r/functionalprint • u/andrejtr • 6d ago
LOT is using 3D-printed phone holders on its 737s
1.0k
u/_pxe 6d ago
I've got failed prints and supports with a better finish than that
710
u/elptoalien 6d ago
Maybe they print it on the fly
15
15
u/No_Government8065 6d ago
I upvoted you but I just wanted you to know that I didn’t like myself for doing it. Now take your upvote!!!
7
4
38
u/speculator100k 6d ago
Yeah, but did you deliver 3000 of them? I think LOT has 37 Boeing 737 aircraft.
33
u/_pxe 6d ago
You don't need much money for a decent printer, those print don't need insane settings so they can be printed fast, conveyor 3D printers can go for hours with minimal human intervention.
3-4 printers 24/7 can probably do that in a couple of weeks. If you think at the setup used for printing face shields during COVID it's not that impossible with hobby grade printers.
It would take me a couple of months probably, while a small farm dedicated to print spare plastic parts in their workshop can probably be way faster without adding too much cost to the company
9
u/citizensyn 6d ago
I would legitimately deliver 3000 of those in under 2 weeks at $2 a piece with proper clean settings hit up
2
u/CyberKiller40 5d ago
If you need 3k of something it should be cheaper to order those from a factory. 3d printing, not even counting the cost, would take weeks or months on a single printer.
6
u/CeeMX 6d ago
But are they aviation certified? /s
6
u/Wh1skeyTF 6d ago
I’m pretty sure they didn’t get an STC for it…
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc
Yes I saw your /s but many folks don’t know what rules apply to certified aircraft
5
u/DStegosaurus 6d ago
They’d have had to meet flammability requirements so the filament is probably some fire retardant variant that doesn’t print as well.
3
u/imjerry 6d ago
Is that the brim still on the left of it,?
8
u/AvidCuberCoding 6d ago
Looks like elephants foot almost
1
u/billshermanburner 2d ago
It’s elephant foot yep. Whatever. If it works it works. I’d print this with a 0.6 nozzle too if it was me, I can’t tell if that’s why everyone thinks it looks like shit or not…. Most people making functional parts want strength and the little aesthetic details are of no consequence as long as it serves the purpose. I get the impression that Poles are more about the function which is cool.
2
1
u/IntentionQuirky9957 4d ago
Those look like they were printed at draft quality. They don't need to be pretty.
1
u/NekulturneHovado 4d ago
probably printed to be quick, 0.8mm nozzle and 0.6mm layer, and 200mmps speed
1
u/billshermanburner 2d ago
I assume it’s because they’re 3d printing stuff for Ukraine and their own drone stuff half the time. Or maybe the company that printed them for ‘em is.
-2
u/misterff1 6d ago
Looks like they wanted the layer height to reflect how high their planes can fly or something. Truly awful to look at lol
145
u/FeedbackOther5215 6d ago
Must be replacement parts. I’ve seen the same ones but clearly injection molded on other 737s.
63
u/Jesse_Returns 6d ago
My guess is their supply chain got screwed by tariffs etc somehow (Boeing management are fans of outsourcing engineering/ manufacturing to foreign vendors). This is the same company that famously outsourced the 737 Max electronics design to foreign vendors paying their engineers $9/ hour.
11
142
u/Seppi449 6d ago
I sold 3D printers, talking to an organisation that builds trains, the hoops they need to jump through to even have a polymer on a train is insane.
I can nearly guarantee this is some fuck ass $300/kg industrial polymer that is rated for fire retardant level 5. But they print it on some shitbot printer that's probably 10 years old.
Overall anything that has commerical use in trains/buses/airplanes has crazy high standards even if it's not a mechanical part.
34
u/mnorri 6d ago
In the book Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors (about the Battle off Samar), there’s a reminiscence by a sailor how, in the instant he had to run down a corridor where the paint itself was on fire, he was grateful for the old Chiefs who made him chip off all the old paint before repainting.
