AF FDL-TR-78-153"""-"'"°(jELVEL :VOLUME II L6

AIRCRAFT TRANSPARENCY FAILURE & LOGISTICAL

"CZ COST ANALYSIS

': VOLUME II DESIGN DATA & MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

S. S. BrownD D C• -?

M5~AY 1 7 I1flRock II InternationalI.-. Angl Diiso ,,. I,,.,. Ij I., _

S815 Lapharn Street BS .J El Segundo, CA 90246C

f ___ DECEMBER 1978 41

Final Report June 1977- September 1978

Approvd for public relem; distribution unlimited. jI ,I

AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LA6ORATORY"AIR FORCE WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL LABORATORIESAIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDWRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 46433

. . ....

NOTICE

When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for anypurpose other than in connection. with a definitely related Government procure-ment operation, the United States Government thereby incurs no responsibilitynor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Government may haveformulated, fu.'nished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifica-tions, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise asin any manner licensi , the holder or any other persou or corporation,or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patentedinvention that may in any way be related thereto.

This report has been reviewed by the Information Office (10) and isreleasable to the National Technical information Service (NTIS). AtNTIS, it will be available to the general public, including foreign nations.

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.

Charles A. Babish IIIRihrJ beLaboratory Contract Manager Gd

Escape and Subsystems Branch

FOR THE C(3ANDER

Ambrose B. NuttDirectorVehicle Equipment Division

Copies of this report should not be returned unless return is required bysecurity considerations, contractual obligations, or notice on a specificdocument.

* AIR FORCE/56780/16 April 1979 - 450

ii

I

UNCLASSIFIEDS9CUR,?%AMXWVCATION OF T" PAGE fok" 00141 Emeeted) _______________

4.TITLE fan Snai epur -F ~ kIRCRAfl' DANSPARLNCYJAILU`RE AN Jinal7 SepG~ 7

r0G~~iISTICAL QOST WALYSTS. ____________

.¶&0fl0M IINIA. DEIGN DATAI 4 ANTAND OOES P* TASKE

e1;COUtLIT PPCE NAME 6 AND ADDRESS I.V IOAa a

Lri tPA tteerso Aii ir o rc Basegr Ohiollot 622

11 . CO NT R OILSU T I O F F C NTAE M E AN D A D D E S %J . teitja ~ & _ _

Approe For Fulich releame; dibortoribto unlimitedCb41ý

TF ranspAerenyConentsca interactiiveSpotSses, Desig Ch-/3.NMNKIO AracErStis

Trades, PaitrsoLogistics Center, AFOpeaiona Base, 1ntlltonSocd6r4MaNInTeRNanc ProNCedures, AOOIS ir feraft WrmC~rindsil , AfircraftSCUIT Can isASS.craf tnWinows

cApratedfristbics aneminenane; historicaioulidtaom teseeted suyar

crft O@These dTATaMN providhe a*ther means0 oR86h 0f iniftiatin ser~ foResgImpoe

DO 1473MINTR NOESliwO O 5I 3OEEUCASFE

SvaCURbTe inSIIATO OPTIDADCSi ae ,l~

1 /.. ICLOD_ _ _ __oonrvr*sieI oeseymdWurl yW IemwTranparncyCompnens, nteactie Sppot Sytem, Dsig Chaactrisics

Qualification~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ & etnFedAdtRlablt- ananbltCs

UNCLASSIFIEDSauEfT, CLASSIPCAIO. or tHis ,PE1 Do. 80M.

20. Abstract Continued

istical support activity as currently b -ng practiced at tht Air LogisticsCenters and Air Force Operational Bases, both maintenance and installationprocedures, as well as qualification and testing procedures, for trans-parency components and support systems were collected. These data wereassembled to determine the support structure level of effort and coststo identify those procedures and practices where cost reduction mayjbQachieved. The means of supplementing and validating the collection ofmaintenance procedures and logistical support was through the field auditof five Air Logistics Centers, eight Aii Force Bases, and various air-frame, transparency manufacturers.-,'These iata plus the failure analysisconducted in the transparency anelysis phases provided the basis for imple-menting the design improvement and cost reduction studies shown in vol-ume III.

S- Se~ction 0tj

COD ~ES

1UNCLASSIFITFSICURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TMIS P&gl(OWhm Del. K"19r*M)

m._ __ - -

FORtEWORD

The study presented in this report was performed by the Los AngelesDivismo (LAD) of Rockwell International Corporation (Rockwell) under U.S. AirForce, AFSC, ASD, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Contract F33615-77-C-3060.

This study was performed for the Recovery and Crew Station Branch (MER),

Vehicle Equipment Division (FE), Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Air

Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

under Project 2402 '"Vehicle Equipment Technology", Task 240203 "Aerospace

Vehicle Recovery and Escape Subsystems", Work Unit 24020302 "Aircraft Transpar-

ency Failure and Cost Analysis". Mr. C. A. Babish III (AFFDL/FER) was Labora-tory Contract Manager.

This program was started 15 June 1977 and submitted by the authors for

approval 29 September 1978. The report was released under NA-78-604 by Rock-

well for internal control.

Mr. W. D. Dotseth was the Program Manager for Rockwell. Contributingtechnical personnel were S. S. Brown, Deputy Program Manager, EngineeringSpecialties; 0. F. Niedermann, Engineering Specialties; H. L. Hayes, Trans-

parency Design; R. H. Ewald, Jr, Operation and Proposals Estimating; and W. H.Hatton of Reliability.

The author wishes to thank the field audit contacts in the Air Force, in

the airframe industry, and transparency suppliers for their cooperation andvaluable assistance in collection of maintainability and logistical suppprtodata".

This report is assembled in three separate volumes to provide a pres-

entation of study results that permits easier access to and handling of the

data collected and presented herein. The separate volumes are:

Volume I - PROGRAM StNtAWVolume II - DESIGN DATA AND MAIM7DMCE PROCEXRESVolume III - TRANSPARENCY ANALYSIS

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

volume I ISection Page

INTRODUCTION 1

II TASK I - COLLECTION OF DATA AND INFOMATION5

Aircraft Transparency System 3Master Transparency Systems List 3Transparency Configuration Summary 4Transparency Panel Design Characteristics 8

Laminated Windshield/Window Panels 8Mo~nolithic Windshield/Window Panels 9Canopy Enclosure With Flat Laminate Windshield 9Canopy Enclosure With Contoured Windshield 10

III TASK I - QUALIFICATION TESTING PROCErURES AND RmQUIRBIO 51

Testing Procedures and Requirements 51Development Progr=ns 52Certification and Qualification Requirements 53Assessment of Qualification Costs 55

Test and Procedural Cost Data 55Bird Proof Test Costs 55

Maintenance and Installation Procedures 57AFLC - Reliability and Maintenance 57

AFM 66-1 Maintenance Data Collection System 58AFM 65-110 Standard Aerospace Vehicle and

Equipment Inventory, Status and UtilizationReporting 58

AFM 127-1 Accident/Incident Data 58K051 Increased Reliability of Operation Systems 58

IV TASK Ii - AFLC FIELD AUDIT OF PROCEDURS AND COST DINTA 64

Field Audits 64Metri.c Conversion Programs 66Cost of Transparent Enclosures 66Installation and Maintenance Procedures 67

r2

Iv 'II

J~V

TABLE OF Cf0T{r

volume II kUOFCNET

section Page

Preventive Maintenance Procedures 67Electrical System Checkout Procedures 68Sealant and Aerodynamic Smoothing Requirements 68Checkout Procedures for Mechanisms and Operable

Windows 70Corrosion Prevention 73Refurbishment Procedures 75Description of Maintenance Facilities 78Level of Transparency Capability 79Maintenance/Repair Work Breakdown Structure 85ALC Storage Procedures 85Packaging and Special Handling Procedures 88Quality Control and Nondestructive Inspection

Procedures 90Procedures for Determining Number 37 Spare Parts 92Maintenmace Effort 93

V CONCLUSIONS 95

APPENDIX A - TABLE A-1. MASTER TRANSPARENCY SYSTEM LIST 97

APPENDIX B - FIGURE B-1, T-39 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITYSU4ARM (RAM) 129

REFERENCES 135

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATICNS

Figure Page

1 Study Aircraft 2

2 Aircraft Transparency Systems 5

3 Transparency Configuration Matrix 6

4 Laminated Windshield/Window Panels 11

5 Monolithic Windshield/Window Panels 23

6 Canopy Enclosure With Flat Windshield 35

7 Canopy Enclosure With Curved Windshield 44

8 Literature Review Sources 61

9 Aircraft Maintenance - Historical Data (AR4 66-1) 62

10 KOS Improved Reliability Operational System 63

11 Air Logistics Center Directorate 81

12 Base Level Maintenance 82

13 Maintenance/Repair - Work Breakdown Structure (Level 1-7) 86

v1A

.-A

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Bird Proof Test Cost 60

2 Swmnary uf Field Audit Trips 65

3 Current Cost Estimates for Transparencies 66

4 Sealant and Aerodynamic Smoothing Re Airements 69

S Sumnary of Transparency Systeu Maintenance and RepairFacilities 80

6 AN 66-1 Reliability and Maintainability Data 94

t

ix

-- -----. - .S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume ISection Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction 1Background 2

II REQUIREMENTS AND TASK DESCRIPTION 6

Program Objectives 6Program Requirements 7Study Aircraft 8Transparency/Support Systems 8

III TRANSPARENCY SYSTEMS LOGISTICAL COST I

KOS1 Logistical Support Costs 12LSC for Study Aircraft 13Annual Support Costs 13

I € CURRENT MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS 19

Field Audit Comments 19Transparency System Comparison 21

V SUIMARY OF TRADE STUDIES 24

Trade Study Objective 24Trade Study Summary 24Trade Study Criteria 25Trade Study Descriptions 2S

T-39A Windshield Anti-icing ControllerRedesign 26KC-135A Boom Door and Sighting Window Redesign 27B-52G/H Windshield and Window Redesign 27C-141A Windshield Redesign 28T-38A Canopy Locking Mechanism Redesign 28

VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

Conclusions 44Recommendations 46Candidate List of Design Imprnvements 47

REFERENCES 51

x 4

S. ...... ......... ... .. . ... .. .. •......... .. , . .. .• • .,....... -• •., .. ... .., . .......• . .... .. . . , •-- •. • • • J• r • ' ' i " 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume IIISection Page

INTRODUCTION 1

II TASK III - TRANSPARENCY ANALYSIS 5

Evaluation Process 5Candidate Improvement Selection Criteria 6Cost-Effective Trade Study 6

III DATA ANALYSIS 13

Data Analysis 13Development of Data for Analysis 14General Correlation 14Equations for Estimating LSC During the Conceptual Phase 15Equations Derived Using all Data 16

IV CORRECTIVE PROGRAMS 41

Design Improvements 41Failure Analysis 42Cost Analysis 43Trade Studies 44

Design Improvement Trade Study 1, T-39AWindshield Anti-icing Controller. Redesign AS

Design Improvement Trade Study 2, KC-135A BoomSighting Door and Window Redesign 56

Design Improvement Trade Study 3, B-52G/HWindshield and Window Redesign 66

Design Improvement Trade Study 4, C-141AWindshield Redesign 84

Design Improvement Trade Study 5, T-38A CanopyLocking Mechanism Redesign 105

Mbst Cost-Effective Paramete.zs 116Least Cost-Effective Parameters 116Other Candidate Studies 116

V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 121

Conclusions 121Recommendations 121

xiA 'y,

• •. .• . ,•-•.. ..... ........ ................ . . - , -- - ' _. - ..... . •-,"'•,, ,•' • - •- ;-:.•-_A-W. .... ., I_ . .... .1! 11111090•'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume III

Section Page

APPENDIX A - SAMPLE MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS MODEL (MAMS) PRINTOUTS 123

Figure A-1, T-39A Design/Cost MAMS 124Figure A-2, KC-135A Design/Cost MAMS 13SFigure A-3, B-S2G/H Design Cost MAMS 156Figure A-4, C-141A Design/Cost MAMS 174Figure A-S, T-38A Design/Cost HAMS 196

REFERENCES 199

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A/C Aircraft

ACI Analytical Condition Inspection

AEDC Arnold Engineering Development Center

AEB Air Force Base

AFFDL Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory

AFH Flight Hours (From AFM 66-1)

AFL Number of Flights (From AFM 66-1)

AFLC Air Force Logistics Cunand

AFM Air Force Mtaual

AFM 66-1 Maintenance Management System

AFM 65-110 Standard Aerospace Vehicle and Lquipment Inventory, Status,

and Utilization Reporting

AFI 127-1 Accident/Incident Data

AFR Air Force Regulation

AFSC Air Force Systems Ccmuand

AFTO Air Force Technical Order

ALC Air Logistics Center

ANS Avionics Maintenance SquadronASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AT Action Taken

ATF/LCA Aircraft Transparency Failure and Logistics Cost Analysis

BLIS Base Level Inquiry System

CON-C Condemnation Costs

CRC Cost Reduction Curve

DC4 Deputy Commander - Maintenance

DDCC Delaminations, Deterioration, Cracks, and ChippingD056 Product Performance System

D062 Spares Requirement System

DS Distribution and Supply

EUMR Emergency Unsatisfactory Materiel Report

FE Vehicle Equipment Division

FER Recovery and Crew Station Branch

FH Flight Hours

xiii

4 .

LLST OF ABBREVIATfIOKS (Continued)

FMW Field Maintenance Cost

SEFailure Modes and Effect Analysis

FNS Field Maintenance Squadron

SFSN Federal Stock Number

HDP Hydropress DieHM, How Mal How Malftunction

HTF Heat Treat Fixture

IN Information Office

INS Inches

IROS Increased Reliability of Operational Systems

KF1H Flight Hours (From KOSI)

KFL Number of Flights (From K051)

K051 Logistical Support Cost (IROS)

(L) Left-Hand SideLAD Los Angeles Division (Rockwell International)

LB Pounds

LCC Life Cycle Cost

LG Laminated Glass

(L/R) Left- and Right-Hand SidesLRU Line Replaceable Unit

LSC Logistical Support Cost

MA Maintenance

MAM Maintenance Analysis Model Program

MDCS Maintenance Data Collection System (AFM 66-1)

MDR Maintenance Demand Rate

MIPS Material Improvement Projects

W. Material Mnagemnent

MM1 Maintenance Man-Hours HMMH/FH Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour

t4H/MA Maintenance Man-Hours per Maintenance Action

MrBF Mean Time Between Failures

MT34A. Mean Time Between Maintenance ActionMI•TR Mean Time Between Removal

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Contirued)

MTBUR Mean Time Betweai Unscheduled Removal

MTSL MAster Transparency System List

MU Wavelength - Millimicronis

NDI Nondestructive Inspoction

NO. (#) Number

NOC Not Otherwise Coded

NOR Not Operationally Ready - Maintenance

NORS Not Operationally Ready - Supply

NRTS Not Repairable This Station

NSN National Stock Number

NTIS National Techrdcal Information Service

QAFB Operational Air Force Base

ctS Organizational Maintenance Squadron

PC Polycarbonate

P/C Pilot and Copilot

PIl) Programed Depot Maintenance

P/FFLABORT Primary Failure Discovered After Flight Abort

P/FGRABORT Primary Failure Discovered After Ground Abort

PFP Production Flat Pattern

PCMO Production Oriented Maintenance Organization

PP Procurement and Production

PPG Pittsburg Plate Glass Industries

PSC Packaging and Shipping Costs

PVB Polyvinyl Butaryl

Q/C Quality Control

(R) Right-Hand Side

RAM Reliability and Maintainability Program

RI/LAD Rockwell Intenrational/Los Angeles Division

ROK Recheck OK

R&R Repair and Reclamation

RRS Repair and Reclamation Shop

SA Stretched Acrylic

SRC Specialized Repair Costs

yv

S. .. . .. . . .. ..4. . . .. . ,. . .... .. -• .. . • • • . . ' ! i • ' - • :

LIST OF ABBRLYIAXIctONS L(Coriclud-d)

SRD Creel RIile Die

Tero Technical Compliance Technical Order

TO Technicai Order

TT Task Time

UC1A University of California at Los Angeles

UMA Unscheduled Maintenance Actions

USAF United States Air Force

WBS Work Breakdwn Structure

W/S Windshield

WIJC Work Unit Code

ALCS Air Logistic Centers

OC-ALC Oklahoma City ALC, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma

00-ALC Ogden ALC, Hill Air Force Base, Utah

SA-ALC San Antonio ALC, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas

SM-ALC Sacramento ALC, McClellan Air Force Base, California

WR-ALC Warner Robins ALC, Warner Robins Air Force Base, Georgia

x.

xv'

SECTION I

INMTROJUCTION

11Tis study is programmed to survey the maintenance and installation proce-

dures of the current Air Force inventory transparency systems including

windshields, canopies, cabin windows, and interactive support systens. The

survey was conducted at five air logistics centers and eight selected Air

Force operational bases to identify the high-cost, high-frequency maintenance

items for 20 selected aircraft (figure 1). The ultimate pur-pose was to iden-

tify corrective programs that will reduce logistical cost.

This program is an extension of two previous programs (references 1 and

2) that were conducted to stuiy failure modes, maintenance procedures, and the

associated logistical support costs for transparency systems. The extent of

the analysis developed in these previous studies was to search historical

maintenance and logistical cost records, and categorize the physical trans-

parency characteristics, failure modes, frequency of failures, and costs in a

readily identifiable and inclusive statement of the problem.

The intent of this study is to expand the research of the transparency

probiems _L greater depth, identify and recommend changes in maintenance pro-

cedures, and recommend design improvements that will reduce failures and cost

of maintenance.

This volume contains the assembly of design data and maintenance proce-

dures collected to provide a means of: (1) summarizing the transparency

physic'il characteristics for use in the failure analysis, (2) identifying the

descriptive design data for the design improvement studies, and (3) furnishing

the costs required for requalification and test.

1d

- ~ -.----

BOMBERS- B-52, B-57, AND FB-111

ATTACK- A-7D AND A-37

CARGO/TRANSPORT- C-5, C-9, C-130, C/KC-135, AND C-141

FIGHTERS- F-4, F-15, F-105, AND F-111

TRAINERS- T-37, T-38, AND T-39

OBSERVATION/UTI LITY- 0-2 AND OV-1O

HELl COPTERS- CH-3, CH-53, AND UH-1

Fi 1e 1. Study Aircraft

2

SECTION II

TASK I - COLLECrION OF DATA AND INFOIRMATION

AIRCRAFT TRANSPARENCY SYSTEM

The definition of Aircraft Transparency System, as utilized in this

study, is ccoprised of three categories. They are:

1. Transparency components

2. Interactive support systems

3. Support structures

The transparency components consist of the primary elements of windshield

panel assemblies, canopy transparency and frame assemblies, and cabin windows.

The makeup of the interactive support system consists principally of anti-

icing and antifogging systems, etc. The depth of study of these systems was

limited to the levels that were readily identifiable in the -06 'Work Unit

Code Manual". Support structure considered only those elements that form an F

edge member, adjacent post or frame, and longeron or sill. Figure 2 summar-

izes the breakdown of transparency systems.

MASTER TRANSPARENCY SYSTEMS LIST

The Master Transparency Systems List WTSL) was assembled to provide a

detai.led listing of the elements of each transparency system for each aircraft

model as defined in the previous section. The MrSL is the transparency identi-

fier F,-d also includes the AFLC designations such as anumfacturer part number

and national stock number. In addition to the description and nomenclature

the umit costs, principally for the transparency components, are also noted inthis table. Also shown are the Logistic Support Cost Rank of the five highest

3

cost Work Umhit Code (WUC) items within each transpairency system, the descrip-

tion of the Major How Mal for the RIC item, and the percentage oi ,Maintenance

Man-Hours expenddi on the WUC item as a result of the Major How Mal. Due tothe extensive assembly of data items, the NTSL is incorporated as Appendix A

of this document.

TRANSPARECY CONFIGURATICN SUH4R

The 20 aircraft reviewed in this study represent a wide spectrum of

design and performance requirements. In meeting these requirements, the

transparency systems incorporated in this aircraft resulted in a wide range of

configuration sh;nes, type of construction, and irteractive support systems.Figure 3, transparency configuration matrix, was assembled to provide a quickstmmary of the general arrangeents for these tra-sparency systems.

iI;

I.

L L• • l !4

. . ... ...... .. .. • - ...... . " + - . ..... . -- . .. . ....+ +.. ... .... .. - ,, -- • ~ i i•i• • : 4

1. WINDSHIELDS2. CANOPIES3. WINDOWS

INTERACTIVE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

1, ANTI-ICING

2. DEFOGGING3. RAIN REMOVAL4. OPERATING AND ACTUATION5. PRESSURIZATION

SUEPPOI STRUCTURES

1. FRAMES2, POSTS3. LONGERONS & SILLS

Figure 2. Aircraft Transparency Systems Ift

S~I:

doI

*00OL A~~~~ & A@

0a h

. 0 @0 @0y

@0pl 0at'4-4

'i@0

0 a IP1U

I i t, -p

-Ste

aI Od

* 00-ld-

400,

14*4 *l@Aoft*

-030

:vvt

TRASPARE-'Y PANEL DESIGN "CiArACTERISTICS

The design data presented in this section hPs been collected from the

most recently available drawings, from discussions with the aircraft manufac-

turer's design engineers, and from field audit trips.

The transparent panel installations, used on aircraft reviewed in this

study, fall into four categories. Two categories are related, in that they

pertain to aircraft that utilize structurally enclosed crew and passenger

compartments. The first category usually uses complex, laminated transparent

panels, while the second category uses less sophisticated, monolithic transpar-

ent panels.

The last two categories of transparent panel installations are also

related, in that they are used on aircraft in which the crew &-' p.assenger

compartments are enclosed within a transparent canopy. (ne category uses a

flat, laminated windshield, while the last category uses a contoured wind-

shield.

LAMINATED WINDSHIELDIWINDOW PANELS

Aircraft that utilize laminated transparent panels are the B-52, C-5,

C-9, C-130, KC-135, C-]41, and the T-39. Transparency characteristics for

these aircraft are shown in figure 4. These aircraft operate in an environmentthat requires pressurization, windshield heating and some degree of birdproof-

ing.

The windshields on each of these aircraft are made of two or more lami-

nat( s of glass, joined with vinyl interlayers; with various arrangements of

metal inserts, phenolic and fiberglass spacers and reinforcements used around hthe perimeter of the panels.

The remaining transparent panels for the B-52, C-130, and the C/KC-13.Care also glass-vinyl sandwiches. The exceptions, however, are the eyebrow

8

~. . . . . . .. I

windows for the B- 52, which are monolithic panels of stretched acrylic, and

the KC-135 boom sighting door indow which is an unpressurized, monolithic

acrylic panel.

The remaining aircraft in this group,, the C-5, C-9, C-141, and the 7-39,

use window panels made of stretched acrylic laminates joined by vinyl inter-

layers. The C-9 and T-39 use some windows made of acrylic panels with anintervening space that is vented to the cabin air.

MNOOLITHIC WINDSHIELD/WINDOW PANELS

Structurally enclosed crew compartment type aircraft that utilize mcno-

lithic transparent panels are the 0-2, ({1-3, (2-53, and the UN-I. Transpar-

ency characteristics for these aircraft are shown in figure 5. Generally

these aircraft operate in an envirorunet that does not require pressurizing or

windshield heating; bird inpact requirements are also less severe. All of the

transparent panels used on these aircraft are single-sheet acrylic material,

except the center and main windshields used on the (11-53, which ar. lamainated,

heated panels.

CANOPY ENCLMJE WITH FIAT LAMINATED WINISIIELD

A third category of aircraft uses a flat, laminated windshield panel in

conjunctcn with a canopy-enclosed crew cumpartnent. These include the B-S7,

A-7, F-4, F-105, and the OV-10. Transparency characteristics for these air-

craft are shown in figure 6. The windshield panels for these aircraft are

rade of three to five glass laminates joined with vinyl interlayers. In the

case of the OV-10, the number of laminates is not specified, except that the

panel must meet the requirements for MIL-G-5485 bulletproof glass. The other

transparent panels used on these aircraft are made of acrylic material. The

B-57 uses a monolithic windshield side panel made of stretched acrylic, and

"the canopies are made of two laminates of acrylic with a vinyl interlayer.

The F-105 windshield side panels and canopies are made of two acrylic panels

9

with an intervening air gap. The remaining transparent panels, used on the

A-7, F-4, and the OV-10, are monolithic stretch,.A acrylic.

CANOPY ENCLOSURE WITH CWTOUJRD WINISIELD

The FB-111, F-111, A-37, T-37, F-iS, and the T-38 use fully contouredwindshields. See figure 7 for characteristics of transparent panels used on

these aircraft. The FB-1ii and the F-ill windshields and canopies are made of

two glass laminates with a silicone interlayer.

The A-37 and T-37 aircrbft now use a birdproofed windshield made ofpolycarbonate with an inner and outer protective layer of acrylic- The

canopies are monolithic stretched acrylic.

The F-15 aircraft were originally produced with hard coated, monolithic

polycarbonate windshie J and canopies. Because of short life and excessivemaintenance cost there is a retrofit program in progress to replace all F-15windshields and canopies with monolithic, stretched acrylic units.

The T-38 uses contoured, monolithic, stretched acrylic panels for theforward student's windshield and two canopies. In addition there is a flat,stretched acrylic aft instructor's windshield. This windshield is not normally

exposed to the outside air; however, it offers protection for the instructor

in the event the forward canopy should open for any reason.

7.rilO1

L I!

CI z0 0N

0A -7

04 (N

r-T 0

U't U'1 4' UU' ~ '.U'U''A

U' *1 U (U '

E co E w:2 a.~ Ln IL 0 % L -

E -r 0 Ln Cr -7a 0 V) (\ r-cCm)oc

* 000 000 000oc,0 0000 C 0 000 C) 0

0I

0)

0 a)

4)J

-d - - L&

'U (U U (U U Lco

~~~~ ai cj rj r

LI 45 1C

0 If 0 0~1.a L0cC

:1 C-4 CVI

"a V "a

-# ON ON

A kif

' 0 0%

>- O .q -:: A: .-5 v,a AJ6 U -:ý CA.A - -0

>. C)- ~ -CE

00 U% 0 U

kn Ln . . . . . vi'

0000000000 0 C)

t1)

CLU

- 4

l - -C% N

'-N C- r-.

.,i L E.' a.1 00 A% 0- 47% 4x ONI0'~0 " tA,

In

ci k S

C--' CLi

12619ýll

131N W

-7cNr

lb IA

C4 UN -- .

LA 1^% U% ,

'I ' ~ N ~s~0 00Lii%'0iC~ LC1

06 CC-4

13__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4

0 I 0

6.. 0 C)

0

Lc

N 01

-4 0 z K

rý 0 D Goac 0

rmr-Li)7.

14'

0 a*

'A 0 - '

I" >

I, r

~i 0 13 C-4U

L- - -0

- 6 L

E E

m Go

047-

-14

ao a

W% G- r*-

i-is

id~

IC.-

-c C

CA ~ C 'Ago

m Cc CLe

h. lol 0

c' 4, (7 -%

a a:

C4 C4

al Ii

0. c.

L, V CL .. C'

LL.

16

prr-

40 V%0

NO

C c

M A LA IA Im~

Im Ic a - 0 -D

0 di CL G

0 -------- r

0 -

%a Na 0

ON 0N

dc22

In 4)

_j 4) V~ -j NN

j'. it 41

U - It U' ~ O-(.17

- -•" - - " ---

iI- If I iIq 11I~ iN 04

m UN

0 -_,A - - -A - '0 'A . • •

aa

Iir•..•,- .e• -i

AV % A A.A

%Aa a.: o a* a% a*c

"4)

m-C%- en -.

aIC% ON ~ cW% ON

- N A. a . A .. -A4L%

0~0

C CL 0

_ u

18

.W, US ,

." "-UU - "-

A C

a ~ 0 r.. fn r, 4

-- Q • ,>

VS OW " 0 64% ON" C40

r4r

c0 03 0 o, Co

-~~6 00 0 L

CLL I U. .!a 6

Li

to)

0 a CL 0

'U• 'U• 15 II

19C a

006 m- 01.06 0 U

1- c 19

.2 .2

4 0" "a u 90 % -CA IA rý 4co C C -

I) 4)

W "i c 0 40.

'A

> 0>-co 0 Lf'.0 .-

.4)

r74

0-- ~ ~ ~ ~ " CO 0CNI4'N U

N 7 C- I CM

c' ~ O cc.00'.0- N

*0 20

--

II

Q|. °-r

t W %.. ; .. I- ;

C u0

. c .

. . i. . . .,

41~l•'lii I%4 3 4 3 3 E 3

'POP M..- T - - W - _ - p -

-A-

c000

00e,

- A. aU

I"Q

N N-4

.2 .2

Li '

'0 04

'0 0

0 03 U;

0 m km4

0 toI L -

23'-

0O 0 0

00 U'

U '.0

U' 0' 0L

1 0x

244

3 2 ý 0 16

w;w

4r.

00

cc -T at -

c00

m0m

CN0

25

3 NON

0 0

0

'.4 4

L- C

0 e

C4.C-4

26-

N in

N :4N

3 4.C

- a, U0

L , 16

Inf

to%

0-

44-

a LJ LLLi Li u

t4)

27.

0 ao0 a4r

NU4111 6L r _ __ _ __ _

N6

-A- L ~ m , TL n%

4r II *-

- ac-

AAA4-0)

28.

�ii � ___________

iii �1

iI� ��1%

.3 I'

� r-. ifa* UE

a.-

A .1'-I4)

I-4zKJU.'

4'I-

0- I12 .- '-

* S"I

I Io 0

_ N N

SI.-. u' -��' _____________

ft� .u C---.�i U, �=-�-*

LiU r'�'

Li

29

'I

________ I

4r4U

III 4-

( J 0 )- .

zi -

u.A 92 1

z -j

La -az

~1 '1

30

0 NN

w N0

U'A

10 .0

a 0 0214 4 ,0 0)

j z:! Li

4)' ON

iccQ2Jj

.111 U.'UN

I-.A

6 00.m0 .0 m 9

-o -- T

40~C0

3k-

7 N- '. .4

xU.-

~

032o

LA l

t a Lp LA

o 0 a

Ii~ aLA

41)

LA P.-

NON

-I

C -I% 4.-nC0. -a0.7'a C t

2 1.. .J >0U U U I-0

cU

- 47

33"

oil

gb.

i --

34

l ..... . ....__ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 0 , ...- * 1. 4+•' +++

-1 0

C~ 0 0

o UNQ0 0

-- , i i .

0 0 0

Nu

Nu

N N N

_ o o 4

J!uI , U. , . .

i6-

U

%0 'o

cc Co 00

C%

a IC2CL CL

"0 V "0"0 0cc

0A NCIO oI

0 05

--

0Va P4a

rr N4

00

00'0

C 33

f*4 E*A

100

0 0 U% eu

C ~0 4

4. UNI

0 VU

1 0

4'4

In

* C -l.

37

lo0ww~vlw - 7-- `-V -t- -

'.9 -a.4.9

L.9

21, u

-~l 4-UIGoU

L6~'UI

>41-

'- '

o'Uo r^ I

OL t^ ON O-N

ci c '0.

A V - CN CM

C Cr.~ -r v. -C -w 0?

0) -- c .0 cc

CLC

A 43

00

9~44)

00

WN ID -.

C4 4

C2

-439.

% 0

go 'e:

Cl uii -______________o o o o .

,N 0

(.... .. . . ... .- , e.. -• . .. . 0 . . • • •• "-

'oo U

100

09(

-

V-to

,2I! ______________

_____________

_____________U.'

0iii ______________

I-

0.'

'00

C.0

0

2-.0'- U.-

I,

*6E

-

-

-

0

0 -

C

-

o

.0

.� �.' 0�

L

- -

�J .� w 0 C

-

C �j I-

*0I. �

--

0

'U

3

U

C C

U. 4-i

-I

*.L.

�

zo

4.h

30

01�I

0 'I '0

U..

0

0

--

00

00

-4g.'

I

S -

-0- -0 EN

00

I *-�% *

I,,

00

4)

.0�i -,z

Q..�, C--v5'

______________

0

______________

'-I --

6

0

0

0

5'

5'

o

0

I

41

I " -

Il o 0N

3t 0-

C--

U -

>4p2

ON ON

-J0

cc 0

4L V 1 0- A V

o GO.4GZ

C;

it-

-~ U

00,.

L. 4

.j 'I 4-

C4)

3C

'3

(A

0

43

, i

a,,

T UC! > '

0 0"

I i < !

41

o '-

x5 0w

44-

t__

j ~00

t . - ,.a

001

~.i ______

0i

t1 C U

C4

--.C-

~~~~I IL. c " , ,,19uz | •1 • i

>-0-

454

ICU

Cc

C vC

a 0 C0

- u U

0.- 'a

0

UL

~L Eu4-

inC2q £N 1ii a060

.C go

- Ic

46)

--

Go

v a

4 -

3 -4- ,- -0

I- 0 ~ U' i

0 o0

8~ x-D r

47-

4 C401 0 c

0 t-0o u

0 I-0

UU

00- cI

M..

U- N U>

~U a .:~ DO.5., 1D* .

Vc

Vc 0 QU 0003

2, 0 4A39) CA MIe.

a48

1 'i

'I~o U

ifi

II

449

I. . . . . . .. . . .... _ ! •_

0

UNN

00A

CL 0

-Ic

c-lu-

0A a.0 ao

43 .

U . .

0 0

c c 4

os

SECTION III

TASK I - QUALIFICATION TESTING PMOMURES AND RBQUIRDOM

The data collected on the qualification and testing procedures were

gathered from many sources. The sources include the ALC's, airframe manufac-

turers, and transparency suppliers. The data contained in this section covers

the test procedures and requirements necessary ,.o qualify the transparency

system for flightworthiness. It also includes a description of the development

program which generated the requirements. The presentation is in the form of

data sets made up from comnts assembled during the field autit phase of this

program.

TESTING PMX UES AND PJPýJIRBUNIS

The testing procedures utilized by both the ALC and Operational Air Force

Base (OAFB) at the conclusion of a transparency repair or modification is a

qualitative test in accordance with the Inspection and Maintensxce Technical

Orders. The tests made are:

1. Optical Qualities Test - A visual inspection is caiducted by Flight

and/or Quality Control personnel. Principal reliance for the inspec-

tion of optical qualities rests with flight persmonel.

2. Pressurization Tests - Cabin or cockpit tests are functiu-nal in

nature. The system pressure is brought up to specified levels and

leakage rates checked for adherence to the tolerances specified in

the -2 and -3 technical orders.

3. Water Leakage Tests - Water spray tests are conducted to determine if

adequate sealing is achieved for the rain seals and panel sealant

joints.

fJ

51

51!

4. Test of Interactive Support Systems - The simple functional checkout

of anti-icing, defogging, and mechanical systems is the first means

of testing the adequacy of the repair and replacement. If additionaltesting is required, proceduces as described in Section IV, under

headings E .rical System Geckout Procedures and Checkout Procedures

for Mechaisms of Operable Windows are used.

E .OPMEM PROGRAMS

The description of development programs for transparency systems were not

made available to the audit team. During the visits to four airframe manufac-

turers, the data relating to development programs were considered to be

proprietary, or lumped in with fuselage structure and enviromrMiental controlsystem. Because of the integrated nature of the transparencies with the

structures, aivironmental, and equipment subsystems, it was considered to be

impractical, wid in some cases impossible, to isolate the programs and coststhat generat-.d the test, certification and qixilification requirements.References 8 through 10 contain the test and qualification data for the T-38and F-S serie,; aircraft that were tLsed in this study.

Reference 8. W. G. Shirreffs, "Qualification Test of T-38 Cockpit EnclosureSastem for St-ructui I.-.D.. Aýppr~oval,, No-r ai Report Number '

NOR-61-r35, Northrop Corporation, Aircraft Division, Hawthorne,CA, 6 October 1961

Reference 9. W. G. Shirreffs, "Design Test of Instructors Canted Windshield,"Norair Report Numbefr O-61-146, 1;or~t1op Corporation, A~rcriftDivision, Hawthorne, CA, 5 September 1963

Reference 10. J. A. Porter, "(!ualification Test of 8-13965-t ElectricallyAnti-iced Windshield," Contract F33657-68-C-1036, Norair ReportNm6ber NOR-69-117, Northrop Corporation Aircraft Division,Hawthorne, CA, September 1969

52!,

hi. *.

EIRIIFICATION AND 2UALIFICATION REQUIRBMWS

The review of cammints relating to quallfication of transpaiencies

resulted in categorization of four tests utilized by the airfrome manufac-

turers visited. They are:

1. Optical Qualities Test - The optical qualities test universally used

by both the manufacturer and transparency supplier is the photographic

process. This process shoots a photograph of a grid board through

the test transparency simulating the attitude as normally mounted in

the aircraft. The criteria for allowable sleoe deviation of the grid

segments around the viewing areas are generally established by the

Air Force procuring activity, transparency supplier, and the airframe

manufacturer. The American Society for T -sting and Materials (ASTh)

is in the process of developing an approach for standardization of

opticvl qualities criteria.

2. Cyclic Pressurization Test - The cyclic pressure tests are run to

determine the basic strength characteristics of the transparency

component as subjected to cabin cockpit pressurization and, when

applicable, to variation in temperature. Additional test results

obtained is the determination of the ability of structural framing,

enclosure frames, and supporting members to resist fatigue.

The cabin or enclosure transparency system, including a simulated or

actual fuselage test section, is subjected to various combinations of

internal and external temperatures through a range of internal pres-

sures as would be encountered in flight and ground conditions. The

canopy or window mechanisms are generally installed and rigged in I

accordance with applicable production drawings. Testing procedures

utilized in conducting these tests are accomplished in accordance

w,th .lie criteria as established and referenced in AFSC Design Hand-

book (Keference 11).

ete',rence 11. A1.F,',, Ili Series 2-0, "Design lkimdbook,' 1)epartament of the Airlorc,. IHeadquarters AirForce7TV't--iLs Command, Andrews AFB, DC.0334, 25 April 1977

53

3. Bird Proof Test (When Applicable) Bird impact requirements are

established at tie d" ;cretion of the procuring activity and the

airframe manufacturer. The procedures established define the condi-

,ions pertinaet to the test tL be conducted and include the methods

of bird packaging, a selection of test facility, number of test

articles, and the environmental conditioning. Additional parameters

establish the bird weight and condition, bird velocity, and instrumen-

tation to be used. Bird impact testing .;f crew ccmparmet transpar-

encies and supporting structure verifies desigr, through correlation

of anatytical methods with laboratory sumilated bird strikes. The

ASTI is currently trying to establish standards for conducting bird

impact tests.

4. Coupon (Strength) Test - Structural tests of transparency specimens

are conducted to th4 extent required to demonstrate structural inte-

grity. The extent required is generally uegotiated between the

manufacturer and the procuring agency. The tests ijclude tensile and

shear strength determinations for the proposed transparency concepts.

.Additional tests -ay involve thermal eV.posure tests such as creep

test. Qualification may also involve testing for stress craze resist-

ance caused by moisture and exposure to ultraviolet rays. Other

testing to fully cover the range of environmental factors may also

include test of resistance to abrasion and the integrity of adhesive

bondings.

The extent of qualification testing is largely dependent on the character-

istics and the mission requirements of the aircraft configuration. Th-

requirements for follow-on deri',atives may be substantially reduced by provid-

ing analysis on the basis of similarity in cor-figuration. The procuring

agency may consider this approach as being acceptable when changes to the

transparency are minor. As previously stated, the American Society for Testirg

and • -erials is in the process of recommending standardization in the qualifi-

cation and testing procedures.

54

ASSESSENT OF WALIFICATI)N CXO7S

The assessment of costs to qualify a transparency systm for the preceding

noted testing procedures is dependent on many factors. These include size,

configuration, selected material, and type of construction. The requiruments

for test varies fron aircraft to aircraft and are generally established by the

procuring activity for each program. The availability of this type information

wa3 very limited, due to the age of the aircraft, and in most cases transpar-

ency tests were generally a part of a combined testing program involving other

requ.irments.

On the basis of field audit data, some unit and task efforts were col-

lected. These data are presented to provide a sapqling of unit costs for

estimating purposes.

Test and Procedural Cost Lata

1. Edge member cousxpns $100 to $2,000 apiece.

2. Edge member pul.1 test !J to 30 times. Each test cost is $25 to $50.

For elevated temperature, the test cost is $50 to $75.

3. Pressure cycle and thermal cycle test - requires 50 man-hours for

each test. This includes setup and reardown time. Each test requires

15 to 20 samples at $500 to $1,500 each.

4. Optic grid board check requi"-s anywhere from 2 minutes to 3.5 hours

per panel, depending on the size of windshield. Estimated cost for

this operation is $40 per hour.

Bird Proof Test Costs

The known transparency testing facilities were contacted to determine the

costs associated with qua! "Eying bird-resistant windshields and enclosures.

The facilities contacted were:

55I9

1. Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Litchfield Park, Arizona

2. ARO Inc, Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), Tullahoma,Tennessee

3. National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada

4. McDonmell Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, California

The information requested from each facility was the costing information

required to requalify transparency systems. It was further requested that

major costing efforts be provided to support the design improvement studies

being developed. The results of these inquiries indicated that each facility

utilized a different approach in establishing test costs. The three approaches

used were based on: cost per shot, cost per hour, and cost per day, with

adjusted allowances for downtime, and allowances for special equipment and

services. Table 1, "Bird Proof Test Costs", identifies the major costing

efforts associated with requalification testing. With appropriate factors

unique to the aircraft transparency system testing programs, reasonably accur-

ate estimates may be determined.

Discussions with testing personnel indicated that a significant part of

the retesting costs are attributed to the test fixture and test specimens.

Those costs, however, are dependent on the characteristics of each specific

configuration and are consequently not included in table 1. The largest

unknown factor is the number of shots required to qualify. Based on, the

concensus of the people talked to, as many as fifteen shots (including two to

three impact positions) were required for a newly developed transparency

system. The estimate based on past experience was that two to three shots

were required for limited test programs. Approximately two to three shots a

day can be accomplished for a simple setup. For Uhie more ca, plicated setups

it takes 2 to 3 days to complete three shots. It should be noted that some

aircraft programs require more than the average of fifteen quoted above.

56

MAINTENANCE AND INSTAUIATION PROCED[UES

The maintenance procedural data used in support of this program mainly

consisted of Air Force Technical Order Manuals for the 20 study aircraft plus

technics!2 documents oriented to or indirectly relating to transparency systems.

A major portion of the maintenance and installation procedures used to corre-

late the maintenance actions and maintenance hours with the failure analysis

was accomplished with the aid of information found in the literature review

sources which are listed in figure 8. The -4 illustrated parts catalog was

particularly valuable in identifying and correlating the manufacturer's part

number to the -06 Work Unit Code Manual. The sources for these data were

obtained from the Contractor's Data Bank and from additional manual and techni-

cal data as supplied by the AFFDL.

For the reasons presented earlier in this section under the heading

Development Programs, only a limited amount of transparency installation data

for both the current and out-of-production aircraft were made available to the

field audit team.

_ ALC - RELIABILITY AND MAINTEMANCE

The principal means utilized by the AFLC to track and collect the history

of maintenance activity of transparency systems is the automatic data process-

ing system as described in the D056 product performance system (references 6

and 12). This manual defines the procedures necessary to accumulate and

display all available failure information on a specific end item (WUC), by

aircraft model and component, necessary to track any possible logistics prob-

lem, and in the Reliability and Maintainability Data Sources (reference 12).

Reference 12. Logistics, "Reliability and Maintainability Data Sources ,"AFLC/AFSC Pamphlet 400-11, Department of the Air Force,Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Ccmund (AFLC) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433, Headquarters, Air ForceSystems Comimand (AFSC) Andrews Air Force Base, DC 20334,16 August 1974

57

Since the preceding progrum (refereces 1 and 2) provided -xtuesive

definition of these processez, this report will briefly cover the progrm

utilized in the failure analysis coniucted in Volume III of this report.

AR4 66-1 M&I? ENANCE DATA COY)XLCTION SYSTM

The Air Force Mumah l 66-1, aintenmance Data Collection System (04xS)

(reference 7), is primrily used at base level for tracking mintenance

activity. It also is used and provides data to the ALC for materiel management

and logistic support requirements. Figure 9, Aircraft !Iaintenswce Historical

Data, displays an example of the major elements used in the 'V4aintenance

Analysis Model Prograd' (MAWS) failure analysis evaluation.

AR4 65-110 STA.ORD AEROSPACE VEHICLE AND BJUI Pff INVI4ORY, STATUS, AND

UTILIZATION REPORTING

This system provides the status of current inventory and utilization for

all aircraft operated by USAF. Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and

-aircraft assigned to cercial contractor facilities (reference 7). Figure

9 also lists total mrntr of flight hours flown, total number of flights for a

given timespan for each aircraft.

AFM '27-1 ACCIDENT/INCILET DATA

An Eergency IUsatisfactory Materiel keport (LIMw) is submitted upon

occurrence of an aircraft accident involving materiel failures. As a result,

action is initiated and continues until the cause is determined and corrected

to prevent any recurrence.

=- - 4

KOSl INCREASED RELIABILITY OF OPERATIONAL SYSTW

The KOSi1 Increased Reliability of Operational Systems (IROS) Program wasdeveloped to identify those components, subsystems, or equipment items thathave disproportionate demands on the logistical resources. These items cancause nonavailability or potential safety problems on their reliability ormaintainability performances. IROS-generated cost data includes inputs fromboth the Air Logistics Centers (ALC), also referred to as the depot, and theoperational bases.

The elements that make up the system for tracking of logistical supportcost are shown in figure 10. The Logistical Support Cost (LSC) includes:

1. FMC - Field Maintenance Cost

2. SRC - Specialized Repair Cost (depot)

3. PSC - Packaging and Shipping Cost

4. CON-C - Condaiatims Cost (spares)

£r

I.I

59.1

1-

4-i

U d W'4. r.4

.,.4 C. 414

4-1 +j - 4-wIm 0 X.

tn0 ba >. 2

.1I 4-A

tn00m 0U Ln 4-a

Q0 0 04) Mfl (A f404 +j C.

4- , 4.4 4 a00

. E

1- (A 44)4

0 0 2

00

I.~IICU4M U--+J M +.J 4-J 44

V0 * *, 0414-141 (n +j 4-h

0,9 (D

00

(nLI LJn 004)0 -. r-

ZO %' 44W 440 00

co 4o

C-,-+

4) a0 4' c

4J NJ

4-a V4- 4:4 -4.. -

4) 04 Ln0-4t

4-4 4J 0-- +j~4 +Z4j 4)'

_ _ _ _ _ _ (Az-1 A W (_

4J 4-J 4-

Lai

-JL

a-r

C,,LhJ CD~~~ I-

MCC 0-0 a-

~~ C-

0--

__j C-) -

C- U

C%4 C/)

~ = ~ 1

4A

L.

o0

V, 410~ 3-. i

L.

0 0

L I

0 Uw 4-J

m G)

-It> L&. LL C

ccoo .4

0 4-4

U' co. >c

.4J *J

ZL& I.. CL

62

Mal

(N))

U- 0,U

-j Z

4 - 04c) Cu

0 08I- -~4J

-jLLJ -4oA( <3 L* a.0N) 0D LA- LaiN

V) > CD0 0

=- =CA

0cc

LaA.

CL C--

401

UU,

V-. E- LI cIC -jz

(N! -) I Q

_ -~ L&.63

L&J~ ( )(f5

SECrICN~ IV

TASK I I - AFLC FIELD AUDIT OF PROCEDURES AND COST IDTA

FIELD AUDITS

Task II of this program involved the collection of Aircraft Transparency

Systems Data from five air logistics centers, eight selected Air Force opera-

tional bases, selected aircraft manufacturers, and transparency suppliers.

The data and information gathered were obtained by direct visitation to these

activities. Table 2 lists the various facilities visited.

Prior to the field audit trip, a generalized questionnaire requesting

information about maintenance failure modes, procedures, logistics, and facili-

ties was established. This questionnaire formed the basic line of questioning.

Since the program involves the evaluation oi 20 different aircraft, additional

questions unique to the particular aircraft being reviewed were appended tothe general questionnaire. A letter of introduction, suggested agenda, and

copies of the questionnaire were sent to the contacts at each facility 2 to 3 Ii

weeks prior to visitation to enable preparation and assembly of the required

data.

The visits to both the ALC's and OAFB's entailed the collection of infor-

mation relating to available facilities, maintenance programs, procedures andequipment, test fixtures, etc, for transparency systems. The results of these

inquiries are assembled in the installation and maintenance procedures sub-

section of Section IV..4

During each ficld audit trip, each member of the field audit team took

notes on the comments obtained at the review meetings and shop tours. At theconclusion of the review a composite listing of these conments, notes, and

suggestions was assembled. The intent of this listing was to supplement thegeneral maintenance and logistical data that was extracted from the AFM 66-1

tracking system.

64

TABLE 2. SLM4%RY OF FI ELD :41DIT TRIPS

TripNo. Facility Bata acquisition/purpose

Castle AFB, Ca. B-52, C/KC-135

ALC, Sacramento, Ca F-10S, F-ill, FB-Ill, T-39

Travis AFB, Ca C-S, KC-135, C-141

ALC, Ogden, Ut. F-4

ALC, Oklahoma City, Ok A-7, B-52, C/KC-1352 M. Home AFB, Id F-111

ALC, San Antonio, Tx C-S, C-9, A.T-37, T-38,0-2, OV-10

Bergstrom AFB, Tx F-4, C-130, 0-2, (--53, OV-lC

General Dynamics, Tx F-111, FB-1l1

4 Northrup Aircraft, Ca T-33

ALC, Warner Robins, Ga B-57, C-130, C-141, F-IS, (1B-35 (.C-53, LIH-1

Lockheed, Ga. C-5, C-130, C-141

Goodyear Aerospace, Az Transparency supplier

6 Luke AFB, Az F-4, F-IS, (1i-3

Williams AFB, Az T-38

Davis bbnthan, Az A-7

7 Swedlow, Ca. Transparency supplier

8 Sierracin, Ca Transparency supplier

Scott, AFB, 11 C-9, T-39

9 McDonnell Douglas, Ms F-4, F-is

PPG, Al Transparency supplier

Texstar, Tx Transparency supplier

10 March AFB, Ca. B-52, KC-135

65

ia*

• _.. _•.• =•%• - =- -!

NMTR.IC CCNVERSION PROGRAMS

None of the facilities visited during the field audit phase indicated any

specific activity or programs directed at the incorporation of metric stand-ards. There is, however, an awareness of its eventual implementation.

COST OF TRANSPARENT ENCLOSURES

Information relative to determining the cost of transparent enclosures

was collected and the level of effort to fabricate transparencies was docu-

merited. From discussions with the ALC, airfrme manufacturers, and transpar-ency suppliers, relative costs in terms of percentages cf fabrication effort,

labor, and material were assembled. A composite tabulation (table 3) ofthese relative costs that may be used for estimating purposes are listed

below.

TABLE 3. LCURTI CXT ESTIMATES FM1 TRANSPARENCIES

Configuration % Labor % Material

General 50 SO

Glass 60 40Plastic 30 70 ,

Composite plastic 50-60 50-40

Five-year projection 80 20

Tha costs for transparent components as collected during this program are

assembled in Appendix A, the Master Transpar.mcy List. These costs are mainlythose acquired from the National Stock Number cataloging system to maintainconsistency in source of costs. In some cases, where there appeared to besome discrepancy, limited cost data was substituted.

66

_ - - 4U .........-

I:,STAL.AT. AN X .T'AN(I PROCEDURES

,he irstalla: .on and maintenance procedures assembled herein are the

r-:sults obtainec :.-- the field audit of the five Air !,ogistics Centers and

eight selected opc'ratxonal Air Force Bases. These audits were made to surveyand lete-une :he facilities and maintenance proce-dures being used to support

the ma:- tenance o: the trwnsparency systems of the selected 20 study aircraft.

-he fin..ings, as listed in the ranining parts of this section, represent

a combination of data obtained directly fro maintenance personnel and fr,

data extracted from the AFM 66-1 M]XS (Maintenance Data Collection System).

During the analysis and evaluation phase that followed the Task II field

didit, data that were not made available or were not fully presented to the

audit term were supplented from AP4 66-1 data tapes.

PREVENTIVE MAW(,TANCE PROXI."RES

"The prLncipal means of malftmction preventioan at the operatiorial base

level is achieved through surveillance by flight crews and through required

periodic inspection by ground crews as specified in the -6 technical manual(Scheduled Inspecticn and Maintenance Requirements); another means used is theBLIS (Base Level Inquiry Sjstem) report. The BLIS report is the equivalent of

the AFM 66-1 tracking system used by all Air Force operational bases in accord-

ance with Air Force Manual 171-114, Volume I, and Maintenance Data Collection

Report No. 66-267.

The PUIw (Prograumed Depot Niinteance) program is established in conjunc-

tion with the AFLC and the using connand. The program designates the level -)f

maintenance activity based on the availability of skills level and facility

capabilities. A concurrent ACI (Analytical Condition Inspection) reviews

selected components of system elements not normally covered by requirements of

the -6 inspection manual. An example is the inspection for fatigue damage in

structural components. The data on the condition of the selected structuralelements were recorded and are available when the structural item is rein- j

spected at the end of an approximate 3-year cycle.

67

SEALANT AND AERODYNAMIC SNXOTHINC RBYjIRBGM

The requirements for transparency edge sealing and aerodynamic smoothing

are listed in Table 4.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM CI4 ECKM1T PROCEDURES

A reported indication of possible malfunction of the electrical system is

generally checked through the use of an AN/PS4-6 (or equivalent) multimeter

(FSN 6625-724-8582). The purpose of this test is to determine the magnitude

of load resistance or voltage drop for appropriate wiring segrmnts and con-

nectors as specified in the technical order or obtained from experience level

established from checxs of other aircraft in the operational fleet. Depending

on the t-.pe of electrical system, the connectors, terminal board strips,

circuit board connectors, and plugs are visually and manually checked 'o

assure proper contact. Windshield sensing clements are essentially checked in

the same manner. Windshield controllers are generally checked with a wind-

shield control system tester device whose type, operational checkout, and test

instructions are specified in the -2 maintenance technical manual. An electri -

cal c-eck is made of the anti-icing system following transparency maintenance

and/or replacement.

The following are same of the problems related to the checkouc of el,<tri-

cal anti-icing systems collected during the field audit.

Castle Air Force Base (KC-135)

A single failure was reported (July 1977) due to an open circuit on the

windshield anti-icing system.

