Why We Lost The Vietnam War

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

"Spiv" wrote in message

...

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:

Both of those problems are contained in that blob of mush attached to your
neck.

"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.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message

...

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:

Both of those problems are contained in that blob of mush attached to your
neck.

Such wit.

"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.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"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?

The problem with the De Havilland DH106 Comet I was reputed to be metal
fatigue problems resulting from the design of the pressurized cabin, and the
American companies had already demonstrated a prior ten years of experience
in constructing such high altitude pressurized cabins for military jet
aircraft and civilian propellor driven aircraft which were not subject tot
he metal fatigue problems reported for the Bristol Barbazon, De Havilland
DH106 Comet I, and other British aircraft. Consequently, the British
experience with failure had nothing to offer in design to the American
experience with success.

It is also worthwhile to note that the shorter range of the De Havilland
DH106 Comet I sometimes permitted the slower but longer-ranged American
propellor driven airliners to arrive at their destination after a non-stop
flight before the arrival of the De Havilland DH106 Comet I which had to
make a lengthy stopover for refueling. Obviously, you didn't know this
difference where the low endurance hare, the Comet I, is actaully slower in
delivery than the high endurance turtle, the prop airliner.


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.


Boy, you can say that again. They pioneered their way straight into the
scrap heap and the air disaster headlines.

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.

Yes, everyone took notice of what a beautiful and disastrous aircraft it
was. Then they went on designing their own aircraft their own way, which had
already been prohibiting De Havilland's design errors anyway.

That
is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame. You are obviously not
from
an engineering background. Were you a pay clerk?


Obviously, you are a demonstrably clueless fool and a liar.

The De Havilland design attempted to use a custom guage of metal skin to
save weight and improve performance, but their calculations ignored standard
practices regarding metal fatigue which were in common use by American and
other manufacturers besides De Havilland.

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.

Yes, the Bristol Barbazon was "More garbage" and the single existing
prototype quickly ended up on the garbage heap after only 400 hours of
flight without earning an air worthiness certificate, because it was subject
to metal fatigue and could never be certified as safe. Since "'every' modern
airliner in use today has an air worthiness certificate and are built
entirely differently than the Bristol Barbazon, your comments are obvious
lies.


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.

You have no facts, so you substitute an insult. I must be doing something
right.

I advise you to look into the Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls.

Even the most starry eyed British sources often cite the Bristol Barbazon as
a classic example of how to not design a white elephant aircraft by
committee.

It was the forerunner of "every" modern
airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.

The Bristol Barbazon was a forerunner only by virtue of being so worthless
to the avaiation industry, it was immediately consigned to the scrap heap as
a worthless aircraft decades before its contemporaries were scrapped.

Any problems seen
were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

Yeah, it was rectified by immediately scrapping the aircraft and never again
using its design.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:07:10 -0000, "Spiv" wrote:


You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:

Would that be something like cluelessly asserting that UK didnt get much in
the way of marshall plan aid, when it fact it was one of the biggest
recipients.


greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"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
...

You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:


Am I? What have I written that you believe is incorrect?



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? Even if it was the first aircraft to have
them there was nothing ground-breaking in putting them in an aircraft.



It did!


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.



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.

"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?