Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Expects To Save Millions In Dreamliner Costs Using 3D-Printed Titanium Parts (reuters.com)
According to Reuters, Boeing has hired Norsk Titanium AS to print titanium parts for its 787 Dreamliner, paving the way to cost savings of $2 million to $3 million for each plane. The 3D-printed metal parts will replace pieces made with more expensive traditional manufacturing, thus making the 787 more profitable. From the report: Strong, lightweight titanium alloy is seven times more costly than aluminum, and accounts for about $17 million of the cost of a $265 million Dreamliner, industry sources say. Boeing has been trying to reduce titanium costs on the 787, which requires more of the metal than other models because of its carbon-fiber composite fuselage and wings. Titanium also is used extensively on Airbus Group SE's rival A350 jet. Norsk worked with Boeing for more than a year to design four 787 parts and obtain Federal Aviation Administration certification for them, Chip Yates, Norsk Titanium's vice president of marketing, said. Norsk expects the U.S. regulatory agency will approve the material properties and production process for the parts later this year, which would "open up the floodgates" and allow Norsk to print thousands of different parts for each Dreamliner, without each part requiring separate FAA approval, Yates said. Norsk said that initially it will print in Norway, but is building up a 67,000-square-foot (6,220-square-meter) facility in Plattsburgh in upstate New York, where it aims to have nine printers running by year-end.
It's great to see that 3D printing is being touted as a cost saving measure here. I typically see 3D printing in the context of "innovative", but not really cost effective; perhaps we've hit the inflection point where the technology is mature enough to truly disrupt established industries.
Direct metal laser sintering
15 years
Well, if you throw 'em away once the new plane smell is gone, it's going to be expensive, yes.
$50,000 a day divided by say 4 flights is $12,500. Divided again by 300 passengers per flight is $42 per passanger per flight. The average ticket costs $300 per passenger per flight and the price of the plane is a tiny part of the puzzle.
( I rounded up to $42 as it is a good number and thought it was hilarious that it came out close to that)
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
It is in fact no such thing. Why would you say that? It's silly.
Mostly random stuff.
I have a hard time believing that metal 3D-printed parts could ever be as strong as die-cast parts, which are nowhere near as strong as CNC-milled parts. The metal "grain" in a 3D-printed part would be to disorganized to have high tensile strength, leading to brittleness.
This is actually melting layers of powdered metal on top of each other to create the part.
3D printing like this allows them to create parts with internal structures that are not possible to create with any other process (machining or casting)
In some cases, the part can be made from other processes, but is far more time consuming and manpower intensive to create (so it's more expensive)
They are already doing this with some of the fuel nozzles on the latest, most powerful airline engines.
Is Titanium conventional casting production that expensive?
Making the mold itself, into which the parts are cast, is expensive.
When you're building cars by the hundreds everyday, it's totally worth using cast metal for the various pieces of equipement. You have a big upfront cost making the mold, but then you have hundreds of thousands of parts to divide the cost.
When you're only building a plane per month or so, making a unique piece that is only needed once per product will be damned expensive by traditional methods :
- casting will get more expensive (again, the mold it self is the most expensive part, not the parts cast into it - less parts produced means, less parts to divide production cost, means higher end cost)
- hiring machinists to build it is also expensive.
Suddenly laser-sintering the part becomes attractive.
And that's what these 3D production technique excel at : custom low volume parts.
- Traditionally, that means it help innovation (when experimenting with a few new parts)
- But at also means it's useful for something which is produced at extremely low volume and requires highly customized parts (air planes, rockets, etc.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Nothing better than an airline company trying to reduce costs.
Only when sold to 3rd world countries.
Taking the concepts of minimal required materials and planned obsolescence to whole new levels with the marvel of 3D printing.
Engineering: the art of cutting costs by designing to the exact spec required and nothing more.
3D printing like this allows them to create parts with internal structures that are not possible to create with any other process (machining or casting)
Not just internal structures. You wouldn't cast "fractal" supports like these.
Ezekiel 23:20
Not much - windows which, rather than teeny-weeny are very small, plus a pressure in the cabin slightly higher and more humid than before. That's it. The rest of the experience is the same miserable one that it has been for 15 years, with less and less legroom, the same plasticky food, the same you-pay-for-everything-and-then-some, take-it-or-leave attitude from the airlines, and, most importantly, it still takes the same amount of time to cover the classical London - New York route as it over 50 years ago. Dreamliner? Not for passengers.
I think Boeing would borrow a leaf from the Russians. They still manage to produce planes cheaper, though not in big quantities.
That's $200/seat.
It has an 8000 mile range, so it's likely used on flights that are 500-1000, probably one way a day (typical airtime for a long haul plane is 15 hours, probably 1.5 or so flights, so we're going to use one, which allows for 30% non use).
So using those numbers, it's 1/3 the price.
Fuel is a big chunk of ticket price too.
Running an airline is expensive, and the plane cost isnt all of it by far.
The 787 is designed for lower operating costs, so it could actually be cheaper in the long run to buy it and replace something less efficient.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Your mind seems to rev at a high rate while cranking out comparatively few 'instructions per clock cycle,' as it were. Just an fyi, less refined carbs and more leafy greens can sometimes aid an ailing brain...
The cooperation goes both ways. Boeing has a huge engineering center in Moscow, but Boeing also helped United Aircraft Corporation with the Sukhoi Superjet 100 design and actually partakes in its sales and marketing.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The main benefit of laser sintering or 3D printing when it comes to these titanium parts is the optimal shapes you can make. Traditional casting and milling processes have many limitations where you need to support/remove the mold pieces, have specific wall thicknesses, or be able to actually mill with real bits. 3D printing, provided the process is roughly as strong and fatigue resistant as the traditional material, allows you to make impossible shapes that are far more optimal for the weight like cardboard which has internal cutouts impossible to create traditionally. This along with software for optimizing loads can easily save 30% on material weight while still maintaining the same load constraints as a traditional part. For an airplane this shaves off huge $$$ in material costs, allows the same plane to carry more weight and/or be more fuel efficient.
Russian jets are cheaper because Russian labor is much cheaper. Also, are you comparing comparable models? An A320Neo or B737MAX is a very different animal from a Sukhoi Superjet 100 (regional jet versus larger single aisle).
... are named after the TV character, Arthur Fonzerelli.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
well, to be fair, a Tu-204 is cheaper than anything Boeing or Airbus offers, but I don't think they are manufactured anymore.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap