"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"sid" wrote in message
om...
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
...
sid wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..


http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking
on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot".
Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)
Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
"covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
prevent ullage explosions.

FAA's new N2 membrane requirement will automatically inert the fuel tanks of
Airliners. The inerter will be a requirement on all new airliners built by
US and European manufacturers for US certification. I believe AI is
agreeing, but I have not seen any news articles about the issue.

The only requirement proposed that I've seen is to inert a heated CWT
(Center Wing Tank) only by using OBIGS.
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factshee...s/inerting.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factshee...ets_030729.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

While the system could be used to inert the wing tanks the plumbing
would be a much bigger expense beyond whats outlined in the NPRM, the
airlines are fighting the proposal for even the CWT OBIGS.

Wing tanks (which flame quite nicely when hit by hydrodynamic ram
inducing shrapnel) will not be protected. DHL and the Concorde, both
of which were hit by small shrapnel pieces, show just how nicely:
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-ai...le12102003a003

This shows the shrapnel puncture that started the wing fire. Judging
by the rivet heads to the right of the hole, it appears the piece was
somewhere around 6 inches long.
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-ai...le12042003a009