Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

  1. You are 100% right but it goes a lot further than Boeing. I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. I've worked across a number of industries and what you have described with the problem of financiers is RAMPANT across most industries especially all of the technical and engineering industries. I became so frustrated I started informally studying economics so that I can talk their language and be able to push back. The thing that really motivated me was finding out how bad of a state Australia's (my country) energy sector was from doing a small consulting job. I can 100% guarantee you that the current energy crisis has NOTHING to do with Ukraine other than Ukraine made the situation worse. The problem is that its NOT just 1 thing. Its collectively called neoliberalism which is more than simply economics as its got political aspects as well. The main problem with energy is that economists have NO IDEA how energy actually produced generated. In fact they have no idea how anything is produced. They see all forms of production as a collection of magic black boxes that "stuff" comes out of. They walk into places of production (food, minerals, products, whatever) arriving with some form of market analysis that declares this "stuff" has a market price of $X. From that $X market price and their declared profit margin they calculate what the cost of production is and then start telling everyone how they have to cut costs to match what they have calculated. Go and look at the Max-8 Story and that's basically what happened. They decided what the market cost was to compete with Airbus and used that to make decisions, which included NOT having the additional costs of a suitable anti-stall system.
    109
  2.  @jimmygee3219  I'm another aerospace engineer and we get it all the time in every field of engineering. And I'm not talking about social media either. We get it from family, we get it from relatives, we get it from friends and we get it from complete strangers in the street. Most of all we get it from other people in the work place and including other engineers. If you tell people what they don't want to hear they don't like it and don't respond well. Then they will do and say anything to discredit you.
    93
  3. That's a good point, but the main reason they must keep a second pilot is REDUNDANCY. I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a private pilots license but I work in industrial control systems. I am formally trained in programmable safety systems. So I am formally trained in WHY WE USE REDUNDANCY for critical safety functions. Risk Assessment not only includes people but their training & competency. Redundancy can also include people. For complex and heavy aircraft the second pilot is a key part of the safety strategy. Their fundamental job is to reduce the workload on the pilot who is flying the plane. One of the key parts to that strategy is CRM (Crew Resource Management). And the key takeaway that other industries have adopted from CRM is "agreement." Its not a matter of one person checking another persons work. Its a matter on them agreeing its been done correctly. After the fiasco of the Max-8 this should not even be a discussion any longer. I can explain in detail that the Max-8 was always going to have those sorts of fatal accidents because it was a single point failure system. The Max-8 will be a case study in "What not to do!" for generations of engineers. Boeing are not alone as Airbus also have had some shocking accidents to overreliance on automation. Any engineer who thinks this can be done clearly has no cockpit time and no proper training in safety systems or safety management and NEEDS TO BE RUN OUT OF THE INDUSTRY.
    5
  4. I'm an aerospace engineer who's got a private pilots license. If they use an oval shape for the pressure vessel part of the structure it won't be so bad. What makes odd or compound curves possible and easier than in the past is carbon fibre, but that also has its own issues. What will kill this is what it will take to make the passenger loading and unloading compatible with current airports. Forget the emergency evac issues there's just too many airports that remember what had it cost to accommodate the A380 and that's already disappearing from service. They wont pay for it a second time. Like everything else in engineering they have to make a business case that the economic bean counters will accept. Those guys can smell an engineer who doesn't have a sound business plan like a shark can smell a drop of blood from kilometers away and they respond in kind.
    4
  5. I have a degree in aerospace and a college friend of mine is a very senior 737 pilot at a major airline. He was sent by his airline to look at the Max-8 problems. One thing he said shocked me: "Boeing broke their system." To put that into normal speech. "The System" in this context is all those processes and procedures that a company uses to go from an initial concept to a product to be sold. So for a company like Boeing we are talking an library of documentation built up over decades. Things like Design methods, SOPs, test reports, subcontractor quality controls, the writing of manuals,... etc. This is a massive body of knowledge on how to build sound reliable safe aircraft. I have a PPL so we are also talking things like all the manuals you have in the plane, all the instrumentation in the cockpit and how that was integrated into the aircraft, the training programs that you went through as well as the regular re-certification processes and all the maintenance processes that give pilots like you the faith that the planes will do as you expect. He basically told me that Boeing had burned that system to the ground and threw out all those decades of work and experience. We are talking millions and millions of hours of experience being thrown out by management clowns who knew NOTHING about building aircraft. The real question on Boeing's future is: "How do they cut out the cancer and get back what they had?" At the very least that will take time, a lot of time.
