737 Replacement

Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net writes:

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing. However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net writes:

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing.

How wrong can you be?!?

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOBRfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhmSAKDfcU7tYHj8InNOIdNQaF nttCO+ngCg2lDK
fqWl04fNeXh95RktShLG9wc=
=mfCF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
"winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
the same aerodynamic advantage.

The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
"winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
the same aerodynamic advantage.

Mike Schumann wrote:
The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

The "third party" was a group of retired Boeing aerodynamics engineers.

Dean

In article . net,
"Mike Schumann" wrote:

The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.


A lot of stuff on a lot aircraft of any brand name aren't the same brand
name as the aircraft. G

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
important than fuel economy.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Snipola
I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.

Computers are infallible.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise writes:

Computers are infallible.

But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
are fallible.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.