W
William Sommerwerck
Guest
Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
Germany, 1943?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
Germany, 1943?
Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success? Profit isThe Concorde was not successful.
It was... for what it did...
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
Where do you get this "information"?Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was
borrowed from others (light bulbs, telephones,
computers, WWW, space flight, etc).
it though.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
Look at all the stuff America crows about.In article <i4t7au$ec6$1@news.datemas.de>, dennis@home
dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> scribeth thus
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BvuDlMHwNQcMFwJX@bancom.co.uk...
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> 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....
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.
There is no tax on aviation fuel, its some silly international agreement.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.
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
Germany, 1943?
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:-NmdnZLFjv1x6-3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com...
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.
=============================================================================On 19/08/2010 04:46, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Paul wrote:
On 19/08/2010 01:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/18/2010 6:33 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hmat$blj$2@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/18/2010 4:17 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hhb1$np$1@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/16/2010 12:43 PM, john hamilton wrote:
I have to connect this AAA battery holder to a toy. Although I
have a
small
soldering iron, my soldering skills are poor. I can see myself
easily
melting all the plastic around the contacts before I can get
anything to
stick to the tabs. (The part of the tabs with the small hole will
bend
upwards giving some clearence).
http://tinypic.com/r/iqx3pf/4
My immediate plan is to poke a few strands of wire through the
holes
in the
connection tabs twist and then apply some nail varnish to stop it
unwinding.
Since its a toy it does not need to be totally foolproof.
If anyone had any ideas that were a bit more sophisticated I would
be
gratefull. Thanks.
If you are familiar with faston connectors, you can trim the
terminals with scissors or wire cutters so a connector will
slip on to them. The connectors are available in many sizes
with the 1/4" being the most common. I believe The Shack,
formally Radio Shack carries several sizes. Here's a link
to a manufacturer that produces many types so you can see
what I'm referring to:
http://www.etco.com/category.php?cat=18&div=ep&l=e
Excuse me, but is the OP a Septic or English ?
If he/she/it is English, it's bugger all use pointing them at Septic
outlets, is it?
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are writing
about. Could you find someone to translate it into American?
Septic tank = yank
duh - colonials
Um, the cultural education is nice but what's it got to do
with electrical connections to a battery holder? Bizarre is
fun but at least I try to keep my jokes within the subject
matter being discussed.
TDD
It was... Radio Shack used to have UK outlets (but seemed to have
vanished), but the link above was certainly for their US replacement...
Its a long way to go for a battery holder..
Yes. All the way to your mail box. Of course, that may require you
to get out of your chair and actually walk.
And pay three times the value in shipping and taxes
In article <rKCdnZnUmoqVJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> 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;?..
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com...
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.
At 50 feet, it would have hit a tree, and you don't land at 75,000"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_dmdnfd7TbGSfezRnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
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).
In article <rKCdnZjUmopEJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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...
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.
Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me hisPhil 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.
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> 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
Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.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?
salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> 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" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
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.