    3
  6.  @Dumbrarere  And they usually are that petty. 🤷‍♀🤷‍♀🤷‍♂🤷‍♂
    3
  7. DO the CRIME do the TIME He should go to jail. It would send a clear message to all the Social Media Influencer clowns that there are limits.
    2
  8.  @simonhagfalk  What are you a contractor to the NSA?????
    2
  9. HEY MENTOUR I normally love your channel but if you don't limit the number of those annoying adds for those free game then I am giving up on your channel. 1 or 2 ads might be acceptable but this time I have had at least 6 before finally getting tired of it. The DISLIKE I ticked is not for your content but the ads.
    2
  10.  @gpaull2  Because other engineers and pilots can tell if they are speaking crap by how they USE various words and terms. Its the same with any profession. Its also how people can tell if someone IS NOT trained or qualified. They misuse words and terms.
    2
  11. The main reason they must keep a second pilot is REDUNDANCY. I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a private pilots license but I work in industrial control systems. I am formally trained in programmable safety systems. So I am formally trained in WHY WE USE REDUNDANCY for critical safety functions. When we are talking about "critical safety functions" these are for ABNORMAL events. We start with the premise that no system is perfect and will eventually fail if put in service long enough. This concept causes a lot of conflicts with other engineers because they don't like being told their work is not perfect. Its actually not easy to get them to grasp that once they are not involved (as in the plane has been delivered to the customer) they have nothing more to do Risk Assessment not only includes people but their training & competency. Redundancy can also include operators. For complex and heavy aircraft the second pilot is a key part of the safety strategy. Their fundamental job is to reduce the workload on the pilot who is flying the plane. One of the key parts to that strategy is CRM (Crew Resource Management). And the key takeaway that other industries have adopted from CRM is "agreement." Its not a matter of one person checking another persons work. Its a matter on them agreeing its been done correctly. After the fiasco of the Max-8 this should NOT even be a discussion any longer. I can explain in detail that the Max-8 was always going to have those sorts of fatal accidents because it was a single point failure system. The Max-8 will be a case study in "What not to do!" for generations of engineers. Boeing are not alone as Airbus also have had some shocking accidents to overreliance on automation. Any engineer who thinks this can be done clearly has no cockpit time and no proper training in safety systems or safety management and NEEDS TO BE RUN OUT OF THE INDUSTRY.
    2
  12.  @steveallen648  Well you should have been clear about that instead of waffling on with a pile of nonsense.
    2
  13. You should be very well aware of the old saying that "The way to make a pile of money in aviation is to start with a mountain of money." In other words what ever you are going to invest in aviation you are not going to make as much money as the hype suggests. HOWEVER that does not mean you can't make money. There's a really great documentary that was put out after Concorde was retired that was done with the help of the pilots. I'm an aerospace engineer and a pilot so I found the technical stuff pretty interesting, but what EVERY business or economics student should do as a case study was how the pilots saved Concorde. Sorry for the long answer below, but its actually an important part of aviation history. The first few years Concorde was terrible financial losses. There was no way to make money and they were about to shut it down. The pilots responded by telling management how that wasn't possible because the planes were full on almost every flight. So British Airways management challenge their pilots to run Concorde and if they didn't make money it was over. The pilots then did one of the greatest examples of customer/market analysis ever. They looked at their users and found this odd group who dominated ticket sales. They'd fly across the Atlantic and then almost immediately fly back with some doing it several times a week. So they asked who these people why they used Concorde that way. It turned out they were mostly lawyers working for major banks and corporations. This was BEFORE the internet and big contracts needed to be done in person. Just as the internet sped up how we all communicate now, Concorde sped up the work of these people enormously and they put a premium value on it. The pilots asked these people DIRECTLY (not via intermediaries but direct) what they thought a ticket on Concorde was worth and 2 things stunned them. First these people had no idea what the tickets cost as their secretaries were the ones arranging flights and purchasing the tickets. Second the value they came back with stunned everyone. if you go look back at the ticket prices there was this massive jump in the early days and every one said it would drive away the customers. IT DIDN'T because the main users valued the tickets that much. The pilots then asked what would make these customers business even better. The result was installing nice highly secure offices for people to meet in the terminals. So these frequent users could fly across the Atlantic, meet their clients in the terminal without having to go through customs and then fly back. For about 25 years Concorde was British Airways most RELIABLE and profitable division. It simply didn't matter what the economic situation in America or Europe was those contracts had to be negotiated and Concorde was the most efficient way to get that done. What killed Concorde was a combination of the Internet, Osama Bin Laden and Airbus. The internet reduced the amount of work needed to be done in person. On 9/11 Concorde lost around 50% of some of its most frequent users because they all worked in the towers. Airbus hated the Concorde and wanted people focussed on the A380. As owners of the Concorde Intellectual Property they simply refused to service the aircraft. Richard Branson eve offered to by the fleet and keep it going, which means he knew it could make money. Airbus said "NO!" When they stopped flying most of the Concorde fleet had flown less that 25% of their design lifetime. Again sorry for the long answer but the story of Concorde needs to be told. You probably have a way better chance of meeting those pilots than I do. If they can correct any of what I've written I will defer to their knowledge of what happened.
