Home | Forums | Mark forums read | Search | FAQ | Login

Advanced search
Hot Topics
Buraku hot topic As if gaijin men didn't have a bad enough reputation...
Buraku hot topic Swapping Tokyo For Greenland
Buraku hot topic
Buraku hot topic Dutch wives for sale
Buraku hot topic Live Action "Akira" Update
Buraku hot topic Iran, DPRK, Nuke em, Like Japan
Buraku hot topic Steven Seagal? Who's that?
Buraku hot topic Japanese Can't Handle Being Fucked In Paris
Buraku hot topic Multiculturalism on the rise?
Buraku hot topic Whats with all the Iranians?
Change font size
  • fuckedgaijin ‹ General ‹ Tokyo Tech

NEW EU Aibus A380!!!

News, shopping tips and discussion of all things tech: electronics, gadgets, cell phones, digital cameras, cars, bikes, rockets, robots, toilets, HDTV, DV, DVD, but NO P2P.
Post a reply
217 posts • Page 4 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Postby Tsuru » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:18 am

Since the first rumours of the new Airbus A350 all the way back in 2003 the airlines have sent it back to the drawing board four or maybe even five times over. It was basically to become Airbus's answer to the 787 but the bottom line was they wanted to just do it quickly and have this new plane out the door at the same time and using the same engines as the 787. First it was just a beefed-up A330 with new wings, engines and some new materials, then it was to become 98% new with a aluminium-lithium fuselage, then it became even newer, got a new flightdeck and was suddenly called the A370 and now it's going to be the radical departure from the standard medium widebody Airbus fuselage crossection of 5620mm and have a wider fuselage, basically making it a European 777. Three years on it's now called the A350XWB or something, and essentially the design is still not frozen or officially launched, but wikipedia is reporting it's going to be announced officially at the end of this year. expected entry into service is 2012, a solid 4 years after the 787.

Same story for the four-engined A340. This aircraft never got the (partially Japanese) UHB engines it was designed to have, but nevertheless the A340-200 and -300 were still introduced in 1992. They were basically made redundant when Boeing's new 777 came out two years later, which had the advantage of having only two engines that were twice as powerful as anything else available at that time, which meant Boeing could keep the weight and therefor cost per seatmile down. The 777 was an instant success with airlines, while the poor old A340 struggled to get over 50 orders anually. Classic example of "second-to-market" advantage played out by the boys from Seattle ;)

But it gets better. In 2000 Airbus persuaded Rolls-Royce to develop the Trent 500 engine, which was to put the A340 back in the race with lower fuel burn and increased range and performance, and the A340-500 and -600 were introduced. The A340-600 could do the same job as a 747-400 as it could carry the same amount of passengers over the same distance but using less fuel, and the A340-500 broke the world record of being the longest-range airliner in the world, and you may recall Singapore Airlines boasting they had the longest commercially operated route in the world of 18,5 hours from Singapore to Newark. That was 2003, and things were looking up for the company from Toulouse. Meanwhile Boeing was struggling to prop up its 777 to match the improved A340's specifications, but was struggling as GE initially failed to provide them with the improved GE90 engines they needed to make the 777 heavier. I recall a plan to build a 777 with thrusting APU (a tiny third engine in the tail normally only used on the ground to generate power and compressed air when the big engines are shut down).
Then GE came through with the GE90-115B, which had 115000lbs of thrust and provided Boeing with the power they needed to build the 777-300ER, their answer to the A340-600. The 777 now again had the upper hand with its lower fuel burn figures and a final blow to the A340 was dealt in the form of the 777-200LR, an ultra long range aircraft which can fly even further than the A340-500 and offers for example Qantas of Australia the means of connecting Sydney and London without the need to have a stopover in Singapore.
The jury is still out on which is the most desirable aircraft as Airbus is now on the verge of introducing the high gross weight or HGW versions of both A340 aircraft, the -500HGW of which will leap-frog the 777-200LR in terms of range, and the -600HGW will be able to carry more people further more cheaply than a 777-300ER.

So all's well that ends well, you might say. But it remains to be seen if any airline at all will order the -500HGW as the tiny ULH market is already saturated with new aircraft, and the -600 has the reputation of being a "hangar queen" with nearly all airlines that fly it, having a lot of teething problems and generally breaking down a lot.

The bottom line is this:
Airbus has a reputation of delivering cheap aircraft that fall short of expectations. Boeing has the reputation of being conservative with their promises to airlines when they are persuading them to order a new type of aircraft, but they end up delivering quality aircraft that exceed airline's expectations, even though they are more expensive than their Airbus equivalent. Tell me which one you'd choose if you were in charge of any airline's fleet.

Airbus will need to get their act together if they want to retain any credibility at all, work their asses off to get the A380 deliveries rolling for the people they are now disappointing and threatening to walk away, and more importantly: make the A350 a shining success. It may seem bad that they are now four years behind Boeing on the A350, but what they need to do is pull a 777 with it. They will have four full years where they can see for themselves how the 787 works for airlines the world over, and they would be completely stupid if they were deaf for the opinions of operators and passengers alike on this aircraft that incorporates so many new technologies to make passengers happy. Secondly, four additional years of engine development will go into the A350's powerplants which will make for even lower fuel burn, and they could use this advantage to ease ahead of Boeing's 787 in the second decade of this century, just like Boeing did with the 777 in the 1990s.
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby Greji » Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:18 am

Tsuru wrote:Airbus


Tsuru, I don't know if you were aware, but an old Japan hand, Glen Fukushima took over Airbus operations in Japan from (I beleve) last year. They probably won't get a better CEO for Japan.
:cool:
"There are those that learn by reading. Then a few who learn by observation. The rest have to piss on an electric fence and find out for themselves!"- Will Rogers
:kanpai:
User avatar
Greji
 
Posts: 14357
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Yoshiwara
Top

Postby Tsuru » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:20 pm

gboothe wrote:Tsuru, I don't know if you were aware, but an old Japan hand, Glen Fukushima took over Airbus operations in Japan from (I beleve) last year. They probably won't get a better CEO for Japan.
:cool:
And how many Airbi are on a JA registration that were delivered this century? None, and the ones that did make it to Japan are all with ANA or JAS, the first of which has recently gone for Boeing aircraft again in that same class (new 737s).

As far as JAL/JAS goes, the political hand in nihonkoku is so strong that they'd sooner go bust than buy anything from Airbus... simply because buying Boeing creates jobs for nihonjin, buying Airbus does not.
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby IkemenTommy » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:24 pm

Tsuru wrote:And how many Airbi are on a JA registration? About 5 and they're all with ANA or JAS, the first of which has recently gone for Boeing aircraft again in that same class (new 737s).

As far as JAL/JAS goes, the political hand in nihonkoku is so strong that they'd sooner go bust than buy anything from Airbus... simply because buying Boeing creates jobs for nihonjin, buying Airbus does not.

Since when did Boeing become Japanese?

It is a matter of retraining the mechanics. If they went with A380, they will have to get new mechanics trained or retrain all of their existing ones.
User avatar
IkemenTommy
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:29 am
Top

Postby Mulboyne » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:31 pm

IkemenTommy wrote:It is a matter of retraining the mechanics. If they went with A380, they will have to get new mechanics trained or retrain all of their existing ones.
If the political will was there to buy anything other than Boeing, training the mechanics would be a non-issue.
User avatar
Mulboyne
 
Posts: 18608
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: London
Top

Postby F_O_R_E_X » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:31 pm

i cannot but agrre with you on this one, mulboyne

even they permanently stick to boeing..... they still have to be trained

for every new jet model that is released no??
[color="Blue"][SIZE="3"]"We Shall Never Surrender" (Sir Winston Churchill)[/SIZE][/color]
:confused:
[color="Red"]( regards from my family: yen_girl, euro333, fedex888, mentos, faxingbryn & sangria )[/color]
User avatar
F_O_R_E_X
Maezumo
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:02 pm
Location: pluto (former planet)
Top

Postby Taro Toporific » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:19 pm

Here are some fun comments from today's edition of the air industry newsletter, The Travel Insider...
[INDENT]"....interesting week for Airbus, with their CEO resigning on Monday, making two CEOs they've lost in the last four months. At least this one departed without being surrounded by the taint of suspicious share trading..."
.....Airbus suffered another massive shock when its new CEO, who had been in the job for just three months, resigned on Monday. He said he was resigning because he couldn't get the support of parent company EADS' board for the changes he believes he needs to make to turn around the company.
EADS in turn replaced him with one of their two co-chairmen. It remains to be seen whether the new CEO will prove to be part of the solution the outgoing CEO felt unable to secure, or part of the problem the outgoing CEO felt was preventing him from achieving the outcomes he needed, but Fitch Ratings downgraded EADS' debt ratings over doubts about EADS' future.......

...The problems with Airbus have been discussed well in a couple of recent articles. Here's one that looks at the http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5916 operational incompatibilities between the French and German sides of the company.
And here's one that looks that the http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1160522659.html management and strategic ownership problems that make up the Airbus corporate entity.
Airbus' biggest strength is now revealed as its biggest weakness. Its biggest strength was its European government supporters and the money they invested in the company. But now its weakness is its need to make decisions based on political pressures rather than business issues.
Airbus needs to be able to react more rationally and freely in the free market it seeks to do business in. But what are its political overlords doing? They are panicking that any such rational acts may involve Airbus closing down overly costly factories in their respective countries, and so they are considering http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=6734 increasing their respective stakes in the company, in an attempt to bully/dominate the outcome of where and how Airbus might retrench. This will further hamstring the company's ability to reorganize and become sustainably profitable.
[/INDENT]
_________
FUCK THE 2020 OLYMPICS!
User avatar
Taro Toporific
 
Posts: 10021532
Images: 0
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:02 pm
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:19 am

IkemenTommy wrote:Since when did Boeing become Japanese?

It is a matter of retraining the mechanics. If they went with A380, they will have to get new mechanics trained or retrain all of their existing ones.
Boeing is not Japanese, but a lot of Japanese companies make structural components for Boeing aircraft. Perhaps the most significant is Fuji Heavy Industries, who make the 777's wings.

The most significant training difference would be training the flight crew, not the mechanics. You have to certify the engineers for every single aircraft they work, but in general their work is the same across all types and done in the same way. The most important issue is the way Airbus aircraft are operated by the flightcrew, which is somewhat different from Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas ones because the majority of these don't have computerised flight controls. Retraining aircrew to operate Airbus aircraft is a major hurdle to overcome for any airline that before that only operated Boeings... KLM is a good example: They recently acquired the A330-200 and it took some time for the crews slated to fly it to get used to the different philosophy behind flying it.

Boeing flightdeck:
Image

A330 flightdeck:
Image

Where did the control wheel go?
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby Kuang_Grade » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:13 am

While not a primary factor, another frequent issue is that more than few airlines have slimmed down their fleets to only 1-3 types of aircraft (although they might have a few variants of a given model, such as a longer range 737) for keeping down the carring costs of spare part inventory (ie, instead of having to keep spares of 6 different versions of the same widget, they now only need to carry 1 or 2 widgets) as well allowing more efficient use and flexibility with flight and maintenance crews.
The Enrichment Center reminds you that the weighted companion cube will never threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak.
User avatar
Kuang_Grade
Maezumo
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 2:19 pm
Location: The United States of Whatever
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:50 am

Very few airlines actually have a spare part inventory these days, as maintenance outsourcing is commonplace.
Only two types of parts are stocked by airlines:

1) Parts needed for line maintenance (on-the-spot fixes than can be done between flights) are usually kept... also, for small parts like widgets (screws, washers) you'll find that usually the same widget fits different airplane types of the same manufacturer just as well.

Bigger, type-specific but redundant parts like drive units, hydraulic pumps, valves etc. are sourced from the OEM itself, usually within 72 hours anywhere in the world.

2) Non-redundant parts that are part of the MEL that can ground a whole plane if they break, like wheels, engines and some avionics are kept on permanent standby either by the airline itself or by a partner... for example on a rate of one engine for about twenty engines in service (e.g. five four-engined aircraft) that are of the same type.

It's easier if you only have to stock one type of engine, one type of spare main wheel or one type of escape chute for your entire fleet than having to have different types for everything. That's mainly why cheap airlines like Easyjet, Ryanair, Southwest et al only fly one (1) type of aircraft exclusively.
Not to mention it makes crewing so much easier if all your pilots and cabin crew only have to be current on one type of aircraft.
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby IkemenTommy » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:53 pm

Kuang_Grade wrote:While not a primary factor, another frequent issue is that more than few airlines have slimmed down their fleets to only 1-3 types of aircraft (although they might have a few variants of a given model, such as a longer range 737) for keeping down the carring costs of spare part inventory (ie, instead of having to keep spares of 6 different versions of the same widget, they now only need to carry 1 or 2 widgets) as well allowing more efficient use and flexibility with flight and maintenance crews.

I wonder if Boeing planes use metric or English nuts and bolts..
User avatar
IkemenTommy
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:29 am
Top

Postby IkemenTommy » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm

Tsuru wrote:A330 flightdeck:
Image

Where did the control wheel go?

That thing is off the ground, isn't it? Where are the pilots??
User avatar
IkemenTommy
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:29 am
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:35 pm

IkemenTommy wrote:I wonder if Boeing planes use metric or English nuts and bolts..
American and British aircraft use imperial units, European planes use SI units ;)
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby Jack » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:36 am

IkemenTommy wrote:I wonder if Boeing planes use metric or English nuts and bolts..


Yes, they use metric for everything. The only thing in imperial measurement is the altitude which is used in feet. The speed is in percent of Mach as in .82 Mach and so on. Fuel is in Kg. Distances are in miles or km. The U.S. air traffic control uses metric for distances because they use a 5 square km grid system and feet for altitude. To build the aircraft everything is in metric.
User avatar
Jack
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:17 am
Location: Tokyo
Top

Postby Jack » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:39 am

Actually all manufacturing in the U.S. uses metric. For instance, the machines to fill consumer goods use ml. to fill and grams for weights. Fabrics are made in square meters. Precision machines all use milimiters and so on. The U.S. is officially metric although they do not enforce it. I think the metric act passed in the 1930s. Someone can correct me on that. I have done lots of business in the US and behind the scenes everyone (the majority) uses the metric system.
User avatar
Jack
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:17 am
Location: Tokyo
Top

Postby Pokemon-Master » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:37 am

[quote="kurohinge1"]And that's just on the left wing!

I mean, look at what their neighbours (in Bangladesh) can do with a train:

Image

]

how many can fit into the superjumbo ?
User avatar
Pokemon-Master
Maezumo
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:55 pm
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:46 am

Jack wrote:Yes, they use metric for everything. The only thing in imperial measurement is the altitude which is used in feet. The speed is in percent of Mach as in .82 Mach and so on. Fuel is in Kg. Distances are in miles or km. The U.S. air traffic control uses metric for distances because they use a 5 square km grid system and feet for altitude. To build the aircraft everything is in metric.
Jack wrote:Actually all manufacturing in the U.S. uses metric. For instance, the machines to fill consumer goods use ml. to fill and grams for weights. Fabrics are made in square meters. Precision machines all use milimiters and so on. The U.S. is officially metric although they do not enforce it. I think the metric act passed in the 1930s. Someone can correct me on that. I have done lots of business in the US and behind the scenes everyone (the majority) uses the metric system.
No.

I've worked in aircraft maintenance, and all the spanners, nuts, bolts, grommets, washers etc. we had for our Boeings (767/757/MD-11) were in inches. Even the torque wrenches we had for them were in lbs/ft, and canisters of grease and other fluids were in ounces or quarts. :rolleyes:

In an operational environment even in Europe everyone uses knots, feet and nautical miles... in aviation only China, Mongolia and Russia use meters, km/h and km. The choice between lbs or kg for the fuel and operational weights of the aicraft is an airline option and can be changed in the aircraft's software. US airlines mostly use lbs, EU airlines and everybody else use kg for their western aircraft. Non-western (Russian, Chinese, Japanese) aircraft all use kg.
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby IkemenTommy » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:48 am

Jack wrote:I have done lots of business in the US and behind the scenes everyone (the majority) uses the metric system.

Riiiight...
Have you ever tried repairing American cars.. Ford, GM, etc?
They still use inches and gallons.
User avatar
IkemenTommy
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:29 am
Top

Postby Jack » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:22 am

Well, you still did not understand what I'm saying. No problem I will repeat. The engineers at GM work in metric. The car engines are built by litre volume i.e. 3.5 litre engine and so on.

In aircraft, maybe your oil was in quart but at the refinery the machine that filled the oil was set at 900 ml but on the can it might have said 16 oz or whatever a quart is.

Aircraft engines are built by lb/thrust, I forgot to mention that. However, the screws and bolts in the engine are measured in milimeters. The fact that the US is officially metric is a fact. You can check it but like I said it's not enforced.
User avatar
Jack
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:17 am
Location: Tokyo
Top

Postby Jack » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:25 am

Tsuru wrote:No.

I've worked in aircraft maintenance, and all the spanners, nuts, bolts, grommets, washers etc. we had for our Boeings (767/757/MD-11) were in inches. Even the torque wrenches we had for them were in lbs/ft, and canisters of grease and other fluids were in ounces or quarts. :rolleyes:

In an operational environment even in Europe everyone uses knots, feet and nautical miles... in aviation only China, Mongolia and Russia use meters, km/h and km. The choice between lbs or kg for the fuel and operational weights of the aicraft is an airline option and can be changed in the aircraft's software. US airlines mostly use lbs, EU airlines and everybody else use kg for their western aircraft. Non-western (Russian, Chinese, Japanese) aircraft all use kg.


The 8 inch washers at the factory where they were being made the machines were set at 200 mm. I work with Boeing every week I have worked with their engineers. They are ALL metric. At the design and engineering stage the wingspan is measured in meters, the maximum takeoff weight is in kg and so on.
User avatar
Jack
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:17 am
Location: Tokyo
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:35 pm

Jack wrote:8 inch washers at the factory where they were being made the machines were set at 200 mm.
"8 inch washers" don't exist... at least not in my line of work.

You do know what a washer is, don't you Jack?
I work with Boeing every week I have worked with their engineers. They are ALL metric. At the design and engineering stage the wingspan is measured in meters, the maximum takeoff weight is in kg and so on.
Yeah, I'm sure you do. Get this alright: I am in fact an aeronautical engineer and I'm telling you that you're talking out of your ass.
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby Greji » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:55 pm

Tsuru wrote:Get this alright: I am in fact an aeronautical engineer and I'm telling you that you're talking out of your ass.


A close examination of the literal translation from the original Dutch would tend to indicate that Tsuru just told Jack to fuck off!
:cool:
"There are those that learn by reading. Then a few who learn by observation. The rest have to piss on an electric fence and find out for themselves!"- Will Rogers
:kanpai:
User avatar
Greji
 
Posts: 14357
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Yoshiwara
Top

Postby Adhesive » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:28 pm

Jack wrote:Actually all manufacturing in the U.S. uses metric. For instance, the machines to fill consumer goods use ml. to fill and grams for weights. Fabrics are made in square meters. Precision machines all use milimiters and so on. The U.S. is officially metric although they do not enforce it. I think the metric act passed in the 1930s. Someone can correct me on that. I have done lots of business in the US and behind the scenes everyone (the majority) uses the metric system.


I don't know about that bro; I used to work at a place that supplied advanced composite material to places like Boeing, Lockheed, etc. and we always took orders by yardage.

Obviously metric is official, I don't think anyone is denying that, but, unfortunately, many, even very "high tech," businesses in the States (and I'm assuming Britian) are stuck on the shitty English system. And there is a very good chance that Boeing uses non-metric nuts and bolts, which is the point of the OP's question.
"I would make all my subordinates Americans and start a hamburger joint with great atmosphere. "
User avatar
Adhesive
Maezumo
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:46 pm
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:14 pm

gboothe wrote:A close examination of the literal translation from the original Dutch would tend to indicate that Tsuru just told Jack to fuck off!
:cool:
If one would be inclined to think so ;)
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

Postby F_O_R_E_X » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:39 pm

wOw
this airbus delay issue is certainly creating tensions
(not only at EADS ) :confused: :confused:
[color="Blue"][SIZE="3"]"We Shall Never Surrender" (Sir Winston Churchill)[/SIZE][/color]
:confused:
[color="Red"]( regards from my family: yen_girl, euro333, fedex888, mentos, faxingbryn & sangria )[/color]
User avatar
F_O_R_E_X
Maezumo
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:02 pm
Location: pluto (former planet)
Top

Postby Mulboyne » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:18 am

Adhesive wrote:...many, even very "high tech," businesses in the States (and I'm assuming Britian) are stuck on the shitty English system...


