|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10570670)
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: As for defending Boeing, that's got to be getting harder with the growing list of disasters? at what point does operational necessity override political preference? (for the record, I have the same issues with airbus, specifically the A400 project) |
Let’s just say the Boeing plan to have the KC-Y programme (KC-10 replacement) be changed to just an extended purchase of KC-46s might not be so certain as expected a couple of years ago..... |
Originally Posted by ErwinS
(Post 10570404)
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..... |
“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 tdracer
(Post 10570670)
All KC-46s are built in Everett, so that pretty much blows that argument (both major assembly and tanker conversion work). I don't believe there is any meaningful KC-46 content from NC.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/unit...north-carolina |
Originally Posted by Mk 1
(Post 10570584)
Seems to be working pretty well here in Australia.
The A330MRTT was a disaster zone for the first few years. Was on the Projects of Concern. The boom was lost on 2 occasions. There as a couple of years delay in deliveries, and then more problems. Airbus worked through these and now the aircraft is reportedly performing well. This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out. |
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 10570991)
This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out. I think not. Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so. Airbus was never in that position. |
Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?
|
Originally Posted by Saintsman
(Post 10571212)
Similar?
I think not. Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so. Airbus was never in that position. |
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 10571272)
Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar. 1) On 19 January 2011, an air refuelling accident occurred between a boom equipped A330 MRTT and a Portuguese Air Force F-16 over the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Portugal. Early reports indicate that the boom broke off at the aft end of the boom near the F-16's receptacle which caused the boom to recoil into the underside of the A330 MRTT. The boom then became uncontrollable and oscillated until it broke off the boom assembly at the pivot point. Both aircraft were damaged, but landed safely. The A330 MRTT involved was an Airbus test aircraft destined for the RAAF; the air arm issued a statement that the aircraft was operated by an Airbus crew with no Australian personnel on board. At the time of the incident, Airbus had not begun deliveries. 2: On 10 September 2012 at approximately 19:30 (CEST), an A330 MRTT's refuelling boom became detached in flight at an altitude of 27,000 ft in Spanish airspace. The boom separated cleanly at a mechanical joint and fell to the ground, while the aircraft landed safely in Getafe. There were no injuries caused by the malfunction. The incident was the result of a conflict between the backup boom hoist (fitted to the UAE-destined A330 MRTTs) and the primary boom retraction mechanism, and was attributable to the testing being conducted. Airbus later explained that the malfunction was not possible under ordinary operating conditions, and that procedures had been designed to avoid similar incidents in the future. Following the incident, INTA, the Spanish regulatory authority, issued precautionary restrictions to other users of boom-equipped A330s. So, the first was part of the development and testing of the platform, the second was again, an Airbus test of new customer requested system see full report here In neither of these incidents were the aircraft in customer hands. |
In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 10571383)
In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y
Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y |
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 10571272)
Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar. |
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
(Post 10571403)
Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y
cheers https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html |
The U.S. Air Force has identified a potential new design flaw with the KC-46A tanker and banned the fleet from carrying cargo or passengers until a solution is found and delivered. Multiple cargo locks embedded in the floor of the aircraft released inadvertently during a recent operational test and evaluation flight, according to a statement by Air Mobility Command (AMC). Air Force and Boeing officials are working to identify a solution to the problem, AMC says. |
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6bda816da9.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ef819e502.jpeg Even the test team seem to be aware of the Frankentanker nature of the KC-46 |
Originally Posted by bvcu
(Post 10571223)
Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?
The company believes the cargo restraints, manufactured by Ancara Cargo, are well made and designed, but interact in an unexpected way with the track on the aircraft deck. It is considering a secondary lock to hold the first lock in place, but it is concerned an additional mechanism might slow loading and unloading speeds. Each pallet is clamped to the cargo floor via four restraints – one on each side. As Boeing looks for a solution to the KC-46As cargo lock problem, General Arnold Bunch, commander of the US Air Force Materiel Command, says the last tanker the service received was free of foreign object debris (FOD). The service previously criticized the company’s “culture” for allowing aircraft to be delivered with tools, rubbish and left-over parts such as loose nuts inside the airframe. Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.” |
"Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.”
Hopefully a sign that Boeing is taking it's culture issues seriously...good culture costs money, but they're finding that bad culture costs even more! |
"letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out"
Such fundamental issues really are scraping far, far below the bottom of the barrel - for an aircraft manufacturer this is just beyond bizarre...... |
But he says they made a 'bunch' of improvements. Not a very precise term I suggest.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.