Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

The USA did give tasters to many buyers.

True. OTOH at least one of the lost Comets was on some kind of
round
the
world publicity stunt. Same difference.

Boeing tasters were financial. The VC10 was a
superior plane to the 707 and it did not sell well either.

Vickers designed an aircraft to the questionable
requirements of a single customer.

It wasn't the requirements, it was the timing. When the VC10 appeared
on
the market it's competitors had already been in service for six and
four
years and ironically the restricted 'hot and high' runways of Africa
and
the
Middle East for which the Standard VC10 had specifically been
developed
would eventually all be lengthened to accommodate the 707 and DC-8, in
the
process eliminating the VC10's main advantage. Had the original V.1000
been
built it would have been in time to compete but the VC10 was just too
late.

The VC10 was a superior plane with passengers loving it as the engines
were
all aft making the cabin quieter with less vibration. It was less
susceptible to turbulence with a superior wing design. It was more
expensive to operate. The Super VC10 was cheaper to run beating the
US
planes. By then it was too late, Boeing and Douglas were entrenched
in
the
world's airlines. Only much later did the Airbus knock Boeing off its
throne.

Airbus knocked BCAG off their throne?

Yes.....

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Airbus meets delivery goal to be 'market leader'

Nope, the EU taxpayer bought a big piece of the airliner market by
mortgaging their children's future.

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Spiv" wrote:

snip

The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after
being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers
were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.

The Chinese bought the Trident!

Oops you are right, the smaller T tail.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Then pay attention.

What for? It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Where do you have a problem, then I ca help you.

You didn't get the point. Please focus.

You didn'r make a point. The point is nothing from the Comet went into
the
design of Boeing's bombers or the 707.

The engineering/metallurgy side did. You know too much about these sorts of
things do you?

Horse****, Spiv!
Go peruse the U.S. Natioanal Advisory Comittee Technical Reports
availalable online through the NASA Tech Reports Server. Then check
out the UK Aeronautical Research Comittee papers available from
Cranwell, also available online, and searchable through the same
server. (Reciprocity is a good thing). You'll find that, if anything,
the information flow, wrt structures, and the fatigue bahavior of
metals, went the other way. (US-UK). U.S. work on, and concern with,
metal fatigue began in the 1930s. And was continually refined.

DeHaviland had been warned many times about the choices that they had
made in the design of the Comet's structure, but they felt that their
use of Redux Bonding to join metal parts gave them superior
performance. (Turned out that they couldn't use Redux in many areas,
and so, it was back to drilled holes & rivets.) Eastern Airlines
evaliated the COmet prototype in 1950, and rejected any consideration
of it due to concerns about the fatigue resistance of the structure.
Nobody at DehHaviland seemed to be paying attention.

DeHaviland made a number of bad choices in the design of the Comet
I/IA. The airfoil provided knife-edge takeoff performance, for
instance. On taneoff, a Comet had to be rotated to exactly 10 degrees
AOA, at exactly the right speed, or it wouldn't take off. An early
pullup, or anything over 10 degrees, meant that the increased Induced
Drag would keep the airplane from accelerating. A late pull, or an
AoA of 9 degrees, meant that there wasn't a runwal in All of
Christendom, (or, for that matter, Karachi, Pakistan), that was long
enough for the Comet to get off the ground. When you add in the other
accidents that wrote off Comets, about half of all Comet I/IAs that
were built were total losses before they were pulled from service.

The 707, and, for that matter, the 367-80, used an entire different
philosophy in structural design. It was designed with multiple load
paths and a fail-safe structure, such that small problems would be, as
far as possible prevented from becoming big ones.
Don't forget, that between teh B-29, B-50, B-377/C-97, B-47, and B-52,
All of which flew before the COmet was grounded, Boeing had more large
pressurized airplane and large jet airplane experience than the rest
of the world, combined.

To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not
necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_
infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane
to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on
this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets
to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in
service until the early 1960s.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:



On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first
regular
transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British
innovation.

But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel
while the 707 made the journey non stop.

I suggest you work on your reading skills.

Keith

Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the
Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?...

No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

[snip]

No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


The Boeing 314 was the first transatlantic airplane service in 1939.

The topic is "jet" airliners.


Thats not what the Subject header says

Keith

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
mean????????

It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.

Gavin Bailey

From: IBM
Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(ZZBunker) wrote in
. com:

[snip]

No! Since we have to keep reminding the British
that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland.
And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean.

Tweren't even the Brits to be precise.
Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman.

IBM


There wasn't an ocean there?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:07 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

snip

How about a discussion of the effectivness of jet airliners
as submarines ?

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

In article ,
Iain Rae wrote:
Spiv wrote:
snip
The Chinese bought the VC10. In 1980 they ordered more planes after being
fully satisfied with the planes performance and running costs. Vickers were
facing opened up the production line after 11 years.

have you got a cite for that I've never heard of the chinese operating
the VC10 never mind trying to buy more (apart from anything else I'd
have half expected the RAF to but new airframes if the production line
was opening up again).

I think he's thinking of the De Havilland Trident, which the Chinese
certainly used extensively (and built under licence). Pretty sure the
VC10 wsn't sold there (or many other places [1]).

[1] Though the Ilyshin-62 certainly suggests - by eye at least - that
someone had taken a long, hard look at a Super VC10 before picking
up their pencil.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)