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.

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

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

In article ,
scribeth thus
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.

It was .. for what it did...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

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.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:18:53 +0100, Dave wrote:

On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

Bull****. It didn't have the necessary reserves to be a legitimate aircraft
for the routes it flew. It was an economic disaster. Poor design; YES.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

Oh, you were a stew.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Nonsense.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:59:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
...
Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)


Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.

tm



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:28:57 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:59:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)
With the french on board they were not limited to Lucas electrics-
they also had Paris-Rhone and Ducellier to choose from.
Any experience with either of them makes Lucas look "not bad" by
comparison.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...


I've never seen an electric power steering system, and never want to
touch anything made by Lucass.

An American that doesn't fly?
Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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?...

He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.

I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping
in another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls
Royce.
Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

wrote in message
...

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.
We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.
Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.
Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

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

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

aemeijers wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
(snip)
Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
sky, sometimes at full power.


They would have had a lot of damage claims. I have an aunt that
lived near Wright-Patterson AFB, and the early flights broke windows and
cracked concrete block walls. I was there a couple times when the SS
Air Force jets went over. Her house and her neighbors always had
something happen. Broken dishes, windows, things knocked off shelves
and out of cabinets.

There is a big difference between a SS plane at 50 feet and one at 75000
feet.
In case you hadn't noticed the shuttle flies supersonic over much of America
when its landing and doesn't cause any damage (apart from when it hits the
ground which isn't often).
The entire you can't fly SS over land was just an excuse to keep Concorde
from flying across the US faster than the old planes.

As for cracking block walls I don't believe it.
I have seen an attempt to damage a house using a SS plane and it had to fly
ludicrously low (about 50 feet) and close (directly above) to even pop a
window.

I notice that the US military now has a plane with supercruise just like
Concorde used to do (F22).

"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz scribeth thus
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.

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;?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
scribeth thus
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

Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° 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.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz scribeth thus
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.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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?...

He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.

I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).


Nuclear scientists 'n all....
--
Tony Sayer

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

Germany, 1943?

Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?

The Concorde was not successful.

It was... for what it did...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success? Profit is
the only valid measure of success?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was
borrowed from others (light bulbs, telephones,
computers, WWW, space flight, etc).

Where do you get this "information"?

light bulbs: The British love to point out that Swann had an incandescent
lamp before Edison. True. But it used an expensive platinum filament. Edison
came up with a cheap carbon filament -- and the electrical generation and
distribution system to back it up. (And let's not forget that the AC system
in use today was designed by a naturalized American citizen.)

telephones: The telephone is unquestionably an American invention.

computers: Although work was done in a number of countries (eg, Konrad Zuse
in Switzerland), the first large-scale electrical and electronic computers
were built in the US.

WWW: The Internet -- which the WWW is built over -- is an American
invention.

space flight: If you mean simply getting a rocket above the atmosphere, it
was likely first done by 'murcans. (I don't think the Germans got high
enough.)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

Germany, 1943?

Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?


Many wartime planes went supersonic in a dive. Few survived to tell of
it though.

The plane that finally did it in peace time was the Miles M52, well it
WOULD have been the Miles, except the total plans for it were handed to
the USA and UK government funding withdrawn from the Miles company. It
appeared virtually unchanged as the Bell X-1 , with American stickers
all over it. But it was in essence the Miles plane. A smaller unmanned
version of which had reached Mach 1.38 in about 1946/7.

The key thing that allowed the X-1 to maintain control in transonic
flight was the Miles' all moving tailplane. This got around the control
reversal that plagued transonic aircraft fitted with conventional elevators.

The USA was about 5 years behind everyone else in jet engines and high
speed flight, till they lifted what they could from the UK and Germany
to make up for the ideas and research they didn't have. Of course
staying out of the war as long as possible, lending money to the winning
side, finally joining it, and not actually ever getting bombed proved
excellent business, and they were then the only country in the world
with enough money left to spend on waving a supersonic dick around.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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?...
He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.

I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).


Nuclear scientists 'n all....

Look at all the stuff America crows about.

