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
  #491  
Old February 9th 04, 01:58 PM
Spiv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Failed. Not so.


It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller

than
the
state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon.

From
a
US
perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.

The
UK
is
nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
Russia.

Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
Russia and tiny by comparison.


Which does not mean Britain is small.

It means Britain is a small nation in area,


It is not.

The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the

third
smallest nations in the world.


Still not small though.


Have it your way,


Thank you


  #492  
Old February 9th 04, 02:37 PM
Martin Rapier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote in
message
{snip}
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.


On each other's shoulders, it's only double, LOL!


If they all jump down at the same time will it create a tidal wave which
will engulf the earth?

Cheers
Martin


  #493  
Old February 9th 04, 02:39 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...

Honestly not sure - never carried fare-paying passengers, f'sure.


Nor was it intended to.



shrugs OK, first airliner to be powered by jet engines, if
you prefer.


The first airliner to be powered by jet engines was the de Havilland Comet.



The Viking was certainly an airliner and the Nenes
were certainly jets, so whether or not the resulting combination
was intended for service as passenger-carrier or as a testbed
for the engine there's a touch of "airliner+jet" about it,
whichever way you re-arrange the words.


All Viking airliners were built with Bristol Hercules engines, piston
radials. The Nene Viking served as a testbed for the Rolls Royce Nene
turbojet. This aircraft did not serve as an airliner in that configuration
and it was never intended to do so. The Nene-powered Viking was not a jet
airliner, it was a jet engine testbed. At the conclusion of testing the
aircraft was converted to Viking 1B configuration, with Hercules radial
engines, and used for charter work.



Comet was the first one to fly commercially, though. Tu-104
probably the second (don't think Canadair C-102 ever carried
fare-paying passengers).


The C-102, like the Nene Viking, never carried a fare-paying passenger, but
unlike the Nene Viking, that was it's intended purpose.


  #494  
Old February 9th 04, 02:43 PM
D. Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Failed. Not so.


It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller

than
the
state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon.

From
a
US
perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is

big.
The
UK
is
nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size

of
Russia.

Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
Russia and tiny by comparison.

Which does not mean Britain is small.

It means Britain is a small nation in area,

It is not.

The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest

nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the

third
smallest nations in the world.

Still not small though.


Have it your way,


Thank you



No, that is not what I wrote, Spiv. I wrote: Have it your way, Britain is
smaller than small, because it is tiny. I was giving you the benefit of the
doubt, but 1.4% really is tiny, rather than
just small. If it were much smaller, we would have to include it along with
Vatican City as being infinitessimal...like your sorry excuse for a brain.


  #495  
Old February 9th 04, 02:56 PM
David Thornley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Brett wrote:
"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)
:-)

Damn, how old am I getting?


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
  #496  
Old February 9th 04, 04:17 PM
Jim Voege
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Jim Voege" wrote in message
.. .

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
American
colony, Canada,

Canada was an independent nation
by then which declared war independently
on Germany.

Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959

Try 1867.


Try reading about it.

Try living here for 50 years like me. You think I might know eh?

Jim


  #497  
Old February 9th 04, 04:47 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Which makes it a jet airliner.


Nope. The Nene Viking was not an airliner.



I would say a lot. Airliner with jet engines, is a jet airliner.


Correct. That's why the de Havilland Comet and Avro Jetliner were jet
airliners and the Nene Viking was not.


  #498  
Old February 9th 04, 04:47 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It can feed itself. Much of the UK is national park. That can be used if
needed for crop growing.


But the UK could not feed itself during WWII.



It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North American
colony, Canada, by then with the U boat problem suppressed.


Canada was not a UK colony in 1945.


  #499  
Old February 9th 04, 04:47 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

1951 I think you will find all rationing was abandoned.


Nope. The rationing of meat continued until July 2, 1954. I believe that
was the last rationed item.




You have to read it again. It said "by then", meaning by 1945. It is
quite clear.


The only thing "clear" in your messages is that you don't know what you're
talking about.



Boy is this ng full of people with no reading abilities or logic.


One in particular.


  #500  
Old February 9th 04, 04:47 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It was a jet airliner, that is what they do. Duh!


Exactly! Jet airliners carry people as cargo! That's why the Nene Viking
is not considered a jet airliner.



I am confused.


Well, that's stating the obvious.



I am learning from myself?


No. I am the teacher, you are the student.



I doubt I could learn very much from you.


Oh. I wasn't aware that you were completely unteachable. Pity.


 




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 January 31st 04 11:39 PM
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 1st 03 12:07 AM
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? Mike Military Aviation 7 November 4th 03 11:44 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 03:09 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 03:59 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.