Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


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.



Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
Lockheed Constellations.

Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


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.



Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

The Britannia came from 111.

BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
Lockheed Constellations.

Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

The Britannia came from 111.


Repetition of an error doesnt make it any less wrong.

BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
Lockheed Constellations.

Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.



Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

The Britannia came from 111.


Repetition of an error doesnt make it any less wrong.

The Britannia was no error.