Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"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.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

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


No. The 707 was never a bomber. The Boeing 367-80 served as the prototype
for both the 707 and the KC-135 tanker, Boeing financed the 367-80 itself.

"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. "Military Derivatives. Another
aircraft type that traces its ancestry to the 707 prototype is the U.S. Air
Force KC/C-135 tanker-transport/cargo airplane...Additionally, three
707-120s plus two 707-320Bs, designated VC-137s, were delivered to the
Military Airlift Command for transporting high government officials...Recent
military applications of the 707 are the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control
System or AWACS (used by the U.S. Air Force, NATO, the Saudi government and
the French and British air forces for airborne surveillance, command and
control) and the E-6 used by the U.S. Navy for submarine communications...."
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/

No, Boeing paid for the development itself. "Production go-ahead for the
Dash 80 was announced by Boeing Aug. 30, 1952, as a company-financed $16
million investment."
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/

"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.

"Spiv" wrote:
"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.

I probably shouldn't ask this, but do you actually know the name of any
bomber produced by Boeing?

"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.

"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.

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?

Dave

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?

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....


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

"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.