Aerospace Dash Numbers

[horsefeather]

Anyone aware of an aerospace industry standard regarding the use of dash numbers for system configurations?
IIRC Rockwell, Boeing and LMS had something in their drawing standards that -6XX were flight configurations, -2XX were prototypes, -6XX were Structural test articles, etc. It was always gospel and I never really paid attention to where it came from other than it was in the company drawing standard.
now I have occasion to start a new system, but can't really cite a basis.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[swertel]

I highly recommend NOT using a smart/significant part numbering system.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[horsefeather]

Thank you for the reply Scott,

I guess this is sort of significant part numbering question in that it applies to configuration identifications using dash numbers.

What I'm asking is, is there any aerospace industry standard regarding assignment of dash numbers for configurations?

For example, I was the customer engineer for large solar arrays built by Rocketdyne.
As they prototyped the top assembly it had -201 assigned to it and the drawings were rev'ed. When the prototype configuration changed the dash number would change; -201 became -202, etc. Long story short, by the time we began production (-601) the -206 drawing rev was up to BZ. The -601 drawing was essentially the -206 Rev BZ with an initial release. The top assembly part number stayed the same throughout. Ordering the drawing set by top assembly number provided every drawing (prototype, test articles, trainers, etc).
At Lockheed Martin, the dash numbers lined up with the system drawings. The -607 flight capsule system dwg represented the -607 flight top assembly capsule drawing. I'm sure there probably a lot of other documentation that lined up also.
Ive seen this practice at Rockwell, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and it caused me to wonder if this was a documented standard or just good practice. As I recall, it was captured in the Rockwell Drawing Reference Manual.

 

[ewh]

AFAIK there is no industry standard covering the assignment of significant dash numbers (or part numbers in general), other than that the process must be documented. Companies determine the numbering scheme(s) which best serve their purpose.
Good luck getting the aerospace giants to agree on any single scheme. ;-)
I agree with Scott... avoid significant numbering systems whenever possible.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV