Eurofighter, deburred holes (insufficiently)

[Jetex_Jim]

From Germany:


bundeswehr.de: Eurofighter: Flugbetrieb der Luftwaffe aktuell nicht von industrieller Flugstundenreduzierung betroffen (http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/!ut/p/c4/NYvBCsIwEET_KNsgWPRmKYqexIu2l7JtlhJMk7Dd2Isfb3JwBt7lzUAPuR4_ dkaxwaODF3STPY6bGjdDCt-SyDlaFaZ1MMSDcIqR4FmOeTAFT1Io5MVmzowSWMXA4opJzNkoa6CrdNvouvp Hfw_386W_7etde20eEJfl9AMay99V/)

The industry has established a manufacturing defect in a large number of holes on the rear fuselage of the aircraft Euro Fighter in the context of quality control. The reasons for this are inadequate deburring by the manufacturer BAE Systems.

Faults on Eurofighter rear fuselage. Insufficently deburred holes. and BAE seems to own the problem. Can this be true?

[TBM-Legend]

Germany: Eurofighter Has Manufacturing Fault | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140930/DEFREG01/309300045/Germany-Eurofighter-Has-Manufacturing-Fault)

in English.

I'm amazed that this golden product has a workmanship deficiency. Outsource it to China perhaps for quality..!

[Just This Once...]

German media is running a story where only 42 aircraft are fit for flight (with limitations) due to the fuselage issue with a further 67 grounded.

No apparent reaction from the other nations, so one wonders what the formal position is from the design organisation.

[clunckdriver]

"De Buring",amazing! This is about the second thing one learns on a "Structures Course" to obtain a "Structures" ticket on a maint licence, how can this posibly slip by inspection/quality controll? Unbelivable, time to hire some ex- Halton Brats as inspectors!

[TBM-Legend]

Just when you thought it could get worse, it did:
German armed forces admit fighting machines are faulty, reports say | EUROPE ONLINE (http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/german-armed-forces-admit-fighting-machines-are-faulty-reports-say_356799.html)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Are these deficiencies peacetime-unserviceable or wartime-unserviceable?

One of the problems, I suspect, is the politicians (in which you can include Very Senior Officers) mixing-and-matching what counts as war for different parts of the system.

[glad rag]

Like wow, it is almost like the F3 debacle all over again....

[Just This Once...]

Or it could be nothing at all. We have heard nothing from the manufacturer involved, no apparent reaction from all the other operators and the article it comes from appears to blame the wrong company.

It all seems a bit odd.

[Bts70]

Never mind ex Halton brats, this basic mechanic knows that the second thing to do after squarely drilling a hole is to de-bur. Not read the story but at what point has this fault been found, must be more to it surely.

[charliegolf]

And was the bloke whose job it is to stick something IN the non-deburred hole, not trained to check?

CG

[ShyTorque]

What sort of de burd holes are dees? Are dey pidjun holes?

[Jetex_Jim]

We have heard nothing from the manufacturer involved, no apparent reaction from all the other operators and the article it comes from appears to blame the wrong company.

The article fingers BAE, they make the rear fuselage. Who should the article be blaming?

Mechanics of the British forces was first noticed the error. Therefore, no longer to let the machine so long fly the Royal Air Force decided. The Air Force will now join the British and the manufacturer's instructions and limit the life tim From Spiegel, (Google translation)

No reaction? Fair's fair. It'll take a while to put a spin on this one.


Planned Obsolescence anyone?

[bill2b]

Never mind ex Halton brats, this basic mechanic knows that the second thing to do after squarely drilling a hole is to de-bur. Not read the story but at what point has this fault been found, must be more to it surely.


I'm an ex rigger after I left I worked for a civvie company doing major upgrades on the Tucano at Scampton.
Never mind "de burred" holes, on these things we found holes 6 inches wide that had been chain drilled out but that was it all the drilled edges were left "Ragged", Glad I did not fly in them

[Thelma Viaduct]

What was the story behind F3s being butchered by carpenters, holes drilled all over then having to be cut and shut to get them flying again. I remember one of them crashing off Blackpool after Warton had to fix the issue.

Was it an MoD lowest bid refurb job???

[Rhino power]

Airwork did the butchers job on the F.3 centre fuselages, they used incorrect tools to remove jo-bolts, which resulted in structural damage. Good job plenty of F.2's were in store or else entire new centre fuselage sections would've needed to be manufactured! :{

-RP

[MAINJAFAD]

Yep, Airwork won the bid, BAe too expensive. 16 frames with required center fuselages replacing nicked from the F2's that were in storage. from what one of my mates at Valley who was detached to help fix them in the mid 1990s told me (he also told me that it was damage to the wing boxes that meant the replacement of the center section, which given their method of construction would have been mega expensive to remake from scratch had the F2's not been available). Airwork blamed the MoD and BAe for issuing incorrect documentation. The links at the bottom of the Wiki entry about Airworks have all the details.

Airwork Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwork_Services)

It looks like they won a contract for work on the RAF Hercs as well and made a mess of that.

[tucumseh]

Airwork blamed the MoD and BAe for issuing incorrect documentation.

Later confirmed in the Tornado Airworthiness Review Team (TART) report and other ARTs. The RAF Chief Engineer had issued instructions that documentation was not to be maintained, and pulled funding. Airworks would not have known this as the reports were only released recently. That policy meant that it was madness to let any such contract on anyone but the Aircraft Design Authority.

However, the terms "good engineering practice" and "tools of the trade" come to mind.

[captainsmiffy]

Had better call Chris........you know, Chris De Burgh!!





Hat, coat......leaving

[ExRAFRadar]

Captainsmiffy - made me smile but I have ordered your taxi ;)

[MAINJAFAD]

However, the terms "good engineering practice" and "tools of the trade" come to mind.

They were for the car mechanics that Airwork were rumoured to have employed to do the task.

[Shaft109]

Just curious what exactly the original problem was on the F3 - was it a repair or 'upgrade'?

[bvcu]

think you'll find that the majority of the guys were ex airforce......... but not skilled at structural work, which really is a specialist trade.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I collected a couple of brand new F3s from Warton. The RAF used to put them through a Minor servicing immediately on receipt. I questioned the ginger beers as to why, and received a list of horror stories. Most recently they had found bolts loose on the cockpit floor, held in place by the paint which had been sprayed over them. A JP was found with a fuselage panel missing; the full paint job had been applied over the paper that covered the hole when the panel had been removed during build...etc, etc.

[MAINJAFAD]

Just curious what exactly the original problem was on the F3 - was it a repair or 'upgrade'?

Mod to increase FI.

british aerospace | 1993 | 1278 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1993/1993%20-%201278.html)

1996 | 2690 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1996/1996%20-%202690.html)

[MAINJAFAD]

Later confirmed in the Tornado Airworthiness Review Team (TART) report and other ARTs. The RAF Chief Engineer had issued instructions that documentation was not to be maintained, and pulled funding. Airworks would not have known this as the reports were only released recently. That policy meant that it was madness to let any such contract on anyone but the Aircraft Design Authority.

However, the terms "good engineering practice" and "tools of the trade" come to mind.

Tuc

If it was a modification, there must have been a mod leaflet (even if it was only a draft one) or some form of technical instruction to allow the task to be carried out. The Flight article on my last post states that the modification came out of the country where the centre section was built (i.e. Germany). Was the error(s) introduced in the writing of the MoD instructions, or did they exist in the documentation that came out of DASA.

but not skilled at structural work, which really is a specialist trade

Indeed, If memory serves anybody posted to a MU to do 3rd line structural work had to do specialist training.

[Krystal n chips]

think you'll find that the majority of the guys were ex airforce......... but not skilled at structural work, which really is a specialist trade

"anybody posted to an MU had to do specialist training "

True, in part, but not entirely.

I left Valley in the August, arrived on 431 MU and in September had gone from happily bolting bits of Gnat back together, to working on Primary and Secondary structure on the Lightning. No training given, only a very basic rehash of how to read a drawing and become reacquainted with air tools etc,

Tends to focus the mind a bit. Thereafter, you learnt as you went along.

The cunning plan the RAF relied on was, that, once you had done an MU tour, you were awarded, without being informed, an "x " annotation.

This was compounded with the timeless and, at the time, valid claim, that you were simply doing your basic trade skills.

A classic mismanagement "gotcha !" in fact.

Consequently, when required, such as with a mod. programme at Bruggen on the Jags, a little team was formed from the various Sgns and invited for tea and biccies no less! ....alas, once the spiel had commenced, to four stony faced engineers, one of our number commented as to the fact that we all, quelle surprise had MU experience.... and this was a stich up.

The tea and biccies were withdrawn at this point and normal RAF "communication" skills resumed.

