View Full Version : Beechcraft made in China
Mxsmanic
July 10th 12, 02:11 AM
Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess is that, in
ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the name, if
even that is retained.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess is that, in
> ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the name, if
> even that is retained.
Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very likely unless they
recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be very stupid and the
Chinese are not stupid.
And there is still Hawker Beechcraft Defense Co., which is not effected
by the sale of the GA division.
Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
Carolyn Peters
July 13th 12, 06:49 PM
Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
certification been an impediment?
On 7/9/2012 10:00 PM, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess is that, in
>> ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the name, if
>> even that is retained.
>
> Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very likely unless they
> recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be very stupid and the
> Chinese are not stupid.
>
> And there is still Hawker Beechcraft Defense Co., which is not effected
> by the sale of the GA division.
>
> Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
> Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
>
>
>
>
Robert Barker
July 13th 12, 07:06 PM
It's definitely going to be a problem. This is the same country that allows
what is essentially toxic waste in baby formula. But most conservative
Americans buy the Republican line and won't really care about all the jobs
and companies going over to China until they see their first Chinese-made
car racing in NASCAR. By then it will be too late.
"Carolyn Peters" > wrote in message
...
> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
> certification been an impediment?
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/2012 10:00 PM, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess is
>>> that, in
>>> ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the name,
>>> if
>>> even that is retained.
>>
>> Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very likely unless they
>> recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be very stupid and the
>> Chinese are not stupid.
>>
>> And there is still Hawker Beechcraft Defense Co., which is not effected
>> by the sale of the GA division.
>>
>> Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
>> Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Carolyn Peters > wrote:
> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
> certification been an impediment?
Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
george152
July 13th 12, 09:29 PM
Robert Barker wrote:
> It's definitely going to be a problem. This is the same country that
> allows what is essentially toxic waste in baby formula. But most
> conservative Americans buy the Republican line and won't really care
> about all the jobs and companies going over to China until they see
> their first Chinese-made car racing in NASCAR. By then it will be too late.
Chinese technology is as good as anywhere else.
From what I've seen of Chinese built aircraft they're as good as any....
Any country in the world has its rogues
a[_3_]
July 14th 12, 12:49 AM
Speaking of technology: many experts think the next footprints on the moon will not only leave the "made in China' imprints in the dust, but will be worn by Chinese astronauts. They are graduating thousands of space scientists and aeronautical engineers every year, and they all all working on state funded programs. A little of that brainpower could improve a general aviation airplane.
Friday, July 13, 2012 4:29:41 PM UTC-4, george wrote:
> Robert Barker wrote:
> > It's definitely going to be a problem. This is the same country that
> > allows what is essentially toxic waste in baby formula. But most
> > conservative Americans buy the Republican line and won't really care
> > about all the jobs and companies going over to China until they see
> > their first Chinese-made car racing in NASCAR. By then it will be too late.
>
> Chinese technology is as good as anywhere else.
> From what I've seen of Chinese built aircraft they're as good as any....
> Any country in the world has its rogues
Carolyn Peters
July 14th 12, 12:53 AM
On 7/13/2012 2:06 PM, Robert Barker wrote:
> It's definitely going to be a problem.
Really? What problems have been demonstrated with Airbus planes
produced in China??? Please do elaborate with you knowledge.
> This is the same country that
> allows what is essentially toxic waste in baby formula.
The whole country? Why don't you point out that the USA FDA last year
admitted that chicken meat sold in USA contains arsenic? Or is arsenic
ok only if it is American arsenic?
> But most
> conservative Americans buy the Republican line and won't really care
> about all the jobs and companies going over to China until they see
> their first Chinese-made car racing in NASCAR. By then it will be too
> late.
Oh I see. So you have no facts, no information, no analysis. You just
wanted to make a stupid unsupported comment about Republicans. Glad to
see where this newsgroup has gone....
>
> "Carolyn Peters" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>> certification been an impediment?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2012 10:00 PM, wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess
>>>> is that, in
>>>> ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the
>>>> name, if
>>>> even that is retained.
>>>
>>> Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very likely unless they
>>> recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be very stupid and the
>>> Chinese are not stupid.
>>>
>>> And there is still Hawker Beechcraft Defense Co., which is not effected
>>> by the sale of the GA division.
