On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:01 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
scribeth thus
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

You need to take a remedial reading course.