Rivets vs Welding

Richard Riley wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:16:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
:
: The orders are cancelable if they can't meet their price. They wont.
: Or Cessna will dramatically lower theirs. Cessna got about 350 orders
: in the first week after announcing.
:
:And you can bet your bottom dollar that Cessna will make money on the
:Mustang.

In the long run, absolutely. In the short run, if they have to take a
loss on the Mustang to drive Eclipse under - I'll bet they'll do it.
I'm not stupid enough to bet money on any of them, butttt! if I had it I'd
probably buy the Columbia 400 vbg.
Sorry but it just irks me when someone (Richard) tries to drive down someone
who is trying to be innovative and really hasn't a clue as to their chance
of succeeding IMHO! But everyone is entitled to their opinions. I
personally hope they succeed even if I'll never be in a position to benefit
from it.

Happy New Year to everyone, even the ones I don't agree with g.
John

david something that bears consideration is that over the full life of
an aircraft every component will come to need repair as it wears out.
so every component needs to be got at, removed, replaced or repaired
and put back into service. rivets may be tedious but allow this to
occur. welded components may lead to an entire airframe sitting on the
tarmac or in a hangar while repairs to cracks are thought through and
attempted.

I suppose part of that is to do with how long we operate aircraft. If
aircraft cost similiar to new cars and were similiar costs to maintain it
wouldn't matter if we threw out an airframe every 15-20 years, but at the
current costs it's rather impractical. Thanks,

David

Richard Riley wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:16:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:
:
: The orders are cancelable if they can't meet their price. They wont.
: Or Cessna will dramatically lower theirs. Cessna got about 350 orders
: in the first week after announcing.
:
:And you can bet your bottom dollar that Cessna will make money on the
:Mustang.

In the long run, absolutely. In the short run, if they have to take a
loss on the Mustang to drive Eclipse under - I'll bet they'll do it.

That's part of making money! :-)

Matt

"UltraJohn" wrote in message
link.net...
Richard Riley wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:16:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
:
: The orders are cancelable if they can't meet their price. They wont.
: Or Cessna will dramatically lower theirs. Cessna got about 350 orders
: in the first week after announcing.
:
:And you can bet your bottom dollar that Cessna will make money on the
:Mustang.

In the long run, absolutely. In the short run, if they have to take a
loss on the Mustang to drive Eclipse under - I'll bet they'll do it.
I'm not stupid enough to bet money on any of them, butttt! if I had it I'd
probably buy the Columbia 400 vbg.
Sorry but it just irks me when someone (Richard) tries to drive down
someone
who is trying to be innovative and really hasn't a clue as to their chance
of succeeding IMHO! But everyone is entitled to their opinions. I
personally hope they succeed even if I'll never be in a position to
benefit
from it.

Happy New Year to everyone, even the ones I don't agree with g.
John

No need to get irked. Just present your opinion, particularly if it is
better reasoned.

Personally, I didn't think Cirrus had much of a chance when they got in the
certified business, but they found a niche and are doing quite well there.
Maybe Eclipse or another of the small jet makers will do just as well. Only
time will tell.

KB

David Findlay wrote:
=

david something that bears consideration is that over the full life o=
f
an aircraft every component will come to need repair as it wears out.=

so every component needs to be got at, removed, replaced or repaired
and put back into service. rivets may be tedious but allow this to
occur. welded components may lead to an entire airframe sitting on th=
e
tarmac or in a hangar while repairs to cracks are thought through and=

attempted.
=

I suppose part of that is to do with how long we operate aircraft. If
aircraft cost similiar to new cars and were similiar costs to maintain =
it
wouldn't matter if we threw out an airframe every 15-20 years, but at t=
he
current costs it's rather impractical. Thanks,
=

David

A century ago, people traveled by ship or train, both of which were held
together with rivets. Sometimes in the 1940's they both switched to
welding, and soon after the passengers switched to planes and busses,
both of which still use rivets. Coincidence? =

-- =

John Halpenny


A cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind.
I=92m so glad my desk isn't empty.

John Halpenny wrote:

David Findlay wrote:

david something that bears consideration is that over the full life of
an aircraft every component will come to need repair as it wears out.
so every component needs to be got at, removed, replaced or repaired
and put back into service. rivets may be tedious but allow this to
occur. welded components may lead to an entire airframe sitting on the
tarmac or in a hangar while repairs to cracks are thought through and
attempted.

I suppose part of that is to do with how long we operate aircraft. If
aircraft cost similiar to new cars and were similiar costs to maintain it
wouldn't matter if we threw out an airframe every 15-20 years, but at the
current costs it's rather impractical. Thanks,

David


A century ago, people traveled by ship or train, both of which were held
together with rivets. Sometimes in the 1940's they both switched to
welding, and soon after the passengers switched to planes and busses,
both of which still use rivets. Coincidence?

Uh, yes. :-)


Matt