Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War

[John Mullen]

Spiv wrote:
> "Vaughan Sanders" > wrote in message
> ...
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
>>>competitve in many other areas. For example,
>>>the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
>>>and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
>>>opportunities for commercial success because
>>>British industry failed to heed American engineering
>>>studies regarding metal fatigue.
>
>
> This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
> fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
> windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this research
> was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and commercial
> planes.

No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.

The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.

(snip)

> The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives was
> solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it was
> solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The Miles
> 52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell X-1
> had them.
>
> Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
> inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
> interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
> wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the adapted
> Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of the
> programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer and
> how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
> walk.

I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.

(snip)

> DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
> employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government spent
> on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
> have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but didn't
> win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.

They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.

John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Spiv wrote:
>
> This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
> fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
> windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
> research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
> and commercial planes.
>

Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design was
finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight breakup
of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and podded
engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight on
July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined on
June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.

As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a half
before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before the
cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been built
by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a B-52
was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on August
5, 1954.

[Spiv]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Spiv wrote:
> > "Vaughan Sanders" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> > "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>>Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
> >>>competitve in many other areas. For example,
> >>>the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
> >>>and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
> >>>opportunities for commercial success because
> >>>British industry failed to heed American engineering
> >>>studies regarding metal fatigue.
> >
> >
> > This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and
metal
> > fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was
solved )(square
> > windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
research
> > was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and
commercial
> > planes.
>
> No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
> through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
> the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
> the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.

The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on the
Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.

> The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.

IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.
The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707. Better
plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".

> (snip)
>
> > The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives
was
> > solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it
was
> > solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The
Miles
> > 52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell
X-1
> > had them.
> >
> > Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
> > inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
> > interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
> > wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the
adapted
> > Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of
the
> > programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer
and
> > how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
> > walk.
>
> I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
> is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
> maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.

I worked in aviation.

> (snip)
>
> > DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
> > employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government
spent
> > on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
> > have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but
didn't
> > win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.
>
> They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.

Not in money stake. In pride yes.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Spiv wrote:
> >
> > This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and
metal
> > fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was
solved )(square
> > windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
> > research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
> > and commercial planes.
> >
>
> Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design
was
> finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight
breakup
> of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
> four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
> reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
> engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and
podded
> engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
> 367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight
on
> July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined
on
> June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
> learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.
>
> As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a
half
> before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before
the
> cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been
built
> by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a
B-52
> was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on
August
> 5, 1954.

See my other post on this. Information to the US being drip fed to the US.
It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help at
all.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Keith Willshaw]

>
> IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back
on.
> The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.

Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320


> Better
> plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".
>

As does the 707 which is the basis for the Boeing E-3
sentry and the JSTARS aircraft

Keith

[Ed Rasimus]

What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
mean????????

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:38:35 +0000, John Mullen >
wrote:

>Spiv wrote:
>> "Vaughan Sanders" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
>>>>competitve in many other areas. For example,
>>>>the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
>>>>and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
>>>>opportunities for commercial success because
>>>>British industry failed to heed American engineering
>>>>studies regarding metal fatigue.
>>
>>
>> This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
>> fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
>> windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this research
>> was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and commercial
>> planes.
>
>No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
>through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
>the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
>the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.
>
>The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.
>
>(snip)
>
>> The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives was
>> solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it was
>> solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The Miles
>> 52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell X-1
>> had them.
>>
>> Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
>> inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
>> interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
>> wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the adapted
>> Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of the
>> programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer and
>> how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
>> walk.
>
>I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
>is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
>maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.
>
>(snip)
>
>> DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
>> employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government spent
>> on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
>> have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but didn't
>> win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.
>
>They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.
>
>John

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[John Mullen]

Spiv wrote:

(snip)

>>No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
>>through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
>>the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
>>the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.
>
>
> The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on the
> Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.
>
>
>>The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.
>
>
> IT was a larger plane

Yes.

B707

Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)

Comet

Dimensions [m] Comet 1 Comet 1A Comet 2
Overall length 28.61 28.61 29.53
Wing span 34.98 34.98 34.98
Wing surface [m2] 188.3 188.3 188.3

Actually making it bigger with a thicker skin and oval windows were all
(obviously) designed into the 707 *way* before the Comet crashes.

with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.

No. See actual dates from my previous post.

> The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.

No. See Keith's post.

Better
> plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".

Absolutely not. You are in fantasy land if you think the Comet was in
any sense 'better' than the 707. It had a truly awful safety record.

The perpetuation of the Nimrod has been IMO a financial and military
disaster for Britain. And, as Keith points out, military versions of the
707 are still pretty common, certainly more so than the Nimrod. Who else
other than us flies the Nimrod? Who else other than UK and commonwealth
carriers ever even flew the Comet? How many were built compared to the
707? etc etc...

>>I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
>>is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
>>maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.
>
>
> I worked in aviation.

No offence, but that isn't always obvious from the things you post.

John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>

I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the zeppelin.
The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and the
Boeing 314.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> See my other post on this.
>

I saw it. I was not impressed.


>
> Information to the US being drip fed to the US.
>

I have no idea what that means.


>
> It wasn't, here is the final report.
>
> The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
> prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
> powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
> light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help
at
> all.
>

That's a report?


>
> If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
> initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
> planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
> metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
> far safer, and saved many lives.
>

How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
problems.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320
>

Oops. Typo.

[ArtKramr]

>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
>far safer, and saved many lives.
>

Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John Mullen]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
> rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
> mean????????

I take responsibility for this. I thought that as Comet and B707 were
both used as military variants it would be of interest to some here. No
idea where the subject line came from! Change it if you wish...

John

[John Mullen]

ArtKramr wrote:

>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
>>far safer, and saved many lives.
>>
>
>
> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????

If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!

:)

John

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>From: John Mullen
>Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
>>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
>>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
>>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
>>>far safer, and saved many lives.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????
>
>If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!
>
>:)
>
>John
>

WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:->))


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
> >From: John Mullen
> >Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> >>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
the
> >>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
subsequent
> >>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had
in
> >>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
planes
> >>>far safer, and saved many lives.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????
> >
> >If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!
> >
> >:)
> >
> >John
> >
>
> WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:->))

Only because FDR had the political will to win the war. Unlike LBJ, who was
more interested in Lady Bird's company Brown and Root paving Viet Nam.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 1/25/04 12:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>> >From: John Mullen
>> >Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >ArtKramr wrote:
>> >
>> >>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
>the
>> >>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
>subsequent
>> >>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had
>in
>> >>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
>planes
>> >>>far safer, and saved many lives.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????
>> >
>> >If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!
>> >
>> >:)
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>>
>> WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:->))
>
>Only because FDR had the political will to win the war. Unlike LBJ, who was
>more interested in Lady Bird's company Brown and Root paving Viet Nam.
>
>

It wasn't only FDR who had the will to win that war.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 1/25/04 12:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>> >From: John Mullen
>> >Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >ArtKramr wrote:
>> >
>> >>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
>the
>> >>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
>subsequent
>> >>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had
>in
>> >>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
>planes
>> >>>far safer, and saved many lives.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????
>> >
>> >If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!
>> >
>> >:)
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>>
>> WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:->))
>
>Only because FDR had the political will to win the war. Unlike LBJ, who was
>more interested in Lady Bird's company Brown and Root paving Viet Nam.
>
>

There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 1/25/04 12:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
> >> >From: John Mullen
> >> >Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >ArtKramr wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used
in
> >the
> >> >>>initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
> >subsequent
> >> >>>planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet
had
> >in
> >> >>>metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
> >planes
> >> >>>far safer, and saved many lives.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????
> >> >
> >> >If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!
> >> >
> >> >:)
> >> >
> >> >John
> >> >
> >>
> >> WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:->))
> >
> >Only because FDR had the political will to win the war. Unlike LBJ, who
was
> >more interested in Lady Bird's company Brown and Root paving Viet Nam.
> >
> >
>
> There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.

I don't doubt the contribution of men under arms during WWII.

I am pleased that when we have a discussion about Bastogne I can contribute
more than just wondering if my father changed the Wolf's spark plugs. :)

[Mike Marron]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.

Win or lose; 140 million Americans (U.S. population in 1945) and
214 million Americans (U.S. population in 1975) made it happen.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back
> on.
> > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>
> Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> Comet or the 707.

We are on about jets. Can't you focus for once?

> The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320

Can't you do anything right?
http://user.itl.net/~colonial/comet/history.html

>>>
On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first regular
transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British innovation.
<<<

> > Better
> > plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall
back
> > on.
> > > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >
> > Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> > Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> > Comet or the 707.
>
> We are on about jets. Can't you focus for once?
>

I suggest you learn precision in communication, you
did not qualify your claim.

> > The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> > Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> > in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320
>
> Can't you do anything right?
> http://user.itl.net/~colonial/comet/history.html
>



> >>>
> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
regular
> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
innovation.

But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
while the 707 made the journey non stop.

I suggest you work on your reading skills.

Keith

[Spiv]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Spiv wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >>No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
> >>through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
> >>the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
> >>the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.
> >
> >
> > The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on
the
> > Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.
> >
> >
> >>The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.
> >
> >
> > IT was a larger plane
>
> Yes.
>
> B707
>
> Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
> Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
> Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
>
> Comet
>
> Dimensions [m] Comet 1 Comet 1A Comet 2
> Overall length 28.61 28.61 29.53
> Wing span 34.98 34.98 34.98
> Wing surface [m2] 188.3 188.3 188.3
>
> Actually making it bigger with a thicker skin and oval windows were all
> (obviously) designed into the 707 *way* before the Comet crashes.
>
> with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.
>
> No. See actual dates from my previous post.
>
> > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>
> No. See Keith's post.

I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.

> > Better
> > plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".
>
> Absolutely not. You are in fantasy land if you think the Comet was in
> any sense 'better' than the 707. It had a truly awful safety record.

The crashes were put right. The Nimrod (a Comet) and the Comet have flow
many miles and years and the Nimrod is still flying.

> The perpetuation of the Nimrod has
> been IMO a financial and military
> disaster for Britain.

The Nimrod (a Comet) is a cost effective plane and very god at what it does.

> And, as Keith points out, military versions of the
> 707 are still pretty common, certainly more so than the Nimrod. Who else
> other than us flies the Nimrod? Who else other than UK and commonwealth
> carriers ever even flew the Comet? How many were built compared to the
> 707? etc etc...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

> >>I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
> >>is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
> >>maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.
> >
> > I worked in aviation.
>
> No offence, but that isn't always obvious from the things you post.

Then pay attention.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >
>
> I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the zeppelin.
> The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and the
> Boeing 314.

The topic is jet airliners.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > See my other post on this.
>
> I saw it. I was not impressed.

Then pay attention.

> > It wasn't, here is the final report.
> >
> > The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
> > prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
> > powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin
for
> > light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help
> at
> > all.
>
> That's a report?

The final one. It say so up there.

> > If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
the
> > initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
> > planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had
in
> > metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
planes
> > far safer, and saved many lives.
>
> How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
> problems.

You didn't get the point. Please focus.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Tarver Engineering]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> > >
> >
> > I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the
zeppelin.
> > The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and
the
> > Boeing 314.
>
> The topic is jet airliners.

I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > See my other post on this.
> >
> > I saw it. I was not impressed.
>
> Then pay attention.
>
> > > It wasn't, here is the final report.
> > >
> > > The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs.
The
> > > prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
> > > powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin
> for
> > > light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't
help
> > at
> > > all.
> >
> > That's a report?
>
> The final one. It say so up there.
>
> > > If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
> the
> > > initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
subsequent
> > > planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet
had
> in
> > > metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
> planes
> > > far safer, and saved many lives.
> >
> > How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
> > problems.
>
> You didn't get the point. Please focus.

Are you one of Traver's relatives?

[John Mullen]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the
>
> zeppelin.
>
>>>The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and
>
> the
>
>>>Boeing 314.
>>
>>The topic is jet airliners.
>
>
> I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"
>
>
LOL!

I would be *very* worried if I were you John. Someone has just made a
claim on your position in this NG!

John

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>
> >>>"Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the
> >
> > zeppelin.
> >
> >>>The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>Boeing 314.
> >>
> >>The topic is jet airliners.
> >
> >
> > I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"
> >
> >
> LOL!
>
> I would be *very* worried if I were you John. Someone has just made a
> claim on your position in this NG!

I am impressed that Spiv can read and comprehend, unlike Mullen and
Willshaw.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> > Can't you do anything right?
> > http://user.itl.net/~colonial/comet/history.html

> > >>>
> > On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
> regular
> > transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
> innovation.
>
> But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel

Which side of the Atlantic is Newfoundland?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[John Mullen]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the
>>>
>>>zeppelin.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Boeing 314.
>>>>
>>>>The topic is jet airliners.
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>I would be *very* worried if I were you John. Someone has just made a
>>claim on your position in this NG!
>
>
> I am impressed that Spiv can read and comprehend, unlike Mullen and
> Willshaw.
>
>
Now wait a minute... you wouldn't be doing a sock puppet on us here
would you?

John

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 1/25/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time

> There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.
>
>I don't doubt the contribution of men under arms during WWII.
>
>I am pleased that when we have a discussion about Bastogne I can contribute
>more than just wondering if my father changed the Wolf's spark plugs. :)
>
>

Your father was among the greatest of he greatest generation.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Spiv]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the
707.
> > >
> > > I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the
> zeppelin.
> > > The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and
> the
> > > Boeing 314.
> >
> > The topic is jet airliners.
>
> I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"

That is what it says in the subject line. The topic is jet airliners.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[John Mullen]

Spiv wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Spiv wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>>No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
>>>>through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
>>>>the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
>>>>the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.
>>>
>>>
>>>The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on
>
> the
>
>>>Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.
>>>
>>>
>>>IT was a larger plane
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>B707
>>
>>Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
>>Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
>>Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
>>
>>Comet
>>
>>Dimensions [m] Comet 1 Comet 1A Comet 2
>>Overall length 28.61 28.61 29.53
>>Wing span 34.98 34.98 34.98
>>Wing surface [m2] 188.3 188.3 188.3
>>
>>Actually making it bigger with a thicker skin and oval windows were all
>>(obviously) designed into the 707 *way* before the Comet crashes.
>>
>>with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.
>>
>>No. See actual dates from my previous post.
>>
>>
>>>The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>>
>>No. See Keith's post.
>
>
> I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.

As has been patiently explained to you, it wasn't the first air service
from UK to USA. Props like the Constellation and the DC 4 and even
Zeppelins had flown that route before. The Comet couldn't do the
Atlantic non-stop any more than the first 707 (367-80 Prototype (1954)
could.

It was the first jet airliner in regular service, but it was too unreliable.

The 707 was first non-stop. A better, safer, plane. If it hurts you that
it was American, get over it.

>
>>>Better
>>>plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".
>>
>>Absolutely not. You are in fantasy land if you think the Comet was in
>>any sense 'better' than the 707. It had a truly awful safety record.
>
>
> The crashes were put right. The Nimrod (a Comet) and the Comet have flow
> many miles and years and the Nimrod is still flying.

The after-effect of the many crashes which were caused by design errors
that ought never to have been made was a lack of confidence and a
massive cancelling of orders from airlines.

>
>>The perpetuation of the Nimrod has
>>been IMO a financial and military
>>disaster for Britain.
>
>
> The Nimrod (a Comet) is a cost effective plane and very god at what it does.

