Part numbering conventions - what's the best practice in aerospace?

[chrebmo]

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with an aerospace partner recently about part numbering conventions in PDM systems, and it got me thinking - how do different organizations approach this challenge?
One approach I've seen is a hierarchical naming scheme that embeds mission/project context directly in the filename structure, something like:MISSION_PARTNO_NAME_REV.SUBREV
For example: PROJ-A_4301-01-00_ReactionWheels_01 or PROJ-A_32010200_PCBBottom_01.01

Where the 8-digit part numbers create a hierarchy (4000s = platform, 3200s = power, etc.) and COTS parts get handled separately.

It seems like aerospace has some unique challenges compared to other engineering sectors - the mission-critical nature, long product lifecycles, and traceability requirements. I'm wondering if this drives different approaches to part numbering than you'd see in automotive or consumer products.

What approaches have you found work best for your organizations?

Some follow-up thoughts: Do you embed project identifiers directly in part numbers, or rely on the PLM system to manage those relationships? How do you handle COTS integration? Any thoughts on hierarchical vs flat numbering schemes?

Would love to hear about your experiences, especially if you've been through PLM migrations or evolved your naming conventions over time.

Thanks!

 

[Ng2020]

"Do you project identifiers directly in part numbers" yes but as a 1-3 alphanumeric char code.
Some manufacturers use a WBS based part numbering scheme, sothe part number gives some indication of function and locatio . that scheme is my preference.

"handle COTS integration" a whole (dull) textbook could be written on this. assign cots a part number only where specific acceptance tests/inspections are applied (e.g to ascertain configuration and quality). if the cots manufacturer holds the appropriate design approvals for the item (eg tso) then this is not required
Managment of obsolescence is another issue to watch for.

 

[TugboatEng]

Not a fan or alphanumeric. It only introduces additional sources for errors. Stick. To numbers only, the most universal language. Don't do anything sequentially. A fat fingered character should produce a wildly incorrect part. Go ahead with identifiers at the beginning but in the instance of a nut and bolt the bolt should not be ***-****-1000 while the nut is ***-****-1001. No similar part should be 1000 or 1001. Use random number generators.

 

[verymadmac]

Is it for STC's, mods or new airframes who's the end user. Depending on just what approval system you are operating under will likely change how you system will likely function.

I worked for a helicopter mod shop who's STC packages defined drawing revisions had approvals in multiply countrys. Which meant the drawing stacks were frozen for any thing except a really good reason (some thing fell off or we can't get all the bits to make new ones etc). For common parts they would use PN's unique to each package, they would build one batch of parts and then reinspect them to change them to the part number required to kit out the appropriate STC kits, this however could get really complicated really quick if you had to make changes to a part.

I have worked for an GA OEM that only used an Airframe specific part numbering, if you wanted to find a part that should be a standard part you would either go for a walk around the assembly hall to sight the offending part or text search several IPC's. It meant things like a duct bulk head fitting didn't have logical PN's the 1" duct fitting had a 71 ATA based PN while the 2" had 23 ATA based PN etc. When I was working for an Airline designings repairs, finding parts that will do the jobs for AOG was always interesting as the stores system wasn't really text searchable (they rarely used the same naming convention from part to part) and with half a dozen OEM's meant often the part you wanted was often unfindable because it was hidden behind a numeric number where as alteast the Boeing parts yielded to a BACXXX search. I would note not to fold to suggestions by stores about not making part numbers too long because they don't want to type the extra part numbers, you always seem to go though drawing numbers faster than expected.

Personally my favorite is unique airfame parts and assembly's get ATA based number roughly looking something like AAB.CCCC.XXX-YY
AA is the OEM designator, B model, CCCC the ata number, XXX unique number, YY part configurations. while for common parts (AKA standard parts) found in numerous locations and multiply airframe models etc (ducting parts, shear clips, etc etc) I would rip off the Boeing hardware designation system which runs something like this: BACR15CE5D8 is a shear head rivet, the number breaks down as BAC company designation, R is the first letter of descriptor the 15 makes it unique rivets, the CE is the specfic rivet type and the remaining numbers ID the specfic part via the table drawing (table drawings seem soo under rated these days but save so much time / offer significant flexibility) .

I hope that all makes sense.