Why We Lost The Vietnam War

In article ,
(David Thornley) writes:
In article ,
John Mullen wrote:
David Thornley wrote:

Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
three billion,

More like six IIRC

It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
three decades or so.

Well, maybe they can stand on one foot, then.

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

"David Thornley" wrote:
In article ,
John Mullen wrote:
David Thornley wrote:

Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
three billion,

More like six IIRC

It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole world's
population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three. Feel free
to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave for the past
three decades or so.

Three decades ago - the world population on Feburay 6, 1974 was about 4.15
Billion (and they still had less than a square foot of the Isle of Wight)
:-)

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

In article ,
"Spiv" writes:

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Holford wrote:

Spiv wrote:

Most of the bomber experience was transferred over to the 707. The
wings
are virtually the same angle and shape. In reality Uncle Sam paid the
lions
share of the 707s development.

Maybe DeHavilland should have transferred their extensive experience
with their highly successfull bomber - the Mosquito - to the Comet
project; then they might have had a winner?

Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.

Or not. Check out the record of the DeHavilland 91 Albatross, their just
pre-war 4-engine airliner. One of the most beutiful airplanes ever
made. And horrendously prone to strucural failure.


Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
in a limited market niche....

In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite this
they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
after.

UMM.Hmm. Explain the following Brit wartime transport designs, then:
Avro 688 Tudor: Designed 1943-1945, 1st flight June, 1945.
Avro 685 York: 1st flight July, 1942
Bristol 170 Freighter: 1st Flight December 1945
Handley Page H.P.68 Hermes Designed 1943, Put on hold until the
failure of the Avro Tudor.
Handley Page Halton
Short S-25 Sunderland/Sandringham
Vickers-Armstron VC.1 Viking 1st Flight early 1945

There doesn't seem to have been any lack of effort.

Then there wre all the trnasport flavors of the
Whitley, Wellington, Warwick, Stirling, Halifax, and Lancaster.

So many prototypes, it almost seems German.

But the World, (And BOAC), bought DC-4s, Constellations, & Strats.
For one overriding reason: You could fly them over a useful range,
with a useful load, earn more money than it cost to own and run them.

Brit Airliners have, as a general rule, had problems with structural
weight fraction and thus payload/range tradeoffs.

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

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

Or not. Check out the record of the DeHavilland 91 Albatross, their just
pre-war 4-engine airliner. One of the most beutiful airplanes ever
made. And horrendously prone to strucural failure.

Looks like a slightly-pudgy Lockheed Constellation (that's not a bad
thing).

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



The 707 was not designed to be a bomber, but a hell of a lot of bomber
know-how and technology, paid for by uncle Sam, went into it. Some
countries took civilian projects into public ownership, the USA did it but
in a rather different way.


I note DeHavilland built rather a lot of bombers too, doubtless
a good deal of that knowledge went into their civil aircraft designs


Thats just silly

Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.


Lots of luck pressurising a wooden fuselage or getting pax to wear pressure
suits

Remember that the Mosquito was used for passenger service in WWII,
probably being the fastest "airliner" of the time. It was, of course,
in a limited market niche....

In 1942, the US and the UK split some aircraft development with the USA
concentrating on transports. This put the UK back after WW2. Despite
this
they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
after.


Which fell out of the air shortly afterwards

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Spiv" wrote in message
...
they still came up with the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, soon
after.

Strictly speaking, it wasn't: that honour goes to the Vickers
Nene Viking. Comet I was, however, the first into commercial
service (the Nene Viking being more in the nature of a trial run).

Regardless of the problems, Comet was in a different class to
abominations like the Tudor.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

If he wants too.


If he wants what too?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

I note DeHavilland built rather a lot of bombers too, doubtless
a good deal of that knowledge went into their civil aircraft designs


I don't see much similarity between de Havilland's bombers and the Comet.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The BAC 1-11 was only short haul.


Which limited it's usefulness and partly explains why it sold so poorly.