If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why We Lost The Vietnam War
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 1st 03 12:07 AM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
Attorney honored for heroism during the Vietnam War | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 6 | August 14th 03 11:59 PM |