Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > That can be said for far away British possessions too.
> > >
> > > No sir, the British possessions are not constutionally part of the
> > > United Kingdom, Greenland is for the moment at least
> > > part of the Kingdom of Denmark
> >
> > As is Gibraltar I believe, to eliminate the word colony.
>
> I was very careful not to use the word colony
>
> > Nevertheless,
> > neither Gib is part of the UK nor is Greenland a part of Denmark.
>
>
> Here lies the difference
>
> Gibraltar is not part of the UK, its voters do not elect members
> of the British parliament and it has its own currency , sets its own
> taxation and in all ways ecept foreign affairs and defence is
> completely independent
>
> The electors of Greenland DO elect members to the Danish Parliament,
> they use the Danish Kroner and are subject to Danish Law.
> They are in fact LESS independent than is Scotland which has
> its own Parliament, issues its own banknotes and has its own body
> of law.
>
> > Dependencies, crown dominions, colonies, overseas territories, or
> whatever,
> > they are not a part of the their mother countries, although owned by
them.
> > They are separate entities.
> >
>
> There are considerable differences in status between a dominion,
> colony and overseas territory but Greenland is NONE of the
> above, politically it is a part of Denmark
>
>
> > What you are saying make The Le reunion islands in the southern Indian
> Ocean
> > a part of France, the same geographical territory.
> >
>
> La Reunion is an overeas department of France, most residents
> vehemently oppose independence. Its official currency is the Euro.
> IT IS A PART of the geopolilitcal entity we call France. Its citizens
> hold French passports, they use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their
president
> etc.
>
> France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
> a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
> least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
> like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
> Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
> use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.
>
> Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
> sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
> Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.

We can look at it the other way. The Isle of Man is not in the EU and has
some strange binding, non-binding link wit the UK. It is right in the
middle of the UK with the UK either side of it. It means nothing as it IS a
part of the UK by proximity.

La Reunion, Greenland, Gib, Falklands, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc are NOT a
part of their mother countries (the country that has sovereignty over them).
They are separate entities, irrespective of what they are politically
called.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That it was not
> > > > >
> > > > > Deliveries began in 1965 , the Boeing 727 entered service in 1964
> > > > > and the Tupolev TU-124 entered service between Moscow and
> > > > > Ulyanovsk in December 1962
> > > >
> > > > The 727 was a larger plane.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The 727-100 could carry 131 pax, the contemporary
> > > BAC-111-400 carried 89
> >
> > Substantially bigger.
> >
> >
>
> But still a short haul airliner that entered service before the
> BAC-111 contrary to your claim that the 111 was first.

More medium haul.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
> > a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
> > least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
> > like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
> > Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
> > use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.
> >
> > Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
> > sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
> > Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.
>
> We can look at it the other way. The Isle of Man is not in the EU and has
> some strange binding, non-binding link wit the UK. It is right in the
> middle of the UK with the UK either side of it. It means nothing as it IS
a
> part of the UK by proximity.
>

It is NOT part of the UK
It is part of the British Isles

One is a poltical entity the other goegraphical

> La Reunion, Greenland, Gib, Falklands, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc are NOT
a
> part of their mother countries (the country that has sovereignty over
them).

SOME are , having the same sovereignty is what defines a nation state.

La Reunion , Guiana and a part of the European continent make up the
country called France.

England is a geographical entity that is part of
the political entity called England and Wales

England and Wales are in turn part of that political enity
called the United Kingdom. The UK IS a nation state,
Scotland, NI, Wales and England are not at present but have been
in the past.

Countries change even when geography is static.
The territiry known as AlsaceLorraine has at various times
in the past century been both part of France and part of
Germany.

> They are separate entities, irrespective of what they are politically
> called.

Please TRY and understand that political entities and geographical entities
are not the same thing. One describes the topology of the planet and
the other the political system under which it is ruled.


Keith

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > > France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
> > > a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
> > > least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
> > > like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
> > > Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
> > > use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.
> > >
> > > Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
> > > sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
> > > Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.
> >
> > We can look at it the other way. The Isle of Man is not in the EU and
has
> > some strange binding, non-binding link wit the UK. It is right in the
> > middle of the UK with the UK either side of it. It means nothing as it
IS
> a
> > part of the UK by proximity.
> >
>
> It is NOT part of the UK
> It is part of the British Isles
>
> One is a poltical entity the other goegraphical
>
> > La Reunion, Greenland, Gib, Falklands, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc are
NOT
> a
> > part of their mother countries (the country that has sovereignty over
> them).
>
> SOME are , having the same sovereignty is what defines a nation state.
>
> La Reunion , Guiana and a part of the European continent make up the
> country called France.
>
> England is a geographical entity that is part of
> the political entity called England and Wales
>
> England and Wales are in turn part of that political enity
> called the United Kingdom. The UK IS a nation state,
> Scotland, NI, Wales and England are not at present but have been
> in the past.
>
> Countries change even when geography is static.
> The territiry known as AlsaceLorraine has at various times
> in the past century been both part of France and part of
> Germany.
>
> > They are separate entities, irrespective of what they are politically
> > called.
>
> Please TRY and understand that political entities and geographical
entities
> are not the same thing.

I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
matter what the sovereign state calls them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Read about the Brababzon project.
>

I'm familiar with the Brabazon project. If you read about it then you can
become familiar with it as well.


>
> We know.
>

Who are "we"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Deliveries began in 1965 , the Boeing 727 entered service in 1964
> and the Tupolev TU-124 entered service between Moscow and
> Ulyanovsk in December 1962
>

SAS began Caravelle operations in April 1959.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 727 was a larger plane.
>

The 727 was marketed as a short/medium haul transport.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> for sure.
>

The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.


>
> I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
>

The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unable to apply logic
>

Good. Recognizing your limitations is the first step.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You lack basic logic and reasoning.
>

That's not a determination you're able to make.


>
> The point: The UK is not small.
>

It depends on one's point of view. Review my previous message.


>
> It is. I have been though most.
>

Then you have an odd definition of "useless".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> But it is massive by Holland standards. Once again the UK is not small.
>

You're contradicting yourself. If the UK is massive by Holland standards,
then the US is certainly gargantuan by UK standards, and the UK is small by
US standards. It all depends on one's point of view.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
> British made better planes but never sold well.
>

No, it's you that does not get the point. If the British made better planes
they WOULD have sold better.


>
> Proves the point. The 1-11 was a better plane than its eqivs yet sold
well
> but inferior US planes sold better.
>

If the One-Eleven was a better plane than it's competitors it would have
outsold them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now read them again 4 times. You can move your lips when you are reading.
>

You're not even trying to understand. There are some very knowledgeable
people contributing to this thread, you have a real opportunity to learn
something about aviation and you're wasting it.

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
>matter what the sovereign state calls them.
>
If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
of the US, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
the continental US.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> matter what the sovereign state calls them.
>
>

So you presumably believe Hawaii isnt part of the USA since
its 1500 miles away in the middle of the Pacific While Quebec
must be since you can drive there from New York State
in a couple of hours.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> >matter what the sovereign state calls them.
> >
> If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
> of the US, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.
>

Damm you beat me to it :)

Keith

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The 727 was a larger plane.
> >
>
> The 727 was marketed as a short/medium haul transport.

The BAC 1-11 was only short haul. In Saudi Arabia they use 747s as a medium
haul airbus from Jeddah to Riyadh. You can use along haul for medium and
short. You can use medium as short. But a short is a short.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > for sure.
> >
>
> The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
>
>
> >
> > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> >
>
> The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
development.
>
>

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You lack basic logic and reasoning.
> >
>
> That's not a determination you're able to make.
>
>
> >
> > The point: The UK is not small.
> >
>
> It depends on one's point of view. Review my previous message.

I did. It was silly.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But it is massive by Holland standards. Once again the UK is not small.
> >
>
> You're contradicting yourself. If the UK is massive by Holland standards,
> then the US is certainly gargantuan by UK standards, and the UK is small
by
> US standards. It all depends on one's point of view.

I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is not
small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
> development.
>

No. The 707 was never a bomber. The Boeing 367-80 served as the prototype
for both the 707 and the KC-135 tanker, Boeing financed the 367-80 itself.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
> > British made better planes but never sold well.
>
> No, it's you that does not get the point. If the British made better
planes
> they WOULD have sold better.

That is not always the case. Many poor products sell well. The VW Beetle
for one. Fine in 1936,46 and maybe 56, but then it was obsolete and bloody
awful. I had a new one for 6 months and hated the antiquated ugly *******.
Yet it sold in the millions.

In the US the local airlines bought US planes because of backup. Getting
parts from the UK to a remote US airport maybe=difficult whereas Boeing
parts are probably on site.

> > Proves the point. The 1-11 was a
> > better plane than its eqivs yet sold
> > well but inferior US planes sold better.
>
> If the One-Eleven was a better plane
> than it's competitors it would have
> outsold them.

You are not too bright are you?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now read them again 4 times. You can move your lips when you are
reading.
>
> You're not even trying to understand. There are some very knowledgeable
> people contributing to this thread, you have a real opportunity to learn
> something about aviation and you're wasting it.

You are a turkey.

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> >matter what the sovereign state calls them.
> >
> If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
> of the US,

Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.

> you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.

I couldn't care. BTW, local Hawaiians want independence. The US stole the
islands. It has now more westerners on it than locals.



>
> Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
> Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
> Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
> the continental US.
>
>
>
> --
> David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
> | If you don't, flee.
> http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> > matter what the sovereign state calls them.
>
> So you presumably believe Hawaii isnt part of the USA since
> its 1500 miles away in the middle of the Pacific While Quebec
> must be since you can drive there from New York State
> in a couple of hours.

Are you mad? Quebec is in Canda.

Hawaii is not a part of the mass of the USA. being 1,500 miles way means it
is not a part of the USA. They call it a state, it's not. It is a
dependency, colony or take your pick what to call it.

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> >matter what the sovereign state calls them.
> >
> If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
> of the US, you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.
>
> Now, if the US can be geographically split, why can't France or
> Denmark? Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
> Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
> the continental US.

In your logic all of the British Empire was the UK. And Britain killing
100,000 Japs in the "UK" was not worth it, as it was a distraction of some
sort and all Britain's forces should have been around Japan. Hawaii is not
even in the American continent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was silly.
>

That's another determination you're unable to make.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is not
> small.
>

I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is not always the case.
>

But it's true in this case.


>
> You are not too bright are you?
>

I am extremely bright.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are a turkey.
>

I like turkey. Ummmm....

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hawaii is not a part of the mass of the USA. being 1,500 miles way means
it
> is not a part of the USA. They call it a state, it's not. It is a
> dependency, colony or take your pick what to call it.
>

It is a state, and you are a fool.

[Dave Holford]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is not
> > small.
> >
>
> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.



I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would like
to make the following contributions:

I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to provide a
sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
countries being depicted.

I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it certainly
gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was being
handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts and
Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be obvious
to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.

I recall that during that time there was a large body of opinion, which
included me, that anything "made in England" was the best and foreign
stuff just couldn't stack up (especially that Japanese junk!). I had
friends who were convinced that the British destruction of the German
Naval Base at Helgoland was actually the British test of a nuclear
weapon. This attitude can still be seen on ancient British TV and
Movies.

Luckily I, and most of my generation, grew up and realized that the Sun
was indeed setting on the Empire and other peoples were capable of
building stuff which was just as good (sometimes even perhaps a little
better) than British stuff.

The days of the Brabazon closely followed the heyday of the "SPIV",
probably best defined as one whose words were, to put it politely, not
to be taken at face value.

I shall continue to follow this threat if for no other reason than to
see who finally gets the last word.

Dave

[Dave Holford]

I know, I know. I can't spell and my grammar stinks.

It's been a long day, and I am no longer an Englishman.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would like
> to make the following contributions:
>

At this point, amusement is all this thread has to offer!

[Brett]

"Dave Holford" > wrote:

<...>

> I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would like
> to make the following contributions:
>
> I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
> schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to provide a
> sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
> countries being depicted.
>
> I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it certainly
> gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was being
> handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts and
> Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be obvious
> to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.

The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even has a
remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.

[Chris Manteuffel]

(David Thornley) wrote in message >...

> Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
> Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
> the continental US.

Thule->Copenhagen is 2395 miles (3854 km) (2081 nautical miles)

Honolulu->Washington, D.C. 4835 miles (7780 km) (4201 nautical miles)

Juneau, Alaska-> Washington, D.C. 2830 miles (4554 km) (2459 nautical miles)

(Source: http://www.indo.com/distance/)

So Thule is closer to its capital than either Honolulu or Juneau are.

Chris Manteuffel

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is not
> small.
>
>

Its 2/3 the size of Germany
Its 1/2 the size of Iraq
Its 1/2 the size of France
Its 40% of the size of Afghanistan
Its 3% of the size of the USA
Its 2 % of the size of the Russian Federation

London is closer to Tunis than Seattle is to Washington DC

The UK falls on the sall side of the distribution curve
in geographic terms

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> > > matter what the sovereign state calls them.
> >
> > So you presumably believe Hawaii isnt part of the USA since
> > its 1500 miles away in the middle of the Pacific While Quebec
> > must be since you can drive there from New York State
> > in a couple of hours.
>
> Are you mad? Quebec is in Canda.
>
> Hawaii is not a part of the mass of the USA. being 1,500 miles way means
it
> is not a part of the USA. They call it a state, it's not. It is a
> dependency, colony or take your pick what to call it.
>

Ah you truly are delusional, thanks for confirming that
you are fundamentally disconnected from reality.

Keith

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is
not
> > small.
> >
>
> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more. It is big

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That is not always the case.
> >
>
> But it's true in this case.
>
> > You are not too bright are you?
>
> I am extremely bright.

Self delusion.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hawaii is not a part of the mass of the USA. being 1,500 miles way
means
> it
> > is not a part of the USA. They call it a state, it's not. It is a
> > dependency, colony or take your pick what to call it.
>
> It is a state,

So they say. It is a colony. They colonised it virtually displacing the
locals.

> and you are a fool.

You can't think

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Holford" > wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would like
> > to make the following contributions:
> >
> > I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
> > schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to provide a
> > sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
> > countries being depicted.
> >
> > I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it certainly
> > gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was being
> > handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts and
> > Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be obvious
> > to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.
>
> The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even has a
> remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.

I never said I did. Enlighten us then.

[Spiv]

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
om...
> (David Thornley) wrote in message
>...
>
> > Without actually looking at a globe, I'd imagine that
> > Greenland is closer to continental Denmark than Hawaii is to
> > the continental US.
>
> Thule->Copenhagen is 2395 miles (3854 km) (2081 nautical miles)
>
> Honolulu->Washington, D.C. 4835 miles (7780 km) (4201 nautical miles)
>
> Juneau, Alaska-> Washington, D.C. 2830 miles (4554 km) (2459 nautical
miles)
>
> (Source: http://www.indo.com/distance/)
>
> So Thule is closer to its capital than either Honolulu or Juneau are.

That is nice to know.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is
not
> > small.
>
> Its 2/3 the size of Germany
> Its 1/2 the size of Iraq
> Its 1/2 the size of France
> Its 40% of the size of Afghanistan
> Its 3% of the size of the USA
> Its 2 % of the size of the Russian Federation
>
> London is closer to Tunis than Seattle is to Washington DC
>
> The UK falls on the sall side of the distribution curve
> in geographic terms

You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any other
country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > Its 2/3 the size of Germany
> > Its 1/2 the size of Iraq
> > Its 1/2 the size of France
> > Its 40% of the size of Afghanistan
> > Its 3% of the size of the USA
> > Its 2 % of the size of the Russian Federation
> >
> > London is closer to Tunis than Seattle is to Washington DC
> >
> > The UK falls on the sall side of the distribution curve
> > in geographic terms
>
> You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any other
> country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
>
>
>

Small , medium and large are not absolute measures.
They are words that we use making comparisons and
are completely meaningless in a singular context.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
>> for sure.
>>
>
>The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.

>> I once flew to Moscow in one during the
>> mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
>> almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.

>The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

Same wing and engines, IIRC, very different fuselage. About the
same relationship as there was between Tu-95 and Tu-114.

Believe the glazed nose was for ground handling. It persisted
into several later Sov.U. airliner designs which were certainly
unrelated to any military type (and led to the radar sitting
atop the tailfin, rather than in the nose as in western designs).

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is not
>> small.

>I am looking at the UK too. It is small.

Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
and the UK very small..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is
> not
> > > small.
> > >
> >
> > I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>
> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.

You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with not much
"personal" space).

> It is big

Only to a small child.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dave Holford" > wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would like
> > > to make the following contributions:
> > >
> > > I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
> > > schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to provide
a
> > > sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
> > > countries being depicted.
> > >
> > > I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it certainly
> > > gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was
being
> > > handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts
and
> > > Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be
obvious
> > > to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.
> >
> > The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even has a
> > remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.
>
> I never said I did.

Actually you have.

> Enlighten us then.

I have.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any other
> country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
>

I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>
> Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> and the UK very small..
>

Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.

[Keith Willshaw]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> >"Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It is
not
> >> small.
>
> >I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>
> Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> and the UK very small..
>

Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
about half way to Vladivostok.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>> In article . net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> >
>> >I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>>
>> Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
>> and the UK very small..
>
>Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
>about half way to Vladivostok.

Would that have been to Yakutsk? My former boss (now dead, sadly)
spent a fair amount of time working with the geophysical institute
there in the middle and late 80s, eventually leading to him being
immortalised by Steve Bell as the Plaid Siberu candidate in the
Vale of Yakutsk bye-election series of cartoons.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Its 2/3 the size of Germany
> > > Its 1/2 the size of Iraq
> > > Its 1/2 the size of France
> > > Its 40% of the size of Afghanistan
> > > Its 3% of the size of the USA
> > > Its 2 % of the size of the Russian Federation
> > >
> > > London is closer to Tunis than Seattle is to Washington DC
> > >
> > > The UK falls on the sall side of the distribution curve
> > > in geographic terms
> >
> > You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
other
> > country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Small , medium and large are not absolute measures.
> They are words that we use making comparisons and
> are completely meaningless in a singular context.

and...?

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It
is
> > not
> > > > small.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
> >
> > It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
>
> You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with not
much
> "personal" space).

Such wisdom. Duh

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Dave Holford" > wrote:
> > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would
like
> > > > to make the following contributions:
> > > >
> > > > I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in British
> > > > schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to
provide
> a
> > > > sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
> > > > countries being depicted.
> > > >
> > > > I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it
certainly
> > > > gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was
> being
> > > > handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias, Viscounts
> and
> > > > Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be
> obvious
> > > > to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.
> > >
> > > The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even has
a
> > > remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.
> >
> > I never said I did.
>
> Actually you have.
>
> > Enlighten us then.
>
> I have.

Where?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
other
> > country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
>
> I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.

Could you walk around it in a day?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> > and the UK very small..
> >
>
> Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.

Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land. The
UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.

[Keith Willshaw]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >
> >"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article . net>,
> >> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
> >>
> >> Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> >> and the UK very small..
> >
> >Yeah I recall an 8 hour flight from Leningrad that got me
> >about half way to Vladivostok.
>
> Would that have been to Yakutsk? My former boss (now dead, sadly)
> spent a fair amount of time working with the geophysical institute
> there in the middle and late 80s, eventually leading to him being
> immortalised by Steve Bell as the Plaid Siberu candidate in the
> Vale of Yakutsk bye-election series of cartoons.
>

No it was to Tashkent, I was working for ICI at the time
and they built the Soviets a Terylene Plant there.

Keith

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Spiv >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
>> >matter what the sovereign state calls them.
>> >
>> If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
>> of the US,
>
>Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.
>
If you're going to talk some language vaguely related to English,
as opposed to English, you might as well let us know beforehand.

Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US. Between WWI and WWII, East
Prussia was part of Germany. Why is this so difficult to
understand?

>> you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.
>
>I couldn't care.

Obviously. Here's a clue: if you want to get anything out of
participation in Usenet, you really should be able to communicate.
Disagreeing with entire national populations about what a country
is does not seem, to me, like communicating.

BTW, local Hawaiians want independence. The US stole the
>islands. It has now more westerners on it than locals.
>
Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
territory, are you sure the locals want independence? I wouldn't
be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)
there are a good number of people who want independence, a good number
who want statehood, and a larger number who like the status quo.

BTW, "has now more westerners on it than locals" is a fairly good
description of most of the US, given suitable definitions of
"westerners" and "locals".

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Hawaii is not a part of the mass of the USA. being 1,500 miles way
>>
>> It is a state,
>
>So they say. It is a colony.

It is a state. Colonies and other possessions do not have voting
representation in the US Congress, and do not send Electors to the
Electoral College for Presidential elections. Hawaii and Alaska
do.

They colonised it virtually displacing the
>locals.
>
Unless you can tell me why this is different from any other state
in the US, it's not a way to distinguish a state from a colony.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land. The
>UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.
>
Quote from the 2004 World Almanac, p. 848:

Britain imports all of its cotton, rubber, sulphur, about 80% of
its wool, half of its *food* and iron ore....

Emphasis supplied. (The old-fashioned spelling of "sulfur" is in
the original.)

Not to mention that this had absolutely nothing to do with size in
any sense meaningful to transportation.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >,
Brett > wrote:
>"Spiv" > wrote:
>>
>> Read about the Brababzon project.
>
>I believe the only one contributing to this thread that hasn't read about
>the Brabazon committee would be YOU.
>
Technically, I've been contributing, and I haven't read about it.

Of course, I have avoided saying anything stupid about airliners by
not saying anything about them.






--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Dave Holford]

Spiv wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> > > and the UK very small..
> > >
> >
> > Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.
>
> Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land. The
> UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.


With all the 'Land Army', 'Victory Gardens' etc. why were we so short of
food with just a fraction of that population during WWII?

I used to think the U.K. was big when I thought a 100mile drive required
pre-planning. Then I came to North America and got on a train - three
days later I was still on the train and a long, long way from the far
side. Incidentally I'm expecting to drive about 120miles tomorrow to do
a little shopping; if I did that in the U.K. I'd probably fall off the
edge.

Dave

[Jarg]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...

> So they say. It is a colony. They colonised it virtually displacing the
> locals.
>

Pretty much every human inhabited location is the result of some other group
being displaced or conquered, and often it was done many times in the same
location by different groups. Hawaii itself was a unified group of
kingdoms. By your reasoning, most of the world is a colony. Hawaii is a
state, the majority of residents including those of Polynesian ancestry
support remaining so.

Jarg

[Spiv]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
m...
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So they say. It is a colony. They colonised it virtually displacing
the
> > locals.
> >
>
> Pretty much every human inhabited location is the result of some other
group
> being displaced or conquered, and often it was done many times in the same
> location by different groups. Hawaii itself was a unified group of
> kingdoms. By your reasoning, most of the world is a colony. Hawaii is a
> state, the majority of residents including those of Polynesian ancestry
> support remaining so.

Not what I read. A majority of Polynesianians want independence.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Could you walk around it in a day?
>

I could travel around it in a day.

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >"David Thornley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Spiv >
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I know exactly what they are. Overseas territories, are just that, no
> >> >matter what the sovereign state calls them.
> >> >
> >> If you are going to suggest that Alaska and Hawaii are not part
> >> of the US,
> >
> >Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.
> >
> If you're going to talk some language vaguely related to English,
> as opposed to English, you might as well let us know beforehand.
>
> Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US.

As is are the Falklands a part of the UK if we go to the point of who has
sovereignty. However these places are not a part of the main mother. They
are detached and acquired much later.

> Between WWI and WWII, East
> Prussia was part of Germany.

And it disappeared because it was not a part of the mother country.

> >> you're suggesting something that nobody will agree with.
> >
> >I couldn't care.
>
> Obviously. Here's a clue: if you want to get anything out of
> participation in Usenet, you really should be able to communicate.
> Disagreeing with entire national populations about what a country
> is does not seem, to me, like communicating.
>
> BTW, local Hawaiians want independence. The US stole the
> >islands. It has now more westerners on it than locals.
> >
> Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
> territory, are you sure the locals want independence?

Last I read.

> I wouldn't
> be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)

Not a part of the USA apparently being some sort of protectorate as are the
US Virgin Islands.

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land.
The
> >UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.
> >
> Quote from the 2004 World Almanac, p. 848:
>
> Britain imports all of its cotton, rubber, sulphur, about 80% of
> its wool, half of its *food* and iron ore....

It can feed the people, the UK is highly fertile. We pay farmers not to
produce. Any food imported is because it is cheap, trade agreements, or we
just can't grow that food in our climate. When it comes to it, the land can
feed the people. It did in WW2. All land was turned over to food
production.

> Not to mention that this had absolutely nothing to do with size in
> any sense meaningful to transportation.

Who said transportation. 175 years ago it took days to go from one part of
England to another by stage coach. They all thought it was very big. You
think of the size of a country by plane times.

[Jarg]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > So they say. It is a colony. They colonised it virtually displacing
> the
> > > locals.
> > >
> >
> > Pretty much every human inhabited location is the result of some other
> group
> > being displaced or conquered, and often it was done many times in the
same
> > location by different groups. Hawaii itself was a unified group of
> > kingdoms. By your reasoning, most of the world is a colony. Hawaii is
a
> > state, the majority of residents including those of Polynesian ancestry
> > support remaining so.
>
> Not what I read. A majority of Polynesianians want independence.
>
>
>

I looked around and cannot find anything that supports your contention. On
the other hand the LA Times mentions a 1999 survey in which "43% of
Hawaiians--evenly split among natives and nonnatives--either favored or
partly favored the idea of sovereignty."

Jarg

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> It can feed the people, the UK is highly fertile. We pay farmers not to
> produce. Any food imported is because it is cheap, trade agreements, or
we
> just can't grow that food in our climate. When it comes to it, the land
can
> feed the people. It did in WW2. All land was turned over to food
> production.
>

And despite that and stringent rationing we still imported a large
percentage
of our food from the USA, thats why the bloody Germans were trying to sink
the merchant ships after all.

Keith

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It
> is
> > > not
> > > > > small.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
> > >
> > > It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
> >
> > You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with not
> much
> > "personal" space).
>
> Such wisdom.

Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single beds
would allow about 60 million people their own bed.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Dave Holford" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > I have been following this "discussion"? with amusement and would
> like
> > > > > to make the following contributions:
> > > > >
> > > > > I recall that at one time every page of most atlases used in
British
> > > > > schools tended to have a corner insert of the British Isles to
> provide
> > a
> > > > > sense of scale - invariably they were tiny by comparison with the
> > > > > countries being depicted.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am old enough to have seen the Brabazon in the air, and it
> certainly
> > > > > gave me the impression of a large but ungainly aircraft which was
> > being
> > > > > handled with great care. I have also flown in Britannias,
Viscounts
> > and
> > > > > Vanguards; and while I found all three comfortable it should be
> > obvious
> > > > > to anyone that the Viscount was the only successful one.
> > > >
> > > > The bit I find amusing is "Spiv" has yet to indicate that he even
has
> a
> > > > remote clue about the specification that led to the Viscount.
> > >
> > > I never said I did.
> >
> > Actually you have.
> >
> > > Enlighten us then.
> >
> > I have.
>
> Where?

In this thread.

>
>

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > for sure.
> > >
> >
> > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > >
> >
> > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
>
> The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
> development.

No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber. "Military Derivatives. Another
aircraft type that traces its ancestry to the 707 prototype is the U.S. Air
Force KC/C-135 tanker-transport/cargo airplane...Additionally, three
707-120s plus two 707-320Bs, designated VC-137s, were delivered to the
Military Airlift Command for transporting high government officials...Recent
military applications of the 707 are the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control
System or AWACS (used by the U.S. Air Force, NATO, the Saudi government and
the French and British air forces for airborne surveillance, command and
control) and the E-6 used by the U.S. Navy for submarine communications...."
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/

No, Boeing paid for the development itself. "Production go-ahead for the
Dash 80 was announced by Boeing Aug. 30, 1952, as a company-financed $16
million investment."
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "David Thornley" > wrote in message

<...>

> > Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
> > territory, are you sure the locals want independence?
>
> Last I read.

This thread would lead most sane people to believe you don't actually have
that in your skill set.

[James Hart]

Brett wrote:
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> message link.net...
>>>
>>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It
>>>> is not small.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>>
>> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
>
> You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with
> not much "personal" space).

It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all stand up
shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved :)

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Brett]

"James Hart" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> >> message link.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK. It
> >>>> is not small.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
> >>
> >> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
> >
> > You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with
> > not much "personal" space).
>
> It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
> population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all stand up
> shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved :)

About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about 0.6
square feet to stand in.

[James Hart]

Brett wrote:
> "James Hart" > wrote:
>> Brett wrote:
>>> "Spiv" > wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK.
>>>>>> It is not small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>>>>
>>>> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
>>>
>>> You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with
>>> not much "personal" space).
>>
>> It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
>> population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all
>> stand up shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved :)
>
> About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about
> 0.6 square feet to stand in.

Maybe it only works when the tides's out, or the tall people stand in the
sea.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Could you walk around it in a day?
> >
>
> I could travel around it in a day.

So it is big then

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > It can feed the people, the UK is highly fertile. We pay farmers not to
> > produce. Any food imported is because it is cheap, trade agreements, or
> we
> > just can't grow that food in our climate. When it comes to it, the land
> can
> > feed the people. It did in WW2. All land was turned over to food
> > production.
> >
>
> And despite that and stringent rationing we still imported a large
> percentage
> of our food from the USA, thats why the bloody Germans were trying to
sink
> the merchant ships after all.

The country could feed itself that was for sure. The Germans wanted to sink
arms more than food.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > > > link.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK.
It
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > small.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
> > > >
> > > > It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
> > >
> > > You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with
not
> > much
> > > "personal" space).
> >
> > Such wisdom.
>
> Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single beds
> would allow about 60 million people their own bed.

And 4000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire.

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > for sure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> >
> > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
> > development.
>
> No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.

They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of some of
them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers, essentially
large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and start all
over again.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> So it is big then
>

It is small.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > for sure.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > >
> > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
> > > development.
> >
> > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
>
> They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of some
of
> them.

I probably shouldn't ask this, but do you actually know the name of any
bomber produced by Boeing?

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brett wrote:
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>> "Brett" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Spiv" > wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not comparing the UK with others. I am looking at the UK.
>>>>>> It is not small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking at the UK too. It is small.
>>>>
>>>> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more.
>>>
>>> You could probably fit 60 million people on the Isle of Wight (with
>>> not much "personal" space).
>>
>> Such wisdom.
>
> Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single
> beds would allow about 60 million people their own bed.

Where, pray tell, do you expect people to take a dump? Ah, I know. Every
person will have their own individual waste bucket and personal stove. Food
will be passed hand-to-hand from ships on the shores of the island. Waste
products will be passed outwards and summarily dumped into the sea. It'll
suck to live in the middle. Friends will be strictly local. Most of the
time, people won't leave their beds. Too much hassle stepping over people
and beds to go visit anybody. The dilligent will exercise in place, most
will become fat and lazy. Finally, everyone will be issued their own
personal roofing kit, which will be modularly applied over the entire island
to keep the rain off. Body heat alone will keep everyone warm.

Sounds a lot like a poultry factory.

Or cells in the body. Maybe some people will specialize in the moving of
resources and an economy will develop.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[Pete]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
> other
> > > country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
> >
> > I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.
>
> Could you walk around it in a day?

Finally, we see the definition of "small".

By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".

Pete

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > for sure.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > >
> > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for the
> > > development.
> >
> > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
>
> They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of some
of
> them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers, essentially
> large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
> familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and start
all
> over again.

Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high wings
suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing design of
the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.

Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make them
bombers either.

Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.

[[email protected]]

"Brett" > wrote:

>
>Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single beds
>would allow about 60 million people their own bed.
>
>
With that kinda thinking it wouldn't be long before you'd need a
lot more beds...
--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> > the merchant ships after all.
>
> The country could feed itself that was for sure.

So why do you think Britain imported vast amounts
of grain from the USA and Canada and beef from Argentina

> The Germans wanted to sink
> arms more than food.
>

Trouble is most of the ships sunk werent carrying arms.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >, Pete > wrote:
>
>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Could you walk around it in a day?
>
>Finally, we see the definition of "small".
>
>By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".

The Vatican, perchance?

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > > > link.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > > >
> > > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for
the
> > > > development.
> > >
> > > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
> >
> > They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of some
> of
> > them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers, essentially
> > large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
> > familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and start
> all
> > over again.
>
> Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high wings
> suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing design
of
> the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.
>
> Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make them
> bombers either.
>
> Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
> Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.

Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
share of the 707s development.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > the merchant ships after all.
> >
> > The country could feed itself that was for sure.
>
> So why do you think Britain imported vast amounts
> of grain from the USA and Canada and beef from Argentina

So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
production.

> > The Germans wanted to sink
> > arms more than food.
>
> Trouble is most of the ships sunk werent carrying arms.

Because that was imported the most, and raw materials.

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Pete wrote:
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>>>
>>> I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.
>>
>> Could you walk around it in a day?
>
> Finally, we see the definition of "small".
>
> By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".

Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein? Although I recall Andorra being the
relatively large one of the three. Monaco, pretty sure you could walk
around it in 1 day easy.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote:
>
>>
>> Simple mathematics, the Isle of Wight packed end to end with single
>> beds would allow about 60 million people their own bed.
>>
>>
> With that kinda thinking it wouldn't be long before you'd need a
> lot more beds...

In reference to my 'poultry farm' post, I wonder how one would handle
medical and emergency services? Maybe disease and fires would kill a lot of
people off. This is reminding me of a scenario I tried to run in a city
builder game called 'Zeus.' I wanted to build a city that was entirely tent
slums, but they kept on getting the plague and also burning to the ground!

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brandon J. Van Every" > wrote in
message ...
> Pete wrote:
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> >>>
> >>> I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.
> >>
> >> Could you walk around it in a day?
> >
> > Finally, we see the definition of "small".
> >
> > By this measure, there is no such things as a "small" country".
>
> Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein? Although I recall Andorra being the
> relatively large one of the three. Monaco, pretty sure you could walk
> around it in 1 day easy.
>

San Marino is definitely doable in a day as is The Vatican

Keith

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any
other
> > country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
>
> I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.

Kenya is a hot country. This is like saying, oh Kenya is not a hot country
because Saudi Arabia is hotter.

[George Z. Bush]

Spiv wrote:
>>
>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> You really are hard of thinking. I am not comparing the UK with any other
>>> country < sigh>, just looking at the UK singularly. It is not small.
>>
>> I've been to the UK. Looking at it singularly, it is small.

How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))
>

You'll have to ask Spiv.

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Spiv >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.
>> >
>> If you're going to talk some language vaguely related to English,
>> as opposed to English, you might as well let us know beforehand.
>>
>> Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US.
>
>As is are the Falklands a part of the UK if we go to the point of who has
>sovereignty.

Sovereignity is not the issue here. Do the people who live in the
Falklands vote for members of the Parliament that sits in London?
Do they have UK citizenship? It is possible to have sovereignity
over a territory without it being a part of the sovereign country.
That's not the point here.

However these places are not a part of the main mother. They
>are detached and acquired much later.
>
Some are, some aren't. The Falklands is not a part of the UK in
the same way Hawaii is part of the US.

>> Between WWI and WWII, East
>> Prussia was part of Germany.
>
>And it disappeared because it was not a part of the mother country.
>
No, it disappeared along with a good chunk of Silesia, in a
Stalin-dictated border shift.

>> Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
>> territory, are you sure the locals want independence?
>
>Last I read.
>
Could be. It really doesn't matter much, except to them.

>> I wouldn't
>> be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)
>
>Not a part of the USA apparently being some sort of protectorate as are the
>US Virgin Islands.
>
Puerto Rico is in its own anomalous status, and it isn't really part of
the US by the standards I set. It is conceivable that it could be
formally independent within the next ten or twenty years, although
it would surprise me. That isn't happening with Hawaii.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >,
James Hart > wrote:
>Brett wrote:
>> "James Hart" > wrote:
>>>
>>> It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
>>> population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all
>>> stand up shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved :)
>>
>> About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about
>> 0.6 square feet to stand in.
>
>Maybe it only works when the tides's out, or the tall people stand in the
>sea.
>
Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
three billion, which gives over one square foot per person, which
should be enough on the average. (I have big feet.)

On the other hand, I used to get mild claustrophobia attacks now and
then in large crowds, so if you don't mind I'll bow out of the
experiment.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Dave Holford]

Spiv wrote:
>
>
>
> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
> are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
> share of the 707s development.


Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
project; then they might have had a winner?

Dave

[John Mullen]

David Thornley wrote:
> In article >,
> James Hart > wrote:
>
>>Brett wrote:
>>
>>>"James Hart" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
>>>>population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all
>>>>stand up shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved :)
>>>
>>>About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about
>>>0.6 square feet to stand in.
>>
>>Maybe it only works when the tides's out, or the tall people stand in the
>>sea.
>>
>
> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
> three billion,

More like six IIRC

which gives over one square foot per person, which
> should be enough on the average. (I have big feet.)
>
> On the other hand, I used to get mild claustrophobia attacks now and
> then in large crowds, so if you don't mind I'll bow out of the
> experiment.

Agreed

John

[David Thornley]

In article >,
John Mullen > wrote:
>David Thornley wrote:
>>
>> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
>> three billion,
>
>More like six IIRC
>
It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
three decades or so.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >,
Dave Holford > wrote:
>
>Spiv wrote:
>>
>> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
>> are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
>> share of the 707s development.
>
>Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
>with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
>project; then they might have had a winner?
>
Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
in a limited market niche....


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > link.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for
> the
> > > > > development.
> > > >
> > > > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
> > >
> > > They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of
some
> > of
> > > them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers,
essentially
> > > large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
> > > familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and
start
> > all
> > > over again.
> >
> > Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high
wings
> > suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing
design
> of
> > the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.
> >
> > Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make them
> > bombers either.
> >
> > Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
> > Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.
>
> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
> are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
lions
> share of the 707s development.
>
>

Even if it that were true, and it isn't (details about wet wings and so
forth), it still would not make the Boeing 707 a bomber.

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid
for
> > the
> > > > > > development.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
> > > >
> > > > They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings of
> some
> > > of
> > > > them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers,
> essentially
> > > > large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they
are
> > > > familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and
> start
> > > all
> > > > over again.
> > >
> > > Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high
> wings
> > > suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing
> design
> > of
> > > the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.
> > >
> > > Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make
them
> > > bombers either.
> > >
> > > Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
> > > Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.
> >
> > Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
wings
> > are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
> lions
> > share of the 707s development.
>
> Even if it that were true, and it isn't (details about wet wings and so
> forth), it still would not make the Boeing 707 a bomber.

The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it but
in a rather different way.

If GM and Ford come up with a fuel cell car, Uncle Sam overtly paid for the
research for that one.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))
>
> You'll have to ask Spiv.

If he wants too.

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dave Holford > wrote:
> >
> >Spiv wrote:
> >>
> >> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
wings
> >> are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
lions
> >> share of the 707s development.
> >
> >Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
> >with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
> >project; then they might have had a winner?

Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.

> Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
> probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
> in a limited market niche....

In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite this
they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
after.

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > development.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
> > > > >
> > > > > They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings
of
> > some
> > > > of
> > > > > them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers,
> > essentially
> > > > > large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they
> are
> > > > > familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and
> > start
> > > > all
> > > > > over again.
> > > >
> > > > Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high
> > wings
> > > > suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing
> > design
> > > of
> > > > the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.
> > > >
> > > > Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make
> them
> > > > bombers either.
> > > >
> > > > Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make
a
> > > > Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.
> > >
> > > Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
> wings
> > > are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
> > lions
> > > share of the 707s development.
> >
> > Even if it that were true, and it isn't (details about wet wings and so
> > forth), it still would not make the Boeing 707 a bomber.
>
> The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
> know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
> countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it but
> in a rather different way.
>
> If GM and Ford come up with a fuel cell car, Uncle Sam overtly paid for
the
> research for that one.

A whole lot of research and development which went into the WWII bombers
came from the earlier civilian airliners and cargo aircraft. A whole lot of
research and development which came from the earlier civilian airliners and
cargo aircraft, went into the WWII bombers, and went back into civilian
airliners after the war. None of which changes the fact that the Boeing 707
was not a bomber and did benefit from all aeronautical research on all types
of aircraft.

[John Mullen]

Spiv wrote:
> "David Thornley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>Dave Holford > wrote:
>>
>>>Spiv wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
>
> wings
>
>>>>are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
>
> lions
>
>>>>share of the 707s development.
>>>
>>>Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
>>>with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
>>>project; then they might have had a winner?
>
>
> Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.
>

Would have had problems with humidity on some of the stops on the London
Joburg run!

>>Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
>>probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
>>in a limited market niche....
>
>
> In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
> concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite this
> they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
> after.

Which literally was dynamite. As it tended to blow up regularly.

John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(David Thornley) writes:
> In article >,
> John Mullen > wrote:
>>David Thornley wrote:
>>>
>>> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
>>> three billion,
>>
>>More like six IIRC
>>
> It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
> population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
> to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
> three decades or so.

Well, maybe they can stand on one foot, then.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Brett]

"David Thornley" > wrote:
> In article >,
> John Mullen > wrote:
> >David Thornley wrote:
> >>
> >> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
> >> three billion,
> >
> >More like six IIRC
> >
> It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
> population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
> to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
> three decades or so.

Three decades ago - the world population on Feburay 6, 1974 was about 4.15
Billion (and they still had less than a square foot of the Isle of Wight)
:-)

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "David Thornley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Dave Holford > wrote:
>> >
>> >Spiv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
> wings
>> >> are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
> lions
>> >> share of the 707s development.
>> >
>> >Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
>> >with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
>> >project; then they might have had a winner?
>
> Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.

Or not. Check out the record of the DeHavilland 91 Albatross, their just
pre-war 4-engine airliner. One of the most beutiful airplanes ever
made. And horrendously prone to strucural failure.

>
>> Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
>> probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
>> in a limited market niche....
>
> In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
> concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite this
> they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
> after.

UMM.Hmm. Explain the following Brit wartime transport designs, then:
Avro 688 Tudor: Designed 1943-1945, 1st flight June, 1945.
Avro 685 York: 1st flight July, 1942
Bristol 170 Freighter: 1st Flight December 1945
Handley Page H.P.68 Hermes Designed 1943, Put on hold until the
failure of the Avro Tudor.
Handley Page Halton
Short S-25 Sunderland/Sandringham
Vickers-Armstron VC.1 Viking 1st Flight early 1945

There doesn't seem to have been any lack of effort.

Then there wre all the trnasport flavors of the
Whitley, Wellington, Warwick, Stirling, Halifax, and Lancaster.

So many prototypes, it almost seems German.

But the World, (And BOAC), bought DC-4s, Constellations, & Strats.
For one overriding reason: You could fly them over a useful range,
with a useful load, earn more money than it cost to own and run them.

Brit Airliners have, as a general rule, had problems with structural
weight fraction and thus payload/range tradeoffs.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> Or not. Check out the record of the DeHavilland 91 Albatross, their just
> pre-war 4-engine airliner. One of the most beutiful airplanes ever
> made. And horrendously prone to strucural failure.

Looks like a slightly-pudgy Lockheed Constellation (that's not a bad
thing).

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
> know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
> countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it but
> in a rather different way.
>

I note DeHavilland built rather a lot of bombers too, doubtless
a good deal of that knowledge went into their civil aircraft designs


Thats just silly

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.
>

Lots of luck pressurising a wooden fuselage or getting pax to wear pressure
suits

> > Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
> > probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
> > in a limited market niche....
>
> In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
> concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite
this
> they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
> after.
>

Which fell out of the air shortly afterwards

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>> they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
>> after.

Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).

Regardless of the problems, Comet was in a different class to
abominations like the Tudor.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> If he wants too.
>

If he wants what too?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> I note DeHavilland built rather a lot of bombers too, doubtless
> a good deal of that knowledge went into their civil aircraft designs
>

I don't see much similarity between de Havilland's bombers and the Comet.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The BAC 1-11 was only short haul.
>

Which limited it's usefulness and partly explains why it sold so poorly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more. It is big
>

60 million is less than 1% of the world's population. It is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>
> Same wing and engines, IIRC, very different fuselage. About the
> same relationship as there was between Tu-95 and Tu-114.
>

Yeah, that's essentially how you modify a bomber to make an airliner.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land.
> The UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.
>

Yes, a small nation can support a small population.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the
> wings of some of them. What a give away.
>

Right. The 707 wing looks just like the B-29 wing. They just bent it back.


>
> A company that is making bombers, essentially
> large transports, of course would fall back on the technology they are
> familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there and start
> all over again.
>

That's what de Havilland did with the Comet.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
> production.
>

In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was for
sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK imported
food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be sunk
on UK bound merchant ships?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
> wings are virtually the same angle and shape.
>

By "same angle" you're clearly referring to the B-47 and B-52. The wing
structure of those aircraft, other than being metal, had little in common
with the 367-80.


>
> In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
> share of the 707s development.
>

Well, there is some truth to that, the money Boeing spent on the 367-80 was
primarily profits from military contracts. But that was Boeing's money to
do with as it pleased, and it pleased Boeing to spend it on the development
of a new jet transport. Boeing received no development funds from the US
government.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kenya is a hot country. This is like saying, oh Kenya is not a
> hot country because Saudi Arabia is hotter.
>

I've never been to Kenya or Saudi Arabia. But I have been to the UK and US.
The UK is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
> know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it.
>

What bomber know-how and technology went into the 707?


>
> Some
> countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it but
> in a rather different way.
>

What way did the US do it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>
> Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
> Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
> service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).
>

Did the Nene Viking ever carry a passenger? As I recall, the Viking served
as a Nene engine testbed only and reverted to piston engines after it had
served that purpose. That doesn't sound like a jet airliner to me.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.
>>
>
> Lots of luck pressurising a wooden fuselage or getting pax to wear pressure
> suits

Well, if you're willing accept an airplane that isn't an airliner, DH
did, in fact, build soe pressurized wooden fuselages. The Vampire, and
the Venom both had pressurized cockpits and wooden fuselages, and I
believe that there were pressurized Mosquitos as well.
Perhaps that was the problem - htey didn't use enough wood in the
Comet.
(It still wouldn't have solved the handling issues, though. Everybody
concentrates on the Metal Fatigue, but more COmet Is were written off
due to the airplane's twitchy low-speed handling.

>
>> > Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
>> > probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
>> > in a limited market niche....
>>
>> In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
>> concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite
> this
>> they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
>> after.
>>
>
> Which fell out of the air shortly afterwards

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > >
link.net...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
> in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
> > > > > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I once flew to Moscow in one during the
> > > > > > > > > > mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
> > > > > > > > > > almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam
paid
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > development.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings
> of
> > > some
> > > > > of
> > > > > > them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers,
> > > essentially
> > > > > > large transports, of course would fall back on the technology
they
> > are
> > > > > > familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there
and
> > > start
> > > > > all
> > > > > > over again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back
high
> > > wings
> > > > > suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing
> > > design
> > > > of
> > > > > the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make
> > them
> > > > > bombers either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not
make
> a
> > > > > Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.
> > > >
> > > > Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
> > wings
> > > > are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid
the
> > > lions
> > > > share of the 707s development.
> > >
> > > Even if it that were true, and it isn't (details about wet wings and
so
> > > forth), it still would not make the Boeing 707 a bomber.
> >
> > The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
> > know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
> > countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it
but
> > in a rather different way.
> >
> > If GM and Ford come up with a fuel cell car, Uncle Sam overtly paid for
> the
> > research for that one.
>
> A whole lot of research and development which went into the WWII bombers
> came from the earlier civilian airliners and cargo aircraft. A whole lot
of
> research and development which came from the earlier civilian airliners
and
> cargo aircraft, went into the WWII bombers, and went back into civilian
> airliners after the war. None of which changes the fact that the Boeing
707
> was not a bomber and did benefit from all aeronautical research on all
types
> of aircraft.

Mainly bombers

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The BAC 1-11 was only short haul.
>>
>
> Which limited it's usefulness and partly explains why it sold so
> poorly.

There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.


Regards...

[David Thornley]

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was for
>sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK imported
>food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be sunk
>on UK bound merchant ships?
>
FWIW, Britain produced most of its own arms, with some obvious exceptions
like tanks.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in

>
> There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
> so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
> the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
> for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
> has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.
>

However catching a train from Britain to the continent
was until very recently made atouch difficult by virtue of
it being an island.

Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.

Keith

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>
> >
> > There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
> > so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
> > the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
> > for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
> > has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.
> >
>
> However catching a train from Britain to the continent
> was until very recently made atouch difficult by virtue of
> it being an island.
>
> Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
> making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
> the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
> for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
> etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.

mid 1980s? By that time the Airbus was making excellent in-roads.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
> > know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
> > countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it
but
> > in a rather different way.
> >
>
> I note DeHavilland built rather a lot of bombers too, doubtless
> a good deal of that knowledge went into their civil aircraft designs
>
>
> Thats just silly

It is silly to transfer military technology to civilian use?

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.
> >
>
> Lots of luck pressurising a wooden fuselage or getting pax to wear
pressure
> suits
>
> > > Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
> > > probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
> > > in a limited market niche....
> >
> > In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
> > concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite
> this
> > they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
> > after.
> >
>
> Which fell out of the air shortly afterwards

They did it though.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more. It is big
> >
>
> 60 million is less than 1% of the world's population. It is small.

1% is small, but bigger than 0.5%.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land.
> > The UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.
> >
>
> Yes, a small nation can support a small population.

60 millions is small? You do a sense of humour. Could be 62 million now.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
> > production.
> >
>
> In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was
for
> sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK imported
> food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be
sunk
> on UK bound merchant ships?

More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Kenya is a hot country. This is like saying, oh Kenya is not a
> > hot country because Saudi Arabia is hotter.
> >
>
> I've never been to Kenya or Saudi Arabia.

I have.

> But I have been to the UK and US.

So have I.

> The UK is small.

Failed. Not so.



>

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
> > Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
> > service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).
> >
>
> Did the Nene Viking ever carry a passenger? As I recall, the Viking
served
> as a Nene engine testbed only and reverted to piston engines after it had
> served that purpose. That doesn't sound like a jet airliner to me.

1948 -Vickers Nene Viking (World's first pure jet transport) made first
flight in April, followed in July by prototype Viscount 630 (world's first
turboprop airliner). It carried pasengers, but nmot fare paying.

http://www.apda61.dsl.pipex.com/Av4/Nenevik.JPG

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
> > > production.
> > >
> >
> > In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was
> for
> > sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK
imported
> > food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be
> sunk
> > on UK bound merchant ships?
>
> More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!

So if you really needed them why didn't your leaders stop exporting them to
Russia.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
> > making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
> > the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
> > for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
> > etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.
>
> mid 1980s? By that time the Airbus was making excellent in-roads.
>

They had sold around 280 A-300's by that time and were a
relatively small part of the UK fleets which were dominated by
737's but certainly sold well to French carriers even if it was
a little on the large side to compete with the 737.

Airbus sales only really took off with the intruction of the A-320
which did compete very succesfully with the 737. It wasnt
until 1990 that Airbus orders started to approach those of Boeing

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
>
> FWIW, Britain produced most of its own arms, with some
> obvious exceptions like tanks.
>

It seems the UK also acquired many aircraft from outside sources as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> 60 millions is small?
>

Yes, it is a small part of the world's population.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!
>

Yes, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Failed. Not so.
>

It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1948 -Vickers Nene Viking (World's first pure jet transport) made first
> flight in April, followed in July by prototype Viscount 630 (world's first
> turboprop airliner). It carried pasengers, but nmot fare paying.
>

The Nene Viking was not a jet transport. It was a propeller transport that
served briefly as a jet engine testbed. It never served as an airliner.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
> > > making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
> > > the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
> > > for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
> > > etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.
> >
> > mid 1980s? By that time the Airbus was making excellent in-roads.
>
> They had sold around 280 A-300's by that time and were a
> relatively small part of the UK fleets which were dominated by
> 737's but certainly sold well to French carriers even if it was
> a little on the large side to compete with the 737.

The point is European, not just UK. 280, is not all switching to Boeings.
280 is fair number of planes.

> Airbus sales only really took off with the intruction of the A-320
> which did compete very succesfully with the 737. It wasnt
> until 1990 that Airbus orders started to approach those of Boeing
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!
> >
>
> Yes, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.

It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry outperformed
Germany. Today, with modern farming techniques, the UK can easily feed
itself, and others. At one point it produced more food than Canada, and
more than Australia. We pay farmers not to produce now.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Failed. Not so.
> >
>
> It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state
> of
> Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
> perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The UK is
nor small.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 1948 -Vickers Nene Viking (World's first pure jet transport) made first
> > flight in April, followed in July by prototype Viscount 630 (world's
first
> > turboprop airliner). It carried pasengers, but nmot fare paying.
> >
>
> The Nene Viking was not a jet transport.

It was.

> It was a propeller transport that
> served briefly as a jet engine testbed.

No. It was plane with jet engines and seats for people inside.

> It never served as an airliner.

It did. It never took paying passengers.

>
>

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!
> > >
> >
> > Yes, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
>
> It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry
outperformed
> Germany. Today, with modern farming techniques, the UK can easily feed
> itself, and others. At one point it produced more food than Canada, and
> more than Australia. We pay farmers not to produce now.

Britain produced only 30% of its food going into the war. It never remotely
approached 100% and badly damaged its soil fertility for decades to come in
the efforts to increase the food production.

[D. Patterson]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Spiv wrote:
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is small
> > > > and the UK very small..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.
> >
> > Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land.
The
> > UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.
>
>
> With all the 'Land Army', 'Victory Gardens' etc. why were we so short of
> food with just a fraction of that population during WWII?

Pre-WWI taxation policies discouraged much of the agricultural developments
being realized elsewhere in the world. During the two world wars, the amount
of land changed from pastoral usage to cultivation practically doubled by
WWII. Beginning in WWII, the government began encouraging the heavy usage of
fertilizers to increase crop yields. In the post-war food shortages, Britain
worked steadily to increase production with fertilization, larger farms,
improved animal husbandry, and ever larger crop yeilds from genetically
improved crop varieties and animal herds. This resulted in 75%
self-sufficiency by 1972 and near 100% self-sufficiency by the 1990s.
Unfortunately, the price for these increases in food production has resulted
in steadily decreasing soil feritlity, increasing soil contamination and
water pollution with ecologically destructive organo-phosphate salts from
the fertilizers, and the possible over-reliance in factory farms and disease
risk monoculture crops.

>
> I used to think the U.K. was big when I thought a 100mile drive required
> pre-planning. Then I came to North America and got on a train - three
> days later I was still on the train and a long, long way from the far
> side. Incidentally I'm expecting to drive about 120miles tomorrow to do
> a little shopping; if I did that in the U.K. I'd probably fall off the
> edge.
>
> Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry
outperformed
> Germany.
>

The UK imported food and arms during WWII.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.
> The UK is nor small.
>

It depends on one's point of view. By US standards the UK is small.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was.
>

The Nene Viking was an engine test bed.


>
> No. It was plane with jet engines and seats for people inside.
>

Airplanes without seats are called UAVs.


>
> It did. It never took paying passengers.
>

That's how you can tell it was not an airliner. Airliners carry paying
passengers.

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Failed. Not so.
> > >
> >
> > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the
state
> > of
> > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
> > perspective, the UK is small.
>
> My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The UK is
> nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of Russia.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
>> Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
>> service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).

>Did the Nene Viking ever carry a passenger? As I recall, the Viking served

Honestly not sure - never carried fare-paying passengers, f'sure.

>as a Nene engine testbed only and reverted to piston engines after it had
>served that purpose. That doesn't sound like a jet airliner to me.

<shrugs> OK, first airliner to be powered by jet engines, if
you prefer. The Viking was certainly an airliner and the Nenes
were certainly jets, so whether or not the resulting combination
was intended for service as passenger-carrier or as a testbed
for the engine there's a touch of "airliner+jet" about it,
whichever way you re-arrange the words. The Avro Tudor V
probably falls into the same box (though, unusually for a Tudor,
not very hard).

Comet was the first one to fly commercially, though. Tu-104
probably the second (don't think Canadair C-102 ever carried
fare-paying passengers).

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
> >
> > It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry
> outperformed
> > Germany. Today, with modern farming techniques, the UK can easily feed
> > itself, and others. At one point it produced more food than Canada, and
> > more than Australia. We pay farmers not to produce now.
>
> Britain produced only 30% of its food going into the war. It never
remotely
> approached 100% and badly damaged its soil fertility for decades to come
in
> the efforts to increase the food production.

Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the home
market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939 it was not
ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the empire and others. By
1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Holford" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Spiv wrote:
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Having looked at Russia (from flights out to Japan) the USA is
small
> > > > > and the UK very small..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, as I said, it depends on one's point of view.
> > >
> > > Depends on its ability to support people
> > > and feed them from the land. The
> > > UK can do that with no problems - 60
> > > million of them.
> >
> > With all the 'Land Army', 'Victory Gardens'
> > etc. why were we so short of food with just
> > a fraction of that population during WWII?

Victory gardens were morale boosters, no more.

> Pre-WWI taxation policies discouraged much of the agricultural
developments
> being realized elsewhere in the world. During the two world wars, the
amount
> of land changed from pastoral usage to cultivation practically doubled by
> WWII. Beginning in WWII, the government began encouraging the heavy usage
of
> fertilizers to increase crop yields. In the post-war food shortages,
Britain
> worked steadily to increase production with fertilization, larger farms,
> improved animal husbandry, and ever larger crop yeilds from genetically
> improved crop varieties and animal herds. This resulted in 75%
> self-sufficiency by 1972 and near 100% self-sufficiency by the 1990s.
> Unfortunately, the price for these increases in food production has
resulted
> in steadily decreasing soil feritlity, increasing soil contamination and
> water pollution with ecologically destructive organo-phosphate salts from
> the fertilizers, and the possible over-reliance in factory farms and
disease
> risk monoculture crops.

In 1939, much farming in the UK was still horse drawn. Rural UK was in a
different world to the rest, being not far from being Medieval in look and
mentality.

> > I used to think the U.K. was big when I thought a 100mile drive required
> > pre-planning. Then I came to North America and got on a train - three
> > days later I was still on the train and a long, long way from the far
> > side. Incidentally I'm expecting to drive about 120miles tomorrow to do
> > a little shopping; if I did that in the U.K. I'd probably fall off the
> > edge.

You will not fall off the edge. You go 120 miles to shop? You poor sod!
Leave that place now and get back to civilisation.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry
> outperformed
> > Germany.
>
> The UK imported food and arms during WWII.

That has been mentioned.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.
> > The UK is nor small.
>
> It depends on one's point of view. By US standards the UK is small.

The UK is not small.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It was.
>
> The Nene Viking was an engine test bed.

> > No. It was plane with jet engines and seats for people inside.
>
> Airplanes without seats are called UAVs.

> > It did. It never took paying passengers.
>
> That's how you can tell it was not an airliner. Airliners carry paying
> passengers.

It was a people carrying jet. Is that better for you. Do you now
understand.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
> consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
> home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
> it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the empire
> and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
>

In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> That has been mentioned.
>

Ah, you're learning at last. Good.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The UK is not small.
>

The UK is small. That seems to bother you a great deal. Why?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was a people carrying jet.
>

So was the Meteor.


>
> Is that better for you. Do you now understand.
>

I'm trying to help you understand.

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the
> state
> > > of
> > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
> > > perspective, the UK is small.
> >
> > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The UK
is
> > nor small.
>
> Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of Russia.

Which means nothing at all. The UK is not small.

[Spiv]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> >"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
> >> Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
> >> service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).
>
> >Did the Nene Viking ever carry a passenger? As I recall, the Viking
served
>
> Honestly not sure - never carried fare-paying passengers, f'sure.
>
> >as a Nene engine testbed only and reverted to piston engines after it had
> >served that purpose. That doesn't sound like a jet airliner to me.
>
> <shrugs> OK, first airliner to be powered by jet engines, if
> you prefer. The Viking was certainly an airliner and the Nenes
> were certainly jets,

Which makes it a jet airliner.

> so whether or not the resulting combination
> was intended for service as passenger-carrier or as a testbed
> for the engine there's a touch of "airliner+jet" about it,

I would say a lot. Airliner with jet engines, is a jet airliner.

> whichever way you re-arrange the words. The Avro Tudor V
> probably falls into the same box (though, unusually for a Tudor,
> not very hard).
>
> Comet was the first one to fly commercially, though. Tu-104
> probably the second (don't think Canadair C-102 ever carried
> fare-paying passengers).
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
> "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which means nothing at all. The UK is not small.
>

It depends on one's point of view.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
> > consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
> > home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
> > it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the empire
> > and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
>
> In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.

You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by 1945
could feed itself if it wanted too. Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was no longer a
problem. Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems, but in
the early part of the war, when Britain was fighting on many fronts by
herself, she could not arm herself against a country that had begun arming
itself for 10 years before the war, even with British industry running flat
out.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The UK is not small.
> >
>
> The UK is small. That seems to bother you a great deal. Why?

It doesn't. I know it is not small, I live here. t bothers you though.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It was a people carrying jet.

> So was the Meteor.

That was man o war only carrying people who flew it.

> > Is that better for you. Do you now understand.

> I'm trying to help you understand.

Please don't help me. I can't think down to that level of yours.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point.
>

You must learn that your point is not valid.


>
> The UK by 1945 could feed itself if it wanted too.
>

The war ended in 1945.


>
> Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
> importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was
> no longer a problem.
>

But still a necessity as the UK could not arm or feed itself during the war.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It doesn't.
>

It obviously does.


>
> I know it is not small, I live here.
>

Then you are not in a position to make a comparison.


>
> t bothers you though.
>

Why would I be bothered by the size of the UK?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was man o war only carrying people who flew it.
>

But a people carrying jet, just as the Nene Viking. Neither carried people
for compensation as jet airliners do.


>
> Please don't help me.
>

If you don't want help why are you here?


>
> I can't think
>

You've made that clear, but if you put forth a bit of effort you might be
able to. You're young, there is much for you to learn. If you change your
attitude you can acquire a lot of information from these forums.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
> > > consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
> > > home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
> > > it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the
empire
> > > and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
> >
> > In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
>
> You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by
1945
> could feed itself if it wanted too.

Even with ration cards it couldn't. And the UK still had ration cards for
some food items as late as 1954.

<...>

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point.
> >
>
> You must learn that your point is not valid.
>
>
> >
> > The UK by 1945 could feed itself if it wanted too.
> >
>
> The war ended in 1945.

That is amazing.

> > Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
> > importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was
> > no longer a problem.
>
> But still a necessity as the UK could not arm or feed itself during the
war.

No, yet again you fail. When importing large qualities of grain, etc from
north America, It meant the UK could concentrate on war production. Simple
when you know how.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I know it is not small, I live here.
>
> Then you are not in a position to make a comparison.

I am.

> > t bothers you though.
> >
>
> Why would I be bothered by the size of the UK?

You obviously dream out it.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That was a man o war only carrying people who flew it.
>
> But a people carrying jet,

The people were not cargo, they were crew.

> just as the Nene Viking.

Wrong again. The Nene Viking carried people as cargo.

You will have find out the difference between cabin crew and passenger.
There is a difference.

> you can acquire a lot of information from these forums.

Not from the likes of you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, yet again you fail.
>

Logic does not fail.


>
> When importing large qualities of grain, etc from
> north America, It meant the UK could concentrate on war
> production. Simple when you know how.
>

Apparently they didn't know how then, as the UK still had to import arms as
well as grain.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am.
>

If you visit a large country you will see that the UK is small.


>
> You obviously dream out it.
>

Dream out of it? Some British expression?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The people were not cargo, they were crew.
>

But still people.


>
> Wrong again. The Nene Viking carried people as cargo.
>

Prove it.


>
> You will have find out the difference between cabin crew and passenger.
> There is a difference.
>

Ah! You're learning! There may still be hope for you.


>
> Not from the likes of you.
>

You can learn a great deal from me and many others that frequent these
forums, if you're willing.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.

Dont be silly, goods were being traded around the known
world by the Phoenicians. In Iron age graves in the UK
archaeologists have found wine jars from the Med
while Cornish Tin and Welsh gold have turned up in
Rome, Etruria and North Africa.


> The UK has
> consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the home
> market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself.

No it cant, for a very few years in the 80's and 90's by
using vast amounts of fertiliser, mono culture and with
heavy subsidies we came close but the cost was exorbitant
both in cash terms and in environmental terms

The levels of nitrates in the water that ran off streams
killed the fish in the rivers and lakes and threatened
human health.

> In 1939 it was not
> ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the empire and others.
By
> 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
>

But still nowhere near self sufficiency. In fact food rationing was worse
in the years immediately following WW2 than during the war itself
as much of the food available from US, Canadian and other countries
was diverted to feed a starving Europe.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> No, yet again you fail. When importing large qualities of grain, etc from
> north America, It meant the UK could concentrate on war production.
Simple
> when you know how.
>

It meant nothing of the sort. Women were conscipted to work
on to the land to increase food production. By 1940 every plot
of land that could grow food including school playing fields
had been ploughed up and planted.

It still wasnt enough.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

>
> >
> > You obviously dream out it.
> >
>
> Dream out of it? Some British expression?
>

Naw its pure Spivian, LOL

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Naw its pure Spivian, LOL
>

Isn't "spiv" itself British slang?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, yet again you fail.
>
> Logic does not fail.

It fails you.

> > When importing large qualities of grain, etc from
> > north America, It meant the UK could concentrate on war
> > production. Simple when you know how.
>
> Apparently they didn't know how then, as the UK still had to import arms
as
> well as grain.

Please read and get the point(s). I know you find this difficult. They did
know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the Atlantic was won,
so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from its colony, Canada, and
the USA. It says this further down the thread. The British Army was
overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms. Various arms the UK imported,
as there were agreements wit the USA who would make various items, etc.

The same is today. The UK still imports arms because of trade agreements.
The UK could make all it wanted.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Naw its pure Spivian, LOL
> >
>
> Isn't "spiv" itself British slang?
>
>

Its rather archaic ww2 era slang for a dealer in black market goods.

Keith

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I am.
>
> If you visit a large country you will see that the UK is small.

You still don't get it. It is not a matter of comparison. The UK is not
small.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The people were not cargo, they were crew.
>
> But still people.

> > Wrong again. The Nene Viking carried people as cargo.
>
> Prove it.

It was a jet airliner, that is what they do. Duh!

> > You will have find out the difference
> > between cabin crew and passenger.
> > There is a difference.
>
> Ah! You're learning! There may still be hope for you.

I am confused. I am learning from myself?

> You can learn a great deal from
> me

I doubt I could learn very much from you.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.
>
> Dont be silly, goods were being traded around the known
> world by the Phoenicians. In Iron age graves in the UK
> archaeologists have found wine jars from the Med
> while Cornish Tin and Welsh gold have turned up in
> Rome, Etruria and North Africa.

See "Empire" by Niall Ferguson.

> > The UK has consistently imported produce
> > and products that are cheaper than the home
> > market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself.
>
> No it cant, for a very few years in the 80's and 90's by
> using vast amounts of fertiliser, mono culture and with
> heavy subsidies we came close but the cost was exorbitant
> both in cash terms and in environmental terms

It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be used if
needed for crop growing.

> > In 1939 it was not ready,still importing vast quantities
> > of food from the empire and others. By
> > 1945 internal food production was way ahead
> > of 1939.
>
> But still nowhere near self sufficiency.

It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North American
colony, Canada, by then with the U boat problem suppressed.

> In fact food rationing was worse
> in the years immediately following
> WW2 than during the war itself
> as much of the food available from
> US, Canadian and other countries
> was diverted to feed a starving Europe.

Very true. Basic foods were there, it was the imported stuff like sugar and
the likes.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > No, yet again you fail. When importing
> > large qualities of grain, etc from
> > north America, It meant the UK could
> > concentrate on war production. Simple
> > when you know how.
>
> It meant nothing of the sort.

It did.

> Women were conscipted to work
> on to the land to increase food production.

That is true, yet they didn't need to go 100% self sufficiency in food, as
they could import it when the U boast were suppressed.

> By 1940 every plot of land that could
> grow food including school playing fields
> had been ploughed up and planted.

That was mainly for morale purposes, as was build Anderson air raid
shelters, which the government knew were pretty useless in a direct, or near
direct hit.

> It still wasnt enough.

In 1940 you are probably correct. However food production was far higher in
subsequent years.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...

<...>

> > > In 1939 it was not ready,still importing vast quantities
> > > of food from the empire and others. By
> > > 1945 internal food production was way ahead
> > > of 1939.
> >
> > But still nowhere near self sufficiency.
>
> It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North American
> colony, Canada,

Canada wasn't a "colony" in 1945 and it took Britain until 1954 to eliminate
rationing on some protein sources.

> by then with the U boat problem suppressed.

suppression of the "U- boat problem", what U boat problem were they
suppressing for most of 1945.

<...>

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> <...>
>
> > > > In 1939 it was not ready,still importing vast quantities
> > > > of food from the empire and others. By
> > > > 1945 internal food production was way ahead
> > > > of 1939.
> > >
> > > But still nowhere near self sufficiency.
> >
> > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
American
> > colony, Canada,
>
> Canada wasn't a "colony" in 1945 and it took Britain until 1954 to
eliminate
> rationing on some protein sources.

1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.

> > by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
>
> suppression of the "U- boat problem", what U boat problem were they
> suppressing for most of 1945.

You have to read it again. It said "by then", meaning by 1945. It is quite
clear. At one time the U boats were sinking vast quantities of food, raw
materials and arms, at a rate faster than the ships could be replaced . It
was won in 1943, it was called The Battle of The Atlantic. You might have
heard of this battle, the battle against the U boats. Once won vast
quantities of grain were imported and people could be better employed making
arms rather than working on the land.

Boy is this ng full of people with no reading abilities or logic.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > > > In 1939 it was not ready,still importing vast quantities
> > > > > of food from the empire and others. By
> > > > > 1945 internal food production was way ahead
> > > > > of 1939.
> > > >
> > > > But still nowhere near self sufficiency.
> > >
> > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> American
> > > colony, Canada,
> >
> > Canada wasn't a "colony" in 1945 and it took Britain until 1954 to
> eliminate
> > rationing on some protein sources.
>
> 1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.

Meat was rationed until 1954.

> > > by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
> >
> > suppression of the "U- boat problem", what U boat problem were they
> > suppressing for most of 1945.
>
> You have to read it again. It said "by then", meaning by 1945.

Did you not know a significant event occurred mid year 1945 and the UK still
couldn't feed itself for the rest of the year.

> It is quite
> clear. At one time the U boats were sinking vast quantities of food, raw
> materials and arms, at a rate faster than the ships could be replaced .
It
> was won in 1943, it was called The Battle of The Atlantic. You might have
> heard of this battle, the battle against the U boats. Once won vast
> quantities of grain were imported and people could be better employed
making
> arms rather than working on the land.
>
> Boy is this ng full of people with no reading abilities or logic.

No you're part of a very select group with that problem, and the only one
with that problem in this section of the thread.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Naw its pure Spivian, LOL
>> >
>>
>> Isn't "spiv" itself British slang?
>>
>>
>
> Its rather archaic ww2 era slang for a dealer in black market goods.

Just so. A terminal small-timer, incapable of being trusted by those
of more responsibility in the various crime organizations, without the
intelligence or ambition to aspire to, say, teh high-stakes job of
Junior Numbers Runner.

Our Spiv seems to have spent quite some time locked in an attic with
old "Ranger" Magazines.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It fails you.
>

Actually, it's you that does not think logically.


>
> Please read and get the point(s). I know you find this difficult.
>

I don't find it at all difficult, I'm just trying to help you understand it.


>
> They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
> its colony, Canada, and the USA.
>

Canada was a British colony during WWII?


>
> It says this further down the thread.
>

You've said many things in this thread, but very few of them are correct.


>
> The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.
>

But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.


>
> The UK could make all it wanted.
>

It could not make all it wanted during WWII.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You still don't get it. It is not a matter of comparison. The UK is not
> small.
>

But it IS a matter of comparison. It is you that does not understand. The
UK is small. You'll have to try harder if you expect to learn anything.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.
> >
> > Dont be silly, goods were being traded around the known
> > world by the Phoenicians. In Iron age graves in the UK
> > archaeologists have found wine jars from the Med
> > while Cornish Tin and Welsh gold have turned up in
> > Rome, Etruria and North Africa.
>
> See "Empire" by Niall Ferguson.
>

I have, it in no way alters reality. To talk of inventing Britain
globalisation when 1400 years before people were visibly
ejoying the same culture , following the same fashions,
speaking the same language, using the same currency and
recognising the same government in Africa, Europe and
Asia is just plain silly

> > > The UK has consistently imported produce
> > > and products that are cheaper than the home
> > > market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself.
> >
> > No it cant, for a very few years in the 80's and 90's by
> > using vast amounts of fertiliser, mono culture and with
> > heavy subsidies we came close but the cost was exorbitant
> > both in cash terms and in environmental terms
>
> It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be used if
> needed for crop growing.
>

You thrice dammed idiot. National Parks in the UK ARE open for
farming,unlike those in the USA agriculture continues in them
and the farmers while subject to more stringent planning
regulations. That said most of them are upland areas like
Snowdonia, the Dales and the Yorkshire Moors, areas
that have poor peaty ill drained soils that are quite incapable
of supporting any other crops than sheep.

> > > In 1939 it was not ready,still importing vast quantities
> > > of food from the empire and others. By
> > > 1945 internal food production was way ahead
> > > of 1939.
> >
> > But still nowhere near self sufficiency.
>
> It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North American
> colony, Canada,

Canada was an independent nation by then which declared
war independently on Germany. I see your continued
use of the word 'colony' to describe them as a studied
insult of people who were loyal friends and allies.

> by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
>

Which was just as well else we would have starved

> > In fact food rationing was worse
> > in the years immediately following
> > WW2 than during the war itself
> > as much of the food available from
> > US, Canadian and other countries
> > was diverted to feed a starving Europe.
>
> Very true. Basic foods were there, it was the imported stuff like sugar
and
> the likes.
>
>

Along with wheat , apples , oranges etc.

Lots of luck trying to grow citrus fruit in England
let alone Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> 1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.
>

From
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/books/bookfaq12.htm

Clothes were de-rationed in March 1949; bread in July 1948 (this was only
rationed on the 21 July 1946); jam in December 1948; petrol in May 1950; tea
in October 1952; sweets in February 1953; eggs in March 1953; cream in April
1953; sugar in September 1953; butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats in
May 1954; and finally meat in June 1954.

<snip>

>
> Boy is this ng full of people with no reading abilities or logic.
>

Indeed

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > No, yet again you fail. When importing
> > > large qualities of grain, etc from
> > > north America, It meant the UK could
> > > concentrate on war production. Simple
> > > when you know how.
> >
> > It meant nothing of the sort.
>
> It did.
>
> > Women were conscipted to work
> > on to the land to increase food production.
>
> That is true, yet they didn't need to go 100% self sufficiency in food, as
> they could import it when the U boast were suppressed.
>

They weren't able to, the crop varieties available at the time
simply made it impossible. Your inability to understand this
is simply amazing.

at http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/postwarag.htm

You'll find a graph of wheat yields per acre
post war. They rose from less than 3 tons per ha
in 1948 to almost 8 tons per ha in the year 2000

This is largely a result of switching to the new varieties
of crops in the post war period

> > By 1940 every plot of land that could
> > grow food including school playing fields
> > had been ploughed up and planted.
>
> That was mainly for morale purposes, as was build Anderson air raid
> shelters, which the government knew were pretty useless in a direct, or
near
> direct hit.
>
> > It still wasnt enough.
>
> In 1940 you are probably correct. However food production was far higher
in
> subsequent years.
>

But never reached anything approaching self sufficiency.

Keith

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...


> Our Spiv seems to have spent quite some time locked in an attic with
> old "Ranger" Magazines.

What are they?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...

> > They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> > Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
> > its colony, Canada, and the USA.
>
> Canada was a British colony during WWII?

Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in 1959.
The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.

> > It says this further down the thread.
>
> You've said many things in this thread,
> but very few of them are correct.

100% correct. Now focus.

> > The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.

> But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.

> > The UK could make all it wanted.

> It could not make all it wanted during WWII.

Not in the early part.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>

> >
> > The UK could make all it wanted.
> >
>
> It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
>
>

Britain was pretty much self sufficient with regard to
infantry weapons and artillery but relied heavily on
US supplied tanks , trucks and armoured cars.

The air force relied totally on US production for its
transport aircraft , a large percentage of its long range
maritime patrol aircraft and the RN was reliant on US
produced fighters on its carrier force

Keith

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...

> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.
> > >
> > > Dont be silly,

They did.

> > See "Empire" by Niall Ferguson.
>
> I have,

Did you read it?

> > It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be used
if
> > needed for crop growing.
>
> You thrice dammed idiot.
> National Parks in the UK ARE open for
> farming,

Not all of it birdbrain.

> > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
American
> > colony, Canada,
>
> Canada was an independent nation
> by then which declared war independently
> on Germany.

Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959

> > by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
>
> Which was just as well else we would have starved

No. Not staved at all. Tight, but not starved.

> > Very true. Basic foods were there, it
> > was the imported stuff like sugar
> > and the likes.
>
> Along with wheat , apples , oranges etc.