Actually, in Britain, companies are legally obliged to do business in metric. Every now and again, some greengrocer will be taken to court for selling oranges by the lb. But we still drink beer in pints and many people think about their height in feet and inches and their weight in stones and pounds.

This made me wonder when Japan adopted the metric system. According to this piece, it was part of the early modernization programme:
Japan ratified the Convention du Metre in 1886, and in 1890 Japan received the prototype metre and kilogram from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. In a law of 1891, which came into effect in 1893, the traditional units "shaku" and "kan" were taken as the fundamental units of length and mass. At the same time, the use of the metric system was approved and the conversion factors between the systems were fixed. In 1909 the units of the inch-pound system were also adopted as legal. Japan had thus three legally approved measuring systems. A bill making the metric system the unique system was passed by the Japanese Diet in March 1921 and promulgated in April. The date of enforcement of this law was fixed by the Imperial Ordinance of 1 July 1924. But the Ordinance also permitted the use of other units as a transitional measure...The opponents of the metric system believed that the adoption of a foreign measuring system would have a bad influence on national sentiment, cause dislocations in public life, needless expense to the nation, prove disadvantageous to foreign trade, and hurt the national language and culture...After the war due to the presence of occupation armies, sale of gasoline changed from litres to gallons, cloth from metres to yards. Again, Japan was using three systems. Fortunately, the occupation armies believed that it was reasonable to adopt the metric system...more...
The article goes on to say that a complete changeover was in place by 1981. Two major exceptions appear to be the size of a sake bottle and measurements used in house construction. Now back to the Airbus.
User avatar
Mulboyne
 
Posts: 18608
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: London
Top

Postby Kuang_Grade » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:18 am

The US half heartily tried to implement the Metric system in the late 70's but it was generally viewed with suspicion (the US was made up miles and miles of stolen indian land, not kilometers or damn hectares...And while the governement tried to push it as modern, the general view was "The French invented this, right? Yeah, no thanks. ") and pretty much publicly abandoned by the mid 80's. It really didn't get beyond putting highway speed signs in both english and metric speeds, soft drinks bottles (the tech advances that would allow for large plastic bottles of pressurized soft drinks to be successful coincided with the metric push and 2 liter bottles of soda are pretty much the only consumer product identified by a metric measurement in the consumer marketplace in the US), although during the energy crunch during the Iranian crisis, I do remember Shell oil putting their gas prices in per liter measurements, so it their street prices down to double digits when everyone else was showing triple digit gallon prices...but that only lasted for a short while. I would imagine that some younger US firms with significant number of non-us customers are run as metric shops but I would suspect that almost all of the old line companies still run mostly on the english system. While almost all US consumer products have metric weight/vols on them, they are in small type and the english measurement is the one everyone refers to.

Don't forget that NASA lost a space craft over this problem not too long ago.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.


And of course, there's always this little pop culture nugget
Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
The Enrichment Center reminds you that the weighted companion cube will never threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak.
User avatar
Kuang_Grade
Maezumo
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 2:19 pm
Location: The United States of Whatever
Top

Postby F_O_R_E_X » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:00 am

Thought you might find this article interesting:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------




A chronology of the metric system
Important dates in the history of the modern metric system:

1585
In his book "The Tenth" Simon Stevin suggests that a decimal system should be used for weights and measures, coinage, and divisions of the degree of arc.
1670
Authorities give credit for originating the metric system to Gabriel Mouton, a French vicar, on about this date.
1790
Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the United States.
France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the development of the first "metric" system.
1792
The U.S. Mint was formed to produce the world's first decimal currency (the U.S. dollar consisting of 100 cents).
1795
France officially adopted the metric system.
1812
Napoleon temporarily suspended the compulsory provisions of the 1795 metric system adoption.
1840
The metric system reinstated as the compulsory system in France.
1866
The use of the metric system made legal (but not mandatory) in the United States by the (Kasson) Metric Act of 1866 (Public Law 39-183). This law also made it unlawful to refuse to trade or deal in metric quantities.
1875
The Convention of the Metre signed in Paris by 17 nations, including the United States. The Meter Convention, often called the Treaty of the Meter in the United States, provided for improved metric weights and measures and the establishment of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) devoted to international agreement on matters of weights and measures.
1889
As a result of the Metre Convention, the U.S. received a prototype meter and kilogram to be used as measurement standards.
1893
These metric prototypes were declared "fundamental standards of length and mass" in the Mendenhall Order. Since that date, the yard, pound, etc. have been officially defined in terms of the metric system.
1916
The Metric Association formed as a non-profit organization advocating adoption of the metric system in U.S. commerce and education. The organizational name started as the American Metric Association and was changed to the U.S. Metric Association (USMA) in 1974.
1920
The Metric Association published its first metric style guide. [Its current edition is now available as Guide to the Use of the Metric System (SI)]
1954
The International System of Units began its development at the 10th CGPM. Six of the new metric base units were adopted.
1958
A conference of English-speaking nations agreed to unify their standards of length and mass, and define them in terms of metric measures. The American yard was shortened and the imperial yard was lengthened as a result. The new conversion factors were announced in 1959 in the Federal Register.
1960
The meter was redefined in terms of wavelengths of light by the 11th CGPM, and the new metric system was given the official symbol SI for the Système International d'Unités, the "modernized metric system".
1964
The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) made the metric system its standard "except when the use of these units would obviously impair communication or reduce the usefulness of a report."
1968
Public Law 90-472 authorized a 3-year U.S. Metric Study, to determine the impact of increasing metric use on the U.S. This study was carried out by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
1971
The U.S. Metric Study resulted in a Report to the Congress: A Metric America, A Decision Whose Time Has Come. The 13-volume report concluded that the U.S. should, indeed, "go metric" deliberately and carefully through a coordinated national program, and establish a target date 10 years ahead, by which time the U.S. would be predominately metric.
1973
The UCLA/USMA/LACES/STC/and other professional groups National Metric Conference, the largest ever held, totaling 1700 registrants, took place at the University of California, Los Angeles in September. It took place as a result of USMA's recommendation. USMA coordinated and directed the event. One of the speakers was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Also, the American National Metric Council (ANMC) formed as a not-for-profit, non-advocative trade organization to plan and coordinate SI implementation by U.S. industry.
1974
The Education Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 92-380) encouraged educational agencies and institutions to prepare students to use the metric system of measurement as part of the regular educational program.
1975
The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-168) passed by Congress. The Metric Act established the U.S. Metric Board to coordinate and plan the increasing use and voluntary conversion to the metric system. However, the Metric Act was devoid of any target dates for metric conversion.
1976
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) started the National Metric Week tradition, with the first one during the week of 10 May 1976, the year after the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was enacted.
1979
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) requires wine producers and importers to switch to metric bottles in seven standard [liter and milliliter] sizes.
1980
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) requires distilled spirits (hard liquor) bottles to conform to the volume of one of six standard metric [liter and milliliter] sizes.
1982
President Ronald Reagan disbanded the U.S. Metric Board and canceled its funding. Responsibility for metric coordination was transferred to the Office of Metric Programs in the Department of Commerce.
1983
The meter is redefined in terms of the speed of light by the 17th CGPM, resulting in better precision but keeping its length the same.
1988
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418) amended and strengthened the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, designating the metric system as the preferred measurement system, and requiring each federal agency to be metric by the end of fiscal year 1992.
1991
President George H. W. Bush signed Executive Order 12770, Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs directing all executive departments and federal agencies implement the use of the metric system. The Executive Order is also available as an appendix to: Interpretation of the SI for the United States and Federal Government Metric Conversion Policy
1994
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) was amended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the use of dual units (inch-pound AND metric) on all consumer products.
1996 April 15
All four Canadian Stock Exchanges began decimal trading on April 15, the first exchanges in North American to abandon the old "pieces-of-eight" trading system and welcome the new decimal system. The old tradition of trading stocks in increments of one-eighth of a dollar, or 12.5 cents, dates back to when the Spanish mille dollar was divided into "pieces of eight".
1996 July
As of July 1996 all surface temperature observations in National Weather Service METAR/TAF reports are now transmitted in degrees Celsius.
2000 September 30
This deadline that all agreements, contracts, and plans processed by individual states for federally-funded highway construction be in metric units was canceled by Congressional action, leaving metric conversion as voluntary but still recommended to comply with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Several State Departments of Transportation continue to use the metric system despite the deadline being rescinded. See Did You Know That for more details on this topic.
2001 April 09
U.S. Stock Exchanges finalized the change to decimal trading. The Securities and Exchange Commission has ordered that all stocks must be quoted in dollars and cents rather than fractions by this date. The switch to decimal trading brought the U.S. in line with the rest of the world's major exchanges. This follows the change of the Canadian Stock Exchanges to decimal trading in 1996.
2004 July 08
UK Metric Association (UKMA) issued a comprehensive report, A Very British Mess, on the need to complete UK metrication.
2005 January 20
Speed limits in Ireland were converted from miles per hour to kilometers per hour (km/h). To accompany this, new cars have kilometers as the primary speed displayed on their speedometers. Wind speeds in weather reports were also changed to kilometers per hour. See the Irish Department of Transport announcements at [url]http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=5861〈=ENG&loc=1801[/url] and http://www.gometric.ie/

