3 ms·
Sharing this not to defend forged paperwork, but because I find it fascinating and think others may as well. In the 60s and 70s, there was a lot of crossover b
by sokoloff 3y ago
Sharing this not to defend forged paperwork, but because I find it fascinating and think others may as well.
In the 60s and 70s, there was a lot of crossover between automotive and piston aircraft parts. In particular, Cessna used the same voltage regulator as Ford. Ford used millions of these and Cessna tens of thousands. They were all made on the exact same production line and all got a Ford part number.
Relying on statistical process control, Ford demanded a certain percentage of their parts get extra, manual QC inspection. Cessna demanded 100% inspection of their parts.
Solution: make all the parts on the same line, divert enough for the greater of (Cessna production plus spares) or (Ford’s SPC needs), QC that amount and stamp those inspected parts with a Cessna number (in addition to the Ford part number).
Ford and Cessna can each get parts cheaper than if they were handled separately.
Now, the question comes up: if there are no QC failures detected, are the Ford-only parts as safe as the Ford-or-Cessna parts coming off the line?
- notahacker 3y agoAnother question is whether parts that failed Cessna certification found their way into the Ford aftermarket parts supply chain...
- hef19898 3y agoMoat likely, which isn't a problem per se, as those Ford parts don't fly. If those Ford parts found their way into the Cessna spare parts supply chain, that would be a problem. And it most certainly happened at on point in time.
- sokoloff 3y agoI can virtually guarantee that Ford parts have flown on Cessnas over the years (because some aircraft owners are notoriously cheap). They absolutely fly entirely successfully (and legally) on E-AB aircraft (experimental-amateur built) using the same engine/alternator that Cessna uses.
- hef19898 3y agoE-ABs aren't real aircraft so! ;-)