Page 123 – Key Publishing

Amiga500

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,831 through 1,845 (of 2,151 total)

← 1 2 3 … 122 123 124 … 142 143 144 →

Author

Posts
March 7, 2011 at 6:15 pm in reply to: Sanity vs UK MoD Spending. (Merged) #2325910

Amiga500
Participant

Please define “Pen Pushers”. If you mean the average civil servant then you are way off base. If you mean the Senior Civil Service and Government Officials who decide policy and set the rules then fine.

Both.

Those managers down the food chain are out to empire build; those up the food chain are usually f**king inept.

March 7, 2011 at 6:09 pm in reply to: Are larger turboprops needed? #495473

Amiga500
Participant

Probably never will.
Propfans are just too darn loud apparently. So loud, they’ll be unusable it todays noise restricted commercial aviation world.

Thats a solved problem.

It was the interaction of the blade tips was the issue – kinda like a helicopters two rotors.

The solution is pretty simple – make the second blade row have a decently smaller diameter than the leading row.

Compare a picture of a 1980s propfan to a modern test one.

Trust me, they are coming.

March 7, 2011 at 6:40 am in reply to: Sanity vs UK MoD Spending. (Merged) #2326448

Amiga500
Participant

The more pen-pushers that arrive in to “oversee” things, the more the prices will rise.

If those that made these awful decisions were sacked, then the problem would quickly go away. But, since the silly service are afraid to sack anyone incompetent, it continues…

March 7, 2011 at 6:36 am in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2326452

Amiga500
Participant

I love people who can tell so much via their eyes. I also love trolls.

We picked that particular bogey up some time ago TR….

March 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm in reply to: Are larger turboprops needed? #495543

Amiga500
Participant

Got a good point there but then we haven’t heard much about them lately have we?

You will 😉

March 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm in reply to: Are larger turboprops needed? #495667

Amiga500
Participant

With the price of oil skyrocketing I was wondering if anyone else thinks that pretty soon the Airline Industry may start reverting back from Jets to Props.

Propfans is the future, not turboprops. 🙂

March 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2326982

Amiga500
Participant

And no Amiga, I can’t be bothered searching through thousands of posts

Then don’t make the claim if you are unable to back it up.

Where was this said? When? By Whom?

You are talking out of your hole, and you know it.

March 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2326984

Amiga500
Participant

If the diversion of engineering resources towards the 767 tanker either:

(a)slows down the 777 replacement or update to compete with A350-1000 by 2-3 years.

(b)slows down the 737 replacement by 2-3 years.

Then Airbus will have lost a minor skirmish as a precursor to winning a major battle.

March 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2326986

Amiga500
Participant

If Boeing goes broke, the government won’t save it.

Yes… like GM and Chrysler.

Pull the other one would ya. 😉

March 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2326989

Amiga500
Participant

which was said to be ready to go on prototype number 2.

Please go find and reference where this was “said”.

March 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2326992

Amiga500
Participant

From looking at close up images i’d say with a great deal of certainty that this jet was hand built. What happened to the robotic assembly line? Any pics of them being put together?

Why oh why would you build an evolving prototype robotically?

Why would you even start to build an assembly line for a 1 or 2 piece production run.

Are you trolling, or do you honestly know very little about the industry?

February 28, 2011 at 7:54 pm in reply to: LH seeks the A320NEO #496649

Amiga500
Participant

Interesting description…. “win”. Makes it sound like it’s a competition between Boeing and Airbus when in reality this order was only ever going to be an A320 order.

Well…. I would have said more a competition between Airbus and Bombardier.

Lufthansa already has some CSeries on the order book – interesting they didn’t go for more.

February 26, 2011 at 11:08 am in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2335019

Amiga500
Participant

Because this plant would have just done the final assembly, which means that the components would have still been built in the Eurozone

Really?

Seahawk – you are far more informed than that. Go take a run through the A330’s systems and see how many are built in the USA.

Also, I’m sure the boom & hose/drogue suppliers Cobham may object to being relocated to the “Eurozone” without any notice. 🙂

February 24, 2011 at 11:47 pm in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336245

Amiga500
Participant

As the old saying goes …. be careful what you wish for!

Boeing had enough on their plate with 737 upgrade/replacement, 787 & 747 cert and 777 upgrade. I rather suspect polishing the aeronautical turd that is a 767 with underwing hose pods may prove to be the proverbial straw on the camels back!

Boeing won, Washington & Kansas won, America lost!

Ooooh. I never even considered that!

Wonder what this will do for the 737RS…

Looks like Boeing have a real decision to make soon – counter the A350 or counter the A320 NEO – ‘cos it looks like 3 programs in tandem is simply too much of a burden.

February 24, 2011 at 10:56 pm in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336326

Amiga500
Participant

I don’t believe EADS will protest.

I also believe that the US taxpayer should be extremely happy; as a result of the EADS bid, Boeing have had to supply tankers to the USAF at a much better cost than the original farcical lease deal.

Now – ALL eyes will be on one thing – will Boeing be able to deliver, or will there be substantial cost and or time overruns?

[I know what I’m betting on…]
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,831 through 1,845 (of 2,151 total)

← 1 2 3 … 122 123 124 … 142 143 144 →