Direct CAD News & Views from Kubotek USA

[Infographic] A Quick Look at Improving Your DPD Audit Process

Posted by John Agoglia on Thu, Jun 02, 2016

 

Boeing was one of the aerospace leaders to define Digital Product Definition (DPD) standards for suppliers. Today Boeing is not alone as other OEMs such as Gulfstream, Lockheed, etc., offer DPD guideline. Even suppliers themselves have taken the lead using DPD standards to validate their CAD process from model translation assurance to revision control to order changes and archiving and storage.

Still, though, just like cramming for a test [come on, we've all done it] passing a DPD audit is a struggle as along the way there are many steps that can be overlooked and turned into missteps if you aren't prepared. Jose Covarrubias of 3Dataflow told a full-house webinar crowd last month, "improving your internal processes and systems can make a big difference to your bottom line."

Take a look at the infographic below for some of the benefits of getting your DPD process in order. To hear the whole story from Jose, be sure to check out the on-demand replay of the webinar here

 

 DPD_Considerations_Final.jpg

 

Topics: 3D Direct Modeling, Aerospace Design, CAD Validation, Manufacturing, 3D CAD, Manufacturing CAD, Direct CAD, Engineering Design Changes, Boeing, DPD, DPD Audit

The FAA, Model Based Definition and Your 3D Data

Posted by John Agoglia on Mon, May 03, 2010

The FAA has released some new draft guidelines regarding the use of data in manufacturing.  The role of interoperability in CFR 14 Part 21 (Data Use in Certification), Order 8000.7 and Draft Advisory Circular AC21-XXX on Model Based Definition and Moving Certification Data in the Aerospace Industry are all hot topics now. 

Bob Deragisch from Parker Aerospace is helping lead discussions on these topics Bob Deragisch, Parker Aerospacewith Kubotek.  First, he'll be at a Round Table hosted by Kubotek at the conclusion of CIC this week.  Bob, along with James DeLaPorte from Gulfstream, will be on hand to talk these issues from both a tier one supplier and OEM perspective.  Click her to read more about this special session.

Bob will continue the discussion to talk further about Improving Aerospace Supply Chain Quality and Productivity at the Manhattan Beach Marriott on May 12.  This seminar, hosted by Kubotek USA, Elysium Inc, and Lattice Technologies, will highlight ways in which Aerospace suppliers can improve supply chain quality and productivity.  Click here to learn more about Making 3D Data Work for You Seminar.

Topics: Aerospace Design, Model Based Definition, MBD, LOTAR

A blast from the (Aerospace) past...

Posted by John Agoglia on Fri, Oct 02, 2009
B-17 Flying FortressTwo exciting things happened this week (exciting to those of us who have a love for old aircraft). A B-17 flew directly over my house on Tuesday night! I stood in my front yard and marveled at the sight and listened to that wonderful roar of the engines...it couldn't get any better. But it did. On Wednesday afternoon, a B-24 flew over our office building. We're located on the top floor of a building situated on top of a hill. I could watch the bomber until my eyes were simply too strained to follow it. To see the planes on the ground is one thing, but to see them in the air is fantastic! The aircraft were part of a Wings of Freedom tour that flies the historic planes into local airfields. In addition to the B-17 and the B-24, a P-51 Mustang was also part of the tour. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see that one in flight. But trust me, I kept looking for it!

Enter a little factoid I discovered when doing some web searches on the planes (you know, because I just had to see more). Did you know the P-51 was designed and built AND airborne in 117 days. (Thanks to Wikipedia for that info.) 117 days! 117 days? Can you imagine doing that today? Think you could? Oh, and by the way, you wouldn't be able to use CAD to create your drawings. And forget about using 3D CAD models.


So that brings me to this thought. Even though today's aircraft are so much more complicated, why does it take so long to get these state of the art programs into production? Especially when so many sophisticated tools exist and are available to the engineers of today. Could it be the tools are actually complicating the process? Do the aerospace OEMs need simpler and more flexible tools?

What do you think?

Topics: Flexible CAD, Manufacturing Design, Aerospace Design