Originally Posted by
tdracer
That's not something in the engineer's control - that's done by accountants and lawyers - and apparently people in the USAF that still have a mind think based on the KC-135 technology.
Think about it - you hire someone to make an addition to your house. You spec something based on how they built things 50 years ago. The builder comes in - points out that what you're asking for doesn't make any sense with today's technology - they can do something that works better, will last longer, look nicer, and oh by the way, will save you money not only up front but in maintenance/operating costs.
Would you listen to them and give it a fair hearing, or would you tell them to shut up and do it the way you spec'ed it?
Because I know first hand how the USAF handled it.
Well, I’m not sure it was engineers who promised what they couldn’t deliver. But if you can’t, you should not submit a bid saying you can. I agree it’s probably a dumb requirement, because you can’t show a “3D” image on a 2D display. I’ve been around displays and imaging technology for decades and can attest to that. And I’ve been around display and imaging vendors who claim otherwise. That’s called “snake oil”.
For the money USAF and Boeing poured down this rat hole, I suspect automatic connection could have been designed and built. But putting the boomer in the tail looking out a window worked for longer than the KC-135 has been in service, and for whatever the cost of modifying the 767 tail to accommodate it, would have been less risky and less costly, and would satisfy the military need. Not sure why USAF specified RVS. Was it their idea or Boeing’s? But Boeing said they could do it.