Apple doesn't buy large companies. And there's a good reason, Apple's management doesn't need to be worrying about restructuring and turning around a failing Flat-Panel display manufacturer. They've got enough to worry about just designing and selling their products.
But, Apple has been known to invest in companies in order to ramp up and modernize production. It's not too big a step to go from that to bailing out a company with loans. Though It would probably be smarter for them to give the money to a company that isn't on the verge of collapse to buy the facilities from Sharp. Less to worry about.
You can't solve financial problems by raising prices. You have charge prices similar to what others are charging or else you will just lose all your business. You have to look at what's driving your costs and figure out if you can reduce them enough to stay afloat, or if you need to be rethinking your business plan.
Here's what the Boeing website says about the flight attendant's control:
Even with the overall cabin lighting completely dimmed, passengers will be able to enjoy the view through a deeply tinted window-without disturbing others who may be sleeping or watching a movie.
This is a better solution than having attendants going from passenger to passenger asking them to close their windows. Everyone can get what they want this way.
Those cracks you're describing are metal fatigue. They occur during normal aircraft operations(high-cycle fatigue), as well as when a structure is stressed beyond what the material is able to tolerate (low cycle fatigue). As you've noted, carbon fiber composites aren't susceptible to it. This is a huge benefit! It means that any structural damage will be visible. It means that structural damage is less likely to occur and the overall structure won't become weaker over time. It doesn't mean that the whole plane will explode whenever a part of it is damaged. You still need to apply more stress to the plane's structure than it was designed to handle in order to break it. Don't imagine that aluminum is not susceptible to this kind of failure simply because it will undergo plastic deformation before it breaks. If you put too much stress on an aluminum wing, it will break all the same.
I've had plenty of flight attendants ask me to close my shade when it was only open a crack. With the shade, the light is always at full brightness, so they have to tell you to close them so that others can sleep. This way, they can dim the windows to a lower setting, but you'll still be able to see out of them. It'll also be a lot easer on your eyes, since you won't have to stare into the blinding light from a dark cabin. This gives both you and the flight attendant more control.
I'm not sure you've thought this through. The dimming windows give you move control over the light level, not less. It's not an on or off setting. As with anything, you should really try it before you decide it's terrible.
Why do you think it should cost less to develop a smaller jumbo jet? Especially one using unconditional materials, bleed-less engines and so on. The 787 is Boeing's new flagship aircraft. Boeing doesn't expect to make a lot of money on each one, but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand. This is also a first step toward making their whole line more advanced. So releasing this plane is a tactical move, it's not intended to make them a lot of money right away.
I don't think you appreciate just how bad aluminum's failure mode is. It's not like an airplane crashes and gets a few dents. It's usually torn apart into hundreds of pieces. There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, because structural failures are always catastrophic anyway. However, carbon fiber is less susceptible to fatigue, so it's less likely to fail in the first place. The point goes to carbon fiber. If we ever find a way to make these composites as cheaply as stamped metal, we'll probably make all our vehicles (and a lot of other things) from them.
United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.
I know you probably didn't read my original post, but I said that low speed would be a problem for a solar airliner. Apart from that, nothing you've said has made any sense at all. We have all the materials we'd need to make a solar airliner. All aircraft look flimsy, it doesn't mean they are so. Runways wouldn't need to be longer, because an aircraft designed to fly at low speeds does not need as long of a runway to accelerate. Solar impulse can fly at night (I can see you couldn't be bothered to read the website you linked either. ..) The only legitimate drawback is the low speed. Would it be better to use a high-speed train? Over land, sure, but not over the ocean.
In any case, the claim you originally made was that we didn't have the materials to build a solar airliner. That's not true, it's provably false.
A football field is 57,600 square feet at 350' x 160'. The spruce goose was made of a wood composite and had a wing area of 11,420 square feet with a wingspan of 320'. The Hindenburg was made of aluminum framing and canvas, it was 804 feet long and 135 feet wide, that's more than twice the length of a football field. Today, we have carbon fiber reinforced plastics available which have a better strength to weight ratio than wood composites or aluminum. Nevertheless, we've had materials strong enough and light enough to build wings this big for almost a century. The reason we don't is because its better to use smaller wings and move more quickly through the air.
The first flight happened at an airspeed of 34 miles per hour. Solar impulse generates enough lift to fly at only 22 miles per hour. The stall speed is something you select when you design your plane, it's not a limiting factor.
This is not true, you can make a solar aircraft that will fly. The problem is it will be slow, Solar Impulse, for example, only goes about 40 miles per hour.
The sun only puts out about 1.3 kW/m2. A jumbo jet uses more than 100 MW of power, so even at 100% efficiency you'd need something like 100,000 m2 of solar panels.
You could make a huge, low speed flying wing, but if you're going to do that you'd probably be better off with solar powered high-speed rail.
I know I really shouldn't complain about this, but my flippant little remark here isn't worthy of the highest moderation available on slashdot. I was simply expressing my frustration that this man hasn't been in charge of software up until this point. Apple's software may be on par with the best available software, but it's not up to their hardware standards. Not by a long shot. Which is especially confusing because it's a one time cost, while more expensive hardware adds to the cost of every unit sold.
Slashdot Mirror
We can only hope.
Apple doesn't buy large companies. And there's a good reason, Apple's management doesn't need to be worrying about restructuring and turning around a failing Flat-Panel display manufacturer. They've got enough to worry about just designing and selling their products.
