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

"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.

The Britannia was a Brabazon phase,

Actually it wasn't, it was built to a later requirement. Bristol did
manage
to build more than one of them, but not by much.

Like 85 of them and long range versions as well.

That's the best you can do, your claim was "Brabazon was a project of
three.
Two were made, one never" and you haven't identified what they proposed or
what they actually built and the Britannia in case you missed it WASN'T "a
Brabazon phase".

There were actually 7 Brabazon categories. The Britannia derived from No.
111.

As for 85 being built - that doesn't mean it was a British aviation
success
story.

The Britannia was a success, the finest prop airliner ever. It was ahead of
all others in refinement and used all the virtues of Brabazon 1, which all
other lanes adopted, prop and jet. Few American airlines bought it as it
wasn't American and US prop equivalents were cheaper, although not better
planes.