Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:38 pm

For what it's worth, I thought I'd post this article on the Italian 767 tanker, which will not be delivered until 2009 - four years after it's originally planned delivery date. What I found particularly interesting are some of the details, some seeming very minor (e.g., passenger temps) that gummed up development. From the article:

Quote:
Boeing has admitted that it struggled to keep up the pace of flight testing with just one aircraft to use.

"People remain upset over the fact that Boeing did not invest sufficiently in the program," the Italian defense official said.

One wonders if the USAF was aware of the above, which led them, rightly or wrongly, to conclude that the Boeing 767AT proposed for the KC-X program was a higher risk than the KC-30.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3711809
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:10 pm

You can bet the USAF is on top of not only the Italian situation, but the Japanese issues as well.

The following comment is of concern if it is correct:

"Italian officials took issue with cockpit noise, which reached 79 decibels at the pilot's right ear while cruising at 0.8 Mach at 35,000 feet. The Italians had specified that noise be no louder than 75 decibels.

Boeing officials responded that reducing the noise would also reduce the capability of the aircraft, and recommended the Italians change their specs."

So we have Boeing again telling a customer to take what Boeing delivers and be happy (just like the USAF tanker - take the -200AT). Boeing needs a corporate stand-down to refocus on their customers.
 
steman
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:50 am

It is absolutely unbelievable how this programme has been managed.
Italy should have gone for the A330MRTT.
But nobody could have thought that such an experienced Company like Boeing would have mismanaged a programme which was, on paper, so easy.
Proven airframe, the Boeing 767. Proven technology, the Air Refeuelling Boom and Hose and Drogue systems. Nothing really new there.

This is going to be a boost for the A330MRTT which has already secured orders from UK, Australia, UAE and Saudi Arabia, whereas the 767TT has won only few examples from Italy and Japan.

If Italy wouldn´t be governed the way it is, maybe they could have negotiated the cancellation of the programme and the refund and/or redirection of investments and commitments to other programmes, for example the acquisition of Boeing C-17 or the partecipation in further fases of the F-35.

Ciao

Stefano
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:14 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Italian officials took issue with cockpit noise,

How could the cockpit noise differ from that in a civil 767, and how could that not meet military requirements?

Peter
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20131
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:43 am



Quoting Steman (Reply 2):
Italy should have gone for the A330MRTT.

Italy selected the KC-767 in 2001, I don't think the A330MRTT was offered then?
 
steman
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:04 pm

I recall Airbus offering the A330MRTT soon after Italy selected the 767TT
I think the AMI (Italian Air Force) had been informed about the availability of such a product from Airbus.
Most probably back then the good relationships between Italy and Usa, as well as the lack of trust in Airbus to do such a plane, pushed towards the 767.
But really, I believe nobody expected this programme to be plagued by such delays!

ciao

Stefano
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:58 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
How could the cockpit noise differ from that in a civil 767, and how could that not meet military requirements?

Doesn't make any difference in this case. The customer included a standard in a procurement contract, and Boeing chose not to meet it after signing a contract saying they would meet it.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:06 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
How could the cockpit noise differ from that in a civil 767, and how could that not meet military requirements?

Well, the fact that theres a boom several meters long trailing behind the plane definitely induces some extra aerodynamic noice... In fact for the 767 it seems it is even adding a LOT of extra noice, possibly caused from unexpectedly large interference between boom and tail section of the plane.

The requirement to have only a certain noice level in the cockpit is understandable from several points of view: first of all, that of fatigue: tankers often go on very long missions and noice is known to be a very big contributing factor to fatigue, but also the fact that crew communication ight be impaired has to be considered. After all, contrary to a 767F, a KC-767 sees much more crew communication during a high workload mission and you definitely don't want to the crew to be screeming for 10 hours long!

It's increadible indeed that Boeing missed this pretty simple target by such a large margin! Remember we're not talking about a linear scale, so the difference between 75 and 79dB is HUGE! Its actually DOUBLE!
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:22 pm



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
How could the cockpit noise differ from that in a civil 767, and how could that not meet military requirements?

Well, the fact that theres a boom several meters long trailing behind the plane definitely induces some extra aerodynamic noice... In fact for the 767 it seems it is even adding a LOT of extra noice, possibly caused from unexpectedly large interference between boom and tail section of the plane.

I don't think that is the reason for the change in noise levels, although I could be wrong. If you think about it, the cabin behind the cockpit will be devoid of any fittings normally found inside of a commercial aircraft, which have a tendency to absorb noise. Note, the article mentions the noise is much louder to the right of the pilot, which to me indicates it's coming from the cabin behind the pilot.

On the other hand, it might be related to the boom as you mention if the boom transfers any vibrations or slipstream noise to the fuselage where the empty (for the most part) austere cabin may magnify the noise until it reaches the cockpit.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Italian KC767: Details Surrounding Delays

Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:13 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
How could the cockpit noise differ from that in a civil 767, and how could that not meet military requirements?

Italy unlike Japan has wing refueling pods as well, Boeing has has a number of problems with airflow over these pods, it is not as simple as just bolting them on. I was told at one stage they were going to limit the normal KC-767 speed to M0.78 due to problems with the installation of these pods.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
Italy selected the KC-767 in 2001, I don't think the A330MRTT was offered then?

It was available, I don't know if it was available to Italy. The 2002 USAF tanker deal was KC-767 vs A330-MRTT.

See https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ry/read.main/18742/?threadid=18742

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
Remember we're not talking about a linear scale, so the difference between 75 and 79dB is HUGE! Its actually DOUBLE!

For every 3 dB increase the rule of thumb is the maximum exposure time to the noise level reduces y half. That being said, 79 dB is by no means that loud when you compare it to other military and civil aircraft.

I think 79 dB would still be quieter than a 737-300/400, I had a list of cockpit measurements of noise in various cockpits I cannot find it at the moment, it would help to put this into perspective.

Current guidelines for maximum cockpit noise levels by ALPA is 75 dB for civil airliners.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: STT757 and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos