Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

"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.

"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..........p ressurised
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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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