On 71 MU, you had to do a trade test, then were let loose on the world.

In the real world, the guys who do the skin work are specialists on the conny circuit and there are some very, very good operators out there because I have met them. Most however, came from a manufacturing background for obvious reasons.

As for the debacle with the Tornado, it was I understand, another form of the well known Swiss Cheese.....an ingredient missing so far was the involvement of the sub-parasitic human malignancy known as recruitment "consultants", whose so called sourcing skills, were akin to their intellect and personalities.

[snippy]

Worked on F3's in the 90's. The story was Airworks hired "unskilled" local labour who went about removing the Jo- bolt heads with chisels fitted in pneumatic tools....ended up with severe elongated holes....but they got the Jo-bolts out...ouch!

Also remember when I was on the Nimrod NMSU a painter removed a load of "bobbles" in the paint on the upper fuselage to a nice flush finish....unfortunately for him they were dome head rivets.....happy days!:}

[tucumseh]

MAINJAFAD

Tuc

If it was a modification, there must have been a mod leaflet (even if it was only a draft one) or some form of technical instruction to allow the task to be carried out. The Flight article on my last post states that the modification came out of the country where the centre section was built (i.e. Germany). Was the error(s) introduced in the writing of the MoD instructions, or did they exist in the documentation that came out of DASA.


Sorry, don't know the detailed answer in this case, but you are correct in what you say.

The point I would make, which is directly relevant, is that in the preceding years (early 90s) the Chief Engineer had denuded MoD of engineering experience in this field and, in June 1993, the oversight committees responsible for technical accuracy and viability of such modification schemes were finally disbanded. (I chaired the last Avionic one, and had to seek another job as there was no more airworthiness work possible as funding had been pulled). For some time prior to this, throughout 1991/2, the mandated requirement for independent oversight and scrutiny was widely ignored because Eng Authorities knew the HQMCs were being disbanded, so they were allowed to scrutinise and approve their own work; contrary to all known regs. The regulations still invoke this process, as no-one dare remove references to it as it is mandated by Secy of State. Senior staffs instruct juniors to sign to say it has been implemented, but they never seem to sign themselves!

The breakdown of this fundamental process featured heavily in the evidence to Lord Philip, as it explained why the Chinook FADEC was (illegally) approved for use without a Certificate of Design. Again, relevant, as both events occurred at the same time under the same leadership.

[Coltishall. loved it]

As a rigger in the late 80’s. I was posted to Abingdon on RSS “repair and salvage flight” or “smash and crash” as it was known. I went onto 1 ARF “aircraft repair flight” Even though I had previously carried out minor airframe repairs on aircraft,
they still wouldn’t let us near anything until we completed 6 weeks airframe repair training at
Abingdon. Does anyone know if the set-up is similar today? And if so where?

[dctyke]

It always used to make me smile that the Air Officer ratifying an older a/c type AP on the preface page had usually left the RAF decades earlier or was pushing up the daisies.

[Alber Ratman]

I was posted onto 431 in July 1986. I had to do a test piece that was checked out by one of the surveyors before I could do Cat 2 tasks then move onto Cat 3s. 3 years Later , posted directly onto RSS 2ARF.. 6 week Q course was cut to 2 days as I had the X annotation for Cat 3 primary structures repairs.. Now I had the Q as well, purely for the RSS way of documentation. The lad who trashed the F3s was ex air force.. Using a chisel to remove hi loks collars.. Proper way was to use a special easy out socket and an allen key to hold the pin. Saying that the pins should be interference fit on a hi lok.. Sheeties in Civvy street do tend to have a higher skill set that what was trained in the RAF because they would be taught fabrication skills that were the demarcation of the Station Work Shop guys, blue suit side and were taken away from riggers. Coltishall Loved it.. I was on RSS from 89 to end ex at Abo.. Where you on 1 then?

[bvcu]

Think the thing to remember is how the trade training was dumbed down from what it was previously. So witness a contract agency recruiting 'tornado experienced' guys probably didnt know what a FLM was.............

