Careful! Mixing up fastners IS a big deal.
Taxpayers want what we paid a fortune to get.
At four times the cost.
Typical... although if there was to be a mistake, better it be stronger fasteners were used rather than weaker.
Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them.
...
Obviously, it would take an enormous amount of resources to make them look different /s
And how much have taxpayers paid Lockheed for this model?
“A Lockheed spokeswoman said the two parts are “very difficult to distinguish, visually.””
And apparently no one thought to put a little paint on one so they could tell the difference
Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them. The titanium bolts cost about $5 apiece, while the Inconel parts cost about $20 each.
...
That’s the cost to LM. What did LM charge the taxpayer?
Duct tape can fix this right up.
The Lockheed spokesman said an initial analysis concluded that “titanium has sufficient strength in locations that called for Inconel eddie bolts.”
Tell me then, Mr Lockheed, why did YOUR design call for a heavier and more expensive bolt?
One thing I've found rather odd in life is the frequency of "mistakes" that work to the benefit of the party making them.
Don’t worry, it will only cost a couple billions to fix.
$15 per bolt profit explains why they both have the same name and extremely similar appearance.
There are many different grades of Inconel and Titanium alloys.
Considering the application they most likely spec’d Grade 5 Titanium and Inconel 725.
The properties wrt the various strengths are very similar with one exception being the category of Ultimate Strength where the Inconel has a 20% advantage.
This is reassuring:
“Inspections of some aircraft—Lockheed did not specify how many, or who had conducted the inspections—“indicated high levels of compliant fastener installations,””
I guess if you are not flying one of the ones with the inferior fasteners. In my non mechanical engineering mind, I would have to believe that fasteners are things that hold things together and that requiring sufficient strength and weight bolts for this critical job could be of some importance. Then again, I am not a government contractor either, especially one who may have to do an expensive inspection and replacement of inferior parts.
So if the lower cost and lower strength Titanium fasteners are sufficient, why were the more expensive fasteners spec’d in the first place? There had to be a reason, a margin, a service life, something. Those early F-35s do not have that. Will LM face a penalty, contract action, loss of fees?
This kind of “a mistake was made, but it doesn’t matter” should scream cover-up and who is getting paid off to allow the planes to fly uncorrected. If I were a pilot, I would be screaming bloody urder to have this fixed before I would fly this model of aircraft again.
So I need to take my F-35 back to the dealer? It better be covered under the warranty.
At $122,000,000.00 each I would expect better quality control.
I have said before that lockheed should be stricken from the list of qualified military contractors.
If the strength of inconel was not necessary at four times the cost of the alternative it would not have been specified. I have seen engineering specifications “reasoned” away because the repair is too expensive or too hard. It never goes well.
The designs were done in a time of deliberate and rational thought and supposedly rightfully subjected to focused criticism. Reversing this under pressure is almost always wrong.
Whatever competence lockheed had and may still have has been buried by unethical management. James Comey ring any bells?
Compromise is for politics and not for engineering. This will get out of hand and people will get killed but more importantly our war fighting ability with this bastard of an airplane that we have put all our eggs into is also compromised.
Hilarious
There’s a reason that procedures are written
Occasionally some of the geniuses on the line could stop joking around and read the damn procedure, identify the part (it’s not hard, they’re marked) and use it. And where was the Quality guy checking their work? They’re supposed to look for exactly this.
Just sloppy, and usually dismissed with “oh don’t worry, those bolts are good enough”.
The fact that the Margin of Safety is > 1 (FS=2) in this case is irrelevant, that’s what the design calls for and the performance of the parts around it depends on those margins for both current operation and long term reliability as they are subjected to cyclic stress, corrosion and thermal cycling.
As I’ve read regarding the building of the SR-71, which used titanium extensively, they had to mandate that NO chromium or cadmium plated tools could be used. Evidently even incidental contact would render the titanium brittle. They therefore had to create all titanium tools.
Are titanium ONLY tools mandated fro the 35? It would seem to me that if you’re going to titanium bolts in critical areas you don’t want anything that could render the metal brittle. And apparently these bolts are indistinguishable from any other bolt where the use of plated tools is not so critical.
Then again, I suppose the metallurgy has improved to the point where it is no longer an issue.