Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 PS--I'm unaware of any category in which the EF-2000 beats the F-22. Tyre wear rate?
Phyrox Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Ugh. The Victor is precisely what I had in mind when I was talking about other ugly British aircraft. It's covered in odd bulges, droopy bits, parts sticking out at odd angles and that refueling probe poking out of the top of the nose like it's some kind of Narwhal. The Lightning is little better: the big fat fuselage with the pregnant looking belly tank, engines stacked on top of each other for god knows what reason, the weird little wings, mal-proportioned canopy, and missiles mounted on it's fat cheeks. I'm always shocked how quickly the UK went from having the engineers at Supermarine tweaking the Spitfire until it looked pretty, and making planes like the Hunter and the Vulcan to, well, those two. British planes have nearly always been ugly. The spitfire and a few (few) others are the exception. From their WWI stable into the interwar years, to nearly everything they had in WWII...and all their coldwar stuff. Besides some of their raceplanes, the spit and its offshoots and...and...well, I can't think of any other exceptions. I'm just saying the Brits didn't go from making attractive planes to ugly ones, they made ugly planes all along and just so happened to create a few that broke that mold. Actually, I think the Victor (both in original form and it's later years as a tanker) is a great looking plane.
Apollo Leader Posted March 26, 2008 Author Posted March 26, 2008 Interesting little tid-bit about about the A380: it seats gazillions of passengers but only has 15 toilets. According to a journalist, there were always queues of three or four people the whole way to Singapore... Northrup-Grumman are submitting a design for a stealthy UCAV: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164650,00.html They will no doubt build the greatest UCAV the World has ever seen, one that looks like a Ghost fighter or something, and then lose the contract to someone else. This is Northrup, the company the defence establishment loves to ignore. The Typhoon Tranche 1 recently completed its required weapons clearances i.e. it can now drop bombs. Heres some more Typhoon sucking the rain from the Welsh skies: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachmen...mp;d=1206231304 With an American at the controls, no less. He said "The Typhoon is the number one fighter aircraft of the modern world. F-22s suck. Nyah-ya-ya!". Possibly. It's Northrop, with an "o" not a "u".
F-ZeroOne Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) Okay, that does it. I can put up with just about any amount of flak over the Typhoon... but British planes... ugly? Them thars fightin' words. Granted, the later models of the Victor and Lightning did have a few bumps, but when they originally appeared in the skies people thought that the Future had arrived. The Victor was part of a trio which included the Vulcan and Valiant, and we also had the Canberra and the Hunter. Theres also the Lancaster, Mosquito, and Sea Fury, from the W.W. II days. Okay, granted, there is the Fairey Gannet clause, but if you don't mention it we won't mention the X-32... Edit: Ah. Thought of the supreme example of modern jet fighter ugly. Edited March 26, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
F-ZeroOne Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 It's Northrop, with an "o" not a "u". Ah, sorry - I can only blame tiredness. I thought it didn't look right but I couldn't think why...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 The Lightning is little better: the big fat fuselage with the pregnant looking belly tank, engines stacked on top of each other for god knows what reason, the weird little wings, mal-proportioned canopy, and missiles mounted on it's fat cheeks. I'm always shocked how quickly the UK went from having the engineers at Supermarine tweaking the Spitfire until it looked pretty, and making planes like the Hunter and the Vulcan to, well, those two. Actually, the Hunter and the Vulcan were mostly of a similar time period to the Victor and Lightning. And with Spitfires, I guess it depends on what Mark you're talking about - I think the Mk. IX is the most elegant of the breed, but the later Griffon-engined marks can best be described as "beefy", and the original Mk. I had a faired-in canopy that to me seems less fitting for the lines than the slightly later bulged one. The bumpy Lightnings and Victors were later Marks too.
Vifam7 Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) Actually, the Hunter and the Vulcan were mostly of a similar time period to the Victor and Lightning. And with Spitfires, I guess it depends on what Mark you're talking about - I think the Mk. IX is the most elegant of the breed, but the later Griffon-engined marks can best be described as "beefy", and the original Mk. I had a faired-in canopy that to me seems less fitting for the lines than the slightly later bulged one. The bumpy Lightnings and Victors were later Marks too. All of the V-bombers were gorgeous. The Victor particularly looks futuristic when I flip through ancient warplane guidebooks (dating from the 60s) with photos that are black & white. With regards to elegant Brit warplanes, the best looking prop planes (WW2 and post-WW2) were the Merlin-engined Spitfires, the Centaurus-powered Tempest II and Sea Fury, and the twin-engined Mosquito/Sea Hornet. The worst looking plane was by far the Fairey Barracuda. I'll excuse the Gannet because it's an ASW plane. For jets, the best lookers were (IMO) the Hunter, the Scimitar, the Lightning and the V-bombers. Oh, and ofcourse the unfortunately cancelled TSR-2. The Typhoon is nice looking too. But I'm not sure if it's accurate to call it a Brit fighter. Edited March 26, 2008 by Vifam7
bsu legato Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Meh. Thanks for saving us from the greatest military procurement disaster of all time. *snip* I was wondering how long it would take the Diefenpologists to show up. There's a little more to it than that, however. You overlook the fallout from the cancellation of the Arrow/Iroquois project. Consider the subsequent brain-drain of engineers after Black Friday. Avro itself never really recovered, which was another blow to Canadian aviation. And for all the talk about Soviet bombers being a non-threat, thus retroactively justifying the cancellation of the interceptor project, less than two years later McDonnell & Uncle Sam were more than happy to sell us another interceptor, the Voodoo. But my favorite part of the whole debacle is the mutual defense development pact we signed with the US which explicitly forbade us from ever again developing our own aircraft. The final insult is how they not only scrapped all existing prototypes, but insured that all blueprints and othe related material were all destroyed. The Arrow wasn't so much cancelled as it was expunged. But I'm sure your calculations are right. It was all for our own good.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Okay, that does it. I can put up with just about any amount of flak over the Typhoon... but British planes... ugly? Hmmm... I never appreciated the Hampden, Beaufighter and Beaufort. Ungainly looking IMHO. And you chaps made this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Bison
Noyhauser Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) I was wondering how long it would take the Diefenpologists to show up. There's a little more to it than that, however. You overlook the fallout from the cancellation of the Arrow/Iroquois project. Consider the subsequent brain-drain of engineers after Black Friday. Avro itself never really recovered, which was another blow to Canadian aviation. And for all the talk about Soviet bombers being a non-threat, thus retroactively justifying the cancellation of the interceptor project, less than two years later McDonnell & Uncle Sam were more than happy to sell us another interceptor, the Voodoo. But my favorite part of the whole debacle is the mutual defense development pact we signed with the US which explicitly forbade us from ever again developing our own aircraft. The final insult is how they not only scrapped all existing prototypes, but insured that all blueprints and othe related material were all destroyed. The Arrow wasn't so much cancelled as it was expunged. But I'm sure your calculations are right. It was all for our own good. So blowing 3% on our GDP for an obsolete fighter was a good move? There are so many other worthwhile things the government could have spent its money on, not just the arrow. Even the great CD Howe, the person who initiated the project saw it as a disaster. The Pearson and his liberals were going to campaign against it the next election. Avro was going to get axed no matter what. I know you're kidding, but I'm far from a diefenpologist. I don't think he's even on the same scale to Mike, who I consider the greatest Canadian Prime Minister. And I'm all for protecting canadian industries, but I can't ignore when it was done at a disasterous cost to the public interest. I don't lay all the blame on Diefenbaker for the failure, though DND didn't help matters. However much of it does rest with Avro, who initiated an incredibly ambitious project and made some fairly questionable decisions in the design process that led to massive cost overruns. The case is actually taught in public administration courses of how not to run a procurement project. A failure as epic as the Arrow was going to have recriminations no matter what. What happened with Avro was unfortunate, but it was largely the company's own doing. Now could Dief do something to soften the blow? Maybe, but there was no way for the government to save 14,000 jobs. A lightweight fighter project or something else might have been sustained. But then again should it have been Avro with its obvious failings in management? I'm personally skeptical. Canada was too small a market to sustain a major defence aircraft manufactor on the scale of Avro. Even in the U.S. major contractors were starting to fold in too. Its an unfortunate point in our history for sure, but I'm not going to gloss it over with a nationalist paint and romantic visions of our history. Edited March 26, 2008 by Noyhauser
