On 22 Aug 2010 21:54:21 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:16:50 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, "
wrote:

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.

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

I dunno. Spot welds?

Criomps are probably easier for d-i-y.

--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:15:16 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On 22 Aug 2010 21:54:21 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:16:50 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, "
wrote:

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.

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

I dunno. Spot welds?

Criomps are probably easier for d-i-y.
Or even crimps...

--
Frank Erskine

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?? ?? ???? 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.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?The Concorde was not successful.
?? ??
?? ?? It was .. for what it did...
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
?? ?but ego bloat.
??
?? Built here anyone;?..
?
?
? How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
?communications systems that i built?

All by yourself, big boi ?

or was that just the solder joints ?


Is that your best attempt at an insult? The only solder work I did
was to troubleshoot some boards. There were two complete ground
stations. One fixed, one mobile. They were shipped to Italy. The last
I heard, they wanted a second mobile ground station because the ESA
facility was so small. That caused front end overload at launch for the
fixed station. A good +60 dB above what they specified in their
purchase order.

I worked in production test & engineering on that project.


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

" 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.

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?
?tony sayer wrote:
??
?? ?? ?? ? There was also a big outcry at the time about the
?? ?? ?? ?pollution--apparently
?? ?? ?? ? folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or
?? ?? ?? ?something, due to
?? ?? ?? ? inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
?? ?? ?? ? whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
?? ?? ?? ? environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
?? ?? ?? ? supersonic flight banned.
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ? Cheers
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ? Phil Hobbs
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ? Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
?? ?? ?before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
?? ?? ?landfills.
?? ??
?? ?? Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? So, where are his flying, today?
??
?? Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today
?? then;?.
??
?? Rather pointless...
?
?
? Yes, you are. Yet you keep trolling.

Do you even know who Sir Frank Whittle was ?


Tell me why I should care?


(without sneaking off and looking it up in google, of course)

--
geoff


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

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?
???(((°? wrote:
??
?? On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
?? ? wrote:
??
?? ? aemeijers wrote:
?? ?? zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
?? ?? (snip)
?? ????? 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.
?? ?? 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
?? ?? basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
?? ?? loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
?? ?? whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
?? ?? 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
?? ?? for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
?? ?? being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
?? ?? modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
?? ?? Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
?? ?? heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
?? ?? least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot
?? ?? of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the
?? ?? desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will
?? ?? be multiple airlines going belly-up.
?? ?? Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
?? ?? market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
?? ?? someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
?? ?? the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services.
?? ?? A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of
?? ?? course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer
?? ?? executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
?? ?? Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
?? ?? for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
?? ?? here on out.
?? ??
?? ?
?? ? Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
?? ? (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
?? ? another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
?? ? time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
?? ? wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
?? ? solution (if you can call it that).
?? ?
?? ? There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
?? ? folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
?? ? inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
?? ? whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
?? ? environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
?? ? supersonic flight banned.
?? ?
?? ? Cheers
?? ?
?? ? Phil Hobbs
?? ?
??
?? Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
?
?
? Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
?before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
?landfills.

Because falling out of the sky and killing people is not a vote winner


Cleaning out your ass, again?


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

tm wrote:

"geoff" ? wrote in message
...
? In message ?, tm
? ? writes
??
??"Phil Hobbs" ? wrote in message
...
??? Phil Hobbs
??? (Former Triumph owner)
???
??
??Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.
??
? '60 Enfield that DOESN'T leak
?

What, you didn't put any oil in it?


Molded plastic toy.

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

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?? ?? ???? 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.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?The Concorde was not successful.
?? ??
?? ?? It was .. for what it did...
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
?? ?but ego bloat.
??
?? Built here anyone;?..
?
?
? How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
?communications systems that i built?

All by yourself, big boi ?

or was that just the solder joints ?


Is that your best attempt at an insult? The only solder work I did
was to troubleshoot some boards. There were two complete ground
stations. One fixed, one mobile. They were shipped to Italy. The last
I heard, they wanted a second mobile ground station because the ESA
facility was so small. That caused front end overload at launch for the
fixed station. A good +60 dB above what they specified in their
purchase order.

I worked in production test & engineering on that project.

So, not design, a back end boi then


--
geoff

In message , aemeijers
writes
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

- 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


A fully-loaded city bus and the RR would be a more meaningful
comparision/analogy.

Or a TVR maybe


--
geoff

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

tm wrote:

"geoff" ? wrote in message
...
? In message ?, tm
? ? writes
??
??"Phil Hobbs" ? wrote in message
...
??? Phil Hobbs
??? (Former Triumph owner)
???
??
??Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.
??
? '60 Enfield that DOESN'T leak
?

What, you didn't put any oil in it?


Molded plastic toy.


Did you think that up all by yourself big boi ?


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?? ?? ???? 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.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?The Concorde was not successful.
?? ??
?? ?? It was .. for what it did...
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
?? ?but ego bloat.
??
?? Built here anyone;?..
?
?
? How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
?communications systems that i built?

All by yourself, big boi ?

or was that just the solder joints ?


Is that your best attempt at an insult? The only solder work I did
was to troubleshoot some boards. There were two complete ground
stations. One fixed, one mobile. They were shipped to Italy. The last
I heard, they wanted a second mobile ground station because the ESA
facility was so small. That caused front end overload at launch for the
fixed station. A good +60 dB above what they specified in their
purchase order.

I worked in production test & engineering on that project.

So, not design, a back end boi then


Yawn. I wrote ECOs.


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

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

geoff wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

geoff wrote:

In message ?, Michael A.
Terrell ? writes
?? ?? ???? 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.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?The Concorde was not successful.
?? ??
?? ?? It was .. for what it did...
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
?? ?but ego bloat.
??
?? Built here anyone;?..
?
?
? How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
?communications systems that i built?

All by yourself, big boi ?

or was that just the solder joints ?


Is that your best attempt at an insult? The only solder work I did
was to troubleshoot some boards. There were two complete ground
stations. One fixed, one mobile. They were shipped to Italy. The last
I heard, they wanted a second mobile ground station because the ESA
facility was so small. That caused front end overload at launch for the
fixed station. A good +60 dB above what they specified in their
purchase order.

I worked in production test & engineering on that project.

So, not design, a back end boi then


Yawn. I wrote ECOs.

Jumped up tech author then


--
geoff

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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

Aah, both are outfitted with a wood-carburettor....
but the Fiesta will drive sooner, and longer ;-)


--
Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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

Aah, both are outfitted with a wood-carburettor....
but the Fiesta will drive sooner, and longer ;-)


Really? You have the Fiesta, when you scrap the Ford.


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

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Really? You have the Fiesta, when you scrap the Ford.

I don't remember a time when Ford was good in eu. In the seventies they
had nice looking cars and comfy, but the fuel consumption was too high
and they had rust problems. People drove 20l/100KM Fords in the
seventies, with a price of 11.7 Schilling per liter gasoline, that is
approximately a dollar today.
Today Fords are ugly and crappy (cheap though).

I go well with a II Golf/Jetta (built 1983-92). Affordable parts,
well-grounded design makes repair easy, light chassis and an
unbelieveable life-span.... not to mention the overdose of wax they
spent to the cavities. But only from 88-92, before they had also rust
problems.
Mine (1990 Jetta, 90HP, 1.8litres) is similar looking to the america
edition, but 200 Kilo lighter and some HP less. 6.4litres/100KM
minimum; 7 to 7.5 litres nominally ;-).


--
Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Really? You have the Fiesta, when you scrap the Ford.

I don't remember a time when Ford was good in eu. In the seventies they
had nice looking cars and comfy, but the fuel consumption was too high
and they had rust problems. People drove 20l/100KM Fords in the
seventies, with a price of 11.7 Schilling per liter gasoline, that is
approximately a dollar today.
Today Fords are ugly and crappy (cheap though).

I go well with a II Golf/Jetta (built 1983-92). Affordable parts,
well-grounded design makes repair easy, light chassis and an
unbelieveable life-span.... not to mention the overdose of wax they
spent to the cavities. But only from 88-92, before they had also rust
problems.
Mine (1990 Jetta, 90HP, 1.8litres) is similar looking to the america
edition, but 200 Kilo lighter and some HP less. 6.4litres/100KM
minimum; 7 to 7.5 litres nominally ;-).


I drive a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. I am disabled and can't get in
anything smaller, with my long legs. I've tried, and I have the scars
to prove it.


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