Tell me that you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines without telling me you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines
laughs in MCAS
You really expect everyone to understand the difference?
definitely not, but wouldn't it be nice if people who know nothing about a particular subject just keep quiet about it and learn?
It would be nicer if people knew about that particular subject wouldn't make fun of others .
Nah. We’re not being assholes. We’re irritated because you’re clearly done absolutely ZERO digging on the topic, and are just throwing out wildly inaccurate statements, and then expecting everyone to bring the info to you - not, I suspect, that you’ll actually read any of it.
Knowing that the information is in the article you are commenting on.... Yeah I do
You really expect everyone to read the article?
Yes.
Yes. They’re separate things, despite being related. It’s not complicated.
No, but the difference is in the linked article. The commenter in question would have likely been able to understand that the real issue was with GE, not Boeing if they’d read more than the headline.
With Boeing recent history I wouldn't be surprised if they chose the shittyest stuff to complement their airframe and electronic and avionics
Incorrect. The customer selects which engines to install.
That surprises me. Can an airframe really support multiple different engine designs?
Yes, really. For civil aircraft, the prevalent nacelle/pod design these days makes it fairly easy to re-engine a plane, and to adapt to new engine technologies as time progressed. This is extremely obvious if you compare images of a 737-100 and a 737-MAX9. This is common practice for both civil and military aircraft.
On a side note: Seriously, are you genuinely so lazy that you can’t throw a couple queries into your search engine of choice and find, like, all the sources that indicate that this is common practice? Or, like, go to a Wikipedia page about a couple civil aircraft and find the section that’s titled “engines”, read a couple paragraphs and see the images, and understand that yes, planes can support multiple engine types from different manufacturers? Maybe I’m overreacting, but this sort of “I’m going to force everyone else to bring facts to me to disprove my wildly inaccurate and baseless assumptions” bullshit is pretty fucking obnoxious.
It was a different user. But the number of people who clearly haven’t read the article or done ANY background research - even briefly - is a bit annoying on topics like this. If you want to participate intelligently in the conversation, do so. If you’re just going to pull things out of your head on topics you have zero knowledge on and zero willingness to increase that knowledge by, you know, looking for sources and reading… lurk moar.
Alright, next time I won’t try to learn anything and just “lurk,” then.
Tell me that you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines without telling me you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines
laughs in MCAS
You really expect everyone to understand the difference?
definitely not, but wouldn't it be nice if people who know nothing about a particular subject just keep quiet about it and learn?
It would be nicer if people knew about that particular subject wouldn't make fun of others .
Nah. We’re not being assholes. We’re irritated because you’re clearly done absolutely ZERO digging on the topic, and are just throwing out wildly inaccurate statements, and then expecting everyone to bring the info to you - not, I suspect, that you’ll actually read any of it.
Knowing that the information is in the article you are commenting on.... Yeah I do
You really expect everyone to read the article?
Yes.
Yes. They’re separate things, despite being related. It’s not complicated.
No, but the difference is in the linked article. The commenter in question would have likely been able to understand that the real issue was with GE, not Boeing if they’d read more than the headline.
With Boeing recent history I wouldn't be surprised if they chose the shittyest stuff to complement their airframe and electronic and avionics
Incorrect. The customer selects which engines to install.
That surprises me. Can an airframe really support multiple different engine designs?
Yes, really. For civil aircraft, the prevalent nacelle/pod design these days makes it fairly easy to re-engine a plane, and to adapt to new engine technologies as time progressed. This is extremely obvious if you compare images of a 737-100 and a 737-MAX9. This is common practice for both civil and military aircraft.
On a side note: Seriously, are you genuinely so lazy that you can’t throw a couple queries into your search engine of choice and find, like, all the sources that indicate that this is common practice? Or, like, go to a Wikipedia page about a couple civil aircraft and find the section that’s titled “engines”, read a couple paragraphs and see the images, and understand that yes, planes can support multiple engine types from different manufacturers? Maybe I’m overreacting, but this sort of “I’m going to force everyone else to bring facts to me to disprove my wildly inaccurate and baseless assumptions” bullshit is pretty fucking obnoxious.It was a different user. But the number of people who clearly haven’t read the article or done ANY background research - even briefly - is a bit annoying on topics like this. If you want to participate intelligently in the conversation, do so. If you’re just going to pull things out of your head on topics you have zero knowledge on and zero willingness to increase that knowledge by, you know, looking for sources and reading… lurk moar.
Alright, next time I won’t try to learn anything and just “lurk,” then.