Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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