3 ms·
I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be? After all, people can sabotage airfields and airplanes as wel
by woodruffw 3y ago
I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be? After all, people can sabotage airfields and airplanes as well.
- krisoft 3y ago> I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be No. Not really. Russia has the means to produce brakes for their trains. They do not have the means to do the same for these airplanes. So the reality on the ground is that the trains have brakes while the airplanes don't (or they have breaks but with rapidly aging out of compliance parts.)
- woodruffw 3y ago> No. Not really. Russia has the means to produce brakes for their trains. They do not have the means to do the same for these airplanes. I meant in terms of riders' perceptions of safety, not industrial capacity. That being said, it astounds me that Russia can't fabricate replacement breaks here: we're talking about a country with some of the best metallurgists in the world and a domestic aerospace industry; what gives?
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoNo one ever said that they can't. But going from zero to being able to buy replacement Boeing (or whoever the OEM was) brakes off the shelf is a process of many months (in the optimistic case) or years, not weeks. After all, even the simplest analysis for an aviation supplier has to be "can we make enough money selling these replacement brakes to cover the cost of setting up a manufacturing, quality control, and distribution system?"
- woodruffw 3y agoThis would have made sense 12 months or even 9 months ago, but we're now 18 months into a war that Russia's government had otherwise been preparing domestically for. Again: what gives?
- dragonwriter 3y agoThey hadn't been preparing for it to last 18 months, and part of their preparation had been oriented at influence operations to preemptivelt disrupt Western unity and political response when the war qas launched. While I won't say that categorically failed (it still has tangible effects), it has been far from a complete success.
- jamiek88 3y agoIt’s an incompetent oligarchy where competence is dangerous and gets you sidelined. Rotten from the top down.
- foverzar 3y agoAnd here come 2 minutes hate people
- kspacewalk2 3y agoWhere's the hate?
- foverzar 3y agoAre you serious? It's an obvious slander bs. Btw, it's a reference to Orwell.
- kspacewalk2 3y agoYes, obviously it's a reference to Orwell. However, I see no hate. Criticism of fascist invasions and their perpetrators is not hate.
- foverzar 3y agoFirstly, if you understood that this is a reference, why are you trying to interpret separate words literally? And secondly, there was no constructive criticism or even any mention of "fascism" or "invasion". Following your own logic, I could - just for the sake of example, mind you - claim that you come from hellish slave-hole where people eat babies and then justify it with actually literally the same slogan as you did. Would that be as fucking stupid? Yes, it would. Now, should I expect you to accuse me of whataboutism for trying to build a consistent logical framework?
- dragonwriter 3y agoAlso, Russian manufacturing may have other urgent priorities right now. Wars (fought outside of the homeland) may be good for employment and industrialization broadly, but they often are the opposite for application of industry to civilian ends.
- krisoft 3y ago> I meant in terms of riders' perceptions of safety But that is what I am saying. The apples-to-apples comparision is “airplane with questionable/no brakes” vs “train with brakes”. There the “apple” is “as the thing is right now when you want to travel”. The proposed comparision with “train with no break” is not apples-to-apples because there are no breakless trains servicing the route. It is not a hypothetical comparision with some hypothetical train service and hypothetical planes. It is the comparision between the realworld situation on trains and airplanes right now. The discussion about industrial capacity just illustrates how this difference have happened.
- tguvot 3y agowhere from you got idea about "best metallurgists" ? and domestic aerospace industry is a boutique shop (especially when we are talking about civilian planes) that mostly relies on foreign components. their production goals are like 10 planes a year
- tguvot 3y agomaybe they can make train brakes, but they can't make bearings.
- evader01101 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wmil 3y agoTrains are more vulnerable because they will always have long unguarded sections of track. A train without breaks isn't really comparable because the planes can break using thrusters. I don't believe that you can engine break on a train to a comparable degree.
- woodruffw 3y ago> A train without breaks isn't really comparable because the planes can break using thrusters. I'm pretty sure a plane at V1 can't break using thrusters.
- striking 3y agoI believe this to be true (the article definitely states "Brakes are also necessary for aborting takeoffs", and V1 is the speed at which takeoff ~~occurs~~ edit: must be committed to), but this is only one instant of the journey. At other times it is certainly feasible to brake (landings included) with just the use of the thrust reversers.
- woodruffw 3y ago> At other times it is certainly feasible to brake (landings included) with just the use of the thrust reversers. This could be true; it's also not particularly reassuring as a passenger :-) (Not doubting you specifically, but it'd be nice to have one of the many pilots on HN opine here. My understanding as a passenger is that commercial airliners use breaks because the margins are very narrow, especially in the presence of a tailwind or busy runway designed with breaks in mind.)