Vifam7 Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) So blowing 3% on our GDP for an obsolete fighter was a good move? There are so many other worthwhile things the government could have spent its money on, not just the arrow. Like what? In terms of defense spending, I would think the Arrow would've been much more of an asset than what they got from the BOMARC-B. And I don't see how the Arrow would've been obsolete. Given upgrades, it probably would've lasted many many years - even the F-111 which was lambasted eventually found it's place and proved it's worth). However much of it does rest with Avro, who initiated an incredibly ambitious project and made some fairly questionable decisions in the design process that led to massive cost overruns. The case is actually taught in public administration courses of how not to run a procurement project. A failure as epic as the Arrow was going to have recriminations no matter what. What happened with Avro was unfortunate, but it was largely the company's own doing. In what way? Besides, wasn't it the RCAF that wanted the Arrow and initiated the program? And wasn't it the RCAF that wanted to gold-plate the aircraft? IIRC Avro Canada did everything it could to make sure that the Arrow would be a winner. Now could Dief do something to soften the blow? Maybe, but there was no way for the government to save 14,000 jobs. A lightweight fighter project or something else might have been sustained. But then again should it have been Avro with its obvious failings in management? I'm personally skeptical. Canada was too small a market to sustain a major defence aircraft manufactor on the scale of Avro. Even in the U.S. major contractors were starting to fold in too. Its an unfortunate point in our history for sure, but I'm not going to gloss it over with a nationalist paint and romantic visions of our history. I'm not an expert, but I would think it would've been better to stick with the Arrow and keep Avro (and all of the benefits that a high-tech industry could provide) alive than instantly crushing everything with a pen. Heck, Sweden who is just as small (in terms of market) as Canada seems to do just fine. Edited March 26, 2008 by Vifam7
F-ZeroOne Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Hmmm... I never appreciated the Hampden, Beaufighter and Beaufort. Ungainly looking IMHO. And you chaps made this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Bison One book I had described the Swordfish as "beautifully ugly". I think that sums up all three of the above, and the Beaufighter was a prize-fighter. Yes, it had a bashed-in face but it hit you back harder than anything else around. I like it quite a bit. I take your Bison and respond with this - literally - ugly Duckling:
kalvasflam Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1206524163.html And the hits keep on coming, ANA says to Boeing, if you're late again, you owe us money. This is probably already on top of additional compensation to other airlines which are facing delays. My guess is if Boeing has to pay compensation to each of the airlines delayed, it's going to start really hurting. 2008 is not going to be a good year at this rate. And with Boeing's delay on the 787, Etihad order might end up with A350 at this rate, talk about a bad ripple effect. Edited March 26, 2008 by kalvasflam
bsu legato Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 So blowing 3% on our GDP for an obsolete fighter was a good move? Well or starters, the whole "obsolete" argument is certainly debatable since as I pointed out we traded one interceptor for another, foreign interceptor. (particularly at a time when every other first world nation was building their own) Second, you keep throwing around this 3% figure, which you freely admit is derived from your own calcs. Now I'm by no means an Arrow expert, and its no secret that there was indeed a lot of money being sunk into the project, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that astronomical figure. Audit records show it was going to cost about $77.9 million dollars to complete the Research and Development. The government was expecting to pay out over $100 million in cancellation fees but this number came closer to $33 million at the time. Without the cancellation charges, the whole program from start to finish of production, was going to cost $1.1 billion. The alternate system of F106/SAGE/Bomarc was going to cost about 1.2 billion when you add in the $318 million that had already been spent on the Arrow project at the time of termination. One must remember that this money was being cash phased over several years, as any program of this size is. The cost was not astronomical. You should look at Storms of Controversy, Edition 3 Appendix 2 where I have reproduced the audit reports and show exactly what was being spent on research and development, tooling, spare parts, missiles etc. The 1.1 billion is for everything including setting up the industry. In the case of F106/Bomarc etc, the 1.2 billion was just to buy the end items and spares from the US. That makes a major difference. If an Arrow crashed, the replacement cost would have been $3.75 million, not much at all for such a sophisticated aircraft. As far as I'm concerned, Dief got elected largely on a platform of reigning in "Liberal" over-expendatures. The Arrow was unfortunately an easy target, especially when the US was offering to sell us the "next best thing" to the Arrow. And from I've read, the cost in lost jobs was closer to 25,000.
