LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787

14.07.09, 19:19
W roku 2010 moze nie byc juz ani LOTu, ani Boeinga... Zostana tylko
marzenia (dreams) i linie (lines), ale kolejowe a nie lotnicze.
    • pc486 Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 19:45
      Oj nie martw sie Boeing bedzie, predzej europejski moloch na
      glinianych nogach: airbus padnie.
      • mr_kagan Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 21:02
        Boeinga ostanio uratowal rzad USA, kupujac od niego kilkadziesiat
        niepotrzebnych nikomu samolotow. Ale teraz rzadu USA ma GM na
        utrzymaniu, wiec nie bedzie mogl znow pomoc Boeingowi.
        • ramyus Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 21:56
          mr_kagan napisała:

          > Boeinga ostanio uratowal rzad USA, kupujac od niego kilkadziesiat
          > niepotrzebnych nikomu samolotow.


          A moglbys cos wiecej na temat tej rewelacji?

          Gdy juz napiszesz, to napisz cos na temat europejskich dotacji panstwowych i
          unijnych dla Airbusa, oraz o klopotach z A400M, przy ktorych klopoty z A350 i
          A380 to pestka...
          • profzwdrhab Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 07:51
            Poszukaj sobie np. Googlem o interwencyjych zakupach Boeingow dla
            USAF.
            www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q3/nr_030714a.html
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III
            www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/boeg-d17.shtml
            Bush administration embroiled in Boeing scandal
            By Joseph Kay
            17 December 2003
            Top officials in the Bush administration—including the president
            himself—are implicated in the expanding scandal surrounding airplane
            manufacturer and defense contractor Boeing. The case provides a
            revealing glimpse into the extent to which US military policy is
            subordinated to brazen profiteering by defense contractors and the
            government officials who enjoy their patronage.

            The scandal involves a contract that Boeing has been negotiating
            with the US Air Force to lease to the government 100 aerial
            refueling tankers. The deal had an initial price tag of $17 billion,
            though some estimates place the potential final windfall to Boeing
            at $100 billion. The contract was nearly finalized last month,
            despite studies by both the Pentagon and Congress concluding that
            the deal was unnecessary and overpriced.

            Boeing lobbyists, Air Force officials with close ties to the
            company, and individuals on the influential Defense Policy Board,
            including Richard Perle, a key political ally of the Pentagon’s
            right-wing civilian leadership, all pushed the deal, which amounted
            essentially to a multibillion-dollar subsidy to Boeing. Their
            efforts also had the support of both the White House and prominent
            Democrats.

            Since news of the scandal broke, Boeing has been forced to fire two
            of its executives and to demand the resignation of its chairman and
            CEO, Phil Condit.

            The Pentagon, the Justice Department and Congress have all opened
            investigations into the matter, and the contract itself has been put
            on hold. The investigations will undoubtedly serve more to cover up
            than reveal the extent to which the financial interests of defense
            contractors and government officials have become thoroughly
            intertwined.

            It was in February 2001 that Boeing initially proposed to provide
            the Air Force with reengineered 767s to be used as refueling
            tankers. In an unsolicited offer, Boeing suggested that it would
            sell the Air Force 36 planes for $124.5 million each (for a total of
            $4.5 billion).

            For Boeing, the aim was to counter sagging sales of its commercial
            airliners (particularly the 767s) due primarily to competition from
            the European airplane producer Airbus. During the late 1990s, Boeing
            had turned increasingly toward government contracts to make up for
            its declining position in the commercial market. In a major move in
            this direction, it acquired defense contractor McDonnell Douglas in
            1997. Currently, government contracts make up approximately half of
            the company’s revenue.

            While supported by some officials within the Air Force—including Air
            Force Secretary James Roche—Boeing’s plan was undermined by studies
            carried out by the Air Force itself that found a large-scale
            purchase of new tankers was unnecessary. A study in 2001 found that
            no new tankers would be needed for another 10 years.

            Nevertheless, billions of dollars were at stake, and Boeing and its
            allies in the government were determined to push through the deal.
            After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Boeing was confronted with
            both a new crisis—airplane purchases by commercial airlines
            plummeted—and a new opportunity to justify the tanker plan by
            framing its as part of the “war on terrorism.”

            According to an October 27 Washington Post article, Boeing
            executives met with Darleen Druyun, a senior Air Force acquisitions
            officer, on September 25, 2001, to discuss how the company could
            sell the tankers even though the Air Force did not have the funds to
            cover the deal.

            “Druyun agreed at the meeting, according to notes taken by Boeing,
            not only to promote the leasing idea on Capitol Hill but also to
            find needed money by cutting back a comparatively inexpensive
            modernization program for existing tankers—an arrangement, Boeing
            and the Air Force have acknowledged, that will retire flightworthy
            tankers early to procure new ones,” the Post reported.

            “She also said ‘work placement could help’ [promote the deal],
            meaning that Boeing should ensure that subcontracts were awarded in
            the districts of key Congress members, according to the notes.”

            Air Force officials were pushing the deal despite the fact that the
            plan did not even meet requirements for tankers that the Air Force
            itself had specified. At one point, a document listing these
            requirements was modified at Boeing’s request in order to meet the
            capabilities of the 767. “The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that
            the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones,”
            according to the Post.

            Boeing also changed its proposal from selling 36 planes to leasing
            100. The purpose of the lease structure was twofold. On the one
            hand, it helped Air Force officials pushing the deal because it
            would allow the government to delay accounting for the cost, since
            technically the payments would take place over a period of several
            years rather than all at once. Boeing, on the other hand, was able
            to charge a higher price for the leasing arrangement than it would
            have for selling the planes outright. Moreover, the company arranged
            to sell the planes to a non-profit trust, which would then lease the
            planes to the Air Force. This would allow Boeing to credit the total
            value of the contract toward immediate revenues. Similar structures
            had been created by Enron to massage accounting numbers and inflate
            profits.

            As the negotiations developed in 2002, Druyun functioned essentially
            as Boeing’s agent inside the Air Force. This is clear from internal
            company e-mails obtained by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John
            McCain, an opponent of the contract.

            In a June 2002 e-mail, Bob Gower, Boeing’s vice president for
            tankers, wrote: “[The] meeting today on price was very good. Darleen
            spent most of the time bringing the [US Air Force] price up to our
            number... It was a good day!”

            Other e-mails indicate that Druyun had given Boeing information on
            an Airbus offer to supply tankers to the Air Force at several
            million dollars less per plane. Divulging such an offer to another
            contractor is a violation of government regulations.

            In October 2002, Druyun took her role in the Air Force negotiations
            to its logical conclusion, entering into employment discussions with
            Boeing’s then chief financial officer Michael Sears. However, she
            did not recuse herself from Boeing-related negotiations until
            November. It is illegal for government acquisition officials to have
            employment discussions with companies that they are responsible for
            overseeing. Druyun joined Boeing officially in January 2003.

            It was Druyun’s role in the deal that initially sparked a Pentagon
            probe of the contract process in September of this year. Boeing
            moved to contain the crisis by firing both Sears and Druyun in
            November, but opponents of the contract—particularly McCain—have
            seized upon the firings to stall the deal. As the scandal expanded,
            it forced the resignation of Boeing chairman and CEO Phil Condit.

            Broader involvement in the scandal


            The corrupt dealings were hardly confined to Druyun alone, but
            reached to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

            • bmc3i tak 15.07.09, 14:38
              Zaleznie z ktorej strony sceny politycznej artykuly wezmiesz, takie bedziesz
              mial komentarze medialne.

              W ramch tego wsparcia dla Boeinga zapewne, Gates likwiduje linie produkcyjna
              C-17, mimo ze spowoduje to utrate kilkudziesieciu tysiecy miejsc pracy w 36
              stanach, mimo wsparcia dla Boeinga w Kongresie i mimo praktycznei juz upadku
              programu A400M Airbusa, co juz spowodowalao ze UK oswiadczyla ze bedzie chciala
              kupic C-17 w zamian za prawie 60 Airbusow, a o tym samym zamiarze kilkakrotnie
              wspominaju juz nawet Francuzi.

