Innovation and Transfer of U.S. Air Force Manufacturing Technology (1981) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B: Automated Assembly Fixture Drilling
Appendix B: Automated Assembly Fixture Drilling
Pages 27-35
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 27... ...
The system's task is to scan the piece to be drilled, storing the information in its computer memory, locate and check the bole coordinates, and then drill and countersink holes in a wing skin and understructure, or other large component, mounted In a fixture. The system consists of a CNC drill unit mounted on a vertical gantry capable of f ive-axis movement, a scanning camera to guide and check the work, and a modif fed f ixture to accommodate the automated drilling.
|
From page 28... ...
3. Shortages of skilled labor and large f fluctuations in company workforces between major programs have been driving factors towards automation of airframe assembly, particularly during the 1970s.
|
From page 29... ...
Both companies submitted contract proposals for their systems as part of the Air Force Manufacturing Methods Program in 1975. The AFML Manufacturing Technology Group selected Grumman's approach to fund because it was judged technically superior.
|
From page 30... ...
The automated wing drilling device was pursued not only because it was expected to offer savings in direct labor cost, throughput time, and f ixture fabr ~cation, but also because i t would enable Grumman to drill wings with improved consistency. Grumman takes pr ide in its reputation for quality and consistency in i ts production processes.
|
From page 31... ...
The AEML left negotiation of licensing arrangements strictly up to the parties involved unless and until an impasse was reached. General Dynamics manufacturing technology personnel who went to i nvestigate the Gru~Tunan system reported that the equipment had now been designed for the A-6 and would consequently require considerable adaptation for use on the F-16.
|
From page 32... ...
Because the economic evaluation was indecisive, the risk caused by the poor relations between the two companies, as well as the existence of attractive alternatives, added up to non-adoption of the Grumman automated assembly fixture drilling system. Fa irchild (not interviewed ~ When General Dynamics rejected the Grumman system in 1976, Fairchild, which was also in the early production stages of a new program, the A-10, agreed to cooperate in evaluating the Grumman system.
|
From page 33... ...
As of 1980, the McDonnell device has yet to be adopted in production, in part because McDonnell teas yet to f ind a machine tool builder to build it. This is unusual because McDonnell, operator of the largest numerically controlled machine shop In the Free World, r arely has trouble ga in ing the attention of mach ine tool compan ies when it wants something.
|
From page 34... ...
At that point Northrop rejected the Grumman system on financial grounds and turned to less expensive alternatives, such as a laser locater device with a calculated cost of S15,000. No alternative has yet been adopted because the F-18 stabilizer has undergone some design changes.
|
From page 35... ...
Grumman demonstrates Automated Assembly Fixture Drilling to General Dynamics and Fairchild. Grumman performs the Air Force contract evaluating 5-axis operation on A-6 parts, using the f ixture on the A-6 assembly line.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.