Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


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

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

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


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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


Yes, a small nation can support a small population.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the
wings of some of them. What a give away.


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



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


That's what de Havilland did with the Comet.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
wings are virtually the same angle and shape.


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



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


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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


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



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


What way did the US do it?

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

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


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

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



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


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

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


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

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


Which fell out of the air shortly afterwards

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