RAF Fighter Flies On Printed Parts 100
Rambo Tribble writes "In what is being touted as a milestone, Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jets have flown with 3-D printed parts. The announcement came from defense company BAE Systems, and it depicts the program as a model for cost-saving. From the article: 'The parts include protective covers for cockpit radios and guards for power take-off shafts. It is hoped the technology could cut the RAF's maintenance and service bill by over £1.2m over the next four years.'"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was the point. Kind of like a government agent telling you to "call your senator" when their department does something you don't like.
If that sort of thing happens then the case usually ends up in court. The government will generally appeal and appeal until they're blue in the face - perhaps to bankrupt whomever was mad enough to test them - but they can and have lost such cases. The government may not like it, but until whatever rabble is in power at that time can stop squabbling long enough to change the law they generally have to obey the ones the previous lot have enacted.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point GP was making was that the queen doesn't have any actual power, at all. This is a typical misconception - although the queen could in theory veto something, as soon as she did so, the parliament would just pass a law getting rid of her veto, and no one would object.
The UK is a representative democracy, with a monarch as a figurehead, not a true constitutional monarchy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She still has a sceptre, but the magic has been lost and it now has no effect.
Re: (Score:1)
try to remember that when she crushes your skull with it
Re: (Score:2)
If there's anything the Queen mum should do with that scepter is to immediately un-knight Jony Ive for the abortive iOS7 GUI we all have to deal with now.
Re: (Score:2)
$1.2 million is nothing for a modern military. They probably spend more than that for a single part for their fighter planes.
They probably spent more than that on the R&D for their amazing new 3D-printed cockpit radio cover.
Re:Fools (Score:4, Insightful)
Without automation, the average car would cost more than a million dollars, just getting the people in who can repeatedly file a part down to the tolerances needed. That new iPhone would cost thousands, if not able to be made at all (good luck soldering the BGA chips.)
Automation is a fact of life, and jobs change. When I was a teenager, I loved the job of running around with a hard disk for reimaging machines... but that has been replaced by PXE booting. Life goes on.
The more automation the better. It benefits us all, other than the people with the dead-end work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I loved the job of running around with a hard disk for reimaging machines... but that has been replaced by PXE booting.
Now we run around with hard disks when we want to avoid the NSA.
Hell, your local sneaker net can probably offer higher bandwidth than the fastest fiber connection. Huge latency though.
Re: (Score:2)
Without automation, the average car would cost more than a million dollars, just getting the people in who can repeatedly file a part down to the tolerances needed.
My car's engine is hand finished, and it cost £2,500 second hand a few years back. Admittedly, Honda apparently sold them at a loss, but they weren't that much new (about £20k)... Integra Type R.
My sister has just got her exhaust replaced on her series 2 MR2 (her old one had loads of holes, and fell off on the motorway), and the _
Re: (Score:3)
It depends a bit on what you consider 'automation' - does a electric screwdriver count as automation? A belt sander? Something is moving without human power, after all. I'll settle for allowing power tools, but everything would have to be guided by a human. IE you can have a drill press with mechanical stops, but a human will actually have to work a wheel/lever to control drill height.
So to look at the examples, the GP was talking about an entire car, not just the engine, plus your engine is 'hand finis
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
PS: obvious piece of wisdom - if a man can be replaced by a machine - the man is not worth his paycheck
Re: (Score:2)
You really think 3D printing needs less human operators than injection molding?
My understanding is that many (most?) molded parts still need manual trimming. Is this true and do printed parts needs the same "finishing"?
[ Also, editors, title should be "flies *with* printed parts" not "*on*". ]
Only 1.2 mil? (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like much over 4 years. I suspect it's running at loss at least 2 of those 4 years.
Free! Free from the contractors! (Score:5, Interesting)
On demand part printing is very cool, but it's kind of a yawn until they fly an entirely 3D printed plane.
Re:Free! Free from the contractors! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what we need. Management will say "just print it, you have the files" and not realize that titanium was specced for a reason.
You mean you actually needed that stabilizer to not shear off at mach 2?
Re:Free! Free from the contractors! (Score:4, Insightful)
Mach 2? Try 40 mph once it starts vibrating and flexing. These surfaces are subject to significant aerodynamic forces even in a small airplane - that's why they're there in the first place...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Free! Free from the contractors! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious for a good reference comparing metal strength and fatigue resistance between printed/machined/welded/forged parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too, but we still need to see some references comparing the strengths/weaknesses between production methods. Though I'd substitute 'cast' for 'machined', or maybe machined/welded forged/cast parts because you can mix and match some of the methods.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Free! Free from the contractors! (Score:4, Interesting)
The parts mentioned are needed, but a cover for a cockpit radio [1] are not exactly parts facing extreme wear. If one can sinter the blades for a jet engine damaged by a bird strike, that would be a fundamental technological accomplishment, especially if the blades are balanced and could be installed.
[1]: The black box data/voice recorder enclosure is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
If one can sinter the blades for a jet engine damaged by a bird strike, that would be a fundamental technological accomplishment, especially if the blades are balanced and could be installed.
Printing a turbine blade would be quite an accomplishment, considering that modern blades are often made from a single crystal of Superalloy metal [appropedia.org]
.
A dollar here, a dollar there. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
September never ends (Score:1, Offtopic)
Also, Dice holdings LLC should really move that to a
Just add "3D printed" to any tech presentation now (Score:3)
Get a guaranteed article about it on Wired or some tech site.
Re:Just add "3D printed" to any tech presentation (Score:5, Funny)
I am just waiting for the swiss army knife "3D printer" pocket knife that allows you to "manually 3D print with Cellulose media"
Re: Just add "3D printed" to any tech presentation (Score:2, Interesting)
"3d printers" can be additive- the ubiquitous stratasys or similar, or subtractive (Roland MDX or your dentists new toy). Point is that they are driven like a printer, rather than with cnc programming approaches, do can be used by people who aren't machinists.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if it is because sprues are easier to understand than proper tool paths.
I'm curious which one makes less waste overall. On one hand, the aluminum from a mill can be binned and recycled, while depending on the 3D printer, there is likely less waste, although what waste there is isn't as easily recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
The thermoplastic used in most conventional 3D printers today can be recycled via melting and recasting them in a shape suitable for the printer - normally a filament of a set size. Otherwise, recycle as per standard plastic rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this right here:
http://www.filabot.com/collections/filabot-core/products/filabot-wee-assembled [filabot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Although I have nothing against the swiss army knife as a manual subtractive 3d-printer for cellulosic media, this kind of 3d printing really doesn't work for situations where you need thin and flexible output. For that I've been looking into a new DIY additive 3d-printing device [wikipedia.org] that is quite promising. The preliminary results are durable enough that they even stand up to extended daily usage in the wearable-technology vertical.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to find a new dentist. If he doesn't understand his tools, no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just waiting for the swiss army knife "3D printer" pocket knife that allows you to "manually 3D print with Cellulose media"
Now that would be cutting edge technology!
It is hoped (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is hoped the technology could cut the RAF's maintenance and service bill by over £1.2m over the next four years."
Yeah it's always hoped that it will save money, yet somehow government contracting just gets more and more expensive every year.
Re:It is hoped (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't try to refute your argument because you didn't make an argument. You simply made a false statement. In the debate between a false factual claim and an ad hominem attack, both sides lose.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK defense spending is actually stabilising, and is not expected to rise significantly in the next few years. Of course, those in the military spout off about "cuts" everywhere... the fact is, until recently, it was still rising, wages are not increasing significantly in the military, so they must be spending the extra money on something.
Re: (Score:2)
The RAF has had some major cuts over the last few decades. If contractors want to continue getting those contracts they need to get cheaper.
i question the wisdom of this (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry but this is simply moronic, these are cheapest possible parts in the airplane - plastic covers for stuff. It doesnt make much of a price difference if you make 100 or 200 of such plastic parts, its the first one that costs you. Once you have made all that were needed for a batch of machines (aircraft in this case) that were actually ordered, you make a little more and store them for spare parts. The main cost here is spare parts storage - something you need to have anyway. Replacting some storage space with a very expencive 3D printer (you really thought they want to use a 300$ one? think again) makes no sense, you get lower quality parts and making them takes longer than it would take for you to get the parts from storage.
When you get to printing turbine blades - then you are talking business, but for plastic parts.. makes no sense.
Re:i question the wisdom of this (Score:5, Interesting)
The main cost here is spare parts storage - something you need to have anyway. Replacting some storage space with a very expencive 3D printer (you really thought they want to use a 300$ one? think again) makes no sense, you get lower quality parts and making them takes longer than it would take for you to get the parts from storage.
The military is considering the logistics of access to storage in a battle. It may be considerably cheaper to take a 3D printer and some material to the front than backups of all your parts. I recall reading somewhere that warships tended to carry 3 replacement parts for everything. Since you never know what's going to break you have to carry much more than necessary. A 3D printer should require much less mass and storage since you only need material for the things that actually break, instead of material for everything that might break. The costs of moving backup lenses in hundreds of styles around a battlefield may make 3D printing them more economically viable.
Re: (Score:1)
so, as things break like this there's generally a delay in providing (and a
Re: (Score:2)
3D printer is a powerful tool for the right job. Like any tool it h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course there are reasons to make spare parts with a 3d printer.
First of all, one printer can produce any number of spare parts that the material is good enough for.
