A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why We Lost The Vietnam War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old February 2nd 04, 12:34 PM
Spiv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.