BAe Systems Nimrod MRA.4 (Nimrod 2000)

[XVTonker]

One story I heard about the reasons for the cost overruns was that BAE Systems was very proud of their advanced production methods ensuring precision and uniformity of parts... only to discover that each airframe had been virtually built by hand and therefore no two were exactly alike, or at least the differences were far outside their tolerances. Is this true?

I was part of the BAE Systems/Airbus design team producing 3D CAD parts for the MRA.4 wing assemblies and the main issue was that the MRA.4 main assembly parts were designed using CADDS5 so that all parts were identical, whereas the original Nimrods were virtually hand built so each airframe was different. therefore, when the first det of wings were assembled they wouldn't fit the first donor fuselage assembly. This entailed reworking each of the wing assemblies to match each particular fuselage, which in turn added additional time & cost to the programme.

Another issue was that BAe Systems/Airbus decided to use CADDS5 (following BAe Systems acquisition of the Rover Group) which was the CAD package used by Rover for their car design whereas the rest of Airbus was using CATIA.

XVTonka

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

I was part of the BAE Systems/Airbus design team producing 3D CAD parts for the MRA.4 wing assemblies and the main issue was that the MRA.4 main assembly parts were designed using CADDS5 so that all parts were identical, whereas the original Nimrods were virtually hand built so each airframe was different. therefore, when the first det of wings were assembled they wouldn't fit the first donor fuselage assembly. This entailed reworking each of the wing assemblies to match each particular fuselage, which in turn added additional time & cost to the programme.

Another issue was that BAe Systems/Airbus decided to use CADDS5 (following BAe Systems acquisition of the Rover Group) which was the CAD package used by Rover for their car design whereas the rest of Airbus was using CATIA.

XVTonka

Hi XV Tonka
I too was part of the same team (96-02 working for Jenny B, followed by Miles W), I attended the PA1 wing attachment at Woodford on chilly Thursday night and I didn’t see any of the difficulties you described. Yes CADDS5 was awful compared to CATIA ( indeed in many area we ditched it and used CATIA) but it had nothing to do with the program problems and delays. Did you attend the monthly AVERM’s? I still have the slides and have been toying with the idea of putting on here.

Ref my post in this thread number 294, last pic, please kindly remind me of which of the seven wing attachments you believe lead to problem's.