[Coltishall. loved it]

I was Abbo around 86-87. Can't remember if I was 1 or 2 flt but spent most of my time at bzn. On I seem to remember 103 or 106? vc-10 "it was in base hanger for ages, lost so much weight in removing corrosion!" And tailplane cx. Think it was north south split? between 1 & 2?
Anyway : Station Work Shop guys: They were the boys, made us riggers look like numptys. Double curvature/piccolo? on a alli sheet. We thought they we talking French! They were very skilled and in the time I was serving, were payed less than us, and can see why they were a bit miffed

[Onceapilot]

snippy, suggest your Nimmy story could be misplaced as, Nimrod had a mainly ReDux bonded structure... without rivets!?;)

OAP

[Onceapilot]

Hey Colti! BZZ station workshops.....keeping the C17 flying where Boeing fear to tread!;)

OAP

[Jetex_Jim]

It is amusing to see that a thread about an aircraft problem that is now all over the German mainstream media has become, on pprune, a ramble about nothing in particular.

The British media says, well nothing.

Yesterday, in a televised statement a German military spokesman, with typical Deutsch candor stated. -- "And this is because of a quality control problem by the manufacturer, BAE." .

[snippy]

Onceapilot

Memories going but definitely happened on one of the many 'frames I have worked on!. Also it was the collars removed by the chisel on the F3's and not the heads as I stated, but I'm pretty sure it resulted in elongated/ damaged holes......but watch out I'm thread drifting......:=

[Jetex_Jim]

..but watch out I'm thread drifting......

I enjoy these, "when I were a lad" stories.

But back on Eurofighter here's a link
Neue Materialmängel bei der Bundeswehr: Weniger Flugstunden für Eurofighter | tagesschau.de (http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/bundeswehr-147.html)
which leads to a downloadable video from last nights TV news.

And just to show that not all German politicians look like Merkel here's a picture of Ursula modelling body armour.
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-out-of-commission-fotostrecke-119558.html

[MAINJAFAD]

A blog on the net says that the issue is on the Stage 1 assembly of the Rear Fuselage. I would put the link up, but for some reason it will not work (the link that is).

[His dudeness]

And this is because of a quality control problem by the manufacturer, BAE."

Well, relying on the Brits to build the Luftwaffe ? After driving/suffering Triumphs for almost 30 years now I could have told em...

The upside is, us German taxpayers save a lot on fuel... :}

@Jetex Jim: vdL is the prime example of what a politician should not be. OTOH its clear that she is not responsible for this desaster, one that repeats itself in the German military ever since the beginning of time.

[exhorder]

@his dudeness: Somewhere I've heard, that vdL and her associates might be responsible themselves for some or even all of the "accidental" leaks which are popping up all over the media right now. She can easily point fingers at her predecessors, and at the same time prepare both fellow politicians and the public for the budget increases that have to come now.

IF (and that's a big if) that's true, it would be pure genius. So I'm somewhat in doubt ... :E Maybe she or her team just started to look at military matters more intensely, in light of all the fuss that has been going on lately (Ukraine, IS, Gaza).

Regarding the Eurofighter problems, they are grossly exaggerated by some (not all) media.

[k3k3]

VDL may put a positive spin on the fuel savings, she could use the money to finance her wish for more child care in the barracks.

[Jetex_Jim]

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.de/

In the blog regarding this problem( ukarmedforcescommentary, of which the original link seems to have disappeared) the author writes that the costs of mitigating BAE's cockup should not come out of the defence budget. Well, good luck with that one UK taxpayers.

We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer.

You can be fairly sure that the Luftwaffe will pass the costs of this one back to the manufacturers, question is, will the UK taxpayer have to carry the cost of fixing the German aircraft too?

[tucumseh]

In the blog regarding this problem( ukarmedforcescommentary, of which the original link seems to have disappeared) the author writes that the costs of mitigating BAE's cockup should not come out of the defence budget. Well, good luck with that one UK taxpayers.

We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer

Evidence relating to this was given to both Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.

Essentially, the issue is this. While a contract exists between MoD and the contractor, most designs are "Under Ministry Control" (as opposed to Under Contractor Control). Therefore, there are crucial dependencies MoD are responsible for. It has been claimed earlier there was incorrect/incomplete documentation in this case. Maintaining up to date documentation is part of that UMC obligation.

This has not been MoD policy since 1991. It is one of the "savings at the expense of safety" confirmed by Haddon-Cave, although he omitted to say who implemented it.

If the company can demonstrate any such failure of obligation, then MoD are liable to a large degree. If it went to court (it seldom does) that degree of liability might be part of the judgement.

