If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote in message ... I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1" What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either: Am I? What have I written that you believe is incorrect? Have you a few weeks? 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. It wasn't the first with a pressurized cabin or powered flight controls, and 100% powered flight controls isn't such a good idea. It wasn't the first aircraft with hydraulic systems, using a higher pressure than it's predecessors is hardly ground-breaking. As for electric engine controls and AC electric systems, so what? It was the first with all in one plane, which is was the norm after. Do you understand? Even if it was the first aircraft to have them It was. there was nothing ground-breaking in putting them in an aircraft. It was then. Boeing designed an airplane with skin four and one half times as thick as the Comet's to resist tearing. It had titanium tear stops welded to the interior skin. They specified round windows and spot welds reduced the use of rivets. The Boeing board approved this design on April 22, 1952, ten days before the Comet began passenger service and a year and ten days before the first Comet disintegrated over India. So, if the lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue influenced the design of the 367-80, it means de Havilland and BOAC knew about the Comet's flaws even before the first one entered service. Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment. When the results came out it was simple to avoid the problems. It was more than just a frame design, it was metallurgy too. See above. I saw above. Who operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon? All of them, even American. Yet you cannot identify a single type. All of them means all types. Duh! |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two types with many planes. Brabazon was pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways. If the Brabazon set the pattern why is it no airline ever operated an aircraft similar to the Brabazon? They did they adopted...........again..........sigh..........p ressurised cabin, hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces, 100% powered flying controls, electric engine controls, high-pressure hydraulics and AC electrics. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1" What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect. Prove please. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage to build more than one of them, but not by much. so was the Comet. The Type IV that resulted in the de Havilland Comet was supposed to be a high speed, limited capacity mailplane. That makes two types You appear to only know one additional type that resulted in hardware, if you try harder you might find out the Brabazon designs that could possibly be considered "success" stories. not worth much |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage to build more than one of them, but not by much. Like 85 of them and long range versions as well. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage to build more than one of them, but not by much. Like 85 of them and long range versions as well. That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a Brabazon phase". As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation success story. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage to build more than one of them, but not by much. Like 85 of them and long range versions as well. That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a Brabazon phase". There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from No. 111. As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation success story. The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. 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. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Brett" wrote in message ... "Spiv" wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Spiv" wrote in message ... Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1 Do you mean this: "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." Looks like a slightly modified copy-and-paste from http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=c_brab to me. It doesn't look like your writing, not a single word is misspelled. Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. Only one Brabazon was made. The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did manage to build more than one of them, but not by much. Like 85 of them and long range versions as well. That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a Brabazon phase". There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. You finally found a web site with some information, did you manage to figure out which of those "committee planes" could be considered a "success". The Britannia derived from No. 111. 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. As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation success story. The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. And I doubt you were ever carried as a passenger on one. It was ahead of all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, The Brabazon I had none. 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. A better answer would have been it was the WRONG plane for any company to have any real hope of selling to the airlines in 1957 and the Lockheed Constellation was the best solution for the market when it might have been sold to the airlines in 1946. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Spiv" writes: The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. 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. Uh-huh. You're talking about the same Brittania that first flew in 1952, wasn't able to get itself sorted out for any sort of delivery until late 1955, and was so full of bugs that they didn't enter service until 1957. By htat time, anybody with any sense, including BOAC, had gotten themselves into the order books for the Boeing 707 and the DC-8. BOAC sold off theirs in 1962. Even Cubana got rid of theirs. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 1st 03 12:07 AM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
Attorney honored for heroism during the Vietnam War | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 6 | August 14th 03 11:59 PM |