Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course.

I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
(P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
is).

The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

. . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course.

I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
(P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
is).

The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

It's stopping. Isn't quite STOPPED, but P&I, our key to the future, is being
rapidly strangled.

. . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em half
full.

You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim,

Boeing,


You gotta be kidding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Boeing,


You gotta be kidding.


Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.

I'll have one of those one day . . .

--
Jim Fisher

Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!


Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

--
Jim Fisher

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.
The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.

And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?