Production Cost Comparison – HYBRID HVAF vs HVOF vs Chrome Plating
The image below compares the direct plating/coating costs on a wide body 8-journal axle. HVOF costing using a hydrogen fuelled DJ2600 torch at a spray rate of 2.5kg/hr and a chrome plating 15,000-amp rectifier. The propane fuelled HYBRID HVAF AH-6 torch using a spray rate of 25kg/hr.
A main advantages of HYBRID HVAF coating technology is the ability to apply carbide-based powders at very high spray rates. We’re reducing the coating processing time and therefore reducing the overall coating cost.
HYBRID HVAF can process 12 wide body pistons in the amount of time it takes too process a single piston via HVOF coating and 43 pistons when compared to chrome plating processing times.
Production Cost comparison – HYBRID HVAF vs HVOF vs Chrome Plating
The image below compares the direct plating/coating costs on a wide body piston. HVOF costing using a hydrogen fuelled DJ2600 torch at a spray rate of 2.5kg/hr. The propane fuelled HYBRID HVAF AH-6 torch used a spray rate of 25kg/hr. The cost would definitely decrease when using our maximum spray rate of 33kg/hr.
A main advantages of HYBRID HVAF coating technology is the ability to apply carbide-based powders at very high spray rates. Therefore, reducing the coating processing time, which reduces the overall coating cost.
HYBRID HVAF can process 13 wide body pistons in the same amount of time as a single piston via HVOF. HYBRID HVAF can process 30 pistons when compared to chrome plating processing time.
HVOF (High Velocity Oxygen Fueled) coating technology has been approved as an alternative to chrome plating for quite some time now and it has replaced chrome plating on a few commercial, military and business aircrafts. This blog will focus on the commercial aircraft segment, The REACH legislature mandated that any new aircraft design must replace the chrome plating process with HVOF, which we now see on the following aircrafts Airbus A380, A350, A220 and the Boeing B787, all other existing aircrafts were not mandated to replace the chrome plating process due to the numerous REACH legislature extensions that were given to the airframers with the latest extensions set to expire in September 2024.
So, why haven’t the airframers switched all the chrome plating process to HVOF especially on landing gears, which represent a very high percentage of use on an aircraft? The answer is quite simple, “Cost”, the cost difference between chrome plating and HVOF coating is huge and the airframers aren’t willing to absorb the additional coating costs, thereby forcing the landing gear manufacturers to deal with the additional costs.
Here’s an example, a wide body main piston using a 15,000-amp rectifier would typically have a direct cost $1,070 USD to chrome plate without set-up, overhead and amortization costs added. This same part would cost $2,250 USD if coated using HVOF technology, basically more than double. I’m not saying that every landing gear component would cost double when switching to HVOF, although I am confident is saying that at least 80% of landing gear components will cost double when switching from chrome plating to HVOF coating.
In addition to the Cost aspect, we need to look at who’s out there to apply HVOF coating onto the components. “Supply Chain” is critical within the aerospace industry, currently, the landing gear OEMs supply chain for approved HVOF coating facilities is less than 40 shops worldwide, so the question is “How will 40 facilities handle hundreds of thousands of parts that will require HVOF coating.”
There must and needs to be another alternative coating technology approved, for more insight read my Blog on “HYBRID HVAF The Cost-Effective Alternative.”
The REACH legislature banning the use of Chromium will severely affect the global aircraft manufacturing and servicing markets. Air-Framers such as Boeing and Airbus etc. need to adopt an alternative to chrome plating on the landing gears that they purchase from the landing gear manufacturers. These decisions are more complex than simply selecting an alternative protective coating applied on the landing gear components. What are the options that the air-framers can choose from.
Option 1: Since the chromium ban is strictly imposed within the EU, would the air-framers consider buying chrome plated landing gear shipsets for use on aircrafts not intended for sale or service within the EU?
Option 2: Will the air-framers choose to purchase landing gear shipsets that use a chrome plating alternative?
Personally, option 1 doesn’t make good business sense, if I’m the person responsible for purchasing aircrafts from the air-framers I would insist on having my entire fleet of aircrafts serviceable anywhere. I would also insist that the aircrafts comply with all environmental legislature in effect.
Based on what I’ve seen and heard to date air-framers are electing to choose option 2. Boeing back in November 2022 informed their B737 landing gear supplier to eliminate the chrome plating process on all B737 component drawings. Airbus has now eliminated the chrome plating process on certain landing gear components on their A321 Neo landing gears.
European MRO’s may view this chromium ban differently, this REACH legislature will severely impact their repair and overhaul existing methods and procedures.These MROs are currently using chrome plating is their landing gear repair and overhaul daily practices, so what are their options when the ban officially comes into effect in September 2024.
Option 1: The MROs may decide to eliminate chrome plating totally and replace this harmful coating technology with a GREENER alternative, which will allow them to repair and overhaul their clients landing gears onsite and in a timely manner.
Option 2: The MROs may decide to strip down the landing gears and send the parts to MRO facilities in other countries that are not part of the EU and therefore not affected by the REACH legislature regarding chromium. This option would more than likely not sit well with their airline clients since this option would require that their airplanes emain grounded for a longer period since their landing gear components were sent abroad for repair. You might be saying to yourself, No Way would this be a possible option to bypass to the ban on chrome plating but trust me it’s not as far-fetched as you may think. Without naming names, I recently had a discussion with Material & Process Technology Manager for a landing gear manufacturer that told me that their company is looking into this option to circumvent the EU REACH legislature.
Maybe it’s just me but haven worked within the landing gear market segment for 20-years and fully understanding the complexity of shipping parts for processing to multiple suppliers located in different parts of the world, it’s a logistic nightmare and an extremely costly alternative to simply replacing the current chrome plating technology with the GREEN alternative technology.
I’ve been working within the landing gear segment of the Aerospace Industry for 20 years where my focus has been mainly in thermal carbide-based coatings, whether it be on the equipment side or processing. My first exposure to the landing gear segment was when I was hired by Sulzer Metco one of the leading manufacturers of thermal coating equipment and powders back in 2003. Being based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada my location provided me with close proximity access to the 3 major landing gear manufacturers being Safran Landing Systems (Mirabel, Quebec & Ajax Ontario), Collins Aerospace formerly Goodrich Landing Systems (Oakville, Ontario) and Heroux-Devtek (Longueil, Quebec). Eastern Canada was and still is a very important global location for the manufacturing and assembly of commercial, business and military landing gears.
Throughout my 20 years I’ve met and built solid business relationships with the major landing gear OEM’s and their Tier 1 sub-contractors for component manufacturing and coating processing and finishing. In 2007, the European Union implemented the REACH initiative that calls for the elimination of numerous processing chemicals, one of which is Chromium, which is widely used throughout Europe and the world in the chrome plating process. This elimination requirement would have a severe impact on the manufacturing and supply of landing gears where the landing gear manufacturers would have to come up with an alternative to chrome plating on their components.
Luckily, for the global landing gear manufacturers the EU issued numerous deadline extensions, with the latest deadline set for September 2024. Assuming that no further deadline extensions are issued, here’s what the elimination of chrome plating will cause to the landing gear OEMs and the Europe based Material Repair & Overhaul (MRO) landing gear facilities.
