Skip to comments.
Boeing wins $2bn contract to rewing A-10s
Flight Global ^
| 7/5/2007
| Graham Warwick
Posted on 07/05/2007 2:40:09 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
21
posted on
07/05/2007 3:12:40 PM PDT
by
traumer
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
More than anything the plane needs some more powerful engines. I had an A-10 driver tell me he could only make three passes then had to leave the fight to accelerate back up to wart speed. ;^)
22
posted on
07/05/2007 3:14:56 PM PDT
by
saganite
(Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The A-10 is a personal favorite of this civilian.
23
posted on
07/05/2007 3:16:43 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
To: SauronOfMordor
You can patent a wing design, but such patent would long since have expired. AFAIK, you can't copyright a wing design Sure you can, and you're protected even without filing it. It's just like boat designs, house designs, etc. Try making a car that looks just like a Corvette...
24
posted on
07/05/2007 3:17:19 PM PDT
by
BearCub
To: patton
Yeah, and here’s a great plane that the “greatest” military and civilian minds were getting ready to put in the scrap heap because they weren’t “sexy” enough or cost enough for our great planners. Somewhat like the old B-52. Something I can’t understand is here are a couple of planes that they can’t come up with something any better so why if they’ve already been invented, the R&D has been done and paid for can’t our airplane manufacturers simply build more of them.
25
posted on
07/05/2007 3:18:39 PM PDT
by
Plains Drifter
(If guns kill people, wouldn't there be a lot of dead people at gun shows?)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
More than 700 A-10s were introduced from 1976 and, despite regular threats of retirement, the type remains one of the air force’s most effective close-air support platforms.
I remember seeing A-10’s returning from runs in Laos when I was stationed in Thailand in ‘69.
26
posted on
07/05/2007 3:18:55 PM PDT
by
TangoLimaSierra
(When the rapture comes, can I have your stuff?)
To: patton
IMHO, the two best airplanes ever built are the DC-3, and the A-10.'Best' is always a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with you on your selections for 'best', although some might not.
But I'd be willing to bet no one would argue that the DC-3 and A-10 are the most robust aircraft of all time!
Especially not our Mayor's daughter:
27
posted on
07/05/2007 3:21:33 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: BearCub
You can't just go out and copy someone else's design of a plane, boat, wing, whatever.You can if you bought the design!
28
posted on
07/05/2007 3:22:47 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: null and void
When you say DC-3, you really mean the C47, don’t you?
My dad crew chiefed and flown one back in the Big One!
29
posted on
07/05/2007 3:23:55 PM PDT
by
Seeking the truth
(Freep Gear & Pajama Patrol Badges @ www.0cents.com)
To: Paladin2; patton
See? That took all of a dozen minutes, and half a dozen posts!
30
posted on
07/05/2007 3:24:18 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
We ought to build another 700. These are damned effective aircraft, and we’ll need all the firepower we can get in the future - China ain’t going away, but these planes are one way of keeping them on their side of the ocean.
I love that 30mm gatling gun - I have an empty shell casing that someone shipped to me about 2 years ago...a .50 BMG round fits inside with no trouble at all.
To: null and void
You can if you bought the design! You mean bought the rights to the actual design, not an instance of that design, right? If so, I agree.
That does raise an interesting point, though. My body shop can recreate elements of my car's design in order to repair it.
32
posted on
07/05/2007 3:26:10 PM PDT
by
BearCub
To: saganite
I had an A-10 driver tell me he could only make three passes then had to leave the fight to accelerate back up to wart speed. ;^)Lots of recoil form the gun...
33
posted on
07/05/2007 3:26:18 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: TangoLimaSierra
Don’t think so. You may be thinking of the A-7, the A-4 or most likely the A-1 Sandy.
34
posted on
07/05/2007 3:26:41 PM PDT
by
saganite
(Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
To: BearCub
The YA-10A first flew on 10 May 1972, so the copyrights were probably registered before this date.
The copyright would have endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for a second renewal term of an additional 28 years. If no application was filed for renewal, the work would enter the public domain after the initial 28 year term.
35
posted on
07/05/2007 3:28:31 PM PDT
by
Beckwith
(dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
To: Seeking the truth
The C-47 and the DC-3 are essentially the same aircraft, the main difference is bigger cargo doors on the C-47.
36
posted on
07/05/2007 3:29:15 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: dirtboy
Horsham traffic sucks, don’t it!
To: BearCub
It depends on the data rights of the drawings. Some drawings have unlimited data rights (meaning anybody the USAF authorizes can do the work), some of them are limited data rights, some are proprietary.
To: BearCub
You can't just go out and copy someone else's design of a plane, boat, wing, whatever.
If you're the government, you sure can.
At the beginning of WWII a number of the original aircraft manufacturers of planes like the B-17, F4F and TBF (Boeing and Grumman, for those examples) were extremely reticent to share their designs with Vega, Eastern Aircraft and other manufacturers. The government stepped in and told them to either do it on their own ... or the government was going to seize the designs and do it anyways.
At least part of the justification was that since the aircraft had been produced for the government under government contract, the government was the rightful owner of the designs.
(btw, this issue has been broached again recently with efforts to get the manufacturers of real warplanes to stop charging royalties on the companies that manufacture plastic models of the aircraft.)
The companies in question quickly worked the problem out amongst themselves.
To: BearCub
True. I’m not an IP lawyer, but I think the car, etc. designs are trademarked.
Unlike patents, trademarks never die. I think the standard the courts use in such cases is whether the copy would ‘create confusion in the mind of the consumer’.
Given that this is FR, I’m pretty sure someone who actually knows will be along to correct me soon. ;^)
40
posted on
07/05/2007 3:35:40 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson