On the contrary, both airlines are very interested in the social type of passengers as it helps them to direct advertising spending more precisely.

LOL!

They advertise flights based on low cost, they do it on billboards & radio, travel magazines and no doubt a few others.

I doubt that they advertise too much in specialist magazines as your cutting down the target audience dramatically.

Hey,

Not posted here for some time. Just thought this forum might be able to help with a thought of mine as it seems to be a fountain of knowledge!!

Why are Irish, anti-British Army songs all sung in English and not Irish?

You would have thought singing in Irish would have shown more independance.

Regards AJ

The Irish folk band the Wolfetones originally started out singing Gaeilge songs, then did (and do) both.

Most bands will do songs in both, although most songs are in English (no point trying to wind them up if they don’t understand it eh? :diablo: )

Flight control issues were related to late firming up of software requirments thus making delivery late . The software IIRC has now been delivered to boeing .

That sounds…. strange.

A FCS isn’t really rocket science, its not as if they changed the number of control surfaces or anything. :confused:

Even re-sizing the surfaces only really results in gain changes through the different loops, they aren’t fundamental re-codes, more re-tunes.

The development period for the 787 was very short and enthusiastic , a 6 month delay will still make it a very impressive Launch to EIS .

As Schorsch has said – that can be an issue in itself. You push it all through quickly, you increase the chances of missing something. Everyone that knows the old funds spent/funds committed graph from systems engineering knows how bad something missed is.

Software definition was late so naturally the software maker (honeywell) will be late to deliver .

Meh – the final definition may have been late, but its not as if Boeing decided to drop canards or switch flap designs or anything.

IMO thats a bit of a red herring from Boeing.

Your evidence only shows that they did repair damaged aircraft and kept them in the fight :confused:

In the first week the IDF-AF suffered 72 total losses and ~ 216 damaged from 400 at hand.

So if they did not repair damaged planes the IDF was at 28% nominal strength?

Day 3 had 622 sorties (the peak)
Day 8 had 229 sorties

Day 8 is 37% of day 3… if day 3 was 100% efficiency, then day 8 would have been 130% efficiency!

After two weeks the number of total losses had risen to 96 and ~ 288 damaged.

So they had “lost” (assuming no repairs of damaged aircraft) 384 machines. Even allowing for the 34 F-4s as all being there that is 50 aircraft (out of 400 originally, or 12.5% nominal strength!).

On the 20th (2 weeks in) there were 380 sorties – again comparing to the peak of 622 that would mean the IAF were at 490% efficiency!!!

Right and wrong as always. Related to aerodynamics yes and as a weapons-system not!
That is the reason, why the Flanker as a design from the 70s is upgraded in avionics mainly.

uhhhmm… nah, not going to agree with that.

The F-15 is old hat at the moment. Thats why they started funding another APG-63 (V)3 upgrade for the C’s the other day.

The USAF are dilly-dallying (always wanted to use that on a forum sometime :D) over whether to push ahead with the (V)4 or redo of the APG-77 for the Beagles…

Thus, the USAF ain’t happy with the current situation, and given the are trying to funnel everything into getting more F-22s, the situation must be quite bad.

Otherwise you can claim, that the later SH has been surpassed by its forebar, the F/A-18 C/D.

😀

We’ve a whole other thread for that :diablo:

As I said: single engine are less important for wartime than for peacetime. In wartime a missile hit will in 9 of 10 cases knock the whole aircraft out. In peacetime, an engine failure due to technical problems or bird strike or whatever is more likely due to high number of flight hours. So the decision single/twin engine is a matter of peacetime attrition, not war-fighting.

Well… I had been more thinking flak (AAA), not really missiles, but I’m not sure about the 9/10 figure you quote… in kosovo even the ill-maintained Serbian fulcrums managed to avoid quite a few AAMs and 2 of them limped home with battle damage.

ACIG

In war you need the airframes alot more. Every lose is alot more valuable than just the associated direct airframe & pilot cost. There are knock-on effects on mission planning that reduces overall close air support/counter air/interdiction etc etc.

300 mil…. for 65 engines and support – that is a steal, how GE are turning a profit on that I don’t know.