Case study · Aerospace
LANDING GEAR DRAWING REVIEW
Agentic drawing review to aerospace standards with Argus & Autodesk Fusion
Tools
Argus · Autodesk Fusion
Outcome
16 sheets reviewed in ~6 min · 2 fit conflicts flagged
Page 02
What’s inside
A walk-through of how Argus, connected to Autodesk Fusion, reviewed a 16-sheet landing gear drawing package against ISO and aerospace drawing standards, one sheet at a time. How Argus planned the review, what it flagged, and where the engineer steered.
SummaryA 16-sheet package checked against ISO standards in six minutes. | P. 03 |
ProblemWhat a release review must catch: missing details on each sheet, and parts that don’t fit together. | P. 03 |
MethodologyHow Argus grounded its plan in the sheets and reviewed them one at a time. | P. 04 |
ResultsThe release status, the critical findings, and the sheets behind them. | P. 05 |
Agent Design ReviewArgus’s notes on one drawing, and drafting gaps versus design errors. | P. 06 |
Try ArgusHow to bring the same review to your own drawing packages. | P. 07 |
Page 03
Summary
Argus reviewed a 16-sheet landing gear drawing package against 17 ISO standards, sheet by sheet, in about six minutes.
Connected to Autodesk Fusion, Argus planned the review from the sheets themselves, then checked the assembly, the exploded view and 14 part drawings one at a time. Release status from Argus: clean concept drawings, but not yet ready to manufacture from. Beyond the drafting gaps, Argus flagged two design-interface mismatches that change geometry, at the axle-to-hub bores and the torque-link apex pin.
6
Minutes to review all 16 sheets
17
ISO standards in the review basis
2
Interface mismatches flagged
Logged session time, first sheet to last: 6 min 17 s. Not an estimate.
Problem
A landing gear drawing package has to pass a standards review before anything is made, because its parts carry landing loads. Every sheet is checked for title block, tolerances, datums, finish and material callouts, and every mating dimension has to agree with the sheet it mates to.
01
Dense standards on every sheet
Each sheet is judged against ISO drafting, dimensioning, tolerancing and GD&T standards, plus aerospace release practice for flight-critical parts.
02
Errors hide between sheets
The costliest faults are interface mismatches, a bore on one sheet that does not fit the pin on another. They only show when mating dimensions are compared across the set.
+ Benefit to engineer
Argus runs the full standards review: it checks every sheet against the standards, cross-checks mating dimensions across the set, ranks each finding Critical, Major or Minor, and writes the remediation plan. The engineer makes the design calls and signs off the release.
Page 04
Methodology
Argus started from a short brief: review the 16-sheet drawing set for a four-wheel landing gear bogie against aerospace and ISO standards, plan first, then report. Working in a live Autodesk Fusion session, Argus read all 16 pages before proposing anything, so its plan targeted what the sheets actually carried, and the engineer approved it at full depth. Argus then showed each sheet in the chat and reviewed it in turn.
16 A3 SHEETS IN ALL: 1 ASSEMBLY WITH ITS PARTS LIST, 1 EXPLODED VIEW AND 14 PART DRAWINGS
Setting | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
Review target | Combined 16-sheet PDF plus the individual sheets | ENGINEER |
Standards basis | 17 ISO standards for projection, dimensions, tolerances and fits, GD&T, surface finish, title blocks, threads and the BOM | ARGUS |
Aerospace checks | Fracture-critical part ID, material traceability, special-process callouts such as shot-peen and NDT, pin-joint fits | ARGUS |
Review order | Set-level sheets, each part sheet, then cross-sheet checks | ARGUS |
Depth and mode | Full review, one sheet at a time, each shown in the chat | ENGINEER |
Severity scale | Critical (blocks release) | ARGUS |
+
Argus grounded the plan first
Before proposing anything, Argus scanned all 16 pages and listed what no sheet carried: title block, tolerances, GD&T, finish callouts and a projection symbol. The plan targeted those gaps.
+
Engineer in the loop
The engineer set the depth and asked to see each sheet reviewed in the chat. Argus showed every sheet as it went, so the engineer could follow the review and steer it in real time.
Page 05
Results
Critical findings · Ranked by Argus
# | Release-blocking finding | Type | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
01 | No title block on any sheet | Systemic | Critical |
02 | No tolerances and no general-tolerance note | Systemic | Critical |
03 | No GD&T or datums on bores, pins or hole patterns | Systemic | Critical |
04 | No material specs or process notes on 300M and 4340 | Systemic | Critical |
05 | Ø6 axle vs Ø20 hub and tyre bores, no bearing in BOM | Design | Critical |
06 | Torque-link apex pin bored Ø5 on LH, Ø6 on RH | Design | Critical |
Systemic = recurs on all or most sheets · Design = parts that would not fit together as drawn. Severity as ranked by Argus in its report.
Release status: not yet manufacturable · 9 systemic issues (4 critical) · 7 design findings (2 critical) · 3-tier plan
Argus wrote every finding during the session, each with its standard and a recommendation. Four drafting gaps recur across the set and block release on their own. Beneath them, the cross-sheet check found two interface mismatches that change parts, not annotation. Argus also logged what the set does well: sensible aerospace materials, a clean first-angle layout and appropriate scales.
Wheel Hub Outer · Sheet 3
Principal diameters only: eight Ø3 holes with no quantity callout or angular position, and leaders crossing the view.
Main Axle · Sheet 14
Drawn Ø6 × 26. The hubs and tyre are bored Ø20, and the BOM lists no bearing or bushing between them.
Torque links · Sheets 6 and 7
One shared apex pin, two bores: Ø5 on the LH link (left) and Ø6 on the RH link (right).
Argus’s review checklist
Kept live in the chat as Argus worked: Sheets 1–3 done, Sheet 4 under review, the rest queued in order.
Page 06
Agent Design Review
Argus ran the full senior-level review of the drawing package: judging every sheet against the standards, keeping the whole set in view, and seeing past the drafting to the design underneath.
A full sheet review in 24 seconds
Argus worked through all 16 sheets in 6 min 17 s, about 24 seconds each. Every sheet came back with 5 to 9 findings, each tied to a standard and a fix, plus a note on what it did well.
ARGUS’S NINE FINDINGS FOR SHEET 3, FROM ITS REVIEW REPORT, PLACED ON THE DRAWING
A
Missing details versus parts that don’t fit
Most findings are paperwork: details the drawings leave out, like tolerances or a title block. Add them and the sheet is fixed. The two fit conflicts are real design errors: the parts would not go together as drawn, like a Ø6 axle in a Ø20 hub. That is why Argus put them first.
B
Connecting dimensions across sheets
By Sheet 11, Argus had spotted Ø6 bores on five different parts, from the torque link to the bearing cap, and grouped them as one interface family needing a single, coordinated fit.
→
The engineer’s next move
The engineer takes the critical fixes to the design lead: resolve the two fit conflicts, then add title blocks, revision blocks and a general-tolerance note across the set. With the 3D model opened in Fusion, Argus can measure the real geometry and confirm both conflicts against the model rather than the callouts.
Think through > click through.
Your AI agent for engineering workflows
Want to try Argus on your own drawing reviews?
Visit www.cosmon.com to start a trial.
www.cosmon.com
