Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.


I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the

zeppelin.

The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and

the

Boeing 314.

The topic is jet airliners.


I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"


LOL!

I would be *very* worried if I were you John. Someone has just made a
claim on your position in this NG!

I am impressed that Spiv can read and comprehend, unlike Mullen and
Willshaw.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Spiv" wrote in message
...


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


"Spiv" wrote in message
...


The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.


I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the

zeppelin.


The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and

the


Boeing 314.

The topic is jet airliners.


I thought the subject was, "Why We Lost The Vietnam War"



LOL!

I would be *very* worried if I were you John. Someone has just made a
claim on your position in this NG!


I am impressed that Spiv can read and comprehend, unlike Mullen and
Willshaw.


Now wait a minute... you wouldn't be doing a sock puppet on us here
would you?

John

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

snip

How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
as submarines ?

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

snip

How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
as submarines ?

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

it got a 5/10 on imdb when it was tried.

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

snip

How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
as submarines ?


Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines

See Airport 77


Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines

See Airport 77


So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Its been done,apparently 747's make excellent submarines

See Airport 77


So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?



Slowly in a water tank surrounded by cameramen

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Slowly in a water tank surrounded by cameramen


Sure, you can do anything in a movie. The "Airport" series got weirder with
each film. I have a 1977-78 edition of Janes ATWA, it gives the volume of
the passenger deck of a basic Model 747 as 27,860 cubic feet. A cubic foot
of water weighs over 62 pounds, so the dry passenger deck is displacing over
1.7 million pounds, which is more than twice the maximum takeoff weight.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

So how does a 747 with an intact pressure vessel sink?

Slowly, via water intake through the outflow valves that are normally open
at/near landing altitude. Depending on how far submerged the fuselage is, the
negative pressure relief valves in the cargo doors could also let in water.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:yAbRb.27146$U%5.180039@attbi_s03...

Slowly, via water intake through the outflow valves that are normally open
at/near landing altitude. Depending on how far submerged the fuselage is,
the negative pressure relief valves in the cargo doors could also let in
water.


In the film, it went down rather quickly, less than 30 seconds as I recall,
and the carpet didn't even get damp.