You must have forgotten the smiley here surely? I knew people in
Ferranti who worked on the system in the 80's. It was an over-budget
under-capable piece of job-creation then and it still is now.

>
>>And, as Keith points out, military versions of the
>>707 are still pretty common, certainly more so than the Nimrod. Who else
>>other than us flies the Nimrod? Who else other than UK and commonwealth
>>carriers ever even flew the Comet? How many were built compared to the
>>707? etc etc...
>
>
> The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

>
>>>>I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
>>>>is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
>>>>maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.
>>>
>>>I worked in aviation.
>>
>>No offence, but that isn't always obvious from the things you post.
>
>
> Then pay attention.

I'll certainly try to. How about in return, you posting something worth
paying attention to?

John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.
>

The Boeing 314 was the first transatlantic airplane service in 1939.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The topic is jet airliners.
>

Gee, according to the subject line the topic is the Vietnam War.

Your statement was, "The world's first transatlantic service was by the
Comet not the 707", not, "The world's first transatlantic jet service was by
the Comet not the 707." Your statement is incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then pay attention.
>

What for? It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.


>
> The final one. It say so up there.
>

What is your first language?


>
> You didn't get the point. Please focus.
>

You didn'r make a point. The point is nothing from the Comet went into the
design of Boeing's bombers or the 707.

[Tex Houston]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back
> on.
> > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
>
> Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320


I think you are screwed up on your airplane designations. Sure it wasn't a
707-320? The Boeing 727 series was a much later series. On the
Trans-Atlantic runs I remember crossing on the DC-6/C-118 airplanes long
before 1959. Don't leave Douglas out, please.

Tex Houston

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall
back
> > on.
> > > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >
> > Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> > Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> > Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> > Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> > in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320
>
>
> I think you are screwed up on your airplane designations. Sure it wasn't
a
> 707-320? The Boeing 727 series was a much later series.

Why would you believe the 727 was a much later series?

> On the
> Trans-Atlantic runs I remember crossing on the DC-6/C-118 airplanes long
> before 1959. Don't leave Douglas out, please.

Think 720 instead of 727 and you will get it.

[Spiv]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Spiv wrote:
>
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Spiv wrote:
> >>
> >>(snip)
> >>
> >>
> >>>>No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet
crashes
> >>>>through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication
of
> >>>>the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
> >>>>the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>IT was a larger plane
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>B707
> >>
> >>Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
> >>Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
> >>Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
> >>
> >>Comet
> >>
> >>Dimensions [m] Comet 1 Comet 1A Comet 2
> >>Overall length 28.61 28.61 29.53
> >>Wing span 34.98 34.98 34.98
> >>Wing surface [m2] 188.3 188.3 188.3
> >>
> >>Actually making it bigger with a thicker skin and oval windows were all
> >>(obviously) designed into the 707 *way* before the Comet crashes.
> >>
> >>with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.
> >>
> >>No. See actual dates from my previous post.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >>
> >>No. See Keith's post.
> >
> >
> > I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.
>
> As has been patiently explained to you, it wasn't the first air service
> from UK to USA. Props like the Constellation and the DC 4 and even
> Zeppelins had flown that route before.

The topic is "jet" aeroplanes. Do you know the difference?

> The 707 was first non-stop. A better, safer, plane. If it hurts you that
> it was American, get over it.

The first was the Comet. a year before the 707.

> > The crashes were put right. The Nimrod (a Comet) and the Comet have
flow
> > many miles and years and the Nimrod is still flying.
>
> The after-effect of the many crashes which were caused by design errors
> that ought never to have been made was a lack of confidence and a
> massive cancelling of orders from airlines.

That may have been the case. It still does not detract from the pint tat
once the problems were identified and sorted the Comet was a very good plane
and still flying after 54 years.

One of the first 707s dropped an engine over the North Sea.

> > The Nimrod (a Comet) is a cost effective plane and very god at what it
does.
>
> You must have forgotten the smiley here surely? I knew people in
> Ferranti who worked on the system in the 80's. It was an over-budget
> under-capable piece of job-creation then and it still is now.
>
> >>And, as Keith points out, military versions of the
> >>707 are still pretty common, certainly more so than the Nimrod. Who else
> >>other than us flies the Nimrod? Who else other than UK and commonwealth
> >>carriers ever even flew the Comet? How many were built compared to the
> >>707? etc etc...
> >
> > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
>
> True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round the
> world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a superior plane to the 707 and
it did not sell well either.

> >>>>I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
> >>>>is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you
should
> >>>>maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.
> >>>
> >>>I worked in aviation.
> >>
> >>No offence, but that isn't always obvious from the things you post.
> >
> > Then pay attention.
>
> I'll certainly try to. How about in return, you posting something worth
> paying attention to?

I'm not into Noddy and Big Ears.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.
> >
>
> The Boeing 314 was the first transatlantic airplane service in 1939.

The topic is "jet" airliners.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then pay attention.
>
> What for? It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Where do you have a problem, then I ca help you.

> > You didn't get the point. Please focus.
>
> You didn'r make a point. The point is nothing from the Comet went into
the
> design of Boeing's bombers or the 707.

The engineering/metallurgy side did. You know too much about these sorts of
things do you?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall
back
> > on.
> > > The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.
> >
> > Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
> > Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
> > Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
> > Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
> > in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320
>
> I think you are screwed up on your airplane designations. Sure it wasn't
a
> 707-320? The Boeing 727 series was a much later series. On the
> Trans-Atlantic runs I remember crossing on the DC-6/C-118 airplanes long
> before 1959. Don't leave Douglas out, please.

The topic is jet airliners, not prop jobs. The Comet was first.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Spiv wrote:

<...>

> > >
> > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> >
> > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round the
> > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
>
> Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a superior plane to the 707
and
> it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable requirements of a single
customer.

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>> >>>
>> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
>regular
>> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
>innovation.
>
>But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
>while the 707 made the journey non stop.
>
>I suggest you work on your reading skills.
>
>Keith
>
Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...
--

-Gord.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...

> > > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> > >
> > > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round
the
> > > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
> >
> > Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
> > superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.
>
> Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
> requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000 been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Tarver Engineering]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> > > >
> > > > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round
> the
> > > > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
> > >
> > > Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
> > > superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.
> >
> > Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
> > requirements of a single customer.
>
> It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared on
> the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
> years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and
the
> Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
> would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in the
> process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
been
> built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
late.
>
> The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
were
> all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
> susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
> expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
> planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in
the
> world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
> throne.

Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne? :)

[Iain Rae]

Spiv wrote:
<snip>
> The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
> fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
> facing opened up the production line after 11 years.


have you got a cite for that I've never heard of the chinese operating
the VC10 never mind trying to buy more (apart from anything else I'd
have half expected the RAF to but new airframes if the production line
was opening up again).

[Spiv]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> > > > >
> > > > > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of
round
> > the
> > > > > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
> > > >
> > > > Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
> > > > superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.
> > >
> > > Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
> > > requirements of a single customer.
> >
> > It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared
on
> > the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
> > years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and
> the
> > Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
> > would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in
the
> > process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
> been
> > built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
> late.
> >
> > The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
> were
> > all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
> > susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
> > expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
> > planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in
> the
> > world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
> > throne.
>
> Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne? :)

Yes.....

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Airbus meets delivery goal to be 'market leader'

By ANDREA ROTHMAN
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Airbus delivered its 300th aircraft this year and plans "a few more" before
Dec. 31 to beat its target and overtake The Boeing Co. as the world's
biggest planemaker, Chief Executive Noel Forgeard said.

The goal was reached Friday evening when Airbus turned over Singapore
Airlines Ltd.'s first A340-500 long-haul plane, Forgeard said at his offices
in Toulouse, France.

This target of 300 deliveries by Airbus, a unit of European, Aeronautic
Defense & Space Co., exceeds Boeing's goal of 280 planes. Airbus' order
backlog stands at 1,500 planes versus 1,100 aircraft for Boeing, indicating
the planemaker will continue to deliver more aircraft per year in coming
years.

"Everyone was skeptical they could be equal with Boeing, but they have
achieved that and now they're No. 1," said Klaus Breil, who helps oversee
about $5.9 billion at Adig Investments in Frankfurt including 4 million
shares in EADS.

Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by EADS and 20 percent by BAE Systems, may
also beat Boeing on new orders for the fourth time in five years. Airbus
last year received orders for 300 planes against 251 for Boeing. In the
first 11 months of 2003, Airbus won contracts for 263 planes versus 229 at
Boeing.

"We are the market leader in new orders and backlog and this year in
deliveries," Forgeard said. "And we want to be the leader as preferred
supplier" to airlines.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> > > >
> > > > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round
> the
> > > > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
> > >
> > > Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
> > > superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.
> >
> > Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
> > requirements of a single customer.
>
> It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing.

It was the requirements! It didn't help that it got stuck with a low bypass
(basically due to the Victor's engine configuration) Conway.

> When the VC10 appeared on
> the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
> years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and
the
> Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed

As I said "questionable requirements of a single customer"

<snip the junk>

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:

<snip>

> The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
> fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers
were
> facing opened up the production line after 11 years.

The Chinese bought the Trident!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > > The USA did give tasters to many buyers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of
> round
> > > the
> > > > > > world publicity stunt. Same difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
> > > > > superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.
> > > >
> > > > Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
> > > > requirements of a single customer.
> > >
> > > It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared
> on
> > > the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and
four
> > > years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa
and
> > the
> > > Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been
developed
> > > would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in
> the
> > > process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
> > been
> > > built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
> > late.
> > >
> > > The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
> > were
> > > all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
> > > susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
> > > expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the
US
> > > planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched
in
> > the
> > > world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
> > > throne.
> >
> > Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne? :)
>
> Yes.....
>
> Tuesday, December 23, 2003
>
> Airbus meets delivery goal to be 'market leader'

Nope, the EU taxpayer bought a big piece of the airliner market by
mortgaging their children's future.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after
being
> > fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers
> were
> > facing opened up the production line after 11 years.
>
> The Chinese bought the Trident!

Oops you are right, the smaller T tail.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Then pay attention.
>>
>> What for? It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Where do you have a problem, then I ca help you.
>
>> > You didn't get the point. Please focus.
>>
>> You didn'r make a point. The point is nothing from the Comet went into
> the
>> design of Boeing's bombers or the 707.
>
> The engineering/metallurgy side did. You know too much about these sorts of
> things do you?

Horse****, Spiv!
Go peruse the U.S. Natioanal Advisory Comittee Technical Reports
availalable online through the NASA Tech Reports Server. Then check
out the UK Aeronautical Research Comittee papers available from
Cranwell, also available online, and searchable through the same
server. (Reciprocity is a good thing). You'll find that, if anything,
the information flow, wrt structures, and the fatigue bahavior of
metals, went the other way. (US-UK). U.S. work on, and concern with,
metal fatigue began in the 1930s. And was continually refined.

DeHaviland had been warned many times about the choices that they had
made in the design of the Comet's structure, but they felt that their
use of Redux Bonding to join metal parts gave them superior
performance. (Turned out that they couldn't use Redux in many areas,
and so, it was back to drilled holes & rivets.) Eastern Airlines
evaliated the COmet prototype in 1950, and rejected any consideration
of it due to concerns about the fatigue resistance of the structure.
Nobody at DehHaviland seemed to be paying attention.

DeHaviland made a number of bad choices in the design of the Comet
I/IA. The airfoil provided knife-edge takeoff performance, for
instance. On taneoff, a Comet had to be rotated to exactly 10 degrees
AOA, at exactly the right speed, or it wouldn't take off. An early
pullup, or anything over 10 degrees, meant that the increased Induced
Drag would keep the airplane from accelerating. A late pull, or an
AoA of 9 degrees, meant that there wasn't a runwal in All of
Christendom, (or, for that matter, Karachi, Pakistan), that was long
enough for the Comet to get off the ground. When you add in the other
accidents that wrote off Comets, about half of all Comet I/IAs that
were built were total losses before they were pulled from service.

The 707, and, for that matter, the 367-80, used an entire different
philosophy in structural design. It was designed with multiple load
paths and a fail-safe structure, such that small problems would be, as
far as possible prevented from becoming big ones.
Don't forget, that between teh B-29, B-50, B-377/C-97, B-47, and B-52,
All of which flew before the COmet was grounded, Boeing had more large
pressurized airplane and large jet airplane experience than the rest
of the world, combined.

To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
service until the early 1960s.

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

[ZZBunker]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> >> >>>
> >> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
> regular
> >> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
> >innovation.
> >
> >But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
> >while the 707 made the journey non stop.
> >
> >I suggest you work on your reading skills.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
> Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...

No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

[IBM]

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

[snip]

> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > The Boeing 314 was the first transatlantic airplane service in 1939.
>
> The topic is "jet" airliners.
>

Thats not what the Subject header says

Keith

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
>rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
>mean????????

It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.

Gavin Bailey

[B2431]

>From: IBM
>Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:
>
> [snip]
>
>> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
>> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
>> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
>
> Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
> Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.
>
> IBM
>

There wasn't an ocean there?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen >
wrote:

<snip>

How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
as submarines ?

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Iain Rae > wrote:
>Spiv wrote:
><snip>
>> The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
>> fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
>> facing opened up the production line after 11 years.

>have you got a cite for that I've never heard of the chinese operating
>the VC10 never mind trying to buy more (apart from anything else I'd
>have half expected the RAF to but new airframes if the production line
>was opening up again).

I think he's thinking of the De Havilland Trident, which the Chinese
certainly used extensively (and built under licence). Pretty sure the
VC10 wsn't sold there (or many other places :( [1]).

[1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
up their pencil.

--
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)

[Iain Rae]

Jim Watt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
> as submarines ?
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

it got a 5/10 on imdb when it was tried.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
> as submarines ?
>

Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines

See Airport 77


Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines
>
> See Airport 77
>

So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The topic is "jet" airliners.
>

The topic is transatlatic air service.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where do you have a problem, then I ca help you.
>

I'm sure I have no problem that you can help me with.


>
> The engineering/metallurgy side did.
>

Prove it.


>
> You know too much about these sorts of
> things do you?
>

I don't think anyone can know too much about them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The topic is jet airliners, not prop jobs. The Comet was first.
>

The topic is transatlantic air service.

[Spiv]

--
-
"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
>...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> >>>
> > >> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
> > regular
> > >> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
> > >innovation.
> > >
> > >But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
> > >while the 707 made the journey non stop.
> > >
> > >I suggest you work on your reading skills.
> > >
> > >Keith
> > >
> > Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
> > Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...
>
> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

Did this ocean appear afterwards?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Spiv]

--
-
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The topic is "jet" airliners.
> >
>
> The topic is transatlatic air service.

IT is? It wasn't! If you want that topic then change the subject.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Where do you have a problem, then I ca help you.
>
> I'm sure I have no problem that you can help me with.

You obviously unaware of your problems.

> > The engineering/metallurgy side did.
>
> > Prove it.

Do some reading.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines
> >
> > See Airport 77
> >
>
> So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?
>
>

Slowly in a water tank surrounded by cameramen :)

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> IT is? It wasn't! If you want that topic then change the subject.
>

Well, the subject is "Why We Lost The Vietnam War". I responded to your
statement, "The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the
707." Your statement is incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do some reading.
>

I have. That's why I can confidently state that the design of the 707 was
not influenced by the Comet.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > IT is? It wasn't! If you want that topic then change the subject.
> >
>
> Well, the subject is "Why We Lost The Vietnam War". I responded to your
> statement, "The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not
the
> 707." Your statement is incorrect.