>>>
>>> Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
>>> Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Carolyn Peters
July 14th 12, 12:55 AM
On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>> certification been an impediment?
>
> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
China.
>
>
Robert Barker
July 14th 12, 01:01 AM
Yep. The modern Republicans are attacking education. The dumber they make
us, the less informed they keep us, the more likely we are to vote
Republican. Republicans of 40 years ago would be SCREAMING at what the
current leaders are doing to their party...
"a" > wrote in message
...
>
> Speaking of technology: many experts think the next footprints on the
> moon will not only leave the "made in China' imprints in the dust, but
> will be worn by Chinese astronauts. They are graduating thousands of space
> scientists and aeronautical engineers every year, and they all all working
> on state funded programs. A little of that brainpower could improve a
> general aviation airplane.
>
> Friday, July 13, 2012 4:29:41 PM UTC-4, george wrote:
>> Robert Barker wrote:
>> > It's definitely going to be a problem. This is the same country
>> that
>> > allows what is essentially toxic waste in baby formula. But most
>> > conservative Americans buy the Republican line and won't really
>> care
>> > about all the jobs and companies going over to China until they see
>> > their first Chinese-made car racing in NASCAR. By then it will be
>> too late.
>>
>> Chinese technology is as good as anywhere else.
>> From what I've seen of Chinese built aircraft they're as good as
>> any....
>> Any country in the world has its rogues
>
Carolyn Peters > wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>>> certification been an impediment?
>>
>> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
>
>
> The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
No, the point was a rebuttal to "...there won't be anything American
about Beech except the name..".
> You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
> likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
> very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
>
> Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
> why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
> be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
> China.
OK, I'll elaborate a bit.
Unless the Chinese start building all the bits and pieces that make up
the existing airplanes and get those bits and pieces FAA approved, and
get the aircraft paperwork amended to use all those Chinese bits and
pieces, existing aircraft are going to be pretty much exactly the same
as they are now.
Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
is going to China according to the news.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/HawkerBeechcraftAgreesToOfferFromChineseCompany_20 6946-1.html
They will still be "American" airplanes build by a company with corporate
headquarters in China.
Since the bit and pieces market is a low volume niche market, and the Chinese
generally don't have much interest in low volume niche markets, it is
unlikely that new designs will use anything other than the suppliers
used now, which are largely American.
Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
is going to China according to the news.
You also failed to read or didn't understand my last sentence, so I'll
repeat it.
Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
Mxsmanic
July 14th 12, 07:09 PM
george152 writes:
> Chinese technology is as good as anywhere else.
In part because a lot of it comes directly from the United States, both
legally and illegally.
george152
July 14th 12, 09:27 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> george152 writes:
>
>> Chinese technology is as good as anywhere else.
>
> In part because a lot of it comes directly from the United States, both
> legally and illegally.
Oh?
I'll bet that your world has the Made in China trademark all over it.
Mxsmanic
July 15th 12, 11:46 AM
george152 writes:
> I'll bet that your world has the Made in China trademark all over it.
Quite so, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese developed the technology that
they are using to make things.
A key goal of all agreements the Chinese sign with foreigners is transfer of
technology. Some American managers seem not to realize that if you transfer
all of your manufacturing and all of your technology to partners in China,
there is no longer any need for managers in America, and the Chinese partners
can simply start selling goods directly. This is what Dell and other companies
discovered the hard way.
Orval Fairbairn
July 15th 12, 10:52 PM
In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george152 writes:
>
> > I'll bet that your world has the Made in China trademark all over it.
>
> Quite so, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese developed the technology that
> they are using to make things.
>
> A key goal of all agreements the Chinese sign with foreigners is transfer of
> technology. Some American managers seem not to realize that if you transfer
> all of your manufacturing and all of your technology to partners in China,
> there is no longer any need for managers in America, and the Chinese partners
> can simply start selling goods directly. This is what Dell and other companies
> discovered the hard way.
I have a friend who makes and sells pool equipment, some of which is
made in China. He says that you have to have different parts made by
different companies, else the Chinese company will start making clones
and undercut you.
