4 ms·
> Between 1939 and 1944, the value of aircraft produced annually in the U.S. increased by a factor of 70, and the total weight of aircraft produced (a common me
by bogtog 2y ago
> Between 1939 and 1944, the value of aircraft produced annually in the U.S. increased by a factor of 70, and the total weight of aircraft produced (a common measure of aircraft industry output) increased by a factor of 64
Something about evaluating production quantity by weight always puts a smile on my face
- marcosdumay 2y agoJust like lines of code, it's a very useful metric. ... As long as you don't do something stupid with it, like using it to evaluate people.
- vkou 2y agoSomeone who successfully ran an organization that successfully delivered 70 4,000-tonne ships is probably more qualified to be put in charge of building an aircraft carrier, than someone who delivered 70 4,000-lb boats. When it comes to material goods that dramatically vary in size (ships, planes, bombs), tonnage is usually a good first metric.
- NegativeLatency 2y ago4000 70lb boats?
- cowgoesmoo 2y agoIt's hard to abuse for aircraft - you can't just strap a bunch of lead to a plane because then it won't fly.
- dylan604 2y agoWas that a requirement in the contract? Mine says just need to produce a certain number of planes. There's nothing in there that says the plane must be able to fly. If that's what you wanted, you should have stipulated that during negotiations. Remember, you picked fast and cheap.
- atlasunshrugged 2y agoI guess that's the upside of wartime and having many of the people in charge of these projects truly bought in -- they're likely trying to deliver the best they can, not maximize profits.
- dylan604 2y agoYeah, I'm so pessimistic about today's attitudes, I truly think we would NOT be able to replicate that effort today. Boeing can't make doors stay on their airplane, or a rocket capsule that can have working valves. We're at a point where a total sea change in attitudes would have to occur, so maybe an all out war effort might do that? I truly hope we never need to find out
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoIn this specific case it's a cultural thing at Boeing not the culture at large. I worked at an aerospace company and we had an unwritten rule that made sure we kept the percentage of ex-Boeing employees below a pretty low threshold to ensure Boeing culture didn't work it's way in. On top of a poor personnel culture, Boeing cares more about splitting it's supply chain up around the world (in order to get contracts from different countries) than making airplanes. The scary part of a bad culture is you could fake it with past airplanes, but newer aircraft with lighter composite parts/less parts (which then make each part's integrity more important) there's less wiggle room. Plus with composite, you can't just do a final QA on things and ensure they are good. You have to QA each layer layup, glues, etc. An xray at the end can't really give you the whole picture. I remember friends talking about how a certain (not Boeing) company was experimenting moving composite layup to China and what a cluster that was going to be. They would find razor blades embedded inside and all kinds of FOB crap on the final xrays, and this was on the pre-production showcase pieces.
- lazide 2y agoUh, war profiteers were a thing. The general vibe was if you made a shitty product and it got your fellow countrymen killed, someone would track you down and make you pay for it though.
- alanbernstein 2y agoIt seems reasonable if you're thinking about the amount of material that must be sourced, transported, processed, etc. also serves as a check that the newly produced planes weren't simply 70x smaller than before.
- lazide 2y agoAircraft are also designed to reduce weight as much as possible. Imagine measuring computer hardware output by weight.
- stale2002 2y agoThat is an incorrect comparison. The key and important factor of computer hardware has little to do with weight. Whereas, weight is an important factor for aircrafts. A plane produced today will have similar capabilities as a plane produced 30 years ago of the same weight. That is absolutely not the case for computer hardware.
- lazide 2y agoHardly, forged titanium bulkheads, dramatically improved engines, and composites. And before that, aluminum fuselages, improved aerodynamics, etc. Hell, compare the F111 vs the F22 on every available metric. Just like flops/gram has dramatically improved over time for computers.
- SR2Z 2y agoI mean, aircraft usability scales with weight in a way that computers do the opposite of.
- navane 2y agoAs long as the metric is not used as a target, it keeps being a relevant metric. All that tonnage needed to be manufactured.
- thedrbrian 2y agoBen Rich talks about how much flight computers cost per pound in his memoirs. Can’t find the quote though as I’m out and iBooks says all my books are broken.
- more_corn 2y agoThe ussr tried to do this. You can still find lamps made of lead manufactured in that era.