Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message
...

The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
for sure.


The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.



I once flew to Moscow in one during the
mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.


The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam paid for
the
development.

No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.

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

Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back high wings
suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing design
of
the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.

Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make them
bombers either.

Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not make a
Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.

Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The wings
are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the lions
share of the 707s development.