Why We Lost The Vietnam War

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

Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment.

How so? Boeing had more experience designing and building large
pressurized
aircraft than anyone else in the world at that time, perhaps more than all
other manufacturers combined.

When the results came
out it was simple to avoid the problems.

But they avoided the problems BEFORE
the results came out. They avoided the
Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems surfaced.

What strange logic. How would they know what the problems were until the
Comet investigation? Were they good guessers? This is what you said "They
avoided the Comet's problems even before the Comet's problems surfaced." So
they knew the problems before the Comet was built eh? The investigation
uncovered points that were unknown to science beforehand in metallurgy.





It was more than just a frame design, it was metallurgy too.


Yes, Boeing chose 75ST aluminum alloy for the primary structure. I don't
know what de Havilland chose, perhaps 24ST.



All of them means all types. Duh!


Well, if all airliners were similar to the Brabazon, the Brabazon couldn't
be ground-breaking in any area.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from
No.
111.

There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

During the war a committee headed by Lord Brabazon, and thus called the
Brabazon Committee, identified seven distinct civil transport aircraft
types
or sub-types. You're confusing the committee with the hardware.

Please read again.

The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever.

So fine that only 85 were sold. By the time the Britannia was ready it
found itself competing with straight jets. The Britannia wasn't even the
best British turboprop airliner.

v Viscount

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.

American airlines pretty much just bought jets instead of turboprops.

Not in the early to mid 50s they never. The Viscount was a big seller in
the US, so was the BAC 1-11.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
types with many planes.

You're confusing the committee with the hardware.

They did they
adopted...........again..........sigh..........p ressurised
cabin,

The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,

The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

But not all the points together.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Prove please.


I already have, review the thread.

Why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your claims?

Well, why don't you respond when challenged to provide proof of your claims?

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from
No.
111.

There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

You have been told more than once that it didn't.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived
from
No.
111.

There was only one Brabazon aircraft, the Bristol Brabazon Mk I.
The Bristol Brabazon Mk II was never completed.

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

You have been told more than once that it didn't.

Please do some reading.

"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

...

Wrong again (shame the web site you found wasn't the best available) the
Britannia was the result of a December 1946 BOAC requirement for a
Medium
Range Empire transport and Bristol's original response was to propose a
Centaurus powered Lockheed Constellation.

All of Brabazon 11 went in to the Britannia.

No it didn't, BOAC, MoS and Bristol appear to have had little idea of what
they were going to build for most of the 1940's or what they would build and
put into service in 1957 (you did miss a major first for the Britannia by
the way, if you try really hard you might be able to figure out what it is)
was rendered obsolete by Pan Am's introduction of transatlantic service
using 707's in 1958.

"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.