Why We Lost The Vietnam War

Spiv wrote:
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...


Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
competitve in many other areas. For example,
the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
opportunities for commercial success because
British industry failed to heed American engineering
studies regarding metal fatigue.


This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this research
was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and commercial
planes.

No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.

The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.

(snip)

The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives was
solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it was
solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The Miles
52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell X-1
had them.

Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the adapted
Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of the
programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer and
how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
walk.

I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.

(snip)

DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government spent
on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but didn't
win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.

They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.

John

Spiv wrote:

This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
and commercial planes.


Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design was
finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight breakup
of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and podded
engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight on
July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined on
June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.

As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a half
before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before the
cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been built
by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a B-52
was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on August
5, 1954.

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

This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and
metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was
solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
and commercial planes.


Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design
was
finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight
breakup
of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and
podded
engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight
on
July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined
on
June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.

As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a
half
before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before
the
cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been
built
by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a
B-52
was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on
August
5, 1954.

See my other post on this. Information to the US being drip fed to the US.
It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help at
all.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

See my other post on this.


I saw it. I was not impressed.



Information to the US being drip fed to the US.


I have no idea what that means.



It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help
at
all.


That's a report?



If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.


How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
problems.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

See my other post on this.

I saw it. I was not impressed.

Then pay attention.

It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin
for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help
at
all.

That's a report?

The final one. It say so up there.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had
in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
planes
far safer, and saved many lives.

How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
problems.

You didn't get the point. Please focus.


---
--

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

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

See my other post on this.

I saw it. I was not impressed.

Then pay attention.

It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs.
The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin
for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't
help
at
all.

That's a report?

The final one. It say so up there.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in
the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many
subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet
had
in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet
planes
far safer, and saved many lives.

How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
problems.

You didn't get the point. Please focus.

Are you one of Traver's relatives?

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Then pay attention.


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



The final one. It say so up there.


What is your first language?



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.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.


Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.



Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????

If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!



John

Subject: Why We Lost The Vietnam War
From: John Mullen
Date: 1/25/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.



Y'mean the Comet is why we lost the Vietnam War????

If you'd had the Comet, you'd have lost it even faster than you did!



John


WRONG. We won every war I ever fought in. ((:-))


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer