Boeing Drawings

[Dale_Youngs]

I have always understood that the part revision took on the revision of the first sheet of the drawing that the part first appears on. Is this correct? Where can I find that definition to solve a dispute with a supplier?

 

[WKTaylor]

As I understood it long ago and far away, EACH drawing sheet has its own revision letter... but Sheet 1 was always the lead-sheet for revisions... and has the highest Rev letter.

The first sheet could be Rev X but that Rev incremented when any of the subsequent sheets were changed or added. This was because changes regardless of whether they were on Sheet 1... were briefly recorded on sheet 1... and usually initialed-off. This was true for very old hand drawings... they could have many things cluttered about. So, drawing sheet 1 would have the latest REV-letter spanning all sheets of the drawing for procurement. A bit confusing... and I could be wrong.

Simply refer to drawing sheet 1 for the entire drawing package rev letter [even though other sheets usually have their own rev]. However since each sheet could have a unique Rev letter... that is the way to ensure You have the latest version of all drawing sheets... or not.

Of course... I've seen lots of crazy stuff in drawing packages submitted to vendors on contracts [all companies]. Especially... when there could be military and civilian assemblies, virtually identical, but incorporated under one drawing number with unique identifiers that prohibit their use on the 'other' type Acft, such as identical Assys... but different part numbers... simply because of different finishes on the parts [hydrocarbon resistant hydraulic oil... or Skydrol resistant.

Weirdly I have see segregated Boeing drawings under one drawing number affecting early 707s, KC-135s and 720s.

My head always hurt.

CATIA makes it a lot simpler to view parts and assemblies in what ever specific configuration selected.

 

[Dale_Youngs]

Wow
I remember Boeing drawings were a mess.
I want add a correction , it use to be part number and revision where part marked then it changed.
However it's up to the buyer to pass down configuration control. It is upto them to clarify on the purchase order what is the correct revision.
From what I remember, the PO would state
Sht 1 Rev. X sht 2 Rev x , when customers due this it would drive me insane. Since the configuration control has to be flowed down to the floor. As every shop department must be working to the correct revision. That said on aircraft the configuration was dictated by there customers requirements of they wanted in their aircraft. It upto the design/production engineer to flow that down from configuration control.

On aero space parts it was important to have the latest engineering release on components that was landing gear, gear boxes, ect.

Very good points. Thanks

 

[Dale_Youngs]

"I have always understood that the part revision took on the revision of the first sheet of the drawing that the part first appears on."

I'm not sure I understand the sentence ? does your drawing have a LoM/BoM or a separate PL ?

Where do you have drawing rev block (normally sheet 1) ?
Then you'd also roll the sheet(s) where this part is referred to/identified.
You don't have to roll/rev every sheet.

no?

Yes, most Boeing drawings do have a separate parts list. The counterpoint to my position is that the part revision is the revision of the parts list. That cant be true because parts list never have ADCNs attached, but drawings sheets do.

 

[Dale_Youngs]

in Boeing (seocond name "organized mess") it is not so simple:
1) there is no uniform numbering system within company (even within specific program - for example it is differen for 747 classic, 747-400 and 747-8),
2) drafting manual you are mentioning have evolwed and is "program unique", and noone really cares to keep newer versions consistent with previous ones with just minimal commonality across programs
3) for older versions of drawings you have whole bunch of ADNs which exist as a separate documents and.... usually never has been incorporated in dwgs they are related to
4) not necessary because newer programs are "pdm controlled" but often are using parts which are not
5) typical but not in Boeing
summary - without access to the Boeing system and detailed knowledge what you are looking for you are pretty much doomed
i'm so glad that im no more working for them....

Yeah, you summarized my frustration with a pretty good description. I dont have access, therefore am flying a bit blind. I didnt know there were different drafting manuals by program, but am not surprised.

 

[Dale_Youngs]

It flows down from the PO

That's all well and good, but in my case the PO is for the top assembly that incorporates hundreds of parts that are defined by Boeing prints, some that we purchase from suppliers.

 

[Dale_Youngs]

As I understood it long ago and far away, EACH drawing sheet has its own revision letter... but Sheet 1 was always the lead-sheet for revisions... and has the highest Rev letter.

