On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
wrote:


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.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Errr never mind TMI.



--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "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?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe it
was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.

....and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was
continued for ego reasons.

We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.

In your dreams.

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.

Lies.

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.

More bull****.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:15:44 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
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;?...

You really do need a remedial reading course. ...or a brain.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:25:24 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



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.

Sans taxes, fuel is almost the same price now as it was in the '60s. Look it
up, instead of looking like the dumbass you are.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:08:49 -0400, wrote:

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.

;-)

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:23:18 +0100, (((° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
wrote:


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.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

Yes, all the smart ones left.

You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

Wrong, the attitude came first. There was a reason people left that hell
hole.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.

On 8/23/2010 4:53 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.



I remember reading something about it written by Wernher von Braun.
He wrote that they checked and rechecked those rockets over and over
again more than they had ever tested any of them before. They wanted
zero defects. Apollo 13 was a bit of a fail and the tragic fire on
the pad that killed three astronauts led to an extensive redesign and
stringent quality control measures for the whole program. Gosh, I have
to wonder if we're up to the task to accomplish the same thing today?

TDD

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"

Frank Erskine wrote:

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.


Good for you, but .1% resistors and 1% capacitors are common these
days. I was using them 10 years ago.

(((° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
wrote:


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.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.


Which was the first wave of European Brain Drain.


You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!


Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"

Agreed. ...just wanted to set the record straight before the Europeons came
unglued, again.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.

john hamilton wrote:

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins.

Well no, they were known as Merkins long before the the term "amearkin"
and you seem to be a tedious, humourless twot.

Go off and play with the Shermans they seem your sort of people.

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

"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.

You don't know much do you?
They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.

They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more thrust
available from their better engines.



Did you know that when the US military launched a shuttle they didn't have
boosters with O rings in them?
This was because they were better without the O rings but cost more.
NASA were cheapskates.

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


Proof?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "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?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.
So, how much money has the space shuttle made?

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.

I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "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?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.
So, how much money has the space shuttle made?


Dumbass. The shuttle isn't a commercial service. Go back to your
old RV and sleep it off.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?

Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.

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

It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure
rate, not even the shuttle.
They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident,
they knew they were pushing their luck.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?

Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.

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

It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure
rate, not even the shuttle.
They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident,
they knew they were pushing their luck.

"dennis@home" wrote:

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

"dennis@home" wrote:


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.

You don't know much do you?


Do you know anything? Have you ever seen their tools, or how about
the engines they built for their cargo ships.


They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.

They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more thrust
available from their better engines.


Really? Do you always state the ovbvious? Their first rockets were
smaller than the US rockets so they didn't need the additional thrust.


Did you know that when the US military launched a shuttle they didn't have
boosters with O rings in them?
This was because they were better without the O rings but cost more.
NASA were cheapskates.


NASA had budget restrictions.


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


Proof?

" wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"

Agreed. ...just wanted to set the record straight before the Europeons came
unglued, again.


Unfortunately, some of them were 'never' glued. They make the rest
look bad with their constant, mindless ranting.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.

I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.


More mindless ranting from the burnt out hippie alcoholic. You might
as well stop setting followup-to: to alt.flame, asshole. I know you
think you're smart, but you've burnt out too many neurons with the pot
and other drugs.

" wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.


From the way he looks, it looks like he hasn't been 'regular' in 30
years. ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe
it
was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

You don't know much about it do you?
It did super cruise.
It wouldn't have got halfway across the Atlantic if it had to use the after
burners.
There wasn't any in flight refuelling for it.


However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.

...and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was
continued for ego reasons.

The Concorde was well down the development path when the problems started.
The SST wasn't even started until it looked like Concorde was going to take
the passengers away.


We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.

In your dreams.

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.

Lies.

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.

More bull****.

Are you claiming the shuttle is faster than Apollo then?
Apollo was doing about 25,000 mph on re-entry, the shuttle doesn't.

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
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.


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

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

He didn't drink beer.

Orange juice in his Vodka.


I was trying to be polite.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:25:24 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



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.

Sans taxes, fuel is almost the same price now as it was in the '60s. Look
it
up, instead of looking like the dumbass you are.

You need to take a remedial reading course.

"dennis@home" wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?

Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.


Sigh. Why do you think NASA wouldn't use that turbine powered pump?
The US space program was a lot more safety conscious than Russia's.


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

It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure
rate, not even the shuttle.
They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident,
they knew they were pushing their luck.

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

"dennis@home" wrote:

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

"dennis@home" wrote:


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.

You don't know much do you?


Do you know anything? Have you ever seen their tools, or how about
the engines they built for their cargo ships.


They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.

They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more
thrust
available from their better engines.


Really? Do you always state the ovbvious? Their first rockets were
smaller than the US rockets so they didn't need the additional thrust.

Not obvious enough for you to understand it appears.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.
I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.


More mindless ranting from the burnt out hippie alcoholic. You might
as well stop setting followup-to: to alt.flame, asshole. I know you
think you're smart, but you've burnt out too many neurons with the pot
and other drugs.
At least I had some to burn out...

Michael A. Terrell wrote:



I was trying to be polite.

Good lord. What came over you?

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?
Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.


Sigh. Why do you think NASA wouldn't use that turbine powered pump?
The US space program was a lot more safety conscious than Russia's.


Shame it didn't stop them killing more people then,.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:28:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and
antiquated royal families.
I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop
them dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits,
commit genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into
the tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling,
have the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know,
making money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political
and moral standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow
liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.


More mindless ranting from the burnt out hippie alcoholic. You
might
as well stop setting followup-to: to alt.flame, asshole. I know you
think you're smart, but you've burnt out too many neurons with the pot
and other drugs.
At least I had some to burn out...

Key word - "had"

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


Sigh. Why do you think NASA wouldn't use that turbine powered pump?
The US space program was a lot more safety conscious than Russia's.

Because they didn't know how as they didn't invent it and didn't have any
good spies.
PS they have used them since the Russians "sold" them some engines.

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in message
m...
?
? "dennis@home" wrote:
??
?? "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in message
?? m...
?? ?
?? ? "dennis@home" wrote:
?? ??
?? ??
?? ?? 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.
??
?? You don't know much do you?
?
?
? Do you know anything? Have you ever seen their tools, or how about
? the engines they built for their cargo ships.
?
?
?? They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
?? The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.
??
?? They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more
?? thrust
?? available from their better engines.
?
?
? Really? Do you always state the ovbvious? Their first rockets were
? smaller than the US rockets so they didn't need the additional thrust.

Not obvious enough for you to understand it appears.


Yawn.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
? "dennis@home" wrote:
?? "William Sommerwerck" ? wrote in message
?? ...
???? 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?
?? Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
?? fuel in fast enough.
?? They did this by fitting big pumps.
?? Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
?? something NASA said wasn't possible.
?? It saved weight and gave more thrust.
?? What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.
?
?
? Sigh. Why do you think NASA wouldn't use that turbine powered pump?
? The US space program was a lot more safety conscious than Russia's.
?
?
Shame it didn't stop them killing more people then,.


You're being an ignorant asshole, as usual.

Once again, your dumb ass attempt to set Followup-to: alt.flame
failed.