          • profzwdrhab Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 07:52
            Broader involvement in the scandal


            The corrupt dealings were hardly confined to Druyun alone, but
            reached to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

            Air Force Secretary James Roche has been a strong supporter of the
            contract, pushing it even after the scandal erupted. Andrew Ellis,
            Boeing’s vice president of Washington operations, wrote in March
            2003 that William Bodie, assistant to Roche, was urging the company
            to “have our friends on the hill, think tanks, etc., get more
            visible/vocal in countering the kinds of arguments in the Gannett
            [news service] piece this morning.” Ellis wrote that he told
            Bodie, “It was being worked, and we were prepared to sustain a more
            visible, longer term, pro-tanker campaign. (It is clearly what he
            [Bodie] wants, especially if it helps to drown out McCain and
            insulate/support the secretary [Roche]).”

            Roche is close to Rumsfeld and has been nominated by Bush to fill
            the now-vacant position of secretary of the army. He is a former
            vice president of another military contractor, Northrop Grumman.

            In collusion with Roche, Boeing initiated a propaganda campaign that
            included the mobilization of Boeing lobbyists and the placement of
            opinion pieces in different publications. One such piece published
            in Navy Times was supposedly written by retired admiral Archie
            Clemins, former commander of the US forces in the Pacific. An
            internal Boeing e-mail indicated that the company had “ghost-
            written” the piece. Shortly afterward, Clemins was hired as a Boeing
            consultant.

            Boeing also called upon its other contacts, including several
            members of the influential Defense Policy Board, which advises the
            secretary of defense on matters that include weapons acquisitions
            and military policy. The board has been a tool for promoting the
            ideology of the most aggressively militaristic sections of the
            Republican Party. One of its members is Richard Perle, who stepped
            down in March as chairman of the board after questions were raised
            about his relations to several companies, including bankrupt
            telecommunications giant Global Crossing. Perle nevertheless remains
            a board member.

            According to a Wall Street Journal report, Boeing has committed $20
            million in investments to Trireme Partners, a firm set up by Perle
            in the wake of the September 11 attacks and shortly after he was
            named to the Defense Policy Board. The purpose of the firm is to
            invest in “homeland security,” that is, to profit off the contracts
            the government has handed out in the so-called war on terrorism.
            Boeing has also committed $20 million to Paladin Capital Group,
            another homeland security investment firm, this one with Defense
            Policy Board member James Woolsey as a principal.

            Perle has aggressively pushed the Boeing tanker contract. He co-
            wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in August of this
            year supporting the deal. He and co-author Tom Donnelley were sure
            to frame the handout to Boeing as part of the war on terrorism. “It
            takes a special government green-eyeshade mentality,” they
            wrote, “to miss the urgency of the tanker requirement... If Sept. 11
            does not reasonably generate new ‘requirements,’ nothing does.”

            Perle did not mention his business ties with Boeing in the piece,
            and indeed the comment did not even name the company as the
            contract’s principal beneficiary. Critics have charged that, like
            the Clemins article, it may have been ghostwritten by Boeing.
            Indeed, Perle acknowledged that he submitted the column to the
            company for “fact checking.” Boeing has also admitted that it
            briefed Perle on the issue in his capacity as a member of the
            American Enterprise Institute.

            Other members of the board with ties to Boeing include Admiral David
            Jeremiah and retired Air Force general Ronald Fogelman, both of whom
            worked as paid consultants for Boeing as they pushed the contract.
            Tom Foley, former Democratic speaker of the House and another member
            of the board, is a partner at the lobbying group Akin, Gump,
            Strauss, Hauer & Feld. The firm was paid $600,000 by Boeing to lobby
            on the tanker deal and other matters. The chief Boeing lobbyist at
            the firm is Bill Paxon, a former Republican congressman from New
            York who played a crucial role in Bush’s last presidential campaign.

            Support from the White House


            Despite all of these connections, the contract was by no means
            secure, given the opposition from McCain and budget analysts. A
            number of reports came out in 2002 that cast doubt on the deal. The
            Institute for Defense Analysis, an independent think tank, issued a
            report that Boeing was overcharging the Air Force by $21 million per
            plane.

            More ominously for Boeing, in late 2002 the head of the Office of
            Management and Budget (OMB)—part of the executive branch—stated that
            the leasing plan was not needed and was overpriced.

