China Thread

#3,177
#3,177
AM64 said:
Every place I look I keep coming up with numbers something like this



And you are right the C carries more fuel than the A
Click to expand...
Yea I could certainly be conflating “future” ranges with current actuals.

But everything I’ve ever read has said the C is bulkier but has the greater range, which was a naval requirement.

The A is smaller and lighter and pull considerably more G’s
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,179
#3,179
85SugarVol said:
Lol. My fault.

I read SSGN. Then I read “smart sub munitions”.

I’m like what the hell are “smart” sub(marine) munitions???
Click to expand...

There are way too many acronyms floating around these days. Makes it hard. In my technical reports I always used to spell it out the first time and put the acronym in parenthesis figuring that not everybody would hopefully be on the same page. Even within an industry things aren't consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and 85SugarVol
#3,180
#3,180
AM64 said:
There are way too many acronyms floating around these days. Makes it hard. In my technical reports I always used to spell it out the first time and put the acronym in parenthesis figuring that not everybody would hopefully be on the same page. Even within an industry things aren't consistent.
Click to expand...
SSGN is a guided missile boat. My brain was in “sub” mode 😅
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#3,182
#3,182
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,189
#3,189
TheDeeble said:
Honestly this sounds like a Spirit AeroSystems screw up. Not Boeing. Boeing is affected because Spirit AeroSystems used non standard installation of fittings on some of their planes.
Click to expand...
Boeing selects their suppliers. Not a good look for the Max, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,190
#3,190
hog88 said:
In Europe, yeah I think we could count on NATO to a point. Outside of Europe no, I seriously doubt we could count on them for anything but moral support.
Click to expand...

This

hog88 said:
I don't think NATO jumps into a Pacific War as long as the war in Ukraine is going on. I have doubts about them helping even if there was peace in Europe.
Click to expand...

It's probably closer to the truth. NATO countries probably don't have the stones to do much more than act as a deterrent when Europe is threatened, then they make a phone call to the US. Never their dreams did they envision being support for the US. Macron was probably getting out in front of it. I would count on Britain and Germany before France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#3,192
#3,192
BreatheUT said:
This



It's probably closer to the truth. NATO countries probably don't have the stones to do much more than act as a deterrent when Europe is threatened, then they make a phone call to the US. Never their dreams did they envision being support for the US. Macron was probably getting out in front of it. I would count on Britain and Germany before France.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'd count on France to do is screw things up.
 
#3,193
#3,193
85SugarVol said:
Boeing selects their suppliers. Not a good look for the Max, again.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's still not a Boeing screw up as some are making it out to be. They didn't perform shoddy work, cut corners, or try to subvert regulations with regards to this. Maybe they'd consider changing vendors if Spirit Aerosystems has given them problems in the past.
 
#3,194
#3,194
TheDeeble said:
Right, but it's still not a Boeing screw up as some are making it out to be. They didn't perform shoddy work, cut corners, or try to subvert regulations with regards to this. Maybe they'd consider changing vendors if Spirit Aerosystems has given them problems in the past.
Click to expand...
That’s a cop out.

Boeing chose them. They pick their suppliers - and I bet you dollars to donuts that Price played a big part in their selection criteria.

You get what you pay for.
 
#3,195
#3,195
85SugarVol said:
That’s a cop out.

Boeing chose them. They pick their suppliers - and I bet you dollars to donuts that Price played a big part in their selection criteria.

You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
I’m sure a lot of things factor in. Price being one. How long has Boeing worked with them. What other projects has Spirit done for Boeing. They also do work for Airbus so I doubt they’re some chop shop cheap outfit.

If Goodyear or Michelin notified an automaker(s) that some of their tires sold on new vehicles went through a non standard manufacturing process and they need to be replaced who is at fault? Where did the breakdown or mistakes happen?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,196
#3,196
85SugarVol said:
That’s a cop out.

Boeing chose them. They pick their suppliers - and I bet you dollars to donuts that Price played a big part in their selection criteria.

You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
It's not really a copout unless Boeing had reason to suspect that Spirit's processes didn't conform i.e. Boeing's audit process was insufficient. That's not likely. It's more likely a Spirit issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,197
#3,197
EasternVol said:
It's not really a copout unless Boeing had reason to suspect that Spirit's processes didn't conform i.e. Boeing's audit process was insufficient. That's not likely. It's more likely a Spirit issue.
Click to expand...
Guess what a Spirit issue? A Boeing issue. There is no way around it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top