Boeing and metrcication question


Yes. The SI folks prefer the much more rational and intuitive "cubic decimeter," or "10^-3*m^3".
d8-)
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It might have been a bargaining point, but I doubt it.
We all lost a lot of famous inventor names for the work they did in that grand experiment of making 4 versions of metric and scientific measurements into one. SI.
It caused many a book to be re-written.
martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com /
Ed Huntress wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why should they bother? Heck, you can't even convert your pints of beer. <g>
But "why should they bother" really is a serious question, Mark. Please, tell us.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

There are a number of other things to consider when it comes to aviation and metric. Flight levels... in feet. Runway distances and aircraft performance figures in the US are all in feet. All the aircraft instruments are in feet, inches or lbs/sq. in. When you have a working system you stay with it unless there is a vast improvment with a new system. It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when 60 cycles is a lot better.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Remember the Gimli Glider
It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when

Gerry :-)} London, Canada
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good example of why working in the same units that the rest of the world uses will reduce problems :-).
To be fair, in the mid 70's a Viscount turbo-prop did a dead stick landing in a farmer's field a couple of miles short of Exeter airport in the UK, IIRC The Spanish airport had delivered 600lbs less fuel than the paperwork said. In that case, it was probably simple incompetence.
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Rand wrote:

Its the responsibity of the flight crew to verify that they have the fuel on board that they need for the flight. I guess they were not doing their job.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:08:49 -0400, Gerald Miller

Any "Bus Drivers" out there? I still want to know...
Did Boeing ever write that section of the flight manual covering 'All Engine Out" flight, the glide rate, optimum speeds, install mechanical altimeters with rate of descent gauge, etc.? Did they ever quantify the safety of side-slipping or other techniques you may need to use in a dead-stick approach?
And one of the things Captain Bob Pearson mentions is that "Luckily we were in a Boeing - you can't side-slip an Airbus, the computers won't let you." Did Airbus ever correct that?
Murphy's Law Number (mumblety-seven...): When you ask about a rare emergency and they say "Oh, you don't have to worry about optimum glide speeds in a Jumbo Jet, since that can NEVER happen!" you can rest assured that it in fact /can/ happen. And you're liable to be the guinea pig that gets a front row seat to see how it turns out...
In EMT Class they told me I'd *never* witness a Grand Mal seizure from the onset, so learning how to use (or improvise) a bite stick wasn't really necessary... Two inside of a year.
--<< Bruce >>--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:13:54 -0700, Bruce L. Bergman

Can be needed until the glycogen/glucose kicks in with a major hypoglycaemic incident. DAMHIKT
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Rand wrote:

Yawn. Like none of England's corporations EVER received ANY government money.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:41:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Did you bother to read the quoted post that I was responding to before you snipped it? Doesn't seem like it.
regards Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wayne Lundberg wrote:

They didn't jump. They were pushed off that cliff by a sick practical joke from the French. No one realized it was a joke because, quite frankly, they aren't that funny. It has snowballed to the point it is out of control.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many Americans are quite happy with metric units. Unfortunately, they are subject to mandatory constraints. In a free market, many more products in the supermarket would be labeled just in liters and grams. Manufacturers such as Proctor and Gamble have said that they would use metric-only labels if it were not for Federal laws such as the FPLA making it illegal. Such laws are called 'Technical Barriers to Trade' because it makes it difficult for products to cross international boundaries even if customers want to buy them.
In US aviation, the FAA controls the pace of metrication by its rules. The mandated unit was Fahrenheit up until 1996, then it changed to Celsius.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not if they wanted to sell them.
I'm sure that most people here realize why the US never adopted the metric system for everything. Until the last couple of decades, and even now, in fact, the US market is so self-contained compared to other developed countries that the pressures European countries felt to adopt a uniform system (the UK agreed kicking and screaming, and they still kick a little -- witness the pint/pub fiasco that was decided by the EU last week) never existed here.
Without market and political pressures, and with the supposed "advantages" of the metric system applying mostly to specialized areas, consumers and much of manufacturing just did the most economic thing, which was to stand pat. As the Europeans, Australians, etc. here likely know by now, the US is fully metricized in those fields in which it provides an economic or other substantial advantage. Once you move beyond the fields in which most use of physical units is confined to linear dimensions or volumes, metrics dominate in the US.
I was once a big advocate for metrics but decades of questioning its advantages in the marketplace has led me to realize we're doing the thing that provides the best economic result. The cost of converting would be far greater, I believe, than the slight friction it adds to trade. If that changes, we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

I do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law. Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products illegal in the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:24:14 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@iname.com wrote:

I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar that is also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz etc. That gets the punter used to the size of metric quantities and makes the change to metric only labeling less traumatic.Doesn't have to be instantaneous. 40 years is probably not unreasonable to let people grow up with the ideas, and it's already happening.
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes to the first part, and yes to the second part, to a modest degree. I think that most consumers only care if they're shopping for value in terms of cost-per-weight or cost-per-volume. There are some of those, and it varies by category.
However, we're used to seeing metric measures now, as long as the Imperial measures are somewhere on the container.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Rand wrote:

Sugar is usually sold in multiples of 5 pounds so they would have to buy three tiny bags if they do it your way.
A lot of stuff sold in the US already has the metric equivalent marked after the pounds, ounces or fluid ounces.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yea - liter Coke, three liter of Coke and all of that non SI but metric stuff. Booze is also in Liters not 1/5's of a Gallon.
What kicks me - the U.S.A. teaspoon volume value does not equal that of Canada's. Different sizes of spoons :-)
Martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com /
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Various authors wrote:

Correct. For products controlled by the FPLA, both must be present.

The container size and the text on the label are related but distinct issues. The FPLA law only relates to labels. As far as I know, sugar conainer size is not controlled by law.
If a manufacturer/importer offers a product with a metric-only label and customers will not buy it, that should be up to the marketplace.
You can read what manufacturers are saying if you look for 'Permissible Metric-Only Labeling' on the page: http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/mpo_home.cfm

Yes. That is because the FPLA controls most (but not all) of the prepacked things in the supermarket.
Milk is controlled by the USDA. They mandate non-metric labels. Metric is merely optional. Metric-only milk labels are illegal.
Wine and liquor are controlled by the TTB. They mandate metric labels. Non-metric only labels would be illegal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.