On one contract I worked the document manager went to deal with customer sign-offs and found that drawings were being bulldozed into pits for lack of storage space. I expect there was a Congressman who struck storage from the appropriations as a way to get more money to whoever was lobbying him to do so. Same thing that saw MIL-Specs handed out like candy to be re-sold to defense contractors for hundreds of dollars each, specs that had been free to distribute and now under copyright.
It seems most likely what happened to the heat exchangers is the problem that befell that same system our doc manager was dealing with - 15 years after initial production we got a long-term spares contract and a company bid on a weldment for it. Soon we got calls allowing as to how the drawings were impossible to build to and how there were many interferences with welds. They said their welder was an AF qualified welder certified for critical aircraft repair. (Red flag!) So we went out to see and found this guy could really pile on the metal. I had 100% confidence the welds were sound, but they were also huge. An additional problem was that it was taking him a long time.
We pointed out that originally nearly 100 units had been made to these drawings and soon put them in contact with the guy who welded them. After that we heard two things - "Wow, that guy is fast!" and "Can he train our guy?" He didn't work for us, so it was up to him; I think he probably did accept the job to train their welder. Within a week or two the production rate went from 0 and "impossible," to getting back on schedule for deliveries.
The fun part was that the original welding for the prototypes was done by our in-house welders before being moved to an outside firm; no changes had been made to customize it for the one guy. It's just a skills issue that is tough to put on a drawing.
I do take offense at the term "reverse engineering" when applied to "copy this with the material it might be made of." That has nothing to do with engineering. Analyzing the system, understanding the constraints and expected performance of the existing item, and building an item that fits in the same location is "reverse engineering." The part of the article dealing with the circuit board is an excellent example of that.
One area that is tricky about duplicating items is this: Under a refurb contract we were obligated to put a bunch of vehicles into like-new order. But there was also some verbiage about meeting the procurement specification. Seems simple - we had all the drawings, 3rd party parts were available, worn-out and broken parts would be repaired or replaced.
The catch? They failed to mention there were performance waivers on the original contract. Like-new, in compliance with the TDP, was not contractually compliant. Jerks.