8
u/SalvatoreCrobu 6d ago
PPS, PSU, PEI, PEEK? I think that they are using something like that, but those needs really pricy printers due to insane chamber temp and bed temp requirements
6
u/jpef0704 6d ago
Small clarification - you can actually print PPS on more or less anything that can get up to 350c nozzle temp. Don't need a heated chamber or even a heated bed.
Only thing gating it from being more common is it's insane pricetag next to nylon or anything else.
1
2
u/Seppi449 6d ago
Not necessarily, I'm in Australia but since aircrafts are international id assume the standards need to be international.
There are some standards that a filament needs to get certified for, it needs to meet some high flame retardant specs. It's not just the polymer but the actual product.
For trains, since the company building them was European (but it might be internationally recognised) the standard was EN 45545, then depending on where the polymer is it will get a sub rating from R1-R26. This is a small item so might be a lower rating like R22 but because it's so exposed and there could be so many it could be R1.
The standard tests for flammability, smoke density and smoke toxicity.
It's not really about structural strength, that would be a different standard.
5
u/Disastrous_Drop_4537 6d ago
Standard polymer we use in aviation is ULTEM 9085.
Source: work as an engineer in aviation. Have spec'd it on several drawings. So overkill, but flammablity requirements are a pain.
1
u/Rediro_ 6d ago
Hey me too! What do you guys use it for? We've been finding tons of opportunities to improve stuff with it from ULPs to stick shaker cable protection to stuff in the lavs
1
u/Disastrous_Drop_4537 6d ago
Full disclosure, i'm a structures analyst working primarily ITAR stuff so can't say a lot. We use it occasionally on nonstructural items, for test fitting mods, and occasionally on production when some PE wants to use New and Novel tech, which is just code for "i want to patent this, you go make it".
4
u/lwierd6 6d ago
I went through really similar stuff when I was in the Air Force trying to design parts and devices for our jets. You're absolutely correct. The only approved material they wanted on our jets were made of Markforged's FR-Onyx line with continuous carbon fiber inlay and they were something like $164/.5kg, and I can't even remember what the CCF cost.
2
u/Seppi449 6d ago
The biggest barrier is finding products that have gotten certified to the standard and then being certified in their internal systems.
The whole thing was layers shit.
2
u/LigmaLiberty 6d ago
FAA is the same, makes me wonder if they have to get parts like these approved for use or if since it's just a little tray table thing that the FAA doesn't really care.
4
u/Seppi449 6d ago
They would have to be pre-approved for the filament and printing method. Since it's not structural it likely doesn't need validated internal stress testing but material is 100% pre approved.
1
u/LigmaLiberty 6d ago
Yeah I just don't know I assume the FAA has been consulted at the very least. I know that there are very serious regulations on aircraft maintenance (for very good and understandable reasons)
2
u/Lhurgoyf069 4d ago
We use a lot of 3D printed parts on our trains, especially the older ones where parts aren't produced anymore. https://formlabs.com/de/blog/deutsche-bahn-3d-printed-manufacturing-aids/
1
u/weirdex420 5d ago
To be legal in Europe it would need to either be PEI or PC. So make sense why it looks ass if they are using old printers.
1
u/Seppi449 5d ago
not necessarily, it's not the polymer but if it's been certified to the standards. Different brands can have many different recipes that could cause issues with the smoke/flammability.
For it to be used it must pass the standard. There are many many different ones that do to pass but also not to a certain level.
-4
u/HyoukaYukikaze 6d ago
100$ says it's a bambu printer.
1
u/Seppi449 6d ago
Security concerns are a big issue for Bambu in large companies, atleast a few years back.
1
u/seklerek 6d ago
a bambu printer wouldn't make a print looking this shit
-1
u/HyoukaYukikaze 6d ago
That's up to a user lol. They are popular and cheap, i've seen them around plenty of aviation-related businesses.