    2
  14. Following but less about Concordes history. After I graduated I did 2-1/2 years of research into ramjets & scramjets (Mach 2 -7 flight). Some of the first papers I read were on the Concorde SNECMA Olympus engines and their inlets. Those inlets were a masterpiece of 1960s technology. Even by todays standards they are brilliant. Consider that nobody has done better. In college I did classes in aircraft propulsion and inlet design geometry. The simplest way to put it is the inlet makes the engine work and that includes bot subsonic and supersonic. Its the inlet geometry that affects the air flow before it reaches the first of the compressor stages. Its a lot like racing cars. Those guys spend massive amount of time & effort getting air into the engine. I've been around those guys and they describe it like "if you can't get the air into the engine nothing else matters." Jet engines are the same. If you have a look at your 737 engines you'll notice the inlets are flat along the bottom edge. That's NOT for ground clearance. If you look closer it also has a different profile than the top and sides. That's to prevent compressor stall when you pull back on the yoke at take off. The top and sides are optimised for cruise at altitude. Everything about that part of of the inlet geometry is about minimising drag and getting the air into the engine at exactly the right pressure for the fan to operate at maximum efficiency. I did my degree in the late 80s just as CFD was becoming available. In fact my college the U. of Illinois was a world leader as we had CRAY Supercomputers. There were 2 areas for aircraft the postgrads were into and that was wingtip design for drag reduction and engine inlet design for efficiency. And fun fact the speed limit for the Concorde of about Mach 2.2 wasn't an issue of aerodynamics or engines it was limited by aerothermodynamic heating of the air frame. If they went much above Mach 2.2 the metals the plane was built from risked degrading to the point where it could fail. Go check a lot of the fighters form that time period and they too had the same limits. If you look at the Mig 25 Foxbat that could go faster. They basically had to rebuilt the engines after going above Mach 2.7 on any flight. Its one of the things that made the SR-71 so incredibly special. You might actually find the speed limits of the Sonic Boom have more to do with aerothermodynamic effects on the airframe than they let on. Even Carbon fibre and the resins used get effected by temperature.
    2
  15.  @BobBob-nr1zt  I wasn't even thinking about that but yeah one of my pet hates are the clowns who wreck a video with some crappy doomf doomf electro sound track with the volume wound up to 11.
    1
  16. Buddy as an aerospace engineer who has spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation INCLUDING BEING FORMALLY TRAINED in Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas (EEHA) you are completely misunderstanding the nature and risk of hydrogen. Sorry this is long but everyone thinking hydrogen is the magic solution needs to understand that it has some fantastic properties and I really do think it will be a major part of future energy, but it has some very serious risks. I am proposing 2 new massive power station projects here in Australia that are partly fueled by hydrogen BUT and I can't stress enough how hard hydrogen is to engineer around. Your comment comparing kerosene to hydrogen is so far off the mark its scary. In terms of safety Hydrogen is nothing like kerosene. If I compared your skills and training as an airline pilot to a bus driver in the same way you have compared Hydrogen to Kerosene you'd be insulted. I have a pilots license so I know what that means. Here are some basic facts that they teach engineers. 1) You need 3 things to have combustion or an explosion which is basically hyper-rapid combustion. FUEL + OXIDISER + IGNITION SOURCE. Fuel alone does nothing. Fuel with just an ignition source does nothing. Fuel with just an oxidiser does nothing. You must have all 3. The reason solid rocket propellants like gunpowder & C4 explosive can be so dangerous is because they combine the fuel and oxidiser. Its why they are impossible to extinguish once ignited. Once the Space Shuttle and Artemis boosters are lit they will go until the fuel is consumed. All that can be done is detach them. 2) Flammable liquids DO NOT actually burn or ignite. The vapor above the surface burns. There's videos shown to engineering students where they drop a lit match into a jar of gasoline and it just goes out because below the surface there's no oxygen. This is also why cars don't explode when the fuel tank has a submerged pump. Because its submerged and totally surrounded by fuel there's no oxygen. Its also why cars can explode if the fuel level sensor gets a shot circuit because you can get a spark in the vapor space above the fuel level. Its why empty fuel tanks with vapor are far more dangerous than full fuel tanks where there's almost no vapor. 3) A droplet of liquid fuel does NOT BURN its surface burns because the heat boils off the liquid and that allows it to mix with air and meet oxygen molecules and react. This is why fuel injection in cars and trucks works so much better than a carburetor. There's not only finer droplets with more surface area but the droplet size is more consistent making combustion more stable and more reliable. 4) Gases and vapors at the right mixture can EXPLODE. For almost any gas you can find 2 numbers given in percentage called the LEL (lower explosive limit) and UEL (upper explosive limit). Between the LEL and UEL the mixture explodes. In room temperature air: - Methane has an LEL of 5% and UEL of 15% - Hydrogen has an LEL of 4% and UEL of 74% So hydrogen wants to EXPLODE over a much wider range of fuel-air ratios. This is also why its been so hard to get it to burn reliably in engines. It reacts so fast its hard to get a stable flame. 5) Everything that can burn or explode has an ignition energy usually expressed as MIE (minimum ignition energy) with the units mJ (milli-joules). Hydrogen has the lowest of all MIEs at 0.017 mJ (in air) and 0.011 mJ (in oxygen). By comparison methane 0.26mJ gasoline is 0.80 mJ and Kerosene is 20 mJ. Kerosene takes just over 1176 times the energy to ignite than hydrogen. A kerosene leak compared to a hydrogen leak is nothing in terms of risk. 6) Many gases and flammable substances can ignite from temperature. Again Hydrogen is very low on that scale compared to most other substances. When you select equipment that is in a area with hydrogen you have to check the temperature rating as well as all the other factors. 7) The Hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule in the universe. That makes sealing everything incredibly hard. You can't just by valves, pistons, pumps, pipe fittings like you do for other gases. It will leak from the tiniest of holes and narrowest of gaps. If you have any leak in a place that's not well ventilated it gets very dangerous. Hydrogen is amazing. Its actually very easy to make through electrolysis of water, but its also a hassle to use which is why its never really been used as much as people think it should have been. Sorry if this feels like I am yelling but its a very serious topic. I 100% believe the hydrogen economy is going to boom and be a major part of our energy future, but I also expect some tragic outcomes because people will simply ignore what people with expertise warn them about.
    1
  17.  @مرحبابك-ض1ن  Please look at my other comment because you've set your reply function right to left and its almost impossible to reply
    1
  18. On the capturing CO2 from the atmosphere its all dependent on how its done. I'm an engineer and the major problem we collectively isn't so much we are having to transfer from dirty to clean energy, its that we are at the next great energy transition. Just as we moved on from horse & sail to coal & steam then onto oil & gas and then 1/2 way to nuclear, we are now at the next great energy transition. Its being heavily influenced by the need for clean energy but we'd be making a transition anyway. The single biggest factor is efficiency. We have more people and that means more energy is needed but that actual supply of raw materials isn't keeping up. I'm in Australia and we had a power station called Hazelwood. It was old an dirty, but worst of all was its was hopelessly inefficient. Most coal fired power stations could get about 30-35% efficiency with the very best ones with advanced boiler technology could get over 42% thermal efficiency. When it closed Hazelwood was getting about 20% thermal efficiency. So it was burning twice as much coal per watt of electricity. Hazelwood was closed NOT because it worked but because it was so inefficient. Right now we have another power station at Newport which is an old gas thermal. If we simply replace it with a gas turbine we can save about 30% on raw gas input. If we add a steam turbine to the exhaust we can increase the power output by 60%. If we then added a hydrogen supply we'd reduce the emissions by another 50% down to 30% of where it now is. This is actually a hard thing to discuss with non-engineers. If you are not being efficient with energy then ANYTHING can be insanely expensive. Also some things that look or sound inefficient aren't when you take into consideration of the overall system efficiency. With direct CO2 extraction a lot will depend on where they get the energy from and then how they use it. I think the real problem with it will be that it just can't do enough. When you look at how much needs doing the real problem is being able to do in engineering what green vegetation does already. I think it will end up with systems that blend what we can do in engineering with what we can do with plants.
    1
  19.  @robertkb64  great answers. I think what your saying is so long as they build it compatible with current facilities it wont be a problem. Which is sort the flip side of my point. If they don't make it compatible it will be a problem. From a flying perspective the issue will be flight stability and control response. Will they learn from the Max-8?
    1
  20.  @robertkb64  :)
    1
  21.  @JFrazer4303  I agree with everything you say except using that one crash example of a flying wing crash. The problem is there's rarely ever any 2 crashes that are the same with aircraft. Even when they are close like the Max-8 crashes there'll still be differences. If you only use 1 example its hard to conclude anything. But then how many examples of flying wing crashes are there? The only 1 I know off hand is the fatal crash of the restored Northrop N-9MB in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Northrop_N-9M_crash
    1
  22.  @GlobalDrifter1000  SHIT4BRAINS in engineering REDUNDANCY refers to having more than what is required, like having 2 or more sensors for measuring the same thing like temperature or pressure. This is very common in safety critical systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering). THIS IS WHY ENGINEERS GET DAMN ANGRY WITH IGNORANT SELF RIGHTEOUS SMUG LITTLE PRICKS WHO HAVEN'T A CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
    1
  23.  @uince  You clearly have NO IDEA what you are talking about because comparing 1 rocket flight that took 20+ years to make happen compared to the millions of commercial flights made every year is just STUPID. You are clearly NOT a pilot, so your nonsense about pilots is also MISGUIDED because you are ignoring all the advances made in training and crew management. You have perfectly shown one of the greatest weaknesses of social media. Its gives every IGN0RANT UNEDUCATED IDI0TIC CLOWN in the room a turn at the microphone. Go back and look at the M0R0N who tried to troll me yesterday over the words redundant and redundancy.
    1
  24.  @uince  Yes that's right, my 30+ years of experience in automation and safety systems, my qualifications as an engineer, my experience as a pilot ARE ALL MEANINGLESS. BECAUSE the UNEDUCATED IGN0RANCE of people like you who know NOTHING about what they are talking about and OVERRULED people with knowledge and experience as they did with the Max-8 are who we should listen to. YOUR IGNORANCE DOES NOT MATCH OTHER PEOPLES TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE and EXPERINCE.
    1
  25. Yes we have a long history of that. Remember back in the GFC Gillard had this great idea to put all of the tradies to work build stuff that schools need. It was actually a bloody good idea. The problem was they gave the whole lot out to a bunch of consultancies to manage. Of the $4.5 Billion spent over $2.5 Billion went to management fees. I'm an engineer and it disgusts me what we keep MISMANAGING these projects and MOST of them are well intentioned and actually are beneficial. Snowy 2.0 (when its complete) will be a huge bonus if you understand our energy issues. The problem is its been handed over to a rapacious pack of mongrels who don't care about costs. It will now cost around $20 billion or about 10x the original $2 Billion estimate. The submarine project is a disaster. I absolutely support getting nuclear powered subs after having it explained to me by an ex-US Navy nuclear power plant tech/operator I used to work with. BUT $268 Billion is insane. I once tried to work out the costs and doubled then tripled some of what I was hearing about budgets for bases. The highest I got was around $155 Billion. There's just 2 and I bet anyone else who reads in this will explain more. I'm tired of seeing us get ripped off and NO MATTER who's in power its the same story again and again.
    1
  26.  @The_ZeroLine  WTF are you trying to say? Read your comment back to yourself before posting in future. You'll avoid sounding like a bowl of spaghetti.
