Price List: Fill & Download for Free

Historical data and statistics suggests that war presents an enormous opportunity for investors in projected winning faction to earn good returns on their investments. Consider how the Dow Jones Industrial Average has performed both before and after the U.S. military became engaged in past foreign hostilities.Lets consider some test cases of how US military decisive engagements in conflicts shapes the trajectory of US stock market. It requires interdisciplinary approach of study of history and finance. In 1983, US entered into conflist in Grenada and invaded the small Caribbean island country.[1] [2] On average over the month prior to the invasion, the Dow fell 0.6%, or 1.4 percentage points lower than the average of all months since 1983 (see chart). But this underperformance was quickly reversed: In the month after the U.S. military entered a conflict, the Dow soared an average 4.0%—3.2 percentage points greater than the average of all months since 1983.More or less, same trajectory of Dow Jones Index was observed after military engaged in conflicts of Panama (1989), First Gulf War (1991), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Second Gulf War (2003) and Libya (2011).If we observe the last three months performance of Dow Jones, it has remained consistent without any event of strong fillip. It is lingering around 20,000 to 21,000, breaching the 21,000 mark during the time when North Korea launched nuclear missile tests in between on 6th of March.[3] On 16th of April, North Korea once again tested its nuclear weapon, neverthelss this test failed. But the stock markets mostly remained unfazed by these developments and business as usual prevailed on wall street.However, in case of actual war, historical events and precedents suggests that US stock markets would witness a strong fillip with listed companies dealing in defence equipments and apparatus driving the upward trajectory. Companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Raytheon, L-3 Communications etc. will witness a strong upward trajectory in price of its shares as the demand for defence equipments and services naturally rises in the event of war. Everyone on wall street would endeavour to cash in the opportunity in such scenario of USA’s military engagement in North Korea.However, such scenario might create atmosphere of despair in stock markets of covert or over allies of North Korea such as Iran. But in case of China, it is extremely difficult to project what could be the impact of USA-North Korea war on its stock markets. Considering the logic, as it is the biggest ally of North Korea and providing patronage to dictatorial regime of Kim Jong Un, it can be surmised that Chinese stock markets in Shanghai and Beijing might witness a collapse, but equations are not so linear for China as its economic engagement muscles are far flexed beyond the reach of reasonable imagination. Other line of thought argues that even Chinese stock markets would witness an upward trajectory as demand for defence goods manufactured in China might increase if China enters into conflict backing the ruling regime of Kim Jong Un.With respect to other countries, which maintains equidistant position from China and USA, “business as usual” might prevail in the stock markets. However the stocks of defence production supply chain, particularly exporting goods to US defence corporations might witness a strong upward growth in prices of their stocks enhancing their market capitalization.However, all these projections might be frustrated by certain unforseen geopolitical events like actual use of nuclear weapon, chocking of crude oil supply points like strait of Hormuz or strait of Melacca etc.To sum up, one can plan to invest in major defence corporation’s stocks in USA to reap rich benefits in the form of enormous returns in the event of war with North Korea.Footnotes[1] United States invades Grenada - Oct 25, 1983 - HISTORY.com[2] Invasion of Grenada - Wikipedia[3] A Timeline of North Korea’s Missile Launches and Nuclear Detonations

Place of Origin:TaiwanBrand Name:DMAXModel Number:990005ABase Material:FR-4Copper Thickness:1/2OZ 1OZ 2OZ 3OZBoard Thickness:1.6mm-3.2mmMin. Hole Size:6 milMin. Line Width:3 milMin. Line Spacing:3 milSurface Finishing:ENIG, HASLImpedance:+/- 5%Certification:UL 94V-0, RoHS, REACHPCB/PCBA Standard:IPC-A-600/IPC-A-610Specifications:OEM Multilayer PCB & PCBA for Quick Turn PrototypePackaging DetailsPCBA: Anti-static Bubble BagPCB: Vacuum PackageCustom PackageContact us for more detailsPortFOB KEELUNGLead Time:2 weeksOEM Multilayer PCB & PCBA for Quick Turn PrototypeDmax manufacture PCBA for our customers, and these products are applied extensively to various fields: Computer, Communication, Consumer electronics, Industrial Controller, Smart living, Wearable device, Automobile Electronics.FAQsQ: Do you have a price list?A: We are OEM Manufacturer. We produce products per Customer’s designs and instructions. Hence we don’t have a price list. Eastwin PCB Board OEMQ: What’s your MOQ for PCB, PCBA?A: No MOQ for PCB and PCBA. We can do prototype and mass production as well. There exists Economical Order Quantity (EOQ), Please send inquiry to us for details.Q: Can you do turnkey services? Can you procure all parts in BOM for us?A:Due to MOQ & MPQ of Components, it depends on order quantity:*We would like to process the BOM procurement for MP(Mass Production)*We prefer Customer to supply components for Prototype and Pilot-run order Please send inquiry to us for more details.Q: What’s your L/T for PCBAs?A: PCBA Lead Time is normally 2 weeks. Post Test and Box build might last the Lead Time longer to 3 weeks Precise Instructions, SOP and Fine Test Fixture could expedite the L/T.Q: What’s your L/T for bare PCBs?A: PCB Lead Time is within 2 weeks if quantity below 1000 pcs (1K) PCB Lead Time is 3 weeks if quantity above 1000 pcs (1K)

Hello there,Goodness me - that’s a list not a single type ! I am going to therefore give you one example of civil and one of military, and my reasons for the choice made. In both cases, I’ll also list the upgrades to modern standards that I would like to make to each. The choices are personal …[1] CivilThis is surprisingly easy - the Douglas DC-3, the classic Dakota. Construction would be modernised in the following ways :Construction - with modern fasteners, and increased use of composites increased for difficult-to-mold-out-of-metal components.Empennage - use of composites here, as fabric covering can be improved on. Incorporation of hydraulics over original cable manual ‘feel’, but with a feedback function for pilot sense communications.Cockpit - full glass cockpit, with modern mod cons and computer control systems.Cabin - Redesigned to be pressurised, while retaining original design as far as is possible. This will permit the new aircraft o fly high above the weather.Hydraulics - Upgraded to modern design, for use on all systems of the aircraft.Undercarriage - Still taildragger, the single wheel can be replaced with a large double-wheel bogie.Engines - Instant upgrade to a pair high-powered turboprops, in the 2000 shp range.The reason for this selection is straightforward - the DC-3 has the Northrop Multi-Spar wing conferring great strength and flexibility. Its wing planform cuts through the air like a knife, and has good area to permit smooth flight at high altitudes.There have been essays in turboprop modifying DC-3’s, and cockpit upgrades before - the SAAF Turbodak is a great example - where the nos has been set forward to accommodate for the lighter turboprops, and in so doing also making the fuselage finer (more length - to - cross sectional area ratio) and thus dropping drag.So this is an early attempt at modernization, but if remanufacturing, so much more could be done ! I believe that a new, modern-tech DC-3 Turbo Dakota would make a super modern small-passenger/charter/cargo aircraft, and have utility today.It would sell in droves, if the per-unit price was brought in line with that of a modern feederliner/regional jet, The ideal being US$7–8 Million each.[2] MilitaryHere, I’m taking a type which, with modern manufacturing and engineering, would be a scintillating and fun aircraft which would be purchased in some number by both civil and military operators. Its this …The Supermarine Spitfire, and specifically the Mk. VIII version - the epitome of the Merlin-engined marks. To put it into commission, will also involve some thoughts about powerplants, and propellers.Manufactured with modern technology and composites, a new-build Spitfire would feature perfectly smooth skin, and tolerances far higher than the original, benefiting its airframe life.People who have worked on it have commented on how its construction resembles a Meccano set, a British engineering metal toy which is simultaneously strong and flimsy at once. The structural engineering of a new Spitfire would therefore throw out the sub-optimal, and then incorporate the new as far as is possible.It would also then be easier to service, with the incorporation of modern inspection panel fasteners and hinges - not that the original panel lines need be sacrificed at all.The heavy