Carolyn Peters
July 18th 12, 01:47 AM
On 7/13/2012 8:01 PM, Robert Barker wrote:
> Yep. The modern Republicans are attacking education. The dumber they
> make us, the less informed they keep us, the more likely we are to vote
> Republican. Republicans of 40 years ago would be SCREAMING at what the
> current leaders are doing to their party...
Speaking of education, do you think it's possible that you might learn
what rec.aviation.piloting refers to? Looks like you got your parties
backwards! :-)
Carolyn Peters
July 18th 12, 01:55 AM
On 7/13/2012 8:29 PM, wrote:
> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>>>> certification been an impediment?
>>>
>>> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
>>
>>
>> The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
>
> No, the point was a rebuttal to "...there won't be anything American
> about Beech except the name..".
>
>> You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
>> likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
>> very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
>>
>> Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
>> why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
>> be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
>> China.
>
> OK, I'll elaborate a bit.
>
> Unless the Chinese start building all the bits and pieces that make up
> the existing airplanes and get those bits and pieces FAA approved, and
> get the aircraft paperwork amended to use all those Chinese bits and
> pieces, existing aircraft are going to be pretty much exactly the same
> as they are now.
They (new owners) presumably will own the type certificates. As long as
the parts are built according to their certification requirements, they
will be just fine. Likewise, Airbus can (is) building aircraft in
China. Sure they will be assembling structures that are built in Europe
(at the moment) but they can also build parts where they please.
>
> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
> is going to China according to the news.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/HawkerBeechcraftAgreesToOfferFromChineseCompany_20 6946-1.html
>
> They will still be "American" airplanes build by a company with corporate
> headquarters in China.
>
> Since the bit and pieces market is a low volume niche market, and the Chinese
> generally don't have much interest in low volume niche markets, it is
> unlikely that new designs will use anything other than the suppliers
> used now, which are largely American.
The point is that the new owner can start making money selling Wichita
built airplanes now, even if it probably won't be much money on the
Beechcraft side, save the King Air. But you can bet that the owners
will be learning manufacturing techniques, designs, what it took to
certify the airplane etc. which is infinitely more valuable than selling
Barons. It is a very long term decision.
>
> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
> is going to China according to the news.
Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell what will happen. I doubt
even the new owners have finalized their 5,10, year etc. plans.
>
> You also failed to read or didn't understand my last sentence, so I'll
> repeat it.
That assertion is incorrect.
>
> Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
> Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
>
>
>
Carolyn Peters > wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 8:29 PM, wrote:
>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>>>>> certification been an impediment?
>>>>
>>>> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
>>
>> No, the point was a rebuttal to "...there won't be anything American
>> about Beech except the name..".
>>
>>> You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
>>> likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
>>> very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
>>>
>>> Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
>>> why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
>>> be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
>>> China.
>>
>> OK, I'll elaborate a bit.
>>
>> Unless the Chinese start building all the bits and pieces that make up
>> the existing airplanes and get those bits and pieces FAA approved, and
>> get the aircraft paperwork amended to use all those Chinese bits and
>> pieces, existing aircraft are going to be pretty much exactly the same
>> as they are now.
>
> They (new owners) presumably will own the type certificates. As long as
> the parts are built according to their certification requirements, they
> will be just fine.
You do realize you have said the same thing I did in different words.
> Likewise, Airbus can (is) building aircraft in
> China. Sure they will be assembling structures that are built in Europe
> (at the moment) but they can also build parts where they please.
Yes, their parts to their original specs; location of manufacture is of
little notice to the FAA, but who and how is.
>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>> is going to China according to the news.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/HawkerBeechcraftAgreesToOfferFromChineseCompany_20 6946-1.html
>>
>> They will still be "American" airplanes build by a company with corporate
>> headquarters in China.
>>
>> Since the bit and pieces market is a low volume niche market, and the Chinese
>> generally don't have much interest in low volume niche markets, it is
>> unlikely that new designs will use anything other than the suppliers
>> used now, which are largely American.
>
> The point is that the new owner can start making money selling Wichita
> built airplanes now, even if it probably won't be much money on the
> Beechcraft side, save the King Air.
I never said otherwise and in fact that is essentially what I did say.
> But you can bet that the owners
> will be learning manufacturing techniques, designs, what it took to
> certify the airplane etc. which is infinitely more valuable than selling
> Barons. It is a very long term decision.