Just admit you got it wrong and stop carping on.

[Spiv]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>
> >> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> >> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> >> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
> >
> > Did this ocean appear afterwards?
>
> Boy, those Vikings must be older than I thought... :-)

Yes, they must have walked over with dinosaurs when it was all one
continental mass.

[D. Patterson]

"Presidente Alcazar" > wrote in
message ...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
> >rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
> >mean????????
>
> It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
> North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
> mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
> threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
> their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.
>
> Gavin Bailey
>

Is that anything like the bucket seats of the C-47?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just admit you got it wrong and stop carping on.
>

What do you believe I got wrong? Do you believe the statement, "The world's
first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707" is correct?

[Andrew Chaplin]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...

> [1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
> someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
> up their pencil.

I have a suggestion about the Ilyshin-62, *stay away*. I flew on a CSA
Il-62 out of Beirut in 1993. The seating, even in first class, was like
being strapped into a lawn chair. The pitch of the seats was generous,
but you could not reach the seat pocket without unbuckling your seat
belt. The baggage handlers put my dog and her crate in the passenger
cabin with us because they could not be sure of she would not freeze in
the hold.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:57:03 -0800, "D. Patterson"
> wrote:

>> >What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
>> >rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
>> >mean????????
>>
>> It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
>> North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
>> mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
>> threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
>> their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.
>
>Is that anything like the bucket seats of the C-47?

Dude, never mind the flyboys, the men with the real asses of steel
drove FFR Land Rovers. The short wheel-base versions.

Oh yeah, baby.

Gavin Bailey

[George Z. Bush]

"D. Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Presidente Alcazar" > wrote in
> message ...
> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
> > >rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
> > >mean????????
> >
> > It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
> > North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
> > mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
> > threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
> > their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.
> >
> > Gavin Bailey
> >
>
> Is that anything like the bucket seats of the C-47?

Careful, now. You're speaking of the woman I love. I used to snooze stretched
out on those bucket seats on many a flight even if they did leave horizontal
welts across my shoulders and butt. (^-^)))

George Z.

[John R Weiss]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?

Slowly, via water intake through the outflow valves that are normally open
at/near landing altitude. Depending on how far submerged the fuselage is, the
negative pressure relief valves in the cargo doors could also let in water.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:23:05 -0000, "Spiv" > wrote:


>> No. See Keith's post.
>
>I did and it is just inane babble. The Comet was first in 1958.
>

Having to refuel in Gander doesnt make it the 1st non stop trans atlantic
services you ignorant clown.


>
>The Nimrod (a Comet) is a cost effective plane

It is ********. Cost effectiveness is the reason why just about every other
country in the world uses propellor driven aircraft for maritime patrol.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Slowly in a water tank surrounded by cameramen :)
>

Sure, you can do anything in a movie. The "Airport" series got weirder with
each film. I have a 1977-78 edition of Janes ATWA, it gives the volume of
the passenger deck of a basic Model 747 as 27,860 cubic feet. A cubic foot
of water weighs over 62 pounds, so the dry passenger deck is displacing over
1.7 million pounds, which is more than twice the maximum takeoff weight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:yAbRb.27146$U%5.180039@attbi_s03...
>
> Slowly, via water intake through the outflow valves that are normally open
> at/near landing altitude. Depending on how far submerged the fuselage is,
> the negative pressure relief valves in the cargo doors could also let in
water.
>

In the film, it went down rather quickly, less than 30 seconds as I recall,
and the carpet didn't even get damp.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Having to refuel in Gander doesnt make it the 1st non stop trans atlantic
> services you ignorant clown.
>

It does if Gander is the destination. But, of course, Gander was not the
destination.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:31:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Having to refuel in Gander doesnt make it the 1st non stop trans atlantic
>> services you ignorant clown.
>>
>
>It does if Gander is the destination. But, of course, Gander was not the
>destination.
>


Quite.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Peter Stickney]

Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>> >To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
> >necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
> >infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
> >to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
> >this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
> >to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
> >service until the early 1960s.
>
> ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air
> used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which
> must have been fun.)

Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new
airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned
structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than
47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push)
rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts.
The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately,
it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the
ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed
749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the
Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged.
(Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs,
and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets
somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.

--
Pete Stickney

[B2431]

>From: Jim Watt

>
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen >
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
>as submarines ?
>
>--
>Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
They did that in one of the Airport movies in the 1970s.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Having to refuel in Gander doesnt make it the 1st non stop trans
atlantic
> > services you ignorant clown.
> >
>
> It does if Gander is the destination. But, of course, Gander was not the
> destination.

If Gander is the other side of the Atlantic then it is the first
transatlantic service. Can't you figure that out?

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
om...
> Peter Skelton > wrote in message
>...
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter
> > Stickney) wrote:
> >> >To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
> > >necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
> > >infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
> > >to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
> > >this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
> > >to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
> > >service until the early 1960s.
> >
> > ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air
> > used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which
> > must have been fun.)
>
> Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new
> airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned
> structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than
> 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push)
> rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts.
> The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately,
> it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the
> ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed
> 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the
> Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged.
> (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs,
> and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets
> somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.

The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was in
1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was in
> 1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
> prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.
>
>

This means the last Comet retired from service while the
Boeing 707 line was still producing new aircraft since the
last 707 rolled off the lines in 1991.

Think about it.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On 26 Jan 2004 00:45:07 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
>>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>Date: 1/25/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>> There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.
>>
>>I don't doubt the contribution of men under arms during WWII.
>>
>>I am pleased that when we have a discussion about Bastogne I can contribute
>>more than just wondering if my father changed the Wolf's spark plugs. :)
>>
>>
>
>Your father was among the greatest of he greatest generation.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Your generation was no better or worse than any other.

Al Minyard

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter
> > Stickney) wrote:
> >> >To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
> > >necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
> > >infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
> > >to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
> > >this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
> > >to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
> > >service until the early 1960s.
> >
> > ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air
> > used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which
> > must have been fun.)
>
> Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new
> airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned
> structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than
> 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push)
> rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts.
> The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately,
> it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the
> ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed
> 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the
> Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged.
> (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs,
> and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets
> somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.


With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.

The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
re-engineering of the wing roots)

The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
loitering patrols.

The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.

With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
performance.

[ZZBunker]

"Spiv" > wrote in message >...
> --
> -
> "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
> regular
> > > >> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
> > > >innovation.
> > > >
> > > >But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
> > > >while the 707 made the journey non stop.
> > > >
> > > >I suggest you work on your reading skills.
> > > >
> > > >Keith
> > > >
> > > Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
> > > Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...
> >
> > No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> > that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> > And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
>
> Did this ocean appear afterwards?

The *Atlantic* Ocean *never* appeared.
Since it was *invented* by jerk *Mediterranean* Philosophers
who made up a mythical place called Atlantis,
populated by fire-breathing Dragons, of course.

Or as the Greeks need to remimded every two years these days.
Olympus is high, but since the Japanese make Olypmus,
rather than the Swiss, it's unlikely the British
Ski Jumping Team will win any Gold Medals this year.
So, maybe they should stick to their usual Canadian Olympic
form and practice with the Jamiacan Bobsled Team.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
> aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
> Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.
>

Please xplain your reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
While the Nimrod is a fine aircraft the P-3 has had rather
more export success.

> The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
> significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
> burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
> re-engineering of the wing roots)
>

I seriously doubt that any real advantage accrues from this.
Nimrod has a LARGE radar signature.

> The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
> engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
> problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
> loitering patrols.
>
> The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
> launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
> presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.
>

AMRAAM is highly unlikley


> With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
> with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
> performance.

Thats just silly. Nimrod simly doesnt have the payload carrying capacity.
The RAF used to have a mini B-52 , it was called the Vulcan

Keith

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jan 2004 00:45:07 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
> >>From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >>Date: 1/25/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >
> >> There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen.
> >>
> >>I don't doubt the contribution of men under arms during WWII.
> >>
> >>I am pleased that when we have a discussion about Bastogne I can
contribute
> >>more than just wondering if my father changed the Wolf's spark plugs. :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Your father was among the greatest of he greatest generation.
> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
> >344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> Your generation was no better or worse than any other.

Where did you serve, Al?

[ZZBunker]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: IBM
> >Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ZZBunker) wrote in
> om:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> >> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> >> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
> >
> > Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
> > Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.
> >
> > IBM
> >
>
> There wasn't an ocean there?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well, since those of us with brains don't even
ask active duty US Navy people about oceans,
it goes without saying that the last
people we people we ever ask questions
about oceans are retired US Air Force people.
The only thing we advise them is to buy a
condo somewhere in Florida, and buy three
.44 Magums. One for you, one for your
Marine wife, and one loaded one for
the people who can shoot.

[B2431]

>From: (ZZBunker)
>Date: 1/26/2004 7:01 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: IBM
>> >Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (ZZBunker) wrote in
>> om:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
>> >> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
>> >> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
>> >
>> > Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
>> > Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.
>> >
>> > IBM
>> >
>>
>> There wasn't an ocean there?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Well, since those of us with brains don't even
> ask active duty US Navy people about oceans,
> it goes without saying that the last
> people we people we ever ask questions
> about oceans are retired US Air Force people.
> The only thing we advise them is to buy a
> condo somewhere in Florida, and buy three
> .44 Magums. One for you, one for your
> Marine wife, and one loaded one for
> the people who can shoot.
>
Gee, you are so funny. The original poster said

<begin quote>

No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the
British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no*
Atlantic Ocean.

<end quote>

If taken literally he was saying there was no ocean there hence my wise ass
question.

As for my shooting abilities I am an NRA shooting instructor and earned
marksmanship awards in both the Army and the Air Force. Oh, and it is spelled
"magnums" which you would know if you actually had the brains you claim.

Have a fine day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RobbelothE]

Two words:

Lyndon Johnson.
Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[[email protected]]

"Spiv" > wrote:

>> > Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
>> > Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...
>>
>> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
>> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
>> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
>
>Did this ocean appear afterwards?
>
>

Christ!...musta been one bitch of a rainstorm wot?.
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Eunometic) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
>> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter
>> > Stickney) wrote:
>> >> >To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
>> > >necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
>> > >infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
>> > >to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
>> > >this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
>> > >to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
>> > >service until the early 1960s.
>> >
>> > ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air
>> > used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which
>> > must have been fun.)
>>
>> Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new
>> airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned
>> structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than
>> 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push)
>> rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts.
>> The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately,
>> it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the
>> ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed
>> 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the
>> Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged.
>> (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs,
>> and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets
>> somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.
>
>
> With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
> aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
> Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.

Nimrods are a bit faster than P-3s. That's not really relevant
though, when looking for submarines. They're both big enough, fast
enough when need be, and slow enough when need be. The Orion beats in
wrt fuel consumption, The efficiency of the sensor suites is about
equivalent, with a little seesawing back & forth depending on what
point in time you're comparing the two.

It's kind of ironic that the Orion also grew out of a semi-successful
1950s airliner with a troubled beginning - the Lockheed L-188 Electra,
the fastes of the Western prop-driven airliners (The Tu-114 can beat
it) L-188s also suffered a spate of mysterious crashes. In their
case, it was a resonant vibration in damaged engine mounts that
induced fuilure in the wing spar. Like the COnet, it got fixed (A bit
more quickly - they didn't have to redesign the entire airplane), but
it took time to rebuild public confidence, and the introduction of
pure jets on U.S. Domestic routes killed off demand.

>
> The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
> significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
> burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
> re-engineering of the wing roots)

Not really. The fan sections are entirely exposed within the ducts,
and they're spinning pretty fast - that makes the return scintillate,
which makes it easier to pick out of clutter, if you know how to look
at it. With that big honkin' wing, and the large, slab sided
fuselage, even if it was a bit less obvious, it's a distincion without
a difference.

> The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
> engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
> problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
> loitering patrols.

Asymmetric operation with an Orion isn't much of a big deal, either,
although it can be a handful in some circumstances. Remember that it
had to be able to climb out on 3 engines on takeoff, with a load of
passengers aboard.

Early on, it was policy on teh P-3 to patrol on 2 engines. The
occasional difficulty in getting them both started again, and the need
to have as many alternators running a possible to supply th
electrical buses has changed that so that they only cage 1
engines. (The last I heard - one of my former bosses was a Navy
Reserve P-3 Pilot)

> The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
> launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
> presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.

P-3s are good for about 4500 NM, including 3 hours stooging around at
20,000', and 1 houf chasing contacts at 200', with a 10% reserve.

As for what it carries, we've got all teh Cruise Missile carriers the
START Treaties will allow. (That's what happens when you're a Major
Nuclear Power :)) So we can't fit Tomahawks or ALCMs. However, it
will carry a whole raft of Harpoons & SLAM-ERs, which are Cruise
Missiles of a somewhat more subdued nature. I don't recall if
anybody's stuck a Sidewinder on a P-3, but there's no reason why you
can't. A SIrewinder requires a standard rack to fit the rail to, soem
wires to wake it up, and some wires to insert the seeker's growl into
the intercom system.
AMRAAMs are right out, for either. While an AMRAAM has an active
seeker, it still needs a fighter-type Fire COntrol System to properly
program it before launch.


> With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
> with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
> performance.

As for the Nimrod being a mini-B-52, well, we've got B-52s to fill
that role.

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

[ZZBunker]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (ZZBunker)
> >Date: 1/26/2004 7:01 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (B2431) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >From: IBM
> >> >Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> (ZZBunker) wrote in
> >> om:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> >> >> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> >> >> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
> >> >
> >> > Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
> >> > Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.
> >> >
> >> > IBM
> >> >
> >>
> >> There wasn't an ocean there?
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Well, since those of us with brains don't even
> > ask active duty US Navy people about oceans,
> > it goes without saying that the last
> > people we people we ever ask questions
> > about oceans are retired US Air Force people.
> > The only thing we advise them is to buy a
> > condo somewhere in Florida, and buy three
> > .44 Magums. One for you, one for your
> > Marine wife, and one loaded one for
> > the people who can shoot.
> >
> Gee, you are so funny. The original poster said
>
> <begin quote>
>
> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the
> British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no*
> Atlantic Ocean.
>
> <end quote>
>
> If taken literally he was saying there was no ocean there hence my wise ass
> question.

You should be taken literally, since I'm both the
original poster and somebody understands
computers, rather than a lawyer.

There was obviously a body of water there long before
and after the Vikings crossed it. But since the
Vikings also knew about Greenland long before
the Air Force invaded it, that's two for the
Vikings, and zero for the Air Force.



>
> As for my shooting abilities I am an NRA shooting instructor and earned
> marksmanship awards in both the Army and the Air Force. Oh, and it is spelled
> "magnums" which you would know if you actually had the brains you claim.
>
> Have a fine day.

It only spelled magnums by the Army, The Texas NRA Shotgun
Wannabee Association, and States that lost the Civil War.
In New York it's spelled Magner Force.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> If Gander is the other side of the Atlantic then it is the first
> transatlantic service. Can't you figure that out?
>

The first transatlantic air service was via zeppelin.