Beltane70 Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I kind of like the Lightning and the Victor with all of their bulges and odd-angles. As long as they got their jobs done, who cares how they look.
the white drew carey Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Here we go again- What I like to call Frisky Russkie.
Noyhauser Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) Forgive me for the long reply, but Procurement and Cold War history are areas I'm quite interested in. Like what? In terms of defense spending, I would think the Arrow would've been much more of an asset than what they got from the BOMARC-B. And I don't see how the Arrow would've been obsolete. Given upgrades, it probably would've lasted many many years - even the F-111 which was lambasted eventually found it's place and proved it's worth). Refer to my earlier point; air interceptors were becoming outmoded by 1959 due to the realization on the part of the Western Allies that the USSR had far fewer intercontinental bombers than had been previously believed. This was evident when the Arrow's replacement, the BOMARC was withdrawn from service soon after it was introduced, and most comparable interceptor programs like the XF-12, XF-103, XF-108 and the British Operational Requirement F-155. Also I can't understate how profound the ICBM threat was to western strategic thinking. Before the launch of sputnik in 1957 Canada and the United States saw itself as being effectively invulnerable to a retaliatory counterattack by the USSR, so long as we had a significant fleet of interceptor aircraft to knock bombers out of the sky. Now after 1957, there is no defence for a Soviet ICBM strike, the only real strategy that can be adopted is Mutually Assured Destruction, and it's variation under Kennedy, "flexible response." The public and military's willingness to spend on interceptors, which would do nothing to protect North America from Bomber threats was fast approaching zero. Finally as Vietnam would soon prove, Western air forces did not require high speed bomber interceptors like the Arrow, but more nimble and utilitarian aircraft like the F-4 (which was originally designed as an interceptor) or F-8 Crusader. In what way? Besides, wasn't it the RCAF that wanted the Arrow and initiated the program? And wasn't it the RCAF that wanted to gold-plate the aircraft? IIRC Avro Canada did everything it could to make sure that the Arrow would be a winner. Gold plating was certainly a problem, partly because of the RCAF and the nature of the armed forces at the time. Actually this is part of the reason why the armed forces became Unified under Paul Hellyer several years later; environmental services frequently had too much leeway in determining projects, often causing cost overruns. However the cost overruns (both due to the RCAF’s demands and common problems) were greatly exacerbated by Avro's decision to utilize a new development system called the Cook-Craigie procedure. Under this method, development and production phases start concurrently. Preproduction models are supposed to closely resemble final models because they are produced from the same jigs. This was adopted to “lower costs” and meet an ambitious time line partly agreed to by the RCAF and the company. That might have been okay if they could ensure the Government was going to fund the project all the way from the outset, yet it was frequently teetering on the edge of being cut. The program was That should have given Avro pause for concern, but it didn't. The adoption of the Cook-Cragie method became extremely problematic in the case of the Arrow, which was based on bleeding edge technologies. Whole systems were still on the drawing board while it was in development. The famed Iroquois engine was being developed concurrently with the airframe, and underwent a series of design changes over its time. When this occurred, the Sparrow and Hughes systems fell apart, or other changes occurred, it created serious delays and cost overruns, since it required alterations to the production development already underway. Cook Craigie is the norm for most product development today except major military projects, where distinct development phases favoured, because of the unpredictability of bleeding edge technology. The current best practices is to first ensure the technology development is complete, then the airframe development, and finally the production development, to minimize risk. By opting for the Cooke Craigie system, Avro likely sealed its fate. I'm not an expert, but I would think it would've been better to stick with the