Why We Lost The Vietnam War

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

...

Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too,
until
being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem).
Now
the
Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner
in
the
world.

And you still haven't figured out what Brabazon Committee
specifications
could have been considered a "success".

...

(And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point
where
people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft,
and
poisoned both projects.)

The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers,

Which had more experience with
..

They are two different companies. They never planed each others models.
How
old are you?

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

...

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you might
not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston-New York-Washington
D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate-Gate) of the
jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
tiny country.

Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now the
Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in the
world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.

And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

(And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
poisoned both projects.)

The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still doesn't
detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a close
run between that and the Viscount.

Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
had nearly identical performance. Two mendium range turboprops,
(Brittania and Vanguard), which not only undercut each other, but were
so long delayed that they had no market niche when they finally went
into service.


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

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The Britannia was a Brabazon phase, so was the Comet. That makes two
types with many planes.

You're confusing the committee with the hardware.

They did they
adopted...........again..........sigh..........p ressurised
cabin,

The Boeing 307 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

hydraulic power units to operate control surfaces,

The Curtiss CW20 had that ten years before the Brabazon.

But not all the points together.

Actually, it did. Yhe CW-20 prototype was pressurized.
And the C-46, that grew out of it, while it got off to a rocky start,
turned out to be a tough old bird that stayed in USAF service until
the mid 1960s, and is still earning its keep in the Bush & Jungle
around the world.

The Brabazon was a failed concept, intended to take a few paying
passengers, and the occasional King's Messenger, in opulant confort
very slowly from stop to stop as it crow-hopped the Royal Mail from
outpost to outpost in the hinterlands of the Empire.

BOAC saw what they might be getting, and bought Stratoliners and
Constellations instead.

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

snip

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

snip

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It also
produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until farmers
were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards. It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark. (I'll bet local
Breakfast Pastry to Local Currency he can't figure that one out. To
think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.
In contrast, you can spen 3 days trying to escape from Texas.
And our Desearts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing, We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build. (And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should see Sunset on the
Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

Or Bryce Canyon, or Canyonlands, or Zion (Yosemite in Technicolor), or Capitol
Reef, or Arches (who needs to go to Mars, when Utah's so much easier to get to?),
or Monument Valley, or Death Valley, or Joshua Tree, or Anza-Borrego, or Chaco
Canyon, or Mesa Verde, etc. etc.

Guy

"Peter Stickney" wrote:
In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

...

Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
the
Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
the
world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.

And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
produce. (I don't win the pool - my bet was for 50 posts.)

But how more posts before he indicates any knowledge about its ancestry?

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

...

Old enough to know what experience Bristol had in building large
airframes
in 1945. There was a reason they got the "job" and I will give you a
clue
it
wasn't because they offered the best existing large airframe design
team
or
had the best facilities for performing the task. As for how old, I am
I
can
remember when the Viscount was a new plane.

Senility eh.

The Viscount was in production (a new plane) until 1964, so while you
might
not have been born for another 30 years I had my first flight in one when
I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

You were told 111. now look.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


I
was 6, on my way to the German GP in 1961. btw. I see you still haven't
figured out what Brabazon Committee specifications could have been
considered a "success".

You were told 111. now look.



Trouble is that the Barabazon committee decided not to proceed
with the type III declaring it unimportant so while Bristol
had indeed done some design studies no aircraft was actually
produced.

BOAC in turn desparing at the spiralling red tape that was
effectively stifling development issued its own specn for
a Medium Range Empire Airliner (MRE) to replace its
Lockheed Constellations.

Five companies entered the bidding and the contract went to
Bristol with their submission, the type 175 Brittania.

Keith

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
One of the last, certainly. One of the best... It's doubtful.
At the same time that the Britannia was being dumped, Eastern Air
Lines in the U.S. was inaugerating their Boston-New York-Washington
D.C. Shuttle service, using Lockheed L188 Electras (After they'd got
the Whirl Mode problems sorted out) The Electras proved ideal for this
service, being able to often beat the block times (Gate-Gate) of the
jets available. They proved so economical in service that they stayed
in service on that run until the mid '70s. (For a bit of perspective,
Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. is about the same as going
from Northern Scotland to London. No offence, Sport, but you've got a
tiny country.

Viscounts were used on similar runs in the UK unless the 70s too, until
being replaced by mainly BAC 1-11s (another brilliant little gem). Now
the
Viscount was a superb turboprop, being the first turboprop airliner in
the
world. It had a wonderful distinctive sound.

And, in fact, it's taken you around 100 posts to actually arrive at
the one truly successful airliner that the Brits have been able to
produce.

Two highly successful one were mentioned. Also there was Concorde and small
high winged BAe hopper jet, which sold very well. I have used that in
Africa a lot.

The UK is not tiny. Others are much bigger, but the UK is "not" small.
Also the UK is not full of useless deserts, being highly fertile. It
also
produces more food than the whole of Australia, well did do until
farmers
were given lots of lolly to stop producing.

The U.K. _is_ tiny, by American (North or South), Asian, or African
standards.

That is what I said.

It is larger than Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein, and San
Marino. But it's still smaller than Denmark.

Please look at an Atlas. Denmark is smaller than Scotland alone.

(I'll bet local Breakfast Pastry to Local
Currency he can't figure that one out.

It is plain you can't

To think that I was worried about how the U.S. schools stak up
worldwide...)
By our standards, it's a Day Trip from North to South, and you're
never more than an hour's drive from the coast.

Try driving from Land End to John O'Groats. And there are still islands way
to the north and some to the south too.

In contrast, you can spen 3 days
trying to escape from Texas.

Balls. I have driven through Texas. I find it is best not even to go into
Texas.

And our Deserts aren't useless. We keep some for Nuclear Weapons
Testing,

Sound very useless.

We also use ours to test all the modern aircraft that we
build.

Do you crash them into the desert.

(And my back yard grows more than all of Australia.)
And some we just keep around to look at. You should
see Sunset on the Painted Desert, or Sunrise at the Grand Canyon.

I have seen them.

(And you missed the Vanguard, as well. Brilliant planning, there.
Instead of concentrating on one type, (Brittania or Vanguard), and
thus having the potential of lowering the unit cost to the point where
people might buy them, you built two different competing aircraft, and
poisoned both projects.)

The Vanguard was made by a different company, Vickers, which still
doesn't
detract from the Britannia being the best prop airliner ever - well a
close
run between that and the Viscount.

Erm, by that time, _All_ development was done under Ministry of Supply
contracts, part of the Socialization that was going on in your Isles
during the 1950s and 1960s. For some ungodly reason, this produced an
incredibly wasteful duplication of effort. Three V-Bombers, 2 of which
had nearly identical performance.

One was a temporary measure, the Valiant. The other two? Pitch one against
the other and one will shine. Both the Vulcan and the Victor were excellent
in their time.

Two mendium range turboprops,
(Brittania and Vanguard), which not
only undercut each other, but were
so long delayed that they had no market
niche when they finally went
into service.

They sold well enough and filled the niche they intended too. The British
have made planes that were better than their US equivalents: VC10 v 707,
Britannia v other US props, BAC 1-11 v DC9, etc, but never sold that well
because US companies could keep prices down because they had larger
production lines as US carriers preferred them.

I don't think the US had a Viscount equiv, selling very well in the USA.
Only the British and French had small jet commuter planes at one point and
the first executive jet was the HS 125.