            Boeing, however, had more cards up its sleeve, including the White
            House chief of staff Andrew Card. According to the Washington Post,
            Card, “acting at what officials say was the direction of President
            Bush, told the Air Force and OMB to resolve their differences.”

            A September 2002 e-mail from Rudy deLeon, senior vice president of
            Boeing’s Washington operations and former deputy secretary of
            defense under Clinton, stated, “Speaker Dennis Hastert and
            congressman Norm Dicks spoke directly with President Bush in support
            of moving ahead on the tanker lease. In both cases, President Bush
            reportedly expressed his support for moving ahead with the tanker
            initiative and asked chief of staff Andy Card to be ‘on point’ for
            this effort.”

            According to a senior government official quoted by the British
            paper Financial Times, “The reason the president and Karl Rove are
            interested is because they want to win Washington in the next
            election.” Dicks’s home state is Washington, the former location of
            Boeing’s headquarters and a major location of its present operations.

            Dicks had written to Bush as early as October 2001 pushing the
            plan: “We have a unique opportunity,” he wrote shortly after the
            attacks of September 11, “to address the problems affecting Boeing
            while also meeting urgent requirements to modernize air force and
            navy aircraft.”

            “With Card’s intervention,” writes the Post, “obstacles to the deal
            eventually fell away. Vehement objection raised by OMB and Pentagon
            budget analysts—that the planes were too expensive and that leasing
            would set a bad precedent—were muted or withdrawn.”

            Evidence of top-level backing for the deal has continued to this day
            Another senior civilian official in the Pentagon, the top Air Force
            acquisition officer Marvin Sambur, sent e-mails to other officials
            as late as November 26—two days after Boeing’s firing of Druyun and
            Sears—urging that the contract be signed immediately to preempt the
            scandal’s derailing the deal.

            Three days before he left the White House in 1960, President Dwight
            D. Eisenhower delivered an extraordinary final speech in which he
            drew attention to the “conjunction of an immense military
            establishment and a large arms industry.” This “military-industrial
            complex,” he warned, carried with it “the potential for the
            disastrous rise of misplaced power.”

            With the installation of the Bush administration four decades later,
            the danger outlined by Eisenhower has not only fully ripened, it has
            become quite rotten. The “revolving door” between government and
            military contractors now leads directly into a White House that acts
            as a direct sponso
            • profzwdrhab Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 07:53
              With the installation of the Bush administration four decades later,
              the danger outlined by Eisenhower has not only fully ripened, it has
              become quite rotten. The “revolving door” between government and
              military contractors now leads directly into a White House that acts
              as a direct sponsor of profiteering, a practice evidenced by not
              only the Boeing scandal, but also the role of Vice President Richard
              Cheney, the former Halliburton CEO.
              • malkontent6 Litości! 15.07.09, 14:12
                Koleś, jeśli chcesz coś powiedzieć to powiedz to i podaj link do
                artykułu zamiast publikowania trzech postów.
      • pawko13 Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 00:13
        Jak to okrojoną wersje symulatora?? Czyli, co samolot nie ma wszystkich funkcji?? Nie mozna startowac i lądowac?? Bo nie rozumiem tu czegoś??
        • ramyus Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 00:20
          pawko13 napisał:

          > Jak to okrojoną wersje symulatora?? Czyli, co samolot nie ma wszystkich funkcji
          > ?? Nie mozna startowac i lądowac?? Bo nie rozumiem tu czegoś??


          Czego tu nie rozumiesz? Ja zaplacisz za podstawowa wersje, to odostaniesz
          samochod z recznie otwieranymi szybami, bez centralnego zamka, bez klimatyzacji,
          komputera pokladowego i bez kamery cofania.

