Drawing Standards 1

[ran13]

What is the aerospace industry standard for drawing revisions? Rev A or Rev 1. I prefer A. If possible, please weigh in with what's used and the company name. I want to present this info to our chief engineer.

Thanks,

Roger

 

[knobhead]

I work for several aerospace companies as a subcontractor (Rolls Royce, TRW, Volvo, SNECMA...) and they ALL do it differently, sometimes varying their method within individual companies. Sometimes varying within individual ASSEMBLIES!

If there is a standard, then it is pretty well ignored!

 

[WKTaylor]

ran13...

The industry standard is "letter" revisions, IE:

basic drawing number, Rev X

NOT

basic drawing number, Rev 24 [or is that a -24 part number????]

NOTE: ASME Y14.100 is the "DOD authority" for engineering drawing standardization. This Spec references ASME Y14.35 "Revision of engineering and associated documents" ... which identifies LETTER REVISIONS as the DOD standard.

NOTE: some companies have letter Revs, combined with sub-numbers, to indicate distinct features within each revision, IE:

Rev C [contains]
Rev C1 - Finish Rev
Rev C2 - XXX fastener Rev
Rev C3 - Bearing Rev
etc... Regards, Wil Taylor

 

[rikman]

While letter codes are standard for DOD programs (and I fully agree that they make the drawing easier to understand) there is no hard and fast rule for all companies: for instance, in a recent work package proposal we recieved from a major European military aerospace company, numerical revision control was specified.

In general, if your product is supplied as a vendor item (i.e supplied under your own part number) to your final customer, you can go either way. If, on the other hand, your drawing numbering is to be based on that of your customer, you will probably be forced to follow his rules.

The main thing is that whatever form of revision control is chosen, it must be consistent enough to allow for full traceability of part usage - all aerospace regulatory bodies (and many other industries) now require this as a matter of course; so you should be able to identify what issue of part is used on what issue of assembly and what customer(s) these have been supplied to.

Rikman

 

[johnh]

I work as a sub-contractor for both the aerospace and automotive industries and, generally speaking, most company specifications state that drawings released for manufacture should be to a "letter" revision.

Pre-production drawings are normally given a "number" issue until the samples/prototypes/etc. have been cleared and accepted for manufacture.

However, most companies do not strictly adhere to this formula and may use alternative systems, especially on older drawings.
These inconsistencies should disappear, hopefully, as more manufacturers conform to international standards (e.g. ISO EN 9000, QS9000, etc.) which mandate that a formal revision control system be adopted.

In short, as long as you decide to use one method of revision control for your designs - and stick to it - you can't go far wrong.

Johnh

 

[johnfalky]

On drawing standards:Some companies have their own standards, based on what they have gleaned from other folks. Others mandate certain standards, but do not follow them in reality. While MIL-STD-100 is now "dead" it will continue to be used for some time. Changing to the ASME/ANSI standards is OK if you can afford to purchase ALL of the data, because these standards continuously refer to additional other standards; in my opinion, an overmanaged, convoluted mess.
Some association out there should have the fortitude to generate an all-inclusive standard and to make it availabe without a charge, to the benefit of the entire Engineering community. While some of the ISO mandates make sense, such as a controlled revision process, these standards themselves are convoluted as well and are only for the benefit of starting a "quality bureaucracy"

 

[blswinney7]

Reguardless of the detractions of some folks, there is an internation drawing standard that is recognized and contrary to the comments found here the ASME/ANSI standards are very useful. It is not necessary to follow the thread of the many reference documents to derive the major benefit from these standards. If just a small segment of industry would insist upon the use of core of these standards, the transfer of engineering data between indusrial entities would be greatly simplified. I applaud anyone atempting to address this problem and until a better standard comes along, the ASME/ANSI standards should be used.

Bryan Swinney
blswinney7@mac.com
[(3*4)^2]*10^3=144000