"but they can kick ass when they want to.
Obviously not when it comes to Arrow, Bombardier, and getting salary parity with US workers.
I say this unsarcastically as a Canadian.
Obviously not when it comes to Arrow, Bombardier, and getting salary parity with US workers.
I say this unsarcastically as a Canadian.
Pax hate turboprops because of the noise and a misconception that they're not jet engines.
There's no inherent safety difference, except that there used to be regional airlines flying with inexperienced pilots like cough Colgan.
They can provide fine-controlled reverse thrust, so they have that going for them. And they’re less complicated (and lighter) than a traditional piston engine, making them a win over normal engines in mid-sized aircraft.
EDIT: "Jets" in the above is a poor reference to turbofans, as pointed out by replies. Thanks for the clarification.
A Turbofan still has a turbine being powered by a jet engine, similar to a turboprop, but it does not have the complexity associated with being able to change the pitch of the props.
Combat jets often have very low-bypass ratio turbofan engines though. A true turbojet has a 0 bypass-ratio; a lot of turbofan fighter jets have bypass-ratios under 1, while the engines on a 787 have a bypass-ratio of 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio#Engine_bypass_rat...
Related to turboprops are turboshaft engines, which turn a power transmission shaft instead of a propeller directly. In some cases, like the V-22 Osprey, the line between a turboprop and a turboshaft is blurred. But some clear examples of turboshaft engines are in modern helicopters and Abrams tanks.
There are some kinds of jet engines that don't use turbines. Ramjets and scramjets don't use turbines, but have 'jet' in the name because they produce their thrust using a jet of hot exhaust gas. Rocket engines produce jets of hot exhaust gas, but aren't called jet engines because.. reasons.
> jet: A collimated stream, spurt or flow of liquid or gas from a pressurized container, an engine, etc.
(Note that this makes turboprop engines not jet engines, but turbojet and turboprop engines are both gas turbine engines.)
If they are so simple can you explain to me how interlaced rows of stator and rotor blades turn pressure into gas speed? That one always stumped me. Or how do I make monocrystalline blades, and how can I QA them? Or what exactly a FADEC do during startup, and how do the controlled parameters change depending on atmospheric conditions? Also I heard that the injectors and the air flow in the combustion chambers is designed such that there is an outside layer of incomplete combustion creating a colder laminar gasflow to protect the chamber wall itself. How do I go about designing that? How do I cool the bearings? How does one get the rotational energy out from the centre shaft to drive an oil pump on the side of the engine?
I mean these are just the first questions which pop up in my mind when I think about jet engines. And I'm not even a jet mechanic. If you truly think that jet engines are simple, then I envy your intellect.
Jet engines are used on some older oil pumps because they can run for decades with minimal maintenance.
This Genius Invention Could Transform Jet Engines, 2015, 3m51s, Bloomberg QuickTake Originals
[2] https://www.youtube.com./watch?v=8aPIEsnKb6o
Rolls-Royce UltraFan technology, 3 shaft geared turbofan jet engine, 2018, 2m29s, MDx media
The 'jet' engines used on oil pumps etc. are actually not jet engines: they are gas turbines in which an additional turbine or turbine stage is used to extract rotational power - in other words, they are more like turboprop engines than jet engines.
Nevertheless, I do disagree with the suggestion that turboprops are much less safe than turbojets, and I suspect that the author of that comment was confusing them with piston engines, which also (almost always) use propellers (increasingly, we are seeing turboprop singles replacing piston twins.) Finally, piston engines themselves have become much more reliable since the days when they were the only option.
Pedant.
There is every reason to anticipate China taking a big share of that industry away from Boeing and Airbus. They only need to buy their own supply (which they will) to do that.
Further, Japan is also very obviously about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet.
It's like people that were still pointing out up to the last moments in May that the US had no human space launch capability, trying to wring that last bit of satisfaction from the context.
They then built the factory for the C919 in Shanghai, and there went most of the people who previously worked at the Airbus factory. :)
not certified, a decade late
> about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet.
wasn't that cancelled last week?
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mitsubishi-pulls-back-sp...
It's likely my mother would have died, for different shortcomings of the medical system if she had still lived in Canada. Fortunately she's in the developing world now and received affordable, correct, and timely care.
If you need additional imagery or specialist study, you then do have to schedule these things. I've gone through this process in the last year and had multiple kinds of medical imagery done, as well as a procedure by a specialist in response to a doctor's initial findings. The appointments for imagery and specialist work were completed within the week following my initial appointment. In the past for far less urgent issues, I've had to wait up to a month.
All of this was comfortable, timely, and safe, and I did not ever have to wonder what expenses might arise. In the United States, this would have certainly destroyed all of my savings.
I'm glad your mother received the care she needed and is well, and I don't have personal experience dealing with cancer diagnosis and treatment here, so it may of course be different! But my own small issues could have destroyed me financially in America, or I would have more likely just never had them dealt with, and I am ostensibly in the relative financial elite as a decently paid tech worker with some actual savings.
Please, don't snidely smear this system, in a post about airplanes for god's sake! And certainly not on the basis of "death lists", and certainly not in comparison to America, because the United States has plain old deaths at home to far outweigh them, where no one was even waiting for anything.
The health care system here has issues, sure. Big issues! But in comparison to the American system it is an unmitigated good, at the absolute least for everyone with less than say, a million dollars in liquid savings.
If you want a sleep study and it's not life threatening, 1 year. If you want a consult with an orthopedic surgeon, 6-12 months followed by a surgury in 6-12 months. If you want a liver specialist consult, 6-12 months.
Sure, living in the US without insurance is definitely hazardous but I wouldn't compare having insurance in the US with healthcare in Canada.
edit: clarifying to add, not for a life-threatening issue.
Both Canada and the US have suboptimal systems that are dysfunctional in different ways. I'd rather the Canadian system if those are the only two options. It's a false dichotomy of course.
This is a little bombastic, and your anecdote is just a data point, not a reflection of the 'system'.
The US system is very expensive, but if someone is covered it's generally much better. I'm not quite sure if it's a very good deal, but the quality is high.
The Canadian system is highly rationed for many things. While in the US you might wait a few weeks for an operation, in Canada it could be months, years - or never.
In Ontario and Quebec - you literally cannot get a 'doctor' anymore, they are forcing people into clinics because it's more economical, meaning one's medical history may be not be integrated into diagnosis. When people have 'serious things' obviously they get care, but I personally had a 'difficult to diagnose problem' and the doctors at the clinics just didn't care - I had to go to the 'Cleveland Clinic' in Toronto, a 'private practice back door' to get someone to pay attention.
Almost nobody in the US has a 'million dollars in liquidity' and so this statement is really unfair.
The US system has 'major pitfalls' that regular people can fall into when they are not covered, and of course, a ton of people that are not insured.
It's a more existential problem than mere private/public discussions can address, that said, the lack of real private practice in Canada severely limits how much people can spend if they want to in the area, and it means an otherwise huge chunk of the economy lives in the socialized system, which means money doesn't get into so many things we might like it to. Canada and other nations end up depending heavily on the US for a lot of medical innovation.
I, on the other hand, think that high taxes end up benefitting everyone through greater services for those down on their luck which seems to translate to less desperation, less resentment, less classism, less crime. Basically overall far better peace of mind for all involved even though getting filthy rich isn't as much a thing. It's totally possible there are other circumstances at play here like the relative homogeneity of Scandinavian countries relative to the US so this is just a working hypothesis at the moment.
That's a perfectly reasonable decision.
That said, far more Scandinavians have calculated that they would rather have the US approach than the other way around. Whether on an absolute or (especially) per capita basis, far more Swedes and Norwegians move to the US than follow your lead and move to Scandinavia.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/4rcl0o/til_a...
There are also career issues - there are just very, very few places in Canada where you can go on to earn 'mid/late career big bucks' in tech.
In Canada, all the expensive stuff is cheap but the cheap stuff is expensive.
I think you are possibly massively underestimating how much it is possible to get paid as even an average software developer in the US. Like literally off by an entire order of magnitude.
I would guess it's more like 100%-400% more for equivalent jobs, and many people at. Plus your US job covers your healthcare etc.
Long time ago I worked in the US company based out of the Toronto area that ended up with IT ops people in call centers all over the US and Canada. It worked really well -- the Canadian developers were awesome, and IT type people are easy to train. They seemed to be able to attract well educated graduates with locally competitive salaries that were below average by US standards. Over the years I've dealt with a few smaller Canadian consultancies and they always seemed to punch above their weight.
If you can provide good work, there is alot of Canadian talent that wants to work in Canada.
The weird thing is that all of the players have significant people investments outside of the US. These often start as support and maintenance operations but often grow into more over time.
It's legitimately surprising to me that companies don't "offshore" to Cincinnati, Minneapolis or Tampa. IBM used to have success doing that, for example. Defense contractors too, although obviously there is a political and a "be close to the customer" element to having engineers next to an air force base.
I live in one of the less wealthy EU countries. Almost everybody have 26 days of paid leave a year here. If I'm sick it's additional paid leave. University education and healthcare is free. Retirement is handled as well (but you got to save something yourself additionally if you want quality time on retirement).
There's a combined year of paid maternity/paternity leave for each kid. Cities are clean and safe, police shoots like 100 bullets a year nationally and usually it's warning shots. There were no mass shootings, ever. Last time police killed someone without obvious explanation it was a huge scandal and it's still discussed 4 years later on national level.
I use a car once a month at most, usually I ride a bike or just walk everywhere. There's also public transport that's cheap, clean and dependable (not so great during the pandemic though). There's no social stigma associated with walking/biking or using public transport.
Property tax is almost nonexistent, if you work as a senior developer you can buy several flats in a big city, rent them, and live from that, if you wish.
You can buy a flat in a big city for about 5 years of average developer's salary. All the costs of living are set for people who earn less than 1/5th of what you earn. You have all the interesting countries right there, you can visit them by bike, car, train, or fly (if you are flexible with the date usually you can find 2-way flights for less than $100 between any 2 places in EU).
I mean it would be nice to have millions of USD but if I have to deal with the paperwork, no holidays to speak of, spend hours in traffic every day, and afterwards the only significant difference in quality of life is a few more 0s on my bank account - nah, I'll pass.
It would probably be different if I wanted to start a global business.
That's about what I was making in a medium (~100k) midwestern city over a decade ago and less than the average software developer there makes now.
I'm pretty surprised by how big of a difference it is honestly. Even companies like Amazon and Microsoft in Vancouver were only averaging 100k CAD salaries. (Stock helps, but that would be an extremely low salary just a few hours away in Seattle)
There's a much greater spread of wages in the US than in other comparable countries, so it's attractive for those of us towards the higher end of the scale. Coming from the UK though I do miss the feeling of freedom from being able to take a long break between jobs and not having to worry about healthcare.
Why?
Those are what you generally need to be able to consider working in other countries.
Those are largely what the readership of a software VC firm forum are going to have.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/city-of-vancouver-criti...