/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1131077

[33 / 3 / ?]

111KiB, 1493x453, 9eb7eb7f76dc87f6224ab45c9c081cb2.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 18:16:28 No.1131077 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1131108 >>1131193 >>1131558

Why did they go with the b2707 when the L-2000 was clearly the superior plane?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 21:29:14 No.1131108 Report

Quoted By: >>1131110 >>1131113

>>1131077
Because if there's one thing Boeing hates, it's not getting a massive government subsidy. The second worst thing is somebody ELSE getting a massive government subsidy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 21:42:37 No.1131110 Report

Quoted By: >>1131111

>>1131108
just look at the bitchfit Boeing-Lockheed's ULA throws when SpaceX gets national security contracts, or recently when Boeing wanted Trump to be protectionist about airline contracts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 21:51:00 No.1131111 Report

Quoted By: >>1131123 >>1132534 >>1134636

>>1131110
Uh, they still do, reason being in the most recent instance that the Canadian government directly funded an airliner program that was then sold at impossibly low prices (that's called dumping). That's blatantly illegal under international trade rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 22:00:47 No.1131113 Report

Quoted By: >>1131122

>>1131108
But it doesn't make sense from the government's standpoint. Lockheed had a better, more practical design and was further along then Boeing. If they selected the L-2000, then America would have had an SST that was better than the Concorde or the TU-144

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 23:07:20 No.1131122 Report

Quoted By: >>1131132

>>1131113
>But it doesn't make sense from the government's standpoint.

You forgot to adjust for Boeing lobbyists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 23:10:15 No.1131123 Report

Quoted By: >>1131153

>>1131111
>he Canadian government directly funded an airliner program that was then sold at impossibly low prices

Yeah, if they'd been smart they'd have paid Bombardier that money for a small order of "totally military, honest giuz" planes based on the same airframe. You know, like the US government do for Boeing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 23:31:28 No.1131132 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131122
Oh fucking hell, the F-35 shows Lockheed's lobbyists make every one else look like weak shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 01:06:58 No.1131153 Report

Quoted By: >>1131366

>>1131123
So you're saying Boeing didn't develop, build, and deliver hundreds of warplanes. Cool... makes sense...

ANd you're also saying that the government is never allowed to buy anything from anyone ever.

Fucking think before typing. It's not our fault you don't understand the simplest concepts of trade rules.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ValkyriePassenger2.jpg, 21KiB, 960x576

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 04:06:46 No.1131193 Report

Quoted By: >>1131194

>>1131077
Should have gone with someone that could actually build something that would fly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 04:10:46 No.1131194 Report

Quoted By: >>1131195 >>1131196

>>1131193
Nigger what? That thing wasn't even wanted by the military. The L-2000 was the best and most practical American SST design

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 04:14:31 No.1131195 Report

Quoted By: >>1131197

>>1131194
But there was never such a thing as a practical SST...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 04:19:37 No.1131196 Report

Quoted By: >>1131197 >>1131543

>>1131194
The difference is that the L-2000 held more people, and could do some over land routes, which have it a huge advantage over other SSTs. Plus I just said that it was more practical than the other designs. And the valkryrie was any thing but practical, even for the military.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 04:20:38 No.1131197 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131196
Meant for >>1131195

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 19:33:52 No.1131366 Report

Quoted By: >>1131378

>>1131153
I'm saying that the USA pay Boeing way too much money for their military programs as a form of direct subsidy. The French & British governments do it with Airbus, too. The Canadians were apparently to naive to realise they should have done it with Bombardier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 19:36:32 No.1131367 Report

Quoted By: >>1131574

Is there any reason not to hate Boeing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 19:54:38 No.1131378 Report

Quoted By: >>1131427

>>1131366
That's, by definition, not a direct subsidy. It's indirect. What the Canadian government did with Bombardier is a direct subsidy. This isn't hard to understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 22:05:45 No.1131427 Report

Quoted By: >>1131438

>>1131378
It's direct disguised as indirect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Dec 2017 22:45:59 No.1131438 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131427
No, it's not. You are changing the definition of words to suit your own incorrect opinions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Dec 2017 03:14:46 No.1131543 Report

Quoted By: >>1131573

>>1131196
>The difference is that the L-2000 held more people,

Not the right economics for an SST. You need to fly small groups of very wealthy people right when they want to travel. Not try to schedule 250 passengers for fewer flights.

>And the valkryrie was any thing but practical

You aren't buying a passenger B-70. You are buying the expertise of North American Aviation. A company that had a proven record of actually flying stuff like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Dec 2017 04:33:21 No.1131558 Report

Quoted By: >>1131563

>>1131077
This isn't getting built because leading edge technology isn't for Americans. The rich have already bled the poor to the point that there's not enough left to fund it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Dec 2017 04:44:53 No.1131563 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131558
This doesn't even make sense. The majority of advanced, experimental, and tech demonstrator aircraft are American.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Dec 2017 06:31:14 No.1131573 Report

Quoted By: >>1132292

>>1131543
Lockheed had far more experience than anyone else, at the time and now. Reminder that this was the company that had built the SR-71 just a short while prior. Plus one of the reasons the Concorde failed was because they couldn't fly enough people for it to be sustainable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Dec 2017 06:33:07 No.1131574 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131367
Boeing is a great company that did great things for commercial aviation, but super sonic transports weren't their area to be in

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Dec 2017 02:04:48 No.1132292 Report

Quoted By: >>1132297

>>1131573
>Reminder that this was the company that had built the SR-71

That technology won't scale to an SST.

>Plus one of the reasons the Concorde failed was because they couldn't fly enough people for it to be sustainable.

Worded another way: It's passenger capacity and economics were wrong. You want a successful SST? You fly a few very rich people and you have smaller flights that leave more frequently. Nobody is going to pay to be one of 200 passengers that have to sit in an airport all day for a slightly shorter flight. 787 and A380 are for the cattle class.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Dec 2017 02:40:16 No.1132297 Report

Quoted By: >>1132393

>>1132292
>That technology won't scale to an SST.
Why not

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Dec 2017 17:09:46 No.1132393 Report

Quoted By:

>>1132297
They had problems with engine unstarts which was a consequence of both intake and airframe design. The SR-71 couldn't go supersonic without diving through Mach 1. They didn't mind losing a few planes and crews to get their missions accomplished.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Dec 2017 03:08:10 No.1132534 Report

Quoted By: >>1132574

>>1131111
But Boeing doesn't really have a case since the CSeries doesn't directly compete with anything in the Boeing lineup.

That's like if I have a company that sells supercars and I sue Ford for "dumping" crossovers. I'm not losing anything by this.

Boeing is just mad af cause they can't into regional jets

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Dec 2017 04:23:03 No.1132574 Report

Quoted By:

>>1132534
The CS300 absolutely competes with the 737-7/700.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lofi_smugo.jpg, 26KiB, 600x544

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2017 01:34:20 No.1134636 Report

Quoted By: >>1134665 >>1135463 >>1135466

>>1131111
>international trade rules.
You mean libtard authoritarian faggots? The FCC wont censor the internet either right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2017 02:56:33 No.1134665 Report

Quoted By:

>>1134636
None of that post makes sense and it openly contradicts itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 14:39:02 No.1135463 Report

Quoted By:

>>1134636
I can't wait for the NSA to filter shitposts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 14:46:37 No.1135466 Report

Quoted By:

>>1134636
What did he mean by this?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches