Leaning tower of falcon 9

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
I note that you've carefully deleted all context from my remarks, you
intellectually dishonest ****.

I snipped out all your silly bile, you cantankerous ignorant idiot.

Show me something in 14 CFR that is contrary to what I have said or
shut the **** up.


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip


How much oil can the oil reservoir on a jet engine hold? You've now
required that it be large enough to go without checking for a year

What a silly, ignorant, childish conclusion to come to.

Ensuring there is enough oil for a flight is part of the operational
requirments, not the maintenance requirements.

snip

Then the GIII crashes before its first inspection. Please explain how
that works.

As all airplanes must have had the equivelant to an annual inspection
within the last 12 months before it can be flown in other than a special
flight specifically to have maintenance performed, it is customary for
the seller of a new aircraft to have performed an annual before sale so
the buyer can legally fly it away.

The people in the aircraft industry are not idiots making it up as they
go along.

snip

Do try to follow along, ****wit. I postulated an overall system
upgrade where you got ONE high frequency (but low duration) of
maintenance part and all the rest of that system go different parts,
enable by the high maintenance frequency part. You blustered on about
how such a change would destroy market share, was 'magic', etc.

Yawn, yet another fairy tale.

Your response here demonstrates that not only are you unable to think
outside your box, but that your box is a really tiny box.

He's apparently unable to comprehend SYSTEM costs.

McCrap makes it up as he goes along.


Poor Chimp****. He just really is incapable of conceiving of anything
outside his little tiny box.

snip


But why would they go to those higher maintenance "newfangled big
jets", Chimp? You've told us that such changes will destroy the
market for the airplane. And yet....

McCrap apparently does not understand the difference between getting
a new aircraft with similar capabilies and gettting an aircraft with
radically different capabliities.

Airlines went to those "newfangled big jets" because they flew higher,
flew faster, had less internal vibration, and had lower internal noise
than propeller aircraft.


Chimp**** apparently does not understand how to follow a logical
sequence of thought. According to him, the increased maintenance
should have made jets market losers against existing airliners. *I*
understand what was going on, but I see no evidence that Chimp****
ever did.

What I actually said was a high maintenance aircraft will not compete
in the market place. That obviously implies that the aircraft is competing
against like aircraft, i.e. jet transport against jet transport, not
jet transport against something with huge radial engines which is what
the first jets were competing against.

Only an argumentative would have assumed otherwise.

But that was well over half a century ago.

Oh, so history doesn't matter (except when Chimp wants it to). You
made a statement. Events well over half a century ago prove your
statement is wrong. That just means you're stupid to not have learned
the lesson in all that time.

Apparently McCrap is unawary that the "newfangled big jets" flew higher,
flew faster, had less internal vibration, and had lower internal noise
than propeller aircraft.

The subject of maintenance hours on the "newfangled big jets" only
became an issue once there was more than one soource for the
"newfangled big jets", which took only a couple of years.


But until then one person had replaced a part (the entire airplane)
with a part that required much more maintenance. According to what
Chimp**** has repeatedly insisted, this should have 'cratered their
market share'. It didn't.

What the hell are you babbling about here?

Actually jet airplanes are lower maintenance than the huge radial
engine things they replaced.


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip

Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


Which is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.

Correct; selling delivery service is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.


But producing the ****ing vehicles to perform that service with is
not.

When "producing" is defined in an extremely narrow sense of the word simply
to provoke an argument.


You mean like what you're doing, where you have to narrow the
definition of "produce" to only include things put forward for direct
commercial sale?

Which is the commonly used definition of production when talking about
a company.


Bull****.

Yes, you are full of it.


No, I'm just buried under it from you shoveling so much.

Let me make it clear. Your statement about the "commonly used
definition of production" is incorrect. It is false. It is a lie.

Says you, tosser.


Says pretty much everyone but you, ******. Try buying a dictionary.
Try asking anyone who actually knows what SpaceX and the Falcon
booster are whether SpaceX produces the Falcon booster.

No wonder you know nothing about 14 CFR.

Well hot flash, the aviation regs in the UK are essentially identical
to the US.


--
Jim Pennino