[OT] Lockheed puts F-16 manuals online

[Robert Myers]

Greetings,

In one of my earlier forays on comp.arch, I mentioned, to loud
guffaws, Wang's ill-fated paperless office as a glimpse of why we have
so far seen only the tip of the iceberg of computer use. Not to be
discouraged, I later mentioned the use of computers to store and
disseminate information about extremely complicated engineering
systems. I may even have mentioned aircraft. One of our more
respected posters who is in the aerospace biz expressed his skepticism
to the extent that he didn't see many autocad files changing hands.

Still lots of paper in the office, and autocad files still haven't
replaced paper (nonblue) blueprints, but fighter aircraft manuals are
well into the paperless revolution:

http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302075.html

<quote>

[Lockheed Martin] is about to replace its paper instruction manuals
for all its F-16 fighter plane with a computer-based system. Some 1.4
million pages of data will eventually appear online.

<snip>

Tech firms have long encouraged customers to get most of their
instruction from Web sites, and Boeing in 1995 made electronic manuals
the standard for its newest F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets.
Lockheed's move suggests the trend is spreading.

<snip>

The U.S. Air Force alone could conserve more than $500 million in
printing and paper costs over the next 40 years, Lockheed said in a
statement.

<snip>

Countries such Belgium and the Netherlands have already begun testing
the electronic system, which Lockheed began designing in 2001. It's
expected to launch in September.

Clients around the world, including Taiwan, Turkey and Israel, will
use a special Air Force-designed terminal to access data,
instructions, even diagrams for the F-16. Illustrators are scrambling
to account for every bolt, nut and screw in the planes.

If questions arise about the data or the computer viewer, customers
can call a 24-hour manned help desk.

</quote>

What is slightly bizarre about this is that Lockheed had every
niggling detail of project managment (milestones, manhours, and money)
on computers decades ago, so the story shows how slowly what should be
an obvious step is really taking root.

While the IR guy who dogged my posts on the Forrest curve will surely
chime in and differ, making sense of all those reams of data, once it
is online, is going to take alot of muscle. "Hi, is this the 24-hour
help desk? I need to replace a thingy that goes under the
whozits....Part number? I have no idea. It looks like a
whatchamacallit....Can I describe it better? Well, it's made out of
aluminum, and..."

RM

 

[Mikus Grinbergs]

Still lots of paper in the office, and autocad files still haven't
replaced paper (nonblue) blueprints, but fighter aircraft manuals are
well into the paperless revolution:

http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302075.html

<quote>

[Lockheed Martin] is about to replace its paper instruction manuals
for all its F-16 fighter plane with a computer-based system. Some 1.4
million pages of data will eventually appear online.

One difficulty with computer-based documentation is "trackability".

Sooner or later, items such as planes have "upgrades" applied to
them. Suppose there is a set of manuals associated with __this__
individual airplane. I believe that when maintenance changes a
part, they are supposed to *update* that set of manuals, with a
"responsible individual" initialling the deleted/inserted pages.
If need be (such as in a lawsuit following a crash) it can be
established whether its set of manuals corresponded to the actual
configuration of that individual airplane; and if not, whom to
blame for allowing the discrepancy.

With a computer-based system, presumably __BOTH__ the 'before'
and the 'after' documents (for a particular part change) will be
in the database. Unless the computer does a LOT of "tracking",
I suspect the chance of a serviceman/crewman fetching the wrong
(for that individual plane's configuration) document is *greater*
than the chance of an upgrade team failing to perform the update
of a set of physical manuals.

mikus

 

[George Macdonald]

Greetings,

In one of my earlier forays on comp.arch, I mentioned, to loud
guffaws, Wang's ill-fated paperless office as a glimpse of why we have
so far seen only the tip of the iceberg of computer use.

Ah, the good old days, when the term broadband had an entirely different
meaning from today.

Not to be
discouraged, I later mentioned the use of computers to store and
disseminate information about extremely complicated engineering
systems. I may even have mentioned aircraft. One of our more
respected posters who is in the aerospace biz expressed his skepticism
to the extent that he didn't see many autocad files changing hands.

Hmmm, have you heard of the law suit which Ferrari have going against
Toyota Racing? I don't think there's much paper involved there and I
*know* that in many places there is no "blue" at all.

Still lots of paper in the office, and autocad files still haven't
replaced paper (nonblue) blueprints, but fighter aircraft manuals are
well into the paperless revolution:

I think there are several things going on here:

1) Many places are using software other than Autocad and it does things
which Autocad "files" cannot carry. Autocad became a de facto standard but
the industry needs more for portability and doesn't always have the
confidence to abandon the "blue". It's my impression that the need (for
industry styandard files) has not translated to motivation for the usual
reasons: proprietary greed, inertia, protectionism of jobs and software,
etc. etc.

2) In some places you'll still find (senior) engineers who came through the
draftstman route to become full fledged engineers. In some quarters, there
are even "engineers" who started as drafstmen and who are not full fledged.
There are conflicts there with the new, young engineers who didn't learn
about "blue" in college/university.

3) Unless the end-user organization has the *very* expensive milling
systems, they have to go "blue", even if they're using Catia or some other
package which would allow bypassing it... or go outside for pattern making
and parts cutting. IOW CNC, e.g. a 5-axis milling machine, is beyond the
means of many moderate sized specialist companies.

I know that in the auto-racing industry, the big guys all have the
equipment and the use of carbon fiber has accelerated the use of CNC and
the abandonment of "blue". For many of the others who spent a lot of money
on software and blueprint plotters not so long ago, the expense of going
full CNC is a huge step and money is tight just now.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Robert Myers]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:30:40 -0500, George Macdonald

I think there are several things going on here:

1) Many places are using software other than Autocad and it does things
which Autocad "files" cannot carry. Autocad became a de facto standard but
the industry needs more for portability and doesn't always have the
confidence to abandon the "blue". It's my impression that the need (for
industry styandard files) has not translated to motivation for the usual
reasons: proprietary greed, inertia, protectionism of jobs and software,
etc. etc.

3) Unless the end-user organization has the *very* expensive milling
systems, they have to go "blue", even if they're using Catia or some other
package which would allow bypassing it... or go outside for pattern making
and parts cutting. IOW CNC, e.g. a 5-axis milling machine, is beyond the
means of many moderate sized specialist companies.

Forgot about Catia. I wonder if AIAA and or ASME or similar has
anyone working on a possible standard interchange format.

I know that in the auto-racing industry, the big guys all have the
equipment and the use of carbon fiber has accelerated the use of CNC and
the abandonment of "blue". For many of the others who spent a lot of money
on software and blueprint plotters not so long ago, the expense of going
full CNC is a huge step and money is tight just now.

Wouldn't a rational person who couldn't afford CNC just outsource any
but the most trivial machine shop work? Obviously, I don't get close
to metal shavings very often.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:30:40 -0500, George Macdonald




Forgot about Catia. I wonder if AIAA and or ASME or similar has
anyone working on a possible standard interchange format.

AFAIK Autocad is little used in the bleeding edge engineering stuff -
Pro-Engineer is used quite a bit and of course for 3D surfacing Catia
dominates at present. I think the lack of a standard is a situation which
many clients "enjoy" since it gives them some assurance that there won't be
casual theft, given the cost of a Catia license. While I'm sure files
wander with employee migrations, the mechanisms are a discouragement to
professional thieves. I'd think some form of DRM would be seen as a great
thing by Catia's clients - not sure where things stand with that right now.

Wouldn't a rational person who couldn't afford CNC just outsource any
but the most trivial machine shop work? Obviously, I don't get close
to metal shavings very often.

It's still gonna cost big $$ to outsource - it's not like some startup
consulting group can just go pick up a 5-axis milling machine for small
change and if a company has employees who can do it with blueprints and
more manual methods there's a certain inertia... often encouraged by local
redundancy laws. Those employees who have the surfacing skills to produce
a "buck" are often the same guys who have the skills to deal with carbon
fiber vacuum formed moulding, ovens and honeycombed shells etc. It is
tricky stuff and the raw materials are not cheap either.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[The little lost angel]

It's still gonna cost big $$ to outsource - it's not like some startup
consulting group can just go pick up a 5-axis milling machine for small

OT question... how/why/what 5-axis?? I thought 3 axis would allow for
movement in every direction since we're mostly in a 3D world at most?
My visualisation skills are probably quite terrible since however I
try to envisual it, I can only see required movement around something
horizontally, around it vertically, and nearer/away from it.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[KR Williams]

OT question... how/why/what 5-axis?? I thought 3 axis would allow for
movement in every direction since we're mostly in a 3D world at most?
My visualisation skills are probably quite terrible since however I
try to envisual it, I can only see required movement around something
horizontally, around it vertically, and nearer/away from it.

Gotta rotate the bit into the right axis, not just the right x-y-
z position. To drill/mill in any orientation and position one
really needs "six-axis". Think of one x-y-z position to place
the drill's business end in the right location and another x-y-z
location to place the other end so it's pointing the right
direction to make a straight hole.

 

[George Macdonald]

OT question... how/why/what 5-axis?? I thought 3 axis would allow for
movement in every direction since we're mostly in a 3D world at most?
My visualisation skills are probably quite terrible since however I
try to envisual it, I can only see required movement around something
horizontally, around it vertically, and nearer/away from it.

Well I'm no expert n NC but with three axes, X,Y & Z you can cut straight
into a work piece in any position. Actual machines vary considerably on
construction but for X you can move the relation between the head and work
piece transversely and for Y longitudinally. Z is the depth of the cut.

Beyond that there are various options but typically for the other two
degrees of freedom, you want to be able to tilt the head in relation to the
work piece and maybe have circular motion of the head against the work
piece. Yes you could do the circle thing by a combo of X & Y but now
you're getting into the details of NC and its commands and I'm at the
limits of my knowledge. How those motions are achieved varies: sometimes
the head moves and sometimes the "table" holding the work piece. What an
"axis" or "degree of freedom" means may vary from one machine manufacturer
or another or by the type of machine, even within the one manufacturer.
There are some mfrs who claim up to 12-axis "capability".

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[The little lost angel]

Well I'm no expert n NC but with three axes, X,Y & Z you can cut straight
into a work piece in any position. Actual machines vary considerably on
construction but for X you can move the relation between the head and work
piece transversely and for Y longitudinally. Z is the depth of the cut.

Beyond that there are various options but typically for the other two
degrees of freedom, you want to be able to tilt the head in relation to the
work piece and maybe have circular motion of the head against the work
piece. Yes you could do the circle thing by a combo of X & Y but now
you're getting into the details of NC and its commands and I'm at the
limits of my knowledge. How those motions are achieved varies: sometimes
the head moves and sometimes the "table" holding the work piece. What an
"axis" or "degree of freedom" means may vary from one machine manufacturer
or another or by the type of machine, even within the one manufacturer.
There are some mfrs who claim up to 12-axis "capability".

Thanks Keith and George PPP
After reading both your posts, I really feel dumb for not seeing for
myself the necessity for the head not to always be boring straight at
the center of the piece.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[KR Williams]

Thanks Keith and George PPP
After reading both your posts, I really feel dumb for not seeing for
myself the necessity for the head not to always be boring straight at
the center of the piece.

Even the center may not be so interesting. Also note that boring
isn't the only tool in the kit. Cutting (what a milling machine
does) is another that requires more than three-axis of alignment.

 

[George Macdonald]

Even the center may not be so interesting. Also note that boring
isn't the only tool in the kit. Cutting (what a milling machine
does) is another that requires more than three-axis of alignment.

Maybe I'm just a mechanical "geek" but I find those things fascinating to
watch in action, as they take a billet and turn it into some exotic part.
Every time there's a snippet of one, I wish I could see it again for longer
with maybe some bits in slow motion.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Roger Hunt]

Maybe I'm just a mechanical "geek" but I find those things fascinating to
watch in action, as they take a billet and turn it into some exotic part.
Every time there's a snippet of one, I wish I could see it again for longer
with maybe some bits in slow motion.

It was the manufacture of impellers that astonished me - the machine
performed absolute ballet during the process.

Or make your own! Like a throttle slide for an Amal Monobloc carb, from
ex-WW2 RAF bronze bar end, for instance, just for the hell of it.
Very satisfying hobby.

 

[KR Williams]

Maybe I'm just a mechanical "geek" but I find those things fascinating to
watch in action, as they take a billet and turn it into some exotic part.
Every time there's a snippet of one, I wish I could see it again for longer
with maybe some bits in slow motion.

No question! A friend's brother owns a machine shop, with AIUI
several 6-axis CNC milling machines. I'm trying to get an
invitation over to watch these things at work. I think they're
afraid that the druel will dilute the oil though. (Actually he
said anytime, but I don't just walk into businesses to waste
their time).

 

[nycop]

I understand the great Falcon4.0 flightsim manual is damn close to the
military manual anyway..maybe that's why Falcon4.0 is still considered
the sim all others are measured by.

Greetings,

In one of my earlier forays on comp.arch, I mentioned, to loud
guffaws, Wang's ill-fated paperless office as a glimpse of why we have
so far seen only the tip of the iceberg of computer use. Not to be
discouraged, I later mentioned the use of computers to store and
disseminate information about extremely complicated engineering
systems. I may even have mentioned aircraft. One of our more
respected posters who is in the aerospace biz expressed his skepticism
to the extent that he didn't see many autocad files changing hands.

Still lots of paper in the office, and autocad files still haven't
replaced paper (nonblue) blueprints, but fighter aircraft manuals are
well into the paperless revolution:

http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302075.html

<quote>

[Lockheed Martin] is about to replace its paper instruction manuals
for all its F-16 fighter plane with a computer-based system. Some 1.4
million pages of data will eventually appear online.

<snip>

Tech firms have long encouraged customers to get most of their
instruction from Web sites, and Boeing in 1995 made electronic manuals
the standard for its newest F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets.
Lockheed's move suggests the trend is spreading.

<snip>

The U.S. Air Force alone could conserve more than $500 million in
printing and paper costs over the next 40 years, Lockheed said in a
statement.

<snip>

Countries such Belgium and the Netherlands have already begun testing
the electronic system, which Lockheed began designing in 2001. It's
expected to launch in September.

Clients around the world, including Taiwan, Turkey and Israel, will
use a special Air Force-designed terminal to access data,
instructions, even diagrams for the F-16. Illustrators are scrambling
to account for every bolt, nut and screw in the planes.

If questions arise about the data or the computer viewer, customers
can call a 24-hour manned help desk.

</quote>

What is slightly bizarre about this is that Lockheed had every
niggling detail of project managment (milestones, manhours, and money)
on computers decades ago, so the story shows how slowly what should be
an obvious step is really taking root.

While the IR guy who dogged my posts on the Forrest curve will surely
chime in and differ, making sense of all those reams of data, once it
is online, is going to take alot of muscle. "Hi, is this the 24-hour
help desk? I need to replace a thingy that goes under the
whozits....Part number? I have no idea. It looks like a
whatchamacallit....Can I describe it better? Well, it's made out of
aluminum, and..."

RM