Secondly and more importantly, things -- especially in the military, tend to hang around for a long time. It's not unusual for stuff to still be in use when not only the production run has ended, but the original manufacturer has been bought up, met with financial disaster, the tools and jigs necessary to produce the parts have been destroyed,
Hmmmm ... (Score:2)
TFS doesn't sound like any part actually involved in flight was printed. But essentially covers for other parts.
Now, don't get me wrong, printing your own spare parts sounds good and all -- but I'm willing to bet no piece involved in flight or flight control was actually printed and used in flight just yet.
In other words, no RAF fighter has actually flown using parts critical to flight, but just caps and covers for other things.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the title too, for the same reason. It did get me to read the article, so I guess it served its purpose. I have trouble believing that printed parts can be as strong as traditionally manufactured parts, so I too would be surprised if any critical parts were manufactured this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the exact beauty of 3D printing [1]. Assuming one had the proper materials on hand for sintering, that pitot tube (without which one can't do much flying, as one doesn't know how fast the plane is going.) which sheared off can be replaced on site as opposed to waiting days for a part to be mailed, especially if one is at a very remote location.
For short runs, there is nothing that beats 3D printing. For high-volume items, things can be different, but it seems to have less waste and less dangerous
Re: (Score:2)
TFS doesn't sound like any part actually involved in flight was printed.
Here's one made entirely of printed parts [dorsetcereals.com]
(ducks)
Calling Chuck Schumer! (Score:3)
Heh. I expect within hours to see a bill in the U.S. Senate banning the 3-D printing of fighter planes. Someone might sneak those things through metal detectors, though he might have to do it one piece at a time [youtube.com]. Of course, 3-D printing a fighter plane (rather than just replacement parts for the console) is impractical and printing one that would actually work as a fighter plane is impossible, but the likelihood of someone doing so has never really been the issue.
If the above statement seems a little exaggerated, I'll confess that it is. But it's no more exaggerated than giving this article the title "RAF Fighter Flies On Printed Parts", when we're just talking about console parts. The original title was, "RAF jets fly with 3D printed parts." I am saddened that the /. version is both less accurate and more sensationalist.
Once mainstream, it will change industry (Score:2)
Take a look at http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/oct/metal-3d-printing.cfm [theiet.org]
One of the many engineering triangles (design for cost, manufacturability, performance) is slowly getting turned on its head. The manufacturability aspect historically has held back performance and held back cost. With 3d printing, in particular with metals, the cost is volumetric - not complexity or volume driven, and the manufacturability is greatly simplified (needs to be defined in 3d space). This allows the designer of a par
The RAF are sissies (Score:1)
You don't even know how to use TFR.
Not new (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there more referring to 3d printing replacement parts in house. So if the plane breaks the mechanic can just 3d print a replacement cover or bracket right then and there. That means they don't have to keep several of the things in storage just in case, and don't ever have to wait on a stupid $5 radio cover to get the $50 million dollar plane back in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
3-D printing is now being used to make a modern version of the F1 rocket engines used in the Saturn V moon rocket.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/dynetics-reporting-outstanding-progress-on-f-1b-rocket-engine/ [arstechnica.com]
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/nasa-test-fires-3d-printed-rocket-parts-low-cost-high-power-innovation/ [arstechnica.com]
Great way to introduce these things (Score:2)
When it comes to aeronautics, liability is a major concern, so the idea of putting in something really new like this is probably a bit conerning to some people, so this is a good way to introduce it: Start by making noncritical components like plastic shields that are mostly cosmetic as a way to test out the technology safely, and gradually expand to new things as the approach is proven.
Space ships should be printed in outer space (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea is neat but we still have a long way to go. Consider that most of those components you're sending up are generally made of numerous disparate layers, chock full of equipment, or failing that full of pipes and other tubing.
I've proposed having a 'solar smelter' before, but even then I mostly envisioned it being used to convert trash/waste into shielding and/or simple structural materials.
Astronaught time is too valuable to waste running cables and doing extensive assembly work. Though a 3D printe
One thing that is innaccurate in the summary... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter.
BAE, the manufacturers claim it was a Tornado fighter, although they may have tested on another variant.
Re: (Score:2)
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter.
BAE, the manufacturers claim it was a Tornado fighter, although they may have tested on another variant.
It may be that they have a few retired F3's left in storage or something, but other than that the tornado is not a fighter. In fact, the tornado was actually designed as a bomber in the first place. Really it was the opposite of what happened with the F-14.
Malvinas (Score:1)
Yeah, but (Score:2)
The reverse has been done for quite some time. A CNC routing machine works by trimming material from a block to get the desired shape.
This is pretty standard.
I have seen a video from a rebuild of a WWII jet that did use a printed part or two. These were created overnight by a fabrication machine (I think it was at Lockheed) and were used in a nonfunctional component since the jet was rebuilt just to see what the original may have looked like.
If we look at the two processes, material removal and material dep