|
Air Force finds another problem with Boeing’s KC-46 tanker
I don't think this has been discussed here yet.
The U.S. Air Force has indefinitely barred the Boeing-built KC-46 from carrying cargo and passengers, the trade publication Defense News reported Wednesday.The decision followed an incident in which 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, Defense One reported.An Air Force spokesman said that “until we find a viable solution with Boeing to remedy this problem, we can’t jeopardize the safety of our aircrew and this aircraft.” The Air Force issued a Category 1 deficiency report on the problem, signifying a serious technical issue that could endanger the aircrew and aircraft or have other major effects, Defense One reported. More |
Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
|
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10569170)
Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
It's also likely the case that the Seattle Times, which is uniquely positioned to produce in-depth reporting on B, finds itself driven by the particular market forces of this period to take advantage of that position. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10569170)
the failures of a Major old manufacturing company
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10569177)
I would be very surprised if the cargo locks are manufactured by Boeing.
|
The extended and very painful story of the KC-46a can be seen in all its glory over on the Mil Forum.
Rob |
A desperation by Chicago to minimise all costs and maximise the price, to suit Wall Street.
|
Yet another example of a company run by bean counters instead of engineers. Sad that Boeing used to be a great complany.
|
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.
|
Problem with narrow body - B737 MAX MCAS
Problem with wide body - B777X Door blow out Problem with defence division - KC 46 Cargo locks One could be misfortune, two could be coincidence, three looks like carelessness. |
Isn't the Army also refusing to accept the Apache helicopter because of issues.
|
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ty-fix-452550/
Boeing anticipates delivering 34 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters this year, nearly 30% less than planned, due to the US Army's refusing delivery of aircraft in February after a critical safety issue was found. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10569170)
Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
|
Originally Posted by BRE
(Post 10572917)
The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.
|
Originally Posted by Spooky 2
(Post 10572985)
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.
Only the last 20 or so aircraft built are actually certificated as 747-8 or -8F, i.e. without the traditional Boeing customer suffix. |
USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!
|
Originally Posted by BRE
(Post 10572917)
The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.
|
Originally Posted by UltraFan
(Post 10573120)
Yep. Except for longeron cracks due to fuselage stretching. And wing flutter that required a new wing. And inboard aileron flutter. And structural flutter. And the fact that the development that was planned to cost $500mil cost ten times that. Oh, and nobody wanted to buy it. Other than that, it's a winner! :)
Spooky, there was a flutter issue related to stab fuel that prevented it being used at EIS of the passenger version - naturally resulting in a reduction of max range. The fix was identified and certified about 2 years after EIS and I believe all passenger aircraft have now been modified. Stab fuel is not used on 747 freighters (it's usually deactivated when a freighter conversion is performed and purpose built freighters never get it), so the problem didn't affect the freighter. DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F. |
You can thank Sen. "Uncle" Ted Stevens (RIP)
Originally Posted by UltraFan
(Post 10573111)
USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10573179)
DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c01a26dddb.jpg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.