I read about serious problems with the French Caravelle jet in the 60s in M. Danloux-Dumesnils, Etude critique du Systeme Metrique, Paris 1964. I read there that this plane was built in absolute conformity with ifp standards in order to be sellable abroad. It was a French, but 100% non-metric jet. At least it seems, Airbus tries to be as metric as possible. Danloux-Dumesnils, a mining and civil engineer, was a whistleblower who warned of the encroachment of ifp in France during the 50s and 60s. He even was a member of a task force of 10 highly placed people in engineering and technology dedicated to combat this threat. An English translation of his other book 'Bon Usage et Esprit du Systeme Metrique' is present in the library of the Imperial College, London. I read it there years ago. The 'Etude Critique' may be there as well, but in French.
Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian J White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2003-12-18 13:15 Subject: [USMA:27884] Re: Airbus and Boeing and metric > Boeing is ifp as a measure of legacy. They've done internal studies about > going to metric but we've all heard the answer before. It costs too much. > > The 777 was Boeing's first plane designed and tested completely on > computers which was a FAAAAAR stretch from the paper and index card systems > used before. Since this was a huge undertaking, I'm sure the issue of > metric came up but was squashed down as being inconsequential to the > success and building of the plane. > > Now..the 7E7 presents a point of change for Boeing...maybe they'll go > metric. I doubt it though. > > I have heard that Airbus WANTS to go metric, but as far as industry > commonality of parts cannot go 100% metric. For example, an aircraft is > nothing more than a metal tube to install systems. Many of those systems > are US sourced and as such are ifp. Engines also for example even though > they may be British or American, they both are ifp (or use ifp mounting > systems) in order to retain commonality in parts. > > Obviously, commonality of parts is a HUGE issue in aerospace. Anytime you > can use something already built or sourced from another company, it's to > your financial advantage...at least in the short term. > > So no....Boeing isn't metric, and Airbus isn't completely metric either. > > I doubt it's cost Boeing market share at all. The only thing that would > cost Boeing market share would be if it's planes weren't as efficient, if > they cost more, there was no creative financing (read Boeing Capital), > ...Airbus has been gaining on Boeing (and will surpass them soon if not > now) for these very reasons. For years Airbus was the interesting > alternative while Boeing was the benchmark and mainstream. But > now...Airbus is coming mainstream. > > I liken it to a couple comparisons. Germans in 1980s OWNED the US luxury > car market. Then came the Japanese and Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura. Now > the Japanese own the majority of the luxury car market here....they are the > forces to be reckoned with. Although the Germans aren't bankrupt by any > means, they surely do not de-facto own the market any more. > > Maybe another comparison would be Novell and Microsoft. Novell OWNED the > network operating system market in the 1980s. They basically laughed off > Microsoft when they entered the market. > > At 17:29 2003-12-17 +0000, you wrote: > >On this, the 100th anniversary of powered flight, a question arises. > > > >Disregarding how they're advertised, how are they built? > > > >I would assume Airbus builds to hard metric. > > > >I would also assume that Boeing builds to inchpound. Did that change with > >the 777, and will it change with the proposed 7E7? Or are those/will > >those still be inchpound? > > > >And, has Boeing's inchpound manufacture cost it market share for that > >reason, as well as not having any new products for some time? > > > >Just curious -- wonder if anyone knows. > > > >Carleton > >
