Why We Lost The Vietnam War

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

David Thornley wrote:
In article ,
James Hart wrote:

Brett wrote:

"James Hart" wrote:

It's an often mentioned piece of trivia but you could fit the entire
population of the world on the Isle of Wight if they were to all
stand up shoulder to shoulder. I'd like to see it proved

About 6.3B people on 135 square miles - so they would each get about
0.6 square feet to stand in.

Maybe it only works when the tides's out, or the tall people stand in the
sea.


Last I heard something like that, the world population was more like
three billion,

More like six IIRC

which gives over one square foot per person, which
should be enough on the average. (I have big feet.)

On the other hand, I used to get mild claustrophobia attacks now and
then in large crowds, so if you don't mind I'll bow out of the
experiment.

Agreed

John

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.


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

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.

"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.

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

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

How does one look at a nation singularly? Through one eye? (^-^)))

You'll have to ask Spiv.

If he wants too.

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
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?

Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.

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.

"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.

Spiv wrote:
"David Thornley" wrote in message
...

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?


Unless the Comet was made of wood, then it would have been dynamite.


Would have had problems with humidity on some of the stops on the London
Joburg run!

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 literally was dynamite. As it tended to blow up regularly.

John