Eurofighter, deburred holes (insufficiently)
 

From Germany:


bundeswehr.de: Eurofighter: Flugbetrieb der Luftwaffe aktuell nicht von industrieller Flugstundenreduzierung betroffen

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

in English.

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

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.

"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!

Just when you thought it could get worse, it did:
German armed forces admit fighting machines are faulty, reports say | EUROPE ONLINE

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.

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

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.

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.

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

CG

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

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

From Spiegel, (Google translation)

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


Planned Obsolescence anyone?

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

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???

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

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

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

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.

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





Hat, coat......leaving

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

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