Nice to see someone try to push the "Windows" angle...
In all truth, this doesn't affect anyone at all - MySQL is GPLed so, according to RMS, it should already be protected from Big Bad Oracle... Is Oracle really required to move MySQL forward? If not, then why the complaints - and if so, then does the fact that it is GPLed really mean anything at all?
In reality, Oracle has been bound by its merger with Sun to actually offer more assurances than Sun was ever required to offer - 4 years of support. What did Sun offer? Nothing.
Technically, MySQL should be in a better position after the Oracle merger...
So what if it wasn't due to design software issues, not really sure what you are pushing toward there.
The fastener issue was 100% Boeings cockup, as they were told by the fastener supplier that they could not produce quantities in the timescale Boeing desired, and they were told that when they placed the order - Boeing decided to push ahead for the 7/8/07 date regardless, and then acted all surprised when the supplier turned around and said "no".
Reworking that initial aircraft, and the subsequent four aircraft cost Boeing dearly, but it was never due to a fastener shortage, just a timescale cockup entirely if Boeings own concoction.
Right, as if the A380s structural integrity isn't dependent on the floor beams, or the pressure bulkheads or anything like that. And the entire tail of the aircraft is just "a chunk of fuselage" and not important at all.
And having followed the 787 very closely during the past 5 years, none of the delays have been down to the use of composites itself - they've all had other causes.
The problem is cost - sure, airplanes can go a lot faster than the current airliners can, but can they do it economically enough?
Boeing offered the Sonic Cruiser before the 787, with the idea that the aircraft could cruise at about Mach 0.98. Airlines didn't want it, they didn't want an aircraft that would get there 20 minutes faster, they wanted an aircraft that would get there several tens of thousands more cheaply. So Boeing went back to the drawing board and came up with the 787.
What? Your comment is ludicrous - the 787 hasn't logged the most fight time at all.
The 787 was certified with 1,779 hours using 8 test aircraft (just the Rolls Royce engine certified thus far, expect another two hundred hours or so for the GE engine to be certified).
But I agree with your comment about them delaying and delivering a safe and competitive aircraft - thats what they did several times over the past three years.
I don't see the -9 stretch being offered at the same OEW (operational empty weight) as the -8, no way at all, so if you didn't mean that can you clarify which weight you meant (MTOW - nope, MFEW - again nope...)?
Yes, the 787s wings bend a heck of a lot more than contemporary aircraft, because they are largely composite structures with a lot of bending strength (non-composite wings have to have a lot of rigidity in them because bending too much weakens the structures).
Aircraft wings are bend tested to a minimum of 150% maximum expected bend (so they take it to the maximum amount of bend you will ever see in an aircraft, and go past that point by another 50% - trust me, if you ever get near the 100% mark, you are already going to be unconscious in the cabin...).
The 787 made it to the 150% mark, and well beyond.
You might want to see where Boeing are getting a lot of the 787 from, if you think its American...
Wings from Japan, fuselage pieces from Europe, major assemblies from China and Korea, design packages in Russia... hell, the large composite rear pressure bulkhead is made by EADS, the owner of Boeings largest competitor Airbus!
The cry to "fly American" (and it is actually one you hear a lot) really ignores the direction in which Boeing is going for a lot of its production...
Pick your aircraft well then, since there is a new version coming off the production lines practically every week (changes to materials, changes to structural members, enhancements to the FBW systems, enhancements to the aerodynamics packages etc etc etc. An aircraft launched in the 1980s is not built to the same designs today - there are a lot of differences...)
The main delay has been quite a few things - union issues (several strikes throughout the 787s development life), manufacturing issues (subs not being able to do work right, subs not being able to do work on time, subs getting work wrong), design issues (strength issues with side-of-body wing attachment points, cracking in several spars) and performance issues (engines not yet up to contractual specific fuel consumption rates - also affecting the 747-8 as that uses the same GeNX engines).
Boeings issue was that they wanted to not only produce a revolutionary aircraft, but they wanted to do it on a tight budget and completely change the way they both designed and built the aircraft. Not a good idea to switch all three critical parts of the journey on a brand new product...
So now, they paid the price - they had to write off the first three aircraft built (OEMs never want to do that, its a several hundred million dollar decision), the next 25 or so are overweight and have engines that don't meet fuel burn (but the aircraft itself has better-than-expected aerodynamics, offsetting some of the performnace issues), and while the engine manufacturers are putting together PIPs (performance improvement packages) for the engines, those early build aircraft won't get to see them for 5 or more years.
Depends how you look at it - the A380 has some of the largest composite structures ever used in the aviation industry, and tonne-to-tonne each A380 contains more composites than a 787.
Slashdot Mirror
No, infact I didn't miss it at all - but you seem to have missed mine.
If MySQL is GPLed, and can be forked, then why the interest in what Oracle does to the trunk?
Nice to see someone try to push the "Windows" angle...
In all truth, this doesn't affect anyone at all - MySQL is GPLed so, according to RMS, it should already be protected from Big Bad Oracle... Is Oracle really required to move MySQL forward? If not, then why the complaints - and if so, then does the fact that it is GPLed really mean anything at all?
In reality, Oracle has been bound by its merger with Sun to actually offer more assurances than Sun was ever required to offer - 4 years of support. What did Sun offer? Nothing.
Technically, MySQL should be in a better position after the Oracle merger...
So what if it wasn't due to design software issues, not really sure what you are pushing toward there.
The fastener issue was 100% Boeings cockup, as they were told by the fastener supplier that they could not produce quantities in the timescale Boeing desired, and they were told that when they placed the order - Boeing decided to push ahead for the 7/8/07 date regardless, and then acted all surprised when the supplier turned around and said "no".
Reworking that initial aircraft, and the subsequent four aircraft cost Boeing dearly, but it was never due to a fastener shortage, just a timescale cockup entirely if Boeings own concoction.
It will almost certainly have a better RASM and CASM, purely because of the increase in capacity.
Not as much of a world record as you might think, the A380 was less delayed thank the 787 :)
Right, as if the A380s structural integrity isn't dependent on the floor beams, or the pressure bulkheads or anything like that. And the entire tail of the aircraft is just "a chunk of fuselage" and not important at all.
And having followed the 787 very closely during the past 5 years, none of the delays have been down to the use of composites itself - they've all had other causes.
Gah, that was supposed to be 747-8I - the updated and enlarged Boeing 747 that was supposed to be delivered last week.
What do you call the Boeing 787-8I then? I think it would be difficult to not call it "bigger" than the 747-400....
The A380 really didn't introduce much new in technology, mainly built what we had bigger. The 787 is pretty radical.
I wonder if people who make comments like the above actually ever look into just what the A380 introduced... I think they would be surprised.
The problem is cost - sure, airplanes can go a lot faster than the current airliners can, but can they do it economically enough?
Boeing offered the Sonic Cruiser before the 787, with the idea that the aircraft could cruise at about Mach 0.98. Airlines didn't want it, they didn't want an aircraft that would get there 20 minutes faster, they wanted an aircraft that would get there several tens of thousands more cheaply. So Boeing went back to the drawing board and came up with the 787.
What? Your comment is ludicrous - the 787 hasn't logged the most fight time at all.
The 787 was certified with 1,779 hours using 8 test aircraft (just the Rolls Royce engine certified thus far, expect another two hundred hours or so for the GE engine to be certified).
The A380 was certified with over 2,600 hours using 5 test aircraft (both the EA and RR engines certified) - http://www.airbus.com/company/aircraft-manufacture/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification/
But I agree with your comment about them delaying and delivering a safe and competitive aircraft - thats what they did several times over the past three years.
The fuel efficiency doesn't offset the increase in costs of fuel and taxes tho...
Won't be long then before they've flown a few thousand times, Boeing passed the 1,000 flights mark earlier this year just in its test phase...
I don't see the -9 stretch being offered at the same OEW (operational empty weight) as the -8, no way at all, so if you didn't mean that can you clarify which weight you meant (MTOW - nope, MFEW - again nope...)?
No, the 787 wings never touched in the bend test.
Yes, the 787s wings bend a heck of a lot more than contemporary aircraft, because they are largely composite structures with a lot of bending strength (non-composite wings have to have a lot of rigidity in them because bending too much weakens the structures).
Aircraft wings are bend tested to a minimum of 150% maximum expected bend (so they take it to the maximum amount of bend you will ever see in an aircraft, and go past that point by another 50% - trust me, if you ever get near the 100% mark, you are already going to be unconscious in the cabin...).
The 787 made it to the 150% mark, and well beyond.
Because its not illegal to smoke onboard an aircraft in many countries, although the airline may still ban smoking themselves.
You might want to see where Boeing are getting a lot of the 787 from, if you think its American...
Wings from Japan, fuselage pieces from Europe, major assemblies from China and Korea, design packages in Russia... hell, the large composite rear pressure bulkhead is made by EADS, the owner of Boeings largest competitor Airbus!
The cry to "fly American" (and it is actually one you hear a lot) really ignores the direction in which Boeing is going for a lot of its production...
Pick your aircraft well then, since there is a new version coming off the production lines practically every week (changes to materials, changes to structural members, enhancements to the FBW systems, enhancements to the aerodynamics packages etc etc etc. An aircraft launched in the 1980s is not built to the same designs today - there are a lot of differences...)
The main delay has been quite a few things - union issues (several strikes throughout the 787s development life), manufacturing issues (subs not being able to do work right, subs not being able to do work on time, subs getting work wrong), design issues (strength issues with side-of-body wing attachment points, cracking in several spars) and performance issues (engines not yet up to contractual specific fuel consumption rates - also affecting the 747-8 as that uses the same GeNX engines).
Boeings issue was that they wanted to not only produce a revolutionary aircraft, but they wanted to do it on a tight budget and completely change the way they both designed and built the aircraft. Not a good idea to switch all three critical parts of the journey on a brand new product...
So now, they paid the price - they had to write off the first three aircraft built (OEMs never want to do that, its a several hundred million dollar decision), the next 25 or so are overweight and have engines that don't meet fuel burn (but the aircraft itself has better-than-expected aerodynamics, offsetting some of the performnace issues), and while the engine manufacturers are putting together PIPs (performance improvement packages) for the engines, those early build aircraft won't get to see them for 5 or more years.
Make that the launch customer, and another customer canceling three 747-8s because of weight and performance issues...
Not a great week or two in the 747-8s year :(
Depends how you look at it - the A380 has some of the largest composite structures ever used in the aviation industry, and tonne-to-tonne each A380 contains more composites than a 787.
Only if the option has been locked in the control panel by the end user, and most don't...
I don't need the admin password to add something I own to my own startup items list...
Do much being .... What, exactly? Access your browser to capture your passwords? Participate in a DDOS? Send spam email? Propagate itself?
Don't need admin to do any of that...