Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for the engineers that might frequent the forum!

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Oxcart
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2007
    • 2090

    Question for the engineers that might frequent the forum!

    It's concerning a modern aircraft, but not many people seem to hang out there. Help!!
    Give a man a fish and eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he'll die praying for a fish!
  • Fournier Boy
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Mar 2007
    • 1041

    #2
    Quite an open question really...

    Comment

    • Oxcart
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Nov 2007
      • 2090

      #3
      It's this.
      How the hell can a modification to a tube with a tv camera attached cost millions of dollars?? (KC-46!)
      Last edited by Oxcart; 14th August 2019, 23:32.
      Give a man a fish and eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he'll die praying for a fish!

      Comment

      • HP81
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2004
        • 503

        #4
        Thats how Boeing keep their commercial division afloat!
        Props are best!

        Comment

        • aeronut 2008
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2008
          • 1565

          #5
          Originally posted by HP81 View Post
          Thats how Boeing keep their commercial division afloat!
          And fund the US militarys black projects.

          Comment

          • Seafuryfan
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 2487

            #6
            This question should be aimed at someone in the financial division, although Im sure any comment from said employee would be a sackable deed.

            Comment

            • TonyT
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2006
              • 9023

              #7
              Totally depends on what it is, you need to design it, build it, and test it, to ensure its viability, its aerodynamic ability and if it the parts is is attached to can take the revised loadings etc along with compatibility with the systems and and hardening it may require.

              The RAF VC10 tanker came with a telescopic metal slide built into the forward cabin door, that also cost a million each back in the seventies!!, it was so the 10 could transfer all it's fuel to the war going assets and or abandon a damaged / fuel less aircraft, the crew would do a rapid depressurisation, deploy the slide and bail out. The idea was they would slide around the ouside of the fuselage and drop out underneath, trials with a dummy it hit the wing I believe, so it was abandoned, but installed in all the tanker aircraft, it was found that it was the perfect size to put a black bin liner in and wrap the bag around the outside edge to retain it, so as it was opposite the galley it became the 1 million dustbin.

              Comment

              • Brenden S
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2016
                • 198

                #8
                I am an engineer on modern and vintage planes. I can't see any images, which I guess there was from the comments made.

                Comment

                • Beermat
                  1 Registered Rank Loser
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 3641

                  #9
                  Things cost a lot.when.government is paying with taxpayers' money and always will when enployment is a measure of economic success. What is amusing is when Americans see it as a good thing when excess public money is sunk into industry supporting the military but bad, socialist and wasteful anywhere else.

                  Of course it doesn't necessarily cost that much and of course it doesn't take an engineer to know that.
                  Last edited by Beermat; 16th August 2019, 00:37.
                  www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
                  It's all good. Probably.

                  Comment

                  • Oxcart
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Nov 2007
                    • 2090

                    #10
                    Beermat, sir, I was just kind of hoping that I didn't understand the enormity of the task ahead and that there would be a good reason for it! Nice to have my suspicions confirmed though!
                    Give a man a fish and eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he'll die praying for a fish!

                    Comment

                    • Shorty01
                      Short Member
                      • Jul 2003
                      • 743

                      #11
                      It's not always as simple as it looks.

                      It's not just the actual cost of manufacturing the item/modification, it's also the development work and testing that goes on. The Aerospace industry is heavily regulated and everything has to conform to something whether it be materials, stress margins, aerodynamics or many other areas to be considered.

                      A significant proportion of the budget can go on testing. Most of the projects I have worked on in the Aerospace industry have gone relatively smoothly, but problems can cause all sorts of knock on effects. Usually testing facilities are shared with other projects/companies. If you suddenly have an issue to resolve, these facilities may not be readily available for retesting, engineers may have been assigned elsewhere to other projects. You then get into the cost of getting more staff. Some contracts have nasty penalty clauses for late delivery, so you start getting hit with those. It gets to be an unpleasant project to be on because everyone is stressed and fed up, so people leave. You then get new staff who take time to get up to speed. All the time the schedule is slipping and the cost increasing!

                      One thing I have found is sometimes it's easier/cheaper to start from scratch instead of reworking an old design. What may first appear to be a simple problem to resolve may actually turn out to be a bit of a bugg*r to solve.

                      They should have stuck with Airbus.
                      It's the one you don't see that gets you (usually)...

                      Comment

                      • TonyT
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Oct 2006
                        • 9023

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Beermat View Post
                        Things cost a lot.when.government is paying with taxpayers' money and always will when enployment is a measure of economic success. What is amusing is when Americans see it as a good thing when excess public money is sunk into industry supporting the military but bad, socialist and wasteful anywhere else.

                        Of course it doesn't necessarily cost that much and of course it doesn't take an engineer to know that.

                        On the VC10 there was a none return valve in one of the domestic water supplies to do with the bog, it was a hard rubber ball, the replacement balls were around 80 each, They ordered a new batch from waste of space (BAe) and the correctly labelled up box was opened to find the BAe packer on the other end had not removed them from their original manufacturers packaging. It was at this time the RAF realised they had for years been paying 80 for each single Dunlop hard squash ball!.... Needless to say words were said. And that was 1980's prices!
                        Last edited by TonyT; 17th August 2019, 11:57.

                        Comment

                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                        Collapse

                         

                        Working...
                        X