|
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10430234)
Report from Aviation week that frankentanker has a version of MCAS installed in flight control system.
Once again will P8 and wedgetail have this software/hardware installed? |
To quote the AW&ST article: ”Boeing’s 767-based tankers use a version of the pitch augmentation system that grounded the 737 Max 8 fleet, the manufacturer and U.S. Air Force officials say......... Both the KC-767 and KC-46 fleets delivered to air forces in Italy, Japan and the U.S. rely on the MCAS to adjust for pitch trim changes during refueling operations. In the 1980s, Boeing’s engineers considered using a pitch augmentation system for the commercial version of the 767, but dropped the idea after finding that vortex generators provided adequate control. By 2011, Boeing had already delivered KC-767s to Italy and Japan fitted with the first version of MCAS. The use of the system then spread as Boeing won the Air Force’s KC-46 contract in February and launched the 737 Max 8 in August. But Boeing designed the integration on the KC-767 and KC-46 slightly differently than on the 737 Max family. The single-aisle airliner uses one angle of attack vane — either the captain’s or first officer’s — to generate the data used by the flight computer to activate the MCAS. By comparison, the KC-767 and KC-46 are designed to use two sensor inputs to feed angle of attack data, Boeing says. Boeing spokesmen declined to elaborate on which sensor inputs are used to provide the data in the tanker design. The options include multiple angle of attack vanes and flush-mounted static ports........ The U.S. Air Force has launched a review of flight procedures for the KC-46, a spokeswoman says.......” |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...er-over-debris USAF Again Halts Delivery of Boeing’s Tanker Over Debris |
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019...es-to-restart/ Air Force improves new inspection plan for KC-46s, paving the way for deliveries to restart COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The Air Force has decided to start accepting KC-46 tankersfrom Boeing again after the discovery of foreign debris halted production for the second time, the service’s top weapons buyer said Tuesday. But before that happens, all KC-46s will now be subject to stringent inspections that will scrutinize all sealed compartments of the plane for foreign object debris, or FOD. That includes tankers already delivered to McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., and Altus Air Force Base, Okla., which will have to have their fuel tanks drained so that personnel can climb in and determine whether FOD is present. “The planes that we have out on the field will have to go to a Boeing facility and have these significant inspections done on them. We’re working that in coordination right now,” Will Roper, the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters on the sidelines of the Space Symposium here. “The FOD that we’ve found poses no safety of flight risk. It’s well within what DCMA [Defense Contracts Management Agency] finds on many aircraft programs. But it’s not acceptable to have it on a new aircraft that we bought. We want clean aircraft, and we expect Boeing to do the inspections on their nickel and get us aircraft that were the ones that we contracted for." Roper approved the new inspection plan on Friday. Although the Air Force is still working with Boeing to figure out the exact timing of when deliveries will restart, Roper said he anticipates the service accepting two new tankers next Friday, pending the timing of fuel tank inspections........ |
USAF still finding FOD in Boeing KC-46 and expects more
From an article on Flight Global.
The US Air Force (USAF) continues to find foreign object debris (FOD) inside the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tanker, including loose material found this week, and it expects to discover objects for the foreseeable future. |
"The debris and the tools that were left on the KC-46 at the time of its delivery were unacceptable – unacceptable in any form. We took swift decisive action, and we are using this opportunity as our rallying cry to ensure we enhance our tool and FOD control process,” said Leanne Caret, chief executive officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, at a separate press conference at the show. I once found a 12" long screwdriver which was rattling around inside the engine bay of my car after it had been serviced at a Mercedes-Benz main dealership. It could easily have shorted the battery, hit the pulley belts or punctured a radiator. When I took it back to the dealership and advised them of my dismay, I was astonished to learn that a so-called prestige car dealership has no form of tool control and the technicians use their own tools - a tool tag shadow board was an unknown concept. Bad enough in the automotive industry, but even worse in the aviation industry! |
I suppose we should be grateful they chose aero-engineering and not medicine.
|
Le bourget adventures
Been working at Le Bourget all week, love Paris, love the weather ...better than 2 years ago when it was a heatwave (which is what’s happening now).
Boeing and McConnell folk wouldn’t let us on whistle stop tour of the Pegasus so made to with outside shots and got a patch from the crew so here are my photos. Cheers https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....15863355e.jpeg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....078176a56.jpeg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....af7de3b81.jpeg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cd9e443da.jpeg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7f7695e33.jpeg |
Battery
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10496747)
Something once taught to all RAF Apprentices at a very early stage of their training...
