Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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.

"Spiv" wrote:

...

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.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
could have been considered a "success".

...

(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 had more experience with building large airframe aircraft than Bristol
did in the 1940's. You might want to review who the Brabazon committee
thought should be building what became the Brabazon I.

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:

...

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.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
could have been considered a "success".

...

(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 had more experience with
..

They are two different companies. They never planed each others models. How
old are you?

"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:

...

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.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications
could have been considered a "success".

...

(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 had more experience with
..

They are two different companies. They never planed each others models.
How
old are you?

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a clue it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:

...

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.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee
specifications
could have been considered a "success".

...

(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 had more experience with
..

They are two different companies. They never planed each others models.
How
old are you?

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

...

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you might
not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

...

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design
team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am
I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you
might
not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when
I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

You were told 111. now look.

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
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.

And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)

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.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

(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.

Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
had nearly identical performance. Two mendium range turboprops,
(Brittania and Vanguard), which not only undercut each other, but were
so long delayed that they had no market niche when they finally went
into service.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

snip

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.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

snip

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.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy