DIYbanter - View Single Post

Michael A. Terrell

" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:07 +0100, geoff ? wrote:

?In message ?,
writes
??On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ??(((°? ?
??wrote:
??
???On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
? wrote:
???
???? 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.
???
???The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
???Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
???airliner.
???
???You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
???airliner faster.
?? The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
??than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
??dream of on it's best day
?
?You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
?royce

I think you'll find that a Rolls will move more passenger-miles per hour than
a Ford Fiesta. ;-)

Yet you can find both sitting on the side of the road, with steam
pouring out from under the hood.

--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.