You can, and they do. Look at all the NEO (new engine option) AB's. The issue is that they can make airframes and wings that are more efficient regardless of the engines, that they find it hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

(Written on 2021年07月02日)(Permalink)

Form follows function. Birds don't have to carry a load of packages or persons. An albatross isn't the same shape as a falcon. We can certainly take cues from nature (which designers have always done), but it has it's limits.

(Written on 2021年05月21日)(Permalink)

WTF is wrong with people? I'm pretty sure the prison guards are not going to pick up the trash for you either.

(Written on 2021年05月07日)(Permalink)

If I was the judge, I would have added the cost of the crew and hourly cost of operating this bird as a penalty. I'm pretty sure paying the cost out of his pocket would hit him like a ton of bricks.

(Written on 2021年05月07日)(Permalink)

Well, it also be the case that manufacturers over promise and under deliver when selling.

(Written on 2021年04月23日)(Permalink)

I think I left the stove on...

(Written on 2021年04月02日)(Permalink)

Yes, but those examples are changes or physically doing something. They simply crunched the numbers and said, the airframe can have a higher MTOW so we can add more fuel for better range. The range is there whether the customer wants it or not, and now they all know it. My guess is that AB will have to change the certification en mass or this becomes a give away that they throw in when selling to a customer.

(Written on 2021年03月26日)(Permalink)

Read the article and found it's simply a paper change. No physical change to the aircraft, but AB will offer this "option" to their customers. Why wouldn't they just make this better range a feature of the plane? I presume they will also charge for this? Seems like an unfair money grab if all they did is rework the numbers and said, we can take more fuel on board.

(Written on 2021年03月26日)(Permalink)

Bill - you can't be serious. Boeing is trying to help a competitor? Boeing tries every dirty trick in the book to kill off competition. They have a long history of it. If they can't win by making a better plane at a better price, they simply try to hurt the competition by screaming foul. Whether that's accusing of selling below cost, crying about subsidies, or even the safety of competitors. They enlist their lobbyist and lawyers to create an unfair playing field for themselves.

(Written on 2021年03月05日)(Permalink)

To be fair, Fliegerfaust is not what you would exactly call unbiased reporting. But the fact is, as a Canadian I would buy anything before I would buy Boeing at this point. And when it comes to buying the F-18 or the F-35, I wouldn't buy either. The F-35 is an overpriced POS. We should take Gripen, Typhoon, or anything else. Trump screwed us, and I'm not forgetting it.

(Written on 2020年11月13日)(Permalink)