I once found a 12" long screwdriver which was rattling around inside the engine bay of my car after it had been serviced at a Mercedes-Benz main dealership. It could easily have shorted the battery, hit the pulley belts or punctured a radiator. When I took it back to the dealership and advised them of my dismay, I was astonished to learn that a so-called prestige car dealership has no form of tool control and the technicians use their own tools - a tool tag shadow board was an unknown concept. Bad enough in the automotive industry, but even worse in the aviation industry! |
Well, it only took you 34 days to come up with that. Well done...:rolleyes:
The screwdriver in question could easily have lodged between the positive terminal and some earth point.... |
Air Force Gets Tough With Boeing, Withholds $360 Million From KC-46
Article on Breaking Defense:- |
$360 M. About the cost of 1 tanker, maybe 2? Considering the system issues, delays and delivery hiccups, seems like a mere slap on the wrist, more for the public’s, and maybe Congress’, consumption, than Boeing’s. |
Boeing juggles KC-46 tanker deliveries and boom redesign
More costs for Boeing. Article on Flight Global.
Boeing delivered three more KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tankers to the US Air Force (USAF) on 8 and 9 August, a week after winning a $55 million contract to redesign the aircraft’s boom telescope actuator. Boeing is redesigning the actuator to address hardware specification flaws coming from the service’s initial design requirements. Designing and retrofitting the aircraft will likely cost more than $300 million, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in June 2019. Programme officials told GAO that developing a solution, and receiving Federal Aviation Administration certification, would likely take three to four years. The boom's issues became apparent during developmental flight testing, when pilots of lighter receiver aircraft – such as Fairchild Republic A-10s and Lockheed Martin F-16s – reported they needed more force to connect and disconnect their aircraft from the boom, as compared to older tankers, like the KC-135 and KC-10, says GAO. The additional force required can cause the receiving aircraft to suddenly lunge and collide with the boom, damaging the aircraft’s glass cockpit canopy or tail. It can also damage the boom. Testing also uncovered a problem with the KC-46’s remote vision system, a set of cameras used to guide the refuelling boom into an aircraft's fuel receptacle. Specifically, sun glare on the cameras at certain angles can cause washout or blackout on the refeulling operator's display screen. That makes it difficult to safely guide the boom into the fuel receptacle of an aircraft that needs refuelling. A wayward refuelling boom could damage an aircraft's nearby antennae or the radar-absorbent paint coating of stealth aircraft, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22, says GAO. Boeing is expected to pay for fixing the remote vision system issue. The USAF is using the remote vision system on tankers it has received, though it cannot use the cameras in some circumstances. Boeing says it is still in discussions with the USAF for a final fix for the system. Deliveries of three more tankers in early August brings to 16 the number of KC-46s delivered to the USAF. Boeing had aimed to deliver 36 tankers in 2019. However, the service is expected to accept no more than three aircraft monthly, bringing the likely total number of tankers delivered by year-end to no greater than 28. Boeing’s KC-46 deliveries to the USAF have been slowed, and at times halted, by issues with Foreign Object Debris (FOD) found inside the airframes. Boeing says it has implemented new FOD-awareness days and clean-as-you-go practices to eliminate the problem, but declines to say if FOD has been discovered in the aircraft in recent months. |
How sad this is. Can't Boeing do anything right at the moment?
airsound |
To be fair, I’d say of the two issues it would be better recorded as one c**k up each on this one. to address hardware specification flaws coming from the service’s initial design requirements. |
Originally Posted by Duchess_Driver
(Post 10544829)
Agreed, perhaps Boeing should have checked the specs earlier but... :ugh: |
This is a case where the Air Force could have better specified their requirements, but it shouldn’t have surprised Boeing that the USAF wanted the tanker to work with all receiver aircraft. The fact that it doesn’t is more a matter for lawyers to argue than aviators. Looks like the lawyers did, and that’s why the USAF is paying $55M to “fix” it. What I don’t get is why they did away with the boom operator looking directly out the tail of the airplane. How can natural vision, real 3D stereoscopic vision, be matched by a hi-falutin’ 2D video game? You’re designing performance penalties into the system in too many ways: adding delay, diminishing visual acuity, adding complexity and reducing reliability, and by the way spending more money for the privilege. If, perhaps, they wanted to add some additional visual symbology, etc., they could have still done so with “HUD” symbology overlaying the real world view. |
"hi-falutin’ 2D video games" - generate more R&, more income and can be used on other, future, projects
fill that trough!! |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 10547990)
What I don’t get is why they did away with the boom operator looking directly out the tail of the airplane. How can natural vision, real 3D stereoscopic vision, be matched by a hi-falutin’ 2D video game? You’re designing performance penalties into the system in too many ways: adding delay, diminishing visual acuity, adding complexity and reducing reliability, and by the way spending more money for the privilege. If, perhaps, they wanted to add some additional visual symbology, etc., they could have still done so with “HUD” symbology overlaying the real world view. Second, the remote boom operation station is full 3d, not 2d. I don't know details of the 3d system (and likely couldn't talk about it if I did), but it's definitely 3d. Apparently much of the issue is that it's a ten year old video system, and 3d video technology has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10548555)
...likely couldn't talk about it if I did... Apparently much of the issue is that it's a ten year old video system, and 3d video technology has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years.