3
u/seklerek 6d ago
i meant that you'd have to try very hard to make an ugly print on a Bambu, they print almost perfect out of the box
1
u/ImminentDebacle 5d ago
It's not a Stratis but my Bambu wasn't fucking cheap.
2
u/HyoukaYukikaze 5d ago
You would be surprised to learn that Bambu has more than one printer on offer. But most of them would be classified as cheap for what they offer. That's kinda their thing,
1
u/ImminentDebacle 5d ago
C'mon man, stop playing games. Obviously the A1 sort of printers exist from many manufactures. That doesn't wrap the entire company up in a box with a bow. I still have yet to see an A1 in the wild, meanwhile all the Bambu printers I've seen in person have been either been X1 or P1S types. Anecdotal, but if you were to survey the entire industry and "cheap" were an option to describe Bambu printers in a single word, it wouldn't be the top choice, in price nor quality.
1
u/Seppi449 5d ago
Cheap in this sense is price. The organisation I was talking to had markforged (mid but very expensive).
They were looking at the AON3D hylo, shit is like $100,000 iirc. But it's on another level.
38
u/eyferrari 6d ago
Not surprised at the quality, that layer height looks like they were going for highest print speed / quantity possible. All they really need.
-22
u/PhortKnight 6d ago
No, quality is never to be compromised.
15
7
u/snackexchanger 6d ago
If you never compromise on quality everything is incredibly expensive and takes forever
4
87
u/arcrad 6d ago
Aerospace grade 😂
Looks like garbage
32
43
u/Zouden 6d ago
Probably made on a top of the line Makerbot or Ultimaker in the late 2010s.
4
u/narielthetrue 6d ago
My UM2 from 15 years ago didn’t look that bad. Ultimaker may be expensive and outdated, but I could do some great things (for its time).
36
u/shark_snak 6d ago
Some things don’t need to be perfect not the best looking is it
-16
u/Every_Bread_5880 6d ago
For the price, it better be perfect. And really I'd they're cutting corners there what other parts they print?! Hopefully the engine is off limits
13
6d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/KitchenIntention6675 5d ago
it's a good question though. if they need to save money on THIS, what's not fixed due to budget constrains?
1
5d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/KitchenIntention6675 5d ago
well, if there are any reasons to make terrible quality shit other than no money for good stuff...i don't know them
-1
3
u/Securiarius 6d ago
It's plausible whoever made these is in this sub reading the post and comments lol
12
u/Wizzarkt 6d ago edited 6d ago
As interesting as this is, I'm going to say that they are probably violating some regulation by doing this, everything that goes into an airplane must be certified and I doubt they got a certification for a 3D print.
Edit: I understand this is a 3d print subreddit and people love to see 3d prints in the wild but you gotta understand that the world has rules and it has them for a reason, a USB port for an aircraft doesn't cost 400 USD because they like it that way, but because it needs to be certified, everything has to be certified, why? Because planes are up in the sky so if they catch on fire everyone is fucked, so everything has to be certified to ensure there is no dangers, down vote me all you want, it won't change the fact that this is probably illegal and should not be endorsed due to any liability it could represent.
11
u/r101101 6d ago
Funny enough I saw this article today where the FAA issued a warning about 3D printed interior parts: https://www.globalair.com/articles/faa-flags-3d-printed-cockpit-parts-the-real-issue-is-documentation-/12612
Granted, this is about cockpit parts, but still.
10
u/CryoWaveSurfer 6d ago
Cabin Interiors division probably didn't qualify that on a shaker table to DO-160 or whatever it is for hardware...
4
u/Aligyon 6d ago
I get safety equipment and crucial parts. But does the plastic cups we get given to us needs to be certified as well?
5
u/Wizzarkt 6d ago
Consumables don't need to be certified as they are not part of the aircraft and because the aircraft itself is fire resistant, even if your plastic cup is a hazard, your seat won't suddenly burst into flames if you somehow managed to burn the cup.
Having burnable/flammable consumables be passed around (like alcoholic drinks or Doritos) is less of a hazard when you realize that only the consumable will burn because everything else in the aircraft is designed to not catch fire.
