Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "A new global rivalry? Airbus, Boeing, Comac and the future of aviation" video.

@D R Germany has Typhoons, Tornados, Airbus military transports, tankers and helicopters, all of which are partly German-designed and built. FYI, only two European countries are nuclear powers, France and the UK, of which only the former has an independent nuclear strike capability. Speaking of which, the Luftwaffe also has a nuclear strike capability -- they just ordered F/A-18 Super Hornets to be able to drop US nuclear ordnance. Tell me, is the UK occupied, too, in your book? How about Italy, Belgium, Poland and Norway, just to name a few other candidates? You've established yourself as even a bigger clown than I thought at first.
4
@D R Germany is one of the driving forces behind Airbus, you clown.
3
@alexlo7708 You present a very imaginative explanation for the Aeroflot 1492 crash. The Russian aviation safety authorities aren't blaming the avionics, European or otherwise. There are criminal proceedings against the pilot, suggesting pilot error. It would appear you're shifting blame, and very sloppily at that.
2
@alexlo7708 It seems the media jumped the gun. Russia is better known for great fiction than journalistic integrity. I've both experienced lightning strikes as a passenger and I've dealt with the aftermath. One instance in particular comes to mind. A DC-10 has struck in the nose cone, with a hole the size of a fist as a result. The radar came in for repairs. The static dischargers in the wings had melted to mere nubs, suggesting that it was a massive jolt. It's a miracle if the avionics aren't at least temporarily affected, but lightning rarely if ever causes a plane to crash.
2
If they violate Western-held patents, they won't be selling their planes anywhere where these patents have been filed, China included. Anything based on expired patents is up for grabs. Within these constraints, everyone copies everyone.
2
@alexlo7708 No, that's not what the Russian authorities are saying. You're making things up as you go along, like your silly claim that the Mustang is a copy of the Spitfire.
1
@alexlo7708 Hey "boy", news sources may or may not be authoritative. The better ones base their reports on official findings. Yours clearly don't.
1
@alexlo7708 You're the one playing with Spitfire and Mustang toys -- and not able to tell them apart. It still fails to register with you that the Russian air crash investigators are apparently blaming the pilot -- i.e. pilot error. What's the press got to do with that? Oh, and another thing. If you want to be a prolific commenter on YouTube, consider taking a English course. You sound like a stereotypical Chinese immigrant from a bad movie.
1
High-speed rail is a new phenomenon to you?
1
There's no negative connotation to "stealing market share". It's a common idiom.
1
With all due respect, it's telling that Embraer tried to merge with Boeing.
1
@u0000-u2x They both presented it publicly as a merger. However, no prizes for guessing which party would've had the upper hand.
1
@alexlo7708 That's a first, someone claiming that the Mustang is a copy of the Spitfire. The Brits bolted the Spitfire's Merlin engine onto the P-51, but if that makes it a copy, then the P-51 is also a copy of the Hurricane. Interestingly, the Brits adopted the P-51's laminar-flow wing in the Spiteful, the successor to the Spitfire. Sure, there was copying to an fro, but that applies to pretty much every airplane ever produced, including the Wright Flyer.
1
@alexlo7708 I am "less known [sic]"? Try posting your claim about the Mustang being a copy of the Spitfire on an aviation history forum and you'll be laughed at. In WW2, the US lagged behind in initial readiness, but not technology. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and China all eagerly used American kit whenever they could. As to WW1, you would have a point. There they were both behind in readiness and technology.
1
You might want to add that the sound was especially unique in being LOUD.
1