Ping
Why does AF-1 have to be a heavy jet, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a small fast jet that can accommodate perhaps 2 dozen people and the rest can be spread out using hi tech coms?
Seems to mirror my thoughts on the AR/M4/M16 platform for our armed forces.
Great technology, cutting edge really. If Aliens invade, we are one step closer to whatever weaponry they might possess.
But in the WWI/WWII theaters the soldier lacked the supply chain that is necessary with the M4. Other fighting forces around the world also lack that supply chain, and because of this they go with more hearty weapon systems that are proven, reliable and sturdy.
There is no reason that we should keep using Pencils instead of Fisher Space pens, but we do always need to give a nod to the fact that you can take down a tree with the butt plate of an SKS while still storing your cleaning / cooking kit in the stock wrapped inside of a fabric map.
If a Boeing 747-8 costs $356.9 Million per
http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2014/06/03/why-a-boeing-747-8-costs-357-million/
Where does the extra 3Billion, 643 Million, 100 Thousand DOLLARS go?
My biggest question:::
At what point is a final decision made regarding the fancy electronics for AF-1? Like racing tires—they are obsolete before I can pick them up at the airport.
Today, as I type this, some tech advance is making something else obsolete.
The plane was already scheduled to take 8 years to build-—at what point do the final electronics & avionics get installed?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to use cheap parts.
There is a common mistake in using the terms CHEAPER and LESS EXPENSIVE. CHEAPER refers to QUALITY and LESS EXPENSIVE refers to COST.