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?

 

[drawoh]

DOD-100 and ASME Y14.100 both state that the revision number of the drawing should not be incorporated into your part number. More importantly, in production, you do not change form fit or function. Revisions correct mistakes and clarify notes. If the part is in any way different, you need a new drawing and part number.

Does Boeing follow this rule? I don't know.

 

[mfgenggear]

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.

 

[3DDave]

It's not strictly a part revision; it's a drawing revision. Like any change if there is a consideration that it will have some future effect, that would be recorded as part of manufacturing information. Simple example - a car doesn't get a "revision" but it does carry a VIN that is linked to the various configurations of parts that were used in its assembly and in turn to many processes. Same lug nut part number will be used on many cars, but with the VIN they can trace which cars were assembled using an out-of-tolerance wrench.

Aircraft parts should be serialized and their entire manufacturing record retained; the drawing revision that was used in the manufacture of a particular part will be part of that record.

It used to be the case that drawings were difficult to update and it was useful to have each sheet given its own revision letter; the individual record of which was on the first sheet. This way if a new revision to the drawing was made only copies of the changed sheets would need to be distributed and only the information on those sheets checked to see if there was a change to processes required. In a multi-part drawing it's possible that a change could be made that did not affect a part that was solely controlled on some sheet besides the first one, but that sheet isn't stand-alone from the drawing and so the drawing revision is what would be tracked for that part.

If the further argument is made that, since some earlier revision, no change to the drawing has affected some part that would be such an odd exception as to not be worth making it. The idea that a Rev C part was produced when a Rev G drawing was current? No one would ever be sure.

 

[IRstuff]

The idea that a Rev C part was produced when a Rev G drawing was current? No one would ever be sure.

There was a program I worked on once where there was actually a table that had to be consulted to figure out which revs of the various boards could actually work with each other.

 

[rb1957]

we sometimes use drawing rev control to define a part. Make a part for one customer's installation. A subsequent customer may need a modified part, or a modified installation which can be a drawing rev or a new drawing (and a whole new part number).

parts should (IMHO) identify their full history ... part-123 made to drawing rev AA with such and such MRB/RNC/NCR/...
Obviously not all this is written on the part !

 

[rb1957]

"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?

 

[mfgenggear]

There use to be after these was so many changes or if there was configuration change , then the next revision had to rolled up.

 

[mfgenggear]

Aircraft drawings had multiple sheets and a separate parts list.

 

[SWComposites]

To the OP-
- you could ask Boeing,
- or consult the Boeing Drafting Manual
- is this a paper drawing or a MBD CAD “drawing”?
- if its a paper drawing, the first sheet should list the rev letters of all subsequent sheets that are applicable to the rev letter of the first sheet.
- for a CAD file typical the entire model file has the latest rev letter.

- think you need to give more specific details.

 

[jaceb]

To the OP-
- you could ask Boeing,
- or consult the Boeing Drafting Manual
- is this a paper drawing or a MBD CAD “drawing”?
- if its a paper drawing, the first sheet should list the rev letters of all subsequent sheets that are applicable to the rev letter of the first sheet.
- for a CAD file typical the entire model file has the latest rev letter.

- think you need to give more specific details.

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....

 

[rb1957]

"doomed" ? ... isn't this just two people with different opinions about how something should be ... without the full knowledge of the system ... and a system that seems to be very "flexible" (a good thing and a bad thing !) So it comes down to "who's paying ?"

the other guy is your supplier ... what's their beef ? Presumably you've given them a drawing to make, and they don't like the format ?? If they've accepted a PO to make a part, they should follow the drawing, if they have questions (about the design intent, not format) then they can ask.

Is it that big of a deal for you ? Is this the hill you 're prepared to die on ?? You don't have the full understanding of Boeing's drawing format, neither do they.

But as I write that I'm thinking ... why is this a Boeing issue ? Are you working at Boeing ? for Boeing ? or something else ??
If you're not part of Boeing, then why are you modifying a Boeing part, within Boeing's drawing scheme ?? Of course you can modify a Boeing part, but then it's your's. Or are you remaking a Boeing part , like a PMA ?
If you are part of Boeing, then ask the right people there (not us).

 

[mfgenggear]

From my under standing this the issue started with Mcdonald Douglas taking over management
And is part of the issues with issues with Boeing aircraft.
Problem with these big companies they load up
Suppliers with so much work they take over .
And ram rod their policies down their suppliers throats. Seen this first hand.
Then when issues arise they blame their chain of suppliers.
Millions of dollars are spent to comply with
With first tier requirements.

 

[mfgenggear]

Serialization when required also stated on the drawing or flow down from the purchase order.
Is traceability and is recorded when assembled in a shipset.
Requiring but not limited to certifications to/for material, heat treat , quality requirements, all plating/coating, NDT
Operations, and more

 

[jaceb]

"doomed" ? ... isn't this just two people with different opinions about how something should be ... without the full knowledge of the system ... and a system that seems to be very "flexible" (a good thing and a bad thing !) So it comes down to "who's paying ?"

the other guy is your supplier ... what's their beef ? Presumably you've given them a drawing to make, and they don't like the format ?? If they've accepted a PO to make a part, they should follow the drawing, if they have questions (about the design intent, not format) then they can ask.

Is it that big of a deal for you ? Is this the hill you 're prepared to die on ?? You don't have the full understanding of Boeing's drawing format, neither do they.

But as I write that I'm thinking ... why is this a Boeing issue ? Are you working at Boeing ? for Boeing ? or something else ??
If you're not part of Boeing, then why are you modifying a Boeing part, within Boeing's drawing scheme ?? Of course you can modify a Boeing part, but then it's your's. Or are you remaking a Boeing part , like a PMA ?
If you are part of Boeing, then ask the right people there (not us).

Serialization when required also stated on the drawing or flow down from the purchase order.
Is traceability and is recorded when assembled in a shipset.
Requiring but not limited to certifications to/for material, heat treat , quality requirements, all plating/coating, NDT
Operations, and more

in Boeing it is "slightly different" - drawings no more have references to airplane configuration because it is supervised by separate computer system and company have stopped using drawing data for this purposes, the same is with manufacturing notes - currently they are existing in teamcenter not on the 2D drawings this is for legacy products, for 787 it is totally different - no more 2D data exist, only 3D files and Teamcenter data

 

[mfgenggear]

RB1957
OK how is it flowed down to suppliers

 

[rb1957]

from the OP ... "Where can I find that definition to solve a dispute with a supplier?"

 

[mfgenggear]

It flows down from the PO

 

[Sparweb]

we sometimes use drawing rev control to define a part. Make a part for one customer's installation. A subsequent customer may need a modified part

That comes back to bite you later, doesn't it, when the first customer comes back for a replacement part? Then you can't produce to the currently-approved drawing. You have to produce to the superseded version. Must give your manufacturing all kinds of confusion.

 

[rb1957]

yes, it can be confusing, if an operator asks to replace a part (a -101) people can use the current design (rev G) that may not be compatible with the previous design (rev B) and it can cause issues. It can be an easy solution for today's problem, but a SS tomorrow and an embarrassment, but it rarely happens.