Why We Lost The Vietnam War

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:57:03 -0800, "D. Patterson"
wrote:

What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
mean????????

It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.

Is that anything like the bucket seats of the C-47?

Dude, never mind the flyboys, the men with the real asses of steel
drove FFR Land Rovers. The short wheel-base versions.

Oh yeah, baby.

Gavin Bailey

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

What does the cross-posting of this DeHavilland Comet discussion to
rec.aviation.military under the subject "Why We lost the Vietnam War"
mean????????

It means you should have swapped your Thud for a Comet and then the
North Vietnamese politburo would have been on their knees begging for
mercy within days. If they'd tried to hold out, you could have
threatened them with Dan Air Charter flight economy-class seats and
their final ounce of defiance would have evaporated.

Gavin Bailey


Is that anything like the bucket seats of the C-47?

Careful, now. You're speaking of the woman I love. I used to snooze stretched
out on those bucket seats on many a flight even if they did leave horizontal
welts across my shoulders and butt. (^-^)))

George Z.

Two words:

Lyndon Johnson.
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.)

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"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.

Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

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.

Brabazon was a project of three. Two were made, one never. For the time
not bad at all. 50% of the money spend on Brabazon 1 was infrastructure.
The equipment and the large hangar were used by Concorde. Brabazon was
pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.

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

Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous ravings
in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
anything about the subject.

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.

Brabazon was a project of three.

It appears you don't even know the basic history of what the Brabazon
committee proposed, but in this instance your comment was directly related
to the waste of effort in Bristol in the immediate post war years.

Two were made, one never.

Try again head, of mush.

For the time
not bad at all. 50% of the money spend on Brabazon 1 was infrastructure.

Build a massive infrastructure, and then rarely bother to use it.

The equipment and the large hangar were used by Concorde.

Damn I wonder why Concorde required all that new equipment, testing
procedures..... if it already existed, and had been sitting around for all
those years just waiting for Concorde.

Brabazon was
pioneering and set the pattern for all others in most ways.

He wasn't and the committees view of the post war world was very different
from what actually occurred.

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

Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous ravings
in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
anything about the subject.

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

** snip babble **

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

Read what I wrote about the Brabazon 1

Why should I bother to read your account elsewhere - your previous
ravings
in this thread and a couple of others already indicate you don't know
anything about the subject.

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

As I said "head, of mush" your ravings on the subject indicate that you know
absolutely nothing worth listening to about the Bristol Brabazon or the
conclusions of the Brabazon Committee (I will give you one clue, I have been
a passenger in aircraft that resulted from the Brabazon Committee Type IIB,
Type IV, Type VB specification and something that could have been built to
satisfy the Type III specification).

"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
...

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

What you wrote about the Brabazon is incorrect.

Prove please.

"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.



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?