The first sheet could be Rev X but that Rev incremented when any of the subsequent sheets were changed or added. This was because changes regardless of whether they were on Sheet 1... were briefly recorded on sheet 1... and usually initialed-off. This was true for very old hand drawings... they could have many things cluttered about. So, drawing sheet 1 would have the latest REV-letter spanning all sheets of the drawing for procurement. A bit confusing... and I could be wrong.

Simply refer to drawing sheet 1 for the entire drawing package rev letter [even though other sheets usually have their own rev]. However since each sheet could have a unique Rev letter... that is the way to ensure You have the latest version of all drawing sheets... or not.

Of course... I've seen lots of crazy stuff in drawing packages submitted to vendors on contracts [all companies]. Especially... when there could be military and civilian assemblies, virtually identical, but incorporated under one drawing number with unique identifiers that prohibit their use on the 'other' type Acft, such as identical Assys... but different part numbers... simply because of different finishes on the parts [hydrocarbon resistant hydraulic oil... or Skydrol resistant.

Weirdly I have see segregated Boeing drawings under one drawing number affecting early 707s, KC-135s and 720s.

My head always hurt.

CATIA makes it a lot simpler to view parts and assemblies in what ever specific configuration selected.

The fact that you remember the rules different, just highlights the confusion. Making it even more complicated is the fact that not only can each sheet be at a different revision level, you can have ADCNs that apply to different sheets.

 

[3DDave]

The contract should specify what is to be delivered and what documentation applies.

ADCNs may show modifications on individual sheets, but they apply to the entire document and will, when incorporated, change the revision level of the entire document.

Note that a Drawing will have a note "SEE PLXXXXXXXX FOR PART LIST" or some similar notation, but not the other way around. The PL is a subordinate document, as is a schematic, a wire list; it is possible to have the part list on the face of a drawing; one won't have a drawing on the face of a parts list.

 

[mfgenggear]

That's all well and good, but in my case the PO is for the top assembly that incorporates hundreds of parts that are defined by Boeing prints, some that we purchase from suppliers.

I would request from the buyer the the Blue Print revision of all details. "I been in that situation as well. " in writting.

 

[mfgenggear]

The contract should specify what is to be delivered and what documentation applies.

ADCNs may show modifications on individual sheets, but they apply to the entire document and will, when incorporated, change the revision level of the entire document.

Note that a Drawing will have a note "SEE PLXXXXXXXX FOR PART LIST" or some similar notation, but not the other way around. The PL is a subordinate document, as is a schematic, a wire list; it is possible to have the part list on the face of a drawing; one won't have a drawing on the face of a parts list.

agreed

 

[rb1957]

I suspect that this type of detail was well understood by the contracting company, and equally well understood by the supplier, only their understandings were different. Now the supplier is saying "we've done the job, pay us" and the contracting co is saying "oh no you haven't" and either seems prepared to move. But why is this a "Boeing drwgs" question ? Are you working for Boeing (then they should define the detail) ??

 

[SWComposites]

in my case the PO is for the top assembly that incorporates hundreds of parts that are defined by Boeing prints

so .... what assembly are you purchasing? and what detail part are you having an issue with a supplier?
are you an airline? or some other entity?

for instance, is this where you are purchasing a replacement aileron assembly, and there is an issue with a supplier of one of the detail fitting parts? The flow down of revision effectivity can get very complicated thru the assembly levels.

 

[3DDave]

A PDM system should flow down the entire product structure at any revision used as a base.

The one complication I had was a case where we had a virtual buffet of choices to create the top assembly. I had to make a flow chart to show what sub-items would need to be replaced/altered to go from one version to another. I had it taped to the wall of my cube. To no great surprise a sparrow or wren got into the building over the weekend and, by Monday, had made their own markup, no worse than those due to program management.

 

[mfgenggear]

Lol it seems us ol timers have been through this , and the frustration shows that.
Maybe the OP has step in a pile.
With the issues Boeing is having this is part of the issue.
Is this a certified supplier
Are you authorized to manufacture OEM equipment.
Op is not being forth right.

 

[rb1957]

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition"