Read the forum code of contact
By: - 14th August 2019 at 21:20 Permalink
Quite an open question really...
By: - 14th August 2019 at 21:25 Permalink - Edited 15th August 2019 at 00:32
It's this.
How the hell can a modification to a tube with a tv camera attached cost millions of dollars?? (KC-46!)
By: - 14th August 2019 at 21:32 Permalink
That’s how Boeing keep their commercial division afloat!:dev2:
By: - 15th August 2019 at 08:29 Permalink
That’s how Boeing keep their commercial division afloat!:dev2:
And fund the US military’s black projects.
By: - 15th August 2019 at 09:04 Permalink
This question should be aimed at someone in the financial division, although I’m sure any comment from said employee would be a sackable deed.
By: - 15th August 2019 at 12:18 Permalink - Edited 15th August 2019 at 12:20
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.
By: - 15th August 2019 at 20:11 Permalink
I am an engineer on modern and vintage planes. I can't see any images, which I guess there was from the comments made.
By: - 16th August 2019 at 01:34 Permalink - Edited 16th August 2019 at 01:37
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.
By: - 16th August 2019 at 04:30 Permalink
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!
By: - 16th August 2019 at 20:41 Permalink
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.
By: - 17th August 2019 at 12:43 Permalink - Edited 17th August 2019 at 12:57
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!
Posts: 2,094
By: Oxcart - 14th August 2019 at 20:51
It's concerning a modern aircraft, but not many people seem to hang out there. Help!!