Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This sounds like British propaganda to me. When you have multiple engine choices for an aircraft from multiple manufacturers they all build the engines to the same specification so the power levels are identical. The UK engines are no more powerful than the US engines in the same vehicles.


Dutch, British & US private contractors, some ex military working as aircraft fitters on USUK & European military aircraft, informed me. Alot is farmed out to private businesses and everyone likes a drink whilst swapping stories.

I know some of the things these aircraft fitters have to put up with when "upgrades" come through for things that break, the CAD designers are a world apart from reality on the ground and hasn't that always been the case?

However health and safety alongside better record making & taking is constantly improving things... slowly.

Its not British propaganda. I could go into how easily fabricated mill certificates are to keep engineering firms happy whilst maximising profits for metal stockholders. Its hard to trace engineered metals.

The weakness with goods and services is the end user is usually not in a position to test independently due to lack of finance and/or knowledge, so trust is still inherently exploitable.


It depends. The UK Apache is license built by AgustaWestland instead of Boeing and does indeed have a more powerful engine.

It was the same for the UK's F-4s, which had a Rolls Royce Spey that put out significantly more thrust than the GE J79s in US F-4s.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: