My company was bought by EADS, the same company that makes Airbus. It's a Frenchie company for the most part. They are trying to get a toehold in the American Defense industry. There are phenomonal security agreements in place. They hold the purse strings but can't gain sensitive information.

There are several military Admirals and Generals that sit on the board. It has been approved thru a special act of Congress. All of this is public knowledge.

I know alot people that work for Boeing, as I have worked in the industry myself. It is agreed that we have put alot of blood, sweat and tears into our various projects. However, Boeing got caught with their pants down. The last 10 years of layoffs, downsizing, rightsizing or whatever feel good terminology you choose, Boeing got their a$$ handed to them because of that.

The US Government is going to be expending alot of money as well as cutting programs. As much as I hate to say it, EADS has alot to offer. We are planning to expand our R&D to rout out the sleeping giants their antiquated ways of doing business.

Is this unpatriotic for me to be involved?

He!! NO!!! The Congressional mandates to sell to the US Defense is at least 90% US content and labor. Sensitive items are 100% US only. The windfall for EADS is that Americans out produce every country in the world with the highest quality. We work harder and have the least amount of off time. EADS needs us and the outlook is to create 120,000 new US jobs in three years.

I will believe it , when I see it. They seem quite sincere in those efforts.

Now, if they would only give us their amount of time off.

It really does seem to be a good thing.

 

Yes, that was a CRJ-700 (Bombardier) built aircraft.

Although it has been recruited into passenger service, this plane has only recently begun service with the major air-carriers in the US. It has long been a favorite in Canadian commercial service.

The Bombardier is more of a "Private jet" that has been converted into commercial useage. However, you are right- the CRJ-700 is capable of speeds over 600 MPH and it cruises at over 40,000 feet whereas most commercial flights stay between 29,000 and 37,000. Most of the true commercial aircraft fly at around 550; the 747 cruises at around 580 but can cruise at 600.

---------------------------------------------------------
As a side-bar, the Boeing B-52 stratofortress is a 8-engined jet bomber aircraft that can cruise at 50,000 feet around 600 MPH. The new engines on the Boeing aircraft (767 & 777) make as much thrust with one engine, as the B-52 does with 8). That's why they've been approved for ocean-crossing. Be that as it may, I'd rather be on an old 747 crossing the Pacific than a new 777.
---------------------------------------------------------

That was only the second time I've ever gone above 40,000- the first time was on an Lockheed L-1011. We hit big-time turbulence on a flight to DFW from Frankfurt International between Detroit & St. Louis. It got so bad the pilot asked and was granted permission to go to 41,000. We still got buffeted, so he told us to stay seated & buckled because the service ceiling on that plane was 43,000 feet and he was already at 41,000 and would not be allowed to go any higher...

The CRJ-700 looks like a mini- MD-88- but it's so small, when we got off the plane at DFW, we were "outside", and had to walk to the over to the terminal where the big jets were.

I'd prefer not to fly on anything smaller than a DC-9; ever again. I love the 737's.

I have flown on:
Boeing 747 (Pan-Am, Northwest & United, for trans-atlantic &747 cruises at around 580 but can cruise at 600.

---------------------------------------------------------
As a side-bar, the Boeing B-52 stratofortress is a 8-engined jet bomber aircraft that can cruise at 50,000 feet around 600 MPH. The new engines on the Boeing aircraft (767 & 777) make as much thrust with one engine, as the B-52 does with 8). That's why they've been approved for ocean-crossing. Be that as it may, I'd rather be on an old 747 crossing the Pacific than a new 777.
---------------------------------------------------------

That was only the second time I've ever gone above 40,000- the first time was on an Lockheed L-1011. We hit big-time turbulence on a flight to DFW from Frankfurt International between Detroit & St. Louis. It got so bad the pilot asked and was granted permission to go to 41,000. We still got buffeted, so he told us to stay seated & buckled because the service ceiling on that plane was 43,000 feet and he was already at 41,000 and would not be allowed to go any higher...

The CRJ-700 looks like a mini- MD-88- but it's so small, when we got off the plane at DFW, we were "outside", and had to walk to the over to the terminal where the big jets were.

I'd prefer not to fly on anything smaller than a DC-9; ever again. I love the 737's.

I have flown on:
Boeing 747 (Pan-Am, Northwest & United, for trans-atlantic &747 cruises at around 580 but can cruise at 600.

The CRJ-700 looks like a mini- MD-88- but it's so small, when we got off the plane at DFW, we were "outside", and had to walk to the over to the terminal where the big jets were.

I'd prefer not to fly on anything smaller than a DC-9; ever again. I love the 737's.

I have flown on:
Boeing 747 (Pan-Am, Northwest & United, for trans-atlantic &747 cruises at around 580 but can cruise at 600.
I have flown on:
Boeing 747 (Pan-Am, Northwest & United, for trans-atlantic & trans-pacific flights. Non-Stop from LAX to Yakima Air Base, Japan *15 hours*)
Boeing 737 (Southwest, America West & Delta)
Boeing 727 (Delta)
AirBus A320 (America West)
McDonnell Douglas (Boeing):
DC-9 (Northwest & Alaska Air),
DC-10 (American, Trans-Atlantic, Non-Stop from DFW to Frankfurt, Germany *11 hours*),
MD-80, MD-88, MD-90 (Delta).
Lockheed L-1011 (Delta, Trans-Atlantic, Non-Stop from DFW to Frankfurt, Germany, *10h-20m*)


Still waiting on a chance to fly on a 757, 767 or 777.
I missed the Concorde... My wallet was never fat enough to fly on that beauty, but I saw three of them on the ground at Heathrow in 1990.

 

Hey there company man . . .
fear not.

After I become President I am having Airbus build me a Concorde as a special secondary Air Force 1. Sure, I'd love to have Boeing do it (I'd kill for the old 2707-200 with the swing wing design to actually be built and see the light of day) but . . . at least the Concorde was real and the plans still exist. It'll be great for quick flights to far flung places for dinner and stuff. (As Prez. that's important). After it's built just zap me an email and you've got an invite.

It'll look like this:



You listing of equipment made me wonder what I've flown on . . .
Came up with this list:
Lockheed Constellation
L-1011
DC-3 (believe it or not, flew a commercial dc-3 in 1971 puddle jump from fort meyers to orlando fla)
DC-8
DC-9
DC10
MD11
707
720
727
737
747
757
767
777
A310
A320
Concorde
G-IV
G-V

and of course, a lot of those famlies have varients...e.g. 747-200, 747-400, etc etc etc. The 737 has some many varients thru the years it's crazy.

And speaking of supersonic . . . a friend of my family's when I was a kid, was the flight engineer (back when they still had them) of a 727. He told me that the 727 in testing had actually gone supersonic. Not sure if really true, but it's a cool story.

 

727 supersonic? Wow- it's believeable with three big engines on a not-so-big plane. If the B-52 can go 600 MPH, I'm sure the newer and more powerfully-engined commercial brethren can go that fast, or faster- if they had to.

I have often wondered why the President didn't have a Concorde Air Force 1. If I were President, that would have happened in my first term. Just in case you absolutely-positively have to leave DC REAL-QUICK! There's no way to get the staff their faster.

If P-Didy can have a pimped out G-4, the President can have a pimped out Concorde.

Fix the prototype SST-AF1 for in-flight refueling. Heck, he wouldn't even need F-16's & F-15's to guard him, once he left a countries air-space. Nothing else could catch him anyway.

I think it's a darn shame that Air France & British Airways retired the Concorde after one wreck in over 20 (If not 30) years of safe & troublefree flying.

 

My guess would be that the US Prez didn't get one because it would probably be viewed as un-American to have anything but a Boeing product.
That's why he has a Caddy or Lincoln limo. Who would buy the products he rode in a Mercedes?

Also, the Concorde just isn't that roomy. There's no way to cram in all the bedrooms, communications etc.

 

Yeah, I know...

I didn't mean it should replace the luxury-liner 747.
I was speaking in terms of making it Presidential (Perhaps with a queen size bed- or chairs that let out into beds (ie- G4) rather than the full-on, no holds barred 747 Cadillac version.

You're right though; it wouldn't bode well for the President to have a "foreign" air-plane. I'd buck the trend though.

(I'm also surprised Britan/France never took that design to build them selves an intercontinental/supersonic bomber)

Too bad Boeing scrapped their plans for an SST. I'm sure with minimal effort, the B-1 could be modified into a passenger plane (sans the swing wing design).

 

Adam is correct.

You can't have a foreign plane be AF1 -

I just chose it because it actually exists(ed) so there was a real plane I could photoshop.

Yes, it is tiny (the idea was a a secondary aircraft . . . for those quick jaunts out . . . you know, some hot model type, quick dinner in Paris, and back to the US, all in an evening.)

I always likeD the Boeing 2707-200 better anyway. So, since all this is fantasy anyway, I'd have to have the Air Force secretly fund the old cancelled Boeing 2707-200 program.

Now THAT was an SST! Would have carried 300 passengers at Mach 3.

And, I'd insist on Boeing using the original swing - wing design. Sure it's impractical, but cares?!?!?! It was cool!





Wings spread at subsonic, delta configuration for supersonic. It dwarfed the concorde and blew it away in speed. It would have blown away any of today's fighters too. The only thing faster . . . SR71.

Now THAT's a respectable AirForceOne !

Think of it, 1950's/60's technology able to haul 300 people at mach 3. And what have we done today? Aueronautics had a huge boom in the 40s-60s, and then it all stopped. Aside from quieter engines and LCD displays, aero-tech has not progressed any since then. What happened?

 

My wife and I talk about that all the time.

What have we~ in general~ improved upon technology wise since the 40's & 50's?

Sure, we have better TV's, PC's, Cell Phones, gadgets- but what innovative ground have we broken in any way? From 1941 to 1959 we saw a boom in technology that hasn't been matched. We're takign baby steps compared to back then. We're still living off of reheated 40's & 50's designs & technology. From the aircraft to the internet.

Did all of our genius die with the pioneers of those revalations? Or, have we just gotten comfortable with what we had. Since the 40's & 50's, the only real advancements we've made is our completion of our journey to the moon & back, the Jumbo-Jet (747), Global positioning, and the shrinkage of the computer into something as small as a palm-pilot. We haven't advanced medically- chemo-therapy is still our only real treatment for cancer. My Mom just suffered through that chemo-BS; you an't tell me that in ove 50 years of advanced study, chemo is the best we can do.

I don't have the answers- but Jeez- there are nearly 300 million Americans; and over 5 billion people on this planet. Surely we could have gone further in the last 50 years with regard to:

Medicine
Aviation
Automotive
Culturally
Socially
Militarily

We're spinning our wheels- while others catch up.

We are teh only industrialized nation that doesn't have a viable rail system. Sure, we have freight-trains and Amtrack- but we don't have a viable alternative to the car or the airplane for travel. Japan has a national grid for it's bullet train, so does France and Germany. We need something that's way faster than a car; but cheaper than an airline ticket connecting our major cities (And some larger metro areas) nationwide. That's just one pet peeve....

America is the richest and most powerful country on the planet. We should be leading the way; rather than getting stuff last, if ever.

 

Er, actually Britain did a long time before the Concorde. (No idea about les frogs)
The Vulcan was designed in 1947 and went into service with the Royal Air Force in 1956.
Carried conventional and Nukes.
Withdrawn from service in 1982 after the Falklands War.

 

Yeah, I knew that... I'm a wing nut all the way to the bone...

I meant a REAL Intercontinental bomber- capable of long rnge and supersonic speed like the:

1.) B-1 (I don't buy that crap that the B1-B isn't as fast as the B1-A) The B1-A could go over Mach 2.2, but the B-1B is supposedly maxed out at Mach 0.9. But, it's the fastest (jet) plane in the world below 1.000 feet.)

2.) BlackJack: Bomber: Mach 2+ Russian Intercontinental Bomber.

3.) Backfire: Bomber: (Ditto)


I guess us and the Soviets are the only ones who really needed them, since we were the ones in the arms race. The Vulcan was good- for what it was; but it is more of a match for our FB-111 than the B-1, Blackjack or Backfire.

I've seen a B-1 on a mock bombing run at low level. You haven't lived until you see that bad-boy swoop down a valley (A valley you just happen to be in; on maneuvers. Hopefully those dumb *&&#$ didn't have us set up on a bombing range.)

 

Well . . . that you know of . . . .

CIA-AGENT -

Dude, (as the kids say) WORD on the lack of technological advancement since the 50s thing.

My best friend and I discuss this all the time too, and quite frankly, it's quite puzzling.

Think about this. Kelly Johnson and his gang designed the SR-71 and the U2 and other fun toys WITHOUT the use of computers. They used slide-rules, chalkboards, and their brains.

(Speaking of slide-rules . . . I bet 99% of the folks on this board have no idea what a slide-rule is. I remember having a class in elementary school on how to use one . . . then again, we also practiced duck and cover drills and had air-raid sirens on the last Friday of every month . . . snicker....)

Anyway . . . where was I, oh yeah,

I think the operative word in your post is "gadgets". We've built a lot of toys but none of it really ranking up there on the sudden-renaissance-type-burst-on-the-scene-from-out-of-nowhere advance we had back in the 50s and 60s (40s for that matter).

Computers are not really any different than they were in the beginning...granted they are faster and have more memory, but that's really one advance played over and over (make things continuously smaller so you can cram more into a confined space) big deal.

Cars . . . same old engine that they had in the early part of the 20th century. It's the same idea played over and over

Today's jets are the same as the 707. Again, the same idea played over and over and over .

There has been no new propulsion system invented, no new type of motors for cars

(As for medical...forget it. A-It's not really science, B-no matter what you do you can't extend life indefinitely. And as for socially- humans are always going to be jerks and will never get along-and "science" as it were ain't gonna improve things, only make them worse)

I am beginning to believe the nut-case stories that the reason we had this burst of tech in the 40s thru the 60s was because of reversed engineered alien technology. We got all we could out it and after that no new ideas . . . because essentially the sudden appearance of jets and such were not our ideas to begin with and since we had no original ideas in the 40s but in fact stole the tech . . . there are no new ideas now.

We need another alien crash today so we can back THEIR new stuff and have new stuff ourselves as a result.

 

Ha ha. You must have stared at that picture of Mulder and Scully in that other thread for too long
Just because it's on TV, it doesn't make it a documentary.

The Jet Engine was designed by Sir Frank Whittle of the Royal Air Force in 1929, long before the "Roswell Incident" or the advent of little green men.

Maybe the Webmaster can get along to the crash site to see if there's any goodies left.

 

HA! Revisionist history!

(And by the way, those little guys are grey, not green.)

The truth is out there!

 

do you get any more space on a bigger plane like that? Lat tim I was on a plane, mid last year I was uncomfortable as hell. My damn shoulders didnt fit in the seat, and I kept getting whacked by the drink cart