Arrow and keep Avro (and all of the benefits that a high-tech industry could provide) alive than instantly crushing everything with a pen. Heck, Sweden who is just as small (in terms of market) as Canada seems to do just fine. SAAB AB provides a perfect comparison to show where Avro went wrong. SAAB has never attempted to make groundbreaking aircraft. Their designs were effective, cost efficient, and innovative at the same time. Compare the Draken to the Arrow; it wasn’t going to go Mach 2.5+, but it could carry out a number of roles, and was cheap enough to elicit interest from a number European countries. Yeah sure the Arrow could have been modified into playing a role similar to the draken, but that would have been more money, something I think the government was wary over. Also remember that after Dief, Pearson embarks on creating national healthcare, social security and welfare programs, huge capital expenditures that would have precluded any greater spending on the military. The problem here is that Avro put all of its eggs in one basket with the Arrow, a highly risky, extremely expensive aircraft that was suited for one mission only; interception. Had it (and the RCAF) been more realistic and forthright with the program, it might have survived. Its’ doubtful though whether the Avro would have survived the lean years of the 1970s. That was a period of major contraction in the aerospace industries, and defence spending in Canada under Trudeau. Well or starters, the whole "obsolete" argument is certainly debatable since as I pointed out we traded one interceptor for another, foreign interceptor. (particularly at a time when every other first world nation was building their own) That's not what I’m arguing. We bought a cheaper, less effective model, to replace the Canuck. The Voodoo was not intended to be an equivalent to the Arrow, but then again that was a tacit acknowledgement that its capabilities weren’t required anymore, as I’ve pointed out above. NORAD wasn’t faced with thousands of jet driven Soviet bombers, but maybe several hundred Bear turboprops, and were unlikely to ever purchase anymore. We just didn’t need the Arrow’s capabilities, and a cheaper mix of bomarcs and Voodoos were seen as being a more appropriate choice. That's why other programs like the XF-108 and the YF-12 were cancelled. Its not that the Arrow was technically obsolete, its that it was strategically obsolete as a weapons platform. It was akin to building the Yamato Battleship in 1944; technically impressive, but also fairly useless in the Carrier age. In this case the cheaper, less effective Voodoo was a far better choice than continuing to pay for the Arrow. Second, you keep throwing around this 3% figure, which you freely admit is derived from your own calcs. Now I'm by no means an Arrow expert, and its no secret that there was indeed a lot of money being sunk into the project, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that astronomical figure. Well I can’t put together the figures anymore because I don’t have access to the GDP charts from the 1960s as I did before. I do realize now I made a mistake back then, I calculated the costs of continuing the Sparrow II/Astra program onwards, when in fact it was cancelled in 1958. That was one of the most serious increases from what I remembered. I could be wrong about the cost of the program, but it definitely struck me as being unbelievably expensive, for a country with limited means like Canada. Edited March 27, 2008 by Noyhauser
David Hingtgen Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Northropbus has filed for Boeing's protest to be dismissed. Presumably, Boeing can then appeal the protest dismissal filing...
Phyrox Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Forgive me for the long reply, but Procurement and Cold War history are areas I'm quite interested in. Someone speaking sense about politico-military policy on the internet...? Has hell just frozen over?
kalvasflam Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Northropbus has filed for Boeing's protest to be dismissed. Presumably, Boeing can then appeal the protest dismissal filing... I like this: Boeing protests Northrup/EADS files for protest to be dismissed Boeing will then likely appeal the protest I wonder if the USAF will ever get a tanker at this rate.
David Hingtgen Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 There's going to be a 3-disc "extra" special edition of Top Gun coming---the third disc is going to be about the F-14's and the guys who flew them. No word on if it's DVD or Blu-Ray---hopefully the latter.
Graham Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Hopefully both. DVD, I'd buy it. BluRay, nope. Not planning to go down that road for many years until I'm dragged kicking and screaming. Graham
F-ZeroOne Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 I like this: Boeing protests Northrup/EADS files for protest to be dismissed Boeing will then likely appeal the protest I wonder if the USAF will ever get a tanker at this rate. You could borrow one of ours if you like. Not exactly aircraft related, but the grand opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow has turned into something of an - ahem - plane crash. Staff problems, computer problems, cancelled flights and the main sticking point, luggage handling problems. Not, as BA themselves have said, "their finest hour"...
David Hingtgen Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 First KC-45 arrives in Dresden, Germany: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defen...dd-5b52bc2bec8a
kalvasflam Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 You could borrow one of ours if you like. Not exactly aircraft related, but the grand opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow has turned into something of an - ahem - plane crash. Staff problems, computer problems, cancelled flights and the main sticking point, luggage handling problems. Not, as BA themselves have said, "their finest hour"... Talk about a gigantic mistake, didn't they learn anything from Denver?
David Hingtgen Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 They keep trying to re-invent the baggage system. I don't think any have been successful. If I designed an airport, you can bet it'd have 1980's style baggage handling.
F-ZeroOne Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 They keep trying to re-invent the baggage system. I don't think any have been successful. If I designed an airport, you can bet it'd have 1980's style baggage handling. Okay, you've piqued my curiosity. What made 80s baggage handling superior to 00s baggage handling? Stringfellow Hawke popping up in Airwolf and Copperheading any stray bags?
David Hingtgen Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 The simple fact that the 80's were the last time we saw your basic "jet-age" system that's been used since the 60's being installed at new terminals. In the 90's, we started getting "new" stuff like Denver's. The 80's were the peak of old-school (yet working and reliable) baggage handling.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 There's going to be a 3-disc "extra" special edition of Top Gun coming---the third disc is going to be about the F-14's and the guys who flew them. Any more info on this?
David Hingtgen Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Nope, nothing beyond what I posted. But it's from a very trustworthy source.
David Hingtgen Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Umm, erm... >>>Northrop tanker motion denied - Updated Northrop just announced that the Government Accountability Office has denied motions filed by it and the Air Force calling for a partial dismissal of Boeing's protest of the tanker decsion. Northrop says the denial of its motion came "after a supplemental filing by Boeing Corporation that streamlined its original protest and eliminated many of the elements that were central to the Air Force and Northrop Grumman motions.'' It's not clear what Boeing may have removed from its original filing. Quote: "Boeing's decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications. "We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman's selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO." UPDATE: Boeing says it has no idea what Northrop is talking about. This is the Boeing response. Quote: We have no idea of the basis of the Northrop Grumman statement. We continue to press every ground in our original appeal. We have neither abandoned nor narrowed any ground. In fact, our supplemental filings have added additional grounds to our original filing based on the information we have received from the Air Force since filing our protest on March 11. Any assertion to the contrary is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts. Boeing also had this to say about the GAO denial of the Northrop and Air Force motions: Quote: The GAO has denied both the Air Force's and Northrop Grumman's motions to dismiss our claims. This decision is consistent with our view that full consideration of all appeal grounds is warranted. We view today's decision by the GAO as a significant development in our appeal of the tanker decision.>>>
Dante74 Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Hope this is the appropriate thread. How to launch a Space Shuttle.
dizman Posted April 4, 2008 Posted April 4, 2008 The part where the shuttle is mounted to the external tank always amazes me in 2 ways, wow why couldnt they think of a better way to do that and wow it's not really that secured to the crane.
David Hingtgen Posted April 4, 2008 Posted April 4, 2008 Yup, and they "pulled a Braniff" at the end---took and sold tickets up until the very last hour (literally), without telling people they could end up stranded. And a lot of people were/are stranded. It's VERY bad to allow people to book round-trip tickets, when you *know* there's not going to be any planes to fly them home 4 days from now. Aloha at least gave several day's notice, and the entire last day of operations was SOLEY to get people/planes/pilots home.
Recommended Posts