    1
  27.  @steveallen648  Dude STOP WATCHING BULLSHlT HYPE CHANNELS and think you know stuff. The TU 95 did NOT use this type of technology and it was NEVER nuclear powered as you implied. The TU 95 used contra-rotating propellers which were nothing new. The British Martin Baker MB5 prototype had contra-rotating propellers back in 1944. Before that the famous Macchi MC-72 Schneider Cup plane used contra-rotating props and in 1934 it set a world speed record which still stands to this day. BUT the original patent for contra-rotating propellers is by F. W. Lanchester in 1907. So please don't waste people's time with nonsense.
    1
  28.  @hb1338  Do clowns like you EVER STOP AN READ what people are saying before you start to to lecture them. FIRST - Had the FAA still been the organisation certifying aircraft for commercial passenger transportation then there WOULD NOT have been MCAS as it was used on the Max-8. There would NOT have been any decisions being made by clowns with business degrees or MBAs or economics degrees. The changes to the FAA had nothing to do with pilots or engineers, but it fits right in with neoliberal doctrine of de-regulating and downsizing all regulatory agencies. Other than the FAA those same people have been busy chopping the guts out of agencies like the FDA and EPA across the world. Most of the time it has nothing to even do with profits as a lot of those people simply believe that ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY is BAD and needs to be curtailed. SECOND - I am an aerospace engineer with a pilots license with an aerobatics endorsement. PLUS one of my frat brothers is a senior 737 instructor whose airline sent him to Boeing to help sort the Max-8 mess out and he's told me a couple of things I can't repeat. I'm also formally qualified in industrial safety systems which do the same sort of override function as MCAS did but on industrial plants. So I am very well aware of how you assess and test such systems BEFORE you deploy them and how you then field test them to make sure they are doing EXACTLY as planned. I can explain EXACTLY in detail the FMEA and CHAZOP processes that would have uncovered the MCAS issue BEFROE IT EVER FLEW. Sorry but I get piʂʂed off when ignorant stupid little clowns who don't know what they are talking about start lecturing people about things they think they have expertise in. More often than not clowns LIKE YOU who don't listen CAUSE THE NEXT ACCIDENT. So I suggest you learn how to listen to people or one day you'll be the cause of something bad and someone like me will be right in front of you AND YOU WONT LIKE WHAT HAPPENS.
    1
  29.  @JoJoGranum  Yeah I 100% agree. As an engineer I am trying to get people aware of what they have done to BOTH energy and water. I think most people are aware of what they've also done to education and health care. Energy, water, education and health care are the most fundamental inputs to any economic system. F*ck with any of them and your society is in trouble. These clowns are screwing up all 4. Its all tracks back to Milton Friedman's _"Greed is good"_, that was the basis for Reaganomics and Thatcherism. That whole system is collapsing in on itself and I fear its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
    1
  30. ​ @iancormie9916  The PROBLEM is that its virtually hardwired into Economics and Accountancy students during their degrees to INTERFERE in EVERYTHING that they can. Its almost an obsession for many of them and it is an obsession for some. I'm an engineer and when I became aware of Australia's energy situation about 7 years ago I started trying to work out why it happened and why NOBODY was doing anything. It came back to one simple answer - ECONOMISTS did it when they sold us all on the falsehood that privatising our energy sector would deliver cheaper prices and better services because of competition. It never eventuated and we now have some of the highest energy bills in the world. We have the same in infrastructure. When I looked around the world it was similar stories EVERYWHERE. Its the same SORT OF thing that happened at Boeing. They look at their economics and make decisions based on nothing but MONEY as in COSTS & PROFITS. If its a cost stomp on it and if its a profit launch it.
    1
  31. Welcome to the club. We have Rupert Murdoch and his wonderful family. How badly do you think they have sullied our reputation?
    1
  32. AND THE FOLLOW UP Video will be titled _"DC-10: How McDonnell Outsmarted Douglas after buying them out!"_🤷‍♂ FOLLOWED BY a video titled _"Max-8: How McDonnell Outsmarted Boeing (again) after getting bought out!"_🤷‍♂ FOLLOWED BY a video titled _"Starliner: How McDonnell Outsmarted NASA by sponging of the Government!"_🤷‍♂
    1
  33.  @joevenuti1201  I think you made a typo or have your aircraft mixed up. Wikipedia lists the 737 as having 11,797 built as of June 2024. Is 2037 a variant or another aircraft? There were 1,832 of the 727 built.
    1