I always wondered if aircraft mechanics across the world had a dual set of tools to accommodate the US-made planes. I guess just as much as the feet and miles were forced on the world, so were the USC fasteners. Too bad.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> wrote: > ** > I believe that Boeing executives probably are arrogant enough to think that > everyone in the world even if they live in a metric country can function in > USC/imperial and function well. There are some people out there that > actually believe that USC/imperial is intuitive, that is that everyone has a > inborn natural feel for USC/imperial and only use metric because their > "oppressive" governments make them. > > I read in a forum that Airbus uses inch based fasteners: > > http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=114889&page=21 > > This forum seems to indicate that there are some metric fasteners used in > aircraft assembly, but this person states: > > yates <http://www.eng-tips.com/userinfo.cfm?member=yates> (Aerospace) > 10 Feb 05 4:20 > Drawoh, > Airbus do not use any metric fasteners. They use exclusively inch > threads. As already stated, metric aerospace fasteners are defined in NA > (AIA) specs. in the US or in EN (AECMA) specs in Europe. See www.aecma.orgfor > a link to qualified manufacturers for EN screws, which will then lead to > their catalogues. > > I heard years ago that another reason Airbus used inch based fasteners was > because there was already a standard for their strength, etc. and if Airbus > went to metric fasteners, they would have to spend oodles of money testing a > metric series. This could have possibly delayed the introduction of their > product. Even if they use inch based fasteners, it doesn't cut into their > efficiency. They purchase as is. This is different than having to machine > an inch design in metric or vice-versa and experience what your son > encountered. > > I don't know where they get them. They may even make them in Germany and > France and are made to metric dimensions even if the numbers are not round. > It is a specialty product for one industry and even if there is an added > cost, a few euros doesn't matter when the planes cost millions. > > Of course, Airbus and Boeing are not the only companies making planes. > I've flown on small planes that were made in either Canada (Canadair > Regional Jets or Bombadier) or Brasil (Embraer) A lot of short flight > service in the US uses these planes. I can only assume they are designed > and assembled in metric. Only someone who works on planes can tell us if > these companies use metric or inch based fasteners. > > > > > *From:* John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, 2011-07-23 16:24 > *To:* Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> > *Subject:* Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > Indeed. I have said on this list server in the past that much of Boeing's > problems with the 787 were trying to outsource so much USC dimensioned > work to metric countries/companies. My son is a lead engineer and works in > an automotive engineering company in Mississauga, Ontario. Working for the > automotive industry (for GM, Toyota, Honda, etc), everything he does is in > metric. He was project engineer on designing and manufacturing some landing > gear sub-assemblies (third tier) on the 787. He had huge problems in > sourcing USC fasteners (only metric fasteners are easily available in > Canada) - to the point that they had to ship 'boxes of bits' (as he called > them) to his client subcontractor (which I believe was Mitsubishi - his > company is Matsui-Matcor and has Japanese connections). > > Just why Boeing didn't foresee this never ceases to amaze me. Most of the > NMC machines are only calibrated in SI. Trying to machine non-SI parts on > these machines must be a nightmare. I know my son said that they never got > the dimensions EXACTLY right - within tolerance, but never spot on. > > I noted your comment that Airbus uses USC fasteners - are you sure? Where > do they get them from? The A320 is assembled both in Toulouse, as well as in > Germany (A321, which is the stretched version of the 320), and also in > China, where Airbus have set up a satellite assembly plant. It seems hard > to believe that all these plants are using hard-to-find USC fasteners. > > Cheers > > John F-L > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> > *To:* John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> ; U.S. Metric > Association<usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > I don't expect anyone to agree with me all of the time. But it sometimes > is downright aggravating when those who should be supporting the metric > system fail to do so and refuse to see where the lack of metric is taking > us. Did you see the articles I sent about what the Russians are saying > now that the shuttle fleet is no more and the article about the lost career > opportunities for Americans? I believe that these are all metric related, > either fully or partially. And as I keep saying: America's loss is everyone > else's gain. > > I believe that as far as planes go, the design and manufacture of Airbus > planes is metric, but the fasteners are USC. It seems it was done so that > all the planes world-wide require the same tools and no accidents will occur > do to a mismatch of similar parts. But, since Airbus designs and produces > using metric calculations and other metric parts transparent to the end user > it makes them more cost efficient in the design stage as well as the > procurement of materials not available in USC, especially in many home > markets. > > Consider wiring and connectors. Metric standards are common in every > market and replacements can obtained via local distribution whereas > non-metric special components have to be obtained from an American source. > > The other most important issue in the design and assembly is that everyone > in the world works in metric and has difficulty understanding USC. If they > had to design and build planes in inches they would not have a good feel for > them and the cost of manufacturing as well as that of mistakes would > increase. We recently saw this in reverse where Boeing tried to save cost > on the dreamliner and outsourced some of the design and some assembly to > metric countries. The metric thinking world had trouble dealing in inches > or millimetres converted from inches and it cost Boeing milliards in cost > over-runs and delays. > > Designing and assembling in metric is more efficient, less costly and > conserves rare resources. These costs and efficiencies can be passed on to > the people buying them. Now Paul may be upset that I would wish that Boeing > fails (as long as they continue in their folly of promoting USC, I really > hope they do!) but I see no other way for me to support metrication then > support businesses, even if they are foreign, that produce using SI units. > > When it comes to supporting a position such as metrication you either have > to be fully supportive or your efforts will fail. There is no half way. > Those who are lukewarm to metrication (not fully committed) are worse off > and do more damage than those who are either hot (with) or cold (against). > > > *From:* John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, 2011-07-23 12:50 > *To:* Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> > *Subject:* Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > Just to let you know, kPa, I am with you on this one. I don't of course > always with you now and then, but on the whole I think your approach is the > right one. The dribs and drabs (read 'voluntary') approach will never work - > never has. > > At the Paris airshow, Airbus sold nearly 800 planes, vs Boeing's less than > 100, and mostly to India, South America and other 'emerging' nations and > areas. Why would that be? Now mostly of course it is because the A320neo is > a very fuel efficient plane, but it has garnered over 1000 orders, in little > more than 6 months since it was announced. Even Boeing's 787 didn't do that > well. Could it be because these emerging nations are all metric? > > Having said that, the A320neo must be a damn good plane, because American > Airlines, once publically swearing allegiance to an all-Boeing fleet, has > now ordered 250 planes - 100 737s, and 150 A320neos. Interesting to see how > AA will cope with having to learn some SI. > > Cheers > > John F-L > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> > *To:* trus...@grandecom.net ; U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:27 PM > *Subject:* [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > Paul, > > How do you come to such a conclusion? > > Yes Paul, I am in opposition to USC & imperial and I'm not ashamed of it. > I am opposed to people, business, government, etc, that hate or refuse to > metricate and continue to waste time, money and resources in the continued > folly of opposing metrication. I blame America's economic decline and > America's decline in general on those who refuse to move forward. > > I don't pretend to praise NASA for their waste of money for their USC > follies. If they were metric, they would be cooperating with international > and private companies that use metric instead of trying to go it alone and > getting nowhere fast at our expense. I give high praise to Dr von Braun for > having the intelligence to work in metric behind the scenes. > > You should know that metrication will not be achieved with drips and drops > and those who get excited about this don't seem to realize or care > that those drops evaporate quite quickly. Just look at what is happening to > soda bottle sizes in the US. They are reverting to USC. > > Look at history and you will see that great changes come by force, never by > waiting for the opposition to see the light. > > So I can say to you that if you continue in your ways, you will end up very > frustrated in that not only did metrication never happen in the US, what > little progress was made here and there vanished over time. If you really > believe in something you have to be a bit militant or you might as well not > even bother. > > kPa > > [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > Paul Trusten > Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:55:46 -0700 > > kPa, if you continue your oppositional streak, you may eventually go full > circle and become as anti-metric as that fellow up in Wiscasset, Maine! Put > down your spear and pick up a pruning hook once in a while. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kilopascal > To: trus...@grandecom.net ; U.S. Metric Association > Sent: 2011-07-20 20:14 > Subject: [USMA:50891] Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > > > Paul, > > I think you are omitting the German connection. It might have been American > money and resources, but it was German (and metric) technology that put man on > the moon. It was the efforts of Dr. Werner von Braun and his hundreds of > mitgenossen that made it possible for John Kennedy's dream to be realized. > > The contributions made by von Braun and those Germans are often forgotten or > ignored, yet they are the reason for the success of NASA in those days. The > enemies of metrication who claim that America got to the moon using feet and > inches often refuse to accept that von Braun and his genossen used metric > units > and only translated them later to USC. > > Even though many think the space shuttle was wonderful, it was nothing more > than a very costly white elephant. It basically came down to ending the > shuttle program or closing NASA as the shuttle program would have bankrupted > NASA. But NASA hadn't done much better with its Constellation program. > Constellation was one big step backwards for NASA and the nation. It was > basically reinventing the wheel and then making the dumb decision to use USC, > which meant no way NASA would be able use it on joint missions with other > space > companies using metric units. > > Anyways Paul it is good to fantasize about the achievements of NASA in those > days, but don't forget to give credit where credit is rightfully due and that > is to the man that made it happen .... Vielen Dank Herr Dr von Braun. > > The unfortunate thing though is that those nations and companies using the > metric system are moving ahead of NASA and the US. It again shows that > America's loss is someone Else's gain. > > > [USMA:50891] Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969 > Paul Trusten > Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:43:00 -0700 > > Today is the 42nd anniversary of a triumph in U.S. technology--the fulfillment > of President John F. Kennedy's 1961 stated national goal of "landing a man on > the moon" and, some days later, " returning him safely to the earth." > > Age 17 years at the time, I wrote in that night, "All of us are now members of > the second man," because it seemed to me that, from that time on. the > development of the human species meant something different from what it was > before. > > The same nation that made "one small step for man" into "one giant leap for > mankind" (said Neil Armstrong, first human being to stand on the moon), > should > have a measurement system that is cognate with its ideals in science. We at > USMA shall continue to fight for that national goal. > > SIncerely, > > Paul R. Trusten > Registered Pharmacist > Vice President and Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, > inc.www.metric.orgtrus...@grandecom.net+1(432)528-7724 > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3783 - Release Date: 07/23/11 > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3783 - Release Date: 07/23/11 >
