Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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..........p ressurised
cabin, hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces, 100% powered
flying controls, electric engine controls, high-pressure hydraulics and AC
electrics.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

"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.