68

Ii

TABLE 4 SEALANT ANI) AEI-RODY.NAMIC' SVOWh1NG RE.QJI REMENTS

Aircraft Edge smoothing Replaceent

PC&dI serlant sealant Freq*

B- S: ses 987

B- 57 Yes Yes 295

FB-11l Yes Yes 10S

A-" Yes Yes 505

A- 3- Yes 1'S

Yes Yes 90

C-9 1)T' Yes 93

C-130 "es Yes 1,386

C/K-135 Yes Yes 4,1-

C-141 Yes Yes 944

"F-4 Yes Yes 1,1244

F-IS Yes Yes 131

F-10S Yes Yes I02F-11 Yes Yes 314

T-37 Yes 917

T- ;8 D-. Yes 315

T-39 Yes Yes 556

0-2 Yes No 275

OV-10 Yes Yes 93

(11-3 Dry Yes 69

CH-53 Yes Yes 118

H- 1 Yes 389

*Transparency system components replaced in 18-month period.

69B4

,1I

Travis Air Force Base CC-.141)

Maintenance personnel report they found the C-141 T.O.'s were not clear

in all areas of windshield/window repair or replacement; for this reason, they

utilize the C-5 manuals whict are considered to be more comprehensive.

Failure of C-S or C-141 windshields may be operationally related. One possible

reason for failure is due to incorrect hookup of the power transtormers to the

various electrical leads to the windshield panel.

Scott Air Force Base (T-39)

Wheu an anti-icing system is checked out, a voltage and current tester

unit is used to monitor the power output of the two ac generntors. The major

prblm with the controller is that the unit's function is out of the over-

temperature and undertmperature range, resulting in a false indication.Access to the controller for checkwt is extremely difficult. Removal and

replacament of this item requires one man 2-1/2 to 3 hours. After reinstalla-tion of windshield, the anti-icing system checkout rquires four man 2 to 2-

1/2 hours, with an intermittent requirement for operation of the engines.

Scott Air Force Ease _C9

The principal complaint with the C-9 windshield anti-icing system is theovertaqeprature and undexrtmperarure indication. The temperature indication

gives a readout less than actual t:!4perature that generally causes cracking

and shattering of the windshield's outer ply.

,I

CHECKOM PROCEDURES FOR MECHANI,% OF OPERABLE WINDOWS

A functional check accomplished by the ground crew during the preflightoperation is the principal checkout procedure utilized for the mechanisms of

operable windows. Formal inspection of this mechanism is also accomplished

during the phased inspection as specified in the -6 inspection requirements.

70

When functibnal checks are made, the ground crew looks for ease of operation,

inspects for worn parts and hardware, and for corrosion. If adjustmx t or

replacement of worn parts is deemed necessary, the organizational Maintenance

Squadron (flight line crew) generally makes the necessary repairs.

When replacement of a sliding panel is required, the repairs of the

mechanism will revert to the Aero Repair Shop of the Field Maintenance Squad-

rm. Removal and replacement of a sliding window involves frame matching and

rigging processes to ensure sealing and window operation. The procedure may

vary from one base to another, depending on how the maintenance activities are

structured at a particular base.

The following are some of the problems pertaining to the maintenance of

the mechanisms of operable windows collected during the field audit.

Castle Air Force Base (KC-135)

The sliding window replacements are received as an assembly from the

depot. Due to the complexity of the frame and sliding mechanism, repair and

buildup are not accomplished at base level. The maintenance consists of fit-

ting, adapting, and rigging to the window frame. No particular problems are

associate. with replacement and reinstallation. Three sliding windows were

replaced during the last 3 months ending July 1977.

OC-ALC (KC-13S)

The No. 1 (wirdshield) and No. Z (sliding window) are sent to a repair

subcontractor, when replacement of a transparent is necessary. Of aO1 the rtransparent panels in the aircraft, the No. 1, 2, and 3 windshield panels are

the most difficult to replace.

I

•Naitain Hame Air Force Base (F-Ill)

The repair/replacement of the hatch assembly Ilpael is the most costly

maintenance action. Approximately 30 man-hours Airing a 24-hour period are

expended. An additional 15 to 20 hours for painting and for egress people to

install, adjust, and check out are required.

SA-AL. (T-38)

The loss of canopies, primarily the forward canopy, has resulted in the

issuance of TCTO No. 942. The TCTO was pthlished due to finding many canopies

incorrectly rigged and the thruster hose improperly positioned. The latching

mechanism adjustuents are very critical in this enclosure installation and are

comprehensively covered in TCTO No. 942. Failure to follow the prescribed

maintenance T.O.'s by field perscaniel was the main cause of the difficulty

encountered in rigging the canopy mechanisms. The depot has reviewed the

instructional data and deemed it adequate to cover all field installation

requiremmts.

SA-ALC (T-37)

No problems with the canopy lifting mechaniLs are currently being

reported. Some time ago (time period not specified), the locking mechanism

was binding with some interference noted. A TCTO was issued (number not

identified) that included a revision in the rigging procedure. The rerigging

procedure has apparently cured the problem.

Bergstrom Air Force Base (OV-IO)

A number of side panel failures (in-flight losses) have been reported

that were caused due to failure to either lock the panels prior to takeoff

roll or failure of the latch mechanism to ensure that both front and aft

panels would lock properly. Worn bushings in the side panel latch mechanism

72

aire the ',r,b'Tehr attributed to loss durinb takeoff or flight. Ntiintenance

persomnel considler this normal wear and tear with replacement of the bushingsas the corrective action.

William Air Force Base (T-38)

Reworking of the T-38 canopy latching mechanism was necessitated byspline wear, linkage damage, etc. Remoal, repotting, reinstallation, andrerigging require 1 to 7 hours depending on the number of parts removed. Thetine required to cure the epoxy potting may require as many as 18 hours.

CORROSION PREVENTION

Numrous technical manuals for corrosion control and maintenancx manuals

for the prevention, detection, and treatment of each aircraft type are utilizedby the using command and the Air Logistics Cente as. The detailed description

of the techniques and procedures used in the control and prevention of corro-sion is beyond the scope of this stuay; however, a generalized description as

assembled from the field audit is presented.

Corrosion preventioi is achieved by periodic cleaning to remove corrosiveagents which are continually deposited on 'retallic surfaces. Means of protect-

ing these surfaces are by frequent cleaning, polishing, and waxing. Earlydetection of the formation of corrosion, principally by visual inspection, is

considered to be the most effective preventive measure. Dye penetrant inspec-

tion is used to find cracks, in the covered area of faying surfaces that maybe prone to stress corrosicn. The rule of thumb used for grinding the corrodedsurface is limited to 10 percent of the material thickness. Grinding that

exceeds 10 percent requires the replacement of the damaged member. The finalaction required is the application of the proper primer and protective coating.

The following are some of the problems related to corrosion of transpar-ency components as collected during the field audit.

73

Castle Air Force Base (B-52, KC-135)

Corrosion-related problems of both the transparency and supporting struc-

ture are reported to be negligible.

00-ALC (F-4)

The four =agnesium castings at the lower ends of the forward canopy are

sometimes replaced because of corrosion. Other parts that are susceptible arethe forward canopy arch and the windshield defogging nozzle. The nozzle, madefrom .gnesium, is susceptible to corrosion because of its location. Rain andmoisture collection can flow into the part and, although it has a moisture

drain hole, it has a high replacment rate.

OL-A.L_ A-71

Corrosion is sometimes experienced in the canopy frame that doubles as a

hot air defogging duct and diffuser. The parts mostly subject to corrosionare made of magnesium. Significant reductions in corrosion were accomplishedby replacament w-ith aluminum alloy.

b•o'ntain Howm Air Force Base (F-111)

Corrosion is a negligible problem at this base. Each aircraft is washed

and scrubbed every 60 days.

SA-ALC (T-38)

Corrosion of the enclosure frares and support structure, when detected

(especially aircraft stationed at coastal bases), is cleaned in accordancewith procedures in the -3 repair manual.

74

Bergstrom Air Force Base (F-4, C-130, 0--53, T-38)

Transparency corrosion problems at this base are considered to be negli-

gible. The F-4's operating with the 67th TRV have the canopies washed and the

canopy frames waxed daily and/or before each flight. When window replacementfor the 01-53 is required, a corrosion preventive compound (zinc chromate) isapplied between glass and frame.

WR-ALC (C-130)

The windshield post (extruded member) between the forward windshield and

clear vision window has been subject to ciacking. The cause for this cracking

is attributed (a) to intergrar-lar corrosion resulting from the mahining of

the web, exposing the short tramsverse grain, and (b) fram bending stress

induced fram fastener attachment.

Luke Air Force ;ase (F-1s)

In general, transparency corrosion problems for this aircraft are consi-

dered to be negligible. Some corrosion has been detected on the longeron

sills.

Scott Air Force Base (c-9)

Transparency support structure is relatively free of corrosion. Some

corrosion of the screwheads has been detected.

REF ISMrv PRO CURES

The refurbishment of windows and enclosures by maintenance people at the

base level adheres to the procedures and tools as specified in the structural

repair manual. In most cases, flight crews initiate the request for repair.

75

Part of the Quality Control (Q/C) evaluation is the decision to refurbish

or replace. This decision is based upon detailed infoxmtian on scratches and

bubbles and an assessomt of deterioration of optical qualities in the criticalviewing area. The optical micrcoeter is widely used to acquire the detailed

iaLforztion. Depending on the type of constnrction and material varioaspolishing and buffing kits are available to refurbish transparency copnts.

The following are some of the commnmts relating to the refurbishmet

procedures that were collected during the field audit.

Castle Air Force Base (B-52, KC-135)

The detection and evaluation of the size of bubbles, scratches, chips,

and -,tent of panel delaminatien is aided by the use of a flashlight and aten-times magnifying glass.

Travis Air Force Base (C-5, KC-13S, C-141)

, ~For panels that have light scratches a special polishing kit is used.

Transparency Repair and Reclamation (R&R) crews stated that they have had a Ngreat deal of success in buffing and polishing this type blemish. The typekit used is: !

Polysand Windshield Mwintenance Kit in accordance with MIL-M-5809-la, II

No. 1560-00-450-3622 (1) Kit DAAJO177D-0013-0001

00-ALC (F-4)

The transparency shop, principally dedicated to the rework of F-4 wind-

shields and canopies, has a section set aside where minor scratches and abra-sions are polished and smoothed out. Canopies sent to the depot are not

76

, ... . . -...-i

automatically replaced. If scratches are found to be within T.O. limits, they

are polished, refurbished, and returned to spares.

OC-ALC (B-5Z)

The only B-52 windshield window refurbished by polishing is the eyebrowwindow.

Mountain Home Air Force Base (F-1il)II

Refurbishent of trarsparent assemblies is accomplished in the structural

repair shop. An oven is utilized to cure sealant when a transparent panel isreplaced. Controlled temperature of this oven iý difficult to maintain.

Bergstrom Air Force Base (F-4)

Scratches that can be removed are sometimes polished with toothpaste.aintenance people claim good results. They also refer to the rubbing and

polishing techniques as described in the Navy publication, "Life Line

Magazine."

Bergstrom Air Force Base (CHI-53)

Scratches are not polished or buffed. When they become objectionable to

flight crews, the windows are replaced.

Luke Air Force Base (F-15)

The transparency maintenance function at this base is primarily "remove

and replace" with minor repairs limited to polishing of acrylics. Due to the

lack of required skilled personnel, canopy polishing and buffing of coated

77

~&- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S~I

polycarbonate components are not acccmplished at this base. Canopies are sent

to the depot for this type of refurbishment.

Luke Air Force Base (H-3)

Experience with H-3 windshields indicates that the polishing and buffing

operation is a temporary fix at best as these windshields have to be replaced.

in a short period of time.

Williams Air Force Base (T-38)

This base has been very successful in polishing and buffing small

scratches. Upon completion of this operation, one or more pilots are enlisted

to check optical qualities.

t•ivis-Monthan Air Force Base (A-7)

The buffing and polishing of scratched windshield side panels takes about

4-1/2 to 5 hours. The Q/C officer or pilot checks the repaired area for

questionable distortion; if it is not acceptable, the transparency in question

is replaced.

DESCRIPTION OF MANT KENANCE FACILITIES

7 The maintenance and repair facilities of all of the operational bases and

Air Logistics Centers visited by the field "audi team are cons.?ered to

include good under-roof and hangared areas, adequate equipment, and staffed

with very good personnel for the servicing of both aircraft and transparency

systems. The servicing of transparency systems for the wide variety of opera-

tional aircraft is accomplished in both the ramp and the hangared areas.

78ii.

The under-roof maintenance accomplished at the base level is generally

reserved for heavy duty maintenance such as engine change, landing gear rework,

structural modification, etc. Consequently, the "on-aircraft" maintenance of

transparency systems is frequently (weather peimitting) accomplished on the

roxV or flight I ine. The "off-aircraft" maintenance is action that requiresservicing in specialized shops.

Since the transparent coponents, windshields, canopies, and windows, are

cosidered to be an integral part of the basic airframe, transparency repairs

are performed in the structures shop. When a high rate of transparencf repair

is required, a dedicated plastics transparency shop is utilized.

The maintenance at depot level is oriented to a programed production-type

activity referred to as PIN (Programmed T-pot Maintenance). The P1) may

include simultaneous modification, TCTO (Time Compliance Tech Order) rework,

and general maintenance. During the audit of the Sacramento Air Logistics

Center, the F-111 series aircraft were being modified for the incorporation of

birdproofed windshields and hatches. Due to the extensive maintenance accom-

plished, nearly all of this effort is in a hangar facility.

When the repairs required for a transparency system exceed the capabilit-ir"at the base level, the depot provides a dedicated plastic shop to support

these maintenance dmnands. These shops are staffed with specialized personnel

and include tooling to make the necessary transparent panel replacement or to

reft-rbish and service the total system.

Table 5 is a sunmauy of the transparency system repair facilities surveyed

by the Rockwell field audit team.

LEVEL OP TRANSPARENCY CAPABILITY

The lvel of transparency maintenance capability for both the logistics

centers VI_*.the operational bases can Dest be described by relating to the

structure of each type of organization. Figures 11 and 12 depict the principal

79

TABLE S. SUMMARY OF TRANSPARENCY SYSTEM NAINTFINANCE ANDREPAIR FACILITIES

Maint DedicatedType acconp plastics

underroof on ramp transparencyFacility facility in hangar shop

A/F Logistics CommandSA-ALC, San Antonio Major Hangar YesSM-ALC, Sacramento Nj or Hangar YesO0-ALC, Ogden Major Hangar YesOC-ALC, Oklahoma City Major Hangar YesWR-ALC, Warner Robins Major Hangar Yes

A/F Operational BaseBergstrom Opertl 0otl NoCastle Major Both YesDavis Monthan Opert] Both NoLuke Opertl Both YesMountain Home Opertl Both YesScott Major Hangar YesTravis Major Both YesWilliams Opertl Both Yes

80

Mai

o 0"

.u, -

mm

14-

m C

e!

" 0 0

81

4)'

co i

Q. .0

'" CM

Data Qual i tytracking control

Mx control

officer

I IAvionics Field Organizational

Mx Mx squadron Mxsquadron commander squadronI

Repair andrec amat ior

branch

I~..

Figure 12. Base Level Maintenance

82

a

{ breakdown of the functions from which transparency data were gathered during

the Task II field audit phase.

In the view of the field audit team the Air Logistics Centers (figure 11)provide the following capabilities:

1. The general overhaul and modification of aircraft systems and compo-nents. An example of this type of modification from a transparencystandpoint is the complete replacement of F-Ill and F-15 wind&LAelds

and enclosures at Sacramento and Warner Robins Air Logistic Centers,

respec•.ively.

2. Specialized repairs of transparency components and interactive subsys-

ten units that cannot be serviced at the base level.

3. The procurement of replacement parts and spares to ensure availability

to support scheduled maintenance for minimun downtime, to keep theseaircraft in combat or service readiness.

4. Special services such as technical support, maintenance task teams,instructional publications and training procedures, and training

aids.

Most of the actual maintenance history of the selected study aircraft wasobtained from the M (Materiel Management) people. The discussion on mainte-

nance problems included system and item managers and equipment specialists.Data requests concerning spares and logistical costs were directed to PP(Procurement and Production) and DS (Distribution and Supply) personnel.Supervisoxy people from MA (Maintenance) Division provided tours to facilitiesand provided information on the maintenance procedures and equipment as usedat the respective Air Logistics Centers.

The maintenance at the base level is generally structured about the FieldMaintenance Squadron (FM) organization. Figure 12 shows the principallevels of command and services provided in support of the operational units.

The services and functions of base level maintenance are:

83

1. General flight line maintenance, provided by the CMS (OrganizationalMaintenance Squadron). This type maintr-ance, such as adjustments

and minor rework, is accomplished in support of the preflight and

postflight activity.

2. Aemoval, repair, and replacement of transparency components. The RRS

(Repair and Reclamation Shop), frequently referred to as the Aero

Repair Shop. is generally responsible for the removal, repair, and

replacement of transparency components.

3. Servicing of electronic (black box) type devices and attendant sys-

teas. The AM? (Avionics Maintenance Squadron) is responsible for

maintaining electrically powered anti-icing system ccmponents in

addition to servicing electronic-type devices.

4. Quality Control (Q/C). This function is charged with ensuring con-

formance with technical manual requirements and to assure proper

maintenance workmanship.

5. Implementation of the BLIS (Base Level Inquiry System) program that

provides thu means of tracking and recording the base maintenance

activity. This system extracts maintenance infonmation as inputed to

the AFM 66-1 MDCS through AFTO-349 and -350 maintenance data collec-

tion record forms. Data from these forms are keypunched into the

BLIS computer program to provide a printout of base maintenance

activity. Statistical data people are responsible for accomplishing

this task.

Most of the base operations surveyed are structured about the FNS concept.

A new concept, POMW (Production Oriented Maintenance Organization), is in the

process of being introduced to maintenance operations. PCMO appears to be

similar in fimctional support, but i.s directed towards providing greater

flexibility in the utilization of maintenance personnel to achieve quicker

turnaround time and shorter downtime.

84

i . . . . ...

The review of training activity at all the bases visited indicates that"on the job training" was the principal mode of providing trans,.arenqy mainte-

nance capability. The closest form of specialized training is the exchange of

personnel on temporary duty assignment from depots to bases to support unique

problem areas. Additional means of specialized training are from field repre-

sentatives of the airframe manufacturers.

MAINTENANCE/REPAIR WORK BREAKXDOWN SITUCrIRE

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), as defined in MIL-STD-881A (reference

13), is a product-orie~nted family tree composed of hardware, services, anddata which result from Project Engineering efforts during the development of a

defense material item and which completely defines the project/program. A WBS

displays and defines the product(s) to be developed or produced and relates

the elements of work to be accomplished to each other and to the end product.

If the intent is to apply the usage of WBS to maintenance and repair as

an adjunct to the AFM 66-1 maintenance data collection system the generic WBS

as shown in figure 13 may be considered. For this purpose the WBS is first

tasked to the ,mhLline maintenance actions and, secondly, tiered to representthe various levels to provide adequate definitions of the transparency compo-

nents and interactive subsystems. The identification codes, as shown in these

charts, are the normally utilized method. The work unit code system may be

substituted if desired.

ALC STORAGE PROCEDURES

The procurement and production directorate of the Air Logistics Centers

has the responziblity of procuring, stocking, and maintaining the inventory of

Reference 13. Department of Defense, Military Standard, '"Work BreakdownStructures for Defense Materiel Items," MIL-STD-881A, Head-quarters, Air Force Systems Ccmwnd, Directorate Cost Analysis,Andrews Air Force Base, DC 20334, 25 April 1975

; 85

I

Level

1 10000

Aircraft system

--------- ----------------------------- --

2~ 11000

Air vehicle

- ----- -- - --- - --- ------------- --- -----

3 120Ofl

Air from

13000

Transparency

Windooshie•oo l d, C~oo _. ~aI@ I"sal E~o'Ie ri6 1310 10 1330 0 1340 0 13500

0 22 13320 3 20 13520opeEncl°nur emvefurbishIRonte AttcrRpnt I. ur itsont

S13110 13210 1331•0 13410 .. 13510

quality Install

13120 1320 1332013420 32Copeb ntion Ire

i, ~7,

133 13230130133233

S~REF M IL-STD-881A

HFigure 13. Mantenance/Repair - Work Breakdown Strtcture (Level 1-7).itr LEE

spare parts required to support ALC's and operational bases. The procedure

for the determination of the rnumber of spare parts is as noted in a later

paragraph. The transparency spare parts generally consist of the principal

transparency components (windshields, window, canopies) and anti-icing system

controllers. Other spares stored for the interactive support system are parts

whose demand rate exceeds the 6-month processing period,

The following are some of the comments relating to the storage procedures

that were collected during the field audit.

C3•WENTS

SM-ALC

The Item Manager is responsible for tracking the line replaceable units

(LRU). He records part and federal stock numbers, and assembles logistical

support data.

00-ALC IIThe D062 spares requirement system tracks on a bimonthly basis and covers

projection for a 2-year timespan. Limited and specialized maintenance repairs

and replacements are reported to the AFM 66-1 network.

OC-ALC (A-7)

The depot does not manage spares for the A-7 aircraft. Transparency

spares are provided by the Navy. The depot replaces on an as-requirel basis :

and can generally get replacement parts within 24 hours with a priority

request from. stock or the transparency vendors.

87

S.A-ALC (T- 38)

Spares are stock ntumber stored and issued as required. Spares for Air

Force and NAIt' are ordered through SA-ALC. However, zome NATO countries order

directly from the aircraft manufacturer.

WR-ALC (F-1S)

The modified transparencies from the manufacturer are stored at Warner

Robins. When a request for spares is received from an operational unit, the

replacement is pulled from storage and shipped to the requesting base. IDmaged

canopies are rezurned to the depot for salvage disposition.

PACKAGING AND SPECIAL HANDLING PJMMURES

The packaging for the transparency ccomponents (windshields, windows,canopies) consists of plywood and cardboard containers. The specifics regard-

ing sealing and handling are in conformance with MIL-STD-794D (Procedures for

Packaging of Parts and Equipment). 1Mny of the crates used for canopies

showed signs of considerable aging and were missing the protective felt parts.It appears that an inspection procedure for the larger and more costly con-

tainers should be established to ensure proper carriage of costly components.

Hand handlin•; of transparency panels and canopies was by far the most

popular means for installation. This comment applies to the handling of largesize components. When adequate scaffolding and maintenance platforms are

available, the preference is to handle large panels by two people. Wheni access to the repair areas is difficult, reliance on cranes, slings, and

holding fixtures is accepted.

The following are some of the comments relating to the packaging and

handling procedures collected during the field audit.

88

S. . .. .' .. . . , ,,.u 2 _ .. [ J

Castle Air Force Base (B-52, KC-135)

No specialized equipment, special tools, or special fixtures other than

equipment available for general maintenance are utilized for transparency

components.

Travis Air Force Base (C-5. KC-135)

Special slings for handling of windshield panels are available. This

device is seldom used; man handling is easier and quicker when removing and

reinstalling panels. The maintenance crew has improvised a special handling

kit consisting of suction-type handles, alignment pins, and wingnut devices

for pulling the windshield into position, to achieve the desired seal.

O0-ALC (F-4)

Because of very closc tolerances involved in the installation of an F-4

canopy assembly, a special rigging fixture is utilized to assure proper align-ment of the forward area, glass and frame assembly. Two fixtures, for the

forward and aft canopies, fabricated from McDonnell Douglas specifications,

were built at a cost of 26,,000 dollars each.. A principal modification to

these fixtures is the alignment device usec for the forward arch frame.

Many of the canopies (Plexiglas) are found to be extremely difficult to

install to the frames due to their being spread out of tolerance. Some can be

forced into place while others must be re-formed after heating to approximately

12S*F.

Packaging and handling of transparency assemblies are accomplished through

the use of reusable plywood containers. Many of the shipping containers for

the canopies are in poor condition and are warped. It is reconmended that

these either be repaired or condemned.

89

' v, -

OC-ALC ýB, $2)

No special maintenance tools or equiimmnt are utilized at this facility.

Luke Air Force Base (F-i5)

Packaging and transport - generally adequate; old units are returned to

the depot in a reusable container whiclh was used for the replacanent trans-

parency.

SA-ALC (C-SA)

A sling and bar are used to hoist the windows up and down during P&R asthey are heavy mnd bulky.

Bergstrom Air Force Base (F-4)

Containers received from the depot quite frequently deteriorate. They

suggest, because of the cost of the contained canopy, that a more durable

packaging crate should be used.

qU!ALITY CWML AND NONDCESTRDCrIVE INSPEcCTON PROMUAM

The Quality Control (Q/C) procedures as observed by the field audit team

appeared to be similar at both the Air Logistics Centers and operationalbases. The .methods of inspection were basically in accordance with the phasing

concepts and isochronal concepts as specified in the -6 tvhnical manual,

,,scheduled riv•tion and Maintenanc, iquirenents.

90

The nondestructive inspection procedures utilized are principally visual

for the transpar.ncy cooponents. However, same clye penetrant testing for the

transparency support structure is performed in addition to visual inspection.

The structural repair shops at the Air Logistics Centers expressed some inter-

est in utilizing other means of nondestructive inspection methods.

The following are some of the caommnts relating to quality control and

nondestructive inspection procedures collected the field audit.

CcMMNTS

O0-ALC (F-4)

No special Q/C methods are utilized for transparency system inspection.

Q/C for transparencies are under "Sheet Metal" inspection. Theu only Q/C

checks made in the plastic shops are to check the fit in the assembly fixture,

and only on a random basis.

OC-ALC (KC-135, B-52)

Nondestructive inspection techniques utilizing sonics as a means of

v:r,-sparency inspection are being considered. To date, no firm programs or

•Ction for inclusion of this means of inspection are in work.

.•er.t.rom Air Force Base (F-4, OV-10)

General Q/C procedures are used at this base with principal reliance on

vis', . methods.

Northr(,ý.o Akircraft Corporation (T- 38)

A n:a e systematic process for the inspection of optical qualities should

be develpx.,\3. A procedure utilizing a laser device would minimize the

91

judgmental aspects that are currently being used. This method wold be parti-

cularly useful in the marginal areas of transparency quality. The decision to

accept or reject a part is often made by a pilot.

SwedIow Incorporated

Feedback fram test pilots regarding the optical qualities of UH-I heli-

copters are overspecified and too stringent. Not really required.

Scott Air Force Base

Dye penetrant is the NDI means of checking for cracks of transTareicy

frames and support structure.

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING NlUBER OF SPARE PARTS

The level of spares is based on the rnmber of airc:aft systces and thu

consumption rates for a 6-month period. The period specified di.ctates the

number of spares to be stocked. If the consumption exceeds spics cn hw. ,

the number of spares are readjusted for the following period. A special level

assignment will provide a minimum number (generally two spares) regardless of

the number of aircraft or consumption rate during the 6-month period. A table

of allowances (Master Supply List) establishes the number of sipares.

If a reorder of a transparency component is required from the depot, a

leadtime of 6 months is generally required. An allowance of " days is gcecir-ally required to resupply from the depot. Maintenance actions or repainr, are

acccaplished on a priority basis during excessive workload periods. 'lleassignment of priority is as follows:

92

Priority Request 1-4

Top Priority 1

Lowest for Maintenance 4

Supply Range 1-15

Normal Supply 12

HAl NTtMNCE EFFORT

The lovel of maintenance effort for the man-hours required for removal

anod replacemnt repair, and functiomal test and checkaut are listed in table

0. 1his tuble ssvioariz'ýs the effort at the aircraft level and conrsists of

iahituianco hours, task times, and NiTBA and MIJUR for an 18-month timespan

It.s~i January 1.q76 through June 1977. These data were processed from AFM 66-1

,hat' tapol: utl'..1Lng the Reliability and M.aintainability (RAM) program.

'Ili dAtl.. of the;c maintenance efforts are also summarized to each work

unit code, =aid are ,-ontained in Appendix B. In view of the extensive printout

of thi!; typo of infonikation, one sample for the T-39A is inLiuded in Appendix

1ý. Tho term wid definitions are specified on the first page of the included

tm,,lqo. 'Thl most widely tbed IM parameters such as mean man-hours per unit,

wiln min-houmri per iflight hour, replacement rate, maintenance rate, abort

rair, and nianber of replacments are listed or can be found in the data

talAllat ions..

S9

93 ,L

- -

000QQ C14O 0 0 Qq "-4-40 0 4

C's 00 & )e ,q ý1

IF 4) 4000 140 P-4(D 0 C ci 8 0 C)00

00 Q0 00Q0,0D0000000 00 a0Q 0 a0 000

.- 4O~t'-4

0n r-4 I -4,0 M r4AC4r .- 4( 0-400C 4 "O OnO%1910r01ýLiL 10! i -!c 0! ý lý1 !1

P-4 if)W) f, C-4 C

f-

to) w.)MP4-

-4 Z 1. o o oo"D kd n -40 oonooooc

0 P-4 0 A -4

00 ~ ~ q r-t' P- q 0*

rt~ ~~~~~C "I4UI-0, "q 0

rr-4 FI4 1- -4& c 0 0- Z -W ; ) w NMtr--

- 0

c- 0 - 1 n -- 0 -49'4 m 2r""1000-44

-W OOO W M~ Ln 0I kn% 0 % n4 V)mwL 0%

1-4 in ,.W)f-*I1,MLn-

-W~~ ~ ~ IIm Mt _tn a"8in4Lý= "

94J

*A LA a r

SECTI(4 V

The transparency system characteristics as assembled in this volume

present a comprehensive array of the various configurations, materials, andmuethods of construction as utilized in the 20 study aiIcraft. This data baseprovided an invaluable tool to aid in the identification of design improvementstudies found in Volume III of this report.

The qualification, testing, maintenance, and installation procedures thatwere collected and assembled in this volume indicate that -he operations atboth the ALC and Operational Base are accomplished in accordance with estab-

lished Air Force Regulations and/or Techmical Orders. The extent of supple-

mental procedures utilized by each facility varies with the organizationalstructure and the amount of aircraft operationa) activity.

In general, the personnel in the field are well qualified and the facili-ties for servicing transparency systems are considered adequate.

9

95

APPENDIX A

TABLE Al

MASTER TPUNSPARENCY SYSTEM LIST

97

* d'~ A ba ..

0 a0

r-40 b,

f'0 rrtJCI

V- r-4000A

r-4 VW"-4

W at , t-b-4 in Ln.

U,- 00r-r '

+jj4. CD ( D = 4

V) NO %00% o

*n n A Zn LA an an an aA a

r- V4 .4r- r4 -Ir- 14 -4 .. 98-

0 r-i

U) 0 .h

tn~

00 4 0 CD q nt'-

4J #0 00C 0n %0t-

4Joo mt-

COý 41 r-r%

tel' %04mq

00 0 %000A 00 0 m0

I II

r-4 P-4 r-

00rm o Or-. -

CD D0 C 000DQ aI 0 000CC) CD0 )000D

f-4

313*1* (A

£ ~44J4)- r4.r Ir

r4a. f- n 1 4

M r4

a--aa--~4a - -4 r-4 r-4 *Ha- -r Ar

F4 4)99

001

Ell

CAI

4 44

C'A I W i (a(a - '

F-4 ---

100

00 00

0 4 .54 4 41 5 -- 4hI) 4-4

4..)4

4, -0 Ln cn~nr

010- 0 0 0V 0 0 0 pw-4 0

Go in 00 ,-n

o-4 f-4 1-4 9-

CD I0 0(A 'I c t -4% 00 nof*, 00L ýcjr,(

o6 LIa6) LI)aj74 r.~4r4 "4-4 -4 r-4N~C C) &f "40%0 00

%0%0CP-4 r4 0ul t

'-q r-i r-4 o r- n -

r 00 00 1 W IJ 00

CD t; r-4 OD C4 0 cP4

%00 co C

(4, C q c

(Z %0 tn %0 M CIO C4 G ~ (q C

fw4-4 Q P? a

C4 M a a a al 4 r-,

-4~~- a-P4 -4"4q

41011.1'

lop f-N

$

P9

4.h-4

1.4

102

Lntn

V) 00nt no

41 3 0; 00 0 00 00C r:(

4. 41G ý tr..4"

Vo 0 LnOnt-co<5Ln %0000 co r~- r0o 40 00 0c

Cn 0 On 0 L 0 T-4C% tn JeJ

00 00007 0? ý T0? 0?o

%00 %0 O\ %0 %0 %0 tn Cr- e -49-4 r-

4 1-4 ?-1 -I LA L

4 al r- %a 0% P% aW) M 0 141 m ie4C* e3(.c'l a (

r -f r4r -4T4 - -4 "4 m' )P4

.4 t4 I

4) $-4 r+4 U

-- qr4 44a- CD..

P103

00 00

'0 t.

tn r-4

m -4 a Go400 co -40

41 -0 ,A0 tfU %0

T T T lf T

r-4 -4f r-.4 r-.4 I -4

pq I I f T T

( I

0 0 4s ao go

-- r4 tn""A --

C) 0 C p )

In I- I- rI r- r- IV

"4 r- - 1- -4-fr4t-

0~~~ ~ ~ 0) C)0 DC

H- P-4 P-4q-4w 4 P-4 "

V) ýý -4 ---

r- r-4-4 In,"4v4i- n

W 444

PA

4-4- 0 '

.k 1 V)C'Jc4 P-4

r-4 c n -') Li)

40C)t- -.& ')r -4 0 W~) Li) %0

ti -1 '1 a.

COD,("0 o '*41t41 oo ro'l Lvn 0 nr~ %- ~ ~ 0v-4 1-4V CC \ L'

00000C - - - 0 0 0Q*0Ln 00 00 0l 0$ al 0%

. r 0000 0 0P 0? 0 0CALA Ln Ln L Lff Li) Lf I'4fl L

rn~ ~ ~ r- -- r4r l ,

00000 NO %%0NO 0 0D 0D %0

0'J-4 , -4 t- P- r-I (-I r4 r--

(m~ ~ ~ 0 Ck( m DC

Q~ ", t(N y- r4tnfn

r- ý r4 - r4 -fr4

r-I r-q v.- -4

tn~ ~ e H - r4 (n(

> U -

A4 H -r4 .- .. ,4 aU L-. U') U)~ 4-b u

'-4o

~~r4 U U~

105

4-4 - - . --

4.4- 4.)

U 4IJ -0dk.

.44.)

106

4 .4- - - - - - - -

0

1LA

00h M0l 0 0C0

00~~- g- rq -0 aM aM 4m a al*

cii

IJ5.. riq P-4

2-4 4- g'-I

4..

f-44 -4 -- 4 F- P- P- -4 - . . . .

r-I r4 r- r-4 r-4 4 P- r-ir-4 -I V4 f- 4 "

I- X- -- - - 1-,. 4r4ý - - q ý

i-49v494-4,-4,.49 - ?... rt ."r4q '-4 H4 P ,- 4,-4 .-4 -4'e'c.

107

00

$4 4

8~4 -44N

4-4i

5.4

5..1

(3ý . * t.2r-4 0.

rH 4J tt .- 9

M% 14- CSP- r4

108

4-4J "t L f t

Lr-t

4j m r-44 C)'J4rr-4 W Nlý w - P LI t-P

6 r t t-o-4 . t

(m In In r, m In In r- In I- c i r- t- I

ýT T I: IT IT T I T C?

00

00 ~ ~ C C:)~U -C)0 C) C

,4l -4 ,-qr4 w.4 , r- r4 C .4 - 4 ý 4 - 4 .1 r-4 1-4 -.- 4 .00 0 D1 wwr w0 3 00

4- + r-4 4a + .j

tar4 - -4P, r4t4 -4 U)1-o -4 r4 VJ,-.4

L00 700 -4't " 1 U nV

(MV D Y -4 rn-itInooc.) Ui L.r -4~e- ~ % tn Q

109

$44 0

P6 49

4J %-

41

En

f-4 ,-

4J

$4]

'P.4

uLuLn Ln .n Ln LM

110

444 t-I

@3 'S4 r-

r.4 - I

4-b 0; In %

401. rý 00 n r1%000, -44- 0 0 '0 %a o I N

In In 0 0 tIn I IN n In In S In S'I un n1) 0n 3n InIQ) CDfl' Q) Cf) CD CD 0 1

CD 4= 0 C001o0D4.0 ~ ~ C t.00i aI~ CD4- C4, 3u-D%I) 3n 3 In In 1 I In In I In

CD~~0 000tCh In I! 4 LIt.aaC)coaot) V )Lf)t 0)t) 10101K)

InI nc ) 4m() UM UMC )44JIN A(b 0 00- Coc 0- 0OCIO GoG

r4r

a1 r- CO I Ip I I

p4r

In V.4e4 M I

IAf-

.r4 t 4j a 4j n 4jIn 411n3;

44.

0I

4.J

I0%.

M,'- $4ý , 4 - nmIc iD ggE nL A nL ML n& o n0r- -4t4r- -f4r- -v4r I r I P4P4P0P4r4P4;IrIr4r4r4r4v4r4P -----

r- -4P4 - P4t494V- -4r -4P4 - V4P- - rqP- 4 q r " -4r4 - rI rI - P)r- -

r- -4r4 4r- -41- V4eq94 - r4r- - P4r- -4r r4P- - r4r- -4r rq q ~410, -1

U) 1 ~ WF~ 112

Oj

01rI

4-4-

4-A.

1--41-

f- 04-4 4.P4G 22 0r-

.p 4 ~ Q4 I-1 it 4-)

'44 'c44 ;4r ,

.9-4 r-

4-4r-

41 4

k6% 4 C ~ r4 %0O

onI P- q 4~ -

41 ~ - NOl rýI I - oCD M iGo m In40 "4C7N ( INO a on

00 000 Go e 0 011 0- 1- ti0000 mm~qt "It.-~ '"mn1-

S00 m au

c-r-4 ,-4%%~ r - t- .vc

000 %00 10%0%0 %~-0

r- F-4Pw4 r- UINuP40 cz Q a zIz0c

C4 t000 l6U14 4 At

A1 ao G z D( 1 *0V-4V-4r4 -f V-4tn I 11 T4 -V4

4J4

1:.1

$ r-4

1.' 4 q4

'44kk44

411

In P-4

Cn co C

"-4

00 a* Ino (N In 80

'0 C)4J~ In L n nLto) t.n

I )P-4 -4 0

cc 3c

'- N u -

4.'

Un acJ-4 q n %at- at'n go aml tc: m.nm

V- -44r4 ""C " "r4 ý 4r4r4" - -r-

V-4 r-4 v4 -4 v-4 v4 -4 r-4 r- P-4 P-4 -4 qt V-e.4, V, q* I

116

0 G

P-4I

00-4 0 rO

r-4,4 N

V-4 on rn q

a.' CD L 0 n M0 ClIA ~ ~ ~ 0 ot- 1

C;c Iz VI I r I I I

f-4 r-4 eq

r-4R P4 0 CD %0 W)r-0 M L000-00000

h 400 00 ON000e 0

000v40040 nr- t 0000000000-F4 O I?% T T . ?OTT I

4J ý 0 0 M r- V- r-40 0 , f- P-

L4 n

r-4 Ln Ln n r-Chce c 4 "4-

son 8~ -1 - "o

P- -4T4 - 4 4r- -WA

.ý 8 h.ý44 ý

= = = 94 Q o o0 = f-

I - ti tf ta tn !i 0

4-4 +J 04

NN~r'JNNNN b*-4'

41 cn :117

m .n

-0 'm4"

fn 1-4

M

r-4F-4 C4

LnkA LML0L

'00 04-

* q~. NI., 44 4

W 4-4

ClO (40

411

r4'

r-4-4 H -"400000 c 0G

118

41 tn 0 qt, tl

4.1 i % nMC 00

qolý t M -1 0

1- al Ch a

C14~ C4 0q11

CC,

%0000 %0- c

mf q* 0ii! *

4J fI -4 r4-4 F4 rp.Y-4 -4 rq 4 r-I4 9a4v4-

r -4 f- a-I a-I r~. -I 4 r- r-4 P- 1- - A-= 0 e en (ý CD

119tV w

-' .

_ utn

m Ln

r-4CD P4 h

(%00

t ,ýV W4N PI go P IAd0 ur-44

-F %>t 4n. t* R)

r41) - r -4 rm - t4r4 4e mC4m tnr4tnq 0 -r- - - 4 m 4r m

ý4 r4i4 r v4 " m -4 r4 r4v4 - N r4 r- - - m4 r- . . . C 1rM4 ~ ~ II P- I - - - 4r r4 r4r - 4vIr 4 - - - - - - r4r4r4p4r4r

120

moo

e4 n

4.' 0

.. r4

oGo

'0 '

oo

o o;'n L

5- -5-T T -n

4 4.W

in

'.,4

144

a 4t w- orr4 rq T..4f4 T4 r-LTiLv, tn hnt ~ l

r_ -4 ~ 4 - ?- r-~4 -P4

r-I"iP,4r- v4 T4 --'t- P12

-Farm-

R&MMERNaS

8 j *c *41c t( tG -R mt t'tW t- n*a C1 ""1-1- "ý 9 - .1 - !- a! c t z

4-1 -, 'OO '0% I= C-J tl''-g4iJ In -4 -4-4W 400 ; fCf.,4I:1451 nL C 0E. 0 r4. .bo Qj =(4I nv 00 p '- rC (NO r IJ-C4.

