Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

I repaet "Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1"


What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect.

"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!

"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.

"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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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