More KC-46A woes....
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because that's what the requirement should be.
So it wasn't just "technology for technology's sake" TD?
because that's what it looks like from the outside
because that's what it looks like from the outside
I fail to see what is so hard to solve concerning this tanker? A proven airframe, an experienced manufacturer, a need for a new tanker, a lot of money and it still can't be done? How about the other 767-tanker operators?
There are 1205 other posts on this topic all asking the same question. It looked like a complete no-brainer - the worlds biggest Aerospace company, one that has built more tankers than every one else put together, a proven airframe that had been in serial production for years, it wasn't even a tremendously challenging spec on the headline numbers.............................
Someone had to try very very hard to get to where we are now.
Someone had to try very very hard to get to where we are now.
The following users liked this post:
I do know the KC-46 doesn't use the same boom system as the KC-767 does - and the USAF didn't want the legacy system that the KC-767 uses.
The KC-767 had it's fair share of issues - but the expectation was there would be lessons learned to keep similar issues from occurring on the KC-46. Instead the KC-46 had some of the same issues, plus many, many new ones.
Repeating myself here, but many of the issues with the KC-46 trace back to sloppy management - for example many systems did not implement the required wiring separation (e.g. battle damage protection). Yet in Propulsion we knew all about the requirement and designed for it (tricky, because there are limited places to route wiring on the wing and wing/body joint) - so why did so many other systems neglect that requirement resulting in massively expensive rework? Piss poor management IMHO. Most of the KC-46 managers came from the 787 - and brought along the same flawed management techniques that messed up that program so badly. Too much emphasis on process, not enough emphasis on outcome (i.e. product). Some people can't seem to learn from their own mistakes...
There were other issues that seem to defy explanation - for example they designed a new fuel system manifold that leaked like a sieve - to fix it they had to start over from scratch. How can a company that's been successfully building large aircraft for 80 years suddenly be unable to design a fuel manifold that doesn't leak?
The following 5 users liked this post by tdracer:
Looks like an appalling loss of institutional memory
They should put some modular automated boom in there and forget about the manual system. Just jump the queue to the next level and use the delay to progress. Like a MQ-25 with a boom.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
FFS, they can’t even get the toilets to work….
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...etized-toilet/
The KC-46 has a messy problem with its palletized toilet
WASHINGTON — The Boeing KC-46 tanker currently can’t carry the palletized toilet normally used by mobility aircraft without the risk of waste water leaking into the cabin, leaving the tanker unable to conduct long-distance flights with a large number of passengers until the lavatory is modified.
The issue, according to U.S. Air Mobility Command, involves the Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom that can be rolled on and off mobility aircraft like the KC-46, C-17 and C-130.
A source with knowledge of the program told Defense News on Wednesday that the problem arises because the ATGL cannot be loaded and stored in its normal orientation. The source said the issue stems from the KC-46′s cargo rails and locks, which are not as wide as other Air Force cargo aircraft. Instead, the ATGL is turned 90 degrees to fit inside a KC-46, but the lavatory system’s anti-spill valve does not work correctly while in that orientation.
That could allow toilet waste to drip into the cabin whenever the tanker climbs or descends in altitude, resulting in a messy problem. The source indicated that the issue was discovered during ground testing.
The problem is not considered a technical deficiency against the KC-46 aircraft because the Air Force’s 2011 contract with Boeing did not forbid the company from delivering a tanker with a narrower cargo rail system, the source said. Ultimately, the Air Force intends to fix the issue by developing a new valve for the ATGL, but so far the service has not designed, tested or fielded a replacement.
The Air Force intends to start testing a solution to the issue imminently, an Air Mobility Command spokeswoman said in a statement…..
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...etized-toilet/
The KC-46 has a messy problem with its palletized toilet
WASHINGTON — The Boeing KC-46 tanker currently can’t carry the palletized toilet normally used by mobility aircraft without the risk of waste water leaking into the cabin, leaving the tanker unable to conduct long-distance flights with a large number of passengers until the lavatory is modified.
The issue, according to U.S. Air Mobility Command, involves the Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom that can be rolled on and off mobility aircraft like the KC-46, C-17 and C-130.
A source with knowledge of the program told Defense News on Wednesday that the problem arises because the ATGL cannot be loaded and stored in its normal orientation. The source said the issue stems from the KC-46′s cargo rails and locks, which are not as wide as other Air Force cargo aircraft. Instead, the ATGL is turned 90 degrees to fit inside a KC-46, but the lavatory system’s anti-spill valve does not work correctly while in that orientation.