[Jack Linthicum]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message >...
> "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > [1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
> > someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
> > up their pencil.
>
> I have a suggestion about the Ilyshin-62, *stay away*. I flew on a CSA
> Il-62 out of Beirut in 1993. The seating, even in first class, was like
> being strapped into a lawn chair. The pitch of the seats was generous,
> but you could not reach the seat pocket without unbuckling your seat
> belt. The baggage handlers put my dog and her crate in the passenger
> cabin with us because they could not be sure of she would not freeze in
> the hold.

The Czechs used to keep two fat guys on call to sit on either side of
Western passengers. One requirement was they eat their lunch just
before takeoff and outgass to relieve cabin pressure at regular
intervals. Not my experience but one of a very thin friend.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was in
> > 1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
> > prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.
>
> This means the last Comet retired from service while the
> Boeing 707 line was still producing new aircraft since the
> last 707 rolled off the lines in 1991.

Or was it 1997

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was in
> > 1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
> > prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.
> >
> >
>
> This means the last Comet retired from service while the
> Boeing 707 line was still producing new aircraft since the
> last 707 rolled off the lines in 1991.
>
> Think about it.

I did and the Comet was introduction for longer being about 10 years ahead
of the 707 - a pioneering ground breaking plane. History will show it far
more important to aircraft advancement than the 707.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
> > aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
> > Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.
> >
>
> Please xplain your reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
> While the Nimrod is a fine aircraft the P-3 has had rather
> more export success.

Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super VC10 was a superior
plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.

> > The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
> > significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
> > burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
> > re-engineering of the wing roots)
>
> I seriously doubt that any real advantage accrues from this.
> Nimrod has a LARGE radar signature.
>
> > The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
> > engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
> > problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
> > loitering patrols.
> >
> > The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
> > launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
> > presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.
> >
>
> AMRAAM is highly unlikley

He is gussing now.

> > With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
> > with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
> > performance.
>
> Thats just silly. Nimrod simly doesnt have the payload carrying capacity.
> The RAF used to have a mini B-52 , it was called the Vulcan

You must read what was written.

[Spiv]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>
> >> > Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
> >> > Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...
> >>
> >> No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
> >> that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
> >> And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.
> >
> >Did this ocean appear afterwards?
>
> Christ!...musta been one bitch of a rainstorm wot?.

Or someone towed Newfoundland from Scotland to Canada.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was
in
> > > 1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
> > > prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This means the last Comet retired from service while the
> > Boeing 707 line was still producing new aircraft since the
> > last 707 rolled off the lines in 1991.
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> I did and the Comet was introduction for longer being about 10 years ahead
> of the 707 - a pioneering ground breaking plane. >
>

Hardly

The Comet I entered passenger service in late 1952 and carried only 36
passengers, the remaining fleet was permanently grounded in early 1954
by which time 5 out of the 9 built had crashed

The Comet 4 didnt enter service until April 1958 only a few months
ahead of the 707-120

> History will show it far
> more important to aircraft advancement than the 707.

It has the distinction of being the first but the simple fact is that
Boeing made a shed load of money selling over 1000 aircraft
and went on to build almost 3/4 of the airliners in service
in western markets by the early 90's

DeHavilland sold a grand total of 46 Comet 4 aircraft

Keith

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Eunometic) writes:
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote in message
>...
> >> Peter Skelton > wrote in message
>...
> >> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter
> >> > Stickney) wrote:

> >> >> >To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
> >> > >necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
> >> > >infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
> >> > >to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up
on
> >> > >this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two
Comets
> >> > >to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
> >> > >service until the early 1960s.
> >> >
> >> > ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air
> >> > used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which
> >> > must have been fun.)
> >>
> >> Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new
> >> airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned
> >> structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than
> >> 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push)
> >> rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts.
> >> The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately,
> >> it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the
> >> ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed
> >> 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the
> >> Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged.
> >> (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs,
> >> and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets
> >> somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.
> >
> > With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
> > aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
> > Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.
>
> Nimrods are a bit faster than P-3s. That's not really relevant
> though, when looking for submarines. They're both big enough, fast
> enough when need be, and slow enough when need be.

Being slow enough is very important for those types of planes.

> The Orion beats in
> wrt fuel consumption, The efficiency of the sensor suites is about
> equivalent, with a little seesawing back & forth depending on what
> point in time you're comparing the two.
>
> It's kind of ironic that the Orion also grew out of a semi-successful
> 1950s airliner with a troubled beginning - the Lockheed L-188 Electra,
> the fastes of the Western prop-driven airliners (The Tu-114 can beat
> it) L-188s also suffered a spate of mysterious crashes. In their
> case, it was a resonant vibration in damaged engine mounts that
> induced fuilure in the wing spar. Like the COnet, it got fixed (A bit
> more quickly - they didn't have to redesign the entire airplane),

The Electra was hardly a plane making history and catapulting technology as
was the Comet. The lessons from the Comet, the most extensive research
into one plane and metal fatigue ever, were used on virtually every plane
after in some way or other.

> but
> it took time to rebuild public confidence, and the introduction of
> pure jets on U.S. Domestic routes killed off demand.
>
> >
> > The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
> > significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
> > burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
> > re-engineering of the wing roots)
>
> Not really. The fan sections are entirely exposed within the ducts,
> and they're spinning pretty fast - that makes the return scintillate,
> which makes it easier to pick out of clutter, if you know how to look
> at it. With that big honkin' wing, and the large, slab sided
> fuselage, even if it was a bit less obvious, it's a distincion without
> a difference.
>
> > The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
> > engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
> > problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
> > loitering patrols.
>
> Asymmetric operation with an Orion isn't much of a big deal, either,
> although it can be a handful in some circumstances. Remember that it
> had to be able to climb out on 3 engines on takeoff, with a load of
> passengers aboard.
>
> Early on, it was policy on teh P-3 to patrol on 2 engines. The
> occasional difficulty in getting them both started again, and the need
> to have as many alternators running a possible to supply th
> electrical buses has changed that so that they only cage 1
> engines. (The last I heard - one of my former bosses was a Navy
> Reserve P-3 Pilot)
>
> > The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
> > launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
> > presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.
>
> P-3s are good for about 4500 NM, including 3 hours stooging around at
> 20,000', and 1 houf chasing contacts at 200', with a 10% reserve.
>
> As for what it carries, we've got all teh Cruise Missile carriers the
> START Treaties will allow. (That's what happens when you're a Major
> Nuclear Power :)) So we can't fit Tomahawks or ALCMs. However, it
> will carry a whole raft of Harpoons & SLAM-ERs, which are Cruise
> Missiles of a somewhat more subdued nature. I don't recall if
> anybody's stuck a Sidewinder on a P-3, but there's no reason why you
> can't. A SIrewinder requires a standard rack to fit the rail to, soem
> wires to wake it up, and some wires to insert the seeker's growl into
> the intercom system.
> AMRAAMs are right out, for either. While an AMRAAM has an active
> seeker, it still needs a fighter-type Fire COntrol System to properly
> program it before launch.
>
> > With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
> > with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
> > performance.
>
> As for the Nimrod being a mini-B-52, well, we've got B-52s to fill
> that role.

His point is that it can be used for other functions too, which is cost
effective. B52/Vulcan types of planes cost a "fortune" to make and
maintain - 40 million people in the USA are excluded from medical care, make
the armed forces more efficient and your people, benefit. The Nimrod was
fitted with sidewinders during the Falklands war.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If Gander is the other side of the Atlantic then it is the first
> > transatlantic service. Can't you figure that out?
>
> The first transatlantic air service was via zeppelin.

The topic is jets.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
> > > aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
> > > Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.
> > >
> >
> > Please xplain your reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
> > While the Nimrod is a fine aircraft the P-3 has had rather
> > more export success.
>
> Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super VC10 was a
superior
> plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.
>

It was far from superior which is why harly anybody except BA bought
the thing and they only did so because the government made them.
There was a famous leaked memo from BOAC requesting a subsidy
because they were having to compete with 707's that were
cheaper to run

Not only were the initial operating costs of the VC-10 higher but
the buried engine design meant that it couldnt use the new
more efficient (and quieter) powerplants that the 707 and
DC-8 were requipped with which meant the aircraft became
increasingly uncompetitve and it could not meet the new
noise restrictions introduced in the 70's and 80's.

> > > The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
> > > significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
> > > burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
> > > re-engineering of the wing roots)
> >
> > I seriously doubt that any real advantage accrues from this.
> > Nimrod has a LARGE radar signature.
> >
> > > The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
> > > engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
> > > problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
> > > loitering patrols.
> > >
> > > The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
> > > launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
> > > presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.
> > >
> >
> > AMRAAM is highly unlikley
>
> He is gussing now.
>

No and I'm not guessing either, AMRAAM requires rather more
in the way of system integration than AIM-9 including a suitable
aircraft radar fit to get a lock at BVR

> > > With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
> > > with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
> > > performance.
> >
> > Thats just silly. Nimrod simly doesnt have the payload carrying
capacity.
> > The RAF used to have a mini B-52 , it was called the Vulcan
>
> You must read what was written.
>

I didnt, it was full of errors

Keith

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Comet is still flying (the Nimrod) . The last civilian plane was
> in
> > > > 1987. That is a long civilian service life. The British government
> > > > prevented one of the last from being sold to the USA.
> > >
> > > This means the last Comet retired from service while the
> > > Boeing 707 line was still producing new aircraft since the
> > > last 707 rolled off the lines in 1991.
> > >
> > > Think about it.
> >
> > I did and the Comet was introduction for longer being about 10 years
ahead
> > of the 707 - a pioneering ground breaking plane. >
>
> Hardly

This one can't even count.

** snip **

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> This one can't even count.
>
> ** snip **

Sigh

> > I did and the Comet was introduction for longer being about 10 years
> > ahead of the 707

Comet 1 entered service 1952
707 entered service 1958

1958-1952 = 6

6 is not approx = 10

Both your syntactical and mathematical skills clearly
need work.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did and the Comet was introduction for longer being about 10 years ahead
> of the 707 - a pioneering ground breaking plane.
>

Ten years ahead? How did you determine that? The Comet made it's first
flight on July 27, 1949, the Boeing 367-80 made it's first flight on July
15, 1954, not quite five years later. The Comet began passenger service on
May 2, 1952, the Boeing 707 began passenger service on October 26, 1958,
some six and a half years later.


>
> History will show it far
> more important to aircraft advancement than the 707.
>

As a bad example?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> It has the distinction of being the first but the simple fact is that
> Boeing made a shed load of money selling over 1000 aircraft
> and went on to build almost 3/4 of the airliners in service
> in western markets by the early 90's
>
> DeHavilland sold a grand total of 46 Comet 4 aircraft
>

The Comet was first in service, but just barely the first to fly. The Avro
C-102 made it's first flight on August 10, 1949, just two weeks after the
Comet.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The lessons from the Comet, the most extensive research
> into one plane and metal fatigue ever, were used on virtually every plane
> after in some way or other.
>

How so?


>
> His point is that it can be used for other functions too, which is cost
> effective. B52/Vulcan types of planes cost a "fortune" to make and
> maintain - 40 million people in the USA are excluded from medical care,
make
> the armed forces more efficient and your people, benefit.
>

Nobody in the USA is excluded from medical care.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Comet was quite like the Avro whatever that was cancelled at
> the request of DND so that they could concentrate on military
> aircraft production. The Avro flew before the Comet, I don't know
> if there were other aborted aircraft too.
>

If you're referring to the Avro C-102, it flew two weeks after the Comet.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The topic is jets.
>

If you review the thread you'll see that it is not.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The Czechs used to keep two fat guys on call to sit on either side of
> Western passengers. One requirement was they eat their lunch just
> before takeoff and outgass to relieve cabin pressure at regular
> intervals. Not my experience but one of a very thin friend.

LOL

I sat with the journalist Robert Fisk on our way to Prague (he wasn't as
gassy as he is in print, but then, what might he have said of me?) and
with an attractive young Czech woman on the way to Mirabel (Gas? What
gas?).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[D. Patterson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > One or two certainly are slow indeed.
> >
> > The Comet investigation covered parts of metallurgy not known in depth
to
> > science. It was the largest investigation into an aircraft ever.
> Everyone
> > wanted to know the reason "in depth". The lessons on "fatigue" was
taken
> on
> > board, by just about everyone and applied to what they were
> > designing/building. If something was in the design or prototype stage
> they
> > would look again in depth. Is that clear?
> >
>
> What's clear is that you're flying the airways of life with a couple of
> props feathered.

I really like that one <cheer> <cheer>

[tw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super VC10
> was
> > a
> > > > > > superior
> > > > > > > plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.
> > > > >
> > > > > He enter yet again...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's YOUR utterance you are commenting on
> > > > old boy LOL
> > > >
> > > > > > It was far from superior
> > > > >
> > > > > Do some reading. Don't make it up. He goes on....
> > > >
> > > > I have
> > > >
> > > > 707 Sales 1010
> > > > VC-10 Sales 57
> > >
> > > Once again, he can't understand a simple point. The VC10 was a
superior
> > > plane, but never sold well. Betamax was better than VHS, but also
lost
> > out.
> > > The best frequently never succeeds.
> >
> > It was however capable of selling into more than 5% of the market.
>
> I give up.
>

Thank Cliff for that.. come back when you have a better primary source than
that mulleted middle age fool Clarkson.

[Spiv]

"tw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super
VC10
> > was
> > > a
> > > > > > > superior
> > > > > > > > plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He enter yet again...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's YOUR utterance you are commenting on
> > > > > old boy LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It was far from superior
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do some reading. Don't make it up. He goes on....
> > > > >
> > > > > I have
> > > > >
> > > > > 707 Sales 1010
> > > > > VC-10 Sales 57
> > > >
> > > > Once again, he can't understand a simple point. The VC10 was a
> superior
> > > > plane, but never sold well. Betamax was better than VHS, but also
> lost
> > > out.
> > > > The best frequently never succeeds.
> > >
> > > It was however capable of selling into more than 5% of the market.
> >
> > I give up.
> >
>
> Thank Cliff for that.. come back when you have a better primary source
than
> that mulleted middle age fool Clarkson.

Source about what?

[D. Patterson]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype in
> less
> > > than
> > > > a month.
> > >
> > > Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
> dropped
> > > engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip fed
as
> it
> > > was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding were
> being
> > > implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
filchers
> > and
> > > bombers.
> >
> > The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude flights
was
> a
> > Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and was
> > subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time the
de
> > Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to the
> > reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready to
> take
> > flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the Boeing
> > S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland Comet
was
> > almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
> cabins
> > for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
suck
> > eggs.
>
> Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for most
> modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin, hydraulic
> power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
> powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
first
> with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
> Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being the
> Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
many
> say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype which
> was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early. the
> plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.

You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the De
Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial airliners
which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938, while
the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in the
period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners and
bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De Havilland
Comet I. Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British certainly
did need the American advice.

Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners" by
demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
airliners. Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was scrapped. It
was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate. The
Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.

[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
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype in
> > less
> > > > than
> > > > > a month.
> > > >
> > > > Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
> > dropped
> > > > engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip fed
> as
> > it
> > > > was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding were
> > being
> > > > implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
> filchers
> > > and
> > > > bombers.
> > >
> > > The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude flights
> was
> > a
> > > Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and was
> > > subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time the
> de
> > > Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to
the
> > > reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready to
> > take
> > > flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the
Boeing
> > > S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland Comet
> was
> > > almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
> > cabins
> > > for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
> suck
> > > eggs.
> >
> > Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for
most
> > modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin, hydraulic
> > power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
> > powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
> first
> > with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
> > Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being
the
> > Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
> many
> > say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype
which
> > was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early. the
> > plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.
>
> You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
> learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the De
> Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial airliners
> which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938,

They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?

> while
> the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in
the
> period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners
and
> bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
> fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De Havilland
> Comet I.

The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.

> Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
> construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British
certainly
> did need the American advice.

What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all. That
is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame. You are obviously not from
an engineering background. Were you a pay clerk?

> Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners" by
> demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
> airliners.

More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.

> Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
> flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was scrapped.
It
> was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate. The
> Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
> suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
> flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.

The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every" modern
airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big. Any problems seen
were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
Brabazon
> project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every"
modern
> airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big. Any problems seen
> were rectified and/or noted for future planes.
>
>

********, the basic assumption behind the Brabazon 1 was deeply
flawed. The basic assumption was that only senior civil servants and
the very wealthy would fly by air so the aircraft was built with
the accent on luxury not cost.

The pattern for post war travel was set by the Lockheed Constellation
and Boeing Stratocruiser. Both PRECEDED the Brabazon in service
and were superior in almost every way when viewed from the point
of view of offering improved costs and consequently sold in large numbers
as the market for airline travel expanded.

Aircraft No Passengers Range Cruise Speed
Brabazon 60-80 5,500 miles 300 mph
Stratocruiser 55-100 4,500 miles 340 mph
Super Connie 60-80 4,500 miles 340 mph

In Service dates

Brabazon - NEVER
Stratocruiser - 1949 (PanAm and BOAC)
Lockheed Constellation - 1942 (ordered by TWA but seized by USAAF )

The Brabazon is a classic example of what happens when you
let a government committee drive aircraft design

The aircraft tendered for the type III Brabazon specification, the Bristol
Brittania
was a MUCH more succesful design and was built despite the Brabazon
committee
not because of it.

Keith

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:

<...>

> I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every" modern
> airliner

Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct descendants of the
Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.

> and too far ahead of its time, being too big.

"far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal was
cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made about
the XC-99 and be valid.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?
>

So metal fatigue is a function of speed?


>
> The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.
>

You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair XC-99, had
the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower takeoff
weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.


>
> What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.
> That is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame.
>

The lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue did not influence the
design of the Boeing 367-80 in any way.


>
> You are obviously not from an engineering background.
>

Well, it's obvious you are not from an engineering background.


>
> More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.
>

How can that be? Nobody operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon.


>
> The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
> Brabazon project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of
> "every" modern airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
> Any problems seen were rectified and/or noted for future planes.
>

What future planes?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> "far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal
> was cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made
> about the XC-99 and be valid.
>

Yup. The XC-99 was even larger and heavier than the Brabazon. While the
planned Convair Model 37 derivative of the XC-99 never materialized and
there was no series production of C-99s, the XC-99 itself served as a USAF
airlifter until 1957. The Brabazon served only as cookware.

[RobbelothE]

Guys,

Please change the subject line to reflect what you're actually talking about.
Thanks.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?
> >
>
> So metal fatigue is a function of speed?
>
>
> >
> > The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.
> >
>
> You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair XC-99,
had
> the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower
takeoff
> weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.

You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:
The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to operate the
giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls, the
first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics.

All eventually adopted by all planes.

> > What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.
> > That is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame.
> >
>
> The lessons of the Comet with regard to
> metal fatigue did not influence the
> design of the Boeing 367-80 in any way.

It did!

> > You are obviously not from an engineering background.
>
> Well, it's obvious you are not from an engineering background.

What clerical unit were you in?

> > More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.
>
> How can that be? Nobody operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon.

See above.

> > The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
> > Brabazon project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of
> > "every" modern airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
> > Any problems seen were rectified and/or noted for future planes.
>
> What future planes?

All of them, even American.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message

<...>

> > > The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.
> > >
> >
> > You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair XC-99,
> had
> > the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower
> takeoff
> > weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.
>
> You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:

Both of those problems are contained in that blob of mush attached to your
neck.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> > project instead of babbling balls. It was

> > the forerunner of "every" modern
> > airliner
>
> Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct descendants of
the
> Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.

Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

> > and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
>
> "far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal
was
> cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made about
> the XC-99 and be valid.

Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. For the time
not bad at all. 50% of the money spend on Brabazon 1 was infrastructure.
The equipment and the large hangar were used by Concorde. Brabazon was
pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
>
> <...>
>
> > > > The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering
planes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair
XC-99,
> > had
> > > the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower
> > takeoff
> > > weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.
> >
> > You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:
>
> Both of those problems are contained in that blob of mush attached to your
> neck.

Such wit.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> > > project instead of babbling balls. It was
>
> > > the forerunner of "every" modern
> > > airliner
> >
> > Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct descendants of
> the
> > Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.
>
> Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous ravings
in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
anything about the subject.

> > > and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
> >
> > "far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal
> was
> > cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made
about
> > the XC-99 and be valid.
>
> Brabazon was a project of three.

It appears you don't even know the basic history of what the Brabazon
committee proposed, but in this instance your comment was directly related
to the waste of effort in Bristol in the immediate post war years.

> Two were made, one never.

Try again head, of mush.

> For the time
> not bad at all. 50% of the money spend on Brabazon 1 was infrastructure.

Build a massive infrastructure, and then rarely bother to use it.

> The equipment and the large hangar were used by Concorde.

Damn I wonder why Concorde required all that new equipment, testing
procedures..... if it already existed, and had been sitting around for all
those years just waiting for Concorde.

> Brabazon was
> pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.

He wasn't and the committees view of the post war world was very different
from what actually occurred.

[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
> > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype
in
> > > less
> > > > > than
> > > > > > a month.
> > > > >
> > > > > Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
> > > dropped
> > > > > engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip
fed
> > as
> > > it
> > > > > was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding
were
> > > being
> > > > > implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
> > filchers
> > > > and
> > > > > bombers.
> > > >
> > > > The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude
flights
> > was
> > > a
> > > > Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and
was
> > > > subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time
the
> > de
> > > > Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to
> the
> > > > reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready
to
> > > take
> > > > flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the
> Boeing
> > > > S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland
Comet
> > was
> > > > almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
> > > cabins
> > > > for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
> > suck
> > > > eggs.
> > >
> > > Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for
> most
> > > modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin,
hydraulic
> > > power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
> > > powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
> > first
> > > with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
> > > Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being
> the
> > > Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
> > many
> > > say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype
> which
> > > was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early.
the
> > > plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.
> >
> > You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
> > learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the
De
> > Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial
airliners
> > which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938,
>
> They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?

The problem with the De Havilland DH106 Comet I was reputed to be metal
fatigue problems resulting from the design of the pressurized cabin, and the
American companies had already demonstrated a prior ten years of experience
in constructing such high altitude pressurized cabins for military jet
aircraft and civilian propellor driven aircraft which were not subject tot
he metal fatigue problems reported for the Bristol Barbazon, De Havilland
DH106 Comet I, and other British aircraft. Consequently, the British
experience with failure had nothing to offer in design to the American
experience with success.

It is also worthwhile to note that the shorter range of the De Havilland
DH106 Comet I sometimes permitted the slower but longer-ranged American
propellor driven airliners to arrive at their destination after a non-stop
flight before the arrival of the De Havilland DH106 Comet I which had to
make a lengthy stopover for refueling. Obviously, you didn't know this
difference where the low endurance hare, the Comet I, is actaully slower in
delivery than the high endurance turtle, the prop airliner.

>
> > while
> > the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in
> the
> > period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners
> and
> > bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
> > fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De
Havilland
> > Comet I.
>
> The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.
>

Boy, you can say that again. They pioneered their way straight into the
scrap heap and the air disaster headlines.

> > Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
> > construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British
> certainly
> > did need the American advice.
>
> What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.

Yes, everyone took notice of what a beautiful and disastrous aircraft it
was. Then they went on designing their own aircraft their own way, which had
already been prohibiting De Havilland's design errors anyway.

> That
> is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame. You are obviously not
from
> an engineering background. Were you a pay clerk?
>

Obviously, you are a demonstrably clueless fool and a liar.

The De Havilland design attempted to use a custom guage of metal skin to
save weight and improve performance, but their calculations ignored standard
practices regarding metal fatigue which were in common use by American and
other manufacturers besides De Havilland.

> > Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners"
by
> > demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
> > airliners.
>
> More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.

Yes, the Bristol Barbazon was "More garbage" and the single existing
prototype quickly ended up on the garbage heap after only 400 hours of
flight without earning an air worthiness certificate, because it was subject
to metal fatigue and could never be certified as safe. Since "'every' modern
airliner in use today has an air worthiness certificate and are built
entirely differently than the Bristol Barbazon, your comments are obvious
lies.

>
> > Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
> > flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was
scrapped.
> It
> > was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate.
The
> > Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
> > suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
> > flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.
>
> The wisdom of our resident redneck.

You have no facts, so you substitute an insult. I must be doing something
right.

> I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> project instead of babbling balls.

Even the most starry eyed British sources often cite the Bristol Barbazon as
a classic example of how to not design a white elephant aircraft by
committee.

> It was the forerunner of "every" modern
> airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.

The Bristol Barbazon was a forerunner only by virtue of being so worthless
to the avaiation industry, it was immediately consigned to the scrap heap as
a worthless aircraft decades before its contemporaries were scrapped.

> Any problems seen
> were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

Yeah, it was rectified by immediately scrapping the aircraft and never again
using its design.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:07:10 -0000, "Spiv" > wrote:


>You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:

Would that be something like cluelessly asserting that UK didnt get much in
the way of marshall plan aid, when it fact it was one of the biggest
recipients.


greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> > > > project instead of babbling balls. It was
> >
> > > > the forerunner of "every" modern
> > > > airliner
> > >
> > > Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct descendants
of
> > the
> > > Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.
> >
> > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
>
> Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous ravings
> in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
> anything about the subject.

I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1"

** snip babble **

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > I advise you to look into the Brabazon
> > > > > project instead of babbling balls. It was
> > >
> > > > > the forerunner of "every" modern
> > > > > airliner
> > > >
> > > > Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct
descendants
> of
> > > the
> > > > Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.
> > >
> > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> >
> > Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous
ravings
> > in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
> > anything about the subject.
>
> I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1"

As I said "head, of mush" your ravings on the subject indicate that you know
absolutely nothing worth listening to about the Bristol Brabazon or the
conclusions of the Brabazon Committee (I will give you one clue, I have been
a passenger in aircraft that resulted from the Brabazon Committee Type IIB,
Type IV, Type VB specification and something that could have been built to
satisfy the Type III specification).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:
>

Am I? What have I written that you believe is incorrect?


>
> The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
> operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered
> flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the first with
> high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics.
>
> All eventually adopted by all planes.
>

It wasn't the first with a pressurized cabin or powered flight controls, and
100% powered flight controls isn't such a good idea. It wasn't the first
aircraft with hydraulic systems, using a higher pressure than it's
predecessors is hardly ground-breaking. As for electric engine controls and
AC electric systems, so what? Even if it was the first aircraft to have
them there was nothing ground-breaking in putting them in an aircraft.


>
> It did!
>

Boeing designed an airplane with skin four and one half times as thick as
the Comet's to resist tearing. It had titanium tear stops welded to the
interior skin. They specified round windows and spot welds reduced the use
of rivets. The Boeing board approved this design on April 22, 1952, ten
days before the Comet began passenger service and a year and ten days before
the first Comet disintegrated over India.

So, if the lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue influenced the
design of the 367-80, it means de Havilland and BOAC knew about the Comet's
flaws even before the first one entered service.


>
> See above.
>

I saw above. Who operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon?


>
> All of them, even American.
>

Yet you cannot identify a single type.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
>

Do you mean this:

"The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to operate
the
giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls, the
first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."

Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look
like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.


>
> Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
>

Only one Brabazon was made.


>
> Brabazon was
> pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.
>

If the Brabazon set the pattern why is it no airline ever operated an
aircraft similar to the Brabazon?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1"
>

What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:
>
> Am I? What have I written that you believe is incorrect?

Have you a few weeks?

> > The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
> > operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered
> > flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the first with
> > high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics.
> >
> > All eventually adopted by all planes.
>
> It wasn't the first with a pressurized cabin or powered flight controls,
and
> 100% powered flight controls isn't such a good idea. It wasn't the first
> aircraft with hydraulic systems, using a higher pressure than it's
> predecessors is hardly ground-breaking. As for electric engine controls
and
> AC electric systems, so what?

It was the first with all in one plane, which is was the norm after. Do you
understand?

> Even if it was the first aircraft to have
> them

It was.

> there was nothing ground-breaking
> in putting them in an aircraft.

It was then.

> Boeing designed an airplane with skin four and one half times as thick as
> the Comet's to resist tearing. It had titanium tear stops welded to the
> interior skin. They specified round windows and spot welds reduced the
use
> of rivets. The Boeing board approved this design on April 22, 1952, ten
> days before the Comet began passenger service and a year and ten days
before
> the first Comet disintegrated over India.
>
> So, if the lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue influenced
the
> design of the 367-80, it means de Havilland and BOAC knew about the
Comet's
> flaws even before the first one entered service.

Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment. When the results came
out it was simple to avoid the problems. It was more than just a frame
design, it was metallurgy too.

> > See above.
>
> I saw above. Who operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon?

> > All of them, even American.
>
> Yet you cannot identify a single type.

All of them means all types. Duh!

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> >
>
> Do you mean this:
>
> "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to operate
> the
> giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls, the
> first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
> hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
>
> Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look
> like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.

> > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
>
> Only one Brabazon was made.

The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two types
with many planes.

> > Brabazon was
> > pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.
>
> If the Brabazon set the pattern why is it no airline ever operated an
> aircraft similar to the Brabazon?

They did they adopted...........again..........<sigh>..........pressurised
cabin, hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces, 100% powered
flying controls, electric engine controls, high-pressure hydraulics and AC
electrics.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1"
>
> What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect.

Prove please.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean this:
> >
> > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
operate
> > the
> > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls,
the
> > first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
> > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> >
> > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't
look
> > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
>
> > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> >
> > Only one Brabazon was made.
>
> The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,

Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage
to build more than one of them, but not by much.

> so was the Comet.

The Type IV that resulted in the de Havilland Comet was supposed to be a
high speed, limited capacity mailplane.

> That makes two types

You appear to only know one additional type that resulted in hardware, if
you try harder you might find out the Brabazon designs that could possibly
be considered "success" stories.

<not worth much>

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you mean this:
> > >
> > > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
> operate
> > > the
> > > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls,
> the
> > > first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
> > > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> > >
> > > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't
> look
> > > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
> >
> > > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> > >
> > > Only one Brabazon was made.
> >
> > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,
>
> Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did
manage
> to build more than one of them, but not by much.

Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean this:
> > > >
> > > > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
> > operate
> > > > the
> > > > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying
controls,
> > the
> > > > first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
> > > > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> > > >
> > > > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > > > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't
> > look
> > > > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
> > >
> > > > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> > > >
> > > > Only one Brabazon was made.
> > >
> > > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,
> >
> > Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did
> manage
> > to build more than one of them, but not by much.
>
> Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.

That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of three.
Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or
what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a
Brabazon phase".
As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation success
story.

>
>
>

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to
> > > operate
> > > > > the
> > > > > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying
> controls,
> > > the
> > > > > first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
> > > > > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > > > > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It
doesn't
> > > look
> > > > > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
> > > >
> > > > > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only one Brabazon was made.
> > > >
> > > > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,
> > >
> > > Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did
> > manage
> > > to build more than one of them, but not by much.
> >
> > Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.
>
> That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of
three.
> Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or
> what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a
> Brabazon phase".

There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from No.
111.

> As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation
success
> story.

The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was ahead of
all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, which all
other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as it
wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not better
planes.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you mean this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units
to
> > > > operate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying
> > controls,
> > > > the
> > > > > > first with electric engine controls, the first with
high-pressure
> > > > > > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > > > > > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It
> doesn't
> > > > look
> > > > > > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only one Brabazon was made.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,
> > > >
> > > > Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did
> > > manage
> > > > to build more than one of them, but not by much.
> > >
> > > Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.
> >
> > That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of
> three.
> > Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed
or
> > what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T
"a
> > Brabazon phase".
>
> There were actually 7 Brabazon categories.

You finally found a web site with some information, did you manage to figure
out which of those "committee planes" could be considered a "success".

> The Britannia derived from No.
> 111.

Wrong again (shame the web site you found wasn't the best available) the
Britannia was the result of a December 1946 BOAC requirement for a Medium
Range Empire transport and Bristol's original response was to propose a
Centaurus powered Lockheed Constellation.

>
> > As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation
> success
> > story.
>
> The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever.

And I doubt you were ever carried as a passenger on one.

> It was ahead of
> all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1,

The Brabazon I had none.

> which all
> other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as it
> wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not better
> planes.

A better answer would have been it was the WRONG plane for any company to
have any real hope of selling to the airlines in 1957 and the Lockheed
Constellation was the best solution for the market when it might have been
sold to the airlines in 1946.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
> The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was ahead of
> all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, which all
> other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as it
> wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not better
> planes.

Uh-huh.
You're talking about the same Brittania that first flew in 1952,
wasn't able to get itself sorted out for any sort of delivery until
late 1955, and was so full of bugs that they didn't enter service
until 1957. By htat time, anybody with any sense, including BOAC, had
gotten themselves into the order books for the Boeing 707 and the
DC-8. BOAC sold off theirs in 1962. Even Cubana got rid of theirs.

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

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > "Spiv" > wrote:
> > > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you mean this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units
> to
> > > > > operate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying
> > > controls,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > first with electric engine controls, the first with
> high-pressure
> > > > > > > hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from
> > > > > > > http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It
> > doesn't
> > > > > look
> > > > > > > like your writing, not a single word is misspelled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only one Brabazon was made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol
did
> > > > manage
> > > > > to build more than one of them, but not by much.
> > > >
> > > > Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.
> > >
> > > That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of
> > three.
> > > Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they
proposed
> or
> > > what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it
WASN'T
> "a
> > > Brabazon phase".
> >
> > There were actually 7 Brabazon categories.
>
> You finally found a web site with some information, did you manage to
figure
> out which of those "committee planes" could be considered a "success".
>
> > The Britannia derived from No.
> > 111.
>
> Wrong again (shame the web site you found wasn't the best available) the
> Britannia was the result of a December 1946 BOAC requirement for a Medium
> Range Empire transport and Bristol's original response was to propose a
> Centaurus powered Lockheed Constellation.

All of Brabazon 11 went in to the Britannia.

> > The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever.
>
> And I doubt you were ever carried as a passenger on one.

Yes to Spain on a charter once. Great plane.

> > It was ahead of
> > all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1,
>
> The Brabazon I had none.

Please read again

> > which all
> > other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as it
> > wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not
better
> > planes.
>
> A better answer would have been

No. the better answer(s) were above.

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:
> > The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was
ahead of
> > all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, which
all
> > other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as
it
> > wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not
better
> > planes.
>
> Uh-huh.
> You're talking about the same Brittania that first flew in 1952,
> wasn't able to get itself sorted out for any sort of delivery until
> late 1955, and was so full of bugs that they didn't enter service
> until 1957. By htat time, anybody with any sense, including BOAC, had
> gotten themselves into the order books for the Boeing 707 and the
> DC-8. BOAC sold off theirs in 1962.

As jets were the way in 1962. The plane was the best prop airliner ever.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Spiv" > writes:
>> > The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was
> ahead of
>> > all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, which
> all
>> > other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as
> it
>> > wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not
> better
>> > planes.
>>
>> Uh-huh.
>> You're talking about the same Brittania that first flew in 1952,
>> wasn't able to get itself sorted out for any sort of delivery until
>> late 1955, and was so full of bugs that they didn't enter service
>> until 1957. By htat time, anybody with any sense, including BOAC, had
>> gotten themselves into the order books for the Boeing 707 and the
>> DC-8. BOAC sold off theirs in 1962.
>
> As jets were the way in 1962. The plane was the best prop airliner ever.

One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston->New York->Washington
D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate->Gate) of the
jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
tiny country.

(And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
poisoned both projects.)

--
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
...
>
> Have you a few weeks?
>

I wouldn't think it would take that long to review my messages and
copy-and-paste that which you believe is incorrect, but, by all means, take
all the time you need.


>
> It was the first with all in one plane, which is was the norm after.
> Do you understand?
>

But pioneering none of them individually.


>
> Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment.
>

How so? Boeing had more experience designing and building large pressurized
aircraft than anyone else in the world at that time, perhaps more than all
other manufacturers combined.


>
> When the results came
> out it was simple to avoid the problems.
>

But they avoided the problems BEFORE the results came out. They avoided the
Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems surfaced.


>
> It was more than just a frame design, it was metallurgy too.
>

Yes, Boeing chose 75ST aluminum alloy for the primary structure. I don't
know what de Havilland chose, perhaps 24ST.


>
> All of them means all types. Duh!
>

Well, if all airliners were similar to the Brabazon, the Brabazon couldn't
be ground-breaking in any area.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from No.
> 111.
>

There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.

During the war a committee headed by Lord Brabazon, and thus called the
Brabazon Committee, identified seven distinct civil transport aircraft types
or sub-types. You're confusing the committee with the hardware.



>
> The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever.
>

So fine that only 85 were sold. By the time the Britannia was ready it
found itself competing with straight jets. The Britannia wasn't even the
best British turboprop airliner.


>
> It was ahead of all others in refinement and used all the virtues of
> Brabazon 1, which all other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few
> American airlines bought it as it wasn't American and US prop
> equivalents were cheaper, although not better planes.
>

American airlines pretty much just bought jets instead of turboprops.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
> types with many planes.
>

You're confusing the committee with the hardware.


>
> They did they adopted...........again..........<sigh>..........pressurised
> cabin,
>

The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.


>
> hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,
>

The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Prove please.
>

I already have, review the thread.

Why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your claims?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can't you do anything right?
> http://user.itl.net/~colonial/comet/history.html
>
> >>>
> On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
regular
> transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
innovation.
> <<<
>

BOAC was indeed the first to offer transatlantic jet passenger service. Two
Comet 4s made simultaneous departures from Heathrow and Idlewild airports on
October 4, 1958, on the New York - London route. Although BOAC won the
race, beating Pan Am's 707 on the New York - Paris route by three weeks, the
Comet 4 was not designed for transatlantic service. The westbound flight
had to stop to refuel in Gander, Newfoundland. BOAC had planned from the
start to replace the Comet on the route as soon as it's own 707s were on
hand. The 707-320 could carry twice the passenger load almost twice as far
100 mph faster than the Comet 4.

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:
> >
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Spiv" > writes:
> >> > The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was
> > ahead of
> >> > all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1,
which
> > all
> >> > other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it
as
> > it
> >> > wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not
> > better
> >> > planes.
> >>
> >> Uh-huh.
> >> You're talking about the same Brittania that first flew in 1952,
> >> wasn't able to get itself sorted out for any sort of delivery until
> >> late 1955, and was so full of bugs that they didn't enter service
> >> until 1957. By htat time, anybody with any sense, including BOAC, had
> >> gotten themselves into the order books for the Boeing 707 and the
> >> DC-8. BOAC sold off theirs in 1962.
> >
> > As jets were the way in 1962. The plane was the best prop airliner
ever.
>
> One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
> At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
> Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston->New York->Washington
> D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
> the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
> service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate->Gate) of the
> jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
> in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
> Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
> from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
> tiny country.

Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now the
Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in the
world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

> (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
> people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
> poisoned both projects.)

The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still doesn't
detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a close
run between that and the Viscount.

[Jim Doyle]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> No offence, Sport, but you've got a tiny country.

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster, which doth
mock The meat it feeds on.

It's a terrible thing...

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

[Spiv]

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

> > Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment.
>
> How so? Boeing had more experience designing and building large
pressurized
> aircraft than anyone else in the world at that time, perhaps more than all
> other manufacturers combined.
> >
> > When the results came
> > out it was simple to avoid the problems.
>
> But they avoided the problems BEFORE
> the results came out. They avoided the
> Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems surfaced.

What strange logic. How would they know what the problems were until the
Comet investigation? Were they good guessers? This is what you said "They
avoided the Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems surfaced." So
they knew the problems before the Comet was built eh? The investigation
uncovered points that were unknown to science beforehand in metallurgy.


>
>
> >
> > It was more than just a frame design, it was metallurgy too.
> >
>
> Yes, Boeing chose 75ST aluminum alloy for the primary structure. I don't
> know what de Havilland chose, perhaps 24ST.
>
>
> >
> > All of them means all types. Duh!
> >
>
> Well, if all airliners were similar to the Brabazon, the Brabazon couldn't
> be ground-breaking in any area.
>
>

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from
No.
> > 111.
>
> There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
> The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

> During the war a committee headed by Lord Brabazon, and thus called the
> Brabazon Committee, identified seven distinct civil transport aircraft
types
> or sub-types. You're confusing the committee with the hardware.

Please read again.

> > The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever.
>
> So fine that only 85 were sold. By the time the Britannia was ready it
> found itself competing with straight jets. The Britannia wasn't even the
> best British turboprop airliner.

v Viscount

> > It was ahead of all others in refinement and used all the virtues of
> > Brabazon 1, which all other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few
> > American airlines bought it as it wasn't American and US prop
> > equivalents were cheaper, although not better planes.

> American airlines pretty much just bought jets instead of turboprops.

Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big seller in
the US, so was the BAC 1-11.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
> > types with many planes.

> You're confusing the committee with the hardware.

> > They did they
adopted...........again..........<sigh>..........pressurised
> > cabin,
>
> The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

> > hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,
>
> The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

But not all the points together.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Prove please.
> >
>
> I already have, review the thread.
>
> Why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your claims?

Well, why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your claims?

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from
> No.
> > > 111.
> >
> > There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
> > The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.
>
> The Britannia derived from No. 111.

You have been told more than once that it didn't.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:>

<...>

> Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
> being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
the
> Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in the
> world.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
could have been considered a "success".

<...>

> > (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> > Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> > thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
> > people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
> > poisoned both projects.)
>
> The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers,

Which had more experience with building large airframe aircraft than Bristol
did in the 1940's. You might want to review who the Brabazon committee
thought should be building what became the Brabazon I.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived
from
> > No.
> > > > 111.
> > >
> > > There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
> > > The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.
> >
> > The Britannia derived from No. 111.
>
> You have been told more than once that it didn't.

Please do some reading.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message

<...>

> > Wrong again (shame the web site you found wasn't the best available) the
> > Britannia was the result of a December 1946 BOAC requirement for a
Medium
> > Range Empire transport and Bristol's original response was to propose a
> > Centaurus powered Lockheed Constellation.
>
> All of Brabazon 11 went in to the Britannia.

No it didn't, BOAC, MoS and Bristol appear to have had little idea of what
they were going to build for most of the 1940's or what they would build and
put into service in 1957 (you did miss a major first for the Britannia by
the way, if you try really hard you might be able to figure out what it is)
was rendered obsolete by Pan Am's introduction of transatlantic service
using 707's in 1958.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:>
>
> <...>
>
> > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
> > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
> the
> > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
the
> > world.
>
> And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
> could have been considered a "success".
>
> <...>
>
> > > (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> > > Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> > > thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
> > > people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
> > > poisoned both projects.)
> >
> > The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers,
>
> Which had more experience with
> ..

They are two different companies. They never planed each others models. How
old are you?

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Spiv" > wrote:>
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too,
until
> > > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem).
Now
> > the
> > > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
> the
> > > world.
> >
> > And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
> > could have been considered a "success".
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > > (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> > > > Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> > > > thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point
where
> > > > people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft,
and
> > > > poisoned both projects.)
> > >
> > > The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers,
> >
> > Which had more experience with
> > ..
>
> They are two different companies. They never planed each others models.
How
> old are you?

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a clue it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Spiv" > wrote:>
> > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too,
> until
> > > > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem).
> Now
> > > the
> > > > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner
in
> > the
> > > > world.
> > >
> > > And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee
specifications
> > > could have been considered a "success".
> > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > > (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> > > > > Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> > > > > thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point
> where
> > > > > people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft,
> and
> > > > > poisoned both projects.)
> > > >
> > > > The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers,
> > >
> > > Which had more experience with
> > > ..
> >
> > They are two different companies. They never planed each others models.
> How
> > old are you?
>
> Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large airframes
> in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a clue
it
> wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
or
> had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
can
> remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message

<...>

> > Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
airframes
> > in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
clue
> it
> > wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
> or
> > had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
> can
> > remember when the Viscount was a new plane.
>
> Senility eh.

The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you might
not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
>> One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
>> At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
>> Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston->New York->Washington
>> D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
>> the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
>> service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate->Gate) of the
>> jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
>> in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
>> Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
>> from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
>> tiny country.
>
> Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
> being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now the
> Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in the
> world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.

And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)
>
> The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
> Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
> produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
> were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

>> (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
>> Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
>> thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
>> people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
>> poisoned both projects.)
>
> The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still doesn't
> detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a close
> run between that and the Viscount.

Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
had nearly identical performance. Two mendium range turboprops,
(Brittania and Vanguard), which not only undercut each other, but were
so long delayed that they had no market niche when they finally went
into service.


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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
>> > types with many planes.
>
>> You're confusing the committee with the hardware.
>
>> > They did they
> adopted...........again..........<sigh>..........pressurised
>> > cabin,
>>
>> The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.
>
>> > hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,
>>
>> The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.
>
> But not all the points together.

Actually, it did. Yhe CW-20 prototype was pressurized.
And the C-46, that grew out of it, while it got off to a rocky start,
turned out to be a tough old bird that stayed in USAF service until
the mid 1960s, and is still earning its keep in the Bush & Jungle
around the world.

The Brabazon was a failed concept, intended to take a few paying
passengers, and the occasional King's Messenger, in opulant confort
very slowly from stop to stop as it crow-hopped the Royal Mail from
outpost to outpost in the hinterlands of the Empire.

BOAC saw what they might be getting, and bought Stratoliners and
Constellations instead.

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

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:

<snip>

> > The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
> > Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
> > produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
> > were given lots of lolly to stop producing.
>
> The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
> standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
> Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
> Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
> think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
> worldwide...)
> By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
> never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
> In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
> And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
> Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
> build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
> And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
> Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:

<snip>

> > The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
> > Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
> > produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
> > were given lots of lolly to stop producing.
>
> The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
> standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
> Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
> Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
> think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
> worldwide...)
> By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
> never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
> In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
> And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
> Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
> build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
> And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
> Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy

[Brett]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:

<...>

> > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
> > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
the
> > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
the
> > world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.
>
> And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
> the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
> produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)

But how more posts before he indicates any knowledge about its ancestry?

