Slashdot Mirror
RAF Fighter Flies On Printed Parts
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.'"
$1.2 million is nothing for a modern military. They probably spend more than that for a single part for their fighter planes.
This is good to see, but at this stage it's still proof of concept. It will be a while before prices go down. Until COTS 3D printers that can produce metallic things become cheap, expect programs like this to be a wash in terms of money spent.
Doesn't seem like much over 4 years. I suspect it's running at loss at least 2 of those 4 years.
did you forget to take your meds?
... but we're only free from the contractors if we specify that we need the CAD files for the individual components as part of the initial production contract.
On demand part printing is very cool, but it's kind of a yawn until they fly an entirely 3D printed plane.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
But those are some expensive radio covers.
Fiat Lux.
Is there not a public-domain pic of an actual RAF GR4 Tornado instead of an American F-16 Fighting Falcon?
Get a guaranteed article about it on Wired or some tech site.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
"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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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 but that has been replaced by PXE booting.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.
Not just that, but any idiot with a rickety Makerbot thinks they can 3D print anything at all that is 3D printed by any other technology whatsoever. Just watch.
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.
PS: obvious piece of wisdom - if a man can be replaced by a machine - the man is not worth his paycheck
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just say NO to beta.slashdot.org. .com /curmudgeon
Also, Dice holdings LLC should really move that to a
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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. 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.
I heard someone refer to a Lathe as a 3D printer... and my dentist proudly told me that he got a 3D printer for teeth, then showed me his CNC milling machine.
I am just waiting for the swiss army knife "3D printer" pocket knife that allows you to "manually 3D print with Cellulose media"
Take a look at http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/oct/metal-3d-printing.cfm
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 part to minimize the compromises that they need to take.
It may reduce tolerances due to manufacturability, but as the above link shows, you end up with a part which supports the specifications that are needed.
My personal experiences are in trying to find a out-of-production part for a cupboard ( http://use-cases.org/2013/07/10/3d-printing-shelf-pegs/ ), 3 hours with a modeling tool saved a further 3 hours going through drawers at the hardware store or 3 hours on the internet searching for them. 3d printing solved my problem, and solved problems for a lot of other people (there have been about 150 orders on shapeways for this part).
The empire has been lost for some time.
You don't even know how to use TFR.
The first sentences in the article explicitly speak of "metal parts", but then the rest of the article goes on explaining that they are plastic. Have I become dumb overnight or is the article confusing? Did they 3D-print metal? It does not seem to me. What's clear to me is that the article could have been written a lot better.
3D printing has been used for complex parts in aircraft for years. Specifically, some turbine blades have been 3D printed in metal, because they can have internal passages for cooling. It's not quite a net part - the airfoil shape and the retaining dovetail need to be post-machined, but it's a lot faster than the investment casting it replaced.
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.
"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.
There you go. My metal bakeware? 3D printer for cakes. Everything is called 3D printing now, get with the program!
Why launch space station/ship components, especially structural components, into outer space? They're bulky and can be damaged. Instead, launch 3D printer input materials into space and print out the space ship there. Besides, pure materials, such as compressed aluminum powder, can withstand big g-forces so alternate and cheaper launch devices, such as a super gun (the dream of infamous Gerald Bull), can be used.
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 that is quite promising. The preliminary results are durable enough that they even stand up to extended daily usage in the wearable-technology vertical.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3D samzenpus. But we can all hope that the new and improved 3D version will do better spell checks and dupe checks?
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter. "GR" stands for "ground role". There was an interceptor variant in service, but that was replaced afaik by the typhoon (aka eurofighter).
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.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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*". ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
I heard someone refer to a Lathe as a 3D printer... and my dentist proudly told me that he got a 3D printer for teeth, then showed me his CNC milling machine.
Dude. Your dentist's machine likely does 4-axis milling on material that's hard enough to wear out the cutting head after no more than 3-4 teeth (and that's before the milled tooth gets baked to more hardness)
From that link : "The firm said a problem with the low fuel level warning system had been discovered in a number of aircraft. There is no suggestion it is linked to the Clutha bar crash in Glasgow on 29 November, in which 10 people died. Air accident investigators have already said the Police Scotland aircraft did not run out of fuel."
Time to find a new dentist. If he doesn't understand his tools, no thanks.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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 _cheapest_ place anywhere near us was a 3 man garage with a good reputation that made their own. They didn't make the cat.
Just because it's hand made does not mean it will cost the earth... automation is good for mass produced things - car parts for older models are sometimes much cheaper if someone builds them, rather than going to the dealers.
A 3d printer is the new paradigm. So if you have the extruder change its X-axis location, then you have a paradigm shift. ...I'm here all week. Remember to tip your waitress. Try the veal.
That was true in the past but an increasing number of researchers are suggesting it won't be in the future - . I actually welcome the day when machines can take care of all of the necessities (and a lot of the rest). The way we organise the economy will have to change though, and we can expect complete carnage while people get used to that...
extended daily usage in the wearable-technology vertical.
*#%$, the marketspeak, it burns!
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 finished', not 'hand made'. My take on it is that most of the parts were still made in the automatic ways, only the final assembly/fitting was done by hand. Consider your exhaust pipe example - while I'm sure they bent the pipe by hand, I'm just as sure that the pipes were made using automated equipment, as was any fittings such as hose clamps, screws, and bolts. In addition for the car you'd also have to craft the wheels, frame, seats, dash, etc...
The reason hand made/custom parts can be cheaper than going to the dealer is that the part might be in a part of it's life cycle where even the part the dealer would get was hand made as well.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
I don't read AC A human right
So we just lug a 3D printer down to Port Stanley and jobsagoodun!
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!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The more jobs are done by robots, the more people become unemployed. They come to compete in an already tight marketplace, till you have squeezed many jobs out of the market place. It may be "cool" now to replace a taxi driver, but let me know what you think when it replaces you as well.
Do you have a talent, skill, or service to offer the world that can't be done be a robot? If you don't have one, what are you doing to acquire one?
If the answers to the above are "no" and "nothing", you need to do some soul searching.
In future wars, I think the losing side should have to Open Source all their tech drawings.
I'll just leave this right here:
http://www.filabot.com/collections/filabot-core/products/filabot-wee-assembled
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 deposition, it is much easier to machine a block of metal that has a known rating of its qualities, than it is to create a functional component through printing technologies, vapor deposition, et al., and be able to fine tune the qualities of the resulting material.
In any case, we certainly are at the dawn of a very interesting age of manufacturing with both the subtractive and additive processes at the disposal of industry.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
but iphones do cost 1000s