The steam engine, Invented here.
Steel. Invented here.
Electronic Computers. Invented here.
Radar, especially the magnetron, invented here.
The jet engine, invented here and in Germany almost simultaneously.
The all moving tailplane for supersonic flight, invented here.
Motherhood, invented in Africa
Apple Pie, invented here.
God, invented in the Middle East, Reinvented in Rome..
Democracy, Invented in Greece (and much good it did them)
The Mafia, invented in Sicily (and much good it did them)
Americans are pretty carp at inventing anything: Mostly its a ripoff of
someone else's idea made successful through selling in vast quantities
to a gullible nation.

I think they maty be credited with fast food, and obesity, and the coca
cola however. And spurious tailfins on cars. And drag racing. But really
that's about it.

Oh, the Blues, I guess the black slaves invented that, and jazz,

Says it all really.

Really the only significant US contributions of any value to modern life
have been the semiconductor, the integrated circuit, and the high level
programming language, courtesy of COBOL.

Though even there high level languages go back a bit further. To Europe.


What the USA is superb at is business. Taking something from someone
else, and pretending they thought of it first, and selling it in vast
quantities backed by a flood of syrupy marketing that pretends its is
factual.

They are without doubt, the greatest LIARS the world has ever known.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The Concorde was not successful.

It was... for what it did...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success? Profit is
the only valid measure of success?


It is, in America.

wrote in message
...


Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?

It didn't. Your taxes did.

There is no tax on aviation fuel, its some silly international agreement.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:06:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?


Chuck Yeager, Bell X-1, Muroc Dry Lake, Mojave desert, California,
USA, October 14, 1947
The first successfull manned supersonic flight in history.

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

I've never seen an electric power steering system, and never want to
touch anything made by Lucass.

An American that doesn't fly?


Not since 1974.


Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.


Who really cares? It's all low bidder crap these days.

tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz scribeth thus
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.

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?

"dennis@home" wrote:

wrote in message
...

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.


Which was to use ungodly amonts of tax money for the design and to
subsidize the enntoire program.


However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.
We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.
Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.
Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

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

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

aemeijers wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
(snip)
Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
sky, sometimes at full power.


They would have had a lot of damage claims. I have an aunt that
lived near Wright-Patterson AFB, and the early flights broke windows and
cracked concrete block walls. I was there a couple times when the SS
Air Force jets went over. Her house and her neighbors always had
something happen. Broken dishes, windows, things knocked off shelves
and out of cabinets.

There is a big difference between a SS plane at 50 feet and one at 75000
feet.

At 50 feet, it would have hit a tree, and you don't land at 75,000
feet, which is 14.2 miles AAT. They have to descend to land, and gain
altitude to leave any airfield. Airports balked at longer runways for
747s, and many would have had to move to have anything longer. it would
take decades to use 'Eminent Domain' to take homes and businesses for
the extra land at current sites.


In case you hadn't noticed the shuttle flies supersonic over much of America
when its landing and doesn't cause any damage (apart from when it hits the
ground which isn't often).


Are you sure they have never caused any damage? Have you ever been
in Florida when one loops over the state before landing? That
distinctive double boom has a lot of energy when it's close. I've heard
plenty of them over the last 20 years. I also built some of the
communications equipment and telemetry equipment used to track them.


The entire you can't fly SS over land was just an excuse to keep Concorde
from flying across the US faster than the old planes.


prove it. No commercial SS was allowed, and military SS has limited
flight paths at lower altitudes which limits the bases they can operate
from.


As for cracking block walls I don't believe it.
I have seen an attempt to damage a house using a SS plane and it had to fly
ludicrously low (about 50 feet) and close (directly above) to even pop a
window.


Sigh. Do you ever study anything, or just type bull****?

I notice that the US military now has a plane with supercruise just like
Concorde used to do (F22).

tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° 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.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...


So, where are his flying, today?

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.


An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...


They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.
They were both more or less the same.
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.
NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy. Tube
electronics and crude plastics. Do you have anything useful to say?

They were both more or less the same.
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.


They built bigger engines, typical of Russian designs. Scale up
something, then everthing else needed the same.

NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.


Proof?

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
their rockets better.

Where do you get this?

The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:47:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy.

Hey - what's the matter with slide rules? I still use mine (fairly)
regularly.

--
Frank Erskine

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working
in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

The Americans aren't the only ones to have collected moon rocks.