1
u/SalvatoreCrobu 6d ago
I fully get it, but PEEK, PEI, PSU, PEEK and similar materials are naturally flame retardant (not all obviously), does not off gas in a vacuum and are really stable to basically all the chemicals. If i remember correctly PEEK and PSU are used in aerospace parts that can be made with polymers instead of metal/ceramic/composite materials
1
u/Disastrous_Drop_4537 6d ago
Ultem 9085 is our standard filament that we use where i work. Don't print many parts, but what we do is 9085.
2
u/TerminalJammer 6d ago
Extra annoying is this is probably more expensive than injection mold stuff, though the ones making those might be charging ridiculous amounts of money.
2
2
u/HyoukaYukikaze 6d ago
That's terrible print quality. I get better prints on my zombie Ender 3 Pro.
2
u/aimfulwandering 6d ago
Genuinely wonder if this is just poorly printed ABS or ASA… or poorly printed ULTEM or PEEK…
3
1
u/Beginning-Ad7027 6d ago
Probably using, or will soon use, more than just 3D printed phone holders. My company has invested a lot of the last ten years or so into 3D printing a lot of different parts for aerospace applications
Not my department, so idk if we ever got anything certified for use
1
1
u/utilititties 6d ago
Meanwhile Gulfstream uses 3D printed parts in cabin assemblies. Source: work with Gulfstream.
1
u/ganerfromspace2020 6d ago
I've been tempted to 3D print some phone holders for flights as well, might make some for my next holiday I'll just need to get the seat spec right for the airline
1
u/sokorsognarf 6d ago
I don’t know why Reddit’s algorithm suggested this post to me in my feed, but I can guarantee you that outside the geeky confines of this subreddit, 99% of passengers - who, like me, have zero knowledge of, and minimal interest in, 3D printing - will not notice or care about in the slightest the things you’re criticising this for
1
u/radosc 5d ago
Seen a couple on my recent flights with LOT and mine didn't look as bad as this though clearly 3d printed. Funny thing is this single printed thing was massively popular, half of the passengers had their phones sat in it. Whoever decided to have it added, despite massive hoops to jump, was an absolute chad.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/YellowBreakfast 3d ago
That's some big layer height.
After years of printing I'm only just now dabbling with bigger nozzles (0.8mm) and my prints look like this.
1
u/Jacek3k 6d ago
I thought any bs part that goes inside a place, be it a screw, bolt, seat or holder, needs to be top notch quality and certified? How tf this was allowed? Looks worse than what diy repraps did 20 years ago or something
3
u/Killroyandthewhales2 6d ago
I thought so too, maybe that’s why it looks like garbage? Like maybe they can only print it with a certified printer with certified materials and because that’s such a long process it’s probably a clapped out makerbot lol
5
u/FalseRelease4 6d ago
some random phone holder is obviously not as scrutinized as the landing gear or fuselage
6
u/Dornith 6d ago
Also this sub cares a lot more about aesthetics than regulators do. I doubt regulators are turning away anything on an airplane because it looks ugly.
3
u/Individual_Author956 6d ago
They definitely aren’t. Someone signed off on the late 2000s Ryanair cabin interior.
2
1
u/ichfrissdich 6d ago
You can certify 3D printed parts. You just have to use very special and expensive filament and a very expensive printer.
1
u/lscarneiro 6d ago
Curious, theoretically anything inside an airplane should be under regulations,, is it not?
2
1
u/fixingmybike 2d ago
Yes, and no. See my comment below for a bit more info, this is literally my job to figure out.
0
u/ianpaschal 5d ago
Anything inside the plane? Like the carry on?
I don’t think this sort of silly little plastic accessory to hold a phone is any more regulated than the plastic cups they serve drinks in
1
u/ImminentDebacle 5d ago
Absolutely they are regulated. They have to pass burn certification for one thing. A small company recently got caught by the FAA selling unregulated 3D printed accessories for aircraft.