components in the structure would also be replaced, in a way that would give the new aircraft greater performance and range.Instrument panels and cockpit would also be updated so that taller pilots could fit into it - an overall 5% scale increase will also perhaps be a good upgrade, in certain dimensions.Minicameras and CCTV would also allow the Spitfire pilot to look in front of him while on the ground, for easier ground handling, one of the vices of the original.Hydraulics control will increase the authority of pilot. No fly-by-wire is needed - the Spitfire has sweet handling. Upgrades to brakes, and fasteners across the board.The undercarriage geometry of the last Spitfire, the Mk. 24, will be a feature - the last Griffon Spitfires were, by all accounts, very easy to handle on the ground, with fewer bad habits. Its small in visual appearance, and significant in increasing safety.In terms of powerplant, there are two options for development :Use of a turboprop of equivalent power to the original RR Merlin, and with a specific gearbox allowing the spinning of an identical-sized constant speed four-bladed propeller, similar in form to that of the original.A redesigned RR Merlin , incorporating modern engineering e.g. materials, fuel injection, turbocharger design, engine management (FADEC), and getting rid of the ‘brute force’ 1937 technology where its worthless, and incorporating modern engineering to make it a lighter, smoother, more powerful engine. Oh, the best of the Merlin would be retained, and new ways of making it a better engine would allow the new Spitfire to be a scintillating aircraft to fly at altitude.In all cases, a new design constant speed propeller will be needed, again to improve power delivery from the engine used. It will be of finer pitch, but crucially it MUST be of the same diameter as the original, with the same blade count. This is a significant part of the design’s attractiveness - very little beats the warbird in terms of swinging a HUGE propeller with a big powerful snort of the engine, its a critical part of its charm … and saleability.Weaponry for military types would be a pair of modern cannon, and the wing re-engineered to have hard points for ordinance delivery.Civil versions will no doubt be decorated to look like WWII fighters, but they will merely feature dummy cannon in the wings, with no capacity for weapon mounting.The aircraft would sell like hot cakes, provided its price range would be comparable to that of a entry-level business jet, say at US$750,000 per copy.[3] The Wish ListThere are other long-out-of-production types which also would do very well if put back into production today :DeHavilland Canada DHC-1 ChipmunkDeHavilland Canada DHC-2 BeaverHawker Tempest Mk. V and Mk. IIP-51D Mustang, re-engineered in the manner of the SpitfireDeHavilland Mosquito, re-engineered in composites replacing wood.DeHavilland Hornet, re-engineered in composites replacing wood.Douglas DC-7 with TurbopropsLockheed L-1049 Super Constellation, with massive re-engineering and turbopropsShort Sunderland Airliner, re-engineered as a full amphibian, with turboprop power.The warbirds would make much sought after civil sports aircraft and racers, and the airliners re-engineered would find tremendous favour.For those who like the idea of a Connie with Turboprops, Lockheed made one - the L-1249, though as a cargo-only model, which was a shame.If we re-engine with the engines and propellers of the Airbus A400 or C-130J Hercules, and give it more windows + pressurise and re-engineer - it would be spectacular !On the same front, Douglas had a DC-7 Turboprop design too - I’m of two minds about sweeping the fin, but the rest of it looks great …The Sunderland would be fantastic in providing city-to-city travel along coastlines, where it would be able to land and takeoff from the bay waterfronts of these cities, which are more often than not proximal to the CBD’s.In some ways, rather than the Sunderland, I’d love to take the Shin-Meiwa US-2 and turn it into an airliner - it would be awesome …I’d even keep the paint job, just add more windows, comfy seats, and sound deadening to make it a sweet ride for the paying public.The last Kawanishi becomes a direct ride from Auckland to Wellington and Christchurch, as well as Wanaka and Queenstown, and to Milford Sound and Kaitaia in New Zealand, as well as a city-hopper on the Australian East Coast … a happy dream, and the aircraft is quality from Japan, available now…I know I’ve provided more than one example, but I hope that this is a good opinion in regard to your question.With kind regards.