Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"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

link.net...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote
in
message
...

The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
for sure.


The Tu-104 began passenger operations in September 1956.



I once flew to Moscow in one during the
mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.


The Tu-104 was essentially a modified Tu-16 bomber.

The 707 was essentially a modified bomber too. Uncle Sam
paid
for
the
development.

No, the Boeing 707 was never a bomber.

They took a lot from previous Boeing bombers. Look at the wings
of
some
of
them. What a give away. A company that is making bombers,
essentially
large transports, of course would fall back on the technology
they
are
familiar with. They didn't forget it, pretend it wasn't there
and
start
all
over again.

Previous Boeing jet bombers, B-47 and B-52, all had swept-back
high
wings
suited to bombers, which are unlike the low to swept-back mid-wing
design
of
the Boeing 707 series suited to airliners.

Fighter aircraft also have wings, but that certainly does not make
them
bombers either.

Boeing's experience in producing bombers AND airliners does not
make
a
Boeing airliner a non-existant Boeing bomber.

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.

Even if it that were true, and it isn't (details about wet wings and
so
forth), it still would not make the Boeing 707 a bomber.

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.

If GM and Ford come up with a fuel cell car, Uncle Sam overtly paid for
the
research for that one.

A whole lot of research and development which went into the WWII bombers
came from the earlier civilian airliners and cargo aircraft. A whole lot
of
research and development which came from the earlier civilian airliners
and
cargo aircraft, went into the WWII bombers, and went back into civilian
airliners after the war. None of which changes the fact that the Boeing
707
was not a bomber and did benefit from all aeronautical research on all
types
of aircraft.

Mainly bombers

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

There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.


Regards...

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was for
sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK imported
food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be sunk
on UK bound merchant ships?

FWIW, Britain produced most of its own arms, with some obvious exceptions
like tanks.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in


There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.


However catching a train from Britain to the continent
was until very recently made atouch difficult by virtue of
it being an island.

Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in


There have been lots of short haul jet successes over the years,
so perhaps part of its limited success was in the mind of
the era, air-travel wasn't really a viable transport option
for average people. In particular in europe, where the train
has always had a strong position, contrary to the US.


However catching a train from Britain to the continent
was until very recently made atouch difficult by virtue of
it being an island.

Fact is as you must know millions of Europeans have being
making short haul flights to the Med for their hols for
the last 30 years. The airlines operated BAC-111's
for a while alongside Comet4's, Britannia's , Caravelles's
etc but almost all had switched to Boeing aircraft by the mid 80's.

mid 1980s? By that time the Airbus was making excellent in-roads.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

It is silly to transfer military technology to civilian use?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

They did it though.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It holds 60 million people and can easy hold 30 million more. It is big


60 million is less than 1% of the world's population. It is small.

1% is small, but bigger than 0.5%.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Depends on its ability to support people and feed them from the land.
The UK can do that with no problems - 60 million of them.


Yes, a small nation can support a small population.

60 millions is small? You do a sense of humour. Could be 62 million now.

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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

So people;le would be engaged in war production, rather than food
production.


In a previous message you said: "The country could feed itself that was
for
sure. The Germans wanted to sink arms more than food." If the UK imported
food to free the populace for war production, why were there arms to be
sunk
on UK bound merchant ships?

More arms were needed than what we could make. Duh!