But, Apple has been known to invest in companies in order to ramp up and modernize production. It's not too big a step to go from that to bailing out a company with loans. Though It would probably be smarter for them to give the money to a company that isn't on the verge of collapse to buy the facilities from Sharp. Less to worry about.
You can't solve financial problems by raising prices. You have charge prices similar to what others are charging or else you will just lose all your business. You have to look at what's driving your costs and figure out if you can reduce them enough to stay afloat, or if you need to be rethinking your business plan.
787s have been flying for two years already.
That's what I'm saying. If you could plug it in, it'd be easy to do. Obviously, you can't. . .
I would have expected them to pay MORE taxes than they had to.
Here's what the Boeing website says about the flight attendant's control:
This is a better solution than having attendants going from passenger to passenger asking them to close their windows. Everyone can get what they want this way.
Those cracks you're describing are metal fatigue. They occur during normal aircraft operations(high-cycle fatigue), as well as when a structure is stressed beyond what the material is able to tolerate (low cycle fatigue). As you've noted, carbon fiber composites aren't susceptible to it. This is a huge benefit! It means that any structural damage will be visible. It means that structural damage is less likely to occur and the overall structure won't become weaker over time. It doesn't mean that the whole plane will explode whenever a part of it is damaged. You still need to apply more stress to the plane's structure than it was designed to handle in order to break it. Don't imagine that aluminum is not susceptible to this kind of failure simply because it will undergo plastic deformation before it breaks. If you put too much stress on an aluminum wing, it will break all the same.
I've had plenty of flight attendants ask me to close my shade when it was only open a crack. With the shade, the light is always at full brightness, so they have to tell you to close them so that others can sleep. This way, they can dim the windows to a lower setting, but you'll still be able to see out of them. It'll also be a lot easer on your eyes, since you won't have to stare into the blinding light from a dark cabin. This gives both you and the flight attendant more control.
It's called "first class."
I'm not sure you've thought this through. The dimming windows give you move control over the light level, not less. It's not an on or off setting. As with anything, you should really try it before you decide it's terrible.
The new plane is quieter, and the cabin appears more open because of the larger windows.
Why do you think it should cost less to develop a smaller jumbo jet? Especially one using unconditional materials, bleed-less engines and so on. The 787 is Boeing's new flagship aircraft. Boeing doesn't expect to make a lot of money on each one, but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand. This is also a first step toward making their whole line more advanced. So releasing this plane is a tactical move, it's not intended to make them a lot of money right away.
I don't think you appreciate just how bad aluminum's failure mode is. It's not like an airplane crashes and gets a few dents. It's usually torn apart into hundreds of pieces. There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, because structural failures are always catastrophic anyway. However, carbon fiber is less susceptible to fatigue, so it's less likely to fail in the first place. The point goes to carbon fiber. If we ever find a way to make these composites as cheaply as stamped metal, we'll probably make all our vehicles (and a lot of other things) from them.
United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.
A turbine driven by an electric motor.
That would be trivial, if you could find a way to plug it in.
I've never had any calibration issues with my iPad. This kind of thing is a hallmark of older touch-screens, modern devices don't have this problem.
I know you probably didn't read my original post, but I said that low speed would be a problem for a solar airliner. Apart from that, nothing you've said has made any sense at all. We have all the materials we'd need to make a solar airliner. All aircraft look flimsy, it doesn't mean they are so. Runways wouldn't need to be longer, because an aircraft designed to fly at low speeds does not need as long of a runway to accelerate. Solar impulse can fly at night (I can see you couldn't be bothered to read the website you linked either. . .) The only legitimate drawback is the low speed. Would it be better to use a high-speed train? Over land, sure, but not over the ocean.
In any case, the claim you originally made was that we didn't have the materials to build a solar airliner. That's not true, it's provably false.
A football field is 57,600 square feet at 350' x 160'. The spruce goose was made of a wood composite and had a wing area of 11,420 square feet with a wingspan of 320'. The Hindenburg was made of aluminum framing and canvas, it was 804 feet long and 135 feet wide, that's more than twice the length of a football field. Today, we have carbon fiber reinforced plastics available which have a better strength to weight ratio than wood composites or aluminum. Nevertheless, we've had materials strong enough and light enough to build wings this big for almost a century. The reason we don't is because its better to use smaller wings and move more quickly through the air.
The first flight happened at an airspeed of 34 miles per hour. Solar impulse generates enough lift to fly at only 22 miles per hour. The stall speed is something you select when you design your plane, it's not a limiting factor.
There is no question you could build a solar powered airliner. But due to the low power density of sunlight, it'd have to be pretty slow.
This is not true, you can make a solar aircraft that will fly. The problem is it will be slow, Solar Impulse, for example, only goes about 40 miles per hour.
You can make a plane that'd fly at 30 miles per hour, but why would you? The whole point of air travel is it's fast.
The sun only puts out about 1.3 kW/m2. A jumbo jet uses more than 100 MW of power, so even at 100% efficiency you'd need something like 100,000 m2 of solar panels.
You could make a huge, low speed flying wing, but if you're going to do that you'd probably be better off with solar powered high-speed rail.
I know I really shouldn't complain about this, but my flippant little remark here isn't worthy of the highest moderation available on slashdot. I was simply expressing my frustration that this man hasn't been in charge of software up until this point. Apple's software may be on par with the best available software, but it's not up to their hardware standards. Not by a long shot. Which is especially confusing because it's a one time cost, while more expensive hardware adds to the cost of every unit sold.