Boeing and metrcication question

I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.
Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

be
If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI system when they lead the world in technology using ft, lbs, thrust, Mach speed, known strengths of material in thousands of pounds per square inch, BTU required for the thrust, drag, gravity, air pressure in the tires in lbs/sq/in, and everything they have been designing since that first biplane that flew the mail from San Fran to Alaska to keep up with the steamships mail delivery, and later the famous Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland where virtually every world-class aeronautical enterprise used to leverage themselves into leadership roles.
Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the world myopic desire to metricate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"

What makes you think that they do (lead the world, that is)?
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:03:23 -0700, the renowned Too_Many_Tools

Metric, which is fine with me, but also first-angle orthographic projection (as opposed to North American 3rd angle projection), which I really don't like.
They also will happily make stuff with Imperial fasteners, NPT fittings etc. if export markets demand it and pay enough for it to be worthwhile.
This seems like a non-issue to me. Any modern 3D modelling system works in internal units than can be switched to whichever system you like (including dual units) without changing the underlying model. I am designing some systems for aircraft, and we use a mix of mm and inches, usually kg for mass, usually Imperial fasteners (because they're cheaper and more available), but it's not really much of an issue in this corner of the real world. Getting used to GD&T seems like more of a hassle.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"

Though 3rd angle projection is customary in the US and 1st angle is more common in Europe and Asia; the choice of one or the other has nothing to do with the units used. Title blocks include the truncated cone symbol to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.

Mach numbers are unitless.

A pragmatic recognition of the need to compete in the international marketplace?
--
Ned Simmons

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
and
Ned, have you looked at the engineering manuals that fill wall to wall libraries... all in the HP, Lbs, Inch doctrine? Why in the world would we give it all up when we are the leaders in technology, innovation, invention?
The SI is an elitist figment of imagination with zero value in itself. All SI units have been copied from other knowledge and add nothing of value to engineering.
Wake up!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wayne Lundberg wrote:

It was one of the little things the commies did to undermine the US economy. There was no reason for it.. the system works. Its just like the present government has started a war that will only cost the average american over half of his savings in real buying power.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ironically, different divisions of Boeing have different drawing standards for different reasons, and the standards evolve constantly, as one would expect, given the different tools available for design. Facilities uses Autocad, Commercial Aircraft uses CATIA (forgot the name of the system the 787 uses, which is a bit different) and my tiny little lab uses Solidworks. You'll find just about every system and standard that exists all in use at this enormous company that isn't micromanaged so tightly that someone cares about such things. Aerospace equipment and standards, having been developed using the traditional units, are still being made that way, and since they're expensive due to regulatory issues. Imagine what the price of a rivet would be now that it has to be redesigned using metric standards and then find someone who wants to buy them... just so they can pay more? Airbus, Embraer, and Bombardier all use inch fasteners. Would you as a passenger think you need to pay more for the plane just because the drawings are done using one standard over the other. On the other hand, NASA has made the announcement that all future space missions will be metric. Don't know how much of that design dictates metric fasteners, but it'll be interesting. They'd like to avoid the unit conversion that has resulted in a few embarrassing accidents. My lab will ask for quotes in both metric and inch, sometimes a mix of both, depending on the project, the materials, the customer, and the designer. I'm getting used to working with mixed units, although I'm not to the point I prefer one over the other.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's an interesting story, Carl. I think a lot of pro-metrification folks fail to separate the advantages metrics offer in scientific and some engineering calculations from their complete *lack* of advantage in measurement -- which is what we're talking about, in manufacturing. As soon as someone starts talking about the conversion of odd, old units in the traditional "Imperial" system, you realize they aren't talking about the issue as it really exists. Where it matters, metrics are used in the US. When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.
Thanks,
Ivan Vegvary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ed
I couldn't agree more. I've worked with both systems as a machinist in the industry (it's been awhile back) and couldn't really see much difference other than I was more comfortable with inches as that's what I used the most. The one exception was really old prints that were still in fractional inches but nobody serious has used that system since what, the fifties?
When it comes to typical size parts who really cares if the unit of measure divides evenly into miles or leagues or rods or whatever. I suppose as an exercise in metrification one could dimension his parts in kilometers just to show how cool powers of ten work...
Regards Paul
--
-----------------------------------------
It's a Linux world....well, it oughta be.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and mass, metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're measuring the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no advantage whatsoever.
Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal inches.
So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same, whether they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in manufacturing to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases of linear measurement.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There is no benefit at all in using metric measure... other than the fact that pretty well the entire rest of the world uses it. In modern manufacturing outside the USA, Imperial measure is an historical curiosity and children haven't been taught Imperial measure for two or three decades even in the UK. If you want to sell to the rest of the world, think metric. If you want to buy from the rest of the world, think metric.
I'll even have a dual inch/metric machine in the workshop when I finish refurbishing it... it's a Hardinge HLV :-). everything else is Imperial, but I do have metric micrometers up to 100mm for when they're needed.
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, that's what I said. There's no benefit to it, the rest of the world uses it. <g>

We're doing one hell of a lot of each and we think in both inch and metric.

So do I.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:48:24 +0100, Mark Rand

SWMBO is currently baby sitting 3 grand daughters in the other London, having one hell of a time trying to cook in metric. She has been ignoring the metric system here in the dominion in the hope that it will go away. She says they don't have measuring cups or spoons or anything useful to work with there! Even the ovens are all wrong and she burns things. Gerry :-)} London, Canada
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Until as recent as a few years back, the international measurment standard was a platinum bar with 2 X's engraved on it, preserved in Paris. The X's are 1000mm apart. This bar is the standard that all measurements were defined from, with the Inch being defined as 25.4mm. Now the standard length is calculated from the distance light travels in a vucuum. Tradition tells us that the inch was one twelth of the length of Hercules foot.
It is interesting to note that while people may argue against metrification, in reality the Imperial system is now derived from the Metric system.
This year the BSPF and BSPT thread standards have now been given a new "Metric" Designation ISO Rc Series (Taper) and ISO G Parallel Series. They are still designated with fractions and TPI, but have been incorporated into SI standards. This is a good example of "Inchification". Hope this makes some of you Yankees feel a bit better.
Cheers from Down Under
Dominic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dom wrote:

Not likely as those standards are British and not US. US thread standards differ from British in TPI for most sizes and the included angle of the thread.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dom wrote:

I believe laser wavelength is used as a primary standard. This would then be directly converted to either imperial or metric. I don't see how imperial standards would be derived from metric standards.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerald Miller wrote:

London, Kentucky?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.