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?

Reply to
Wayne Lundberg
Loading thread data ...

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?

Reply to
Wayne Lundberg

What makes you think that they do (lead the world, that is)?

Mark Rand RTFM

Reply to
Mark Rand

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?

Reply to
Ned Simmons

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!

Reply to
Wayne Lundberg

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

Reply to
john

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message news:G6WGi.549894$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

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.

Reply to
Carl McIver

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

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Does anyone know? I thought they had been fully converted to metric for some time. I do have a customer who does a lot of work for Boeing, I'll ask him next time I'm in contact.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Reply to
Ivan Vegvary

few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the

Reply to
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

Thanks!

Reply to
Wayne Lundberg

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

Reply to
Paul

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

Reply to
Ed Huntress

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

Reply to
Mark Rand

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

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

So do I.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Actually, the dimensioning thing is not my concern. But since Boeing flew his first biplane from Seattle to Alaska to deliver the mail to steamships going to the orient, they have used ft/lb/hp in the design of their aircraft. I've heard their technical library which contains info on every accident, every experiment, every change in design covers at least one acre, almost as big as the Library of Congress.

To think of having to go in there and edit every experiment, every discovery to metrics is absolutely absurd if not insane. Why in the world would the worlds leader in aviation technology give away their power to Airbus and the like?

In fact... someplace else in this thread I started in several newsgroups, somebody said airbus designers use ft/lb/hp.

It's not the fasteners nor miles per liters in the common fodder environment of sheeple, its in the basic design of the stuff we invent and lead the world in.

Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried. But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne

Reply to
Wayne Lundberg

Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done in inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still have to reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter designations. That part of the process could use some improvement. Why don't they simply make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary

Reply to
Ivan Vegvary

Actually, they do, if you're buying in quantity and you buy from somebody who supplies volume manufacturers. But the answer to your question is that it's one of those old traditions that are hard to break.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Oh, come on. Do you think anyone with the smarts to take advantage of US technological advances will be discouraged if they have to multiply by 25.4?

I work in both systems every day designing factory automation and tooling. Most of the products I deal with are competing globally and are specified in metric units. The equipment I build is designed, for the most part, in US customary units. My CAD system deals seamlessly with mixed units, my machines have DROs, and though I have a better intuitive feel for a half-thou than 10 microns, working in metric doesn't slow me down. I bet there are folks overseas every bit as clever as me - in fact I've even met a few.

Reply to
Ned Simmons

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.