The same applied to Nimrod, where the issue was exactly the same. The primary output of this process is the Safety Case. It was not MoD policy to have a valid Safety Case therefore they could not meet their obligation to deliver Qty (x) Nimrod MR2s in to the conversion programme at an airworthy, known and maintained build standard. Notwithstanding any error on BAeS's part, MoD didn't have a leg to stand on, on perhaps the most fundamental component of operating an aircraft. I imagine BAeS would have enjoyed their day in court, although it would have lasted about 2 minutes. Especially when it became known the Nimrod office had been warned in 1994, and at regular intervals thereafter.

[Jetex_Jim]

Evidence relating to this was given to both Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.

So, I take it that you are referring to the RAF Nimrod MR2
Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and the Chinook Mull of Kintyre crash.
So far as we know no crashes have yet been attributed to the QA failure at BAE. Or is there a hint of such?

One things for sure. The uncritical British press, which can barely tell a rivet from a privet in anycase, won't be uncovering anything. Too bad Britain hasn't got a few papers like the Spiegel, which ironically was founded by the British in 1945. (although admittedly they cut it free when the Spiegel started to embarrass the occupying powers)

[tucumseh]

So, I take it that you are referring to the RAF Nimrod MR2
Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and the Chinook Mull of Kintyre crash.
So far as we know no crashes have yet been attributed to the QA failure at BAE. Or is there a hint of such?

Correct. I'm referring to the fact these accidents, and more, have much in common, not least systemic failures within MoD to meet their legal obligations. I didn't imply a QC failure (not QA, that's MoD's business) at BAeS. However, Chinook ZA721 (Falklands 1987) arose from a Boeing QC problem. Not drilling the hole for a split pin is a bit of a giveaway, making for an open and shut case. It would appear a political decision was made not to proceed. Murky waters.

[Jetex_Jim]

While a contract exists between MoD and the contractor, most designs are "Under Ministry Control" (as opposed to Under Contractor Control).

Sorry, but I find it rather hard to believe that BAE could bounce this one back to the MoD.

"Under Ministry Control" or not, cannot the buyer at least assume that the supplier is capable, as the other posters here have suggested, of meeting the most rudimentary of airframe fabrication skills? Or is it assumed that MoD must inspect and endorse every stage of the manufacturing process?

Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.

[tucumseh]

"Under Ministry Control" or not, cannot the buyer at least assume that the supplier is capable, as the other posters here have suggested, of meeting the most rudimentary of airframe fabrication skills? Or is it assumed that MoD must inspect and endorse every stage of the manufacturing process?

Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.


Jim, you are absolutely correct.

UMC is a formal status. MoD can choose not to bring a design UMC, but must make alternative materiel and financial provision for it to be managed UCC. The problem, as ever, arises when staffs do not understand that SOMEONE must control it. Too often the transfer has been cancelled as a savings measure by someone who doesn't understand the significance, but no contract let with industry to retain it UCC. This was a significant factor in, for example, 4 of the 7 Sea King ASaC crew (2003) having the wrong standard helmets, and neither aircraft having the specified comms system; both contributing to the Cause - loss of Situational Awareness). THAT is one of the major breakdowns in the defence procurement process you speak of. By definition, the validity of your Safety Case progressively erodes.


As to whether BAeS "bounce this one back to MoD" I suppose that is up to them, and the degree of liability on each side. Goodwill is a factor, and sometimes it is wise to take the hit. My point is that, in my experience, most companies are well aware they have a standard defence. MoD flatly refuses to follow its own regulations or meet its legal obligations.

I don't know what occurred in this case, only that a claim has been made of poor documentation. Given MoD policy, it would surprise me if the documentation was correct! But, as I said earlier, poor docs are no excuse for poor engineering practice. Who is responsible for ensuring this doesn't happen? MoD no longer has a viable Quality Assurance department. Resident QARs are a rarity, if they haven't all gone already. MoD no longer exercises its right of veto on company appointments. (Find me someone who knows they have this right!) You could go on, and deeper, until you get to a lack of proper engineering apprenticeships and basic training. MoD don't believe in that either, being content to permit non-engineers to make engineering design and safety decisions. BAeS may have inadvertently screwed up. MoD do it as a matter of policy!

[Jetex_Jim]

tucumseh isn't it also true that with Eurofighter the old MoD/supplier model no longer holds?

In this case it is NETMA, representing the purchaser interests of the 4 main participating nations, (and Saudi) dealing with Eurofighter .

While you are obviously well informed I struggle to see how this leaves the UK MoD so exposed and the manufacturer with, apparently, so little liability.