          A jak zaplacisz odpowiednio, to dostaniesz ze wszystkim, lacznie z barkiem i
          odtwarzaczem DVD.
    • washington84 LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 19:55
      Nie bedzie ani LOTu ani linii kolejowych. Czesc zostanie sprzedana do United
      Fund zarejestrowany na wyspach hula hula a inna czesc zamieni sie w cudowny
      sposob w wille pod Warszawa. Ciekawe czy takie same metody stosuje Urzad
      Miasta Warszawy w przetargach? Na przyklad budowa skrzyzowania z odbiorem
      robot w postaci symulacji ruchu. Co prawda nie dawno cos takiego zdarzylo sie.
      Slynny juz system sterowania ktory mial usprawnic ruch w centrum o 10%, co
      nawet zostalo udowodnione symulacja ruchu a po wybudowaniu czegos zawanego
      systemem okazalo sie ze ze straty wynosza 20%. Moze i ten Dreamliner okaze sie
      ze bedzie mial przepal jak ZIL.
    • uburama Każdy z pasażerów otrzyma symulator podróży 14.07.09, 20:37
      do Londynu. Taki jak na Misiu.
      • mr_kagan Re: Każdy z pasażerów otrzyma symulator podróży 14.07.09, 21:03
        A zaplaci za niego dolarami z Monopoly...
    • nocny-duch Tarcza - atrapa 14.07.09, 20:38
      samolot - atrapa, offset - atrapa, nadal nic nie dociera? a moze sojusznik to
      tez atrapa?
      • mr_kagan Re: Tarcza - atrapa 14.07.09, 21:04
        Od czasow prezydenta-aktora (Reagana), USA jest juz tylko tylko
        iluzja Ameryki...
      • ramyus Re: Tarcza - atrapa 14.07.09, 21:58
        nocny-duch napisał:

        > samolot - atrapa, offset - atrapa, nadal nic nie dociera? a moze sojusznik to
        > tez atrapa?


        Znaczy Airbus symulatorow treningowych nie produkuje?
        A to wielka szkoda. W takmim razie od dzisiaj nie wsiade na poklad zadnego A...
      • jebany_komuch Re: Tarcza - atrapa 15.07.09, 07:49
        > samolot - atrapa, offset - atrapa, nadal nic nie dociera? a moze sojusznik to
        > tez atrapa?

        No i nie zapominaj, że dostaniemy też atrapę Patriotów w zamian za Tarczę :)
    • hens Symulator 787 dla LOT 14.07.09, 21:19
      Odesłał bym tym oszołomom ten symulator, a do listu dołączył bym prezerwatywę
      z obciętym czubkiem,to tak do testowania firmy UNIGUM.

      Prędzej ci serce pęknie niż,uszkodzi się kondon mod. 787 pl
      • hens Re: Symulator 787 dla LOT 14.07.09, 21:40
        Na konto ich banku wysłałbym też symulator kasy,symulacja to taki dżentelmeński
        sposób na walenie w rogi klijenta
    • kutafonycz LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 22:30
      jankesi już całkowicie okutasieli!to nam atrapy Patriotów proponują zamiast
      samych Patriotów,teraz przysyłają nam zubożoną wersję symulatora po czym można
      sądzić że takie i będą samoloty,bo przecież uczyć się bedziemy na tym na czym
      mamy latać.oj coś mi się widzi że nas rozgryźli i traktują jak na to zasłużyliśmy.
      • bmc3i Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 23:06
        kutafonycz napisał:

        > jankesi już całkowicie okutasieli!to nam atrapy Patriotów proponują zamiast
        > samych Patriotów,teraz przysyłają nam zubożoną wersję symulatora po czym można
        > sądzić że takie i będą samoloty,


        Jak lot zaplaci za pelna wersje, to dostanie "full wypas", a jak placi za wersje
        podstawowa, to dostaje podstawowa.



        bo przecież uczyć się bedziemy na tym na czym
        > mamy latać.oj coś mi się widzi że nas rozgryźli i traktują jak na to zasłużyliś
        > my.
    • as200 Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 14.07.09, 23:44
      Jak plastikowy, kompozytowy samolot wytrzyma uderzenie pioruna ?
      A jak wytrzyma uderzenie o ziemie, albo wode podczas wypadku ?
      Kompozyt trzaska jak szklo.
      Jak kompozyt wytrzyma palace sie paliwo?
      Wlokna weglowe beda sie palic.
      • porque Re: LOT dostał symulator lotu Boeingiem 787 15.07.09, 00:16
        Wydawalo sie, ze takich glupot w XXI w. juz sie nie przeczyta. Jednak w Polsce i
        tylko w Polsce mozna na takie wypowiedzi liczyc. Trzeba to szybko umiescic na
        necie, niech nie myskla, ze Polacy to tylko polglowki.
        as200, zostaniesz gwiazda:))

        as200 napisał:

        > Jak plastikowy, kompozytowy samolot wytrzyma uderzenie pioruna ?
        > A jak wytrzyma uderzenie o ziemie, albo wode podczas wypadku ?
        > Kompozyt trzaska jak szklo.
        > Jak kompozyt wytrzyma palace sie paliwo?
        > Wlokna weglowe beda sie palic.

        :)))))))))))
    • malkontent6 Może to i dobrze. 15.07.09, 00:23
      Nie znam się na lotnictwie ale wydaje mi się, kolejność dostaw jest
      prawidłowa. Najpierw symulator do nauki latania a dopiero później
      samolot.
      • kutafonycz Re: Może to i dobrze. 15.07.09, 00:47
        malkontent6 napisał:

        > Nie znam się na lotnictwie ale wydaje mi się, kolejność dostaw jest
        > prawidłowa. Najpierw symulator do nauki latania a dopiero później
        > samolot.

        no niby prawda,tylko wersja powinna być całkowita a nie okrojona,w końcu jak się
        uczyć to na 100% a nie na pół gwizdka bo to raczej kwestia bezpieczeństwa a nie
        komfortu,a może już zadecydowali za nas że dostaniemy tylko jakieś mizerne kopie
        orginału przeznaczone dla plemienia mumbo-jumbo?a jak zechcemy kupić te
        prawdziwe?co ,nowy symulator potrzebny,jak mniemam,a przecież ucząc się na
        pełnej wersji nic nie przeszkadza latać na tej uboższej,za to ucząc się na tej
        ubogiej wersji za chiny nie polecisz na pełnej wersji.Coś mi się wydaje że chcą
        z nas podwójnie zedrzeć,przynajmniej wcisnąć nam dwa symulatory.
        • malkontent6 Re: Może to i dobrze. 15.07.09, 01:14
          Z artykułu nie wynika, że Lot zamówił jakiekolwiek symulatory. Nie
          wynika też, że dostawa symulatora była częścią zakupu B787.

          Mam wrażenie, że tak naprawdę polscy piloci będą sie uczyć latać na
          symulatorach w którymś z ośrodków szkolenia Boeinga, prawdopodobnie
          w USA. A to co teraz Lot otrzymał to taka ciekawostka, która da
          pilotom przedsmak latania tym samolotem.
    • maximus212 Symulator 787 dla LOT 15.07.09, 01:44
      A CO Z OFFSETEM?
    • 74n105c kupili cos czego nie ma ;) 15.07.09, 05:01
      Boeing na swojej stronie internetowej informował, że lot testowy ma się odbyć w czwartym kwartale 2008 r., a pierwsze dostawy mogą zostać zrealizowane w trzecim kwartale 2009 r., jednak z powodu strajku operatorów obrabiarek nastąpiło dalsze opóźnienie. 4 listopada firma ogłosiła, że pierwszy lot nie odbędzie się w zapowiadanym terminie. Jako przyczynę podano niewłaściwą instalację ważnych elementów łączących.[1] 11 grudnia 2008 Boeing ogłosił, że pierwszy lot odbędzie się w 2. kwartale 2009, a pierwsze dostawy Dreamliner`a przypadną na pierwszy kwartał 2010. Boeing w dniu 23 czerwca 2009 poinformował o przełożeniu pierwszego lotu testowego na później.
      • rabin105 A może, dla odmiany, wyprodukujecie coś sami? 15.07.09, 07:42

        Filozofujacę i narzekające Nikifory myśli technicznej
        i konstrukcyjnej. Czy w ostatnich latach Polska coś
        istotnego technicznie zaoferowala światu? Czy tylko
        slynną uniwersalna maszyne do narzekania, żalosne smutasy
        polskie?
        • bmc3i Popieram 15.07.09, 14:40
          Moze Polska sprobuje gdzies sprzedac owoc swojej zaawansowanej mysli
          technicznej, PZL Iryda....
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja