Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 35783
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

2005/1/19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Airplane] UID:35783 Activity:insanely high
1/18    Regarding the A380 airbus/French engineering troll... if I were to
        pick machineries based on reliability, branding, and engineering
        history, I'd pick in the following order:
                Japanese > German > American > French
        It's too bad that Germans and Japanese don't make aircrafts.
        They really know how to make machineries that are efficient
        and/or high performance. As for French engineering, when was
        the last time they built anything reliable and/or worth driving?
        Peugeot? Renault? No thanks.
        \_ Honda has always wanted to get into the aircraft engine
           business, and it has started doing it already:
           http://world.honda.com/AircraftEngines
                \_ I just saw the Honda Jet video, it is AWSOME!!! I LOVE IT.
        \_ German machines tend to be slick but fragile.
           \_ and I suppose Americans are much better? Say you got a 100 mile
              drive to a wedding/job interview, would you drive a 20 year old
              Pontiac or a 20 year old Mercedes?
              \_ You do know that JD Powers polled 293 problems per 100
                 Pontiacs after 3 years ownership, and 318 problems per
                 100 Mercedes Benzs in the same period.  The MB has fewer
                 initial quality problems (132 per 100 vehicls) than the
                 Pontiac (142 per 100), but the Caddy, which is more
                 comparable to the MB anyway, has just 103 initiali problems
                 per 100 vehicles, and just 209 after 3 years.  To back it
                 up with personal experience, the 2 MBs I've owned (ML320
                 and E430) are pure crap with electrical and vibrational
                 problems too numerous to list.
                 \_ The previous poster said 20-year-old Pontiacs and Mercedes,
                    not late model year ones.  20-year-old Mercedes are much
                    more likely to keep on running today than 20-year-old
                    Pontiacs.  I agree that today's low-end Mercedes are craps
                    for their price tags.
                    \_ Yes.  But I fail to see how the reliability of 20-
                       year-old cars applies to current German ability to
                       design and manufacture reliable machinary.  Low end?
                       A friend's SL500 dash lit up like a Christmas tree 2
                       hours after he picked up the car from the dealership.
                       "Dude, your check engine light is on... Now the empty
                       gas tank light too... What does *that* other light
                       mean?..." I had a great laugh over it and he was
                       pissed at me for a couple months.  Of course, he also
                       has the Land Rover that has never ran for 3 months in
                       a row, including the time when it would not go into
                       reverse, which made leaving a parking spot somewhat
                       entertaining.
                       \_ Mercedes has ran their reliability into the ground.
                          Who knows why this is, although I've seen (somewhat
                          troll-ish) claims that it is related to their move
                          into East German factories.  BMW seems to have
                          kept up to speed, however.  One factor here is that
                          car reliability is much higher than it has been in
                          the past, and the differences between makes is not
                          nearly as great as it used to be.  Car makers have to
                          work very hard to keep up their standards, and of
                          couse Lexus sets a very high bar indeed (too bad they
                          make such boring cars).
                          \_ As a BMW owner I can call their cars
                             'adequate'. The engine itself will run
                             forever, but everything else (including
                             transmission) is delicate. My BMW has been in
                             the shop more times in 3 years than my Honda
                             has in 10 years. I prefer the BMW because of
                             performance and styling, but that's it.
                          \_ The decline of Mercedes started with its merger
                             with Chrysler.
                             \_ But interestingly, Chrysler has had something
                                a comeback since the merger...
                                \_ which means, crappiness and quality are both
                                   conserved, and that Chrysler owns Mercedes,
                                   not the other way around?
           \_ Concur. Also, the Swedes are good engineers. What about the
              British? Certainly they made good planes in WW II.
              \_ Britian used to make passenger planes, but a very famous
                 set of myserious crashes in, the 50's (I think) ruined
                 them.  It turned out the metal they had used would
                 fatigue and eventually break off in flight.  They did,
                 however, figure out the cause via some very impressive
                 detective work, so they at once lost their reputation
                 fro building aircraft but gained one for good aviational
                 detecive work. I think the plane was called "the Comet."
                 Addendum: Here we go:
                 http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/planes/comet.html
                 \_ Scotlandyard?
              \_ The Spitfire was the best fighter....
              \_ Our Boeing 747s use Rolls Royce engines.
           \_ Really?  I heard Volkswagon engines lasts a long time.
              \_ Volkwagen is near the bottom in reliability. German cars
                 are high performance, but break easily. Japanese are
                 durable. American cars are... uh...?
                 \_ Cheap. The world you are looking for is cheap.
        \_ German engineering is the best! Panzer >>> Shermans. V1/V2 rockets were
           state of the art. Their ME262 fighters flew faster than any WW2
           prop fighters. And they have the Autobahn, which tests German cars
           under great stress. I love German engineering. ALL HEIL GERMAN!!!!!
        \_ Airbus > Boeing (not a troll)
           \_ Yeah, Boeing never crashes their demo planes into the trees
              due to faulty design.  Airbus = r0x0rz!
           \_ The Airbus was foolproof. Basically, if you are 50 feet from the
              ground the computer assumes you're landing and takes over the
              throttle/controls and guides you to a gentle landing. During the
              Airbus demo, the pilots were instructed to make a low level pass
              from the ground (common aviation demo), and when they flew it,
              they flew 30 feet from the ground. The computer thought they're
              landing, and took over. So yes the Airbus is foolproof, the
              pilots are not.  P.S. All Boeings have an option to turn off
              fly-by-wire. None of the Airbuses have that option.
              \_ If you make something foolproof you will breed greater fools.
              \_ Trusting computers that completely is blatantly stupid.
                 \_ That is true, but trusting humans completely is even worse.
                    cf. the collison in Switzerland.  It really comes down to
                    a choice between trusting the people who designed the
                    plane/machine (ppl like you) and those who pilot them.
                    Contrary to popular myth, the latter are not that reliable.
                    Contrary to popular myth, the latter are not more reliable.
              \_ That's hilarious!  URL please?
        \_ as an engineer, I have reservations on the latest and greatest
           technology. First of all, the A380 is GIGANTIC so it requires
           longer runways and more complex systems to accomodate for its
           size. If there's a problem, you can only land in certain
           airports so if you have to reroute or land due to weather or
           mechanical problems, you're screwed. Secondly, big systems have
           more points of failure, and even when you add redundancy, they
           crash more catastrophically than smaller systems due to bigger
           mass and less available land (you can land small planes in a
           dessert, but with A380 you'll generate so much spark/fire and
           leakeage the chance of surviving is minimal.)
           Thirdly, big systems tend to be complex than smaller ones and
           in general complexity introduces new and unforeseen problems.
           Lastly, I just don't know enough about French engineering to
           really trust the A380.
           \_ Must be a really small plane or a really big dessert.
              \_ I prefer fudge sundaes, myself.
           \_ I knew people who adored American engineering, boarded a Boeing
              or MD, and migrated to the big aquarium.
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/7/29-9/24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54446 Activity:nil
7/29    Is it really true that we subsidize auto driving to the tune of
        $5k/yr? Shit I could probably hire a private driver for less...
        http://tinyurl.com/cars-suck-ass
        \_ You might have missed the point.  Hiring a chauffeur to drive your
           private vehicle won't change the amount of gasoline your private
           vehicle use or the amount of real estate it uses on freeways and
	...
2012/7/9-8/19 [Transportation/Car] UID:54433 Activity:nil
7/9     http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/07/nice-guys-finish-last.html
        A study at the Berkeley Marina intersection shows that people
        with nice asshole-cars break the law more frequently.
        \_ Alpha animals.
            \_ sense of entitlement coupled with willingness to pay fines.
               One of the better Freakonomics chapters was about a study
	...
2011/12/5-2012/1/10 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54250 Activity:nil
12/5    "Eight Ferraris wrecked in million-dollar pileup"
        http://www.csua.org/u/uw3 (autos.yahoo.com)
        "Police and video reports say the wreck began when a 60-year-old
        businessman from Fukushima driving a Ferrari F430 attempted to pass a
        Toyota Prius, but instead hit the guardrail.  That set off a chain
        reaction among the cars driving in a tight formation behind the lead
	...
2011/7/10-8/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54141 Activity:nil
7/8     Is there some reason we can't have mass market nat gas cars?
        \_ Not enough infrastructure for refuing.  Chicken and egg.
        \_ Not enough infrastructure for refueling.  Chicken and egg.
        \_ It has less than half the energy density of gasoline.  -tom
           \_ So you have to compress it, which results in huge explosions
              during a crash. Same for flywheel tech.
	...
2010/7/19-8/9 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:53888 Activity:nil
7/19    Isn't there an airport tax at SFO where every departing passenger needs
        to pay?  I can't find any info on http://www.flysfo.com  Thanks.
        \_ Sorry for my previous incorrect comment, all enplaning passengers
           pay a Passenger Facility Charge of $4.50.
           http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/pfc.html
           \_ Thanks!  I thought it was in the neighborhood of $50.
	...
2010/1/13-19 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:53630 Activity:nil
1/12    Dear Narita and Taipei flyers. I'm thinking of flying to Taiwan
        and Japan for 2+ weeks and someone suggested that I should get
        a round trip flight from US->NRT->TPE, then TPE->NRT and
        stay in Japan for a few days, and finally NRT->US. Should I just
        book directly on JAL or ANA? Would travel agency be able to
        get a better deal? Advice please...
	...
2009/12/1-8 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:53552 Activity:nil
12/1    Is it just my imagination or flight attendants in China are younger
        and more attractive than the cougars I see in US domestic airlines?
        http://curiousphotos.blogspot.com/2009/12/hiring-flight-attendants-in-china-12.html
        \_ you're a pathetic loser.
        \_ Of course this is not your imagination.  Try flying on Singapore
           Airlines and JAL and ANA.  The female flight attendants look even
	...
Cache (218 bytes)
world.honda.com/AircraftEngines -> world.honda.com/AircraftEngines/
Honda and GE Establish New Company GE and Honda have formally established a new joint venture company, GE Ho nda Aero Engines LLC, to pursue the launch of Hondas HF118 turbofan eng ine in the light business jet market.
Cache (2390 bytes)
www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/planes/comet.html
When the first de Havilland Comet took off from London for Johannesburg o n May 2, 1952, it seemed as if Britain had produced a nearly insurmounta ble lead in aircraft development. Boeing Stratocruiser were in wide use, these planes were powered by pis ton engines. Until the Comet's arrival, jet engines had only been used to power small fighter aircraft during World War II. Many thought jet engines wouldn't be economically viable on a commercial plane since jets had such high fu el consumption. Britain's Air Ministry initially had ignor ed Whittle's early designs for the jet engine. After the jet had proven tremendously successful during WWII, Britain wasn't about to squander th e opportunity to develop the world's first commercial jetliner. From the moment the Comet took to the skies, it was an immediate success. Passengers gushed with adoration after flying on the Comet. Able to cru ise at 35,000 feet where the air is less turbulent, the Comet was smooth and fast. New York was only twelve hours flyi ng time away from London instead of the eighteen hours it took piston-en gine planes. The Comet incorpo rated its four engines inside the wing of the plane. Pan Am and othe r airlines were soon beating a path to de Havilland's door to order Come ts. But only a year after it began commercial service, Comets started to fall out of the sky. Extensive investigation revealed a devastating design f law - metal fatigue. The constant stress of repressurization would weake n an area of the fuselage near the Comet's square-shaped windows. The Co met's thin-skin exterior would become so stressed that high pressure cab in air would burst through the slightest fracture, ripping a large slice in the aircraft's wall. All Comets were grounded until the line of jets could be redesigned. The Comet re-entered commercial service in 1958, but its reputation was f orever damaged. Douglas DC-8, each of which could seat almost twi ce as many passengers as the Comet. Even though the Comet became the fir st jet airliner to fly nonstop between London and New York, its seemingl y bright future was cut short. Britain's lead in the commercial aviation industry race was lost, never again to be regained. SPECIFICATIONS Manufacturer De Havilland First Flight: July 27, 1949 Wingspan: 114 feet, 9 inches Length: 93 feet, 10 inches Height: 28 feet, 6 inches Weight: 77,000 pounds (approx.