|
Powercube posted:Spirit can't handle that kind of damage or catastrophic situation - which makes me think that there are a lot of hair brained schemes going on. Everyone joking about overtime shifts and the lot are forgetting that there'd be no space for Spirit to build an extra three barrels. What surprises me the most is that this is an entirely novel occurrence. The problem with Just In Time production is that it assumes nothing will go wrong. When something DOES go wrong, it's a larger catastrophe than it would otherwise have been, due to inflexibility in the production schedule.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
ctishman posted:The problem with Just In Time production is that it assumes nothing will go wrong. When something DOES go wrong, it's a larger catastrophe than it would otherwise have been, due to inflexibility in the production schedule. JIT does not necessitate assuming nothing will go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:JIT does not necessitate assuming nothing will go wrong. Yet millions of managers in every business all over the world still do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Some of the youtube commenters are claiming the A340 pilots should've looked before crossing the runway. Would they actually have visibility out of the cockpit in that direction? Seems possible that they wouldn't. An odd combination of runways to be in use simulataneously, I thought... 02 for landings, 25R for takeoffs. Arrivals and departures in opposite directions, and almost all aircraft have to cross active runways while taxiing. Maybe 25L was closed or something... e: The A340 was apparently instructed to taxi across the active landing runway three times at different locations to get to its departure runway, of course without stopping at any of the holding points. That's Spanish efficiency for you! Tsuru fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:JIT does not necessitate assuming nothing will go wrong. But isn't the whole point of JIT to reduce the redundancies created by the need to deal with unexpected events like storage for extra parts and the like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:But isn't the whole point of JIT to reduce the redundancies created by the need to deal with unexpected events like storage for extra parts and the like? Its to minimize in process inventory, which means that once the process starts nothing is sitting around waiting to be worked on. That doesn't mean that you have to completely eliminate raw material storage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Powercube posted:They're as empty as the day is long, they're just tubes- all the fun stuff goes in on the rolling lines. Regardless, the word on the street is three write-offs. I agree with them, there are too many known unknowns, over-stresses, tears, gashes, to make them insurable. Speaking of Spirit, any credence to the rumors that Spirit is going to sell the Wichita plant off to GKN? There's poo poo swirling around here about them hiring 300 extra security members and doing their inventory in June instead of August.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:But isn't the whole point of JIT to reduce the redundancies created by the need to deal with unexpected events like storage for extra parts and the like? However, as other posters in this thread have mentioned this might be too big of an issue to swallow. Not only is Boeing JIT tight, but it sounds like their fusalage supplier is as well. It gets worse as it's compounded. It's not like they can go to another supplier and get another fuselage next week. The integration is too tight and specialized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
JIT is not to blame for not having three whole spare 737 fuselages just lying around ready to go. One would hope it didn't take JIT to ensure there weren't 3 whole 737-shaped holes in the production schedule, either. I mean this is like blaming the whole thing on 5S because the only areas prepped for the train were the narrowly designated tracks
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:Speaking of Spirit, any credence to the rumors that Spirit is going to sell the Wichita plant off to GKN? There's poo poo swirling around here about them hiring 300 extra security members and doing their inventory in June instead of August. First I've heard of it, you've definitely given me something to look into. I'm going to say considering that GKN doesn't have a happy enough sounding name for being involved with Boeing that the odds are low. I still want to start Ambivalence aerospace... probably out perform Triumph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Holy poo poo, glad this didn't become another Tenerife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Alereon posted:So I guess I'm unobservant, but how come the alliance livery is so much more prominent than the airline itself now? It seems Oneworld and Star Alliance are doing the same thing. Each alliance member usually has one plane in the alliance livery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:Speaking of Spirit, any credence to the rumors that Spirit is going to sell the Wichita plant off to GKN? There's poo poo swirling around here about them hiring 300 extra security members and doing their inventory in June instead of August. That was a rumor for about a week last year when I worked there, except the rumor was GKN was going to buy the whole company. It was also in some business magazine. Hilariously, Spirit stock spiked and GKN stock tanked temporarily the day that article came out. There was also rumor of the A350 facility in Kinston getting sold to Airbus, which would probably be a god-send for the employees the way that place was getting run. I got out of dodge after the first small layoff, and now there's about 5 people left in my formerly 30 person department.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:JIT is not to blame for not having three whole spare 737 fuselages just lying around ready to go. One would hope it didn't take JIT to ensure there weren't 3 whole 737-shaped holes in the production schedule, either. Rumor I'm getting from some friends who know people still there is that three 737-shaped holes is indeed what they have in their production line right now. Boeing's embraced production efficiency measures on the 737 line wholeheartedly, and it's paid off by and large. They've been producing something like 40 737s per month, and have been mercilessly 'trimming inefficiency' to raise those numbers further, and it seems they're going to suffer now for their failure to have just a little fat around the edges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
blah blah blah airliner talk blah blah blah  
