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.
Direct metal laser sintering
$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.
Mass production of an aircraft isn't at the same scale as mass producing a car. Your speed to produce parts needs to keep up with demand. So if it takes a 3D printer 72 hours to print the part. Vs hiring a machinist full time to do it in 24 hours and you will only need the part once a month. You are better off with the 3D printer. However if the demand goes up to 10 parts per month the machinist may be a better alternative. It isn't always cost per part, but total cost of production during the production lifecycle.
3D printers have a niche but I don't see the fully 3D printed assembly lines in the near future. Just like many of today's printing presses are still printing presses which follow the same concept of Gutenberg you have a shaped indent and you squish the ink on the paper. . And not just shooting out of laser printers. The laser printer would be too expensive for large runs of printing the same thing. But for the office where we will be printing small quantities of different things, the laser printer is more efficient.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Shit, better tell Boeing before the first takeoff. I bet they never thought of that. Milled parts aren't strong enough either, that's why they're casted and heat-treated in all kinds of ways... Every heard of single-crystal turbine blades?
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/...
So the 3D printed part is just a "blank" that gets toasted. It's probably easier to get all the holes in there that way.
Mostly random stuff.
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 ]
Titanium scraps can be recycled, although there is a cost in doing so. I think an additional reason is 3D printing may allow parts to be created with less titanium. They can have hollow areas or achieve shapes that milling can't.
My concern would be in part strength. AFAIK, 3D printed metal is typically weaker than forged and milled metal. Maybe things have progressed or these particular parts don't need "full titanium" strength.
SpaceX is also planning to replace the aluminium grid fins by titanium. The aluminium ones have to be replaced after each landing, because they get so hot during descent that it damages the metal. The titanium ones will be more expensive to make, but that cost can be spread out over multiple uses. Plus they save labor cost from not having to replace them.
Titanium scraps can be recycled, although there is a cost in doing so. I think an additional reason is 3D printing may allow parts to be created with less titanium. They can have hollow areas or achieve shapes that milling can't.
My concern would be in part strength. AFAIK, 3D printed metal is typically weaker than forged and milled metal. Maybe things have progressed or these particular parts don't need "full titanium" strength.
Titanium is also a pain in the butt to machine. We figure 2-3x more machining cost compared to the same part made of 403/420/422 stainless.
This part of the article is particularly informative-
General Electric Co is already printing metal fuel nozzles for aircraft engines. But Norsk and Boeing said the titanium parts are the first printed structural components designed to bear the stress of an airframe in flight.
Gas turbine fuel nozzles are a very complicated shape and have relatively thin walls. In other words, a nightmare to machine conventionally. They have to withstand very high temperatures, but mechanical stress is low. Additive manufacturing makes a lot of sense for these parts.
Load bearing parts, on the other hand, will have higher mechanical stress, and traditionally this is where additive manufacturing is vastly inferior to traditional manufacturing. It may also prove much more difficult to inspect the parts. You can 3d print a beautiful part with a complex hollow or honeycomb shape designed to keep material costs to the absolute minimum, but how do you inspect it? Magnetic particle Nondestructive examination (NDE) is not viable, since titanium isn't magnetic. Ultrasonic NDE inspection doesn't do well with complex shapes due to all the odd reflections generated. Dye Penetrant NDE will only find surface defects. The only other reasonable option is Xray NDE, which is fine for some parts, but very difficult if the geometry is too complex.
With a conventionally manufactured part, you normally inspect the billet or bar before starting machining. With additive manufactured load bearing parts, there is no easy inspection method, either during manufacture or in-service, for complex geometries.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.