John Frewen-Lord wrote:
"Just quite why they then subcontracted most of it to an almost totally metric-only world beggars belief" The answer is simple - they had no choice (unless it was an all-American job). _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Frewen-Lord Sent: 08 December 2010 10:23 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:49054] Re: Boeing and metrication A good friend of mine is a professional engineer in Ontario, working for a company that designs and manufactures parts and sub-assemblies for mostly the automotive sector but occasionally other industries as well. Almost all of their work is in SI (as it would be for the auto sector - GM, Honda, Toyota, etc). His company was contracted as a third teir subcontractor on the 787 to a major Japanese company, in connection with detail design and manufacturing of specific components relating to assemblies such as undercarriage doors and the like. They had two main problems: 1. All fasterners were imperial sized, and had to be sourced from the US, as almost all fasteners in Canada are metric - this caused some major delivery delays, and in some cases they had to ship components unassembled due to lack of fasteners. 2. All their NC machinery comes from Germany or Italy, and is metric only. They had to convert all Boeing's dimensions to imperial equivalents. While for the most part they were able to get the conversions within tolerances, occasionally they were stretching these tolerance limits, and if the limits became cumulative instead of cancelling each other out, then there was some work that ended being significantly out of tolerance. I seem to remember when the 787 was first announced that Boeing was 'pround' to keep its airliners in USC units. Just quite why they then subcontracted most of it to an almost totally metric-only world beggars belief. Yes, Europe and the rest of the industrialized world does occasionally have to deal with non-metric work, but it is by exception usually, and always costs more, in terms of both time and money. Will Boeing have learnt its lesson in this? I doubt it. I predict when they start on their next airliner (likely a replacement for the 737), they will keep to USC and not subcontract any more than they have to. Airbus will no doubt be very happy. Finally, if anyone has any doubt that working in imerial/USC costs more than metric, most Canadian arhictects and engineers charge more to produce drawings in imperial - on one project I worked on, where a whole existing (imperial) hospital was being digitized, the bill was going to be 10% higher if we retained the original imperial dimensioning rather than convert to SI! John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Naughtin <mailto:[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric <mailto:[email protected]> Association Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:35 PM Subject: [USMA:49049] Boeing and metrication Dear All, I know you will be interested in this waste of time, energy, and loads of money at Boeing: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/12/breaking-boeing-halt s-787-deli.html and here are the first two comments that apply to the metric system. Do a 'Find' for 'metric' to see all of the others. Boeing asked for most of the problems it is battling with when it outsourced design and manufacturing to metric companies using mm not medieval inches. To expect a smooth production process with that incompatible inanity is as somebody put it so aptly, HUBRIS. The billion/s, or so dollars Boeing lost so far would have paid for the complete metrication of its production process and pay annual dividends for wasting less time working with a hodgepodge of incoherent measurement units, let alone cheaper metric parts in the future. Boeing asked for most of the problems it is battling with when it outsourced design and manufacturing to metric companies using mm not medieval inches. To expect a smooth production process with that incompatible inanity is, as somebody put it so aptly, HUBRIS. The billion/s, or so dollars Boeing lost so far would have paid for the complete metrication of its production process and pay annual dividends forever with wasting less time on working with a hodgepodge of incoherent measurement units, let alone having access to cheaper metric parts in the future. And this quote refers to Airbus. No, I am not joking. Outsourcing work in inches to a metric world that has no concept nor feel for that anachronism is asking for trouble and Boeing sure got and pays dearly for it. The first Potemkin village (787) they rolled out very prematurely had a gap of 60 mm on one spot between sections manufactured in Italy and the US. Those problems kept persisting with the Japanese and other manufacturers as well. Airbus outsources its work for decades to a metric world and has rarely problems. Some years ago (2005), I was speaking at a conference in Arizona when I met some Airbus English and German aeronautical engineers who were staying at the same motel as me. We got chatting and I learned four things: 1 Airbus had a factory in Arizona as part of an arrangement where their aircraft could have a high enough USA component to be considered for USA purchase contracts. Most parts came from England, Germany, and other parts of Europe and were simply assembled in Arizona. 2 The aeronautical engineers worked strictly in metric in the factory, mostly in millimetres and sometimes in micrometres, but they chose to speak to non-factory Arizona locals outside the factory in feet and inches. 3 The engineers were employed on a "Fly In- Fly Out" where they worked in Arizona for two weeks and then flew home to England and Germany for a week for training and days off. They said they did not employ local engineers because they generally didn't understand metric. 4 To employ the workers on the floor of the factory they favoured people with a Spanish speaking background as they required less training to use millimetres Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com <http://www.metricationmatters.com/> for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