That could allow toilet waste to drip into the cabin whenever the tanker climbs or descends in altitude, resulting in a messy problem. The source indicated that the issue was discovered during ground testing.
The problem is not considered a technical deficiency against the KC-46 aircraft because the Air Force’s 2011 contract with Boeing did not forbid the company from delivering a tanker with a narrower cargo rail system, the source said. Ultimately, the Air Force intends to fix the issue by developing a new valve for the ATGL, but so far the service has not designed, tested or fielded a replacement.
The Air Force intends to start testing a solution to the issue imminently, an Air Mobility Command spokeswoman said in a statement…..
ORAC, not sure you can blame that on Boeing. The toilet is a standard USAF unit, not something Boeing is responsible for, and they never told Boeing they had a requirement for a specific orientation requirement for the palatized toilet.
Hard to design for a requirement that isn't communicated...
Hard to design for a requirement that isn't communicated...
tdracer
While you are correct within the context of design by a subcontractor, I suspect the "powers that be", will consider Boeing as the prime contractor and therefore responsible.
If I have a problem with the oil pump in my new car, I will not accept the supplier of my car saying it is not our problem because we did not design the oil pump. It may have been supplied to the manufacturer for inclusion in their final product. But to me, the supplier of my new car is at fault.
IG
While you are correct within the context of design by a subcontractor, I suspect the "powers that be", will consider Boeing as the prime contractor and therefore responsible.
If I have a problem with the oil pump in my new car, I will not accept the supplier of my car saying it is not our problem because we did not design the oil pump. It may have been supplied to the manufacturer for inclusion in their final product. But to me, the supplier of my new car is at fault.
IG
tdracer
While you are correct within the context of design by a subcontractor, I suspect the "powers that be", will consider Boeing as the prime contractor and therefore responsible.
If I have a problem with the oil pump in my new car, I will not accept the supplier of my car saying it is not our problem because we did not design the oil pump. It may have been supplied to the manufacturer for inclusion in their final product. But to me, the supplier of my new car is at fault.
IG
While you are correct within the context of design by a subcontractor, I suspect the "powers that be", will consider Boeing as the prime contractor and therefore responsible.
If I have a problem with the oil pump in my new car, I will not accept the supplier of my car saying it is not our problem because we did not design the oil pump. It may have been supplied to the manufacturer for inclusion in their final product. But to me, the supplier of my new car is at fault.
IG
To put it a little differently, if you buy a car with a fancy entertainment system from the factory - the auto manufacture is responsible for it working correctly. OTOH, if you take your car in and get a fancy aftermarket entertainment system installed - and it doesn't work right or interferes with proper operation of the car - the manufacturer will (rightly) tell you to pound sand - that it's your problem...
Image, in the airframer world, we have a couple of terms - BFE and SFE - "Buyer Furnished Equipment" and "Seller Furnished Equipment". The airframer is directly responsible for anything that is SFE, even if they didn't actually manufacture it. BFE is a completely different kettle of fish - unless the buyer specifies that the aircraft must function correctly with various BFE, it's the buyer's problem if it doesn't work.
To put it a little differently, if you buy a car with a fancy entertainment system from the factory - the auto manufacture is responsible for it working correctly. OTOH, if you take your car in and get a fancy aftermarket entertainment system installed - and it doesn't work right or interferes with proper operation of the car - the manufacturer will (rightly) tell you to pound sand - that it's your problem...
To put it a little differently, if you buy a car with a fancy entertainment system from the factory - the auto manufacture is responsible for it working correctly. OTOH, if you take your car in and get a fancy aftermarket entertainment system installed - and it doesn't work right or interferes with proper operation of the car - the manufacturer will (rightly) tell you to pound sand - that it's your problem...
It’s strictly speculation on my part, but Boeing probably met the written requirement of being able to securely load the latrine. The Air Force folks who wrote the RFP and evaluated Boeing’s proposal were probably unaware of the latrine’s design details, at least regarding its required orientation.
Whoops...
Thread Starter
Of course if the USAF had acquired a civilised aircraft such as the A330MRTT in the first place, they wouldn't have any need for this 'rendition class' palletised seating nor for the 'Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom' - which sounds quite disgusting, particularly for long flights...
The following users liked this post: