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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
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 |