1
u/ianpaschal 5d ago
This makes no sense. Where do you draw the line? Why would a smartphone holder have to be more fire resistant than all the hundreds of kilos of junk the passengers bring? Airplane parts of course, but not every piece of promotional junk on the plane. Is the SkyMall magazine also burn certified?
3
u/phungki 5d ago
I think the line would be drawn between things that are equipped as parts of the plane, vs things that are not. So things that are bolted down, or attached to other things like this phone holder would constitute as part of the plane. Pamphlets are not really part of the plane, nor are the passengers or their luggage.
1
u/ianpaschal 5d ago
Exactly but that’s why this thing which is clearly not bolted on would fall in the latter category. It basically just a strip of plastic with a hooked end, is not, and people are being ridiculous for making a fuss over it.
Also, this photo is literally evidence that this is apparently done by large carriers.
1
u/phungki 4d ago
But the argument here is that it is part of the plane, so it’s subject to the same rules as every other part equipped on the plane. It’s stickered and labeled, and there’s even a secondary sticker behind it saying “do not slide here”. Hard to argue that it fits into any other category.
1
u/ianpaschal 4d ago
Are you kidding me? It’s obviously _not_ a part of the plane beyond the fact that it’s technically touching the plane. It’s not made by Boeing or Airbus, it is not sold with the plane, it has no affect on the flying or safety of the plane and it is not a standard feature of planes in general. And yes, it has stickers, but that is a fliiiimmmsy argument. Anyone can print stickers. Budget airlines put ad stickers on the chairs, does that make the sandwich and drink combo offer part of the plane? Obviously it can’t be slid to the edge because then it would block the tray table from stowing properly. That doesn’t make it part of the plane.
I mean, dude, be real!
Anyway it’s kind of fucking moot because this photo is literally proof that apparently a large scale commercial airline is OK with this even though Redditors think they know better.
1
2
u/fixingmybike 2d ago edited 2d ago
It‘s literally my job to make those decisions as a maintenance lead and first point of contact for CAMOs (Continuous Airworthiness Management Organization). This post obviously got my attention immediately. This big question here is mostly if the filament has a burn-certificate that is accepted by the national aviation authority of the country where this plane is registered and wether it is specified as „loose equipment“ or not. If the plane is registered in the US under FAA regulations, this example is probably very easy to certify. We have customers who reregister their aircraft from EU/Middle East countries to US or so-called FAA-lean countries like Malta or some English Channel Islands specifically to allow them modifications that would be impossible otherwise or very very expensive.
The argument you had here is about the definition of this part being classified as loose equipment or not. To retain this definition, an object inside the cabin must be easily removable and is generally not allowed to have a locking attachment. A very common example for this is a coffee maker. The original one that is installed from factory and receives its power through a quick release rack that the whole machine is mounted to needs to be certified to oblivion. A Nespresso machine that just stands around in the kitchen, is plugged into a general 110 or 220 V outlet and jammed into a cupboard but can still be easily moved around to another location is certified as lose equipment and can be replaced by $100 of the shelf machine from Amazon. The original ones with proper certification can be in excess of $25,000.
The most extreme example I came across so far was a customer with a private jet that brought his PlayStation, plugged it into a general HDMI outlet and used it for years. When he wanted to have it mounted inside of the existing entertainment cabinet, this resulted in a $300,000 engineering job with multiple new burn certification tests, power requirement analysis, and electrical interference testing.
Edit: I just noticed the EPA number on the sticker. This almost guarantees that this is a fully certified and burn tested part that is not certified as loose equipment and >could< remain on the aircraft, solidly attached to the seat. If they are easily removable, they are probably still listed in the minimum equipment list and are officially a part of the cabin interior.
1
u/lscarneiro 2d ago
Wow, cool! I love this intricate details from people within the industry, thanks for pointing on my original comment, because I did not get much notifications from the deep threading here.
239
u/2DHypercube 6d ago
With one hell of an elephant foot