Why We Lost The Vietnam War

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

Not if Greenland is included.

Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.

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,

How were they superior?

Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


I have responded to all of your challenges, I just see no need to repeat
myself. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your
assertions when challenged.

Please all the threads again - twice.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

But not all the points together.

Irrelevant.

Bahave!

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.

Read about the Brababzon project.

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


The stretched Viscounts sold well in the US, the BAC One-Eleven was not a
turboprop.

We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
Caravelle.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

What strange logic. How would they know what the problems were until
the Comet investigation? Were they good guessers?

** snip babble. Unable to apply logic **

"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.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

Not if Greenland is included.

Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.

Yet it is considered part of Denmark.

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,

How were they superior?

Your knowledge of aircraft is lacking.

No, I believe that would be your failing.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

Not if Greenland is included.

Which it isn't and isn't even in Europe.

Yet it is considered part of Denmark.

It is Not.

"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"

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The Britannia derived from No. 111.

The Brabazon and Britannia were different aircraft.

Read about the Brababzon project.

I believe the only one contributing to this thread that hasn't read about
the Brabazon committee would be YOU.