[tucumseh]

Jim

I do not claim to know too much about EFA contracting. When they were recruiting, I stayed well away because they were one of the first teams to acknowledge (to be fair to them) that MoD no longer wanted technical project managers. (Clearly there were exceptions; I was interviewed by an EFA structural engineer on a promotion board in 1992). They employed a raft of consultants who took them to the cleaners. Sometimes your outlook is tainted by first impressions. In 1996 all aircraft offices at AbbeyWood were invited to a seminar run by EFA, to announce a major new phenomenon. Electronic Component Obsolescence. Their team leader on the subject was some professor they'd hired. He rambled on for an hour or so and then asked for questions, but admitted he may not be able to answer as so little was known. I tabled MoD's mandated regulations on the subject (2 Def Stans, both now cancelled without replacement) and recommended they ask the Chief Engineer to rescind his 1993 policy that obsolescence shall NOT be addressed. No more seminars. At least, none we were invited to.

Managing Obsolescence is one of the 17 core components of Maintaining the Build Standard, which is what you do when the design is under your control. The output of the process is the Safety Case, based on that maintained standard. If you get even one of the components wrong, it tells you something far worse is wrong with the organisation as a whole. That the entire edifice is rocking. In 1992 the RAF Chief Engineer decreed Build Standards shall NOT be maintained. Therefore, regardless of the niceties of programme structure and contracting, the risk of something very serious going wrong is always high.

[BEagle]

Ooop at 't werrks, Old Seth had heard 't news on 't wireless and was reet upset. So off he scuttled off to see 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space....

"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.

"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".

And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.

[Madbob]

What happened to Caveat Emptor?

MB

[Thelma Viaduct]

Why has Baron Waste o Space got a Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire accent???

[The Helpful Stacker]

Why has Baron Waste o Space got a Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire accent???

Can't be a Nottinghamshire accent, otherwise 't Baron would have said;

"Nay, nay Duck.......'"

[Thelma Viaduct]

He says "sen" apparently, that's Notts matey.

[woptb]

Ooop at 't werrks, Old Seth had heard 't news on 't wireless and was reet upset. So off he scuttled off to see 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space....

"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.

"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".

And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.

Hilarious ! Yawn :rolleyes:

[The Helpful Stacker]

He says "sen" apparently, that's Notts matey.

Its within the East Midlands dialect but more of an Erewash Valley (largely Derbyshire) saying rather than a Nottinghamshire one. Indeed when I commented to my Nottingham-born and bred wife that someone on here reckons "sen" is Nottinghamshire she almost choked on her hog roast cob.;)

[Jetex_Jim]

Regarding the Eurofighter problems, they are grossly exaggerated by some (not all) media.

@exhorder
Really? So halving the life of the airframe is trivial.

(BTW do feel inclined to say who you work for?)

[Whitewhale83]

The cut in hours is/was a temporary measure which Airbus believes will soon be lifted.

Airbus: Eurofighter-Fehler ärgerlich, aber ungefährlich - news.ORF.at (http://orf.at/stories/2248183/)

The fault was in relation to some of the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned.

[Not_a_boffin]

The fault was in relation to some of the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned.

You did read the thread title, right? Do you know what "the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned" can lead to?

[exhorder]

@Jetex Jim: I find it quite offensive to be accused of such bias. I just try to stay objective and away from the Airbus-bashing crowd (which seems to be quite strong among the lower and middle ranks of the military, the German ones for sure). That does not mean that I have any affiliation with the company, nor that I approve of everything they make or do - I most certainly do not.

However, as I've read, the problem seems, in essence, to be one of temporary restrictions. Eurofighter have implemented some sort of a gradual guaranteed service life, if I'm getting it right. That means that, although the airframe itself is allegedly designed to last up to 12.000hrs+, they gradually extend this "warranty" first to 1500, then to 3000, then to 6000hrs. The current decision just temporarily delays the extension of this "warranty".

I guess this has to do with modern fighter aircraft having some sort of dynamic fatigue management, concentrating on the actual wear and tear of the aircraft rather than fixed flight hour limitations. I'm not an engineer, so I have some trouble understanding all the details in German, let alone explaining them in English.

While we're at it: does anyone have some information about the average airframe hours of the RAF Typhoon force? The reason for this question being that some people involved with German Eurofighters speculated that you guys might be more affected by this current restriction than we are.

At the end of the day, our most heavily used airframe just recently reached 1000hrs, making the current crisis a rather theoretical one. But since the RAF has used their Typhoons operationally, some of us thought that they may have a bigger issue with that.