|
KC-46 Category 1 fault, indefinite restriction on passengers, cargo
WASHINGTON — In a move that could have major impacts on the already-delayed tanker program, the U.S. Air Force hasindefinitely barred the KC-46from carrying cargo and passengers, Defense News has learned. The decision was made after an incident occurred where the cargo locks on the bottom of the floor of the aircraft became unlocked during a recent flight, creating concerns that airmen could potentially be hurt or even killed by heavy equipment that suddenly bursts free during a flight. |
The service uses the term Category 1 describe serious technical issues that could endanger the aircrew and aircraft or have other major effects. IG. |
Originally Posted by Imagegear
(Post 10567877)
I know nothing of the cargo locks on the KC-46 but I could easily imagine that having them unlock in flight could allow the load to shift, causing the CG of the aircraft to move, as it did with the 747 freighter at Bagram.
IG. |
Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.
I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political. |
[QUOTE=msbbarratt;10569282]Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult. I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political. L-M and Airbus teaming to promote MRTT in USA as a sort of Omega alternative a year back and it was reaffirmed at Le Bourget back in June. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html |
Originally Posted by chopper2004
(Post 10569346)
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
(Post 10569282)
Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.
I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html |
Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.
|
Air Force Magazine Boeing Floats Two-Step Solution for KC-46 Cargo Issue Boeing is proposing a two-step solution to address a major new deficiency with its KC-46 tanker, which limits the aircraft’s ability to carry personnel or cargo. Air Mobility Command on Sept. 11 revealed the deficiency and the restrictions it imposed after multiple incidents in which cargo restraint devices broke open during operational test and evaluation flights. The locks were fully installed and inspected, but still malfunctioned during flight. “No cargo or equipment moved and there was no specific risk to the aircraft or crew,” AMC spokesman Col. Damien Pickart said. Boeing, in a Sept. 13 statement, said the company and the Air Force team are “making good progress to resolve the issue.” The company has suggested two paths, one an interim solution and one a long-term fix. For now, the company wants to use tie-down straps to secure the cargo. “This solution is undergoing further analysis and will be shared with the USAF in the coming days,” the company said. “The straps will enable the USAF to resume some cargo operations.” Secondly, the company is testing a “robust, longer-term fix” for the malfunctioning lock mechanism. Boeing said it will soon have results of its tests and will present the options to the Air Force early in the week of Sept. 15. “We stand ready to implement any actions as quickly as possible,” Boeing said. “The safety of the KC-46 aircraft and crew is our top priority.” |
Originally Posted by esscee
(Post 10569660)
Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor. That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10570243)
Pay is not the problem - Boeing machinists are among the highest compensated blue color workers anywhere.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor. That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong. |
TBh I think Boeing needs "to send a message" by moving their HQ back to Seattle
|
I am just stunned how Boeing can mess this up for over so many years. The airframe is proven, 767. Italy and Japan are flying for years with the KC-767. But somehow Boeing has so much trouble with the KC-46. Just beyond me such icompetence..... |
Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?
|
Whilst I can understand supporting your own industries, at what point does somebody have to say that this is just not working out?
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the MRTT spec's somewhat better than this disaster? |
wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................
There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10570470)
Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge. I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10570551)
If memory serves, the KC-767 was a disaster, with both subpar performance and massive delivery delays.
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge. I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10570545)
wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................
There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that One supposes that there's quite a lot of functions fulfilled by Boeing that are of strategic and economic importance, and must continue whatever happens. For instance, if Boeing cease operations who'd pick up the Design Authority role for all those airliners, never mind all those military aircraft? The thought of all those aircraft not flying gives me cold sweats. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10570545)
wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................
There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 10570396)
I heard depends on where you are, the NC plants that are not unionised the pay is pretty bad, on the other hand everett which is still unionised the pay/conditions and the quality of the planes are better
Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement. Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering? :confused: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.