Originally Posted by
MistWolf
Let me explain- no, that will take to long. Let me sum up- I don't think that word means what you think it means
When I design and install a skin repair on a 737, it meets the minimum specification set by Boeing in accordance with regulations set by the FAA. It means I use the correct materials specified by the repair manual. Not worse than. Not better than because "better" than is actually "worse than" because it can cause safety of flight issues. There is a failsafe row of rivets that is at the very edge of the repair doubler that calls for AD rivets, a softer less durable alloy than what is used with the normal E rivet. If I used the "better" E rivet instead, it will cause early failure of the repair. Not only is it the minimum specification, it's the only specification allowed because it's the only specification that ensures safety of flight.
My company provides service to an airline because it's the lowest bidder. But if we did not deliver as contracted, that airline would pull out and take their planes elsewhere.
I have also worked as an aviation contractor on military projects. We were the lowest bidder. Again, of we did not deliver, the contract was yanked. Why do companies spend so much effort to provide the best customer service possible? Because the contracts are lucrative.
Take the material specified for the barrels. It must meet a certain standard as set forth by the military. You can look up the spec sheet for yourself. The material Colt uses to meet that spec is 4150 CMV. It's more expensive than 4140 CM, the standard barrel steel used in most commercial rifles. 4150 CMV is also more durable than 4140. Some commercial AR manufacturers cut their receivers from a billet of 6061. These receivers are heavier and more expensive and pound for pound, less stiff than receivers cut from a 7075 forging as specified by milspec.
Yes, the milspec is the minimum standard and the contracts are given to the lowest bidder. But it's not only a good standard, it's a high standard and the suppliers work hard to meet them and spend a good amount of money to make sure they are maintained.
While there is no milspec for civilian firearms, they all have one thing in common- They are built to a minimum standard by the lowest bidder. The great ones are built to a high standard by a bidder wanting to keep in business.
Some parts can be built by any machinist who can read a print, but not all of them can. There is so much involved with manufacturing a part that much of it is accomplished by "tribal knowledge". Fastest way to kill a successful project is to fire all the experienced workers and hire new ones.
I had a problem installing a few fasteners in the passenger floor assembly of one airliner that I could not get the engineers to address. If I got any part wrong, I wouldn't know until the assembly was finished and it would be too late to fix. It was more cost effective and faster for me to develop what turned out to be an unusual and tricky assembly sequence to assure it went together right every time and meet all the specifications, because if I got it wrong, there was no way to fix it. This procedure was never documented by the company and when I tried to teach it to a co-worker so my boss could put me on another project, the co-worker couldn't accomplish it as quickly or with the same level of quality. The blueprint did show how this assembly went together, but there was so much more to that little job than the blueprints showed.
You can mock the milspec, but there is a huge difference between a company with an experienced work force building to a known standard with a history of delivering on time, within budget, using proper processes with correct documentation & certifications while developing a good, long term relationship with the customer and looking at a blue print and saying "Hey Billy Bob, hold muh beer a minute!"
Bookmarks