0OA O 0q% 1 c n00 0o m h r-000 C cooo 0000 aI O nfL ~- %0 o %0 No In r- 14 C w In ", qt In I In U1 PI r- o L 00 " c "0000 000 0 004 00 00 00 0000 ... inknN C - e -

".-4 aa ?a 1)0 o . - oa ,C3r

V %. %o It 00 VD qt I qt 'It I" 'It t INo %0 0 I r i In o I n

0*0 Gor UCD CD. In m or-je4 r-Jc we = e~ m-r-c 421 o -GI-D4eGo %0co%0c

0 co 0a ir ar aý -, aý a. aýF n -F a tr iZCýC =Q0C D C DC C =C =C D ( )0CP-4 v- .-4r 4 .- -4r4t- -1.f1-4 - - (h.-1-4r - r4rfr- - -4 r-4 -4 -4

r- 0 f 4 r4r4r1I . 1JP4I - 4 r - r.54 r-f r-

1 1 T IVI I I T C? T r I I. "? T Iý I C5 I IV "? I

I-- v-4- ~r-4 It^ - 4 r- e'r-4 re-4~ r* r- r4 r- r- r- r- r- r- t- r- r- P- r-4 cz 0- r-D =-_-__- ' TT ? TTe)m e 1t ~ 0 nt)W e 4- 1-41-4P"41-41-41-4~

r4 r-4122

oI0

4Cr

4.1

4J r (40

tn r-41 %-w ll

'ii P-

" "4

+Jn 0

I( -

.14 :EO 41

'r4 A

" 1U4

M~ 4. 4J.

u 8 8 8~

r4.

-4 -4 P-4 "4 r4 f-4 r4 7-0

123

1.4

0-4

1; Iý 6 W; q; 14 I IM 1;

V) Ln l f U M IMV LfU

r P4 nr-4C e~r4 e4 co M t-4CD j= D Inf nco C D0~ ~ ~~esa (Mtr % MM o lc-%

4)l4.) CD86 ;C6

5.D 4=4 DQ0 D ( Dc; (;68( ý ý66

IV IT T IýT

m n4 n-n"c

r- P4 -494 -4r- v48 D124 n -

tn V 0(D n L- t% ý W

0A

000 000000 D

41 -z 00 cooLA

qtrtel T-

r-4 '-4

CD~t 00 rn V)-W r4C4 u-4

P '' 00 at r00 00(Mr-

L nA tALAL LA rl "t.e4atA.I r-

004 e4 C 4 T- CI 4

.1 8 (: t I I I

O (4 CD C) 00'O'O0 0i ) 00000 0000000 Q

%0 ~ ~ ~ 4 0C% 0 %%%

ý44- 4 C t

I ,0 06 LICI U

(% DL l o4

41 ~ ~ ~ 1 1(6

090

cn S

f-4 -4y 4r

41- ) w D0t '0 410 oo

r-4 %0 %0 P-4 r-4 r

SM a 4 a 4 V) a 4 a o ao f- a - CD a 4

a4 e I DC (4 4 C14

fn 0 J a40%0 %0 %0%0 '0 0.0'0%

r-4 r4 *" Qrlr- -4r 4 ~ r- P4 -4r- r4 -

Ln~ ~ ~~ a Ln aSV4l-r M 0fol n tnqw IP . . 4

I r4 -4P4e4rý -4r- V4 4 V ~ -4 r-4-i-O

C)1CD % NO%0%0ko o 0 0 126 %

0'

C~JV1 41

Cý0 0 00 000D

44 4= Q r-4 a %

-~F- qt4 oooSn U Ln 2 q~

-4 qw tn en tn VI~ at (M S S SM

0%00%0 %00%0

LM Ln lU U) Ln Lfl %lV ' - -4 M

Cla LA 0

r-4

r - 4 n - I , -.L

+)U'

cow Tg

gs I ;v *l;ý *1n ft

r-4 r-4 - o o~bO 40 , -4 tnq )Ot

v4r-4r-4,-4 t-4 r-4 -4 r-4 r4 4".4 r-4 "4 .4 r-4 r.-4 .4 P4

127

0 U4

"d P4 (-4

t-I Ln

4b 0 r.00 01 0p co V QQ L

LA 4oGo I-4" '0 014

co00 00 00 a 0 e

_ 0 CD Qc6 4 0

0000 0 . 004 4L

'O~Ln .0 r, f. ' t-sa

*D ClCD a 5 ao s

.5-'j

CD. CD4 CD.. CDCDr

t~l t~) M t) M"C"= C) Q D C) Q CD CD ) CD C

(D CD (D CD40 CD CD Q 4""D"4"4"4s4"444.4.4.4.

"4"4 s4"4""4s~s"4"44"us

.r41L8

APPENDIX B

FIGURE B-1

T-39 RELIABILITY AND M.INTAIASBILITY

SIMIARY (RIM)

2p

Ik.

I

!I

129

I-----"

LIPI.~o -.C

e~Itto:

Ir at.l . ~.129~'

~h&4 -~ I it

- . 0

ma rv-9

0 - MJ S U L 'K ý , . . I I ri

A I Laj ij I U

-~cl of4 .

- - US130

-% - - -. -. 0 - a -C -C.M: a cc i& - & a- c M A c & c. A w- I : w- m -A- .11,.

I0

w MI

M II iAi

4 rr- 4 - 0 w

-. I. f-tal.

+. to i-n a. "r .a"," o" oo-0 ~ %n a Im0f 09- 0 . 1 a, 0 4t ~ @' @0 Cs 0

a & 0. J= 0 . . I- - .- ITI . -. -

awit L vvp Z cs. " Cb.. too, FtO. G! 41 1 ..

tam- re-+ 4-0 C; + Ili .0 ,+ C ,1., , !* ' .

qaIZ- n for wUm t- 1. la 0In Or. CI, Emr 0f IM -0 ft o.MI c4l

oAI W0 a0 or mq0V. -0- w a 1 0 CI e I 0 ~ w0- @ -C .'tu in llw 0 m mn n q.-I Or CY0W1*0 No t

NI. up inq t . p

131 i1

I i uu Ij ~I I I ;I I11f4C ;noI Qnr m 4 'n.

'a a. - I '1 *-C I*01zo . kn ~ WY4 01' vo 9W 9 C 1 mOC flI. C% q19

*, I. . C.4O .C i. -. I. .~~ CI .I'@ OW .1 . 0 5oal- -c l&AI W in l a m 4w -&&I I11q 191 or- 11 r mc i a

s.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 fain 010 OWr C4O - CC ~ 0 O n ~ ~ - ,em to I*- ww Ir r7 0. I~* I.

I .0)

41 r 02- 10 La 5 W a -1100 m IM $0

CIO Va. 'M w I1,Z

lox. to& 1- mI. m mn w, m- a o 6wX.~ cl IA a a

Sm- r- we mi el 40 wic a- -i- - - 7 CI-L toW

or* v 10 o, O

CIm wev14 -01- No M a ft -

cr0 - Ir*J u . .- ~* . ~ -. IW::: cc W cc 24 ' !4

4;~ ci. m or wow 'A I - at=.r n na r f9L w a A - -in moo N- 0e4 ce in a; ia *a ml %n -to -n w-c v4

Am~ ~ - I- C

P- At - '

131

0'Ga.zw Oin C a'Zo

IWO! tv M- co ow- i-sn. i.-bv cy ~ CC Ir C'-i . P ~ (~ * ~' 4 S .- ~ .

- 0-- M Prfl W&o S - -a Cvf 'IY ide0 I tw co.w 0 - -- c ;- Z I-~ n ~ 00'~SV h4 ,*a 30 09 @sg O..O'~) l-T Iho,

A1 -5- iop3 Insf 10 *03 C e" .*. .i 'Us

:5. I . . II

* ~ ~ ~ ~ t W4 IIIv ~w dE - 5-- YIW . 05W1 ~0 .5. Ma ~ 0 a .,n .0 %a -'S Sn *lj 10 .- 0 .0 .3~.

fSn 05 "W~ Mi- (an.~ ~- oe 3n V( ~SnS S- '5WO * ~ KV OSI In a,~~'* q-

-M AA In 'W' C1

St- A - I, 9 ;

I- .ý .r .a co W O.rIa aq~ 4 I' a - :a

4' - ev 0.' inm- o f l aI- c :

toA -. C 0 IAIQ s-in @0 rfA In0 io a1 4-. 00 q n0 sI W

i r

a c a nIN vi

A 3 am 7i "(. .- ' 0 W 1 ~ .. : .

w .or 0- I-n *

0r. c .* l

TVC % - o of.- !a - ow,- 0.-1 a- o. cy '- -

c ow.o U..

in0 CO. IV' C* in;- M-- I"r n - r~ lU.? cv 04 C* C4 11i at 111 of~ .0 0e n-. v V

'-- cfr C* -o ;* 0& i

"I t-I

or~ qr~ -qr 0'm!! mt cv ; v- am- Co.* - 0'

..w W. 09 %IX Mr Q a, 0 IO' oil a1 C; ai 0v al Ir0 0I a M4 .. . . .1

-a II

0 W- *..- 1-01w, -a.. III,,

sq. r- Cl a Iýp *. r -tv g, - e- r~ owr

~ S * 0.fl -~ - ~ *M -. '1lf

~~~~~~~~ *..0 ' rI3 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0

.01 110 ~ ~ .D ~ .D~ ~N .10f -N C4

cw C 4 N -4 1 -7 w*~ q 'I Owl l ( r-' *'W W, OIE M -19a an 0.. Qn. *i 0 *ý* 0t ma3 Se. .w 0- - -

10 1~

Ii Iw I,'. OiO ,r 01q re I'l LI 1

C- r 0 .7Il n1, 0 I 0 1 "

to W' 00 qq J) 'a. -j 'CI q

of mi In0 4-* cw v 4

.C IV~ Ir"7 T.

U*)~C a9* *1.

La W

I.- a.vo 4,

VA. !r* 4!. en1!R, .T* ItT T -4

r0 0a3 I 's wosS

20 W

1. J. 1H. Carlson, "Windshield/Canvy,/Supprt Structure dQ5C) Life cieCost and Failures _n -

Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433, Septener 1975

2. C. S. King, "Windshield/Canopy Cost and Failure Analysis," UDRI-TR-76-69,University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, October 1976

3. Department of the Air Forn.e, "IJSAF Cost and Planning Factors," AFR 173-10,Volume I, Headquarters, US Air Force, Washington, X Z0330, 6 February1975

4. W. D. Dotseth, R. W. Nickel, W. E. Routh, "Low-Cost Aircraft StructuralRpair and Maintenance Study," AFFDL-TR-76-7•",=7 I-,iMiht D csLaboratory, Wright-Pa-tterson Air Force Base, CH 45433, August 1976

S. IROS, "Increased Reliability of Operational Systems," KUS1, AFLC/AFSCPamphlet 400-11, Department of the Air Force, HeadqTuarters, Air ForceLogistics Command (AFLC) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433,Headquarters, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) Andrews Air Force Base,DC 20334, 16 August 1974

6. Department of the Air Force, "Product Performance System (D056)," AFL(2171-45, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command Wright- atterson AirForce Base, OH 45433, April 1971

7. MDCS, Air Force Manmal 66-1, "14aintenance Data Collection System," AFLC/AFSC Pamphlet 400-11, Department of Mi e Air Force, Headquarters, AirForce Logistics Command (A.FLC) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433,Headquarters, Air Force Systems Comrmand (AFSC) Andrews Air Force Base, DC20334, 16 August 1974

8. W. G. Shirreffs, "qualification Test of T-38 Cockpit Enclosure Systemfor Structural I.D.E Approval," •orair eport Number NOR-6T-Z,Nortfhm Corpo~ration,_ Airc-raft' Division, Hawthorne, CA, 6 October 1961

9. W. G. Shirreffs, "Desig Test of Instructors Canted Windshield," NorairReport NL~nber NOR-6.146T, Northrop Corporation, Ai-rcraf-t-Di'vis'ion,

Hwthornie, Ck, 5 September 1963

10. J. A. Porter, ification Test of 8-13965-5 Electrically Anti-icedWindshield," Contract F33557-68-C-iO6, Norair Report .Mvber NRM-69-II7,N-ofrop. Corporation Aircraft Division, Hawthorne, CA, September 1969

11. AFSC DH Series 2-09 "Design Handbook," Department of the Air force,Headquarters Air Force Systems Cm ,Andrews AFB, DC 20334, 25 April

1977

12. Logistics. "Reliability and Maintainability Data Sources,' AFLC/AFSCPamphlet 400-1, Department of the Air Force, Headquartrs, Air ForceLogistics Command (AFLC) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433,Headquarters, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) Andrews Air Force Base,DC 20334 16 August 1974

135

13. Departnent of Defense, Military Standard, 'Work Breakdown Structures forDefense Materiel Items ," MIL-STD-881A, Headquarters, Air Force SystemsCommand, Directorate Co t Analysis, Andrews Air Force Base, DC 20334,25 April 1975

14. W. J. Dixon, "Biomedical Computer Programs - University of CaliforniaPublications in Automatic Computation," WfD Number Z, Library of ConjressCatalog Number: 72-98008, University of Califor ia Press, Berkeley andLos Angeles California, Third Edition 1973, Secc ,d Printing 1974

15. J. C. Sims, ULt., USAF, "Climatic Data," AFSC Letter - WE, Air ForceFlight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, CH 45433,17 January 1978

L.

136 9-60/vU.S.Government Printing Office: 1979--657-002/503