Future metric deadlines:

before the end of 2009
The U.S. should allow metric-only packaging by amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). This would be a good step towards meeting EU requirements for SI-only labels in 2009.
2009 December 31
All products sold in Europe (with limited exceptions) will be required to have only SI-metric units on their labels. Dual labeling will not be permitted. Implementation of the labeling directive, previously 1999 December 31, was extended by the EU Commission for 10 years, giving more time for companies to comply and for U.S. regulations to allow metric-only labeling on consumer products. See Did You Know That for more details on this topic.

Annual celebrations:

First week of March
Weights and Measures Week (NCWM)
May 20
World Metrology Day (BIPM)
Week of October 10
National Metric Week (USMA and NCTM)
October 14
World Standards Day (ANSI)
[color="Blue"][SIZE="3"]"We Shall Never Surrender" (Sir Winston Churchill)[/SIZE][/color]
:confused:
[color="Red"]( regards from my family: yen_girl, euro333, fedex888, mentos, faxingbryn & sangria )[/color]
User avatar
F_O_R_E_X
Maezumo
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:02 pm
Location: pluto (former planet)
Top

Postby Buraku » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:05 pm

Airbus to take 51 pct stake in A320 China plant - report
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/10/09/afx3075294.html
Image
A320 going to be Chinese made ?

Airbus is likely to take a 51 pct stake in an aircraft assembly plant in Tianjin, China, the aircraft maker's first assembly facility outside Europe, the Securities News reported.
User avatar
Buraku
Maezumo
 
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:25 am
Top

Postby Tsuru » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:38 pm

This comes on the heels of the news that Chinese airlines have ordered another 150 A320-series aircraft, on top of another 150 already on order... it would make sense for these to be built and maintained in China. :) A320 production is not going to be transferred to China, the plant will be built for construction and maintenance of Chinese-ordered A320s only. The Toulouse and Hamburg facilities where the A320 is being built are already running at max capacity, spewing out rougly one new aircraft every day, 365 days a year. There is simply no room to build an extra 300 aircraft for China, so also from a maintenance standpoint it makes perfect sense to build them in China.

As for the Made-in-China thing: as far back as the 1980s McDonnell-Douglas tried to sign a deal with China for domestic production of the MD-80 airliner to meet te needs of the growing Chinese domestic market in the shape of the "trunkliner": a 100-passenger jet as specified in the CCP's economic plan. Allegedly the whole thing stranded (predictably) on patent issues, and now Airbus is going to pick up where the Californians left. The A320 is roughly the same size as the MD-80 series (albeit a little more modern). They are not alone in trying to tranfer some of their production capacity to China: Brazilian manufacturer Embraer has already opened a new facility in Harbin to produce the ERJ-145 domestic jet, about half the size of the A320.

Image
"Doing engineering calculations with the imperial system is like wiping your ass with acorns, it works, but it's painful and stupid."

"Plus, it's British."

- Nameless
User avatar
Tsuru
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:08 am
Location: Farcical Blingboddery
Top

PreviousNext

Post a reply
217 posts • Page 4 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Return to Tokyo Tech

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC + 9 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group