"Carl McIver" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question
remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP,
thrust,
Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes,
miles
and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a
cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?

I left Commercial over a year ago. The 787 I don't know much about,
but
ISTR in my limited work with some tiny projects for it, it's still
imperial.
Nobody I've talked to has mentioned metric in any way, and believe me,
they'd say something. Boeing isn't about to make the switch to metric
unless there's a serious need, and I have a hard time seeing it. They're
not resisting metric just because they want to conform to some silly
notion
of conformity, but trying to change all that to metric is economic suicide
for any company heavily tied to engineering designs.


AMEN.... amen.... amen...

Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne