example: Many years ago, when cable TV was in its infancy in this country, a research firm was commissioned to find out how much people were prepared to pay for what sorts of channel, and they had the usual list of suspects to ask people about. When the results came back, one in particular was rather surprising - and that was that apparently, people were prepared to pay quite a lot of money for a Political channel. This didn't exactly tie in with other research (no surprise there...), so they had to devise a more detailed sub-survey to find out what this was really about. Turned out that this was a mistake of interpretation on the part of the respondents - what they thought that they'd be prepared to pay a lot for a Political channel, as long as the company guaranteed to keep all politics on it - and nowhere else! When they discovered the truth, of course they weren't prepared to pay anything at all. But that does go to show just how careful you have to be when asking people about their attitude to just about anything. So the direct and honest answer to your question is that I don't know - but I think that I do know how to find out! |
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 15:18:30 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Having just read what JS wrote whilst I was composing the above, I think that it supports rather well what I'm proposing as an answer. The other thing about this of course is how do you support it? Are printed publications the way forward at all? With that much fragmentation, they may well not be cost-effective in the slightest. Edited By Steve Garnett on 24/04/2011 15:19:19 |
| David Clark 1 | 24/04/2011 15:22:32 |
 3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi Steve
The survey is based on the last survey with many questions altered.
If one or two people said they would like 2 to 4 pages of tooling articles in Model Engineer I would not be overly bothered. However, the majority of people said 2, 3 or 4 pages. One or two people said none, we have MEW for that and one or two people suggested 8 or more pages.
On that basis, I will probably try to include 3 or 4 pages of tooling related articles in Model Engineer in the future.
I can only go on the results of the survey, it gives me a place to start from.
regards David
|
| David Clark 1 | 24/04/2011 15:34:09 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
I don't know if the prizes affect the survey.
I would like to think model engineers would fill the survey in anyway.
The prizes are a little thank you for some of those who respond.
regards david
|
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 22:02:46 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by David Clark 1 on 24/04/2011 15:34:09: I don't know if the prizes affect the survey. I would like to think model engineers would fill the survey in anyway. The prizes are a little thank you for some of those who respond. All the evidence I've ever seen about surveys says that yes, anything that provides a direct incentive will make a positive difference to the response rate. Unfortunately though, it would take a survey posted with absolutely no incentive to complete it to prove this - and that might turn out to be rather a waste of time and effort, one way or another if the collective evidence is correct... |
| Steve Garnett | 24/04/2011 22:18:21 |
| 837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 15:27:29: Hi Steve, I understand exactly why and how the Surveys are made up, what I do not like is people saying this is the way I think because of such information. That's quite correct - unless a specific result from a survey is directly attributed to you, the collated results won't directly represent your POV at all. And indeed may represent very little of it! But the point I'm trying to get across about surveys is that unless you are stunningly careful, they are likely to represent a self-fulfilling prophecy anyway. You almost need a disinterested party to create one for you if you truly want to find out interesting things about the respondents; a lack of personal agenda tends to produce rather more impartial questions. I haven't looked at the ME survey - I only purchase ME when it contains something I'm specifically interested in. But I don't quite see how this one, and one that might be in MEW should be targeting the same things at all. I think that there's a very good chance that there are significant differences in the readership now, even if it wasn't intended to be like that at the outset, and the questionnaires should reflect this difference. And I hope it is fairly clear how this all relates to the subject of this thread... Edited By Steve Garnett on 24/04/2011 22:19:18 |
| Sam Stones | 25/04/2011 00:48:35 |
 922 forum posts 332 photos | Gentlemen,
Nick has shown us the side view of the simple test and, with his rather faint construction lines, how to get there. Always assuming that you know about these things. There have been suggestions too, that there are many other possibilities (than just Nick's solution). No doubt we’ll (mostly) agree to these alternatives so long as they do not contradict the two primary (FRONT and PLAN) views. However, after too long and a distinct loss of kudos
 Regrettably, when I came to use the built-in (software) switch to `convert' from three dimensional to two dimensional, the settings for `view alignment' were for third angle projection. On this occasion, changing back to English projection did not appeal to me. I'm not even sure if the isometric view is the right way around or in the right position, but at least it fits neatly into the empty space. Leaving as is, does offer further debate.
I still find great delight in viewing drawings like the clock/watch lever escapement which I introduced a few pages back.
Regards to all,
Sam Edited By Sam Stones on 25/04/2011 00:53:08 |
| John Olsen | 25/04/2011 06:23:13 |
| 1294 forum posts 108 photos 1 articles | If you take the curved solution, there is an infinite series of curves that meet the necessary constraints. For instance if you imagine the curve as shown but just flattened a little, it would still work. The curves that are possible solutions must not create any hidden lines, for example by bulging out too far, but within those constraints there is in fact an infinite series. regards John |
, I can hold off no longer, so here are my two. Please login to post a reply.
Magazine Locator
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
Latest Forum Posts
- *Oct 2023: FORUM MIGRATION TIMELINE*
05/10/2023 07:57:11 - Making ER11 collet chuck
05/10/2023 07:56:24 - What did you do today? 2023
05/10/2023 07:25:01 - Orrery
05/10/2023 06:00:41 - Wera hand-tools
05/10/2023 05:47:07 - New member
05/10/2023 04:40:11 - Problems with external pot on at1 vfd
05/10/2023 00:06:32 - Drain plug
04/10/2023 23:36:17 - digi phase converter for 10 machines.....
04/10/2023 23:13:48 - Winter Storage Of Locomotives
04/10/2023 21:02:11 - More Latest Posts...
- View All Topics
Support Our Partners
Shopping Partners
Subscription Offer
Latest "For Sale" Ads
- Reeves** - Rebuilt Royal Scot by Martin Evans
by John Broughton
£300.00 - BRITANNIA 5" GAUGE James Perrier
by Jon Seabright 1
£2,500.00 - Drill Grinder - for restoration
by Nigel Graham 2
£0.00 - WARCO WM18 MILLING MACHINE
by Alex Chudley
£1,200.00 - MYFORD SUPER 7 LATHE
by Alex Chudley
£2,000.00 - More "For Sale" Ads...
Latest "Wanted" Ads
- D1-3 backplate
by Michael Horley
Price Not Specified - fixed steady for a Colchester bantam mark1 800
by George Jervis
Price Not Specified - lbsc pansy
by JACK SIDEBOTHAM
Price Not Specified - Pratt Burnerd multifit chuck key.
by Tim Riome
Price Not Specified - BANDSAW BLADE WELDER
by HUGH
Price Not Specified - More "Wanted" Ads...
Get In Touch!
Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.
Digital Back Issues
Donate
Register
Log-in
Model Engineer Magazine
- Percival Marshall
- M.E. History
- LittleLEC
- M.E. Clock
ME Workshop
- An Adcock
- & Shipley
- Horizontal
- Mill
Subscribe Now
- Great savings
- Delivered to your door
Pre-order your copy!
- Delivered to your doorstep!
- Free UK delivery!
All Forum Topics > CAD - Technical drawing & design > Technical and engineering drawing.