Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Spiv wrote:

...


The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a superior plane to the 707
and
it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable requirements of a single
customer.

"Brett" wrote in message
...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round
the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000 been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of round
the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and
the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in
the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of
round
the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared
on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa and
the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in
the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched in
the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne?

Yes.....

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Airbus meets delivery goal to be 'market leader'

By ANDREA ROTHMAN
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Airbus delivered its 300th aircraft this year and plans "a few more" before
Dec. 31 to beat its target and overtake The Boeing Co. as the world's
biggest planemaker, Chief Executive Noel Forgeard said.

The goal was reached Friday evening when Airbus turned over Singapore
Airlines Ltd.'s first A340-500 long-haul plane, Forgeard said at his offices
in Toulouse, France.

This target of 300 deliveries by Airbus, a unit of European, Aeronautic
Defense & Space Co., exceeds Boeing's goal of 280 planes. Airbus' order
backlog stands at 1,500 planes versus 1,100 aircraft for Boeing, indicating
the planemaker will continue to deliver more aircraft per year in coming
years.

"Everyone was skeptical they could be equal with Boeing, but they have
achieved that and now they're No. 1," said Klaus Breil, who helps oversee
about $5.9 billion at Adig Investments in Frankfurt including 4 million
shares in EADS.

Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by EADS and 20 percent by BAE Systems, may
also beat Boeing on new orders for the fourth time in five years. Airbus
last year received orders for 300 planes against 251 for Boeing. In the
first 11 months of 2003, Airbus won contracts for 263 planes versus 229 at
Boeing.

"We are the market leader in new orders and backlog and this year in
deliveries," Forgeard said. "And we want to be the leader as preferred
supplier" to airlines.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of
round
the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared
on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and
four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa
and
the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been
developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in
the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the
US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched
in
the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne?

Yes.....

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Airbus meets delivery goal to be 'market leader'

Nope, the EU taxpayer bought a big piece of the airliner market by
mortgaging their children's future.

Spiv wrote:
snip
The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.


have you got a cite for that I've never heard of the chinese operating
the VC10 never mind trying to buy more (apart from anything else I'd
have half expected the RAF to but new airframes if the production line
was opening up again).

In article ,
Iain Rae wrote:
Spiv wrote:
snip
The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.

have you got a cite for that I've never heard of the chinese operating
the VC10 never mind trying to buy more (apart from anything else I'd
have half expected the RAF to but new airframes if the production line
was opening up again).

I think he's thinking of the De Havilland Trident, which the Chinese
certainly used extensively (and built under licence). Pretty sure the
VC10 wsn't sold there (or many other places [1]).

[1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
up their pencil.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

[1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
up their pencil.

I have a suggestion about the Ilyshin-62, *stay away*. I flew on a CSA
Il-62 out of Beirut in 1993. The seating, even in first class, was like
being strapped into a lawn chair. The pitch of the seats was generous,
but you could not reach the seat pocket without unbuckling your seat
belt. The baggage handlers put my dog and her crate in the passenger
cabin with us because they could not be sure of she would not freeze in
the hold.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ...
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

[1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
up their pencil.

I have a suggestion about the Ilyshin-62, *stay away*. I flew on a CSA
Il-62 out of Beirut in 1993. The seating, even in first class, was like
being strapped into a lawn chair. The pitch of the seats was generous,
but you could not reach the seat pocket without unbuckling your seat
belt. The baggage handlers put my dog and her crate in the passenger
cabin with us because they could not be sure of she would not freeze in
the hold.

The Czechs used to keep two fat guys on call to sit on either side of
Western passengers. One requirement was they eat their lunch just
before takeoff and outgass to relieve cabin pressure at regular
intervals. Not my experience but one of a very thin friend.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...

The Czechs used to keep two fat guys on call to sit on either side of
Western passengers. One requirement was they eat their lunch just
before takeoff and outgass to relieve cabin pressure at regular
intervals. Not my experience but one of a very thin friend.

LOL

I sat with the journalist Robert Fisk on our way to Prague (he wasn't as
gassy as he is in print, but then, what might he have said of me?) and
with an attractive young Czech woman on the way to Mirabel (Gas? What
gas?).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)