Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super VC10
was
a
superior
plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.

He enter yet again...


That's YOUR utterance you are commenting on
old boy LOL

It was far from superior

Do some reading. Don't make it up. He goes on....

I have

707 Sales 1010
VC-10 Sales 57

Once again, he can't understand a simple point. The VC10 was a
superior
plane, but never sold well. Betamax was better than VHS, but also
lost
out.
The best frequently never succeeds.

It was however capable of selling into more than 5% of the market.

I give up.


Thank Cliff for that.. come back when you have a better primary source than
that mulleted middle age fool Clarkson.

"tw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super
VC10
was
a
superior
plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.

He enter yet again...


That's YOUR utterance you are commenting on
old boy LOL

It was far from superior

Do some reading. Don't make it up. He goes on....

I have

707 Sales 1010
VC-10 Sales 57

Once again, he can't understand a simple point. The VC10 was a
superior
plane, but never sold well. Betamax was better than VHS, but also
lost
out.
The best frequently never succeeds.

It was however capable of selling into more than 5% of the market.

I give up.


Thank Cliff for that.. come back when you have a better primary source
than
that mulleted middle age fool Clarkson.

Source about what?

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.


Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype in
less
than
a month.

Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
dropped
engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip fed
as
it
was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding were
being
implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
filchers
and
bombers.

The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude flights
was
a
Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and was
subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time the
de
Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to the
reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready to
take
flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the Boeing
S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland Comet
was
almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
cabins
for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
suck
eggs.

Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for most
modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin, hydraulic
power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
first
with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being the
Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
many
say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype which
was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early. the
plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.

You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the De
Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial airliners
which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938, while
the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in the
period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners and
bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De Havilland
Comet I. Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British certainly
did need the American advice.

Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners" by
demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
airliners. Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was scrapped. It
was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate. The
Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.


Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype in
less
than
a month.

Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
dropped
engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip fed
as
it
was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding were
being
implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
filchers
and
bombers.

The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude flights
was
a
Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and was
subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time the
de
Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to
the
reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready to
take
flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the
Boeing
S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland Comet
was
almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
cabins
for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
suck
eggs.

Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for
most
modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin, hydraulic
power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
first
with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being
the
Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
many
say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype
which
was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early. the
plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.

You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the De
Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial airliners
which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938,

They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?

while
the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in
the
period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners
and
bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De Havilland
Comet I.

The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.

Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British
certainly
did need the American advice.

What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all. That
is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame. You are obviously not from
an engineering background. Were you a pay clerk?

Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners" by
demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
airliners.

More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.

Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was scrapped.
It
was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate. The
Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.

The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every" modern
airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big. Any problems seen
were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every"
modern
airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big. Any problems seen
were rectified and/or noted for future planes.



********, the basic assumption behind the Brabazon 1 was deeply
flawed. The basic assumption was that only senior civil servants and
the very wealthy would fly by air so the aircraft was built with
the accent on luxury not cost.

The pattern for post war travel was set by the Lockheed Constellation
and Boeing Stratocruiser. Both PRECEDED the Brabazon in service
and were superior in almost every way when viewed from the point
of view of offering improved costs and consequently sold in large numbers
as the market for airline travel expanded.

Aircraft No Passengers Range Cruise Speed
Brabazon 60-80 5,500 miles 300 mph
Stratocruiser 55-100 4,500 miles 340 mph
Super Connie 60-80 4,500 miles 340 mph

In Service dates

Brabazon - NEVER
Stratocruiser - 1949 (PanAm and BOAC)
Lockheed Constellation - 1942 (ordered by TWA but seized by USAAF )

The Brabazon is a classic example of what happens when you
let a government committee drive aircraft design

The aircraft tendered for the type III Brabazon specification, the Bristol
Brittania
was a MUCH more succesful design and was built despite the Brabazon
committee
not because of it.

Keith

"Spiv" wrote:

...

I advise you to look into the Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of "every" modern
airliner

Strange most "modern airliners" look like they are direct descendants of the
Dash 80, two to four podded engines located on the wing.

and too far ahead of its time, being too big.

"far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal was
cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made about
the XC-99 and be valid.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?


So metal fatigue is a function of speed?



The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.


You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair XC-99, had
the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower takeoff
weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.



What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.
That is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame.


The lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue did not influence the
design of the Boeing 367-80 in any way.



You are obviously not from an engineering background.


Well, it's obvious you are not from an engineering background.



More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.


How can that be? Nobody operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon.



The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
Brabazon project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of
"every" modern airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
Any problems seen were rectified and/or noted for future planes.


What future planes?

"Brett" wrote in message
...

"far ahead", the truth is the design was obsolete before the first metal
was cut. As for being too big, that would be a claim that could be made
about the XC-99 and be valid.


Yup. The XC-99 was even larger and heavier than the Brabazon. While the
planned Convair Model 37 derivative of the XC-99 never materialized and
there was no series production of C-99s, the XC-99 itself served as a USAF
airlifter until 1957. The Brabazon served only as cookware.

Guys,

Please change the subject line to reflect what you're actually talking about.
Thanks.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?


So metal fatigue is a function of speed?



The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.


You're half right. The Brabazon flew two years after the Convair XC-99,
had
the same wingspan, was eight feet shorter, and had a 30,000 lb lower
takeoff
weight. The Brabazon pioneered nothing.

You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:
The Brabazon 1 had a pressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to operate the
giant control surfaces, the first with 100% powered flying controls, the
first with electric engine controls, the first with high-pressure
hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics.

All eventually adopted by all planes.

What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.
That is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame.


The lessons of the Comet with regard to
metal fatigue did not influence the
design of the Boeing 367-80 in any way.

It did!

You are obviously not from an engineering background.

Well, it's obvious you are not from an engineering background.

What clerical unit were you in?

More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.

How can that be? Nobody operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon.

See above.

The wisdom of our resident redneck. I advise you to look into the
Brabazon project instead of babbling balls. It was the forerunner of
"every" modern airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.
Any problems seen were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

What future planes?

All of them, even American.