Boeing to delay first delivery of 787

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:42:02 -0500, "TMOliver"
wrote:


I was greatly surprised when I looked. I had heard that the IL-2 topped
the
list, and the various J model Cubs weren't shown, but I didn't realize how
many 109s were produced....

Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik
Strike / Close-Support Aircraft - 36,000
2
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Fighter / Bomber - 35,500
3
Supermarine Spitfire
Fighter - 20,000

Then apparently the "J" Cubs - 19,000

....and from another Wiki page including civil a/c, the really big lines
(and evidence that the Cubs, numerous as they were, fall well behind "most
successful", a category in which Cessna strikes hard.....

Cessna 172 43,000+[1] United States Still in production. Also made
under licence in France 1956-present
Polikarpov Po-2 40,000+ Soviet Union Most produced biplane 1929-1959
Ilyushin Il-2 36,183 Soviet Union Most produced combat aircraft in
history 1941-1945
Messerschmitt Bf 109 35,000 Nazi Germany Most produced fighter. Also
made under license in Spain 1937-1945
Cessna 182 25,000+ United States Still in production. Also made under
licence in France 1956-present
Cessna 150 23,954 United States Also made under licence in France
1959-1977
Supermarine Spitfire 22,351 United Kingdom 1936-1948
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 20,000+ Nazi Germany 1939-1945
Piper J-3 19,073 United States


The last numbers are especially impressive, and there are a lot of 172s
about....


Good research. I forgot about the warplanes and I should have looked
at the 150 and 172 since I have flown both.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:59:36 -0500, "TMOliver"
wrote:



Sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cub

There were somewhere around 19,000 built versus around 13,000 for the
DC3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3


I didn't even think to check your cite on the DC-3 production, Wiki's -
13,000

You forgot a bunch, also carried in Wiki, the more than 10,000 produced as
C-47, R4Ds and other associated Marks of Skytrains, Dakotas, etc.

Adding up to 23,000 and change, not counting the Ilyushin copy made in the
USSR anda handful of Japanese imitations.

Considering how many CO-47s/R4Ds ended up in civilian service, it would be
hard not to qualify the DC-3 as the most successful commercial a/c ever
produced, allowing that so many Cessnas and Pipers were sold for "private,
non commercial use.

Yup that's probably right.

On Oct 17, 5:13 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
"me" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Oct 17, 12:13 pm, "William Black"
Without massive airport building in the Far East they're going to need
one.

Well, "they" (the far east) will need "some".

If the US government (or someone else) can be convinced their interests
lie
in building lots of airports in India and China then Boeing will
obviously
triumph.

Or, if the same economic forces take shape in the east as they have
in the west, those countries may decide to build those airports
themselves.
(remember, there's plenty of "make work" kind of aspects to
infrastructure
development).

But, in the free countries the economic development is a sight faster than
infrstructure development.

In China you can force infrastructure development. Nobody cares if someone
pushes a bulldozer through a house. Soldiers just shoot anyomne who
objects. Try it in India and you get a bulldozer shaped bonfire.

Right up until you have a middle class that wants the economic
development that goes with the building of airports, roads,
bridges.....

In the west they used to go on runs with pitch forks. Don't make
the historical mistake of presuming that the future is static.
Cultures
actually adapt to their own economic development.

Selling loads of development aid in China to Congress may be beyond the
ability of the US government as well.

China will be more than capable of finanicing those projects
themselves.

But will they want to?


Yes.

"me" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 17, 5:13 pm, "William Black"
wrote:

In China you can force infrastructure development. Nobody cares if
someone
pushes a bulldozer through a house. Soldiers just shoot anyomne who
objects. Try it in India and you get a bulldozer shaped bonfire.

Right up until you have a middle class that wants the economic
development that goes with the building of airports, roads,
bridges.....

Nope.

They've got that now.

The major problem with infrastructure development in India is land
encroachment by the poor.

The poor move to the cities, build a shack on someone else's land and live
there.

The land is unsalable for development until the slums are removed.

So the land owners go to court, where the poor slum dwellers say 'We're
very poor, we're being prosecuted because we're poor, this is
unconstitutional, India being defined in the constitution as a Socialist
state, plus, we get to vote too, and we elect people who'll defend our
interests...

And the poor people win...

Right up to the supreme court, which can take 20 years.

Or the land owners can go to the local mafia, who'll get the squatters off
their land, for 50% of the value of the land...

This is not a minor problem.

Four million people live in Daravi in makeshift huts.

Bombay airport expantion is planned for an area called Kalina, guess what's
built on the area earmarked for expantion...

Daravi and Kalina are long established now. The people there are all hard
working people who just happen not to pay any rent, but who do play
politics...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Oct 18, 8:56 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"me" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 17, 5:13 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
In China you can force infrastructure development. Nobody cares if
someone
pushes a bulldozer through a house. Soldiers just shoot anyomne who
objects. Try it in India and you get a bulldozer shaped bonfire.

Right up until you have a middle class that wants the economic
development that goes with the building of airports, roads,
bridges.....

Nope.

They've got that now.

The major problem with infrastructure development in India is land
encroachment by the poor.

The poor move to the cities, build a shack on someone else's land and live
there.

The land is unsalable for development until the slums are removed.

So the land owners go to court, where the poor slum dwellers say 'We're
very poor, we're being prosecuted because we're poor, this is
unconstitutional, India being defined in the constitution as a Socialist
state, plus, we get to vote too, and we elect people who'll defend our
interests...

And the poor people win...

Right up to the supreme court, which can take 20 years.

Or the land owners can go to the local mafia, who'll get the squatters off
their land, for 50% of the value of the land...

This is not a minor problem.

Four million people live in Daravi in makeshift huts.

Bombay airport expantion is planned for an area called Kalina, guess what's
built on the area earmarked for expantion...

Daravi and Kalina are long established now. The people there are all hard
working people who just happen not to pay any rent, but who do play
politics...


You realize, other than scale, this isn't exactly a new phenomenon
in world history. San Fran, London, Chicago, and Tokyo to some
extent all have experienced "urban renewal" through natural
disasters. They can often be the political basis for wholesale
shifts in governments and cultures. The economic forces at work
on India are not new.

"me" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 18, 8:56 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"me" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 17, 5:13 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
In China you can force infrastructure development. Nobody cares if
someone
pushes a bulldozer through a house. Soldiers just shoot anyomne who
objects. Try it in India and you get a bulldozer shaped bonfire.

Right up until you have a middle class that wants the economic
development that goes with the building of airports, roads,
bridges.....

Nope.

They've got that now.

The major problem with infrastructure development in India is land
encroachment by the poor.

The poor move to the cities, build a shack on someone else's land and
live
there.

The land is unsalable for development until the slums are removed.

So the land owners go to court, where the poor slum dwellers say 'We're
very poor, we're being prosecuted because we're poor, this is
unconstitutional, India being defined in the constitution as a Socialist
state, plus, we get to vote too, and we elect people who'll defend our
interests...

And the poor people win...

Right up to the supreme court, which can take 20 years.

Or the land owners can go to the local mafia, who'll get the squatters
off
their land, for 50% of the value of the land...

This is not a minor problem.

Four million people live in Daravi in makeshift huts.

Bombay airport expantion is planned for an area called Kalina, guess
what's
built on the area earmarked for expantion...

Daravi and Kalina are long established now. The people there are all
hard
working people who just happen not to pay any rent, but who do play
politics...


You realize, other than scale, this isn't exactly a new phenomenon
in world history. San Fran, London, Chicago, and Tokyo to some
extent all have experienced "urban renewal" through natural
disasters. They can often be the political basis for wholesale
shifts in governments and cultures. The economic forces at work
on India are not new.


I'm fully aware of that.

I'm also fully aware that the squatters are fully aware of their rights and
equipped with enough votes and money (four million people can employ as lot
of lawyers and politicians for very little money) to make the process of
getting them off the land they're on, a process that started last year,
last twenty years or so, which brings us back to the A380 and its useful
operational lifespan.

I'd love to see it happen sooner, my dear wife owns some of the property
concerned, but it's going to take a couple of decades...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
[snip]
a process that started last year,
last twenty years or so, which brings us back to the A380 and its useful
operational lifespan.

And to the original point that Airbus may spend the better
part of 2 decades investing in and building the "last big plane"
because
the world market continues to move in the direction of smaller
(which is hardly the same as small) aircraft going to more airports.

I'd love to see it happen sooner, my dear wife owns some of the property
concerned, but it's going to take a couple of decades...

But if history is any guide, and Boeing is right, it will happen.

"me" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
[snip]
a process that started last year,
last twenty years or so, which brings us back to the A380 and its useful
operational lifespan.

And to the original point that Airbus may spend the better
part of 2 decades investing in and building the "last big plane"
because
the world market continues to move in the direction of smaller
(which is hardly the same as small) aircraft going to more airports.

Almost certainly, the old Soviet Empire has plenty of runways and just
needs some decent airport buildings.

After the development of the Far East they just won't need them any more.

But I think they will need the A380, if only to keep seat prices down...

I'd love to see it happen sooner, my dear wife owns some of the property
concerned, but it's going to take a couple of decades...

But if history is any guide, and Boeing is right, it will happen.


In the long term, yes.

In the long term, we're all dead...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 18 Oct, 21:49, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:56:00 +0100,
"William Black" has scripted:



"me" wrote in message
ups.com...
But if history is any guide, and Boeing is right, it will happen.

In the long term, yes.

In the long term, we're all dead...

And our bodies will help fertilize life, hope... and probably a few
worms.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

something to do in the meantime....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...scidive117.xml

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:56:00 +0100,
"William Black" has scripted:


"me" wrote in message
ups.com...

But if history is any guide, and Boeing is right, it will happen.


In the long term, yes.

In the long term, we're all dead...

And our bodies will help fertilize life, hope... and probably a few
worms.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--