Interesting and Humour - page 3304
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Let's not equate the Mria with the 320. Okay? The 320 isa narrow fuselage aircraft.
Only two countries in the worldwere able to buildwide-bodyaircraft: the USA and the USSR, and the Mriya was built only in the USSR. Then with great difficulty the united Europe. And let us not forget that all civil aviation of the USSR was destroyed in the process.
Now the builders club will consist of 4 countries: US, EU and potentially RF and China. This is what Ukraine has done.
Still don't understand what exactly "Ukraine has done".
As far as I know, RF cannot afford to build wide-body aircraft and that is why it was decided in 2015 to create a joint Russian-Chinese wide-body aircraft project, which involved transferring technology to China.
Now the Chinese will bet on the Ukrainian-Chinese project. If this is what Ukraine "did", then yes it did.
Regarding "with great difficulty Europe" - Airbas has been making them VERY successfully since 1974. The largest production airliner in the world - "with great difficulty" ....
Mysterious logic - quantity dependence. And a secondary enigmatic logic - why would China need an aircraft capable of ONLY launching missiles into orbit, unlike the Mriya?
OK, let's play with it - does selling a license to produce a unique Be-103 amphibian aircraft by Sukhoi to China count or not?
What do you mean, why would the Celestial Empire want to go into space? They have their own cosmonauts, or as they call them, Taikunauts.
As good as Be's planes are, they are not as remarkable as the Mriya. And Russia has more modern models of the Be brand.
If Ukraine built an aircraft superior to the Mriya, and sold the rights to the one designed 30 years ago, there would be no questions.
What do you mean, why would the Celestial Empire want to go into space? They already have their own astronauts, or as they call them, Taikunauts.
The Be aircraft, though wonderful, are not as outstanding as the Mriya. And Russia has more modern models of the Be brand.
If Ukraine builds a superior aircraft to the Mriya, and sells the rights to the plane designed 30 years ago, there would be no questions asked.
Well, if anyone has any questions, it is their problem.
But the logic is still not clear - what is the point of sitting and keeping secrets that are more than 30 years old? Wait for them to become obsolete?
And who needs an aircraft superior to the Mriya - the large-capacity market is in short supply? For 30 years, the entire global market was satisfied with just one plane.
Regarding "with great difficulty Europe" - Airbus has been making them VERY successfully since 1974. The biggest production airliner in the world - "with great difficulty" ....
Holy shit. When are you going to stop twisting, and always to one side?
TheAirbus 320 - the first production run of 16 was produced in 1988
Oh, for fuck's sake. When are you going to stop twisting, and always to one side?
TheAirbus 320 - first production run of 16 was in 1988.
))) Geez, when are you going to stop talking on this forum and start reading books?
Remember, son, and tell your children - AIRBAS launched its first wide-body aircraft back in 1972!
And it was the A-300 - the FIRST twin-engine widebody aircraft in the world!
"Overreaching" as you understand it, is when you once again write nonsense about issues you know nothing about, and you get caught and thumbed your nose at it again.
And another question - does Airbus, which sold the A320 production licence to China, count or not?
Comparing the unique Mriya to the mass-produced Boeings and Airbuses is just blasphemous...
))))))))) Well, if regnum has become a "foreign media" then I have no more questions!
I won't even scoff at the fact that there is no reference to the mythical "document" in the article, but only the words of some mysterious "head of the committee of economists of Ukraine"....
Well, if anyone has any questions, that's their problem.
But the logic is still not clear - what is the point of sitting around keeping secrets that are MORE than 30 years old? Wait for them to become obsolete?
And who needs an aircraft superior to the Mriya - the large-capacity airline market is in short supply? For 30 years, the entire global market has been content with just one plane
Well, since no one has been able to create such an aircraft so far, the secrets of manufacturing technology are still relevant. So are the rocket engines. The US has to buy them from its geopolitical rival.
They need such planes. The states, for example, do not need to hire rocket components, including military ones, to ferry them to the spaceport.
And it is not so much the military that needs the aircraft. When designing any kind of machines, structures, they cannot exceed the railway dimensions and carrying capacity, which are quite limited. That's why they make the structures collapsible. And they are assembled on site, which is more expensive and you cannot achieve factory quality.
Everything is interconnected here. As big planes will be built, we will design the cargo for them as well. The world has not given up on gigantomania. In maritime transport, the trend is to build giant container ships.
If the states need them, why haven't the states ever hired the Mriya to transport them?
And how were the "giant container ships" built before without the Mriya?
What a set of unconnected hypotheses....
The simplest example about dimensional fit in the space industry:
On the sides of the Kennedy spacecraft are 2 engines 5ft
wide. The designers of the spacecraft wanted to make these engines even wider, but
couldn't. WHY?
The fact is that various parts of the ship had to be transported by rail
to the assembly site. This railway line runs through a rather
narrow tunnel in the mountain. The distance between the rails is standard: 4 feet 8.5
inches. So the designers could only make the engines 5 feet wide,
otherwise it would be impossible to drive them down this road.
The question arises: why is the standard rail spacing: 4 feet 8.5
inches? Where did that figure come from?
It turns out that the railway in the States, as in England, was designed on the
principle of tram tracks, and the standard rail spacing
tramway.... guess what!!! That's right, 4ft 8.5in. BUT WHY?????
Because the first trams in England were made in the same factory as
that made conkers. And the length of the Conca axle was 4 feet 8.5 inches!!!!!
Why is the length of the Conca axle 4 feet 8.5 inches???????
Because the Conca was made so that their wheels fall into the tracks
on English roads (so the wheels wear less).
And the distance between tracks throughout England FOUR FOUR FOUR EIGHT and a half inches
!!!!!!!
Why did this happen? Because the first roads in Britain
were paved by the Romans, or rather their battle chariots. And the axle length
of a standard Roman chariot equals..... absolutely right, 4ft 8.5
inches!
Well here we get to the bottom of where that dimension came from! One thing is not clear:
this length (4 feet 8.5 inches) is not
a whole number in any known system of measures! Why did the Romans want to make the axes of their chariots
this length?
And here's why: in such a chariot is usually harnessed to two horses. And 4 feet 8.5
inches - that was the size of two horses' backsides! Making the chariot's axle
longer would be inconvenient, as it would upset the balance.
Hence, here is the answer to the very first question: even now that
man has entered space, his highest technical achievements directly
depend on the size of a horse's ass two thousand years ago!!!!
))))