Air Force finds another problem with Boeing’s KC-46 tanker

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by UltraFan

scrubbed by a mod. I you can't be civil, step away from the keyboard

What's your source of your 'facts'? Something you saw on the internet (because we all know everything on the internet is true )?

Because I was there, lived through it, and know for a fact that 90% of your post is hogwash. The new wing was planned from day one, as were new flaps. Most flutter issues, with the exception of the previously mentioned stab fuel, were identified and corrected during the design phase - those that came up during flight test were minor and readily rectified. Yes, we went well over budget, but your numbers are laughably wrong. As far as no one wanting it - I happen to know the numbers of what Boeing expected to sell when they launched the program. The 747-8 is easily on pace to meet those projected numbers - something that can't be said for it's primary competition...

[Grebe]

From reading a many many posts on the KC46 subject and others, and having spent more time at ' the lazy B ' than most posters, ( now retired ), and followIng other boeing - 737 - MAX NG threads for several months, I have to agree with tdracer and fdr and a few others- they do know what they post. As a newbie here I cannot of course post links.
But I can state the real story not shown here re history of KC46 ( KCX-767 ) starts way back in 1999-2000 and pushed as a lease in aftermath of 2001 as 767 line was running down at the time. And of course the mcDonnell douglas jack welch crowd involvement, a few club fed types, etc.

And it all has bearing on the current mess

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

No, the TCDS also lists the variant applicable to each MSN:

OK, we're probably arguing minutia here, but on the first page of the TCDS, it lists:

A20WE
BOEING Revision 60
747-100 Series
747-200B Series
747-200F Series
747-200C Series
747SR Series
747SP Series
747-100B Series
747-300 Series
747-100B SUD Series
747-400 Series
747-400D Series
747-400F Series
747-8F Series
747-8 Series

It matters to the FAA. If you submit FAA paperwork (e.g. 8110-3 forms), if you list 747-800 as the affected model it'll get rejected - it must say '747-8' and/or '747-8F' (years ago I actually got one rejected for listing "747-SP" instead of 747SP as there is no 'dash' on the TCDS ).

[stilton]

Originally Posted by Dave Therhino

The biggest concern with the cargo coming loose is not people getting injured directly from shifting cargo, but rather it is having the cg shift due to the cargo all moving aft on rotation and resultant loss of control, like the 747 accident at Bagram AFB.

While CG shift was a factor in that accident
the direct cause was the military vehicle breaking loose from its restraints then penetrating the rear pressure bulkhead and
striking the stab trim jackscrew with enough force to disable it and the elevators

The crew had no means of controlling pitch through the primary flight controls

[fdr]

The reported fault on the KC-46 may affect the aircraft operation, but am not aware that BAC is the OEM of the locks etc, I would have expected those to be mission equipment provided by OEM's such as Ancra etc.

Post Max, there seems to be no reticence in blaming BAC for issues that arise in the operation of their products. Would we blame them if the coffee cup doesn't say "HOT LIQUID", as coffee is an item that surely deserves it's own ATA in the MEL,

Or not... No coffee, no go...

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by fdr

The reported fault on the KC-46 may affect the aircraft operation, but am not aware that BAC is the OEM of the locks etc, I would have expected those to be mission equipment provided by OEM's such as Ancra etc.

Thanks!

That's the name (Ancra) I've been racking my brains in vain to remember since I posted a similar thought (above) a week ago. They were certainly the go-to company for cargo restraints in the days when I dealt with such matters - good to see that they are still active, whether or not on the KC-46.

[Anilv]

I used to work with Lufthansa Cargo around the time they brought the MD11F into service. After around 2 years of operations (thereabouts) they introduced a new SOP where any void ULD (pallet or container) position in front of loaded ULDs would need to be filled with an empty ULD. This was the result of a spate of incidents where locks were discovered in the down position on arrival. The rationale was that if one of the locks failed it was not an issue with an empty ULD but the ULD will prevent the locks behind it (in front of the loaded ULDs) from unlocking. Part of that procedure was that all such incidents were to be reported and the actual lock identified.

We were told that the locks failed due to the fact that the locks get hammered during loading due to the fact that the pallets accelerate to the back during loading, this is due to the nose-up attitude of the aircraft while on ground (most of the damaged locks were at the rear). The ground staff should have controlled the speed but those lazy buggers (me included!) usually choose to help the pallet on its way! The hammering the locks received caused to them to unlock themselves.. the solution was to inspect the locks more frequently. Not sure if the design was changed later as I left around 2005.

Anilv

[T28B]

For those with productive input, the Mil Forum thread is here.

[BRE]

Originally Posted by Spooky 2

First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack. I do believe there is/was issues with tail vibrations that caused the fuel in the horizontal fuel tank to be made unavailable. Not sure if this is a permanent solution or just an interim fix. (12,490 Liters), This applies to the Intercontinental version only.

Would this translate into sideways swaying? I have made the JFK - FRA trip three times in the -8, once in 2017 and twice this year. On the first and third trip I was stitting very far in the back, but only in this last trip I had the impression that the plane was wagging its tail all the time.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by BRE

Would this translate into sideways swaying? I have made the JFK - FRA trip three times in the -8, once in 2017 and twice this year. On the first and third trip I was stitting very far in the back, but only in this last trip I had the impression that the plane was wagging its tail all the time.

Unlikely - stab fuel is not needed or used unless you're approach the max aircraft range (which is much further than JFK-FRA), and then it's used early in the flight. The 747-8 doesn't try to do any CG management with the stab fuel.
Sounds more like a yaw damper problem.