A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why We Lost The Vietnam War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th 04, 05:38 PM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why We Lost The Vietnam War

Spiv wrote:
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...


Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
competitve in many other areas. For example,
the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
opportunities for commercial success because
British industry failed to heed American engineering
studies regarding metal fatigue.



This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this research
was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and commercial
planes.


No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.

The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.

(snip)

The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives was
solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it was
solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The Miles
52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell X-1
had them.

Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the adapted
Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of the
programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer and
how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
walk.


I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.

(snip)

DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government spent
on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but didn't
win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.


They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.

John

  #2  
Old January 25th 04, 06:23 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Spiv wrote:

This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
and commercial planes.


Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design was
finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight breakup
of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and podded
engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight on
July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined on
June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.

As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a half
before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before the
cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been built
by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a B-52
was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on August
5, 1954.


  #3  
Old January 25th 04, 07:32 PM
Spiv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Spiv wrote:
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in

message
...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...


Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
competitve in many other areas. For example,
the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
opportunities for commercial success because
British industry failed to heed American engineering
studies regarding metal fatigue.



This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and

metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was

solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this

research
was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and

commercial
planes.


No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.


The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on the
Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.

The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.


IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.
The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707. Better
plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".

(snip)

The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives

was
solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it

was
solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The

Miles
52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell

X-1
had them.

Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the

adapted
Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of

the
programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer

and
how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
walk.


I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.


I worked in aviation.

(snip)

DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government

spent
on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but

didn't
win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.


They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.


Not in money stake. In pride yes.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004


  #4  
Old January 25th 04, 07:41 PM
Spiv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and

metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was

solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this
research was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers
and commercial planes.


Boeing didn't learn from DeHavilland's mistakes, their transport design

was
finalized and construction well underway before the first in-flight

breakup
of a Comet. Boeing engineers selected an aluminum skin that was more than
four times the thickness of the Comet's. The US CAA also expressed
reservations about the squared-off windows of the Comet and the buried
engines in the wing roots. They preferred oval or round windows and

podded
engines in the event of an in-flight engine disintegration. The Boeing
367-80, prototype for both the 707 and the KC-135, made it's first flight

on
July 15, 1954. The cause of the Comet in-flight breakups was determined

on
June 24, 1954. Three weeks was hardly enough time for Boeing to have
learned from DeHavilland's mistakes.

As for the Boeing bombers, the B-47 made it's first flight a year and a

half
before the Comet made it's first flight and six and a half years before

the
cause of the Comet failures was revealed. Nearly 1000 B-47s had been

built
by the time the Comet's flaw had been revealed. The first flight of a

B-52
was on October 2, 1952, the first flight of a production B-52 was on

August
5, 1954.


See my other post on this. Information to the US being drip fed to the US.
It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help at
all.

If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004


  #5  
Old January 25th 04, 07:56 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


IT was a larger plane with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back

on.
The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.


Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320


Better
plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".


As does the 707 which is the basis for the Boeing E-3
sentry and the JSTARS aircraft

Keith


  #6  
Old January 25th 04, 08:10 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:38:35 +0000, John Mullen
wrote:

Spiv wrote:
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...


Definitely in some areas, definitely not in other areas, and
competitve in many other areas. For example,
the de havilland Comet air disasters occurred
and ruined that aircraft's reputation and
opportunities for commercial success because
British industry failed to heed American engineering
studies regarding metal fatigue.



This is balls. The most extensive research into aircraft frames and metal
fatigue was the Comet after one fell from the sky. It was solved )(square
windows were replaced by oval windows and other changes. ALL this research
was given to the USA. They implemented in in their bombers and commercial
planes.


No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.

The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.

(snip)

The reason the Spits could not pull out of sound barrier breaking dives was
solved. The whole of the rear small tail wings were swivelled and it was
solved. An experimental Spitfire was fitted with these in WW2. The Miles
52 had them and the drawing given to the Americans had them and the Bell X-1
had them.

Jeremy Clarkson last year did a humorous TV prog about clear British
inventions that the USA claim as theirs. The Miles 52 was featured. He
interviewed US X-21 designers who said they invented the swivelling rear
wings and made the X-2 work. Then Clarkson showed pictures of the adapted
Spits and the Miles 52 and the drawings given to the US too. Parts of the
programme were hilarious. He did one the other night on the computer and
how Colossus officially didn't exist, giving a free path for the USA to
walk.


I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.

(snip)

DeLorean had a good track record, came up with a good idea to create
employment in conflict struck Northern Ireland. What the government spent
on the project was less then any social unemployment benefits they would
have had to give out. So the British government didn't loose, but didn't
win, when DeLorean was found to be a crook.


They lost, big style. Don't kid yourself.

John


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
  #7  
Old January 25th 04, 08:26 PM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Spiv wrote:

(snip)

No, *this* is balls. April 8 1954 was the last of *three* Comet crashes
through the same cause. October 19 1954 was the date of publication of
the crash report giving metal fatigue as the cause. July 15, 1954 was
the date of the 707 prototype's first flight.



The prototype was not the finished article. Also British research on the
Comet was ongoing from the first crash. All this went to the USA.


The 707 was a better, safer plane than the Comet. End of story.



IT was a larger plane


Yes.

B707

Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)

Comet

Dimensions [m] Comet 1 Comet 1A Comet 2
Overall length 28.61 28.61 29.53
Wing span 34.98 34.98 34.98
Wing surface [m2] 188.3 188.3 188.3

Actually making it bigger with a thicker skin and oval windows were all
(obviously) designed into the 707 *way* before the Comet crashes.

with 10 years of the Comet before it to fall back on.

No. See actual dates from my previous post.

The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.


No. See Keith's post.

Better
plane? The Nimrod, which still fly's today, is a "Comet".


Absolutely not. You are in fantasy land if you think the Comet was in
any sense 'better' than the 707. It had a truly awful safety record.

The perpetuation of the Nimrod has been IMO a financial and military
disaster for Britain. And, as Keith points out, military versions of the
707 are still pretty common, certainly more so than the Nimrod. Who else
other than us flies the Nimrod? Who else other than UK and commonwealth
carriers ever even flew the Comet? How many were built compared to the
707? etc etc...

I quite like Jeremy Clarkson, but if watching the occasional bit of TV
is the sum of your knowledge about aviation (as it appears), you should
maybe go away and read up a bit more before posting here.



I worked in aviation.


No offence, but that isn't always obvious from the things you post.

John

  #8  
Old January 25th 04, 08:28 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...


The world's first transatlantic service was by the Comet not the 707.


I believe the world's first transatlantic air service was by the zeppelin.
The world's first transatlantic service by airplane was by Pan Am and the
Boeing 314.


  #9  
Old January 25th 04, 08:32 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

See my other post on this.


I saw it. I was not impressed.



Information to the US being drip fed to the US.


I have no idea what that means.



It wasn't, here is the final report.

The research into the Comet was vital for many subsequent designs. The
prime problems with the Comet was that they would not develop a more
powerful engine because of costs. So they made the skin far too thin for
light weight to suit an existing engine. The square windows didn't help

at
all.


That's a report?



If a more powerful engine (and thicker skin) and oval windows used in the
initial design, it would have worked very well. But!!!! Many subsequent
planes would have fallen out of the sky with the problems the Comet had in
metal fatigue, etc. In hindsight the Comets research made all jet planes
far safer, and saved many lives.


How so? Boeing made those "changes" without the report on the Comet's
problems.


  #10  
Old January 25th 04, 08:33 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Wrong, the pressurised Boeing Stratocruiser and Lockheed
Constellations were running transatlantic services before either
Comet or the 707. The Comet IV lacked the range to fly the
Atlantic non stop and the first jet non stop service was launched
in August 1959 using the Boeing 727-320


Oops. Typo.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lost comms after radar vector Mike Ciholas Instrument Flight Rules 119 February 1st 04 12:39 AM
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 1st 03 01:07 AM
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? Mike Military Aviation 7 November 5th 03 12:44 AM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 04:09 AM
Attorney honored for heroism during the Vietnam War Otis Willie Military Aviation 6 August 14th 03 11:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.