Which can have home gown equivalents. Oranges are not base foods.

> Lots of luck trying to grow citrus fruit in England
> let alone Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

You don't need them to survive. they are luxury foods.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > 1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.
> >
>
> From
> http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/books/bookfaq12.htm
>
> Clothes were de-rationed in March 1949; bread in July 1948 (this was only
> rationed on the 21 July 1946); jam in December 1948; petrol in May 1950;
tea
> in October 1952; sweets in February 1953; eggs in March 1953; cream in
April
> 1953; sugar in September 1953; butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats
in
> May 1954; and finally meat in June 1954.

Most rationing, about 90% plus was gone by 1951.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> > > They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> > > Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
> > > its colony, Canada, and the USA.
> >
> > Canada was a British colony during WWII?
>
> Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in 1959.
> The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.
>
> > > It says this further down the thread.
> >
> > You've said many things in this thread,
> > but very few of them are correct.
>
> 100% correct. Now focus.
>
> > > The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.
>
> > But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.
>
> > > The UK could make all it wanted.
>
> > It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
>
> Not in the early part.

Did you stop attending school 8 or 9 years before you were 15?

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> > In 1940 you are probably correct. However food production was far
higher
> in
> > subsequent years.
> >
>
> But never reached anything approaching self sufficiency.

Once again <sigh>, the U boats were suppressed so no need to concentrate on
high yields.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...

<...>

> > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> American
> > > colony, Canada,
> >
> > Canada was an independent nation
> > by then which declared war independently
> > on Germany.
>
> Not so.

Yes they did, and one Commonwealth of Nations country even chose to not to
declare war on Germany in 1939.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > 1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.
> > >
> >
> > From
> > http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/books/bookfaq12.htm
> >
> > Clothes were de-rationed in March 1949; bread in July 1948 (this was
only
> > rationed on the 21 July 1946); jam in December 1948; petrol in May 1950;
> tea
> > in October 1952; sweets in February 1953; eggs in March 1953; cream in
> April
> > 1953; sugar in September 1953; butter, cheese, margarine and cooking
fats
> in
> > May 1954; and finally meat in June 1954.
>
> Most rationing, about 90% plus was gone by 1951.
>
>

Your unwillingness to admit an error is to your discredit

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> > > They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> > > Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
> > > its colony, Canada, and the USA.
> >
> > Canada was a British colony during WWII?
>
> Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in 1959.
> The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.
>

From
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html

An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences
held in the years 1926 and 1930.
[11th December, 1931]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:--

1. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following
Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of
Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish
Free State and Newfoundland.

2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made
after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.
(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this
Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the
ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of
any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any
order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the
Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such
Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of
the Dominion.

3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has
full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.

4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement
of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of
the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that
that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

etc

11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression
"Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any
Province or State forming part of a Dominion.

Canada , Australia and New Zealand became self ruling nations in 1931
and most definitely ceased to be colonies on that date.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.
> > > >
> > > > Dont be silly,
>
> They did.
>
> > > See "Empire" by Niall Ferguson.
> >
> > I have,
>
> Did you read it?
>

Indeed and I note you snipped and avoided answering
the obvious prior example of globalisation.

> > > It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be
used
> if
> > > needed for crop growing.
> >
> > You thrice dammed idiot.
> > National Parks in the UK ARE open for
> > farming,
>
> Not all of it birdbrain.
>

Name ONE National Park in the UK where
agriculture is banned, take your time.

> > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> American
> > > colony, Canada,
> >
> > Canada was an independent nation
> > by then which declared war independently
> > on Germany.
>
> Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959
>

Statute of Westminster 1931
11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression
"Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any
Province or State forming part of a Dominion.


> > > by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
> >
> > Which was just as well else we would have starved
>
> No. Not staved at all. Tight, but not starved.
>

Winston Spencer Churchill disagrees

"If Germany had prevented merchant ships from carrying food, raw materials,
troops and their equipment from North America to Britain, the outcome of
World War Two could have been radically different. Britain might have been
starved into submission"

Keitth

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> > > Canada was an independent nation
> > > by then which declared war independently
> > > on Germany.
> >
> > Not so.
>
> Yes they did, and one Commonwealth of Nations country even chose to not to
> declare war on Germany in 1939.
>
>

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/keydocs/keydocs_details-en.asp?intDocumentId=18

Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada We have
signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette
declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed
in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939

At our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of September,
in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine and in the
Third year of Our Reign.

By Command,

W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > >
> > > > Canada was an independent nation
> > > > by then which declared war independently
> > > > on Germany.
> > >
> > > Not so.
> >
> > Yes they did, and one Commonwealth of Nations country even chose to not
to
> > declare war on Germany in 1939.
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/keydocs/keydocs_details-en.asp?intDocumentId=18
>
> Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada We have
> signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada
Gazette
> declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed
> in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939
>
> At our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of
September,
> in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine and in
the
> Third year of Our Reign.
>
> By Command,
>
> W. L. Mackenzie King,
> Prime Minister of Canada.
>
> Keith

But will he know which one didn't declare war?

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > hlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
> > >
> > > It could feed itself, but it took until 1943 until UK industry
> > outperformed
> > > Germany. Today, with modern farming techniques, the UK can easily
feed
> > > itself, and others. At one point it produced more food than Canada,
and
> > > more than Australia. We pay farmers not to produce now.
> >
> > Britain produced only 30% of its food going into the war. It never
> remotely
> > approached 100% and badly damaged its soil fertility for decades to come
> in
> > the efforts to increase the food production.
>
> Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s.

No, it did not. It used armed forces to keep globalization from occurring by
making it unlawful to construct manufacturies or sell raw materials to
anyone but Britain.

> The UK has
> consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the home
> market.

Yes, by prohibiting the manufacturies in its captive colonies.

> When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939 it was not
> ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the empire and others.

Yes, by importing 70% of its food in 1939 and 49% of its food in 1945.
Britain was incapable of feeding itself in the Second World War.

> By
> 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.

Food production increased by 70% from 30% self-sufficiency in 1939 to about
51% self-sufficiency in 1945. Britain remained incapable of feeding itself
in the second World War.

>
>

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
> > > consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
> > > home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
> > > it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the
empire
> > > and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
> >
> > In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
>
> You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by
1945
> could feed itself if it wanted too.

Britain wanted to feed itself in 1939, 1945, 1949, 1955 and failed to do so
even in 1972, when Britain was stil only 70% self-sufficient in food
production.

> Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
> importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was no longer a
> problem.

> which still meant that Britian was not self-sufficient in food production.

> Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems, but in
> the early part of the war, when Britain was fighting on many fronts by
> herself, she could not arm herself against a country that had begun arming
> itself for 10 years before the war, even with British industry running
flat
> out.

The U.K was never self-sufficient in the ability to arm itself at any time
in the Second World War or after the Second World War. Britian also started
arming itself for war ten years before the war. nonetheless, Britian was
incapable of becoming self-sufficient in arming itself for war.

>
>
>

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point.
> > >
> >
> > You must learn that your point is not valid.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The UK by 1945 could feed itself if it wanted too.
> > >
> >
> > The war ended in 1945.
>
> That is amazing.

For you, it should be expected <LOL>.

>
> > > Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
> > > importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was
> > > no longer a problem.
> >
> > But still a necessity as the UK could not arm or feed itself during the
> war.
>
> No, yet again you fail. When importing large qualities of grain, etc from
> north America, It meant the UK could concentrate on war production.

Yes, importing 49% to 70% of the food consumed by Britain was certainly
going to help British war production by keeping the failure of British food
production from starving the British workers and their families to death.

> Simple
> when you know how.

Yes, simple minded lies from a simple minded Spiv.

[William Black]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> Name ONE National Park in the UK where
> agriculture is banned, take your time.

Norfolk Broads? :o)

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[D. Patterson]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
>
> > >
> > > The UK could make all it wanted.
> > >
> >
> > It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
> >
> >
>
> Britain was pretty much self sufficient with regard to
> infantry weapons[...]

After the Fall of France and the evacuation of the BEF, Britain did not have
enough infantry weapons to arm the British Army in the Home Islands.
Emergency shipments of WWI era Enfield pattern rifles manufactured in the
United States, American Thompson sub-machine guns, and a wild assortment of
sportman's rifles and shotguns had to be rushed to Britian to rearm the
British armed forces.

> and artillery but relied heavily on
> US supplied tanks , trucks and armoured cars.
>
> The air force relied totally on US production for its
> transport aircraft , a large percentage of its long range
> maritime patrol aircraft and the RN was reliant on US
> produced fighters on its carrier force

Also most of the British aircraft carriers were American built light
carriers and escort carriers.

>
> Keith
>
>

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > No, yet again you fail. When importing
> > > large qualities of grain, etc from
> > > north America, It meant the UK could
> > > concentrate on war production. Simple
> > > when you know how.
> >
> > It meant nothing of the sort.
>
> It did.
>
> > Women were conscipted to work
> > on to the land to increase food production.
>
> That is true, yet they didn't need to go 100% self sufficiency in food, as
> they could import it when the U boast were suppressed.
>
> > By 1940 every plot of land that could
> > grow food including school playing fields
> > had been ploughed up and planted.
>
> That was mainly for morale purposes, as was build Anderson air raid
> shelters, which the government knew were pretty useless in a direct, or
near
> direct hit.
>
> > It still wasnt enough.
>
> In 1940 you are probably correct. However food production was far higher
in
> subsequent years.

By the end of the war, Britain used virtually all of its arable land and
still failed to produce more than an average of 900 calories of food per
person or 30% to 51% of the food it consumed. without the imported food,
famine would have been starving people to death in Britain as it did so in
the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the
> > state
> > > > of
> > > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
> > > > perspective, the UK is small.
> > >
> > > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The
UK
> is
> > > nor small.
> >
> > Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
Russia.
>
> Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of Russia and tiny by comparison. It means
Britain is a small nation in area, being in the very lowest percentile of
small nations, which are nations with only 33% or less of the area of
Russia.

> The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
smallest nations in the world.

>
>

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> > > > They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> > > > Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
> > > > its colony, Canada, and the USA.
> > >
> > > Canada was a British colony during WWII?
> >
> > Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in 1959.
> > The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.
> >
> > > > It says this further down the thread.
> > >
> > > You've said many things in this thread,
> > > but very few of them are correct.
> >
> > 100% correct. Now focus.
> >
> > > > The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.
> >
> > > But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.
> >
> > > > The UK could make all it wanted.
> >
> > > It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
> >
> > Not in the early part.
>
> Did you stop attending school 8 or 9 years before you were 15?

Insults. Clear you have lost it.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > >
> > > > > They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
> > > > > Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought
from
> > > > > its colony, Canada, and the USA.
> > > >
> > > > Canada was a British colony during WWII?
> > >
> > > Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in
1959.
> > > The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.
> > >
> > > > > It says this further down the thread.
> > > >
> > > > You've said many things in this thread,
> > > > but very few of them are correct.
> > >
> > > 100% correct. Now focus.
> > >
> > > > > The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.
> > >
> > > > But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.
> > >
> > > > > The UK could make all it wanted.
> > >
> > > > It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
> > >
> > > Not in the early part.
> >
> > Did you stop attending school 8 or 9 years before you were 15?
>
> Insults.

No it was a serius question. When I'm insulting you I set the follow-to to
alt.morons.

> Clear you have lost it.

So it was 9 years.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...


> >
>
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/keydocs/keydocs_details-en.asp?intDocumentId=18
> >
> > Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada We have
> > signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada
> Gazette
> > declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has
existed
> > in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939
> >
> > At our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of
> September,
> > in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine and in
> the
> > Third year of Our Reign.
> >
> > By Command,
> >
> > W. L. Mackenzie King,
> > Prime Minister of Canada.
> >
> > Keith
>
> But will he know which one didn't declare war?
>
>

Since he doesnt know which ones did ....

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > The UK could make all it wanted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It could not make all it wanted during WWII.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Britain was pretty much self sufficient with regard to
> > infantry weapons[...]
>
> After the Fall of France and the evacuation of the BEF, Britain did not
have
> enough infantry weapons to arm the British Army in the Home Islands.
> Emergency shipments of WWI era Enfield pattern rifles manufactured in the
> United States, American Thompson sub-machine guns, and a wild assortment
of
> sportman's rifles and shotguns had to be rushed to Britian to rearm the
> British armed forces.
>

Actually most of those went to home guard units. The only
weapons that ended up in the regular units was the Thompson

> > and artillery but relied heavily on
> > US supplied tanks , trucks and armoured cars.
> >
> > The air force relied totally on US production for its
> > transport aircraft , a large percentage of its long range
> > maritime patrol aircraft and the RN was reliant on US
> > produced fighters on its carrier force
>
> Also most of the British aircraft carriers were American built light
> carriers and escort carriers.
>

True for the CVE's but not the light fleet carriers which were British
designed and built

Keith

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > > > link.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than
the
> > > state
> > > > > of
> > > > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a
US
> > > > > perspective, the UK is small.
> > > >
> > > > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The
> UK
> > is
> > > > nor small.
> > >
> > > Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
> Russia.
> >
> > Which means nothing at all.
>
> It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
> Russia and tiny by comparison.

Which does not mean Britain is small.

> It means Britain is a small nation in area,

It is not.

> > The UK is not small.
>
> The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
> conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
> smallest nations in the world.

Still not small though.

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > link.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From
a
> US
> > > > > > perspective, the UK is small.
> > > > >
> > > > > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.
The
> > UK
> > > is
> > > > > nor small.
> > > >
> > > > Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
> > Russia.
> > >
> > > Which means nothing at all.
> >
> > It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
> > Russia and tiny by comparison.
>
> Which does not mean Britain is small.
>
> > It means Britain is a small nation in area,
>
> It is not.
>
> > > The UK is not small.
> >
> > The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
> > conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
> > smallest nations in the world.
>
> Still not small though.

Have it your way, Britain is smaller than small, because it is tiny. I was
giving you the benefit of the doubt, but 1.4% really is tiny, rather than
just small. If it were much smaller, we would have to include it along with
Vatican City as being infinitessimal...like your sorry excuse for a brain.

[David Thornley]

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> FWIW, Britain produced most of its own arms, with some
>> obvious exceptions like tanks.
>
>It seems the UK also acquired many aircraft from outside sources as well.
>
With the striking exceptions of carrier and transport aircraft, it seems
that, at any given time, the bulk of British-operated aircraft were of
British design and manufacture. The same cannot be said of tanks,
since at some important times the bulk of British-operated tanks were
Shermans.

They got a fair number of ships from the US, mostly convoy escorts
and escort carriers. Artillery and small arms were almost completely
of British manufacture, the biggest exception I'm thinking of being
US submachine guns.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by 1945
>could feed itself if it wanted too.

Nope.

Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
>importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was no longer a
>problem.

Wrong. Anything that consumed a lot of shipping was a problem. In
1944, the war was being fought over tremendous distances, and despite
the fact that the Allies (primarily the US) built a lot of extra
shipping the situation was very tight.

Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems,

In 1944, the Brits were still dependent on the US for tanks and some
varieties of aircraft.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Keith Willshaw]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:

>
> In 1944, the Brits were still dependent on the US for tanks and some
> varieties of aircraft.
>

For the army trucks were the big issue. A motorised infantry or
armored division has several thousand trucks, while Bedford,
Scammel etc were working flat out a large percentage of those vehicles
were American , not just in the British Army but also in the
Soviet armed forces. The 2.1/2 ton US manufactured truck was
every bit as vital to winning the war as the Spitfire, B-17 or
Sherman tank.

Keith

[Jim Voege]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> American
> > > colony, Canada,
> >
> > Canada was an independent nation
> > by then which declared war independently
> > on Germany.
>
> Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959
>
Try 1867.

Jim

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> In article >,
> (David Thornley) writes:
>> In article >,
>> John Mullen > wrote:
>>> David Thornley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more
>>>> like three billion,
>>>
>>> More like six IIRC
>>>
>> It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole
>> world's population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three.
>> Feel free to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave
>> for the past three decades or so.
>
> Well, maybe they can stand on one foot, then.

On each other's shoulders, it's only double, LOL!

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It was a people carrying jet.

>So was the Meteor.

While even appearing to align myself with the egregious and
unnecessary spiv on any topic whatsoever is a truely repellant
concept, the Nene Viking did represent a significant step towards the
passenger-carrying jet in a way that the Meat-Box didn't (as the first
jet-to-see-production to fly[1], the Meteor has enough significance to
keep it going).
The Nene Viking was certainly the first mating of an airliner
fuselage to jet power and the first jet to be capable of
employment as an airliner (engine and type certification aside).
None of this was true of earlier designs, unless you were going
to adopt the approach to passenger-carrying of the BOAC Mosquitoes.
Unlike any earlier jet, the Nene Viking was capable of airline
service (given engine and type certification - the latter
never being sought for the good reason that it wouldn't
have made a half-good airliner), albeit hopelessly uneconomically
(which was why it was never developed as an airliner).
To be sure, the mating of jets and an airliner fuselage (as opposed
to mating jets to a bomber, which was common with testbeds) was
going to happen soon, but the Nene Viking was the first example
and deserves a certain amount of credit as such.

[1] and, with one example still in regular use (with Martin-Baker
Ltd, but carrying an RAF serial), the jet with the longest service
history.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
> > > > consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
> > > > home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
> > > > it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the
> empire
> > > > and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.
> > >
> > > In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.
> >
> > You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by
> 1945
> > could feed itself if it wanted too.
>
> Britain wanted to feed itself in 1939, 1945, 1949, 1955 and failed to do
so
> even in 1972, when Britain was stil only 70% self-sufficient in food
> production.

It hasn't sunk in. Britain always imported cheaper food, and food that
can't be grown in the UK, from the empire and elsewhere. After WW2 the
need to be self sufficient was not there.

> > Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
> > importing huge quantities of food from
> > the USA and Canada was no longer a
> > problem.
>
> > which still meant that Britian was not
> > self-sufficient in food production.

Bit didn't need to be.

> > Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems, but in
> > the early part of the war, when Britain was fighting on many fronts by
> > herself, she could not arm herself against a country that had begun
arming
> > itself for 10 years before the war, even with British industry running
> > flat out.
>
> The U.K was never self-sufficient in
> the ability to arm itself at any time
> in the Second World War or after
> the Second World War.

It was.

> Britian also started arming itself for
> war ten years before the war.

Nonsense. Britain scrapped WW1 destroyers not long before the war. And when
the war started took a whole bunch of WW1 rust buckets from the USA. Also
there were treaties to keep to, which the Germans never.

> nonetheless, Britian was
> incapable of becoming self-sufficient
> in arming itself for war.

Certainly was. Britain was a highly industrialised nation. For example, in
WW1, in one battle the heavy guns lost to the Germans were replaced by
British industry before the battle was over. If started at the same time as
the Germans Britain would have been fully ready.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> > Britian also started arming itself for
> > war ten years before the war.
>
> Nonsense. Britain scrapped WW1 destroyers not long before the war.

Correction Britain scrapped a handful of elderly destroyers as
they were replaced by more modern ships, these were mostly
ships built before or during the early part of WW1 which were simply
clapped out and too small to useful

Destroyer building in the 10 years before Sept 3 1939 produced
the following ships

The 20 ships of the A&B classes entered service in 1930-31
14 C&D's arrived in 1932-33
18 E&F's were built 1934-1935
18 G&H's were built between 1936 and 1937
9 of I class were built 1937-1938
16 Tribals were built between 1938 and 1939
16 J&K's were built in 1939

In addition some 12 ships of the 1916 R & S classes
and 58 of the 1917 V&W class remained in service at
the outbreak of war

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>Correction Britain scrapped a handful of elderly destroyers as
>they were replaced by more modern ships, these were mostly
>ships built before or during the early part of WW1 which were simply
>clapped out and too small to useful

Not quite true, Keith: A lot of the ships scrapped were V/Ws or
(more commonly) R & S class destroyers, other examples of
which gave useful war service. However, most of these ships
were WW1 war emergency programme ships which had been built
using non-galvanised steel and so were in poor condition
- hence their scrapping. D.K. Brown has some comments on
the unwisdom of not re-using some of the machinery from
these ships in the escort build-up, but the destroyers
themselves were no asset.

>
>Destroyer building in the 10 years before Sept 3 1939 produced
>the following ships

Good stuff snipped.

Interesting to note that both DNC (Goddall) in 1939-41 and Brown
in his re-examination of the period consider that one of the failings
of the RN pre-war was not to scrap ENOUGH of the old and only marginally
useful ships[1] - the manpower they absorbed would have been far more
useful in manning the modern ships coming into service.

Example: Frobisher..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Spiv]

"Jim Voege" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> > American
> > > > colony, Canada,
> > >
> > > Canada was an independent nation
> > > by then which declared war independently
> > > on Germany.
> >
> > Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959
> >
> Try 1867.

Try reading about it.

[Spiv]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller
than
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon.
From
> a
> > US
> > > > > > > perspective, the UK is small.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.
> The
> > > UK
> > > > is
> > > > > > nor small.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
> > > Russia.
> > > >
> > > > Which means nothing at all.
> > >
> > > It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
> > > Russia and tiny by comparison.
> >
> > Which does not mean Britain is small.
> >
> > > It means Britain is a small nation in area,
> >
> > It is not.
> >
> > > > The UK is not small.
> > >
> > > The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
> > > conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the
third
> > > smallest nations in the world.
> >
> > Still not small though.
>
> Have it your way,

Thank you

[Martin Rapier]

"Brandon J. Van Every" > wrote in
message
{snip}
> >> It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole
> >> world's population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three.
> >> Feel free to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave
> >> for the past three decades or so.
> >
> > Well, maybe they can stand on one foot, then.
>
> On each other's shoulders, it's only double, LOL!

If they all jump down at the same time will it create a tidal wave which
will engulf the earth?

Cheers
Martin

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>
> Honestly not sure - never carried fare-paying passengers, f'sure.
>

Nor was it intended to.


>
> <shrugs> OK, first airliner to be powered by jet engines, if
> you prefer.
>

The first airliner to be powered by jet engines was the de Havilland Comet.


>
> The Viking was certainly an airliner and the Nenes
> were certainly jets, so whether or not the resulting combination
> was intended for service as passenger-carrier or as a testbed
> for the engine there's a touch of "airliner+jet" about it,
> whichever way you re-arrange the words.
>

All Viking airliners were built with Bristol Hercules engines, piston
radials. The Nene Viking served as a testbed for the Rolls Royce Nene
turbojet. This aircraft did not serve as an airliner in that configuration
and it was never intended to do so. The Nene-powered Viking was not a jet
airliner, it was a jet engine testbed. At the conclusion of testing the
aircraft was converted to Viking 1B configuration, with Hercules radial
engines, and used for charter work.


>
> Comet was the first one to fly commercially, though. Tu-104
> probably the second (don't think Canadair C-102 ever carried
> fare-paying passengers).
>

The C-102, like the Nene Viking, never carried a fare-paying passenger, but
unlike the Nene Viking, that was it's intended purpose.

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Failed. Not so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon.
> From
> > a
> > > US
> > > > > > > > perspective, the UK is small.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is
big.
> > The
> > > > UK
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > nor small.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size
of
> > > > Russia.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means nothing at all.
> > > >
> > > > It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
> > > > Russia and tiny by comparison.
> > >
> > > Which does not mean Britain is small.
> > >
> > > > It means Britain is a small nation in area,
> > >
> > > It is not.
> > >
> > > > > The UK is not small.
> > > >
> > > > The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest
nation
> > > > conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the
> third
> > > > smallest nations in the world.
> > >
> > > Still not small though.
> >
> > Have it your way,
>
> Thank you
>
>

No, that is not what I wrote, Spiv. I wrote: Have it your way, Britain is
smaller than small, because it is tiny. I was giving you the benefit of the
doubt, but 1.4% really is tiny, rather than
just small. If it were much smaller, we would have to include it along with
Vatican City as being infinitessimal...like your sorry excuse for a brain.

[David Thornley]

In article >,
Brett > wrote:
>"David Thornley" > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> John Mullen > wrote:
>> >David Thornley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
>> >> three billion,
>> >
>> >More like six IIRC
>> >
>> It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
>> population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
>> to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
>> three decades or so.
>
>Three decades ago - the world population on Feburay 6, 1974 was about 4.15
>Billion (and they still had less than a square foot of the Isle of Wight)
>:-)
>
Damn, how old am I getting?


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Jim Voege]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Voege" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > > It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
> > > American
> > > > > colony, Canada,
> > > >
> > > > Canada was an independent nation
> > > > by then which declared war independently
> > > > on Germany.
> > >
> > > Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959
> > >
> > Try 1867.
>
> Try reading about it.
>
Try living here for 50 years like me. You think I might know eh?

Jim

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which makes it a jet airliner.
>

Nope. The Nene Viking was not an airliner.


>
> I would say a lot. Airliner with jet engines, is a jet airliner.
>

Correct. That's why the de Havilland Comet and Avro Jetliner were jet
airliners and the Nene Viking was not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be used if
> needed for crop growing.
>

But the UK could not feed itself during WWII.


>
> It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North American
> colony, Canada, by then with the U boat problem suppressed.
>

Canada was not a UK colony in 1945.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.
>

Nope. The rationing of meat continued until July 2, 1954. I believe that
was the last rationed item.



>
> You have to read it again. It said "by then", meaning by 1945. It is
> quite clear.
>

The only thing "clear" in your messages is that you don't know what you're
talking about.


>
> Boy is this ng full of people with no reading abilities or logic.
>

One in particular.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was a jet airliner, that is what they do. Duh!
>

Exactly! Jet airliners carry people as cargo! That's why the Nene Viking
is not considered a jet airliner.


>
> I am confused.
>

Well, that's stating the obvious.


>
> I am learning from myself?
>

No. I am the teacher, you are the student.


>
> I doubt I could learn very much from you.
>

Oh. I wasn't aware that you were completely unteachable. Pity.