>>
>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>> is going to China according to the news.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell what will happen. I doubt
> even the new owners have finalized their 5,10, year etc. plans.
>>
>> You also failed to read or didn't understand my last sentence, so I'll
>> repeat it.
>
> That assertion is incorrect.
How, exactly?
Please elaborate how Beech aircraft are going to be Chinese and how to
tell the difference between a Chinese Beech and an American Beech.
>> Beech is no more going to be "Chinese" than Budweiser, Michelob, and
>> Corona Extra have become Belgian-Brazilian.
Carolyn Peters
July 20th 12, 01:19 AM
On 7/17/2012 9:18 PM, wrote:
> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 8:29 PM, wrote:
>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>>>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>>>>>> certification been an impediment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
>>>
>>> No, the point was a rebuttal to "...there won't be anything American
>>> about Beech except the name..".
>>>
>>>> You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
>>>> likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
>>>> very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
>>>>
>>>> Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
>>>> why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
>>>> be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
>>>> China.
>>>
>>> OK, I'll elaborate a bit.
>>>
>>> Unless the Chinese start building all the bits and pieces that make up
>>> the existing airplanes and get those bits and pieces FAA approved, and
>>> get the aircraft paperwork amended to use all those Chinese bits and
>>> pieces, existing aircraft are going to be pretty much exactly the same
>>> as they are now.
>>
>> They (new owners) presumably will own the type certificates. As long as
>> the parts are built according to their certification requirements, they
>> will be just fine.
>
> You do realize you have said the same thing I did in different words.
If you agree, that is great. If not, I don't mind too much.
>
>
>> Likewise, Airbus can (is) building aircraft in
>> China. Sure they will be assembling structures that are built in Europe
>> (at the moment) but they can also build parts where they please.
>
> Yes, their parts to their original specs; location of manufacture is of
> little notice to the FAA, but who and how is.
>
>>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>>> is going to China according to the news.
>>>
>>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/HawkerBeechcraftAgreesToOfferFromChineseCompany_20 6946-1.html
>>>
>>> They will still be "American" airplanes build by a company with corporate
>>> headquarters in China.
>>>
>>> Since the bit and pieces market is a low volume niche market, and the Chinese
>>> generally don't have much interest in low volume niche markets, it is
>>> unlikely that new designs will use anything other than the suppliers
>>> used now, which are largely American.
>>
>> The point is that the new owner can start making money selling Wichita
>> built airplanes now, even if it probably won't be much money on the
>> Beechcraft side, save the King Air.
>
> I never said otherwise and in fact that is essentially what I did say.
Perfect.
>
>> But you can bet that the owners
>> will be learning manufacturing techniques, designs, what it took to
>> certify the airplane etc. which is infinitely more valuable than selling
>> Barons. It is a very long term decision.
>>>
>>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>>> is going to China according to the news.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell what will happen. I doubt
>> even the new owners have finalized their 5,10, year etc. plans.
>>>
>>> You also failed to read or didn't understand my last sentence, so I'll
>>> repeat it.
>>
>> That assertion is incorrect.
>
> How, exactly?
It is a false dichotomy--and both of your statements are incorrect.
> Please elaborate how Beech aircraft are going to be Chinese and how to
> tell the difference between a Chinese Beech and an American Beech.
Well there are at least two possible cases--Chinese Beechcraft built in
the US, and (perhaps someday) Chinese Beechcraft built in China.
For the latter, you would tell the difference by the same way that you
determine if a Toyata sedan is assembled in America or in Japan, by
looking at the point of origin. Strangely, by some government
definitions, a Toyota assembled in Alabama is a "foreign," while a
Chrysler assembled in Ontario is "domestic."
But the fact remains, Beechcraft is a Chinese company as of the sale
date (assuming it goes through). I believe Cirrus Design (Cirrus
Aircraft) already is.
Carolyn Peters > wrote:
> On 7/17/2012 9:18 PM, wrote:
>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2012 8:29 PM, wrote:
>>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2012 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>>>>> Carolyn Peters > wrote:
>>>>>>> Airbus builds aircraft in China and will soon do so in the US. Has
>>>>>>> certification been an impediment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so far, but you missed the point and Airbus isn't a Chinese company.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is manufacturing aircraft in China.
>>>>
>>>> No, the point was a rebuttal to "...there won't be anything American
>>>> about Beech except the name..".
>>>>
>>>>> You claimed, "Given the way aircraft are certified, that isn't very
>>>>> likely unless they recertify all the existing aircraft, which would be
>>>>> very stupid and the Chinese are not stupid."
>>>>>
>>>>> Please elaborate what certification standards you are talking about and
>>>>> why producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in America would
>>>>> be different than producing Beechcraft/Hawkers by a Chinese company in
>>>>> China.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll elaborate a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Unless the Chinese start building all the bits and pieces that make up
>>>> the existing airplanes and get those bits and pieces FAA approved, and
>>>> get the aircraft paperwork amended to use all those Chinese bits and
>>>> pieces, existing aircraft are going to be pretty much exactly the same
>>>> as they are now.
>>>
>>> They (new owners) presumably will own the type certificates. As long as
>>> the parts are built according to their certification requirements, they
>>> will be just fine.
>>
>> You do realize you have said the same thing I did in different words.
>
> If you agree, that is great. If not, I don't mind too much.
I guess you don't agree realize it, either that or you have to have the
last word.
>>> Likewise, Airbus can (is) building aircraft in
>>> China. Sure they will be assembling structures that are built in Europe
>>> (at the moment) but they can also build parts where they please.
>>
>> Yes, their parts to their original specs; location of manufacture is of
>> little notice to the FAA, but who and how is.
>>
>>>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>>>> is going to China according to the news.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/HawkerBeechcraftAgreesToOfferFromChineseCompany_20 6946-1.html
>>>>
>>>> They will still be "American" airplanes build by a company with corporate
>>>> headquarters in China.
>>>>
>>>> Since the bit and pieces market is a low volume niche market, and the Chinese
>>>> generally don't have much interest in low volume niche markets, it is
>>>> unlikely that new designs will use anything other than the suppliers
>>>> used now, which are largely American.
>>>
>>> The point is that the new owner can start making money selling Wichita
>>> built airplanes now, even if it probably won't be much money on the
>>> Beechcraft side, save the King Air.
>>
>> I never said otherwise and in fact that is essentially what I did say.
>
> Perfect.
Perfect what?
That you now understand that I never said otherwise or that in fact that is
essentially what I did say, or that you have to have the last word?
>>> will be learning manufacturing techniques, designs, what it took to
>>> certify the airplane etc. which is infinitely more valuable than selling
>>> Barons. It is a very long term decision.
>>>>
>>>> Also, while parts of the manufacturing may go to China, not all of it
>>>> is going to China according to the news.
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell what will happen. I doubt
>>> even the new owners have finalized their 5,10, year etc. plans.
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> You also failed to read or didn't understand my last sentence, so I'll
>>>> repeat it.
>>>
>>> That assertion is incorrect.
>>
>> How, exactly?
>
> It is a false dichotomy--and both of your statements are incorrect.
>
>> Please elaborate how Beech aircraft are going to be Chinese and how to
>> tell the difference between a Chinese Beech and an American Beech.
>
> Well there are at least two possible cases--Chinese Beechcraft built in
> the US, and (perhaps someday) Chinese Beechcraft built in China.
>
> For the latter, you would tell the difference by the same way that you
> determine if a Toyata sedan is assembled in America or in Japan, by
> looking at the point of origin. Strangely, by some government
> definitions, a Toyota assembled in Alabama is a "foreign," while a
> Chrysler assembled in Ontario is "domestic."
>
> But the fact remains, Beechcraft is a Chinese company as of the sale
> date (assuming it goes through). I believe Cirrus Design (Cirrus
> Aircraft) already is.
You didn't address how Budweiser is now Belgian-Brazilian.
That's OK as I've come to realize you have limited grasp of colloquial
speech.
Ricky
July 20th 12, 06:39 PM
On Jul 9, 6:11*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hawker Beech has been sold to a Chinese aviation company. My guess is that, in
> ten years, there won't be anything American about Beech except the name, if
> even that is retained.
Glad to see Mx still around after leaving a while back!
Happy flying!
Ricky
CFII, Multi, Balloon
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.