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:blah blah blah airliner talk blah blah blah That's all old poo poo - post something new.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06o7fzcE1Hk Any lower and someone would have GOODYEAR on their forehead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:That's all old poo poo - post something new. I love how people just stand there and film saying wow. A plane that low is NOT flying over my loving head. I'd be running my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:That's all old poo poo - post something new. The guy in the orange shirt is lucky all he got was probable hearing damage. He almost ended up a foot shorter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:That's all old poo poo - post something new. The old guy waving his cane in the air and then sheepishly walking away in the second perspective makes this clip 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I love how people just stand there and film saying wow. A plane that low is NOT flying over my loving head. I'd be running my rear end off. Dude you're going to have two huge spinny rotor disks of doom whirling closer to your head during transition than that Turk's F-16 was to those folks' heads. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I've been standing at the localizer arrays a few times when 16's have come in right over me, maybe about 20-30' higher, and it's not actually that loud considering they're nearly at idle thrust. The Marine EA-6 I stood under in the same spot was loud as gently caress though. I really wasn't expecting that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:That was a rumor for about a week last year when I worked there, except the rumor was GKN was going to buy the whole company. It was also in some business magazine. They're supposed to be buying all of Spirit's non Boeing poo poo in Oklahoma but there's been rumors that they're going to sell off all the Gulfstream stuff in Wichita too, or that they're going to buy the whole thing, or even that Boeing is going to buy the plant back from Spirit, a lot of people down here are antsy and obviously no one is saying anything about it
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:blah blah blah airliner talk blah blah blah  Weapons test? Recoil stuff? Someone explain what's going on here to me please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:
Jamming test. The only thing on the pylons is an ECM pod, and it's hard to simulate exactly how the signals it puts out will interact with the full airframe, at different angles to the receiver you're messing with, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:
Experimental anti-aircraft turret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Experimental anti-aircraft turret. And yet, more reliable than the M247 Sgt. York.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:
Another rocket-based short takeoff prototype.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0umWIPCPd4 Sorry if this has already been posted, but it's 60's as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Experimental anti-aircraft turret.  This, right here: good answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
This is also good:atomicthumbs posted:Another rocket-based short takeoff prototype. If only because Zero-Length Launch is such a loving mental concept, even if it didn't pan out practically. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Major Kong over at DailyKos has posted a nice little infodump on the MiG-21.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
I currently have a Vampire and a Meteor buzzing around over my office, running pre-show tests before Farnborough starts next week. It's been an awesome week to work right next to the airport, conference calls are way more fun when an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is playing silly buggers outside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Major Kong over at DailyKos has posted a nice little infodump on the MiG-21. From the comments: quote:It's tough and rugged, it always works anywhere, and you can make a zillion of 'em for just a few bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Major Kong over at DailyKos has posted a nice little infodump on the MiG-21. There's one sitting in a hanger at the nondescript local airport. Airworthy too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
I know its not a MiG-21 but I picked up this little puppy today: Newly overhauled engine: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Found another picture of the mass-abortion of 737s (click for large): They're talking about scrapping them on site now that they are out of the river.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Jazzahn posted:I know its not a MiG-21 but I picked up this little puppy today: Nice! Needs some pinstripes though, or maybe some flames. Or better, leave it all white and fly around in circles over places like Porcfest to make the paranoids go apeshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
I went looking for the longest continuous flight record. What I had expected was that, apart from modern purpose-built aircraft, there would be some cold war bomber (I thought a B-52 to be honest) that did some ridiculous always-aloft Alaskan patrol in the '50s or '60s. I was wrong. To be clear, I hit up Wikipedia to see the endurance record for manned, refuelled aircraft. It was not what I had expected. What do you think it was? The answer? Cessna 172 Add to this the fact that I misread the wikipedia table - I thought it was 64 hours. It was, in fact, 64 days. Bear in mind that the airship record is slightly over 11 days. Naturally I disbelieved this and thought that there was some gaming of regulations going on. Refuelling was via a truck - aha! thought I, they landed and then discounted it, like how those hand-on-car-to-win-the-car people get five minutes our for ablutions. I knew it couldn't be correct! Oh no. They drove the truck along a road and, after the electric fuel pump broke, hand-cranked the fuel into the belly tank as it drove along - once at night. All kinds of instrumentation and systems (including the autopilot, which did nothing except ensure level flight) were broken by the end of the stint. The biggest problem was carbon buildup in the engine, it seems. Then you have the pilot's weight to factor in  , and the whole thing just shouldn't have happened.Full story here: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2008/March/1/Endurance-Test-Circa-1958 simplefish fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Nice! If you really want to drive the  types insane paint it flat black.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Nice! Is there an aviation equivalent to Autozone vents? Get some of those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:00
|
|
