Sunday, July 19, 2009

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon. It was the fifth human spaceflight of Project Apollo and the third human voyage to the Moon. Launched on July 16, 1969, it carried Mission Commander Neil Alden Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Eugene 'Buzz' Aldrin, Jr. On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the Moon, while Collins orbited above. The mission fulfilled President John F. Kennedy's goal of reaching the moon by the end of the 1960s, which he expressed during a speech given before a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961:

"Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies:

"The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.

"These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

"No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.

"That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine".

Part One of Four
I. (Introduction)
II. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS AT HOME

Part Two of Four
III. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS ABROAD
IV.
V. OUR PARTNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Part Three of Four
VI. OUR OWN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE SHIELD
VII. CIVIL DEFENSE
VIII. DISARMAMENT

Part Four of Four
IX. SPACE
X. CONCLUSION

IX. SPACE
"Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

"I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

"Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

"I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

"Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

"Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.

"Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

"Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

"Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.

"It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.

"I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

"This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

"New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space."

President Kennedy was died on November 22, 1963.
Apollo 11 lifted off at 13:32 UTC (9:32 a.m. EDT) July 16, 1969.
(From the Kennedy Space Center).

Landed on the Surface of the Moon at 20:17 UTC (4:17 PM ETD) on July 20.
("Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed")

Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface at 02:56 UTC on July 21 (10:56pm EDT, July 20), 1969
("That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind")

Six and a half hours after landing, Buzz Aldrin joined him, describing the view as "Magnificent desolation"

After about seven hours of rest, they were awakened by Houston to prepare for the return flight. Two and a half hours later, at 17:54 UTC (1:54 PM EDT), they lifted off the lunar surface. (Mission had more than 2.5 hours afoot on the lunar surface).

On July 24 July 24, 1969 at 16:50:35 UTC (12:50:33 PM EDT) Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean 2,660 km (1,440 nm) east of Wake Island, or 380 km (210 nm) south of Johnston Atoll, and 24 km (15 mi) from the recovery ship, USS Hornet.

Wikipedia: Apollo 11
John F. Kennedy
JFK Presidential Library
UTC CLOCK

206 comments:

1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
Phil Bell said...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Apollo_11_insignia.png
"The crew decided the Roman numberal XI would not be understood in some nations and went with Apollo 11; they decided not to put their names on the patch, so it would "be representative of everyone who had worked toward a lunar landing."
Apollo 11 Crew
(What a cheerful looking group of Aviation Critics & Enthusiasts!)

Neil Armstrong (Mission Commander)
Buzz Aldrin (Lunar Module Pilot)
Michael Collins(Command Module Pilot)

(For publicity reasons, they were not allowed to partake in further space missions, should ill fortune beset them).

Phil Bell said...

Walter Chronkite
(November 4, 1916 – July 17, 2009)

"He was the only non-NASA recipient of a Moon-rock award".

"Following one of his central tenets to 'report the news, don't become it,' the title 'anchor' was invented as his role."

"Cronkite is also remembered for his coverage of the United States space program, and at times was visibly enthusiastic, rubbing his hands together on camera with a smile on July 20, 1969, when the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing mission put the first men on the Moon. Cronkite criticized himself for being at a loss for journalistic
words at that moment."


(It sounds like Mr. C was quite an aviation enthusiast !)

Estimates are 600 million television viewers worldwide watched the Apollo 11 program on television. And that was in 1969 !

Walter Cronkite biography
(Wikipedia)

Shane Price said...

Phil,

Can I just say that I was one of those 'millions' who was awoken by his parents' to watch those first TV pictures from the moon.

You cannot but admire the 'national will' that achieved, within a decade, such a seemingly impossible goal.

Shane

Black Tulip said...

As July draws to a close, any word on the sale of the Eclipse 'assets'?

Dave Ivedorne said...

any word on the sale of the Eclipse 'assets'?

Two words, actually: "rotsa" & "ruck".

DI

uglytruth said...

What was the dollar cost of putting the first man on the moon?

Dave Ivedorne said...

Fred,

I love you, man. And I love the alternate perspective you bring to discussions on the blog.

But there's no way to lose your audience quite as effective as promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories.

There are also those who would suggest that the moon landings didn't occur. To them, I say, "Suck on This".

There is room for debate about the necessity of using the atomic bombs on Japan, but to state outright that the Japanese were about to capitulate ignores many things. In fact, even after the Nagasaki detonation, a group attempted a coup to effectively overthrow Emperor Hirohito upon learning of his decision to surrender. And a coincidence interfered with their scheme.

Speaking as one who wasn't even alive at the time, I find it easy to believe that an invasion of a still-combatant Japan would have resulted in tragically historic casualties.

DI

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

dave I ...

yes , i agree ...

i don't say one way or an other , i just say that without the need of showing to Stalin to keep away the real need for atomic bombing would have been less important ...!

what i say : a posterior justification to this crime against humanity was motivated by :

1° test the bomb in its real role.
(if not tested , The mutual assured destruction wouldn't have existed , since destruction would have remained theoretical )

2° make the Soviets think twice before "pushing westward"
(confirmed later by churchill himself when in a conversation with "don't remember who" he stated "We killed the wrong pig" )


3° eventually save US soldiers lives

on that point the use of a nuke was a way to make sure even the most fanatic of the traditional military japanese cast knew it was hopeless ...

as for the population itself , they were starving for a long time , they would have revolted (may be) or at the best stop producing soldiers (no food = no babies)

so the war would have had ended by lack of everything , Japan being a land without any resources ... (which was the motivation of the war against USA in the first place)

i agree very much that 60ish years after , it is very easy to re-make history ...

as easy as for top-brass or bad politicians to send someone's else kids to the massacre !

on the 9/11 , i don't know the secret of the event , i just "smell" there is so many things weird in the event that i fear we are all far from knowing the whole truth ...

like the way it went down ...
like the insurance benefit to someone who wasn't even owner ...
like the fact that the modus-operandi was described in a communication from DGSE ...
like the fact they almost immediately knew who was culprit ...
like the link made after between Al-Qaeda and Iraq ( when the terrorists came into Iraq with Al Zarkaoui from Jordan with US soldiers ...)

may be one day truth will appear as naked as a baby just born ...

whatever it is ... it is worth knowing the whole truth !

NONETHELESS , it has cost life to innocent victims , for that the REAL culprit(s) have to pay the price ... (no death-penalty = too easy , too quick !) whoever they are !

i am not saying there was a plot , just that most SHOULD keep their minds open and make their own religion about it ...

Dave Ivedorne said...

Back to BT's question,
any word on the sale of the Eclipse 'assets'?

A serious answer this time ( from docket #746 ):
"Since the date of his appointment, the Trustee has been pursuing the sale of substantially all the assets of the Chapter 7 estates (the “Eclipse Assets”). While at this time there is no formal deadline for a bid on the Eclipse Assets, the Trustee intends to sell the Eclipse Assets as soon as possible. Various owners’ groups and other interested parties have been in frequent communications with the Trustee concerning the potential purchase of the Eclipse Assets. Non-disclosure agreements have been executed by representatives of potential purchasers, and numerous site visits have been provided and/or planned in the very near future. Bids for the Eclipse Assets are being accepted" [ emphasis mine - DI ].

I take that last sentence to mean that none of the parties has offered enough to please the Trustee just yet.

Based on the Trustee's vigor in opposing certain discovery requested in the 'Gray Oil & Gas' motion, he is not at all interested in diminuating the value of the remaining assets one bit. Except, of course, by the value of his billable hours.

The next court hearing is Thursday at 10:30AM in Wilmington, with objections due by Wednesday night.

Would you like habeus corpus with that?
DI

Ken Meyer said...

Dave, that was all boilerplate the latest filing reproduced from the May 6 Objection to the Gray motion. As such, it doesn't really tell us anything new.

The more telling filing was the request to hire Allen & Overy regarding the antitrust issues. It said, "The Trustee is currently in negotiations with a bidder concerning the terms of an Asset Purchase Agreement" and "The Trustee contemplates a schedule in July that will provide for a sale motion to be filed and heard in July, and before July 29, 2009."

Ken

fred said...

before 29th July

kenny , let me guess ...

it is a Tuesday , no ?

ahh , i understand ...now ! ;-)

Dave Ivedorne said...

it doesn't really tell us anything new.

You are correct. But it was recent boilerplate ( last week ), at any rate...

As for the antitrust bit, are you willing to take any guesses ( not proscribed by NDA ) as to its genesis? My guess from a moron's distance would be either the Avio code, or freedom to PMA parts.

DI

julius said...

DI,

thanks for the information.
Then we will hear on Thursday, if there are any "antitrust issues".
Using peaceful words after all: "All quiet on the Western Front"!

What about the moon - any plans to be there before the Chinese will leave some footprints?

Julius

bill e. goat said...

Hi guy,
I believe Wedge was THE anti-trust expert- at least he certainly specialized in trust busting!
:)

Ken,
Thanks for the nice pictures at the end of the last thread.

Shane,
I remembered watching the Apollo 11 mission too- it was an afternoon in the midwest when they landed, and everyone thought- Cool!

I also remember the adults being getting impatient with the whole thing, and wanting to leave to drive home (2 hours, we were visiting relatives), but some wanted to stay to watch it- looking at the timeline, it looks like it took 6.5 hours to get out of the LEM onto the moon- guess that's what had them getting itchy. Maybe the astronauts caught some z's.

Adult's just aren't very much fun sometimes !!
(probably what Wedge said about Al Mann... :)

julius said...

DI,
sorry it should read "Eastern Front" - Delaware is at eastern coast of US!


Julius

bill e. goat said...

Eclipse Pits Superstition Against Science
...Terror, anxiety attacks, disasters !!"
(Well, something like that :)

Okay- just kidding!
I enjoy Ken keeping us up to date, with his airplane, and the mysterious goings on in ABQ.

I hope the anti-trust lawyer stuff is good news- sounds like maybe a larger OEM is looking at buying them, I would assume, one that has a VLJ in their model lineup as well, if it's a potential anti-trust issue?

Shane,
"You cannot but admire the 'national will' that achieved, within a decade, such a seemingly impossible goal."

Uh- paying off the national debt?
THAT's an impossible goal- I sure wish we'd target it within a decade though (more like a generation- maybe we can have a "mortgage burning" in 40 years, similar to the Apollo celebration.
------------------------------

I better not mention "burning" too loud- Wedge, a.k.a. the Human Torch might be sniffing about for a left over stack of Franklins here or there.
--------------------------------
Fred,
It's a Wednesday !! (So it's probably going to slide! I always had "felt" that August was about right...Six months, that sort of thing...The suspense builds !!
(Again !! :)

fred said...

sorry billy ...

actually the day BEFORE the 29th July is a Tuesday ...

hard habits = most difficult to kill !
;-)

Dave Ivedorne said...

sorry it should read "Eastern Front".

I understood what you meant before the correction.

Besides, I'm pretty relaxed about that whole 'east'/'west' thing - except when I'm landing at Rapid City.

A guy I knew landed a DC-10 at Brussels instead of Frankfurt. I won't tell you what I thought of him before that, 'cuz Phil isn't fond of the "D-word" being used on the blog. Suffice to say, he took a well-deserved "early retirement", before he would have liked to.

DI

KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
baron95 said...

Dave Ivedorne said...

Fred,

But there's no way to lose your audience quite as effective as promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories.

==================================

American hating wackos can't control themselves.

Sooner or later they totally expose themselves for what they are with one of those conspiracy theories or worse.

baron95 said...

KnotMPH said...
The Berlin Airlift demonstrated to the world the will and innovation of free people and those wanting to remain free.
===============================

I disagree. The United States and Western Europe, ALLOWED, Stalin and the Soviet Union to subjugate and caused the death of millions in Eastern Europe and inside the Soviet Union for decades.

The airlift was NOT the answer that Eastern Europeans wanted.

Push back and destruction of the evil regime that Stalin and the Soviet Union put in place was the true answer expected from the guardians of liberty.

We failed to live up to our responsibilities and lead the free world against enslavement of half a continent.

It was only when Regan and Bush I correctly identified the Soviet regime as EVIL and turned up the pressure that we finally liberated that half a continent.

But how many had die between 1945 an 1990 in the hands of Stalin and the Soviet Union.

It is shameful that we allowed that to happen. Shameful.

gadfly said...

A famous Swedish actress, Greta Lovisa Gustafsson, may have spoken for the United States of America (in 1932), when she made her most famous statement, “I vant (want) to be alone!”

The US of A was forced to enter WWII . . . and did what they did for better or worse, and again, for better or worse, found it necessary to become involved in the affairs of the world. We can argue the benefits of that involvement until the cows come home, but involved we are . . . and there is no backing out, then, nor now.

Today, many of us could agree with Greta Garbo . . . “We want to be alone!” . . . but that is not to be.

Criticize the “US” for what they did, or didn’t do . . . but to which country would the world have turned? And what would the alternate choice have done? It would appear to the gadfly, that the US was toward the end of the queue, and all (or most) of the others had already made rather a mess of things.

What this has to do with General Aviation I’ll never know! But it appears that GA, and everything else is in a “pickle”, and we’ll have a long, long time, this round, to place blame. I have some thoughts on these matters, but this is not the place for the discussion.

gadfly

gadfly said...

Did I miss comments about the article “2 July 2009" in the business section of the
Albuquerque Journal? In it, they referred to an earlier quote about the “29", and others, by Vern Raburn:

“all those cockroaches on the Web.”

It is not often I feel so greatly honored, but there should be “The Golden Cockroach Award”, for each of the “29". I would have such a thing “mounted, stuffed, framed, bronzed, hung, and placed in a glass case” for the world to see. Little things mean a lot!

In case “Vern” should ever read these words, I feel most honored. Thank you, sincerely!

gadfly

(La cucaracha, la cucaracha, ya no puede caminar porque no tiene, porque le falta marijuana que fumar.)

(But it wasn’t the “cockroaches on the Web” that were smoking something.)

http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/022142176134biz07-02-09.htm

Ken Meyer said...

Dave Ivedorne wrote, "As for the antitrust bit, are you willing to take any guesses ( not proscribed by NDA ) as to its genesis? My guess from a moron's distance would be either the Avio code, or freedom to PMA parts."

I was thinking the Trustee wanted to make sure he doesn't run afoul of the FTC reporting requirements contained in the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, but honestly I don't know. If that's what it is, it tells us something about the total value of the bid though.

Ken

baron95 said...

Gadfly - for once I find myself in violent agreement with the thoughts you have expressed about the US involvement in coming into WWII to rescue the world.

You are correct sir. We did that, not because we wanted to, but because we were forced to.

Once you enter a war it will ALWAYS be messy. Decisions will ALWAYS be clouded by the fog of war.

Attempts to judge the difficult decisions that were made (be it to firebomb Tokyo or level german cities or drop 2 A-bombs in Japan), with what was known after the fact is pointless revisionism.

What counts is what was known by commanders then. At the time the A-bomb was dropped, the US and Japan were both fully mobilized for all out war with Japan sending suicide attacks against Americans.

So the US had all indications of a culture prepared to fight to the end and all out war, including using the new atomic weapons, was the considered best course of action, when viewed from the point of view of the commanders then.

I think the Japanese people, correctly understood that the US commanders struggled with the decision, did not arrive at it lightly, and as soon as practical, we stopped ALL military actions against Japan (and Germany) and mounted the most costly and effective humanitarian and economic reconstruction effort in history.

Any attempt by any hating wackos to assign any careless, boisterous or evil intent to the way the US and our commanders prosecuted WWII up to and including dropping the two A-bombs should be exposed for what it is.

A hating wacko attempt.

Beedriver said...

Trivia question


How many americans were killed in the WTC on 911

gadfly said...

baron

Back in 1957, I had some wonderful experiences with Japanese folks . . . sitting in the home of a family in an "out-of-the-way" town, passing a pleasant afternoon going over beautiful "scroll paintings", and purchasing a couple. But that's not the point. I sensed immediately, common ground . . . struggling with the language (but translating through the children, who counted English their second lanquage), we were becoming good friends . . . interrupted only by the military schedule of long patrols in and under a harbor or two, of another nearby nation that had vowed to bury us (and them).

They knew, and we knew, that we wanted more than anything to be "good friends" . . . and both sides worked toward that end. Back then, there was none of this silly talk that we hear today, combined with Monday morning quarterbacking. The war was fought by both sides "to the death" until it was won . . . and then, it was shortly recognized, that our common goal was to bring it to an end. The amazing thing about Japan is that I sense no attempt to carry a grudge. It's "over", and our common desire is to be close friends. 'Sounds a lot like a healthy marriage . . . something to which I relate.

gadfly

(Answer to "Beedriver's question": Too many!)

gadfly said...

baron

One footnote: As a submariner, myself, and the fact that over 50% of all Japanese tonnage, military and merchant marine, was sunk by less than 260 American submarines (52 are on “eternal patrol”), it would be easy to say that the “Silent Service” was winning the war, and there was no need for the rest of the armed services to carry on. Think of it: 260 submarines, each with a crew of about 85 men, were bringing an entire nation to its knees . . . and were not allowed to talk about it at the time, hence the term, “Silent Service”. The claim would not have been fair, of course. Wars are far more than “materiel” and attrition . . . they’re about emotions and determination.

In Submarine School, the great map of the Pacific, and the thousands of sinkings had to be covered with a curtain, when the Japanese “Maritime” trainees were present, so as to not embarrass them. That showed, to me, that even possibly the greatest enemy of Japan, the American Submarine Service, had no lasting grudge against their former enemy, but wished to bring them into friendship, without denying that so few years, previously, we had been the bitterest of enemies.

(The two miniature Japanese submarines . . . one, a single submarine/torpedo, and the other, a “two man”, with two torpedoes . . . , and the small German “two torpedo” submarine remained on display, just outside the class-rooms . . . I’ve been in all of them . . . sort of like putting on a tight girdle, to get in any of the three . . . but they didn’t have the impact of an entire ocean, filled with “stick pins”, each representing a merchant or war ship, having been sunk.)

We’re a nation of “mis-fits” . . . having, all of us, come from places where we were not welcome. So our tradition (until recently) has been to treat kindly (not always, certainly . . . but at least for the most part) those who, like my own ancestors, wanted fairness, and the opportunity to “make good things happen”, while we worshiped God, as we understood His written Word. That attitude is still present among many.

gadfly

uglytruth said...

I'll alswer my own earlier question.

the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current 2009 dollars.

$237,000,000,000.00 in 2009 had about the same buying power as $40,020,453,788.71 in 1969.
Annual inflation over this period was about 4.55%.

julius said...

baron95,

in most or all democratic systems it is a good practice, to check the necessity of a cop's final/killing shot or "liberal" interogations etc..

During wars civilian population should not be attacted by regular armed forces. There are the Geneva Conventions (which actually protects the regular armed forces but not the civilian population).

Is it correct to declare a city "free" for a week - just because it was a long hard time and the enemy wasn't fair at all?

Who are your "wackoes" of 1945 -
members of the Manhattan Project, some top commanders,... ?
Their conclusions: militarily not necessary!


Now is's 40 years that the US flew to the moon for the first time (I also had seen it) -
now next time with China?


Julius

airsafetyman said...

Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces: "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Dave Ivedorne said...

Baron begged the question:
American hating wackos can't control themselves...

...Demonstrating only that he might very well be an idiot. But more likely, just disingenuous.

"Hating" an aspect ( or more ) of something doesn't mean that you hate the entire something. Any six year old knows that.

Hate the thought of taxes going up in America? You must be an America-hating wacko.

Hate America's inability to agree on how many F-22s to build? You must be an America-hating wacko.

Hate the invasion of Iraq? Hate its failure to stop North Korea's nuclear program? Hate the FAA's requirement for a type rating to fly a 6,000 lbs. jet? You must be an America-hating wacko.

Grow up, Baron. Take your meds. Honor your earlier promise to "moderate yourself". It ain't all about you.

Rather than hijacking a blog that many people from many walks of life enjoy, why not start your own? Then you can blather on all day, every day about Slammer-Ds, your Jaguar, and just how pathetic life is because nobody builds the jet you want - to your heart's content. On your own blog, it can be all about you. And you can post whatever picture you want up at the top.

I'd much rather you stuck around, but only if you can behave yourself.

DI

Ken Meyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Meyer said...

AirSafetyman, those quotes may all be true taken out of context, but I'm very partial toward the use of the atom bomb on Japan. See, my Dad was a medical officer in the theater at and prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was briefed on the likely outcome of an invasion--extraordinarily high casualties as the Japanese defended their homeland.

I shudder to think of all the brave American troops that would have been killed had an invasion of the mainland become necessary. My dad among them, before I was even a glint in anybody's eye.

So, for me, it's a slam-dunk that we did the right thing, and I cringe at all the people who have let 64 years time dull their ability to decide whether 100,000 American casualties outweigh a similar number of enemy casualties. Sad really that anybody has to even discuss this as an "issue."

Ken

gadfly said...

Adding to Ken’s comments, immediately on the cessation of hostilities, the US began re-building the nations that had been our enemies for the previous four to six years. Off hand, I cannot recall such a thing ever before in history, recent or ancient. Some of my most vivid memories of the time were pictures (Newsreels and Life Magazine, and others) and stories of American servicemen, caring for the “enemy” wounded, providing food and shelter for those who had been torn by war.

And we have friends that risked their lives, fleeing the Russians to escape to the west, even while allies were strafing their train. They weighed the risk, and thought it better to throw themselves on the mercy of Britain and America. They realized that America was more interested in stopping a war than destroying nations.

Those are good memories.

gadfly

baron95 said...

Ken is exactly right. The fact that Japan had lost the war already was clear (to us and to them) since Midway.

Germany's position was also hopeless since 2 days after D-day and the Russian winter counter offensive.

So what - they still fought (Germans) or would have fought (Japanese) to the end. Both ward dragged on for a lot longer after the outcome was no longer in doubt.

The ASM quotes are just that - people noting, after the fact, that the outcome was certain.

Was firebombing Tokyo or leveling Dresden necessary to win the war? Of course not. But knowing waht was known then, under the fog of war it was done.

And Gadfly is exactly right. We didn't spend a single nanosecond after victory punishing and subjugating the Japanese or German population. We turned all our military and civilian assets in theater into reconstruction and nation building, feeding the starving, caring for the wounded, etc.



We p

baron95 said...

DI said......Demonstrating only that he might very well be an idiot. ...Grow up, Baron. Take your meds. Honor your earlier promise to "moderate yourself". It ain't all about you.
===========================
Sorry Pal. I lost 2 personal friends at the WTC and on-board AA 77. It is about me.

It is immaterial to me if he is an idiot or a hating wacko. It is now my personal mission to give him no safe haven.

If you hear wacko hate speech or hate idiocy and don't call it out you are acquiescing to it.

"Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue".

You can moderate and excuse hate speech all you want. But not me pal.

fred said...

D.I.


Grow up, Baron. Take your meds. Honor your earlier promise to "moderate yourself". It ain't all about you. ...

thanks , dave !

i do not consider myself as an american hater ...
quite the contrary !

but when i read some comments on this caliber , i cannot help it but to laugh ...

seems for some that the whole world world is in Black or white , for or against ...

as it could be this simple !!!

experience taught me that nothing is really white or really black ... more in an infinite shade of grey !

the point : no one is 100% right or wrong ...
Even Fpj has good points in it , even Kenny when professing his love for his bird has a set of value !

forget to be critical with your own system = it will beat you badly !

that is probably why the Iraq has cost about 2 Trillions $ for next to nothing ... (well , no not nothing : now Iraq is ruled by the majority of Shia Muslim = naturally incline to side with Iranians ...!)

as for the WW2 , yes USA cooperated to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan ...

but refusing to see the reason WHY Japan went into war against USA is exactly the same than refusing to see that USA sold items and stuff on both sides until Pearl-Harbor ...
(some even went to sell AFTER ...)

sorry to shock you , the WW2 was before anything else a fight for influence-control ...

ps: i have read that in USA about 1 out of 5 citizen still believe that "walking on the moon" was an hoax ...
what to do with them ? sunk them in the middle of Atlantic ?
consider them as bad citizens ?

if one day "Some" can get it right : most do not care about USA , it is only one country among many others ...

fred said...

"Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue". ...

this is EXACTLY what Ben-Laden set as a trap ...

if you cannot cool it a bit
(yes , i know it's damn difficult for the ones who have lost a son , brother , husband /i have personally seen a good friend having his face being melt by a petrol-bomb in Gaza )

you THEN justify everything against the HUMANITY meant by such an act as terrorism !

it becomes an endless noria of acts followed by retaliations followed by retaliations followed by retaliations followed ... etc

there is much more power into Humanity than in barbarism , made and meant by a group of lunatics or by a sovereign state !

fred said...

Beedriver :

answer to your trivia-question :

TOO MANY , but they were not ONLY US citizens ...

the biggest victim in WTC was Humanity itself !

baron95 said...

Beedriver said...
How many americans were killed in the WTC on 911
=========================

I don't know, bu I remember at the time it was said that there were almost ONE HUNDRED different nationalities represented in the 9/11 victims.

What matters is that they were all on American soil and all treated with the same honors.

And 20% of the "victims" went INTO the WTC AFTER THE ATTACKS to try to save the lives of all those nationalities.

And Gad will tell us that there were about the same number of casualties by an act of war against US soil last century (Pearl Harbor) as there was this century (9/11) - between 2,000 and 3,000 (excluding the enemy). Both brought about by aviation. Both timed for an early morning clear day.

Lets hope these two remain the only two mass sneak attacks against people on US soil forever - and lets us not forget.

airtaximan said...

Baron,
There are many scholorly studies by reputable American's that disagree with your position regarding the bomb... and you are not doing anyone a service by making such statements about someone with a moderated opposing opinion regarding reasons for certain actions/decisions taken a long time ago in a war.

I really like you, and I can feel your pain, but you are better and smarter than to relegate someone's opposing opinion to simple hatred.

From a global perspective, this single type of thinking creates more problems than it resolves... and its all too prevalent in organized religion, government, etc..

No_Skids said...

Well, I tried pointing out the name of the blog . . . not much success in channeling the dialogue. I'll try another tack.

Many years ago, a wise author discussed two of the most important circles in our lives.

The first he called the circle of concern. These are the things we choose to spend our time, talents, and energy with.

The second is the circle of influence. These are the things over which we have influence-where we can actually make a difference.

I've followed this group from Stan to Shane to Phil (mostly lurking) and there is no question there is great wisdom and influence here, on matters related to start up companies, business and legal practices, and aviation, which I think everyone here cares a great deal about.

But I think it's safe to say that history will not consult this blog to sort out the who did what in WWII, or which economic/political system is superior.

When no less an aviation personage than Richard Aboulafia called the predecessor to this blog "endlessly entertaining" I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about discussions of what really went down on 9/11.

You can all share a lot, influence a lot, contribute a lot. But consider the venue and the limits of our collective wisdom.

fred said...

Noskids :

yes , you're being right !

nonetheless a few things should be known ...

No force can defeat terrorism , especially not if it is turned into a media show or a political-campaign ...

if anyone want his own life turned into a mess = just have to believe blindly his politics ...

No economic system or political organization is better , the best one remain to be invented , i personally doubt it will ever see the light of the day !

that said , the common-wisdom assembled in the form a free-speech confronting ideas and point of views is probably the best way to make a better future ... for any subject !

airtaximan said...

no skids..

you are smart... period.

I guess I was trying to say what you came ut with...

Thanks

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I seem to have misplaced my tinfoil hat - someone let me know when we regain the bubble on this discussion.

gadfly said...

ColdFish

We lost the bubble because the instrument is now called "Tip and Bend",(Not "Turn and Bank").

gadfly

baron95 said...

airtaximan said...
Baron,
There are many scholorly studies by reputable American's that disagree with your position regarding the bomb... and
===================

Hey, for the record, I have no problem with a discussion on the use of the A-bombs in Japan.

I think it was a very difficult judgement call to make.

My ONLY comment was that we need to take into account what the situation was THEN and what was known to the people makign the decisions THEN.

The world was axhausted by war. The US was facing the prospect of having to fight the Soviet Union (a monster we propped up) on multiple fronts.

The pressures to END the Pacific war ASAP were tremendous.

The isolated discussion of "Was dropping the A-bomb needed to win the war?" or "Did dropping the A-bomb save American lives?" Is just too simplistic. There was *A LOT* more at stake in the world in 1945.

Anyway - an ancient subject, but since it is heavily connected to air power and aviation, I guess it is relevant.

The distasteful part is to bring up the US decision (arrived at with painful humility) at as an example of the US careless use of military power and "blood thursting". That is sickening. And I will not exercise restraint nor examplary manners to combat it.

baron95 said...

No Skids said....You can all share a lot, influence a lot, contribute a lot. But consider the venue and the limits of our collective wisdom.
======================

Outstanding post - Wish I had read it before the post response above.

I think even the 787 lies way beyond the circle of remote influence of this Blog.

I think an analysis and discussion of light/personal turbine GA prospects is probably the sweet spot.

The 787 debacle is only relevant to the discussion as another example of how easily things can go terribly wrong in aviation projects, even by very experienced and well funded company with mature processes.

If you over reach in Aviation, be prepared to hit a home run (F4, B52, F22, B747) or strike out (Commet, Starship). With the jury still out on the 787, A380, EA50.

Michael said...

All this anti US, I believe is the right context to revisit one of Gunner's responses to our French/German/Israeli/Moroccan/Russian/whatever... correspondent.

"...In juxtaposition, we have (for instance) Jacques René Chirac, who supported UN Resolution 1441, while providing intel to Saddaam on the US/British plans; and whose administration was implicated in taking bribes from Tehran that would make the Eclipse fiasco look like a local Heart Fund drive. (Let's not even start on the Russian or German connections, shall we?)

But this has been the nature of the French government attitude to the US, ever since we sacrificed twice the number of American boys as France itself lost back in the 40's; many of them to free your own nation from Fascism. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, we buried about 65,000 of our neighbors and children on the soil of your Mother Country.

Perhaps we shouldn't have gone in there either, you know?
Gunner"

We might not be perfect, and yes we do have tendency to look after ourselves (how shocking!), but I can't imagine any other country which has done better.

Michael said...

Getting back to aviation: Baron, if F-22s are so great, why do you think Senate today canceled additional funding for F-22s?

According to Defense Sec Gates we don't need these F-22s "Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people."

Also another one on Air Force plans for All-Drone Future.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Gates does not know his a$$ from a hole in the ground in terms of what 'we' need, same for the other wizards of smart in Congress.

The F-22, Future Combat System (FCS), DD-21, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), V-22, C-17, next generation carrier, these are the programs needed now to project overwhelming and flexible force into the next half-century, nearly all have been cancelled or curtailed by the current administration.

They are making the same mistakes the original F-4 team did (no gun then, urban combat now) by focusing on the then current situation (missile combat then, global combat now) to the exclusion of the lesson of history and the nature of the threat in the future.

Rest assured that another nation will eventually field a 5th gen fighter platform, might be Russia, or China, maybe even India, and it might take another 10 or 15 years, but our enemies and the would-be challengers to our position as the sole superpower on this pale blue dot have strategies that consider decades to be short term, if you bother to read their history and pay attention to what they say in private.

What does that have to do with the Eclipse saga or our beloved industry? Nothing except that the occupant of the White House and his idealogical cohorts in the Congress have led a modern equivalent of Sherman's March to Atlanta, laying waste to the crown jewel of American industry and the prime contributor to our preemminence on economic as well as military battlefields. As many as one hundred thousand employees in just one industry out of work (tens of thousands in Wichita alone), victims of the most base and hypocritical class warfare in my lifetime.

And still, we have folks clinging to hope against hope that the Eclipse passion play will get a third act. The third act will not come from the EOG, or Col. Mr. Mike Press, or Wedge - it will come from leaders within the rank and file of the owner community who don't position and posture and prognosticate but just do - it is already happening.

Now if only we can see this kind of resurgence from the larger industry as a whole.

Shadow said...

I want to know why we need more than 187 F-22s to defend the U.S. Along with the F/A-18, F-16F/E and (eventually) F-35 fleets and the rest of our fighter and bomber arsenal, won't 187 F-22s be enough in the general scheme of things?

The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft requires so much maintenance per flight hour (conservative estimates are 30 hours' maintenance for every flight hour, though some contend it is more like 60:1) that we'll need 350 F-22s just to have an operational fleet of 150 or so at any given time. Not to mention that the F-22 has a per-flight-hour cost that makes chartering a small fleet of Gulfstream Vs look like just spending pocket change.

Those who call themselves fiscal conservatives should be cheering the decision to cancel the F-22.

uglytruth said...

I have traveled, talked and know people from all over the world. Maybe not as much as some of you but I have never ran into a "bad person” that hated me. People are people and want to live free and enjoy life and go about their buisness.

Governments create wars and hatred against others. I don’t hate Gu Gu or Alex from Brazil or Brian from England or Geovonti from Italy or Paul from France. Govt’s, govt’s actions…that’s a whole different thing.

baron95 said...

Shadow asked...won't 187 F-22s be enough in the general scheme of things
===========================

Hi Shadow. The issue is that the weapons systems that Americans want/need to maintain the 100-1000 to 1 kill ratios, at incredibly expensive to develop.

Be it F22s or B2s or F35s. We need to have some staying power on these programs. When we cut B2 production at 20 or F22 production at 187, we end up with a fraction of the benefit of all the development tax dollars we spend. And it is impossible to restart those lines once production stops.

This start-early-cancel syndrome is cheating the nation.

I'd like to see enough F-22s to be able to retire all of the F15Cs. Maintenance on those planes is becoming a problem and diverts a lot of resources.

That number is probably on the order of 240-360 F22s (20-30 squadrons) to be supplemented by F15Es and JSFs (which should also be produced in sufficient numbers to retire all the F16s).

That is how you get bang for the buck. Spend big on development, but also have a sufficient production run to retire the previous generation and get unit costs down.

What are we doing instead? We spend big development money, kill programs at tiny production runs and keep previous generation in the inventory.

That is a recipe for an expensive but sub optimum military.

But hey, Gates wants to suck up to the Chief to keep his job. The dems want to appease their constituencies on smaller power projection capability.

Will there be a successor to the F22 in our life time? Prob not.

Will China, Russia, etc field increasingly more capable aircraft and SAMs in our lifetime? Prob yes.

Will there be a situation where we have a mission that requires establishing deep air supremacy over hostile territory and the number of F22s that can be airborne AND RISKED on that mission is insufficient? I don't know, but I can think of multiple scenarios.

What happens then? We bend - that is what.

But it is what it is. We have to respect the political process.

baron95 said...

uglytruth said...
People are people and want to live free and enjoy life and go about their buisness.
======================

I'm sorry uglytruth, but you are living in la la land.

People that strap explosives to their body, walk up to children playing in a playground and detonate are different than me and you (I hope).

People that plan for years to hijack a plane, cut the throats of the crew and fly those planes into buildings are different than me and you (I hope).

People that CELEBRATED on the streets of many Muslim countries after 9/11 are different than me and you (I hope).

Some people DO hate us. They hate our most prevalent religion (Christian/Jewish-based). They hate our way of life (freedom, equality for women). They had our economic and military success. Their religion and belief systems encourages and even requires them to kill "infidels".

If they EVER acquired the means - e.g. the ability to detonate a nuclear device in New York or London or Sydney they'd use it in an instance without hesitation.

You can pretend it is not so, and speed better. But it is so.

Some people in this world would not think twice about walking up to your daughter or grand daughter and KILLING HER.

They'd kill her just because they can and she is free and different from them. And the society where they came from would celebrate the murder of your child and celebrate her murderers as heroes.

Kid yourself not. That is how it is. And the people that would do/celebrate that are unfortunately not numbered in the dozens, nor hundreds, nor thousands. They are numbered in the millions.

I thought with a screen name such as yours - uglytruth - you'd know that.

Beedriver said...

American casualties in the WTC.

In round numbers there were only about 2400 US citizens killed in the WTC. 600 were foreign nationals. No one in the government will acknowledge that any foreigners were killed. it was truly a international catastrophe and aimed at western civilization in general. even now when the prince from Great Britain came and visited the British WTC memorial no one in the US acknowledged. We had tremendous international support after the WTC and the administration squandered it by refusing to acknowledge the international nature of the attack against the WTC. Even Obama states that "3000 Americans were killed"

It must be the new way to become a US citizen to be killed in the WTC

It is an example of how myopic America can be. We must wake up and recognize that we are part of a larger world and we must work with other countries to succeed in the future.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Well that's enough for me, adios.

baron95 said...

Back on 787-topic attempt....

Ladies and Gentlemen, expect "BAD" news tomorrow at Boeing's earnings conf call on the 787.

Reports are starting to surface that almost one month after uncovering the latest problem, Boeing still DOES NOT have a fixed designed.

It also appears, that contrary to previous info, the areas where the fix needs to be applied are extremely difficult to get to, and may not be do-able on the flight line.

It also appear that Boeing is starting to delay in process shipsets from suppliers. Reading between the lines, it may imply a lack of confidence or high difficulty in doing the mods at Everett.

With 10 planes in process or "completed" in Everett and 40 (total) in the supply chain, even if a fix is derived, it will be a monumental task to cut it in.

All in all, a very cloudy picture.

Lets see how Scott is going to answer the questions during the call tomorrow.

KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
airtaximan said...

"People that strap explosives to their body, walk up to children playing in a playground and detonate are different than me and you (I hope)."

Their circumstances, upbringing, situation and beliefs ARE different, but are they different?

Biologically?


Re-think

I am not unsympathetic to your causes)... and theirs, either for that matter. All of the behavior is manifest of something...

Bottom line, dismissing THEM as fundamentally different, is a futile approach.

Your circumstance is diferent, and your defintion of "evil" may be a lot more banal than you want to think.

baron95 said...

ATM asks are they different?

Biologically?

=============================

They are certainly not the same species as me. You may feel differently, but I don't.

I could care less about their motivation. If they are plotting to walk up to my daughter's playground, I want them dead before they get close - later on, you can as your revisionist questions. Was it really necessary to kill them, when they hadn't struck yet, and engage in all the psychoanalysis you want.

baron95 said...

Now back to the enthusiast part, if it is not too late....

Here is another jet, at the oposit end of GA/Biz Av, that I "expect" will be executed nearly flawlessly.

6001 is looking gorgeous on the assembly line...

baron95 said...

Brand new facility (can you tell how clean it is?), wings by Spirit, mated flawlessly to a brand new fuselage.

That is how it is done Boeing and Eclipse. Watch and learn.

Phil Bell said...

Well- Chaos reigns on the blog !

I have been off-line since yesterday morning (spent a bit more time than I expected on the headline).

Checking in late this evening, I am struck by a few things:

1) Just how unpredictable our discussions are (the directions they take must surely be an example of chaos theory at work!

2) There is sometimes a degree of US nationalism present (at times, I am proud of the sentiments expressed, but at other times, I feel it borders on "tribalism", and unfortunately is counterproductive).

3) Sometimes, we go, and stay, a little "far afield".

It's almost enough to make me look for my tin-foil hat- just like CWMOR !!

But....on a more serious note, today's discussions gave me pause, while I pondered whether the breadth of topics should be constrained.

The conclusion I reached, was a bit of a surprise, to even me! In true blog fashion, I was amazed at "Just how unpredictable our discussions are (the directions they take must surely be an example of chaos theory at work!"

Our predecessor blogs, Eclipse Aviation Critic, and Eclipse Aviation Critic-NG, were dedicated to discussing Eclipse; asking intelligent questions, and reasoning together to find intelligent answers.

With the Eclipse questions largely resolved, it seems like an appropriate direction, given the expertise the blog has collected, is to consider other aviation curiosities. My earliest observations of the aviation business were, that economics and tax policy were as influential as technology to the success, or the failure, of particular aircraft models, and of their manufacturers. So to me, technology, economics, and politics are not disconsonant.

I reflect that the accomplishment of our distinguished predecessor blogs was not to affect the technical content of any particular aircraft, not affect the global credit markets. Our particular accomplishment was to ask good questions, and maintain an atmosphere which was fun enough to attracted a wider readership, whom were then enlightened enough to ask good questions themselves.

To maintain that fine tradition, we need to continue to ask good questions, and continue to preserve a fun atmosphere.

The largest contributor to the previous blogs' success, was the intelligence of the participants. I relish the blogs, past and present, as a gathering place for intellectual inquiry and discussion.

In general, I would say it is okay to post as much as you want on a topic, as long as it's not a rehash exercise and you think it expresses an important thought. If someone doesn't like a post, just scroll past, without griping. Personally, I find it much less grating to scroll past a long, dull post, than to stop and read criticisms about such a post).

So I don't ask that we constrain our range of inquiry, as I feel that would be an intellectual dishonesty. And in fact, I have always found our "diversions" interesting. I don't feel that we stray too wide- more that sometimes, we stay there too long, at least to maintain universal interest.

But, if one feels they have hit "bingo fuel" on the indulgence of fellow participants, I would ask that they smoothly return to "base" (our aviation focus).

And furthermore, I ask that others allow that transition to occur gracefully, with respectful appreciation of views that might be different than yours.

Now where did I put that tin hat ??
:)

fred said...

Beedriver :

It is an example of how myopic America can be. We must wake up and recognize that we are part of a larger world and we must work with other countries to succeed in the future. ...

whenever you want pop a bottle of nicest champagne on me ! ;-)

even if i wouldn't have put it that way (too much respect for individuals...) it is about or along my thoughts ...

the REAL heroes , the ones who went into the rumble of WTC : what did happen to them ?

nothing !

they got shifted to switch to something else ... (enough associations and brotherhood of former direct witness in N-Y alone)

exactly the same than the Vet from Iraq , left to stay far away from medias ... did they get the best medical treatment ? nope , what for ? (shameful !)

or the Gitmo case : this alone is going to be a nightmare for many years to come ...

what to do with the peoples deprived of freedom for a few years there ?

released them ? = almost sure that a few or month after , they will be very dedicated terrorist against ANY US citizen ...
which is perfectly normal : no one can be put aside and treated like a dog for few years (let apart torture ...) without feeling a very deep resentment against whoever remind of the ones who did it !!

kill them ? = very difficult either , what about public opinion ? this is where the so-called terrorists have won (and no, there is no way of PUBLICLY winning against any terrorist !)

keep them ? = what about that ideal of liberty ? the country of freedom depriving others of freedom ? how comes ???

exactly like in past "public execution" or "stoning to death" of potential culprit : it calls upon the worst instincts of human beast we ALL are ...

therefor , if there isn't any consciousness of responsibilities in front of ALL mankind = man can re-become a beast very easily ...

this is where i get pissed about GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (or lack of) NOT against population =

DO F22 are needed ? no , i won't prevent the son or whole family of someone who died in Gitmo or under torture in Romania (where CIA had a [not so] secret plant to do so ...) to sneak inside the USA to explode himself in N-Y subway at peak hour ?

fight against terrorism CANNOT be fought with conventional gears ...

Last Israeli's op in Gaza has clearly shown it , and to some extent Iraq itself has shown the limits of public-opinion related action ...

IT NEVER WORKS !

so please , instead of taking the world for friends or foes (without any other option) ...

look at human nature , if let alone = no one will give a damn about you !!

ps: Coldfish , is that you who took my tinfoil hat ??? i was wondering what was wrong .... ;-))

fred said...

They are certainly not the same species as me. You may feel differently, but I don't. ...


this sounds as stupid as the guys who i have seen coming to Russia to look for a wife BECAUSE they are so different ...

few of them couldn't understand the joke i made , then ...

"they are weird animals ... sometimes they even have 2 legs !!!"

fred said...

Phill

yes , you are right ...

it is only opinions expressed here !

sorry for dragging subjects sometimes ...

but it is quite related to the main aspect of this blog (Aviation) in my personal sentiment that many were basically played by smarter fools ...

like when some believed Europe was starving for the EA500 as a mean of transportation ...

or when the same believed that the russians were stupid enough to pay a lot for having someone else (not even a national) OWN and therefor make profit on something not adapted to their needs !

just a question of being able to understand this simple thing :

"what is perfectly normal here may be totally weird anywhere else ..."

is there any place on earth better enough to be THE only place ?

NO , there is ONLY different places with different conditions !

No_Skids said...

Baron-

Remember that 787 problem I couldn't provide too many details on?

Looks like Boeing will have lots of time to fix it.

787 First Flight-Not This Year

So kudos to Baron for being ahead of the news cycle.

One struggles to take anything good from this.

It's easy to pile on, channel Darth Vadar, and say that Harry Stoneciphers failure is complete.

Or opine that Boeings misuse or abuse (depending on whether you were there) of the engineering resource not only came home to roost, but laid a great big egg when it got there.

But perhaps the best lesson learned comes from Alan Mulally.

He gave an interview in conjunction with receiving Aviation Week's "Person of the Year" award for 2006 (an award which is not as lustrous in retrospect, but still looks better than Eclipse's Collier trophy).

Talking about identifying problems early in programs, he said-

"You have to make it safe to be 'red' or 'yellow'. I'm not the problem, I've got a problem. The minute you intimidate somebody, or make it personal, then what color is it going to be next week? Green, because we're human beings and we're not going to be victims and we're not going to be abused.

Boeing managements failure to take their own guys advice has been their downfall.

JustinTime said...

This blog lacks the appeal that it once had. Discussions are all over the place. Topics that have been beaten and mashed into the ground. If you want to participate in a blog that will stay on the topic of the EA500, VLJ or aviation join me at the "Eclipse 2.0" blog. he link:

http://posteclipsesupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-will-madness-end.html

Bubba said...

I agree. I'm ready to move elsewhere. Since Shane left the blog seems to have gone to hell. Stop with the politics!

airsafetyman said...

The Eclipse farce reminds me of the road-runner cartoons where the fox chases the road runner off the mesa cliff, the fox hangs in air for a moment or two, and then plumments straight down for about 15 seconds before a poof of smoke marks the end. It seems a waste of time to dance around the crater. The blogs state has nothing to do with the moderator; its more of how long can you look at a motionless corpse without burying it?

eclipso said...

Speaking of the Wedge:

http://www.iconaircraft.com/directors-and-advisors.html


WTF???????

eclipse_deep_throat said...

The real irony is that Icon has a guy named David Crook as their CFO. Like with Madoff and his ability to have "made off" with all your money, what is to be said of those who give money to a guy named Crook. Ya just can't make this stuff up!!

http://www.iconaircraft.com/team.html

Oh wait, your deposit is kept in escrow by a 3rd party .....so no worries at all!! We can trust them 100%.

Sorry to steal from DI, but I can't resist: Ya want your Corruption Combo meal supersized?? Also, with each deposit made by cashiers check, you get the personal home phone number to Bernanke and Geitner for when you need a bailout at 3am!!

e.d.t.

gadfly said...

safetyman

Calling a coyote a "fox" is like calling the Eclipse 500 a complete aircraft. (By the way, a fox would be insulted.)

Back to the earlier question: Concerning "dead stick landing", what does the pilot do for instruments with "black screens"? And would it be legal for an owner to add mechanical instruments to the little bird? 'Seems it would be rather nice to know airspeed, sink rate, and if the bird is not upside down, etc., . . . but I realize that is "old fashioned thinking" to even consider.

gadfly

(Last I heard, it's not Kosher to fly by the seat of your pants.)

Shadow said...

I think Phil needs to set the boundaries for discussion on the blog. Right now it's too wide open, which is leading to total chaos.

I'd suggest constraining it to "entry-level jets," which IMO would range from SE VLJs to the CJ4. With boundaries such as these in place, then the discussions here will be more coherent.

At present, we have several widely different topics being discussed at one time. No wonder ColdWet wants to throw in the towel on this blog.

airsafetyman said...

Gad, I got my foxes mixed up with my coyotes. However, both are part of the canine family! Woof, woof.

eclipse_deep_throat said...

Baron said:
Will there be a situation where we have a mission that requires establishing deep air supremacy over hostile territory and the number of F22s that can be airborne AND RISKED on that mission is insufficient? I don't know, but I can think of multiple scenarios.

Well, I know I am late to this topic, but what the heck. Since daddy works for LMCO, I'm concerned about his situation. But he only needs to stay employed for 3 more years before he can retire. And his division has nothing to do with the F-22....

Anyway, isn't the real issue here the cost of developing an F22 PILOT? How much does that take for the Air Force to train a fresh 2nd Lt right out of the AF Academy? Would we say the costs of an F22 pilot are similar to the costs associated with developing an F15C or F16 pilot -- or are there any **significant** training differences to show that one program or another is less expensive? I would think the real cost-avoidance here is to mitigate the chance of losing a pilot in combat. Yes? No?

In the abstract, everyone in the military knows that maintenance budgets are larger than budgets for new weapon systems. And I'd go on a limb to say that the maint. requests to for the entire fleet of older generation aircraft increase each year. But the Generals planning missions and such are not making decisions on what a/c to send into combat based **SOLELY** on cost .....yet I could easily see an ass-chewing session where a Gen. would have to explain his decision to send in an F22, only IF it were subsequently shot down in Iraq or Afganistan with a 'cheap' made-in-China missle.

But on the flip side, if they are going to risk anything, I'd rather our AF keep the F15s and F16s flying as long as possible. If we are going to put any assets at risk to the US taxpayers, I'd rather it be the old stuff. And even in scenarios where an F-22 is damaged but not destroyed, I'd be willing to bet the cost to repair it will be significantly more than getting a F15/16 back to operational status. LMCO has to make money some how, eh?

LOL, now if we had the money to replace the real grand-daddy of the Air Force, they'd have something to replace the B-52H bombers. From Wikepedia:
The last production aircraft, B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on 26 October 1962.
They even claim that the AF will keep the B-52H in service until year 2040. If it still works, if it still lets us drop bombs on the enemy, then why not!? Just because the weapon system is old doesn't mean it somehow hinders our ability to maintain air superiority. Even if we went to war with China, I'd bet the farm that our AF could easily defeat theirs...

e.d.t.

baron95 said...

ASM said... The blogs state has nothing to do with the moderator; its more of how long can you look at a motionless corpse without burying it?
==========================

Best quote, by far on this thread ;)

baron95 said...

E.D.T. said... I would think the real cost-avoidance here is to mitigate the chance of losing a pilot in combat. Yes? No?

=======================

YESSSSSS - thank you!!! That is what I was trying to say with my 1-100 or 1-1000 scenarios.

Ever since the battle of england, haaving good/effective pilots inside the aluminum (or composite in this case) has been the issue.

We need weapons systems that are so survivable and so effective, that we need less and less of them and their crews.

If a pair of F22s can do the job of 8 F 15s and if we remove those F15Cs from inventory and their pilots and their crews, etc, there are cost savings to be had.

Eventually, we need to look at our piloted front line fighters ALMOST like we look at carrier. We can't lose them.

JustinTime said...

If the subject of Eclipse, Vern, Peg, Mike, bankruptsy and the EA500 is such a "DEAD MOTIONLESS CORPSE" why do you keep blogging about it?

As long as the aircrafts are flying and the BK case stays active in the courts... I would say that, regardless of your interest the topic is very much alive. You've tried your best to kill the company and machine but... it's not OVER until it's OVER!

baron95 said...

Even if we went to war with China, I'd bet the farm that our AF could easily defeat theirs...

=========================

In 2030 or 2040?

India, a much smaller budget, will soon have 230 SU-30s with upgraded radars lots of advanced SAMs, integrated AWACS.

If they take a militaristic stance and start threten the region/world with nuclear missiles in 2012, do you feel real hot escorting a surgical strike package on F15Cs? Wouldn't you rather have F22s?

baron95 said...

Shadow said... IMO would range from SE VLJs to the CJ4.
========================

My vote would be for discussion centered on Single Pilot certified turbine aircraft , with some latitude to discuss aviation technology and geo-economics-politics in key areas of interest like: benefits of outsourcing, advanced avionics and systems, composites, electrical subsystems, incentives/disincentives to GA, etc.

baron95 said...

No_Skids said...
Looks like Boeing will have lots of time to fix it....787 First Flight-Not This Year
===================

Another lie by McNerney exposed and not covered by RA and the press? Sounds familiar? With is Karen DiPiazza? ;)

He said the fix was straight forward - now they can't even tell when they'll have the schedule revision other than in Q3.

What an embarassment!!! It is 2009 and Boeing can't design a wing-stringer join that does not fail at 30% below design load?

And they only find out about it on the flight line?

Me thinks, someone had to know about this, and jsut said "F$@#-it, they don't want to hear it, I'm not telling them".

Look at this picture

Gadfly, knowing that the stringers always are stronger than the skin, wouldn't you at least ask the question of what would happen under flex? Why doesn't the stringer taper or go full length?

Tell us Gadfly - isn't that design at least "visually suspect" to a structures guy?

I know Boeing has top notch structural mod engineers and fabricators and they can fix THAT issue.

My fear is, with stuff likethat surfacing this late in the game, what else is there lurking?

I say, send in the GadFly to do a "looks right, fly right" design review.

And I DO mean that sincerely. This project needs common sense adult supervision. They need the guy that will come in and say "this can't possibly be right".

S%$# Boeing - get your freaking act together.

gadfly said...

baron

Taking you seriously, I’ll attempt some explanation.

Aircraft originally were a framework of “spars, longerons, formers, ribs, gussets, stringers, wire, and “lacquered” cloth (cotton or linen) . . . mostly of either “spruce” (uniform), birch (easy to machine) or “douglas fir” (stronger). It was always a balancing act between compression and tensile loads, “over-designed” to account for the unexpected. As aircraft got faster, carrying heavy loads, a wood or metal skin was a better choice for at least the wings and fuselage, and leading edges of the “tail feathers”. The single skin, shaped to be aerodynamic and carry the maximum volume, was the strongest “beam” for both static and dynamic loads. The result (at least in theory): The “egg shell” . . . or “monocoque” (single shell) construction. So, we have various early examples . . . possibly the most famous being the Lockheed “Vega”.

(Patience . . . we’ll get to the question, but we need to lay the foundation.)

My understanding is that Lockheed built a “bathtub” female mold, carefully lined it with multiple layers of thin wood, much like a fine boat-hull, glued together as a bias (diagonal) plywood, pressurized it with a rubber bladder until the glue was cured, and produced “half” of the entire fuselage. Taking two halves, they were “glued” together to form the complete fuselage. Great, so far!

As aluminum was the better choice (for many reasons . . . probably the greatest was that fabrication of aluminum is easier than wood), it was necessary to find methods of maintaining the most ideal shape.

To make a “monocoque” shell of aluminum is rather easy. But to maintain that shape, requires “stiffeners” or “formers” or “ribs”, so that the aluminum skin can take the major load.

Now, back to your comments:

“Gadfly, knowing that the stringers always are stronger than the skin, wouldn't you at least ask the question of what would happen under flex? Why doesn't the stringer taper or go full length?

Tell us Gadfly - isn't that design at least "visually suspect" to a structures guy?”

Actually, the greatest strength is in the “skin”, both in tension and compression. The problem is to maintain the contour of the skin, especially when it is subject to “compression” loads . . . as the skin tends to “oil can” or “buckle”. The moment this begins, sudden failure is imminent. So, the “stringers” actually take almost no load at all, unless the skin begins to “bend”, and then stiffness of the stringer (or longeron) takes on ultimate importance.

Stringers are usually “extruded” or “bent” on a long sheet-metal brake, or "rolled" to shape. To design them “perfectly”, each would be custom made, and tapered in thickness of material, and cross-section of the “beam” profile. That alone would increase the price of an assembly to the point of destroying all profits. So, a compromise is made . . . a stringer is designed to take the required load at the worst point in its length . . . and the rest of the length is “too bad” . . . an economic compromise.

Why don’t designers see these things early on? . . . because almost none of them have ever spent a day in a machine shop, building something on which their own life would depend. And so, they depend on computer models, or “old bearded professors” back at college, etc., etc., and do not have the “hands-on” feel of the ancient ones . . . Kelly Johnson, Boeing, Northrop, Lougheed Brothers, etc., etc., of the early days, to see a “high stress transition” between the end of a stringer, that must keep the skin absolutely true at the highest stress point in the entire wing.

Computer models work great, but unless the software designer knows something about real-life “gotcha’s”, he’ll miss it . . . and the engineer who has had no practical experience on the shop floor is bound to miss it, also. And I firmly believe that much of Boeing’s problems can be traced to that attitude, multiplied a thousand fold.

gadfly

gadfly said...

A footnote: The wing root is probably the most important part of an airframe. And that brings us to the lack of "Live Oak" trees in England and the "Baltic States", in modern times. The ancient ships had a similar problem . . . the transition between the bottom and sides of a ship hull, and especially holding a giant heavy mast, and attaching it to the keel. Hence, "Live Oak" was the material of choice ("Old Ironsides" is built of "Live Oak".) And the transition of "root" to "trunk" was the ideal piece to form a single rib, or mount for the mast. A single ship would take a small forest to produce . . . but the ancient ship builders (re: "Vikings") would not have missed the problem of the "787" wing root. But then, they wouldn't know where to find an aluminum or carbon filament oak tree.

gadfly

baron95 said...

Gadfly - thank you sir - for taking the time for the explanation.

A true gem.

And I was dead serious. I'm a firm believer that each design team must have BALANCE. If there are too many CAD, FEA, computer-bound designers, you need to balance that team with more hands on analog designers.

I do give you a hard time at times, when you go to far in one direction, but not for a minute, do I discount the value of experience, critical judgment and caution.

I can only hope that Boeing has brought those resources in. I'd still would rather see YOU there.

gadfly said...

baron

A long time ago, I got over having a "thin skin" . . . and find it a pleasure to help folks come to a better understanding of "whatever".

Here's an interesting thing for anyone who can get out to Geneva, Illinois. The "Swedes" have a place called "Good Templar Park", and there on the grounds is "The Raven", a Viking ship replica, full scale.

"The Viking Ship was built in Norway in 1892, an exact replica of the c. 880 Gokstad Viking ship, and undertook a perilous journey across the north Atlantic, making its way through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes to arrive in Chicago for the 1893 Columbian Exposition. It was a major attraction at the World’s Fair, partly because of its amazing journey and in part because it was a remarkable emblem of the sailing skills and technology of early Vikings. After spending seven decades in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, where it was largely ignored . . . the Viking headed to West Chicago for an overhaul in 1992 and ended up at Good Templar Park two years later." (quoted without permission from: http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM48CY_The_Raven_Viking_Ship_Good_Templar_Park_Geneva_IL )

A few years ago, I took some video of the thing, and lifted my Canon DV camera over the side to see the interior (and looked through the "oar openings" in the hull). This thing is massive . . . and the base for the mast came out of one huge tree. It's worth the trip for a pleasant family afternoon, and right by the Fox river.

'Strange that modern aircraft construction should have something in common with a Viking ship. (And I did not mention the "flexible construction" of the hull, that modern aircraft engineers should carefully note.)

gadfly

baron95 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
baron95 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

baron

Most of the folks of a certain project are now long gone . . . but in the early seventies I got deeply involved with filament reenforced plastics, and the company that hired me, to be their manufacturing engineer and then plant manager, ‘built the then largest honeycomb self-supported domes. We built two domes in 48 outer “gores” and sixteen inner “gores”, and assembled “on site”, 137 foot diameter with an eighteen-foot rise, 3 ½ inches thick, and “transluscent” (so the sun could keep the bacteria alive, to break down the “sludge”). The free span domes were over the trickling filter system (waste management, to keep from dumping raw sewage into the Mississippi in the winter months) in Winona, Minnesota. Each of the two domes, our “first”, went through fifteen winters, and summers, before they were replaced. The major stock holders of the company were in deep trouble with the “Feds”, and one or two were sent to prison. And so the product itself suffered. There were countless other domes, and small instrument buildings for Sandia Labs, “Mountain Bell” (a large “switching station”), potable water pumping station in Colorado, Dow Chemical in Michigan, and various other projects. I still have a couple panels in our yard . . . after thirty-five years of extreme exposure, able to carry extreme loads as “ramps”.

But I’ve often thought of all the technology, that still awaits implementation, that we won at so high a price. Aviation . . . portable buildings . . . water and fuel tanks . . . cheap, but energy efficient housing . . . even the things that we learned about high-stress connections, going through major stress changes from sun-up to sun-down, day after day in the extremes of Minnesota, mind you. Hour by hour, day by day . . . these huge domes of fiber reenforced plastic literally “danced” over the base, as the heat and cold changed the very contour minute by minute . . . for fifteen years.

They only lasted fifteen years . . . they were our very first. But for such a beginning, that’s not too shabby. And that technology didn’t make it because of people doing things in a dishonest manner . . . with pride and ego preventing a lasting benefit to others.

Why do I mention all this? . . . Because when Eclipse showed up in Albuquerque, it was “deja vous” all over again, seperated by thirty years. Albuquerque didn’t seem to remember . . . but I’d been in the middle of a similar experience. We built “domes” and portable buildings . . . Eclipse built things that flew (sorta) . . . but the basics of those that held the purse strings were almost identical. Many great ideas self destruct due to greed, ego, anger, and an unwillingness to release control to those who can do a better job.

If a person could get to the bottom of the problem at Boeing, or most any big company, you would find that human nature is the basic problem . . . and not the product, itself.

gadfly

bill e. goat said...

Fred,
Please avoid theories involving
1) Zombies
2) Martians
3) Wedge running for President

(Everything else is fair game though !:)

bill e. goat said...

(And btw, I stand corrected on "Tuesday" !!)

bill e. goat said...

Hi Michael,
Re: more F-22's.
Or: less F-22's.
Hmmm.

I would reckon the pentagon's own internal wrangling is a lot more informed than the publics, so if DoD is saying spend the money on other things, that's what I'll agree with. (At least 18x-something F-22s makes more sense than 21 B-2's...)

Plus, I keep hoping the Air Force will do a Mach 4 atmosphere skimmer, and the Navy will develope an F-14 replacement based on the YF-23, so maybe that's where -some- of the money will go.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Ugly_Truth,
Thanks for the post about the cost of going to the moon.
It' wasn't ignored- I checked too, I had come up with 20-30 $B back then.
Which, I have to confesss, surprised me some, as I had expected it to more closely match the blog's consensus (!?!) of the Eclipse program cost, around 1.5-3.0 $B.

It's interesting to note, that both were 10 year programs.

And both got cancelled earlier than anticipated.

:(

bill e. goat said...

Hi Shadow,
"the F-22 has a per-flight-hour cost that makes chartering a small fleet of Gulfstream Vs look like just spending pocket change."

Well, maybe a more apt comparison:
Global Hawk, $35M

Gulfstream GV, $36M

Anybody see a connection?
.)

Funny we hear a lot about the Predator drone (the non-Wedge one, that is), but don't hear much about the Global Hawk.

Deep Blue said...

In response to readers that feel this Blog is "off track" or a bit too wide ranging, may I suggest the following:

Post.

This Blog, like many, is effectively a private chat room by a half dozen 'regulars.' But don't blame them.

A Blog flourishes the more that write. Sadly, many readers feel intimidated or perhaps "uninvited" and that of course is never the case.

There are probably a hundred or more daily readers out there that never post.

Post!

Cheers.

bill e. goat said...

Hi No_Skids and Baron,
Thanks for the news about the 787 schedule slide, and the reason. I had heard muffled noise about a few months rather than a few weeks, but had found it hard to believe.
Now, with the informative link, I can see, yup; months.

What puzzles me is, I thought structural testing was already underway. I guess this would be a fatigue issue, rather than static strength item, so maybe it really was discovered. It sure seems like a silly error- almost like the plans for a laboratory mock up got mixed up with the production prints.

Anybody minding the story in Seattle???

Maybe that's the problem: they're in Chicago. It would sure be nice if the "Boeing" company spun off the commercial aircraft operations to a Seattle-based firm, and spun off the defense activities to a St. Louis based firm, and then the remainer of the incompent beast just be liquidated piecemeal.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gadfly,
Thanks for the great post on structural design- very informative!

"If a person could get to the bottom of the problem at Boeing, or most any big company, you would find that human nature is the basic problem ... and not the product, itself."

I agree, in both the case of Eclipse, and the 787 (and everything inbetween!).

I think the Eclipse melt down was due to inexperienced, a situation which I would not have expected at Boeing- must be one weird corporate culture there- I suppose driven by the same mentality that moved the HQ to Chicago. AT the time, I did't like that, and figured it was a union-busting move. Seems like it was a company-busting move as well...

(I actually could see -some- logic in the move to Chicago, Boeing has facilities spread all over the US. But with telephones, the internet, and, ah, AIRPLANES to get around, the exact HQ location shouldn't make much difference).

compleat_outsider said...

Hi

I have been following this group for some time, because I like to learn from people smarter than myself. I have a question about aircraft outsourcing.

Everyone buys parts like engines and tires, for the very good reason that they just can't develop the skills in house. Most also buy parts like avionics, and we have seen from Eclipse experience why this is a good idea. But once you start outsourcing the basic airframe, what's left?

Boeing's 787 has the forward fuselege, the centre fuselage and the forward centre fuselage all made on different continents! If it is hard to find one supplier who can do the job, why look for three of them to do essentially the same job? What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?

compleat_outsider said...

Hi

I have been following this group for some time, because I like to learn from people smarter than myself. I have a question about aircraft outsourcing.

Everyone buys parts like engines and tires, for the very good reason that they just can't develop the skills in house. Most also buy parts like avionics, and we have seen from Eclipse experience why this is a good idea. But once you start outsourcing the basic airframe, what's left?

Boeing's 787 has the forward fuselege, the centre fuselage and the forward centre fuselage all made on different continents! If it is hard to find one supplier who can do the job, why look for three of them to do essentially the same job? What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?

gadfly said...

goat

As a general rule, when management is no longer in daily "personal" contact (ie: eye contact and verbal communication, even on non-work related subjects) with the "shop floor", little problems grow into big problems . . . production and quality will suffer. People need that sense of support of management that only comes from personal recognition, if only an occasional "Hello". When it comes from the top, it's worth much.

gadfly

baron95 said...

complete outsider said...What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?
========================
There are no limits. In the 21st century, it matters little if a wing is built by one company division say BAE in the UK with final assembly in another division, say Toulouse, France (the Airbus model), or done by outside companies (the 787 model).

Both methods can succeed or fail, depending on execution.

Integration of all tasks within a single geography or single organization are becoming less and less important with the advent of modern communications and collaboration tools.

Conversely, the advantages of building a best of breed global supply chain, risk sharing, low cost producer, etc are becoming more and more important.

Remember that at one point, Boeing, United Airlines, Pratt were all part of the same company.

But now they are each focused on there core competencies (or incompetencies in the case of UA).

I find it very hard to imagine any large civil aerospace project that will not be run in a risk-sharing, outsourced development mode.

Though "outsourced" itself is not used in the industry. Risk sharing partner or strategic vendor is the terminology used.

I think it is for the better. Companies that learn how to exploit the model well will prosper.

julius said...

baron95

complete outsider said...What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?
========================
There are no limits...


that's the theory!

The more legal entities are involved in a "development" project,
the more difficulties will arise in case of delays, problems etc.
Everybody must first cover his ... back. Within a legal entity one can quickly make deals without asking lawyers, not directly involved bosses etc.
That is impossible in case of interfaces to other legal entities.
Therfore Boeing's bosses are better off in stating that there is a problem with or at the "sides of 787" instead of blaming a supplier/part if they are not 100% sure that was the supplier/part problem.

If there are well defined interfaces, it's another case: breaks, engines, radios, doors,...
mean "no problems".

Production planning (incase of A380 or 787 more production delaying) is another difficult case.
Airbus/Boeing have to care for their smaller suppliers - even if they do not directly work with them.

Sharing IP is another issue - remember the F35!

Look at Vought and Boeing.

Julius

WhyTech said...

"What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?"

Everything but your soul.

Deep Blue said...

Concerning outsourcing: Aviation or large industrial enterprises may have some unique features that favor vertical integration.

At any rate, "outsourcing" was driven by cost, not competence. "Low cost poles" were all the rage with management consultants because cost is one of the very few things they can opine about (versus strategy).

UAL maintenance done in China or Phillipines? Jet Blue in the Carribean? Aerostructures in Mexico? Sure, as long as someone is there to babysit; but is it based on technical advantage? Of course not.

WhyTech said you can outsource everything but your soul: yes, where "soul" in the case of business means your "competence" and know-how.

Shane Price said...

On 'outsourcing'

My expertise, developed over the last quarter century, is as a supplier to printing businesses. During that period, my customers have done everything possible to integrate all parts of the process under one roof. There are many reasons for doing this, but the principle one is NOT cost.

It's TIME.

Clearly it's cheaper to get others to do specialist work, as they are likely (in absolute terms) to be more efficient.

But...

There is a point where the printer loses too much time by outsourcing. When the ultimate customer for the job expects delivery by 'x' time on 'y' day, a failure will lead to the next contract being placed with another, quicker, company.

These are valuable lessons, which Boeing is learning (at huge cost) right now.

The attempt to move significant processes for the 787 outside of their own direct control has to be a contributing factor to the mess they currently find themselves in.

But that's just my opinion.

Shane

Deep Blue said...

Shane:

I think most businessmen would consider time and cost as one and the same, no?

Shane Price said...

Deep Blue,

Of course they are related.

But some tend to focus too narrowly on pure cost, and miss the time element.

Put it another way. If you wanted something very high volume printed (think 'Harry Potter' book) the cost for getting a delivery 'tomorrow' would be astronomical. A bit of forward planning, with reasonable deadlines for each stage and the unit cost would be very 'profitable', for everyone.

As an aside, I should tell you that the last 'Harry Potter' (first edition) took almost 10 days to print, and pretty much the same to bind, although the processes overlap.

The first print run was 980,000, with the total order more than triple that.

Just for the hardback....

No wonder J.K. Rowling is reckoned to be the first 'billionaire' author.

But I (as usual) digress.

One of (the many) problems with the 787 is that the bean counters took over, and looked purely at cost.

The loss of all that Time is, however, what will do the damage to Boeing. If there is a 'next time' they go to the airlines with a major new airframe.

Shane

eclipse_deep_throat said...

complete_outsider said:
What is the limit of what you can sucessfully outsourced?

This is an Ops Management 101 issue. I'd even say you can trace it back to major human endeavors like building the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids, or even the Roman aquaducts. Its amazing what you can do with slave labor or indentured servants like when Chinese labor was used to build the US railroads. But I suspect the Pharos in Egypt preferred to maintain control directly, so heads would literally roll in the event someone missed a deadline. LOL, perhaps that where the term came from, but I digress...

The modern corporation faced this problem too in the early 20th century. General Motors and Ford both created industrial production systems that were "vertically integrated" to control everything that when into the production machinery. In theory, that creates economies of scale ...but it also has the **potential** to create a culture of waste (contrast the Billy Durant period of GM versus the Alfred Sloan period). I think it creates a similar kind of 'monopoly' atmosphere, not identical to that at a utility company. I'm thinking of the comment made by the president of Toyota where he said that his main fear is of the "big-corporation disease." In other words, that is just one (of many) inherent flaws with big industrial companies ...and CEOs that are good at managing organizational behavior know how to put in formal mechanisms to correct for those issues. To a certain extent, Jack Welch did wonders for General Electric ...but I understand that he was not the greatest person to work for. Idealy, we would have a "self-correcting" system but each discrete unit has its own ideas about whats best for their self-interest: I was quite angry at Eclipse, waiting for my tools to come back from the lab, and my vendor told me the guys/gals running the shipping dock were GE people who didn't put any priority on vendor items waiting for processing!!

Fast-forward to late 20th century and you have companies like Nike and Apple that focus on what they are good at (Industrial Design, Technology), while letting other 3rd parties who are good at manufacturing the gizmos be responsible for the actual production. Ok, I'm fuzzy on Apple, but I don't think they manufacture 100% of their product line (iPods, iPhones?). Almost anything can be outsourced if you are willing to accept the compromises that comes with that choice. But I think we are now seeing the limits of modern orgs in managing the "span-of-control" issue, even with video conferencing and all that: people will still do what they want to do, with or without the Hawthorne effect, when they think they have some leverage against the other party.

In the context of Boeing, can they fire their worst sub-contractor and bring that function in house without affecting the 787 production schedule or cost? Nope. Does the sub know that? You bet your ass they do!! From what dad tells me about LMCO, this happens all the time in the aerospace biz ....and it is just a given in terms of the "normal" for that industry and its supply chain. It may look dysfuctional to us, but it works for them. Contrast that with the pressures on the health care industry to streamline costs and limit use of specialists, which are another form of outsourced labor.

IMHO, outsourcing works best when you are dealing with a commodity-item (i.e., a transmission for a car/truck). It works best for those items where you can build it in-house IF your supplier screws up, OR where you can quickly reassign the production to a 2nd-tier or 3rd-tier supplier over the short-term. Aviation/Aerospace is such a unique animal, with huge entry costs, single-sourcing is a necessary evil.

What would the 787 cost if Boeing tried to do 75-90% of these things on their own? Even if vertically integrated, they would be 2x or 3x the size they are now. There is no way to do it and make a profit at the same time!!

e.d.t.

KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beedriver said...

A a guy who built his company on an emerging technology, outsourcing only works for mature technologies where everyone really understands the technology involved and good specifications can be written for the interfaces so everything is well known. in this case Boeing appeared to be asking others to do things they did not really understand (Boeing probably didn't either) and as a result when there started to be problems because of the business relationships contracts etc, fingers were being pointed, problems were being ignored etc. Outsourcing is twice as problematic when the technology is not well understood as the normal communication barriers keep problems from popping to the surface as fast.

Beedriver said...

The problem with beancounters running a company is the they know how to count beans very well and do not know how to count other things just as important such as tribal knowledge, cost of delays in delivery, benefits of prototyping, risks of doing something that has not been done yet, time to market etc.and the value of experienced creative geniuses that operate on informed intuition to be successful when going into new areas.

Beancounters do what they do best and do not put much importance in the other things not easily counted that make a company successful.

When Money is the sole object of a company I know it is easy to compete with and is on the way down.

My motto is that money is not the object of having a company, Money is the result of running a good company. I look at money as the "blood" of a business it must be managed carefully because without enough of it at the right times death can result and it will be difficult if not impossible to do what needs to be done. but money is not the purpose of a company. There needs to be a more gobal purpose.

KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

Outsourcing can be an excellent thing, provided a relationship of trust and fairness is developed, and carefully maintained and honored. Such relationships are almost priceless, and should be guarded like the goose that lays the golden egg.

But when a major company, an “800 pound gorilla” begins making demands based on nothing more than a blanket “drop your price by 5%” based on nothing more than a grand show of power to the stock-holders (re: Jack Welsh [marriage expert extraordinaire], to GE suppliers, across the board), first, expect a sudden increase in quarterly profits. From then on, expect a series of problems, as suppliers “get wise”, and are no longer willing to help carry the load for “the mother company” during difficult times, and their loyalty is no longer a “slam dunk”.

Lasting relationships are far more important than most bean counters realize . . . including Jack Welch. Anyone can make a good show for a quarter or two. The “long haul” requires a better method. The “gotcha” in “cheaper is better” is that from then on you will never know whom to trust, quality and delivery will always be in question.

When you know your suppliers are working with you, you know that the customer will receive an excellent product . . . because you are all working on the same team for the same end.

Break that trust, just once, and that customer base will always, forever-after be in question.

gadfly

(Many years ago, we decided to “sub out” a certain wiring job for a component (that we designed) in a medical device, requiring near perfect results. When the subcontractor gave us their “bid”, we rejected their price as “too low”, and raised it fifty percent, knowing what it takes to do a good job. From that day to present, we have not once had a problem of quality, or delivery. Not once, in close to twenty years. The original company has gone through about three different ownerships, but we remain the only supplier of that component . . . and most of it is "subbed out" to two local companies, with whom we have complete trust and confidence.)

gadfly said...

KnotMPH

A long, long time ago, I took accounting at “Orange Coast College”, in Southern California. As you have come to realize, professors of accounting would do well to spend some time running a “real life business”, where their own paycheck depends on production of a real product, rather than profit and loss columns based on how many shoes were sold last month, and carefully entered into little boxes, and compared with how much stationary and office supplies were purchased.

When we got our first “fax” machine, we were in fat city. Today with broad-band internet, we’re in better shape to meet the needs of our customers, but the basics of honesty, quality, delivery on time are still “key” to making it all come together. Funny thing . . . price is important, but quality and delivery on time still rank at the top.

Beedriver

You seem to have been reading some of my comments about the importance of “money” in a business, and basic priorities, etc. In our little company, we put a different priority on things (than making a lot of money), and the needed profit followed in due time. You and I seem to be on the same page.

At present, we’re going through a most difficult time . . . cutting back, and surviving because of earlier good relationships, and a machine going 24/7 in the next room, carrying out the programs that we wrote years ago.

An order came in a few hours ago, . . . by “FAX” (can you believe it?), because a long, long time ago, I took on a job that almost all other companies counted impossible, . . . I bid it extremely low, figuring I could make it pay in time. Today, we are the only company in the US of A that is willing to do the job at a reasonable price. (It involves drilling a small hole from two ends of a part a foot long, or longer, meeting in the middle with less than a couple thousandths of an inch, "miss-match", etc.) Is it a big money maker? . . . No, but the price is fair, . . . customer is happy, and we pay some bills with the income).

But we answer to a higher authority, and the bills are consistently paid on time, food is still on the table, and we are “most blessed”.

gadfly

baron95 said...

Julius said...Within a legal entity one can quickly make deals without asking lawyers, not directly involved bosses etc.
=============================

LOL - spoken like someone who clearly has never managed a multi department project with a unionized work force. Really funny remark.

Most people who do, will tell you that they'd rather deal with 10 vendors than 2 departments and their unions.

Vendors you get multiple bids, pay for delivered results, etc...

Internal departments you pay for "effort", and beholden to their pace and union work rules, cost structure, etc.

As for the 787 and A380, don't use as examples projects wher governance and management failed monumentally.

baron95 said...

WhyTech said...
"What is the limit of what your
Everything but your soul.
============================

Unless your are a catholic, like me, in which case you outsource that too ;)

baron95 said...

Shane Price said...
some... miss the time element.

One of (the many) problems with the 787 is that the bean counters took over, and looked purely at cost.
=============================

Actually, Shane, you are mistaken in that. a *BIG* part of the calculation was the TIME that it would take to design and manufacture the 787 to meet a very specific 767 replacement cycle.

The A330 was completely dominant in the market and 767s were going to start hitting the 20 year window in big numbers in 2008, and Boeing needed to hit that cycle.

Boeing did not have the engineering resources nor the composite parts manufacturing capability to design and produce the 787 in the time frame and volumes required.

The whole thing was about timing. That is why 40 787 shipsets are in process and 10 are in final assembly even before first flight.

The engineering job alone would take well in excess of 10 years if Boeing tried to do it alone (assuming the engineers were not on strike as they were for a few months).

Doing large Aerospace projects within a single organization will never happen again. Never.

baron95 said...

KnotMPH said...With outsourcing the discovery mentioned would likely suffer a crib death if the time required to implement that change disrupts the process or mitigates the benefit induced short term. In this example outsourcing inhibits continuous improvement and stifles the person in the loop.
============================
That is not how modern risk-sharing collaborative design/development/manufacture (a.k.a outsourcing) works.

When BMW and ZF collaborate on a new transmission for the 7-series, they work MUCH, MUCH, MUCH closer than two departments within a single organization work. It is a true collaborative team effort with incentives at every turn to improve design, production, quality, cost.

When GE and Boeing collaborate on the 77W/77L and GE-115B powerplant they do so as co-investors, risk/reward-sharing partners. If you know anything about that relationship (and I do know a tiny bit), you will know that it is 1000% more honest, open and close that ANY (and I do mean ANY) two departments within Boeing, not to mention the relationship between Boeing design and Boeing manufacturing.

BIG, BIG, BIG mistake assuming that the in-house relationship is closer.

Personal life equivalent. Did you get along better with your mom/dad/sister/brother or your girlfriend?

baron95 said...

Continuing....

Personal life equivalent. Did you get along better with your mom/dad/sister/brother or your girlfriend?

Why?

Because you mom/dad/sister/brother you don't get to choose. Your girlfriend you get to choose based on your likes, dislikes, needs, aspirations, etc, and there are a bunch to choose from and invest in. The rules are clear, you stay together ONLY as long as it is mutually beneficial and a win/win. That is healthy in personal or business life.

Incididentaly, marriage sometimes it is a bit akin to corporate internalization and unionization. Suddenly it is not as easy to hire/fire, and at times you are trapped even though the relationship is not longer healthy or productive. Enter the lawyers, the hired murderers LOL.

baron95 said...

KnotMPH said...On a macro scale. If cheaper labor is the sole driving force, manufacture could not exist in North America nor western Europe.
====================
But it is NOT.

Don't make the same mistake as Shane, when he assumed that the 787 was outsourced for cheap labor. IT WAS NOT.

The countries where 787 production are happening have HIGHER labor costs than the US - Japan and Italy are NOT low wage countries.

787 was outsourced as I said above for timing, flexibility, risk/capital sharing, expertise, value, and to a lesser extent to open up markets.

No major piece of the 787 is outsourced to low wage countries. Boeing simply did not have the resources and does not want to be held hostage by engineering and production unions. Simple as that.

baron95 said...

Beedriver said...
When Money is the sole object of a company I know it is easy to compete with and is on the way down.
============================

LOL. OK - go compete with Goldman Sachs. They continue to mint money even on this recession. Their entire culture is money. They created and sold CDS on one hand (made money) and shorted them on their account on the other (made money). They are usually on both sides of every deal and make money to no end.

According to you they are on their way down and you know how to beat them, right?

Geez!!!!

If a company is not being managed for profits, don't walk, RUN. Nothing else matters.

compleat_outsider said...

Thanks for all of the replies on outsourcing. The only thing that did not come up was the ultimate in capatalist outsourcing, the Soviet design bureaus.

I'm beginning to think the Boeing situation could have been forseen. A few years ago I read the book "Twenty-First-Century Jet: The Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777", and on the surface it was a [ure corporate puff piece. Steely-eyed managers armed with the latest networking tools were making all of the hard decisions and beating down the contractors. However, I couldn't avoid the feeling that much of the work and change orders were due to overambition and inexperience, and that the real heroes were those lower down the food chain who put up with all of the nonsense with professionalism and extreme patience.

Were that professionalism and patience to run out, you would get the mess you see today.

Phil Bell said...

Hi everyone,
Thanks for your comments and observations about the blog!
Some comments (just to assure everyone that I've been listening! :0)
...

My, my- what's a blog administrator to do !?!
:)

My comments on chaos were mostly tongue-in-cheek, I find this thread no more chaotic than many previous ones, and in fact, the diversion somewhat shorter- a couple dozen individual posts, on one day. I would be more concerned, if there were a dozens (4+), occurring over multiple days. But, this was small time stuff- I was mostly amused because the discussion was so different than the one I had anticipated (space-race nostalgia).

But- as most typical, I found most of the posts interesting and informative. Perhaps the specific nature of the diversion was sensitive, but I saw no ill-will in the opening posts. Although there were some unusually strong reactions. Which is not typical, I would kindly appeal to us to not read malice into comments- 'nuf said.

But, I did enjoy reading the suggestions for the administration of the blog.

"This blog lacks the appeal that it once had. Discussions are all over the place. Topics that have been beaten and mashed into the ground." -Hmmmm, okay- "If you want to participate in a blog that will stay on the topic of the EA500...

Ah, yes...I see.
:)

"I agree. I'm ready to move elsewhere. Since Shane left the blog seems to have gone to hell. Stop with the politics!"

Well, I would venture- it's not politics- it's politics that don't agree with one's own. Better to go watch the monolithic "news" "fix" of one's own choosing, than risk exhaustion by scrolling past (or worse- exhaust one's mind contemplating) a few paragraphs that don't affirm one's paradigms.

"I think Phil needs to set the boundaries for discussion on the blog. Right now it's too wide open, which is leading to total chaos...At present, we have several widely different topics being discussed at one time."

Ah- a helpful suggestion ! :) Thanks, I've contemplated that too. So far, I believe things are manageable. I would be concerned if significant news were being "drowned out", but right now, there are two mitigating factors: 1) there isn't much news coming in right now- things are kind of quiet with the economy suppressing technical adventurism, and 2) we are averaging a few dozen posts a day- busy, I'm pleased to say, but not quite as frantic as the blog's been in the past. But thank you for the suggestion- hopefully, as the economy picks up, and more news comes in (hint, hing: aviationcritic@gmail.com), I'll look at channeling us a bit more than, I feel, is needed right now, anyway. But thanks for the suggestion- I'll work on it.

"The blogs state has nothing to do with the moderator; its more of how long can you look at a motionless corpse without burying it?"

I assure you, I was just "resting my eyes" !!
:)

"Best quote, by far on this thread ;)"

Thank you! (assuming you were not talking about me, while I was resting my eyes! :)

"My vote would be for discussion centered on Single Pilot certified turbine aircraft , with some latitude to discuss aviation technology and geo-economics-politics in key areas of interest like: benefits of outsourcing, advanced avionics and systems, composites, electrical subsystems, incentives/disincentives to GA, etc."

Thanks- a like-minded fellow! I think that is the market segment (and the ancillary topics) which will indeed be most discussed, as they are more pertinent to most of readers. I confess, to being an aviation "Gadfly" (another like-minded individual !), and am a bit of a techno-nut (please- be nice!) of just about everything that flies (and a lot of things that don't), but I'll keep that particular interest in mind, as I think it is the most widely shared. (Although, I think we are all interested in "trendy" things, such as the 787 too).

Phil Bell said...

And since I was limited above to 4096 characters (and brain cells):

"This Blog, like many, is effectively a private chat room by a half dozen 'regulars.' But don't blame them."

Well, that's an interesting observation- I agree, but have to admit, I had not previously considered that perspective. However, I believe we have been fortunate to have some very interesting "regulars". I suppose the chat-room analogy is correct, but to me, it's like reading a group of favored "commentators", and I have to confess, I enjoy every one of them- otherwise, I would not have been "enthusiast"-ic about assuming blog administration duties.

"A Blog flourishes the more that write. Sadly, many readers feel intimidated or perhaps "uninvited" and that of course is never the case."

Quite so! Thanks for encouraging all readers to consider participation! It's easy, and if you have a question, mentioning it is a sure way to get an answer. And don't be put off by the strong responses which you might occassionally note- rest assured, YOUR input will be valued by MANY other participants, some who may respond, and others -just like you (and me for a long time)- who might not be posting, but are reading.

"Post!"

Bravo- well said !!

Phil Bell said...

Deep Blue summed up my sentiments quite well (just above, and as follows):

"In response to readers that feel this Blog is "off track" or a bit too wide ranging, may I suggest the following: Post."

I would humbly remind folks of my introductory comments on the blog's home page:

"Special thanks to Stan Blankenship for starting the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, and to Shane Price for continuing it as Eclipse Aviation Critic NG. Those two fine chaps MADE those blogs the marvelous successes they were. But on this site- it is up to YOU to make the blog enjoyable, informative and entertaining."

I enjoy all of our participants, and hope they would exercise the scroll button as needed to enjoy the blog- and better yet, exercise the keyboard to post!

(And readers who haven't posted yet, to join the fray too ! )

julius said...

baron95,

sorry, I wasn't looking at typical US conditions!

In Germany there is most time only one union per company and doesn't care what you are doing (apart from typical union staff)!
There is no question that each department wants to get its "money" - even in old Europe.
Benchmarking is also know!

An external supplier does what he is told to do - not more. He doesn't care if he delivers something useful for the customer - as long as he follows the specs and is in time!
He is not paid for any advice unless specified in the contract!
This might change after a certain time and depends on the people.

Within a non US company an employee should raise his fingers (write a note) if he sees problems within the project.

In Germany employees war invited to look for improvements and get boni according to cost savings!

I agree with you if the company culture is such that one cannot cooperate with other departments then outsourcing (including related maintenance) is the easiest solution to get a project done. In this case some companies will think about outsourcing the project heads!


Julius

P.S. The trustees for EAC are still in business?

julius said...

Phil,

"Special thanks to Stan Blankenship for starting the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, and to Shane Price for continuing it as Eclipse Aviation Critic NG. Those two fine chaps MADE those blogs the marvelous successes they were. But on this site- it is up to YOU to make the blog enjoyable, informative and entertaining."


it's like democracy - "YOU" must make it!

Thanks for yor point of view!

With the help of good contributions the blog will stay on track!

Julius

Shane Price said...

Baron,

Don't make the same mistake as Shane, when he assumed that the 787 was outsourced for cheap labor. IT WAS NOT.

I don't want to replicate Ken, but I never said Boeing outsourced so much of the 787 only on cost grounds.

The 'mistake' Boeing made was in losing track of how much TIME could be lost, by outsources so MUCH.

If things keep going as they are right now (and the latest 'rumor' from within Boeing indicates as much) it will be 2010 before 'first flight'. Worse, it looks like a redesign of the wing root area after the first x number of airframes are completed.

Not good, no matter how you judge things.

It's possible that keeping more of the project in house would have delayed the 787. Would it have delayed it by 3 (or more...) years?

I, for one, don't think so.

Now, the real question is, will Boeing follow the same path with their next major airframe?

Only time will tell, but I suspect that the balance of work will move back towards in-house production.

KnotMPH,

In the spirit of your 'outsourced accountants' post, herewith my Friday (mildly) Funny:-

What do accountants and sperm have in common?

A one in two million chance of becoming a human being.


Shane

Shane Price said...

On outsourcing, round two

Boeing 787 v Airbus A350

Quatar Airways have 100 Airbus A350's and 30 Boeing 787's on firm order, with additional options.

Their CEO is quoted today at flightglobal.com that he may CANCEL his orders and options for the 787, unless he's given assurances during a meeting tomorrow with Boeing.

Read the entire article. It's interesting, as Quatar are one of the airlines who freely admit they ordered 787's to fill a need opening up 'above' the A330, which they already fly.

Will Boeing keep them 'sweet', or is this the start of something much more serious?

Shane

Deep Blue said...

Shane:

I appreciate your point on 'time' versus pure cost per se, and it's a good one.

A famous author and consultant once showed me a chart he drew, proving how a snail moves ten times faster than aerospace sub-assembly routines!

And BTW, I do think VR had some legitimate grips about the supply chain.

As for the 787 v. airbus alternatives, I still have grave doubts about how the 787 will actually perform in service: it could very well turn out to be the "Comet" of nexgen composite aircraft.

Even if Qatar gets "assurance" from BA, they still may wind up with a highly flawed airplane (if they ever get it).

On the other hand, I could be wrong; it's possible; I have been wrong once or twice before....

Shane Price said...

Deep Blue,

And BTW, I do think VR had some legitimate grips about the supply chain.

You should hear the 'supply chain' on the subject of Vern Raburn!

It would appear that there are STILL real issues to be sorted out, before anyone can move the E500 forward.

A few examples, by way of illustration:-

1. I'm reliably informed that Socata walked when they saw the 'disconnect' between the engineering records and what was actually built in ABQ. The FAA are aware of this, and will delay a PC until this is all cleaned up.

2. Hampsons, who made the 'tail feathers' have not been replaced, and the documents exchanged during the dispute (over a small matter of $7 million owed by Vern) make it clear that basic criteria were missed. EAC kept changing their minds about what they required, but failed to communicate these changes....

3. FIKI is NOT finished, with a required modification to the windshield failing during testing. Repeatedly.

4. AvioNG remains a work-in-progress, and is kept 'afloat' only by goodwill. Expect serious issues to appear before long.

5. We documented the tail cone de-lamination issue at length before. Reliable sources tell me that the required 'permanent' fix was due to cut in at s/n 300 and involved an interior metal heat shield.

6. The FL 370 limit is still in force, with no real indication of how difficult the 'carbon build up' issue will be to fix.

7. Vern himself, in his 'cockroaches' speech, admitted that aviation was not like computers, where sub assemblies are simply latched or screwed together. He wasted more than $2 billion to find this out. Clever guy, don't you think?

I can 'allow' one or two supply chain issues. But I won't allow Vern off the hook, especially when he so carefully prepared the fishing rod, line and bait, all by himself....

Shane

bill e. goat said...

Hi Shane,
"It's possible that keeping more of the project in house would have delayed the 787. Would it have delayed it by 3 (or more...) years? I, for one, don't think so."

Me either.

No reflection on the talented folks working on the program, but considering the project management (no doubt affected by constraints beyond their control):

How long would it take 10,000 monkeys to design a 747 (or, say, 787) by random combination?

(I'm starting to bet on the monkeys!
:)

Big Ed's secret Ant Farm project

KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KnotMPH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

Monsieur Shane :

you are perfectly right !

Qatar is hard thinking on canceling ALL 787 orders and options as they may get a sweeter deal from EADS for their A350 ...

to go in between , they "may" obtain planes for nearly nothing to make the links until A350 is in service ...

on outsourcing : just a shame that the bean-counters tried to have some "opening" of market for their product ...

they probably forgot the saying : "trying to please everyone is the best way of please no one "

No_Skids said...

Outsourcing, from a "boots on the ground" (engineers experience) perspective.

The value of the basic premise of outsourcing-the most efficient use of resources and expertise-is nearly irrefutable.

But it's those dang devlish details.

From my experience, there are two types of outsourcing-production (building) and engineering (thinking). The gotchas are quite different.

For production, it's good suppliers (based on value, not cost) AND good data to both build and verify the component. Too many first hand accounts of when this went awry to recount here. Suffice to say reputations were destroyed and customers lost along the way.

For engineering outsourcing (which can also involve production) the key is twofold-

First, understand completely the function of what you are outsourcing and document that knowledge and how they (and you) can verify performance.

Second, understand completely the interfaces between what you outsource and what you don't (or what you outsource to yet another source).

My 787 experience was that Boeing failed on the engineering outsourcing-in the most egregious example, they outsourced design engineering to a company (Vought) that didn't have the engineers when they were selected.

For anyone interested in the 787 program, the Airbus Lessons Learnt that got out in the wild ("Boeing Proprietary" slides and all) is a compelling read (FlightBlogger has a summary here)

baron95 said...

julius said...
In Germany .....
An external supplier does what he is told to do - not more.
=====================

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT SO. I just gave you the example of BMW and ZF, I could cite MB and Bosch and dozens of others. These are truly collaborative partners and they are totally committed to innovation and success through design, manufacturing, etc.

You must not be familiar with the concept of strategic vendors, strategic partners, design collaboration, externalized design and supply chains, cross chain management and a bunch of other things that have been in place for a couple of decades now.

There is virtually no benefit to keeping a function inside a company if there more than two leading suppliers in the open market.

German industry is disaggregation just as fast as US industry. They have no choice.

fred said...

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT SO ...These are truly collaborative partners and they are totally committed to innovation and success through design, manufacturing ...

still , you do not get it ...

Germans can be very collaborative ... ONLY ONE CONDITION =

the customer HAS TO BE OPEN to the eventual suggestion(s) made by the recipient of outsourcing ...

if the customer is NOT OPEN , then it is NOT a collaboration therefor they stick to the order !

fred said...

There is virtually no benefit to keeping a function inside a company if there more than two leading suppliers in the open market. ...

yes , but could you answer this question : "Why US industry has been loosing jobs by hundreds of thousand per month recently ?"

this is something you have difficulties to understand in our "nearly" communist european economy ...

costs-hunting at all (human) cost isn't really an european method ...

julius said...

baron95.

These are truly collaborative partners and they are totally committed to innovation and success through design, manufacturing, etc.


this is a second step and based on long good experience etc.
This is not the type of "partnership" which is just created because a project leader was not able to or should not use equivalent inhouse resources!


To come to the point: For how many years is there a similar collaborative partnership between BCA, Fuji, Kawaski, Mitsubishi?
Even though BCA was aware of risk of the centerbox to wingbox interfaces BCA had to wait for the live test!
The center box already had to be modified or redesigned.

Julius

Deep Blue said...

Phil: just a quick note to say thank you for hosting the new Av. B-log; I like your comments and you are a very thoughtful "administrator" and commentator (like your predecessors).

By the way, what is your background, if you might share that with the site? (I suppose we should all "come clean" at some point: What was that game show with Kitty Carlyle? "To Tell the Truth" and "What's My Line?").

Regards.

gadfly said...

Deep Blue

At one time, many of us freely published personal data in our profiles. Those were the fading golden halcyon days, when the coming "winter" of Eclipse' future was considered a myth. Unlimited "soft drinks" and free use of the "color copiers" were valid proof, that summer would last forever. Stock options were far more valuable than overtime wages. Even the mayor and governor had placed their blessings on the thing.

But when a few hundred Eclipse employees were reading the blog and started blaming the "bloggers" for their problems, it became necessary to remove the info out of concern for our families.

There may come a time when it's deemed safe to offer that information . . . but not just yet!

gadfly

bill e. goat said...

Ya-Hoo !!
Look what's on the AirVenture 2009 website homepage

STYLIN' !!
:)

Oh- I just check my post- looks like the picture has flipped from an ERcoupe to F-22; well, something for everybody!

gadfly said...

goat

The "F22" and the "ERCO Ercoupe" have much in common: Both can fly backwards . . . Shucks, I remember doing that in a J-3, for a full hour over an intersection about four or five miles due west of ORD, on a cold September morning, practicing "slow flight" and "stalls".

gadfly

(Of course, the wind from the north was about forty knots, at altitude.)

julius said...

BTW: For the Eclipse bloggers:

in Dutch: RiP lost against Al Man

RiP (Roel Pieper) was ruled to pay $10M + fees to Al Man, but he appealed against the judgement.
These $10M were RiP's part of the EAC ch 11 363 sales stunt!

Julius

Phil Bell said...

Hello Deep_Blue,
Thank you for your kind words, and good thoughts- I hope the blog will be filled with like souls!

Regarding "what's my line", things are a bit as Gadfly suggests. While I sincerely trust most "enthusiasts" of the blog recognize that no ill will was intended, nor done, by asking the questions which any reasonable person would ask (or at least, any rational person, who wanted a rational answer), I am troubled by some recent developments.

I live a considerable distance from any significant body of water. Yet, every night while I lie quiet, snugly nestled in the palatial expanse of the Blog's HQ/Command Post, I am awakened by the dull drone of several small airplanes circling about. In the pale moonless night, I can just barely catch an occasional starlit silhouette- they appear to be amphibians, and painted black- I find it disconcerting there are no markings.

I anticipate with the upcoming installation of SAM batteries, I will be able to elaborate more. But for now, I think Gadfly has the right idea (as usual!): "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you!"

fred said...

rough little trnslation of the dutch article ...

Roel Pieper loses lawsuit and must pay $ 10 million, the court of New York has ruled that Roel Pieper has over $ 10 million to be paid to the American billionaire Al Mann. Pieper reported that he appeals. Meanwhile in New York is again a matter between the Dutch dotcom guru and Mann, on the more than $ 100,000 attorneys' fees which Mann claims.

guten Morgen Herr , as you may know not everybody read dutch (ok , i admit we are favored on topic ...;-) )

julius said...

fred,

bonjour!

Actually I hope DI would present the link to the related sites!
I made a really "short" summary!

Crazy times: Dax > 5200; Dow >9000,
57th US bank TU this year; loans in China??


Will the 787 fly with McNerney's pimples on the "side-of-body section"?
Ohhh, perhaps there aren't any visible pimples?


Julius

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

Herr Julius :

yes ! as you stated "crazy "times" indeed ...

seems like good-old-EAC days are back on much bigger scale ...

all smoke-and-mirrors ...

Dow + dax + others going up while the structural remain on the path downward ...

and to complete the scenario , Benny Bernanke saying that he will pump-out the excess (very weak word) of liquidity to prevent hyper-inflation

fred said...

ooops , wrong button again !!!

so what is the confidence anyone can have in a guy who said within the last 18 months :

"No , there is no Real-estate bubble ...!

"No , there is no liquidity shortage and if needs be , i am ready to spread cash dropped from helicopters ...."

"No , there is no crisis ... only a mild correction ...."

this is a multi-millions question ?

i guess none !

this is where Monsieur Shane is wrong ...

Economist have the same value than in his joke ...
only difference : 1 out of 200 millions to be seriously right ! ;-)

fred said...

on the Mann thingy :

How much do you need to be stupid to spend 100.000$ in legal fees for trying to get back 10 Millions ?

Anyone with average IQ would know that probabilities to get it back are as remote as finding a politic saying plainly the truth ...!

to score even more , RiP is making appeal ...

Lawyers are going to make a fortune out of Mann's Ego !

what a joke , sounds like the trustee thing :

how long the process of EAC will drag ?

A: as long as the trustee will squeeze juice from this apple ! ;-)

Deep Blue said...

Phil:

yes; agree; I almost forgot about the lunies and lawyers lurking out there; best all stay private.

Well, we had a saying at one of my ventures:

"There's a word for someone that thinks everyone is out to get them: insightful!"

julius said...

fred,

Al Man

this poor man is simply downright angry, angry!
It's all about basic instincs: He seeks for bloody revenge. Thus RiP must keep away from US friendly countries (UK,) unless he pays.


Julius

bill e. goat said...

Hi Fred,
Thanks for updating us on the latest dialog between RiP and Al Mann. No doubt those two old chums enjoy a good slap on the back and punch in the arm. I would suspect during noon time court recesses, they folndly remince oever lunch. (I wonder who picks up the tab- maybe they "go dutch" - HA HA HA- oh, I crack myself up!...sorry :)

"In most of northern and central Europe the practice of splitting the bill is common. On a dinner date, the man may pay the bill as way of overtly stating that he views this as a romantic situation and that he has some hopes or expectations for a future development."

Well, somehow, I don't think there is any love lost between these two :) On the other hand, I do think Mr. Mann had some "expectations for future development" when he "picked up the bill(ions).

Ken Meyer said...

Shane, you got a few things wrong in your last message about the Eclipse:

"FIKI is NOT finished, with a required modification to the windshield failing during testing."

Maybe you haven't seen the FIKI service bulletin yet. It's finished. It's FAA-approved; it has been successfully performed, and it *is* being performed.

"AvioNG remains a work-in-progress, and is kept 'afloat' only by goodwill. Expect serious issues to appear before long."

I'm guessing you haven't seen the NG 1.5 service bulletin that installs the G400W's and incorporates them into NG. Avio NG was solid and reliable before the SB, but it lacked an FMS. The SB fixes that oversight and adds nice functionality to an already good design.

"We documented the tail cone de-lamination issue at length before. Reliable sources tell me that the required 'permanent' fix was due to cut in at s/n 300 and involved an interior metal heat shield."

It might be that the new company makes a minor tailcone mod, but it won't be because the original design was defective. All the episodes of delamination I'm aware of were due either to a GCU/starter malfunction or gusty tailwinds; either one can lead to localized overheating during the start cycle. There are a couple of companies now that repair the tailcone if this problem does occur.

"The FL 370 limit is still in force, with no real indication of how difficult the 'carbon build up' issue will be to fix."

Actually, one fix is already known. There is no carbon buildup above FL 370 unless high bleed air flow is used. The "fix" is to ensure high bleed air flow is not selected above 37,000 feet.

Ken

bill e. goat said...

Hi Julius,
"Al Mann- this poor man is simply downright angry, angry!"

I think Al would like to slap Wedge on the back and punch his arm too!
Or something like that.

Or like this: Al "The Mad Mann" versus Wedge "The (Investment) Terminator"
.)

bill e. goat said...

Hi Shane,
"You should hear the 'supply chain' on the subject of Vern Raburn!"

He made a lot of "friends" !!

"Socata walked when they saw the 'disconnect' between the engineering records and what was actually built in ABQ. The FAA are aware of this, and will delay a PC until this is all cleaned up."

Hmmm.
I can understand (and apreciate!) the FAA's concerns over reissue of the PC, I think that is resolvable, but not cheap.

A larger item, is, what kind of liability would a purchaser of Eclipse would subject themselves to. They didn't build the first 260 airplanes, but I wonder how the much "baggage" comes with the deal.

I think retrofits would actually be a plus for a purchaser of the company- sort of a built-in captive market.

On the other hand, what sort of (legal) obligation would be associated with ensuring safety of the first 260 airplanes. (Say, some goofy software or structural problem comes up- not an accident, just a field discovery of a pre-existing defect).

bill e. goat said...

Hi Ken,
Who is doing the FIKI and avionics upgrades? If so, are they also offering "spot engineering" fixes for this or that?

(I had in mind HawkerBeech would have the resources to provide that capability- and be a good alliance between owners and a robust support organization- not sure if the deal was "finalized" or just discussed).

baron95 said...

julius said...
To come to the point: For how many years is there a similar collaborative partnership between BCA, Fuji, Kawaski, Mitsubishi?
====================

Julius, stop while you still have half a leg to stand.

Not years. DECADES. Are you aware, for example that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries BUILT F15s from 81-97?

The ONLY company country allowed to do so?

You can't IMAGINE the degree of collaboration between Boeing, the Japanese Heavies and the financing aid provided by the Japanese government.

Simply put, the 787 COULD NOT be launched without the Japanese heavies. It is that simple. Boeing estimated they'd need a decade to bring it to market without the risk sharing partners.

Just because Boeing management was utterly incompetent and f%$@-up the execution, does not mean the strategy was wrong. It means just that - the execution sucked.

Just like Boeing had almost 100 completed 747s sitting on the ramp in 1969 waiting for P&W engines - because Pratt messed up.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gadfly,
"The "F22" and the "ERCO Ercoupe" have much in common: Both can fly backwards..."

I have read many interesting, informative, entertaining, and profound, and profoundly surreal things on the blog (amongst other things :),

But NOTHING comes close to the literal association you have fashioned with that post !! :)

It is so very correct, yet bizarre, absurd, and funny, that it reminds be of the old Eclipse press releases, (except for the fact YOU are correct !! :)

(For those who might be puzzled by Gadfly's observation, I would suggest you are guilty of 2-dimensional thinking :)

F-22 flying backwards
I would opine, that in some flight regimes, the F-22 might have a slight performance advantage over the 'coupe. However, I will point out, that the Ercoupe can dive faster forward, than the F-22 can tailslide, backwards, lest some smug Raptor driver be lured into a false sense of confidence. Furthermore, the F-22 pilot is still burdened with rudder pedals (how brutish and crude !!), giving a wily 'coupester a distinct psychological advantage*.

(*some might unkindly point out, a 'coupester needs all the "mental help" available).

baron95 said...

"Socata walked when they saw the 'disconnect' between the engineering records and what was actually built in ABQ.
========================

And why is Socata held up as an example of success in this blog?

A company that got its ASS kicked in the market of piston GA planes, and got locked into a tight corner of the market producing a SINGLE airplane and selling about 50/year. Nice plane, excelent performance, now with a semi-decent cockpit (still way behind what is in a Cirrus or Phenom), and somewhat overpriced.

I would not use Socata as a model to follow though.

Embraer, yes. Cessna and Cirrus, maybe. Socata and Pilatus - NOPE.

baron95 said...

BEG, if you are interested, here is a better video to understand the F22's maneuvering capabilities . Since it does not have 3d vectoring, the rudder control is key in maintaining control in those maneuvers. If you watch carefully, you'll see the flight control computer very aggressively manipulating the rudders.

fred said...

Billy :

some humor , very nice ...

but if keep on posting such intimate photos , how do you want Vern to run for president ? even if he can be considered as a Martian Zombie ...!

;-)

baron95 said...

But that was for show - This is for dough - weapons hot F22

fred said...

F22 seems to be good at doing a Cobra-figure ...

but it is nothing new : the Mig-29 Fulcrum does it since many years ...!

fred said...

nonetheless , i still believe it is something quite unneeded (unless for national pride) ...

drone and unmanned are going to be the thing on an eventual battlefield in future ...

therefor kill ratio is a bit outdated ...

no more need to spend multi-millions on jet-fighters and training , as well as betting on pilot who are never paid enough to risk their skin ...!

baron95 said...

Noticed the F22 taking snow, rain and being maintained outside in the desert sun with common garage tools and the F22 hand-held diagnostic pad?

And still preserve stealth?

Did you see the AIM9 launched during a 360 roll? Here again in a 15 sec clip.

And that is the just the stuff that you are allowed to know ;)

fred said...

Julius :

yes , Mann is probably very pissed off ...

still , this court-action is totally pointless , only making lawyers getting more $...

with the natural stinginess of dutch (i am just making friend with a whole country ... ;-) ) and the caliber of RiP :

there is about not a shadow of a chance for Mann to get the first $ back ...

RiP doesn't have to fear anything from anywhere ... apart from going to USA , all other country won't take the challenge against EU court of rights for a private matter between 2 guys ruled out by a US judge ...

EGO ... this is what it is !!

baron95 said...

Fred said...as well as betting on pilot who are never paid enough to risk their skin
========================

You really don't get it, do you?

The airforce, instead of paying, could CHARGE people to be F22 pilots, and the line of applicants still would be endless.

The F22 is one of the most effective recruiting tools the USAF has. And it insures that the people flying our fighters are top in the world.

Try recruiting people to fly an all UAV force. Good luck.

fred said...

Billy :

STOP saying to our Kenny the truth ...

IT HURTS !

fred said...

The airforce, instead of paying, could CHARGE people to be F22 pilots, and the line of applicants still would be endless. ...

in your dreams ...

i have been personally very close to few theaters of wars to KNOW that big-mouth-of-before become often scared when life is at stake ...

in a peaceful era , no problems = you'll find plenty of candidates ...


this aircraft might look and be extraordinary , still completely useless for the nature of threat to come in future = unneeded item !
(apart for national pride , which is useless as well when expressed in terms of "i've got the biggest" !)

gadfly said...

Sent to me by a friend of the blog:

(In two parts due to the 4,096 character limit)

Part I

Old Aviators and Old Airplanes.....

This is a good little story about a vivid memory of a P-51
and its pilot by a fellow who was 12 years old in Canada in
1967. You may know a few others who would appreciate it.

It was noon on a Sunday as I recall, the day a Mustang P-51
was to take to the air. They said it had flown in during the
night from some U.S. airport,the pilot had been tired.

I marveled at the size of the plane dwarfing the Pipers and
Canucks tied down by her. It was much larger than in the
movies. She glistened in the sun like a bulwark of security
from days gone by.

The pilot arrived by cab, paid the driver, and then stepped
into the flight lounge. He was an older man; his wavy hair
was gray and tossed. Looked like it might have been combed,
say, around the turn of the century. His flight jacket was
checked, creased and worn - it smelled old and genuine. Old
Glory was prominently sewn to its shoulders. He projected a
quiet air of proficiency and pride devoid of arrogance.

He filed a quick flight plan to Montreal (Expo-67, Air
Show) then walked across the tarmac. After taking several
minutes to perform his walk-around check, the pilot returned
to the flight lounge to ask if anyone would be available to
stand by with fire extinguishers while he "flashed the old
bird up, just to be safe."

Though only 12 at the time I was allowed to stand by with an
extinguisher. After brief instruction on its use -- "If you
see a fire, point, then pull this lever!" I later became a
firefighter, but that's another story.

The air around the exhaust manifolds shimmered like a mirror
from fuel flames as huge prop started to rotate. One
manifold, then another, and yet another barked -- I stepped
back with the others. In moments the Packard-built Merlin
engine came to life with a thunderous roar, blue flames
knifed from her manifolds. I looked at the others' faces,
there was no concern.. I lowered the bell of my
extinguisher. One of the guys signaled to walk back to the lounge. We did. Several minutes later we could hear the
pilot doing his pre-flight run-up.

He'd taxied to the end of runway 19, out of sight. All went
quiet for several seconds; we raced from the lounge to the
second story deck to see if we could catch a glimpse of the
P-51 as she started down the runway. We could not. There we
stood, eyes fixed to a spot half way down
19. Then a roar ripped across the field, much louder than
before, like a furious hell spawn set loose---something
mighty this way was coming. "Listen to that thing!" said the
controller.

In seconds the Mustang burst into our line of sight. Its
tail was already off and it was moving faster than anything
I'd ever seen by that point on 19. Two-thirds the way down
19 the Mustang was airborne with her gear going up. The prop
tips were supersonic; we clasped our ears as the Mustang
climbed hellish fast into the circuit to be eaten up by the
dog-day haze. We stood for a few moments in stunned silence
trying to digest what we'd just seen. The radio controller
rushed by me to the radio.

. . . to be continued.

gadfly said...

Part II

. . . The radio controller
rushed by me to the radio.

"Kingston tower, calling Mustang?" He looked back to us as he
waited for an acknowledgment

The radio crackled, "Go ahead Kingston ."

"Roger Mustang. Kingston tower would like to advise the
circuit is clear for a low level pass."

I stood in shock because the controller had, more or less,
just asked the pilot to return for an impromptu air show! The
controller looked at us. "What?" He asked. "I can't let that
guy go without asking. I couldn't forgive myself!"

The radio crackled once again, "Kingston, do I have
permission for a low level pass, east to west, across the
field?"

"Roger Mustang, the circuit is clear for an east to west
pass."

"Roger, Kingston , I'm coming out of 3000 feet, stand by."
We rushed back onto the second-story deck, eyes fixed toward
the eastern haze. The sound was subtle at first, a
high-pitched whine, a muffled screech, a distant scream.
Moments later the P-51 burst through the haze. Her airframe
straining against positive Gs and gravity, wing tips spilling
contrails of condensed air, prop-tips again supersonic as the
burnished bird blasted across the eastern margin of the field
shredding and tearing the air.

At about 400 mph and 150 yards from where we stood she passed
with the old American pilot saluting. Imagine. A salute! I felt like
laughing, I felt like crying.

She glistened, she screamed, the building shook, my heart
pounded. Then the old pilot pulled her up and rolled, and
rolled, and rolled out of sight into the broken clouds and
indelibly into my memory.

I've never wanted to be an American more than on that day.
It was a time when many nations in the world looked to
America as their big brother, a steady and even-handed beacon
of security who navigated difficult political water with
grace and style; not unlike the pilot who'd just flown into
my memory. He was proud, not arrogant; humble, not a
braggart; old and honest, projecting an aura of America at
its best.

That America will return one day, I know it will. Until that
time, I'll just send off this story; call it a reciprocal
salute, to the old American pilot who wove a memory for a
young Canadian that's lasted a lifetime.

baron95 said...

Fred said...i have been personally very close to few theaters of wars to KNOW that big-mouth-of-before become often scared when life is at stake ...
------------------------------


Yes, Fred. We are very familiar with the French lack of military courage.

We crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific one to rescue (you/them).

But not every war fighter is French, you know.

WhyTech said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WhyTech said...

"Avio NG was solid and reliable before the SB, but it lacked an FMS. The SB fixes that oversight"

Ken, you are exaggerating as usual. To call a G400W a "FMS" is quite a stretch. Honeywell Primus, Epic, Apex, Universal UNS, COllins FMS 3000, etc are the class of equipment usually labeled "FMS", with perhaps the G1000 and Chelton Fligt Logics systems appropriately considered in this category. IMO, the G400W might best be described as a "GPS navigator."

julius said...

baron95,

thanks for your info's on the Japonese/Boeing partnership or relationship with the 787!
That was not a rhetorical question!

Is the wording of the statement about a problem in the "side-of-body section" political, just to avoid any irritation with some top suppliers?

Thus the new schedule will only be distributed from Chicago?


Julius

Ken Meyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Meyer said...

Whytech wrote, "To call a G400W a "FMS" is quite a stretch."

That I agree with. But I think you haven't taken a very close look at how Avio NG 1.5 incorporates the inputs from the 400W. NG does an impressive amount with the data from the 400W. Maps, advisory VNAV, etc etc. If at some point you get a chance to look at all that, I think you might also decide it is reasonable to label the system as a whole an "FMS." Maybe "FMS lite" :)

Ken

julius said...

Ken,

I'm guessing you haven't seen the NG 1.5 service bulletin that installs the G400W's and incorporates them into NG. Avio NG was solid and reliable before the SB, but it lacked an FMS. The SB fixes that oversight and adds nice functionality to an already good design.


is the update to AVIO NG 1.5 already available?
RiP wanted to have some money because of new hardware - apart from the Garmins etc.?
Even the training for the maintenance people wasn't prepared!

I believed AVIO NG 1.5 already includes GPS navigation with the Garmins and FIKI!

When was this SB (update from Avio NG x.y to AVIO NG 1.5) released and who did it?

How are the data base updates (Garmin 400w, Avio NG 1.5) organized?

Matt Brown never said that AVIO NG 1.5 would incorporate VNAV!

Sounds like "Experimental", like the first data base updates after the failed 363 sales!
Nothing heard about the regular data base updates?

Julius

baron95 said...

Meanwhile, in more relevant news...

Another VLJ Hopeful will show a mockup at AirVenture...
---------------------------------
http://aviacaonoticias.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/oshkosh-gets-stratos-714-vlj-mockup/

Visitors to EAA AirVenture 2009 will be able to explore a full-scale cabin mockup of a new VLJ in development – the Stratos 714.

The mockup will be on display July 27-Aug. 2 at Wittman Regional Airport, Oshkosh, Wisc. At the show, manufacturer Stratos Aircraft hopes to gather feedback from potential customers about the very light jet to incorporate in the aircraft’s final design.

The Bend-Ore.-based company, launched the Stratos 714 program in July 2008 with the goal of producing an personal jet that would fly four adults at 400 kt. a distance of 1,500 naut. mi. non-stop (with NBAA IFR reserves.) in a 4.7-ft.-wide cabin – with a price tag of under $2 million (in 2008 dollars).

The pressurized, carbon-fiber composite aircraft with laminar flow wing is to be powered by a single FADEC-controlled Williams FJ44-3AP turbofan engine generating 3,030-lb. thrust.

The Stratos 714 is to have a maximum gross weight of 41,000 ft., a 63-ktas. stall speed and 1,080-lb. payload capacity.

baron95 said...

And Embraer confirmed that it is ramping up Phenom production to 3 to 3.5 planes per week this quarter. Goal is to deliver about 110 for the full year.

So business can not be all that bad, right?

baron95 said...

julius said...
Is the wording of the statement about a problem in the "side-of-body section" political, just to avoid any irritation with some top suppliers?
============================

Hi Julius, prob not. I think it is a technical description of the location of the problem. Boeing would never air dirty laundry with major suppliers for a major program in public. There is nothing to be gained by finger pointing.

It is a BOEING problem, where two major subassemblies from two major suppliers join.

Also note that Boeing has said very little about the issue. A lot of the info is leaked info.

I am extremely concerned about the implications of this issue. If the fix takes over 1 month to install on a single plane, then, by (my) definition, it is not a simple fix like Boeing claims.

My understanding, is that the stringers go into the autoclave and tehrmically bond with the wing skin. Now, the damage involves de-bonding in the afffected area. That can't be easy to really fix without sending the thing back to the autoclave (which is impossible after assembly).

Now. The ONE thing that is GOOD about this, is that Boeing will get the chance to put its money where its mouth is, and show/prove to all that composite repairs can be accomplished in the field (flight line) with ordinary methods (titanium patches and fasteners). I want to see that.

Otherwise, I'm thoroughly disappointed and fed up by the way Boeing has been handling all the 787 delays. It is a Vernesque insult to the intelligence of their customers and supporters.

fred said...

We crossed the Atlantic twice and the Pacific one to rescue (you/them). ...

yes ... but it was a long time ago ...
the first time (1917-1918) had more to do with taking a grasp on world leadership ...
and was conducted by a US president(W.W.) who was thought to be the worst ever before GWB.

the second , i thought you were not exactly alone ?
without the soviet soldiers sacrifice (about 9 millions of them) what was the chance of defeating Nazi soldiers ?

as for after : could you tell me a war which turned to be anything else than a nightmare ?

i would suggest you to read "Art of War" from Sun Tzu , written many century ago but still very valid ... if not the most important book of military ever written !

i could go on for ages like this , but it would be a dishonor for me and the due respect for the ones that gave their life in whatever battlefields ...

the way you talk , i suspect you would be very happy to send young guys to their death for "protecting" your little comfort home = making you a real hero ...

or its softer version :

you are a blind blinded by his own blindness ...

for being french , i am not worried , don't forget it is not only one , and i am not dumb enough to brag about this !

for a conclusion , i can give you a comment made by an Israeli officer (you know the ones who have never lost a war ) :

"too much testosterone for not enough brain ..."

i wonder if he knew you , then ...

julius said...

baron95,


to which extend is Boeing able to control or lead the development of an interface between centerbox and wings in case of the 787?
The center box already had to be redesigned, some reinforced.
There is no need of the total fuselage etc. for a prelimnary test the "sides-of-the-wing" sections. These tests had been successful and now they fail with completed fusalage etc.?

Now one may state that the results of the partners Boeing, Fuji, Mitsubishi,and Kawasaki are not acceptable! Finger pointing to all or only to Boeing (if Boeing is at the helm in this area)?

F22 & war: Vietnam wasn't as brilliant as expected for all soldiers (quiet a lot suffered other successfully managed theirs experiences - at least after some time). Now in Iraq: nothing has changed in this respect. What about the forced prolongation of contracts? Recruitment numbers?

If you are a F22 pilot there is a good chance that you will "stay at home"! You proposed to charge those pilots ... The F22 would become a toy for millionaires!
Is that perfect for a civil or military career?

Julius

fred said...

Herr Julius ...

yes , toys for millionaires are good ONLY when working and without any kind of risks ...!

is it achievable to remove all kinds of risks ?

NO !

this is what our "friend" doesn't seems to get :

Q: what is the "Best" war ?
A: the one which doesn't have to be fought !

is F22 (whatever are the qualities of this jet) a deterrent enough ?

No !

it only leads to over-confidence and you can be (almost) sure that at some point someone is going to be mad enough to try to experience in real conditions ...

this is an example of "where solution become the problem" ...

confirmed by the statement " Even when Goldmann&sachs is shorting the market , they still make money ...."
not to mention "WHERE" is the money coming from and "WHO" is loosing in the process ...
(creating a lot of instability or jobs loosing for a % at the top making money out of it ... despite all the "Nationalist" shows displayed )

or when the best the way to find "Who can become the biggest threat"
can be resolved by simply buying mirrors !

this is where i have much more admiration and respect for Our Kenny ...

he might be blind , he might be saying what he would like to believe ...

AT LEAST he put his OWN money and OWN skin in the line of fire !

WhyTech said...

"Maybe "FMS lite"

This would be more appropriate.

julius said...

fred,

bonjour!

"Nice" idea to offer a real deployment (dropping a bomb, shooting at some ground targets) as a final kick for these special F22 pilots? (I know it's all but not nice!)
Adios F22!

Our Ken... hmmmm is he already flying an experimental instead of the fpj?
If he said the truth, then "EAC" is losing IP. This will reduce the value of its assets. A buyer would lose some maintenance advantages and have the disavantages of owning a TC. This means disadvantage EAC-New!

Julius

Ken Meyer said...

Julius wrote, "Our Ken... hmmmm is he already flying an experimental instead of the fpj? If he said the truth, then "EAC" is losing IP."

Both the FIKI and the NG 1.5 SBs were released by EAC in February, 2009.

I think the new company will move quickly to implement both SBs across much of the fleet.

Ken

baron95 said...

Hi Julius,

I don't there is finger pointing. I think everyone knows where the problem is and what is causing it - material dissimilarity/discontinuity causing a stress riser.

As to the fix - there are actually two or three.

1 - Already assembled planes - need to install one type of field fix - prob first 6 frames.

2 - Planes where section 11 and 12 have already shipped but have not been mated - prob a slightly different fix as you have more access - prob frames 6-30.

3 - Ultimate fix for new parts yet to be built.

The first one or two are being led by Boeing. Last one by the heavies.

I think it is clear that the FEA models for this discontinuity and these materials were wrong or improperly used - and that is the scary part - because they had lots of time and lots of opportunity to calibrate it.

If this is the only structural problem, then it will be fixed and live moves on for the 787. After all the de-bonding happened at some 125% of design load. Getting it delayed to something closer to 150% should not be a big deal.

If on the other hand, the models are wrong all over the place, and the static and fatigue frames start showing failure way before predictions left and right - well - that is a lets say - Obama-bailout-sized problem for BCA. Unthinkable.

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Shane, you got a few things wrong in your last message about the Eclipse:

I think the record shows who's been 'right' more often, where ACTUAL facts are concerned.

There IS not 'new company' to take on this orphan. Right now, a break up sale looks far more likely.

You write as if your dreams had become reality. At some stage, when you finally 'awake', you'll realize the nightmare you've been through.

Just try and avoid dragging more suckers with you, ok? Enough with the shameless promotion of the FPJ. This parrot is DEAD.

We're only hanging around to help give it a decent burial....

Baron,

Are you not worried that the only 'credible' company to give EAC the once over was Socata? Or that they found such a rats nest in the paperwork that they high tailed it out of Dodge on the very first stagecoach they could find?

Time to face facts. The E500 is an orphan, and the adoption agency can't seem to find anyone interested.

Shane

baron95 said...

Shane asked...Are you not worried that the only 'credible' company to give EAC the once over was Socata? Or that they found such a rats nest in the paperwork

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

I thought HB also took a look. No?

As for paperwork - I assume there are lots of issues in that area. Not uncommon for a company in that stage of development. Cessna found the same at Columbia. Nothing that a couple of good process people can't fix in a short few months.

So am I worried? No.

Am I disappointed that this thing has dragged on without a credible purchase offer? Yes.

Just like only Obama stood up to buy 363 assets of GM and Chrysler and only the Angela stood up to finance the purchase of Opel assets, etc, etc, etc...

No one is buying distressed industrial companies.

I'd like to see Obama provide 0.001% of what he gifted to the UAW to finance the 363 acquisition of Eclipse by HB, as part of a GA Innovation Facility for Turbines - GIFT - program.

But, that ain't happening - no union jobs at Eclipse - and planes are for rich, unamerican, scumbags.

So, it will linger, and linger, and linger, unnoticed.

baron95 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shane Price said...

Baron,

HawkerBeechcraft never got closer than a casual visit to ABQ, during Chapter 11, to see what Roel was up to.

The only 'action' during that period was the rather pathetic tie up with the EOG for service support.

What was significant about Socata was they got access to the 'data room' at EAC, and were very disturbed by what they saw there. Your suggestion that it would only take a few 'good process people' a number of months to sort out begs the question:-

What the hell were all those ABQ employees doing with their time, for all those years?

And, of course, all that OMP they burned....

Other

Peoples'

Money.

If it's so easy to do this stuff, why does it need to be done twice?

If it's such an attractive asset, why are we waiting, a full four months after Chapter 7, with not even a sniff of the possibility of a deal?

I've got an answer:-

This Parrot is, really, DEAD.

It might not be the right answer, but it's the only one supported by the available FACTS....

Shane

julius said...

baron95,

if one makes an oder of more than 800 critical parts one checks those parts at the supplier, at least the first species before deliveries begin to start according to schedule. In this case these parts are even new in terms of dimensions etc.
What happened in Japon or Renton?

Vought was a problem, the center box, the wing..., McNerney's announcements...

We will see what will be the next problem (apart from delays!)!



Julius

WhyTech said...

"i can give you a comment made by an Israeli officer (you know the ones who have never lost a war ) :

"too much testosterone for not enough brain ..."

i wonder if he knew you , then ..."

Boys! Boys! This is no place for an unseemly cat fight. It matters little that the French are better at making love and wine than making war.

The testosterone phrase is most amusing, and one I havent heard before. It actually describes most Isreali's I have known - it seems that they are all former tank commanders or fighter pilots!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»