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
>
> <...>
>
> > > Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
> airframes
> > > in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
> clue
> > it
> > > wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design
team
> > or
> > > had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am
I
> > can
> > > remember when the Viscount was a new plane.
> >
> > Senility eh.
>
> The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you
might
> not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when
I
> was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
> figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
> considered a "success".

You were told 111. now look.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> I
> > was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
> > figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
> > considered a "success".
>
> You were told 111. now look.
>
>

Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
Lockheed Constellations.

Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.

Keith

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:
> >
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> >> One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
> >> At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
> >> Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston->New York->Washington
> >> D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
> >> the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
> >> service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate->Gate) of the
> >> jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
> >> in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
> >> Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
> >> from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
> >> tiny country.
> >
> > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
> > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
the
> > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
the
> > world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.
>
> And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
> the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
> produce.

Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and small
high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
Africa a lot.

> > The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
> > Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It
also
> > produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until
farmers
> > were given lots of lolly to stop producing.
>
> The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
> standards.

That is what I said.

> It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
> Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark.

Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.

> (I'll bet local Breakfast Pastry to Local
> Currency he can't figure that one out.

It is plain you can't

> To think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
> worldwide...)
> By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
> never more than an hour's drive from the coast.

Try driving from Land End to John O'Groats. And there are still islands way
to the north and some to the south too.

> In contrast, you can spen 3 days
> trying to escape from Texas.

Balls. I have driven through Texas. I find it is best not even to go into
Texas.

> And our Deserts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
> Testing,

Sound very useless.

> We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
> build.

Do you crash them into the desert.

> (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
> And some we just keep around to look at. You should
> see Sunset on the Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

I have seen them.

> >> (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
> >> Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
> >> thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
> >> people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
> >> poisoned both projects.)
> >
> > The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still
doesn't
> > detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a
close
> > run between that and the Viscount.
>
> Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
> contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
> during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
> incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
> had nearly identical performance.

One was a temporary measure, the Valiant. The other two? Pitch one against
the other and one will shine. Both the Vulcan and the Victor were excellent
in their time.

> Two mendium range turboprops,
> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
> only undercut each other, but were
> so long delayed that they had no market
> niche when they finally went
> into service.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
the first executive jet was the HS 125.

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
> >> > types with many planes.
> >
> >> You're confusing the committee with the hardware.
> >
> >> > They did they
> > adopted...........again..........<sigh>..........pressurised
> >> > cabin,
> >>
> >> The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.
> >
> >> > hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,
> >>
> >> The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.
> >
> > But not all the points together.
>
> Actually, it did.

No it never. "All" the points.

> The Brabazon was a failed concept,
> intended to take a few paying
> passengers,

You mean Brab 1. Some excellent planes emerged from the Brabazon project.

> BOAC saw what they might be getting, and bought Stratoliners and
> Constellations instead.

And later Comets and Britannia's, etc too. And currently Airbuses which are
now No.1 The days of the yank dominating civil aviation are over.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Spiv" > writes:
>
> <...>
>
> > > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too,
until
> > > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem).
Now
> the
> > > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
> the
> > > world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.
> >
> > And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
> > the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
> > produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)
>
> But how more posts before he indicates any knowledge about its ancestry?

Enlighten us.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and
small
> high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
> Africa a lot.
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

BAE didnt even bloody exist during the tenure of the Brabazon committee
and the BAE 146 first flew in 1982, over 30 years after its demise.

The aircraft ordered by the Brabazon committee as a DC-3
replacement was the Airspeed Ambassador, a twin engine turboprop.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> But how more posts before he indicates any knowledge about its ancestry?
>

He has yet to produce a post that indicates any knowledge at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Enlighten us.
>

Us? Who are "us"?

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > I
> > > was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still
haven't
> > > figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
> > > considered a "success".
> >
> > You were told 111. now look.
> >
> >
>
> Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
> with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
> had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
> produced.

The Britannia came from 111.

> BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
> effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
> a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
> Lockheed Constellations.
>
> Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
> Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and
> small
> > high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
> > Africa a lot.
> >
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> BAE didnt even bloody exist during the tenure of the Brabazon committee
> and the BAE 146 first flew in 1982, over 30 years after its demise.

The debate moved on. Duh.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But how more posts before he indicates any knowledge about its ancestry?
>
> He has yet to produce a post that indicates any knowledge at all.

Then enlighten us about its ancestry.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Enlighten us.
> >
>
> Us? Who are "us"?

The ng. Who do you think?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
> > with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
> > had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
> > produced.
>
> The Britannia came from 111.
>

Repetition of an error doesnt make it any less wrong.

> > BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
> > effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
> > a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
> > Lockheed Constellations.
> >
> > Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
> > Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.
>
>

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The ng. Who do you think?
>

The ng seems to understand, it's just you that does not.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
> > > with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
> > > had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
> > > produced.
> >
> > The Britannia came from 111.
> >
>
> Repetition of an error doesnt make it any less wrong.

The Britannia was no error.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The ng. Who do you think?
> >
>
> The ng seems to understand, it's just you that does not.

What do they understand?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> What do they understand?
>

Comet, Brabazon, Britannia, 707, etc.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote

<...>

> I don't think

That is the first valid statement I've seen you make.

> the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
> Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
> the first executive jet was the HS 125.

No, the first Business Jet ( Lockheed JetStar ) was being prepared for
delivery to its first commercial customer (delivered late 1961) before de
Havilland announced the development of the DH 125 (later HS 125) in February
1961.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Spiv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and
>> small
>> > high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
>> > Africa a lot.
>> >
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> BAE didnt even bloody exist during the tenure of the Brabazon committee
>> and the BAE 146 first flew in 1982, over 30 years after its demise.
>
> The debate moved on. Duh.

More like you popped smoke & tried to displace.>

--
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
...
>
> The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
>

Depends on your 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.


>
> Also the UK is not full of useless deserts,
>

Nor is the US.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> What strange logic. How would they know what the problems were until
> the Comet investigation? Were they good guessers?
>

They were better engineers, and they weren't the only ones that knew de
Havilland designed a poor structure. The RAE and BOAC both expressed their
concerns to de Havilland well before the Comet entered service.

de Havilland had very little experience with all-metal aircraft and none at
all with large pressurized airframes, Boeing had more than any other
manufacturer in the world. de Havilland's first all-metal aircraft was the
DH-95 Flamingo, a small prewar twin-engined transport, only sixteen were
built. Their second was the DH-104 Dove, another small twin-engined
transport. It would be quite successful but it hadn't even entered service
by the Comet's first flight.


>
> This is what you said
> "They avoided the Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems >
surfaced." So they knew the problems before the Comet was built eh?
> The investigation uncovered points that were unknown to science
> beforehand in metallurgy.
>

You make it sound like metal fatigue was first discovered via the Comet's
structural problems. Not so!

The Comet was the star of the 1949 Farnborough show, but during a flight
there a fuselage panel buckled. The skin was too damn thin. The RAE was
quite concerned about fatigue. de havilland's chief engineer, Ronald Bishop,
was asked to test for fatigue, but he did not. In November 1951 the
Ministry of Supply threatened to stop the project because of continuing
concerns over metal fatigue, and BOAC was expressing concerns as well. It
was decided that testing would be carried out after the aircraft entered
service. Unknowingly, BOAC and the Comet's crew and passengers would become
test subjects.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Britannia derived from No. 111.
>

The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.


>
> Please read again.
>

That won't change it.


>
> Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big seller in
> the US, so was the BAC 1-11.
>

The stretched Viscounts sold well in the US, the BAC One-Eleven was not a
turboprop.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> But not all the points together.
>

Irrelevant.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your
> claims?
>

I have responded to all of your challenges, I just see no need to repeat
myself. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your
assertions when challenged.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.
>

Not if Greenland is included.


>
> They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The British
> have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
> Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc,
>

How were they superior?


>
> but never sold that well
> because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> production lines as US carriers preferred them.
>

The primary problem with the British transports is they were designed
specifically to meet the needs of BOAC and BEA. The American transports
were designed to appeal to a wider variety of customers.


>
> Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
> the first executive jet was the HS 125.
>

The Lockheed Jetstar made it's first flight in September 1957, the North
American Sabreliner made it's first flight in September 1958, the Hawker
Siddeley 125 made it's first flight in August 1962.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean Brab 1. Some excellent planes emerged from the Brabazon project.
>

You're confusing the committee with the hardware again.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then enlighten us about its ancestry.
>

I was referring to aviation knowledge. Your posts indicate you have none.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Spiv" > writes:
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Spiv" > writes:
>> >
>> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
>> >> One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
>> >> At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
>> >> Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston->New York->Washington
>> >> D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
>> >> the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
>> >> service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate->Gate) of the
>> >> jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
>> >> in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
>> >> Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
>> >> from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
>> >> tiny country.
>> >
>> > Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
>> > being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
> the
>> > Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
> the
>> > world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.
>>
>> And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
>> the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
>> produce.
>
> Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and small
> high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
> Africa a lot.

Nope, only one. Here's a hint - it wasn't the Britannia.

>
>> > The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
>> > Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It
> also
>> > produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until
> farmers
>> > were given lots of lolly to stop producing.
>>
>> The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
>> standards.
>
> That is what I said.
>
>> It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
>> Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark.
>
> Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.

>
>> (I'll bet local Breakfast Pastry to Local
>> Currency he can't figure that one out.
>
> It is plain you can't

Not at all. Here's a hint: When you step off the boat at Nuuk, what
nation's stanp do yo get on your passport?

>
>> To think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
>> worldwide...)
>> By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
>> never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
>
> Try driving from Land End to John O'Groats. And there are still islands way
> to the north and some to the south too.
>
>> In contrast, you can spen 3 days
>> trying to escape from Texas.
>
> Balls. I have driven through Texas. I find it is best not even to go into
> Texas.
>
>> And our Deserts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
>> Testing,
>
> Sound very useless.

Not in the least - It's the best Fourth of July celebration going.
Hey, if you ask nice, we could even slip Guy Fawkes Day in as well.
>
>> We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
>> build.
>
> Do you crash them into the desert.

No, I don't. (Haven't crashed anything, yet).
But, it should be pointed out, modern Flight Test, with its
intrumented ranges, comprehensive telemetry, Engineering trained Test
Pilots, comprehensive chase and photo coverage, and on-site data
analysis, was invented out in the Mojave.
And, yes, we've crashed airplanes. The streets at Edwards AFB, and
many other AFBs, are named for pilots who found the hairy edge of
aeronautics.

>> (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
>> And some we just keep around to look at. You should
>> see Sunset on the Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.
>
> I have seen them.

For someone who seems to have gotten around, you don't know much, do
you.

>> >> (And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
>> >> Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
>> >> thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
>> >> people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
>> >> poisoned both projects.)
>> >
>> > The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still
> doesn't
>> > detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a
> close
>> > run between that and the Viscount.
>>
>> Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
>> contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
>> during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
>> incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
>> had nearly identical performance.
>
> One was a temporary measure, the Valiant. The other two? Pitch one against
> the other and one will shine. Both the Vulcan and the Victor were excellent
> in their time.

The Valiant was useful. And, as an aside, showed that both Handley
Page and Avro were over-complicating their designs. The Valiant,
which was contracted for later than the Vulcan and Victor, used
simpler, more traditional techniqes for fabrication and systems, and
was in the air sooner, and showed nearly the same performance.
Unfortunately, Vickers hadn't been reading the books on metallurgy,
either, and the Valiant suffered from extreme metal fatigue in the
wing spars. This immediately wiped out the entire RAF tanker force,
the ECM Force, the Strategic Recce force, and the NATO tactical nuke
commitment. Good move. They did do a decent job at Suez, though.

The MoS should have picked either Vulcan or Victor, and built only
that. The inefficiencies of building Penny Packets of two different
high-performance airplanes, with little to choose from in terms of
performance or effectiveness, and nothig in the way of shared
components are extreme.

>> Two mendium range turboprops,
>> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
>> only undercut each other, but were
>> so long delayed that they had no market
>> niche when they finally went
>> into service.
>
> They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The British
> have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
> Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that well
> because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias, counting the two that crashed
before they entered BOAC service. In mainline service for 5 years,
and jobbed off.
There were 43 Vanguards, sold to only two customers.
That's not "Sold Well Enough" by any measure.

I'll have to dig up the breakeven costs for the airplanes, but IIRC,
it was on the order of 150 aurcraft each.

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior? Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.


>
> I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
> Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
> the first executive jet was the HS 125.

The Viscount was the one Brit airliner that made money for its
manufacturer. A good airplane, indeed.

As for the Bizets, the HS.125 (1st peoduction delivery Sept. 10, 1964)
was preceded in service by the Lockheed JetStar, the North American
Sabreliner by a couple of years.
The HS. 125 basically equalled the Lear 23 (1st Prod delivery Oct 12,
1964)
and the Aero Commander 1121 Jet Commender (1st Prod. Delivery Jan 11,
1965.

If you want to count First Prototype flight dates, it would be
JetStar Sept 4, 1957
Sabreliner Sept 16, 1958
HS.125: Aug. 14, 1962
Jet Commander Jan. 27, 1963
Lear 23 Oct. 7, 1963

You're going to have to use better references than "The Boy's Book of
British Airplanes".

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

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What do they understand?
> >
>
> Comet, Brabazon, Britannia, 707, etc.

Al of it?

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Spiv" > writes:
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and
> >> small
> >> > high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that
in
> >> > Africa a lot.
> >> >
> >>
> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> >>
> >> BAE didnt even bloody exist during the tenure of the Brabazon committee
> >> and the BAE 146 first flew in 1982, over 30 years after its demise.
> >
> > The debate moved on. Duh.
>
> More like you popped smoke & tried to displace.>

No. You lost it. If you ever had it.

[Spiv]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...


> >> Two mendium range turboprops,
> >> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
> >> only undercut each other, but were
> >> so long delayed that they had no market
> >> niche when they finally went
> >> into service.
> >
> > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
> > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
> > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
well
> > because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> > production lines as US carriers preferred them.
>
> Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,

No. 85 built.

> Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
> Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
> required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
> the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
> 367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
> maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)
>
> The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

> Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
> shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
> could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
> roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
> that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

> The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

> > I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
> > Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point
and
> > the first executive jet was the HS 125.
>
> The Viscount was the one Brit airliner that made money for its
> manufacturer. A good airplane, indeed.

A wonderful sound to it too, as it constantly flew over me.

As did the BAC 1-111 and the BAe 146.

I think you are a very confused person and should look at an atlas.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then enlighten us about its ancestry.
>
> I was referring to aviation knowledge. Your posts indicate you have none.

Only to your mind.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You mean Brab 1. Some excellent planes emerged from the Brabazon
project.
> >
>
> You're confusing the committee with the hardware again.

Do you what the committee did?

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.
>
> Not if Greenland is included.

Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.

> > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
> > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
> > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc,
>
> How were they superior?

Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your
> > claims?
> >
>
> I have responded to all of your challenges, I just see no need to repeat
> myself. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your
> assertions when challenged.

Please all the threads again - twice.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But not all the points together.
>
> Irrelevant.

Bahave!

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Britannia derived from No. 111.
>
> The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.

Read about the Brababzon project.

> > Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big seller
in
> > the US, so was the BAC 1-11.
> >
>
> The stretched Viscounts sold well in the US, the BAC One-Eleven was not a
> turboprop.

We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
Caravelle.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What strange logic. How would they know what the problems were until
> > the Comet investigation? Were they good guessers?

** snip babble. Unable to apply logic **

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
>
> Depends on your 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.

You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It is
not is the answer, not babble about US states.

> > Also the UK is not full of useless deserts,
>
> Nor is the US.

It is. I have been though most.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.
> >
> > Not if Greenland is included.
>
> Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.

Yet it is considered part of Denmark.

> > > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
> British
> > > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
> > > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc,
> >
> > How were they superior?
>
> Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.

No, I believe that would be your failing.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.
> > >
> > > Not if Greenland is included.
> >
> > Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.
>
> Yet it is considered part of Denmark.

It is Not.

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > >> Two mendium range turboprops,
> > >> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
> > >> only undercut each other, but were
> > >> so long delayed that they had no market
> > >> niche when they finally went
> > >> into service.
> > >
> > > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
> British
> > > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
> > > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
> well
> > > because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> > > production lines as US carriers preferred them.
> >
> > Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,
>
> No. 85 built.

The comment was "Commercial Britannias", the RAF's purchase would be
considered a military buy.

> > Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
> > Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
> > required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
> > the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
> > 367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
> > maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)
> >
> > The VC.10 Superior?
>
> Yep.

You really are clueless.

> > Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
> > shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
> > could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
> > roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
> > that wasn't relevant any more.)
>
> The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

20% higher fuel burn than JT3D equipped 707's doesn't indicated it "ironed
out" "any problems".

> > The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> > _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> > U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> > the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.
>
> The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

Even with Romanian production it would not be considered "a massive seller"

[Brett]

"Spiv" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The Britannia derived from No. 111.
> >
> > The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.
>
> 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.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > >> Two mendium range turboprops,
> > >> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
> > >> only undercut each other, but were
> > >> so long delayed that they had no market
> > >> niche when they finally went
> > >> into service.
> > >
> > > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
> British
> > > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
> > > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
> well
> > > because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> > > production lines as US carriers preferred them.
> >
> > Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,
>
> No. 85 built.
>

23 of which went to the RAF and 2 prototypes paid for by the
ministry of works, that does indeed leave 60 sold to
commercial operators


> > Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
> > Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
> > required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
> > the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
> > 367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
> > maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)
> >
> > The VC.10 Superior?
>
> Yep.
>
> > Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
> > shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
> > could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
> > roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
> > that wasn't relevant any more.)
>
> The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.
>

And yet only 22 were ever sold


> > The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> > _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> > U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> > the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.
>
> The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.
>


Total One-Eleven production amounted to 235 aircraft which
was certainly respectable but doesnt compare that well
with the sales of the DC-9 (976) or Boeing 727 (1832)
let alone the 737 (4300)

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> > > Not if Greenland is included.
> >
> > Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.
>
> Yet it is considered part of Denmark.
>

For a little while. Parties advocating independence won
the 2002 elections by a wide margin. There's going
to be a referendum and the island is expected to
achieve full independence in 2006.


Note that while Greenland is a large geographic area
the inhabitable regions are a very small part of the
land mass and the population is less than that of
a medium sized town.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The Britannia derived from No. 111.
> >
> > The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.
>
> Read about the Brababzon project.
>
> > > Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big seller
> in
> > > the US, so was the BAC 1-11.
> > >
> >
> > The stretched Viscounts sold well in the US, the BAC One-Eleven was not
a
> > turboprop.
>
> We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
> Caravelle.
>

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

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > >
> > > > Not if Greenland is included.
> > >
> > > Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.
> >
> > Yet it is considered part of Denmark.
> >
>
> For a little while. Parties advocating independence won
> the 2002 elections by a wide margin. There's going
> to be a referendum and the island is expected to
> achieve full independence in 2006.
>
>
> Note that while Greenland is a large geographic area
> the inhabitable regions are a very small part of the
> land mass and the population is less than that of
> a medium sized town.

Keith the only one in this thread that needed (and most likely ignore) that
information would be "Spiv".

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Spiv" > wrote:
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > >> Two mendium range turboprops,
> > > >> (Brittania and Vanguard), which not
> > > >> only undercut each other, but were
> > > >> so long delayed that they had no market
> > > >> niche when they finally went
> > > >> into service.
> > > >
> > > > They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
> > British
> > > > have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
> 707,
> > > > Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
> > well
> > > > because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
> > > > production lines as US carriers preferred them.
> > >
> > > Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,
> >
> > No. 85 built.
>
> The comment was "Commercial Britannias", the RAF's purchase would be
> considered a military buy.
>
> > > Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
> > > Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
> > > required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
> > > the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
> > > 367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
> > > maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)
> > >
> > > The VC.10 Superior?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> You really are clueless.
>
> > > Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
> > > shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
> > > could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
> > > roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
> > > that wasn't relevant any more.)
> >
> > The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.
>
> 20% higher fuel burn than JT3D equipped 707's doesn't indicated it "ironed
> out" "any problems".
>
> > > The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> > > _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> > > U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> > > the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.
> >
> > The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.
>
> Even with Romanian production it would not be considered "a massive
seller"

It would

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> > > Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
> > > Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
> > > required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
> > > the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
> > > 367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
> > > maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)
> > >
> > > The VC.10 Superior?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
> > > shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
> > > could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
> > > roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
> > > that wasn't relevant any more.)
> >
> > The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.
>
> And yet only 22 were ever sold

You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
British made better planes but never sold well.

> > > The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> > > _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> > > U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> > > the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.
> >
> > The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.
>
> Total One-Eleven production amounted to 235 aircraft which
> was certainly respectable but doesnt compare that well
> with the sales of the DC-9 (976) or Boeing 727 (1832)
> let alone the 737 (4300)

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

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Spiv" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The Britannia derived from No. 111.
> > >
> > > The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.
> >
> > Read about the Brababzon project.
> >
> > > > Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big
seller
> > in
> > > > the US, so was the BAC 1-11.
> > >
> > > The stretched Viscounts sold well in the US, the BAC One-Eleven was
not
> a
> > > turboprop.
> >
> > We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
> > Caravelle.
>
> 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.

[Spiv]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if Greenland is included.
> > > >
> > > > Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.
> > >
> > > Yet it is considered part of Denmark.
> >
> > For a little while. Parties advocating independence won
> > the 2002 elections by a wide margin. There's going
> > to be a referendum and the island is expected to
> > achieve full independence in 2006.
> >
> > Note that while Greenland is a large geographic area
> > the inhabitable regions are a very small part of the
> > land mass and the population is less than that of
> > a medium sized town.
>
> Keith the only one in this thread that needed (and most likely ignore)
that
> information would be "Spiv".

It is irrelevant info. Greenland is NOT a part of Denmark, no more than
Gibraltar or the Falklands being a part of the UK. You obviously can't
understand this.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. 85 built.
>

85 total, how many were built for the military?


>
> Yep.
>

Of course it was, it was British.


>
> The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.
>

Massive? Four times as many DC-9s were sold.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only to your mind.
>

I think the few minds that are contributing to this discussion would agree
with me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you what the committee did?
>

?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.
>

Then enlighten me. Please explain how the VC10 was superior to the 707 and
the BAC One-Eleven superior to the DC-9

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please all the threads again - twice.
>

Done. They still indicate you don't know what you're talking about.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

> > >
> > > The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.
> >
> > And yet only 22 were ever sold
>
> You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
> British made better planes but never sold well.
>

Airlines are commercial organisations who buy the
aircraft most fitted for the purpose. They didnt buy
the VC-10 because it cost more to run than the 707
or DC-8. The only airlines who purchased the VC-10
wer ethose for whom its single advantage of a short
take off run were of critical importance.

> > > > The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
> > > > _little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
> > > > U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
> > > > the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.
> > >
> > > The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.
> >
> > Total One-Eleven production amounted to 235 aircraft which
> > was certainly respectable but doesnt compare that well
> > with the sales of the DC-9 (976) or Boeing 727 (1832)
> > let alone the 737 (4300)
>
> Proves the point. The 1-11 was a better plane than its eqivs yet sold
well
> but inferior US planes sold better.
>

In the marketplace inferior products rarely outsell
superior ones.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> It is irrelevant info. Greenland is NOT a part of Denmark, no more than
> Gibraltar or the Falklands being a part of the UK. You obviously can't
> understand this.
>
>

You are as usual incorrect. Greenlands current political situation
is that its a semi-atonomous region under the Danish Crown

Its electors vote in Danish Parliamentary elections and the
currency in use is the Danish Krone. Denmark retains control
of foreign affairs and defense. It is in fact in the same position as
Scotland and Wales , having a devolved assembly with limited
powers

from
http://www.um.dk/english/faktaark/fa24/fa24_eng.asp

Government type: Home rule in national union
with Denmark

In accordance with home rule, Greenland retains extensive
powers of self-government while remaining under the Danish Crown.
The Folketing (the Danish parliament) has transferred almost
all legislation to the Landsting (the Greenlandic parliament)
but the Folketing and the Danish administration retain control
over some areas of government. Greenland's voters elect two
representatives to the Folketing.

Language: Greenlandic and Danish
Currency: Danish krone (DKK)

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

However both were designed for short haul routes which is after all
the issue under discussion.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
>> Caravelle.

>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

And - though for various reasons it didn't enter service - the Avro
Canada C-102 was flying at the end of the 1940s. That probably
as the best claim to being the first regional-distance jet. Next
one - the Tu-104, maybe?

--
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]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Only to your mind.
> >
>
> I think the few minds that are contributing to this discussion would agree
> with me.

I'm not surprised. Spotters usually do.

[Spiv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Please all the threads again - twice.
> >
>
> Done. They still indicate you don't know what you're talking about.

Now read them again 4 times. You can move your lips when you are reading.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.
> > >
> > > And yet only 22 were ever sold
> >
> > You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
> > British made better planes but never sold well.
>
> Airlines are commercial organisations who buy the
> aircraft most fitted for the purpose.

The VC10 was quieter and a great favourite with passengers. The 707 was not
as nice to fly in. I know I have been on both many, many times. The VC10
also looked better too.

> > Proves the point. The 1-11 was a better plane than its eqivs yet sold
> well
> > but inferior US planes sold better.
>
> In the marketplace inferior products rarely outsell
> superior ones.

You are naive. In any cases cheap capital costs are what sells to cash
strapped companies, hoping to hide the higher running costs.

[Spiv]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > It is irrelevant info. Greenland is NOT a part of Denmark, no more than
> > Gibraltar or the Falklands being a part of the UK. You obviously can't
> > understand this.
> >
> >
>
> You are as usual incorrect. Greenlands current political situation
> is that its a semi-atonomous region under the Danish Crown
>
> Its electors vote in Danish Parliamentary elections and the
> currency in use is the Danish Krone. Denmark retains control
> of foreign affairs and defense. It is in fact in the same position as
> Scotland and Wales , having a devolved assembly with limited
> powers
>
> from
> http://www.um.dk/english/faktaark/fa24/fa24_eng.asp
>
> Government type: Home rule in national union
> with Denmark
>
> In accordance with home rule, Greenland retains extensive
> powers of self-government while remaining under the Danish Crown.
> The Folketing (the Danish parliament) has transferred almost
> all legislation to the Landsting (the Greenlandic parliament)
> but the Folketing and the Danish administration retain control
> over some areas of government. Greenland's voters elect two
> representatives to the Folketing.
>
> Language: Greenlandic and Danish
> Currency: Danish krone (DKK)

That can be said for far away British possessions too. Geographically it is
not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.

[Spiv]

"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.

[Keith Willshaw]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >
> >"Spiv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
> >> Caravelle.
>
> >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
>
> And - though for various reasons it didn't enter service - the Avro
> Canada C-102 was flying at the end of the 1940s. That probably
> as the best claim to being the first regional-distance jet. Next
> one - the Tu-104, maybe?
>

The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
for sure. 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.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Spiv" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> You are naive. In any cases cheap capital costs are what sells to cash
> strapped companies, hoping to hide the higher running costs.
>

Hardly, all the companies I know are keenly interested
in lifecycle costs and will eat higher CAPEX if the OPEX
savings are high enough especially since CAPEX can
often be recovered in grants.

The problem with the VC-10 as BOAC noted was that
its operating expenses were HIGHER than the 707
so they ended up ditching the VC-10's in favor of
Boeing aircraft

Note that the US airlines were hardly cash strapped in the
60's since they were in a boom market and buying new
aircraft at a rate never seen since.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

> Geographically it is
> not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.
>
>

Denmark is the geopolitical term for that collection of islands
and section of the European continent that make up the
kingdom of Denmark, one of those Islands is Greenland

In Geographical terms there are a bunch of islands in the
Baltic, Kattegat and the Jutland peninsula. The Northern tip
of said peninsula and some of the islands are Danish.
The southern end of the Peninsula is German as are
some of the islands.

Keith

[Spiv]

"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. Nevertheless,
neither Gib is part of the UK nor is Greenland a part of Denmark.
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.

What you are saying make The Le reunion islands in the southern Indian Ocean
a part of France, the same geographical territory.

> > Geographically it is
> > not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.
> >
> >
>
> Denmark is the geopolitical term for that collection of islands
> and section of the European continent that make up the
> kingdom of Denmark, one of those Islands is Greenland
>
> In Geographical terms there are a bunch of islands in the
> Baltic, Kattegat and the Jutland peninsula. The Northern tip
> of said peninsula and some of the islands are Danish.
> The southern end of the Peninsula is German as are
> some of the islands.
>
> Keith
>
>

[David Thornley]

In article >, Spiv > wrote:
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Depends on your 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.
>
>You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It is
>not is the answer, not babble about US states.
>
From the point of view of travelling around it, the UK is very small
by US standards. In the USA, an airline that serves approximately
the area of the UK is a small local airline of no national import,
and it is expected to fly considerably different aircraft from a
national or international airline.

This applies in general when one moves out of Europe. Europe is
very densely populated, with numerous large cities within a few
hours' driving time of each other. (I live in Minneapolis, MN,
in the 15th largest metro area in the US. The closest bigger
one is Chicago, and that's eight hours' drive away.) In most of
the world, the distance between major population centers is much
higher than in Western Europe.

What works well in the UK for a transportation system doesn't
necessarily work well over the rest of the world.

--
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
...
>
> "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.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"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.

Keith

[Spiv]

"David Thornley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Spiv >
wrote:
> >
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> Depends on your 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.
> >
> >You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It
is
> >not is the answer, not babble about US states.
> >
> From the point of view of travelling around it, the UK is very small
> by US standards.

But it is massive by Holland standards. Once again the UK is not small. We
have long distance truck drivers who require overnight stops running up and
down the place.

> What works well in the UK for a transportation system doesn't
> necessarily work well over the rest of the world.

That is why we still have the train. The Victorians left us this brilliant
legacy. You can go from the centre of London to the centre of Liverpool or
Manchester in 2.5 to 3 hours. The plane ride is approx 1/2 hours in the
air. Yet to get to the airport, get the plane, and the reverse at the other
end means you will be doing it in 4 hours centre to centre minimum. The
train is far better and far more comfortable than a plane. They have a bar
you can walk up to and lean on too.

The Eurostar, when they get the track filly high speed ready, will do centre
to centre London - Paris in about 3 hours or less. Beats the plane by a
mile.