Murf
Topic Author
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:47 am

Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 12:56 am

Does Airbus and Boeing build their planes with metric/standard hardware depending on where the operator is from or does everyone get metric from Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer and everyone get standard from Boeing?
 
Duncan
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 1:14 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:02 am

The hardware is essentailly the same, it's just the units of measurement that are different, for example on a Boeing you would get a 1/4 inch Hi-Lok installed, whereas on Airbus it would be a 6.35mm Hi-Lok. Same thing, different name.

Duncan
 
Murf
Topic Author
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:47 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:32 am

Thank for your response Duncan, I guess I worded my question wrong. What I meant is am I going to use a 10mm socket cause its an airbus or am I gonna use a 3/8 socket cause its American Airlines's Airbus? Same with Boeing, 3/8 cause its a Boeing, 10mm cause its Air France's Boeing?



 
Duncan
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 1:14 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 3:32 am

The type of fastener or hardware is dependant upon the A/C manufacturer. Boeing and Airbus do not change the design dependent upon the customer they are selling the A/C to. Even the Airbus manuals call for metric as the primary unit of measurment with an imperial conversion in brackets (parentheses), whereas Boeing uses imperial first, then metric.

Duncan
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 4:21 am

I may be mistaken, but I guess the aircraft would have to be certified twice if the majority of components would exist in two different variants.

Not speaking of the maintenance nightmare in an airline alliance or on resale: "Yes, we´ve also got 777´s, but ours are metric!Wink/being sarcastic
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 6:24 am

I don't know about certified twice, but it would have to be designed twice. Each drawing would have to show the metric and imperial sizes and the spares holding would be double.

Besides, the French wouldn't consider anything other than metric!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Saintsman

Mon Aug 12, 2002 7:11 am

Saintsman: Besides, the French wouldn't consider anything other than metric!

Not just the french; Same with Germany and most others.
Besides Burma and Liberia, the USA is the only nation which isn´t officially "metric" so far...  Wink/being sarcastic
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 8:54 am

All Airbus aircraft that I've worked use standard fastener sizes.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:41 am

wasn't a big deal a few years back (how many I don't know) when Airbus switched to "American" measurments? Imperial i guess is the proper term.

Did I imagine this? I thought it was a big big deal?
They're not handing trophies out today
 
Guest

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Tue Aug 13, 2002 9:13 pm

Well, our Boeing airplanes are metric as far as fuel flow gages and fuel quantity gages... what upsets me is that I have to study my aircraft weight limitations in metric, i.e. maximum takeoff weight is 377,842 kgs... I remember it vaguely as "close to 378,000 kgs"... yet if we talked in pounds, they say 833,000 lbs, "round number"... why dont they start to make round numbers in metric instead... and use mental acrobatics for weights in pounds...
 Wink/being sarcastic (s) Skipper
 
ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:20 am

In regards to metric vs. standard a lot of aircraft use pin programs to differentiate the two. That is why fuel is displayed in pounds on a UAL 747-400 and in Kilograms on a 747-400. Just a card that looks sort of like a motherboard.
 
ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:21 am

Sorry I meant to say "kilograms on an Air France 747-400."
 
Fokker Lover
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 10:05 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Wed Aug 14, 2002 9:33 am

I spent a lot of years working on Fokker F100's, and I can tell you that there wasn't a metric fastener on them. That is until we did a mod on the horizontal stab center wing box area. Fokker wanted us to replace the fasteners around the mounting lugs and cold work the holes. When we oversized the holes they didn't want us to use a 3/16" 2nd over Hi-lok because they felt the holes would be too large. Instead we used a metric fastener that was somewhere between a 3/16 standard and 3/16 2nd over. We didn't use 1st over because of the cold working. I know we used metric sockets to install the collars, but I can't remember if it was an 8mm or 10mm.
I could be wrong about this, but I was always under the impression that there was an FAA regulation requiring American standard size fasteners on U.S. registered aircraft.
10,000 years ago we would have eaten you. Today, we drag you along and allow you to pollute the gene pool.
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Wed Aug 14, 2002 5:34 pm

B747skipper,

The movie ("Freefall") based on a true story about the 767 that ran out of fuel, comes to mind when reading your post. You probably know about that one.
A 767 that became a glider.

Best regards.
Sudden
When in doubt, flat out!
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Thu Aug 15, 2002 8:53 am

A couple of months ago, one of the key figures at EasyJet discussed publicly the concept of having a mixed fleet in a low cost airline. One of the benefits of having a single supplier for your aircract is that there is only a single set of tools; a single set of maintenance manuals etc etc etc. The largest direct cost is training, but the indirect costs are significant, for example the cost due to human error.

A low cost airline relies on minimising overall costs as much as possible. So fleet commonality, at first look, is a prime consideration when wishing to minimise overall costs.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:15 am

I could be wrong about this, but I was always under the impression that there was an FAA regulation requiring American standard size fasteners on U.S. registered aircraft.

Yep...that's wrong. A rule like that could be interpreted as "protectionism".

A low cost airline relies on minimising overall costs as much as possible. So fleet commonality, at first look, is a prime consideration when wishing to minimise overall costs.


Although there are benifits to standardization, there are also drawbacks. With aircraft fleets, as in investment, it's not a good idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. American Eagle learned that when their ATRs were prohibited from operating in known icing. A little schedule shifting between the SAAB 340 fleet and the ATR fleet got them flying again.

Using more than one model minimizes the effect on an airline during labor disputes, ADs, manufacturer bankruptcy, political strife etc.


 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Hardware Used During Aircraft Maunufaturing

Thu Aug 15, 2002 11:02 pm

Fokker Lover: I could be wrong about this, but I was always under the impression that there was an FAA regulation requiring American standard size fasteners on U.S. registered aircraft.

Airplay: Yep...that's wrong. A rule like that could be interpreted as "protectionism".

I also don't believe there is an FAA regulation mandating what hardware size standard must be used.

On the other hand this would have nothing to do with protectionism. American standard, metric or British standard is simply a technical specification, not the country of manufacture.
You're only as good as your last departure.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: skyhawkmatthew and 21 guests