Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.


Then enlighten me. Please explain how the VC10 was superior to the 707 and
the BAC One-Eleven superior to the DC-9

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
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.

Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and small
high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
Africa a lot.

Nope, only one. Here's a hint - it wasn't the Britannia.


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.

That is what I said.

It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark.

Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.


(I'll bet local Breakfast Pastry to Local
Currency he can't figure that one out.

It is plain you can't

Not at all. Here's a hint: When you step off the boat at Nuuk, what
nation's stanp do yo get on your passport?


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.

Try driving from Land End to John O'Groats. And there are still islands way
to the north and some to the south too.

In contrast, you can spen 3 days
trying to escape from Texas.

Balls. I have driven through Texas. I find it is best not even to go into
Texas.

And our Deserts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing,

Sound very useless.

Not in the least - It's the best Fourth of July celebration going.
Hey, if you ask nice, we could even slip Guy Fawkes Day in as well.

We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build.

Do you crash them into the desert.

No, I don't. (Haven't crashed anything, yet).
But, it should be pointed out, modern Flight Test, with its
intrumented ranges, comprehensive telemetry, Engineering trained Test
Pilots, comprehensive chase and photo coverage, and on-site data
analysis, was invented out in the Mojave.
And, yes, we've crashed airplanes. The streets at Edwards AFB, and
many other AFBs, are named for pilots who found the hairy edge of
aeronautics.

(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.

I have seen them.

For someone who seems to have gotten around, you don't know much, do
you.

(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.

One was a temporary measure, the Valiant. The other two? Pitch one against
the other and one will shine. Both the Vulcan and the Victor were excellent
in their time.

The Valiant was useful. And, as an aside, showed that both Handley
Page and Avro were over-complicating their designs. The Valiant,
which was contracted for later than the Vulcan and Victor, used
simpler, more traditional techniqes for fabrication and systems, and
was in the air sooner, and showed nearly the same performance.
Unfortunately, Vickers hadn't been reading the books on metallurgy,
either, and the Valiant suffered from extreme metal fatigue in the
wing spars. This immediately wiped out the entire RAF tanker force,
the ECM Force, the Strategic Recce force, and the NATO tactical nuke
commitment. Good move. They did do a decent job at Suez, though.

The MoS should have picked either Vulcan or Victor, and built only
that. The inefficiencies of building Penny Packets of two different
high-performance airplanes, with little to choose from in terms of
performance or effectiveness, and nothig in the way of shared
components are extreme.

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.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias, counting the two that crashed
before they entered BOAC service. In mainline service for 5 years,
and jobbed off.
There were 43 Vanguards, sold to only two customers.
That's not "Sold Well Enough" by any measure.

I'll have to dig up the breakeven costs for the airplanes, but IIRC,
it was on the order of 150 aurcraft each.

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior? Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.



I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
the first executive jet was the HS 125.

The Viscount was the one Brit airliner that made money for its
manufacturer. A good airplane, indeed.

As for the Bizets, the HS.125 (1st peoduction delivery Sept. 10, 1964)
was preceded in service by the Lockheed JetStar, the North American
Sabreliner by a couple of years.
The HS. 125 basically equalled the Lear 23 (1st Prod delivery Oct 12,
1964)
and the Aero Commander 1121 Jet Commender (1st Prod. Delivery Jan 11,
1965.

If you want to count First Prototype flight dates, it would be
JetStar Sept 4, 1957
Sabreliner Sept 16, 1958
HS.125: Aug. 14, 1962
Jet Commander Jan. 27, 1963
Lear 23 Oct. 7, 1963

You're going to have to use better references than "The Boy's Book of
British Airplanes".

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

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...


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.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,

No. 85 built.

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point
and
the first executive jet was the HS 125.

The Viscount was the one Brit airliner that made money for its
manufacturer. A good airplane, indeed.

A wonderful sound to it too, as it constantly flew over me.

As did the BAC 1-111 and the BAe 146.

I think you are a very confused person and should look at an atlas.

"Spiv" wrote:
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...


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.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,

No. 85 built.

The comment was "Commercial Britannias", the RAF's purchase would be
considered a military buy.

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

You really are clueless.

Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

20% higher fuel burn than JT3D equipped 707's doesn't indicated it "ironed
out" "any problems".

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

Even with Romanian production it would not be considered "a massive seller"

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


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.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,

No. 85 built.

The comment was "Commercial Britannias", the RAF's purchase would be
considered a military buy.

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

You really are clueless.

Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

20% higher fuel burn than JT3D equipped 707's doesn't indicated it "ironed
out" "any problems".

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

Even with Romanian production it would not be considered "a massive
seller"

It would

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...


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.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The
British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v
707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that
well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

Let's see: 60 Commercial Britannias,

No. 85 built.


23 of which went to the RAF and 2 prototypes paid for by the
ministry of works, that does indeed leave 60 sold to
commercial operators


Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.


And yet only 22 were ever sold


The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.



Total One-Eleven production amounted to 235 aircraft which
was certainly respectable but doesnt compare that well
with the sales of the DC-9 (976) or Boeing 727 (1832)
let alone the 737 (4300)

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Not that we didn't have our share of flops. The Boeing 377
Stratocruiser, with its turbosupercharged R4360s and advanced systems,
required much more maintenance hours than the L.1049 Constellation, or
the DC-7. So only about 50 were made. (However, as the KC-97 (Model
367), flown by the U.S. Air Force, who didn't mind doing the
maintenance, it got built to the tune of 888 airframes.)

The VC.10 Superior?

Yep.

Well, if you count moving fewer passengers a
shorter distance slower, while burning more fuel/mile, I suppose you
could say that. (To be fair, the VC.10 did have a shorter takeoff
roll, but by the tim it came out, runways had been extended so that
that wasn't relevant any more.)

The Super VC10 was larger and any problems ironed out.

And yet only 22 were ever sold

You have this great ability not get any point. The point is that the
British made better planes but never sold well.

The BAC 1-11 was a neat little jet, but, unfortunately, it was a
_little_, short-legged jet. Just the thing for tooling between the
U.K. and Brussels, but not as economical as the DC-9 or the 737 over
the type of Stage Lengths that the rest of teh world required.

The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.

Total One-Eleven production amounted to 235 aircraft which
was certainly respectable but doesnt compare that well
with the sales of the DC-9 (976) or Boeing 727 (1832)
let alone the 737 (4300)

Proves the point. The 1-11 was a better plane than its eqivs yet sold well
but inferior US planes sold better.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

No. 85 built.


85 total, how many were built for the military?



Yep.


Of course it was, it was British.



The BAC 1-11 was a massive seller.


Massive? Four times as many DC-9s were sold.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.


Depends on your point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.



Also the UK is not full of useless deserts,


Nor is the US.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.

Depends on your point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.

You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It is
not is the answer, not babble about US states.

Also the UK is not full of useless deserts,

Nor is the US.

It is. I have been though most.